Is Vista the New OS/2? 296
An anonymous reader asks: "Well after the long torturous wait, Vista is finally out. Is it just me or do others see similarities between Vista and the OS/2 launch back in the '80's? I mean you need new hardware to run the new OS (Just like OS/2). Even on the best '386 system OS/2 still ran like a dog. Older apps sometimes didn't work (DOS penalty box). And most important, what was the compelling reason to upgrade? Add to this an interview I saw with Ballmer, some time ago, where he was talking about how he knew OS/2 was doomed when IBM kept talking about OS/2's KLOC's (thousands of lines of code), and how bloated OS/2 was. Now I see an interview with him where he talks about how great Vista is due to the, yes you guessed it, the KLOC's of code in it. So is Vista going to see the same fate as OS/2?" This is kind of a hard sell seeing that Vista has Microsoft's might behind it, rather than against it. Still, how long do you think it would take a good percentage of computer users (say 80+%) to migrate to Microsoft's latest and greatest OS?
Why do you care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you stand to make money of Vista, as opposed to no Vista. I really don't see why you care. If you're still using Windows, chances are Windows XP does all you need. If Windows XP doesn't have all you need, now may be a good time to dual boot with Linux, or switch to a Mac.
I've seen Vista in use, and all I can says is "looks like KDE". Of course the reason for this is that many KDE themes have long since copied many aspects of the Aero theme.
All these Vista articles are getting to be annoying, and there seems to be no way to turn them off.
Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
It is MS's game to screw up and that ain't happening soon. (Though I prefer Ubuntu and that Windows has truly become a little bitch to run at home, the OS itself bringing up more pop-ups of various types than some of the worst websites - asking every 3 minutes for input over some bullshit.)
Choice with a new PC in 6 months (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet in 6 months you'll have severe difficulty finding a new PC with XP on it...
another 6 months and you'll have problems finding XP on the shelves.
Re:Choice with a new PC in 6 months (Score:3, Insightful)
This, at least, is a non-issue. Buying a new PC in 6 months will eliminate the major reasons for wanting to keep XP: a) compatibility (I'm sure most of the major issues would be ironed out in that time) and b) needing a new computer to run it well (this is probably a myth to a certain extent but, duh, you're buying a new computer).
For those who aren't buying a new computer, though, I tend to agree - it's not a compelling upgrade. However, that doesn't mean that most people are going to switch to Apple/Linux/etc - those without a need to upgrade are most likely content with what they have (probably Windows XP).
So, is this doom and gloom for Vista? Almost certainly not. It wont be long before new PC's come with Vista (new computers from Dell, etc already come with the upgrade option) and I'm sure that's where Microsoft makes all it's money anyways.
umm.. no (Score:2, Insightful)
It offers a huge, non-trivial improvement in looks, the search capabilities are vastly improved, the side-bar with gadgets offer handy functionality, networking is substantially improved, easy of use has been polished, security has been strongly increased, new and improved applications, parental controls, dx10 and and so on and so forth. [wikipedia.org]. Vista is certainly a bigger upgrade with more features than XP ever was [wikipedia.org], and you can hardly call XP a failure. And as for performance, even an 800MHz and 0.5GB machine is certified Vista capable. If you can live without the pretty graphics effects, any machine sold since something like 2002 can run Vista. That's hardly comparable with OS/2. If you're expecting Vista to fail, you're living in a fantasy world.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
At the moment I'm running it on a core duo laptop with 512MB memory and a intel 945 graphics adapter. And yes, aero works nicely.
Wasn't it so that vista required a lot of ram and a good video card? Quite low on those stats, this laptop, right?
Running a webbrowser and other light stuff, I can't really tell a speed difference between vista and xp. Running something like photoshop... well, 512 megs of ram, so both vista and xp dies. Even gnome trashes itself to death.
If you have any decent computer it doesn't matter which OS you use. All work just as fast. Only thing what matters is how you want to maintain it.
Want it to work out of the box, and then later fix it? Get windows
Want to spend a day configuring it and then forget about it? Use linux
Want it to simply work, but have no application support? Get beos
Re:I have not tried it (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you this isn't going to happen. Know why? Those same tax payers are using Windows at home.
How expensive can it be for the school? I mean, XP came with their PC for FREE. Don't the schools pay the same price?
(Yes, I know Windows is added into the cost of the PC, and the OEM's get it for reduced costs but the tax payers, for the most part, don't, so their perceptions will be different from ours)
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As a gamer (Score:2, Insightful)
so essentially, microsoft tells you what to do and you do it.
it's not like you have a choice anyway, since microsoft also tells your computer shop what to do (stop selling windows 2000/XP, don't sell linux) and they do it without question.
pretty good contrast to freedom-oriented software...
Re:No (Score:1, Insightful)
I wouldn't say 'well', but you're right, it will be fine on most new PCs, especially the preloaded ones. People who don't know enough to get a real vid card probably don't know enough to stick with an OS that works rather than the fanciest new thing. And they certaintly don't know enough to ask why simply opening a folder requires an insane amount of memory and cycles to create cool graphics ands flourishes and dozens of options no one uses (note: not sure about how much you can tweak the graphics settings in Vista to save CPU/GPU time).
2. Vista may not be revolutionary, but it's a clear improvement over XP. It's better looking, more polished and overall a much nicer experience.
Better looking and polished are terrible reasons to upgrade, especially if you are actually paying for it. Improvement and nicer experiences are opinions- is gaining ease of use worth also taking DRM ridden bloatware? What ever happened to KISS?
3. Almost nobody is going to "buy" Vista. Very few people "bought" XP either. It just makes more sense to get it preloaded.
Exactly why Vista will succeed, especially if you don't have a choice with new PC's (which the average uninformed consumer doesn't).
4. The drivers and other compatibility issues will be ironed out quickly. Right now Vista seems exotic, but it 3-6 months it will be standard on all new desktops. Software and hardware vendors will get on the bus quickly. I didn't run any of the betas or RCs, but I downloaded it from my MSDN account as soon as it came out and I've been impressed. It's probably not 5 full years worth of work, but it's good.
It will certaintly be good enough. I will probably run Vista during its lifetime (unless I get a Mac, in which case, I still will probably have it). I don't want to hate on Microsoft- they have the standard and the leverage here. What they say goes, and I'm sure they want everything to be perfect much more than we do. I just feel like the same way I feel when voting for president- these are our choices? WTF!?
-keep in mind all these arguments can be applied to MacOS and their software as well
--open-source / linux... not so much
if only (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there are some analogies: OS/2 was slow on the initially available PCs, but it didn't take long for OS/2 to become a nimble alternative to Windows as machines became faster, Windows got more bloated, and OS/2 stayed roughly the same.
Unlike OS/2, and like previous versions of Windows, Vista will sell: users will have no alternative. If the high pressure sales tactics Microsoft is employing now aren't sufficient, then Microsoft will simply introduce more and more incompatibilities into software and on-line services. So, in the most important respect, Vista is not like OS/2: OS/2 failed because users didn't want it, but what users want or don't want won't make a difference with Vista.
I don't want Vista, just like I didn't want XP, but I will inevitably end up paying for several copies anyway.
egotistical prick mod? (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing. Because someone doesn't wish to spend $300+ for a card makes them 'unknowing'?
Some of us don't care about running video games...we don't have time.
yawn. (Score:1, Insightful)
didn't you guys say the EXACT same thing about XP? I have a good idea: dig up some old threads on how NT/2000/XP was going to be a huge mistake for MS, and just pretend people are posting them right now. It will let you guys get your hate-on, and save you the trouble of having to repeat the exact same statements which history, consumers, and the marketplace have disproven, year after year.
Chin up, guys. Maybe lunix will be ready for the desktop by the time MS releases their next operating system.
KLOC == bloat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do you care?-Lusting for OS/2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, there is a vocal minority of people who don't hate Microsoft who want to defend Vista.
This makes for lively discussions and good theater, and that's why people come here.
So have a seat, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy.
(Personally I think almost no upgrades will be sold, but people will buy new computers with it at somewhat higher rates than normal, just because the purchases were postponed for Vista's sake, and people like getting the latest and greatest, be it ever do disappointing for most).
D
Re:Why do you care? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Windows BOFHs. (for want of a better term) Prolly the largest group from what I've seen. These guys know that in order to look cool on here they have to write about how Microsoft are hell-spawned evil and about how Vista is going to suck, when in reality they're likely to secretly be creaming their pants in anticipation for it. They also try and make out that they think Linux is awesome (again to try and look cool) when in reality they prefer Windows because it means that they can appear to be technically literate while still avoiding having to actually think.
2) GNU/cultists. These are actually a much smaller group than they want people to believe; they try and make up for it via sheer volume. Most of them also aren't actual programmers themselves, (think somewhat above average Linux end users) but like making themselves look as though they are...primarily so they can feel that they have some sort of genuine justification for telling real programmers how to think and act. They are also typically extremely hard leftist, but that's more because on a purely emotional level they feel that they have a right to expect the rest of the population to allow for their entire lives to be one gigantic free lunch, rather than because there's any truly rational thought behind it.
This group are militantly opposed to Vista, but generally primarily because it hasn't received RMS's blessing rather than because they actually know anything about it themselves. They also have a tendency to see DRM lurking under their beds and within dark closets, as their Messiah has told them that it is the most evil thing imaginable, and that if they're not all exceptionally good little boys and girls, DRM will come and take them away to a place where fire and brimstone are fairly consistent elements of the decor. As with the first group, this one desperately seeks to avoid engaging in independent thought or active self-responsibility, however they're also aware that in order to gain credibility with people, they need to make it *look* as though they enjoy using their brains.
3) Actual programmers. Some of them write for Linux, most for Windows. There is usually conflict between the GNU/cultists and these guys, since the GNU/cultists will try and tell members of this group what to do and how to think, but do so more from a position of armchair activism than actually knowing what they're talking about via practical experience.
I tend to suspect that the position of this group towards Vista is more, "wait and see," than the first or second, since they're also more likely to actually know more about it than the other two groups. This group, unlike the GNU/cultists, also don't have a problem with the idea of people making money from software, since they're able to recognise that they do it themselves. The most rational/sane of the three groups, and the one most likely to engage in actual mental effort on occasion.
Re:Don't be stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would love to make the switch, but I need to use Flash for my work, and like to play some of the latest games, like HL2. Although I may be able to get both working, it wouldn't be as simple as putting the CD in and clicking go.
If I switch, I have to wait for the Linux community to catch up and support whatever software I want or need to run - assuming it's possible. And as for the old argument that if I want it to do something I can contribute a patch, I don't have the time to figure it out.
If it's just Office or notepad you want, then yes, it's ready. But for the majority of users, I'm afraid it's still got a way to go.
I love you too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Memory: 2GB (four 512MB DDR-PC2700 DIMMs, upgraded from original 512MB configuration)
Display adapter: ATI Radeon 9600, 256MB, AGP8X (upgraded from original Nvidia 128MB card)
I may be stupid or deceptive, but 2GB and a 9600 is *NOT* mainstream. Therefore you do not get a really good "experience", just as you say yourself.
[...] if you go back to the 2k-like version of the shell UI, you won't even know you're running Vista, even from a perf perspective.
Now there is a compelling argument to upgrade...