Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: Vlabguy1 on November 30, 2006, 12:16:54 AM
-
has anyone tried Vista yet, or read any previews/reviews..??
I have a PC ( which I got6from a friend incl. a 21
inch CRT, I will never buy a MS product, EVER!!! ). However,
that being said I will be running Vista on that PC tomorrow..
and I was just wondering what kinda hype M$ is spewing
about it..
Any and all thoughts please..( on the subject above, ty)
Rich
from
NY
-
Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to much as usual for price.
-
Well I dont know..how much is it??? Im getting my copy for nadda..ziltch.
-
All these years and I thought Windoze was free.. :roll:
-
Well you might be right..I guess...or only free when u buy a computer?
Can you just go to the store and buy Windoze NT??
-
@stopthegop:
I thought the same! :lol: :lol: :lol:
As for Vista.. no linux, no care.
-
I've been playing with the beta version... First impression is that the default "scrap metal" UI style is appalling... But this is only what you get when running it inside a VM (I'm not willing to risk a real machine yet!) or on hardware that doesn't support the Aero 3D interface.
Basically, it's Windows XP with 3D bits... And XP itself was Windows 2000 with blue bits and red "close" buttons! And there's more and more bloat and cost with each release...
But whatever happens, it'll almost certainly be a success for Microsoft due to the hype, plus the OEM sales, plus die-hard gamers that must have DX10.
I'll grudgingly upgrade one machine here to run it as I'll end up having to support it...
- Ali
-
Ali,
Thanks...for your thoughts..I did go to the M$ website. I do like the idea of the
3D windows..thing..thats seems pretty useful..
thanks again
Rich
-
stop the madness, you cannot deny evolution. windows rock.
I don't care if I am flamed, windows, like it or not, offered much to the computing universe.
-
stop the madness, you cannot deny evolution. windows rock. I don't care if I am flamed, windows, like it or not, offered much to the computing universe.
Evolution isn't always a good thing. {bleep}roaches evolved for millions of years, yet remain basically the same. With each new generation they just become harder to kill.
-
thats because theyre very successful - crocs/gaters and sharks havent changed much in 200My either.
HAHAHAHAH {bleep}roaches! thats made my day! autocensorship gone mental!
-
but when we nuke our selves, only those *bleep*roaches will stay back, LOL :-P :-P :-P
-
yup. the 'willy'roaches and the rats. (hehehe!)
-
and they will all be running microsoft windows
-
i dont know if id go as far as saying that windows rocks but i would say that computers would be nowhere where they are today withough microsoft and intel.
windows has alot of problems most due to its popularity (everyone wants to run in on all kinds of goofy hardware, and hackers dont bother with unpopular os being 2 reasons)
and intel cpus have poroblems mostly due to backwards compatibility. but all in all both companies have reseased products that have been useful for millions of people and have constantly pushed the state of the art.
commodore pushed technology twice with the 1000 and the 3000. aga in 92 was only a minor push.
-
...so in the end, revenge will be ours!
-
Vista SUCKS! It is the bad copy of Mac OS X Tiger. It is the same as XP, confusing and non-logical bugged OS.
Buy a Mac if you can't wait for an Amiga, you will enjoy it.
3D windows, widgets and other cool thing HAS BEEN ON MAC OS SINCE YEARS! As always the wait a year to implement and copy things from OS X... and usually they are not even good at copy.
-
Vlabguy1 wrote:
I know Windoze Suck..but..
There's no but. It just sucks, that's it. You might want to have a look at the EULA if you're still unsure.
If you want to stick to the PC and want to use an OS that works for you (not against you, like Vista), try some BSD or Linux flavor. Otherwise, a Mac is also a good choice. I agree with ikir, Vista is just a bad, broken copy of OS-X.
-
Buy a Mac if you can't wait for an Amiga, you will enjoy it.
Never!! I like using Workbench because it´s fast, system efficient and allows the user to have more control over whats happening. MacOSX have none of these attributes whatsoever.
MacOSX is just a bunch of fancy, overdesigned graphics with none of the configurability that the Amiga has (or even Windoze). And you got to know illogical Unix commands to be able to use the MacOS CLI as well...
As long as I can get Windows for free or even Linux, I´ll rather stick with that! :-P
-
Vista is not very good in my opinion.. It is just XP with more annoying features and way more bloat. Even 1gig of memory aint enough!
-
Thanks...for your thoughts..I did go to the M$ website. I do like the idea of the
It would have been useful if it was done right. But microsoft got everything wrong, which means that you have to have the latest and best graphic card even to be able to use it. Linux has had similar features for some time now and this works just fine even one low end 3d card.
-
Not tried it myself yet, but just download it off the microsfot website.
Windows Vista RC1 is available and it will work until June next year, giving you plenty of time to see how things pan out.
-
Windows Vista RC1 is available and it will work until June next year, giving you plenty of time to see how things pan out.
Not available anymore afaik. I believe they pulled that offer after just a few days.
-
I agree w/ SuperTurbo. Regrettably, Windoze is the better of several really bad choices of so-called "modern" operating systems -- namely the bewildering array of Unix wannabes, MacOS among them. I believe unix was developed in the early 1960s, wasn't it? So why now, almost half a century later, is this antiquity hailed as the crowning achievement of high tech, especially by self-congratulatory companies like Apple. We could solve the global energy crisis if someone could figure out how to convert all the OS-X hype into methane gas! At least Winidoze and AmigaOS were created when most of us were alive (Mac68K, too), but not OS X, which is a cheesy cover of a golden oldie -- an absurdly bloated one at that. If I *need* to use Outlook, or *need* to play DVDs, or *need* to do some relatively rare task that my Amiga cannot do, then my choice is Windoze. For everything else, AmigaOS all the way. Its lightweight, fast, efficient, responsive, intuitive and powerful.
-
Microsoft has tried to make the best of a bad thing...When Windowz XP came out is was hyped as a new and better OS for the PC Given that they redesigned it to not use DOS as its footprint like 3.1 or 98 ME was a disaster and 2000 did very little for improvement.
Now Microsoft has decided to make an OS that does more but forgetting that more memory usage is NOT going to make it run better "more eye candy" is all Vista is. At least the Mac has a good OS and solid from the getgo.
-
i'm not buying it till i have to. i used to like win98. but things seem to be done in ways i find hard increasingly hard to understand...
i am forever going to hate m$ for product activation. it's a slap in the face they can never take back, as far as i'm concerned. if it wasn't for drm i would not own windows, but they have tied you to it. i prefer xandros and ubuntu. ubuntu is a particularly fast moving os in terms of development. i also would never own an xbox. i really am begining to hate m$. at one point i would have said i was a fan... i also don't agree with how much it costs. and i hate "oem" and the lack of support for their products. i am affraid mentioning m$ on a site like this will always cause a bad taste in the mouth. they have no place in the happy computing memories/ nostalgia i feel for technology new or old. i can't wait for the evil empire to crumble.
-
stopthegop wrote:
I agree w/ SuperTurbo. Regrettably, Windoze is the better of several really bad choices of so-called "modern" operating systems -- namely the bewildering array of Unix wannabes, MacOS among them. I believe unix was developed in the early 1960s, wasn't it?
That was Multics, an early predecessor. Unix was actually born in 1970.
So why now, almost half a century later, is this antiquity hailed as the crowning achievement of high tech, especially by self-congratulatory companies like Apple.
For the same reason people still use their antique Amiga. It simply works - in a unique and very efficient way.
We could solve the global energy crisis if someone could figure out how to convert all the OS-X hype into methane gas! At least Winidoze and AmigaOS were created when most of us were alive (Mac68K, too), but not OS X, which is a cheesy cover of a golden oldie -- an absurdly bloated one at that.
Hmm... reading that, I doubt you have really ever used OS-X. Besides, it's not half as bloated as Vista.
-
f me, if you did a search i reckon there are more threads bashing microsoft, than praising amiga on this forum.
The truth of the matter, despite their business tatics, microsoft actullay make useable, and well made products.
I love amiga, and I have tried to use linux, but to be honest I have got much better things to do with my life, than trying to install and set-up linux. I want to be able to use a computer for work and playing games, surfing etc... not setting the fing thing up.
windows just install with miniaml fuss, and is ready to use.
get over it people, yes windows is bloated, but hardmare and storage is cheap. everything has its faults, but give me XP over any linux distro i have tried , anyday of the week.
and before I hear it, windows is stable. the only time I have to restart windows is when i choose to switch my pc off
-
If it weren't for the fact Win98 becomes highly unstable when attempting to use it on my AthlonXP board, I'd still be using it today. As it stands, I'm sticking with Win2k untill either I run into the same hardware incompatabilities, or AROS becomes functional enough to replace it as my main OS.
MacOS X was actually my idea... Mine and probably thousands of others who emailed Apple to let them know their original OS sucked, and didn't even come close to touching the capabilities of their excellent hardware. My email to them suggested a posix compliant OS such as BSD.
Behold, the darwin BSD kernel, the core of OSX. Sitting under a nicely prettied up X interface.
Since the move to RISC86 processors, I don't see it being too far into the future that Apple abandons their computer hardware entirely, and sells OSX for use on PCs. I'm betting they're making way more in iPod sales than on their computers... And it would create a direct, wide-spread competitor for Windoze... With plenty of industry support. Far more than even Linux has.
But back to the topic at hand, Windows Vista is a much needed move to directly support the new 64-bit RISC86 processors, as well as take better advantage of the wave of 3D accellerators.
That said, given the massive overhead of Win2k and XP, I shudder to think what Vista will require just to run itself, nevermind applications. Running Win2k myself, the system cache alone sucks up 287MB of my 512MB memory.
287MB of RAM JUST FOR MY OS?! That's absolutely absurd! XP is even worse, tho the hype says it's supposed to be an improvement. At least I can RUN Win2k with 128MB of RAM or less... Try it with XP sometime! Linux is getting just as bad.
So, I'll wait patiently for AROS to gain more functionality. I've seen how small a footprint it has, as well as what it's capable of. Proof we don't need hardware hogging operating systems.
-
SuperTurbo wrote:
Never!! I like using Workbench because it´s fast, system efficient and allows the user to have more control over whats happening. MacOSX have none of these attributes whatsoever.
Efficient...well yes. Other than that, where have you been?
MacOSX is just a bunch of fancy, overdesigned graphics with none of the configurability that the Amiga has (or even Windoze). And you got to know illogical Unix commands to be able to use the MacOS CLI as well...
You know, my dual G5 can whip up windows faster than any of my accelerated Amigas period. As for the Amiga CLI, well... filling in the letters - i.e. using "list" as opposed to "ls" is not that much better. :roll:
-
tonyvdb wrote:
ME was a disaster and 2000 did very little for improvement
Win2K actually did a great deal for improvement. It was Microsoft's first working attempt at combining the plug 'n' play and DirectX functionality from the Win9x line with the stability of the NT line. End result = an OS that's not much different to XP but is far more efficient with resource usage.
JJ wrote:
...have tried to use linux, but to be honest I have got much better things to do with my life, than trying to install and set-up linux. I want to be able to use a computer for work and playing games, surfing etc... not setting the fing thing up.
windows just install with miniaml fuss, and is ready to use.
This really does depend on your hardware and/or the Linux distro you're using.
In Ubuntu Linux, an installation from scratch is usually simply a case of booting from the CD, choosing the install option, answering a few straightforward questions (time zone, location, user name, etc - basic stuff) and letting it just do its stuff. And at the end of the installation, it all just works (at least on my hardware). Updates are then managed by the excellent package manager and associated software repositories.
Installation of Windows XP from scratch again requires booting from the CD, answering some basic questions, etc. But at the end of the install, the user is left with a basic 800x600 (or 640x480 if they're really unlucky!) desktop running in standard VGA mode, no sound, sometimes no networking, no other drivers, and a massive heap of updates to install (SP2, IE7, DirectX, and tonnes of security fixes/patches).
And yes, for practical use, Windows still has more of the applications (and certainly games) that people at large want to use. I run a mixture of Linux and Windows... And of course, good old AmigaOS!
Just my 2c worth!
- Ali
-
Microsoft has tried to make the best of a bad thing...When Windowz XP came out is was hyped as a new and better OS for the PC Given that they redesigned it to not use DOS as its footprint like 3.1 or 98 ME was a disaster and 2000 did very little for improvement.
Are you kidding me? :-o Windows 2000 was a huge improvement over win9x/me!! I also believe that windows 2000 beats the hell out of both winxp and vista. The problem is that they dropped support, so that they could force people to downgrade to XP.
-
@stopthegop
The last part regarding the Amiga OS..is percisely what an operating system should be..HELLO people..from M$ and Apple you just dont get IT...
Which is why in a previous thead I started..which I said I would like to see someone like Nintendo..use the Amiga OS..or even Sony for that matter..
put the Amiga OS on the Wii..or PS4..mmmm..then grow from there..I know Im dreaming..but it could happen..
Peace to everyone
Rich
from
NY
-
@SuperTurbo,
I feel the same way about Workbench..But for me I would rather use OSX over
M$ Windoze anyday. Sure to me OSX feels and looks very heavy..if you get my
meaning. That being said I would and do use OSX over Windoze anyday. Thats just me..though..
I will be interested to see what Leopard has to offer..
But would REALLY REALLY REALLY love to be using Amiga OS4..
-
I've tried windows Vista rc1 on my PC it's okay, but to me it seems like Microsoft copied a bunch of Mac OS 10.4s features, edited them to to look more windows-ish, and somehow made them require much more ram than those same features in 10.4 does on my powerbook g3(fast with 384mb).
Even if you switch vista to the classic look it still takes way too much memory.
The supposed added security, it'd be cheaper and IMHO better to buy win2k(my favorite windows) and download AVG, ZoneAlarm, and AdwareSE/SpyBot.
-
I'm surprised just how many people here have positive things to say about Windows. Try that on any other Amiga forum. :-D
Ive served time with;
GEOS, WB 1.3 & 3.1, Mac OS 7 thru to OSX, Win 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP. Linux: Knoppix, Kubuntu/Ubuntu and DSL and AROS.
Each has its merits and share of frustrations.
I regularly use XP, 2000 and Kubuntu. When something "better" comes along, I'll use that instead.
OS zealotry is absurd.
-
I am using Vista RTM (thank you MSDN) x64 and loving it, every moment of it.. I am a fan of xaml, the quality of this windows seems crash free and the resource monitoring is great.. The point is you can't really see what the value of vista is until you can start seeing what these new applications can do and how they improve the user experience (very like original Amiga applications pre-2.0).
-Don
PS Windoze may suck but Microsoft Windows Vista does not, it's the best thing since the Amiga.. Plus I don't really have to worry that much about viruses and spyware anymore.
Also when you really want to see what vista/.net 3.0 gives you I'd check out the following resources..
The WPFBlog by a Frog Design Employee who also blogs about Flash (http://www.thewpfblog.com/)
DENOUNCE
Podcast Listener and Blog Reader
http://www.thirteen23.com/work/denounce/index.html
Harmony
Visualize your music library in3d.
http://www.thirteen23.com/labs/winfx/harmony/index.html
NOSTALGIA
Yahoo! Flickr Browser and Photo Manager
http://www.thirteen23.com/work/nostalgia/index.html
CINE.VIEW
Netflix Manager with 3d graphics for your desktop
http://www.thirteen23.com/work/cine.view/index.html
You also only have to look at this woodgroove app demo to see how useful this presentation technology is inside of Windows..
http://scorbs.com/2006/06/16/woodgrove-demo/
-
@Colan1200:
You're right. I've used OS-X very little. Just enough to know I don't like it. OS-X had a very "heavy" feel to it just moving around in directories -- at least to me it did. I know the MacPro with X is faster than my Amiga but it doesn't feel faster. In fact it feels slower. The Amiga is lighter and feels a lot more responsive than OS-X did. No comparison, really. Even XP has a snappier feel to it than OS-X.
-
Wintel does very much suck -- don't do it. Trust me.... I spent 10 years with wintel. I finally decided to get my next machine. I waited until Amiwest hoping it would be OS4.0, but alas... we wait more.
I picked up an intel mac. The more I use it the more I think this is where Amiga would have been 5 years ago if it was not for 1994.
Many ex-amiga people have bought macs in the past and I understand why. The Mac has always felt like a close cousin. I even remember many people referred to the Amiga as a colour Mac back in the day.
Trust me when I say a 20inch iMac will make you feel more at home, and will still let you run windows on it. And here is the bonus, you can also run UAE on it too.
-
i think its kind of funny when people talk about bloated os
how do you know it is bloated? do you know how many applications are used and how many libraries support stuff.
when os 3.0 came out and used 6 disks to install did anyone talk about bloat?
the more you got the more you find use for. thats what winxp does. if you have 1gig of ram it loads more stuff into ram. xp will boot with what 64megs bare minimum. do you really want to sit with most of a gig doing nothing and wait for stuff to load when it could be ready to go?
-
@KThunder:
I'd rather have an OS that is nimble and responsive, that loads quickly and doesn't waste time and resources loading libraries that seldom if ever get used. Libraries should be loaded when a funtion within them is required by the system or is called by a user application. Same with preference files and other application resources. Just because the RAM exists to load everything including the kitchen sink doesn't mean we should necessarily do it. How much extra waiting could there be anyway with processors now in the 3-4GHZ+ range? I know the car analogy is kind of a cliche, but consider race cars. F1 cars have oodles of raw horse power AND are extremely lightweight! You don't see F1 teams respond to every gain in power with an urge to add more weight. If they did the way computer companies add "features" you'd have Formula 1 cars that drove like Winnebagos.
-
stopthegop wrote:
Just because the RAM exists to load everything including the kitchen sink doesn't mean we should necessarily do it.
:lol: Vista seems to load it, and even more (link inside). (http://news.softpedia.com/news/CORRECTION-800MB-the-Amount-of-Memory-Vista-Requires-for-the-Idle-Mode-19608.shtml) Ah... whatever... imho it's a waste of time even to think about it.
-
I'd rather have an OS that is nimble and responsive, that loads quickly and doesn't waste time and resources loading libraries that seldom if ever get used. Libraries should be loaded when a funtion within them is required by the system or is called by a user application. Same with preference files and other application resources. Just because the RAM exists to load everything including the kitchen sink doesn't mean we should necessarily do it. How much extra waiting could there be anyway with processors now in the 3-4GHZ+ range? I know the car analogy is kind of a cliche, but consider race cars. F1 cars have oodles of raw horse power AND are extremely lightweight! You don't see F1 teams respond to every gain in power with an urge to add more weight. If they did the way computer companies add "features" you'd have Formula 1 cars that drove like Winnebagos.
F1 cars doesn't have 5 seats, power windows, power sun roof, aircon for 5 people, sat-nav, 6-8 speaker MP3/CD/FM radio, in-car-TFT DVD players, electronic assist brakes/traction control, sound dampening insulation and 'etc'.
I rather have a ~1.5Ton Lexus than a F1 car.
-
KThunder wrote:
xp will boot with what 64megs bare minimum. do you really want to sit with most of a gig doing nothing and wait for stuff to load when it could be ready to go?
It might boot, eventually... But XP on that configuration would be pretty much unusable... 256Mb is a realistic bare minimum for running XP and a few applications, with 512Mb (or preferably 1Gb+) for a comfortable experience...
Win2K, essentially the same platform, is usable with half the RAM amounts above.
- Ali
-
I have been running the beta for a while now. If you have supported hardware it's not bad. I don't like all the added security but with a little effort you can figure out how to turn it off.
I use all the major platforms. I am writing this on a new MacBook Pro that I convinced my company to buy for me. =) All in all, each of the platforms including the Amiga have their pros and cons. Anyone who cannot admit as much is overly biased towards their platform of choice.
Nonetheless if you are used to an Amiga there will be many niceties. If you are used to WinXP or Mac OS X the novelty factor won't be quite as big. But like everything new it has its merits and faults.
Have fun with it. When you get frustrated, and you will, remember there are others out there that have probably solved your problems. Use google.
-
I guess the dream is still to be running OS4 or OS5 on a military spec Multi Ghz PC with Gb+ RAM and to marvel at the speed of it compared to WinSlow on the same hardware. I'll drink to that :pint:
-
Want fast booting and nimble operation; try DSL (damn small linux) and boot "toram". Very quick, and free!
-
I have used Windows Vista RC2 and whilst I wouldn't claim to be overwhelmed by its features, I would say I was relieved.
Everyone knows Microsoft has played the catch up game with Apple. Mac OS X has some great features and has had them for some time.
I'm just glad this release of Windows does have the graphical eye-candy: I'd be annoyed at being stuck without it for another 5 years.
Mac OS X is amazing. In March, I bought a cheap G3 Mac for my sister. She loved the look of the machine and the interface. I loved the fact that she enjoyed using computers (i.e. keeps her up to date with the skill set) and that I don't have to remove spyware/worms etc etc.
But, lets face it, Games support is pants: like linux, but at least you can install Microsoft Office.
A new Mac is far too expensive for me. I'm still a student.
Linux is fantastic for giving old machines a new lease of life - like my Dual Intel Pentium III 733 box; which with an nvidia graphics card allows me to use XGL/Compiz and get all the fancy eyecandy Aqua and Aero offer. Don't think Linux is useless: install Ubuntu and use O'Reilly's Ubuntu Hacks book. You'll achieve lots in a very short period of time including the DVD and multimedia support that a lot of people say is missing.
I keep returning to Windows though. I do need games to distract me from my studies (Applications of Formal Methods and Requirements Engineering do take their toll). I also need Visual Studio 2005.
I think some people that do not like Windows last used Millenium Edition. Windows XP had crap eyecandy but it did have two things that kept me from returning to 2000: considerably better stability: I havent seen a blue screen of death in years; and compatibility mode for applications.
Windows also comes preloaded on cheap yet powerful computers supplied by Dell. (Student - remember?)
I enjoy using all three operating systems. But I can't enjoy Amiga OS 4 because no one has given me the opportunity: I can't see or use either hardware or software.
Alternative operating systems (to Windows that is) need to fit into niche market. Linux is great for older machines (and manipulating text within files). OS X is great for fashion extremists and people with lots of money (lucky lucky bar-stewards).
Not a dig, just a balanced viewpoint.
Sam Holland
Final Year Undergraduate,
BSc Computing Science
-
Samuar wrote:
Mac OS X is amazing. In March, I bought a cheap G3 Mac for my sister. She loved the look of the machine and the interface. I loved the fact that she enjoyed using computers (i.e. keeps her up to date with the skill set) and that I don't have to remove spyware/worms etc etc.
But, lets face it, Games support is pants: like linux, but at least you can install Microsoft Office.
A new Mac is far too expensive for me. I'm still a student.
I agree on the expense side. I'm also a final year computer science major. My next computer is going to be a laptop with a Linux dual-boot to run those Amiga cross-compilers so I can bring some of my work home to the people that need it most.
I keep returning to Windows though. I do need games to distract me from my studies (Applications of Formal Methods and Requirements Engineering do take their toll). I also need Visual Studio 2005.
Visual Studio is expensive but even the freebie versions are powerful. I'm avoiding it like the plague so that I don't get too used to it's features that I can't use a cross-platform solution instead. Try downloading Code::Blocks and MinGW for Windows instead. It's a cross-platform solution that will soon work with Linux and Mac as well.
Also, use SDL and OpenGL to make games with and it will recompile for use on high-end AmigaOS 4 and MorphOS systems as well as Mac and Linux.
I think some people that do not like Windows last used Millenium Edition. Windows XP had crap eyecandy but it did have two things that kept me from returning to 2000: considerably better stability: I havent seen a blue screen of death in years; and compatibility mode for applications.
Windows also comes preloaded on cheap yet powerful computers supplied by Dell. (Student - remember?)
I bought a Dell Dimension L800r back in 2001 and it is still my primary computer for internet usage. I have SUSE Linux dual-boot and a student licence of XP installed. Unfortunately SUSE 10.1 takes more memory than XP does otherwise I'd use Linux more often.
I enjoy using all three operating systems. But I can't enjoy Amiga OS 4 because no one has given me the opportunity: I can't see or use either hardware or software.
I would use AmigaOS 4 more except that the hardware that it runs on gives me fits. My MicroA1-c has a core-voltage problem but it's such an expensive piece of equipment that I'm afraid to try to fix it. As it is, I'm still on update 2 and so on because I'm afraid my system will lock up in the middle of the reFlashing of the Bios...
You're better off waiting for new (tested) hardware.
Alternative operating systems (to Windows that is) need to fit into niche market. Linux is great for older machines (and manipulating text within files). OS X is great for fashion extremists and people with lots of money (lucky lucky bar-stewards).
Amiga's low-overhead per feature selection could make Amiga great on handhelds but nobody seems to want to make a handheld for PowerPC chips. :-(
-
If anyone is thinking about using Vista - check out the networking specs first. You just might be shocked back to reality. Also check out the bloated overhead of Vista.
It figures that when they finally fix XP, and get it working rather well, they want to dump it. I guess that's par for M$.
-
stopthegop wrote:
I believe unix was developed in the early 1960s, wasn't it?
You have an Internet. Please use it. (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html)
Seriously, though, probably half (and now I'm pulling a figure out of my *) of the bloat in Vista comes from Microsoft finally pushing most of the system into 'userland.'
If they're virtualizing or partitioning multiple working sets of various components that weren't exactly small when they were insecure and shared, it's easy to see why hardware requirements skyrocket.
Or in other words, the price you pay to run the whole existing library of Windows apps (how far back does the compatibility still go?) somewhat securely is up there with the price you'd pay to run multiple instances of older, sloppier MS distributions inside VMWare.
There's probably some irony in how much less overall API turnover various competing OSes had, while still managing to break more apps per update.