"In "Windows Vista: more than just a pretty face," we began our extensive assessment of Windows Vista with a focus on the changes to the graphical framework of Windows. We also talked about improvements to the general Windows API, the media foundation, and improvements in sound. In what follows, we look at three remaining areas of major improvement for Vista: security, networking, and storage. At the end, we present the first round of our criticisms of the new OS. In the coming weeks, we will unveil our performance-oriented examination of the OS."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-13
I tried to explain what its like to use an OS that evolves rapidly like they did before Microsoft became a monopoly, even Microsoft, but I can't. Look at 5 years of changes in just the kernel on Linux since October 2001.
Thats about kernel 2.4.11 but ill only show it from 2.5
released over a year later than XP
There is nothing to compare here because MS dosen't post changelogs.
I'm sure if MS posted all the internal changelogs to the kernel, or even the entire OS and we could all read the little things like "added option a to command b" then it might paint a different picture.
I do feel that the release of vista was somewhat lacking for the amount of time they spent, that I agree with.
I guess I just don't see the point in what you have posted here.
Member since:2005-07-06
They might not provide a line by line changelog, but they do disclose what features they've added in their service pack/new release. Just look through MSDN and Channel9 resources for not only features (both superficial and kernel level/system level) added to Windows Vista but Windows Server as well.
Compare those to what Linux, OpenSolaris or FreeBSD provides; the issue isn't the number of features but the depth of features, and justification for charging the huge amount they do for what I consider features that are less than on par with free operating systems out there.
The point the original poster was trying to get at is the fact that in 5 years of development and the huge development team that Microsoft has, he was expecting alot more to come from them. I don't blame him. When you have a jugganaut like Microsoft with $50billion cash, the issue it seems to me is that they don't want to make changes rather than not being able to.
Windows Vista could have been a break from the past, purge all the compatibility out the window, have a pure win32 without compromises - provide a clean path to upgrade, throw in a free virtual machine for customers to run their existing applications in a hosted Windows XP environment.
They could have done it, but they didn't. Rather than being a leader in the IT industry, they instead compromised resulting in a castrated operating system that was all sizzle and no steak.
Member since:
2006-03-12
@Bit_Rapist"Then why waste the time posting?
If you can't rationally contribute to the discussion then there really is no point."
I have commented more on the content of the article than anyone else becuase I've *read it*. I'm not good, and don't know the right words. I cannot *believe* Microsoft released something as bad as Vista after 5 years. I can't even select the right words. Its awful. I tried to explain what its like to use an OS that evolves rapidly like they did before Microsoft became a monopoly, even Microsoft, but I can't. Look at 5 years of changes in just the kernel on Linux since October 2001.
Thats about kernel 2.4.11 but ill only show it from 2.5
released over a year later than XP
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux25Changes
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_0
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_1
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_2
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_3
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_4
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_5
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_6
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_7
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_8
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_9
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_10
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_11
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_12
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_13
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_14
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_15
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_16
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_17
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_18
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_19
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_20
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_21
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_22
...and there are going to be another 6 of these before Vista Next is *possibly* released. Vista is already an old operating system in the Linux world, and getting older all the time...and I haven't posted the changelogs for the chat clients; media centers; Desktop; Userspace tools, but seriously you should be getting some idea, as to why I struggle to understand whats in this article that is worth 5 years development , when the most visible effect is everything is drastically slower, and less compatible, with reduced productivity. I can't put that into words, my standards are expectations are clearly higher. you have to live it.
Edited 2007-06-08 18:36