Posted on 05/30/2006 11:51:59 AM PDT by N3WBI3
The opening of Beta 2 testing at WinHEC for Windows Vista has once again raised serious questions about Microsoft's ability to keep its promises. We have witnessed up until now the inexhaustible reservoir of excuses coming from MS's officials, who have continuously fed us with plenty of reasons for Vista's delay: they're working on security, they're trying to make it more reliable for business, etc. Although it was initially destined to make its public debut way back in 2002, following years haven't shown us more than small bits of what was to become Microsoft's best product in more than 10 years.
The Beta 2 testing last week didn't bring much hope for most of us, including software and hardware producers too. Developers' feedback, although not a big surprise, turned out to be more than reserved concerning the overall quality of Vista, inducing the-again-not-so-unexpected idea that there is still a lot of work to do in this domain. Moreover, rumors concerning a yet another delay of Vista, previously announced for public appearance in January 2007, came out from CEO Steve Ballmer himself this week, despite his subsequent declarations that "Vista is on track". Developers that have tested Vista even suggest that it is possible for Microsoft not to reach its goal of delivering Vista to corporate customers in November 2006.
It would be a mistake to consider that we are now heading for disaster. Maybe Ballmer's declarations are true and MAYBE Vista shall publicly appear in January 2007. But what's done is done. Microsoft cannot erase what it has implemented in customer's mind: "the best product in 10 years". All the delays pinpointed to one thing: "we are working at improving Vista". So a public release next year without the superior quality that customers are longing for would be an even harder hit to MS's already shooked-up image. The smallest security flaw in Vista would immediately become a gap of global proportions, capable of allowing all the Evil things in the world enter through it (including viruses of course...). Any oversight of a particular aspect in Vista will have huge repercaussions for the entire OS, casting a dim shadow upon the overall impression. And Aero will definitely not be able to compensate it...
There are other reasons to consider while investigating the possible failure of Redmond-giant flagship product. First of all: the price. Microsoft announced that Vista will not show its beautiful face (Aero) to those who possess pirated copies. So if you want to have 3D windows on your screen you'd have to pay a larger sum than for XP (after all, Vista requires 15 G of free space on your hard drive).
Jack Messman, CEO Novell, had already stated since september 2005, during Novell’s Brain Share, which took place in Barcelona, Spain, that switching from Windows XP to Windows Vista will be more expensive than switching from Windows XP to Linux. So far, Microsoft hasn’t published any details about the price scheme it plans for Windows Vista, but ever since the Redmond company announced the hardware requirements, many experts have started to link the fee for a license with the amounts of money that will be invested in a PC that would allow you to run the OS.
And thus we have reached the second reason for Vista's envisioned failure. In order to run it properly not only that you'd have to license it, but you'd also have to think of spending more money on hardware. And this is bad news not only for retail customers but also for middle to small size companies, that don't possess enough money to change their computers like corporations do. And when we think that Vista might not be as reliable and secure as everyone expects...
This is where Linux comes on stage. It's totally free (well, most of the distros are). It has proven its reliability over time and it has convinced IT managers from large corporations (like IBM) to local authorities (like the French Gendarmerie or the Norwegian and Spanish government)to switch to it instead of Windows XP. Servers or desktops running Linux don't suffer from hoax, worms or spyware and they do not provide BSODs (blue screens of death, typically a source of irony for both Windows and Linux users). As for Aero, KDE desktop did long time ago a lot of the things Aero shall do in 2007, and with a whole lot less hardware resources. Not to mention that Novell's XGL Desktop is already not one, but two steps ahead of Aero: at least 1Ghz processor, a minimum of 256 system RAM and an old GeForce MX 400. And visual effects are staggering compared to Aero (just imagine a cube- which is your desktop- and a film being presented on two of its sides...). And last, but not least, the many "flavors" of Linux, which allow the user to turn freely and with no supplementary cost from one distro to another, or even run it from a live-CD/USB flash. And if that's not enough for you, just think at how much will Vista resist getting its Aero GUI pirated...
All in all, the probably unanimous conclusion is that with or without Vista's release in 2007 the winner is Linux. Paradoxically enough, just as many have suggested before, Microsoft shall boost Linux's popularity no matter what Vista will bring new to the OS market. Still, if rumors concerning a new delay of Vista are true, MS's credibility (already at low levels in recent years) will drop significantly, and with it, the finances too.
Ha ha!
Jackass.
I disagree. Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever.
This will be hell for helping people. Support people will need to know the difference between seven versions. Users also won't know what version they have.
The only reason for multiple versions is market segmentation for Microsoft's profit. Plus you'll get the case I'm seeing with XP Castrated Edition, where people buy it and find they need to upgrade to do anything serious. "I bought a computer with Windows, but I can't encrypt folders or set file-level access controls. What? I need Pro for that? How much?"
Sorry, but Windows doesn't rule because it's a superior platform. It rules because there's one vendor, with powerful finances, that has OEM relationships with all major manufacturers. Even Apple is now delivering Macs with Windows pre-installed. Linux, with dozens of competing distros and weak OEM support will never match that. And I'm a Debian user, folks. The same thing that makes Linux such a success among developers and enthusiasts is the very thing that will prevent it from every being packaged as an OEM system...freedom to do whatever the hell you want with it, freedom to make as many versions as possible. Vendors don't want to support dozens of distros. They want one, single business to deal with, one single standard. Not multiple desktop managers, distros, or toolsets. Microsoft and Apple have the benefit of absolutely controlling their platforms. That's what OEM's want. When Red Hat decided to focus exclusively on the business server market, any hope of corporate supported mass market Linux died.
Of course not MS has always been yesterdays technology but with a great business plan
Linux, with dozens of competing distros and weak OEM support will never match that.
Nobody is expecting Linux to have a huge market share but MS's blunders in the creation of vista will help Linux greatly. That and the fact I (1) Dont want to run different desktop operating systems and (2) I cant afford to upgrade the hardware to every desktop in the company leaves me with the following, I have to seriously look at Linux on the desktop if for no other reason than to run a transparent RDP to a terminal server..
.freedom to do whatever the hell you want with it, freedom to make as many versions as possible. Vendors don't want to support dozens of distros.
You are implying Dell / HP or an application vendor has to support all distros if the support any, this is not true. Dell only sells RedHat servers they wont support Debain
Probably.
in Essence, it was Windows XP's features with Windows 98SE's kernel, and an FAT32 file system instead of NTFS.
It was horribly unstable. So bad, in fact, that a friend told me that a shop refused to work on her laptop because it had Windows ME on it. I thought 98SE was a much better product. Its registry was a mess if memory serves me correctly.
The only real difficulty i had with Windows ME was when i got one of the first computer virii that existed, an old boot sector exploit. My own fault using old floppies that hadn't been virus checked. All that was required was the insertion of the DOS Disk, and an fdisk /mbr command.
As i said in my post, the key to Windows ME was to keep the registry clean. For that purpose i use System Mechanic's registry cleaning tool once a week. The laptop still runs fine with Windows ME.
Fact is that all operating systems will have individual quirks. This includes the various flavours of Windows. For example: i run SuSE 9.2 Professional on this machine with a dialup connection. Last week as i was getting SuSE updates from one of their ftp sites, my connection died. i couldn't get back on line. It seems that my modem commands were changed. i didn't know the Hays modem commands, so i was pretty screwed. Couldn't have the modem redetected and configured for some reason. Ended up that i had to insert a Knoppix CD, run kppp and look at the modem command set after i configured the Internet tool. Copied that into SuSE's kppp utility, and was back in business. The quirk involved is that SuSE (and Redhat/Fedora) both have messed up their internet connection tools. i still can't connect with kinternet.
Stupid is posting an article claiming Linux will win "the battle with Microsoft", then trying to claim knocking MS down from 90 percent to 87 percent is somehow victory. But, that's how pathetic the open source lunis on this site have become.
Your definition of an Open Source "luni" (I presume you mean "loony" or "luny") seems to be anyone who considers GNU/Linux to be superior to Windows--which, IMO, it is.
I do not speak from ignorance. I used Windows for years before I switched to Linux and even now, I work for a company that is almost 100% Windows where I write code primarily in C# and ASP.
Stupid is posting an article claiming Linux will win "the battle with Microsoft", then trying to claim knocking MS down from 90 percent to 87 percent is somehow victory.
I don't think that Microsoft will lose its market superiority, but knocking them from 90 to 87 percent would, in fact, be a victory. Microsoft has one advantage: their products are not having to go head-to-head against much of anything. Most department stores or tech stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) stock mostly or all Windows, with some having a few Macs laying around somewhere. The reason for which is, obviously, that their OS comes pre-loaded on every system. This is, from a marketing/PR point of view, a very difficult problem to overcome. If they lose 3% of their market share, it means that more people are pro-actively making the switch from Microsoft to an alternative. They are becoming more aware of the possibilities. Three percent may not sound like much and, if you are going for market dominance, it isn't, but 3% of computer users is a lot of people, nonetheless. Does three percent bring down Microsoft? By no means, but it would be a victory for OSS.
I still haven't tried Vista yet. I am putting together another PC and will probably load it.
I hope I am not disappointed with it.
WTS?
The day I give away work for free is the day my wife hands me my Heroic butt on a plate.
I guess the capitalist in me doesn't understand the whole concept.
Regards, Ivan
Windows Terminal Server
Easy to manage, doesn't crash easily and if your users log off correctly, they won't get hung sessions which will force you to clear them off.
Basically if XP worked as well as WTS 2003 does (and it doesn't and it's no where close), there wouldn't be an issue really. Just my experience.
Actually I should have said "free software lunis", as that is ultimately what they are, but they hide under the sheep's clothing of "open source".
Microsoft is bound to eventually lose some of their market share, there's simply nowhere to go up from ~90%. When they do, it won't all be to free software like Linux, but to other products like Apple OSX and Sun Solaris instead. Hopefully most of it will, since those are American products owned by American companies, and not a foreign born fake like Linux.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.