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?

10 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. I've tried it... by pfraser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Why do you care? by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Why do you care? by hahiss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two comments:

      1) You don't have to read every article that shows up on slashdot! (See the headline, look for the word Vista, make sure it isn't referring to a view, and skip the article. Easy-peasy.)

      2) There are some good reasons for people to be pissing and moaning about Vista repeatedly here on Slashdot:

          (a) Many people on Slashdot work where upgrades to Vista are looming large.
          (b) Many of THOSE people will be in charge of having to run the migration.
          (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.
          (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.

      3) Just so you don't think I'm being a total jerk: yeah, I agree, there is only so much one can read about how Vista is teh sux0rs. Perhaps slashdot should pose an ask slashdot of the "What is the best car analogy for Vista?" and call it a day.

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
  3. No by bwoodring · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:No by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
      OS/2 was a big improvement over Windows 3.x in many, many ways. It ran Windows 3.x applications, but it also ran 32-bit ones. It had pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory, so badly behaved Win16 applications couldn't break the whole system.

      So, why didn't people buy it? Well, at the time, a single seat license for OS/2 was around £500, and a computer was around £1000. Unlike Windows Vista, no one was selling machines with OS/2 pre-installed with a big OEM discount (IBM were trying to sell PCs, so they weren't really pushing other people to license OS/2). 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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:No by omicronish · · Score: 4, Informative
      "1. Vista runs extremely well on any modern PC." Buhahahahahahahahaa!!!

      I don't know about other people's experiences with Vista's performance, but mine has been decent. Not amazing, not horrible, but decent. I built my machine 2-3 years ago: Athlon XP 2700+, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro with 128 MB RAM. Vista is installed on a 20 GB partition (I have XP on the other 180 GB partition), and currently there's 2.5 GB free after installing Civilization 4, Visual Studio 2005 Pro, and Office 2007. I'm running at 1920x1200 with full Aero.

      Due to dual booting I've been able to subjectively compare game performance between both XP and Vista, and honestly, there isn't a noticeable difference. Civ4 starts out fast and slows down near endgame under both OSs. Quake 2 through 4, Unreal Tournament 2004, Age of Empires 3, WarCraft 3 were all performant at high resolutions (except Quake 4 which ran well at 800x600 under both OSs). Compatibility is also quite good: I tried a bunch of non-recent games altogether (20+ in all) and the only one with issues is massive texture flickering in Alice. Hell, even SimTower ran perfectly, and that game is over a decade old.

      As for normal usage, I do sense a bit of UI sluggishness compared to XP, although it seems to affect everything so it might be immature graphics drivers. But the system is still very usable, and the sluggishness is only apparent when using XP directly after Vista, which is something I haven't done in weeks.

  4. Seriously by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  5. Choice with a new PC in 6 months by martin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. I have not tried it by pogson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have no need to try Vista. I switched to GNU/Linux years ago and it just works. This year, I designed and installed a new computer system in a new school. After the dust settled, it is working trouble free. In the logs I get to see all the viruses detected at the firewall on the way to a few legacy Windows machines. As long as Windows architecture exists, it will always be prone to ownership by malware. Combine that with Treacherous Computing and you have less reliability.

    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
    1. Re:I have not tried it by michrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The taxpayers should demand that Windows be kicked out of schools just as they would demand drug dealers be kicked off school grounds.

      I can tell you this isn't going to happen. Know why? Those same tax payers are using Windows at home.

      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?

      (Yes, I know Windows is added into the cost of the PC, and the OEM's get it for reduced costs but the tax payers, for the most part, don't, so their perceptions will be different from ours)

      --
      bork bork bork!