- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
When I say "not all the bells and whistles", I'm not counting Aero in there. Aero was marketed as THE key feature of Vista, so claiming something is Vista capable requires that it run Aero unless specifically disclaimed.
I remember DOS quite well. I remember punch cards (although it was mostly me and my sister shuffling my dad's punch cards...)
Linux and DOS differ from Windows in that the GUI runs on top of a fully functional, text based OS. Windows cannot run without its GUI. You can use different skins, but the interface is a key part of Vista.
As for exactly what should be included in the term OS, there is no universal consensus. I simply contend it doesn't matter. You can think of the software on the Vista disk as an OS or a distribution or whatever else, but the stuff in the Vista box is Vista, and a Vista capable computer needs to be able to run it.
I think MS had the right idea early on, and unfortunately caved to pressure from Intel (primarily) and OEM's (to a lesser extent) to lower standards for purely economic reasons, not technical ones.
MS could also have found a middle ground that I would have found acceptable. They could have offered a way of installing an ultra-streamlined version of Vista to OEM's that didn't include Aero, AND made it clear on the "Vista capable" sticker that the computer in question could not run Aero or other Vista components and that performance with 512MB of RAM would be sub-optimal. Even a little footnote with a reference in the sticker to read the footnote would have worked. They didn't do this, because they knew that the truth would have hurt sales. Thus, they reaped financial benefit by deceiving consumers deliberately, and so they should compensate those consumers now.
I remember DOS quite well. I remember punch cards (although it was mostly me and my sister shuffling my dad's punch cards...)
Linux and DOS differ from Windows in that the GUI runs on top of a fully functional, text based OS. Windows cannot run without its GUI. You can use different skins, but the interface is a key part of Vista.
As for exactly what should be included in the term OS, there is no universal consensus. I simply contend it doesn't matter. You can think of the software on the Vista disk as an OS or a distribution or whatever else, but the stuff in the Vista box is Vista, and a Vista capable computer needs to be able to run it.
I think MS had the right idea early on, and unfortunately caved to pressure from Intel (primarily) and OEM's (to a lesser extent) to lower standards for purely economic reasons, not technical ones.
MS could also have found a middle ground that I would have found acceptable. They could have offered a way of installing an ultra-streamlined version of Vista to OEM's that didn't include Aero, AND made it clear on the "Vista capable" sticker that the computer in question could not run Aero or other Vista components and that performance with 512MB of RAM would be sub-optimal. Even a little footnote with a reference in the sticker to read the footnote would have worked. They didn't do this, because they knew that the truth would have hurt sales. Thus, they reaped financial benefit by deceiving consumers deliberately, and so they should compensate those consumers now.
