If MS says 'Vista has X', and then says 'This computer supports Vista', that computer damn well better be able to do X, or, like the lawsuit asserts, there's false advertising somewhere going on.
No, they (quite clearly) say "Vista has A, B, C, D and E. You need X computer to be able to do A, B and C, but you need X+Y computer to be able to do A, B, C, D and E.
No false advertising. No bait and switch. The case is meritless.
Every version of OSX up to this point has been more responsive than the previous.
When you start off that badly, it's hard to get any worse. When 10.0 was released, the fastest Mac available couldn't run it well. Even now, with all the performance increases, you still need a G5-class machine with a gig of RAM to handle more than a trivial load well. Windows has never had that sort of performance problem.
Doesn't that imply the OS is using less resources that than its predecessor?
Yes, but on its own this is meaningless. For example, if OS X 10.0 had required computing power equivalent to an 8 processor G5 to run smoothly, but by 10.4 that requirement had been reduced to a mere dual G5 equivalent, efficiency would have improved by a factor of 4 - but that wouldn't make requiring a dual G5 for basic functionality acceptable.
Vista's hardware requirements are neither unreasonable, nor unrealistic. Roughly the same amount of hardware power is required for both Vista and OS X to get the same level of performance (Vista needs a bit more - but it's doing more as well). Further, the minimum level of hardware is dirt cheap and has been for years. All you need to get a good Vista "experience" is a Ghz+ processor, 1G+ RAM and a DirectX9 capable video card.
My definition certainly isn't that, but it is insanely counterproductive and can only damage their reputation further when the supposed new OS needs almost twice the resources of the previous one and does not really anything new that the other one can't with a little bit of third party payware, shareware, and freeware, and do it faster and more efficiently.
No amount of third party software will turn XP into Vista. You might be able to make it look mostly the same to a casual inspection, but that's a different thing entirely.
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it.
Right. Because it's not like basically every other platform follows the same pattern (one standout exception being OS X, mainly because when it starts off that bad there's nowhere to go but up).
Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources?
That would depend entirely upon whether the increased hardware requirements are in proportion to the increased functionality.
Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
I think consumers are demanding their computer do more stuff.
I've got a brand new PC that's right in the sweet spot for Vista performance. Yet, Windows XP runs faster and better on it than Vista. So how can anyone possibly say that Vista is "better"?
Because it does more and does it with better designed and implemented procedures.
You might not think it does more, you might not think it does it better. You might have zero interest in every single new feature, bug fix and design improvement that Vista has delivered - but that does not change the fact they are there, and therefore the assumption underlying your entire rant is incorrect, rendering it moot.
A new version is supposed to have at least the same functionalities as the previous versions.
When using exactly the same functionalities as the previous version, one could expect the new version to take less resource or at least, to not take more.
It is trivial to think of valid and justifiable reasons for these not to be true.
This is a good example, although I don't really think it's part of the kernel in the context you appear to be using it (based on your mention of GRUB).
b) An implementation of the core system services, many of which are duplicated within the C library, cos I think people find them easier to use there. (Open, read, write, execute, all that sort of stuff. People have added a lot more to Linux now; in the first version of the kernel that Linus released, I'm fairly sure there were only 64 services within the kernel. Now from memory there are 260)
What's a "core system service" ?;) What's *not* a "core system service" ? Is, say, OpenGL a "core system service" ? How about if you're talking about the operating system on a console or some other device whose only purpose is to display graphics ?
c) Because it's the first program to load, the kernel is also what loads all other programs...it also does memory management.
Memory management is another good example, but... where does something like a JVM that also does "memory management" fit into the picture ?
d) A means of loading modules for communicating with different forms of hardware.
I'm reading this as hardware drivers. Where do drivers that run in user space fit in ?
e) A TCP/IP networking stack as part of it.
Consider Trumpet Winsock for Windows 3.x. Part of the kernel or not ?
I am not inventing a definition for operating system or for kernel. Nor am I going to attempt to come up with a line or two to define the kernel so that the you can attempt to pick apart the words with some technicality you read within them to try to make them include non-kernel components like libc.
Your definition can be as long as it needs to be.
Thus far, your terminology has been non-specific and generalised. Attacking other people because they are being too general according to your personal beliefs, is nothing more than hypocrisy.
You either need to come up with a consistent, universal, specific, objective definition of what is part of an "operating system" (ie: kernel) and what isn't, or stop attacking people for not using the particular definition you subscribe to.
Here I'll help you out. Arguing the technical definition of the operating system (the lines of which are not glaringly clear in every system) is not going to be able to make your point.
My point is that your "argument" is meaningless hypocrisy. You are criticising someone for doing exactly the same thing you are, because you disagree with the semantics.
The experts have always agreed with me on this topic and the ignorant masses and half-educated have agreed with you.
Woohoo. Appeal to authority *and* ad hominem in the same sentence.
Your argument would be much firmer if you claimed that language is a living thing and the widespread usage of the ignorant masses has redefined the term or at least added a second definition.
You appear to think I'm arguing something I'm not.
Simple fact is, the "definition" of operating system is a matter of context, even when the term is being used by "academics and experts". Any of those "academics or experts" - or even their students, assuming they were paying attention - should be able to tell you that.
Ah, I see. So the kernel is what's left when you discount everything that isn't the kernel. How very zen. However, it's not particularly definitive (or useful), nor does it answer the question.
Where does, say, a network stack fit into the picture ? How about hardware drivers ? Can code executing outside of user space be part of the kernel ? Is all code executing inside kernel space inherently part of the kernel ? What about platforms that make no distinction between user space and kernel space ? Or is it just a matter of "I'll know it when I see it" ?
I see, everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a 'insert misc insulting noun here'. Got it. Now, begone troll.
No, people who try to appear intelligent by making irrelevant, semantic arguments against commonly accepted terminology, apparently for no real reason other than to appear in the thread, are pedantic wankers.
Linux is an operating system. The kernel is the only and only component of the operating system. Everything else is just a library, application, or memory resident application that runs on top of that kernel.
So what's a kernel ?
The confusion in these terms have been inappropriately spread by Microsoft and Apple who refer to their distributions as operating systems because they do not allow competing distributions based upon their operating systems.
Actually, pretty much everyone except hardcore academics and pedantic wankers use the term "operating system" and "operating environment" interchangeable. This was happening before Microsoft or Apple were even incorporated.
I could respond on a point-by-point basis, but that would probably be a waste of both our times. Instead I'll simply refer you to this excerpt from Power & Market by Murray N. Rothbard, which addresses most of the issues you've raised.
Well, not really. There's a couple of anecdotes, a large amount of idealistic handwaving and an explanation of a system that would fall into small-scale warfare in very short order, as aggrieved parties participated in escalating acts of aggression (or "punishment" as the article prefers to call it) according their own individual honor^H^H^H^H^H^Hlegal systems.
Anarchy is a great system if you're either a) a bully or b) rich enough to pay the bullies to protect (or ignore) you. For everyone else, it's a crapshoot of life on borrowed time, waiting for someone in the category of (a) or (b) to screw them over because they couldn't pay their protect^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinsurance money.
Every time some third-world country gets invaded, stages a coup or just falls apart because it's the full moon has fallen on a Thursday, we get to see how anarchy would actually work when real people (rather than well educated rich people) are executing it. Personally, I'm not a fan. There are way, *way* too many arseholes and poor people in the world for anarchy to work.
There is nothing the same about it at all. Have you even done, for example an Ubuntu update. all the required files are updated, free of charge, the machine does not even try to force you into a reboot, it politely waits until you have finished and reboot in your own time prior to actually updating the files. It even offers the original kernel at boot time as an option.
Firstly, Ubuntu hasn't been around long enough to suffer through a major kernel update, so using it as an example in this context is simply wrong. Secondly, even Ubuntu has had a large number of upgrade headaches and horror stories in its short life.
I've been managed Linux systems since the early 2.0.x kernels, and I can assure you that your scenario is grossly simplified, even for a naive idealist. A major Linux upgrade similar to going from Windows XP to Vista is a significant undertaking and breaks a lot of software unless it is also upgraded at the same time.
No paying three times as much for the software as you originally paid, and if does break your software or hardware, the original is right there and ready to use and you can wait until such time as you choose to make the change.
Even more evidence you've never had to performance a major upgrade on a Linux system.
No WGA nonsense, no (FU)DRM, no activation M$=B$, and absolutely no reducing the functionality of the hardware and software you have paid for, you own your PC not M$.
Please explain how Vista "reduces the functionality of the hardware and software you have paid for".
I have an old Suse 7.2 that I am still running and it is fine, when the mood strikes, I might update it, [...]
Don't forget to try and keep all those old applications running and *only* upgrade the kernel and core system libraries, so you're doing something close to an apples to apples comparison. Heck, try upgrading just the kernel on its own and none of the dependencies - should be good for a laugh.
[...] or if I choose (emphasis on I choose) swap to an alternate distribution, perhaps Xubuntu as it is an older machine (trying doing that in the, you have no choice, windows environment).
Changing distributions is the equivalent of changing from Windows to OS X, or Windows to Linux. Nothing in Windows stops you doing either of those, nor does anything in Windows "force" you to upgrade to a newer version of Windows.
Because the same games would have run just fine on DX9 or OpenGL, they simply got paid money by MS (or are owned by MS) to require DX10 instead. It is a demand, not a necessity.
Evidence, apart from the black helicopters circling your house ?
What I was really getting at was the word "measurable" which I took to suggest that there was some objective basis for your preference, rather than personal like and dislike. I think I was hoping that you did have some actual measurements that could be applied. Studying software metrics can do this to a chap, I'm afraid.
And I do. Original functionality remains unchanged. New functionality reduces access times for common tasks (eg: getting to the contents of My Documents).
Ie: your metric is how long it takes to do stuff and the new Start Menu is faster - or, at worst, no slower.
Defining the rules is easy enough; just look at the system of common law prior to the point where it was co-opted by the governments of the time.
Sorry mate, I'm not a student of legal history. You'll need to elaborate a bit more.
Or, for that matter, international law today. There's no world government to which all the other nations are subject, so how can there be such a thing as international law, and what ensures that the individual states will follow it? Answer: The rules are established through precedent (i.e. rulings which successfully resolved disputes in the past are re-used in the present), and enforced through self-defense, the value of reputation in the wider community, and the simple fact that violence is always costly to both sides in any dispute. Diplomacy, in other words, substitutes for arbitrary legislation.
Arguably, "international law" doesn't work particularly well - when it works at all - and only within a very limited scope. Saying a similar system will work at the local level seems either incredibly idealistic or incredibly naive.
How do you deal with conflicts ? Person A thinks action X is A-OK, whereas person B thinks it's a mortal sin (abortion being an obvious example). How are you going to reconcile these two opinions within a community ?
Untrue. A universal set of social rules would simply include the necessary provisions, such as self-defense, which permit such enforcement. These provisions would apply to each individual rather than being restricted to designated law-enforcement personnel; in turn, no would would be able to legitimately exceed the bounds of self-defense as present enforcement personnel routinely do, on their own or as directed by the legislature. (Obviously one would be able to delegate self-defense to a third party, as I suspect would generally occur, but they would then be acting as one's agent and thus limited to a purely defensive role. One cannot delegate authority one does not possess.)
So where do crimes like fraud or insider trading fit into this picture ? How would you implement a restraining order against someone threatending violence ? How are you going to enforce things like vehicle safety standards ?
This "delegated third party" reeks of those crazy "privatise the Police, firefighters, etc" suggestions that come out of the nutty-Libertarian circles. How are you going to stop this "delegated thrid party" (ie: the Police) from simply taking over once they have reached sufficient numbers ? How do you act against them when they do something wrong ? How do you enforce their adherence to "contractual obligations" ?
Further, assuming your "third party" is allowed to act "on your behalf" in "self defence" after, say, you are murdered or incapacitated, how is that any different to the system that exists now with the State doing the same ?
A fairly large problem in your theory is that you can't have a meaningful "universal set of rules", because you can't get everyone to agree on anything significant - and if everyone doesn't agree then someone is being "ruled" by someone else.
The only problem with that is, if you use only the documented APIs, then Microsoft products (which use the undocumented APIs which sometimes produce much faster/prettier results) are going to eat you for lunch.
Right. So that'd be a total of zero ways in which the "new" start menu is superior.
I'll turn it about: how is the new Start Menu _worse_ ?
Pretty much the conclusion I'd already arrived at, really. Unless you'd like to list your metrics, and explain how to measure them.
Firstly, the new Start Menu delivers all the functionality of the old Start Menu, in essentially the same format - so the *worst case* is that they're the same.
Secondly, the new functionality it offers is the more-recently-used program list, more items that can be placed directly on it (My Computer, etc) and accessibility to them is improved (eg: My Documents and Recent Documents are separate items on the top level). This makes accessing programs you use (relatively) frequently quicker (via the MRU list) and also makes accessing things like My Documents and quicker.
The MRU-list, in particular, is extremely helpful once you learn to use it.
I think you are just a bit confused, all think improvements from the 2.6 kernel are available for the 2.2 kernel, when upgrade the 2.2 kernel it becomes the 2.6 kernel. You can do it on line for free.
Except the 2.6 kernel also brings along with it verious other upgrades that need to be done - glibc, etc - which may break existing applications, requiring them to also be upgraded, and so on, and so forth.
The situations is exactly the same. Marginally cheaper, perhaps, but in the long run the up-front cost of most software is a pittance.
Perhaps you can explain how games will "require (pointlessly)" DirectX 10 ? Are you trying to argue game developers will spend significant amounts of time and money writing games to use DirectX 10 for no reason ?
You can follow up by elaborating on how you will have no "choice" but to purchase said games. Does it involve the software developers coming over to your house with bright lights and thumbscrews ?
(example #1 = me. I've used Linux on the desktop for the last 5 years - and it's Vista that's making me change back to Windows. Can't even be arsed to repair my aging Mac Powerbook. Yes it is still windows, but its such a giant leap forward...)
Now this I don't get. Certainly, Vista is a massive update to Windows, but most of the improvements are under the hood, low impact (to the typical user) and non-obvious. If you're technically competent enough to have been running Linux full time for ~5 years, you would have already worked around the obvious things Vista changes (eg: not defaulting to Administrator).
Can you elaborate what Vista has - that XP doesn't - that is compelling to you ?
This is why I just don't believe Vista is really going to get adopted all that quickly, what's worse is they broke 32bit apps, which will again need to be rewritten for a 64bit Vista OS.
WTF are you talking about ? Vista doesn't "break 32 bit apps".
I -so- hate how right you are. I do -not- want Vista, but once a good game comes out that requires (pointlessly) DirectX 10, I won't have much choice left.
Slashdot Mirror
If MS says 'Vista has X', and then says 'This computer supports Vista', that computer damn well better be able to do X, or, like the lawsuit asserts, there's false advertising somewhere going on.
No, they (quite clearly) say "Vista has A, B, C, D and E. You need X computer to be able to do A, B and C, but you need X+Y computer to be able to do A, B, C, D and E.
No false advertising. No bait and switch. The case is meritless.
Every version of OSX up to this point has been more responsive than the previous.
When you start off that badly, it's hard to get any worse. When 10.0 was released, the fastest Mac available couldn't run it well. Even now, with all the performance increases, you still need a G5-class machine with a gig of RAM to handle more than a trivial load well. Windows has never had that sort of performance problem.
Doesn't that imply the OS is using less resources that than its predecessor?
Yes, but on its own this is meaningless. For example, if OS X 10.0 had required computing power equivalent to an 8 processor G5 to run smoothly, but by 10.4 that requirement had been reduced to a mere dual G5 equivalent, efficiency would have improved by a factor of 4 - but that wouldn't make requiring a dual G5 for basic functionality acceptable.
Vista's hardware requirements are neither unreasonable, nor unrealistic. Roughly the same amount of hardware power is required for both Vista and OS X to get the same level of performance (Vista needs a bit more - but it's doing more as well). Further, the minimum level of hardware is dirt cheap and has been for years. All you need to get a good Vista "experience" is a Ghz+ processor, 1G+ RAM and a DirectX9 capable video card.
Sorry, but XP was a lot more than "just a pretty interface" compared to Windows 98.
So is Vista, compared to XP. Clear and dramatic improvements in pretty much all areas. It's just that most of them are invisible to the end user.
My definition certainly isn't that, but it is insanely counterproductive and can only damage their reputation further when the supposed new OS needs almost twice the resources of the previous one and does not really anything new that the other one can't with a little bit of third party payware, shareware, and freeware, and do it faster and more efficiently.
No amount of third party software will turn XP into Vista. You might be able to make it look mostly the same to a casual inspection, but that's a different thing entirely.
The problem is that it doesn't have features consumers want.
For example...?
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it.
Right. Because it's not like basically every other platform follows the same pattern (one standout exception being OS X, mainly because when it starts off that bad there's nowhere to go but up).
Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources?
That would depend entirely upon whether the increased hardware requirements are in proportion to the increased functionality.
Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
I think consumers are demanding their computer do more stuff.
I've got a brand new PC that's right in the sweet spot for Vista performance. Yet, Windows XP runs faster and better on it than Vista. So how can anyone possibly say that Vista is "better"?
Because it does more and does it with better designed and implemented procedures.
You might not think it does more, you might not think it does it better. You might have zero interest in every single new feature, bug fix and design improvement that Vista has delivered - but that does not change the fact they are there, and therefore the assumption underlying your entire rant is incorrect, rendering it moot.
A new version is supposed to have at least the same functionalities as the previous versions.
When using exactly the same functionalities as the previous version, one could expect the new version to take less resource or at least, to not take more.
It is trivial to think of valid and justifiable reasons for these not to be true.
a) A bootstrap/bootloader.
This is a good example, although I don't really think it's part of the kernel in the context you appear to be using it (based on your mention of GRUB).
b) An implementation of the core system services, many of which are duplicated within the C library, cos I think people find them easier to use there. (Open, read, write, execute, all that sort of stuff. People have added a lot more to Linux now; in the first version of the kernel that Linus released, I'm fairly sure there were only 64 services within the kernel. Now from memory there are 260)
What's a "core system service" ? ;) What's *not* a "core system service" ? Is, say, OpenGL a "core system service" ? How about if you're talking about the operating system on a console or some other device whose only purpose is to display graphics ?
c) Because it's the first program to load, the kernel is also what loads all other programs...it also does memory management.
Memory management is another good example, but... where does something like a JVM that also does "memory management" fit into the picture ?
d) A means of loading modules for communicating with different forms of hardware.
I'm reading this as hardware drivers. Where do drivers that run in user space fit in ?
e) A TCP/IP networking stack as part of it.
Consider Trumpet Winsock for Windows 3.x. Part of the kernel or not ?
I am not inventing a definition for operating system or for kernel. Nor am I going to attempt to come up with a line or two to define the kernel so that the you can attempt to pick apart the words with some technicality you read within them to try to make them include non-kernel components like libc.
Your definition can be as long as it needs to be.
Thus far, your terminology has been non-specific and generalised. Attacking other people because they are being too general according to your personal beliefs, is nothing more than hypocrisy.
You either need to come up with a consistent, universal, specific, objective definition of what is part of an "operating system" (ie: kernel) and what isn't, or stop attacking people for not using the particular definition you subscribe to.
Here I'll help you out. Arguing the technical definition of the operating system (the lines of which are not glaringly clear in every system) is not going to be able to make your point.
My point is that your "argument" is meaningless hypocrisy. You are criticising someone for doing exactly the same thing you are, because you disagree with the semantics.
The experts have always agreed with me on this topic and the ignorant masses and half-educated have agreed with you.
Woohoo. Appeal to authority *and* ad hominem in the same sentence.
Your argument would be much firmer if you claimed that language is a living thing and the widespread usage of the ignorant masses has redefined the term or at least added a second definition.
You appear to think I'm arguing something I'm not.
Simple fact is, the "definition" of operating system is a matter of context, even when the term is being used by "academics and experts". Any of those "academics or experts" - or even their students, assuming they were paying attention - should be able to tell you that.
And what the pro-lifers still say: What do you know about someone else's body inside yours?
I know that biologically it's a parasite which only exists due to the _voluntary_ actions and ongoing goodwill of the host.
It is a different set of DNA.
So's the bacteria that makes me sick. Should I stop taking antibiotics because it hurts them ?
That is answered in the statement you quoted.
Ah, I see. So the kernel is what's left when you discount everything that isn't the kernel. How very zen. However, it's not particularly definitive (or useful), nor does it answer the question.
Where does, say, a network stack fit into the picture ? How about hardware drivers ? Can code executing outside of user space be part of the kernel ? Is all code executing inside kernel space inherently part of the kernel ? What about platforms that make no distinction between user space and kernel space ? Or is it just a matter of "I'll know it when I see it" ?
I see, everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a 'insert misc insulting noun here'. Got it. Now, begone troll.
No, people who try to appear intelligent by making irrelevant, semantic arguments against commonly accepted terminology, apparently for no real reason other than to appear in the thread, are pedantic wankers.
Linux is an operating system. The kernel is the only and only component of the operating system. Everything else is just a library, application, or memory resident application that runs on top of that kernel.
So what's a kernel ?
The confusion in these terms have been inappropriately spread by Microsoft and Apple who refer to their distributions as operating systems because they do not allow competing distributions based upon their operating systems.
Actually, pretty much everyone except hardcore academics and pedantic wankers use the term "operating system" and "operating environment" interchangeable. This was happening before Microsoft or Apple were even incorporated.
I could respond on a point-by-point basis, but that would probably be a waste of both our times. Instead I'll simply refer you to this excerpt from Power & Market by Murray N. Rothbard, which addresses most of the issues you've raised.
Well, not really. There's a couple of anecdotes, a large amount of idealistic handwaving and an explanation of a system that would fall into small-scale warfare in very short order, as aggrieved parties participated in escalating acts of aggression (or "punishment" as the article prefers to call it) according their own individual honor^H^H^H^H^H^Hlegal systems.
Anarchy is a great system if you're either a) a bully or b) rich enough to pay the bullies to protect (or ignore) you. For everyone else, it's a crapshoot of life on borrowed time, waiting for someone in the category of (a) or (b) to screw them over because they couldn't pay their protect^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinsurance money.
Every time some third-world country gets invaded, stages a coup or just falls apart because it's the full moon has fallen on a Thursday, we get to see how anarchy would actually work when real people (rather than well educated rich people) are executing it. Personally, I'm not a fan. There are way, *way* too many arseholes and poor people in the world for anarchy to work.
There is nothing the same about it at all. Have you even done, for example an Ubuntu update. all the required files are updated, free of charge, the machine does not even try to force you into a reboot, it politely waits until you have finished and reboot in your own time prior to actually updating the files. It even offers the original kernel at boot time as an option.
Firstly, Ubuntu hasn't been around long enough to suffer through a major kernel update, so using it as an example in this context is simply wrong. Secondly, even Ubuntu has had a large number of upgrade headaches and horror stories in its short life.
I've been managed Linux systems since the early 2.0.x kernels, and I can assure you that your scenario is grossly simplified, even for a naive idealist. A major Linux upgrade similar to going from Windows XP to Vista is a significant undertaking and breaks a lot of software unless it is also upgraded at the same time.
No paying three times as much for the software as you originally paid, and if does break your software or hardware, the original is right there and ready to use and you can wait until such time as you choose to make the change.
Even more evidence you've never had to performance a major upgrade on a Linux system.
No WGA nonsense, no (FU)DRM, no activation M$=B$, and absolutely no reducing the functionality of the hardware and software you have paid for, you own your PC not M$.
Please explain how Vista "reduces the functionality of the hardware and software you have paid for".
I have an old Suse 7.2 that I am still running and it is fine, when the mood strikes, I might update it, [...]
Don't forget to try and keep all those old applications running and *only* upgrade the kernel and core system libraries, so you're doing something close to an apples to apples comparison. Heck, try upgrading just the kernel on its own and none of the dependencies - should be good for a laugh.
[...] or if I choose (emphasis on I choose) swap to an alternate distribution, perhaps Xubuntu as it is an older machine (trying doing that in the, you have no choice, windows environment).
Changing distributions is the equivalent of changing from Windows to OS X, or Windows to Linux. Nothing in Windows stops you doing either of those, nor does anything in Windows "force" you to upgrade to a newer version of Windows.
Because the same games would have run just fine on DX9 or OpenGL, they simply got paid money by MS (or are owned by MS) to require DX10 instead. It is a demand, not a necessity.
Evidence, apart from the black helicopters circling your house ?
What I was really getting at was the word "measurable" which I took to suggest that there was some objective basis for your preference, rather than personal like and dislike. I think I was hoping that you did have some actual measurements that could be applied. Studying software metrics can do this to a chap, I'm afraid.
And I do. Original functionality remains unchanged. New functionality reduces access times for common tasks (eg: getting to the contents of My Documents).
Ie: your metric is how long it takes to do stuff and the new Start Menu is faster - or, at worst, no slower.
Defining the rules is easy enough; just look at the system of common law prior to the point where it was co-opted by the governments of the time.
Sorry mate, I'm not a student of legal history. You'll need to elaborate a bit more.
Or, for that matter, international law today. There's no world government to which all the other nations are subject, so how can there be such a thing as international law, and what ensures that the individual states will follow it? Answer: The rules are established through precedent (i.e. rulings which successfully resolved disputes in the past are re-used in the present), and enforced through self-defense, the value of reputation in the wider community, and the simple fact that violence is always costly to both sides in any dispute. Diplomacy, in other words, substitutes for arbitrary legislation.
Arguably, "international law" doesn't work particularly well - when it works at all - and only within a very limited scope. Saying a similar system will work at the local level seems either incredibly idealistic or incredibly naive.
How do you deal with conflicts ? Person A thinks action X is A-OK, whereas person B thinks it's a mortal sin (abortion being an obvious example). How are you going to reconcile these two opinions within a community ?
Untrue. A universal set of social rules would simply include the necessary provisions, such as self-defense, which permit such enforcement. These provisions would apply to each individual rather than being restricted to designated law-enforcement personnel; in turn, no would would be able to legitimately exceed the bounds of self-defense as present enforcement personnel routinely do, on their own or as directed by the legislature. (Obviously one would be able to delegate self-defense to a third party, as I suspect would generally occur, but they would then be acting as one's agent and thus limited to a purely defensive role. One cannot delegate authority one does not possess.)
So where do crimes like fraud or insider trading fit into this picture ? How would you implement a restraining order against someone threatending violence ? How are you going to enforce things like vehicle safety standards ?
This "delegated third party" reeks of those crazy "privatise the Police, firefighters, etc" suggestions that come out of the nutty-Libertarian circles. How are you going to stop this "delegated thrid party" (ie: the Police) from simply taking over once they have reached sufficient numbers ? How do you act against them when they do something wrong ? How do you enforce their adherence to "contractual obligations" ?
Further, assuming your "third party" is allowed to act "on your behalf" in "self defence" after, say, you are murdered or incapacitated, how is that any different to the system that exists now with the State doing the same ?
A fairly large problem in your theory is that you can't have a meaningful "universal set of rules", because you can't get everyone to agree on anything significant - and if everyone doesn't agree then someone is being "ruled" by someone else.
The only problem with that is, if you use only the documented APIs, then Microsoft products (which use the undocumented APIs which sometimes produce much faster/prettier results) are going to eat you for lunch.
For example...?
Right. So that'd be a total of zero ways in which the "new" start menu is superior.
I'll turn it about: how is the new Start Menu _worse_ ?
Pretty much the conclusion I'd already arrived at, really. Unless you'd like to list your metrics, and explain how to measure them.
Firstly, the new Start Menu delivers all the functionality of the old Start Menu, in essentially the same format - so the *worst case* is that they're the same.
Secondly, the new functionality it offers is the more-recently-used program list, more items that can be placed directly on it (My Computer, etc) and accessibility to them is improved (eg: My Documents and Recent Documents are separate items on the top level). This makes accessing programs you use (relatively) frequently quicker (via the MRU list) and also makes accessing things like My Documents and quicker.
The MRU-list, in particular, is extremely helpful once you learn to use it.
I think you are just a bit confused, all think improvements from the 2.6 kernel are available for the 2.2 kernel, when upgrade the 2.2 kernel it becomes the 2.6 kernel. You can do it on line for free.
Except the 2.6 kernel also brings along with it verious other upgrades that need to be done - glibc, etc - which may break existing applications, requiring them to also be upgraded, and so on, and so forth.
The situations is exactly the same. Marginally cheaper, perhaps, but in the long run the up-front cost of most software is a pittance.
Perhaps you should have done the same, first.
Perhaps you can explain how games will "require (pointlessly)" DirectX 10 ? Are you trying to argue game developers will spend significant amounts of time and money writing games to use DirectX 10 for no reason ?
You can follow up by elaborating on how you will have no "choice" but to purchase said games. Does it involve the software developers coming over to your house with bright lights and thumbscrews ?
It does not improve the underlying operating system to any significant degree.
It would appear you have no idea what you're talking about.
(example #1 = me. I've used Linux on the desktop for the last 5 years - and it's Vista that's making me change back to Windows. Can't even be arsed to repair my aging Mac Powerbook. Yes it is still windows, but its such a giant leap forward...)
Now this I don't get. Certainly, Vista is a massive update to Windows, but most of the improvements are under the hood, low impact (to the typical user) and non-obvious. If you're technically competent enough to have been running Linux full time for ~5 years, you would have already worked around the obvious things Vista changes (eg: not defaulting to Administrator).
Can you elaborate what Vista has - that XP doesn't - that is compelling to you ?
This is why I just don't believe Vista is really going to get adopted all that quickly, what's worse is they broke 32bit apps, which will again need to be rewritten for a 64bit Vista OS.
WTF are you talking about ? Vista doesn't "break 32 bit apps".
I -so- hate how right you are. I do -not- want Vista, but once a good game comes out that requires (pointlessly) DirectX 10, I won't have much choice left.
I think you need to consult a dictionary.