“With Windows XP already reaching its first birthday, it is already time to start thinking about what is round the corner for the next release of the Windows operating system. While the chances of us seeing a major new release of Windows before 2005 is highly unlikely, there is a high possibility that there will be, as predicted on ActiveWin earlier in the year, a minor update to the Windows XP operating system sometime within the next 2 years. The question is, do we really need a new operating system quite as soon as that? Why not just wait a while before releasing another one? Or at least make sure the one you have released as bug free as possible.” Read the editorial at ActiveWin.
Do we Really Need a New Windows Operating System so Soon?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I really think they need to wait and work out the bugs in alot of their current operating systems. We don’t need another OS, simple as that. XP is buggy enough!
Not to bash MS, but do you really think they’ll bypass the opportunity to rake in a few more [m|b]illion through another upgrade release? All one needs to do is look at their 9.x history. Remember, XP is now a consumer-grade OS with an industry-grade kernel. MS’ consumer-grade pricing structures bring home the bacon.
-fp
XP PRO works perfectly for me. I have seen 1-2 areas that need improvement (when the XP has loaded the desktop and I impatiantly load IE and OE, the taskbar freezes for a minute or so because it hadn’t finish loading some stuff), but other than that, it works great here.
I do not quite get what this editorial is about. XP came out in 2001 and the next big version will be in 2005. I think that these are logical spaced-out releases.
Nothing will stop MS from putting together yet another unstable OS and delivering it to everone. Sometimes MS really does make me mad
I do not quite get what this editorial is about. XP came out in 2001 and the next big version will be in 2005. I think that these are logical spaced-out releases.
That was per the publicized timeline from MS. However, recent events and comments from MS execs have hinted at delays with Longhorn (possibly to 2006), with an intermediary release to “bridge the gap” (yeah, the money gap). I’m sorry, I don’t remember the source… I think it may have been from an eWeek article within the last couple of days.
-fp
Dang Eugenia, it was from one of OSNews’ own postings… http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,557197,00.asp
🙂
-fp
Yes, we need a new Windows operating system, because XP is NOT a new operating system–just an interface upgrade.
XP is much more than an “interface upgrade”, you clever…
A lot of things are different than Win2k, it loads way faster for one. Check here for some of the other changes:
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998,a=2473,00.asp
Actually XP is is the first Operating System released by MS since DOS. The previous versions of Windows were actually GUI enviroments on top of DOS (If you ever see a copy of the box for Windows 1.0) it says “Operating Enviroment”,
XP uses a bonafide kernel now, making it an actual real OS (or as real as MS can get),
so long as they do not release another Windows ME…ahhhhhhhh spawn of satan OS…god have mercy on those poor souls still using it
but for all intents and purposes, the bugs in XP are pretty minor…or maybe that’s just my perspective after ME
-bytes256
Xp is much efficient to exploit internet, office, and games applications. but it’s just an upgrade from 2000 which is an upgrade from me which is an upgrade from 98se etc….
Don’t forget that each time news versions go out,
their upgrade from your system to the new one is also available, which means that if the code was not so closed
it would be possible to stay with your version and add
the new driver/component you need in your old version.
see with bluethooth which will be soon added in xp
which means that you do not need to wait a new os to use a “new technology”.
Personnally, i launch xp without desktop neither explorer, but with the old progman.exe interface we used to have in win3.11
A case in point being Windows 98 Second Edition (Win 98 SE), just one year after Windows 98 was released; basically it was just a bunch of bug fixes and performance enhancements. While this is never a bad thing, the fact that it came out just one year after Windows 98 had many people complaining that Microsoft was only after yet more money.
Earth to ActiveWin editors…. Microsoft is a corporation..a business. They are always after yet more money. The provide goods and services in exchange for compensation. That is how capitalism works.
Actually XP is is the first Operating System released by MS since DOS.
Two inaccuracies in one sentence. Microsoft did not write DOS, they purchased it. NT was a ground-up operating system. It was not at all based on DOS and does not require DOS to run. It is not derivative of VMS, as some people say. Microsoft hired the main VMS developers away from DEC and had them create NT from scratch.
I am sure Microsoft will need to market a Windows “upgrade” to generate revenue, as their business model is to a large degree based on the need for consumers to “upgrade” windows and office periodically.
Of course, Apple does the same thing. The problem is that the MS upgrades for years and years now have been marginal at best (XP is a slightly modified interface atop a NT core written seven years ago that still has major flaws like that directory nonsense).
Same with Office. I use Office every damn day and have for like 5 years. It has not improved in any way that is meaningfull to me. It is too hard to use and there are major bugs. (Staroffice may be worse, but isn’t the problem that with MS’s lock on its proprietary file formats, no alternative has been able to challenge MS).
With the Bush administration’s unwillingness to enforce the antitrust laws, the only hope right now is Linux and I for one am optimistic (not certain) that it will force MS to try to improve its products and provide more value. I think they’ve got one shot – sounds like 2006 for the new windows. They should shit-can the whole thing and do something ground up that meets and beats the mac. Now that would be something I might even go for.
XP is great, but it can there is always room for improvement. I am personally excited by new products, so it would be nice to have an upgrade.
Also, the more they upgrade their OS, the more they seem to tighten the licencing issues. I would like to see them stand firm on licencing and make it impossible, or very difficult, to run non legal copies of windows. Maybe, that will help people take a closer look at OS X and Linux
Warmup: Well, you’re right about XP being an upgrade from Windows 2000 (not including 2000 Server), but Windows 2000 is NOT an upgrade from Windows ME, 98, etc. Two completely different kernels.
that’s all it is…
they will continue to release new OS’s so they can make more money…
This little trick was Masterminded and Perfected by the one and only dirtbag “Bill” Gates…
are you getting the feeling that i dont like microsoft company…
I use Windows 2000 since 2years and half and I will never swith to that simili-toys-OS good for sucking my RAM and my CPU.
the UI is ridiculous, (but good for Barnum Circus), heavy.
sure all of this is for money. . . and will continue. . .
in a near future microsoft will be selling (also) the service packs, the betas and the messenger service.
why? because people wants 1996 os (nt4) with teletubbie’s skin and grandma’s fliendly install.
😮
Actually XP is is the first Operating System released by MS since DOS. The previous versions of Windows were actually GUI enviroments on top of DOS (If you ever see a copy of the box for Windows 1.0) it says “Operating Enviroment”
XP uses a bonafide kernel now, making it an actual real OS (or as real as MS can get),
Pffft! XP is a minor improvement of Windows 2000, both basing on WindowsNT. And guess when NT got first time released? Around 1992/93. Bonafida my ass, it was well established actually.
Maybe MS are seeing that Linux really is for the desktot allready. It’s a threat and maybe they make a new release soon becourse of all these new and great improved distro. Just look at RH8. For the first time, I’ll think I will buy instead of download. Just downloaded MDK9 so using this one right now. They all come along, so my best guess would be something to do with Linux.
-hope I did spell right 🙂
I see this as another cash grab. Luckily, I didn’t pay full price for XP since I qualified and purchased the student version.
I’d like to see MS clean up the code for XP, make it use less RAM and add more useful utilities to the OS. Linux and most Macs come with nicer utilities to work with images and the file system. For the amount MS is charging, you’d expect better apps and better performance particullarly if there’s going to be another pay for the service release update.
My bet is this new version will simply be used to enforce DRM and .Net architecture, which if its the case, I will not use another MS operating system again. I’ll be done school by then and won’t be forced to us MS apps to do all my work.
It is my impression that Microsoft is coming out with versions of XP for different purposes – for the Tablet PC and Digital Hub PC’s. XP Pro is excellent. I am interested to see how these versions stand up.
This is exactly the reason why I never pay for any MS products. The next version is always around the corner and as soon as it comes out MS will concentrate on fixing up its bugs practically abandoning the previous version. Just look at NT, after the Win2k came out they canceled plans for SP7 for NT and instead spit out a bunch of “post SP6a hotfixes”. I frankly see that as throwing NT users a bone just to shut them up, not as a real support. And what about Win2k itself? SP3 came out recently but do you think there will be SP4? Maybe, maybe not, but if yes then believe me it will be the last SP Win2k will ever see.
I put my computers together myself from parts and because of that I couldn’t get a cheaper OEM version of XP. The only legal choice for me was to buy a full retail version at the cost of $300 and $500 Canadian for Home and Pro editions respectively. Can you honestly expect me to cash out that kind of money for the product that will be forgotten by MS in a 1.5-2 years?! Plus it will be tied up to a particular hardware configuration and if I make some significant changes I have to call and explain myself to MS, after giving them $300-$500??!!! I don’t think so. If they made it available for $100, removed the WPA and I knew that my version will be current/latest for 3-4 years from the moment of its release then I’d be happy and proud to own a legal copy, but never on the condition listed above.
Calling XP unstable and crash-prone is stretching quite a bit.
From what I read, and what I see at work, Microsoft is operating more and more on a subscription model.
You do realize you can get Windows at OEM prices if you buy it with a piece of hardware (motherboard, CPU, or hard drive usually, but I’ve had vendors claim they can sell it with a mouse (in a house …)
So I heard but never found a vendor willing to sell with anything other than a complete system. If it was so easy, who would ever buy a retail version then?
Regards
why some of your guys here just follow a strange trend to bash MS? is it cool?
Automakers will roll out a new model each year while few will complain.
My point is, if you don’t need the new MS operating system,
your old one is still useable, right? just don’t blame MS of the next OS. It’s their right to roll out new one. Either people prefer to upgrade or people buying new PC can utilize the new one.
Also you guys tend to think all MS stuff are ‘insecure’ or ‘buggy’. But you really should go to those unix OS vendor’s website to check out how many bugs or security breaches they have for those unices that people want you to believe to be ‘secure’ and ‘bug-free’. For example, sometime to install a software upon Solaris, typically you need to apply 5-10 patches first. But those vendor keeps low-profile about their patches. How do you call that?
Frankly, to create a bug-free software is only a dream for any large software given the current method simply because programmers are human beings and it’s extremely difficult to verify all the combinations of millions lines of code. Also there’s a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. If no user discovers the bug, the bug can not be fixed. Any commercial company can’t afford an ideally thorough testing before RTM. Even space shuttle will explode. So that’s the reason a MS OS will stablize usally after SP3. Guess what, even the ‘most stable’ mainframe OS sometime just stalls. And that happens on a 2-node cluster!
why some of your guys here just follow a strange trend to bash MS? is it cool?
Automakers will roll out a new model each year while few will complain.
My point is, if you don’t need the new MS operating system,
your old one is still useable, right? just don’t blame MS of the next OS. It’s their right to roll out new one. Either people prefer to upgrade or people buying new PC can utilize the new one.
Also you guys tend to think all MS stuff are ‘insecure’ or ‘buggy’. But you really should go to those unix OS vendor’s website to check out how many bugs or security breaches they have for those unices that people want you to believe to be ‘secure’ and ‘bug-free’. For example, sometime to install a software upon Solaris, typically you need to apply 5-10 patches first. But those vendor keeps low-profile about their patches. How do you call that?
Frankly, to create a bug-free software is only a dream for any large software given the current method simply because programmers are human beings and it’s extremely difficult to verify all the combinations of millions lines of code. Also there’s a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. If no user discovers the bug, the bug can not be fixed. Any commercial company can’t afford an ideally thorough testing before RTM. Even space shuttle sometimes explode after rigid testing. So that’s the reason a MS OS will stablize usally after SP3. Guess what, even the ‘most stable’ mainframe OS sometime just stalls. And that happens on a 2-node cluster!
why some of your guys here just follow a strange trend to bash MS? is it cool?
Automakers will roll out a new model each year while few will complain.
My point is, if you don’t need the new MS operating system,
your old one is still useable, right? just don’t blame MS of the next OS. It’s their right to roll out new one. Either people prefer to upgrade or people buying new PC can utilize the new one.
Also you guys tend to think all MS stuff are ‘insecure’ or ‘buggy’. But you really should go to those unix OS vendor’s website to check out how many bugs or security breaches they have for those unices that people want you to believe to be ‘secure’ and ‘bug-free’. For example, sometime to install a software upon Solaris, typically you need to apply 5-10 patches first. But those vendor keeps low-profile about their patches. How do you call that?
Frankly, to create a bug-free software is only a dream for any large software given the current method simply because programmers are human beings and it’s extremely difficult to verify all the combinations of millions lines of code. Also there’s a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. If no user discovers the bug, the bug can not be fixed. Any commercial company can’t afford an ideally thorough testing before RTM. Even space shuttle sometimes explode after rigid testing. So that’s the reason a MS OS will stablize usally after SP3. Guess what, even the ‘most stable’ mainframe OS sometime just stalls. And that happens on a 2-node cluster!
why some of your guys here just follow a strange trend to bash MS? is it cool?
Automakers will roll out a new model each year while few will complain.
My point is, if you don’t need the new MS operating system,
your old one is still useable, right? just don’t blame MS of the next OS. It’s their right to roll out new one. Either people prefer to upgrade or people buying new PC can utilize the new one.
Also you guys tend to think all MS stuff are ‘insecure’ or ‘buggy’. But you really should go to those unix OS vendor’s website to check out how many bugs or security breaches they have for those unices that people want you to believe to be ‘secure’ and ‘bug-free’. For example, sometime to install a software upon Solaris, typically you need to apply 5-10 patches first. But those vendor keeps low-profile about their patches. How do you call that?
Frankly, to create a bug-free software is only a dream for any large software given the current method simply because programmers are human beings and it’s extremely difficult to verify all the combinations of millions lines of code. Also there’s a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. If no user discovers the bug, the bug can not be fixed. Any commercial company can’t afford an ideally thorough testing before RTM. Even space shuttle sometimes explode after rigid testing. So that’s the reason a MS OS will stablize usally after SP3. Guess what, even the ‘most stable’ mainframe OS sometime just stalls. And that happens on a 2-node cluster!
My question is how many of you paid your Windows license and how many of you are willing to pay for the next, always more expensive, Windows licenses?
When I compare the price of Windows license with the improvement of the OS, they could at least give one out of two release as free…
Look at windows 95, 98 and ME: biggest changes are bug fixes & new drivers, but each release costed roughly $300 (or half of it for upgrade version). Same with NT versions.
Windows getting better? maybe, but at which price?!
>>>My question is how many of you paid your Windows license and how many of you are willing to pay for the next, always more expensive, Windows licenses?
Read the court transcripts, the OEM price for Windows XP is the same price as Windows ME (and Windows ME OEM price is also the same OEM price for Windows 98 SE). They haven’t raised price for years. Now you can see their rationale for not giving you a decent mp3 encoder for free.
Also you guys tend to think all MS stuff are ‘insecure’ or ‘buggy’. But you really should go to those unix OS vendor’s website to check out how many bugs or security breaches they have for those unices that people want you to believe to be ‘secure’ and ‘bug-free’. For example, sometime to install a software upon Solaris, typically you need to apply 5-10 patches first. But those vendor keeps low-profile about their patches. How do you call that?
I dunno about Unices, but I can tell you about Open Source / Free Software and why it’s more secure than Microsoft:
Security holes in Windows’s world get known when virus hit your box or someone else box. There’s nothing much to do; just wait for a patch to be available and pray your box won’t be hit till you can apply it. Examples are numerous, everyone knows about Nimda, Code Red or even ILoveYou viruses.
In the Open Source / Free Software’s world, security holes are published as soon as there’re discovered and patches are quickly available. Virus start to spread using those holes muc later. A good example is the latest Linux virus ‘Slapper’. The security hole and the appropriate patch was available since July and the virus was release in September.
So, if you get virus on Open Source / Free Software you can only blame yourself as the fix was available, whereas on Windows you can blame Microsoft as they didn’t informed nor provide any patches for the holes used by the virus that hit your box.
That’s one of the reason why Windows is less secure than Linux (for instance).
Of course, if the admin responsible of the machine is dumb and don’t apply security releases, a Linux box isn’t more secure than a Windows one.
when has microsoft been thinking of fixing bugs
their idea is to earn as much as they can , not
caring about making great soft
and to come up with ideas and to innovate aint
m$ strong area
Read the court transcripts, the OEM price for Windows XP is the same price as Windows ME (and Windows ME OEM price is also the same OEM price for Windows 98 SE).
I was reffering to the new license pricing policy introduced by 30 July of this year. And about Windows OS box, not OEM.
I dunno about OEM license price. It is said to vary according to manufacturers… Anyway….
>>>Security holes in Windows’s world get known when virus hit your box or someone else box. There’s nothing much to do; just wait for a patch to be available and pray your box won’t be hit till you can apply it. Examples are numerous, everyone knows about Nimda, Code Red or even ILoveYou viruses.
The problem with your argument is that all the major viruses (including nimda, code red and iloveyou) that caused billions of dollars of damage to Windows machines in the last 3-4 years — were all targeted on known security vulnerabilities where easily obtainable security patches had been available from microsoft for months (somes even over a year) before the virus was even written.
>>>I was reffering to the new license pricing policy introduced by 30 July of this year.
Licence 6.0 only applies to corporate customers in the open or select licence category. Doesn’t apply to individual consumers.
>>>And about Windows OS box, not OEM.
Probably less than 10% of their OS’es are sold by retail boxes. Can’t really make an argument based on the full retail price of WindowsXP.
>>>I dunno about OEM license price. It is said to vary according to manufacturers…
While the ACTUAL OEM price is a trade secret and varies for each manufacturer —- the court transcripts are very clear —- Microsoft didn’t raise the OEM price to individual OEM manufacturers for many years (from Windows 98 SE to ME to XP).
That’s what happens to yesterday’s technology. It become commoditized and the price goes down. A windowing GUI is yesterday’s tech. So is a word processor, a spreadsheet. MS has kept the prices artificially high because there has been no competition, until now (Linux).
To those who mentioned the <subject> above –> you are exactly right. The key to Microsoft’s business success is through having a successful, constant revenue stream.
To do this, there needs to be a demand for new technology. In the past, Windows was unstable, hard to use, hard to administer, and hard to scale. Nowadays, it’s rather easy to do all of those with the various flavors of XP — and it will get better when the server product moves to the XP codebase.
It’s not so much about *pull* anymore — what more, in the OS, does the average user (corporate or home) need than what they have to day? Not much. It’s about *push* now — for Microsoft to *push* out all of the various parts of .NET (CLR-based apps, .NET branding, web-based apps, web-based componentization, etc.) they need to update the platform. True, you can bolt-on .NET runtime onto WinXP or Win2K, but a Karman-Ghia is *not* a Porsche, and that is not a truly *enabled* .NET solution.
Another thing to consider is the following: The more MS moves its apps to CLR, the less they are dependent on Intel — think of it — If Office.NET was a .NET CLR app (which it’s not, BTW) MS could use the same CLR “binary” on Itanium, OS X, IA-32, x86-64, and even FreeBSD, as long as the necessary parts of the .NET classes were ported.
Finally, MS *has* to keep selling OS’s — if they don’t, then it gives their rivals (Sun, Linux) a chance to catch-up in functionality, features, and compatability. We’re essentially in an OS arms-race, and if either side gets complacent in their role, they will get eclipsed by their competitor.
Well, sorry for the mini-essay — perhaps I should polish it up for the front-page, eh?
Cheers,
Ken
One thing I’m sure (so the only one I’ll talk about
is that the patch available for Outlook at the time of ILoveYou virus was not fixing the security hole at all as new version of the virus could bypass it (a “working” patch finally came available several weeks after the virus first spread).
Also one true story I read, was about a guy that discovered a security hole and only reported it to Microsoft for them to fix it before bad intentionned persons use it maliciously. That guy waited for months for a patch, mailing MS all the time to get that patch released before he finally got fed up and released the security issue to the world, blaming in an open letter how hard he tried to tell MS to fix it but they never fixed anything till the world knew about this story.
It’s a shame I don’t have any link to prove this story, but it’s a real one. And it tends to prove MS doesn’t work that hard on fixing holes if it’s not an immediat threat.
What exactly is MS going to “push” that people will be willing to pay more for?
.Net, from what I’ve heard is two things: a better windows API and web services. OK, the first is good for developers I suppose. But what does it offer home or business users? As for web services, there are already tools to do this, some of them free. Plus, it’s again for developers. Not consumers.
You are right that MS “has” to keep selling OS’s (and Office by the way), but why do consumers have to keep buying these at the Microsoft prices?
Less dependency on intel is probably good, but again it’s not clear to me why home and business users will find this a reason to pay more for Microsoft’s version of what open source (with commercial boosters) are providing or are very close to providing. I thought there will be a .Net iteration for Linux too?
…that I had $5 for every lie about Microsoft in this thread.
>>Even space shuttle sometimes explode after rigid testing<<
Unfortently it exploded do to a frozen O-ring that the engineers said would fail if they launched at the temperature that they did. Hi Up’s ignored the engineers and 7 people where killed.
Now I agree with what you say, no company can ever truely test everything. But if there is a known problem and a big one like the O-ring should the launch(rocket, or product) be put on hold till it’s fixed? I would think all should be fixed before launch, but at some point a company does have to get a product out the door. Another question could be, do the MS Hi-Ups give the go ahead when the programers(programers are not engineers!) say it’s not ready, is such problems the fault of the programers?
Actually, I have a question for you about this comment you made – if I run a windows box and leave it connected to the internet – which of these virus will infect and do something to my system w/o it first requireing some sort of user intervention to start things going?
Its kind of hard to say that its all microsofts fault given that half their users don’t even see the point of running windows update to get security patches yet 95% of them will try to open any email attachment labled “hotnakedladies.*”
Unless you can actually show one that any one of these “way to huge to ever happen to linux” viruii can in fact infect a system all on its own – stop spreading the FUD.
>>Security holes in Windows’s world get known when virus hit your box or someone else box. There’s nothing much to do; just wait for a patch to be available and pray your box won’t be hit till you can apply it. Examples are numerous, everyone knows about Nimda, Code Red or even ILoveYou viruses.
In the Open Source / Free Software’s world, security holes are published as soon as there’re discovered and patches are quickly available. Virus start to spread using those holes muc later. A good example is the latest Linux virus ‘Slapper’. The security hole and the appropriate patch was available since July and the virus was release in September.<<
which lies specifically?
We dont need a new version of Windows yet. XP Just came out over a year ago. As far as I’m concerned, its MS’s 1st major os since DOS (other than win 2000). the Win 9x Oses were terrible. Win ME is the Death OS. 2000 is nice, but lacked some of accesabelty that XP has.
I also like the product activation code stuff, i know itf a pain if yu upgrade a lot, but I’ve done some major upgrades in theis box, called MS for the new key, and been off the phone with my new key in less in 5 min, (I called at approx 7:30 pm mountain time)
I like XP, it has its bugs, but what MS OS hasent had bugs? hell what os hasent hit some sort of problem? I would just like MS to wait till 2006 at least, and get a more stable OS out there.
J: >>Actually XP is is the first Operating System released by MS since DOS.
Two inaccuracies in one sentence. Microsoft did not write DOS, they purchased it. NT was a ground-up operating system. It was not at all based on DOS and does not require DOS to run. It is not derivative of VMS, as some people say. Microsoft hired the main VMS developers away from DEC and had them create NT from scratch.
Firstly, he said *release*. When eComStation releases its products, we call it a release, not say that is bought/licensed from IBM.
Plus, he never said you require DOS to run Windows XP.
shark: because people wants 1996 os (nt4) with teletubbie’s skin and grandma’s fliendly install.
Windows XP is based on Windows 2000’s kernel, which is significantly different from Windows NT 4, although it is based on it.
As for teletubbie’s, I just really got to wonder, besides the default backrgound (which isn’t default on 50% or more PCs from OEMs), how does Windows XP look like that sickening show?
tso: Pffft! XP is a minor improvement of Windows 2000, both basing on WindowsNT. And guess when NT got first time released? Around 1992/93. Bonafida my ass, it was well established actually.
Like I said above, Win2k is significantly different from WinNt4. Bonafida is actually quite true because it is new for consumers prevoously stuck with Windows 9x.
slackware: I’d like to see MS clean up the code for XP, make it use less RAM and add more useful utilities to the OS.
That would be nice, but not in Microsoft’s interest. Not enough RAM? Buy RAM, it is super cheap. No money? Then I really wonder how you afford that student’s copy.
slackware: Linux and most Macs come with nicer utilities to work with images and the file system.
One word for you: antitrust.
Any company making ultilities would feel free to sue Microsoft for every thing they do against them.
slackware: My bet is this new version will simply be used to enforce DRM and .Net architecture, which if its the case, I will not use another MS operating system again.
LOL, DRM would ONLY affect you if you BUY DRM MEDIA. .NET would ONLY AFFECT YOU if you use .NET apps. It is like saying I won’t buy Mandrake 9.0 if it supports USB 2.0.
Admiral Horror: look at NT, after the Win2k came out they canceled plans for SP7 for NT
SP7 was a rumour. Microsoft made no mention of such a release. (I couldn’t find one press release from Microsoft about NT4 that mentions SP7).
Besides, on your point, THERE IS NO COMPANY I KNOW THAT RELEASES UPDATES FOR OLD VERSIONS. Microsoft only supports old versions of Windows that isn’t 5 years old yet only with security patches.
So, if you hate Windows for that, poor you, cause there is no company that would do what you want.
Admiral Horror: I put my computers together myself from parts and because of that I couldn’t get a cheaper OEM version of XP.
Actually, legally, you can buy Windows XP OEM, but obviously not at the price Dell is getting it for. If your motherboard, harddisk and CPU is brand new, you are entitled to the OEM version.
Admiral Horror: If they made it available for $100, removed the WPA and I knew that my version will be current/latest for 3-4 years from the moment of its release then I’d be happy and proud to own a legal copy, but never on the condition listed above.
Tell me one OS company that sells retail versions of their desktop OS and *make* money. Heck, Apple even sells their products at US$129. As for lasting 3-4 years, it is in your mind. I’m currently using Windows 2000 now, and would probably continue using it until Longhorn is released.
You base you product’s survival on new features. Hmmmm….
Don’t buy a new product unless you want it. That’s the big consumer right! Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. I know many people using NT4 and Windows 95 that are quite happy with their systems even though it is old, and no longer supported.
Admiral Horror: So I heard but never found a vendor willing to sell with anything other than a complete system. If it was so easy, who would ever buy a retail version then?
Maybe it is an Canadian thing. If you really want the OEM version, go to Microsoft’s branch near your area and buy from there. Okay? (I’m guessing they sell those, as in Malaysia, they do).
ced: My question is how many of you paid your Windows license and how many of you are willing to pay for the next, always more expensive, Windows licenses?
Since the release of Windows 98, Microsoft didn’t change the price.
ced: Look at windows 95, 98 and ME: biggest changes are bug fixes & new drivers, but each release costed roughly $300 (or half of it for upgrade version).
What country are you from? What currency? You could buy an upgrade for US$100 in the US. US$300 is the price of retail NT4 Workstation, Win2k Pro and XP Pro.
ced: I dunno about Unices, but I can tell you about Open Source / Free Software and why it’s more secure than Microsoft
If Microsoft changed its products to be Open Source/ Free Software, how would they make money?
ced: I was reffering to the new license pricing policy introduced by 30 July of this year.
That has to do with the corporate market. Which by the way, the price of Windows haven’t been raised, just that people under the upgrade deal is forced to upgrade everytime a new version of Windows comes out.
appleforever: MS has kept the prices artificially high because there has been no competition, until now (Linux).
You make absolutely no sense. On the innovation stance, the biggest competition is from Apple. Notice after Jobs came back, Microsoft is doing more for their Windows?
Besides, the high prices wouldn’t be high if weren’t for “demand”. If there is low demand, the prices would have to go down.
appleforever: But what does it offer home or business users?
If it helps the developers, indirectly it would help the users.
null_pointer_us: …that I had $5 for every lie about Microsoft in this thread.
If you changed that for every lie about Microsoft in this site alone, you would be richer than Bill Gates himself.
appleforever: Of course, Apple does the same thing. The problem is that the MS upgrades for years and years now have been marginal at best (XP is a slightly modified interface atop a NT core written seven years ago that still has major flaws like that directory nonsense).
The difference between OS X 10.1 to OS X 10.2 is as much as the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP, somehow I don’t hear you bitching about Apple when they do practically the same. As for the “slightly” modified interface, as I said just now, Windows XP’s interface is a lot different than Windows 2000 and other Windows release, and that’s not counting the *looks*. I use both Windows 2000 and Windows XP extensively, and Windows Me a little bit (one a week, the most), to actually *know* the difference.
appleforever: (Staroffice may be worse, but isn’t the problem that with MS’s lock on its proprietary file formats, no alternative has been able to challenge MS).
Sun is actually closest in implementing a full filter for MS Office for OpenOffice.org/StarOffice. But all that work is lumped upon 2 full time workers, what could you expect? Miracles? Sun has money, if they invest more into the filters, they would reap the benefits.
Besides, StarOffice is the first competition to MS Office to have market growth – a strong one at that. And trust me, if OpenOffice.org/StarOffice is going at the pace it is going now, within 2 1/2 decades Microsoft would no longer have a monopoly on Office. No thanks to antitrust laws.
appleforever: With the Bush administration’s unwillingness to enforce the antitrust laws, the only hope right now is Linux and I for one am optimistic (not certain) that it will force MS to try to improve its products and provide more value.
The Bush administrator is quite smart at that, they are actually trying to enable one of its biggest export money makers to survive. Of course, with what the nine opposing states are demanding, I bet Microsoft would much prefer Jackson’s punishment to split the company.
But as I mentioned in another thread, anti trust laws does nothing but protect incompetent competition by punishing successful ones. if fact, if the same people behind Nullsoft or Real were behind Netscape, Java and Be OS, all three products would have survived.
I have used GNU/Linux at home exclusively for about 3 years. I have worked with various unix’s, VMS, etc for 20 some odd years. My wife continues to run Windows. She recently installed Xp Pro. Fresh install after wiping 98SE.
We have similar 500 Celerons. Except hers now has 2x a much ram as mine. We are on broadband. My system runs the firewall, NAT, dhcp, caching dns.
Now, on to the comparison. XP, while probably the best MS OS for home users does not bring much to the party overall in my opinion. Stability seems pretty good but is not by any means bullet proof.
Ease of use:
I found very little ease of use beyond the general point and click stuff. Linux has damned near as much. Unless you DL several 3rd party programs to get XP to behave, you are left with manual registry edits and countless menus to control it. It goes without saying that if you have to hand edit the registry, your knowledge level is easily in the *nix range.
General Flexibility:
XP can be altered somewhat to the users taste, but in comparision to the GUI variety of X/Linux, well, it’s like being allowed to only shop in approved stores. Yes, there is variety, but only the variety that the manufacture allows.
Power user:
I have not dug deep enough in Xp to really rate it. The CLI is still kinda laughable compared to unix.
Resource Usage:
Sorry XP, lose a few million lines of code and try again. I find the interface to be quick on fresh boots and overall decent to use. It kinda bogs down after a while if you really pound on it with a myriad of apps over a day or two. It starts living on the swap file and the HD grinds with every menu click.
Hardware/Software compatibility:
XP and windows in general still wins this one hands down. MS users have a far wider selection of software.
My overall take:
Xp is not a horrible OS by any means. It is kinda fun to play with and see what it’s got and what it will tolerate. It can be made pretty (the disney default sucks) though. Remote access is kinda lacking, but better than before. I think XP Pro is a good progressive step forward for MS.
My wifes overall take:
She finds it frustrating to find all the million control panels. Same complaint she has about linux. She has to “KNOW” where/how everything is controlled. She hated the default GUI. Switched to Style XP in 48 hours. Too many misc services running by default. Very hard to disable feautes that you don’t want. And the biggy, why can’t XP remember what you told it five minutes ago. Even Linux is better at that. Her quote, ” Damnit, I just told it not to do that!”
So, there you have it. As unbiased as I can be.
Be well all.
Bill
“It is not derivative of VMS, as some people say. Microsoft hired the main VMS developers away from DEC and had them create NT from scratch.”
It’s not a derivative per say, but Dave Cutler (the main architect of the VMS operating system) was heavily influenced by his previous experience when designing NT.
There’s an old story about the names of WINNT
and VMS, namely that the name of WINNT was chosen
by moving each letter forward in the alphabet, so
V=>W, M=>N, and S=> T….I dunno if there’s any
truth ti it, but it’s certainly intresting to
consider at times….
how is this different than 95 – 98 – 00 er ME? Except now its NT3.1 NT3.5 – NT4 -..big wait…- 2000 – XP – longhorn
not saying that i care or will run something that comes out of ms, although 2000 makes a pretty good desktop os if you use it like most people do. 2000 was a pretty big rev but it’s still just nt5, XP is nt5.1, etc (just type “ver” at a cmd prompt).
btw, if you think xp is bloated, turn off all that eye candy by switching it to clasic look and it saves like 50megs of ram, although it really offers nothing over 2000 so i don’t understand why anybody would run it. look at the build numbers 2195(win2000) to 2600(winxp). compare that with nt4 which was something like 14xx to 2195 and you get some idea of how much work went into the product.
a few points here mate – you have way too many quotes to tackle so i won’t bother with all. you seem very…. republican
some of my best friends are so inclined so i think i can at least understand your point of view even if i can’t relate. well, supply and demand. i demand and pay for better. on to rebuttals:
SP7 was a rumour. Microsoft made no mention of such a release. (I couldn’t find one press release from Microsoft about NT4 that mentions SP7).
SP7 was killed. The SP6a page may or may not still say that specificaly, and i’m not going to go chase it down right now to check. but it used to say “due to …(whatever bullshit)… we will not be releasing sp7”
Besides, on your point, THERE IS NO COMPANY I KNOW THAT RELEASES UPDATES FOR OLD VERSIONS.
funny, there is no company i know that does not except microsoft. novell, sun, cisco, and redhat all do, for example.
Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.
windows is bundled with almost all pc’s. i have to build my own or pay ms.
I use both Windows 2000 and Windows XP extensively, and Windows Me a little bit (one a week, the most), to actually *know* the difference.
just click 2 or 3 times and ME will crash
thats the difference. 2000 and XP are decent OS’s, although remarkably identical except in interface. ME was a hack on top of 98, and a bad one at that. ms internaly regrets shipping it. you’ll note that if you go to buy it off the shelf the price is now actually higher than one of the NT os’s.
95-98-mil/2000
And now have reduced the gap to 2 years with XP…
I would expect they will launch a new OS in the end of 2003… mid 2004…
And the wheele turns…
Apple doesn’t sell OS for x86 platform so… it isn’t trully a competitor of MS (and with the funds from MS it won’t have any ideias of becomming one)…
SP7 was a rumour. Microsoft made no mention of such a release. (I couldn’t find one press release from Microsoft about NT4 that mentions SP7).
SP7 for NT was in development but later was canceled.
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/sp7.asp
I don’t think you ever actually looked for anything regarding SP7 before you made your point. Try making a Google search for “Windows NT Service Pack 7” and look at the very first hit.
Besides, on your point, THERE IS NO COMPANY I KNOW THAT RELEASES UPDATES FOR OLD VERSIONS. Microsoft only supports old versions of Windows that isn’t 5 years old yet only with security patches.
Besides, on my point, NO OTHER COMPANY CHARGES THAT KIND OF MONEY FOR THEIR PRODUCT. Windows is the most expensive OS, Office is the most expensive suit etc. For that kind of $$$ the consumer should get full support for a few years, not until the next version comes out.
So, if you hate Windows for that, poor you, cause there is no company that would do what you want
I don’t hate Windows, I like it and use it all the time. I am just not prepared to pay that kind of money for the product that will be forgotten by MS in 1-2 years and that forces me to make calls to MS explaining why exactly I am changing my hardware. I do not expect Bill Gates calling me to explain why exactly there are bugs here and there and I don’t have to explain s*&t to MS, no ifs or buts.
Don’t buy a new product unless you want it. That’s the big consumer right! Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.
Yes, nobody is standing with a gun at my head forcing me to upgrade. However, making 2-5 improvements to your current OS and releasing it as an new product every 2 years, while abandoning previous version shows alot of greed and not too much integrity. Other companies, while having much more limited resources are showing much better support for their products.
I know many people using NT4 and Windows 95 that are quite happy with their systems even though it is old, and no longer supported.
And I know many people who still use abacus and are quite happy with it. Theoretically, anything is possible. Practically, it’s a different story.
Maybe it is an Canadian thing.
Can’t believe you resorted to this 🙁
Horror:
I hate to tell you this, but Microsoft just RECENTLY discontinued support for NT4 and Win95…. we are in 2002, that’s 7 years….
Brad, I beg to differ…. programmers ARE indeed engineers, they went to college to get their degree in computer science, which, guess what, is in the engineering field….
Besides, on my point, NO OTHER COMPANY CHARGES THAT KIND OF MONEY FOR THEIR PRODUCT.
no worries, mate – thats what drove all the unix vendors under in the ’80s, if you’ll recall.
ms will never disapear, but the only people i know that still run windows and don’t work at microsoft (i must qualify my statement thusly because i live in seattle abt 10min from redmond) are my parents. they’re driving themselves into a niche market, and that’s fine with me. which os you run is now irrelevant.
silly canadians (i don’t know if you really are canadian but it seems like the thing to say
Rajan, you have to look at the bigger picture. Apple is not making billions a year. I like their products a lot. I choose to give them money (esp this year with the economy down), so they can continue to develop cool stuff. Whether 10.2 was worth 129 I don’t care. Christ, since I bought my B&W G3 back in 99, I have given Apple maybe 300 for OS upgrades and .Mac. They gave me iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, and on and on. I guess I kinda look at MS differently. They have billions, and think their products are mediocre.
Besides, the high prices wouldn’t be high if weren’t for “demand”. If there is low demand, the prices would have to go down.
LOL, what planet are you from? It’s exactly the opposite. If there’s a low demand the production costs per copy would be higher, meaning that the prices would have to go up.
BTW, what do you think the production costs per windows license is?
I don’t know but I doubt that it’s even a dollar, probably just a few cents, support included.
I just jumbled up my words, I don’t even know what I have meant 😛
So its OK for every major linux distributor (Redhat, SuSE) to come up a new update at LEAST once a year but microsoft is not? Add to that the fact that each release adds completely new dependuncies. What does a new windows platform add in terms of dependucies? DirectX and now .net .
rajan:
if fact, if the same people behind Nullsoft or Real were behind Netscape, Java and Be OS, all three products would have survived.
So Java’s dead?!?! Didn’t know that. Actually, I never seen Java stronger than now. Yes, I’m sure .net and c# will be a hit in the end, but I bet you it wont be able to kill of java – too many people/companies got money invested in it.
Ok first to set the record straight on a few things..
DOS/Win9x is a 16bit operating system with limited/no network support.
Windows NT is a 32bit network operating system. It was built to organize networks into domains. There is no basis on win9x code.
Windows 2000 is a 32bit network operating system based on the NT kernal but is much different from windows NT, the biggest change…Active Directory (novell NDS depending on if you want to call it trees or forests 😉 )If you’re not sure what Active directory is there are plenty of very very very thick books to help explain it.
Windows XP is also a 32bit network operating system based on the 2000 kernal i.e. contains active directory, but also adds new support for .net technologies.
These are just some base differences and are by no means a full comparison. we don’t have room to put up all the white pages of every single operating system in the world.
My 2kb on this subject is, if Microsoft wants to release a new OS in a few years that’s fine with me. I don’t have to upgrade. Most major Linux distro’s release new versions on a quarterly or sooner time frame. All OSes have bugs and problems. Not one is completely bug free, there is hardware or software that is incompatible somewhere or there’s a securtiy flaw that is unexposed until of course it is exploited.
When Microsoft comes out with their next OS I hope it is a very good OS. Otherwise what’s the point in competition? How can Linux distro’s compete with something if there is nothing else to compete against?
Two inaccuracies in one sentence. Microsoft did not write DOS, they purchased it.
I wish I could find definitive information on this. This is what I understood for many years, but recently I have seen info that says otherwise. I still think Bill bought it. Heck, some people think Bill invented BASIC!
NT was a ground-up operating system. It was not at all based on DOS and does not require DOS to run. It is not derivative of VMS, as some people say. Microsoft hired the main VMS developers away from DEC and had them create NT from scratch.
From scratch? IBM and MS parted company in the late ’80s. OS/2 1.3 was the current version of that OS at the time. They agreed that IBM would continue OS/2 v2 development, and that MS would take the OS/2 3.0 project. This is what became the first NT. This is also why NT has always run OS/2 character-based apps. Bill took OS/2 and turned it into Windows, similar to how he took Java and turned it into C#/.Net.