MS has already got their next 2 OS's planned

[Pat H]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/30/n...ji-and-vienna/

1st will be Windows Fiji, then Windows Vienna (probably code names though). And apparently with Vienna we will lose the start menu and get a "pie menu" instead, and have the added benefit of not being able to run ANY windows applications produced prior to Vienna, since they will be re-writing the code from the ground up. MS can do what it wants, but it better be willing to replace all my software when the time comes.

[illegalprelude]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/30/n...ji-and-vienna/

1st will be Windows Fiji, then Windows Vienna (probably code names though). And apparently with Vienna we will lose the start menu and get a "pie menu" instead, and have the added benefit of not being able to run ANY windows applications produced prior to Vienna, since they will be re-writing the code from the ground up. MS can do what it wants, but it better be willing to replace all my software when the time comes.

well considering how delayed Vista is (2 years now) and all the features they ended up cutting out and the security problems already, i woiuld advise you to probably not hold your breath.

Unless your a fish and or aqua-man. if so, do proceed.

[Pat H]

well considering how delayed Vista is (2 years now) and all the features they ended up cutting out and the security problems already, i woiuld advise you to probably not hold your breath.

Unless your a fish and or aqua-man. if so, do proceed.

I didn't say I expected it anytime soon, because MS is slow as hell with their software. I wouldn't be surprised if we even see Fiji until well after 2010.

[illegalprelude]

I didn't say I expected it anytime soon, because MS is slow as hell with their software. I wouldn't be surprised if we even see Fiji until well after 2010.

2010? meh, 2020 Vista took em 7 friggin years and it still blows more or less. hopefuly, their next OS will truely be built from the ground up. now just a rehash of XP and XP itself was not built ground up cause its just 2000! w00t

come on MS, you got Billions in R&D. Stop being...so 90's

[Pat H]

I've heard that some MS developers don't even know what some of the code in the OS does, so they just leave it there. So I guess that would mean there are still some files from 3.1 that haven't been clanged because they are afraid to do so lol.

[illegalprelude]

I've heard that some MS developers don't even know what some of the code in the OS does, so they just leave it there. So I guess that would mean there are still some files from 3.1 that haven't been clanged because they are afraid to do so lol.

lol I wouldnt be surprised and that is part of what makes windows so widely used and why it widely sucks.

Lets just take for example graphic cards out there. In one year, there is probably a 100 new cards out there and they ALL have to work for the Windows. Thats great for consumers in some way and competition but the fact that the idea stated is for only 1 product and now times that by god knows how many is why windows is so unstable.

You install a random program and it all crashes. you X out a particular proggy and something freezes and each new product is a potential security whole. they really do need to start all over again. Vista was a great oppertunity that they have lost.

[Pat H]

If it took them this long to modify windows into Vista just think how long it would have taken them if it was a complete re-write I wouldn't be surprised if Google develops their own OS and trumps both MS and Mac.

[Maxx_75]

My biggest beef with the whole idea of an OS is that I think that the OS should be completly standalone. Not a single bit of info of it should change short of updates.

No registry, no DLL's or crap like that. I should be able to run a program on top of it all and not change a thing. I dont want to install anything, just run a program. I should be able to run an entire program from a disk and then take it out and never know it was ever there. I should be able to run 100 programs and have the OS EXCATLY the same it was when I started.

I honestly dont understand why this is not done. Why does everything need to be installed ? Why this need for a registry ?

[illegalprelude]

well such a task is possible with light based programs but the problem is, processors arent nearly powerful enough to run programs in real time. The information needs to be stored somewhere so it can tap into it.

Think of it like if everytime you did something, it were as if it was the first time you had done it. Thats how such a tast would be done and the sheer raw power is no where to the point that we are currently at.

The problem with Windows, besides being bloated is that it is a very un-effecient program. Take for exaple XP, never reached 64 (yes you can get windows XP 64 but that was a joke as the OS itself might have slightly been 64 but few 64 bit machines were in the market and even worse, no application was written for 64)

Even with Vista now, although they have thank god moved towards 64, its already behind on the duel core idea. The OS itself see's the duel core as just more power where a better written OS will learn to see each core seperate, seperating your tasks between them. OSX is there. With Leopord, they will be making that leap, offering you truely what each core has to offer and they have been at 64 bit computing for sometime now.

MS really needs to go back to the drawing board. One bit of bright info on both PC and Mac side is that both sides are eventually switching to flash based memory. First for just small, application booting and as flash memory gets much bigger in size and cheaper, entire flash based hard drive. Unlike Hard drive, flash based can be accessed much faster, thus much faster bootup time and searches and application launches

[JU1CYFRU1T]

...and have the added benefit of not being able to run ANY windows applications produced prior to Vienna, since they will be re-writing the code from the ground up. MS can do what it wants, but it better be willing to replace all my software when the time comes.

This is what bothers me about people who complain about MS and their software reliability...

Why is Mac such a reliable machine? Because every time they release a new OS, they (basically) tell people, "this is the new OS... if you don't have it, you will need it. We are no longer supporting the old OS, and the new OS will not support your old software." There are exceptions to this rule... but for the most part, when OSX came out, OS 9 because obsolete.

Now, when MS tries to do this... everyone complains. They don't like a glitchy system that crashes all the time, but they aren't willing to let MS take the steps necissary to fix the problem. Like the OP said, there are lines of code that they don't even understand, but they can't get rid of them (because they don't know what they do). When you start from scratch, you don't have that problem... you are writing new code.

Someone else brought up the Vista delays... but from my VERT LIMITED understanding of writing code, isn't it much easier to write new code than it is to change old code? They are trying to change XP into Vista, but when you write new code, you don't have to worry about how to make the 'old start bar' look the same with different code... you just make a new start bar.

Honestly, I think that MS is seeing the writing on the wall. They are being beaten to death by Mac when it comes to product reliability... and they are taking the steps to change that. Is this going to piss some people off? You bet your arse it is... but it's necissary to make a more stabe OS. IMO, they should have done this with XP... but they didn't want to explain to all their business clients why their NT software won't work. I think that Vista is their bridge to that gap. They are easing businesses into the transition from XP into whatever their 'final' product is going to be.

[The Bandit]

Why is Mac such a reliable machine? Because every time they release a new OS, they (basically) tell people, "this is the new OS... if you don't have it, you will need it. We are no longer supporting the old OS, and the new OS will not support your old software." There are exceptions to this rule... but for the most part, when OSX came out, OS 9 because obsolete.

Actually, with the 2 most recent major changes to the Mac platform (the switch from OS 9 to OS X and the more recent switch from PowerPC to Intel x86 processors), Apple has built-in seamless emulation for older software.

OS X has a "classic" mode that allows you to run OS 9 applications. Tiger and above have "Rosetta" which lets you run PowerPC applications on Intel CPUs, albeit at a slower speed.

[Tejstar]

And apparently with Vienna we will lose the start menu and get a "pie menu" instead

Am I the only one who doesn't like these new 'intuitive' menus? I downloaded WMP 11 and I had to go back to the 'Classic' menus after about half an hour of fiddling around and trying to find out where functions were!

[Mal Reynolds]

Why is Mac such a reliable machine? Because every time they release a new OS, they (basically) tell people, "this is the new OS... if you don't have it, you will need it. We are no longer supporting the old OS, and the new OS will not support your old software." There are exceptions to this rule... but for the most part, when OSX came out, OS 9 because obsolete.

The perceived reliability of Macs comes down to several things:

1) The machines are built using not quite the same cheap-ass parts as your average Dell, even in this Intel era. The PPC were quality machines, IMO.
2) Apple has strict control over the range of hardware components in a machine.
3) Apple has relatively strict control over the range of hardware supported by the software, ie OS X.
4) Apple wiped the slate clean when moving from OS 9 to OS X.

It's not for me to judge whether that really does make Macs more reliable, I can only comment on my own experience.

The main difference between Apple and Microsoft though, is that Apple provides compelling new features in OS upgrades that makes people WANT to upgrade, rather than threatening that your computer is a security risk if you don't upgrade.
I have a friend who is not tech savvy, but has a Mac because another friend of hers is a long time Mac user, and so they have that friendly support thing going on. However, even she can appreciate the changes between, say, Panther and Tiger. She has a camcorder, a digital camera, likes video conferencing with her friends, emailing, ebaying and so on. Her Mac is 3 years old, and it can still learn new tricks that pleasantly surprise her. Conversely, I still don't fully appreciate why XP is supposedly so much better than Windows 2000, as that Fisher Price look certainly isn't what I'd call a compelling new feature.