When Microsoft made available Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, it pulled away resources from Windows Vista in order to sustain the effort, and came out with a service pack that many considered it could have been passed for a new Windows operating system. "Other companies would have called this a major release and charged money for it," Jim Allchin, (Former) Co-President, Platforms & Services Division, said on January 24, just before Windows Vista hit the shelves. Well, the Redmond company has a thing or two to learn from Apple, as the Cupertino-based hardware company is doing it again. This time around, with Snow Leopard.

Apple is getting ready in "about a year" to release the next version of what it claims to be the world's most advanced operating system. Sure enough, after what it had been through in 2007, Windows Vista, even with SP1 is no contest for Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Snow Leopard, the successor of plain vanilla Leopard will take the focus away from adding new features and will instead increase performance and quality. The first lesson that Microsoft needs to learn is that marketing makes or breaks a successful product.

Steven Sinofsky, Senior Vice President, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, should really pay attention to this one. The only thing worse than chattering about a product in development without a strategy is not talking about it at all. It wasn't all the talk around Windows Vista back when it was referred to as Longhorn that ruined the operating system, it was Microsoft's failure to live up to its initial promise. Sinofsky's translucency tactics involve discussing a product only when its aspects are set in stone, under promising and overachieving. Well, with Windows 7, just as Snow Leopard, a year, a year and a half away, Microsoft needs to start talking about the next iteration of Windows more than just demonstrating multi-touch technology.

The Redmond company's 2008 Professional Developers Conference looks like an excellent occasion for Microsoft to deliver its first taste of Windows 7. Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference 2008 proved a great moment for the Cupertino company to give a sneak peek at Snow Leopard. A few generic details about the next iteration of Mac OS X were also provided. Just enough for end users to be satisfied without Apple having to say anything. In contrast, at the D6 – All Things Digital, Julie Larson-Green, Corporate Vice President, Windows Experience Program Management, refused to talk about the Windows 7 Taskbar that was clearly visible on one of the Demo machines. That's right! This is a clear example of the absurdity of Microsoft's translucent policy, as whatever happens with Windows 7, it's unlikely that the Taskbar will play any sort of critical role.

"Since 2001, Mac OS X has delivered more than a thousand innovative new features. With Snow Leopard, the next major version of the world’s most advanced operating system, Mac OS X changes more than its spots, it changes focus. Taking a break from adding new features, Snow Leopard - scheduled to ship in about a year - builds on Leopard’s enormous innovations by delivering a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X, enhance its performance, and set new standards for quality. Snow Leopard dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos," Apple revealed.

Apple is essentially promising that Mac OS X Snow Leopard will be smaller, simpler, faster and better, and that's about it. The second lesson for Microsoft is that it also needs to make Windows 7 smaller, simpler, faster and better than Windows Vista. Be it the product of evolution or of a revolution in development, Windows 7 has to be clearly superior to both Windows Vista and Windows XP. With the sole difference that Microsoft cannot really afford to cut down features from the next version of Windows. Snow Leopard will bring to the table Grand Central, advanced Multicore technologies, Microsoft Exchange Support, support for 16TB (Terabytes) of RAM, QuickTime X, and OpenCL (Open Compute Library), taking advantage of the graphics processing unit (GPU).

What will Windows 7 sport? Well... multi-touch computing. This is all that Microsoft managed to confirm, even with Windows 7 dropping next year. Or is it? The Redmond company is continually refusing to talk about a deadline, or to commit to anything beyond three years after the general release of Windows Vista.

But, in addition to start the marketing campaign ahead of launch, and not wait to drop another Wow as Windows 7 hits the shelves, as well as deliver a superior Windows release to what is already available, Microsoft needs to get Windows 7 out there. One year ahead of launch Apple has already made available Snow Leopard to developers. Undoubtedly, Microsoft has already done the same with Windows 7 Milestone 1, the Redmond company's focus is wrong, and limited only to its largest and closest partners. Windows 7 pre-release builds need to be offered as soon as possible to let the feedback flow. Microsoft simply needs to gather, centralize and take into account feedback from a much wider ecosystem of users and developers, not just the traditional Windows testers. They need to go beyond Apple's PC Guy from the Get a Mac ads.

Source: Softpedia

Wow... what a biased article. This claim of "1000 innovative new features" is a bit far fetched. I'll bring down one of their top marketing ploys right now - Time Machine. All Unix and Linux systems have been able to do something like this with rsync. While it might not be as mindless of a setup, the feature and the functionality is all there (I wouldn't be surprised if Time Machine is based on rsync). There are countless features in Vista and Server 2008 that I'm sure many people here know about, and that if spun the right way, would be "All-new-wow-jazz!!!".


Let's face it - Apple has a far smaller market share than Windows. Mac users have also been known for having a bit more money to play with. Let's face it, a basic MBP is not cheap by any standards - starts at $2099 CAD. A well equipped Lenovo ThinkPad, on the other hand - call it $1500 after taxes. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has the ability to simply tell it's users "Dump that two year old hardware and buy a new computer - just so you can run Snow Leopard". This is also part of the reason why Snow Leopard is going to be "more optimized" - they're only making it for Intel systems - bye bye Motorola/IBM support!


Advanced multi-core support - I think Microsoft got there first. OSX pre-Leopard did alright with multi-core scaling... but it wasn't really all that stellar.
16TB of RAM... I think that's a mis-terminology here. 16TB of address space has been available to any 64-bit Windows OS. Who's actually got 16TB of physical RAM installed in their system?
Taking advantage of the GPU - how is this new? The entire OSX GUI has been based off the GPU for years (came with OSX 10.3). That was one of the key selling points of expose when it was unveiled back in 2003... Comon guys... don't market old technology as "new and improved". You're simply re-inventing the wheel here.

/rant

Microsoft can only learn from Microsoft!
They have the record of what works for them---and what does not.
They know what makes the consumer happy, and what does not.
Know thyself! As the ancient Greeks said.

There is a way the Big M can maintain their dominance, and never have to worry about Open Source, Linux, or Mac. It is a somewhat perhaps madcap sounding concept I propose, but it would achieve for them, a place in history—where they will forever be defined as “The Good Guys”---and having “Integrity”. They can in fact “Redeem” themselves, from a downhill and negative reputation and trend.

Let them do the following:

Extend the life of XP—period. Dispense with the “End of Life Cycle crap”!
Continue to support it, update it as they have.

Continue to work on Vista---period.
Work out the bugs; improve and update as necessary. Dispense with the “End of Life Cycle crap”!

Continue to work on their next OS,--Windows 7 or whatever; and take at least five years—to deliver a truly “Grand”—UNIQUE---and Superior product!

Commence to design, and market their own powerful and “modestly priced”
PC---to be sold—in a way they can legally do it.
This PC must be capable of running XP, or Vista—efficiently, and smoothly.
If they cannot do this, then make sure an OS of theirs is never sold from a store that is not
ready to run their OS efficiently! No installations on PCs’ that are not really meant at all to run them, such as Vista installs on computers only fit to run XP!

Give the consumer “a choice” of either of these two, and eventually three major Microsoft Operating Systems!
They can corner the market,---not through heavy handed and forced tactics,---but offering “commitment” and “dedication” to what they have already succeeded with---XP---and what can be made to succeed---Vista.
Though I myself would add an improved and revamped 9x Os to this—I realize it would be considered going way beyond the “far fetched’ {Yet Possible} ideas I have already espoused. ---But I had to throw it in, since my favorite OS of theirs is 98se!

They have got to think out of the Box!
And realize that they are at the crossroads, or are approaching very near unto that!

source of article is 'Marius Oiaga' - news writer the author behind great articles like Forget about the WGA! 20+ Windows Vista Features and Services Harvest User Data for Microsoft and Microsoft Updates the Default Spy Tool in Vista SP1 and lets not forget Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard = Windows Vista


ok lets forget the source of the article an look at the content:
article says MS needs to learn from Apple.
article is critical of Microsoft who has 98% of the PC market
article praises Apple who has 2% of the market

Um yeah Microsoft is definitely doing something wrong there. Gates and Balmer need to don the black turtlenecks, blue jeans and tennis shoes, Give Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, and IBM all pink slips and start cranking out overpriced hardware with their OS preinstalled. Yeah thatll work out real well.

The article fails to mention that Snow Leopard is being rumored to be Intel-platform only.

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/12/mac-os-x-10...-be-intel-only/

This would mean Snow Leopard is an operating system specifically designed for Apple computers approximately two years old and newer. While this seems crazy, remember that Apple has a history of killing backwards compatiblity utterly, and has changed hardware platforms before, leaving the old platforms out to die slow, painful deaths. That guy that spent $7000 on his multi-CPU Mac G5 in 2005 is abandoned in the name of progress.

As cold as that is, MS should have taken this approach with Vista. I argued two years ago that Vista should have been 64-bit exclusive. Even looking at Longhorn screenshots in early 2006 I was like "my P4 3ghz box will NOT run this very well." But MS insists on trying to sell Vista x86, and even makes it the "default" Vista choice. GRRRR WHY?! They should have at least made Vista x86 the limited exception. Vista Starter Edition should be "the x86 version" of Vista. Everything else, 64-bit only, right on the box "you need a 64-bit processor for this" and be done with it. The "3.5GB barrier" is something we'd see talked about on XP forums and we'd chuckle behind our 8GB ubermachines.

But hey, I'm sure MS knows what they are doing -.-;

Exactly what I said. AFAIK, It's now been confirmed that Snow Leopard will be Intel only.

I'd disagree on this one. I purchased my laptop just before the first Core Duo chips were available (sadly, didn't really have the opportunity to wait). Dispite this, and it having "only" 2GB of RAM, it handles Vista quite well, and for what I do with it, Vista is a far better OS than XP was. Microsoft did the right thing by releasing a 32-bit version of Vista. However, I'd hope that Windows 7 is 64-bit only, since by that time, 32-bit only machines will be over 5 years old... I'd hope that people wouldn't spend more money on the OS than their computer is worth.


The lifestyle cycle of Windows vs OSX has also been debated endlessly, and sorry to all the mac-addicts out there, Microsoft's cheaper. I'm sure that closer to the release date, prices for Snow Leopard will be released, and people will continue to complain about the "high price of Vista". People forget that each upgrade to OSX along the way has been over $100 spent. If you kept up to date along the way, that's $600 for your operating system. Even Vista Ultimate doesn't look so bad now, does it? Heck - An OEM copy of Vista Home Premium can be purchased now for $100, and that includes all service pack and support for the next however many years.

@Zxian, gotta call you out there just in case those who aren't in the know read this - buy an OEM copy, get nothing more from Microsoft than public updates (that is why it's cheaper). Unless you buy retail, you'll have to pay for that support call. Everything else is right on though .

Also, ask anyone who runs Vista or XP on a MBP if the hardware is better - this OS (same vista x64 image on both) is almost twice as fast in almost everything but copying files (network limited, not hardware) than my almost identical (but ~$450 USD cheaper) Thinkpad. Why? Because the hardware's better, the mobo is better, the proc is probably better, the RAM is faster, and Apple can make OSX scream when the hardware is that good. Run OSX on this Thinkpad and *then* talk to me about how great OSX is .


@cyberformer, eventually you have to reach a point where it costs more to support an old product, however good, than to pump those man-hour time and resources into newer products. 10 years for support of an entire OS product from a company with literally hundreds of millions of installed users in it's userbase is more than acceptable. Ask apple how long they support an OS version, and it isn't 10 years (heck, support for 10.1.x, released in September of 2001, is no longer available other than public downloads and user forums - you must have 10.2.x to get support from a human on the phone, and only within 90 days of purchase before it's not a free call either).

As to working on future products and Vista, how many devs do you want working on the Windows codebase? While your desires are laudable, they're not fiscally responsible or programatically sound (too many hands in the cookie jar with that many devs on the same type of product).

Are we starting another THE SAME OLD OSX vs Windows thread ??

then i too have something to share

Snow Leopard is 64bit and support intel platform only ( Apple delivered all promises till last release)
w7 is supposed to be 64bit only (somewhere b4 relese of vista m$ hinted this)

m$ is planning to make w7 as software as service (install just a basic os ,download required apps from m$ servers for $$)(may be fed up with lawsuits with EU and in Korea )
might showcase winfs (it was promised for Longorn aka vista, not delivered till longhorn server s2k8)

still they hav 98% userbase, why ?
*backward compatibilit for MOST apps
*long term support(5yrs for workstation os and 10yrs for server os)
*better flaw patching speed (on that point apple is really a set back)

Well im just a normal computer user with no marketing experiences or knowledge but i run vista(was a long-time xp user) on my pc and have macbook botht at home.
from my experience from both of these computers (which after my last pc upgrade mostly runs the same hardware type and models) i would say every beginner-moderate user should buy apple macosx(if can efford);
1.much better performance with everything,
2.everything works out-of-box,
3.you have all the app's you need for basic usage,
4.almost all parts of the OS runs just as you want them without the need of editing any settings,
5.installing softwares is much easier than windows infact its just the matter of copy pasting them,
6.you dont have to buy firewalls or antivirus's and wake up everymorning wishing there wasnt a new virus released on net last night which infected your network computers(which i know is only because mac shares a much smaller market but still) ...

anyway from a user point of view if you dont know how to triple backup your files and put your antivirus on auto update every 30mins and runs your firewall only opening the ports you need THEN you should consider apple systems.

i myself would love to buy a mac replacing my pc if i could have all my softwares on mac :sigh:

That's not what I hear at all. Seemingly Windows on a MBP is sooooooooo much faster than OS X...


... and what DOESN'T work out of the box with windows? Yes, you might want to do some tweaks to how it looks and such, but everything DOES work regardless.


Vista comes with a web browser (that I loathe admittedly), a mail client, a calendar app, a media player, a very nice photo gallery app, movie maker and dvd maker, an IM app, a bunch of small games, a backup app, can burn discs, ... That covers basic usage alright I'd say (no need to buy iLife or such)


Because running setup.exe, or using the autoplay menu of most CDs is too challenging? If they can't do this, they're probably the type that just learned to double click. I don't see how copy/pasting is any better/more intuitive myself.


Windows already comes with a firewall and windows defender. You don't have to buy anything. Actually, I run without either, and it's been years since I've been infected (so much for not clicking on everything blindly, and not opening freepr0n.jpg.exe I guess!)


Update your AV every 30 mins? Crazy firewall rules? Triple backup your files? That's TOTALLY uncalled for... I do NOTHING of this, nor do I know anyone who actually does!

Mac is the LAST platform I'd recommend to anyone:

• The licensing style and closed-source-ness of Windows (who cares if it's BSD based, where's the source code again?)
• The OS is no cheaper than Windows -- 100$ for every 0.1 update, whereas a copy of Windows be had for 100$ (5 updates in the last 6 or 7 years, only 1 new copy of windows in that time frame)
• Absolute worst lock-in EVER: a single hardwave vendor! THEY choose what you can buy. With any other OS, YOU pick what you need.
• The said hardware vendor doesn't offer any GOOD hardware configs (either a mini POS, a beyond overkill $5000 mac pro, or such -- they don't sell a normal Core 2 Duo tower!), unless you want a laptop
• And their hardware is overpriced

And in the end, when they buy quicken, or this year's tax report app, or their kids buys a game, or try to use basically any app that didn't come with the mac pre-installed, IT WON'T RUN! Because ~99% of apps are windows-only nowadays.

Why lock yourself into a single hardware vendor, who has no good hardware configs, with an OS that's no cheaper or anything, and that won't run most apps, and on top of that, pay a hefty premium for their hardware?

It costs more than a windows box (hardware and OS), the license is no better, and like Linux, it doesn't work with Windows apps -- worst of both worlds! At least Linux would have SOME benefits vs windows: free for good, open source, etc. And no, it's not THAT hard to install.

I think someone's been watching too many Apple ads...

One point to note:
every 10.1 update is equivalent to windows' 6.0 -->> 7.0 update
remember m$ did the same 0.1 update in 2k (5.0) to XP (5.1) and 2k3 (5.2)
the 0.1 is a major update bcoz the 10 (in roman digit X) is constant for Mac OS X (it to be pronounced as Mac OS ten), since the kernel is not having much radical change as it from OS 9 to OS X (ten) then onwards.
in 9 -> X the base of Mac OS changed to darwin, and still using darwin code.

(dont mis-understand me am not a BLIND mac fan, just sharing the info)

its a good platform bcoz the s/w OS is optimized for the h/w.

Erm... No. The only major update that OSX has seen that's worth any merit is Leopard. In my experience, the other updates are equivalent to what Microsoft does with Service Packs.

Your comparison to Windows 2000/XP/2003 is also flawed. Windows 2003 is a server OS - XP was a workstation. Microsoft has gone back to the way they had things with Windows 2000, basing both Vista SP1 and Server 2008 on the same kernel. However, that does not mean that they are the same operating system.

And they also cut out a large portion of their userbase in the process. All OS9 apps had to be scrapped (there was some compatibility layer, but honestly - it sucked), and users were encouraged to ditch their old machines and buy new ones. We're running into the same story with Snow Leopard - bye bye PPC.

Tell that to anyone still using PPC apps on an Intel machine. There's also the fact that, like crahak said - they have a very limited set of hardware to support. Browse any Mac forum and you'll find plenty of threads on hardware incompatibilities. The hardware that OSX is sold on is faster than most standard PC hardware - but that speed also comes at a steep price.

you really dont expect anyone to buy this one right? lets see! few days ago ive been called up for network being infected with malwares which had KIS installed on all systems and updated daily... you can give a total nOOb a mac and come back in one month and see no virus or malware ever infected the system...

Honestly - a large portion of that is user error. I've been running all of my Windows machines (ranging from XP Home to Vista Business, and just about everything inbetween) without additional security software for close to two years now.

The reason why you can give a "n00b" a mac and not have to deal with malware is because nobody targets them... although that's starting to change. Computer security ultimately comes down to the user. Most modern operating systems are "secure enough" by default, and as long as the system is kept up to date with the operating system patches (forget about AV definitions), most users should be fine.

Ditto.


indeed! Also, I'd MUCH rather deal with 1 virus or spyware infection every 5 years or so, than buying a overpriced computer that's not compatible with ~99% of apps out there (unless you put Windows on it...)


Exactly. If you never patch your system, use IE, visit every shady site, and click yes on everything and open email attachments blindly, you WILL get malware. But even my daughter's XP machines never caught anything ever (they're running as admins, no AV, no firewall, fully patched, FF as a browser). So it's not like your average user can't pull this off.

Antiviruses and software firewalls mostly give users a false sense of security. Keep your stuff patched, ditch IE, be just a little bit cautious (don't just open any .exe from anywhere, or click "yes" on everything blindly) and spyware will be a thing of the past. Spyware scanners won't ever find anything more than cookies, and soon you'll be thinking they're useless and just wasting your time. The last time we got any spyware was circa 2004 (coolwebsearch iirc) -- right before we switched to Firefox 0.8 (SP2 for XP came out shortly after too).

I agree with Zxian. I haven't run additional security (unless you count hardware firewalls) with Windows since... um... 1996 when I used a McAfee AV floppy on a Windows FW 3.11 server... Only have gotten 2 viruses since then, and in both cases (different computers) they were there because I put them there in order for me to learn how to remove them.

I don't think it makes sens to discuss OSX vs Vista.

What is more meaningful is that Apple said it will make teir OS simplier, faster and smaler and that's something Vista realy realy realy needs too.


No, but that's exactely what they did with Vista.

Let's see if with w7, M$ will finaly understand that what we need is not gadgets and yet one more security app.

Criticisms of Vista is widely visible on the internet. Looks like the one who is reading is Apple. Let's see if M$ can read tech forums too...

I don't see why not. They're competitors, Mac OS X is the main alternative. I think it does make a LOT of sense.


Simpler as in dumbed down, and with very little choices. No thanks!


No, Zxian was totally right. You wanna run Snow Leopard? Then you can throw that 2 year old $3000 dual CPU G5 computer right in the trash. It won't run it, at any speed, ever.
However, Vista will run just fine on a 2 year old Athlon64 X2 with a reasonable amount of RAM, that only cost a tiny fraction of the price of that G5.

Apple totally discontinued their very own hardware architecture. Abandoning people who paid large sums of money for a fancy computer only 2 years after. That's like if Microsoft ditched Intel/AMD altogether for Sparc, 2 years after selling you a proprietary box to run their software. No more updates on a $3000 product they sold you merely 2 years ago. It's the end of the line for those machines now.

Vista not running at stellar speeds on a 5 year old P4 doesn't even compare, but then again, you're always looking for an opportunity to bash Vista.


People were ASKING for those things. "Waah! Waah! We need a sudo-like mechanism for Windows to be secure!" they were saying. MS delivers, and they keep whining as always. People didn't wanna have to buy a firewall and all that, so they made the built-in one better, and added Windows defender. I think it was a good idea. The only gadget they added is the sidebar, and most people actually like it.


Criticisms of any new version of Windows ever are widely visible on the internet. There's always been people whining, and there will always be. It doesn't matter what they do, there will always be a tiny minority of people unhappy about it (usually they're the kind that likes to complain a lot too).

Dig hard enough and you'll easily find XP-bashing reviews and sites from 7 years ago...

Jobs could crap in a paper bag and every Mac head would chant his name and be ready to fork out money for it.

Check this out: http://gizmodo.com/tag/macheads-the-movie/





Everything inside of an X86 based Mac is standard PC parts. And with the exception of a customied board for the PPC line of products up until the X86 transition was announced, were also just normal PC parts.

Thinkpad T61 ---

CPU: Intel® Core™2 Duo processor T9300 (2.5GHz, 6MB, 800MHz)
Memory: Up to 4GB PC2–5300/677MHz (3GB addressable with 32-bit OS)

MBP ---

CPU: Intel® Core™2 Duo processor (2.5GHz or 2.6GHz, 6MB, 800MHz)
Memory: 2GB (two 1GB SO-DIMMs) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 memory


Based on those two observations you made alone, I really don't see how everything is better. The specs for the MBP and the ThinkPad are very similar. Looks like someone has been drinking too much of the Jobs flavored kool-aid.

In all seriousness, use whatever you like, makes no difference. But please take the blinders off before spewing Apple propaganda that isn't even true.



All down to market share. It was the same with FF. Everyone claimed it was the second coming of Christ and that there were no exploits or holes in it...until it hit a certain market share to make it worth while to exploit it.

I can remember them saying the EXACT same thing back from when Win95 came out even. From "Runs like crap on my 486", to "the minimum requirements are unrealistic" (it WOULD install and work on a 386 -- if you were the most patient person in the world), to "it's just Win 3.11 with a new look", "It's bloated", "nobody needs this", "the old one does what I need just fine", "I have no reason to upgrade", etc. And they'll be whining just the same when Windows 7 comes out, and the following, and the next and so on.

In fact, I can't wait for Windows v7 to come out, just so they change their song to "Windows 7 sucks" while they run Vista happily. It's only a matter of time. They'll be calling Windows 7 users fanboys and such for a year or 2, while they bash it to no end. Meanwhile, everybody else is gonna install it and use it everyday without any real issues. And by the time Windows 8 is out, they'll all be happily running Windows 7 too, and saying "Windows 8 sucks"... It's a vicious circle or sorts.

Whiners are whiners. Some things just don't change. In fact, I think they LOVE to whine and complain.

@MrCobra: totally.

We should start archiving any and all Vista-bashing forum posts, blog entries, and news articles. That way, we'll have definitive proof to make the whiners go away when they start saying "Vista's better than 7".

Well, you talk about that if you want. No problem, but the original point of this thread, was, I think, what M$ should do, in light of what Apple has said recently.


Crahak, my dear friend, the art of programming is to make a software faster and smaler while keeping all the features.
Adding features is relatively easy when you don't care about bloat or performance at all as both Apple and M$ have been doing.
So now the next task, the most difficult one, is to turn the Frankenstein OSes (plurial) into something less monstruous.


I agree, but I was not talking about that.

When Vista came out in 2007, it would not run, all options turned on, on one year old computers.
M$ underestimated the number of old computers and overestimated the willingness of users to buy new ones. They also discontinued their very own hardware architecture.


No, poeple asked for the next OS to be safer, not to add an antivirus and a firewall.
Adding an antivirus and a firewall offer a protection, and it's a good idea to sell your OS with such protection, but it doesn't make the OS itself safer.

And yes, poeple do like gadgets, personaly I like the new clock, but I have never heard anybody saying "I wish there was more gadgets".


The unhappy minority is tiny, but who wouldn't be happy with its brand new computer, two or three times faster than the previous one? It's tiny because only very few poeple know what a computer is, and what a software is.

So, is M$ hopeless? Reading you, M$ OSes were and will always be a serie of disapointement and technical regression, because "it's like that".
I say "No", I'm not as pessimistic as you.
The tiny minority has been loud enough for Apple to hear the noise. M$ can't give a deaf ear.

And, you know what? I'm proud to belong to this tiny minority of whiners, because we make things moving.

Were those statements not true at that time? If anything, they would be a proof of Microsoft's deeds, not the users'.


We can't whine even if there's something to whine about? If we have something to whine about, we'll whine. You're trying to say Microsoft is immaculate? Can we expect to be burned on stake?


True, but I'll not say Vista or 7 is great if they don't become great. And I won't call anyone fanboy if he/she presents facts that support his/her opinion.

Now, for some sad facts of life I strongly believe in:

1. Software development (and testing) always lags badly behind hardware development. It's not just Microsoft, every hardware manufacturer produces a piece of hardware and then issues endless revisions of drivers until they get it right (those who don't are even worse, it shows they don't care).

2. You know the old saying that any Microsoft OS isn't worth installing until service pack 1? I don't think it's a linear function, the SP number is increasing with time (and I suspect that's why they rushed Vista SP1, that was supposed to be RTM, they hoped to trick people). Very simple reason - increased complexity. Only after SP2 will I consider taking a look at Vista.

3. Microsoft needs to make money. Well d'uh. So they try to offer new Windows version every couple of years. But no new breakthrough in hardware was made in the last few years* and the devices are pretty much still the same (you can print with printers, copy files to/from hard disks, burn CDs/DVDs; combo devices excluded). So the basic Operating System tasks are still the same (copy, print, burn...) and everything else can be achieved by external applications. So Microsoft bundles stripped-down versions of some application for doing external tasks (emailing, photo/video manipulation) and that's the bloat. That's what I'm whining about. Make them optional.** I sure won't have trust in OE to keep my mail in if it means something to me - I'll buy a serious application for email (or photo editing or Internet browsing or...) but Microsoft's versions stay inside and consume SERIOUS resources because they are intertwined with other dll's and there are hidden checks for those components everywhere. You don't believe me? See any of the antitrust court trials/investigations against Microsoft. Again, for the Nth time, thanks God for Nuhi. But it should have been like that in the first place. And yes, even XP is seriously bloated for an OS, but yet underpowered to do serious work in any of the areas it tries to.

4. (And this comes from 3) Microsoft doesn't listen to customers as much as it listens to authorities, big hardware makers or Holywood (yes, DRM). So if a new 'feature' is to be added, it will be for catering the needs of Microsoft or the above entities, and the user comes at the last place. It's logical and perfectly normal in our world today, but because of that I will always question Microsoft's actions from this perspective.

GL

* I think that the shift to multiple-core processors was the perfect opportunity for them to say: "this is why you need to switch to Vista/Server2008, XP and its predecessors won't work well on multiple cores" (and they said this, but not too loudly, and I have yet to see any technical documentation that Vista/Server2008 kernel (scheduler) is THAT much more optimized for multiple cores). Instead, they based their Vista marketing campaign on skins (WOW!). I'm still laughing my a$$ out. Are they selling toys to kindergarden children?

** Actually this wish may come true - I read rumours that Windows 7 will be modular, but, again, in a bad way - "software as a service" so you'll have to pay for windows components or per hour of usage (yeah that's Microsoft's holy grail - direct connection to my wallet).

I don’t necessarily think it’s what Microsoft can learn from Apple. But what Microsoft needs to learn period.

I think Microsoft needs to make Windows 100% modular. Anything and everything except core functionality should be easily removable from the OS. There are too many interdependencies in Windows. They need to quit adding feature on top of feature on top of feature.

I also think that Microsoft needs start making Windows 64bit only and quit catering to the people/businesses that need to keep 20 year old applications running. Why should I as a user suffer bloat and intentional bugs just to ensure that some business can still run the same software that they ran 20 years ago exactly the same as it did 20 years ago? If legacy applications are that important then keeps the OS they were designed for or virtualize them. If anything, the NT line of Windows should only be backward compatible with the NT line. 9x code support needs to be killed.

Not at all. It's about problem solving, in a reasonable time frame and on budget. It's a business. It's about shipping on time/on budget, NOT about optimizing it to no end.


Well, you DID say MS did it and not Apple... Sounds to me like you were doing that precisely.


BS, pure and simple. Vista could run with ALL of the features enabled in my 5 year old P4 if I put a new vid card in it (it wouldn't be fast, but hey, it's a 5yo box)


Either you don't know, or don't understand what a hardware architecture means/is. It still runs on x86 and x64 (and even IA64). Whereas Apple was for PPC, and they're not releasing PPC versions anymore. Again, it doesn't even compare, but hey, anything to bash Vista eh?


Actually most people were, and were criticizing Windows because they had to buy this/it wasn't included, even though it was "necessary"...


LOL. Much the inverse. MS has never been "a series of disappointments" -- the only deceiving version was WinME. They've ALL been great improvements besides that one. You're the pessimistic one here.


Nah, it changes NOTHING. MS will release what they want, no matter how much you whine. It just annoys the hell out of everyone -- that's ALL it accomplishes.

SOME of it was. The minimum specs stated were too low, but they always have been as far as I can remember.

Installing Win95 from floppies on a 386 took what seemed like forever and a day. But it would run on it indeed. My boss at the time asked me to upgrade 3 puters in his office to win95... Eternity later, it was up and running, but at ridiculously slow speeds. A few days later, he handed me a CC, and I was on my way to buy new shiny Pentium 1's to replace them.

But on reasonable hardware, the speed was just fine (again, same for any version I can remember -- and that even applies to other OS'es).

As for being required, it wasn't. Even Win 3.11 wasn't technically speaking. Most people just used it as a pretty app launcher for their DOS apps anyways (besides minesweeper and solitaire), so DOS by itself was sufficient back then for most needs. Windows apps were far and few between, MS Office 4.3 being the main one. And Win 3.11 didn't really run too great on 286'es either (no fancy 386 enhanced mode).


Whining might be a good thing sometimes. But people are ALWAYS whining about Windows -- every version of it. They always have, and always will be. It gets old after 10 to 15 years. Actually, there were even people whining about DOS (how it was a set back from other computers' environments, etc), so more than 15 years.


TOTALLY agreed on that one. 64 bit Windows support to this day is still quite bad, especially when you consider they had NT4 working in 64 bit on the old Alpha architecture. And I still have hardware that has no x64 drivers, 99% of the apps I use have no x64 version so I'd be running basically everything under WOW64, lots of codecs I use everyday don't have x64 versions, etc. It's quite sad really. I WANT to use x64, but it's just not ready for use just yet.

And yes, most hardware makers have long been using us as beta testers of their drivers. That's always been a serious problem.


Actually, most of the included apps, I don't want of either. IE? YUCK!!! No way in hell! OE? Are you kidding me? MSN junk? eww! Windows Media Player? LOL, good one! MCE? Not a chance! ... But, most people WANT more than just a plain OS, they WANT an OS that comes with a browser and such things, no matter how much they suck (I mean, just look at all the IE users out there, if that's not a sign...)

Crahak,

You are oversimplifying the whining history. "We" are not saying the same things at every version. What happens is that some points remain unaddressed and are reppeated again and again, and they will be repeated again and again until M$ listen, especialy if M$ makes these points even worse.
Some things are removed, some things are added. I won't go into details.

Criticism of Vista are also much virulent and widespread as then, for XP. In general XP was a success, despite the whining, Vista definetly is not. You can read any analyst who has written about Vista, they will point out that Vista didn't deliver as expected, in user view or in sales numbers. I don't remember that for XP.
I don't remember poeple asking NOT to have XP and have w2000 or w98 instead (except myself - LOL - but initialy it was for a driver compatibility reason).
I don't remember M$ charging MORE for the right to downgrade one year after XP's release.
I don't remember them writing a special letter to their customers about why upgrade to XP now.
It was unthinkable less than 2 years ago.

You are 100% wrong when you say that programming is not a matter of code optimization. Of course it is. If not Windows wouldn't run at all.
With XP and Vista, M$ choosed to ignore a little bit OS optimization, counting on rapidly growing hardware capacity.
With XP it worked, with Vista it works too, but we feel it's sort of the end of it and that it went too far, too irresponsibly.

M$ will have to do more clever coding. It's going to be a matter of business and profitability from now on.
There are enough gadgets and applications and skins, to finaly think about cleaning all this up even if it's less sexy.

I'm sure that if M$ would release a windows XP as fast and as simple to use as w98 (save the crashes and missing libraries), they would do a killing. Everybody would buy it.
No, why nobody is buying Vista (except when buying a new computer of course)?

Ho, and you said... you had to buy a new Graphic Card...?

Yes they sure are. It's usually "waah! waah! bloat!", "waah! waah! slow!", "waah! waah! the old one works better!" and "waah! waah! too expensive!". Overall, I've seen no change at all in the whining over the years.


Most of them concerns DON'T need to be addressed. And whiners will whine regardless. They'd make Vista run on a Vic 20, and they'd still manage whine about something.


I don't really see that.


LOL. Whatever. We've been over this before, do you need me to spell it out? Vista adoption rates are BETTER than XP's. Sales are a lot higher too. XP wasn't nearly as successful by any metric.


Looks like I'm gonna have to repeat myself again! A direct quote of something I said before:

Analysts did say XP adoption rates were quite bad, and Vista's is lots faster.
Maybe in your world 50% faster adoption rates and nearly 6x higher sales isn't a success... I dunno.


It's NOT. Again, it's about problem solving, on time and on budget. Of course it has to run on available hardware (DUH!), but hardware is dirt cheap, and talented programmer time isn't, the amount of talented developers isn't infinite, and man-months aren't exactly linear (having 2 guys on the same job won't take half the time). But hey, what do I know? I only do this for a living...


Yes, nobody's buying it, except they have record sales, and record adoption numbers. Makes perfect sense.


No, I said I would have, IF I wanted to run Vista with all features enabled (as in, aero glass) on my 5 year old P4 (Intel GMA 950 wouldn't exactly cut it). My main box (the one running Vista) didn't need any upgrades at all.

I don't know why you have to turn every topic where I see you post into an endless vista bashing session (especially when most of it is nonsense). I think you need to find yourself a new hobby.

Now, excuse me while I go call the whambulance.

So... there's no reason to move up to Vista and Server 2008? That's why Microsoft themselves moved the entire microsoft.com domain onto Server 2008 Beta 3 servers last summer. BETA! These aren't even release candidates. They removed the last of the old 2003 boxes a few weeks ago, since they had seen 2008 servers perform about 10% more efficiently. My laptop handles multitasking with Vista installed than it ever did with XP - all of this on a two year old, single core CPU. When I go to install Vista on that machine, there isn't a single piece of hardware that doesn't have default drivers. Of course, I download the latest drivers, but I can actually go and connect to my wireless network without sticking the network drivers on a USB key.


@fredilingue - Let me give you a clear-cut example of what crahak is talking about in terms of software development. I'm working on a piece of software for my research (you can download the source at www.qcadesigner.ca if you like), and the number one reason that I'm being held back is not my lack of powerful hardware, but rather the fact that the bloody thing is written in C. I was asked to implement some new functionality into the program, one part of which is a simple search. Now... the last time I looked at implementing searching functions was about 3 years ago, so I had to go back and look them up. Which one did I choose? Binary Search. The main reason - it's simple to code, and (obviously) better than linear search. Are there better search functions out there? Probably. Do I want to go looking at them to optimize the last detail about this program? No, because my searching functionality is not the bottleneck of the program. It's one area where I could optimize until I was blue in the face, but it would make no practical difference.

You say Windows98 is fast and easy to use? Having worked with XP for the past 7 years and Vista for the past year, going back to Win98 would be torture. Lack of modern hardware support would be the main killer for me (not to mention the libraries and software that simply dont' work). A lot of my work deals with high memory requirements - simulations of mine often chew up 4-5GB of RAM. Long story short, 98 is just not up to the task in this day and age. For a machine that you use to surf the web... sure, but why would you want to? Windows XP and Vista are far more secure, and chances are you could build a modern computer that would run XP faster than the old 98 box you're using, while still saving you on your electricity bill. I tested the D201GLY2 motherboard from Intel, and with a laptop SATA drive and 1GB of RAM, you're looking at a basic system that'll handle most daily tasks (short of high-def video) while pullling a mere 25-35W from the wall.

Just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that Vista is the bestOSever.

Can we say that even if it is the best one and has no matches, it could be made even a tiny bit better?

Are we allowed to "whine" a little about the, rest assured very very few, things that might have been or that can be made better?

jaclaz

If the market was reverse, MAC 90% MS 2%, the topic will be too!
The move to Intel plataform is a try to get market, by piracy, believe me! The same way that happened with Windows 3.0, 3.1, they were almost free, became a natural choice and along the time a "habit" (I love it!) and the PC platform made the (big) difference. A lot of hardware to choose, not overpriced; software idem; no users worried about "social status"; The platform is just fair, affordable, easy, encourager, etc.
Please, don't compare monkeys and bananas, they belong to different slots
Of course, English isn't my native idiom.

The English form is "to compare apples with oranges", but it has been scientifically debunked:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/v...1-3-apples.html



jaclaz

Is that a rhetorical question?
Of course nothing is truly perfect (nor 100% future proof). Everything can be improved.


Everybody has their own complaints about any version of Windows -- sometimes very good points actually. Personally, my main complaint about Vista is about Aero Glass. I was hoping for something more like compiz fusion (viewports/virtual desktops, on a cube if possible, with various "task switchers", a expose-like thing, window grouping, windows that can roll up and all that, and why not some nice animations too?) But instead it needs a recent video card (plus more RAM for desktop composing) for truly fugly transparent title bars, some thumbnails in the taskbar, and Flip3D seemingly. So I use the Vista Basic theme instead. It's funny how people all said Vista was just eye candy, and that's the one place where it actually fails to deliver...

But, some people (like one poster whose nick I won't even mention) don't really have any real points, other than the same old whining that we've been hearing since, well, forever pretty much. Nothing will ever make them happy, and they'll always be whining. It's not the same thing at all.

@crahak
OK, so are we allowed to say that the bestOSever has Aero Glass that sucks?

GOOD.

Can we also say that everyone has a right to express his opinion about the bestOSever, or is it considered whining if it touches anything you personally like (or think is superior as compared to ...) in Vista?

jaclaz

Sure. But up to the point where all some members seem to do on this forum, is bashing Vista (without having a point either)? There's having some complaints, and there's incessant compulsive endless bashing...


It's not about what I like. It's about "not being the same old whining we're all tired to hear", and having actual valid points instead for a change.

They were saying the EXACT SAME crap about Win3.x, and Win95, then 98, (ok, criticism of ME is forgiven ), then 2k, XP, and now Vista. That whining got old YEARS ago.

There's plenty of things that could be improved/be better, and lots of little issues with various things -- no shortage of it, like for any previous version of windows.

What some people seemingly want, is an older version of windows ("simple" -- as in "without the new stuff", and "super duper lightweight" as in "an older version"). I think they should just use MS DOS 3.3 or CP/M if that's what they're looking for, and stop the endless whining and negativity for once.

Edit: And it's not just a Vista thing. I get just as annoyed by people doing the same old whining about XP, but they've mostly stopped by now. Hell, I can't wait for v7 to come out now, just so they change their whining to "Windows 7 sucks!" -- just for a change. And we already know what they'll be whining about too...

Edit2: actually, for a different analogy: I don't like new games, I think they're too complicated, the focus is too much on the graphics instead of the game play, and then I could whine about vid card requirements too (hey, doom ran on a 486 without a 3D accelerated card, so no game should need this surely? I mean, it just displays stuff, right?) But guess what? I don't register on gaming forums, to whine about those things everyday. In fact, you won't ever hear me whine about that (besides this time, as an example). You want new games? You buy the new vid card and live with the new ways. You don't like them like me? Than you just don't play them -- NOT go on forums whine non-stop about how much they suck, how the FPS sucks on a 500$ vid card, how the old ones were more fun, and how games should be exactly like they were 10 years ago and only then would people like it and want to buy them, that you need a PC less than a year old to run them, that new games are too expensive, etc.

Xzian,

What I wanted to say was not to go back to w98. Of course that trying w98 on new hardware is a nightmare if not totaly impossible (we know it too well at the w98 forum! -LOL-).

I talked about an Windows XP/Vista as simple and as fast as w98.
It doesn't mean without driver support or without all the cool stuffs.
W98, as a concept is much simplier for a home user than XP or Vista. In fact, it can't be simplier to use and maintain.

About coding, yes, when one piece of code doesn't change anything since the time gain is counted in milliseconds, sure there is no point losing time optimizing it. Maybe, with Vista all piece of code taken separately looks fine as their ineficiency is irrelevant when the process is run alone, but weight on the performance when everything is bundled together?

The worse about Vista and XP too, is that much of the poor ferformance doesn't come from the code itself (AFAIK there is nothing to tell about it) or from the bloat, but from default settings.
If M$ can't iptimize the code in a realistical manner and is pathologicaly allergical in reducing installation size, they could at least try to set system default "for good performance".

Crahak,
Vista fares much worse than XP, althought numbers would seem to tell otherwise.
XP was out barely two years after w2000 and 3 years after 98SE (yes 3 years, seems short isn't it?). But the world has been waiting Vista for 5 years and half.
If Vista was so advanced a technology, we would expect everyone massively switching from obsolete XP to Vista.
That didn't happen.

In term of pure sales numbers, the market is many times larger today than 5 years ago. Also every new computer (PC and Laptop) were being shipped with Vista pre-installed practicaly as soon as it was released. That was not as radical for XP.

Talking about apples and oranges...

Know I have a question:
Why everytime we critic the last Windows release, there are poeple like you who, version after version, repeate exactely the same things again and again, to tell how the last is the best, how the old one was a PoS and how our words makes no sens.

It's boring, because we can never have a normal discussion on what is good and what is bad with Windows.
We are not here to bash Vista! (Did I bash Vista?) We are here to express our ideas as to how to improve it.
This constant and obsessive defense of the last windows version commercialised, starts to grow old.

I can already hear, when windows 7 will be out, how you will tell us that Vista was such PoS, that w7 does so many more things and so on...

edit:



Well, you should!

Like you say, numbers say otherwise. You have nothing to back that up.


And indeed they are, the adoption is much faster than XP.


We don't say it was a POS for the time it was out -- I don't at least. XP is still a fine OS. But by today's standards, some of the older OS'es sure are POS'es.


You don't typically have the "normal" argument. You keep saying nobody uses it even the numbers say otherwise, that no apps run (again, blatantly false), that it needs a PC you built like an hour ago to run it (false again), etc. And you're surprised when people refute those claims. You're really asking for it.


Non-stop, yes. And MS ain't listening to you on how to "improve" Windows either.


You see how it feels after merely a week or so? Because the whining got old 10 years ago. Stop spreading lies about it (like how "Microsoft dropped support for its platform" and such nonsense), then people won't defend it.


Hell no. That comes down to "being a whiner" or not like I mentioned before. I'm NOT the type that likes to whine and complain non-stop about everything. Besides, that would accomplish exactly NOTHING, except annoying the hell out of everyone.

The flaming will stop, based on rules 7a and 7b of the forum rules. Closed.