0

I dont see any end to these new versions of OS. :evil:

I think MS should concentrate on making same OS more & more stable and robust than releasing entirely new & more resource demanding OS everytime. What you guys think?

7
Contributors
9
Replies
10
Views
12 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by sanjaykattimani
0

I think they're becoming more and more resource demanding because they're being made more and more stable, robust and secure.

I also think that even the OS versions currently in development are nowhere near good enough yet!

You won't see the day that a newer OS starts to 'shrink' in any meaningful way until the day arrives when all our computers are really only terminals, accessing powerful central computers to operate. When and if that day arrives, will be the day when we lose the power to control our own systems completely, and become dependent on (and subservient to) a central controlling entity.

Bring on the newer and bigger OS's and the bigger and better PCs, because I for one don't want to ever see that day arrive, really.

0

I agree with sanjaykattimani.
I don't think being stable is necessarily resource demanding.

I think that the reason why MS WIN is more and more resource demanding is because WIN is providing more and more service. But many of the services, like MSN Messenger, ICF, are not used by many of the users.

Many OS(s) are more and more resource demanding. This actually cannot make those platform to be more stable. But only bring the systems' speed down and in other words, "unstable".

I have some opinion on MS. I think it is trying to provide as many service or software as possible. Like MSN Messenger has become a part of Windows, and run everytime when you use Outlook Express, ICF, I think MS is trying to narrow to space for other software developer, in order to eliminate rivals.

Above are just my thoughts. I would like to hear your opinion.~

0

Good news Sanjay...MS is focusing their attention on current versions of OS: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5300317.html

I think the OS are becoming more resource demanding because newer hardware can handle it. I think it's worth noting that Windows XP will still run on a 233Mhz with 128MB RAM and a 2Gig hard drive...that is not particularly demanding in my opinion. I run linux on some systems and with an X session going I really don't see a huge difference in performance between MS and open source stuff. Maybe that's just me.

MS thrives on lazy people who don't want to learn about computing and they continue to facilitate computer usage by people who would otherwise be unable to do so, which I think is a credit to them. Ok so they screwed up by not including the open community in their security testing but I think they've learned a lesson and Service Pack 2 is a response to the security problems that have plagued the Windows platform for the last couple years and I commend them for atleast trying to do something about it. I read that MS pulled most of the developers who were supposed to be working on the new version of Windows to work on Service Pack 2 in order to address the problems of so-called "stability" or whatever. They had to enable a firewall by default and boost the default security on Internet Explorer. The firewall thing needed to happen, people don't patch their computers and without the firewall they're screwed; which would be fine except that it screws us all. If some bozo doesn't run a patch and then gets a virus that runs a Denial of Service against Windows Update then the people who need to get to the update site to patch their systems can't and the whole internet takes a big crap; more people will get infected less legitimate traffic can pass through the bottlenecks in data traffic caused by the viruses...everyone blames MS. As far as the security in Internet Explorer that gets enabled by Service Pack 2...my bet is this is CYA. MS has probably gotten millions of complaints about their operating system being "unstable" because of people getting spyware and 3rd party applications for IE installed on their systems. After SP2 they'll be able to say "Did you alter the security settings?" and if you did then it's your own fault...which it has been all along but they've got to CYA since, even though it's not their fault, they will be blamed.

0

Also, it depends upon just what you believe a computer IS.

I don't see the inclusion of more and more functions into the OS as a negative - I see that factor as a positive. I shouldn't really need to juggle software programs on my system to perform the everyday tasks which are fast becoming a routine part of using a PC. Back in the day when Windows 3.1 became the first really usable consumer OS for PCs, the inclusion of Paint, Write, Calculator and the varios other little inclusions made sense and no-one complained about their inclusion. Expectations of PCs weren't as high then, and no-one saw reason to complain.

Expectations are higher nowadays, and the inclusion of what consumers can rightfully consider to be 'necessary functions' demands higher system overheads and more 'bloat' in the OS itself. And it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Is it wrong for me to expect that when I plug my digital camera into my PC, the thing asks me if I want to copy them to my system? Is it wrong that the PC can allow me to view those pictures as a 'slideshow'? Hell no! why I plugged the bloody camera into the thing in the first place!

Is it wrong that when I pop a music CD into the drive, a player will start up and play the blasted thing for me? Hell no! That's why I put the CD in the drive! Is it wrong that when I type a url into the address bar a browser will display a website for me? Hell no! Why'd I type it in if I didn't want that to happen?

I shouldn't need to fiddle with software packages for those tasks which are now rightfully considered to be 'basic' ones. After all, I wouldn't purchase an automobile expecting that I'd bneed to purchase and install extra 'bits' to do such mundane tasks as carry a passenger or store my shopping somewhere for the trip home from the supermarket.

Does that infringe the 'rights' of third party software developers? Well bugger it if it does! I expect if someone is enticing me to buy a replacement product to perform an everyday task, they should be showing me something which is so far better than the 'stock standard' routine that I'll be convinced to spend the extra money! I don't consider they should be getting me to purchase their product by arguing that the computer can't be functional in the first place. Go for it, Microsoft. Keep on doing what you're doing. Who knows? One day soon we might end up with a PC that really DOES things for us.

0

In my opinion, I think more and more software packaged in OS would not make a system become more "stabilized".

Also I'm not trying to compare OS nowadays with old OS. What I mean is, more and more packaged software, of course can enhance security level and make life easier. But I do not think this can make one's system stabler.

Actually I am not against on the way which OS developers are going. As myself, loves computer and believe computer can make our lives more convenient. But actually, OS are more and more resource demanding, I am not trying to say it is only the problem on MS, I can see the trend is the resource demanded by OS is going up very rapidly. I think, if you want to make the system stabler, you should try to reduce the demand for resource, as a shortage of resource would pull down the stability, system would halt very often and run down very slow.

This may be is the problem of those who always install many spyware, adware, etc. But I would say. The probelm is going worse, as many OS includes bundles of software or services, which take up a very huge part of resources of the system.

Of course, in order to deal with the problem, make more resources availible is the solution. But in my opinion, this will never come to an end, and also computer hardwares are still high in price, and they fade out very soon. I think the best way to achieve a stabler system is try to reduce the demand for resource, but not building up more resource to chase the demand of resource.

0

Also, it depends upon just what you believe a computer IS.

I don't see the inclusion of more and more functions into the OS as a negative - I see that factor as a positive. I shouldn't really need to juggle software programs on my system to perform the everyday tasks which are fast becoming a routine part of using a PC. Back in the day when Windows 3.1 became the first really usable consumer OS for PCs, the inclusion of Paint, Write, Calculator and the varios other little inclusions made sense and no-one complained about their inclusion. Expectations of PCs weren't as high then, and no-one saw reason to complain.

Expectations are higher nowadays, and the inclusion of what consumers can rightfully consider to be 'necessary functions' demands higher system overheads and more 'bloat' in the OS itself. And it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Is it wrong for me to expect that when I plug my digital camera into my PC, the thing asks me if I want to copy them to my system? Is it wrong that the PC can allow me to view those pictures as a 'slideshow'? Hell no! why I plugged the bloody camera into the thing in the first place!

Is it wrong that when I pop a music CD into the drive, a player will start up and play the blasted thing for me? Hell no! That's why I put the CD in the drive! Is it wrong that when I type a url into the address bar a browser will display a website for me? Hell no! Why'd I type it in if I didn't want that to happen?

I shouldn't need to fiddle with software packages for those tasks which are now rightfully considered to be 'basic' ones. After all, I wouldn't purchase an automobile expecting that I'd bneed to purchase and install extra 'bits' to do such mundane tasks as carry a passenger or store my shopping somewhere for the trip home from the supermarket.

Does that infringe the 'rights' of third party software developers? Well bugger it if it does! I expect if someone is enticing me to buy a replacement product to perform an everyday task, they should be showing me something which is so far better than the 'stock standard' routine that I'll be convinced to spend the extra money! I don't consider they should be getting me to purchase their product by arguing that the computer can't be functional in the first place. Go for it, Microsoft. Keep on doing what you're doing. Who knows? One day soon we might end up with a PC that really DOES things for us.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't like the way Microsoft did things at the core.

All of these features are possible, but the problem with Microsoft is that they don't modularize many features-- They're integrated in to Explorer, the Media Player, or IE. That's bloat, IMO, but even that's not so bad. The problem I think comes from when Microsoft decided to let every last one of those programs get full access to the registry, so with the right exploit, you can mess up an entire system.

I like the new features coming out, like the slide show, But I shudder to think about how now you can get exploited by simply opening a JPEG.

0

Hi,

I am glad to be a Mac / Linux guy! I believe along the lines with Alex that Microsoft has really caused problems by having the parts of the OS bloated with other functions, such as web browsing and print management. I think that a system who requires everyone with local administrator-level access is useless -- my Mac and Linux systems can have user-level processes running that do not require all the keys to the castle, and the programs work!

Until the day comes that your Windows machine (XP / 2000) can function without everyone on the box being a local administrator, you are going to be at risk. Yes, Microsoft has security structures, but if you cannot run AutoCAD without being a local administrator, those safety nets will be bypassed. No ifs ands or buts.

Until the Registry is protected, you are at risk. that is going to require a paradigm shift in Windows and Microsoft programming. Why? Because everyone assumes you are a local administrator. Why even bother with user level accounts at the local workstation level??

Back to the Orchard and Penguins,

Christian

0

Of course what Microsoft (and all other companies) is most interested in is profit. As long as they can make more money by releasing new somewhat incompatible versions of operating systems every couple of years rather than spending enough time on one to fix it properly they will continue to release new OSs. They will provide more security and stability where that will get them more sales. They wont produce a compact, efficient, stable operating system because that would take too long to produce and would lose them their place in the market (as happened to Netscape in the browser market).

Most computer users want something that works. They don't really care about security until their system is stuffed up due to its lack. They don't really care about stability as long as it doesn't crash too often. What they mostly care about is that it does what they want it to do and is compatible with what their friends are using.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.