Microsoft: Longhorn is Now Windows Vista

[Nilfennasion]

The only reason you say it is crap is because it is my opinion. Get over yourself. Have you done one iota of research into the cost of migrating from Windoze, in terms of just lost productivity and labour on document conversion due to Mickeysoft's habit of making their things incompatible with everyone else's? Do you have the slightest idea how much time it takes to correct the mistakes made in a conversion of a 98,000 word document? Have you actually bothered to try using any flavour of Linux (just for example, I've already done three, and I am betting the answer is no)? Wake up and smell what you are shovelling, you monopolist creep.

Having used NT 4 in my workplace at the time, I agree that it was the best OS Mickeysoft ever made in terms of stability and efficiency. Compatibility was a moderate problem, but that's what happens when people make things compatible with mistakes. It was still a minor nightmare to maintain due to the unfortunate habit of placing profile directories under the root OS directory, but at least it had the virtue that one could double click on installation executables and expect something to happen, unlike most Linux distributions.

I still really miss AmigaDOS, myself. It was very limited compared to modern OSes, but at least Commodore did not have the gall to claim it was the user's fault when running a combination of two programs could cause the entire system to crash.

[gll99]

Windows 2.x ?
Well, I was wrong then :hmm:
any screens of it please?
EDIT: nevermind screen, I followed your link. It sure looks like Windows 1

NT4 was just bettered-up NT3.5, wasnt it?
If you ryn winver on nt4 what does it say? It can't be 4.x.xxxx since 4.0.xxxx was Windows95...

Yeah, I think so - win2k was built on NT code, hence XP/2003 must have chunks of it as well.

I have the 3 1/2 diskettes of MS windows/286 used at work on a 286 (of course) no other identifying labels and a set of 3 1/2 diskettes labelled MS Windows/386 with the setup disk showing version 2.1.
I used that one on my next work and home computers, both 386 DX40 with a 40 and then a 100, 240 hdd and finally a 486dx100 with two 500 meg hdd at home... really big at the time . Those were the days the whole 386 window os including apps and utilities was stored on seven 720KB single density diskettes.

For regular home computing XP is fine with me. There is no pressing reason to move to another OS. until I make a major upgrade in hardware. I used NT at work but was happy with win98se at home for a long time until I finally switched to XP. I still keep a win98 partition as a fallback but rarely use it now.

Windoze is not perfect but it's well supported by the developper community and fairly user friendly to do a basic install.

Linux has too many versions which causes confusion of choice and compatibility issues. It needs to be easier to install and be a little more point and click to appeal to the masses. Someone needs to package some basic apps like word processor, image editor, video viewer and editor, internet connection and browser software etc... all in one simple install package. The more mainstream it becomes the more software developpers will be attracted to program for the OS.

[vitualis]

The only reason you say it is crap is because it is my opinion.

No, I think your rants really speak for themselves.

Get over yourself. Have you done one iota of research into the cost of migrating from Windoze, in terms of just lost productivity and labour on document conversion due to Mickeysoft's habit of making their things incompatible with everyone else's? Do you have the slightest idea how much time it takes to correct the mistakes made in a conversion of a 98,000 word document? Have you actually bothered to try using any flavour of Linux (just for example, I've already done three, and I am betting the answer is no)? Wake up and smell what you are shovelling, you monopolist creep.

And if you actually opened your eyes even slightly through that tight tight helmet of yours, you would realise that I am generally quite anti-MS on the forums and I advocate using open source software. And yes, I have used several flavours of Linux.

On one hand, you bash MS for being evil and monopolistic, and yet on the other hand you say all the other (quite valid) alternatives are crap. Well, I don't think that they are crap and even if you think they are, is isn't really MS fault that they are so. MS doesn't FORCE Linux to be more difficult to use than Windows. MS doesn't FORCE Linux to have poorer driver support.

If you really wanted to be free of Windows and didn't want to use Linux, Mac OS X is a clear and viable alternative. Most people will tell you it is EASIER to use than Windows and even if you really needed a business tool that was only available on Windows, you could alway run it in emulation.

Regards.

[guns1inger]

Having to support OSX machines on our network, I don't believe that they are in fact any better than anything else out there. OSX is pretty, but then so could any OS if the main objective of the company was form over function and budget was allocated accordingly. However the reality is that aside from the Dock, the interface is still the same as the original Macintosh (but with colour), the one-button mouse means that wild and zany key combinations are required to do anything more than a simple click, and the range of software is limited to the point of ludicrous. Of course, to Apple zealots (actually, zealot is probably superfluous here) this just makes their favourite computer 'exclusive' or ' a niche OS' or whatever wank-word description they use to try and justify it's existence. The fact there is now only three programs available soley on the Mac that are probably better than anything on the PC (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and Shake - although Shake is still available for Linux), and everything else available is also on the PC - just as stable and generally faster, shows that the Mac has had it's day, and only exists because a small group of 'artistic' people believe you still need one to create art. Note to wankers - Picasso didn't have a Mac. Not to mention the fact that to keep up pace-wise, the platform is shifting to Window home turf - intel. An emulation (Virtual PC, for instance) is slow, unstable and ugly. If you need to run Windows programs, get a windows PC.

To me, the biggest problem with Linux is what the Linux community claim to be it's biggest virtue - open-source development by a large community. Yes, there is a quality control over the kernal and a central releasing system, but then there are 50 - 60 distros running off half-a-dozen different kernal point releases, each with their own tweaks and combinations of add-ons, interfaces and applications, as well as different installation routines and package delivery mechanisms. The end result is confusion for your average end-user who is being told M$ is monopolistic and eveil, but given no viable alternative. But if Linux is to truely challenge M$ on the desktop, outside a few chest-beating (and ultimately retreating) corporations, then it is the average user they need to get on board.

Having used many OS' over the years (Dos and variants, UNIX flavours big and small, Amiga and associated commodore OS' etc), I believe that a well installed and maintained Windows XP desktop is a stable, easy to use environment for the general user. 2003 Server is a robust and stable backend for file and print services and general network management. For large application and database servers, industrial strength UNIX is a must (e.g. HP/UX), and a UNIX firewall (be it based on a linux distro or proprietry) is also a good thing.

M$'s biggest enemy on the desktop will be M$. It is too eager to please the big film studios and music companies, and once windows becomes locked down tight by DRM, it will start to get into real trouble. I can't see anything in longhorn/vista that would move me off XP, and DRM makes it an even less inviting option.

[smearbrick1]

The only reason you say it is crap is because it is my opinion. Get over yourself. Have you done one iota of research into the cost of migrating from Windoze, in terms of just lost productivity and labour on document conversion due to Mickeysoft's habit of making their things incompatible with everyone else's? Do you have the slightest idea how much time it takes to correct the mistakes made in a conversion of a 98,000 word document? Have you actually bothered to try using any flavour of Linux (just for example, I've already done three, and I am betting the answer is no)? Wake up and smell what you are shovelling, you monopolist creep.

Having used NT 4 in my workplace at the time, I agree that it was the best OS Mickeysoft ever made in terms of stability and efficiency. Compatibility was a moderate problem, but that's what happens when people make things compatible with mistakes. It was still a minor nightmare to maintain due to the unfortunate habit of placing profile directories under the root OS directory, but at least it had the virtue that one could double click on installation executables and expect something to happen, unlike most Linux distributions.

I still really miss AmigaDOS, myself. It was very limited compared to modern OSes, but at least Commodore did not have the gall to claim it was the user's fault when running a combination of two programs could cause the entire system to crash. :roll:

Nilfennasion drinks his own pee.

[ViRaL1]

I remember trying to install Windows NT 3.1 from floppies (the very first release) when it first came out. Needless to say the HCL was EXTREMELY limited and I didn't get back into it until NT4. Definitely one of the best but for normal use, I prefer XP.

[greymalkin]

exxonmobil up until this year still used NT4 client machines...only now are they transitioning to XP. They are also using 600-900mhz PIII machines with 256mb PC100 ram...the ram is actually an "upgrade" from the usual 128 to bear the additional burden of XP.

the 10mb/half-duplex network is staying how it is..however.

[edDV]

exxonmobil up until this year still used NT4 client machines...only now are they transitioning to XP. They are also using 600-900mhz PIII machines with 256mb PC100 ram...the ram is actually an "upgrade" from the usual 128 to bear the additional burden of XP.

the 10mb/half-duplex network is staying how it is..however.

All to keep you from playing games at work

[RottenFoxBreath]

Having used NT 4 in my workplace at the time, I agree that it was the best OS Mickeysoft ever made in terms of stability and efficiency. Compatibility was a moderate problem, but that's what happens when people make things compatible with mistakes. It was still a minor nightmare to maintain due to the unfortunate habit of placing profile directories under the root OS directory, but at least it had the virtue that one could double click on installation executables and expect something to happen, unlike most Linux distributions.

^^hahah,that made me laugh,best OS,yet a nightmare...thats an understatement.
even some isps couldnt get it to work with there services..
oh,and the fact IT WAS SHITE :P

[DereX888]

oh com'on, stop it guys, you all know nothing will ever beat Windows ME =)

[MOVIEGEEK]

oh com'on, stop it guys, you all know nothing will ever beat Windows ME =)

I actually have Me installed on my old HDD.I use it for backing up video,photos and music.You definatly need an app such as Norton Utilities to keep a FAT32 OS working properly.
Oh how I miss the BSOD....

[otpw1]

oh com'on, stop it guys, you all know nothing will ever beat Windows ME =)

I actually have Me installed on my old HDD.I use it for backing up video,photos and music.You definatly need an app such as Norton Utilities to keep a FAT32 OS working properly.
Oh how I miss the BSOD....

I will boot up ME when I'm pissed at XP PRO. It does help me get over it quick.

[DereX888]

@MOVIEGEEK
why WinME then? I would rather go for Win98 (the first one) + all the available updates... would be more stable than ME (if such word exists in DOS-based OS world )

[MOVIEGEEK]

@DereX888,
I know this sounds funny but I prefer WinMe over Win98.I have Win98SE and WinMe on CD,I have installed both several times over the years and I find WinMe faster and more stable...I also like the GUI better.
I use WinXP everyday and it leaves WinMe in the dust though.

[DereX888]

@MOVIEGEEK
whatever suits you the best
I went thru every crap from Msoft since Win95, and I admit I did enjoy each one of them
I just thought that for whatever the reason you need DOS-based Windows, then the first Win98 (the Gold version, +the updates ofcoz) would preferred since it is most 'stable' and robust; and it doesn't have any idiotic crap added with 98SE and all later OSes, like system region coding, rights managements and all that crap

I have one machine (Pentium MMX 166MHz lol) still running Win95C it is behind firewall, has all the possible patches, upgrades and updates (most of it 'stolen' from win98 lol) and it is still running fine

here :P


It is actually Win95 build 1212, aka OSR2.1 - I think Win95C had an IE4 built-in IIRC, but it doesnt matter lol
Anyway - this old heap does i.e. browse the web way *faster* than i.e. my P4 with WinXP with Firefox (not to mention that clunker IE on same machine) seriously
Most of ppl I know they just browse the web and do emails/chat or occasionally download something - so Im always shaking my head in disbelief when I hear they always need newer faster and stronger machine just for that or newer windows (say Vista lol) for the same purpose

[roma_turok]

If 2 versions of Windows XP, PRO and HOME Edition to a little for you
take the 7 versions of Windows Vista:
Starter Edition
Home Basic Edition
Home Premium Edition
Windows Vista Professional Edition
Small Business Edition
Enterprise Edition
Ultimate Edition


Source: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp

[junkmalle]

If 2 versions of Windows XP, PRO and HOME Edition to a little for you
take the 7 versions of Windows Vista...

That's why it's taking so long to get out. They've spent years just figuring out how to segment one operating system into 7 variations to maximize profits and confusion. Now they can acutally start coding it...

[ROF]

The only reason you say it is crap is because it is my opinion. Get over yourself. Have you done one iota of research into the cost of migrating from Windoze, in terms of just lost productivity and labour on document conversion due to Mickeysoft's habit of making their things incompatible with everyone else's?

Yes and as with any conversion there is a time cost in research and migration. The relative loss compared to switching to any alternative Non-Microsoft Operating System is minimal. Try converting a networked cube(20) to any OS that isn't Microsoft to see how many man hours are required just to educate those folks. Even with several alternate OS geeks in the office grouping it takes upwards of 6-10 times as long to convert them efficiently from windows to any OS. The reverse of that when converting from any OS to windows is significantly lessened because of the man hours required to train people in the windows process. I've done my research in the real world and the real world tells me that windows is the way to go if productivity is to increase with minimal labor time.

Do you have the slightest idea how much time it takes to correct the mistakes made in a conversion of a 98,000 word document? Have you actually bothered to try using any flavour of Linux (just for example, I've already done three, and I am betting the answer is no)? Wake up and smell what you are shovelling, you monopolist creep.

Yep! It takes less then 15 minutes to convert if you are using proper software and you are proficient in noticing the alterations in both on screen and final print form. It doesn't matter which alternate OS you use, conversion of documentation is minimalized. However, getting people to understand how their new office products work and how to identify conversion errors can be difficult. Of course, the same can not be said about converting from any alternate OS documentation to microsoft format. Microsoft was intelligent enough to include proper conversion tools that take into account the different formatting of alternate document programs. If a problem occurs, the software is also intuitive enough to give you options when making the conversion before you actually perform the operation. Did you do your research? It appears not, because you might have known this if you did.

I still really miss AmigaDOS, myself. It was very limited compared to modern OSes, but at least Commodore did not have the gall to claim it was the user's fault when running a combination of two programs could cause the entire system to crash.

Don't say Microsoft didn't warn you. Amiga being limited is an underestimate of unprecedented proportions With only 47 error codes (not full reports) you could never tell exactly why or what was crashing. Amiga and Commodore technical support couldn't help you either. Most times they referred you to equipment you didn't have or they'd fault programs which you never executed. The included manual was "sparse" in all senses of the word and further documentation in libraries and bookstores from third party vendors had print errors which required you to contact the publisher in order to get errata, if it was even available. of course, you had to pay for those copy machine pages to be sent to you. Talk about not cost effective and inefficent. Funny that you would bring up such a thing when trying to discuss efficiency and cost effectiveness in the workplace. AmigaDOS was nice, but far from the most efficient OS even compared to other Operating systems of that time.

- - - - - - -

Getting back on topic, I hope with these diverse versions of the current Microsoft operating system that end users are educated on what each can and can't do, otherwise there are going to be alot of people returning their OS for a different one.

[SaSi]

If you consider the current flavours of non-obsolete Windows, I think that 7 variants is neither less not more than what we have today:

Windows XP home edition
Windows XP Professional
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2003 Small Business Server
Windows 2003 Advanced Server
Windows 2003 Enterprise Server

I am not counting the embedded and CE flavours - of course.

And to think that people still use 2000 Pro most of the time - with the notable exception of our friend Derex888 who still enjoys Windows 95.

[DereX888]

And to think that people still use 2000 Pro most of the time - with the notable exception of our friend Derex888 who still enjoys Windows 95.

I do?
Oh well, its just because i can't find original version of QDOS to replace it with

[D.A.R.J.R.]

This is just going to cause mass confusion. How you know whcih version to buy?

[dwill123]

And to think someone actually got paid to put a crap name like that together for the product....or maybe it was Bill gates idea? :P

No it wasn't Bill Gates, it was this esteemed Microsoft executive.

[vitualis]

This is just going to cause mass confusion. How you know whcih version to buy?

I think that for the mass consumer market, the choices will be much more limited... probably Premium (for everyone), Pro (for Business) and Ultimate (for uber users).

Starter is for developing nations running cheap/lower power computers.

Home "Basic" is for ? inexpensive OEMs.

SBE and Enterprise would probably be sold directly to business.

Regards.

[the future]

Having to support OSX machines on our network, I don't believe that they are in fact any better than anything else out there. OSX is pretty, but then so could any OS if the main objective of the company was form over function and budget was allocated accordingly. However the reality is that aside from the Dock, the interface is still the same as the original Macintosh (but with colour), the one-button mouse means that wild and zany key combinations are required to do anything more than a simple click, and the range of software is limited to the point of ludicrous. Of course, to Apple zealots (actually, zealot is probably superfluous here) this just makes their favourite computer 'exclusive' or ' a niche OS' or whatever wank-word description they use to try and justify it's existence. The fact there is now only three programs available soley on the Mac that are probably better than anything on the PC (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and Shake - although Shake is still available for Linux), and everything else available is also on the PC - just as stable and generally faster, shows that the Mac has had it's day, and only exists because a small group of 'artistic' people believe you still need one to create art. Note to wankers - Picasso didn't have a Mac. Not to mention the fact that to keep up pace-wise, the platform is shifting to Window home turf - intel. An emulation (Virtual PC, for instance) is slow, unstable and ugly. If you need to run Windows programs, get a windows PC.

Oh dear...

1. Please give us some examples as to why OSX is "form over function". Where exactly does the form get in the way of any function you want to perform? This claim is just ridiculous.

2. OSX supports third party mulitbutton mice just fine. No-one has to use a one-button mouse, it's just that some people prefer to. And btw. get with the program, even Apple themselves have a four button scrollball mouse now.

3. There are very very few (and very special) software applications for Windows that do not have an OSX equivalent. No "normal" user will ever encounter a problem finding software for everything he wants to do in OSX.

4. Windows is just as stable as OSX? Maybe, if you put many hours of work into maintenance and cleaning up all the rubbish that Windows routinely assembles. Most people don't, and their machines get slower and more unstable until they can't stand it anymore and re-install. Me, I run cron jobs and repair permissions every once in a while and have a clean system never giving me any trouble whatsoever. Let's not even start talking about such unique Windows software that actually doesn't exist for OSX as worms, virii, trojans, adware, spyware...

5. As to which OS is faster, let's wait for OSX on Intel, shall we? IBM wasn't able/willing to produce a mobile G5, hence the big switch. In this day and age, speed is not an issue for 99,9% of users and 99,9% of tasks on either system anyway.

6. Your idea of the typical Mac user ("artistic people", "wankers") very much confirms my idea of a typical Windows user – narrow-minded, stubborn, misinformed. Have a nice day.

[vitualis]

3. There are very very few (and very special) software applications for Windows that do not have an OSX equivalent. No "normal" user will ever encounter a problem finding software for everything he wants to do in OSX.

Actually, this is not really true. Yes, you can probably find an "equivalent" but that doesn't cut it when the rest of your enterprise use a particular piece of software. For example, MS Access. Yes, far from the best of its class, but if your business uses it and you need to be able to easily integrate with the database that is there, then OSX is at a disadvantage.

It is not uncommon for people to run Virtual PC on OSX with Windows just to run a vital piece of Windows software. It is possible and even functional but far from ideal.

The problem rarely presents itself in the Windows world.

4. Windows is just as stable as OSX? Maybe, if you put many hours of work into maintenance and cleaning up all the rubbish that Windows routinely assembles. Most people don't, and their machines get slower and more unstable until they can't stand it anymore and re-install. Me, I run cron jobs and repair permissions every once in a while and have a clean system never giving me any trouble whatsoever. Let's not even start talking about such unique Windows software that actually doesn't exist for OSX as worms, virii, trojans, adware, spyware...

Windows NT 5 (i.e., Win2K and up) is as stable as OS X. It isn't as SECURE out of the box as OSX. If you use standard components and install standard business software on Windows XP or Windows 2000, it very very rarely crashes, certainly no more than OS X.

5. As to which OS is faster, let's wait for OSX on Intel, shall we? IBM wasn't able/willing to produce a mobile G5, hence the big switch. In this day and age, speed is not an issue for 99,9% of users and 99,9% of tasks on either system anyway.

Please. Macs (as per G5) as a package are not as fast as PCs at pretty much any price point. Furthermore, OSX is somewhat more resource intensive than Windows XP.

Regards.

[the future]

Actually, this is not really true. Yes, you can probably find an "equivalent" but that doesn't cut it when the rest of your enterprise use a particular piece of software. For example, MS Access. Yes, far from the best of its class, but if your business uses it and you need to be able to easily integrate with the database that is there, then OSX is at a disadvantage.

I wasn't talking specifically about corporate environments (nor did the post I answered to). For a normal/home user this is a non-issue.

Windows NT 5 (i.e., Win2K and up) is as stable as OS X. It isn't as SECURE out of the box as OSX. If you use standard components and install standard business software on Windows XP or Windows 2000, it very very rarely crashes, certainly no more than OS X.

Fair enough. Only install selected software and keep the maintenance up, and Windows can be stable. No need for these precautions in OSX, though.

Please. Macs (as per G5) as a package are not as fast as PCs at pretty much any price point. Furthermore, OSX is somewhat more resource intensive than Windows XP.

I think it is rather difficult and futile to compare the speed of different OSs on different hardware architectures. Undoubtedly you can get more speed for less $ on the Windows side, but mainly just when you build your own system (which, in the real world, not too many people do). Total cost of ownership is actually very close (less downtime because of maintenance and virus problems, longer lasting hardware, less IT personal cost because, well, Macs just work...). As to the OS, it'll be interesting to see how resource intensive Vista will be – which after all is the OS that may have a look and feature set that is more comparable to OSX than XP. And on the same hardware as well. Interesting times ahead...

[vitualis]

Vista will almost certainly be more resource intensive than OSX but then, it is being released years after OSX...

Comparing desktop OSes between Macs and PCs, Macs in general have required more system resources (in particular, system RAM) to do the same thing. Whether this is a good or bad things depends on your perspective but even with all other things being equal, it does means that what would be a perfectly functional machine in the PC world has poor performance in the Mac world. For example, Windows XP runs perfectly well on 256 MB of RAM if you are running only business apps like Office/Outlook/IE. A Mac with 256MB or RAM (used only for Office apps) would still be starved of memory.

It can be argued that OS X has a much more elegant and polished GUI than Windows XP and thus the higher system requirements are justified. This again, depends on perspective.

Regards.

[the future]

Vista will almost certainly be more resource intensive than OSX but then, it is being released years after OSX...

Vista will be released almost simultaneously with OSX 10.5 Leopard, though. Both on Intel. Let's meet again at the end of 2006 and compare features, functionality, looks, resource hogging...

[smearbrick1]

It's funny that people keep saying that Window causes huge downtimes due to maintenance issues and virus threats in comparison to OSX. As a home user of Windows XP Pro, I can't tell you the last time I had a maintenance issue. XP is not Windows 98 with it's perpetual machine of "illegal" operations, or Windows ME with it's wonderful BSOD. I have very, very few problems with Windows XP on any of the 4 machines I run on my home network. Also, can we please stop faulting Windows with having market dominance. This is why your precious OSX doesn't have the downtime/maintenance issues related to viri.

[jimmalenko]

Also, can we please stop faulting Windows with having market dominance. This is why your precious OSX doesn't have the downtime/maintenance issues related to viri.

Exactly. If 90% of all users used Macs, there'd be a helluva lot more flaws exposed and more risks associated with using them.

It's also a very similar scenario with the IE / Firefox debate. Now that more people are starting to use Firefox to get away from the dangers that IE supposedly presents, there's more and more people working on finding flaws and holes in Firefox, and they'll find plenty more before the year is out.

It's all about reaching the greatest audience.


There's no real point in getting into a pissing contest about this - If a windows machine does what YOU need it to do, all good and well. Splendid, in fact. Alternatively, if a Mac does what YOU need it to do, same deal. We can all have our opinions, but at the end of the day, it's what works best for YOU that matters most.