Re: What are Vista's problems.. really?

"Daniel Johnson" <danieljohnson2@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
u8mdnf7sxrfaN4jUnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/8/08 8:03 AM:

"Snit" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C538DA50.DE8F0%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Daniel Johnson" <danieljohnson2@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
w56dnc-BL4rHGY7UnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/6/08 4:57 PM:

If you introduce a new OS that has a new API, and supports older APIs via a
VM, then that VM must run modern apps, not just "old" ones. It must run apps
released the week before it was.

It takes time for any new API to be adopted.

Sure... though Apple did this very well (though that was not the plan - they
were pressured). Apple had what is now called Classic but let developers
know that a new API was coming, Cocoa. They also had Carbon which worked
natively on both the old and the new OS.

This was reasonably well done, given their technical constraints. Classic was
a pretty lousy way to run an OS 9 application, but Classic was not the whole
story. There was Carbon.

Carbon more closely resembles MS's strategy- you can write a Carbon app and
run it natively on the old OS, but that same app runs natively on OS X too.
That is how Win16 behaves.

So Apple did that *and* had the Classic environment. This way they were able
to move forward *and* leave the old stuff behind... that way they could
become more secure, more buzz-word compliant, and all that good stuff. MS
has yet to do that. If they were to create a VM for old stuff they could
move forward better.

Ideally, of course, "Carbon" would have been the API all the existing Mac apps
used, so they would all run natively. That's what MS did. But for technical
reasons Apple was not able to do that, so they wound up with a three tier
approach: Classic, Carbon Cocoa.

And now Apple has been able to move forward. Vista users are paying the
price for MS not doing so. Over time enough developers will embrace the
Vista... um... goodness to make it less of a big deal. Already happening.
But the damage to the Vista - and MS - reputation has been pretty big.

In retrospect, they could have avoided this by introducing "Carbon", or
something very like it, much much sooner. Like, around the System 7 timeframe.
They might never have needed Classic at all.

Well, I am of the opinion that it is a shame Classic is gone now. :)

Why could MS not do what Apple did and migrate to a new API while keeping
the old alive in a VM "Classic" environment?

They could do that. They just wouldn't want to. "Classic" VM environments
stink.

The price MS paid for not is pretty big... they will not even use the term
Vista in their ads.

I admit I did not get the wisdom of Apple doing this at the time - I thought
the new look and the old look would be too confusing and too much against
having a consistent UI.

That is the least of the problems with Classic, really.

What did you see as bigger problems? It worked amazingly well... though it
did take a fair amount of resources (of course, it was loading a whole
different OS!)

But since the applications acted so differently it was a benefit to have the
visual context change - though it was also wise to try to eliminate the need
for that.

Well, having them look different does encourage people to upgrade to native
apps.

Yes. And helps in other ways, too.

Apple was successful with that: they were able to get to the point where only
a few old-timers such as myself even cared about Classic any more... and
really even to me it is not that large of a deal. Not my preference to lose
it and I will miss my few Classic programs, but overall it is not as if I am
losing any real functionality or even ease of use. Mostly I "lose"
nostalgia... and dancing cookies from an "Arthur" CD. While I still have a
machine that runs Classic I should get a video of it. :)

I think there are more than a few people who, like you, have a few Classic
apps. But people who really care about this stuff wouldn't be using Macs in
the first place, of course.

Er?

Consider the people who won't upgrade to Vista because of app-compat problems.
Those people would hardly upgrade to any OS that ran their old apps in a VM;
that would be even worse.

Worse? In what way? I run Windows and Linux in VMs. Serves my needs well.

[snip]
They don't want to "avoid Vista"; and they would not find Windows 7 any more
appealing. They want to stay where they are.

I want to know where you get this... and why you discount the voices calling
out against Vista.

I've heard lots of these guys too, trolling internet forums everywhere. Much
of what they are saying is flat out wrong.

I do not consider it "trolling" to talk about your bad experiences with
Vista.

I hear them often... generally at least once a week in one class or another
(not that I keep specific track, but I know I heard it even last night... I
did not bring up OSs at all other than to note a difference in windowing
systems for Dreamweaver).

I realize that you are willing to believe anything that puts MS is a bad
light, and unwilling to believe anything flattering about them- but it's quite
possible those people are just repeating lies they have been told.

These people are talking about their experiences, generally, but - sure -
some are talking about things they have heard from others who have used it.
So?

By and large, people who use Vista do not like it. This is not a good thing
for an OS!

[snip]
Oh, I'm sure that XP is even less in evidence *now*. It's not been the
current version of Windows for two years now.

But you can *still* get it on a business machine... and if you are right
about most business machines being shipped with XP that is a problem for MS.

You can still get Windows 2000 preinstalled on a business machine, I believe.
You just have to provide the installation image; they'll install whatever you
want.

It is not the same: it is a standard option. And, you said, it is what most
people pick on a business machine. The only time they have a choice, they
pick XP.

I imagine you could get Windows 3 that way, too, up until this month when MS
finally stopped licensing it entirely.

You could not select Win 3 on a Dell on their site. Nope.

I find that HP stopped shipping pre-installed OEM Windows 2000 systems in
March 2004, when MS stopped licensing it that way. That's 3 years after XP was
introduced. At that point you could downgrade XP Pro (just as you can
downgrade Vista now) or license Windows 2000 yourself.

Perhaps some of the whining about this is because MS is being more aggressive
about the shift of Vista; they seem to have given XP about half as much time
as Windows 2000 got.

And, of course, by and large people do not like Vista. People who use it.

[snip]
Partly that's because it does not try to combine versioning and backup. But
partly it's just that Time Machine isn't very good on its own terms.

I believe every review I have read of Time Machines sees it differently... as
do I. But to each their own.

This says something about those reviewers. Time machine's limitations are not
at all secret, nor did they take long to surface.

It does what it is designed to do very well... and what it is designed to do
is well thought out. I have talked about the two areas where I think it
needs improvement - if Apple moves to ZFS for Time Machine, as I suspect
they will, at least one of those will be addressed.

I can understand that many users prefer the flashy UI- this explains much
about Vista at a stroke, honestly- but the non-UI concerns can't really be
dismissed like that.

It is not about a flashy UI... it is about ease of use. The fact that they
have the moving stars, the one real over-the-top "flashy" thing about it,
has not been received as well (though it is not really doing any harm). I
have even heard some people who are impressed with it.

[snip] I will say I find two big deficiencies in Time Machine: the lack of
block level backup... this means I do not back up things such as my VM
machine via Time Machine, it would just be silly to do so, and the other is
the lack of highlighting what has changed... makes it sometimes hard to know
what Time Machine "jumped" to a given date. Other than those two things,
though, it does a very good job of what it is meant to do.

Perhaps so, if it is meant to corrupt Apeture data. :D

Hasn't that been corrected. Long ago?

But what The Steve said of it is that it is meant to make backup so
accessible, everyone will do it. It plainly fails at that, since you need to
buy special hardware to use it.

I guess they could sell all Macs with a second hard drive... but I prefer
that as an option!

[snip]
However, this tactic is less effective if the facts are easily available.
Vista really does run on Vista Capable systems. It's not always faster than
XP on them, but it runs. In this it is just like previous versions of
Windows, except MS was a bit more realistic about the system requirements
this time.

Merely running is not good enough.

If you feel that way, and not everyone does, you may wish to avoid systems
labeled "Designed for Windows XP - Windows Vista Capable"; you may want to go
for the "Vista Ready" computer instead.

Does little good for all the people burned by computers not up to the task
of running the OS they were sold with... nor having the drivers to use the
printers they came with, etc. A complete and total mess. There really is
no excuse for selling a "standard" bundled system like that. Between MS and
HP (and whoever else sold junk that way) they *should* be sued. It was
clearly deceptive.

--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OS/2 mentioned in a Vista review
    ... You can also install it in a classic way in 2K (and XP, and 2003 and Vista) by ... That may be a good basis of comparison for you, but to someone who is already displeased with the previous standard of operation of Windows, what should that mean? ... It can be done on XP or OS/2, ... Consider: full-screen apps. ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Re: How to maximize your frustration with computers
    ... are written for Windows. ... and it is not only the engineering apps that are ... Vista, _none_ of the hospitals use Macs. ... I have run the $1,600 Dragon medical version on both ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: OS/2 mentioned in a Vista review
    ... The installation of device drivers was the major one that pops to mind. ... You can also install it in a classic way in 2K (and XP, and 2003 and Vista) by ... : full-screen apps. ... Windows is the ability to set the priority ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Re: CP/M Source
    ... You can use Linux or Apple's OS X and use OpenOffice to read and write Word files. ... First of all, my livelihood depends a lot on being able to share files with other people, about 98% of whom are using Windows boxes. ... It may indeed be true that the files transfer between apps with no problems, but I'm not inclined to risk it without proof. ... My wife, whose most complex activities are exchanging emails on AOL and surfing the web, had to wipe and re-install Vista. ...
    (comp.os.cpm)
  • Re: What are Vistas problems.. really?
    ... Apple had what is now called Classic but let developers ... need / want to stick with Windows and want to avoid Vista. ... I, frankly, have never used the Finder UI to Time Machine for anything other ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)