Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jul 2007 15:08 UTC, submitted by Uncle Fester
Hardware, Embedded Systems The head of PC maker Acer, Gianfranco Lanci, has hit out at Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system, saying that the 'entire industry' was disappointed by it. Few buyers have purchased new PCs specifically for Vista, Acer's chief says "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the world's fourth-biggest PC maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in its online edition on Monday. Never before had a new version of Windows done so little to boost PC sales, he said. "And that's not going to change in the second half of this year," Mr Lanci said. "I really don't think that someone has bought a new PC specifically for Vista."
Thread beginning with comment 258052
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The REAL Problem with Vista
by Coral Snake on Wed 25th Jul 2007 08:06 UTC
Coral Snake
Member since:

Basically ALL Windows NT systems (NT, 2000, XP, Vista) are still pretty much like the Old Win9x only with the DOS kernel and command line recompiled to 32 bits. If you go to the command line in any of these systems you still see the DOS heretage of A:> _, C:>_, D:>_ E:>_ etc., at the prompt to describe storage devices rather than the more direct floppy, hd (for hard drive), cdrom, zip, and other more direct designations used in Linux, Solaris, BSD and all other extent *nix type systems for storage devices. Also the command line commands for the NT series are still those you can find in old books about DOS 5.0, 6.0, 6.2 and 6.22. Neither does the NT kernel even have the multitasking capabilities using the F keys that still makes command line software like Emacs popular amongst *nix geeks. Everything about the NT command line still says DOS in big red splash panel letters. I know most users only go for GUI related software and OS interfaces these days but it is at the COMMAND LINE where you find out the TRUTH about Microsoft operating systems.

Microsoft has just simply reached the end of the bloatware it can continue to shove on top of the DOS kernel and command line even when it is recompiled to 32 or 64 bits.

Edited 2007-07-25 08:08

Reply Score: -1

RE: The REAL Problem with Vista
by siride on Wed 25th Jul 2007 11:12 in reply to "The REAL Problem with Vista"
siride Member since:

I just have to say for someone to have spent that much time typing up a retarded response without doing ANY research whatsoever, I am truly amazed.

You know absolutely nothing about what you are saying. The reason they still use drive letters is because that's what people are used to. Internally, there is a more complex naming scheme akin to what you see with udev on Linux. You can see it when you use Windows administrative tools. The reason why the command line still looks like DOS is because...yep, backwards compatibility and that's what people are used to. It's not DOS at all, it just has the same commands. Yeah, it is limited. Yeah, Microsoft knows it. That's why they came up with Monad, which is even ahead of bash and other Linux shells.

I could write a shell for Linux that looked exactly like the DOS prompt. If someone used it, would you say that all the sudden, Linux is just DOS "recompiled to 32-bits" (which, again, shows how incredibly ignorant you are of anything related to programming or operating systems)? No. cmd.exe sucks. We know it. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT, the interface to the OS. It does not reveal anything interesting about the kernel or structure of Windows NT. For that matter, neither does bash. Command prompts/shells are just as distinct from the OS on Linux as they are on Windows (remember, the command prompt on Windows is cmd.exe, just like on Linux it's /bin/bash or whatever).

I do want to does Windows do multitasking if it's just the DOS kernel? It wouldn't work very well I don't think. How does it do protected virtual memory with just the DOS kernel? How does it have its own driver architecture (light-years ahead of Linux) if it's just an old DOS kernel? DOS didn't have any of that. Even Windows 3.1 ceased to use DOS for more than booting and filesystem access (more of a library for the operating system rather than an actual OS). Windows 3.1 had its own virtual memory manager and could multitask DOS sessions, not vice versa.

I suggest you do some reading on Wikipedia or somewhere. Hey, even check out the book Windows Internals, which goes into great detail about how the NT kernel works. I think you'll be surprised.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: The REAL Problem with Vista
by embleau on Wed 25th Jul 2007 18:47 in reply to "The REAL Problem with Vista"
embleau Member since:

ALL Windows NT systems (NT, 2000, XP, Vista) are still pretty much like the Old Win9x only with the DOS kernel and command line recompiled to 32 bits.

Ignorance is Bliss as George Orwell so beautifully put it in the book "1984". If that is true, you must floating on Cloud seven with that quote above. LOL.

NT Kernel is NOT a recompiled DOS kernel, not in a LONG shot.

The NT Kernel came from the base that IBM and Microsoft started together back in the late 1980s - early 1990s. They were working together a project called OS/2. That's right, OS/2. They had a split and both companies agreed to share the work done together. IBM took the shared kernel and made OS/2. MS took the shard kernel and made, you guess it, the first NT based kernel.

Who cares if the CLI uses the same commands as DOS. IT'S JUST A SHELL!!!!! With same logic one can say that the modern linux kernel is just a recompiled AT&T Bell Labs Unix kernel just because it uses the same SHELLS.

C'mon if you are gonna bash a product, do it after you have educated yourself on it. If you don't , you'll make yourself look ignorant.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: The REAL Problem with Vista
by makfu on Wed 25th Jul 2007 23:37 in reply to "The REAL Problem with Vista"
makfu Member since:

Basically ALL Windows NT systems (NT, 2000, XP, Vista) are still pretty much like the Old Win9x only with the DOS kernel and command line recompiled to 32 bits.

Never mind the reams of existing NT documentation, anyone with even rudimentary windbg skills can quickly prove everything you said wrong. But because I am always willing to admit I might simply be ignorant or wrong, please feel free to show us where the DOS PSP's are in NT, where the VxDs are loaded and where io.sys int21h calls are being used. Please feel free to post disassembly, stack trace, etc., as I would be interested to see exactly how Vistas kernel is ANYTHING like the Win9x kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1