New MS OS?

dps_2

superscaper wrote: »

As wolfman said, they've been spending all that time developing Vista, ie most expensive OS so far, so of course they'll want to hype it. There's a lot more gone into it from the ground up which you may not neccessarily see from the end user point of view.

actually most of the time was spent on sp2 thats where the cost came into it and the fact they got fined 400million or so, thats probably why they released vista anyway so my mate was right that a new os is out soon, yet more money to spend, mind you i expect they have had xp the longest serving os at the moment because all the other were/are/will be rubbish :think:

wolfman

I don't know about that. They spent a reasonable amount of time on SP2, but you're talking about a huge company here. Most of their resources were pointing at Vista. And I wouldn't say earlier OS's were rubbish. 95 and 98 were ground breaking, especially 95 when it first came out.

You mention XP having a new look and feel when it came out but Vista being "samey". I couldn't disagree more. XP followed on quite closely from Windows ME and 2000. Vista is completely different (with Aero). A lot of the familiarity is gone, and it's a newer, fresher experience with a lot more effects.

There's been a lot of work done under the hood. XP by design is flawed, and insecure. Vista corrects a lot of this and is much more security orientated. In terms of what you can do, it's not a huge step ahead of XP. But then again neither is XP that far ahead of something like Windows 95 when you think about it. Vista is a good OS, an improvement on security and media capabilities. Like with all things technological, it's good to keep up with the times if possible.

BeerBelly

Id they say Vienna is 2009, that will be delayed by at least a year.

Also companies would have fully integrated Vista and Longhorn by then, so I would say Vista will have a longer shelf life than ME did (so no, not a stop gap).

To really know, you would have to check features and projects regarding the future one.

I still prefer XP to Vista anyway!

dps_2

wolfman wrote: »

You mention XP having a new look and feel when it came out but Vista being "samey". I couldn't disagree more. XP followed on quite closely from Windows ME and 2000. Vista is completely different (with Aero). A lot of the familiarity is gone, and it's a newer, fresher experience with a lot more effects.

There's been a lot of work done under the hood. XP by design is flawed, and insecure. Vista corrects a lot of this and is much more security orientated. In terms of what you can do, it's not a huge step ahead of XP. But then again neither is XP that far ahead of something like Windows 95 when you think about it. Vista is a good OS, an improvement on security and media capabilities. Like with all things technological, it's good to keep up with the times if possible.

Vista corrects XPs flaws!! Vista is over the top and panics the casual user or new user for example, double click ccleaner and you get a prompt do you wish to run this program, how confusing is that so you then have to go into properties and change the security values for that one programme and yeah i can see all new users doing that :rolleyes:

Vista is samey i dont know how much you have used it but to be honest if you took off the fancy dan graphics your left with xp but a few more security patches/upgrades, and anyway home basic will do most users so their goes aero in one foul swoop and i have to agree with BeerBelly XP is better but then again vista is still in child format.

BillScarab

Well Vienna is due at the end of 2009 so it's nearer 3 years away than 2 and it will probably be delayed by a few months.

DPS, make your mind up, on the one hand you say Vista is samey and then say it is confusing for the users! :rolleyes:

The underlying OS is fundamentally different to XP and is far more secure. Vista is different to XP when you first use it but I don't know anyone who has upgraded and had any real problems with it. It's no different to when MS released 95 and people had to move from DOS/Windows 3.1.

wolfman

dps wrote: »

Vista corrects XPs flaws!! Vista is over the top and panics the casual user or new user for example, double click ccleaner and you get a prompt do you wish to run this program, how confusing is that so you then have to go into properties and change the security values for that one programme and yeah i can see all new users doing that :rolleyes:

In XP every user is typically an admin, which is insecure for starters. You can run as a regular user, but it can have problems. Some applications just need admin rights.

Vista can get annoying with the security popups/requests, but that just takes time to "train" it, much like using a firewall (ie Kerio or ZoneAlarm). Apart from the frequent popups I don't think it's over the top at all. It addresses the security issues XP had and needed to be corrected, and takes an approach similar to Linux.

dps wrote: »

Vista is samey i dont know how much you have used it but to be honest if you took off the fancy dan graphics your left with xp but a few more security patches/upgrades, and anyway home basic will do most users so their goes aero in one foul swoop and i have to agree with BeerBelly XP is better but then again vista is still in child format.

I use it everyday at work (Am a .Net developer). I use Linux at home though. Ok, turn off Aero and it is similar to XP. But then again turn off themes in XP and it's just like Windows 2000. You said XP had a new look and feel but taking that approach it didn't.

Aero is a core part of Vista. I would hardly call it "fancy dan". It's how the desktop is evolving. OS X has similar, and Linux has Beryl/Compiz. 3D desktops will soon become the norm, at least for home users.

Not everyone will have Aero (basically anything above the Home package) I agree. Aero does change the way Vista works though. Of all the Windows releases, it's the most fresh, new experience. It becomes very different from the typical grey windows of XP/2000, and concentrates on media and search functionality.

Is this just a Vista flaming thread or is their reason behind it. Technically I can't see how you can say XP is better than Vista (or not an improvement). When it comes to money, or what people need for their money it may be a different story.

BeerBelly

I don't know how you can say there is little difference between going from Dos/3.1 to Windows 95!

The differences are massive and fundlemental to the Users Interface from DOS/3.1 to 95!!

dps_2

BeerBelly wrote: »

I don't know how you can say there is little difference between going from Dos/3.1 to Windows 95!

The differences are massive and fundlemental to the Users Interface from DOS/3.1 to 95!!

I have no idea what you said then, maybe your post is incorrect.

I am talking about XP to Vista then to Vienna not 3.1 to 95 in actual fact you could say ME as that was the last DOS based OS (unfortunately)

Sharky!

superscaper wrote: »

You can't really compare XP's lifetime as being typical, it is the longest shelf life OS microsoft have ever made. 95 to 98, 98 to ME/2000. Two to three years I'd say was a normal lifetime of an OS, XP was an exception unless you consider the big changes in service pack 2 being like another OS.

I remember reading somewhere that they were considering releasing XP SP2 as a new OS, but someone inside Microsoft decided against it. I'll see if I can find where I read this.

Edit: No luck finding the web page. I think it was on Paul Thurrott's http://www.winsupersite.com/ site somewhere...

dps_2

wolfman wrote: »

In XP every user is typically an admin, which is insecure for starters. You can run as a regular user, but it can have problems. Some applications just need admin rights.

Thats good as a security precaution as it stops unwanted software being installed on sytems, so go ask an admin before installing.

wolfman wrote: »

Vista can get annoying with the security popups/requests, but that just takes time to "train" it, much like using a firewall (ie Kerio or ZoneAlarm). Apart from the frequent popups I don't think it's over the top at all. It addresses the security issues XP had and needed to be corrected, and takes an approach similar to Linux.

I see what you mean their the pop ups bug me but after a while they do fade like a firewall request, mind you I can be disconcerting for the not so advanced user as I have had quite a bit of contact from customers asking should I allow access for this that and the other so not that user friendly, try and think like a brand new user who has never owned a PC before and it looks like what ever you touch you may put something into meltdown.

wolfman wrote: »

I use it everyday at work (Am a .Net developer). I use Linux at home though. Ok, turn off Aero and it is similar to XP. But then again turn off themes in XP and it's just like Windows 2000. You said XP had a new look and feel but taking that approach it didn't.

But whats the point in having a fancy graphics package if most users wont use it ie aero is hardly a requirement for the average user but aero is a good thing for web designers because of the ne windo tabulation and 3d enhancments.

wolfman wrote: »

Aero is a core part of Vista. I would hardly call it "fancy dan". It's how the desktop is evolving. OS X has similar, and Linux has Beryl/Compiz. 3D desktops will soon become the norm, at least for home users.

If they know how to activate it, being as I work directly with customers and not in a company with .net I can tell you that the avergae user is not aware of the upper capabillities of XP machines let alone Vista machines.

wolfman wrote: »

Is this just a Vista flaming thread or is their reason behind it. Technically I can't see how you can say XP is better than Vista (or not an improvement). When it comes to money, or what people need for their money it may be a different story.

No it was a thread about Vienna and whats going on and a discussion, I think you have flaming mixed up with discussing a new OS.