Microsoft Vista |
Article is yet to be rated |
|
| Author:
| nirus
|
|
| Submitted: |
05-Sep-2005 04:30:26 |
| Imported From: |
zZine (original author: nirus)
|
| When I was asked to write about Microsoft Vista, I did a double take, Microsoft what?
|
|
Reactions have been mixed. The name alone has sparked a controversy, and that's not even delving below the surface. While I do use the copy of Windows XP that came with my laptop, it's going to take a lot to convince me to stop using Linux as my primary operating system. However, I'm also not so blindly in love with Linux (which has its own issues) that I won't consider using Vista if it's well written and has the features that I need to do my job.
I need WHAT to run it?
I had all but decided to download the newly released beta of Microsoft Vista and give it a spin when I discovered, much to my shock, that none of the old machines I ran tests on live up to the requirements that Microsoft Vista sets. Straight off the bench you need a machine with at least 512 megs of RAM, a DirectX compatible video card, and (Microsoft's term) a modern AMD or Pentium.
Microsoft is setting the bar pretty high as far as hardware goes, and while I know that there is logic behind this decision, I can't help but feel that they are increasing the total cost of computer ownership by forcing people to ditch perfectly useable computers because they are slightly out of date in order to make use of some new features. Total cost of ownership (TCO) is one of the main arguments that the open source community has thrown at people still using Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft is desperate to address this issue.
The final hardware requirements may change before Vista is finally released sometime next year, but currently they seem to be more problematic than anything else. My argument for why the current requirements are unacceptable goes like this:
The majority of the small businesses that I work with professionally tend to use outdated technology (500Mhz to 1.5Ghz machines). These machines, while certainly not the cutting edge machines you would expect computer geeks and gamers to have, are still more than adequate to the needs of a business. Very few computers in the 500MHz to 1.5GHz processor range meet the RAM requirements for Vista, and most of the onboard video cards wouldn't make the grade either. This means that in order to use Microsoft Vista the computers will have to be upgraded by either supplementing the existing hardware or simply replacing them entirely.
This forces a decision - either the company buys better hardware to support the new operating system, or they stick with either Windows 2000 or XP. Sticking with XP may not be a problem, since it's a completely functional operating system. It all comes back to the TCO battle that Microsoft is currently waging with the open source community. Any rise in the TCO when moving to Microsoft Vista puts Microsoft at a disadvantage, and thereby decreases their potential market share.
Security
Somewhere along the line Microsoft got the security message. They don't have an excellent track record as far as security is concerned, but it's much better than it used to be. Security is now a core component of Microsoft Vista - it is part of what Microsoft has termed 'Computing with Confidence'. It involves improvements such as hardening of the Windows Services, User Account Protection and Full Volume Encryption. Microsft has stated clearly that Vista protects against accesses from other operating systems.
"Windows Vista supports full-volume encryption to help prevent disk access to files by other operating systems."
I have to wonder if they're deliberately trying to antagonize not only the Linux community in general but every technician that has reset a forgotten password by using a bootable CD. I understand the need for full disk encryption, but it is practically useless unless you open source the encryption standard anyway. Furthermore, how do you know for sure that Microsoft can't open all the locks on your data? How do you know that they won't allow law enforcement to do the same? Considering the fact that the keys are stored in a 'Trusted Platform Model v1.2', will it be just another piece of hardware I'll need to buy?
As a part of Microsoft's new security consciousness, they are taking a stand against malware. I've been quite happy with the beta edition of Microsoft Antispyware thus far, even if they did buy it rather than developing it themselves, so I'm definitely looking forward to the anti-malware features that should be part of Microsoft Vista. Proper protection against viruses and spyware has to be at an operating system level, and the effort needs to be at a global level.
I have long maintained that Microsoft needs to make Windows Update available globally regardless of whether the software is pirated or not. It's not likely that they're ever going to consider that approach, but every computer that remains unpatched provides a haven for viruses and a host to enable them to spread. This causes a problem for people that don't update Windows even though they have legal copies.
In fact, a proof of concept virus has already been developed that exploits the Microsoft Command Shell (MCS), which may or may not make it into the final release of Microsoft Vista. MCS is designed to replace the old DOS prompt, and is similar to Unix/Linux command lines (a fact that should make administrators happy). MCS will also be available for Windows XP and 2003 Server.
Look and Feel
The screenshots I was able to find of Vista suggested that one thing Microsoft Vista has is a good interface. This is not surprising, considering the fact that Microsoft has always invested huge amounts of money researching interface design in all ofits operating systems past and present.
If you step over to the screenshots on microsoft.com (link below), you'll find some images that will give you a better idea of the quality of the OS. The picture with images reminds me vaguely of Google's Picasa, a program which I have found very pleasing to the eye if not overly useful in the long run.
Additionally, we see that IE7 is a major component of Microsoft Vista. Many groups have had problems with IE for sometime because of its poor conformity to Internet standards. When I look at the stats to my website, I see that IE still holds the majority of the browser count. I also run up against Microsoft sites that won't behave well with Firefox all the time. At the same time, Microsoft is following the open source community's lead and putting tabbed browsing into IE, which is a major feature of Firefox. This clearly is an attempt to curtail Firefox's growing popularity. On top of all this, Microsoft is once again tying IE to the operating system, which might be a contravention of their recent legal settlement.
My look at Windows Longhorn over a year ago led me to believe that there wasn't that much of a difference between it and XP. However, a lot has changed in a year. Mac fans are once again crying foul, and anyone who has used OS X will see that the Vista beta has a lot of things in common with it. Features that Mac users have long been familiar with are being advertised as 'revolutionary' for Vista.
Specifically, the search function and virtual folders are very similar to the 'Spotlight' function found in the latest update to OS X, and the progress bars and windows also have a certain similarity to OS X. However, the outrage over indexed searching is pretty pointless considering that you can download Google Desktop Search in about 10 minutes and have the same functionality.
WinFX Framework
Coupled with the release of Vista is an extension to the .NET framework. Truthfully, I have to say that the jump from Visual Basic 6 to Visual Basic .NET, and the introduction of C# was a huge step forward to the availability of programming to less experienced users. To purists, it may seem a bit like selling out, but I'm not one to reinvent the wheel. Having umpteen useful features at the tip of my fingers made my life much easier, and I'm looking forward to this extension of the .NET framework.
It includes two components: the Windows Presentation Foundation (formerly codenamed Avalon) and the Windows Communication Foundation (formerly Indigo), which are designed to allow new user interface development and Windows Service development, respectively. The Windows Presentation Framework and the corresponding 'glass' functionality has caused the uproar over graphics cards and the fact that OpenGL will be implemented only through DirectX, again bringing controversy to the path that Microsoft has chosen for its OS. This will surely develop further when the more public 'Beta 2' becomes available in the coming months.
Management and Deployment
While the management and deployment functions are not useful for the majority of desktop users, when it comes to larger corporations, the ability to manage and deploy solutions is important. You can look forward to an improved task scheduling interface, one that will allow not only timed events, but responses to events and conditions, such as the flexibility to launch a given application when the hard drive gets close to being full.
Although there are issues with backwards compatibility at this point, Microsoft has provided the Application Compatibility Toolkit (ACT) to assist in working out any issues. The majority of the issues with mainstream programs will be worked out before Vista is released to the public, but it's an area where everything is still up in the air and thus is a cause of concern for quite a few people.
By far, the most exciting technology that Microsoft has thrown into the mix is the Windows Imaging Format. Think of a single compressed file that contains a complete installation image, with no duplication of files because it's designed to detect and use the same file whenever it is needed.
I can't remember seeing an operating system that has anything close to the management functionality boasted by Vista. While it is certainly far from perfect, the improvements offered are certainly a step forward.
Hardware Compatibility and DRM
I've already mentioned that Vista is only going to work on newer hardware. A further problem is that Microsoft has plans to extend the Driver Protection Element (which first appeared in XP) and make developers apply for Vista Logos. Microsoft's own research leads them to believe that customers want to buy hardware that has the 'Made for Windows (XP)' logo. Draft guidelines that companies will have to comply with have been formulated, but are as of yet unconfirmed.
Hardware manufacturers don't strictly have to go through this process, but Vista will try to prevent hardware without a logo from being installed. The problem arises when hardware manufacturers want to remain open to their product being usable on other operating systems: people running Linux or OS X won't be able to use a 'Made for Windows' product right out of the box, because it will not have the appropriate drivers included, but if the product doesn't have that logo, Vista won't let you install it. This will have severe consequences for developers, because they will either have to accept a loss of market share (and therefore profit), or market OS-specific product lines and increase their operating costs.
Given all the drawbacks and all the advantages I have outlined, I must admit that I really tried to write this article with an open mind. The problem is that Microsoft is continually alienating large groups of people via its practices, of which Digital Rights Management (DRM) is one of the more long-standing.
Microsoft has suggested that they will incorporate a DRM scheme known as High-Bandwidth Digital Copy Protection. It essentially means that users wishing to upgrade to Vista would need to replace their monitors, because almost none of the monitors that are in existence today support the technology in question. This is yet another obstacle that manufacturers would have to get past if they want to play the Microsoft ballgame.
Conclusions
This is hardly an all-inclusive look at Microsoft Vista, mainly because I was unable to procure a copy of Beta 1. However, Jim Alchin relates the fact that Beta 1 is mostly a chance to test the plumbing that is to be a part of Microsoft Vista. Those that are interested in how it will eventually pan out will need to wait till the more public Beta 2.
Personally, I am saddened by the fact that Microsoft has decided to pursue the path they are clearly taking. I just can't envision myself using this product. I like some of the technologies showcased in Microsoft Vista but they're not new, and have been implemented by many companies already.
Neither is this a pro-Linux article, because open source has its own set of issues. The fact is, though, that Linux is one the verge of becoming a major market player at the same time that Microsoft is damaging the future of its operating system.
Resources
This article was originally published by CyberArmy.net in the CyberArmy Library.
|
|
You must be logged in to vote on an article
|
About Us | Privacy Policy | Mission Statement | Help
|