[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclejr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the UI model is good currently. Keyboards aren't quite perfect for our natural language sensibilities but ended up providing a number of advantages and are reasonably fast to learn. Mice as inputs are (for me) considerably more cumbersome but still useable. I think it's rare that so many people are so privy to the future of UI (I think a multitouch-type of technology is clearly the direction it's currently heading), but never has there been a time in the history of computing when so many people are invested heavilty and cognizant of the issues surrounding how people want to interact with computers. 20 years ago even the question was only, "how might people use computers" when now it's prefaced by "how are people using computers." All UI stuff aside, and I know I keep saying this so apologies if you keep reading it, but the UI stuff is important but not paradigm shifting (in Leopard, and it hasn't been as many have mentioned in a long time). However it's all the other technologies in modern OSes that truly matter and give power into the hands of developers so they (or we) can create apps that make computers actually useful. A slick OS with no other functions just isn't that useful. In this sense, innovation is happening all the time, and Leopard is no exception. In Tiger, Spotlight changed the way I use a computer, I feel. The reliance on metadata is not quite a "new" concept (BeOS, NeXT?) but it was certainly the most "useful" implementation. In Leopard, the push toward 64-bit and the updating of all of the APIs and frameworks associated with that is going to require development to move in that direction or be left behind. For high performance computing, that's great news in a sense. The security features of sandboxing and memory address randomization are good, proactive steps to thwarting the inevitable attacks on the platform. But again, the stuff for developers is really where consumers are going to benefit most, indirectly. DTrace, LLVM, Core *, Xcode 3.0, etc. etc. are all potentially incredibly powerful tools for devs to create solid apps for OS X. In the face of all of that, what the heck is "Time Machine?"

X2 brovo! Very well said.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclejr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the UI model is good currently. Keyboards aren't quite perfect for our natural language sensibilities but ended up providing a number of advantages and are reasonably fast to learn. Mice as inputs are (for me) considerably more cumbersome but still useable. I think it's rare that so many people are so privy to the future of UI (I think a multitouch-type of technology is clearly the direction it's currently heading), but never has there been a time in the history of computing when so many people are invested heavilty and cognizant of the issues surrounding how people want to interact with computers. 20 years ago even the question was only, "how might people use computers" when now it's prefaced by "how are people using computers." All UI stuff aside, and I know I keep saying this so apologies if you keep reading it, but the UI stuff is important but not paradigm shifting (in Leopard, and it hasn't been as many have mentioned in a long time). However it's all the other technologies in modern OSes that truly matter and give power into the hands of developers so they (or we) can create apps that make computers actually useful. A slick OS with no other functions just isn't that useful. In this sense, innovation is happening all the time, and Leopard is no exception. In Tiger, Spotlight changed the way I use a computer, I feel. The reliance on metadata is not quite a "new" concept (BeOS, NeXT?) but it was certainly the most "useful" implementation. In Leopard, the push toward 64-bit and the updating of all of the APIs and frameworks associated with that is going to require development to move in that direction or be left behind. For high performance computing, that's great news in a sense. The security features of sandboxing and memory address randomization are good, proactive steps to thwarting the inevitable attacks on the platform. But again, the stuff for developers is really where consumers are going to benefit most, indirectly. DTrace, LLVM, Core *, Xcode 3.0, etc. etc. are all potentially incredibly powerful tools for devs to create solid apps for OS X. In the face of all of that, what the heck is "Time Machine?"

Excellent comment!

 

[meat01]

Quote:

the difference between NTFS and FAT is pretty much zero to end users.

It is a lot more efficient, it does not get as fragmented (I believe) and it is more secure.

 

[gritzcolin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rubbish. 3.1 was a 16 bit system for a start, nevermind that the entire operating system base was replaced in windows XP with the 2000 code.

My apologies, Windows XP was built on the NT kernel which was released 1 year after 3.1 and a few months before 3.11 which was 32 bit. XP nor 2k pro were complete rewrites. This is why windows fails they are depending on ancient technology 14 years is ancient when dealing with computers. Do you have any piece of computer hardware for regular use that is that old or even half that old?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

and the difference between NTFS and FAT is pretty much zero to end users.

While it may not be in-your-face obvious, it's certainly a huge usability improvement. Journalizing filesystems (NTFS is a bit of a hack of one compared to, say, ext3 or reiser3, but it's still a journalizing one nonetheless) fragment less, perform considerably better, and don't lose data as often. Granted, XP crashes far less than 95/98, but notice that when it DOES crash you don't have to run Scandisk and find all sorts of errors and missing files? That's one of the many benefits of NTFS.

 

[Duggeh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif My apologies, Windows XP was built on the NT kernel which was released 1 year after 3.1 and a few months before 3.11 which was 32 bit. XP nor 2k pro were complete rewrites. This is why windows fails they are depending on ancient technology 14 years is ancient when dealing with computers. Do you have any piece of computer hardware for regular use that is that old or even half that old?

Age is inconsequential if the code is good code, case in point being JPEG image compression. The comparison to hardware is invalid.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif The exact same thing was said when mouse based GUI was taking off... No where near as efficient and fast as a good old keyboard controlled command line interface. I agree that touchscreens is a dead end though. Too much user fatigue when compared to mouse based GUI. Cool to play with though. In the spirit of the OP, I'm not sure any of these count as recent OS advances given that all of these improvements were available in mainstream OSes before or shortly after the release of Windows 95... Not sure that Multi-GFX or NTFS were major advances either. Multi-GFX has been rare and inconsistent ever since the 3dfx flamed out, and the difference between NTFS and FAT is pretty much zero to end users.

Have a HDD bigger than 127.53GB? Thats the limit for FAT32.
DirectX wasn't until win95, and was very basic.

As for multi GFX, its been big for several years now. Where have you been? lol. We now have Quad SLI, and Triple Crossfire. Also multi core chips didn't have support on the older OS's.

You must realize, it may not seem like it, but gaming drives the hardware market. Why do you think they produce gfx cards that only a few people buy? Once you have the performance crown, the OEMs want your product.

What else utilizes quad core? Besides some games? Not too much aside from compression progs and the likes, which most users don't use often, and just for smaller files.

 

[TMM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif My apologies, Windows XP was built on the NT kernel which was released 1 year after 3.1 and a few months before 3.11 which was 32 bit. XP nor 2k pro were complete rewrites. This is why windows fails they are depending on ancient technology 14 years is ancient when dealing with computers. Do you have any piece of computer hardware for regular use that is that old or even half that old?

Yep, I use a PentiumII as my firewall (running smoothwall). It does a great job and i have no need to replace it any time soon. I guess you don't listen to CDs either as they are 25year old technology?

 

[gritzcolin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Age is inconsequential if the code is good code, case in point being JPEG image compression. The comparison to hardware is invalid.

The code isn't good and compression code is always changing there will be and probably is better than JPEG just like alot of people on these boards prefer ogg/flac for their audio. Plus those are not the greatest example as they serve single purposes. Most stable OS Microsoft has released to date is 3.11 I used it for 4 years almost. XP Pro is #2 somehow but it is clearly inferior in capability and stability to a good number of linux distros and OSX.

 

[TMM]

OS X was pretty average when it came out. Same goes for XP. With numerous updates they have both improved to a very stable state. That in itself proves that it has nothing to do with the kernel, but all the extra features that the OS has (drivers, shell, apps etc).

Almost 100% of the time XP crashes, it's because of problematic 3rd party drivers, software or unstable hardware.

People like the ramble on about how stable Linux is, but thats mainly due to the fact that Linux is far less popular then Windows, so there are less people complaining about it crashing (and also because because the people who run linux tend to be tech savvy and run better built, more stable computers), and also because most Linux Ditros pack a lot less features then OS X or XP therefore there is a lot less to go wrong.
Also, Linux in my experience tends to be far more sensitive to hardware problems then Windows.

 

[gritzcolin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep, I use a PentiumII as my firewall (running smoothwall). It does a great job and i have no need to replace it any time soon. I guess you don't listen to CDs either as they are 25 year old technology?

Cd's aren't the same premise and for that matter they are ancient and they will be replaced.

You aren't runnin Vista or XP on that PII are ya? Most people dont run that kind of firewall. Firewalls of similar capability are included in routers now a days thats cause there really isnt much to tax the system which says something for the efficiency of firewalls. Also with apple you can run OSX on a G3 system well that is until friday. I am pretty sure Vista wont run very well on a PIII.

All I am getting at is Windows is very dated and Microsoft should really follow its only real competitor's footsteps and start all over other wise Apple will be #1. Whats it say when Dell/HP/Gateway are saying no Vista isn't working out and businesses refuse to switch from XP to Vista.

I run PCLinuxOS 2007 and it is more stable than XP. I have more hardware issues with the same system in XP.

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif (...) This is why windows fails they are depending on ancient technology 14 years is ancient when dealing with computers. (...)

Doesn't matter, if the concept is good - see Unix. Or, for a protocol example, TCP/IP.

That said, NT also was quite a good, clean concept in the beginning...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif (...) Do you have any piece of computer hardware for regular use that is that old or even half that old?

Yup, mainly my trusty old Casio FX-4000P. Most of my other vintage computer stuff isn't really in regular use.


And back to the main topic: Well, the basic metaphor of GUI-based user interfaces up now is a desktop with some icons that represent some data units on it and with some bars which offer more or less additional functions - and it has been so from early on (mainly MacOS, TOS/GEM, AmigaOS/Workbench, but even GEOS - if one came from the PC/DOS side one got more advance in shorter time later on, 'cause Windows came rather late anyway and up to 3.1 wasn't of much use at all). And the use of program windows (which, when it makes sense to do so, usually can be sized up to full-screen) for the monitor output also is a common trait. From that perspective, there indeed hasn't been much of a change since the last 20 to 25 years - at least for general use (i.e. not counting more specialized approaches (e.g. OSD-like stuff for HTPCs), which only work for a limited number of applications).

However, the functionality of GUI-based operating systems really has exploded compared to the early days of personal computing. They went from task-switching to better and better multi-tasking, added support for lots of stuff (networking, multi-user, a lot of media, loads of protocols, an oodleplex of different hardware...), created standards for high-level interfaces, hardware abstraction layers, unified driver architectures and whatnot, bundled more and more applications...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[TMM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cd's aren't the same premise and for that matter they are ancient and they will be replaced.

I fail to see how they are any different. The are both old but proven technology, and they both work fine for now, and inevitably be replaced/upgraded eventually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif You aren't runnin Vista or XP on that PII are ya? Most people dont run that kind of firewall. Firewalls of similar capability are included in routers now a days thats cause there really isnt much to tax the system which says something for the efficiency of firewalls. Also with apple you can run OSX on a G3 system well that is until friday. I am pretty sure Vista wont run very well on a PIII.

OS X runs like rubbish on a G3. XP is a pretty lean OS when on a clean install. It runs fine on a Pentium2 when you turn off all the fancy pants graphical effects. The performance of the harddrive you use is more of a concern then the processor with windows imo. Even a new Intel Core2 machine will feel very sluggish with an old harddrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif All I am getting at is Windows is very dated and Microsoft should really follow its only real competitor's footsteps and start all over other wise Apple will be #1. Whats it say when Dell/HP/Gateway are saying no Vista isn't working out and businesses refuse to switch from XP to Vista.

Start all over again? This would only introduce incompatibility with older software, which is not good for business (which is far more of a concern for Microsoft then say Apple). Vista was bad enough for compatibility. XP wasn't much better when it was introduced either. Why do you suppose windows needs a new kernel? Other then the fact its old, which is a moot point, what is 'wrong' with it?
Vista has introduced changes (e.g. the new Audio subsystem) which have caused problems with backwards compatibility. Starting from scratch would be disastrous without massive third party support before launch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gritzcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I run PCLinuxOS 2007 and it is more stable than XP. I have more hardware issues with the same system in XP.

I run Ubuntu 7.10 and XP SP2 and both run brilliantly stable for me

They are both good at doing different things. Hardware/driver issues are the fault of the manufacturer rather then the OS.

 

[gritzcolin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif I fail to see how they are any different. The are both old but proven technology, and they both work fine for now, and inevitably be replaced/upgraded eventually.

A Cd isn't piece of hardware.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif OS X runs like rubbish on a G3. XP is a pretty lean OS when on a clean install. It runs fine on a Pentium2 when you turn off all the fancy pants graphical effects. The performance of the harddrive you use is more of a concern then the processor with windows imo. Even a new Intel Core2 machine will feel very sluggish with an old harddrive.

It runs like crap on a 500mhz or lower processor, I know I have tried many a time and even then you need 512 mb of ram. I understand it will run but not to any standards i prefer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif Start all over again? This would only introduce incompatibility with older software, which is not good for business (which is far more of a concern for Microsoft then say Apple). Vista was bad enough for compatibility. XP wasn't much better when it was introduced either. Why do you suppose windows needs a new kernel? Other then the fact its old, which is a moot point, what is 'wrong' with it? Vista has introduced changes (e.g. the new Audio subsystem) which have caused problems with backwards compatibility. Starting from scratch would be disastrous without massive third party support before launch.

Vista is incompatible with so much software anyway and it is built on XP. I'd rather deal with incompatibility and have a stable OS. XP was nowhere near this bad when it came out. It sucked but Vista is atrocious and runs like hell on brand new computers.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif I run Ubuntu 7.10 and XP SP2 and both run brilliantly stable for me They are both good at doing different things. Hardware/driver issues are the fault of the manufacturer rather then the OS.

Well I am not gonna get into this any further. I am pretty saavy and know windows much better than Linux but have more issues with XP and I still think it's the most stable edition of Windows since 3.11 for workgroups. The performance of Vista is inexcusable and what makes it worse is they are trying to force people to buy it with their Vista only software. You will find I am not alone in my opinion of Vista.

Unless Microsoft does something drastic soon things will turn for the worse for them.

Lastly if it isn't broken why is Microsoft allowing this!

 

[Arainach]

gritz: As has been pointed out, old code is not bad code. The existing examples have been excellent - the core basis of the GNU utilities that power most UNIX and Linux systems have barely changed in over a decade; the TCP/IP stack still contains large amounts of code dating back to the BSD version from 1983, and so on.

Second, Microsoft's commitment to backwards compatibility is what got them control of the market (well, and some questionable business tactics, but backwards compatibility is what's built most of their loyalty). It's easy to SAY "dump all the code". It's much tougher to do without pissing everyone off.

Also: Vista is not "built on XP". It's essentially a fundamental redesign. XP never was a true multiuser system (as UAC is). The networking stack's been redone. The audio stack's been redone. The video layer's been rewritten to allow for stuff like HDMI. And on and on and on. It's much closer to the Windows Server 2003 code than the XP code, and even that's not a fair comparison - Vista is for the most part new work.