Who thinks Vista will make it?

Post by **Sparkfist** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:37 pm

Lucretius wrote:Oh screw this. If anyone else wants to talk about Vista, I give you permission to make a new thread.

Now to start things off Vista (formally known a Longhorn) has been in development for over 3 years. That is a long time for a new OS, and if you think Microsoft is just taking their time. They've had delays after delays and yeah about 9-12 months ago they started the whole thing from scratch.

Now to explain why I think the OS is going to fail. First you'll need to have $300 video card for the thing. Because the whole GUI is vector based, much different from the bitmap used by present GUIs.
They're going to have a 32bit version(s)... Correct me but why buy the newest OS and have it only run on my 32bit maching that is going to be phased out anyways in the next 2 years. Really you want a new OS you don't get it on old hardware.
Versons... Microsoft is going to have 12-16 different versions of Vista. I do wish I was exaggerating. They're going to have 4 base modes, 4 professinals modes and sever misc. version.
Finally it's a Microsoft OS. I'm all for a standard OS but if they can't have dynamic Ram, have to have the hard drive defraged and XP systems still crash. I don't think I'll be touching Vista unless my emplyeer forces me to.

Counter is FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux kernel and gerenteed Apple have native 64bit support for the two processor types; Intel's IA and AMD's AMD64. These OS are also more stable and a more effeciant design. BSD and OS X both dropped legasy system support unlike Windows when they went to the NT kernel, Linux is getting there.

What do you think.

P.S. We're all mature people, I'd like all arguments backed up with a reason and no flaming.

Post by **bicostp** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:45 pm

Windows is as Windows does.

It's going to delay for a while longer. Internet Explorer will still suck like a Hoover. They're just appealing to people with a bunch of shiny baubles (but no shallow flattery*) *coughcoughXPbozoTHEMEcough* Just like XP, everyone will *have* to have Vista, because it's Windows. And of course Windows is Windows and you need Windows because Windows is Windows Windows Windows**...

*if you get this reference give yourself a cookie

*if you get this general reference give yourself another cooke

Post by **Skyone** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:02 pm

I love Windows. I know it's not as fancy as Apple, or... whatever it is that linux/unix/othercrap has that Windows doesn't. I dunno. I have redhat v8 and I love it. BUT, Windows is easier for a family computer. I dunno, I can't wait for Vista.

Post by **gannon** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:11 pm

So, is the new graphics implementation going to be like Luminocity or Cairo is for Linux?

Post by **marshallh** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:17 pm

I get two cookies

1. Glad they're starting from scratch. Better than their current approach of jumbling random code bits together :S
2. A new 3d gui is a step in the right direction. By the time it comes out, the video card requirements won't seem so bad. It'll help large font displays at high resolutions (old people)
3. All the different windows versions is good: Do you really want ONE version of windows to bloated to try to be everything to everyone? No! Your grandma may need the Download picyires from camera wizard, but you don't. They'll probably adjust each version to the intended market. This will hopefully cut down on the redundancy of much of XP.
4. Windows needs to drop compatibility for DOS, 16-bit windows apps, and incompatible 32-bit apps (old antivirus apps etc). Simply providing the means for these old apps to run, means tons of crap that you'll probably never need. They should say 'Use XP if you need to run old apps.'

I hope Microsoft takes advantage of the clean start they have. Hopefully they'll see they can take a better programming style now they don't have any nagging requirements set by old code.

Reploid Ayla · Post by **Reploid Ayla** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:23 pm

Im sorry, but it looks like a rip off of OSX...

cowsgoquack101 · Post by **cowsgoquack101** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:25 pm

O.K. first off $300 dollars for a new graphics card to run a OS that when it does come out will cost about $200 is way too much for just a new operating system. I do know that it will have the widgits like Mac OS X will (or so I think). I have to agree with bicostp on his rambling of windows is windows. Every single software out there runs on windows. Now don't disagree with me , you know it's the truth.

*If you can read give yourself a cookie

mdhockerman · Post by **mdhockerman** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:31 pm

All i know is that i want to get it...and i hope it does make it.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:34 pm

(gives self a cookie...for being able to reading)

I'm going to end up avoiding Vista simply because of its hardware requirements. Now I know as well as anyone that when a DirectX game launches, it supposedly puches all of the other OS garbage out of the way, but REALLY... would you want to play a game requiring 1GB of Ram on a computer whose operating system uses all 1-2GB of ram just to run normally?

I'll stick to Windows XP to keep my normal/old computers running at reasonable paces.

Besides my own choice, I don't think Vista will fail, simply because such a thing would be utterly impossible. Microsoft is incapable of truly "failing". A product my not sell as well as they would like (Cough-WinME), but never has a Windows OS failed completely.

xTheLostx · Post by **xTheLostx** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:54 pm

I don't see any need for Vista, but of course it is going to sell. It's Windows and it is basically a necessity for every household computer (in the US anyway). Most of the people who will be reluctant to get it at first will eventually be forced into it when new programs and games are released that are no longer compatible with Windows XP. Compatibility is just about the only thing that keeps me from being a full time Linux user. So many programs are made exclusively for the Windows operating system simply because of its holding in the market. I do believe, though, that within a few years time Linux will be more widely accepted as a family OS. It has come a long way in ease of use and many more programs are being developed than before.

soundwave · Post by **soundwave** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:03 pm

How much is this mother going to cost, anyways?

Lucretius · Post by **Lucretius** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:06 pm

I'm going to say $200...personal experience tells me a-so...

daguuy · Post by **daguuy** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:52 pm

since vista's coming out sometime (when?), i guess it's almost time to upgrade to XP

hopefully one of dad's freinds will get it so i can have their copy of XP (don't you love being cheep

). vista's hardware requirements are to high for me to get it any time soon. hopefully videocards will become better soon so a card good enough for vista will become cheap enough to get.

Post by **Skyone** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 pm

Jeez! $300 bucks!?

Well screw that. I say go Linux.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:48 pm

Well to fill things in, Microsoft offered compatibility for Win95 and Win98 applications (through emulation) on XP. That will not be happening with Vista, you want a Office Suite, you buy the brand new release of Microsoft Works.

I find this rather silly. Look 64bit OS, running properly should be 2-4 times faster then 32bit and so running 32bit applications shouldn't be a problem, in fact if your using AMD's 64bit CPUs you have native support for x86 compliant software.

As for Vista's stock in the market.... Apple is moving to Intel's x86 and very shortly to the new IA64. OS X is easier to use, safer, and yeah is know to run for months without need for rebooting. I think if Vista isn't released by this time next year Apple will take a substantal portion of the market... I'd have to guess at 10-20 percent.

Now to explain my disposintion of Windows in general. I've used everything from 95 to ME, from XP home to Server 2003, they all suck. I don't have to explain the DOS based but XP home had a heart-attack after "too many hardware changes". XP Pro has crashed and crashed applications, has failed to connect to the internect (reason it was on my compter for 30 days). Server 2003 is advertised as supporting FAT16 and FAT32 but fails to recognize these (both my PC and a Server at Baker), it also has failed to complete shut down and yeah it's got a real anoying system of asking why your shutting down/rebooting/force shut down.

Also Vista isn't going ot be good on the fact of how Microsoft has their software writen. They have programmers write the bits in their own way then cobble them together. The best analagy I've hard is that "Winodws is a patchwork quilt of code." And really when you know people will buy your stuff even if it sucks why make it perfect? They hold 95+% of the home PC market why do they care if people have problems with the PC crashing once every day?

Now to address the multiple versions. I'm one for a installation DVD, where when your installing you select what type of install, what software and options like that. People can navigate a GUI installer with nested questions. The reason Vista's going to have a dozen different versions is pure greed. Really is there much difference between XP pro and Server 2003 and Media Center Edtion? no.