Captain Newbie said:
I'll take my computer science definition of an operating system over yours, thank you.
An operating system should provide services to application programs that
enable pretty 3d graphical point-and-drool stuff, as well as the above-mentioned keeping programs from smashing into one another functions and providing network/security services; it shouldn't necessarily include 3d goodness out of the box (or if it does, it should be a rudimentary 2d point-and-drool system that gets the heck out of my way).
Mine is a computer science definition of an operating system. Ever since the beginning OSes have had two major rolls - make the system function (in this case, "the system" is the hardware) and to support applications software. The first invariably supports the second. Once upon a time that wasn't too involved of a job, as users ran one job at a time, programs didn't need protected memory, etc. Over the years OSes became multitasking, multiuser packages that included more and more functionality and APIs to perform those two rolls. Try to deny it but this is still the same process today, it's just far more complex.
Take directx for example. I recall when it first came out most people simply scratched their heads and wondered. Sure, it was an addon at first, and not a very capable one at that, but it got better. Now, it's an integral piece of the OS providing an API used for most hardware interaction. Aside from updating the library every few months or running dxdiag when something isn't working right, they're not going to think twice about it. They're not going to think much about using Aero, other than it makes the screen pretty and adds a few novel features. Eventually, when MS has Aero dialed in, you'll see more useful features built over the engine (data visualization is a budding field that will catch fire once these types of engines are in place). Until then, yes, Aero is largely a point and drool that MS adds into the OS so Apple doesn't beat them over the head with the OS X interface.
Captain Newbie said:
The majority of features added into Windows are mostly useless for 90% to 95% of the people who use it--most power users *included*. Let's face it. What do you use your OS for?
90% of the people who use an OS never even scratch the surface - the computer is a fancy toaster hooked to a TV. While it may not make toast, at least they know smoke emanating from either is still a bad sign. However, the applications they run most certainly do scratch the surface. Try removing DirectX and see how many things still run, or .NET, or even try turning off RPC on even a standalone computer. They're going to figure out fast that Quicken isn't paying their bills and the dancing hamsters are oddly silent. But then that's the whole idea - all this is hidden from them and honestly should be.
Captain Newbie said:
1) File management
2) Security erm, uh....never mind...
3) Network functions
It shouldn't have a web browser, or user interface or media player, etc., irrevocably integrated into it.
Yep.
As for direct interaction with the OS, yes, you're right. Most people don't touch much outside of manipulating and managing files, scanning for viruses/spyware (ok, if it's a housebroken user), or browsing. Again, most people shouldn't really interact with the OS; you don't want them editing the local security policy or digging through the registry, as bad things tend to happen. What they should interact with is their programs, and those programs interact with all that crap that MS throws in.
>HyperlogiK< said:
Which is why so many power users use nilte to take such features back out.
That's an admittedly risky proposition given the lack of available documentation on application dependencies.
>HyperlogiK< said:
Not true, supposedly more than 2/3 of new feature requests sent to Microsoft are requesting funtionality that windows or office already has. Market forces are not driving home/office pc os development, Microsoft is coming up with new features, some of which are potentially useful, most of which are gimmicks and none of which are absolutely necessary, and then trying to convince both home and business users that they should have them.
In this respect, Microsoft is trying to drive market forces more than market forces are driving Microsoft.
As Captain Newbie pointed out, most users don't scratch the surface as to what the OS is capable of. Granted, many requests likely do not originate from said users, one is still hard pressed to find someone, even a very experienced someone, who has a good breadth of knowledge about every feature in Windows or other modern OSes.
Some examples of MS responding to requests and/or market forces:
* The multitude of scripting possibilities (ActiveX, VBscript, JScript, WSH, ASP, and so on)
* .NET as a consolidation of older APIs
* DirectX as an alternative to OpenGL
* NTFS with auditing to all the IT shops screaming for access controls and access logging
* AD for larger shops who want to simplify the user experience
* Sharepoint services for files
* Shadow copy for files
* Domain management and deployment tools
* The ability to hide inactive taskbar icons
Are any of these really necessary for everyone? Probably not. Are they necessary to a lot of people? Most definitely. Is it a good idea to provide the extras to everybody? Yes, as it makes the product more consistent and allows MS and 3rd party developers to make use of those functions even though the user may be unaware.
The simple reality is that the more features and functionality one adds, the more tools, diagnostics, and functionality one has to add to support it and manage it. This has been true throughout the history of OS development as is still true today. Multitasking dictated more robust scheduling and protected memory. Multiuser and network-centric systems dictated more advanced security controls. The explosion of broadband and viri dictated an integrated firewall and security center. It goes on and on.
>HyperlogiK< said:
Widespread home adoption of vista will take place for 2 reasons, firstly, every new PC will have a copy of it pre installed, and secondly (to a much lesser extent) people will like the pretty new UI because of how it looks, rather than how it functions.
The function is very important to users who are past the first computer stage. Most are well aware of how aggrivating problems can be, especially if they aren't experienced enough to fix them. Again, Aero is a foundational engine that is in its infancy. Again, DirectX also sucked in its first couple revisions. Again, Microsoft is compelled to produce something to compete against OS X.
>HyperlogiK< said:
Most of my graphics card's power goes unused most of the time, but with some recent games like TES: Oblivion, even an X1900XT crossfire setup can't completely max it out. I like to squeeze every last drop of performance from my system when gaming, and having a clunky UI taking up a bunch of memory doesn't help with this. Most of the time it isn't an issue, but when I game it is a very big one indeed, especially considering that I find no use for most of the new features anyway.
I don't disagree. However, I will say that with the VM system came the ability of the memory manager to page a clunky UI out when it's not being used.
