Vista is massively delayed, and highly imitative (a number of the OS X-lookalike "inspirations" are just flat-out shameless), but
(a) it will not fail to penetrate the consumer market
(b) it is a *hell* of more significant upgrade than Windows 98 SE --> Windows ME
(c) it brings a great deal to Windows users that OS X users have enjoyed for years now, including a sophisticated graphics display system and improved UI in many places
(d) it will still be Windows (overcomplex, susceptible to viruses/malware, loaded with crummy trialware from PC manufacturers, etc)
Folks, you have to acknowledge that Microsoft *owns* the desktop OS market (just as Apple seems to now own the MP3 player/digital music market, an extraordinary feat in just 5 years). Nothing short of a paradigm shift will change this, and to think otherwise is Fantasy City.
While I agree that MS dominates the desktop and will continue to do so in the future, I don't think Vista's success is as sure a proposition as you make it out to be. Vista's biggest competitor will be XP and so far I've seen nothing to suggest that it is any better. A sentiment echoed by Anandtech.
Folks, you have to acknowledge that Microsoft *owns* the desktop OS market ....
I don't see anyone here disputing this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
Nothing short of a paradigm shift will change this, and to think otherwise is Fantasy City.
I agree, but just because you don't see the paradigm shift doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. The last time that Microsoft Windows was a retail success was Windows 95. Windows 98 was a better iteration of the OS, but its commercial success was largely due to the OEM market. Windows Me is the OS of which we do not speak. Windows XP took years to overtake Windows 98 in the installed base. It did so only because of the OEM market. Vista, in its current iteration, requires more resources than are available on most of the computers currently on the shelves.
Let us pretend for a second that the impossible happens and Microsoft gets Vista out the door in early 2007. OEMs will be faced with a terrible choice. Install Vista on machines without the power to support it; convert their product lines to only those machines which can support it; or stick with XP and risk Microsoft's wrath. Customers will also have a terrible choice. They will spend the extra money for computers which fully support Vista; choose a Vista-based machine which doesn't fully support the OS; scoop up some of the remaining XP machines; or stick with their old machines. Afterall, their old machines won't suddenly stop working when Vista hits the shelves.
A lot of customers may just decide that they have had enough of Microsoft's granite rowboat. Maybe, it is time to go with Linux or with those new Intel-based Macs. But this is largely an intellectual exercise because Vista will never ship.
Too lazy to read the thread, but somebody official from Microsoft and/or Apple has explicitly stated that they're going to be trying to get Vista on the Intel Macs. Like it's an active effort on both sides.
I do not doubt that Microsoft will get Vista out the door; however, it will be much less than they touted, more than some think it will be, and nowhere near what it should be.
What should Vista be? I think Vista should be the end of the old code (Win32, MFC, ATL, COM+, etc.) and the beginning of the new code (.NET). With the exception of bug fixes there will be no more development of pre-.net APIs. VirtualPC will be Microsoft's "Classic" environment that will be included with (not "baked into") Vista and used to run legacy code. Vista will only run pure .net applications. Rather than shooting for the stars and not delivering, Microsoft should have been concentrating on creating a solid foundation, even if that means .net 2.0 (Vista's foundation) breaks binary compatibility with .net 1.0 and 1.1 assemblies. What the hell, consider pre-2.0 assemblies to be "legacy" code since most, if not all, .net applications are in-house or web based and do not require people to have the .net framework installed on their system.
What is my reasoning? It is because starting with Visual Studio.net 2002, developers have to use the .net framework to build applications. Yes, developers can use other development tools to create non-.net apps, and they can even create non-managed code with some of the .net (C#.net, C++.net) languages, but going forward, that will be the exception rather than the rule. I do not know of any off-the-shelf apps that requires the .net framework to be installed, but with Vista that will (supposed to?) change.
Conclusion:
1 - I know my ideas seem simplistic but Microsoft has the talent to implement them, but it seems management either lacks the will or is afraid for some reason. Who knows, maybe Vienna will be the "true" .net OS.
2 - There is no need for 5 versions of Windows. There should only be two versions, "Windows Vista" and "Windows Vista Server". IIS can be included in the server version, but if someone wants/needs it on their machine then it is just a matter of purchasing it.
Well, I have to admit I haven't been following the Vista debacle, and didn't realize it meant a clean sweep wrt APIs. From what I understand, .net is pretty fresh to develop with.
I honestly think Vista is going to get torn apart in reviews. However, looking forward, MS made the right choice (it appears).
But enough of this serious talk. I laughed when I saw this pic from the latest Vista build on anandtech.... I hope you do to!
Oh, Microsoft.... somebody please whack them repeatedly with a cluestick...
edit: hmmm... anandtech does not allow hotlinking images... grrr...
The image is on the first page. MS replaced the venerable hour-glass cursor with a ring that looks suspiciously like a hollow beachball. Too bad Apple lost those look-and-feel lawsuits, huh? BTW, does anyone else thing this Flip3D feature looks terribly unusable? Why make the windows overlap? That's the problem you're trying to solve!
Well, yes and no... you're right about the image. I'm LMFAO because MS gives users an overwhelming choice of...
... mouse cursors...
There's literally five styles for every occasion. Perhaps this is why Vista is late? Why not just one, sane, default cursor style?
It's funny because they don't, and it's funny because you must have been confused by third-party freeware for Windows that does that, and it's funny because Mac OS X has similar shit available for it.
I think Parallels will be a better option, based on having to use VPC for years.
While VPC is very slow (but workable when I have to use it) Parallels will provide a good performance level as well as avoid having to reboot every time you want to shift. I believe you can also drag & drop between Win and OS X.
Parallels also provides a wide range of OS options - like all versions of Windows as well as bits like Solaris and OS2. Boot Camp is limited in what you can run. You might find that you can use an old copy of 98 to do the work you need - especially if it runs faster.
As for Vista, no big deal for me as I'l continue to use 2000 Pro under VPC for the one proprietary app that requires it. OEMs, however, are going to be under a lot of pressure (and provided a lot of incentives) to put Vista on their computers. Will probably be a bit rough for Dell's $400 computers, but I can see the OEMs charging consumers (not businesses) a small fee (like $25) for someone to have XP put on their system in place of Vista. In my opinion that means Vista will get penetration in the consumer market far faster than the business market.
As of 1 August 2006, John Paczkowski's Good Morning Silicon Valley blog indicates that Vista is more troubled than ever.
Vista is huge. It's a vast amount of code. And it has to run legacy XP programs. And it has to work right on hundreds (if not thousands) of variant computer configurations. (And it's been bedeviled by some seriously poor management, by all accounts.) That's a ton of work.
So... further delays. Possibly even until mid-'07. Which -- make no mistake -- is great for Apple. The more delayed Vista is, the more Macs Apple will sell. (And if MS ships a really buggy Vista, that will be even *better* for Apple... assuming of course Leopard isn't badly buggy as well.)
But don't act stupid and say the thing will never ship. Vista is not Copland. Do some Googling if you don't understand that.
As of 1 August 2006, John Paczkowski's Good Morning Silicon Valley blog indicates that Vista is more troubled than ever.
I reead the blog. I'm even more convinced that Vista will evevntually ship. You didn't skip the part where they discussed all the things that hinge on vista's release did you? It's coming. Not sure what it will be when it arrives though.
Vista is huge. It's a vast amount of code. And it has to run legacy XP programs. And it has to work right on hundreds (if not thousands) of variant computer configurations. (And it's been bedeviled by some seriously poor management, by all accounts.) That's a ton of work.
This comes off sounding like an excuse. The implication is that Vista is the monster that it is because it has to be so big. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vista is so big because Microsoft wanted to do so much--not for its customers, but for Microsoft. Microsoft's design goal for Longhorn was for virtually all online transactions and communications to become essentially Windows applications and workflows. In its latest attempt at worldwide hegemony, Microsoft finds itself in a tangled mess.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
But don't act stupid and say the thing will never ship. Vista is not Copland. Do some Googling if you don't understand that.
Vista is not Copland, it is a LOT bigger. When Apple developed Copland, it did not have the benefit of the lessons learned from Apple's mistakes with Copland. Microsoft does have the benefit of those lessons. It chose to ignore them. For its arrogance, it is now paying the price.
This comes off sounding like an excuse. The implication is that Vista is the monster that it is because it has to be so big. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vista is so big because Microsoft wanted to do so much--not for its customers, but for Microsoft. Microsoft's design goal for Longhorn was for virtually all online transactions and communications to become essentially Windows applications and workflows. In its latest attempt at worldwide hegemony, Microsoft finds itself in a tangled mess.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned piss-poor management? I don't know about your "worldwide hegemony" stuff (every company wants to do that kind of thing, and thankfully MS has both the DOJ and the web standardistas on its back), but yes, MS was far too ambitious trying to do everything they set out to do in one enormous release, and now they're paying the price.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Vista is not Copland, it is a LOT bigger. When Apple developed Copland, it did not have the benefit of the lessons learned from Apple's mistakes with Copland. Microsoft does have the benefit of those lessons. It chose to ignore them.
Not quite. Copland was a hopeless situation because Apple was trying shoehorn together a crash-proof, multitasking OS *and* keep 99% OS 9 app support along with an ancient, 15-year-old spaghetti code base from 1984... *plus* inefficient management, to boot. It didn't work. It never worked. The first developer seed they sent out crashed non-stop.
MS, on the other hand, hit their mini-"Copland" moment, if you will, in 2003, took everything apart, and started over, using parts from Windows Server '03 among other things. They've just sent out Vista Beta 2 and it works. But for MS's perhaps biggest release since Windows '95 (or at least XP), it's not nearly as good it should be (even for Windows -- yikes), and needs more time. Just like Tiger needed more time (but Apple pushed it out anyway, because I suspect they wanted to prepare for the possibility of Vista in mid-to-late '06).
Did you miss the part where I mentioned piss-poor management?
Vista is not a good idea poorly managed. It is a bad idea that Microsoft's programmers are handling to the best of their ability.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
Copland was a hopeless situation because Apple was trying shoehorn together a crash-proof, multitasking OS *and* keep 99% OS 9 app support along with an ancient, 15-year-old spaghetti code base from 1984... *plus* inefficient management, to boot. It didn't work. It never worked. The first developer seed they sent out crashed non-stop.
Go on and on about Copland. Apple's failure with Copland is not an excuse for Microsoft's failure with Vista.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
MS, on the other hand, hit their mini-"Copland" moment, ...
There is nothing "mini" about Vista.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
But for MS's perhaps biggest release since Windows '95 ...
You really can't get over your fixation with Vista's size.
It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog.
Comments
Originally posted by dacloo
Windows Vista is a lot more than the addition of Aero. Check out various Vista resources and read it.
Yeah, it's more than the addition of Aero: that's why he said "Service Pack 3".
Originally posted by Hobbes
...and to think otherwise is Fantasy City.
Ooooo, Fantasy City...that sounds like a lovely place.
Originally posted by Hobbes
You're wrong.
Vista is massively delayed, and highly imitative (a number of the OS X-lookalike "inspirations" are just flat-out shameless), but
(a) it will not fail to penetrate the consumer market
(b) it is a *hell* of more significant upgrade than Windows 98 SE --> Windows ME
(c) it brings a great deal to Windows users that OS X users have enjoyed for years now, including a sophisticated graphics display system and improved UI in many places
(d) it will still be Windows (overcomplex, susceptible to viruses/malware, loaded with crummy trialware from PC manufacturers, etc)
Folks, you have to acknowledge that Microsoft *owns* the desktop OS market (just as Apple seems to now own the MP3 player/digital music market, an extraordinary feat in just 5 years). Nothing short of a paradigm shift will change this, and to think otherwise is Fantasy City.
While I agree that MS dominates the desktop and will continue to do so in the future, I don't think Vista's success is as sure a proposition as you make it out to be. Vista's biggest competitor will be XP and so far I've seen nothing to suggest that it is any better. A sentiment echoed by Anandtech.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2805&p=2
Originally posted by Hobbes
....
Folks, you have to acknowledge that Microsoft *owns* the desktop OS market ....
I don't see anyone here disputing this.
Originally posted by Hobbes
Nothing short of a paradigm shift will change this, and to think otherwise is Fantasy City.
I agree, but just because you don't see the paradigm shift doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. The last time that Microsoft Windows was a retail success was Windows 95. Windows 98 was a better iteration of the OS, but its commercial success was largely due to the OEM market. Windows Me is the OS of which we do not speak. Windows XP took years to overtake Windows 98 in the installed base. It did so only because of the OEM market. Vista, in its current iteration, requires more resources than are available on most of the computers currently on the shelves.
Let us pretend for a second that the impossible happens and Microsoft gets Vista out the door in early 2007. OEMs will be faced with a terrible choice. Install Vista on machines without the power to support it; convert their product lines to only those machines which can support it; or stick with XP and risk Microsoft's wrath. Customers will also have a terrible choice. They will spend the extra money for computers which fully support Vista; choose a Vista-based machine which doesn't fully support the OS; scoop up some of the remaining XP machines; or stick with their old machines. Afterall, their old machines won't suddenly stop working when Vista hits the shelves.
A lot of customers may just decide that they have had enough of Microsoft's granite rowboat. Maybe, it is time to go with Linux or with those new Intel-based Macs. But this is largely an intellectual exercise because Vista will never ship.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ooooo, Fantasy City...that sounds like a lovely place.
Yes, it's fabulous. It's actually the capital of Fantasy Island.
(Ze plane! Ze plane!)
Originally posted by Mr. Me
But this is largely an intellectual exercise because Vista will never ship. [/B]
Could you please stop saying that in every reply and start making sense???
Originally posted by Hobbes
Nothing short of a paradigm shift will change this...
funny how those seem to happen where no one is looking...
What should Vista be? I think Vista should be the end of the old code (Win32, MFC, ATL, COM+, etc.) and the beginning of the new code (.NET). With the exception of bug fixes there will be no more development of pre-.net APIs. VirtualPC will be Microsoft's "Classic" environment that will be included with (not "baked into") Vista and used to run legacy code. Vista will only run pure .net applications. Rather than shooting for the stars and not delivering, Microsoft should have been concentrating on creating a solid foundation, even if that means .net 2.0 (Vista's foundation) breaks binary compatibility with .net 1.0 and 1.1 assemblies. What the hell, consider pre-2.0 assemblies to be "legacy" code since most, if not all, .net applications are in-house or web based and do not require people to have the .net framework installed on their system.
What is my reasoning? It is because starting with Visual Studio.net 2002, developers have to use the .net framework to build applications. Yes, developers can use other development tools to create non-.net apps, and they can even create non-managed code with some of the .net (C#.net, C++.net) languages, but going forward, that will be the exception rather than the rule. I do not know of any off-the-shelf apps that requires the .net framework to be installed, but with Vista that will (supposed to?) change.
Conclusion:
1 - I know my ideas seem simplistic but Microsoft has the talent to implement them, but it seems management either lacks the will or is afraid for some reason. Who knows, maybe Vienna will be the "true" .net OS.
2 - There is no need for 5 versions of Windows. There should only be two versions, "Windows Vista" and "Windows Vista Server". IIS can be included in the server version, but if someone wants/needs it on their machine then it is just a matter of purchasing it.
I honestly think Vista is going to get torn apart in reviews. However, looking forward, MS made the right choice (it appears).
But enough of this serious talk. I laughed when I saw this pic from the latest Vista build on anandtech.... I hope you do to!
Oh, Microsoft.... somebody please whack them repeatedly with a cluestick...
edit: hmmm... anandtech does not allow hotlinking images... grrr...
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
edit: hmmm... anandtech does not allow hotlinking images... grrr...
If you're curious about what 5L4Xx0R is talking about, here's a link to the article: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2805
The image is on the first page. MS replaced the venerable hour-glass cursor with a ring that looks suspiciously like a hollow beachball. Too bad Apple lost those look-and-feel lawsuits, huh? BTW, does anyone else thing this Flip3D feature looks terribly unusable? Why make the windows overlap? That's the problem you're trying to solve!
... mouse cursors...
There's literally five styles for every occasion. Perhaps this is why Vista is late? Why not just one, sane, default cursor style?
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Well, yes and no... you're right about the image. I'm LMFAO because MS gives users an overwhelming choice of...
... mouse cursors...
There's literally five styles for every occasion. Perhaps this is why Vista is late? Why not just one, sane, default cursor style?
It's funny because they don't, and it's funny because you must have been confused by third-party freeware for Windows that does that, and it's funny because Mac OS X has similar shit available for it.
[i]Yes, Boot Camp.[/B]
I think Parallels will be a better option, based on having to use VPC for years.
While VPC is very slow (but workable when I have to use it) Parallels will provide a good performance level as well as avoid having to reboot every time you want to shift. I believe you can also drag & drop between Win and OS X.
Parallels also provides a wide range of OS options - like all versions of Windows as well as bits like Solaris and OS2. Boot Camp is limited in what you can run. You might find that you can use an old copy of 98 to do the work you need - especially if it runs faster.
As for Vista, no big deal for me as I'l continue to use 2000 Pro under VPC for the one proprietary app that requires it. OEMs, however, are going to be under a lot of pressure (and provided a lot of incentives) to put Vista on their computers. Will probably be a bit rough for Dell's $400 computers, but I can see the OEMs charging consumers (not businesses) a small fee (like $25) for someone to have XP put on their system in place of Vista. In my opinion that means Vista will get penetration in the consumer market far faster than the business market.
Originally posted by dutch pear
Could you please stop saying that in every reply and start making sense???
As of 1 August 2006, John Paczkowski's Good Morning Silicon Valley blog indicates that Vista is more troubled than ever.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
As of 1 August 2006, John Paczkowski's Good Morning Silicon Valley blog indicates that Vista is more troubled than ever.
Vista is huge. It's a vast amount of code. And it has to run legacy XP programs. And it has to work right on hundreds (if not thousands) of variant computer configurations. (And it's been bedeviled by some seriously poor management, by all accounts.) That's a ton of work.
So... further delays. Possibly even until mid-'07. Which -- make no mistake -- is great for Apple. The more delayed Vista is, the more Macs Apple will sell. (And if MS ships a really buggy Vista, that will be even *better* for Apple... assuming of course Leopard isn't badly buggy as well.)
But don't act stupid and say the thing will never ship. Vista is not Copland. Do some Googling if you don't understand that.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
As of 1 August 2006, John Paczkowski's Good Morning Silicon Valley blog indicates that Vista is more troubled than ever.
I reead the blog. I'm even more convinced that Vista will evevntually ship. You didn't skip the part where they discussed all the things that hinge on vista's release did you? It's coming. Not sure what it will be when it arrives though.
Originally posted by Hobbes
Vista is huge. It's a vast amount of code. And it has to run legacy XP programs. And it has to work right on hundreds (if not thousands) of variant computer configurations. (And it's been bedeviled by some seriously poor management, by all accounts.) That's a ton of work.
This comes off sounding like an excuse. The implication is that Vista is the monster that it is because it has to be so big. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vista is so big because Microsoft wanted to do so much--not for its customers, but for Microsoft. Microsoft's design goal for Longhorn was for virtually all online transactions and communications to become essentially Windows applications and workflows. In its latest attempt at worldwide hegemony, Microsoft finds itself in a tangled mess.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Originally posted by Hobbes
But don't act stupid and say the thing will never ship. Vista is not Copland. Do some Googling if you don't understand that.
Vista is not Copland, it is a LOT bigger. When Apple developed Copland, it did not have the benefit of the lessons learned from Apple's mistakes with Copland. Microsoft does have the benefit of those lessons. It chose to ignore them. For its arrogance, it is now paying the price.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
This comes off sounding like an excuse. The implication is that Vista is the monster that it is because it has to be so big. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vista is so big because Microsoft wanted to do so much--not for its customers, but for Microsoft. Microsoft's design goal for Longhorn was for virtually all online transactions and communications to become essentially Windows applications and workflows. In its latest attempt at worldwide hegemony, Microsoft finds itself in a tangled mess.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned piss-poor management? I don't know about your "worldwide hegemony" stuff (every company wants to do that kind of thing, and thankfully MS has both the DOJ and the web standardistas on its back), but yes, MS was far too ambitious trying to do everything they set out to do in one enormous release, and now they're paying the price.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Vista is not Copland, it is a LOT bigger. When Apple developed Copland, it did not have the benefit of the lessons learned from Apple's mistakes with Copland. Microsoft does have the benefit of those lessons. It chose to ignore them.
Not quite. Copland was a hopeless situation because Apple was trying shoehorn together a crash-proof, multitasking OS *and* keep 99% OS 9 app support along with an ancient, 15-year-old spaghetti code base from 1984... *plus* inefficient management, to boot. It didn't work. It never worked. The first developer seed they sent out crashed non-stop.
MS, on the other hand, hit their mini-"Copland" moment, if you will, in 2003, took everything apart, and started over, using parts from Windows Server '03 among other things. They've just sent out Vista Beta 2 and it works. But for MS's perhaps biggest release since Windows '95 (or at least XP), it's not nearly as good it should be (even for Windows -- yikes), and needs more time. Just like Tiger needed more time (but Apple pushed it out anyway, because I suspect they wanted to prepare for the possibility of Vista in mid-to-late '06).
Do comprehend the difference?
Originally posted by Hobbes
Did you miss the part where I mentioned piss-poor management?
Vista is not a good idea poorly managed. It is a bad idea that Microsoft's programmers are handling to the best of their ability.
Originally posted by Hobbes
Copland was a hopeless situation because Apple was trying shoehorn together a crash-proof, multitasking OS *and* keep 99% OS 9 app support along with an ancient, 15-year-old spaghetti code base from 1984... *plus* inefficient management, to boot. It didn't work. It never worked. The first developer seed they sent out crashed non-stop.
Go on and on about Copland. Apple's failure with Copland is not an excuse for Microsoft's failure with Vista.
Originally posted by Hobbes
MS, on the other hand, hit their mini-"Copland" moment, ...
There is nothing "mini" about Vista.
Originally posted by Hobbes
But for MS's perhaps biggest release since Windows '95 ...
You really can't get over your fixation with Vista's size.
It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog.