My ideas about operating systems...

[GrofLuigi]

"Skinbois" have the unfair advantage that they have Microsoft on their side. So they can force us to use skins, but we can't force them not to use skins.

GL

[CoffeeFiend]

You can tell me about all the improvements in Vista with your incomprehensible jargon and acronymes, if the popular opinion is, at the end of the day, that Vista is not better (or even sucks), it doesn't count.

Sorry.

That you don't understand what is improved, how it works or such, doesn't make it "not better". Neither does an opinion from the average uneducated user. Besides, who gets to pick what counts? Just because you decided so?

we can't force them not to use skins.

Classic theme (or disabling the theme service altogether) looks plain enough:

Looks like Win2k all over again.

Besides, "skinbois" seem to be using windowblinds and such more than anything.

[cluberti]

You can tell me about all the improvements in Vista with your incomprehensible jargon and acronymes, if the popular opinion is, at the end of the day, that Vista is not better (or even sucks), it doesn't count.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but Vista _does_ bring a lot of features that include jargon and acronyms. Patchguard, process integrity levels, sandboxing, split access token, dynamic module load, dynamic kernel memory allocation, registry and filesystem virtualization, signed driver requirements (wish it wasn't x64 only!), bitlocker, security policy, just to name a few.

You can like Win9x, and there will always be a subset of users who do - there's nothing wrong with that at all. However, just because you can't "see" the differences don't mean they are there, and until you use them, you shouldn't knock it. And I mean actually use it, not load it up, run it for 10 minutes, and then say "it's not Win98 so I hate it" like the bulk of people in the Win9x forums do when asked about their Vista "experience".

As to your quips about the user interface staying the same, it's worked for every company that's implemented the "Windows" and "Mouse" layout, since Xerox PARC, and the first consumer company to eschew it will likely be the next OS vendor out of business. It's what people know, and have known, for YEARS and YEARS. Changing it at this point seems almost suicide, and unnecessary to - in your own estimation, there's nothing really wrong with Win9x for over 13 years, so why change it? That's the same argument with the current Windows GUI model - it's not broken, so why fix something everyone's used to? If I want a unix console, I'll install Linux. If I want to have my users use their machines and apps, I'll install Windows or MacOS with a GUI they know.

[georg]

Quote (fredledlingue) "My idea about OS is this: Modular Windows. I'm surprised there was no more comment"

I've read that editions of Windows without things like Windows Media Player and Windows Movie Maker were sold in Europe and they have been unpopular. The trend is back to bundle. Is Windows Media Edition an operating system or an application? The market share reports posted by Tarun and Crahak show the XP replacement rate is irrelevant. Vista is clobbering Apple and Linux. As high end apps and drivers are rewritten, new systems with Vista will get steadily faster and better. There is no competition for Vista except XP, and price is about the same. Microsoft makes money either way.

[Offler]

to Cluberti:

the same refusal that is now visible with vista did not happen with XP some yeasrs ago. People have just seen nice skinning and nothing else. But later they realized that system is performing better, just they didnt know why.

the real reason why was XP more stable was better HW drivers based on 32bit WDM standard. It took me months to analyze approx 100 drivers in my system, replace them with WDM format and later compare Windows 98 side by side with XP on same hw. it really doesnt matter if windows use 16 or 32bit modules ,even when the handling with 32bit modules is really better solved. i have never met system crash due 16bit module.

People just want stability and performance. the way how is it archieved does not interest them, and i may say that in many cases MS pushes information which are not completely true (especially the one about full 32bit system). People which will use XP for sure next decade have several reasons for it:

1. It is stable

2. Most apps they use work with it

3. It looks good.

these are the same reasons why i use still 9x (+ some things that win98 is more suitable for singlethreading than xp).

really i dont believe that most users are interested in differences between XP and Vista. that is not a reason for change for them.

[BenoitRen]

So by what you're saying, Win ME is just an update to CP/M, and Vista is merely an upgrade to... RSX-11 perhaps.

Based on how it works, its design, or its source code?

Similarly, you could say this year's models of whatever cars are an upgrade to the last years' and so on, which are all basically upgrades to a fairly generic car model with combustion engine, which comes from earlier steam machines, which comes from carriages and so on.

You don't get it. Cars are not software. If you took the same parts from the previous model and molded it into the parts for the newer model, maybe you'd have a case. But this is software, and each OS version was made from the previous one. That's why they're versions!

[CoffeeFiend]

Based on how it works, its design, or its source code?

D) All of the above. All OS'es inherit code, design, behaviors, ideas, methods, behaviors and such from others (mainly from older ones).

Similarly, you could say this year's models of whatever cars are an upgrade to the last years' and so on, which are all basically upgrades to a fairly generic car model with combustion engine, which comes from earlier steam machines, which comes from carriages and so on.

You don't get it. Cars are not software. If you took the same parts from the previous model and molded it into the parts for the newer model, maybe you'd have a case. But this is software, and each OS version was made from the previous one. That's why they're versions!

No... You don't get it. First, it's an analogy, of course cars aren't software. But to make this years' model, they use the previous model's parts' design (like the source code for the previous release of windows), and then they make some changes to it (change/modify/edit/write some more code), and that's this year's/latest model of that car (latest version of windows). No difference at all.

Edited June 18, 2008 by crahak

[cluberti]

and i may say that in many cases MS pushes information which are not completely true (especially the one about full 32bit system)

Wha...? I missed something here. What is "the one" about full 32bit system?

[Fredledingue]

That you don't understand what is improved, how it works or such, doesn't make it "not better". Neither does an opinion from the average uneducated user.

Vista _does_ bring a lot of features that include jargon and acronyms. Patchguard, process integrity levels, sandboxing, split access token, dynamic module load, dynamic kernel memory allocation, registry and filesystem virtualization, signed driver requirements (wish it wasn't x64 only!), bitlocker, security policy, just to name a few.

All this is very beautiful. But if so, why is Vista slower than XP, why does it take 10x more disc space, why does it need 4x more memory, why it can't run old softwares, why do I still need an antivirus, why some stuffs don't work as expected? Why I don't see what's good?

I'm sure, many things have been improved, unfortunately I don't know what and if someone tells me I don't undesrtand what it is.

But ok, we will admit Vista () is better eventhought we can't see it.

And if we notice negative points it's only because we are ignorant.

Back to Modular Windows:

I've read that editions of Windows without things like Windows Media Player and Windows Movie Maker were sold in Europe and they have been unpopular. The trend is back to bundle.

The idea (I reapeat it's just an idea thrown by an analyst), is that users would install the core of the OS, then add what he wants.

What is interresting is not so much the customized setup, but the idea of core OS, for those who want pure computing power. (That's what we miss with XP and Vista)

Today too many things made XP and Vista way too complicated and slow.

With a modular install, you would install only what is relevant to your hardware and needs.

Then you would update only the parts which you had installed.

From M$ side, the developement would not go through Windows versions, but through mudule versions.

Modular Windows

[CoffeeFiend]

why is Vista slower than XP

I don't really see a difference. Actually, it's even faster on many things (like the GUI, thanks to GPU acceleration much like Mac OS X's Quartz, or tasks like deleting thousands of small files -- it's several times faster than XP on that!)

why does it take 10x more disc space

It doesn't. It takes about 5 to 6x the space XP does here. And again, that's due to several things, like having WAY more drivers included (about the size of a XP install), keeping more copies of DLLs in its WinSxS store (takes up about the size of 2 XP installs here). If you subtract those, that leaves you with an OS that's perhaps twice the size of XP or so, which is not bad at all considering all the new features and such And then again, all new versions of windows have used up more disk space. This is nothing new.

why does it need 4x more memory

Again, not the case. Vista (without any weird stripping using vlite or such) boots with 365MB of RAM usage here. That's about twice as much as my XP box does. XP did take a fair bit more than 2k too and such. Again, nothing new here.

why it can't run old softwares

I dunno why you keep spreading such FUD. It's just not true at all. I found exactly 0 apps that don't work on Vista so far, as in NOT ONE! To quote something I said earlier:

"Adobe CS3 suite? Works. Visual Studio? Works! MS Expression apps? Works! SQL Server? Works too. MS Office and OOo? Works. Installshield works. So does VMWare workstation and server. And Apache. And MySQL. And Nero and imgburn. And Firefox, Opera, Newsleecher, ftprush, CopSSH, fineprint, pdffactory, foxit, k-lite, mkvtoolnix, MPC, avisynth, DGIndex, besweet, lame, wireshark, nmap/zenmap, PowerGUI, PrimalScript, ultraiso, isobuster, serv-u/g6/filezilla, snagit, winrar, acdsee, unlocker, inkscape, feeddemon, musicbrainz, diskeeper/perfectdisk, nod32, truecrypt, winamp, dvbdream, mytheatre, etc etc etc." and many, many more that I just can't be bothered to list, and that's just the stuff I've tried, it's hardly an exhaustive list. Yet, you keep making it sound like nothing runs on it. BTW, many apps have needed updates to run reliably (or at all) on other versions of windows, or even for specific service packs (like SP2 for XP), so why blame Vista now? OS'es change, apps get updated, such is life.

why do I still need an antivirus

Because it's windows, you're running as an admin, and you're clicking on every .exe from anywhere? I don't even run an AV real-time myself (Vista or not). An ounce of prevention (as in not running any .exe from untrustworthy sources blindly) is worth a pound of cure.

why some stuffs don't work as expected

Like what exactly? Sounds like more FUD.

Why I don't see what's good?

Seemingly for some people it's a lack of education and/or understanding, combined with the unwillingness to read up on it.

[cluberti]

All this is very beautiful. But if so, why is Vista slower than XP, why does it take 10x more disc space, why does it need 4x more memory, why it can't run old softwares, why do I still need an antivirus, why some stuffs don't work as expected? Why I don't see what's good?

I won't harp on this, because it seems to be spoken from believing in heresay, but I wanted to touch one thing. XP can boot on 128MB of RAM, and Vista on 512MB. If we say that's 4x as much memory, it's accurate. To top it off, I wouldn't run Vista on less than 1024MB of RAM, personally, but I also wouldn't run XP on less than 512MB of RAM either and expect it to be "snappy". So, 2x the memory on a version of the OS that's 7 years newer seems efficient to me - how much was 512MB of RAM in 2001? How much is 1GB in 2008? It's time to stop comparing the Vista OS, based on the NT kernel with it's extra security, process models, added features, etc and the Win9x kernel OSes which hasn't been changed or updated in any meaningful way in almost 10 years.

[BenoitRen]

D) All of the above. All OS'es inherit code, design, behaviors, ideas, methods, behaviors and such from others (mainly from older ones).

None of Windows' source code came from CP/M. Design and such, yes, like everything else. Doesn't make it the same product.

But to make this years' model, they use the previous model's parts' design (like the source code for the previous release of windows), and then they make some changes to it (change/modify/edit/write some more code), and that's this year's/latest model of that car (latest version of windows). No difference at all.

Source code is different. It's always the same source code that's being used. Design plans are something different. A new plan might be based on an old one, but it's still a new plan. Again, that's why we have Windows versions and nice things like version control systems.

So, 2x the memory on a version of the OS that's 7 years newer seems efficient to me

It's not efficient at all, considering how little more it does for the average user.

There's a mistaken belief that a new major version of a product should use up much more RAM, and that therefore it's great. This is nonsense. Look no further than Firefox 3 for a great example. Firefox 3 does more, has more options, is faster, yet requires less RAM than before. Imagine that!

Edited June 18, 2008 by BenoitRen

[cluberti]

It's not efficient at all, considering how little more it does for the average user.

By that sentiment, Win3.x should be sufficient. It doesn't do anything more, does it? It's an OS, it has a browser and media player, and it's got a GUI.

Vista security (heck, even XP security with SP2/SP3) plus additional features are what people want, not like people who post on forums like this.

People *want* media center. People *want* photo and video to be easy. People *want* to be able to use almost any app or hardware device they can find on shelves, and have it work either by just plugging it in, or putting in the CD and then plugging it in. People *want* a machine that they don't have to think about security, although UAC is a bit obtrusive in this aspect (good design idea, bad implementation).

You might want a slim, featureless, purposeful machine - but you and I are a *very* small market subset. The vast majority of users just want things to work with whatever the latest doo-dad or application is, and also want what they currently have to continue to work. Vista does accomplish all of these things, and for the most part XP will continue to do so as well for another few years. Once that is no longer the case, it'll be Vista and Windows 7, and XP will be like Win9x - unsupported, with a small, vocal user base.

And it'll make no difference at all in the grand scheme of things, just like it is now.

[puntoMX]

Once that is no longer the case, it'll be Vista and Windows 7, and XP will be like Win9x - unsupported, with a small, vocal user base.

Still XP will be supported more, as in more people will use it, than Win 95/98/ME...

[Offler]

to cluberti:

many software developers told me that it is better to use fully 32bit operating system (which means that it uses all 32bit dlls - as 2k/Xp does). they told me about trouble with 16bit mutex and so on. told... they were crying just as a lazy kid which has to go somewhere for a walk and not by car

in many cases 16bit code means limitation, but also it does not automatically means that "less bits=less efficiency".

if a simple 4-8-16 bit program can return its values correclty i dont know why i should not use such app in any system if it does its job properly. by the way most systems now runs on very very old code which is integrated very deeply in any computer (famous y2k ) and only thing i have heard from sw developers was that XP is better made.. jeez, they havent even heard about linux? about old good Mac? have they been able to work with OS which is not so user friendly as XP indeed is?

i dont believe it.

Face to face Win98SE versus WinXP with approx 20 drivers and 20 testing applications i have identified same bugs in behaviour for both OSes. No new bugs appeared, no unpredicted crashes happen. Both systems were runing on same hardware, with almost same drivers (only graphic card used different one).

I am little bit strange, because i test things that are supposed to be facts, and i like to turn them into myths. Stability of WinXP is indeed better, but it has nothing to do with 16 or 32bit system modules as it was presented by programmers and maybe by ms. The drivers and the apps are the reason. Programmers just learned how to create them correctly. in year 95 only few people mastered it really, in 2000 the situation was much better and today i can run wide range of apps without any major trouble.

(and only few people are able to run Windows 9x working for days without forced reboot or APP crash )

to PuntoMX:

i cannot say that. Win9x and WinXp systems are very similar in way how they work. In year 2002 somebody said same thing about Windows 9x and today it is being used by 1 percent of all users. XP and its majority is realtively new phenomenon. I personally did not find XP better as 98. it has skinning (win98 now has it) new kernel exports (win98 now has them), NTFS (i dont need bigger files than 4gb and practically DVDs barely hold them on their filesystems). But also i havent found XP worse than 98SE. they are equal for me. two different operating systems, with different capabilities.

dropping of SW support is just about lazyness of game developers, but if the win98 now can offer evolution for the future same can happen to XP. question is how many people from 95 of all pc users are programmers skilled enough to make so sophisticated (or bloated) os compatible with more sophisticated (or bloated) Vista. Win9x is simplier, so its future MODDING should be much easier.

by the way... the things that are people here creating for Win9x is not patching... it is modding, just as it is happening with games. New features, new enemies, bugfixes

Edited June 18, 2008 by Offler