i don't think those who refuse to upgrade his/her windows os to vista won't be much successful. oh everyone please ignore jeffs. he's a sad linux zealot on bs.
Everyone please read both my posts and noaihmtch's posts. Then decide for yourselves who is the zealot.
The more I read about Vista of late, the more I think it is just the opening that open source projects have been dreaming of.
I'll just to throw in my two cents as a 10 year computing guy who started out as a total Mac zealot then went almost exclusively to Windows 'cause that's where the money was. I still use my OS X machine for all web development and casual at-home work and I'm yet to be convinced by any arguments regarding any flavor of Windows being more 'user friendly,' although XP is a vast improvment. Well if you are IT Manager/MIS/CIO for any reasonably large company the support and configuration time costs make 2K/XP a no-brainer over 9x. There just isn't any comparison between what it takes to make minor or major configuration changes or to troubleshoot to a 9x box and a XP box. Don't even talk about security. Then there is Server 2003 vs. all older versions which really does stand heads and shoulders above its prececessors. The Question of Innovation If one considers taking existing ideas and modifying them so that they work seamlessly (and almost always exclusively) with your products and then leveraging a huge existing market share to ensure adoption as a defacto standard and then two or three revisions later making the product really, really good innovation then yeah, Microsoft is the world leader. Otherwise, you have to admit that they do whatever I've just described really, really well. Vista I'm not a developer so I haven't got to play with it yet. But some guys up at the head office are and have. Verdict: cool eye candy, DRM Police State Ready(tm), a bit more secure and easy to configure than XP but really nothing revolutionary there. The problem for MS is that they have really pushed their core technologies to their logical conclusions. XP is about as good an OS as MS can make based on the DLL/Registry system they have. It is as secure as it is going to get. Driver management and system recovery is a snap. Usability as pretty damn good. A lot of people were quite interested in the new WinFS, but that's gone by the boards now and were looking at 2007 before we even get to beta it. Then there is the corporate line and Active Directory which suffers from most of the same problems. It is very feature rich, stable and mature now. So the big question for MS is: What can you deliver in features in an upgrade that will justify the cost of migration? Then there is the DRM thing. What someone was talking about re DRM monitors is this: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx Anyone remember the fuss about Microsoft Licensing 2.0 and how Redmond had to back down in the face of massive (corporate) customer rebellion at the proposed "software lease" scheme? Well, stand back and watch the fireworks as the user base votes with its feet at strict DRM. MS is under a lot of market pressure right now because of what I outlined above regarding product maturity and pressure from Linux/Unix. If MS chooses to line up on the side of the content producers (beacuse, that's what they are becoming) instead of on the side of their software customers then they will have made a colossal error.
lol, lots of funny comments here. As this isn't a technical forum there's a broad range of computer knowledge. Vista will be the best Windows OS to date, anyone who debates that really doesn't have much of a grasp of technology. Windows/Mac OS/Linux. None are better than eachother, just different and people have different needs. For me, a Mac (Powerbook laptop) is a great machine for home use. Its easy to use, doesn't need much looking after and has a certain style that appeals to me. At work I use an XP PC as it runs all the software I need to do my job. For my customers I implement thin-client computing. A Wyse terminal connecting to a Citrix server. There are benefits to all these solutions and all the others mentioned in this thread. Just use whatever suits you best.
That's the smartest thing that's been written in this entire thread. * * well, except for what I posted.
Seeing as how you apparently have a tremendous grasp of technology, what, exactly, will make Vista the best Windows OS to date? Also, what, exactly, will distinguish it from it's competitors, or what features will it have that other OS's don't or won't? Here, I'll give you a head start: 1. WinFS - a journalized filesystem that is supposed to increase speed and security. But unfortunately, it won't be ready in time. Oh yeah, both OSX and Linux already have that. 2. Embedded DRM. Well, that's a benefit to Microsoft and to the music/movie industry, but no benefit to end users. 3. Embedded .Net framework. Nope, they dropped that. It will be an add-on, just like it is for current Windows OS's. 4. Driver protection plan. This means that only MS certified drivers can run on it. Could be good for ensuring that drivers run correctly, but could also lock out a lot of vendors, and cause greater lock-in to Windows (which is what MS wants - it's their entire business plan). 5. Monad - the powerful command line scripting tool. Well, that was shelved. This feature might not mean anything to end users, but having a powerful command line scripting environment, like is featured in all Unix-like OSes, is a godsend to system administrators. 6. IPv6 (the new Internet protocol/standard, since the old scheme is running out of IP addresses) - already implemented in OSX and Linux 7. Faster? - current minimum specs are 2GHz cpu and 512 megs of memory. 8. New themes and transparency in window borders (seen the screenshots). Well, that's nice and spiffy. But is it worth an upgrade? 9. New 3D Avalon rendering engine. 3D windows - that's pretty cool. However, it does not add any useful functionality, and will require a very powerful machine, with a top of the line, expensive video card, to run. 10. Desktop search. That's pretty cool. But nothing you can't already get from Google's desktop search. 11. Improved security? Well, has MS ever delivered on that promise? Not really. Sure, if you are diligent, you can be relatively trouble free. But you always have to be diligent. This is true of all OS's, but not as much with others. I like you're neutral stand point. But to say that anyone who knows technology should see that Vista will be their best OS, is a statement that should be backed up with something.
nobody is asking you what mac or linux has who cares? there’s always a crack around. then embed it as you need yes, it’s not good to lock-in the os… if it’s mac or linux because that’s just a suicidal attempt. this only shows microsoft’s confidence and their intention of securing and stabilizing the greatest os in the world even better. windows world equals pure world. in a meantime, sad linux and mac can eat whatever they like and create whole bunch of mess. they have to accept everything because otherwise nobody pays attention to them. “open” is a well put word to disguise what’s behind linux: congregation of whole bunch of poor. windows and mac/linux are to a family of good lineage and whole bunch of mongrels yes it might not mean anything to end users, more than 95% of users in the world windows xp, the best os in the world, already has it and the world still doesn’t give much about it yet. oh you already use it? congratulation. so what? nobody uses it. you even had to explain what ipv6 yourself… it’s today’s standard and will be nothing when vista, the future best os in the world, comes out. when was the last time you lived in the 21st century? yes it’s always good to have a powerful machine. i think so. don't you think so? then google it on windows. not much with others because only a few selected sad people use those i don’t appreciate your anti-microsoft stand point at all.
My stand-point is not anti-MS per se, it's pro good value, pro good technology, and pro good, honest business practices. On rare occasions, MS offers those things - their development tools are very good and SQL Server is solid and easy to use. But they usually fall short with their products. It's plainly obvious that you'll never listen to facts or reason.
I checked out the link. It's pretty much a Windows promotional site. Nice maketing. After having parused the site for a bit, and also know about the new features (as well as the ones that have been shelved for now), it appears to me that Windows Vista is essentially newly spiffed up Windows XP, with some new eye candy, and requiring more computer resources.
No, but if MS zealots like you say Vista is all that and a bag of chips, and other OS's suck, then it's up to sensible, intelligent people to call you on it. You don't like the facts? You don't like your pro-MS wet dream bubble being popped? Too bad. So you're advocating stealing IP from Microsoft or it's business partners? This could have been a good feature of Vista, because it would have made .Net code more efficient, and easier to deploy. But no dice yet. Can you ever talk about facts rather than negative stereotypes? Oh yes, if you can't back up your standpoint, attack those with differing opinions as being "mongrels". Also, it appears you are against competition. Idiot. MS makes a lot of money from selling to the enterprise, and rest assured, it's very important to them. That's why they started developing Monad, because they know how important a command line scripting tool is to system administrators. This sort of tool allows for a great deal of automation of mundane tasks, as well as it's very powerful for combining the functionality of different programs and services in an automated way. MS knows it's missing the boat here. You obviously don't care, because you're ignorant. But IT professionals care a lot, and so does MS. Ipv6 is very important in the near future. The old IP is running out of IP addresses, thus IPv6 is necessary. I could ask the same of you, since you've obviously never tried anything other than MS products. Only if I get increased functionality and/or performance. Otherwise, it's a waste of money to buy the most powerful machine and video card only for the purpose of running some superfluous eye candy that sucks up resources and slows the machine down. But if you like having MS and their hardware vendor b!tches Hoover your wallet, by all means, knock yourself out. Don't need to and don't want to. Google works just fine with other OS's, thank you very much. There are lot's of people who use OSX, Linux, or other Unix variants. Linux/Unix, in fact, is huge business, with support from many of the largests computing companies in the world, including IBM, Intel, Oracle, SAP, HP, Sony, Fujitsu, and Dell (and many others). It's also the backbone of the largest eCommerce / Internet sites in the world, including Yahoo, Google, eBay, and Amazon. OSX is more of a niche market, but it is substantial. See previous post.
The reason I said we've come full circle is that this entire thread started with links to that site. If you don't want to use Windows Vista, fine. No one is forcing you to do it. Personally, I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to the official releases of Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server 2005 as well. I've really liked what I've seen in the betas of both of those products. YMMV.
I have nothing against you using Windows Vista. Go for it. I don't mean to rain on your parade at all. Maybe I'm upnoxious about it, but I like to chime in about Windows alternatives when people are propping up Windows. It's always good to have choices, and it's always good for people to be aware that there are viable, even superior, alternatives. I've been mouthing off about how Vista is no big deal, doesn't really offer any new innovation, and doesn't really offer much benefit to the customer. But perhaps there really is something about it that benefits, pleases, or intrigues you. So would you mind describing and/or listing what in particular you are looking forward to in Windows Vista? Also, could you do the same with VS 2005 and SQL Server 2005? I use both VS and SQL Server at my job, so I'll be very interested in what you have to say about them.
I honstly haven't dug into Vista yet. I have downloaded the Beta from my MSDN subscription, but I haven't had time to install it. As for Visual Studio 2005, I'm probably most excited about the use of generic classes, which are pretty similar to standard templates in C++. Here's a pretty good explanation. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/512aeb7t(en-us,vs.80).aspx Here's a list of all the new stuff in C# 2.0 For SQL Server 2005, the thing I'm looking forward to the most is structured exception handling. No more @@ERROR (though it still does exist). Instead you can write stored procs and functions in a way that's similar to the way you'd do it in C#, C++ or VB.NET using TRY CATCH keywords. SQL Server 2005 is also completely integrated with the .NET CLR, so you can write stored procs, functions, triggers, views, whatever, in C#, VB.NET, J#, Delphi .NET, or any .NET language. Mirroring is also supposed to have been vastly improved, but I haven't had a chance to play with that yet. Supposedly integration with heterogeneous databases is supposed to be much easier, which is great as far as I'm concerned. I have to massage a lot of Oracle data into SQL Server 2k right now, and it can be a PITA, especially if there are any problems with the Oracle data (for instance, bad data in date fields).
Generics/Templates in C# is a good thing. Java 1.5 just implemented it, and C++ has had it all along. Generics/Templates can really make a programmers life easier, and ultimately make the software more robust. The exeption handling in SQL Server sounds good as well. I've always found programming stored procs with Transact SQL (or Oracles PL SQL) to be a PITA - kinda cumbersome and not elegant.
Not to quibble too much, but C++ didn't have templates until about '90 or so. Well, actually not an ANSI standard version of templates anyway. One of the things I hate most about writing SQL code (and I mean SQL in general, not SQL Server) is that I've been writing OOP for about a dozen years. I have a hard time thinking of a solution to a software problem without doing so in terms of classes and objects. When I have to start writing SQL code, I have to go back to the way I wrote code when I was a C or Pascal programmer. That can be hard to do sometimes. So I am really happy to see databases become more object oriented. I ahve worked with OODBMS systems (Object Store was one, and I can't think of the name of the other) but they were slooooooooow. And they were buggy. SQL Server 2005 and Oracle 10g are both very good for guys who think of solutions in terms of UML/objects/classes/use cases/etc.
Yeah, I realized that after I sent the post. Actually, the STL (the utlimate utilization of templates) did not become a part of C++ until the '98 ANSI standard. OOP is great for some situations, but can be a hinderence in the wrong situation. The thing with OOP is that it couples data with methods that operate on that data. However, with relational database systems, coupling of data with methods can be tricky. That's probably why it's been a long time coming in terms of providing some OOP concepts to SQL programming. I like languages that allow both procedural and OOP, like C++, or languages that are mostly just procedural, like C, but can be extended to OOP with the right libraries (GObject in the GTK+ GUI toolkit is an excellent example). I don't like languages that force OOP down your throat, like Java (everything is a class/object in Java), because OOP is not always the best solution for every programming situation. Anyway, boring techie talk on a thread about WinVista. Apologies to everyone else for whom all of this is going over their head.