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?
I've tried it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong.
Unfortunately however (and I'm sure many of you have already witnessed this) I work in a rather large org (Government, in fact) which is dominated by those who say "new is better", and are already putting into action plans to upgrade our fleets of PCs to Vista.
No matter what comparisons people make to OS' of past, Vista is here to stay. Why? Because it's a Microsoft product. And 'The Big People' want Microsoft products, whatever it means.
Maybe that'll change in five or ten years, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
I have not tried it (Score:5, Interesting)
I have discussed computing with several organizations that stick to "Wintel" and it is so sad that they believe there is any benefit or need to avoid the competitive market place. I switched 500 users to Linux with a brief intro and a few follow-up consultations. The cost to switch was much less than the cost of obtaining Windows. In fact, we have twice as many clients as the tiny budget I inherited would allow with Windows, considering server licences and per-seat licences. Our maintenance costs are astronomically lower as we use thin clients on LTSP. Future upgrades will be cheaper, too as the thin clients will last longer and only the terminal servers need upgrading.
I suspect many will avoid Vista in business but eventually, those who do not convert to GNU/Linux will be pressured by XP/2000 end-of-support. Unfortunately, consumers will likely soon only be able to buy machines with Vista aboard unless they are smart enough to seek out systems without an OS or with Linux installed. There are more of these all the times as Linux has entered the mainstream, but for a few years more, it will take a special effort to avoid Windows and the common user will not make that effort unless given a push. Fortunately, year after year, I have found more people have heard of Linux or seen it and are willing to consider it.
I am most familiar with schools. Some have converted to Linux out of desperation to try and wrestle IT to the ground with a limited budget. Others have converted because a few visionaries identified Linux as a good thing and led the way. Schools can easily avoid lock-in because the bulk of users are students and teachers who use the web and office suites to gather and process information. OpenOffice just works with browsers and clipboards to do most tasks. Linux is superb for computer science/information processing. It is a small number of graying IT managers and administrators who are holding back adoption of Linux in schools. The taxpayers have to be more assertive in demanding FLOSS in schools. The taxpayers should demand that Windows be kicked out of schools just as they would demand drug dealers be kicked off school grounds. Most curricula have not specified Windows and many curricula suggest more use of IT in classrooms, so there is continuing pressure on budgets. My school has a cluster of terminals in every classroom. Schools with Windows rarely can afford that.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
---and everywhere else they use a computer as well.
Which is why the school offers evening classes in Windows for seniors, certification programs in Office for those with physical disabilities, etc., etc.
In our very strained rustbelt economy, these skills are marketable at any age, your ticket out of welfare, a lesson everyone has learned but the Geek on the Big State U Campus.
Re: (Score:2)
So *NO*, schools definitely don't pay the same price!
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you from experience that this is not true for all schools. I live in a small town (roughly 1400 people), and work in a slightly larger town (17k people). For a 60 mile area around my old job, I probably did work for a dozen schools. NONE of them got anything better than "accademic" pricing for their software. These are already small schools with small budgets so even this "reduced" pr
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have no clue about the "Windows architecture" and Windows security. Here is a starter [microsoft.com].
Windows architecture is secure, in many places like file security it even surpasses Linux. Yes, secure. Just because some clueless users run everything as administrator doesn't make Windows less secure. The problem with Windows security is not Windows, it's the people who use it. Run (insert random OS here) as root/Adminis
Re: (Score:2)
Windows "security", such as it is, blows dead goats.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Why? Because it's a Microsoft product.
> And 'The Big People' want Microsoft products, whatever it means.
Sort of reminiscent of the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" line, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nice to know that our tax dollars are going to be spent in such a rational way. Because DRM is very important for a government computer. So is Aero, I assume. God forbid they ran their stuff on an older OS that just didn't have these new features...
Re: (Score:2)
You know how they want to use your computer? Err...
They how your computer wants to use you? Err...
I'm pretty sure you mean 'they don't know how you want to use your computer'... But I couldn't resist
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 ol
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 (ag
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They comment usually to gloat and troll.
-WS
Re: (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 purcha
No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
So, why didn't people buy it? Well, at the time, a single seat license for OS/2 was around £500, and a computer was around £1000. Unlike Windows Vista, no one was selling machines with OS/2 pre-installed with a big OEM discount (IBM were trying to sell PCs, so they weren't really pushing other people to license OS/2). Given the choice between Windows for around £50, or OS/2 for around £500, people went with Windows. OS/2 was better, but it wasn't ten times better.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not entirely true. In Germany one of the at the time largest vendor of PC equipment (Vobis Highscreen) was selling OS/2 3.0 preinstalled, and the other big one (Escom) at least offered OS/2 as optional bundle, if I remember correctly.
This gave OS/2 about 8 months head start to Windows 95, and even in 1998 there we
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany one of the at the time largest vendor of PC equipment (Vobis Highscreen) was selling OS/2 3.0 preinstalled, and the other big one (Escom) at least offered OS/2 as optional bundle, if I remember correctly.
It was possible to get OS/2 pre-installed, or as an optional extra, but it was expensive. While Microsoft offer(ed) large OEM discounts, IBM didn't, so you paid close to the retail price for OS/2 even if you were shipping thousands of copies. That made it a lot more expensive when considering buying a few thousand desktops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You heretic! Saying that IBM killed OS/2, instead of Microsoft. Fie!
Dividing by Zero (Score:2)
Interesting. Because Vista is, say, $300(?) and Linux is $0. So, by your calculations, is Vista infinitely better?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Systems dedicated to a single task and running software that has been tested and refined for over twenty years shouldn't be crashing, no matter what OS you are running.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be because Vista/Longhorn wasn't being worked on for five continuous years. The Longhorn reset [windowsvistaweblog.com] essentially restarted the clock on Vista around mid-2004. That means Vista as it ships really represents only the last 2.5 years of work, not the full 5 years since XP RTM. In between was Windows Server 2003, XP SP2 (which really could've been a full OS release rather than a service pack), 2003 SP1, and a fair amount of Longhorn work tha
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet people who don't know enough to get a real video card won't care anyway.
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.
Somebody mod this A.C. up. I run an old Radeon 9200 Pro myself because it was cheap when I got it. I have a ${several thousand} home theatre in the next room with an XBox connected to it so I have no desire to run games on my PC. Why should I spend $300 (or even $200) on a new video card to run my desktop?
In your case, yes apparently (Score:2)
1) Shader model 2.0 or better hardware support.
2) A WDDM driver for it.
So what cards fit the bill? From nVidia, any video card that's a GeForce 5200FX or newer, from ATi, any card that's a 9500 or newer. That includes low end cards like the X300 and integrated cards like the 6120. Also, the latest Intel integrated cards, the GMA950s, fit the bill
Re: (Score:2)
Vista's upgrade advisor laughs at it and says it's fated to run Vista Basic, forever. And that only if I upgrade the memory from 512mb to 1gb.
D
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"1. Vista runs extremely well on any modern PC. You may need a video card to get a composite desktop, but I bet people who don't know enough to get a real video card won't care anyway."
Well, that depends on how you define 'modern', doesn't it? I mean, most people would consider PCs bought within the last couple of years 'modern', yet a recent (Inf
Re: (Score:2)
2. XP doesn't have extremely detailed, well designed parental controls. XP doesn't have Aero. XP doesn't have bit lock
On MS payroll much? (Score:2)
1. Vista runs extremely well on any modern pc
As long as that pc is really high-end, bleeding edge, give us all your money hella expensive, yes. But any business pc I've seen in the last year (that's modern, i guess) won't run Vista all that well.
2. It's better looking, more polished and overall a much nicer experience
Windows 2000 is better looking than XP, with its Teletubby pasture and Fisher-Price color scheme. You might think of computing as an "experience", I just want to g
Re: (Score:2)
Not all PC's are uber-leet gaming rigs (Score:2)
How many business PC's will run Vista? I don't know where you work, but the 6500 pc's at the company I work for have 256 Mb and NO gpu to speak of. While these machines might technically run Vista it won't be usable at all
Re: (Score:2)
Go back under your bridge, troll.
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and
I notice you o
Re: (Score:2)
This wins points only within the hermetically sealed Geek forums like Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason one of those machines would need a new video card is if the owner wants to run DirectX 10 games. Since no DX10 capable cards or
Re: (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,
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of beagle and all the other mono crud and gnome will work fine with 256 megs, never mind 512 megs. Why Novell wanted to "protect" mono by cutting a deal with Microsoft is beyond me.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about other people's experiences with Vista's performance, but mine has been decent. Not amazing, not horrible, but decent. I built my machine 2-3 years ago: Athlon XP 2700+, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro with 128 MB RAM. Vista is installed on a 20 GB partition (I have XP on the other 180 GB partition), and currently there's 2.5 GB free after installing Civilization 4, Visual Studio 2005 Pro, and Office 2007. I'm running at 1920x1200 with full Aero.
Due to dual booting I've been able to subjectively compare game performance between both XP and Vista, and honestly, there isn't a noticeable difference. Civ4 starts out fast and slows down near endgame under both OSs. Quake 2 through 4, Unreal Tournament 2004, Age of Empires 3, WarCraft 3 were all performant at high resolutions (except Quake 4 which ran well at 800x600 under both OSs). Compatibility is also quite good: I tried a bunch of non-recent games altogether (20+ in all) and the only one with issues is massive texture flickering in Alice. Hell, even SimTower ran perfectly, and that game is over a decade old.
As for normal usage, I do sense a bit of UI sluggishness compared to XP, although it seems to affect everything so it might be immature graphics drivers. But the system is still very usable, and the sluggishness is only apparent when using XP directly after Vista, which is something I haven't done in weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
"game performance between both XP and Vista, and honestly, there isn't a noticeable difference."
"As for normal usage, I do sense a bit of UI sluggishness compared to XP"
So at best, its performance is comparable to XP?
Sounds like a compelling argument to me for complete replacement of every OS on our network!
Here I thought 'upgrades' were supposed to improve performance...
A big "Thank you!" goes out to Microsoft for setting me straight on that point!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a compelling argument to me for complete replacement of every OS on our network!
Here I thought 'upgrades' were supposed to improve performance.
You want "performance," you upgrade to software, hardware and drivers optimized for Vista.
But a slightly less responsive GUI may seem a fair trade-off to your network administrator for improved security, ease of deployment, etc., etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They do that by improving productivity, usually at the cost of requiring more cycles. OS's get slower with each release, not faster. The 'speed' you often get comes from taking advantage of new whiz-bang hardware.
Microsoft may be the poster child for bloat, but it is not something they have a monopoly on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Vista will be a "success" simply because it comes pre-loaded with all new PCs and releases like this will keep the corps buying the steady income support licenses from MS.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy [wikipedia.org].
Vista may or may not be a "success", depending on how you define success, but assuming an expectation that "everybody will be using vista" means "using vista too to be compatible and take advantage of network effects". ie. buying.
M$ marketing is currently doing everything they can to create that p
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it would be nice for games.
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: (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 up
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually this is one of the worst things about the upgrade cycles. The purchase of a new PC for anyone who is a low-end user should occur in the next 3-6 months or should be put on for a few years. Just like when XP was released, the ability of those actually "fixing" the computers to be able to walk someone through a fix will be significantly reduced. For example, as one who does help fix things from time to time, I still have to turn on the "classic view" in an XP control panel to find things because
Re: (Score:2)
Out of all the possibilities, I don't really think that being unable to help your mother is a compelling reason to dislike Vista (feel free to disagree). In cases like this, tho
Re: (Score:2)
The right question to ask is whether customers will opt for the legacy XP install when they are ready to upgrade to Vista-certified hardware and can get Vista installed at the OEM price.
The right question to ask ---if you are in direct sales or big box retail-- is how long XP will remain mass-market.
Re: (Score:2)
me being a pedant
I'll switch to Vista.... (Score:3)
Who can blame them?
Now, if ReactOS continues to improve and evolve, I'll lay wagers that it will succeed XP on some of my machines in another year or two.
That is, unless someone actually comes up with a new game that I absolutely have to have, which judging by the releases of the past few years, they won't, and furthermore, if they do, will it really REQUIRE vista? If the answer is still no....
rhY
Lines of code (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I suddenly progrma half the LoCs I usually do, it probably means I got stuck on some hard problem, maybe had to rewrite or refactor some code, redesign some data models or data flow.
Which means that you are just as productive as before. kLocs is indicative of many things, but productivity is not one of them.
Not many similarities at all (Score:3, Informative)
The argument that older apps won't work on Vista is false. Vista is backwards compatible with older software, including DOS apps.
What is the compelling reason to upgrade? If you are already running Windows I think it is very compelling to upgrade. Vista gets a lot of bad press, deservedly so some of it, because the UI borrows from other successful operating systems and some functionality too, but there is a lot to love under its hood if you are willing to look at the OS as a new one are willing to learn rather than trying to use it just as you do XP. Here are a few of my favorites new pieces of functionality:
The new copy functionality that pushes all copy issues to the end of the queue so that all "are you sure?", "unable to copy file, rety?", etc come after every copyable file has been done rather than randomly as in XP.
Speaking of copying...you can see additional useful information when copying files such as the xfer speed in mb/s.
We are finally done with the C:\Documents and Settings directory structure and have a more reasonable C:\Users directory. The Documents and Settings folder always annoyed the hell out of me.
Bread-crumb-like links for directory paths when browsing through folders. So, I can type C:\User\Administrator\My Documents\Backups\2005\Expenses\IBM\Clients in a folder URI and be taken to that folder. Then be able to click on any word in the URI, like "Administrator" and be taken to that folder.
64 bit everything! All Vista versions except for Basic come in 32 and 64-bit versions. You get both versions when you buy Vista. So, everyone will have access to the 64-bit version at no extra charge. To pass driver certifications venders must supply both 32 and 64-bit versions of the driver. Being able to have a fully supported 64-bit OS will be nice.
Security is completely revamped and includes offline and boot-level protection via BitLocker Drive Encryption.
Searching is thoroughly integrated into the OS. For example, open any folder and you'll see a google-like search toolbar alongside the URI which allows you to instantly filter what you see in that folder. I said any folder and meant it. Open control panel and there is the same Instant Search toolbar on that folder. Or open the "Searches" folder from anywhere and see a bunch of pre-configured searches. Looking at mine I have instant searches for "Shared By Me", "Recently Changed", "Recent Pictures and Videos", "Recent Email", "Recent Documents", "Recent Email Attachments" and "Recent Music". You can of course customize new searches.
Tags! Tag your pictures with useful information. After a recent trip to Italy I added metadata tags to all the pictures I took there. Now I can do a filter on "Rome" and see all the pics from Rome or "Florence" and see all the pics from there or even search for Rome museums and see all the pictures in Rome that were taken in museums. Tagging metadata is integrated into the OS and any file can be tagged with metadata, not just pictures. Tagging rocks.
Many new column header controls for folders. For example, looking at my Documents folder I can click on the dropdown for the "Name" column header and choose "Stack By Name". I now see three document stack icons: A-H, I-P, and Q-Z. Clicking on these will take you to those stacks. I'm sure there will be replies that say this or that OS had had that functionality for years, which is fine...there are some great OSes out there. I doubt Vista will win over very many people who are using other OSes anyway. My contention is that if you are running XP, Vista offers everything XP does plus a host of new features (that aren't eye-candy related) that make this OS very much worth the upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a 350MHz G3 that ran OSX just fine, 10.3.x went on easily and 10.4.x just needed me to hook up a DVD reader (since the system, being so old, didnt have one by default).
Re: (Score:2)
The first were released in 1998. Not quite ten years ago, but pretty close.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's one of the biggest problems with Windows. There is woefully insufficient distinction between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's one of the biggest problems with Windows. There is woefully insufficient distinction between the two.
To the user, the UI is the OS. That is why OSX and Windows split the domestic PC market. The internals of a UNIX or NT based system are of interest only to a Geek.
Re: (Score:2)
-uso.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand -- what the hell is up with the different versions? That bitlocker stuff you mention (which I really like the ide
Vista Will Succeed (Score:2)
Another reason why Vista will succeed, while OS/2 failed, is that OS/2 had a big corporation opposing it (Microsoft's heavy advertising of Windows 95 turned eyes away from OS/2 Warp), whereas Vista is supported by that same corporation, and has no opposition of any consequence (on
Re: (Score:2)
And it had an even bigger corporation supporting it! At the time IBM was probably ten to twenty times the size of Microsoft. What doomed OS/2 was that IBM completely screwed its marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
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 applicatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Already available in XP via MS and Google's current products.
"the side-bar with gadgets offer handy functionality,"
Already available in XP from several vendors.
"new and improved applications"
Nothing magical here and free applications like Picasa etc are available for XP.
"networking is substantially improved"
Probably true, but don't be surprised at the big bugs which come out due to a MS 1.0 product.
"easy of use has been polished"
Current XP users will struggle to
OS/2 was never the gaming platform of the future (Score:3, Interesting)
OS/2? nah (Score:2)
"Same as last version, but look its shi... oh crap, it crashed again"
As a gamer (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
I did it with the XBox 360 (waited about 9 months) and I'll do it with the PS3 (NOTHING on the horizon yet... Very sad system) also.
The Wii is my very first launch-console ever. Wii Sports, Excite Truck, Super Swing Golf (not quite launch, but close)... Those alone make it worth the cost. Of course, there were some disappointments like Elebits and Zelda, but
OSX? (Score:2, Interesting)
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thou hast returned! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
I give it 5 years (Score:2)
Dont forget too that most software makers are in the same boat, if they dont support the new thing they cut off thei
Huh? (Score:2)
But in general, that may be beside the point, I don't think it's the software upgraders that will get that. It often takes the hardware upgraders that will be the ones that upgrade to new software. I think most people are either cheap or lazy when it comes to their computers, leading to my previous conclusion. Software won't
Biggest difference... (Score:3, Informative)
KLOC == bloat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Vista the New OS/2? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) IBM Licensed OS/2 to other vendors (NCR, Compaq, Microsoft, etc). Does Microsoft?
2) When you purchased OS/2, you owned it. Microsoft wants to police your installation.
3) OS/2 has a Object Oriented desktop called Workplace Shell. Windows inherits the brain-dead Progman.exe
4) OS/2 still works on anything from a brand new system down to a P100. Bonus, you don't have to call IBM for permission to install it.
5) OS/2 Warp 4 had suspend to disk and speech recognition 10 years ago.
6) IBM uses cool Star Trek names for product descriptions. Microsoft uses a marketing department full of interior designers for its product names.
There are hundreds of other little things that OS/2 Warp still does better than Windows. Only with Windows 2000 did Microsoft finally release something better than OS/2 Warp. Everything released by Microsoft since then has been step backwards in ease of use and freedom.
Enjoy,
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek sells an OS to the Geek. Microsoft targets the suburban soccer mom. There are more soccer moms than Geeks.
Everything released by Microsoft since then has been step backwards in ease of use and freedom.
Freedom doesn't have the same meaning in Window's core markets as it does to the Geek. Ease of use doesn't have the same meaning in Microsoft's core mark
Completely different (Score:2)
No. OS/2 died because no one high enough up the corporate command structure lived or died by OS/2's success. The head of personal software was only a VP of a division of the company. Now let's look at Vista. Microsoft's operating system offering is the flagship product that identifies them in the marketplace. The ENTIRE COMPANY thrives or fades to obscurity based on sales and acceptance of the OS. They will do whatever it takes, at all levels,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> structure lived or died by OS/2's success.
Exactly.
Further, for all the ridiculousness of the new vista interface, at least it's being done with the intention of impressing users. OS/2 never felt like it was being done with the users in mind. Maybe their bosses - but not the users themselves. There were annoying user interface issues with version 2 that still hadn't been fixed by version 4. New releases could come out supposedly with neat
It is all moot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Microsoft had a period of a few years where they were essentially the only game in town. (Yes, I know about the Mac, but back then it didn't count, and to a large degree still doesn't) That period is now unquestionably over. More and more people are using Linux in business; there is also FreeBSD and (for those interested in it) OpenSolaris. People have choices, and that means people don't necessarily *have* to use Microsoft.
2) The only place Microsoft still really has a s
Something good about Vista (Score:2, Informative)
No. (Score:2)