Vista just another WinME? The real OS coming soon....

[frbubba]

I read somewhere that in point in fact MS had a department that wrote an OS from scratch with security in mind about 2 years ago but it was never intended for public release. So it is possible to write one from scratch. The problem is that MS is involved in too many other things and should stick to a few and do them well. When I heard the kernel was basically the same as XP, I immediately lost interest. I must confess I do like some of what Vista has to offer, but not enough to install it on my laptop which is capable of running it quite well. I find XP with a few tweaks is right were I want to be for now. If MS wants to put out another OS, I think it has to be judged on its own merits/demerits.

[Mordkanin]

I read somewhere that in point in fact MS had a department that wrote an OS from scratch with security in mind about 2 years ago but it was never intended for public release. So it is possible to write one from scratch. The problem is that MS is involved in too many other things and should stick to a few and do them well. When I heard the kernel was basically the same as XP, I immediately lost interest. I must confess I do like some of what Vista has to offer, but not enough to install it on my laptop which is capable of running it quite well. I find XP with a few tweaks is right were I want to be for now. If MS wants to put out another OS, I think it has to be judged on its own merits/demerits.

Singularity is one of their research projects. It's a fully managed (.NET) operating system. They've probably learned stuff from it and incorporated that into various projects, but I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be a product.

Keep in mind that an operating system doesn't mean anything with sound, a shell, graphics, etc. It just means something that you can boot the OS with. The demo vidoes of it I saw a while back showed it with just a CLI.

[Allan]

Let me make it clear to people Vista is not Windows ME, or Windows ME2 It has it's problems (SD Card slot read errors...) and it's extremly picky abt hardware, but, if it wasn't for my Semephore errors, I'd be happy with it.

Well that and my older games don't play very well on Vista (Talkin $10 game from ValuSoft *L*)

[NeoXY]

Umm, Longhorn started its development before people even had time to say Windows XP...so MS working on another is not a big surprise.

Yes, Vista have experienced a much troubled birth (trust me...I was there), but the end product isn't as bad as some say it is. Is DEFINITELY not another ME. We just need drivers! (damn you hardware vendors)...yes I agree Vista isn't all that. But ME was nothing at all...

So please take your trolling and shove it.

[AlexMagik]

to me, vista is stable and better than xp, it even performs better...

[M118LR]

When I heard the kernel was basically the same as XP, I immediately lost interest.

You heard very wrong. It took 3 months for Tech Net to go through all of the changes to the Vista Kernel

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetma...el/default.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetma...el/default.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetma...el/default.aspx

Read these 3 articles and then you can comment on the Vista Kernel.

[gigapixels Veteran]

Yes, the kernel is actually based upon the Server 2003 kernel. It is quite different and much better. That's the whole reason Vista took 5 years to finish: they switched kernels in the middle of the development process and started over.

[tao muon]

And I keep wondering where these Mac OSx people keep getting their information.

From the OSX entry in wikipedia:

Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah)

Main article: Mac OS X v10.0

Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah"On March 24, 2001, Apple released Mac OS X v10.0 (internally codenamed Cheetah).[21] The initial version was slow, not feature complete, and had very few applications available at the time of its launch, mostly from independent developers. Many critics suggested that while the OS was not ready for mainstream adoption, they recognized the importance of its initial launch as a base on which to improve. Simply releasing Mac OS X was received by the Macintosh community as a great accomplishment, for attempts to completely overhaul the Mac OS had been underway since 1996, and delayed by countless setbacks. Following some bug fixes, kernel panics became much less frequent, and Mac OS X began garnering praise for its stability at an early point in its development.

Slow? Not feature complete? Few applications?

And this is what the OSX crowd lauds Vista for, on its first release?

snic, snic, snic

Et tu Brute'

[edit] Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma)

Main article: Mac OS X v10.1

Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma"Later that year on September 25, 2001, Mac OS X v10.1 (internally codenamed Puma) was released.[22] It had better performance and provided missing features, such as DVD playback. Apple released 10.1 as a free upgrade CD for 10.0 users, in addition to the US$129 boxed version for people running only Mac OS 9. It was discovered that the upgrade CDs were actually full install CDs that could be used with Mac OS 9 systems by removing a specific file; Apple later re-released the CDs in an actual stripped-down format that didn't facilitate installation on such systems.

On January 7, 2002, Apple announced that Mac OS X was to be the default operating system for all Macintosh products by the end of that month.[23]

And how much did that 10.0 to 10.1 upgrade cost? Oh, it was free if you'd already bought 10.0, and if you had OS9... and hacked your CD....

Tsk, tsk- Apple users hacking the system.

[edit] Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar)

Main article: Mac OS X v10.2

Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar"On August 24, 2002, Apple followed up with Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar" (the first release to use its code name as part of the branding[24]) which brought great performance enhancements, a sleeker look, and many powerful enhancements (over 150, according to Apple), including Quartz Extreme for compositing graphics directly on the AGP-based video card, a system-wide repository for contact information in the new Address Book, and an instant messenging client named iChat.[25]

Some consider Jaguar the "first good release" of Mac OS X.[26] Due to significant API changes between 10.1 and 10.2, most third party developers currently support 10.2 as a minimum requirement.

The Happy Mac which had appeared during the Mac OS startup sequence for almost 18 years was replaced with a large grey Apple logo with the introduction of Mac OS X 10.2.

And this update cost you how much?

[edit] Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther)

Main article: Mac OS X v10.3

Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther"Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther" was released on October 24, 2003. In addition to providing much improved performance, it also incorporated the most extensive update yet to the user interface. Panther included as many or more new features as Jaguar had the year before, including an updated Finder, incorporating a brushed-metal interface, Fast User Switching, FileVault, Safari (web browser), iChat AV which added video-conferencing features to iChat, improved Portable Document Format (PDF) rendering and much greater Microsoft Windows interoperability.[27] But, support for some early G3 computers such as "beige" Power Macs and "WallStreet" PowerBooks was discontinued.

And this update cost you what?

[edit] Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger)

Main article: Mac OS X v10.4

Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger"Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" was released on April 29, 2005. Apple stated that Tiger contains more than 200 new features.[28] As with Panther, certain older machines were no longer supported; Tiger requires a Mac with a built-in FireWire port.[12] Among the new features, Tiger introduced Spotlight, Dashboard, Smart Folders, updated Mail program with Smart Mailboxes, QuickTime 7, Safari 2, Automator, VoiceOver, Core Image and Core Video.

Tiger's retail package was updated and reduced in size around the end of April 2006. It was called Mac OS X 10.4.3, and replaced the first release in retail stores.[29]

On January 10th, 2006, Apple released the first Intel-based Macs along with the 10.4.4 update to Tiger. This operating system functioned identically on the PowerPC-based Macs and the new Intel-based machines.[30] Because the implementation of the OS is built separately for the two processors, in implementation the PowerPC version and Intel versions are two separate installers (one cannot use the PowerPC installer to install the OS onto an Intel-based Mac).

At some time in 2006 the retail packages were again updated with 10.4.6, also a PowerPC-only DVD installer. As of yet, no retail package for an Intel-based Tiger Installer exists or has been released by Apple (customers who own an Intel-based Mac received Tiger along with their computer). This caused problems with users who had forgot their log in passwords, as the installation DVD is required to reset the user's password.

Aww... another update to purchase....

[edit] Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)

Main article: Mac OS X v10.5

This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future software.

The content may change dramatically as the software release approaches and more information becomes available.

Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard"Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" was announced at the June 2005 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), and was shown to developers for the first time at the following WWDC in August 2006. There Steve Jobs said that Apple planned to "ship it this coming Spring", the second quarter of 2007. But, due to the developer resources needed to keep the iPhone on track, Apple later revised the estimate to October 2007, then at WWDC said it would be available for sure in October, with a feature-complete beta sent home with developers at WWDC in June 2007. At WWDC 2007, Jobs said it will have 300 new features and demonstrated some of them.[31] Apple has said Leopard will support both PowerPC- and Intel x86-based Macintosh computers and will cost $129. Versions for all computers and the upcoming 64-bit machines will come on one disc. Though Apple maintains that "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard Sneak Peek are subject to change,"[32] some officially previewed features include a new Finder, Time Machine, Spaces, Boot Camp pre-installed,[33] full support for 64-bit applications (including graphical applications), new features in Mail and iChat, and resolution independence. Jobs confirmed these features at WWDC 2007.[32]

Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard", is an Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product.[34][35]

And the Vista kernel forms the basis for Windows Server 2008, and is not based on 2003.

XP has more in common with WS2003 than Vista has with it. IIS7 is a total rewrite. Most everything is a total rewrite.

THAT is why Vista took so long to be released. A new way of thinking begets a new way of doing things.

[Mordkanin]

And the Vista kernel forms the basis for Windows Server 2008, and is not based on 2003.

XP has more in common with WS2003 than Vista has with it. IIS7 is a total rewrite. Most everything is a total rewrite.

THAT is why Vista took so long to be released. A new way of thinking begets a new way of doing things.

Thanks. That post made me laugh.

The changes between OSX releases are laughable compared to what we got between 2003 and Vista.

When I heard the kernel was basically the same as XP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_fea...core_OS_changes

[Mark Schieldrop]

The lesson here is that it's a lot easier to read some smartaleck forum troll and regurgitate misinformation than to actually read factual information.

[BoDEAN]

No troll at all. Just telling you want I heard from people I work with, who were in a meeting with Microsoft. No reason to live in denial my friend.

[argonite]

No troll at all. Just telling you want I heard from people I work with, who were in a meeting with Microsoft. No reason to live in denial my friend.

Why would Microsoft even hint at a relation with it and ME. As far as MS is concerned, ME doesn't exist except in technical manuals and extra support.

[FATILA]

Yeah like they would refer to their premium product as ME. Smells like the guy posting here claiming to be an MCSE with no clue.

[Ryan R]

Highlighting what many have already said:

Vista is in no way another WinME

WinME was released because ppl were buying Win2000 and realizing that they couldn't play games on it, etc

In it's majority - Vista works with no probs

I would, however, stay away from the 64bit version of it as there is hardly any driver support for it.

The main reason that people aren't moving to Vista yet is because a lot of software vendors haven't released Vista-compatible versions of their apps - and some hardware doesn't work with it.

Vista has been around since June 2006 in it's Beta form. MS has been developing it for a number of years.

In contrast WinME was a quick fix. I'd guess that they made it faster than they did SP2 for XP (but can't confirm that).

[freak_power]

That was no reason why WinME was released because you could play games under Windows 2000 with no problems. WinME is Microsoft mistake, waste of money and time just like any upcoming 32bit version of Windows....

When I installed Windows 2000, I never looked back to Windows 9x. I was so happy to finally get rid of crap called DOS.