DO NOT buy vista guys

[Raffaz]

since october 2001 there have been no new opperating systems, the next scheduled release will be windows Vista in january 2007.

Yes there has, server 2003 came out

 

[root]

Yes there has, server 2003 came out

very good point...

ok since the turn of the milenium. 2 new core os's have come out...

still nothing when compared to the Apple releases or the redhat releases...

and still, (as the original point of the post was), not core technologies have changed, as they have changed with Apple Macs.

 

[Chainer]

Have you used vista? Have you even seen a vista computer running? No.

Vista needs a ton of processing power, a ton of memory, and it's features suck and are as annoying as the bubbles from service pack 2 on XP. I didnt have Major problems running old programs on Vista but I also barely met the minimum requirements so any slowness wouldnt have been noticed anyway.

You have a Pentium 3 dude, which is the equivalent of a friggin' Celeron these days! I think someone tried pointing it out to you before, but obviously it hasn't sunk in.

If it's too much for your machine, which it is, get a new one!

Geez! Don't base your sole opinion on an operating system based from using a Pentium 3 platform, that's just idiotic.

 

[lhuser]

that's a little misleading...

there was DOS, windows 1, 2, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE and ME all based on DOS, that took the DOS platform from the 80's to the turn of the milleniuum

I will have to correct you here, there is also Windows 1.01, 3.0, NT 3.0, 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, 4.0 Server.

still nothing when compared to the Apple releases or the redhat releases...

and still, (as the original point of the post was), not core technologies have changed, as they have changed with Apple Macs.

Well, the reason why Macs released more is because of the concecutive releases. 10.1.2, 10.1.1, etc.

They did, however release 3 computers, I know of by 2001. The G3, the G4 and the G4 cube.


Redhat was the same thing around. It may have been more wider, but many were major fixes.

 

[compguy91]

that's a little misleading...

there was DOS, windows 1, 2, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE and ME all based on DOS, that took the DOS platform from the 80's to the turn of the milleniuum

during the latter half of the 90's microsoft invented the NT platform, it went through a public release of 3.5, and 4,
but since NT wasn't as catchy as the year names they named NT5, windows 2000, and thus gained penetration into the home user market with their business platform.
after 2000 came windows XP (in october 2001), this was after there were several court casesregarding microsofts new opperating systems comming out at such speed that it was either expensive or impossible for everyone to upgrade to the latest, (releasing entier new systems on practically a yearly basis).

since october 2001 there have been no new opperating systems, the next scheduled release will be windows Vista in january 2007.

In the same period of time..., (since 2001), the (most commercial) linux release, (I'm going to say redhat) has gone through versions 7, 8, 9, fed1, fed2, fed3, fed4 and is now on fed5.
(also since 9 there has also been enterprise versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (total of 13 new releases in 5 years! -though that's misleading since fed core and enterprise are *almost* the same).

in that same time Mac has also seen Mac OS9, and X (two major releases), but has hidden the fact that OSX constantly changes by releaing lots of submajor versions,
Lepard, tiger etc...)...

There have been no major changes to the underlying technologies to the Linux core, (else it wouldn't be Linux anymore, as linux is named after the core that it's based around...

However you're right that microsoft have shifted from DOS technologies, to solely NT cores.
this is more for the purposes of stability and user support, (only working on one system at one time, rather than running two core products side by side).

You're wrong that Apple havn't changed anything.
Apple abandoned their own core in favour of adopting a Unix core,
Apple also abandoned their own hardware platform that all their software was written for, in favour of adopting an intel processor. -and no I never did have time to go and laugh in the faces of all those people who said that PowerPC were faster than intels, and are now saying that intels are faster than powerPC.

For the person that said that Microsoft have a much larger userbase this is true...
and the idea of hardware doesn't actually matter so much anymore...
a big part of the reason that people used to get BSOD's all the time was that drivers written by third parties would access memory that it wasn't meant to access, (illegal opperation).

with this invention of windows NT also came the invention of protected memory space, that helped a lot to try to clear up the mess of sloppy third party drivers.

with the advernt of windows XP also came the idea of privellagd hardware levels. now only level 0 drivers have direct access to hardware, that's why old programs to control things like the parallel port, or old midi programs that controlled the gameport stopped working under XP, cause they wern't allowed access to the hardware anymore.

------------------------------------
With regards Vista,

TBH, whilst I could get it at home, (I work for a place where staff are licensed to use microsoft products at home when there is a campus license). I probably won't...
there is nothing really new that I want, a lot of the features that I've read about seem more like tack than anything else, basically it seems more like bloatware than anything else...
I nuderstand why a lot of these things are available, but personally, I just need an opperating system, as in a system that allows me to run programs,
I don't need a DRM management system,
I don't need power tools,
I don't need fancy desktop isometric views.
I don't need app running protection.
basically.
I don't need Vista... if it wasn't for the fact that it was so insecure and no longer supported, I'd still be happily using windows 98.

sounds about right. Again, I wasn't 100% sure on what I said but thanks for clearing that up I'm fine with XP and will use it as long as I can but I have always wanted a mac (since OS8 when we used them in school) and I think now is a great time to buy one since they run windows and mac and the prices are cheap. Of course I'll still keep my PC for gaming but I'm not too keen on vista now. Once the price goes down and there's a service pack maybe I'll buy it but I'm not sure.

Thanks for clearing all that up!
Troy

 

[Steff]

You have a Pentium 3 dude, which is the equivalent of a friggin' Celeron these days! I think someone tried pointing it out to you before, but obviously it hasn't sunk in.

If it's too much for your machine, which it is, get a new one!

Geez! Don't base your sole opinion on an operating system based from using a Pentium 3 platform, that's just idiotic.

hahaha youre right

 

[UK31337]

Hmm... like I've said before, there isn't that much point in Windows XP if you put it into perspective.

What is Windows XP? Noob-proof Windows 2000 with a fancy interface and extra bloat, that's what it is.

I've got a Pentium M 2.0Ghz (equivalent roughly to a 3Ghz P4) laptop with 1GB RAM and a fresh install of XP Pro.
I've got a Pentium III 600Mhz desktop with 128MB RAM and a fresh install of Windows 2000.

The desktop is faster. Windows 2000 is so much faster and lightweight, if it weren't for the fact MS have effectively killed it off and support e.g. Direct X is gone, I'd probably take it over XP. I actually prefer using Windows 2000, it doesn't patronize you with stupid wizards and unnecessary eye candy.

 

[lhuser]

Well, use Linux on the other one if you want. If you have experience, like you seem to have, then there shouldn't be a reason to have it.

 

[alvino]

Hmm... like I've said before, there isn't that much point in Windows XP if you put it into perspective.

What is Windows XP? Noob-proof Windows 2000 with a fancy interface and extra bloat, that's what it is.

I've got a Pentium M 2.0Ghz (equivalent roughly to a 3Ghz P4) laptop with 1GB RAM and a fresh install of XP Pro.
I've got a Pentium III 600Mhz desktop with 128MB RAM and a fresh install of Windows 2000.

The desktop is faster. Windows 2000 is so much faster and lightweight, if it weren't for the fact MS have effectively killed it off and support e.g. Direct X is gone, I'd probably take it over XP. I actually prefer using Windows 2000, it doesn't patronize you with stupid wizards and unnecessary eye candy.

Yeah, Windows 2000 was very nice. There are some things that I like about XP, but 2000 is fast and isn't bloated like hell.

 

[lhuser]

Windows 2000 was too slow for my PC. It seems that the drivers waren't made for it.