Dvorak: Windows Vista Solves Nothing

Thursday , February 01, 2007
By John C. Dvorak

Since the early days of DOS (and even with the Mac OS), there has been a slow shift within the operating-system concept from increased functionality to increased featurism, neither of which are needed.

This has resulted in a strange situation where the monoculture of Microsoft Windows and the subcultures of Linux and Mac OS X have made the computing scene both stagnant and dangerous.

Unless the computer is re-architected from scratch, which will not happen in the next 100 years, we are set on a path of never-ending misery. Windows Vista proves it.

Let's begin with the way things should have gone.

It began with DOS, which was a clone of CP/M before that. Each time a new version came out, it was for one reason only: to add the functionality of newer peripherals, disk drives, ports and more.

A new device would emerge from the labs, and it would be accommodated by an OS upgrade. At first the device would be accommodated by clever patches, and then the patch would be incorporated into a release of the OS.

If you were interested in weird new features, such as a GUI [graphical user interface], these would be separate programs that ran under the OS (not on top of the OS).

Until Windows came along, the OS — whether CP/M, MS-DOS, or anything else, for that matter — was constantly criticized by the big-iron mainframe builders (IBM et al.) as not being a true operating system.

This critique was the beginning of the end, and a key to understanding what went wrong.

Nobody running small desktop machines from 1975 to 1990 knew or cared that the OS was merely a file loader. In fact, nobody actually knew what that meant.

Why did you need a complex OS on a microprocessor-based machine running Lotus 1-2-3 anyway? You didn't, but that "it's just a file loader" complaint never ended.

So, IBM — which had been in bed for years with Microsoft's file loader — took a dislike to the situation and convinced Microsoft and itself that something more substantial should be developed.

This happened just as various iterations of Unix began to crop up on small machines. Unix was a real operating system, and, golly, it was neat to use. Instead of running practical programs and actually getting jobs done, you could toy with the innards of the machine with the OS. What fun!

Anyway, IBM began to develop OS/2, and Microsoft figured it had a better idea with Windows, both of which were more than file loaders (although not much more).

Over time, the features of these new OSs became more important than the system's performance or anything else. They would have glowing icons, transparent pop-ups, smooth scrolling and all the things that used to be utilities sold by third parties.

Within no time, Microsoft decided that everything should be part of the OS, although these features had nothing to do with the OS.

The company went to court to argue that the browser was part of the OS. Media players were part of the OS.

One assumes that Microsoft would have argued that the word processor was part of the OS if it didn't have a near-monopoly on word processing already.

In ways nobody could have predicted, what was once an efficient file loader evolved into a clumsy monstrosity that required massive amounts of memory just to run. But did it ever become a genuine OS, or just a file loader with benefits?

It became a clunker, in fact, with a pretty face and a high price tag like a Park Avenue hooker using too much makeup to hide the fact that she's old.

Now we have Vista. It turns out to be nothing like what was promised. What a shock. It has a few new features, but I'd question if it's actually more functional than what we've had before.

As an aside, I'm fascinated by the fact that Mac users all think Vista is great. These are folks who have long since bought into the Steve Jobs notion that the sizzle is more important than the steak.

PC users have traditionally preferred the steak over the sizzle. So what happens now?

We start by playing with Vista and listening to the inevitable complaints and praises. But this OS is not designed to be a good candidate for upgrading older systems. This is something of a new phenomenon.

Thus, people about to phase out old machines might be a little more experimental. And that means trying Linux.

This transition period will not be like all the others. There will be more orphan machines than ever before. It might take years before Vista can achieve even 50 percent market share.

Anything can happen. I'll be watching. Now, let the reviews begin!

That's a long boring article, and I still don't know why Vista sucks.

it's not a great article but i wanted to use it as a platform to get into the conversation.

Linux > you

I wish I could make a fortune constantly ripping off my competitors.

Who didn't see this post coming? Anyone? That's what I thought.

Anyhoo, from the stories I've heard so far, it's going to cause all kinds of problems amongst machines that don't have enough RAM. This is typical when Microsoft makes a major Windows update. I'm guessing that there's going to be no need for the grand majority to switch to Vista any time soon. I know I won't.

That article could have best been summed up with "hey guys, remember how much fun it was when computers were unpopular and difficult to use?"

*fixed

it blows my mind that a new operating system requires more memory than most people have in their computer. hooray for ubuntu!

New users (upgrading their current computers) are likely to find that their graphics card is inadequate as well.
At this juncture, it would only be wise to get Vista if a person is getting a new computer and it has it pre-installed.

A guy at work told me that it is "flashier" than XP, but there isn't much in terms of practical enhancements...at least for a typical computer user.

Actually, yeah Vista sucks.

I've been beta testing this for over two years and to be honest at this moment in time there's nothing in Vista that you can't already do in either XP or OSX. Games run like shit because they haven't implemented the heavily optimised drivers that XP gets. The GUI is nice, great, but personally I prefer a bit more than looks to make me a Vista convert.

Avoid until the first service pack and DX10 comes out at least.

Do many people even do this (upgrade onto an old machine)? Doesn't Microsoft make their money by getting it put on new computers anyhow?

Or "I feel less special now that everyone can use a computer instead of just me."

I'll have an opinion about Vista as soon as my year old laptop dies and I'm forced to get a new computer with Vista already loaded on it.

Like hell I'm paying hundreds of dollars, and possibly more in hardware upgrades when my computer works fine enough already. LOL

I think people used to do that (remember when Windows 95 first came out? The huge lineups) Now people just get it with a new computer. At least that's how it was when I worked at a computer store

I remember getting Windows 95 for xmas so I could play that Beavis and Butthead game that was out at the time... I was a dork

I wouldn't advocate anyone upgrading Vista now if their system does everythign they want, but for mommy and daddy web surfer turbo tax user, Vista is great. It's fantastically stable on our test machines at work and is a lot harder to hack. Most of the complaints about Vista come from people who's businesses are negatively effected by the architectural changes in the OS. In a perfect world, I would prefer OSX. But Vista is the best alternative.

Linux is not for people who aren't computer savy.

Here's the basic outline from Wikipedia (damn I live Wikipedia by the way)



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

I taught a lady how to double click last week.