OSNews

Dude, you looked at the first section of the article, saw 3 things, and thought those are the only 3 new things?

Please do some more research, or at least more reading, before replying. It's things like this that get FUD spread about Vista.

Edited 2006-04-23 18:13

2) The search functionality is better then spotlight ? are you sure about that?

I did not say it was better. I said it was more advanced. There's a world of difference between the two.

sadly, in marketingspeak "more advanced" == better...

you meant: in marketingspeak "higher version number" == more advanced == better ;-)

or maybe (iirc):

higher_version_number()
{
more_advanced()
{
better()
}
}

hard to tell realy. only thing that i have picked up so far is that its using managed code for the whole system (iirc).

still, that could make backwards compatiblity simpler. in that when a program askes for a old interface, it will be handed over to a special sandbox where it can go nuts. but if it dies, nothing will happen to the rest of the system...

There are lots of new OSs being developed in research. There is no reason to believe that any more willc ome out of Singularity than has come out of all the other research OSs that have preceded it. The only reason Microsoft exists today is because of backwards compatibility. Without the enormous market advantages of application compatibility, Microsoft never would've made it through the 1990s. Without application compatibility, Microsoft is nothing, and they know that. They'll never field an OS that isn't compatibile with the vast body of Windows software that exists.

Yes, we all know about singularity; and like all R&D things, this was mearly a proof of concept; a rectum pluck along the lines of 'what would we do, if we could design something from scratch'.

Why not base a new operating system off Plan9? I mean, it corrects all the problems and limitations of UNIX; tries some new things; it would be simply a matter of Microsoft fixing up the GUI, and voila, you have the problem solved with minimum fuss.

Deploy it first as a server OS, then gradually start to sell it as a client operating system as new programmes come on board; backwards compatibility can be done via VirtualPC.

Okay then.. *why* exactly was this voted down?

I think it would be nice if someone was assigned to verify votes, to try to clean this place up a bit.

This statement makes no sense. The .NET framework is a runtime for writing WINDOWS programs, not a separate OS. Versions of the .NET framework can be written to run on other OS's, but on WIndows, the runtime converts C#/VB.NET/managed C++ code to the apropriate API calls

MS is working on new OS which is written almost exclusively in C# (safe from very thin C/Assembly layer).

Another MS' environment for very constrained devices (i don't remember the name) is basically osless rudimentary net environment.

Now that Microsoft has said it would include hardware virtualization techniques into Vista, why didn't they do software virtualization to keep legacy APIs separate from the core system?

The Win32 subsystem is separate from the core system. I don't see how moving to a virtual machine solution would offer any meaningful benefits, given that it will still need to be able to access the user's files and documents.

How come Apple has compatibility cleaner and less bloaty then Windows has?

How come Apple has compatibility cleaner and less bloaty then Windows has?

Apple's backwards compatiblity is a laughing stock. Applications written for Panther had to be updated to work on Tiger, for instance. And in order to load a pre-OSX app you need to load up OS9!

I wouldn't call that 'cleaner and less bloated'.

99% of the apps I used on 10.1 run just fine on Tiger, including large app suites like Office X. It is usually the reverse that is an issue: apps that take advantage of features exclusive to Tiger won't work with older OS versions. Most apps written today are designed to run in Panther & Tiger, some offering more functionality when runing on Tiger (Spotlight integration, Core Graphics use, etc.)

1) Microsoft developers would need to be divided between the two versions.
4) Less people working on each version equates to slower development.

The legacy version would need little development-- since all that needs to be done on that version is bug fixes and security fixes. It's a legacy version-- no need for new features. And since the modern version does not require work on legacy stuff, greatly simplyfying the development, the end result would be that no more developers are needed than there are now.

2) 3rd parties would have to divide their time between the two versions.

That did not stop the transition from 9x to NT, now did it? It didn't stop Apple's move from PowerPC to Intel, now did it?

3) Users would be even more confused as to which version they should buy.

Welcome virtualization, as someone else has already mentioned. The modern version could allow users to install their old 2000/XP copy, to run the legacy apps. Similar to what Apple did with OS9. And since all new PCs will ship with the modern version, developers will think twice about not updating their apps to run on this new version.

The legacy version would need little development-- since all that needs to be done on that version is bug fixes and security fixes.

In that case they should not create a version of Windows with legacy support. They should just maintain a current version of Windows (say XP Home) indefinitely.

Unfortunately this wouldn't make a great deal of fiscal sense, they'd lose money from the lack of Windows and Office sales (the big one-two that pays for almost everything in Seattle). MS already complains that their greatest competition comes from their past products.

For what it's worth, they've already done what you suggest. Windows 2003 Server lacks most of the compatibility stuff that Windows XP has, as far as I know. However selling it as a desktop operating system, even for businesses, would be very difficult. They tried that in the mid-nineties with NT 4 for business users and Windows 9x for traditional users, and the cost of keeping two code-bases in sync was deemed to be counter-productive.

something tells me that it would mostly be the VB stuff that failed first, and then the other stuff that needed data from it would fail like a big house of cards...

Does it make you feel good saying that?

Call me back when a Linux distro can hibernate and resume my laptop out of the box. The last time I played with Linux's suspend it hard-locked on the resume, and ended up corrupting my ReiserFS partitions. I was real pleased.

In fact, call me back when wireless, 3D acceleration, MP3, and DVD work out of the box on either of my two laptops.

LOL.

Linux works with what it works with, and doesn't with what is doesn't. I suspect strongly that (checking title of post) that Linux significantly more compatible than Vista upon launch.

I would argue strongly that there are very few laptops people are using that currently that have hardware compatible or upgradeable to that to Vista.

DVD's on any Microsoft from the get go is a non-standard by a third party, and MP3's are a little tricky from the get go as for some reason MP3 wants to promote its own format

yeah, considering Vista is apparently dropping support for EISA... That automatically makes 'linux' have a larger list of compatible hardware.

I don't see how anything you just said pertains to hibernation in Linux.

It doesn't. He doesn't have anything intelligent to say about linux and hibernation so he decides, instead, to change the subject. It's a common troll tactic.

You cannot blame Linux for that. Blame the hardware vendors that don't release drivers and specifications for the hardware they make. I have an HP NX 8220 laptop and it it is able to hibernate when I use the proprietry ATI FGLRX driver but it doesn't resume from sleep mode. If I use the open source driver I am able to sleep/hibernate. That's because unlike some other hardware vendors, HP actually give a shit about their Linux users.

Edited 2006-04-24 04:51

Sure I can blame Linux for that. Pretend I'm a regular user for a second. I'm not going to care that it's so-and-so's fault and this-and-that company's hardware not working with Bob's driver.

All I'm going to see is Linux not hibernating. If Windows and OS X can do it, but Linux can't, it looks pretty bad.

Sure I can blame Linux for that.

You could, but you'd be mistaken.

Pretend I'm a regular user for a second.

Uh, no. Let the regular users speak for themselves.

I'm not going to care that it's so-and-so's fault and this-and-that company's hardware not working with Bob's driver.

You don't know that for a fact. Most "regular" people would complain about the hardware, because they don't know what an OS is.

All I'm going to see is Linux not hibernating. If Windows and OS X can do it, but Linux can't, it looks pretty bad.

If you're buying a laptop and you're a clueless user, you won't install an OS on it. Regular users don't install OSes. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges to suit your anti-Linux agenda. It's getting really old.

BTW, hibernating does work on many Linux laptops.

in fact call us all back when they get most USB devices working out of the box.
I buy a piece of hardware I know it'll work with windows, yet when I buy hardware I can pretty much assume that it won't.

Most USB devices work out-of-the-box. On my Kubuntu laptop I've tried USB drives, iPods, digital cameras, scanners and printers, and they've all worked.

YMMV, of course, but I think you've just been unlucky (or have problems with your hardware setup). USB support in Linux is excellent, whatever's missing is the equipment manufacturer's responsibility.

What happens if you make Windows much more secure and much more stable.

Linux has the same old problems that Unix had for the most part so it has a lot of legacy there as well.

Why do we need Linux? If Windows runs all of my applications and linux doesn't and Windows is what everyone uses then what is the point?

Users don't have any reasons to move to Linux after Vista comes out.

The point is to have a choice in the case they find some reasons. That's all.

You are right my firend..

I wouldn't class 4x the memory usage as "comparable".

During standard usage (one Firefox window, MirandaIM, Google Desktop, AV), my XP leaves about 230MBs of my mem untouched. Vista left the same untouched, running the same amount of apps (excl. Google Desktop obviously, as Vista has its own equiv.).

What I found strange was the large difference in memory usage when I resized a simple Explorer window. Windows would consistently use about 30-40MB more RAM when I resized, say, a Control Panel window from a quarter screen to nearly full screen. The resize was not very smooth, either. This was on a dual-core Athlon with 1GB RAM. Radeon X300 video, though, which is a little weak.

Also, to be fair, this was the old beta, and the 64-bit version. I haven't tried the new beta yet. But my point is that not everyone has had good experiences with Vista resource use.

Yep. Vista is a disappointed and Microsoft dropped the ball on it.

What people don't seem to understand though, is that it can be a disappointment, but STILL have things to look forward to it and STILL be a large improvement over XP. The problem is that it was so hyped up, it simply couldn't live up to expectations, and anything short of a masterpiece will have people bitching about how bad it is.

if you feel that this column is a waste of your time, then don't read it. in fact you could go out for a walk, read a book or just about anything!

Yeah sure if you would have warned me before I started reading it. Upto halfway through it was an interesting article!

Couldn't you really find another subject to write your column about?

Yes, I could.

bring up some lame topic such as backwards compatibility! As if you really don't have a clue on what you are going to write about today.

You post started out pretty well, but then you bring up some lame topic such as as if I don't have a clue what I'm going to write about!

Explain why you find the topic lame. Saying "I say it is lame, therefore it is" is pointless.

Isn't Linux backwards compatible enough?

I'll just pretend I didn't read that, ok?

"Isn't Linux backwards compatible enough?"

I'll just pretend I didn't read that, ok?

I'd like to see you try to explain why you think Linux doesn't have backwards compatibility. It even offers compatibility with DOS programs.

binary incompatibility for modules and applications across various glibc implemenations, ABI changes, gtk changes, qt changes, deprecated kernel features, removed kernel features...

Yes, that's lack of backwards compatibility for Linux distributions as well as the kernel.

It appears most of this was said previously. I really should learn to read more slowly if I haven't had my coffee yet.

Share what you're smoking with the rest of the class, Mr. Spicoli.

Desk Accessories were NOT programs, but DRIVERS. The old MacOS lacked multitasking, and as such, this hack was invented to give the MacOS the illusion of multitasking, since multiple drivers could be loaded at once (while programs couldn't).

Thom is correct on this one. Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desk_Accessory

Whilst desk accessories used the driver queue to get some processor time on a regular basis, it's a stretch to call them "device drivers".

Yes they used a hack but they were still tiny footprint programs offering widget like functionality, they were just activated by the driver queue.

The method to get them to activate might be considered a "hack" but to suggest they were not programs doesn't seem right.

This would be like suggesting some TSRs in the old DOS days were not "programs" because they were activated by interrupts to gain multitasking functionality not built into DOS.

Yes and if you go to a store with Apples what do they have on screen? iTunes. So what do you tie the iPod with, iTunes, what do you link iTunes with? Apple Macs and OS X. Its a complete package that fits neatly together. I go into peoples houses and what do I see? More and more Macs.

The DOS / Win16 subsystems should move to an emulatated or virtualised layer.

Unless I'm mistaken there is no DOS or Win16 subsystem in Vista. It has been removed completely. Windows 3.1 and DOS programs will not run period. They did this with Windows XP x64 edition also I believe.

Unless I'm mistaken there is no DOS or Win16 subsystem in Vista. It has been removed completely. Windows 3.1 and DOS programs will not run period. They did this with Windows XP x64 edition also I believe.

DOS has always been emulated. It's still there in Vista. Win1