Which version of Vista do you use? Tell the truth. Don't be embarrassed.

[DereX888]

I think this is just like my dislike of apple derex - either use it or don't. WE can't make you use vista if you don't want to. Just like mac fans can't make me switch to apple. Its preference.

Of course, thats what Im saying too (that we all have choice).
But I don't try to justify wrongdoings of i.e. Microsoft (even though Im a shareholder, yup ) by saying its fine because many other corporations do exactly the same. Its bullshit.

[DereX888]

THIS IS OLD STORY...

when xp came up..evereybody was like now...**** xp,
now, everybody says, **** vista....in 3 yrs they all will like it.

this is just human nature idiots...

Those who dont even know how to setup their computers (which sadly is huge majority) jumped on XP.
I am still using Windows 2000 and I set it up for my parents too (and I made it look *exactly* the same as XP - because they liked XP's GUI and they didn't want to have "old" operating system LOL - but obviously it doesnt have any XP's crap and annoyances... probably if Microsoft have sold you WIndows 2000 or NT4 just with XP's eyecandy GUI and patches built-in, you too wouldn't even had a clue youre using 15 years old operating system hahaha)
I dont doubt Vista will have at least 50% of the market in next 3 years.
But I doubt it will happen because *the market* chose Vista - actually I'm sure.
It will happen only because Microsoft is able to force almost everyone buying new computer to have Vista there, regardless of what the consumers may want (OTOH the fact that Joe Average is uneducated idiot have nothing to do with it, it only makes it easier for Msoft and such corporations to force anything *their way* on us).
Human nature is more like "get something for nothing", not "pay for the fifth time for same shit", isn't it?

[JohnnyMalaria]

But I don't try to justify wrongdoings of i.e. Microsoft (even though Im a shareholder, yup ) by saying its fine because many other corporations do exactly the same. Its bullshit.

That's not what I was saying. There are very few truly atruistic for-profit companies out there. Certainly not the ones discussed in this forum. And there are far worse companies to do business with/hold stock in than the likes of MS.

BTW, by holding stock in MS, haven't you chosen to make financial gain directly from inserting unpleasant objects up customers' derrières?

[gll99]

Whether you are pro Vista or not, I find that "Windows" in it's various flavors has become an essential product like the telephone and cable / satellite tv. Sure you can choose to do without but you can also choose to go live in a convent. Although there are niche groups who use other OS's many still use Windows also, the alternatives do not appeal to the masses and why is that? Maybe ease of use, familiarity from childhood or its universality but more likely the wide variety of free or cheap software that runs on the MS platform is what draws people to it and props it up above all others. If Linux could concentrate all efforts on one design and draw quality developers under one roof, it could rival MS but that's not likely going to happen and that's why MS can maintain control by enticing developers to conform and to focus their energy onto itself. Without this 3rd party software conforming to the Windows platform it would be just like another Linux distro.

What's really too bad is that MS has become for all intents and purposes a monopoly on what is now an essential service. They happen to control the stable of competing products that someone might use like win98se, win2000, XP and now Vista. If they choose to no longer support those products then they should be forced to release the source code into the public domain and let someone else create the real competition that is missing in this area.

If Vista is so end all be all and so new and different then they shouldn't be afraid of competing against the old OS. I just don't like that they can arbitrarily decide to force us into their model and we have no real viable option to turn to. Other monopolies are tightly controlled why not this one. Let's create some real competition by having MS release their old OS's to the public who paid for them. this would not only free up the os but also all the software that was developed by 3rd parties to enhance the use of the OS. In my opinion, these 3rd party developers are the real reason for MS success with windows.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Let's create some real competition by having MS release their old OS's to the public who paid for them. this would not only free up the os but also all the software that was developed by 3rd parties to enhance the use of the OS. In my opinion, these 3rd party developers are the real reason for MS success with windows.

The problem here is that Microsoft have a huge amount of intellectual property in the form of trade secrets wrapped up in the Windows family. There are plenty of undocumented features that MS rely on to give them the edge (perceived or otherwise). Developers *can* see the source code for the whole OS, as long as they sign the very strict agreement that goes with it. MS provide most developers with the documentation required to make use of the OS's features - but they don't tell you how the OS actually does it.

[yoda313]

Wasn't there a story the other year about some university getting the ms source code legally? And then wasn't some of it released online before they cracked down on it??

[Super Warrior]

THIS IS OLD STORY...

when xp came up..evereybody was like now...**** xp,
now, everybody says, **** vista....in 3 yrs they all will like it.

this is just human nature idiots...

Nope! Never going to vista. XP has always been great, no need to fix what ain't broken.

Also unlike Vista, Windows XP was a NEEDED upgrade over previous Win98, Nt, etc.

But I doubt it will happen because *the market* chose Vista - actually I'm sure.
It will happen only because Microsoft is able to force almost everyone buying new computer to have Vista there, regardless of what the consumers may want (OTOH the fact that Joe Average is uneducated idiot have nothing to do with it, it only makes it easier for Msoft and such corporations to force anything *their way* on us).

Not true here, my New Dell laptop came installed with XP home edition :P

[edDV]

This is so 2001.

XP is the new Win98se or Win2000.

Vista is the new XP. The comments seem to be the same as then.

As usual, there is no reason to change quickly until the applications and hardware drivers catch up. Most serious bugs are fixed with an SP 1 release. That is a good time to switch if you are ready to upgrade all of your applications. I bought Vista to explore the bleeding edge. The XP machines do the real work.

[Dv8ted2]

I just updated my main computer to Vista Business. I had to update the video driver, but that was no big deal. The gigabit ethernet NIC was automatically recognized, and the driver automatically installed. I now run Vista Business, Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate Edition.

[DereX888]

Super[/url] Warrior]

THIS IS OLD STORY...

when xp came up..evereybody was like now...**** xp,
now, everybody says, **** vista....in 3 yrs they all will like it.

this is just human nature idiots...

Nope! Never going to vista. XP has always been great, no need to fix what ain't broken.

Also unlike Vista, Windows XP was a NEEDED upgrade over previous Win98, Nt, etc.

But I doubt it will happen because *the market* chose Vista - actually I'm sure.
It will happen only because Microsoft is able to force almost everyone buying new computer to have Vista there, regardless of what the consumers may want (OTOH the fact that Joe Average is uneducated idiot have nothing to do with it, it only makes it easier for Msoft and such corporations to force anything *their way* on us).

Not true here, my New Dell laptop came installed with XP home edition :P

You can buy new PC with Windows 95 i you really want too, XP is not a big deal LOL

[DereX888]

Let's create some real competition by having MS release their old OS's to the public who paid for them. this would not only free up the os but also all the software that was developed by 3rd parties to enhance the use of the OS. In my opinion, these 3rd party developers are the real reason for MS success with windows.

The problem here is that Microsoft have a huge amount of intellectual property in the form of trade secrets wrapped up in the Windows family. There are plenty of undocumented features that MS rely on to give them the edge (perceived or otherwise). Developers *can* see the source code for the whole OS, as long as they sign the very strict agreement that goes with it. MS provide most developers with the documentation required to make use of the OS's features - but they don't tell you how the OS actually does it.

Even at Microsoft basically no one have access to entire source code.
Teams get the part of the code that is relevant to their work only.
Main reason why there are so many snafus, but also best policy to keep source code in the vault
Among 20,000 Msoft coders there simply must be at least few hundred *haters* who'd leak the source code in a heartbeat if they only could have access to it, don't you think? It hasn't happened because no one have access to the full code.

What you were talking about leaked code was exactly this - one section of code of Windows 2000. They caught the 'traitor' next day

[JohnnyMalaria]

Remember when VGA graphics came out? "Are you kidding? Way too expensive and pointless. CGA is just fine for me."

Remember when the Intel 287 coprocessor came out? "What's the point? My 12MHz machine crunches just fine, thank you."

Remember when the Intel 386 came out. "What's the point? Protected mode? DOS doesn't need that - whatever it is!"

Remember when Windows 3.1 came out? "What's the point? DOS is fine."

Remember when the Pentium came out. "What's the point? My 486DX is just fine and no software supports the Pentium's new features!"

Remember when the Pentium MMX came out. "What's the point? My Pentium is just fine and no software supports MMX!"

Remember when the Pentium 4 came out. "What's the point? My Pentium III is just fine and it's more powerful!"

"XP is fine - I'll never switch!"

How many Win3.1 apps are you running on XP? Got any hardware that only has NT4.0 drivers? Got a bunch of ISA cards? A 5.25" floppy drive?

At some point, developers will create software that requires Vista. At some point, you will have to change or remain stuck with a dinosaur (either your machine or XP - whichever you find more humorous).

[edDV]

Nobody is more ruthless against trade secret violators than is Apple. They will fire you and see that you never get a real job again. Most perpetrators finally give up and go into politics where their "skills" are valued.

[JohnnyMalaria]

You mean from Apples to Goebbels

[edDV]

Jobs saw the problem and Jobs solved the problem without quite shedding blood.

[DereX888]

Remember when VGA graphics came out? "Are you kidding? Way too expensive and pointless. CGA is just fine for me."

Remember when the Intel 287 coprocessor came out? "What's the point? My 12MHz machine crunches just fine, thank you."

Remember when the Intel 386 came out. "What's the point? Protected mode? DOS doesn't need that - whatever it is!"

Remember when Windows 3.1 came out? "What's the point? DOS is fine."

Remember when the Pentium came out. "What's the point? My 486DX is just fine and no software supports the Pentium's new features!"

Remember when the Pentium MMX came out. "What's the point? My Pentium is just fine and no software supports MMX!"

Remember when the Pentium 4 came out. "What's the point? My Pentium III is just fine and it's more powerful!"

"XP is fine - I'll never switch!"

How many Win3.1 apps are you running on XP? Got any hardware that only has NT4.0 drivers? Got a bunch of ISA cards? A 5.25" floppy drive?

At some point, developers will create software that requires Vista. At some point, you will have to change or remain stuck with a dinosaur (either your machine or XP - whichever you find more humorous).

Are you so thickheaded or what is it? ANY operating system can be set to not accept anything but the stuff the coders set it to accept, its so freaking obvious LOL.
Thats how Microsoft releases "new" operating systems since the dawn of computing days, the whole point of Vista and all of the predecessors starting with NT is exactly this (and it was exactly the same story with 9x line of Windows).
There is no problem to make old ISA hardware and its drivers to run on Vista or NT - if the Microsoft itself wouldn't chose to KILL support for something (actually deliberately BLOCK use of it in the OS).

Example: Windows Media Player 7 - according to Microsoft it cannot run on anything older than Windows 98/2000 because these OSes don't support "major components" (read: DRMs the way Msoft wants us to have).
Reality? With simple tweak it installs and runs fine on Windows 95 and NT4 too - why is that?
Because coders from microsoft forgot to BLOCK those older OSes in the software (they fixed it in WMP9 and WMP10).
Example2: USB1 & USB2 is officially not supported in Windows NT4. According to Microsoft you have to upgrade to XP.
Yet few people used existing drivers from XP and 2000 to work on Windows NT4 with simple tweaks and voila, it works. Why? Because its still the same operating system, and Msoft didnt BLOCK potential use of USB in NT4 on the low-level of its old OS (I guess they overlook it since USB was anew in 1996, or maybe they were planning to support it themselves in the future - who knows). But if you try to install IE7 on anything other than XP, you get "not supported" error - which actually means "Microsoft chose to BLOCK installation of this software on other Windows versions" in the IE7 itself, not because it cannot run on it.
Why would they do all of that? To force you to "upgrade" of course
(and make no mistake: every "new" version of NT have more *limitations* than previous one)
There are hundreds of examples like this, but thats not the point.
The point is, Microsoft releases same Windows NT for the fifth time - granted, it is with all patches integrated, with all current hadware support integrated, with bunch of extra new drivers on the disc too, and with new GUI - but it doesnt change the fact it is still the same Windows NT for crying out loud! Thats the point. They could have release all of it - including Aero/Glass GUI - as "Windows Update" patches and additional support files, but that wouldn't generate any $$$ obviously...

As to be humorous - I find your statement humorous
And mixing hardware upgrade with software "upgrades" from Microsoft is even more hllarious
Many people use Windows 2000 (I use it probably more than you'll ever use your Vista, or you did XP before), and believe me, it doesn't "lack" anything from your Vista, nor I see any "outdating" going on; whats more, I *know* my 3GHz rig with W2K is way faster at all the same tasks you may throw at it than your newest Vista with better specs

What I can really credit Microsoft for, is the extention of "help wizards" in every "new" Windows version.
That is something that is really developed to a higher (better) level with every "new" version of NT.
But again - make no mistake, it could have been added to as old as NT4 operating system as well, had Microsoft chosed to do so.

Nobody is more ruthless against trade secret violators than is Apple. They will fire you and see that you never get a real job again. Most perpetrators finally give up and go into politics where their "skills" are valued.

Certainly.
Apple is way worse ******* corporation than Microsoft - but from what I read, it wasn't always that way. I think the sense of being defeated by some underdog unknown upstart (microsoft back then) made Jobs sour puss at some point

[JohnnyMalaria]

Are you so thickheaded or what is it?

Not at all. I merely have a different perspective on things.

But if you try to install IE7 on anything other than XP, you get "not supported" error.

There are API differences that preclude it - whether for technical reasons or business model reasons. It's not just a simple version check. Do you believe it should install on Win3.1 with Win32s as well?

The point is, Microsoft releases same Windows NT for the fifth time

Er - you seem to be arguing against yourself.

And mixing hardware upgrade with software "upgrades" from Microsoft is even more hllarious

Not at all - Intel and Microsoft operate in tandem. They have a very symbiotic relationship - sadly joined in a parasitic manner by Apple.

Many people use Windows 2000

Often because they can install it on multiple machines since activation isn't required.

I use it probably more than you'll ever use your Vista, or you did XP before

I doubt it - unless you are operating at relativistic speeds and can envoke time dilation and/or live a rather lonely lifestyle. If the latter, I happily concede the point.

My "newest Vista with better specs" doesn't exist. By choice, I run XP SP2 on a 2.8GHz Pentium D. Only by necessity do I also run Vista (on the same box). This is to ensure the software I develop will function correctly on Vista and XP, since that's the reality of the market. I deliberately choose to have a somewhat passé platform because not all of my clientele have bleeding edge systems. Moreover, it provides me with more of a challenge to squeeze as much performance as possible out of more modest systems (something I have been doing since 1981). I am also sufficiently grounded in reality to know that a significant portion of my clientele uses Vista (by choice or otherwise). Indeed, many of my custom projects specifically target Vista (by customer request).

I'm puzzled, though, by your rather strong abhorrence of Microsoft's business model while admitting to be a shareholder. So, either you endorse their model or you are being hypocritical. Either way, your arguments begin to lose credibility.

[Dv8ted2]

I'm puzzled, though, by your rather strong abhorrence of Microsoft's business model while admitting to be a shareholder. So, either you endorse their model or you are being hypocritical. Either way, your arguments begin to lose credibility.

[DereX888]

Are you so thickheaded or what is it?

Not at all. I merely have a different perspective on things.

Thats good

But if you try to install IE7 on anything other than XP, you get "not supported" error.

There are API differences that preclude it - whether for technical reasons or business model reasons. It's not just a simple version check. Do you believe it should install on Win3.1 with Win32s as well?

I hope you realized Win3.1 is not synonymous with NT3?
Although I emphesized "NT-line" many times, I guess you miss it...

The point is, Microsoft releases same Windows NT for the fifth time

Er - you seem to be arguing against yourself.

[The point is, Microsoft releases same Windows NT for the fifth time] with new fifth version of GUI, and updates inluded...
Did you miss that part too?
Or is it more convenient for you to just quote only post parts that suits your argument

And mixing hardware upgrade with software "upgrades" from Microsoft is even more hllarious

Not at all - Intel and Microsoft operate in tandem. They have a very symbiotic relationship - sadly joined in a parasitic manner by Apple.

Well said, albeit limiting Intel to cooperation with Microsoft only (even if joined by Apple lately) is a huge understatement IMHO.

Many people use Windows 2000

Often because they can install it on multiple machines since activation isn't required.

No way, LOL.
Those who use Windows 2000 today are those who apparently chose it! (not that they were forced by XP's 'protections').
You can be complete n00b and you can find just with google hundreds of links with everything you need and all know-how to unfuck your PC from activation crap in XP.
Do you really think someone who is able to set up Windows 2000 properly isn't able to use google?

I use it probably more than you'll ever use your Vista, or you did XP before

I doubt it - unless you are operating at relativistic speeds and can envoke time dilation and/or live a rather lonely lifestyle. If the latter, I happily concede the point.

On average few, but at least once a week from 20+ to 80+ machines at once at work
Not to mention clusters farm (although its not even Windows)... so I still think Im right :P

I'm puzzled, though, by your rather strong abhorrence of Microsoft's business model while admitting to be a shareholder. So, either you endorse their model or you are being hypocritical. Either way, your arguments begin to lose credibility.

I have nothing against being hypocrite, however I don't think I'm one (well, obviously no one can really objectively self judge, but I think Im not one).
The more I see, read and know - the less I like many things, Microsoft notwithstanding.
I changed my opinions when I found I was mistaken in the past. Is it hypocritical behaviour? Or - in your opinion - just because someone got shares of any company, he automatically must praise it as the best in the world?

I'm puzzled, though, by your rather strong abhorrence of Microsoft's business model while admitting to be a shareholder. So, either you endorse their model or you are being hypocritical. Either way, your arguments begin to lose credibility.

yeah...
Pecunia non olet (I think said it here already, hmm).
Linus Torvalds wouldn't reject a billion dollar donation if it came from Bill Gates, would he lose credibility because of accepting it from BG?

[Super Warrior]

You can buy new PC with Windows 95 i you really want too, XP is not a big deal LOL

I highly doubt that. Can't just go to dell for example, order a vostro 1000 laptop and ask for win95 to be put on it. Not going to happen.

"XP is fine - I'll never switch!"

How many Win3.1 apps are you running on XP? Got any hardware that only has NT4.0 drivers? Got a bunch of ISA cards? A 5.25" floppy drive?

At some point, developers will create software that requires Vista. At some point, you will have to change or remain stuck with a dinosaur (either your machine or XP - whichever you find more humorous).

Me and my XP dinosaur will be very happy for years & years to come then.

Also XP was a needed upgrade over previous O.S's, but it is not the same for Vista. XP is more than capable on its own, Vista is by no means a necessary/NEEDED change.

[gll99]

We shouldn't be surprised when people are suspicious of MS they are just getting wise. Forget the previous 286, 3.0,and win3.1, it was all new and seemed to follow the new processors and system architecture. The hardware led to new software needs. But then we got the great win95 followed by win98 and then win98se which by then was pretty good after a few service packs. But who can forget Winme essentially another disguised win98se service pack only this time it cost money. Maybe I missed one or 2 who could keep up?

Advances in computer design and faster processors buses, new device driver design etc.. makes it fairly easy to see that something like NT was needed. I buy that!! But come on, 5 or 6 NT OS's? Really!!! This doesn't include the slightly specialized versions like mce or business vs home vs pro, server and of course the 64 bit versions . The latter might be an easier sell as needed versions. No one should believe for a moment that some of those weren't' just fixes or embellished add-ons sold as a new OS.

XP is as good a place to draw a line in the sand. it's mature, well supported and could last a long time if MS would continue to support the core libraries which of course they won't.

Now, if they want to hand out a free copy of Vista I won't refuse it but I'll keep XP close by.

[Dv8ted2]

yeah...
Pecunia non olet (I think said it here already, hmm).
Linus Torvalds wouldn't reject a billion dollar donation if it came from Bill Gates, would he lose credibility because of accepting it from BG?

No, but if you are a shareholder, you would want Microsoft to maximize it's profit. That would mean more money for you. I am through discussing economics, though. It is straying off-topic.

As I pointed out earlier, Vista was based off of 2003 Server not NT 4, so how you see it as a repeat of NT 4.0 is beyond me. You can rewrite the kernel multiple times and it would not be the same. Johnny also pointed out that the kernel was rewritten between NT 4 and W2k, so again, it is not the same.

[yoda313]

Games are a big reason I went from win2000 to xp. 2000 was not a home platform. It was an excellent, stable platform but it wasn't being written for anymore. Xp was the new defacto and I needed to upgrade to take advantage.

Same is now happening with VISTA. Halo 2 is VISTA only. That wasn't the only reason I bought a new computer with Vista on it but I saw the writing is on the wall.

Basically it comes down to UPGRADE OR DIE in gaming. It always has been.


---------------------


One other thing that bugs me about Vista gripers - you don't like AERO?? Than get the BASIC version if it grates you so much. MS has multiple versions of VISTA and Basic is the stripped down one that will do just what you want it to..

[Dv8ted2]

Games are a big reason I went from win2000 to xp. 2000 was not a home platform. It was an excellent, stable platform but it wasn't being written for anymore. Xp was the new defacto and I needed to upgrade to take advantage.

Same is now happening with VISTA. Halo 2 is VISTA only. That wasn't the only reason I bought a new computer with Vista on it but I saw the writing is on the wall.

Basically it comes down to UPGRADE OR DIE in gaming. It always has been.


---------------------


One other thing that bugs me about Vista gripers - you don't like AERO?? Than get the BASIC version if it grates you so much. MS has multiple versions of VISTA and Basic is the stripped down one that will do just what you want it to..

True,

Have you tried Chess Titans? I play that from time to time, and I like Inkball as well.

[DereX888]

No, but if you are a shareholder, you would want Microsoft to maximize it's profit. That would mean more money for you. I am through discussing economics, though. It is straying off-topic.

Of course. I always say Vista is being sold too cheap, same as I said about XP.
However I'm not Bill Gates, I won't bancrupt if Microsoft does, I'll loose just a chunk of my portfolio
Actually it would be somewhat pleasant loss LOL
EOT

As I pointed out earlier, Vista was based off of 2003 Server not NT 4, so how you see it as a repeat of NT 4.0 is beyond me. You can rewrite the kernel multiple times and it would not be the same. Johnny also pointed out that the kernel was rewritten between NT 4 and W2k, so again, it is not the same.

I think the only significant change to NT kernel happened at change from NT3 to NT4.
Since then everything happens on the shell/GUI level, i.e. NT5 (W2K) is no different than NT4 with installed Internet Explorer 4 (or 5 or 6) with shell update (aka "Active Desktop"), NT5.1 (XP) just got more elaborate GUI, and so on. NT6 (Vista) has absolutely nothing new compared to XP on the low level, everything new are OS add-on modules only.
I can't lay it out for you more clearly - either you understand it or not, but dont tell me for the 3rd time I contradict myself when I don't


Just a simple tricks:
(thats a work in progress by volunteers mind you)




Now just think what could be done with the source code available
If we had it, we could make Windows NT4 to not only look but work *exactly* like Windows Vista (without the crap like WGA or DRMs).
(you know you can add Aero to any WinNT-line if you want to, and someone made it partially to work on Win9x-line as well)

So believe it or not, but it won't change the fact: Vista *is* NT

We shouldn't be surprised when people are suspicious of MS they are just getting wise. Forget the previous 286, 3.0,and win3.1, it was all new and seemed to follow the new processors and system architecture. The hardware led to new software needs. But then we got the great win95 followed by win98 and then win98se which by then was pretty good after a few service packs. But who can forget Winme essentially another disguised win98se service pack only this time it cost money. Maybe I missed one or 2 who could keep up?

Advances in computer design and faster processors buses, new device driver design etc.. makes it fairly easy to see that something like NT was needed. I buy that!! But come on, 5 or 6 NT OS's? Really!!! This doesn't include the slightly specialized versions like mce or business vs home vs pro, server and of course the 64 bit versions . The latter might be an easier sell as needed versions. No one should believe for a moment that some of those weren't' just fixes or embellished add-ons sold as a new OS.

No you didn't missed any And the "specialized" versions are nothing more than the "main" versions, although sometimes with extra software add-on (i.e. IIS for server version). There is nothing different in the "specialized" version from "main" versions, as it has been proven many times in the past, i.e. anyone can turn their NT4/2000/XP to a server version with simple hex editing - although Msoft saw writing on the wall and made it more difficult in XP - what still doesn't change the fact that Pro/Server are exactly the same OS except that the server extensions are just disabled in the Pro version of Windows (read i.e. HERE or HERE[/url]

[JohnnyMalaria]

I think the only significant change to NT kernel happened at change from NT3 to NT4.
Since then everything happens on the shell/GUI level, i.e. NT5 (W2K) is no different than NT4 with Internet Explorer 4 (or 5 or 6) with shell update (aka "Active Desktop

Not true at all.

The NT4 kernel had no support for PnP nor did it support WDM. This is why much hardware available at the time could only work on the consumer versions of Windows or Win2K. If you have ever programmed kernel mode drivers for >NT4, you will be very aware of the role that PnP plays. It goes beyond plug-and-play - it's at the very core of every hardware interaction (I/O to disk drives, graphics cards etc etc) - totally different than the NT4 model. It goes so deep into the kernel that a major overhaul was necessary. Nevertheless, legacy NT drivers are supported.

The shell/GUI has NOTHING to do with the NT kernel. The shell/GUI refer strictly to the WIN32 user-mode API. The NT kernel knows nothing of WIN32. You can provide a completely different shell/GUI/API for use with the NT kernel (e.g., POSIX, OS/2). Windows is merely what sits on top of the NT kernel.

Win2K brought together the stability and security of the NT kernel and the PnP/multimedia features of Win9x. This was done by overhauling the kernel.

The NT3.x family introduced new Windows/GUI features (e.g., OLE), often ahead of the consumer line. The move from NT3.51 to NT4.0 was primarily a switch from the Win3.1 GUI to the Win95 GUI.

As ever, MS maintain a significant level of backwards compatibilty. e.g., NT3.51 can run Firefox and Opera.

[DereX888]

I think the only significant change to NT kernel happened at change from NT3 to NT4.
Since then everything happens on the shell/GUI level, i.e. NT5 (W2K) is no different than NT4 with Internet Explorer 4 (or 5 or 6) with shell update (aka "Active Desktop

Not true at all.

The NT4 kernel had no support for PnP nor did it support WDM. This is why much hardware available at the time could only work on the consumer versions of Windows or Win2K. If you have ever programmed kernel mode drivers for >NT4, you will be very aware of the role that PnP plays. It goes beyond plug-and-play - it's at the very core of every hardware interaction (I/O to disk drives, graphics cards etc etc) - totally different than the NT4 model. It goes so deep into the kernel that a major overhaul was necessary. Nevertheless, legacy NT drivers are supported.

The shell/GUI has NOTHING to do with the NT kernel. The shell/GUI refer strictly to the WIN32 user-mode API. The NT kernel knows nothing of WIN32. You can provide a completely different shell/GUI/API for use with the NT kernel (e.g., POSIX, OS/2). Windows is merely what sits on top of the NT kernel.

Win2K brought together the stability and security of the NT kernel and the PnP/multimedia features of Win9x. This was done by overhauling the kernel.

The NT3.x family introduced new Windows/GUI features (e.g., OLE), often ahead of the consumer line. The move from NT3.51 to NT4.0 was primarily a switch from the Win3.1 GUI to the Win95 GUI.

As ever, MS maintain a significant level of backwards compatibilty. e.g., NT3.51 can run Firefox and Opera.

So, in other words:
you do agree that Vista/2003/XP/2000 are just a different shells/GUI for NT5 kernel, while you disagree that they are different shell/GUI for NT4 kernel.
Perhaps youre right that the last major NT kernel update happened at NT4>NT5 change, not at NT3>NT4 as I said previously (come to think of it it was indeed change of just GUI to the Win95-alike, and with addition of IE4/5/6 it could have been updated further to a Win98-alike GUI with "Active Desktop" shell extension).
What still doesn't change the point I'm saying: starting with 1999 Windows 2000 (NT5.0) theyre all the same Windows OS just with different shells/GUIs and cumulative updates integrated to the next released versions.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I certainly agree than Win2K and XP are very similar (after all, they are both NT5.x).

Changes have occurred to the kernel from 5.x to 6.0 - may be not as sweeping as from 4.0 to 5.0. But there are enough changes to make Vista-specific software not work on 5.x. e.g., the new audio driver model (DirectSound no longer uses hardware acceleration - it's purely software emulated), the new driver display model (WDDM) which is a new processing pipeline. Indeed, even 2D graphics on Vista use the 3D pipeline. The NT6.0 kernel uses native IPv6 for networking.

Others include:

CPU Utilization Improvements
Multimedia streaming improvements
Resource Quotas
New Synchronization APIs
Symbolic File Links
I/O Completion Port, Scalability, Cancellation, and Prioritization Improvements
User Mode Driver Framework (UMDF)
SuperFetchTM
ReadyBoost
ReadyDrive
Boot Configuration Database (BCD)
Session 0 Isolation
Interactive Logon Architecture
Delayed Autostart services
Clean Service Shutdown and Shutdown Ordering
Reliable Sleep Transitions
Kernel Transaction Manager
Volume Shadow Copy
Windows Error Reporting
BitLockerTM Drive Encryption
Code Integrity Verification
Protected Processes
Address Space Load Randomization (ASLR)
Service Security Improvements
User Account Controls

(Of course, some of these have been met with outcries from consumers.)

[gll99]

Looking to upgrade my computer has forced to me to the realisation that Vista is here to stay. Even when choosing a motherboard, cpu, video card etc.. there's this clear distinction has to whether certain bios or hardware supports XP or Vista and often it's not both. It's not just upwards compatibility, there are even cases where a device works with Vista but not xp so you just can't switch OS back and forth and expect all the hardware to work in every case.

Being in transition and not wanting to spend too much I'll stay with "XP compatible" for now but try to minimise the new hardware needed when the day comes when ignoring Vista will not be an option if we want certain features.

[edDV]

And mixing hardware upgrade with software "upgrades" from Microsoft is even more hllarious

Not at all - Intel and Microsoft operate in tandem. They have a very symbiotic relationship - sadly joined in a parasitic manner by Apple.

These companies are all in a symbiotic dance. Gates saved Apple several times starting with Word for Mac and then Office for Mac. Microsoft kept Apple afloat through the 90's because they needed a competitor. There was even direct investment at critical times. It was embarrassing that Apple was so weak.

Intel didn't need Apple but welcomed the publicity coup. Then when AMD nearly folded, Intel needed to avoid looking like a monopoly.

Jobs is a dictator but Apple needs one to perform and the Apple customer likes to be led by the nose. An Apple event like the one today reminds one of the Hitler youth. All fake cheers. Microsoft lacks discipline. They claim to hire the best talent but it never comes out in their products. I guess the Redmond storm sewers and landfill get the benefit of the best an brightest Microsoft employees. Vista is half baked. Some of it is good but is this the best they can do after 5-7 years of work?

I'm disappointed with Apple and Microsoft. Both could have served me better as a consumer and investor. Apple never got serious and Microsoft never got an act together other than Office and XBox but XBox never made a dime for investors. Poor execution at both companies.