Vista is all the rage at the moment (and now even the Sunday Eve Column is about it). I don’t think there’s a single piece of beta software that has ever been discussed as much as Windows Vista. Obviously this makes sense, since Windows powers roughly 95% of the world’s desktop computers; hence an update to that system will surely spark some heavy debates. Personally, I’m indifferent towards Vista. Read on for why.
There are enough new things coming in Windows Vista. The most obvious thing is of course the new interface, known as Aero Glass. It all looks very flashy, and contrary to a lot of FUD being slung around, the new interface is by far not as heavy on the computer’s resources as it might seem– instead of repeating other people’s words, I rely on my own experiences before I make any judgements. Whether I tested Vista on my new Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop, or on my aging desktop Athlon box, Aero Glass barely slowed the system down. Memory usage was comparable to ordinary XP’s as well. The same applies for the new Sidebar; a place where you can drop tiny little programs known as Gadgets (similar to Dashboard, which is in turn a direct copy of Konfabulator, which in turn lends its basic idea from Apple’s own Desk Accessories, which were in fact not tiny programs, but device drivers to give the old Mac OS the illusion of multitasking) (now ain’t that a lot of information in one sentence). The Sidebar process eats up roughly 22-30MB of memory when using 4 gadgets (or widgets or whatever).
However, there are more new things in the user interface. The new shell, for instance, will have all sorts of tiny little additions. One of those is Shadow Folders, which allows any folder to be reverted into a state it was in at any time in the past. And, of course, you can use Vista’s system wide search to organize files and folders (much like Apple’s Spotlight, but from what I’ve seen of it, a lot more versatile. My guess is that Leopard will bring features to Spotlight/Finder to bring the Mac OS up to par with vista’s system wide search).
Other new things are less apparent to users. For instance, Internet Explorer 7 now runs as a restricted process, making it less dangerous for the system (the fact that using IE7’s interface is about as horrible an experience as using a phone keypad to write a scientific book on the history of mathematics is a different matter). However, a more important security measure is what is known as User Account Control, which allows such modern and fresh (sarcasm, boys and girls) features such as allowing non-admin users to perform admin duties (prompting said users with a password dialog) and asking admin users for conformation each time they perform an admin duty (those dialogs get annoying really fast). Other security features include protection against rootkits, support for the NX feature of today’s processors, and more.
There are more non-obvious improvements. For instance, the rewritten audio stack which runs in userspace and has the ability to control volume on a per-application basis (oh how I love that in BeOS). The network stack has also been rewritten, sleep/hibernate has been improved (sleep fails in XP on my laptop, while in Vista it works fine), and a whole lot more changes.
—
That all sounds mighty fine, but why then am I indifferent about Vista? Because I am missing something. Or, better put, I’m not missing something.
No, you don’t need to question your levels of caffeine consumption; I’m indeed not missing something from Vista. It’s that something that, in my opinion, has been holding Microsoft and its developers (who are not magically less qualified than Apple or open source developers) back for at least the past ten years; it’s the something that Microsoft indeed deserves praise for; it’s the something that kept Windows so successful, market-wise, for the past decade.
Backwards compatibility.
Windows Vista is still Windows. No matter how much new features or flashy graphics Microsoft inserts into Windows, the main strong point for Windows has been its astonishing backwards compatibility. You can take old DOS applications, and they will run on Windows XP without a hitch. You can take an application designed for Windows 95, and run it without any problems on Windows Vista. It’s definitely something Linux and Apple engineers can learn from.
While at the one hand being a blessing, it’s a curse at the other hand. Backwards compatibility means restrictions on how Microsoft’s engineers can code; it limits how they can extend existing code by adding new code or by removing old code. However, since an operating system is not one big piece of software, but in fact is a complex set of little pieces of software, they can also not just insert new bits without again taking backwards compatibility into account. I’m not a developer, but I can certainly see how frustrating this must be at times for developers working at Microsoft.
So, what would I do if I were Microsoft’s Big Boss? I’d split the beast up. I’d continue to develop a version of Windows with all the backwards compatibility in place, obviously important for retaining the business desktop. However, I’d also develop a version of Windows with all the, excuse my words, ancient crap removed from the system. That version would then be the poster child for what Microsoft can do when it is not held back by backwards compatibility; not at all unlike how Intel is using Apple to show the world what it can do when not held back by legacy x86 technologies. That’s what I would do if I was Microsoft’s Big Boss.
But then again, who am I?
–Thom Holwerda
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
1) apart from aero I didnt see anything else new ?
2) The search functionality is better then spotlight ? are you sure about that?
3) NX in avaliable in winxp ?
the funny thing is if you follow wikipedia link to new features it only has 3 ??? and even those arent great ? so…. why upgrade unless you just want to ? there isnt anything really significant ?
Dude, you looked at the first section of the article, saw 3 things, and thought those are the only 3 new things?
Please do some more research, or at least more reading, before replying. It’s things like this that get FUD spread about Vista.
Edited 2006-04-23 18:13
2) The search functionality is better then spotlight ? are you sure about that?
I did not say it was better. I said it was more advanced. There’s a world of difference between the two.
sadly, in marketingspeak “more advanced” == better…
you meant: in marketingspeak “higher version number” == more advanced == better 😉
or maybe (iirc):
higher_version_number()
{
more_advanced()
{
better()
}
}
They *are* developing a new OS in research, and I know you know that
What comes of it remains to be seen.
hard to tell realy. only thing that i have picked up so far is that its using managed code for the whole system (iirc).
still, that could make backwards compatiblity simpler. in that when a program askes for a old interface, it will be handed over to a special sandbox where it can go nuts. but if it dies, nothing will happen to the rest of the system…
There are lots of new OSs being developed in research. There is no reason to believe that any more willc ome out of Singularity than has come out of all the other research OSs that have preceded it. The only reason Microsoft exists today is because of backwards compatibility. Without the enormous market advantages of application compatibility, Microsoft never would’ve made it through the 1990s. Without application compatibility, Microsoft is nothing, and they know that. They’ll never field an OS that isn’t compatibile with the vast body of Windows software that exists.
Yes, we all know about singularity; and like all R&D things, this was mearly a proof of concept; a rectum pluck along the lines of ‘what would we do, if we could design something from scratch’.
Why not base a new operating system off Plan9? I mean, it corrects all the problems and limitations of UNIX; tries some new things; it would be simply a matter of Microsoft fixing up the GUI, and voila, you have the problem solved with minimum fuss.
Deploy it first as a server OS, then gradually start to sell it as a client operating system as new programmes come on board; backwards compatibility can be done via VirtualPC.
Okay then.. *why* exactly was this voted down?
I think it would be nice if someone was assigned to verify votes, to try to clean this place up a bit.
However, I’d also develop a version of Windows with all the, excuse my words, ancient crap removed from the system.
Does it have to be Windows? Can it not be, say, the .NET framework?
This statement makes no sense. The .NET framework is a runtime for writing WINDOWS programs, not a separate OS. Versions of the .NET framework can be written to run on other OS’s, but on WIndows, the runtime converts C#/VB.NET/managed C++ code to the apropriate API calls
MS is working on new OS which is written almost exclusively in C# (safe from very thin C/Assembly layer).
Another MS’ environment for very constrained devices (i don’t remember the name) is basically osless rudimentary net environment.
Now that Microsoft has said it would include hardware virtualization techniques into Vista, why didn’t they do software virtualization to keep legacy APIs separate from the core system?
Something a la Win32s or WINE, but sandboxed into a lightweight virtual machine, where the sandboxed kernel would forward translated API calls to the host kernel.
It is often said that an added layer of abstraction has at least a 10% impact on performance. But isn’t a one-shot 10% slowdown acceptable since we’re talking about a next-generation operating system bound to be better-performing on next-generation computers, which by the powers of Moore Law will just trump the 10% hit with a 50% increase in performance anyway? It’s still a net increase of 35% in the first hardware refresh…
Don’t take me wrong, this is an Athlon XP machine and the other computer by my side is a Pentium 133. I’d be glad if Vista could degrade gracefully to support both computers to some decent level. However I wouldn’t really mind if the system core could run in “autobahn” mode most of the time and “city traffic” when I run a legacy app.
What ticks me off is that all the compatibility layers added to Windows make it run in “bumpy countryside dirt road” all the time. Getting rid of it might as well more than make up for the theoretical 10% speed hit.
Edit: clarified hardware/software virtualization distinction
Edited 2006-04-23 18:22
Now that Microsoft has said it would include hardware virtualization techniques into Vista, why didn’t they do software virtualization to keep legacy APIs separate from the core system?
The Win32 subsystem is separate from the core system. I don’t see how moving to a virtual machine solution would offer any meaningful benefits, given that it will still need to be able to access the user’s files and documents.
How come Apple has compatibility cleaner and less bloaty then Windows has?
How come Apple has compatibility cleaner and less bloaty then Windows has?
Apple’s backwards compatiblity is a laughing stock. Applications written for Panther had to be updated to work on Tiger, for instance. And in order to load a pre-OSX app you need to load up OS9!
I wouldn’t call that ‘cleaner and less bloated’.
99% of the apps I used on 10.1 run just fine on Tiger, including large app suites like Office X. It is usually the reverse that is an issue: apps that take advantage of features exclusive to Tiger won’t work with older OS versions. Most apps written today are designed to run in Panther & Tiger, some offering more functionality when runing on Tiger (Spotlight integration, Core Graphics use, etc.)
So your solution of splitting up the beast that is windows seems just a little naive.
If Windows were to divide into a backward compatible version and a non-backward compatible version, that would possibly mean that the two “current” versions in your view of the world, might not even be compatible.
Imagine the consequences of that:
1) Microsoft developers would need to be divided between the two versions.
2) 3rd parties would have to divide their time between the two versions.
3) Users would be even more confused as to which version they should buy.
4) Less people working on each version equates to slower development.
Clearly all of these would show microsoft in a bad light, and risk the company losing a great deal from the fall out. So how exactly do you think splitting up the process would help?
Maybe its just me but your posts seem to be rushed and follow quickly on from other posts on other sites, or maybe I’m just biased against you because you kept announcing SuSE releases and stating there was no release notes when a bit of research would have shown you where they were.
More haste, less speed?
1) Microsoft developers would need to be divided between the two versions.
4) Less people working on each version equates to slower development.
The legacy version would need little development– since all that needs to be done on that version is bug fixes and security fixes. It’s a legacy version– no need for new features. And since the modern version does not require work on legacy stuff, greatly simplyfying the development, the end result would be that no more developers are needed than there are now.
2) 3rd parties would have to divide their time between the two versions.
That did not stop the transition from 9x to NT, now did it? It didn’t stop Apple’s move from PowerPC to Intel, now did it?
3) Users would be even more confused as to which version they should buy.
Welcome virtualization, as someone else has already mentioned. The modern version could allow users to install their old 2000/XP copy, to run the legacy apps. Similar to what Apple did with OS9. And since all new PCs will ship with the modern version, developers will think twice about not updating their apps to run on this new version.
The legacy version would need little development– since all that needs to be done on that version is bug fixes and security fixes.
In that case they should not create a version of Windows with legacy support. They should just maintain a current version of Windows (say XP Home) indefinitely.
Unfortunately this wouldn’t make a great deal of fiscal sense, they’d lose money from the lack of Windows and Office sales (the big one-two that pays for almost everything in Seattle). MS already complains that their greatest competition comes from their past products.
For what it’s worth, they’ve already done what you suggest. Windows 2003 Server lacks most of the compatibility stuff that Windows XP has, as far as I know. However selling it as a desktop operating system, even for businesses, would be very difficult. They tried that in the mid-nineties with NT 4 for business users and Windows 9x for traditional users, and the cost of keeping two code-bases in sync was deemed to be counter-productive.
The only reason I (have to) “care” about Vista is because I work on a Windows network. At home I don’t care about it at all because I run FreeBSD and Gentoo, and use one Windows 2000 laptop for the occasional game.
Our German colleagues are already looking for people who want to pilot the latest Office with Vista, I wonder what the outcome of that will be.
“You can take an application designed for Windows 95, and run it without any problems on Windows Vista.”
Backwards capability is a myth.
We supported a bank’s front counter system written on Win 95 using standard Win API, C++ and Foundation classes and also a lot of C and VB programs – not all of those would run when we tried to run them on XP. The ones that didn’t run had to be rewritten and that then, in turn, required the rest to upgraded and enhanced to work in a proper mutli-tasking environment.
So backwards capability in large systems is a complete non-starter. I bet you’d never be able to take a complete system written on XP and put it on Vista and expect it to run with no problems.
something tells me that it would mostly be the VB stuff that failed first, and then the other stuff that needed data from it would fail like a big house of cards…
Everyone in this forums always says “everything just works in Windows”
Yet another myth destroyed
Does it make you feel good saying that?
Call me back when a Linux distro can hibernate and resume my laptop out of the box. The last time I played with Linux’s suspend it hard-locked on the resume, and ended up corrupting my ReiserFS partitions. I was real pleased.
In fact, call me back when wireless, 3D acceleration, MP3, and DVD work out of the box on either of my two laptops.
LOL.
Linux works with what it works with, and doesn’t with what is doesn’t. I suspect strongly that (checking title of post) that Linux significantly more compatible than Vista upon launch.
I would argue strongly that there are very few laptops people are using that currently that have hardware compatible or upgradeable to that to Vista.
DVD’s on any Microsoft from the get go is a non-standard by a third party, and MP3’s are a little tricky from the get go as for some reason MP3 wants to promote its own format
yeah, considering Vista is apparently dropping support for EISA… That automatically makes ‘linux’ have a larger list of compatible hardware.
I don’t see how anything you just said pertains to hibernation in Linux.
It doesn’t. He doesn’t have anything intelligent to say about linux and hibernation so he decides, instead, to change the subject. It’s a common troll tactic.
You cannot blame Linux for that. Blame the hardware vendors that don’t release drivers and specifications for the hardware they make. I have an HP NX 8220 laptop and it it is able to hibernate when I use the proprietry ATI FGLRX driver but it doesn’t resume from sleep mode. If I use the open source driver I am able to sleep/hibernate. That’s because unlike some other hardware vendors, HP actually give a shit about their Linux users.
Edited 2006-04-24 04:51
Sure I can blame Linux for that. Pretend I’m a regular user for a second. I’m not going to care that it’s so-and-so’s fault and this-and-that company’s hardware not working with Bob’s driver.
All I’m going to see is Linux not hibernating. If Windows and OS X can do it, but Linux can’t, it looks pretty bad.
Sure I can blame Linux for that.
You could, but you’d be mistaken.
Pretend I’m a regular user for a second.
Uh, no. Let the regular users speak for themselves.
I’m not going to care that it’s so-and-so’s fault and this-and-that company’s hardware not working with Bob’s driver.
You don’t know that for a fact. Most “regular” people would complain about the hardware, because they don’t know what an OS is.
All I’m going to see is Linux not hibernating. If Windows and OS X can do it, but Linux can’t, it looks pretty bad.
If you’re buying a laptop and you’re a clueless user, you won’t install an OS on it. Regular users don’t install OSes. Again, you’re comparing apples and oranges to suit your anti-Linux agenda. It’s getting really old.
BTW, hibernating does work on many Linux laptops.
Most “regular” people who were talked into switching to Linux, and then found that they couldn’t hibernate but remembered that XP did it, would blame the OS, not the ha rdware.
I don’t see how stating that Windows and OS X can do something, but Linux can’t, is comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps if you’re an apologist.
Recommend a distro for my Athlon XP/IGP 320m-based laptop that can hibernate fully out-of-the-box, and I’ll try it out this week. Until then, you have squat.
Most “regular” people who were talked into switching to Linux, and then found that they couldn’t hibernate but remembered that XP did it, would blame the OS, not the ha rdware.
Your whole example is flawed. Your imaginary “regular people” (how convenient to have such inexistant sample to support your arguments!) wouldn’t be “talked into” switching to Linux, they would make the decision themselves, and they would be warned to make sure their hardware is supported – or they would buy it pre-installed (in which case everything would work).
So, in effect, you simply present a very biased portrait of the situation, on that conforms not to any real-world scenario, but rather to worst-case scenarios that support your agenda.
I don’t see how stating that Windows and OS X can do something, but Linux can’t, is comparing apples to oranges.
Well, because it’s not true, in the first place. Linux can hibernate, just not on all laptops. The capacity is there.
Perhaps if you’re an apologist.
This coming from someone who has “Linux is f***ing garbage” in his profile…right!
Recommend a distro for my Athlon XP/IGP 320m-based laptop that can hibernate fully out-of-the-box, and I’ll try it out this week. Until then, you have squat.
Blame ATI if their proprietary drivers prevent hibernation from working.
Meanwhile, I’m modding you down as off-topic. The subject of the article is the lack of excitement that many feel about Vista. I know you’re trying to divert attention away from this, but that’s still the topic. So quit trying to push your agenda through, and try some intellectual honesty for a change.
Excellent avoidance of the question! You should get a prize.
Recommend a distro for my Athlon XP/IGP 320m-based laptop that can hibernate fully out-of-the-box, and I’ll try it out this week.
What is the maker and model of your notebook?
Have you tried the latest Ubuntu beta, and if so could you please file bug reports? Ubuntu has a LaptopTesting team to improve compatibility with laptops.
Looking forward to your reports.
It’s an eMachines M5310.
Linux can’t even begin to hope to support hibernate/sleep cleanly on my iBook, so I’m not going to ask for that.
It’s an eMachines M5310.
Linux can’t even begin to hope to support hibernate/sleep cleanly on my iBook, so I’m not going to ask for that.
I don’t think you understand the process.
You simply report a bug. The developers will then ask you some more information that could help adding support to your specific laptop. Even if they don’t find the resources to work on it the information you’ll provide can be useful to other people that may work on the same problem.
One of the reason it’s important to file a bug report is that the problem could be a simple configuration issue. In that case it’s trivial to fix it. For example, the following is from a report on an iBook:
“With kernel 2.6.13.3 my iBook sleeps without any problems, even when I activate GLX and DRI. Don’t forget to configure
Option “AGPMode” “4”
Otherwise the whole systems freezes after a wake-up from sleep.”
Of course, people shouldn’t have to figure out these settings. That’s why you file a bug report, so the devs can make it automatically for you in the next revisions.
Note: you seem a bit frustrated with the lack of suspend support. If this were any other place I’d let it go, but since we’re at OSNews here, I must ask: what operating systems support that feature on your eMachine? Or on the iBook? If I recall Mac OS X doesn’t work at all on the eMachine, and Windows doesn’t work at all on the iBook. And Microsoft and Apple are never going to support you with that. GNU/Linux developers, on the other hand, would be glad to add support for all your hardware, as long as it’s possible to do so.
Windows supports it on the eMachine, OS X supports it on the iBook.
Now, if it were as simple as filing a bug report to get the issue fixed, it would have been *fixed a long time ago*. I’m not exactly the only person with a 12″ iBook G4 in the world. It’s not exactly like they all differ slightly, either. 😉
Windows supports it on the eMachine, OS X supports it on the iBook.
And if you buy a laptop with Linux pre-installed it will also be supported out of the box. But consider that GNU/Linux supports more hardware combinations than Mac OS X, for example. (I don’t see you complaining it won’t even run on your eMachine).
Now, if it were as simple as filing a bug report to get the issue fixed, it would have been *fixed a long time ago*. I’m not exactly the only person with a 12″ iBook G4 in the world. It’s not exactly like they all differ slightly, either. 😉
Getting the issue fixed is absolutely not as simple as filing a bug report, but it’s the first step. It’s often that developers fix bugs in laptops they don’t own, depending on the bug. Until you actually file it you’ll never know.
Btw, what was the latest version you tried on each of your laptops? Support for suspend always improves with a new release, you’d be amazed at how much can change in six months.
If you’re not willing to do a simple thing to get the issue resolved I hope I’ll never have to read about how Linux doesn’t support your hardware ever again.
in fact call us all back when they get most USB devices working out of the box.
I buy a piece of hardware I know it’ll work with windows, yet when I buy hardware I can pretty much assume that it won’t.
Most USB devices work out-of-the-box. On my Kubuntu laptop I’ve tried USB drives, iPods, digital cameras, scanners and printers, and they’ve all worked.
YMMV, of course, but I think you’ve just been unlucky (or have problems with your hardware setup). USB support in Linux is excellent, whatever’s missing is the equipment manufacturer’s responsibility.
Then again, it’s easier said than done. And they would probably have made some users get pissed off with the outcome.
But it’s hard — with tens of thousands of employees, Microsoft can’t coordinate anything anymore.
Where I don’t agree, is that Windows Vista isn’t needed in my opinion. People should just use Linux and MacOSX. Forget about the ease of use of Windows, because it’s easy for you and for the hackers and bad guys in general. Ask yourself: how good are you? And the people you know? Would you trust your data/computer to all the people you know? Windows is too “permissive” to bad guys.
Can Linux run all the programs that are available to Windows users? Nope. But on the other hand, your data/computer will be safer.
I understand that users want/need the Windows applications, but it’s a double edged sword — innocent people will get cut.
The same innocent people want to run the Windows programs on Linux, but it’s not going to happen, not without the consent from Microsoft.
Do you know about the Catch-22? If you keep using Windows, developers will continue to create Windows-only programs and you will never be able to leave Windows. On the other hand, if you start using the alternatives (Linux), the developers will be pushed to support Linux and then you will be able to choose whatever OS is best for you. Until then, you are stuck in a Catch-22.
What happens if you make Windows much more secure and much more stable.
Linux has the same old problems that Unix had for the most part so it has a lot of legacy there as well.
Why do we need Linux? If Windows runs all of my applications and linux doesn’t and Windows is what everyone uses then what is the point?
Users don’t have any reasons to move to Linux after Vista comes out.
The point is to have a choice in the case they find some reasons. That’s all.
You are right my firend..
so _what_ is it you wanted to write about? you are indifferent about vista, because you’re not _not_ missing something in vista? i’ve no idea what you’re talking about, really, but i guess i’m indifferent about your article. i’m not not missing anything not about not it. *nod*. thx.
“Memory usage was comparable to ordinary XP’s as well.”
No way. I have tested several of the builds of Vista available to developers & partners. In each case a freshly booted clean install logged in and running only task manager has showed over 500Mb for the commit charge.
I recently did the same check on an XP SP2 system, and it was 130Mb.
I wouldn’t class 4x the memory usage as “comparable”.
I wouldn’t class 4x the memory usage as “comparable”.
During standard usage (one Firefox window, MirandaIM, Google Desktop, AV), my XP leaves about 230MBs of my mem untouched. Vista left the same untouched, running the same amount of apps (excl. Google Desktop obviously, as Vista has its own equiv.).
What I found strange was the large difference in memory usage when I resized a simple Explorer window. Windows would consistently use about 30-40MB more RAM when I resized, say, a Control Panel window from a quarter screen to nearly full screen. The resize was not very smooth, either. This was on a dual-core Athlon with 1GB RAM. Radeon X300 video, though, which is a little weak.
Also, to be fair, this was the old beta, and the 64-bit version. I haven’t tried the new beta yet. But my point is that not everyone has had good experiences with Vista resource use.
The main thing I noticed about Vista is that isn’t shipping with the real stuff that was to make it useful for power users such as the SQL based file system. I have read that it was so slow MS had to remove it for acceptable performance. I am sure all these great new features will get in there eventually but the 1.0 release seems kind of a let down. Sure there is the great new aero glass look with compositing features but then again Vista users are complaining they can’t tell which windows are in the front and back now. I wouldn’t doubt Vista users will have to wait for service pack 3 before all the real Vista components get added in. A lot of the bloggers out there are saying that MS really dropped the ball on Vista. I heard the main problem with Vista was the design plan. Originally it was coded as an extension to the XP code but it got so complex and buggy MS had to start over again from scratch. They lost a lot of time when they did this and the incomplete version of Vista is what resulted. Supposedly the media center code, which was supposed to be a highlight of Vista, isn’t stable yet.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30516
Edited 2006-04-23 19:06
Yep. Vista is a disappointed and Microsoft dropped the ball on it.
What people don’t seem to understand though, is that it can be a disappointment, but STILL have things to look forward to it and STILL be a large improvement over XP. The problem is that it was so hyped up, it simply couldn’t live up to expectations, and anything short of a masterpiece will have people bitching about how bad it is.
Unfortunately not that way. It was the C++ programs that held the infrastructure of the system together that caused the first problems. The VB apps were bad enough on Win95, you just can’t tell some people not to develop complex apps in VB. Fortunately I got out of that system upgrade. They thought that could use a XP workstation as a file/print spooler in each site – they had fun and games in sites where they had more than 10 workstations.
Will Vista workstation only allow a max of 10 connections like Win XP? That is such a rip off – forcing you to by a server edition.
Nice article, sir. I’ll admit, though, that I get blurred vision and a headache whenever Vista is mentioned. To be fair, I’ll feel the same about a new Mac or Linux OS upgrade too.
Until the new boy hits the streets, it is all talk talk talk and pie in the sky. We need a real OS with real and final features/decisions, then a wait of six months for the worst bugs to be squashed, before it’s worth forming any view. Just my 2 cents.
In my case the other reason is that I think “omg, no” when hearing about Vista’s (or Mac OS’s) 196,758 new and exciting features. I know the vast majority will be to hand-hold Joe and Jane User as they explore their new world, and flash them dire warnings if they step outside it. I equally know that I don’t want or need most of these features, which slow everything down, preferring stuff that is simple, fast and slick. The legacy issue lies not only in the code-base but in the assumptions about how much the user knows about computers and computing.
The idea of a legacy-free Windows is extremely appealing. Personally I don’t think it will happen, but it would be great fun if it did (and probably fabulously good for internal morale at MS, too, as their best people get to show what they can really do).
Couldn’t you really find another subject to write your column about?
This story starts as a good intro to a Vista compared to *insert other OS here* or something similar but then you bring up some lame topic such as backwards compatibility! As if you really don’t have a clue on what you are going to write about today.
I think it’s a good idea to let someone else write a Sunday Eve Column once in a while, for those sundays where you don’t have anything to say. I love coming to OSNews but this kind of articles are a waste of my time because they really don’t have any value what so ever. I think there are a lot more people out there with some useful information and opinions to share with the OSNews readers. Maybe you could invite someone to write one.
And by the way, why should Linux engineers learn from backwards compatibility designs implemented in Windows? Isn’t Linux backwards compatible enough?
Edited 2006-04-23 19:07
if you feel that this column is a waste of your time, then don’t read it. in fact you could go out for a walk, read a book or just about anything!
Yeah sure if you would have warned me before I started reading it. Upto halfway through it was an interesting article!
Couldn’t you really find another subject to write your column about?
Yes, I could.
bring up some lame topic such as backwards compatibility! As if you really don’t have a clue on what you are going to write about today.
You post started out pretty well, but then you bring up some lame topic such as as if I don’t have a clue what I’m going to write about!
Explain why you find the topic lame. Saying “I say it is lame, therefore it is” is pointless.
Isn’t Linux backwards compatible enough?
I’ll just pretend I didn’t read that, ok?
“Isn’t Linux backwards compatible enough?”
I’ll just pretend I didn’t read that, ok?
I’d like to see you try to explain why you think Linux doesn’t have backwards compatibility. It even offers compatibility with DOS programs.
binary incompatibility for modules and applications across various glibc implemenations, ABI changes, gtk changes, qt changes, deprecated kernel features, removed kernel features…
Yes, that’s lack of backwards compatibility for Linux distributions as well as the kernel.
I agree with everything you said, except I believe it can be done much better than by creating a new division. Apple tried that with the Apple III/Lisa/Macintosh.
Apple had it right, however, with the introduction of OS X: System 9 Compatibility layer.
You know, with all this hullabaloo about virtualization on the chip and everywhere else (which isn’t really hullabaloo ;P), creating a legacy environment within New Windows (for lack of a better name) would appear to be cake.
One of the big issues with Windows’ backwards compatibility is that they need to reimplement all the bugs. How ridiculous! The beauty of the proposed method above is that Windows^2 (better name ;P) wouldn’t need to include those legacy bugs and holes. All of that would be self-contained in a legacy guest OS. Any new applications developed for Windows^2 could then take advantage of the new, (hopefully) clean environment.
The idea is so simple, I can’t believe they aren’t doing it. They really do need a shift in management over at Microsoft.
It appears most of this was said previously. I really should learn to read more slowly if I haven’t had my coffee yet.
Apple’s own Desk Accessories, which were in fact not tiny programs, but device drivers
Share what you’re smoking with the rest of the class, Mr. Spicoli.
Share what you’re smoking with the rest of the class, Mr. Spicoli.
Desk Accessories were NOT programs, but DRIVERS. The old MacOS lacked multitasking, and as such, this hack was invented to give the MacOS the illusion of multitasking, since multiple drivers could be loaded at once (while programs couldn’t).
Thom is correct on this one. Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desk_Accessory
Whilst desk accessories used the driver queue to get some processor time on a regular basis, it’s a stretch to call them “device drivers”.
Yes they used a hack but they were still tiny footprint programs offering widget like functionality, they were just activated by the driver queue.
The method to get them to activate might be considered a “hack” but to suggest they were not programs doesn’t seem right.
This would be like suggesting some TSRs in the old DOS days were not “programs” because they were activated by interrupts to gain multitasking functionality not built into DOS.
What you really mean is Vista is all the hot air and PR wheras OS X and iPods is “All the rage”. Vista is nothing more than a marketing campaign. OS X is reality.
Where is the overhyped experience ? OS X has the real experience in my view.
Edited 2006-04-23 20:44
If OSX was all the rage then they would have much more marketshare than they do now. iPods are the rage, notice the marketshare there?
Thanks for tryign to play the troll game kid.
MacOSX is great, it just needs something to make it more usefull than photoshop and iTunes which happen to both be on Windows. doh!
Yes and if you go to a store with Apples what do they have on screen? iTunes. So what do you tie the iPod with, iTunes, what do you link iTunes with? Apple Macs and OS X. Its a complete package that fits neatly together. I go into peoples houses and what do I see? More and more Macs.
The DOS emulation is getting worse in XP (Had some apps stop working after patching) and I expect it will be worse again in vista.
I don’t blame microsoft for this, who the hell wants to support an OS that they considered obsolute 11 years ago?
However they are the ones with the old MSDOS code, so It sort of falls upon then to provide some compatability.
The DOS / Win16 subsystems should move to an emulatated or virtualised layer. DOSbox already allows this to happen, but microsoft should do it in a way that can be supported (For some reason my management doesn’t want us supporting a application that hasn’t yet had it’s 1.0 release).
A cutdown Virtual PC (doing emulation) + MSDOS 6.22 would allow microsoft to do similer to what apple has done with classic. Where the legacy environment is contained. Emulating it would have limited effect as the software was written for computers that are orders of magnitude slower then the computers today. With the added benifit of never having to really worry about security in the system affecting the OS, since it is all an application running in userspace.
But we all know this is not going to happen, microsoft would not want to make such a financial commitment because they don’t have to. If a dos application stops working, the application is blamed, even if the OS has changed it’s dos subsystem.
The DOS / Win16 subsystems should move to an emulatated or virtualised layer.
Unless I’m mistaken there is no DOS or Win16 subsystem in Vista. It has been removed completely. Windows 3.1 and DOS programs will not run period. They did this with Windows XP x64 edition also I believe.
Unless I’m mistaken there is no DOS or Win16 subsystem in Vista. It has been removed completely. Windows 3.1 and DOS programs will not run period. They did this with Windows XP x64 edition also I believe.
DOS has always been emulated. It’s still there in Vista. Win16 is gone.
Dosbox is compatible enough for running >95% DOS games, although same level of compatibility is often required for DOS applications. Dosbox developers still have no intentions nor time to implement some stuff required almost exclusively by commercial applications (e,g. parallel port dongle support), but anyone who needs it is free to take the code and do it.
You may have more luck with software like Bochs, or Qemu (or commercial stuff). Even if some pieces of hardware are better emulated in dosbox (vga,cga,tandy,hercules, sound cards, etc.), x86 processor is usually better emulated in full-featured virtualisation/emulation solutions (WITH read-only page writing checks, memory boundary checks, etc.). Those features would simply slow down things too much, and it’s not needed for DOS games.
However, I’d also develop a version of Windows with all the, excuse my words, ancient crap removed from the system. That version would then be the poster child for what Microsoft can do when it is not held back by backwards compatibility
As I recall, that was the original plan for Longhorn back when Microsoft was hyping it up in 2003. Since Longhorn was going to be something brand new, you would need new native (“trusted”) Longhorn applications to run on it. Legacy applications (for XP and prior) would run in a kind of “classic” compatibility mode. (It was believed that this was the reason they purchased VirtualPC.) They even said Longhorn wouldn’t use a system-wide Registry, but that older applications running in “classic” would each have their own fake copy of the Registry to trick them into thinking it was there.
And you know what? Microsoft couldn’t pull it off. Any of it. When they scrapped the “brand-new-from-scratch” Longhorn and started again in late 2004 with the Windows Server 2003 codebase, that’s when they started hyping how backward compatible Vista would be, like it was some deep commitment they had to their users and a great feat of engineering that Vista would be so compatible with Windows 95. No, the only reason Vista is so backward-compatible is because Microsoft’s brand spanking new Longhorn was abandoned, and instead we’re getting a warmed over XP with a new theme, marketed as a new OS.
So don’t give me that crap of “oh if only Microsoft weren’t so encumbered with their devotion to backward compatibility we would see what they can really do.” Microsoft’s developers tried to write something new that wasn’t backward compatible and they FAILED. The only reason the extreme backward compatibility will be a “feature” of Vista is because they couldn’t bring Longhorn to life.
Edited 2006-04-23 20:59
As I recall, that was the original plan for Longhorn back when Microsoft was hyping it up in 2003. Since Longhorn was going to be something brand new, you would need new native (“trusted”) Longhorn applications to run on it. Legacy applications (for XP and prior) would run in a kind of “classic” compatibility mode. (It was believed that this was the reason they purchased VirtualPC.) They even said Longhorn wouldn’t use a system-wide Registry, but that older applications running in “classic” would each have their own fake copy of the Registry to trick them into thinking it was there. And you know what? Microsoft couldn’t pull it off. Any of it.
This is so wrong. Vista currently virtualizes registry access and some other items. It also isn’t true that legacy apps would run in a compatibility mode other than the application compatibility infrastructure already offered. All applications would run under what is now called UAC (pka UAP/ pka LUA). The user token was/is split so that even when you run as admin, applications run as standard user unless specifically elevated by the user or coded as an admin app by the developer. “Longhorn” was never meant to drop backward compatibility. You can go back to MS documentation from 2003 that says the OS would offer Win32/64 as a largely unchanged API for compatibility and WinFX beside it as the managed API for the future. Vista does exactly this. An overview of UAC is available here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security/
Edited 2006-04-24 03:34
I never heard any of those things about Longhorn? Please post a link.
I know that the 64-bit version of Windows Vista will not run Windows 16-bit applications or DOS applications directly in the OS (they took out all the legacy crap to do this). This is getting rid of legacy already.
Check out http://www.news.com and do a search.
backwards compatibility isn’t that great in Windows.
You can find many DOS-applications that won’t work with Windows unless you use DOSBox, and for some 16-bit Windows applications, you still need DOSBox (with Win3.1x running inside), to get them running.
The backwards compatibility in Windows for DOS-applications and Win3.x is poorer than the compatibility for the same on *nix’es (when running DOSBox).
Windows has never had good backwards compatibility. OS/2 2.x was better at that, especially the DOS-part.’
—-
[EDIT: This has been added after first posting]
Conclusion must be to completely remove backwards compatibility in existing form for anything not 32-bit Windows, and run existing 32-bit applications in an emulator mode.
Edited 2006-04-23 20:54
***You can take old DOS applications, and they will run on Windows XP without a hitch.***
That statement can’t be any farther from the truth than the “Next Galaxy”… I guess the Writer only owns one piece of DOS software…
Try some old DOS Video Games or ones coded for Win95 and see what happens…
hehehe
From speaking to a number of Windows fans and reading Windows forums, indifference towards Vista seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Of course there’s a lot of discussion over such a heavily anticipated operating system, but a there’s a definite feeling of disappointment even from long term Windows advocates. Even with the pretty screenshots of transparent windows the reaction often seems to be “is this it?”.
I suppose that’s inevitable considering the time we’ve had to wait since the last Windows release. There was a real build up of anticipation when details of Longhorn were first made public, but I don’t think the reality is living up to that, especially when so many features have been dropped from Vista.
A lot of people who rushed out to buy XP the day it was released are talking about leaving Vista until they buy a new PC. If that isn’t an indication of indifference I don’t know what is.
When Apple decided to move to Intel, I thought I read somewhere that Adobe will support the new Macintel and won’t develop a PowerPC version, (so basically user just have to keep using their old products).
There’s a lot at stake if one take that road but Microsoft drives the market, why bother supporting legacy applications ? (unless it’s custom made i.e. the previously mentioned banking software issue)
Well if you have old software, stick with your old windows, don’t change, why bother changing unless you really want to improve the overall quality of your software, i.e. new environment, try to exploit its new features as well, otherwise what’s the point of upgrade.
Since previous experience has taught us that Windows backward compatibility is not superior, why bother relying on it.
If you want to have a portable software, use Java or .NET or dynamic languages, they’re meant to be portable.
When Apple decided to move to Intel, I thought I read somewhere that Adobe will support the new Macintel and won’t develop a PowerPC version, (so basically user just have to keep using their old products).
Universal apps are supposed to work on PPC’s as well, so they will be supported as long as X is supported I guess.
I think is a bit over used, how many people REALLY use legacy software, yet need all the new features of a version of Windows.
I remember the old Library program we used to run that was all DOS, why upgrade it to Windows 2000/XP, when it ran fine on DOS, and it was designed for DOS.
The time came that it was just not doing all the things we wanted, so we looked at current software that was out, found a better replacement and are using that.
Understandably there are going to be a few old old programs out there, that need new features of the newer OS’s, but it’s not as common.
I think it’s time to scrap a lot of the legacy code of Windows, remove the Registry and other pieces and do huge re-writes.
I feel that’s why OS X does so well at being stable, it supports their current hardware, all their drivers not being so tightly integrated into the OS, and the older technologies are just dropped more or less and the newer ones are used or supported.
I’m not impressed by windows at all. XP or Vista(longhorn), most of the features are borrowed from Mac OS X.
Microsoft offers tomorrow what one can find on a Macintosh today.
Yes, unless you want any other kinds of applications beyond photoshop and itunes (oh wait those are on windows as well). doh!
Good luck getting any new software with going on Intel and now bootcamp. I am not talking about games.
Games are obvious and the mac market when it comes to software is going to be almost a desert in 2007.
For everyone talking about how vista uses 4-500mb of ram on boot…
1. Vista is still beta
2. That means it’s still being debugged
3. Extra debugging code running = more memory used.
unless im horribly mistaken..
Edited 2006-04-23 22:46
So you are saying its a DEBUG NON OPTIMISED INSTRUMENTED BUILD or is it RETAIL OPTIMISED NON INSTRUMENTED build they give out? Does anybody know or do they have different versions? You can debug with symbols for a retail build you know. Anyway the build sent out will be RETAIL builds because they dont expect vendors to DEBUG WINDOWS CODE. Vendors will have theyre own code with their own symbols and they can build theyre own debug code. It makes no sense to give out code that they will not ship. There are memory layout differences and timing differences between debug and retail, why should they test their products on something that isnt going to ship. It makes no sense.
Edited 2006-04-24 07:48
Just that!
My operating system (LoseThos) has a Sleep() function but it’s like the Visual C++ command which tells a program to do nothing for a certain number of miliseconds.
My operating system has pretty-much all code stay resident when you #include it. It stays around until you terminate the task.
I installed 5308 on my laptop (Toshiba Satellite P20 – P4 3.4Ghz 1GB RAM 80GB HDD Nvidia FX 5700Go) and it runs like a DOG.
A slow, arthritic dog. That’s missing a leg. And is dead.
I can’t quite get over how slow it is compared to XP. Interface responsiveness is terrible and simple things like browsing to a folder take forever with that “ohhh pretty colours” bar sliding along the bar in the explorer window while it tries to figure out how to display the folder contents.
Not impressed… and I actually was expecting to be impressed.
My operating system’s not a dog. The delusion is broken;-) He’s talking about somebody else. Some things are slow but not browsing folders. Big documents might be slow. Maybe, big graphics.
I read that linked article on desktoplinux.com and man, I wish I was *** because it really merits an oy vey.
The guy is a terrible troll; sometimes he tries to present himself as having balanced arguments but his linux-ra-ra-ra attitude shines through nonetheless.
Then we have articles like this one where he seems to be revelling in his unhinged partisan hackery.
Very poor.
(whoa… why did it censor the word j e w i s h???)
Edited 2006-04-24 05:15
Actually the most values in every new generation of MS OSes are destinated towards developers.
Vista will have heaploads of new apis that are *WAYS* easier to program for than (by default) on previous oses.
This will pave the way for Vista only software despite the initial meager adaptation (which will be mainly driven by HW sales).
New things like richer user interface and search will (maybe?) generate class of new generation apps. Those apps will be the major magnet for new os on consumer side. Ease of programming and deployment (XAML) are posied to lure coporate programmers from the other side.
Its the apps that bring new Windows value proposition. It have always been like that.
hear hear!
In fact, call me back when wireless, 3D acceleration, MP3, and DVD work out of the box on either of my two laptops.
If you were to have install Windows on a barebones laptop, you’d realize that wireless, 3D acceleration, MP3 and DVD do not work out-of-the-box either.
(Writing this on a Kubuntu laptop which had functioning wireless, 3D accel, MP3, DVD and suspend-to-ram working after using EasyUbuntu…)
If you’re going to compare, please make your comparisons fair!
I installed retail windows on my OEM laptop, it worked fine. All you need is drivers. Easy to get.
You’re missing the point: the fact that you need to install drivers means it’s not running “out-of-the-box”.
I install the Kubuntu on my desktop machine. No wifi (my usb wifi adapter is not supported), no sound (my soundblaster Live 1024 didn’t work) my bluetooth dongle (usb) didn’t do anything, my usb media card reader didn’t do anything (usb and should work as a mass storage media device). My digital camera (olympus) didn’t work (usb) My webcam (usb didn’t appear to work – as far as I could tell).
My printer didn’t work as a scanner (it’s an all in one printer scanner copier)
Not wishing to bash Ubuntu specifically, I like what their trying to do. I’ve had same problems, with Suse, mepis, etc etc etc etc.
I put ubuntu on my LAPTOP (HP) and it didn’t recognise my PC card wifi driver – every time I tried to access the network config it hung, then crashed.
Same is true when I tried it on another (toshiba) laptop.
Well, I guess your mileage may vary.
What was the model of your PCMCIA wifi card? If it was a broadcom, you need to use ndiswrapper or Linuxant’s driverloader.
Never used a USB wifi or bluetooth dongle, so I wouldn’t know.
When you talk about the USB card reader, you mean a reader for Compact Flash, SanDisk, etc., right? Is it a Texas Instrument reader, by any chance? These are known not to work, someone’s trying to get it done…
You do realize that all the complaints you’re raising are not really anyone’s responsibility in the Linux community, but rather up to manufacturers to provide drivers, right? There’s a HUGE amount of hardware that works out-of-the-box on Linux because open-source drivers have been written for it and are included on the install media, but there’s some still missing. I suggest you write the equipment manufacturers to let them know how you feel. After all, it’s their responsibility, not the Linux community’s (even though the latter has often decided to solve the issues itself).
I like the fact that when the heat went up, the author of the article takes a hike…
Anyway, as you can tell by the name, I use Linux. I use Suspend2 on my laptop(s) and desktops and my desktop is there, fully functional when I resume, I also use MP3’s, DVD’s, and anything I want out of the box. I also don’t have to install driver after driver because Linux has everything I need built in (You have to download or install a CD for somple devices like the Chipset driver, Sound, Joysticks and such in Windows)…
I also use an app that I found 5 years ago on the latest Linux build and it works great.
Try running Mech2, or Doom1,2, or any old game on WinXP for that matter. They all run fine on Linux, but you wont get them to run on Winders.
Nice try, but I am still not buying into proprietary Operating Systems. I find it amusing that MS is just now catching up to Linux/Mac operating systems and they get paid to program… More funny, is that the Linux community is now leaping far ahead of Windows AGAIN. So, when Vista comes out, it will already be old (Cant speak for MAC as I dont really follow them much, but I can almost bet the MAC is leaping ahead too)
I would really like to play with the MAC sometime (Seeing that 99% of it is based on OSS). Thats where I would spend my money if I wanted too (There is that choice thing again; something that Windows users DON’T have).
Edited 2006-04-24 07:22
I like the fact that when the heat went up, the author of the article takes a hike…
Yes, or maybe there’s a world beyond your country’s borders and I live on the other side of the damn planet and I was asleep.
Now, no, That couldn’t be, now could it? A world beyond my borders? No way.
Like it or not, Games will drive consumer adoption (along with media iTunes etc) to OS X. I see more and more games ported to OS X but the problem is, hardware is not leading edge on Apple’s which gamers need. Not everybody wants or needs to run Quark or Adobe products. If you want to limit your market to that and be like the Amiga, then die like the Amiga.
Windows is Better!
Linux is Better!
OSX is Better!
errr.. yeah..
Lets try this.
Windows is better for me, but maybe not for you!
Linux is better for me, but maybe not for you!
OSX is better for me, but maybe not for you!
So…
An OS is a tool just like every other piece of software. Some tools work better for some people. Why does everyone keep trying to be “better” than everyone else.
If you really think about it. None of the current OS on the market even come close to the ulitmate goal, which would be the right tool for everyone. Each OS has its own pros and cons. Just have to decide which pros and cons best match your lifestyle.
Sounds right to me. I use both Windows and Linux, for different tasks. I might even use OSX, but I don’t have room for another desktop right now, and my desktops are plenty beefy with no need to upgrade quite yet.
Of course, judging by most of my posts, people probably wouldn’t believe me
Better is perhaps the most stupid word to discuss the merits of anything.
Windows XP is Dominant, Common, Pre-installed, Many Apps.
OSX is Secure, Pretty, Cool(Arty).
Linux is Free(freedom), Custom built, Sercure.
Windows Vista is currently non of these things.
An OS is not just like every piece of software, Its *the* peice of software. Its why Microsoft office is so popular, its why everyone uses Internet explorer etc etc.
The whole point of this thread is not a Microsoft bashing exercise its about the indifference towards Vista an OS *6 years* in the making, by the largest software company in the world, with the brightest software developers in the world, and the money to buy them. Why? becuase nobody can see any benefits of Vista vs *XP*; OSX; Linux and yet everyone knows deep down it will become the next OS you will buy *with* your computer from Dell,PC-world etc regardless of its merits.
Unfortunalety, it’s so so true…..
“Yes, or maybe there’s a world beyond your country’s borders and I live on the other side of the damn planet and I was asleep.
Now, no, That couldn’t be, now could it? A world beyond my borders? No way.”
Right-on, Thom! Glad you got some sleep…and some are pretty provincial to the point that their culture is the only one that “exists.” I live in one of those cultures and it’s one of the ugliest things about it, combined with general ignorance of the population…but that’s another topic.
Thanks for the article….interesting viewpoints…and I’m sure that you expected a heated discussion afterwards…fun isn’t it?
What I find so funny is that there are people who actually get hot under the collar about this stuff!!!
What took them more than 5 years to develop?
Whas it worth the time if you look at the results?
Must be so revolutionair if other vendors have brought 4-5 releases into the spotlight (sry) in the meantime.
Vista will bring me nothing but a indirect advice to upgrade while i’m quite happy with XP pro on one of my boxen.
What has been so greatly innovated that buisinesses should upgrade?
I see so many people say they’re happy with XP and will stay with it. Which is quite fine!
I just never see Microsoft get any credit for this. People are happy staying with an OS that is coming on 5 years old, with little more than security updates to it. I think that’s pretty impressive.
I see so many people say they’re happy with XP and will stay with it.
I don’t. The vast majority of Windows users I know complain about the OS, and merely tolerate it. They’re locked-in because the apps they use are sometimes only available on Windows, and they don’t know enough about OSes in general to consider installing a new one.
Trust in the Microsoft brand is quite low, compared to others.
There’s at least 2 people in this thread that said it. I see it a lot on other sites too (like Neowin).
I shouldn’t have said “so many”, because that makes it sound like a majority, which obviously isn’t the case.
For the record, I’m relatively happy with MY Windows installs…it’s those of friends and family members I have problems with (because of their incorrigible neophyte habits)…which is why I bought this t-shirt:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/388b/
Edited 2006-04-24 19:01
I read all the commentaries about vista.
People are slamming on about it on today’s hardware.When XP was testing people were doing the same thing.Most XP users either upgraded their systems or got it with a new pc when it got mainstream.Most likely the same thing will happen with Vista.
As far as for not being “innovative”.Most people who say it isn’t are usually the technically inclined crowd or niche users.Most users ? Dont give a s***.So long it does what Windows has been doing for them a long time they wont care.Windows actually moves at a pace most people like.Slow to adopt so they feel safe they can learn a new trick or two without having to go school for it.As for spyware , viruses etc.Windows technical support is easier to come by and often cheaper.So for many thats just collateral damage.
My take? Vista is a wait and see.Gives the alternatives some elbow room to make a move in but I dont see a kill coming anytime soon for Windows.
Bah! Enough of my ranting.
When do you think Apple will release a Mac with the “Nano ITX” size form factor or is the Mac Mini the smallest they would go (because of the CD drive)?
Stop talking about it then, if you are a windows user you *will* switch to vista, just because you’re accustomed with your office suite or another wonderful tool than will oblige you to use the latest windows version in order to-do-your-work-better-than-before.
Your saying that’s a good thing then, right?
That users should want to change to something that makes their work better than before?
Vista is going to own for most users. Why? Because they haven’t heard of linux, and Mac is for people with a lot of extra money.
I laugh when people say “It copies Mac”.. probably does. But it does it a lot cheaper. Lets be realistic – users want the best experience they can get *as cheaply* as possible. Again, Microsoft delivers.
You can discuss it until your blue in the face, but its going to be all over so you might as well start learning its intricacies asap.
– Morglum
“But it does it a lot cheaper.”
Seems we don’t live on the same planet. On planet earth windows XP pro cost about 340 euros whereas OS X Tiger (or any other version) cost 129 euros.
Now compare windows XP vs Tiger and tell me if “microsoft delivers”…
That’s not a fair comparison. You’re forgetting hardware, and that OSX puts out an update every year or so that you almost *have* to get to remain compatibility with new apps.
“That’s not a fair comparison”
It IS fair since I compared price of the last generation of both microsoft and Apple OSes.
“You’re forgetting hardware”
Hardware was not the point so I didn’t emphazise on it.
Plus I run Tiger on a poor second hand 400MHz power mac and it’s still a joy to use while not spending hard earned money.
“and that OSX puts out an update every year or so that you almost *have* to get to remain compatibility with new apps.”
In reality not so many apps requires the last generation of OS X. And to me it’s much better than to be obliged to keep old version of OS in order to run your legacy apps.
No, you’re still not getting it. You’re refusing to look at the bigger picture. You need Apple hardware to run OSX, and that is more expensive. You can keep running older versions of OSX, but it’s generally not a good idea. Security patches are one reason.
These both DO factor in, no matter how you look at it. You can NOT just ignore them and compare ONE particular version of the OS and ignore other relevant parts.
I mean, why did you switch from win95 to win98 osr2 ?
To get usb support, to be able to execute office something because you needed an specific version of IE …etc…
Similar thing will of course happens for Vista
Of course I’m not happy with that, but most people don’t want to change their tool when it works like what they want or when they are accustomed with it.
No, most people switched because “that’s what came with the machine” when they upgraded their hardware. Boxed sales of windows to regular users account to a very small fraction.
“Windows Vista is still Windows. No matter how much new features or flashy graphics Microsoft inserts into Windows, the main strong point for Windows has been its astonishing backwards compatibility. You can take old DOS applications, and they will run on Windows XP without a hitch. You can take an application designed for Windows 95, and run it without any problems on Windows Vista. It’s definitely something Linux and Apple engineers can learn from.”
While it is mostly true that you can run previous Windows and DOS apps on more current versions of Windows, this is not always the case. I have had Windows apps that will not run under Win2K, or XP Pro (mostly games). And yes, I’ve tried the “Compatibility Mode” options in XP to tell XP that the app in question was a Win98 app for instance. I’ve also tried running some scientific software that were desigend for DOS that do not operate under Windows (any version). My guess is that this will continue to be the trend and will cut even more apps that did run before, albeit with a little help.
Yes, Microsoft has done a lot of work with backwards compatibility, but what you wrote makes it sound like it works 100% of the time and it will never be a problem. That is simply not the case.
As far as Apple’s problems with compatibility with previous apps go, they created “Classic” mode for running old applications that predate OS X, they created Carbon for making apps that worked in both OS 9 and OS X, and they’ve worked with developers to help them get their code up to date with the current OS. Further, since day 1 of OS X, Apple warned developers that certain portions of their APIs were likely to be depricated in future releases and that they should avoid using them if possible. When OS X 10.4 was introduced at the WWDC, they announced that they had stabilized all of their APIs and that they will not depricate any more, only extend. Most any app from OS X 10.1 will work today. If it doesn’t run out of the box, a patch is usually available (as often is the case in the Windows world). I think your characterization that Apple needs to learn about compatibility is simply misguided and wrong. I have lots of old Mac apps that run just fine under 10.4 Tiger; better than I can say for a lot of my Windows and DOS apps.
I can’t really comment on Linux.
In the cmopany where I work we even have windows 2000 applications that don’t want to run on XP…
On backward compatibility it’s much more a problem of licence.
OSS tends to live longer than others since if it needs tweaking/modifications in order to run on new OS / hardware, anybody can do so (assuming you got the skill to do the job)!
Im just started using XP 2 years ago…
SO when every program(50% or more) i want to use start to saying “You need Vista to run this” then a switch..
…if you are a developer of any other app EXCEPT an app which you are writing specifically to support the new .Net/Vista application formats (say, a virus checker or spyware checker), then you would be an idiot to lock yourself into Vista.
This is what is going to happen to Vista: it’s going to run Win32 programs in a compatibility mode, and thus it’s going to be a slower alternative to XP with an interface that requires more computer horsepower, memory and disk resources to work. Why? Say it with me: anyone that develops specifically for Windows Vista instead of Win32 (or even x-plat .Net) is going to give up over 90% of the market for the foreseeable future. That includes Microsoft.
You’d have to be INSANE as a developer supporting the Windows environment to choose anything other than the existing (pre-Vista) development platform. In the coming five years, I would be unsurprised to find Microsoft up against the wall with the guns of Apple and Linux pointed right at them, cocked and loaded.
I didn’t avoid the question, I demonstrated how your framing of the debate was biased in your favor. The fact is that you no more authority to speak for “regular users” than I do, and therefore your whole argument is based on opinion, not fact.
Now, if you’d rather talk about hypothetical situations to further your agenda rather than stick to the topic at hand, that’s your choice. It’ll be my pleasure to continue marking these specific posts as off-topic.