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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
there is no alternative to Vista on new computers as there was for OS/2.
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
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.
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
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.
I think a lot of the reason is that it feels to us like Vista is a bad stumble and so we're enthusiastic about reading the bad news.
Also, there is a vocal minority of people who don't hate Microsoft who want to defend Vista.
This makes for lively discussions and good theater, and that's why people come here.
So have a seat, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy.
(Personally I think almost no upgrades will be sold, but people will buy new computers with it at somewhat higher rates than normal, just because the purchases were postponed for Vista's sake, and people like getting the latest and greatest, be it ever do disappointing for most).
D
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.
> OS/2 died because no one high enough up the corporate command
> structure lived or died by OS/2's success.
Exactly.
Further, for all the ridiculousness of the new vista interface, at least it's being done with the intention of impressing users. OS/2 never felt like it was being done with the users in mind. Maybe their bosses - but not the users themselves. There were annoying user interface issues with version 2 that still hadn't been fixed by version 4. New releases could come out supposedly with neat changes and those changes would be all these weird backend things that dovetailed nicely with existing IBM technology but which had absolutely no relevance to the enduser. Meanwhile you try to line up your icons and it still doesn't work nicely. Netscape had a memory leak that happened when a page changed and you had a dropdown open that would bring down the system. Didn't get fixed for years. Their advice on what to do for some DOS-origin games was "disable the sound". Gee, thanks. They didn't put particular effort into drivers.
I was completely into the OS/2 thing from 2.0 until 4.0 and by the end of the experience felt far more venom towards IBM than Microsoft. OS/2 lost because IBM couldn't tell its arse from itss elbow when it came to providing a reasonable user experience.
Believe with me, my saplings.