In 1996.

[dalo]

Personally, I think that the most critical failure of Microsoft was not to build up their Windows software product line around Windows NT, but instead using MS-DOS based Windowses, all the way to the late 90's with Windows Me. Sure, Windows NT based system wouldn't save the world from the heat-death of the universe, but the development of viruses and spyware/adware would have come much more lateler if they simply did what they could do with the security on home computers.

The ultimate failure was to make Windows 98 MS-DOS based in the first place, knowing that Windows NT4 was far more stable and more secure than Windows 95 at the time. Of course, online bug reporting wasn't the same back then as it is now, but who said that had to be done online?

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I really don't have to care ;-). Cheers mates!

[Lt Major Burns]

both the DOS-based windows and Windows >NT share the same fault that lets virii and other malware breed: the registry, and all the problems associated with it. as soon as everyone twigged that Vista had a registry, everybody stopped caring.

the registry manages the different files that different programs share. if you bugger the registry, you bugger the computer, simple as.

most other OS's make sure an application is pretty much self contained, only using it's own files and folders.

[dalo]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

both the DOS-based windows and Windows >NT share the same fault that lets virii and other malware breed: the registry, and all the problems associated with it. as soon as everyone twigged that Vista had a registry, everybody stopped caring.

the registry manages the different files that different programs share. if you bugger the registry, you bugger the computer, simple as.

most other OS's make sure an application is pretty much self contained, only using it's own files and folders.

Yes. Keeping a program, and things equalivent to .dll in a .app folder automatically springs to mind, and obviously it works better.

I am interested in your remark about Windows Vista, and people stopped caring? Can you explain that further? Please do.

[Lt Major Burns]

well, some people had pinned hopes on it being what MS were saying it was going to be, the biggest update since windows 95. ie, new from the ground up. when in actual fact, it's windows xp with graphical bloat. the registry exists, so it's still fundamentally flawed. it still uses the 30 year old paradigm of sharing common files to keep application smaller, when it's such an insignificant difference now, but is inherent in how windows works now.

[dalo]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

well, some people had pinned hopes on it being what MS were saying it was going to be, the biggest update since windows 95. ie, new from the ground up. when in actual fact, it's windows xp with graphical bloat. the registry exists, so it's still fundamentally flawed. it still uses the 30 year old paradigm of sharing common files to keep application smaller, when it's such an insignificant difference now, but is inherent in how windows works now.

Well, I can't do anything but agree with that. And thinking about it, I am amazed how NEW Mac OS X 1.4 is compared to 10.0. Or let's face it, different from 10.3. Most Windows using folks won't notice that, because to them, Aqua is still Aqua, and there's no change in the operating system as long as the same user interface is being used ;-). Looking at http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/13 , I am somewhat proud to be using an operating system that acutally progress as time goes by.

[fryke]

however: the user model has changed. that's an important first step. maybe in 10-15 years, windows will become a real operating system.

[Lt Major Burns]

i was thinking today that OSX is getting dated. they are resorting to tacking on the latest gimmicks instead of thinking them through properly. spotlight is the best example.

it's supposedly completly buried in the system, and instant, but i disagree, i don't see it being that much faster than the search on Panther. the overall implentation seems half arsed too, there are at least 3 main ways to access spotlight, all varying in the way you have to use them, and all of them are clunky in some way. it's just not finished, it's not thought through enough. using spotlight has never seemed natural to me.

and don't even get me started on Dashboard. most people try to justify this gimmick, but it is, at the end of the day, Bloat, like a lot of apple software recently.

i think that may be the point of this post. apple software appears to be just bloat updates in the last couple of years. (definitive example being the iTunes Mini Store)


[/rant]

[fryke]

"not that much faster than search on Panther"... You kidding? It's like walking through jelly compared to how fast I could find a file by its name in Panther!! But we're straying off-topic...

I guess Leopard will take care of some concerns. I hear the Finder's gonna be good.