Slashdot Mirror
Looking Beyond Vista To Fiji and Vienna
Vinit wrote in with an article that describes Microsoft's strategy for future versions of Windows. It begins: "As we all know that Microsoft Vista was originally scheduled to be released in 2003, after two years of Windows XP, but it got delayed by over five years due to various reasons. Definitely, Vista is very very improved OS over the previous versions, but the delayed in the launch has cost Microsoft, billions of dollars. Now the question at the moment is, what exactly after Vista? Microsoft can't afford to wait another five years for an operating system. People are becoming more aware of the choices they have, and Linux is no longer a hobbyist OS, and that day isn't far away when it becomes simple enough to be a viable alternative to Windows. The competition is fierce. That is why, to stay at the top, Microsoft has planned a 'Vista R2', codenamed 'Fiji' which will be released some time in 2008. And after Fiji, there will be Windows 'Vienna'. Windows Fiji, will not be a totally different OS from Vista; but it will be an add-on. Whereas Vienna will be totally different from Vista."
Oh, classic, I've got the new versions confused. My apologies... *facedesk*.
;)
Windows Vienna will change the OS by not having a start bar or explorer interace, just the Sidebar.
Hang on a minute, I can do that now using Litestep. Oh, so they are the same then!
REAL article with actual meat: http://jameskyton.wordpress.com/2006/12/29/beyond- windows-vista-fiji-and-vienna/
Don't you hate reading the whole thing and getting to the end and seeing SOURCE? I wish I could digg this article DOWN!
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
But the article says it was delayed by 5+ years, not that it came out 5+ years after XP.
Perhaps what the author meant to say was that the intended 2 year interval between releases became 5+ years.
The submitter used the term "delayed," which implies the time was measured from Vista's planned release date, not the latest release of Windows.
Take the points in the parent posting, and add:
50+ millions lines of code bloat
lots of stupid, unnecessary eye candy
alleged security features, some that have already been broken ("most secure o/s ever", my ass)
a virgin ip stack
DRM silliness
kernel restrictions that keep third party security systems out -- said systems having done a much better job than Microsquish at keeping the bad guys out. You can, of course, pay extra for windows "defender" -- somewhat like buying an antidote from the people that poisoned you in the first place
As Ren and Stimpy might say to Ballmer, "you eeeediot!"
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Linux shared libraries are quite different from DLLs. The shared library mechanism on *NIX systems has features that mitigate a lot of the problems of "DLL hell".
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Like Windows is perfect. There are continues virus and malware problems with Windows, they aren't going to get any better. Even if Microsoft releases Windows Vista or Windows whatever becose Microsoft has no sense of how to make up a internet secure Os. The Windows base is from the time when the internet was only used by a few people and the government, and few corpartions. There is also the fact the Windows basic structure is flawed, both on the user level and security wise. No secure operation system demands that the first user of the system is automatic admin. Yet, Microsoft does this and many people find that ok to be that way.
Linux is ready for the desktop market and has been ready for long time. Saying something else is either based on ignorance or is just a fud.
Our shared libraries support useful versioning. A program gets linked against a library by name, but it records the major version of the library that it used. When you run it, it looks for the newest library with that name and major version. Libraries get new major versions when they change in non-backwards-compatible ways and only new minor versions for bug fixes and backwards-compatible improvements. Also, when a version is supposed to be backwards-compatible, it's generally actually backwards-compatible.
DLLs are only bad because you can't set up a system with a sufficiently complete collection of them at the same time that every program will get the DLL it needs. Just because Microsoft's implementation of something is terminally broken doesn't mean it's not otherwise a great idea.
I defy you (or anyone over the age of 4) to do that sort of thing in Windows with a mouse.
Visual Basic. It doesn't get any easier than that. I have a small mind, so I'd rather use what's left of my small mind to do things that are more entertaining than learning shell scripting.
2000 is technically NT 5.0.
XP is technically NT 5.1
Server 2003 wasn't filler, it was designed to fulfill and entirely different role-- serving. It's the same NT codebase as always, it just has enhancements/modifications to better support serving and scalability. It's basically XP without all of the userland GUI stuff in it. Technically, it's NT 5.2
For that matter, 98 wasn't really filler, either. It was how they should have done 95 in the first place! ME, yes, that was filler. I will give you that much.
For more information on how things actually are/were, check this page out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
And for what definitely won't be the last time here, either, Vista is *far* from an XP clone, and anyone who has used it for more than two minutes will know this. This is a common consensus. Take your FOSS bias elsewhere.
SP2 was basically just bugfixes plus windows firewall.
How did this myth that SP2 added windows firewall get started ?
SP2 just turned the firewall on by default. It was already there, and had been since XP's initial release.