Vista: Is it here to stay?

[srochford]

I'm hoping it'll be like what happened when Windows ME was released (which was also terrible). Microsoft then went on to produce Windows 2000. Which was the best desktop OS they've ever produced IMHO.

 

Not sure but I think that's re-writing history! Windows 2000 wasn't a successor to Windows ME; it was a successor to NT4. As others have said, MS used to effectively have a "business" and "home" OS; XP was the first attempt to merge them. XP Home and XP Pro are basically the same with a few features left out of the cheaper version because they're not relevant (eg most homes don't run domains)

 

If MS do release Windows 7 next year (and given that it's barely alpha code I think that they might struggle to release in less than 12 months) that means Vista will have been available for about 2.5 years which is comparable to the life of NT4 and Windows 2000 so they could claim to be back on track with a new OS every few years.

 

Windows 2000 was good; it added some useful stuff that NT4 didn't have but I think XP added some really useful stuff in terms of manageability - WMI and group policies are two areas I can think of which were improved.

[Geoff]

As regards to the next version of Windows I would suggest that many of us here, and in industry would be more prepared to adopt that rather than Vista due to the fact most of use would have Server 2008 installed and configured correctly by this time.

 

Er sort of. I'm expecting to have W2k8 DCs, W2k8 terminal servers and all the other guff running on Linux. I'm most of the way there too, with only 3 file servers and DNS/DHCP left....

 

Client side, most places will be thin clients talking to afore mentioned terminal servers. With only a select few systems being desktop PCs (techy PCs, Science, Technology) and as to if these run Vista, I doubt it.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Geoff

[Gatt]

I'm also planning to migrate to Win2k8 as soon as possible

Still need a Win2k3 TS for some thin clients as rdesktop isnt fully compat with RDP6.1 (problems mappnig USB Keys & Printers connect to the TC's) - do like the look of RemoteApps though!

 

Got one suite with Vista here but got a few issues which i'm hoping will be sorted when we get a Win2k8 DC in place..

Most of our other PCs arent fully vista capable so will prob be sticking with XP on the whole.

 

Looking at going Virtual, so will prob be making use of Win2k8's Hyper-V tech.

[ICT_GUY]

*Cough*Windows ME*Cough*

[torledo]

From what i remember XP was RTM very soon after windows 2000, around 18 months after i think. But the difference was that xp's release wasn't viewed as a failure of win2k, or resulted in xp cannibalising the still relatively new

win2k product.

 

I think Windows 7 is going to be released under different circumstances, by the time it comes around Vista penetration in the enterprise will probably be woefully low, so it will be a case of learning from the Vista mistakes, ensuring better performance of the OS and making it enteprise friendly. Unfortunately the sticking point will be Microsofts desire to include new features in the forthcoming OS....if they scale back their ambitions and provide an OS that compliments the Windows server 2008 product they may be able to get it out for late 2009. I think a lot will depend on where enteprises are in their hardware refresh cycle but for most XP should be good for atleast another 2 to 3 years. And if it's going to be supported until 2014 then i suspect a lot of companies will not bother with moving to windows 7 until it's unavoidable.

 

XP is the great survivor.

[Gatt]

XP is a good OS, as is Win2k Vista is fine for the home..

 

IMHO, what M$ should do is release Windows 7 as a BUSINESS USE ONLYOS (a la NT...) with no fancy features for the home.. take all the best bits of NT/2K/XP and Vista (not much i know..) and throw that into Win7.. remarket Vista for Home Users..

 

Just my 2 pennies...

[tmcd35]

Personally I think the WinNT architecture reached its zenith with XP SP2. From here on they are flogging a dead horse. The reason (IMHO) that ME sucked was that you could only stretch its DOS/Win32 foundations it was built on up to a point and that point was 98SE. M$ realised this and moved the consumer code over to the more solid WinNT foundations.

 

As a code base WinNT is a least, what 14 years old - was '94 that NT3.51 was released, or was it earlier? Vista, like ME, is proof that a fancy front end and some security hacks can not breath live into a flagging product.

 

The problems with NT are deep rooted. The registry is a nightmare, NTFS wasn't designed around modern security or journaling.

 

M$ need a fresh start at the Kernel level. Unix and it's offsprings have continuously proofed themselves with network security and modular expendability, the take up of new technologies like file system journaling.

 

M$'s problem is they have to support an aging code base and each new release 'must' maintain backwards compatibility with the last.

 

As a business OS what can Windows 7 give us that XP SP2 or SP3 hasn't got. And at what compatibility expense would we have to pay for these amazing new live changing features?

[cookie_monster]

Oddly XP SP2 was the end of the line for that particular code base. After that all future development is based on server 2003. The NT architecture is fine it's just allowing everyone to have admin rights that crapped it all up. The same goes for the kernel, there's plenty of life left in that yet apparently MS have been surprised how well it runs when it's stripped down (i.e minwin) it's all the cr*p and dependencies that cause the issues. This is why Win7 should be a more modular approach.

 

As of Win x64 they won't be maintaining the same level of backwards compatibility. I'm not sure why everyone is so exites about the age of the code base Linux is getting on a bit now and so is Solaris.

Edited April 17, 2008 by cookie_monster

[torledo]

XP is a good OS, as is Win2k Vista is fine for the home..

 

IMHO, what M$ should do is release Windows 7 as a BUSINESS USE ONLYOS (a la NT...) with no fancy features for the home.. take all the best bits of NT/2K/XP and Vista (not much i know..) and throw that into Win7.. remarket Vista for Home Users..

 

Just my 2 pennies...

 

That's what i'd like to see.... a spiritual successor to NT4. Leave Vista as the win98-esque option for multimedia and home use, with market Windows 7 as a business OS.

 

I'd like to see modularity in windows 7, but will they be able to do the modularity thing for the timescale they're planning i.e release sometime in 2009 ?

 

@cookiemonster - i guess they'res little chance they'll rewrite the kernel for windows, but if you're saying they don't need to just got cut out the dependancies through modularity how would this modularity work in practice. You've used minwin as an example, but how do they package the add-on modules to make the OS usable for all business users. Is server core the bluebrint or are we looking at a totally different model for windows 7, and does a desktop OS provide unique challenges when it comes to making it modular.

[Michael]

I personally still have reservations about Windows 7.0. Sure, it'll be the next revolutionary Windows OS (NT 7.0) but Microsoft have done a poor job of Vista. Because of this, I'm yet to be convinced whether Windows 7.0 will be a complete re-creation or another adaptation.

 

The way Vista performs on some of the test systems I have or customer systems is absolutely appalling. It's sluggish at most tasks I throw at it and the new GUI won't make multi million or billion dollar companies work any more productively.

 

I do think Microsoft made the right decision moving all users onto the NT kernel with Windows XP. If you've used Windows 95 or 98 lately you'll know what I mean. I agree also that Microsoft should have more obvious Home and Business editions of their software. Home edition should be bright, colourful and be full of useful wizards, but business/school versions should be bog standard, meaning returning to Classic Mode and turning fade effects off.

 

Microsoft clearly haven't done this and as a result, Vista is being sold with Volume Licensing agreements and on new PC's; but as some of you have already mentioned, just how many computers actually use Vista in practice is much lower than Microsoft would like you to believe.

 

What Microsoft should do (and I hope they're reading this), is adopt a proper, sophisticated modulated approach with just one Home and one Business/Pro edition and that's it. It could be easily achieved and would genuinely revolutionise Windows. The attack surface would be minimised, as you enable what services/tools you require, but also the system is optimised to the max. Microsoft do this with Windows Server, so they're on the right track, but they need to go into a lot more detail. It would also be educational for non technical users as they would have a better understanding what Windows can do for them.

[cookie_monster]

MS see their future being managed code so this is why they want to strip things down and remove dependencies, they’ve buried certain applications too deep into the OS and this is why patches to components take so long to release (and are causing so many issues in Vista) there's always a danger of it affecting another application.

 

As you say "does a desktop OS provide unique challenges when it comes to making it modular", i think this is true and this is why there needs to be a business version of Windows 7 similar to XP Embedded where you can start very small and add exactly what modules you want for different desktops rather than just giving them the lot and telling them to use what they need. This will have the benefits of less code to manage/patch and a lower attack surface.

 

On thing is certain Windows 7.0 will NOT be a rewrite but it is a big rethink, hopefully these changes "should" reduce the footprint and hardware requirements or at least keep them static.

 

-----------------

 

I'm repeating a bit of what Michael just said there but i was trying to clear up what i was saying.

Edited April 17, 2008 by cookie_monster

[CyberNerd]

That's what i'd like to see.... a spiritual successor to NT4. Leave Vista as the win98-esque option for multimedia and home use, with market Windows 7 as a business OS.

I don't think this is likely, part of MS's 'business strategy' is to get home users (who are also employees) to drive IT 'forward' with more exacting demands on the comanies IT. They do this with their home products ....eg: why can't I do X at work.

 

I'd like to see modularity in windows 7, but will they be able to do the modularity thing for the timescale they're planning i.e release sometime in 2009 ?

 

I think this will happen soon. MS want yahoo's userbase so they can sell them web-based applications. MS can see MSOffice market share (and hence OS market share) disappear to google webapps. Clearly google have a head start in web-applications, but if MS want to remain relevant they will have to follow suit. A modular operating system is perfect for this , otherwise they loose to linux (hence the extended support for XP on eee).

[cookie_monster]

otherwise they loose to linux

I'm a Linux user but i just don't see Linux displacing MS any time soon i really don't. Also don't forget MS have very talented engineering staff i suspect the industry would lap it up if one day MS came out with their own Linux distro that magically interoperates with Windows seamlessly. I see Red Hats move away from the desktop (again) as another pointer towards business not being ready to embrace Linux.

[CyberNerd]

@cookie_monster

 

you took my comment completely out of context. MS extended XP support specifically for the eeepc and other small, low spec laptops that happen to have been developed to run linux. If people see linux making waves, it starts to justify it. Same with thin clients like hp's that run linux natively - MS develop terminal servers on 2008 to require XPsp3/vista. MS adapt the market to suit their needs its called competition.

[cookie_monster]

Sorry i didn't think you were specifically reffering to the eee. Yes i can only agree there i think they will see now that they can't keep pushing higher spec hardware just to help out their mates at Intel. Future versions of windows will 'have' to be less resource hungry if they hope to be flexible enough to move windows to these new devices.

 

On the thin client front MS are doing them selves no favours there we were quoted for some Windows ones recently and the XP embedded licence wasn't cheap at all so we'll be going Linux. Can you buy this at education prices?

Edited April 17, 2008 by cookie_monster

[CyberNerd]

Can you buy this at education prices?

 

yes, Novell do educational discounts I believe. Not sure about the others.

The difference is that you buy support, not the product. So you don't have to pay extra for the support

- and edirectory server isn't dead although netware may be.

(novell switched from netware to linux!)

[torledo]

I don't think this is likely, part of MS's 'business strategy' is to get home users (who are also employees) to drive IT 'forward' with more exacting demands on the comanies IT. They do this with their home products ....eg: why can't I do X at work.

 

 

 

I think this will happen soon. MS want yahoo's userbase so they can sell them web-based applications. MS can see MSOffice market share (and hence OS market share) disappear to google webapps. Clearly google have a head start in web-applications, but if MS want to remain relevant they will have to follow suit. A modular operating system is perfect for this , otherwise they loose to linux (hence the extended support for XP on eee).

 

I don't see how losing market share in the office applicatoins space means losing to linux or other competitor in the OS market. If enteprises aren't willing to continue to buy into office, there's no reason for them not to continue with a Microsoft OS with a google webapp or open office as the alternative productivity app. One of the benefits of Windows is TCO, it's conceivable MS office becomes less attractive form a TCO perspective - for instance with large public bodies, but if that happens MS will either reduce office license prices to retain market share or offer a webapp suite....if they do neither they'll be hurting the office cash cow, not necessarily damaging the OS business. I think it's an uphill struggle for linux to gain significant market share from windows, irrespective of the fortunes of MS office.

 

You're approachign from the angle that office is used to shifft more of Vista/XP...when infact i think office is a cash cow in it's own right and not as a means to shift more of Vista/XP. If microsoft go down the webapp route they won't be selling anything to the yahoo user base...they'll have to offer it for free to gain acceptance. Much more sense for them to go att the hosted SaaS model for office. An onsite server to ease deployment and upgrade issues and reduce licensing costs for business. If a companies CRM and HR systems are already web enable and accessed predominantly through a web portal, it makes sense for office apps to be available through the web portal. Ofcourse that sounds a lot like the citrix model, but the citrix model meant you were paying twice...and with the TS model you're also license tax still exists. The new hosted model would have a radically different licensing model. They could extend the model to home users a la google. but people aren't going to want to pay for SaaS/hosted office apps.

[cookie_monster]

Yeh they bought SUSE then Ubuntu ruined the party :-)

[Geoff]

I'm a Linux user but i just don't see Linux displacing MS any time soon i really don't. Also don't forget MS have very talented engineering staff i suspect the industry would lap it up if one day MS came out with their own Linux distro that magically interoperates with Windows seamlessly. I see Red Hats move away from the desktop (again) as another pointer towards business not being ready to embrace Linux.

 

I agree about Linux not taking over the desktop (at least at home) there just isn't the application and hardware support to make it sustainable. The corporate desktop is a more likely candidate, you can choose hardware that works and you only have a small set of applications to deal with. We're not there yet (although there have been several high profile deployments) but it's just a matter of time.

 

In the mean time, Apple Macs are a nice bridge between the world of *nix and the world of Windows.

 

OTOH, Linux is taking over my server room and network infrastructure at a furious pace. I mean, if it can run the Internet, why can't it run my LAN..

 

I don't see how losing market share in the office applicatoins space means losing to linux or other competitor in the OS market.

 

The office division is one of the few parts of Microsoft that make any money. However it is a lot of money. If this disappears due to competition Microsoft will have to cut back in other areas, or implode. In the unlikely event that Microsoft does disappear off the face of the earth over night for one reason or another, what's left to fill the void?

Edited April 17, 2008 by Geoff

[tmcd35]

If a companies CRM and HR systems are already web enable and accessed predominantly through a web portal, it makes sense for office apps to be available through the web portal. Ofcourse that sounds a lot like the citrix model, but the citrix model meant you were paying twice...and with the TS model you're also license tax still exists. The new hosted model would have a radically different licensing model. They could extend the model to home users a la google. but people aren't going to want to pay for SaaS/hosted office apps.

 

Is this not the Remote App and TS Web Access feature in the new Windows 2008 Terminal Server?

 

On the office front I can see OpenOffice gaining a lot of ground, especially amongst home users. Office 2007's UI is atrocious, while (If I remember rightly) OpenOffice 3.0 is going to add editing PDF and they have the tried and tested UI.

 

I do think Microsoft made the right decision moving all users onto the NT kernel with Windows XP. If you've used Windows 95 or 98 lately you'll know what I mean. I agree also that Microsoft should have more obvious Home and Business editions of their software. Home edition should be bright, colourful and be full of useful wizards, but business/school versions should be bog standard, meaning returning to Classic Mode and turning fade effects off.

While I agree there should be more of a line between Business and Home versions - Business = Home - Crap (Pretty GUI, games, etc) - and there should definatly be only two versions, I disagree that moving to WinNT was a mistake.

 

The DOS/Win32 code base of Win3.1/95/98/ME was falling over then, It'd never have coped the demands of the modern mutli-processor architecture.

 

The same goes for the kernel, there's plenty of life left in that yet apparently MS have been surprised how well it runs when it's stripped down (i.e minwin) it's all the cr*p and dependencies that cause the issues

 

Okay, I profess that I don't know a whole lot about the Kernel itself. The *nix/Win mashup is little more than a private fantasy OS that I think would make for a better product than WinNT.

 

But If we are to keep WinNT how can M$ make it something that is actually useful? I mean since the release of Vista Apple market share as grown from around 5% to around 8%. How can M$ get these customers back?

 

Well I think they should go full 64bit and do away with backwards compatibility. Offer a VM solution for legacy apps. Backwards compatibility as always been the biggest weight around Window's neck and to be honest It no longer needs it.

 

The registry needs to be replaces. I don't know what with, but lord god it is an unwieldy unmanageable beast. Does anyone, even M$ themselves understand what goes on there? And no the Unix model of thousands of text files you can never find when you need them isn't that much better either.

 

The whole security model needs a ground up re-write. As as been said, Windows problem was giving everyone Admin rights. Vista appears to have little more than an annoying hack bolted over the top in an attempt to 'fix' these problems.

 

Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player both should go. The IE team just need sacking. WMP can be kept as a separate downloadable product for anyone who actually likes it. What business do either of these apps have being part of the OS? Lets face it people only use IE because it's supplied for free. Surely by hiring programmers to write the thing it cost M$ more to include IE, they can't be getting anything from it. Seems somewhat spitfull towards Mozilla, Opera and the like to me.

[Michael]

While I agree there should be more of a line between Business and Home versions - Business = Home - Crap (Pretty GUI, games, etc) - and there should definatly be only two versions, I disagree that moving to WinNT was a mistake.

 

I said Microsoft made the right decision moving all users onto the NT kernel with Windows XP

[tmcd35]

Sorry mis-read

[cookie_monster]

The office division is one of the few parts of Microsoft that make any money

 

Very true, but remember that MS are like local gov everything costs a fortune and they spend allot of cash on speculative R&D this is why they appear to lose so much money but their thinking that eventually they'll pick a winner.

 

The IE team just need sacking

 

I'm sorry but cut these people a bit of slack they're no doubt very talented but have a framework (made up by management and the marketing dept) to work to and they demand things move faster than 'standard' do.

Edited April 17, 2008 by cookie_monster

[SYNACK]

 

I don't like their current developments for deployment of their newer software. If you want to install Office 2k7 with SP1 you can't use the MSI, you can't slipstream it. The only options are to either pay for SMS or install it in the startup scrips.

 

Way to go MS, not only do I have to wait ages for the bulk of Office2k7 to install, I then have to wait for your rubbish installer to replace half of what it has just installed, way to save power, disk space and time.

 

Want SP1 integrated with Vista, you'll need the new media as you can't slipstream the OS installs anymore. WTF.

 

You don't realize how good a feature like slipstreaming really is until they take it away, not only that but they say they have improved it. Did they fire everyone with an ounce of common sense, were they making to much money and decided that they would unload a whole clip into their foot.

 

Yes you can use their imaging stuff but why should that be the only feasible method. Office is one of their flagship products, why would they cripple the MSI options and leave in show stopping errors. I looked at deploying it as an upgrade to 2k3 via GP. Guess what, there is a bug that stops it from installing, it uninstalls 2k3, tries 2k7, errors and then reinstalls 2k3.

 

If they keep this type of rubbish up I don't think that we will need to worry about Windows 7. The system admins of the world will have been driven insane with stupid platform decisions risen up and crushed Microsoft using whatever means necessary.

 

[tmcd35]

I'm sorry but cut these people a bit of slack they're no doubt very talented but have a framework (made up by management and the marketing dept) to work to and they demand things move faster than 'standard' do.

 

Sorry, you are right these coders are alot more talented than I'll ever be and my comment was not ment as a slight on them.

 

No, the fact is IE, for whatever reason, is a poor excuse for a web browser and the only reason it is used at all is because M$ give it away with every copy of their OS.

 

Now why on earth are M$ doing this? It's not to make money else they'd sell IE. By not including a web browser with the OS they won't be losing any functionality of the actual OS itself. So why? Answer, they didn't want Netscape to make money? Why not? Could Netscape have grown to challenge M$ in either the OS or Office markets had M$ not released a sub-standard browser, I think not. If the IE7 UI was usable and the browser itself standard compliant I wouldn't have a problem.

 

Hell maybe sacking the UI design team that came up with the Vista/WMP11/IE7/Office07 UI's would be a better start?