Microsoft may delay Windows Vista (again), firm says

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 89
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Thanks for the replys about the kernels. I guess from my standpoint I'm most concerned about stability. To me speed is secondary to stability.
  • Reply 82 of 89
    nerudaneruda Posts: 436member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Which is very possible. But they're not unknown either as he was implying.



    Okay, good point Gene. My experiences cannot be extrapolated to cover everyoe's experience with OS X. Let me clarify: a OS X kernel panic/crash is unknown to me. Also, whike kernel panics and crashes may not be unknown, I believe that they are uncommon. My powerbook has not crashed once in the 1 1/2 years that I have had it. This does not mean that OS X does not crash or that it has never crashed. Gene 1. Neruda 0





    Quote:

    No modern software crashes to the point where people are buychung. Contrary to popular belief, WinXP doesn't crash that often either. But the point remains, every piece of software ever created has the possibility to crash. And they do crash, some more others less.



    Well, even though my experiences with WinXP cannot be extrapolated...(see above), my experience a wee bit different. My AMD Compaq Presario (piece of crap laptop if there ever was one) crashed at least once a week, and that was on a good week. Not to mention that if I neglected to run Ad-aware for a day there were like 500 spyware/malware crap that had to be removed. Others love XP and swear by its stability. This is all subjective, but OS X is in a different league stability wise IMO (would have never, ever said this during the days of OS 9).



    And I think one of reasons for this thread (pointing out all of the problems that MS is having developing Vista) is that OS X feature rich/stable, multi-user/multi-tasking OS and it is availble NOW. TigerVista, on the other hand....



    But, never underestimate Microsoft (and its monopoly power).
  • Reply 83 of 89
    nerudaneruda Posts: 436member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    Thanks for the replys about the kernels. I guess from my standpoint I'm most concerned about stability. To me speed is secondary to stability.



    Why not have both? If there is indeed a problem with the Mach kernel (the web is full of stories pro and con on this issue, see macsufer or http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2006/05/16/36/), I hope Apple addresses the problem with Leopard. I have a 1.67MGz Powerbook, and though I love it and OS X, the speed issue is the one argument that I readily concede to my PC using friends (damn you spinning beachball from hell! ). Although, after periodically playing around with a friend's MacBookPro and seeing how much faster it is, maybe the PPC was part of the problem? Apple should have dumped Motorola back in 98 when it took them two freaking years to go from 400Mhz to 450Mhz.
  • Reply 84 of 89
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Neruda

    Although, after periodically playing around with a friend's MacBookPro and seeing how much faster it is, maybe the PPC was part of the problem? Apple should have dumped Motorola back in 98 when it took them two freaking years to go from 400Mhz to 450Mhz.



    whoa there . the macbook pro is definitely a much faster machine. THAT is why its faster. this is a debate about the kernel i.e. how well is the system able to use available resources? OS X has now acheived reasonable good stability and reliability. It's time to add performance to that list of credentials.



    the PPC is an excellent platform, linux runs great on it. it competes with and in some tests can actually beat similarly configured opteron systems and thats something.



    I hope Leopard delivers... its the OS that's going to compete for attention with Vista. should be very interesting...
  • Reply 85 of 89
    archstudentarchstudent Posts: 262member
    isnt not just the kernal that hampers performance.. The finder is pretty broken, and some operations involving the finder and/or network take much longer than they should, and cause unnecessary beachballing. Then we have UI issues with the finder as well.
  • Reply 86 of 89
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Here is a review of the Vista Beta:



    The guy basically says go look at Mac OSX





    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12932382/page/2/
  • Reply 87 of 89
    lakingsfnlakingsfn Posts: 141member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DeaPeaJay

    OSX could come in late 2006? Cool!



    Who cares about windows. I'm just about sick to my stomach of that pathetic piece of junk.




    Amen to that!!
  • Reply 88 of 89
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,824member
    For those interested in the kernel discussion tanget in this thread, you may want to read the kernel-related articles here



    For those interested in the delays to Vista, you may be interested in this
  • Reply 89 of 89
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. H

    For those interested in the kernel discussion tanget in this thread, you may want to read the kernel-related articles here



    For those interested in the delays to Vista, you may be interested in this




    From the article:



    Quote:

    "We think we are on track for shipping early in the year. We've talked about the month, but we get a chance to critically assess all of the feedback we'll get from this beta release then confirm or move the launch date a few weeks," he said at a news conference in Tokyo



    and:



    Quote:

    "The other thing, frankly, which we are discussing with NEC and other hardware partners is when would they really like it - early January, late January, February - so it depends on when the next roll-over, the next turn of the machine cycle will be and that would be the best time to ship it based on beta feedback," he said.





    Translation: Vista will absolutely not ship till February at the earliest.
Sign In or Register to comment.