History and Where are we Now?

[SysAdminTH]

I find it very frustrating when reading this thread that almost every
criticism of Vista is seen as some sort of threat and illicits a quite
often rude thoughtless response from Vista's proponents. So first I
thought I'd recap on the Windows upgrades history then see how Vista
stacks up to it's predecessors and then invite the Vista proponents to
educate me on the benefits of this upgrade.

How can any non-novice user regardless of experience level be satisfied
with Vista and tout it as a major upgrade? The only answers I can come
up with are A) I don't understand the benefits or B) My expectations are
above those of my fellow users.

I have been working with Windows since the first version of Windows 1.0
was released in the mid-eighties and before that on DOS/PCM OS's so I
feel qualified to comment on improvements and upgrade experiences. With
a few notable exceptions each successive incarnation has brought
significant benefits to users and businesses alike.

Windows 1.0
Card file and Calculator

Windows 2.0
Excel, Word and Pagemaker DTP

Windows 3.0
Multi Tasking, Virtual Memory, VGA, Multi Media Extensions Add-On,
SoundBlaster

Windows 3.1
True Type scalable fonts,

Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Integrated Multimedia, peer to peer networking, full support for 386
processors

Windows 95
Consumer Version of NT 3.1, Improved Desktop and Menu System, Win32 API
subset

Windows 95 OSR 2.0-2.5
Full FAT32, Internet Expolorer, USB Support, greater reliability

Windows 98
Better hardware support - HDD's, USB, Internet connection sharing,
greater stability.

Windows 2000 Greater stability, Active Directory Support, directX for NT
Kernal

Windows Millennium Edition (ME)System Restore, Movie Maker

Windows XP (See Win 2000)New User Interface, NTFS, proper 32bit API,
based on Windows NT5, Windows Firewall

Windows Vista Aero Interface

That's my history of Windows upgrades (with a little help from Wiki),
non of the upgrade paths was totally trouble free and there is obviously
a learning curve when desktops and UI's change however I do still
expect some real benefits for my $$$.

Win 1.0 was fun and the move to Win 2.0 allowed me to do some serious
work especially Excel and Pagemaker. Windows 3.0 brought better
resolutions and multitasking painfully slow but it was a benefit. The
Multimedia extensions allowed me to use a CD ROM and Soundblaster that
coupled with a Canon RC-250 to create multimedia apps and presentations.

The step up to Windows for Workgroups 3.11 really launched the peer to
peer small office network and while frustrating and often slow it was a
great affordable alternative to sneaker net.

Windows 95 was buggy and prone to too many BSD's however the new UI was
more logical and a faster to access the applications you required. The
Win32 bit API was a bit of a bodge job(think thunking) but it did feel
faster and slicker than 3.11. The OSR releases were a god send and
addressed many of the stability issues.

Windows 98 in someways mirrored 95 insomuch as the second edition was
the one to get improving stability no end. However USB support,
internet connectivity, support for large hard disks were all real
benefits for this version. This was the Windows version that put DOS
well and truely on the sidelines.

Windows ME was a complete disaster for me and perhaps any others
unfortunate to have to use it. Stability seemed to take a step
backwards which seemed illogical considering it was essentially a tarted
up 98SE.

Windows 2000 a godsend, not to brilliant on the initial driver support
but after 98SE this was a significantly more stable platform. Often
forgotten Windows 2000 in workstation or server versions was Microsoft's
biggest advance in O/S's. Not all was rosy with this product and was
left all but defenseless against all types of virus and malware threats
but robust 3rd party solutions were available to take care of that.

Windows XP was the pretty version of Win 2000 for general consumption
and this was good for users of both versions as drivers were for the
most part interchangable, this motivated consumer device manufacturers
who had not written drivers for 2000 to now do so. To be honest I
preferred 2000 until general machine specs were up to XP's resource
hogging requirements but on the whole a very good release.

Enter Windows Vista
Aero interface and that's about it. In it's current form I do not
perceive UAC as a benefit. Initially I thought Vista would secure my
system and negate the need for 3rd party AV/AS products which would be a
great step forward, that promise was conveniently dropped by release
time. Much of what's good in XP has gone or is broken so can somebody
(preferably a power user or admin)who thinks Vista is a good upgrade
please list out it's benefits which I could use to convince my clients
to move from XP?

 

[Richard Urban]

One thing, and one thing alone, makes Vista stand out for me.

It is *****FINALLY***** going to force programmers to do their job
correctly. Because of this, we will all see a tremendous benefit in about 2
years, when the older programs - that kinda/sorta work - are finally laid to
rest.

It's about time!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[SysAdminTH]

One thing, and one thing alone, makes Vista stand out for me.

It is *****FINALLY***** going to force programmers to do their job
correctly. Because of this, we will all see a tremendous benefit in
about 2 years, when the older programs - that kinda/sorta work - are
finally laid to rest.

It's about time!

So a purchase in 2 years time is your recommendation?

 

[Mark Rae]

So a purchase in 2 years time is your recommendation?

I think that by the time we get to Vista SP2, it will be a truly superb
product...

 

[SysAdminTH]

I think that by the time we get to Vista SP2, it will be a truly superb
product...

Mark,
Would you care to elaborate on that statement, I think by SP2 we may
back to XP functionality!

 

[Richard Urban]

I am using it now and am happy with what I have. I will be more pleased in a
couple of years, as will most people.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Mark Rae]

Would you care to elaborate on that statement, I think by SP2 we may back
to XP functionality!

Just take a glance at the Vista bashers in here... Their posts are
invariably "Vista is crap but XP is great..."

However, these were the same type of posts when XP was first released: "XP
is crap, but Win2k is great..."

So, what the Vista bashers are really saying is that XP+SP2 is great...

By the time Vienna gets here, there will be countless posts saying "Vienna
is crap but Vista is great..."

And what they will mean is that Vista+SP2 (or whichever number the latest SP
is by then) is great...

This is how it's always been...

 

[Stephan Rose]

One thing, and one thing alone, makes Vista stand out for me.

It is *****FINALLY***** going to force programmers to do their job
correctly. Because of this, we will all see a tremendous benefit in about
2 years, when the older programs - that kinda/sorta work - are finally
laid to rest.

Would you please elaborate on that and tell me how I am doing my job
incorrectly?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[John E]

I find it very frustrating when reading this thread that almost every
criticism of Vista is seen as some sort of threat and illicits a quite
often rude thoughtless response from Vista's proponents. So first I
thought I'd recap on the Windows upgrades history then see how Vista
stacks up to it's predecessors and then invite the Vista proponents to
educate me on the benefits of this upgrade.

How can any non-novice user regardless of experience level be satisfied
with Vista and tout it as a major upgrade? The only answers I can come
up with are A) I don't understand the benefits or B) My expectations are
above those of my fellow users.

I have been working with Windows since the first version of Windows 1.0
was released in the mid-eighties and before that on DOS/PCM OS's so I
feel qualified to comment on improvements and upgrade experiences. With
a few notable exceptions each successive incarnation has brought
significant benefits to users and businesses alike.

Windows 1.0
Card file and Calculator

Windows 2.0
Excel, Word and Pagemaker DTP

Windows 3.0
Multi Tasking, Virtual Memory, VGA, Multi Media Extensions Add-On,
SoundBlaster

Windows 3.1
True Type scalable fonts,

Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Integrated Multimedia, peer to peer networking, full support for 386
processors

Windows 95
Consumer Version of NT 3.1, Improved Desktop and Menu System, Win32 API
subset

Windows 95 OSR 2.0-2.5
Full FAT32, Internet Expolorer, USB Support, greater reliability

Windows 98
Better hardware support - HDD's, USB, Internet connection sharing,
greater stability.

Windows 2000 Greater stability, Active Directory Support, directX for NT
Kernal

Windows Millennium Edition (ME)System Restore, Movie Maker

Windows XP (See Win 2000)New User Interface, NTFS, proper 32bit API,
based on Windows NT5, Windows Firewall

Windows Vista Aero Interface

That's my history of Windows upgrades (with a little help from Wiki),
non of the upgrade paths was totally trouble free and there is obviously
a learning curve when desktops and UI's change however I do still
expect some real benefits for my $$$.

Win 1.0 was fun and the move to Win 2.0 allowed me to do some serious
work especially Excel and Pagemaker. Windows 3.0 brought better
resolutions and multitasking painfully slow but it was a benefit. The
Multimedia extensions allowed me to use a CD ROM and Soundblaster that
coupled with a Canon RC-250 to create multimedia apps and presentations.

The step up to Windows for Workgroups 3.11 really launched the peer to
peer small office network and while frustrating and often slow it was a
great affordable alternative to sneaker net.

Windows 95 was buggy and prone to too many BSD's however the new UI was
more logical and a faster to access the applications you required. The
Win32 bit API was a bit of a bodge job(think thunking) but it did feel
faster and slicker than 3.11. The OSR releases were a god send and
addressed many of the stability issues.

Windows 98 in someways mirrored 95 insomuch as the second edition was
the one to get improving stability no end. However USB support,
internet connectivity, support for large hard disks were all real
benefits for this version. This was the Windows version that put DOS
well and truely on the sidelines.

Windows ME was a complete disaster for me and perhaps any others
unfortunate to have to use it. Stability seemed to take a step
backwards which seemed illogical considering it was essentially a tarted
up 98SE.

Windows 2000 a godsend, not to brilliant on the initial driver support
but after 98SE this was a significantly more stable platform. Often
forgotten Windows 2000 in workstation or server versions was Microsoft's
biggest advance in O/S's. Not all was rosy with this product and was
left all but defenseless against all types of virus and malware threats
but robust 3rd party solutions were available to take care of that.

Windows XP was the pretty version of Win 2000 for general consumption
and this was good for users of both versions as drivers were for the
most part interchangable, this motivated consumer device manufacturers
who had not written drivers for 2000 to now do so. To be honest I
preferred 2000 until general machine specs were up to XP's resource
hogging requirements but on the whole a very good release.

Enter Windows Vista
Aero interface and that's about it. In it's current form I do not
perceive UAC as a benefit. Initially I thought Vista would secure my
system and negate the need for 3rd party AV/AS products which would be a
great step forward, that promise was conveniently dropped by release
time. Much of what's good in XP has gone or is broken so can somebody
(preferably a power user or admin)who thinks Vista is a good upgrade
please list out it's benefits which I could use to convince my clients
to move from XP?

Just one other for you (which I discovered today), from the many:

If you put a DVD-RAM disk into your DVD-RAM drive you can access it
instantly in UDF format, without having to first format it as FAT 32. This
not only saves the time of formatting, it seems to me to be faster to access
the drive also.

- incidentally there are "many". Some of them take a little time to
discover. I suspect MS has been a bit slow in advertising some of the more
subtle advantages, such as this one. It could be that many of the advantages
are not "big impact".

John.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Would you please elaborate on that and tell me how I am doing my job
incorrectly?

You may not be. Most Windows programmers are not doing their job correctly.
They assume users have administrator privileges. They assume they have write
access to system wide registry settings and files. They store user data in
system locations. They assume their program can talk directly to system
services and even alter the way they work. The list goes on and on.

 

[Richard Urban]

Thanks Kerry. I couldn't have been more eloquent myself.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Richard Urban]

The "vast" majority of today's programs will not even allow you to choose to
install for one user or all users.

How's that for incompetence?

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Jon]

One thing, and one thing alone, makes Vista stand out for me.

It is *****FINALLY***** going to force programmers to do their job
correctly. Because of this, we will all see a tremendous benefit in about
2 years, when the older programs - that kinda/sorta work - are finally
laid to rest.

It's about time!

Yes, I've made double-checked my code to ensure that my 'Toggle UAC on and
off application' will be free from any potential buffer overrun exploits.

 

[Jon]

Yes, I've made double-checked my code to ensure that my 'Toggle UAC on and
off application' will be free from any potential buffer overrun exploits.

Should have double-checked me syntax too.

 

[Adam Albright]

You may not be. Most Windows programmers are not doing their job correctly.
They assume users have administrator privileges. They assume they have write
access to system wide registry settings and files. They store user data in
system locations. They assume their program can talk directly to system
services and even alter the way they work. The list goes on and on.

Lets be truthful. It isn't Windows programmers, rather the programmers
of Windows (Microsoft) that has caused end users endless grief from
the beginning. The reasons are simple.

Windows is bloated. Far in excess of what it needs to be. Proof of
that is look at any other OS, like the Mac platform or Linux and check
both the size of a typical install and the number of files that get
installed by default. Windows Vista has tens of thousands of "system"
files. From a programer's point of view, that's insanity and anybody
that tries to tell you different doesn't have a clue what he's talking
about.

Windows wasn't designed to be a secure OS. That in part goes back to
when Microsoft under the direction of Bill Gates originally conceived
and wrote the first version of Windows over 20 years ago. Anybody
needs poof, just ask and I can provide several revealing comments on
what Gates himself thought about the future of the Internet and why he
originally ignored it as both a potential threat and as something to
exploit. This major blunder is WHY Windows is so susceptible to
hackers that use the Internet to attack Windows. The reason being
Windows only gets patched, NEVER fixed, which would require rewriting
from the ground up. So all the security threats that were in the
original Windows design still remain, just hidden under layer after
layer of bloated code in some feeble attempt to make things safer. The
moronic UAC is just the latest attempt in a long line of prior "fixes"
that hackers cut throught like a hot knife through butter.

The list does go on and on. Like Windows applets being dumb. Like
Media Player that is so dumb it will constantly go out to the Internet
to "find" a audio codec it already has installed, but is too dumb to
use thus refusing to play the audio portion on many video files that
other applications installed on the same box have no trouble with at
all. That gives you an idea of the real competency or lack there of
when discussing Microsoft's programmers.

I just touched on three areas. Windows is bloated, Windows isn't and
can't be made secure and Windows is so dumb it can't do what other
applications on the same box can, not even find a Microsoft codec and
know how to use it. Very revealing.

 

[Stephan Rose]

The "vast" majority of today's programs will not even allow you to choose to
install for one user or all users.

How's that for incompetence?

That actually is an installer issue rather than an application issue.
Most likely meaning that they are using an outdated installer package
to create the install program.

 

[Stephan Rose]

You may not be. Most Windows programmers are not doing their job correctly.
They assume users have administrator privileges. They assume they have write
access to system wide registry settings and files. They store user data in
system locations. They assume their program can talk directly to system
services and even alter the way they work. The list goes on and on.

Now that I can actually agree on! I knew there was a reason why I keep
my apps to 1 single EXE, no DLLs or registry (can't even use those
since my code is cross platform) =)

 

[BSchnur]

It is *****FINALLY***** going to force programmers to do their job

correctly. Because of this, we will all see a tremendous benefit in about 2
years, when the older programs - that kinda/sorta work - are finally laid to
rest.

It's about time!

Excellent, an argument to wait for 2 years before going to Vista
<smile>.

The history of Windows is such that while I have a handful of Vista
systems up and running to get increased hands on experience with it, I
doubt I'll push it out to clients until SP1 is out. By history, I mean
this -- Win95 -- OSR2 was the key, Win 98 -- SE was the winning
version, Win 2000 -- SP3 was when it got really nic, Win XP -- SP2
here. So Vista -- with the same Microsoft legacy, strikes me as
something needing a similar response.

Note, those 'programmers' include Microsoft folks as well -- it takes
them a fair amount of time (no indictment of them here by the way), to
incorporate updates to their OS once it gets true mass use and
feedback. I suspect in part that is why Microsoft pretty much imposes
a post release mass use of the new OS -- but also why businesses often
have the option to stay with the previous OS for 6 months to a year
with NEW hardware purchases. (example -- if you are buying a new Dell,
purchase via the small business, rather than end user portal and you
can get XP SP2 in many of the systems (including notebooks).

 

[Ashton Crusher]

Just take a glance at the Vista bashers in here... Their posts are
invariably "Vista is crap but XP is great..."

However, these were the same type of posts when XP was first released: "XP
is crap, but Win2k is great..."

So, what the Vista bashers are really saying is that XP+SP2 is great...

By the time Vienna gets here, there will be countless posts saying "Vienna
is crap but Vista is great..."

And what they will mean is that Vista+SP2 (or whichever number the latest SP
is by then) is great...

This is how it's always been...

It seems some people are never happy unless they can complain about
something.

 

[Jimmy Brush]

Hello,

There are many features that Vista exposes at a technical level that make a
compelling case for upgrade, depending on the person's needs.

Just a few technical examples:

Updated networking: Much more efficient network stack, especially when
coupled with other Vista (and eventually Longhorn Server) machines. Compared
to XP, uses your available bandwith much better (maintains throughput),
especially in high latency scenarios (i.e. satellite linkage).

New way of putting pixels on the screen: It may seem like just eyecandy, but
this will enhance the performance of current multimedia apps and feed the
next generation of multimedia applications, both games and more traditional
apps. Features that are unavailable in XP, such as the desktop composition
engine, and specifically allowing video memory to be virtualized/swapped and
forcing the video driver to properly implement scheduling, really unleash
the power (and ability to multitask) these apps.

Advanced printing and display: Vista supports high-DPI and high-contrast
monitors and printers. This may not be a "big deal" YET for most consumers
who don't have access to this technology now, but this is a big deal in the
medical/government field.

Tons of new management/administration features: a new event log (which
supports XML and forwarding events to a specific server) that is much easier
to use and search through; much more powerful and performant performance
logging (tracing, counters, wmi, etc), enhanced task scheduler (example: you
can have a task run whenever a certain event is logged via the event log),
enahnced offline files (syncing to a server only sends the CHANGES MADE to
the files over the wire - roaming profiles just got a whole lot quicker).

Of course, these are only some examples that show specific cases for
upgrade. There are many other enahncements in Vista.

Reliability and performance are greatly improved (for example, many drivers
can now run in user mode, including the display driver, meaning if they
crash, the system doesn't go down - it just restarts the driver and the user
has no idea there is a problem; also, the file system and registry support
transactions now [applications have to be programming to use this feature],
meaning if the power goes out your applications can recover their
files/registry settings to a usable state).

If you think that the new start orb is the only thing new in Vista, you are
sorely mistaken.

Here's a good website that glazes over some of the most significant
technical changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

And the most prominent end-user visible features that most people are aware
of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

So ... does this mean you should upgrade? I don't presume to speak for
anyone but myself. I think one should look at the benefits vs. the cost and
decide for themselves.

--
- JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/