Post by Hadron Post by Rex Ballard Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I really don't get you Microsoft critics. When Vista took 5 years, it
was too long. When 7 takes 2 years, it's too short. What is the
"correct" amount of time it should take?
New updates to the Linux kernel come out every 6 months or so, most
distributions have the "research" distribution that gets updated as a
major release about once every 3 months, and a "Production"
distribution that typically gets released every year.
I'd love to see Microsoft adopt this type of model, if they could make
incremental improvements and maintain backward compatibility with
previous release of Windows, including Windows 9x, Windows 2000, and
Windows XP, and make sure that ALL applications ran under Windows 7, I
think they might have a nice product. Then they can make more
You are comparing the Linux kernel with Windows? Huh?
The Linux kernel CONSTANTLY changes. As anyone who compiles from source
knows. I don't anymore since my Lenny kernel is stable and I trust
Debian to release as and when they see fit. It's still a lot more
frequently than 6 months.
Both systems have frequent "security updates", typically protection
against buffer overruns and the like. Much of this in Windows has to
do with successful attacks by malware, while Linux security updates
tend to be more focused on theoretical vulnerabilities that haven't
actually been exploited.
When we start talking about MAJOR upgrades, both have been pretty
stable. Linux major releases were 2.4 in January 2001 and 2.6 in
January 2003, Latest release 2.6.28 was December 2008.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel for more information.
Post by Hadron
As usual Rexx talks through his arse.
As usual, Hadron picks a nit.
Typically, the major distributions will pick what they feel to be the
most stable and bug-free release of the kernel, test that with what
they consider to be the most stable and bug-free versions of libraries
and applications, and ship that on distribution media. Typically, one
of the first things you do after you install the distribution from
media is check for upgrades, and you typically get many nice upgrades
that have been tested with that distribution kernel.
If Microsoft could come out with Windows 7 by July of 2009 and it was
as fast and efficient as Windows 2000 and as secure as Windows XP, and
had good virtualization - I'd probably want to upgrade my XP machines,
or maybe even install Windows 7 VMs on my Linux machines.
The problem is that Microsoft will charge the EOMs $30 for the
licenses preinstalled to their specifications, but will expect me to
pay $300 for "upgrades" that I can install on my already functional
laptops and desktops.
I have 6 PCs, 4 of which are licensed for Windows XP. I have one
Vista license - but hated Vista so much that I uninstalled it. I also
have 4 Windows 2000 licenses, and 6 NT 4.0 licenses. And now
Microsoft wants me to shell out ANOTHER $$$?
I think Microsoft needs to get more realistic about it's pricing
structures. Just because they put a box out there on the retailer
shelves marked at $400 doesn't mean that Windows 7 is actually WORTH
that much to 99.9% of the people who are willing to use the $30 copy
that has been preinstalled on their computer.
Seriously, how many Windows advocates posting to this group have
actually paid FULL PRICE for a FULLY LEGAL copy of Windows for a brand
new computer that wasn't previously licensed for Windows? I'm not
talking about an educational version, an MSDN version, or an upgrade
version, but an actual RETAIL version of a FULL LICENSE?
And how many installed this $400 copy of Windows or Vista on a $500
laptop or $300 desktop machine?
If I go to a MarketPro computer show I can have a custom-built AMD
quad-core processor PC built for about $500 with 4 Gig of RAM and 500
GB SATA-II hard drive with HDMI connector to a 1080P monitor/display.
But if I want a LEGAL copy of Windows - I have to shell out another
$400? Probably not. I'll put Linux on it instead.
If Microsoft expects me to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7, I'll
want a Retail version selling with FULL LICENSE - no restrictions -
selling for $50-$80, or it's no deal. Not even on a new computer that
gives me the option of XP or Windows 7. That's why I ordered my Z-61p
BEFORE the XP version was no longer available. I wanted the 4 Gig of
RAM and the 1080p display, but I didn't want compatibility problems
between Vista and XP.
Corporate customers are looking at the same issues. I can get a Vista
desktop PC for $300 in quantity, I can install an XP image for $10,
and get it deployed for just a few hundred dollars in back-up/recovery
time. If I need to go to Vista or Windows 7, I have to add training
costs, upgrade applications, switch to new applications because the
old ones don't work, and STILL have to handle back-up and recovery
that won't handle the applications. We still have to install software
manually, because the images can't be copied universally.
The reality is that I'd be better off using VMWare Converter to save
the user's old machine to a USB drive or SAN storage, and then install
the VM to a PC running a very lightweight version of Linux.