Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bateluer
Uh . . .need to clarify some things here. Vista and Longhorn are the same thing, Longhorn was simply Vista's internal code name.
No, Longhorn was the code name of the OS that was SUPPOSED to become Vista, before it was completely gutted to become the piece of crap that is Vista today. All the things that were supposed to be Longhorn are now supposed to be in Windows 7, including most parts of WinFS, Avalon, and Indigo.
Quote:
Now, I got into the IT thing after the release of Windows 3.1, so I can only speak for the OS's released since then. When Windows 95 came out, it was a bug ridden POS, more so than Vista is today. It crashed constantly and refused to run many of the common DOS applications written during that time.
Compared to Windows 3.1, which was also buggy and crashy, it wasn't nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be. There were also two service releases for Win 95 (OSR1 and OSR2) that fixed a lot of issues, long before 98 was released. Windows 98 suffered from some major problems, including crashiness and incompatibility issues. SE fixed the majority of those issues, and made it the best Windows OS up until 2000 came out.
Quote:
The NT releases of 3.5 and 4.0 were far from perfect and were never geared for the home user.
I never claimed they were. I said they were "decent" to "awesome". They had issues because of adoption and lack of application support for a long time, but they were the beginning of what was to become the best Windows OS ever: 2000.
Quote:
They were targeted for corporate use in both servers and workstations. And since they were true 32 bit OSs, they also had a laundry list of problem because they had difficulty running many common applications used in those businesses written with 16 bit code.
With the exception that 16-bit apps were sandboxed and badly-behaved ones wouldn't take down the OS.
Quote:
NT4 had more service packs than any MS OS to date to resolve many of these issues. And again, people complained about upgrading from NT 3.5 to NT4, and to Windows 2000 below.
"Complaining about upgrading" is not a relevant argument without citing the reasons as to why. I never encountered any significant resistance getting customers to upgrade from NT 3.51 to NT 4.0, especially after SP3 came out. It was a vast improvement, and was more familiar to more folks because it used the then "new" Win95 GUI.
Quote:
Vista is one of the better OSs MS has actually released and 99% of the flak its getting is completely unjustified. People on these forums seem to be judging it on the sole fact that they cannot play Horizons on it.
I have to vehemently disagree with you there, and my reasons have NOTHING to do with Horizons (but Horizons is Yet Another Example of why it has issues).
When customers cannot get their work done from interminable security pop-up dialogs (probably the most idiotic security design policy, EVER "WOLF! *allow* WOLF! *allow* WOLF! *allow* WOLF! *allow* WOLF! *allow* REAL WOLF! *allow* ..."), incompatibility with hardware (and don't lay this all in the lap of the hardware manufacturers; MS radically changed the certification process for Vista drivers, significantly increasing the lead time for driver release, and was late in getting much-needed info out to hardware manufacturers, pushing back their development timelines even farther), and horrible networking compatibility issues with XP and 2000 systems, it is probably the worst rollout of any Windows OS since ME.
Quote:
Vista 'annoys the crap' out of 'everyone' because they are used to XP's open door policy. Vista incorporates a great many design features from the Linux world, such as UAC and RAM usable(Superfetch). Its just that more people use Vista than use Linux, so they complain more. If MS had left Vista with the same open door they used in XP, they'd be getting blasted right now for releasing an insecure OS.
I use Linux as much as I use Windows. I don't get annoying OS popups every time I start an application on Linux. I don't have security issues on Linux that I have on Windows (yes, including Windows Vista).
Quote:
MS just can't win with an OS release, people will complain no matter way. People have complained about changing OS for every single OS that MS has ever released, more so when the UI changes. We see the same thing in the linux work when new distros are released that use a different or updated GUI. People refuse to upgrade to the latest version, or they upgrade to the latest version, but downgrade from the included GUI to an earlier release they are more comfortable with. Thats probably the biggest reason people ***** about Vista, they are more comfortable with XP. They know where things are in XP. Ironically, Vista isn't that much different to use than XP, with only slight changes to the start menu. Its control panel applets and under the hood operation require a little training, but its easy after a few days. No biggie.
That's a bit disingenuous when it comes to Linux. The nice thing about Linux is that you *CAN* go back to whatever you want, because the GUI is not *TIED* to the OS. As a result, I think it is a valid complaint. The whole "change your GUI" thing is about market hype and to try and make something "look new", regardless of whether it is or not. There's no reason to force people to go to a totally new GUI, and it should be optional, not mandatory. With Linux, it is optional. With Windows, well... get used to whatever Microsoft sends your way; you WILL be assimilated.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that Vista 64 is the most stable OS that MS has ever released. Given a decent CPU, which run less than 50 USD these days, and a decent amount of RAM (2GB=20 USD), Vista will run circles around XP.
Well, you'll have to forgive me if I don't share that fanboi view of it, especially since I have yet to encounter a SINGLE application which runs faster or more stably on Vista over XP or 2000, even with gobs of CPU/memory thrown at it. I even have a customer with a utility (of the electric/water/sewer type) database that runs FASTER on an older 2000 machine than their squeaky new Vista system, even AFTER being "optimized" for Vista. Amazing.
Quote:
Since Windows 7 is shaping up to be a glorified service pack for Vista, that might be the OS to skip, if you already run Vista. If your applications don't run on Vista, they sure are not going to run on 7. And if a developer hasn't adjusted/updated/patched their software to work on the Vista kernel by the release of Windows 7(2010?), they deserve to go under. Nearly 6 years is plenty of time for this.
I think it is particularly amazing that I have applications written all the way back before 2000 which run PERFECTLY FINE on the latest Linux distros, but if I don't update applications every couple of years to "keep up" with Microsoft's latest cruft, I "deserve to go under".
I mean, really, does MS pay you for those sound bites?
No, I think that, this time around, Microsoft deserves to "go under", and I think the rest of the world tends to agree, considering that Vista has had the absolute worst reception by both users and experts of any OS they have put out yet.