Save WinXP

[HazardTW]

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

Worth a shot if you love XP!

[scru]

No. I secretly want Vista to take over and everyone to see Windows for what i really is.

(Could I be more ambiguous about this?)

[HazardTW]

LOL
Perhaps you might like this video:

http://gizmodo.com/342920/holy-crap-did-bill-gates-just-say-windows-sucks

[jbennet]

XP has been out too long already

Nt4 was supported 1996 to 2004 (they extended it)

Xp will be 2001 - 2012ish for Pro SP2

making XP SP2 the lomgest surving windows OS

[scru]

wont it be SP3 Jbennet? Are you actually getting rusty?

[Ene Uran]

The way I feel about Vista is "Let's Kill the Beast!" and get something better soon from Mr. Bill.

[jbennet]

NT7 is due very soon - 2009-2012 is the timeframe - vista will have a short release cycle

[scru]

ah yes, but considering Vista was set to release sometime in 2005 if my memory serves me right. I highly doubt Microsoft can pull of a major OS release in 2009. That's two years. I mean yeah, they'll be using the new Vista codebase and everything, but they got new features to implement and annoyances to ditch. I think we should factor their "talent" for missing a mark into the equation here.

[Ene Uran]

It's really too bad that Microsft does not have any major (or for that matter even minor) competition. You would think that there are enough smart folks out there that could dream something up that is better for the average consumer.

With 'better' I mean friendlier, less annoying, leaner, with intelligent security build in. I don't even ask for cheaper.

[scru]

I hear OS X is good, but heck, what do I know? I've never used it. Plus it can't really quite just conclusively be installed on a PC...

[Ene Uran]

Most of my artsy friends use OS X, and like it, but then they are different all-together.

[jbennet]

ah yes, but considering Vista was set to release sometime in 2005 if my memory serves me right. I highly doubt Microsoft can pull of a major OS release in 2009. That's two years. I mean yeah, they'll be using the new Vista codebase and everything, but they got new features to implement and annoyances to ditch. I think we should factor their "talent" for missing a mark into the equation here.

ms have said that future windows releases will be like in the 9x days. with a new OS every 2-3 years

NT7 will probably be based on server 2008

[scru]

ms have said that future windows releases will be like in the 9x days. with a new OS every 2-3 years

Dude that's not...good...

[Infarction]

wont it be SP3 Jbennet? Are you actually getting rusty?

Correct, SP3 will be out fairly soon.

It's really too bad that Microsft does not have any major (or for that matter even minor) competition. You would think that there are enough smart folks out there that could dream something up that is better for the average consumer.

Minor competition: Mac OS, Linux, Unix.

With 'better' I mean friendlier, less annoying, leaner, with intelligent security build in. I don't even ask for cheaper.

Unfortunately, the main roadblock to that is money. Building an OS isn't cheap in the slightest, and making it secure is increasingly difficult. Friendlier/less annoying would be nice. Future versions of Windows will be based on MinWin, which will be a much leaner kernel (about 25MB, whereas a skimpy Server 2008 install is about 1.5GB; on the other hand, MinWin doesn't even have a window manager, it's just the kernel). I wonder how well it will play with existing Windows APIs though...

I hear OS X is good, but heck, what do I know? I've never used it. Plus it can't really quite just conclusively be installed on a PC...

Never used it, plus I don't like Apple's products in general. Over-(priced|hyped) for what they really are. Besides, their security record for their most recent release (Leopard) is hardly encouraging.

ms have said that future windows releases will be like in the 9x days. with a new OS every 2-3 years

NT7 will probably be based on server 2008

Windows 7 will be based on MinWin, as I mentioned, but otherwise yes, a 2-3 year turnaround is intended. Vista kinda messed everyone up.

Dude that's not...good...

Why not? Many products have a 1 year turn-around, and if you go to a 2-3 year span, you'll probably encompass most software. It's not like the OS will run on top of DOS again, it'll just be a faster release cycle.

[kv79]

Haha,
I think that the really point of this is to get someone pocket full of money. Or the Bill Gates is going to be a nice and honored man. :D and let all the other company to earn some money .

[jbennet]

minwin is not a total rewrite - its a modular NT kernel. (hence the increment of 1 major version)

They are splitting up the components of it so e.g the graphical server isnt a part of the main kernel to prevent a GUI crash taking out the system

and sp3 doesnt bring anything new apart from NAP which will not make any difference to 99% of users. Some have reported a small performance boost of under 10%.

SP3 is more of a rollup than a feature release

[Infarction]

minwin is not a total rewrite - its a modular NT kernel. (hence the increment of 1 major version)

They are splitting up the components of it so e.g the graphical server isnt a part of the main kernel to prevent a GUI crash taking out the system

Yeah, they are finally doing it proper IMHO. It is a fairly drastic change from the traditional monolithic OS that Windows has been for so long though. I have high hopes for newer releases.

and sp3 doesnt bring anything new apart from NAP which will not make any difference to 99% of users. Some have reported a small performance boost of under 10%.

SP3 is more of a rollup than a feature release

SPs are not supposed to be feature releases, they are intended to be rollups of existing hotfixes and new patches, as you've well described. XP had major security defects and SP 2 ended up including several architectural changes; however, such an event is a rarity. Amazing how after one outlier, a new standard has been set...

[scru]

Who said anything about feature releases anyway?

Infarction, a new Windows every 2-3 years means that we have to upgrade that often just to keep up. And from what Vista brought to the table, the hardware have to go through the same too.

From my point of view, it's just one big expensive cycle that goes something like this:

New Windows come out, spend six months upgrading hardware to meet requirements

Upgrade to new OS, spend a year (or more? some people still haven't stopped) fussing about change.

Spend additional six months working out the kinks and getting used to new system.

Oops, new Windows is out again. Spend six months upgrading hardware.

[Salem]

How many attempts does it take to write an OS - 10, 20 maybe?

> They are splitting up the components of it so e.g the graphical server isnt a part of the
> main kernel to prevent a GUI crash taking out the system
So something everyone else was doing 20 years ago is finally realised by MS as a good thing.

With a decent modular kernel, we wouldn't need a new OS every time there's a new version of say DirectX to be pushed out for the masses.

W2K was the peak IMO. Indeed, my XP has all the kiddie UI elements turned off. Which lets face it, once you're past the "oohhh aaaahhh" phase (a couple of minutes usually) add nothing and waste time. I don't need to see my menus animate for half a second every time. Sure XP adds a little stability, and it handles USB better for example, but that didn't need a whole new OS just to manage that.

Same old jar, different candy sums up Microsoft offerings.

I mean, if they actually ever finished a product they would go out of business. They have to churn the products to keep the revenue streams alive.

"Hasta la Vista, Baby"

[invisal]

Have anyone still remember the "Save VB6" thing? I found it is very similar to this case.

[scru]

"Hasta la Vista, Baby"

You DO realise that with this line, you negate the rest of your post right? It's like you were saying it was all bad in that way...that is until Vista came.

Annnyway...

[jbennet]

i find Server 2003 (tweaked so audio, accelerated graphics etc.... work) to be far superior to XP in stability and speed

[Infarction]

Who said anything about feature releases anyway?

Jbennet did as I quoted when I mentioned them. I'll do it again for you:

and sp3 doesnt bring anything new apart from NAP which will not make any difference to 99% of users. Some have reported a small performance boost of under 10%.

SP3 is more of a rollup than a feature release

Infarction, a new Windows every 2-3 years means that we have to upgrade that often just to keep up. And from what Vista brought to the table, the hardware have to go through the same too.

From my point of view, it's just one big expensive cycle that goes something like this:

New Windows come out, spend six months upgrading hardware to meet requirements

Upgrade to new OS, spend a year (or more? some people still haven't stopped) fussing about change.

Spend additional six months working out the kinks and getting used to new system.

Oops, new Windows is out again. Spend six months upgrading hardware.

This is probably an argument we can't agree on, but I'm going to respond anyways.

Vista is somewhat peculiar for a Windows release in both the time it took to release and the sudden leap in min requirements. And while I agree that the leap was pretty extreme, IMHO a large part of it was allowable. But lets look at previous Windows releases for a second:
* Win95 came out in 1995 (duh) and ran on a 386 with 4MB of RAM. The computer I had back then was a 133MHz (I forget the RAM though)
* Win98 came out in '98 and ran on a 486 with 16MB of RAM. My computer around then was a 350MHz with 32MB of RAM.
* WinME sucked
* Win2K ran on a 133MHz with 64MB of RAM. I still had the 350.
* WinXP (2001) ran on a 233MHz with 64MB of RAM. By then I was building a 1.2GHz with 128MB of RAM (those were the days...)
Win XP lasted well through my 3.2GHz with 1GB of RAM and Athlon 2500+ with 1GB RAM.
* Windows Vista (2007) required 800MHz and 512MB RAM and DX9. A sizeable jump, and this was the min. Premium requirements are 1GHz and 1GB of RAM, and DX9. Slightly more. However, my point is that technically, a computer from several years earlier would only require a RAM upgrade to run it. When I got my copy, I build a relatively cheap system (~$500) featuring a dual-core, 2GB of RAM, and DX10. Runs great. The system requirements certainly were a jump (and 2GB really should be the min for Premium) but it's not that hard to get a Vista-capable system. And if that's not an option, there are plenty of PCs that already have XP on them, plus XP isn't being cut for support yet. You can still have a supported Windows OS for your 233MHz computer from the mid-90s.

> They are splitting up the components of it so e.g the graphical server isnt a part of the
> main kernel to prevent a GUI crash taking out the system
So something everyone else was doing 20 years ago is finally realised by MS as a good thing.

With a decent modular kernel, we wouldn't need a new OS every time there's a new version of say DirectX to be pushed out for the masses.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how modular it'll be. This opens lots of options for user customizations too. Also probably creates a few new security issues, but that should be good in the long run.

I mean, if they actually ever finished a product they would go out of business. They have to churn the products to keep the revenue streams alive.

Yeah, and what software company doesn't have a model like that?

[jbennet]

If you consider XP SP2 to be an OS in itself (2556mb ram, 650mhz) then the idea of doubling in requirements each release still holds

[HazardTW]

Do you buy an OS to use the OS, or do you buy an OS to provide the means with which to run the software you use on the hardware you have?

That is where I think MS has gone wrong, OS as an experience, OS being the target application for all our software needs, no thanks, just give me the means run the software I choose to use.

Sure there is a place for bloated MS OS's, but if they would put out a bare-bones performance OS for people who have a little technical know-how, and price it accordingly, I would have my order in.

Maybe that could be a good business model, put out a solid OS core and sell all the bloat-ware as individual add-ons, then keep upgrading those add-ons year after year($$$), like a slick 3D interface, etc.

I don't want a slick 3D interface, or sound, on my XP installs I have ALL themes turned off, all of windows sounds OFF, etc.

Give me a $50 OS that does just that, operates my system, let me choose, and pay for individually, all the extras like calculator, windows games(never even opened that folder yet), address book, messenger, etc.

Nothing annoys more than having to disable that damn messenger that I have never used and never will, didn't ask for it, don't want it.

I hate doing an update and having it reinstall IE7 and make it the default browser AGAIN!

Why is the print spooler loaded and running when no printer installed?

Why is wireless networking service loaded and running when no wireless network card is present?

There are many types of users out there, MS has put out 4(?) versions of Vista, could you consider any one of them to be for the 'power user'?

What would be wrong with MS putting out an OS at a reasonable price that would be attractive to Linux users.

I run Linux on 3 boxes, if MS had a comparable stripped down OS that required me to mount my drives, mount my hardware, find my own hardware drivers, etc. but in the end would run the expensive software that I use daily that runs only on Windows, I would have my credit card in one hand and my mouse in the other, clicking the download link right now.

As far as DRM, I read an article(wish I could find it now) that talked about MS and it's push for DRM.

The article suggested that MS really doesn't give a hoot if you watch a ripped movie on your PC, it is laying the ground work for controlling content, laying the foundation to become THE content provider for the future.

This makes sense to me, MS pioneers DRM to save the entertainment industry, the entertainment industry applies DRM technology to all of it's content.

How does the entertainment industry then get that content to the paying consumer?
Through MS of course.

How does the consumer get the content they want?
Through MS of course.

In the future if you are a content creator, or content user, you will be forced to use MS technology in the form of DRM.

[jbennet]

B

which is why xp suits me fine - runs everything i need best

[ZZucker]

No other than the famous Stephen Hawking said:
"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change."

That includes the change from XP to Vista. I think Vista looks so cool! It works for many things fairly well.

[sneekula]

No other than the famous Stephen Hawking also said:
"It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value!"

Sorry, I would not use intelligence as the reason to switch to Vista.

Sounds like Vista is a girl's OS.

[jbennet]

vista IS more secure though and its install and hardware detection are better.

Vista is fine if you use the win2k style interface

[HazardTW]

A very good friend of mine just purchased an Alienware gaming PC with Vista which has been tweaked and tuned by pros and he says it has been flawless so far.

I am surprised and happy for him.