Windows Vista is coming out in a couple months. It appears to be really nice, has anyone got it? I would like to see some screenshots for the beta.
A computer at my school has it. I didn't get to play around with it, but so far I'm not impressed. It's basically Win XP with a prettier interface, some built in DRM, and IE7, which firefox is still better than.
That's true, there's actually very little fundamental difference between Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista. 2000 is NT5, XP is NT5.1, and Vista is merely NT 5.2...
I hate to rant, but until Windows has UNIX-like modular filesystem security policies and an isolated root (admin) account, it will never be a very secure operating system. If you remember, IE6 was touted to have "awesome new security features!!!" over IE5 too, and we all know how wonderful IE6's security is, don't we? Most of the new features were either worthless (security zones) or far behind the curve (support for greater than 56-bit encryption). IE6 still doesn't support greater than 128-bit encryption by the way, which is insane. Anyway my point is that you should consider the source. Microsoft says Vista is more secure, but that's what they said about Windows XP, Windows 2000... As for games, most Linux distros come with around 100 full-version games out-of-the-box. So not to sound too cynical, but if MS includes a new version of pinball, solitaire or minesweeper I'll be hard pressed to find it impressive for that reason.
It may not be the best, but, its arguably one of the most successful, if not the most successful in computing history. At least in my current state, I'll continue to use Windows, simply because for my needs, it works well, and I've not had any real motivation to change. The best way to fix Windows is to develop an OS based around security, not trying to add it in. It's like taking a Yugo, and trying to get it to go faster by trying to install a V8 Hemi in it. It can be done with some creative engineering, but we all know, a Yugo was not designed to have a V8 Hemi in it. That's what MS is doing with security for Windows. They need to make an OS from the ground up, which they were supposed to have done with Vista. That probably won't happen until at least the next Windows version after Vista.
Exactly. UNIX is the framework that many if not most OS'es are built on these days. It's just a design that makes sense, designed from the ground up by computer scientists around 40 years ago. Although many unices are executed somewhat differently than others (e.g. OS X), they all share fundamental concepts. Windows is the notable exception, though they're sneaking in more UNIX features all the time. How Windows zealots who talk smack about UNIX all the time will cope with this is beyond me. But, as Henry Spencer said, "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." Will Microsoft be able to overcome this stigma? Perhaps, but definately not with Vista.
Since when were security updates only released as a new OS? And as far as games, there are thousands that can be downloaded for free. Exactly. And many of them have Windows versions that can be downloaded and run on XP, 2000, ME (though you'd be better off just throwing that out- now), and 98.
I have a feeling Windows Vista will be a big success, or a big failure. There is obviously a lot of anticipation, and if Vista doesn't correct all the security holes in previous versions, Microsoft is going to get a lot of stick. Microsoft has real competitors in the market now - Linux keeps getting stronger, and Apple have been resurrected by the iPod. On the other hand, Apple computers are still priced too high, and generally aimed at a nich'e market, and Linux suffers because of people's unfamilararity, arrogance and unwillingness to change. I'm sure Microsoft realise once you're at the top, there's only one way to fall. They should be putting their best into Vista - it's long overdue. Windows XP is now the longest serving MS OS to date. What were Microsoft doing all this time? Their problem is they are sitting too comfortably, and getting lazy. Where once they might have been innovators, the torch has now been passed to Linux Personally, I am really looking forward to Vista but I won't jump for it straight away, as I am sure most people won't. There are bound to be a few bugs that need ironing out, and software and driver support will need compatibility checks
True, but I beta tested Whistler (WinXP) all the way to the pre-release, and I thought, "Nobody is ever going to buy this buggy piece of crap. Why not just continue to use Windows 2000?" Boy was I wrong. Everybody thinks Windows XP is the best thing since sliced bread, and they even like the Luna theme I despised so much. Shows what I know about popular taste. That being said, they fixed a couple hundred crippling bugs somehow between the pre-release and the final release, at least partially by removing features. I couldn't believe it was the same OS when I booted Windows XP for the first time. I thought, "wow, it really came a long way since the beta" then promptly formatted it and reinstalled 2000 pro.
even thought i think vista is crap, i will move to vista, but not straight awat, becouse i think it was 3 years ago, maybe 4, i had windows xp, and i was looking in stores asking, will this game run on windows xp, and they was like, no worry, you need windows 95, or 98, or 2000, so it takes about a year for the new os to become fully supported, so i wont be using it for a while.
Windows XP is probably the best MS OS to date, in my opinion at least. That is probably why it has been around so long.
WinXP=Win2k Home edition. I ran some of the beta's and for all points and purposes it looks nicer, but fundamentally, it's the same damn OS. Microsoft finally ditched the craptacular Win9x platform to move to a single code for all OS's. Do I use Windows? Yup. However, I still have questions about a company that managed to have the 9x platform take a step back with the release of WinME---arguably their worst OS. I ran that for about a month until I found out Win2k could do everything I really wanted/needed, but without the stability issues that were probably coded into ME. Now, while Windows XP is hardly perfect, I'm comfortable with it, and will probably take a pass on Vista, unless I end up with someone hooking me up with a legit copy on the cheap.
Man, I second that one whole heartedly. What really boggles my mind though is that many of the features that didn't work out in ME -- networking wizards, system restore, hokey system tours... -- are the major defining features that differentiate Windows XP from Windows 2000. Amazing. I'm not a Windows user... hell, I won't even give MS money for an Xbox. But I am really and honestly upset for you guys that are MS customers (and not in a patronizing way). Microsoft has monopolized the market with a product that could a lot better than it is, and Microsoft of all companies sure have the means to make it better if they chose to. Why should my grandma have to contend with virii and spyware when all she does is email and IM? Why should anyone? Thanks a lot for your super-secure operating systems, MS. Oh, and thanks for dragging your feet patching an old flaw even though there's an exploit in the wild... again.
[ot]I am will to bet you could make her computer so she could IM and check her e-mail, without getting malware, even in Windows. Windows is insecure. I'll be the first to admit it. That's reason numero uno for me learning Linux. However, I still have Windows on a partition. It has AVG, Zonealarm, Spybot, Adaware, and Spyware Blaster. It's a pain to set up, but I did it in an hour, and the computer now runs smoothly. Don't get me wrong AT, I fully agree with you. [/ot]
If you can figure out a way to make Windows a secure OS for a clueless user, you could be a billionaire. Hell, I'd like to know how you could make it secure enough even for a savvy user, especially with things like the WMF exploit floating around. Even if you use Opera, an AV, and a half-dozen anti-spyware apps, you can still get hit with this. [/ot]
