Closing the Door to Microsoft Vista

[PryGuy]

General Motors (GM) may take a detour around Vista, the latest computer operating system from Microsoft (MSFT). The automaker has encountered so many speed bumps getting Vista to work on its machines that it may just wait for the next version of Windows, due in 2010 or 2011. "We're considering bypassing Vista and going straight to Windows 7," says GM's Chief Systems & Technology Officer Fred Killeen.

Vista taxes all but the most modern PCs with hefty processing and memory requirements. Many of GM's PCs can't even run the system. "By the time we'd replace them, Windows 7 might be ready anyway," Killeen says. Then there are compatibility problems with all the software that needs to run on Windows. GM's software vendors still haven't ensured all their programs will run on Vista trouble-free. So the company is sticking with Windows XP for now. Killeen figures GM could install Windows 7 in three or four years. The article (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2008/tc20080512_157155.htm)

[FuturePilot]

Haha, that's funny. :lolflag:

But will Windows 7 be any lighter on resources? Will it be any more compatible with older programs?
I think MS really shot themselves in the foot with Vista.

[PryGuy]

+1

[bsharp]

But will Windows 7 be any lighter on resources? Will it be any more compatible with older programs?
I think MS really shot themselves in the foot with Vista.

+1

I don't understand everyone saying that they will wait for Windows 7, it will be lighter and more compatible, etc. It took MS 7 years to develop Vista, what makes anyone think that Windows 7, released in 3 years, will be any better? The way I see it, the only way it could be is worse.

[HunterThomson]

Ya, why do they think window$ 7 will be any better? Although remember window$ ME that one really sucked.

[PryGuy]

+1

I don't understand everyone saying that they will wait for Windows 7, it will be lighter and more compatible, etc. It took MS 7 years to develop Vista, what makes anyone think that Windows 7, released in 3 years, will be any better? The way I see it, the only way it could be is worse.Yeah, frankly speaking, Windows 7 should be completely rebuilt from scratch to be fast, secure and reliable. The Vista's UAC (User Access Control) seems to be nothing but a joke. Will Microsoft be able to cope with that? I doubt. The best way for them is to go the Apple way IMHO, take BSD and build their own X11 like thing. Will they do it? I doubt. They simply do not have time for such things.

EDIT: Heh heh, Windows fans now saying "We'll wait for Windows 7" instead of "Windows Vista sucks!" ;)

[HunterThomson]

Yeah, frankly speaking, Windows 7 should be completely rebuilt from scratch to be fast, secure and reliable. The Vista's UAC (User Access Control) seems to be nothing but a joke. Will Microsoft be able to cope with that? I doubt. The best way for them is to go the Apple way IMHO, take BSD and build their own X11 like thing. Will they do it? I doubt. They simply do not have time for such things.

Would be interesting if window$ just gave up and build a UNIX like OS....

[bufsabre666]

i still dont understand why people want an os to run on their computer forever, look newer and newer things arent ganna work all the time, its time to move on, in 2 or 3 years alot of the computers in peoples signatures are ganna need that time periods equvilent to damn small linux cause the linux kernal will be so large then, the tech industry moves so fast, if you just sit and complain its ganna pass you by

[PryGuy]

Would be interesting if window$ just gave up and build a UNIX like OS....No, really, *nix is not just the drag and drop thing, there's simply no alternative to the UNIX security model now, we all know that. Look at the latest Microsoft 'inventions', they simply copy UNIX things.

[HunterThomson]

No, really, *nix is not just the drag and drop thing, there's simply no alternative to the UNIX security model now, we all know that. Look at the latest Microsoft 'inventions', they simply copy UNIX things.

Ya, I guess you are right.... They do already try to copy UNIX like why of doing things. They just screw it up.

[HunterThomson]

i still dont understand why people want an os to run on their computer forever, look newer and newer things arent ganna work all the time, its time to move on, in 2 or 3 years alot of the computers in peoples signatures are ganna need that time periods equvilent to damn small linux cause the linux kernal will be so large then, the tech industry moves so fast, if you just sit and complain its ganna pass you by

Maybe, GM just messed up a bit. They should have set aside more money for upgrades. One the other hand, window$ dose try to max out new computer with every new OS. Why could they not give options to use lighter set-ups like Ubuntu?

[bufsabre666]

Maybe, GM just messed up a bit. They should have set aside more money for upgrades. One the other hand, window$ dose try to max out new computer with every new OS. Why could they not give options to use lighter set-ups like Ubuntu?

i totally agree with that, im just expressing a little frustration i get from people on a daily basis asking me about windows problems, they totally could provide a lighter edition and they should, they might even be able to make it affordable. but theres nothing wrong with xp on older computers, hell when i had to use windows for a CAD class i prefered to work on windows 2000 over xp just cause its lighter

[maniacmusician]

Yeah, frankly speaking, Windows 7 should be completely rebuilt from scratch to be fast, secure and reliable. The Vista's UAC (User Access Control) seems to be nothing but a joke. Will Microsoft be able to cope with that? I doubt. The best way for them is to go the Apple way IMHO, take BSD and build their own X11 like thing. Will they do it? I doubt. They simply do not have time for such things.

EDIT: Heh heh, Windows fans now saying "We'll wait for Windows 7" instead of "Windows Vista sucks!" ;)
I've read articles indicating (and citing an actual source from Microsoft) that Vista's UAC features were designed chiefly to annoy users. This was Microsoft's attempt at solving a problem they were facing.

Problem: Windows developers were unnecessarily using administrative features in their programs, when they weren't really warranted. Microsoft wanted these developers to stop using adminstrative privileges for no good reason.

Solution: Annoy the users. With all the negative press around UAC, their rationale was that developers would stop being frivolous to prevent their users from having to deal with UAC. If they all fixed their programs, the user would be presented with the UAC dialogs less often.

If it's really true, it's absolutely moronic.

On Windows 7; the news sites are interpreting it as "Vista was all about UI improvements and composite bling, whereas Windows 7 will be primarily focused on performance." That's how the PR at Microsoft is spinning it. Whether the developers will really make performance their first concern is yet to be seen.

While everyone would love to see a complete rewrite of the OS, or at least a refactoring of the code to make it more efficient and to strip obsolete code, this is probably not going to happen. It would mean a longer development cycle and more monetary expenditure by Microsoft. Considering all the bad publicity received by Vista, Microsoft doesn't want either of those things to happen.

[PryGuy]

i totally agree with that, im just expressing a little frustration i get from people on a daily basis asking me about windows problems, they totally could provide a lighter edition and they should, they might even be able to make it affordable. but theres nothing wrong with xp on older computers, hell when i had to use windows for a CAD class i prefered to work on windows 2000 over xp just cause its lighterThe worst pain for the Microsoft guys is their own Windows now, I think they do not provide the lighter edition 'cause they simply can't do it. Windows kernel is absolutely not flexible. Microsoft just chose the wrong way years ago.

[bsharp]

Maybe, GM just messed up a bit. They should have set aside more money for upgrades.

GM has no obligation to buy a high-end computer just so a secretary can type up a memo or send an email. An email or printed memo from $200 Vista is the same from $140 XP or $0 Ubuntu. Granted, some of their engineering software may require windows, but if it runs in XP on existing hardware and Vista can't do it, why should they upgrade?

[HunterThomson]

i totally agree with that, im just expressing a little frustration i get from people on a daily basis asking me about windows problems, they totally could provide a lighter edition and they should, they might even be able to make it affordable. but theres nothing wrong with xp on older computers, hell when i had to use windows for a CAD class i prefered to work on windows 2000 over xp just cause its lighter

Aw, CAD...... I wish I kept up with that..... One of my friends in now making $32/hr two year out of high school....

[uraldinho]

Quote: "But will Windows 7 be any lighter on resources? Will it be any more compatible with older programs?"

the article says that they will upgrade their systems, and the timeframe for the upgrade is equal to the timeframe of the new windows version, so by the time the hardware upgrade is ready the the new windows will be ready too. it's called future planning... rather then upgrading for vista, they are planning for the future and aiming to upgrade to a system that works with the next version of windows. Kinda future proof upgrade if you like.

I have a friend that writes programs for assembly lines in VB, and he hates every bit of it. I didn't ask why he's using VB, but I presume that's what fits with the larger system.

[HunterThomson]

GM has no obligation to buy a high-end computer just so a secretary can type up a memo or send an email. An email or printed memo from $200 Vista is the same from $140 XP or $0 Ubuntu. Granted, some of their engineering software may require windows, but if it runs in XP on existing hardware and Vista can't do it, why should they upgrade?

Owe ya I agree.

[igknighted]

Haha, that's funny. :lolflag:

But will Windows 7 be any lighter on resources? Will it be any more compatible with older programs?
I think MS really shot themselves in the foot with Vista.

No, they shot themselves in the foot by building this expectation that every piece of code will be usable in the next version. That simply isn't possible. In order to have the backwards compatability everyone seems to expect, the code would have been so bloated it simply wouldn't be usable, and it would have been a seive for malware. Yes, it is a PR hit. But from a practical standpoint, it was 100% necessary.

Also, device compatability. If you recall, Vista completely changed the way drivers interact with the windows kernel. Therefor, it's a non-trivial excercise to code device drivers for devices, even if an XP driver exists. Why would HP waste time/$ building a driver for a printer from 2003? Again, this is an unreasonable expectation on behalf of users for legacy support like this. And even if you want to argue that HP should make the driver, Microsoft is the one that people are complaining about, and all they did was FIX the way their OS interacts with drivers. They took a step in the right direction, but people rip them apart without looking into it further.

As for hardware requirements... they are steep. But really, is it any worse than XP? Think about it... 256mb ram is really the minimum for XP, and it was released in 2001. That's a lot of ram for back then. And now vista has been released, and you really need close to 1gb. Is that really that much of a stretch? No way, from a price standpoint it is probably less than XP's at the time of release, with the price of ram now. Do I think Vista could be a little less resource-hoggish? Hell yes. But do I think it is unreasonable? Not really. I think the bigger issue is that with XP the computer reached the level where it was able to perform the tasks that most users needed with reasonable efficiency (from a hardware capability standpoint). People who IM, word process and check emails are bottlenecked by other things than the speed of programs (mainly typing speed and internet connection speed), and DVD's and MP3's play fine. Back in 2001, these things were not the case, so people were buying more new PC's. Now, it's harder to justify the cost of more hardware to do the same things. However, looking to the future, more capable hardware will be needed when HD can be reliably streamed via the internet and everyone wants to record shows in HD on their PC and watch BlueRay movies. These tasks will require Vista-capable hardware, but are not mainstreamed yet. In a sense, despite the delays on vista, it came to the table a little to early.

All this said, the result is that while Microsoft did their job and delivered a technically superior product, the end users are unsatisfied because they don't care about what is "technically better". Or at least most don't. Perhaps this will turn out like win2k/XP where 2k never caught on with users, but XP took the technical superiority of the platform and tailored it to mainstream use. Maybe windows 7 will take the superior vista product and make it friendlier to users. After all, many people simply wont see a need for a new PC until near that time (this is what is really going on with GM... vista simply isn't a reason to upgrade a PC, not that it's loathesome software). So we shall see what happens to vista, but I for one will continue to run it alongside my linux installs and be happy knowing that I am using a superior OS to XP, even if my 8 year old scanner doesn't work.

[HunterThomson]

The worst pain for the Microsoft guys is their own Windows now, I think they do not provide the lighter edition 'cause they simply can't do it. Windows kernel is absolutely not flexible. Microsoft just chose the wrong way years ago.

This is one of the things I mentions before. What if micro$oft just gave up there Kernel and rewrote it. So it had modules and set up the rest of the system so each part could be changed without having to do any major changes to the rest of the system.

[HunterThomson]

While everyone would love to see a complete rewrite of the OS, or at least a refactoring of the code to make it more efficient and to strip obsolete code, this is probably not going to happen. It would mean a longer development cycle and more monetary expenditure by Microsoft. Considering all the bad publicity received by Vista, Microsoft doesn't want either of those things to happen.

But after they made it simpler to strip bad code it would be a lot faster to write new releases form then on.???? Maybe they should fire all there programmer and higher Ubuntu programmer's. I don't know I just find it hard to think why anyone wants to use window$. Now, when my friends ask me to fix there infected window$ box's I just tell them I will install Ubuntu.

[PryGuy]

This is one of the things I mentions before. What if micro$oft just gave up there Kernel and rewrote it. So it had modules and set up the rest of the system so each part could be changed without having to do any major changes to the rest of the system.
That's why I compare Windows (and Microsoft in general) to dinosaurs and Linux to mammals. Dinosaurs were all big and great and that's why they couldn't survive...

[Canis familiaris]

But after they made it simpler to strip bad code it would be a lot faster to write new releases form then on.???? Maybe they should fire all there programmer and higher Ubuntu programmer's. I don't know I just find it hard to think why anyone wants to use window$. Now, when my friends ask me to fix there infected window$ box's I just tell them I will install Ubuntu.

Sadly, people desist change. I tried convincing many people to try Ubuntu, they tried Ubuntu for a few hours and then removed Ubuntu saying Where's the Start Menu, Control Panel, MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, How to Run Games and when I try to explain they do not listen. They rather prefer to spend hours scanning their rig for viruses and trojan.

[HunterThomson]

Sadly, people desist change. I tried convincing many people to try Ubuntu, they tried Ubuntu for a few hours and then removed Ubuntu saying Where's the Start Menu, Control Panel, MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, How to Run Games and when I try to explain they do not listen. They rather prefer to spend hours scanning their rig for viruses and trojan.

Ya, I get that. I just don't fix there computers any more. I can't stand working on window$ now. I just spend the hole time ****ing about how they would not even have this problem is window$ did suck so much. What if big corps started insisting that Auto CAD and all there programs run on Linux? Do you think the big software venders would comply?

[Canis familiaris]

If big corporates insist that companies like Autodesk, Adobe port their Application to Linux they certainly will. They want to make money in the end after all.

[HunterThomson]

If big corporates insist that companies like Autodesk, Adobe port their Application to Linux they certainly will. They want to make money in the end after all.

What if a bunch of programmers volunteered their time to informing GM and the like that they would save a lot of money on hardware up grades and have a more secures network if they used Linux.

[ladr0n]

This is one of the things I mentions before. What if micro$oft just gave up there Kernel and rewrote it. So it had modules and set up the rest of the system so each part could be changed without having to do any major changes to the rest of the system.

Then they could revamp their UAC so there was something called "root", which is an unlimited privilege set, and then "groups" which each have a specific set of privileges based on what they need to do, and "users" which belong to one or more "groups". This would allow a functional separation of privileges and result in highly increased security.

Then they could switch from their current "file extension determines everything" model to a permissioned executable model. Every file on the hard drive would have a set of permissions for each user and group: read, write, execute. Mix and match at will. This would prevent, say, a virus hidden in an image or song file. Another big increase in security.

Then they could give their file system a makeover. Instead of centering everything on physical drives, they could make a file system tree starting at the root, with physical drives, networked drives, other devices, etc, plugged into the file system where appropriate.

etc.

Mr. Gates, I have an idea for you... :lolflag:

[HunterThomson]

Is there an organization that dedicates it self to converting corporations to linux? What about a hacker group that hacks corporate systems and web sights to force them to convert to Linux?

[HunterThomson]

Then they could revamp their UAC so there was something called "root", which is an unlimited privilege set, and then "groups" which each have a specific set of privileges based on what they need to do, and "users" which belong to one or more "groups". This would allow a functional separation of privileges and result in highly increased security.

Then they could switch from their current "file extension determines everything" model to a permissioned executable model. Every file on the hard drive would have a set of permissions for each user and group: read, write, execute. Mix and match at will. This would prevent, say, a virus hidden in an image or song file. Another big increase in security.

Then they could give their file system a makeover. Instead of centering everything on physical drives, they could make a file system tree starting at the root, with physical drives, networked drives, other devices, etc, plugged into the file system where appropriate.

etc.

Mr. Gates, I have an idea for you... :lolflag:

Ya! that is what I am talking about:) The only way corp's can justify using window$ is ignorance.

[Canis familiaris]

What if a bunch of programmers volunteered their time to informing GM and the like that they would save a lot of money on hardware up grades and have a more secures network if they used Linux.
Well this is the difficult part as it would be tough for the programmers to explain about Linux to their bosses and they will desist change won't they. Also many of their fellow programmers trained with .NET, etc. would not exactly support the revolution, would they?

[Canis familiaris]

Is there an organization that dedicates it self to converting corporations to linux? What about a hacker group that hacks corporate systems and web sights to force them to convert to Linux?
Hacking systems would be illegal isn't it. If if they do with permission and no harm, corporates would insist for patching up Windows than changing to Linux.
By the way the "hacking" group organization which focuses on converting corporations to Linux are Red Hat, Novell, Canonical and many others.
And forcing corporates to use Linux is not exactly a smart choice. If Linux has to be mainstream it has to be chosen by choice.

[HunterThomson]

Well this is the difficult part as it would be tough for the programmers to explain about Linux to their bosses and they will desist change won't they. Also many of their fellow programmers trained with .NET, etc. would not exactly support the revolution, would they?

Ya, the corporate heads don't know anything about computers.... And Yes the .NET programmers would be put into joblessness. Maybe the hacker group cracking for the grater good would be the way to go.

[HunterThomson]

Hacking systems would be illegal isn't it. If if they do with permission and no harm, corporates would insist for patching up Windows than changing to Linux.
By the way the "hacking" group organization which focuses on converting corporations to Linux are Red Hat, Novell, Canonical and many others.
And forcing corporates to use Linux is not exactly a smart choice. If Linux has to be mainstream it has to be chosen by choice.

Ya ya I am just having fun:)

[Canis familiaris]

Then they could revamp their UAC so there was something called "root", which is an unlimited privilege set, and then "groups" which each have a specific set of privileges based on what they need to do, and "users" which belong to one or more "groups". This would allow a functional separation of privileges and result in highly increased security.

Then they could switch from their current "file extension determines everything" model to a permissioned executable model. Every file on the hard drive would have a set of permissions for each user and group: read, write, execute. Mix and match at will. This would prevent, say, a virus hidden in an image or song file. Another big increase in security.

Then they could give their file system a makeover. Instead of centering everything on physical drives, they could make a file system tree starting at the root, with physical drives, networked drives, other devices, etc, plugged into the file system where appropriate.

etc.

Mr. Gates, I have an idea for you... :lolflag:

That would require SIGNIFICANT changes within the Windows kernel. It would be a tough call, for sure.

[bsharp]

Is there an organization that dedicates it self to converting corporations to linux? What about a hacker group that hacks corporate systems and web sights to force them to convert to Linux?

An organization to convert corporations to Linux would be pointless, corporations are like governments. There would have to be a justifiable reason for doing so, the margin of advantage would have to heavily outweigh the disadvantage, and if such requirements were met, the corporation would have to go through the board of directors, actually installing the systems, paying to train employees on the new systems, and it just isn't cost-effective enough for a major corporation to make the switch entirely.

[quote=HunterThomson;4962634] What about a hacker group that hacks corporate systems and web sights to force them to convert to Linux?[/code]

No one should be 'forced' to do anything, and conducting criminal acts in the name of Linux would make us lower than Microsoft.

[Canis familiaris]

Ya, the corporate heads don't know anything about computers.... And Yes the .NET programmers would be put into joblessness. Maybe the hacker group cracking for the grater good would be the way to go.

Maybe NOT jobless, but if they are "real" programmers they would not be facing problems migrating to Qt/GTK for more than few month. But then few months is a lot and many of them are not "real" programmers.

[HunterThomson]

With all the problems with Vista and the cost of the change anyway now seems to me like a simpler time to convert. Don't you think?

[HunterThomson]

Ok everyone no cracker revolution:) That cacking is going on anyway just not in the name of Linux. Window$ just has to many holes.

[Canis familiaris]

With all the problems with Vista and the cost of the change anyway now seems to me like a simpler time to convert. Don't you think?
Of course. There was no better time before.

[Canis familiaris]

It would be interesting to see if Windows 7 fails as Vista did which is quite likely, then what will be the roadmap for big corporations. I mean by 2011 XP would definitely a legacy OS.

[Canis familiaris]

Anyways I hope people do not migrate to Linux because Windows is bad but because Linux is good.

[HunterThomson]

Maybe the problem is in schooling? People should know at lest the basics of how computers work and a little programming out of high school. Then people would understand why window$ sucks.

[Canis familiaris]

Maybe the problem is in schooling? People should know at lest the basics of how computers work and a little programming out of high school. Then people would understand why window$ sucks.

Problem is exactly on schooling. They do teach what they call "basics of how computers work" but they actually teach "basics of how Windows works".

[HunterThomson]

Problem is exactly on schooling. They do teach what they call "basics of how computers work" but they actually teach "basics of how Windows works".

I was never taut any computers other then go to this web site and copy down the stuff there. I meen like basics of hardware and then programming. I think it should be required math, English, computer hardware, Python, PE.... And ya I bet micor$oft would give them window4 for free and maybe even pay them to use it.

[Canis familiaris]

When I was at school, they taught: DOS basics, Windows basics, MS Office, MSSQL Server, HTML, QBASIC, Turbo C++, Visual Basic.
Except HTML in which we focused primarily with IE and Turbo C++ which I ran with difficulty with DOSBOX in Ubuntu, the rest are MS products.products.
Now students used MS products at both home and school, no wonder they are die hard Windows user. Out of 150 students only I was a full time user of Linux, one was 50-50 Linux user and one was in and out Linux user but mainly Windows user. The rest used Windows.

[ShodanjoDM]

Vista, what makes anyone think that Windows 7, released in 3 years, will be any better?

Because 3-4 years from now, 4gb RAM will be seen as "normal" requirement for Internet browsing, writing documents and other ordinary home/office tasks.

That is, ofcourse, from MS Windows perspective.

[Chame_Wizard]

Sadly, people desist change. I tried convincing many people to try Ubuntu, they tried Ubuntu for a few hours and then removed Ubuntu saying Where's the Start Menu, Control Panel, MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, How to Run Games and when I try to explain they do not listen. They rather prefer to spend hours scanning their rig for viruses and trojan.

those people are INTO Window$:guitar:

[forrestcupp]

I don't understand everyone saying that they will wait for Windows 7, it will be lighter and more compatible, etc. It took MS 7 years to develop Vista, what makes anyone think that Windows 7, released in 3 years, will be any better? The way I see it, the only way it could be is worse.
Well, they have actually already passed at least Milestone 1, so they're on track for that time frame. If you look at the entire history of their releases, Vista was the only release that took that long.

Windows 7 is actually planned to be much lighter on resources because they are totally rewriting the kernel to be modular. So theoretically, you should be able to make it as light or heavy as you want, even down to having a functional command line only. It sounds like they're trying to make it more like a UNIX style OS.

But it definitely won't be any more backward compatible than Vista.