It would seem that the upcoming release of Microsoft's Windows Vista does not seem like a good thing for the desktop Linux community. After all, this update to Windows XP is going to focus on two attributes which have pushed users to Linux for years- security and stability. Upon closer inspection though, the move to Vista may be the perfect time for the Linux community to make headway on the desktop and increase its user base dramatically. The number of features which Microsoft has cast aside since Longhorn and the hardware requirements of Vista have set the stage for a large scale move to desktop Linux. 
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
It is funny that he only mentions Monad and WinFS. Because of you go back about 5 years you'll find Microsofts old publications about it bringing a .net OS... That was all very vague stuff, but really they haven't done any of it.
I think if you look at Vista hard you're going to see this: It's big workover to add some features like searchability wherever possible. Otherwise, major polishing. Fixing up old bad ideas like allowing applications to stop a shutdown. But in the end, Vista was pimped for a long time, and the closer you come to today in history you'll see that they're becoming less vague and things are sounding less and less cool.
I'm not saying Vista sucks. No, they're addressing a lot of good problems. But, it really isn't nearly what it was originally said to be, and it has "steadily" come down to what it is marketed as now.
Actually, on new hardware. I think most users do care. And that's what has given microsoft such a bad time on getting people onto Windows XP. And it runs on older hardware! But it's a passive care; it's that they don't care to upgrade anything at all.
I have a 700MHz notebook I use often. I can't afford a $1500 replacement, but I certainly can afford a Vista OEM! Unless it's way more expensive than XP Pro.
Some people, like me, use older hardware because it's proven. My laptop has yet to have a failure while my friends new Dell's seem to be stuck in the shop all the time!
I'd say Windows has never had a bloat problem. I think a lot of the things people perceive as bloat problems are just badly written applications. If anything, Windows has historically been too lite.
Member since:2005-07-06
It is funny that he only mentions Monad and WinFS. Because of you go back about 5 years you'll find Microsofts old publications about it bringing a .net OS... That was all very vague stuff, but really they haven't done any of it.
I won't argue that. That was 5 years ago though. They haven't been pushing that for a while now. But yes, they made a huge marketing mistake with talking it up wayy before they should have, and they still are making SOME mistakes in that aspect. But I don't listen to the marketing, and neither should anyone with a brain.
But in the end, Vista was pimped for a long time, and the closer you come to today in history you'll see that they're becoming less vague and things are sounding less and less cool.
I disagree. When Paul Thurrott published his 2005 Road to Vista article and MS put out some documentation for Vista Beta1 SDK, there was more cool stuff than I expected. I of course already knew of Avalon, XAML (for devs), WinFX, Indigo, and the major components. But then I saw some other cool stuff that no one was talking about AT ALL. There are still even things that MS hasn't talked about that may end up in Vista, like low-level network "compartments" (jails).
Now that Beta1 is out and the SDK is out, pretty much what is in there, is likely staying. So here's a short list of some stuff I think will be cool:
Theming Unlocked; Kernel: Application Resource Management; Kernel: TCP/IP Offloading; Built-in DVD Recording; Windows Assessment Tool (WinSAT); Improved Task Scheduler (time and event based now, and comes with an API now); New WinPE environment; Impending failure diagnostics (already seen in Beta1); Transactional NTFS (the API for this is quite simple and can be used for Files and SQL Queries); Windows Filtering Platform (low-level networking filters and policies); Auxilary Display Platform; Virtual Folders; Stacks; New printing architecture; Improved sleep mode;
And that definitely isn't everything.
Good Reference, but not complete: http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_preview_2005.asp
Member since:
2005-07-06
First of all, a big middle finger to those pricks saying that all the "intelligent users" are moving to *nix. Sorry guys, but some of us still do prefer Windows. And I'm not a gamer, I'm a developer. I don't neccesarily hate nix on the desktop, but I prefer Windows for everyday use. I do run Ubuntu and FreeBSD though, and used to run debian for my last job.
Now, let me analyze this amusing "article".
but as we learn more about it and Microsoft's plans for the future, the changes are constantly being scaled back from what was originally promised. Whether it's the lack of a new file system or the "Monad" scripting shell, the absence of innovation in this operating system is giving it a black eye, no matter how nice the GUI
He says "constantly being scaled back", then lists the only 2 major things that have been announced as not being shipped with Vista (but still being developed). Way to be misleading. And how can you make a statement about innovation an OS that is a year away from release? There actually is some innovative stuff in it, but some people refuse to do their research and isntead rely on the plethora of FUD out there about Vista.
or how much Internet Explorer 7 resembles FireFox.
This is just a joke. Did you see people bitching about Firefox resembling IE when it came out? No, people praised them because it provided a familiar interface. IE7 is trying to make changes but keep a familiar interface. That, and it doesn't even resemble firefox. That's just a trollish statement.
If this was not enough to turn people off from Vista, there are the hardware requirements.
Most users don't care about that. Like already stated, most users will get Vista with a new computer, so that's not an issue. The ones that do upgrade with their current system are usually either geeks which tend to have the powerful systems or more well-off people who are okay with shelling out the money for the latest and greatest hardware and software. Now people seem to think that it requires higher spec systems for optimal performance, that it will be more bloated and run worse than previous versions of windows. This simply is not true. It will run more efficiently and quicker than XP on the same hardware, and this is even evident with Beta1 on systems with supported hardware.
And even the author stated that if you don't have newer hardware, you can STILL run Vista in a lower tier, similar to what XP has now, or even just "2k style" interface (classic). Most people will be quite content with that.
It should also be noted that people have gotten Beta1 to run efficiently on lower-end hardware. We're talking 700mhz PC with 128mb of ram. If someone has a PC like that, the chances of them being able to afford an upgrade to Windows are slim anyways. Again, a non-issue.
The rest of the article is talking about moving to Linux, which I ave no problem with. Just wanted to address the first page and how terrible it was.