Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Vista to be Released January 2007 (At the Earliest)

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Grug ] on Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:52 \__
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4831374.stm
> >>
> >> Implications:
> >>
> >>    [1] More time earned to move people to Linux
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > You guys are really nuts.
> >
> > Nobody considering Vista *at this time* would even seriously consider
> > moving to Linux.  At the very worst, they might *consider* OSX, but
> > that would be it.
> OS X has nothing to offer that Linux has not had for ages.


How about polish and refinement?  How about an OS that *works* instead
of wasting time trying to figure how things work?  How about an OS that
recongnizes and uses the full feature list of the hardware?  How about
great print support?  Audio?  Linux?  LOL

> OS X was recently
> shown to be less secure than Linux and its patching process is more
> complicated than that of Linux. Moreover, it is costly. Not just the
> hardware, but additional software too.
> > Most people don't even know about Vista yet except computer geeks for
> > the most part.  They will be happy with XP.  In fact, there are many
> > posts of people that say 'Why Vista, XP is great!'... But they will
> > find out Vista is in fact, 'Awesome'.
> No, Vista just incorporates some new colours and icons (artwork), which makes
> it look different.

New colors and icons?  Wow, you really don't know *anything* about
Vista then do you?

> The engine remains merely untouched, with improvement on
> par with extending the model of a car over 2 years.

What 'engine' are you referring to?

Graphics?  Almost all new.

Network?  All new.

Audio?  All new.

Driver model?  Revamped.

> >>    [2] Compelling implication that Windows Vista is disastrous at its core
> >
> > A lot of Vista's core is entirely new, which is why Vista has required
> > a lot of time to develop.
> You shall stand corrected.

We'll see...

> Wall Street Journal; September, 2005:
> ,----[ Quote ]
> |     REDMOND, Wash. ? Jim Allchin, a senior Microsoft Corp. executive,
> | walked into Bill Gates's office here one day in July last year to deliver
> | a bombshell about the next generation of Microsoft Windows.
> |
> |     "It?s not going to work," Mr. Allchin says he told the
> | Microsoft chairman. The new version, code-named Longhorn, was so
> | complex its writers would never be able to make it run properly.
> |
> |     The news got even worse: Longhorn was irredeemable because
> | Microsoft engineers were building it just as they had always
> | built software. Throughout its history, Microsoft had let
> | thousands of programmers each produce their own piece of
> | computer code, then stitched it together into one sprawling
> | program. Now, Mr. Allchin argued, the jig was up. Microsoft
> | needed to start over.
> `----

Read the last sentence again.

I'll repeat it for you:  "Microsoft needed to start over."

And it did.

The longhorn base was thrown out, and Vista started over with a Windows
Server 2003 core...

> > The network stack is *all* new.  Network latencies are much lower now,
> > and it is much easier to saturate the network with small packet sizes
> > this time around, which isn't true with XP.  CTCP is going to make
> > Vista visibly faster on the Internet.
> I haven't had any problems with XP's Network latencies; I do not have network
> latency issues with Linux; Same applies to OS X.

Most network applications are just fine with XP's network latencies.
However, for super high performance throughput, lower latencies are
required... and Vista will deliver the goods with its all new network

> That apart, Windows has never been fast. Not on the Internet; not off-line.

Really?  I particularly liked the Doom3 benchmarks where Windows was
25% faster than Linux... then there was the SQL server throughput
benchmarks that put Linux and mySQL to shame...  and there is a lot

I'll take Windows 'never been fast' over Linux' anyday.

> It is notorious for its over-bloated existence. Vista has been crucified
> many times /already/ for hardware requirements.

Funny... OSX has a huge memory footprint, Linux with KDE sux up the RAM
too... you don't really seem to be complaining.

Finally, nobody knows the true footprint of Vista because #1, it is
still in beta, and #2, it is a debug build that is always much larger
and slower than production code.

Let's wait and see before you speculate.

> > The audio stack is *all* new.  Again, far lower latencies for
> > professional audio people here.
> See comment above. No noticeable issue in XP; not in Linux; not in OS X. Put
> your money where it counts, where it actually matters.

You are right.

XP has good latencies now.

However, MS is now going after the professional market, and this
requires ultra low latencies.  Vista will have it.  Linux will not.

> > The graphics stack is mostly new, and GDI is being demoted.  The
> > graphics stack is now primarily vector 3D accelerated graphics, with a
> > new media API used instead of the now, unaccelerated GDI.
> How does it help me as a pragmatic user? Apart from eating away my battery or
> taking large chunks of my CPU capacity when I try to get actual work done.

If you are trying to get 'actual work done', you'd be using MS Office,
and not tinkering around with a hobbiest' OS.

> > There is a ton more, but I think you get the picture.
> >
> > The old kernel is out.
> >
> >>    [3] Disappointment of the market, which relied on an 'upgrade'
> >>        later this year (hardware-, software-wise)
> >
> > Very true.  Lots of vendors have been anticipating Vista around the
> > holidays.  This will certainly disappoint them.

More than disappoint - some will be downright angry.

> This will *not* be the first time that Redmond disappoints their loyal
> middlemen. My bet is this: those who are afraid of changes will buy a
> Windows computer for Christmas, as planned. The O/S will be Windows XP,
> possibly for many years to come. Service packs, security woes and the list
> goes on and on...

Well one thing has changed from the release of XP and Vista... if you
can remember back that far... XP was designed before MS really got
serious about Internet security.

Vista is being designed with security solely in mind.

We shall see how it fares.  I'm not placing bets at the moment, but
I'll bet its far better than XP's security.

> >>    [4] ...
> >
> > Microsoft replaced the head of the Windows dev. team with a guy known
> > for making product release dates and promises... FINALLY.
> This is no reason for excitement. Au contraire. Given that Office suffers a
> great deal due to OpenOffice 2 at the moment, this 'new guy' comes from an
> already troubled 'camp'. Will this lead to the same consequences with
> Windows? I sure know so.
> > We'll see if he can do it for Windows Vista as well.
> >
> > Anybody that switches to Linux simply because Vista will be delayed a
> > few months will be jumping at the chance to switch back when they see
> > Vista - it is absolutely awesome.
> >
> > When they actually *use* it, they will be hooked.  It's that good.
> You are missing the point. Not many people will be using Vista. They will buy
> a Windows XP computer /before/ Christmas. By that time, XGL, KDE Solid, QT4,
> Firefox 2 and many other advances will have made Vista look like yesterday's
> technology.
> Best wishes,
> Roy
> --
> Roy S. Schestowitz      | "Ping this IP, see if it collapses" --Windows TCP
> http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
>   3:40am  up 14 days 20:17,  8 users,  load average: 0.50, 0.49, 0.64
>       http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index