I'd say Windows releases are more like Batman movies, each ones sucks more than the one before until it gets "re-imagined" into a new series (Win2k), which starts the process over (XP, Vista).
Or maybe like Bond movies, where they're all pretty much the same, only the plots get less believable and you're left longing for the "classic" Bond who didn't need insane gizmos to get the job done. Yes, I like that analogy better.
I'm interested in windows 7, simply because of this (supposedly) optimised kernel. Certainly I won't *ever* be purchasing Vista. I have one machine available that I need to use for vista builds of my software, but it doesn't get used (by me at least) for anything else, on account of being a pile of shit.
I liked windows 2k a lot, I learned Delphi programming on 2k box. These days I don't code on windows except for ports of my software, but XP is ok for games, and I still like and use MSoffice.
Unfashionable I know, but what can I say, I'm OS Neutral.
Personally, I'll be avoiding anything touched by Microsoft going forward. There are Trusted Computing vulnerabilities built into my hardware now, so the risks have definitely become too great. That goes for Novell as well, of course. Simply can't be trusted.
personaly i thought w2k was perfect.. truely built on NT with jsut a few usability things added.. the fact that w2k had device management and better error reporting for hardware was a perfect improvement over NT4 - also the support for things like directX and OGL was nice too - made it more usable - while w2k still had a the small (if you wnated it to be) foot print and prety decent preformance.
i am also glad that they updated the documentation from nt4 to w2k under defragment.. i will never forget reading that in the nt4 manual.. the recomended procedure for disk defragmentation was to back up the drive to tape.. format the drive and restore from tape.. just sadly funny for a server OS..
personaly i like w2k and still use it on my laptop.. i don't need the bells and wisles that xp and vista have - and with the lesser over head it makes my old p3 laptop run perfect
Yea like XP has so many bells and whistles that it's a problem?
Step one: Disable Windows firewall, Themes. Step two: Pretend it says "2000" instead of "XP"
ps. They didn't just "update the documentation" for defrag NTFS on NT4 to Windows 2000. There was no NTFS Defragment tool in NT4. The idea was that NTFS is much less susceptible to fragmentation (it is) that it would not be necessary. Unfortunately, this is untrue in the long-term - even NTFS can't avoid the fact that sometimes there will not be enough continuous blocks free for a file.
Generally speaking, you don't need to run defragmentation tools on servers anyways. It's just not a big enough problem. For a busy file server, perhaps, but back in NT4 land a file server didn't have 1TB of word documents like a medium-large sized company today does.
They added an NTFS defrag to Windows 2000.
ps. There's no built-in defrag tools for Linux ext2/3/etc or MacOS even still. Because, it's just not a huge problem with modern filesystems. But it would be nice to have these tools available for those times when heavy fragmentation has occured.
I understand the importance of getting the FP, but really... is google that difficult a tool to use?
One of the probably features of Windows 7 include MinWin, which is a much lighter kernel (25MB footprint on disk, 40MB footprint in RAM). Another is the likelyhood of MS's heirarchical filesystem that was pulled in the Vista release.
There are other features being discussed such as extensive touch interface ability, etc...
I think you're right in saying that you can't compare Windows Service Packs to Mac OS X releases. However, your further statements about this puzzle me.
Point OS X releases include new features and updates old ones, while MS Service packs do neither of those. Service packs are just bundles of all the security updates since the last service pack.
IMHO that's not true. Windows XP SP2 added a whole range of new features (for instance in the wireless networking area), and other service packs have done so too.
Point OS X releases are more akin to Ubuntu LTS releases or something along those lines.
Ubuntu LTS releases generally have very few new features. Something like the Leopard release wouldn't be an LTS release. Als, there is no real equivalent for repositories in Mac OS, making comparisons about releases hard.
Service packs don't even mean anything anymore to the consumer because of the improvements to the automatic rollout of updates in windows.
Ok, where is your source on that one? Any citation? Windows XP SP2 meant a lot to consumers AFAIK.
Windows XP-SP2 was an out of the ordinary release for Microsoft. There were still massive security holes in the OS and the industry was really getting pissed with the holes taking out their networks. IMO, Windows XP-SP2 was, in Microsoft's domain, a new OS release since there so many major changes to the standard Windows XP OS. I don't think you could get Windows XP-SP2 if you just rolled up all the updates for Windows XP and installed them. It was a "new" release.
Windows XP-SP3 is going to be the same and Windows 7 is actually going to be Windows XP-SP4.
Windows 7/XP-SP4 will have the obvious GUI changes to make it look like a sister of Vista, but it will really be Vista's little brother(XP) in drag. IMO.
I'm concerned about the return to numerical versioning.
They went from 3.11, to year-based (98), to cheesy acronyms (ME), to acronyms containing the Mighty Letter "X" (XP), to the vaguely multi-cultural (Vista). Now they're going back to whole numbers. All the joy of 3.11, half the perfomance.
They haven't really cribbed Apple's Roman Numeral approach, so let's work with that.
Vista...VII-STA...VII: Something To Avoid.
Congrats on being the first (and so far only) person to get this right; the only thing missing is dates. In my opinion, the dates show parallels between 2K -> XP and Vista -> Windows 7. There was about a year and a half between 2K and XP releases, with XP initially just adding polish and tweaks to smooth out the major architectural changes of 2K. It also gave time for a compatible driver base to get established. In the end this resulted in much better uptake for XP than 2K. Maybe they're shooting for a similar scenario.
1 - Microsoft says they learned from their mistakes, and have been deconstructing Windows to remove bloat, and make the whole thing run faster. Windows Server can even run sans-GUI now, and they're building up from a minimalist stack. This is a really good thing.
2 - There were some neat concepts that were promised with Vista and never delivered, like the file abstraction stack, or WinFS. Now they might have time to do it right.
3 - Vista was a total bomb. There is no denying it at all. So why bother? Admit your mistake and move on quickly. All in all, this sounds like a surprisingly smart move on their part.
I found it hard to continue reading your post after point 1 began with "Microsoft says". As you rightly point out in point 2, MS-says with respect to what we-got in Vista didn't quite match up. MS promised a lot and users got an OS that felt to many like a regression.
MS has a habit of "promising" features that it doesn't know how to deliver; its useful if you want to discourage investment in potential competitors. After all, why go and develop a new fs technology if the company with a 90%+ monopoly in the OS sector is going to integrate it into their product?
"Windows 7" will be an incremental change to Vista with some bug fixes and a desire to gain a better image in the market than the ironically sullied Vista has. How can MS develop features in less than 1 year that they couldn't manage to make in 4?
3 - Vista was a total bomb. There is no denying it at all. So why bother? Admit your mistake and move on quickly. All in all, this sounds like a surprisingly smart move on their part.
Hopefully it will end up being like windows ME -> windows XP, with vista being ME, and the new OS representing XP.
Contrary to peoples constant whining, vista is a reasonable enough O/S, the only problem i've seen with it is the resource intensiveness. Rarely do i ever have crash problems.
But this will turn into another 300 comment microsoft hate-o-thon just because of story that is an unverified RUMOR about an operating system that nobody responding has even SEEN yet.
* UAC - annoying and not remotely secure. People will be trained to always click yes, or just disable it. Further more, it prevented me from installing legit software, and copying files in certain directories. * Drivers - People say an OS is only as good as the software for it, and I'd argue an OS is only as good as the drivers. If you can't support your hardware, then software isn't even an issue. Now all drivers MUST be signed, yet many signed drivers don't work very well, if at all. I think it would be a good idea to have all drivers in one central repository (like the Linux kernel) so you won't have to worry about tracking down drivers for old hardware, but make sure the drivers work. And here is an idea, make the drivers modular. Drivers cause more BSODs and crashes than anything else. Don't let a single driver bring down a system. This is just basic common sense. * Design for productivity, and not looks. Sexy is sexy, and we all like sexy things. In the long run however, I want my computer to enable me to work, not prevent me from doing so. Usability studies have shown that Vista's UI slows people down performing the same tasks. Scrolling in the Start Menu? Again, the writing was on the wall here. Look at the UI changes in Windows Media Player, and you'll see a program that has become less user friendly, while prettier. Why should we expect Vista to be different? * Performance is piss-poor. Again, people like fast computers. Installing Vista is just a bad decision. * Vista's worst enemy is not OS X or Linux (as much as I love me some Linux). Vista's worst enemy is XP, which post-SP1 has been a pretty decent OS. For the end user, Vista provides no real benefits or new features besides better looks, while slowing your PC down considerably. And with projects like the Vista Transformation Pack, you can make XP look like Vista. Why would someone want Vista?
Too many people misread the whole Windows ME thing. Microsoft's goal since the days of Windows NT 3.1 was always to eventually migrate people from the old DOS/Windows codebase to the new NT codebase. In order to do that, they had to get the APIs synched.
Windows NT 3.1 had Win32 and Windows 3.1 had the older 'Win16' API. So they released Win32s for the older DOS/Windows platform, then Windows NT 4.0 with the new user interface. With the Chicago project -- Windows 95 (based on the new UI for NT4) -- was to be the first of the old codebase with the a full version of the new (NT) API, Win32. With that in hand, they had planned to do one more update to each version -- Nashville became Windows 98, and Daytona became Windows 2000. There was supposed to be a combined release of an operating system called 'Cairo' after that, where they finally dropped the whole DOS/Windows thing, but they got sidetracked because they were under pressure to produce a desktop OS for the low-end of the market. So the result was Windows ME, which was rushed out the door at the last minute and annointed as the last of the DOS/Windows line.
Cairo, which was promised to be totally 'object oriented' -- files would be stored as objects in a big database (sound familiar?), but it never happened. So instead, we get, as the first OS of the newly merged OS lines, Windows XP. And yes, XP looks like the greek letter "Chi" and "Ro", of course XP doesn't end up having anything promised in Cairo.
The Cairo promises were to be fullfilled with Vista, but that never happened because the schedule got pushed more and more and they were under pressure to do SOMETHING since competition from Apple and Linux stepped in to fill the void of 5+ years with no new Microsoft OS. So they pushed Vista out the door with none of the promised features and a bunch glitz stolen from Apple. (The last time they stole from Apple, it went exceedingly well, so what the heck, right?)
Windows 7 -- if it's true -- sounds like it could be what Vista was supposed to be. Of course, by now no one will care. It'll be too little, too late, IMHO.
Indeed, that is a ridiculous number to boast about. That is not much under 512 MB, which many machines out there are still using. If you have 2 Gigs, which should be more than plenty for an average desktop system, then 1/4 of the memory is used before you even do anything. It just emphasises that there is no such thing as a windows upgrade, it just expands to fill the resources available (much like a fart in a room). Personally, when I have a 2Ghz Dual core 64Bit system with 4GB of RAM on my desktop, I want it to be _slightly_ more responsive than the 8Mhz 8086 system with 640 KB I started my PC experience on.
So long as you're running the same programs on it I don't see why it would be any less responsive. Just install DOS, VisiCalc, and your dot matrix printer, and ZOOM!
I disagree - I had Vista on my Laptop for a while (modern spec, came with Vista pre installed)- I could have been waiting over 10 minutes for it to kick back up after going to sleep. It was well over a minute just to boot. Plenty of times it would spend time 'thinking' and ignoring me. YMMV, but I think the fact that a modern system & OS _CAN_ be slower than one 20 years ago (a long time in IT land) is a sad indication of how badly OS development can go.
With the 8086, I was booting in maybe 15 seconds (time has hazed my memory), loading turbo pascal, and programming away with only some minor waiting times. Sure there was a noticible delay when compiling, but even then it would be less than a program of comparible usefulness on visual studio.
As an aside, I think my most productive system (both in terms of how responsive it was, and how much I got done) was a 40Mhz 386 with, if memory serves, 2MB of RAM. I played with Linux, accelerrated my programming abilities with learning C, Assembly, the intricsies of gcc, gas, ld, make, awk etc. etc. I build my own OS on that system (sure it didn't do anything useful, but it had all the framework (multitasking, mem manger etc.) in place).
If you follow the links on the other article though, where they talk about redoing the kernel to what they are calling MinWin - it ran on 40 MB of memory and only had 100 files.
So it might be interesting where they draw the line between the kernel at 40 MB and 'the system' with 480 MB of memory. It sounds like mainly applications running that you could probably parse down.
Holy cow. I can remember when my HARD DISK was 480Mb. And that was 10 times bigger than the first hard disk I bought. And even THAT was an upgrade that cost nearly 25% of the computer again.
And, as you point out, that's BEFORE you do anything but actually turn the computer on and wait ten minutes. God knows what happens when you actually WANT to work. XP can boot fairly comfortable for low-to-mid-end users in 256Mb - it ain't fast, it'll swap, but on network managed machines without the usual startup cruft you'll get work done without in-app pauses and for a basic Office suite you won't even notice (I tend to find silent-hard-disk computers are percieved as "faster" by users, even when they are swapping more). 512Mb makes for a nice XP system and anything more is a bonus - I've run networks with hundreds of machines on XP and none of them ever needed more than 512Mb for adequate performance, unless they were doing high-end stuff like CAD - more important is to keep your startup entries clear than put more than 512Mb into an "office" XP machine. But having to have 512Mb before you can even boot the thing up?
170Mb used out of 256. That's with a full KDE GUI (commonly referred to as bloated by a lot of people who obviously don't get out into retail stores and buy Windows much), an Opera process collecting mail from dozens of accounts and browsing hundreds of webpages each day with memory caching, and that's been running for about 26 days now.
And THAT's a proxy/filter/cache for a school, with transparent bridging that hasn't rebooted in months. 50Mb in use, admittedly no X-Windows running at the moment. Even most of that is Samba, Squid memory cache, Apache and other miscellaneous programs running on it, not all of which are critical to its operation but provide nice web or GUI interfaces to the admins.
Seriously, I know that things move on and you can't stay on a 386 but what benefit does the actual end-user get for all that bloat? What can you do on a 512Mb "Windows 7" machine that you can't on a 512Mb Vista machine, 512Mb XP machine, 512Mb Linux machine? Can you even BOOT with just 512Mb on this new version? More worrying, how many Gigs of rubbish that load on startup does it come with to fill up 480 Mb before you get into the machine? And what does that do to your minimum installation size and baseline CPU use?
I switched, personally, to Linux at home, Linux in work where appropriate (i.e. everything but network-managed desktops, because of the amount of legacy Windows software required) at around the same time that a Linux machine with 256Mb could do the same things as an XP machine with 512Mb, all other things being equal.
I've got a salesman coming tomorrow to try to sell the school Vista, two months after we put in a brand new XP network replacing the previous XP network. They aren't even going to be able to sell us that because I've done my research, which they don't expect smaller schools to do. Too high requirements, too many unnecessary features, too much rubbish, no practical advantage. How are MS going to sell an OS that's going to need literally Gigs of RAM once it's combined with Office and all the usual bundled offering?
This same salesman will be selling Windows 7 in a few years, of course he will, but what do you get for your money? I've seen people selling Windows Vista "digital signage" (i.e. scrol
It will be interesting to see if the new focus on a "clean, lean" Windows 7 can be sustained, given Microsoft's deeply bureaucratic [blogspot.com] development structure.
Each team was separated by 6 layers of management from the leads, so let's add them in too, giving us 24 + (6 * 3) + 1 (the shared manager) 43 total people with a voice in this feature. Twenty-four of them were connected sorta closely to the code, and of those twenty four there were exactly zero with final say in how the feature worked.
The quote is from one of the people in the Vista shutdown menu team. It will be hard to winnow the cruft in that sort of environment.
I remember reading an article in 2001 in a computer magazine about the marvellous things that were going to be in Longhorn (now Vista). A wonderful new database-like file system, brilliant UI and other great things. I thought how wonderful this system was going to be compared to WinXP (which had just come out).
Then later I read about how the new file system (WinFS) was based on something called 'Cairo' and about how that too had been scrapped.
At that stage I was using Mandrake Linux (I switched to Ubuntu at the start of 2007), and wanted something better.
Anyway, so this chain of thought ends in, well now I am using Ubuntu, it does keep getting better all the time. I don't use MS Windows really at all now on my computers. Why do I care?
Meh, lets try and get back to where I stared. Can we expect a new file system? Can we expect radical 'new' technologies? Perhaps even voice commands? (Computer: open http colon slash slash slash dot dot org)
Microsoft may have blundered, but they're not dumb. I'm pretty sure they wrote Vista in such a way that it's extensible. So people didn't like Vista, so what? Some people have paid for it, enough at least that they've gotten feedback on how to polish it up. Then they release their next OS, and life goes on. One product failure is not enough to kill MS.
I just got a copy of OSX 10.5 for my really old and outdated mac. Specifically to get a working copy of dashcode as I write OSX widgets for Crestron control. I was expecting the worst as installing the latest OS on a old PC never is a good thing.
10.5 makes my machine faster. I kind of looked at it skeptically but it actually boots faster and has a more responsive feel, even NeoOffice opens faster as well as Final Cut.
Why is Apple able to deliver an OS that is faster instead of slower? It's got as much eye candy as vista.
Maybe microsoft needs to have all their programmers re-trained?
FYI: Single processor G4 with only 784 meg of ram, and a crappy laptop video card.
That's an easy one to explain, OSX was initially designed to be deliberately slow and they've just taken out increasing amounts of sleep() calls from the code with every major release so that they can claim they've magically made it faster.
As further testament to the genius of Jobs, he then sold all the sleep()'s to the project lead for Vista under the guise of a "technology partnership" contract.
Seven deadly sins
Seven ways to Win(dows)
Seven holy paths to hell
And your trip begins
Seven downward slopes
Seven bloodied hopes
Seven are your burning fires,
Seven your desires...
And not to mention the evil portent later on in the song of opening "the seventh seal" of the seventh iteration of your newly shrikwrapped Windows! Just hope they don't release it at 7:07 am on the 7th of July or we'll all be doomed!
So Microsoft has basically admitted that Vista is a flop, market wise. So what do they do? Announce a successor Real Soon Now.
They know they can't possibly get anything worth a damn out that quickly.. but that's not the goal here. The goal is to stave anyone figuring they might as well think about switching to Linux or OSX, cuz "Microsoft is going to fix Windows Real Soon Now".
In reality the product will actually be released in the middle of 2010. It may be good, it may be another bomb. How long can Microsoft keep up the "But the next one is going to be just GRRREEAAAT!"? Stay tuned...
Once MS makes an OS that can do all that, I might rejoin the dark side
I'm sure its safe to say MS -wish- they could do it:) They'd just get sued to oblivion by the europeans. MS Office bundled with Windows and forced on the user? Users seeing an MS controled repository of software with everything under the sun? Man, thats their wet dream.
How can it be awesome when it hasn't even got a Fun Pack ? Every MS system had its Fun Pack with great games such as Tetris or Pong and fabulous screensavers like, uh, stuff in colours.
I am not one of those people but I know some real Windows experts who can hack around in the registry configuration such that if an update, usually a driver, screws up their machine, then they can probably fix it without going for the complete rebuild option. They also probably keep a "Last Known Good" registry configuration they can switch back to quickly in such a scenario.
As a primarily Linux user, who uses Gentoo for frequent rolling minor updates rather than infrequent major updates, I keep a constant backup of the working kernel and configuration files by use of a cronjob shell script such that if a similar thing happened to me, if I couldn't fix it myself quickly, I would just do a rollback.
What I'm trying to say is that no-one denies that an update to *ANY* operating system can, potentially, screw the system up - but the fact is that preparing for such an eventuality is of primary importance.
I don't use Ubuntu but I would suspect if a Ubuntu update caused lots of people to have baulked machines, then, like Microsoft, Ubuntu would publish a fix on their web site to help get you out of it and it would be up to the user to go find and follow those instructions to get their machines back. But I suspect most Windows users would never bother even checking the MS web site, rather they'd just reinstall their machines or give it to an expert to fix.
In your particular case, it might be a wierd combination of hardware that has caused you, and maybe a handful of other people, to have a problem with an update that most other people didn't suffer. But the chances are that someone else more knowledgeable than you would have seen the problem, fixed it and put it up on the web somewhere - all it would take from you is a little clever Googling to find that out.
Ultimately, this issue has nothing to do with problems caused by whoever created the update, but about you making some effort to analyse what the problem is, look for a fix, and if there isn't one, post some polite messages in appropriate places asking for someone's help - whether it's Windows or Linux, someone will always jump to your assistance if you demonstrate that you can provide as much information as possible as to what the problem is.
Unlike Windows, where you have an expert on "every street corner", Linux requires that you take some responsibility for your own machines and learn as much as you can about how it works - if you're not prepared to do that, then you should find or pay for someone to do that for you or, even better, stay away from Linux.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there lost in the "cool factor" of using Linux because it's different to what most other people run who don't think about the ramifications of doing so. Linux is *ONLY* a replacement for Windows if you spend as much time becoming accustomed to it as you did with Windows (albeit you learnt to use computers and Windows pretty transparently) and switching to Linux is not a decision to be taken lightly if you are pretty new to it.
Uhh, Windows 7 is just a codename, the version number always refers to the version of the NT kernel. Vista was 6.0, 2003 was 5.2, XP was 5.1, 2000 was 5.0. Apparently Windows "Seven" will be NT 6.2 signifying that it contains minor kernel changes.
windows7 (Score:3, Insightful)
they are taking a leadt out off Apples book again, "release often and charge alot for overglorified service packs"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe it's like Star Trek movies -- only the even numbered ones are good (in this case, odd numbers).
Re:windows7 (Score:5, Funny)
so it's not like Star Trek at all then?
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say Windows releases are more like Batman movies, each ones sucks more than the one before until it gets "re-imagined" into a new series (Win2k), which starts the process over (XP, Vista).
Or maybe like Bond movies, where they're all pretty much the same, only the plots get less believable and you're left longing for the "classic" Bond who didn't need insane gizmos to get the job done. Yes, I like that analogy better.
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:4, Interesting)
I liked windows 2k a lot, I learned Delphi programming on 2k box. These days I don't code on windows except for ports of my software, but XP is ok for games, and I still like and use MSoffice.
Unfashionable I know, but what can I say, I'm OS Neutral.
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:5, Interesting)
i am also glad that they updated the documentation from nt4 to w2k under defragment.. i will never forget reading that in the nt4 manual.. the recomended procedure for disk defragmentation was to back up the drive to tape.. format the drive and restore from tape.. just sadly funny for a server OS..
personaly i like w2k and still use it on my laptop.. i don't need the bells and wisles that xp and vista have - and with the lesser over head it makes my old p3 laptop run perfect
Parent
Defragmentation, Windows 2000 (Score:4, Interesting)
Step one: Disable Windows firewall, Themes.
Step two: Pretend it says "2000" instead of "XP"
ps. They didn't just "update the documentation" for defrag NTFS on NT4 to Windows 2000. There was no NTFS Defragment tool in NT4. The idea was that NTFS is much less susceptible to fragmentation (it is) that it would not be necessary. Unfortunately, this is untrue in the long-term - even NTFS can't avoid the fact that sometimes there will not be enough continuous blocks free for a file.
Generally speaking, you don't need to run defragmentation tools on servers anyways. It's just not a big enough problem. For a busy file server, perhaps, but back in NT4 land a file server didn't have 1TB of word documents like a medium-large sized company today does.
They added an NTFS defrag to Windows 2000.
ps. There's no built-in defrag tools for Linux ext2/3/etc or MacOS even still. Because, it's just not a huge problem with modern filesystems. But it would be nice to have these tools available for those times when heavy fragmentation has occured.
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:4, Insightful)
I like Macs, best UI stuck on a Unix out there, but there's a lot to hate about the cult and what it gets away with.
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the probably features of Windows 7 include MinWin, which is a much lighter kernel (25MB footprint on disk, 40MB footprint in RAM). Another is the likelyhood of MS's heirarchical filesystem that was pulled in the Vista release.
There are other features being discussed such as extensive touch interface ability, etc...
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:windows7 (Score:5, Informative)
Windows XP-SP3 is going to be the same and Windows 7 is actually going to be Windows XP-SP4.
Windows 7/XP-SP4 will have the obvious GUI changes to make it look like a sister of Vista, but it will really be Vista's little brother(XP) in drag. IMO.
LoB
Parent
Marketing Slogan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Marketing Slogan (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The movie version is much better (Score:5, Funny)
We'll have
glutinous Bloatware
Sloth
greedy pricing
DRM lustfully controlling all media.
Proud non-interoperability
and mac -envy
oh and you get the wrath, like in the movie ending where you find can't take back what is in "the box" because you opened the EULA.
Balmer will play the Kevin Spacey role.
personally I had to leave the theater.
Parent
Re:Marketing Slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
And we all know how that ends out.
Parent
Windows versioning (Score:5, Funny)
They went from 3.11, to year-based (98), to cheesy acronyms (ME), to acronyms containing the Mighty Letter "X" (XP), to the vaguely multi-cultural (Vista). Now they're going back to whole numbers. All the joy of 3.11, half the perfomance.
They haven't really cribbed Apple's Roman Numeral approach, so let's work with that.
Vista...VII-STA...VII: Something To Avoid.
Parent
Re:Marketing Slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Marketing Slogan (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 1 - 3 (though the picture here was sort of confused in the first place, but never mind)
Windows 95 (4)
Windows 98 (4.1)
Windows ME (4.2)
The above three being sort of concurrent with:
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5)
Then the line was unified as:
Windows XP (5.1)
So Windows Vista is 6 and now we are talking about Windows 7. Got it now?
Parent
Re:Marketing Slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
If I were Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Vista's missing features (Score:3, Insightful)
2 - There were some neat concepts that were promised with Vista and never delivered, like the file abstraction stack, or WinFS. Now they might have time to do it right.
3 - Vista was a total bomb. There is no denying it at all. So why bother? Admit your mistake and move on quickly. All in all, this sounds like a surprisingly smart move on their part.
Re:Vista's missing features (Score:5, Insightful)
I found it hard to continue reading your post after point 1 began with "Microsoft says". As you rightly point out in point 2, MS-says with respect to what we-got in Vista didn't quite match up. MS promised a lot and users got an OS that felt to many like a regression.
MS has a habit of "promising" features that it doesn't know how to deliver; its useful if you want to discourage investment in potential competitors. After all, why go and develop a new fs technology if the company with a 90%+ monopoly in the OS sector is going to integrate it into their product?
"Windows 7" will be an incremental change to Vista with some bug fixes and a desire to gain a better image in the market than the ironically sullied Vista has. How can MS develop features in less than 1 year that they couldn't manage to make in 4?
Parent
Re:Vista's missing features (Score:5, Funny)
they always do. that's why they repeat them so well.
Parent
Re:Vista's missing features (Score:5, Informative)
Has Microsoft ever admitted to making a mistake?
Parent
Re:Vista's missing features (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Such optimism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Such optimism? (Score:5, Insightful)
* UAC - annoying and not remotely secure. People will be trained to always click yes, or just disable it. Further more, it prevented me from installing legit software, and copying files in certain directories.
* Drivers - People say an OS is only as good as the software for it, and I'd argue an OS is only as good as the drivers. If you can't support your hardware, then software isn't even an issue. Now all drivers MUST be signed, yet many signed drivers don't work very well, if at all. I think it would be a good idea to have all drivers in one central repository (like the Linux kernel) so you won't have to worry about tracking down drivers for old hardware, but make sure the drivers work. And here is an idea, make the drivers modular. Drivers cause more BSODs and crashes than anything else. Don't let a single driver bring down a system. This is just basic common sense.
* Design for productivity, and not looks. Sexy is sexy, and we all like sexy things. In the long run however, I want my computer to enable me to work, not prevent me from doing so. Usability studies have shown that Vista's UI slows people down performing the same tasks. Scrolling in the Start Menu? Again, the writing was on the wall here. Look at the UI changes in Windows Media Player, and you'll see a program that has become less user friendly, while prettier. Why should we expect Vista to be different?
* Performance is piss-poor. Again, people like fast computers. Installing Vista is just a bad decision.
* Vista's worst enemy is not OS X or Linux (as much as I love me some Linux). Vista's worst enemy is XP, which post-SP1 has been a pretty decent OS. For the end user, Vista provides no real benefits or new features besides better looks, while slowing your PC down considerably. And with projects like the Vista Transformation Pack, you can make XP look like Vista. Why would someone want Vista?
Parent
Re:Such optimism? (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT 3.1 had Win32 and Windows 3.1 had the older 'Win16' API. So they released Win32s for the older DOS/Windows platform, then Windows NT 4.0 with the new user interface. With the Chicago project -- Windows 95 (based on the new UI for NT4) -- was to be the first of the old codebase with the a full version of the new (NT) API, Win32. With that in hand, they had planned to do one more update to each version -- Nashville became Windows 98, and Daytona became Windows 2000. There was supposed to be a combined release of an operating system called 'Cairo' after that, where they finally dropped the whole DOS/Windows thing, but they got sidetracked because they were under pressure to produce a desktop OS for the low-end of the market. So the result was Windows ME, which was rushed out the door at the last minute and annointed as the last of the DOS/Windows line.
Cairo, which was promised to be totally 'object oriented' -- files would be stored as objects in a big database (sound familiar?), but it never happened. So instead, we get, as the first OS of the newly merged OS lines, Windows XP. And yes, XP looks like the greek letter "Chi" and "Ro", of course XP doesn't end up having anything promised in Cairo.
The Cairo promises were to be fullfilled with Vista, but that never happened because the schedule got pushed more and more and they were under pressure to do SOMETHING since competition from Apple and Linux stepped in to fill the void of 5+ years with no new Microsoft OS. So they pushed Vista out the door with none of the promised features and a bunch glitz stolen from Apple. (The last time they stole from Apple, it went exceedingly well, so what the heck, right?)
Windows 7 -- if it's true -- sounds like it could be what Vista was supposed to be. Of course, by now no one will care. It'll be too little, too late, IMHO.
Parent
two thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
and WIN98 SE maybe this is Vista SE...As long as they cut some bloat and give me back admin controls in less than convoluted places, I'm cool.
Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:5, Funny)
"The system is very responsive, using barely 480MB of memory after boot."
I've obviously been in *nix land for too long, I'm still of the impression that 256 Mb is pretty much all one needs for most tasks. Even EMACS!
Re:Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:4, Informative)
With the 8086, I was booting in maybe 15 seconds (time has hazed my memory), loading turbo pascal, and programming away with only some minor waiting times. Sure there was a noticible delay when compiling, but even then it would be less than a program of comparible usefulness on visual studio.
As an aside, I think my most productive system (both in terms of how responsive it was, and how much I got done) was a 40Mhz 386 with, if memory serves, 2MB of RAM. I played with Linux, accelerrated my programming abilities with learning C, Assembly, the intricsies of gcc, gas, ld, make, awk etc. etc. I build my own OS on that system (sure it didn't do anything useful, but it had all the framework (multitasking, mem manger etc.) in place).
Parent
Re:Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:4, Interesting)
So it might be interesting where they draw the line between the kernel at 40 MB and 'the system' with 480 MB of memory. It sounds like mainly applications running that you could probably parse down.
A move in the right direction at least.
Parent
Re:Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
"The system is very responsive, using barely 480MB of memory after boot."
I've obviously been in *nix land for too long, I'm still of the impression that 256 Mb is pretty much all one needs for most tasks. Even EMACS!
Bloat is relative. Compared to Vista, 480MB is freaking Calista Flockhart-level of skinny.
Parent
Re:Low memory requirements from ms... (Score:5, Informative)
And, as you point out, that's BEFORE you do anything but actually turn the computer on and wait ten minutes. God knows what happens when you actually WANT to work. XP can boot fairly comfortable for low-to-mid-end users in 256Mb - it ain't fast, it'll swap, but on network managed machines without the usual startup cruft you'll get work done without in-app pauses and for a basic Office suite you won't even notice (I tend to find silent-hard-disk computers are percieved as "faster" by users, even when they are swapping more). 512Mb makes for a nice XP system and anything more is a bonus - I've run networks with hundreds of machines on XP and none of them ever needed more than 512Mb for adequate performance, unless they were doing high-end stuff like CAD - more important is to keep your startup entries clear than put more than 512Mb into an "office" XP machine. But having to have 512Mb before you can even boot the thing up?
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 254296 249912 4384 0 1288 75964
-/+ buffers/cache: 172660 81636
Swap: 473908 41000 432908
170Mb used out of 256. That's with a full KDE GUI (commonly referred to as bloated by a lot of people who obviously don't get out into retail stores and buy Windows much), an Opera process collecting mail from dozens of accounts and browsing hundreds of webpages each day with memory caching, and that's been running for about 26 days now.
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 222712 218960 3752 0 126832 40760
-/+ buffers/cache: 51368 171344
Swap: 1140604 0 1140604
And THAT's a proxy/filter/cache for a school, with transparent bridging that hasn't rebooted in months. 50Mb in use, admittedly no X-Windows running at the moment. Even most of that is Samba, Squid memory cache, Apache and other miscellaneous programs running on it, not all of which are critical to its operation but provide nice web or GUI interfaces to the admins.
Seriously, I know that things move on and you can't stay on a 386 but what benefit does the actual end-user get for all that bloat? What can you do on a 512Mb "Windows 7" machine that you can't on a 512Mb Vista machine, 512Mb XP machine, 512Mb Linux machine? Can you even BOOT with just 512Mb on this new version? More worrying, how many Gigs of rubbish that load on startup does it come with to fill up 480 Mb before you get into the machine? And what does that do to your minimum installation size and baseline CPU use?
I switched, personally, to Linux at home, Linux in work where appropriate (i.e. everything but network-managed desktops, because of the amount of legacy Windows software required) at around the same time that a Linux machine with 256Mb could do the same things as an XP machine with 512Mb, all other things being equal.
I've got a salesman coming tomorrow to try to sell the school Vista, two months after we put in a brand new XP network replacing the previous XP network. They aren't even going to be able to sell us that because I've done my research, which they don't expect smaller schools to do. Too high requirements, too many unnecessary features, too much rubbish, no practical advantage. How are MS going to sell an OS that's going to need literally Gigs of RAM once it's combined with Office and all the usual bundled offering?
This same salesman will be selling Windows 7 in a few years, of course he will, but what do you get for your money? I've seen people selling Windows Vista "digital signage" (i.e. scrol
Parent
Development Structure (Score:5, Informative)
What new technologies can we except? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then later I read about how the new file system (WinFS) was based on something called 'Cairo' and about how that too had been scrapped.
At that stage I was using Mandrake Linux (I switched to Ubuntu at the start of 2007), and wanted something better.
Anyway, so this chain of thought ends in, well now I am using Ubuntu, it does keep getting better all the time. I don't use MS Windows really at all now on my computers. Why do I care?
Meh, lets try and get back to where I stared. Can we expect a new file system? Can we expect radical 'new' technologies? Perhaps even voice commands? (Computer: open http colon slash slash slash dot dot org)
I figured this would happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just got a copy of OSX 10.5 for my really old and outdated mac. Specifically to get a working copy of dashcode as I write OSX widgets for Crestron control. I was expecting the worst as installing the latest OS on a old PC never is a good thing.
10.5 makes my machine faster. I kind of looked at it skeptically but it actually boots faster and has a more responsive feel, even NeoOffice opens faster as well as Final Cut.
Why is Apple able to deliver an OS that is faster instead of slower? It's got as much eye candy as vista.
Maybe microsoft needs to have all their programmers re-trained?
FYI: Single processor G4 with only 784 meg of ram, and a crappy laptop video card.
Re:Why is it.... (Score:4, Funny)
As further testament to the genius of Jobs, he then sold all the sleep()'s to the project lead for Vista under the guise of a "technology partnership" contract.
Parent
They are just rounding up to "Version 7" (Score:5, Funny)
Beware the bad tidings of Iron Maiden.... (Score:4, Funny)
Seven deadly sins Seven ways to Win(dows) Seven holy paths to hell And your trip begins
Seven downward slopes Seven bloodied hopes Seven are your burning fires, Seven your desires...
And not to mention the evil portent later on in the song of opening "the seventh seal" of the seventh iteration of your newly shrikwrapped Windows! Just hope they don't release it at 7:07 am on the 7th of July or we'll all be doomed!
The normal Microsoft Propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
They know they can't possibly get anything worth a damn out that quickly.. but that's not the goal here. The goal is to stave anyone figuring they might as well think about switching to Linux or OSX, cuz "Microsoft is going to fix Windows Real Soon Now".
In reality the product will actually be released in the middle of 2010. It may be good, it may be another bomb. How long can Microsoft keep up the "But the next one is going to be just GRRREEAAAT!"? Stay tuned...
Re:if only... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Vista a flop? (Score:5, Funny)
Every MS system had its Fun Pack with great games such as Tetris or Pong and fabulous screensavers like, uh, stuff in colours.
Vista needs a Fun Pack to be awesome.
Parent
Re:Good news for Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
As a primarily Linux user, who uses Gentoo for frequent rolling minor updates rather than infrequent major updates, I keep a constant backup of the working kernel and configuration files by use of a cronjob shell script such that if a similar thing happened to me, if I couldn't fix it myself quickly, I would just do a rollback.
What I'm trying to say is that no-one denies that an update to *ANY* operating system can, potentially, screw the system up - but the fact is that preparing for such an eventuality is of primary importance.
I don't use Ubuntu but I would suspect if a Ubuntu update caused lots of people to have baulked machines, then, like Microsoft, Ubuntu would publish a fix on their web site to help get you out of it and it would be up to the user to go find and follow those instructions to get their machines back. But I suspect most Windows users would never bother even checking the MS web site, rather they'd just reinstall their machines or give it to an expert to fix.
In your particular case, it might be a wierd combination of hardware that has caused you, and maybe a handful of other people, to have a problem with an update that most other people didn't suffer. But the chances are that someone else more knowledgeable than you would have seen the problem, fixed it and put it up on the web somewhere - all it would take from you is a little clever Googling to find that out.
Ultimately, this issue has nothing to do with problems caused by whoever created the update, but about you making some effort to analyse what the problem is, look for a fix, and if there isn't one, post some polite messages in appropriate places asking for someone's help - whether it's Windows or Linux, someone will always jump to your assistance if you demonstrate that you can provide as much information as possible as to what the problem is.
Unlike Windows, where you have an expert on "every street corner", Linux requires that you take some responsibility for your own machines and learn as much as you can about how it works - if you're not prepared to do that, then you should find or pay for someone to do that for you or, even better, stay away from Linux.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there lost in the "cool factor" of using Linux because it's different to what most other people run who don't think about the ramifications of doing so. Linux is *ONLY* a replacement for Windows if you spend as much time becoming accustomed to it as you did with Windows (albeit you learnt to use computers and Windows pretty transparently) and switching to Linux is not a decision to be taken lightly if you are pretty new to it.
Parent
Re:This is fake, mod article down (*sigh*) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent