Looking Beyond Vista To Fiji and Vienna 600
Vinit wrote in with an article that describes Microsoft's strategy for future versions of Windows. It begins: "As we all know that Microsoft Vista was originally scheduled to be released in 2003, after two years of Windows XP, but it got delayed by over five years due to various reasons. Definitely, Vista is very very improved OS over the previous versions, but the delayed in the launch has cost Microsoft, billions of dollars. Now the question at the moment is, what exactly after Vista? Microsoft can't afford to wait another five years for an operating system. People are becoming more aware of the choices they have, and Linux is no longer a hobbyist OS, and that day isn't far away when it becomes simple enough to be a viable alternative to Windows. The competition is fierce. That is why, to stay at the top, Microsoft has planned a 'Vista R2', codenamed 'Fiji' which will be released some time in 2008. And after Fiji, there will be Windows 'Vienna'. Windows Fiji, will not be a totally different OS from Vista; but it will be an add-on. Whereas Vienna will be totally different from Vista."
Re:New OS? I Think Not... (Score:3, Informative)
Windows Vienna will change the OS by not having a start bar or explorer interace, just the Sidebar.
Hang on a minute, I can do that now using Litestep. Oh, so they are the same then!
Actual article (Score:4, Informative)
Don't you hate reading the whole thing and getting to the end and seeing SOURCE? I wish I could digg this article DOWN!
Re:Five years? (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps what the author meant to say was that the intended 2 year interval between releases became 5+ years.
Re:Five years? (Score:1, Informative)
other reasons why vista is inferior (Score:4, Informative)
50+ millions lines of code bloat
lots of stupid, unnecessary eye candy
alleged security features, some that have already been broken ("most secure o/s ever", my ass)
a virgin ip stack
DRM silliness
kernel restrictions that keep third party security systems out -- said systems having done a much better job than Microsquish at keeping the bad guys out. You can, of course, pay extra for windows "defender" -- somewhat like buying an antidote from the people that poisoned you in the first place
As Ren and Stimpy might say to Ballmer, "you eeeediot!"
Re:64bit linux world-domination-201 by 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shared libraries? So now DLLs are good? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Linux? Are you serious? (Score:2, Informative)
Linux is ready for the desktop market and has been ready for long time. Saying something else is either based on ignorance or is just a fud.
Re:Shared libraries? So now DLLs are good? (Score:4, Informative)
DLLs are only bad because you can't set up a system with a sufficiently complete collection of them at the same time that every program will get the DLL it needs. Just because Microsoft's implementation of something is terminally broken doesn't mean it's not otherwise a great idea.
Re:See Apple for details (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows: Generations (Score:2, Informative)
Visual Basic. It doesn't get any easier than that. I have a small mind, so I'd rather use what's left of my small mind to do things that are more entertaining than learning shell scripting.
Re:Fiji (Score:4, Informative)
2000 is technically NT 5.0.
XP is technically NT 5.1
Server 2003 wasn't filler, it was designed to fulfill and entirely different role-- serving. It's the same NT codebase as always, it just has enhancements/modifications to better support serving and scalability. It's basically XP without all of the userland GUI stuff in it. Technically, it's NT 5.2
For that matter, 98 wasn't really filler, either. It was how they should have done 95 in the first place! ME, yes, that was filler. I will give you that much.
For more information on how things actually are/were, check this page out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT [wikipedia.org]
Re:Geared for speach recognition (Score:1, Informative)
Re:See Apple for details (Score:3, Informative)
SP2 was basically just bugfixes plus windows firewall.
How did this myth that SP2 added windows firewall get started ?
SP2 just turned the firewall on by default. It was already there, and had been since XP's initial release.