Microsoft Launches New Vista System

agreed.. i'm just not feeling that "vibe" for Vista like i did for other MS offerings. i remember chomping at the bit to get a hold of win2k and XP when they came out, but Vista..ho-hum.

maybe its because i do 90% of my desktop computing through a web browser nowadays; the underlying OS has taken a back seat. i just can't bring myself to spend $200-400 for something whose main features i could care less about.

Here's an instructional video detailing how to quickly install Vista.

Exactly. The people said "Wow" when they compared OS X to the Winders. Then they bought a Mac.

Who in their right mind will spend a couple hundred dollars for an operating system that does the same thing their current one does?

I'm guessing a whopping ZERO people will be lined up outside CompUSA to buy Vista. The only sizable group getting Vista will be those who buy a new system, and have no choice. Unless, of course, they buy a Mac....

Vista is nothing but a scam for people who think that Microsoft is good. Vista will just draw more people to OS X, and will be the end of Microsoft's OS department.

"Shut up you stupid Mac lover"... "if you run tests and compare the products side by side..."

Yes, your arguments are authoritative, convincing and gee, are you just the kindest person I have ran into.

I switched to Macs just over a year ago. Before that I used PCs my entire life, and thought Windows was indeed a better OS.

Vista doesn't look like a bad release, but it is a few years late. Many of its big "new" features *are* indeed already in OS X Tiger - nice user interface, Flip3D (except in OS X, Expose is arguably much more usable), system-wide search, et cetera. And besides which, reading about people who have installed Vista, it takes a lot of RAM and a fast processor to fully use it, whereas there are many people running OS X Tiger on six year old Macs with no complaints.

I may be a Mac fanatic, but I dislike Windows from experience, and prefer OS X from experience. Vista appears to be Microsoft's attempt to catch up with OS X, and a not well-executed one.

Hilarious!

Vista blows OSX Away. Period. End of Story.

I can't stop laughing!

Check this out.

as a life long ms user.. i come from the early dos days..
I say osx looks better every day.
ubuntu even more so.

Don't feed the trolls...

I have had ons of experience. I have used Dos.. all the way though Windows Vista now.. and even Mac OS - OS X.... I'm kinda a geek when it comes to computers but it is time to look at both sides EQUALLY. It is so easy to tell a mac fan from a pc fan. Both kind of fans are complete morons when they argue which one is better...

If you look at the the facts.. and use both OSs... Vista is slightly better and faster that OS Tiger. Now, I'm not saying I hate Tiger.. I'm saying that Vista is just a little better. Maybe when the new OSX comes out... I will take a different view. Until then, Vista is better.

Ubuntu is pretty sweet. I do love it and use it a lot.. I just have programs that only run on Windows and some that can only run on Mac... so not many work with Linux.

"Slightly better?" How? You have neglected to point out why Vista is better than OS X. It would be false to claim Vista isn't a good OS - it is, and is a definite improvement over XP. Nonetheless, from my cursory direct experience with it and reading, there seems to be little new in it that doesn't exist in OS X.

Better and Faster are both subjective and pretty much both boil down to user preferences in how the system they are using responds and how the apps they prefer to use work on each platform. That's part of why these OS X vs Windows arguments become so useless after a while, because there is more to the evaluation than just the OS as a starting point.

Without doing a point for point comparison, one thing that can be said in Vista's favor is that it can be installed (and commercially supported) on a larger range of computers and computing devices. Which will be a significant factor in its potential for success.

Of course that can be turned around to point out that part of the appeal of OS X is the specific style and quality of the hardware that it comes shipped with, which is a factor in the adoption of the system by those switching to it, and why I can feel comfortable recommending them in addition to PC choices to my friends.

There is a point worth repeating in this discussion, this really is coming into a good time to look at the many options available on the marketplace, and discover how many mature (and maturing) technologies are available to provide benefits to the various end-users who are interested.

Very true, it's XP with Aero and OS X Spotlight and Dashboard. That's about it.

Actually there is a lot still there that was originally promised, just not in the area of some features that a lot of early hype was built around when it was still referred to as the Longhorn project.

While there is some merit to the statement that a lot was changed, and a few significant features dropped over the course of its development; it is also true that Vista offers much needed improvements over the previous versions of Windows that Microsoft has put out. There is a lot more under the hood driving easy to compare features like Aero and Windows search, that will be used to leverage many other parts of the platform going forward.

It would have been accurate to say it's just XP with bells and whistles when the project was two years along, but since then MS has spent three more years to revamp and rebuild their ideas and address feedback into what a Windows OS should be.

Saying it is a few years late, while true, misses the point that an update of the codebase was still necessary, and that some parts of the system are not just playing catchup with Microsoft's competition, but attempting to move ahead in areas which have traditionally played to Windows strengths in the market.

Now will be the time to see if the parts of the OS (and associated applications) live up to their potential, and if the competition has had enough time to take real advantage of the lag in delivery up until this launch.

Actually there is a lot still there that was originally promised, just not in the area of some features that a lot of early hype was built around when it was still referred to as the Longhorn project.

Well, arguably the most significant planned changes are not there: WinFS and Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI). Those are both serious "under the hood" changes that didn't happen.

...some parts of the system are not just playing catchup with Microsoft's competition, but attempting to move ahead in areas which have traditionally played to Windows strengths in the market.

What, exactly, are those? Just curious...

WinFS and Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI). Those are both serious "under the hood" changes that didn't happen.

That didn't happen yet. AFAIK work is still being done in those areas of technology for release with a later version of the OS, or with some related products. EFI was at one point going to be supported with 64-bit Vista, I have not checked if that had changed as well.

The other areas include things like promotion of hybrid drive technology, and the use of flash devices to assist in file performance (aka Readyboost). DirectX10 and promotion of the use of graphics chips for more than just high end gaming. While also trying to take a new approach to support of games on Windows, with some emphasis on compatiblity with the XBox360.

Improvements in the functional capability of 64-bit servers and applications, improvements to deployment and maintenance of Windows using the MS provided tools and policies.

Microsoft's main strengths in the PC market (at this point) appear to be in Business solutions and Gaming, with some overlap into Mobile Devices, Smart Phones, Home Entertainment and general PC sales. How that may change over time depends on how well they can leverage Vista as the new base platform for those areas going forward.

That didn't happen yet. AFAIK work is still being done in those areas of technology for release with a later version of the OS, or with some related products.

I, too, have heard they're being worked on for a later release. But, since those were two of the main technologies being touted by Microsoft from the very beginning as being the cornerstones of the next Windows (at the time codenamed Longhorn)...and two of the first to get the axe...I guess it just leaves a bitter taste.

... two of the first to get the axe ...

Actually I think they were two of the last features to announce being dropped from the project (mid-2006), there was just a lot more reaction to the removal of those features than others because WinFS was more highly publicized as a feature that would change the computing landscape (without actually giving concrete examples of what that change offered beyond the basic search features available in the OS or thru third party apps); and EFI was seen as another area where MS dropped the ball in support of future-proof hardware initiatives.

There were several other postponed features (Secure ID, PC to PC Sync, the Monad shell) that seemed to offer more direct usability on existing hardware without having a negative impact on system performance. Some are coming out as seperate downloads once they are finalized by seperate development teams at the software maker.

No, no more than Linux or Mac OS X do (Or Windows versions from NT thru XP).

All modern OSes rely on the BIOS (or EFI in Apple's case) to allow the system to find the basic input/output devices (Hard drive, Video, Keyboard & Mouse) that are needed to properly boot the installed OS. Once launched, the OS switches over to a higher running mode, where it takes over access to the hardware away from the BIOS for normal operations.

The OS may double-check the BIOS information to be sure of the hardware drivers it has installed, and may also refer back to the lower level components to issue the final shutdown commands, but otherwise did away with the need to make use of the BIOS back in the mid-1990s.

What you may be looking for is information on what EFI (the Extensible Firmware Interface) had to offer beyond the basic BIOS support in modern systems. Basically it was seen as a needed improvement since nobody really used the primary features of the older BIOS technology anymore, due to limitations it would impose on newer CPU. chipset and memory designs.

It should be noted that some versions of Windows do have support for EFI, but those were generally the server class versions. There was not enough interest from the general PC industry to attempt widespread adoption of EFI on consumer level systems (as Microsoft claims is reasoning for not supporting EFI on 32-bit Windows).

great explanation. Thanks, Cary.

Here's more info on the subject for those interested:

http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT4903582708.html

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/efibrief.mspx

You do realize that the first Mac OS had a menu bar at the top, and Windows was released afterward, right?

As far as you running Mac OS X on a regular PC, yes, you can do it, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so. Where did you get OS X?

By the way, as far as Vista having sidebar in it before OS X 10.4 was "even in beta," for what it is worth, it appers you are wrong. 10.4 was released in April 2005 - released to the public. The first beta release of Vista that I can find - beta 1 - was released June 27, 2005, a full three months after the release of 10.4.

This is all a stupid argument anyway - who knows who had sidebar or Dashboard in development first. The point is Apple got it to market years before Microsoft did and made a hell of a better implementation of it to boot.

You are right, it is a stupid thing to argue over.

But for the sake of clarity, two minor points.

There were sidebar features being demonstrated on Longhorn, the project that had resulted in the release of Windows Vista, recorded as far back as the preview for the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) 2003.

But desktop widget engines like Konfabulator were already popular applications, as had been in development since 2002. Which themselves were an offshoot of the idea of web-widgets, which go back to 1995, and the early days of the browser wars.

So if you guys really want to compare which company has the biggest widget, they were both late to the party. But now both companies are providing options which offer benefits to thier users, which is a good thing for the rest of us.

And widgets go back to Apple's work with mini-apps running on the desktop back to the 80s as far as I know. It is indeed a useless argument.

My problem with Microsoft and Vista in particular has never been that it takes things from OS X. It should - it is a natural evolution to pull ideas and concepts from other systems and put it into your own.

But it is also natural to improve upon those designs. Microsoft has not improved upon the concepts at all - they have just implemented them for the "me too" factor. Indeed, in many ways the Sidebar is less useful than Dashboard, because it takes up space on the desktop continuously whereas Dashboard appears across the entire desktop with one click and disappears just as easily.

Sometimes the best thing Microsoft tries to do, is to leave it up to other developers to improve on their designs. Sometimes the worst thing Microsoft does, is leave a minimalist desgin in place, giving the impression that it is the best level of design that can be done on their platform.

Sidebar does not take space on the desktop continuously, you can "close" the app in which case it minimizes itself to the system tray; where one click will bring it back onscreen. And, like other widget managers, the sidebar gadgets can be seperated to the desktop on their own, while the main program is out of the way off-screen, or behind some other program window. (You can also shut it off completely, and run some other tool like Konfabulator instead).

The Sidebar and other visual elements of Vista were certainly more visually stimulating in early builds of the Longhorn project, especially around the timeframe of videos that leaked out from the 2003 PDC. They were also more ambitious in scope both in terms of what the system could do, and the resources that would be called upon to do it. Those builds of the project used Windows XP as their code base, and when those builds were scrapped in favor of trying to design a more secure foundation for the OS based on the Windows 2003 Server product, many of those ambitious ideas had to get put on the back burner while newer models of the driver, graphics and presentation engines were re-developed and matured.

The Sidebar was not the only area for Microsoft to focus on improving the design, and perhaps a lot more effort was put into the underlying framework and feature set, that could have been shifted to the interface elements at some later stage.

With Vista one of the biggest improvements they have made (for Windows) is not on the concept of just the Sidebar and Widgets, but the integration of the whole GUI into their idea of flexiblity and customizability going forward. So maybe they have the means to go beyond the "me too" factor, or maybe they will feel safer leaving that open to other developers.

I think much of it comes down to the goal of the design, Apple seems to want to provide a system that appears to be a complete solution for the average users needs; Microsoft has traditionally relied on providing a platform on which other companies try to build solutions (including other departments at Microsoft).

I think much of it comes down to the goal of the design, Apple seems to want to provide a system that appears to be a complete solution for the average users needs; Microsoft has traditionally relied on providing a platform on which other companies try to build solutions (including other departments at Microsoft).

Which is certainly beneficial - providing a platform for other people to develop on certainly benefits the entire industry. The problem with that approach, as Microsoft has found since the 1980s, is that customers want a complete solution. They want a computer that, out of the box, will be able to access the Internet, check their email, provide basic word processing, and increasingly, create, edit and manage digital media. Microsoft thus must find a nice balance between only providing a platform for others to develop on (i.e. only providing a bare-bones operating system, no programs to speak of), and a "complete" solution where the OS includes everything the individual could possibly want to do.

Microsoft has succeeded in many ways in striking this balance. It provides many programs with its operating system that will be satisfactory for a basic user, but to get the most use out of the system the user must buy software. There are many anomalies to this, such as the Internet Explorer browser that was implemented into the OS and effectively killed the Netscape browser, but Microsoft has succeeded with its strategy.

Increasingly, though, users are looking at the OS as not just the literal operating system, but the entire suite of software included on the computer. As a result, the OS cannot just be a launching point for other developers, but must include and integrate software that users want, such as a Internet browser, email reading client, word processing software, calendar application, address book application, and multimedia software. Microsoft is thus beginning to realize they are not selling the OS to developers and other companies for them to add on to, but rather they are selling it to end users. Therefore they must design their systems to reflect that reality.

Vista has been their attempt to implement this new reality. Although XP included video editing software, "Moviemaker," the product was a weak knockoff of other existing software. Vista, though, attempts to bring it a step forward and improve upon it, and includes DVD-burning software, an improved Windows Media Player, and distinct Calendar and address book applications.

Beyond any of its surface-level innovations with software, perhaps Apple's largest success besides the iPod itself has been its forward-thinking approach in this regard. Jobs, and Apple, realized this was the future of computers in 2001 and moved to integrate multimedia software (iLife) and productivity apps (iCal, Address Book, Mail and TextEdit) into the OS. These apps are not merely watered-down versions of other existing apps, but useful applications in and of themselves that for the most part do not need replacing. For the vast majority of consumers, these apps are more powerful than anything they have really used before, save TextEdit. Indeed there are rumblings that Apple intends to integrate its iWork software suite into Leopard 10.5, and this would complete its move to create a powerful OS with integrated abilities.

Microsoft is playing catch up in this regard. Perhaps Microsoft will succeed. Either way, Apple has beat them to the punch here, and will see short term success.