Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Maybe Vista doesn't suck?

<< < (6/21) > >>

f0dder:
Still, it's a shame that almost all new versions of major software are betas. Doesn't anyone test this crap before they release it anymore?!!
-zridling (November 18, 2007, 10:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sure thing, but then you make a tiny little last-minute change, just a little innocent code reorganization, and... *b00m*. Of course that never happened to me, and certainly not with the fSekrit 1.3 release. *cough*.

I think some of this could have been cured if Microsoft would have only sold Vista in 64-bit versions, which would have forced anyone who wanted it to [effectively] buy a new system to run it.
-zridling (November 19, 2007, 04:21 AM)
--- End quote ---
Hear ye, hear ye!

I think it was a stupid move of MS to do a 32-bit version of Vista. Almost as bad a move as releasing WinMe instead of focusing exclusively on Win2k/NT5 - makes adaption take longer, spending more time on drivers, testing, etc.

Of course there's so many other things wrong with Vista that this isn't my biggests complaint, but still...

Ralf Maximus:
I think it was a stupid move of MS to do a 32-bit version of Vista. Almost as bad a move as releasing WinMe instead of focusing exclusively on Win2k/NT5 - makes adaption take longer, spending more time on drivers, testing, etc.

--- End quote ---

Yes!  They might have been able to shave years off the release date had they not done this.  On the other hand...

The strategy has always been to drive corporate customers to early adoption first, then worry about the rest of the world.  Consumer money's nice, but what they really want is the millions of dollars in upgrade fees from Fortune 500 organizations.

Had they dropped 32-bit support many corporate IT departments would've taken a pass.  It's just that simple.  Ironic how low Vista's adoption number have been in corporate america, right?  As a strategy, it all looked so good on paper!  Classic example of battle-plans not surviving contact with the enemy.

What baffles me: what's in the Vista feature set targeted to business users?  Surely not Aero... so pretending that Vista is bug-free and wicked fast on old hardware for a moment, what on earth would compel a business XP user to crave Vista?  I think a few must-have features (WinFS?) dropped off the list as development progressed.

If they're smart, they'll drop 32-bit in Windows 7 and keep cranking out service packs for XP until the new Intel 1024-bit terrahertz processors make that impossible.

f0dder:
I didn't say they should drop 32-bit support - just not make a 32bit version. In the same sense that 32bit versions of 9x and NT don't have 16-bit versions, but can still run 16-bit apps through WOW.

This would still mean having to maintain 32-bit wrappers-to-64bit-native-calls and a few other things, but that's a whole lot less than a full 32-bit version of the OS...

Darwin:
@nontroppo - I'm jumping in making some assumptions here, but wanted to note that I *think* Carol was referring to things like CMOS batteries WRT Macs computers (as opposed to the batteries that power laptops) and the non-user replaceable batteries in iPods. Of course, in the portable music sphere Apple is far from being the only manufacturer doing this - AFAICT Samsung, Sandisk, Creative, etc. all design their players this way. I don't know if this is to reduce the likelihood of the end-user mucking up their player or if it's got more to do with the technology and keeping the size down (probably a combo of both thought...). Hope I haven't misinterpreted what you were drivng at, Carol  :o

nontroppo:
What I don't understand is why did MS even insist on going 32 vs. 64 bit route? *nix and OS X handle this much more cleanly, and arguments have been made about why LP64 (*nix, OS X etc) is better than LLP64 (Vista):

http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html

With LP64, I download a single binary that supports all platforms without having to worry (and neither did the developer during building). When 64bit apps come out[1], i can run them alongside my existing 32bit apps. This seems like a win-win. Is it because the driver model cannot handle such a shared environment?

Ah, CMOS batteries, no idea, though there arecompanies selling replacements for most macs since the 90s so this is not a general issue.

----
[1] Geekbench has tests for both 32bit and 64bit - I tested my machine for both without having to install two OSs, rebooting etc. There is a 8-10% performance boost for the areas covered.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page