PureBasic Forums - English

Hi,

Besides that many companies want to skip vista and wait for windows-7, that vista is heavily bloated, only adds very few new things compared to xp, is very expensive and that it took MS five years to come up with vista after xp, here is another view on vista. Windows Vista only adds to the same old evolution since 3.1 - 95 - 98 - me - 2K and XP. An all in one, general purpose os, cripled by being forced to be downwards compatible with it's predecessors. However more and more companies don't want anymore an all in one bloated general purpose os. They are looking for something modular so each company can simply customize the os with modules to the needs of the company. This way the os will stay more small, fast, effective and economic. I think that the Windows evolution is getting more and more out of line with what companies are lookin for today. Compare this to the ever growing different distributions of Linux who are available today for companies to customize it to their needs.

Aye, you also get the fact that you can write once and be very lucky if it runs on more than one Linux distro!

srod wrote:Aye, you also get the fact that you can write once and be very lucky if it runs on more than one Linux distro!

Yes this could be a point. Although I never heared about a Linux program only running on specific distributions it is something for me to check out !

Ah well, I'm not exactly the man to ask or to give advice on this score as I've never been near a Linux machine, let alone used one!

I think the problems are probably no worse than trying to get a piece of software to run on different versions of Windows etc.

Vista = Windows Millenium for XP

Num3 wrote:Vista = Windows Millenium for XP

Exactly my thoughts.

Vista might have it's faults (quite a few actually) but it's no ME. That really was a bad os, I tried it on a few computers and had to reinstall all of them because of catastrophic crashes, never had anything like that with Vista.

Derek wrote:Vista might have it's faults (quite a few actually) but it's no ME. That really was a bad os, I tried it on a few computers and had to reinstall all of them because of catastrophic crashes, never had anything like that with Vista.

I've had the reverse with ME and Vista. No problems with ME, except for frustrations at their removal of "Shutdown to DOS". But I have had numerous crashes and blush screens with Vista.

Didn't say it has problems has Me, i was implying that it is the same exact move Microsoft did before releasing windows 2000...

They got windows 98 code, made some changes, some graphical work and republished it.

Windows 2000 is just Me graphical interface with Windows NT kernel...

Vista is the same, XP with some (major) tweaks.

All the features of Vista are already available for XP has freeware apps, just do a google search for a feature you like...

I think they are using Vista to mass test the upcoming OS, and also finance it's development.

Why make money once when you can sell the same thing twice...

Num3 wrote:Didn't say it has problems has Me, i was implying that it is the same exact move Microsoft did before releasing windows 2000

Yeah, you're probably right there.

Num3 wrote:Vista = Windows Millenium for XP

Remember 98 the 98 SE to fix all of 98's problems?

I call Vista "Windows ME SE"!

Backwards compatibility is a double-edged sword.

If they include it, the new operating system is immediately usable/useful.

But if they don't the new operating system will take some time to become really usable/useful because before people will update to it they will want to see plenty of compatible software for it.

Consider the 64 bit versions of Windows. Those of you running a 64 bit version of Windows, would you be running it if you couldn't run 32 bit software on it? Probably not.

Of course if 64 bit Windows *required* 64 bit software, maybe the software vendors would be more apt to produce 64 bit versions of their products rather than just 32 bit versions.

Kind of like the "what came first? the chicken or the egg?" problem.

Kind of like "the what came first? the chicken or the egg?" problem.

I can't understand that problem. A chicken don't mutate while its alive, so it would have to had been in an egg before it could be a chicken eventually.

No matter if its a mixture of close species or whatever it is, the result of that whatever would be an egg. Because the egg is where the product is. And from the egg comes the chicken. Problem solved

It's a religious vs science question. Or more closely related, Creation vs Evolution. If you believe in Creation then the Chicken came first, if you believe in Evolution, then the Egg came first.

Lets just not talk about things like that any further, whether it intends to or not causes some pretty serious arguments because both sides believe that they are right.

You can put [Solved] at the front of the "Which came first?" thread now!

My ideal OS would have an option for every bell and whistle that even vista desgners could think of but on a default installation NONE of them would be installed so you can have a really light bare bones & lean OS but no limits on what you can install if you want it.

With Vista install today there's too much crap installed by default.

I never tried this http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html but I really like the idea