Slashdot Mirror
Is Vista the New OS/2?
An anonymous reader asks: "Well after the long torturous wait, Vista is finally out. Is it just me or do others see similarities between Vista and the OS/2 launch back in the '80's? I mean you need new hardware to run the new OS (Just like OS/2). Even on the best '386 system OS/2 still ran like a dog. Older apps sometimes didn't work (DOS penalty box). And most important, what was the compelling reason to upgrade? Add to this an interview I saw with Ballmer, some time ago, where he was talking about how he knew OS/2 was doomed when IBM kept talking about OS/2's KLOC's (thousands of lines of code), and how bloated OS/2 was. Now I see an interview with him where he talks about how great Vista is due to the, yes you guessed it, the KLOC's of code in it. So is Vista going to see the same fate as OS/2?" This is kind of a hard sell seeing that Vista has Microsoft's might behind it, rather than against it. Still, how long do you think it would take a good percentage of computer users (say 80+%) to migrate to Microsoft's latest and greatest OS?
As a Technet subscriber I've had access to Vista for a while now. I've loaded it onto my PC, I've tried it out, and I personally won't be switching. Microsoft's stubborn belief that they know how I want to use my computer - not the other way around - has meant that I'll now sit down and spend the time to get an installation of an alternative OS working. Hopefully that means I won't have to use it at all, right?
Wrong.
Unfortunately however (and I'm sure many of you have already witnessed this) I work in a rather large org (Government, in fact) which is dominated by those who say "new is better", and are already putting into action plans to upgrade our fleets of PCs to Vista.
No matter what comparisons people make to OS' of past, Vista is here to stay. Why? Because it's a Microsoft product. And 'The Big People' want Microsoft products, whatever it means.
Maybe that'll change in five or ten years, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Unless you stand to make money of Vista, as opposed to no Vista. I really don't see why you care. If you're still using Windows, chances are Windows XP does all you need. If Windows XP doesn't have all you need, now may be a good time to dual boot with Linux, or switch to a Mac.
I've seen Vista in use, and all I can says is "looks like KDE". Of course the reason for this is that many KDE themes have long since copied many aspects of the Aero theme.
All these Vista articles are getting to be annoying, and there seems to be no way to turn them off.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
To rebut your points: 1. Vista runs extremely well on any modern PC. You may need a video card to get a composite desktop, but I bet people who don't know enough to get a real video card won't care anyway. 2. Vista may not be revolutionary, but it's a clear improvement over XP. It's better looking, more polished and overall a much nicer experience. 3. Almost nobody is going to "buy" Vista. Very few people "bought" XP either. It just makes more sense to get it preloaded. 4. The drivers and other compatibility issues will be ironed out quickly. Right now Vista seems exotic, but it 3-6 months it will be standard on all new desktops. Software and hardware vendors will get on the bus quickly. I didn't run any of the betas or RCs, but I downloaded it from my MSDN account as soon as it came out and I've been impressed. It's probably not 5 full years worth of work, but it's good.
Well, right now a big chunk of computer users, are the young-ish gamers who surely don't know any better and will mostly switch to the coolest looking newest product, others such as hardcore/professional gamers who are interested in performance will probably stick with XP for now, as will the majority of people who generally know what they're doing when it comes to operating systems and computers in general. As for the latest computer not running it will like 386's ran OS/2 sluggishly, quite honestly the user in this day and age has a big broader spectrum of possibilities, given enough funding you can build a PC with 2 very powerful CPUs, two (or is it four now, I haven't kept track of the latest technology) very powerful video cards, 8 Gigs (or more?) of incredibly fast RAM, and hell even hard drives are coming close to a terabyte in size, and are damn fast too, however will the average "good" computer be able to run Vista? probably not as smoothly as Microsoft or the end user would like, but that's how new things are, right? -Lev
Vista will be a "success" simply because it comes pre-loaded with all new PCs and releases like this will keep the corps buying the steady income support licenses from MS.
It is MS's game to screw up and that ain't happening soon. (Though I prefer Ubuntu and that Windows has truly become a little bitch to run at home, the OS itself bringing up more pop-ups of various types than some of the worst websites - asking every 3 minutes for input over some bullshit.)
Question is how long will M$ let hardware vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) etc ship XP rather than one of the mirriad of Vista versions???
I bet in 6 months you'll have severe difficulty finding a new PC with XP on it...
another 6 months and you'll have problems finding XP on the shelves.
...right as soon as it runs as fast and as clean as TinyXP. It's not that MS can't make a decent OS, TinyXP in a round about way proves that they can. A lot of people I know stayed on Win 2000 over XP for a long time for the same reasons.
Who can blame them?
Now, if ReactOS continues to improve and evolve, I'll lay wagers that it will succeed XP on some of my machines in another year or two.
That is, unless someone actually comes up with a new game that I absolutely have to have, which judging by the releases of the past few years, they won't, and furthermore, if they do, will it really REQUIRE vista? If the answer is still no....
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I have discussed computing with several organizations that stick to "Wintel" and it is so sad that they believe there is any benefit or need to avoid the competitive market place. I switched 500 users to Linux with a brief intro and a few follow-up consultations. The cost to switch was much less than the cost of obtaining Windows. In fact, we have twice as many clients as the tiny budget I inherited would allow with Windows, considering server licences and per-seat licences. Our maintenance costs are astronomically lower as we use thin clients on LTSP. Future upgrades will be cheaper, too as the thin clients will last longer and only the terminal servers need upgrading.
I suspect many will avoid Vista in business but eventually, those who do not convert to GNU/Linux will be pressured by XP/2000 end-of-support. Unfortunately, consumers will likely soon only be able to buy machines with Vista aboard unless they are smart enough to seek out systems without an OS or with Linux installed. There are more of these all the times as Linux has entered the mainstream, but for a few years more, it will take a special effort to avoid Windows and the common user will not make that effort unless given a push. Fortunately, year after year, I have found more people have heard of Linux or seen it and are willing to consider it.
I am most familiar with schools. Some have converted to Linux out of desperation to try and wrestle IT to the ground with a limited budget. Others have converted because a few visionaries identified Linux as a good thing and led the way. Schools can easily avoid lock-in because the bulk of users are students and teachers who use the web and office suites to gather and process information. OpenOffice just works with browsers and clipboards to do most tasks. Linux is superb for computer science/information processing. It is a small number of graying IT managers and administrators who are holding back adoption of Linux in schools. The taxpayers have to be more assertive in demanding FLOSS in schools. The taxpayers should demand that Windows be kicked out of schools just as they would demand drug dealers be kicked off school grounds. Most curricula have not specified Windows and many curricula suggest more use of IT in classrooms, so there is continuing pressure on budgets. My school has a cluster of terminals in every classroom. Schools with Windows rarely can afford that.
A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
I remember reading an article in about 1992 or so in which Bill Gates compared measuring programming productivity to measuring progress in building aircraft by how much weight was added to the aircraft.
I find very few similarities between the launches of the two operating systems, or at least none of which can't be also attributed to the launch of any new OS. Vista does not require new hardware to run. Sure, if you have a 10 year old computer the odds of you getting it up and running is unlikely, but the same could be said if you had a 10 year old Mac and tried to run OS X on it. Of course, I will leave Linux out of this particular point because it probably would run on a 10-year-old computer ;).
The argument that older apps won't work on Vista is false. Vista is backwards compatible with older software, including DOS apps.
What is the compelling reason to upgrade? If you are already running Windows I think it is very compelling to upgrade. Vista gets a lot of bad press, deservedly so some of it, because the UI borrows from other successful operating systems and some functionality too, but there is a lot to love under its hood if you are willing to look at the OS as a new one are willing to learn rather than trying to use it just as you do XP. Here are a few of my favorites new pieces of functionality:
The new copy functionality that pushes all copy issues to the end of the queue so that all "are you sure?", "unable to copy file, rety?", etc come after every copyable file has been done rather than randomly as in XP.
Speaking of copying...you can see additional useful information when copying files such as the xfer speed in mb/s.
We are finally done with the C:\Documents and Settings directory structure and have a more reasonable C:\Users directory. The Documents and Settings folder always annoyed the hell out of me.
Bread-crumb-like links for directory paths when browsing through folders. So, I can type C:\User\Administrator\My Documents\Backups\2005\Expenses\IBM\Clients in a folder URI and be taken to that folder. Then be able to click on any word in the URI, like "Administrator" and be taken to that folder.
64 bit everything! All Vista versions except for Basic come in 32 and 64-bit versions. You get both versions when you buy Vista. So, everyone will have access to the 64-bit version at no extra charge. To pass driver certifications venders must supply both 32 and 64-bit versions of the driver. Being able to have a fully supported 64-bit OS will be nice.
Security is completely revamped and includes offline and boot-level protection via BitLocker Drive Encryption.
Searching is thoroughly integrated into the OS. For example, open any folder and you'll see a google-like search toolbar alongside the URI which allows you to instantly filter what you see in that folder. I said any folder and meant it. Open control panel and there is the same Instant Search toolbar on that folder. Or open the "Searches" folder from anywhere and see a bunch of pre-configured searches. Looking at mine I have instant searches for "Shared By Me", "Recently Changed", "Recent Pictures and Videos", "Recent Email", "Recent Documents", "Recent Email Attachments" and "Recent Music". You can of course customize new searches.
Tags! Tag your pictures with useful information. After a recent trip to Italy I added metadata tags to all the pictures I took there. Now I can do a filter on "Rome" and see all the pics from Rome or "Florence" and see all the pics from there or even search for Rome museums and see all the pictures in Rome that were taken in museums. Tagging metadata is integrated into the OS and any file can be tagged with metadata, not just pictures. Tagging rocks.
Many new column header controls for folders. For example, looking at my Documents folder I can click on the dropdown for the "Name" column header and choose "Stack By Name". I now see three document stack icons: A-H, I-P, and Q-Z. Clicking on these will take you to those stacks. I'm sure there will be replies that say this or that OS had had that functionality for years, which is fine...there are some great OSes out there. I doubt Vista will win over very many people who are using other OSes anyway. My contention is that if you are running XP, Vista offers everything XP does plus a host of new features (that aren't eye-candy related) that make this OS very much worth the upgrade.
Vista will succeed, for the simple reason that it will come pre-installed on new computers. This alone will give it such penetration that network effects will make it a valuable OS, regardless of its other qualities or misfeatures.
Another reason why Vista will succeed, while OS/2 failed, is that OS/2 had a big corporation opposing it (Microsoft's heavy advertising of Windows 95 turned eyes away from OS/2 Warp), whereas Vista is supported by that same corporation, and has no opposition of any consequence (on the desktop, at least).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I have a dual core X2 3800 AMD with 2 gig of DDR...top of the line....over a year ago, now its pretty average on any pc you might pick out from staples , office basics or walmart.
Going from xp to vista i noticed a huge performance increase with the same hardware. Once NVIDIA gets off their ass and releases non beta drivers for motherboard and video im sure ill have some decent SATA performance as well. As it stands, its already much faster than xp for load times and frames per second (battlefield 2142)
I'm continually surprised with how out of touch some slashdotters are with reality; they continually parrot what can only be described as FUD. Every review of Vista I've ever read has stated that Vista is a big step up from XP.
It offers a huge, non-trivial improvement in looks, the search capabilities are vastly improved, the side-bar with gadgets offer handy functionality, networking is substantially improved, easy of use has been polished, security has been strongly increased, new and improved applications, parental controls, dx10 and and so on and so forth.. Vista is certainly a bigger upgrade with more features than XP ever was, and you can hardly call XP a failure. And as for performance, even an 800MHz and 0.5GB machine is certified Vista capable. If you can live without the pretty graphics effects, any machine sold since something like 2002 can run Vista. That's hardly comparable with OS/2. If you're expecting Vista to fail, you're living in a fantasy world.
'Nuff said.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
More like Windows ME
"Same as last version, but look its shi... oh crap, it crashed again"
...
I can say I probably will install Vista when I build my next PC sometime next year. The fact that DX10 won't be available on XP pretty much seals the deal alone, a fact that won't be lost on gamers like me. Now will I be rolling it out across all 4 of my PC's? Would I install it on my current PC? Absolutely not. There is no need, either for myself or for businesses, to go to the expense and hassle when existing Windows XP installations work just fine. But for a new PC, especially a top-end gaming machine, there is no reason NOT to go to Vista if you intend to run Windows.
Apparently there is no real alternative to Vista on PCs, and this is why it is likely that it will become a success. But I can't stop wondering what it would happen if Apple makes its OS available to any intel machine. This is probably a good moment for them..
The fundamental difference is that OS/2 was good and Vista is a DRM encrusted piece of crap.
Now is the time for the return of Amiga OS!
OS/2 was a fairly well-designed system for its day. Vista is a haphazardly grown "me too" system that is largely a rip-off of features from OS X, UNIX, and Linux.
Of course, there are some analogies: OS/2 was slow on the initially available PCs, but it didn't take long for OS/2 to become a nimble alternative to Windows as machines became faster, Windows got more bloated, and OS/2 stayed roughly the same.
Unlike OS/2, and like previous versions of Windows, Vista will sell: users will have no alternative. If the high pressure sales tactics Microsoft is employing now aren't sufficient, then Microsoft will simply introduce more and more incompatibilities into software and on-line services. So, in the most important respect, Vista is not like OS/2: OS/2 failed because users didn't want it, but what users want or don't want won't make a difference with Vista.
I don't want Vista, just like I didn't want XP, but I will inevitably end up paying for several copies anyway.
Remember, we all fought XP as well. And slowly it crept into being 'required' most everywhere. Between the required upgrade path at work ( MOLPs ) and the dissapearnce of the previous platform from the shelves when you buy a new PC its just a matter of time. The required upgrade to Office2007 will also play into this, which can easily render your documents unreadable on other/older versions.
Dont forget too that most software makers are in the same boat, if they dont support the new thing they cut off their nose, and once new libraries stop supporting the old systems, then you have to upgrade your OS ( and hardware mostlikly ) to run anything you buy off the shelf. Much like 2000 was delcared dead, as Microsoff wont port Net3 to it, so all new net apps will be incompatible. XP will have the same fate within a few years too. ( Net4 )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I thought Aero runs on 1GB, 1Gz and a DX9 video card. I have a couple four year old computers that comply with that, and several more that are cheaply upgradeable to that or beyond.
But in general, that may be beside the point, I don't think it's the software upgraders that will get that. It often takes the hardware upgraders that will be the ones that upgrade to new software. I think most people are either cheap or lazy when it comes to their computers, leading to my previous conclusion. Software won't get upgraded even if it did not require a hardware upgrade, any money that doesn't need to be spent won't be because in my opinion, most people don't really care much about their computer other than that it works and doesn't cost too much for what they get.
I bet people who don't know enough to get a real video card won't care anyway.
Amazing. Because someone doesn't wish to spend $300+ for a card makes them 'unknowing'?
Some of us don't care about running video games...we don't have time.
why you ask me?
Agreed. For a forum that hates MS with a passion. They sure seem fascinated with Vista.
Where i work i still use OS/2 on a daily basis. Or actually the systems we use to control the big ass rotation printing presses runs on top of OS/2. These machines get build and are written off in 10 years and probably run for a couple more before being torn down and shipped to a third world country. I've never had one crash on me btw.
on a sidenote, up untill 3 years ago there was an old 8088 running DOS 3 or something to control a printing setup. In the expedition area there are sytems running DOS with iRMX controlling all the machinery. I was awestruck to see this stuff in daily use when i first stepped in there, but hey it works and its rock solid.
Maybe, but you can't pretend that all the other features in the OS have suddenly disappeared, and that they will not be the subject of consideration. Focusing on only one thing and making as grandiose a prediction "will it succeed?" is just sloppy thinking.
oh wow. slashdot bashing microsoft, and proclaiming for the 100th year in a row that windows is doomed and everyone in the world will be switching to lunix, because it's almost ready for the desktop.
didn't you guys say the EXACT same thing about XP? I have a good idea: dig up some old threads on how NT/2000/XP was going to be a huge mistake for MS, and just pretend people are posting them right now. It will let you guys get your hate-on, and save you the trouble of having to repeat the exact same statements which history, consumers, and the marketplace have disproven, year after year.
Chin up, guys. Maybe lunix will be ready for the desktop by the time MS releases their next operating system.
there is no alternative to Vista on new computers as there was for OS/2.
The majority of users don't choose what OS to use; they run whatever is preloaded.
In 1995, if you bought a machine from IBM, it came with Windows 95, not OS/2, preloaded. OS/2 was a choice that a user had to want. Windows was the default.
In 2007, if you buy a x86 machine, it comes with Windows.
As long as Microsoft has these preload arrangements, their product will never be the next OS/2, and concerns about quality, bloatedness, etc are irrelevant.
A modern operating system with only "thousands of lines of code"? sounds efficient to me :)
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
1. Vista runs extremely well on any modern pc
As long as that pc is really high-end, bleeding edge, give us all your money hella expensive, yes. But any business pc I've seen in the last year (that's modern, i guess) won't run Vista all that well.
2. It's better looking, more polished and overall a much nicer experience
Windows 2000 is better looking than XP, with its Teletubby pasture and Fisher-Price color scheme. You might think of computing as an "experience", I just want to get my work done. Preferably without having to wear welding goggles because of the colors of the desktop.
3. It just makes more sense to get it preloaded
No it isn't. Because then you also get all the heaped up crap the vendor gets payed for bundling. Example: buy a Dell (but this is by no means the only vendor that does this) and you have to spend a few hours to remove the tryware, spyware, crippleware and downright stupidware before the machine is even remotely usable.
4. The drivers and other compatibility issues will be ironed out quickly.
I'm still waiting for XP drivers for some of my equipment. I have a really nice scanner that is useless because there is no XP driver and the W2k driver crashes. As luck would have it, it works fine with FreeBSD.
We'll see. I'm not upgrading my XP boxes anytime soon. In fact, I'm gonna make sure I buy a few XP licences on Ebay for future use.
!ERR: Signature not found.
Will businesses upgrade to Vista over the course of the next 3 years instead of trying another OS? Yes. Case closed Vista is not OS/2
Why are we comparing Rotten eggs to Oranges?
1) IBM Licensed OS/2 to other vendors (NCR, Compaq, Microsoft, etc). Does Microsoft?
2) When you purchased OS/2, you owned it. Microsoft wants to police your installation.
3) OS/2 has a Object Oriented desktop called Workplace Shell. Windows inherits the brain-dead Progman.exe
4) OS/2 still works on anything from a brand new system down to a P100. Bonus, you don't have to call IBM for permission to install it.
5) OS/2 Warp 4 had suspend to disk and speech recognition 10 years ago.
6) IBM uses cool Star Trek names for product descriptions. Microsoft uses a marketing department full of interior designers for its product names.
There are hundreds of other little things that OS/2 Warp still does better than Windows. Only with Windows 2000 did Microsoft finally release something better than OS/2 Warp. Everything released by Microsoft since then has been step backwards in ease of use and freedom.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I am a strong supporter of Microsoft products (please don't behead me!) and I am going to wait at least until SP1 is released for Vista before I upgrade. In any new OS, there are too many bugs and vulnerabilities that are overlooked or otherwise not addressed. I would hate to upgrade to Vista and continue normal use (buying things online, etc.) only to find out 2 months later that there is a security hole and there may be hoards of hackers that now have my credit card number and username/password for websites that I visit frequently.
When XP was released, I waited until SP2 was released before I upgraded my OS. If you strongly feel that upgrading to Vista is that important, I won't be one to tell you not to do so, but that's because I'll let you and everyone else that upgrades find out what is wrong with Vista and give Microsoft a chance to fix it before I use it.
...and, if MS has moved the graphics driver to user space as they said they will, neither will WV be...
"Is Vista the New OS/2?"
No.
This has been yet another episode of Snappy Answers to Slashdot Questions.
"So is Vista going to see the same fate as OS/2?"
No. OS/2 died because no one high enough up the corporate command structure lived or died by OS/2's success. The head of personal software was only a VP of a division of the company. Now let's look at Vista. Microsoft's operating system offering is the flagship product that identifies them in the marketplace. The ENTIRE COMPANY thrives or fades to obscurity based on sales and acceptance of the OS. They will do whatever it takes, at all levels, to make it succeed. If that means better marketing, rushing out a new version, etc, they'll do it. Meanwhile, at IBM OS/2 was a small side line.
Is to keep calling your vendors (Dell, HP, etc), ideally from your workplace, and asking for pre-installed linux computers. If all of us did so once a quarter, they'd make them.
Your comment suggests that Linux will never be "ready for the desktop." Assuming you accept that it isn't already (which I don't), that is simply absurd. It is either there already or will be within a year or two -- not 5 years down the line like everyone used to say. Have you SEEN Ubuntu lately? It is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking awesome.
+++ATH0
People will continue to use Microsoft. Microsoft will phase out W2k and XP and you will forced to Vista. Maybe the Mac will mount a serious challenge but nothing is close to surplanting the hardware support that desktop Windows has and that a commercial mainstream OS needs.
On my laptop I'm currently dual booting XPsp2/VistaRC1. While I've not worked with the release version, I was quite impressed with RC1 & 2. Not had any driver issues except a slight PM issue(doesn't recover from standby or do screen brightness control). But, on the plus side, on a 1.7GHz Celeron w/ 512MB RAM I'm running(not walking as Beta 2 did) Aero, and have seen graphics card improvements (the ATI 200M is still a POS, but its slightly better under Vista. Try the POS out under Linux w/ OpenGL to get find out why I refer to it that way). On better systems, I've not noticed game decrements, using CS-Source, HL-2, and FEAR as the test games. The device manager is finally available under the Control Panel, and I no longer push Start to shut down the comp. The Start menu itself has improved, for the first time since Win95 - no more pages of expanding menus. The touchpad driver has improved, and now I can use the scroll functions under FF. My only complaint is my virtual cdrom driver no longer works, and I'm using the MS one (download located here)! And aside from the OS using more RAM (which XP builds up to anyway...), I am quite happy with the preformance (guess that's from when I used to "crawl" KDE 3.0 on a P1 box w/ 49MB ram...). As far as the DRM issues go, don't do anything that would cause such a problem under Vista! Keep an XP box up and running for that problem, or, as I do, use Linux for torrenting and ripping CD's/DVD's. No Vista DRM there! I will also add that I am quite happy with WMP11, my previous choice was to just run the system under linux or VMWare Linux to use amaroK or XMMS. So, I fail to see what all of the grief about Vista is from. I did not like Windows XP, and will be quite happy to not have to carry XP disks and CD keys for fixing people's computers, so I don't have to look at the welcome screen after an HD format. I hope that most people will opt to upgrade to Vista, or switch to Linux.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
That's like asking, "has Microsoft become IBM?" The answer is no, not yet... but they're sure trying to.
Comment of the year
Because you don't seem to know what's needed. Vista does not need a $300 graphics card to do it's desktop compositing. It needs a graphics card that has two things:
1) Shader model 2.0 or better hardware support.
2) A WDDM driver for it.
So what cards fit the bill? From nVidia, any video card that's a GeForce 5200FX or newer, from ATi, any card that's a 9500 or newer. That includes low end cards like the X300 and integrated cards like the 6120. Also, the latest Intel integrated cards, the GMA950s, fit the bill as well.
What that means is that if you bought a card in about the last 3 years, it's good to go. Likewise any current system you purchase with integrated graphics will work. Should you want to buy one now it's about $40 for a brand new card that'll handle desktop compositing. If you are willing to get a used one, $20 will easily take care of it.
How many business PC's will run Vista? I don't know where you work, but the 6500 pc's at the company I work for have 256 Mb and NO gpu to speak of. While these machines might technically run Vista it won't be usable at all. We know, we've tested. We have enough problems with upgrading to XP.
Maybe you shouldn't try to extrapolate your hardware to the corporate world.
!ERR: Signature not found.
Given the choice between Windows for around £50, or OS/2 for around £500, people went with Windows. OS/2 was better, but it wasn't ten times better.
;-)
Interesting. Because Vista is, say, $300(?) and Linux is $0. So, by your calculations, is Vista infinitely better?
Let's tackle these "reasons" on at a time.
"(a) Many people on Slashdot work where upgrades to Vista are looming large."
Well that's something for YOUR BOSS to worry about. Not you. Besides all this "bellyaching" on slashdot isn't going to change THAT situation one iota.
"(b) Many of THOSE people will be in charge of having to run the migration."
B is basically saying they don't want to do their jobs, and would love for an Indian to come in and get the credit (and money. don't forget the paycheck) for doing the work.
"(c) Other slashdot users buy computers, and frequently these computers have Microsoft OSes installed on them; if they plan on buying a computer in the next few years (esp. a laptop), then it will likely have Vista on it. Even if they wipe the drive and install OpenBSD, they'll likely be on the hook for free support for their family and friends."
Oh this piece of FUD again. I swear this is the lamest bunch of geeks I've seen in decades. I've been able to buy a white box computer for years, and you all could too if you'd get off your lazy asses and do so.
"(d) There's not much going on with SCO or Jack Thompson right now; the Wii vs. PS3 vs XBOX360 battle has cooled; and OMG Ponies!!! isn't for another 4 months."
And NOW we get down to the REAL reason. You're damn bored, and you have nothing better to do with your lives.
Memory: 2GB (four 512MB DDR-PC2700 DIMMs, upgraded from original 512MB configuration)
Display adapter: ATI Radeon 9600, 256MB, AGP8X (upgraded from original Nvidia 128MB card)
I may be stupid or deceptive, but 2GB and a 9600 is *NOT* mainstream. Therefore you do not get a really good "experience", just as you say yourself.
[...] if you go back to the 2k-like version of the shell UI, you won't even know you're running Vista, even from a perf perspective.
Now there is a compelling argument to upgrade...
!ERR: Signature not found.
I've never had Vista installed on any of my machines, but a friend of mine has *somehow* had it for a very long time, so he's seen it go through most of the beta stages. Between his comments and the reviews I've read, I've come to a few conclusions:
Is it better than XP?: Yes
Will it succeed?: Will the OEM's force it upon us? Then yes
Is it really backwards compatible?: It has issues with the occasional obscure program, but for the most part everything works
Will it run on old hardware?: I'd call it walking...or crawling... but yes, technically, with enough ram and patience, it'll run. Sort of.
Is it worth switching?: This is by far the most subjective part. If you have a really good computer, then hands down Vista is a better choice than XP. But it's quite a bit more resource hungry than any previous version of Windows, so I myself would never consider running it over XP unless there was an extremely significant 'killer app' that forced me to switch.
That being said, in reality I'd never switch because I run Kubuntu.
"How expensive can it be for the school? I mean, XP came with their PC for FREE. Don't the schools pay the same price?
Windows is only free if your time is not worth anything. Workstations, such as those being used in the schools, 5 Windows are more work than 70 standalone linux machines running Debian. The ratio is even better if you go with multi-seat stations or LTSP.(Yes, I know Windows is added into the cost of the PC..."
Enough with the Gates worship there and start looking at what a technology actuallydoes not what is promised in the Next Version ®.
Am I the only one who thinks that Vista is actually faster than XP or KDE? I just set up a triple boot with a fresh install of XP, kubuntu, and Vista RTM. Hardware: intel 6400, 2 gig ram, nvidia 7900. Oddly enough, Vista overall was much faster than XP and KDE (regarding OS response times and app load times. I have no idea about network performance). Fast enough that going back to XP or KDE is painful.
XP and Vista are just OS's with a bunch of useless bells and whistles.
I am totally productive with web programming on Windows 2000.
I bet nobody can give me one reason to upgrade. Reasons simply don't exist.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Here's a good reason. Support will end for Windows 2000 in 2 years. That means no security patches, which makes you vulnerable.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Problem is that outsiders stop by, and the lying makes us look bad (birds of a feather). Plus for those of us who love the truth (not to be confused with loving Microsoft). Lying is an assault on our sensabilities. Try this, start telling some lies about open source and see how many MS bashers suddenly do a one-eighty.
Yes, and all currently supported windows products are, with out a doubt, secure.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm staying with Win2K..
Evidently you never tried OS/2. As a gaming platform, it performed admirably, better than Windows of the time. Command & Conquer in a window (could be switched to Full Screen on the fly) with full sound while answering email? No problem.
Try the original Galactic Civilizations. Multi-threaded goodness.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Let's see what you say when the next worm comes along and crashes your computer every 10 seconds.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
PC gamers like myself will likely have no choice but to upgrading to Vista seeing as how Microsoft refuses to release DirectX 10 for previous versions of Windows. If it wasn't for DX10, I would have no interest in upgrading to Vista.
Unfortunately, it looks like I'll get dragged along kicking and screaming the whole way. From this gamer's standpoint, Vista is an unwelcome, forced upgrade.
A driver without a valid digital signature will not load on Vista 64-bit at all. How will hobbyists and small businesses that make very-low-volume custom hardware be able to afford thousands of dollars for certification? Even self-certification costs $2,500 over the expected life of the OS for a VeriSign brand code signing certificate.
OS/2 had technical merit.
But that's in two years! I think I will survive nicely, thank you. And I currently have enough experience with Linux to totally move over to that if I so choose.
So, what reason do I have to upgrade to a new version of Windows TODAY?
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
You've ripped off my line. I called this (Vista is Microsoft's OS2) months ago!
Andy Out!
It was a large step forward into the realm of a more stable environment, but at the time that step wasn't appreciated by the general public. Vista is said to be offering a new step in reliability and security, which is well, but there are already hacks around for Vista. The next few months will be more or less critical for the success of Vista in enterprise environments. A few bad happenings may render Vista to be a blind alley that is only accepted on home computers.
Remember also that the bleeding edge of hardware and software is now in the home and entertainment sector while companies in general are running a lot of their applications on hardware that mostly dates back a few years and therefore may not be able to run Vista. A general upgrade in a company isn't done until only a few machines are left that's aren't capable of the new software.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Who said anything about today? It's unlikely that you should upgrade today, or much of anyone else. It's not even released to the public market yet.
Lots of people are still happy with their Commodore 64's (well, maybe lots is pushing it...).
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
In the 2/3rds of my life I've been a nerd.. (im now 30).. I've always been loving the rush of new shit.. the upgrading.. the get it first .. the .. .. that feeling just isnt there with Vista.. I dont know whats wrong with me.. theres simply nothing WITH vista that appeals to me.. I even find the name retarded.. yeye windowses and vistas and views and shit but.. come on.. naming it Poo would at least make it fun..
/. users are the same kind of economically aware people as I am.. I'm not wasting the price of a PS3 on a lame OS that will take control over my mediafiles and decide what I wanna do and jam all sorts of DRM down my throath.. not happening..
and there just isnt anything there.. well there is.. I guess.. the ONE thing that has remained in Vista and not gotten cut that somewhat interests me is that the GUI now has actual hardware accelleration as opposed to GDI being run by the CPU.. this SHOULD at least eliminate a lot of the incredibly slow screen redraws when your cpu is chugging away at some task thats taking 100% of cpu time and trying to draw a few pixels of the screen every 20 seconds.. the wait for the full redraw can be an amazing pain.. often you can reset and reboot your PC several times in the same time it takes to wait for windows to actually chew through.... thats the big deal with XP for me.. even tho the chewing still happens it pretty much always DOES come through..
but..what does it matter when there are no drivers or DX10 games?..just doesnt.. and the AERO is ugly.. im sorry but I really dont like it.. the buttons in the corners of the windows are WAY too visible and just SCREAM at me from the screen..
I ran vista for a while.. ditched it.. maybe when the "Ultimate" comes out I'll try it again.. but somehow vista doesnt strike me as a version of windows I'll pay for.. and i KNOW a lot of
Piracy, the better choice!" as someone put it recently.. sooo true..
The first 32-bit OS/2 was OS/2 2.0 released in the spring of 1992 (just after Windows 3.1), and IBM's standard upgrade pricing at the time was US$49 for DOS users and US$99 for Windows 3.x users.
Price was *NOT* an issue.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
IBM's 32-bit version of OS/2
* was smaller and faster than Microsoft's equivalent product at the time (Windows NT 3.1)
and not THAT much larger than Windows 95,
* was far more flexible in terms of connectivity and application APIs supported than either
Windows 3.1 or NT,
* was arguably superior (on purely technical grounds) to both Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.1
and yet it could not obtain preloads with major vendors, it had a hard time obtaining device driver support from several major hardware manufacturers, and it eventually lost to a product (Windows 95) which was a relative joke (technically speaking).
Microsoft's Windows Vista
* is larger and slower than anything else on the market (including eComStation, Linux, Solaris,
and MacOSX),
* is less flexible than any of those in terms of connectivity and no better in terms of APIs
* is also arguably inferior (on purely technical grounds) to Linux, Solaris, MacOS X, and even
eCS in many respects,
and yet it will probably be preloaded on almost every system purchased over the next few years, it will be the first priority for device driver support from just about every hardware vendor under the sun, and it will probably win over the rest of the pack in spite of its resource requirements, performance problems, and reduced multimedia functionality.
I'd say those two products are about as dissimilar as two products could possibly be.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Why I care?
;).
Because if _enough_ people realize Vista isn't really an upgrade and tell Dell, HP etc "Please Preload XP instead of Vista" when they buy a new computer and want Windows (yes there are still VALID reasons for using Windows), then the current Windows XP APIs could get locked into the market beyond even Microsoft's control.
Basically if they don't change things, and introduce new stuff like DirectX 10 etc and the APIs stay the same for too long they risk ending up like just another BIOS manufacturer.
This is because it becomes more and more likely that people will start providing compatible versions for Linux, OSX and so on. And then the market says no it has to be "Win XP compatible", and they can even say that to Microsoft
Then the scenario starts to look like when Intel tried to get everyone to leave the x86 and get on the Itanic, but then AMD presented a compatible path.
It is in the interest of Microsoft to break things slightly every few years. Not too much but enough (like boiling a frog). While BIOS selling is a valid business model it won't make Microsoft as much money.
But even if the XP APIs aren't that great, Vista's new APIs offers no great improvements. Given Microsoft is either unable or uninterested in improving things significantly anymore (W2K was a big improvement, XP had some stuff), the industry should dethrone Microsoft from its controlling position.
We might as well permanently freeze those APIs and concentrate resources on innovation _elsewhere_ let MS Windows join the BIOS in the world of vestigal software.
This is a chance for a change, not a big chance but still a window of opportunity.
And that's why I care.
Evidently you never tried OS/2. As a gaming platform, it performed admirably, better than Windows of the time. Command & Conquer in a window (could be switched to Full Screen on the fly) with full sound while answering email? No problem.
If you were lucky enough to have the game work at all (most "modern" games from that timeframe didn't, due to incompatibilities with their DOS extenders) and a massively powerful (for the time) machine, OS/2 worked "admirably" as a gaming platform. However, overall, it sucked, because of those problems (and, yes, I *did* use OS/2, from about 1991 to 1995).
Added to that, if you could run a game as you describe in OS/2, it was also possible to do so in Windows 95 - with the added bonus of being able to quickly and easily reboot to "real" DOS for troublesome titles.
Windows 95 and DirectX were the final nail in the coffin for OS/2's gaming aspirations.
Skimming over the existing comments, I don't think anyone's posted anything along these lines: I use Linux, I have done for years, and my view of Vista is that it's got NOTHING new that Linux hasn't already. Now before the flames start grilling over this, read on first... I say this in the following sense: I used to use DOS, then I used Win 3.11 (pretty revolutionary), then 95 (big UI jump), then 98 (much more stable, better networking), then I changed to RedHat, wobbled over a few distributions until I learnt the way of Linux and now much prefer it over Windows. Now I know I'm not a "casual" PC user. I'm not. I'm a geek. I code for fun, I'm doing a BSc in Computer Science, I fix people's computers whenever I can, however long it takes, you know, without going off on one, I really am NOT a casual user. But that's my viewpoint. (So don't flame on about "well what about my granny" or "what about gamers" or whatever... I'm talking about MY SITUATION.) Now to me, Linux makes sense. Well Unix and KDE specifically. Directory structure, security, file permissions. The kernel and it's modules. XOrg. KDE (not for it's glitter, but for it's features, like my beloved kate, the ability to just sftp:// a remote box, add "applets" in a consistent manner to the kicker bar, things like that). Now again, don't flame on about "well KDE is unstable" or "Such and such isn't consistent in KDE". I never said ALL of KDE was consistent. And neither am I dissing Gnome. I just prefer KDE, this isn't a desktop war post. Now to me personally, I look at Vista and what I see is DRM (a bad thing IMO), I see flash desktops (not important to me, although I have played with Beryl at recent, it's quite an innovation, but I'll wait until it's stable), I see DirectX 10 - which is impressive, but personally I can put up with booting XP for the sole purpose of HL2 or I can just go and by a XBOX360, it's just me but I hardly play games at all (and when I do I have a handful of _playable_ games on Linux), I see improved security (hello... had that in Linux for years) and I see stability (again, I hardly ever reboot...). So to me, personally, as someone who finds Linux more intuitive _for_my_needs_, I don't see Vista as that amazing at all. I've got all that I need already. OK, so there's arguments of "well MS Office doesn't run natively", but then that's the point isn't it. IT DOESN'T RUN NATIVELY! Sure there's hacks, but I don't _use_ Office. I use OpenOffice. It does it for me. OK, I'm finished ranting. My point is this: for those who flame / bash / murder on all the time about Vista/Linux, believe it or not, there are people who just prefer Unix because Unix is Unix. They find it better for their use. To me, there's no feature in Vista that makes me want to change to it. But then I would say the same about XP... *shrug*. I'm not against Vista, it has it's place. I just wanted to set the score straight for those of us who do, just prefer (for legitimate reasons), Linux. Thanks.
I think therefore I am... a Linux geek.
Has the OP ever used OS/2? If they think Vista will fail, they're wrong--Microsoft is behind it.
If they think OS/2 failed because it was bloated/didn't work/was full of holes, they're wrong. OS/2 kicked Win95's ass, in many, many ways. It was stable, truly 32 bit, could run native MSDOS and Win apps, had built-in networking support, better memory management, had preemptive multitasking, etc. etc.
It was nice to use and got out of your way so you could do work. IBM's colossal marketing screw ups were what killed OS/2.
Don't compare Windows Vista to OS/2 unless you mean to say that it really is several steps ahead of XP.
For many companies (mine included), we'd happily run an alternative to Windows if we could just plain use the software that was required to get our jobs done. I work for a small engineering company, and fact of the matter is, many of the applications we use just aren't available on any other OS other than Windows. Pressure from Microsoft may compel an upgrade at some point, but fact of the matter is, we resisted XP SP2 even after it was EOL'd because they hadn't worked out an issue yet with some software we were using. Plain and simple, does anyone really actually care about what they use to open applications? An OS should be simple. You shouldn't have to think about it. In the end, the apps are what save the platform, and not the other way around. If linux were binary compatible to Windows, would we use it? I can't say for certain, but I'd guess we'd certainly be considering it strongly.
I also can't say for certain, but I suspect businesses are reluctant to try Linux because most execs fear change. Further adding to fear, the decision to move to Linux also involves the decision a LOT of decisions that high level execs aren't willing to research. Face it: until the Linux community starts unification and picking standards, it just doesn't make sense for businesses to use (at the desktop level.) Businesses don't want to figure out if they should use Redhat or Suse, nor do they want to figure out if they should support x.org or xfree86, nor KDE or GNOME. That which is Linux's greatest strength (diversity) is also it's greatest weakness. They want a common platform with a common interface such that people they hire will already be familiar with (no training required.) Aside from the recent stock option scandal with Jobs, I suspect many would jump faster to consider Apple than other alternatives -- but CIOs won't let that happen until Apple stops vendor lock in and licenses the OS. Apple should *not* stop making hardware, but they should give businesses alternative hardware vendors if they ever want to be taken seriously in the business market at large.
Bottom line: there aren't really a lot of options. There's old familiar (windows), with all of its problems, but runs a common interface that everyone (like it or hate it) is familiar with. It runs just about 90% of all available software in the entire software industry. There's Mac OS X, which has a standard interface that's pretty similar to windows (thanks largely to Microsoft flattery [imitation]), that roughly 3% of the world already knows, but comes with vendor lock in which scares businesses who like to be able to buy from alternative vendors should supply chain problems arise. There's Linux, which suffers from multiple personality disorder, which is hardly used in the desktop, and while some themes kind of look like windows, the guts of the OS are pretty unfamiliar and would require extensive training. On top of this, some applications require kernel mods, and recompilation to run, sending many running for the hills. Point being, until something changes, Windows is here to stay. Word to the wise: open up, choose standards, make support strong, include free training with purchase, make it available for commodity Intel compatible hardware, and make it ridiculously easy for developers to port code from windows such that they'd be stupid not to release support for your OS. Only then will we have real, viable Windows alternatives in the business market.
I can use XP until Linux is completely ready. In fact I already have Linux on one machine. I only use XP because I have ONE app that runs only on Windoze and I need that app for my business. At my job they just upgraded to XP a year ago so I won't be on Vista for another 5 years! By then Linux will have taken over except in the US of course.
Actually, IIRC, Windows 95 never got the window->FS->window switching to work well, and neither has any incarnation of NT/2K/XP, as I discovered recent with a game that supposedly supports switching. The reason I mentioned C&C was precisely because that never worked under any MS OS. You might get lucky and switch it once without BSODing or a complete crash, but the odds of doing it a second time were non-existant.
As for booting to DOS, OS/2 came with what is probably one of the best boot managers even for today that allowed you to multi-boot however you wanted. BTW, I ran OS/2 2.0 - 2.4 from 91-98, on everything from a 486 through a P-III. The only thing that you really needed was memory. Most of the rest of the machine could be standard parts.
As for Windows 95 and DirectX being the final nails in the coffin, for OS/2's gaming aspirations or otherwise, I'll disagree. W95 had massive issues initially. Witness the large number of helps boards at the time dedicated to getting games x, y, and z running on 95. OS/2 was effectively killed by Office 95 and the 1995 forced PC upgrade cycle. By the time that DirectX on W95 became anything remotely interesting, OS/2 was already heading towards being a footnote. (I should also note that I ran 95, 98, and NT 3.50 onward, among other OSes.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So did OS/2, for the first several years it was available. The key difference is that, unlike OS/2 compared to DOS/Windows, Vista will be the OS Microsoft is promoting with bundling deals, rather than calling the "future" but only making available as an expensive upgrade.
Hey, a 80386 DX 16MHz with 4mb of RAM was certified as being Vista capable. It probably booted as fast as Vista does on what you describe.
No, OS/2 and Vista are nothing alike. I was a Warp 4 beta tester back in the day. I ran Warp 3 on some of the first Pentiums that came out. There was nothing bloated about OS/2, except that Warp 3 came on about 30 floppies. I had a pre-emptive multitasking system back when everyone else was clicking in amazement on the first Start button with that Rolling Stones song blaring in the background.
What doomed OS/2 was the apps and the drivers. I very much remember waiting and waiting and finally celebrating when Netscape came out for OS/2. A real native 32-bit OS/2 version of Netscape! Yes, it was sad but it was great at the same time.
Vista won't have any of those problems. Everything will be written for Vista. Vista will be preloaded on every PC out there from here on. OS/2 never had that.
BTW, on a sidenote, OS/2 also had a clunky interface by the time Warp 3 and 4 rolled around. Ever heard of that program called WindowBlinds? Of course you have. Well, the company that makes it is called Stardock. Stardock originally was an OS/2 developer. Their flagship product that got them started was called ObjectDesktop and all it was was a collection of UI programs that fixed all the OS/2 klunkiness. Like Windows-style X buttons on windows to close them with. And a sweet dock on the bottom of the screen to switch apps with. OS/2's interface, while object-oriented, was so painful that ObjectDesktop was a necessity.
Anyway, bad comparison.
Looking at my 'OS/2 Ambassador' trophy, I can't help remembering what killed OS/2.
.NET and other apps to swing us towards Vista it's certainly possible).
When OS/2 came out I was the person who made the 'sell' for where we were going to take our organisation's IT infrastructure. The choice was either OS/2 or Windows.
I loved OS/2 - it was powerful, fast (compared to Windows) and damn near bulletproof.
I had to choose Windows. Why ? - because we werw an Office site and when IBM released OS/2 Microsoft started to play with API's so that it would not run reliably on OS/2.
It wan fine on Windows.
What killed OS/2 was the idea that IBM could enter the desktop operating system market and take cash away from Microsoft. Microsoft would not allow that - so they 'bent' their applications so they would not run reliably under OS/2, forcing corporates to avoit the product for all but specialist applications.
I'm sure if Linux could run Windows applications natively, that Microsoft would do the same thing all over (well, given that they are using that trick along with
OS/2 just could not generate enough corporate support. That was Microsoft's doing, and that's why OS/2 never got into the desktop environment in a serious manner.
Damn it, I meant to write Windows 95 capable.
There. Now gimme my goddamned Ferarri laptop, Bill.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
OS/2 and eComStation (http://www.ecomstation) use whats called DIVE and DART(the OS/2 equivilents of DirectX. OS/2 is still alive: http://os2ecs.org/ezine/
eComStation( http://www.ecomstation.com/ ) is the new OS/2, Not Vista!
OS/2 lives! http://os2ecs.org/ezine/
Why did you insist on continuing to use that ancient sound card when you could have had a supported replacement that sounded better for an incredibly tiny amount of money?
+++ATH0
has Windows worked with no thought whatsoever?
+++ATH0
I think the world is gradually becoming more computer-literate to the point that fewer and fewer people are going to be like your brother.
+++ATH0