"Peter KÃhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eerlku$q2b$01$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oliver Wong wrote:
"Peter KÃhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eeri81$p06$00$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oliver Wong wrote:
So do you disagree that these features are interesting? Do you
think
IPv6 or symbolic links are uninteresting? Do you ever use symbolic
links
on your machine? I suspect that you do. Even if you didn't know
anything
about Linux, just a basic install of Linux probably automatically
creates symbolic links somewhere on your disk, right? So if nothing
else, they are
at least *useful*.
I think those features are *extremely* uninteresting in a windows
product
So in other words, these features would be interesting to you if they
appeared in a non-Windows product (e.g. Linux), but due to the fact that
they appear in a Windows product, you find them "*extremely*
uninteresting". I rest my case about anti-Microsoft bias.
No. They would have been interesting if MS had added them (one by one, if
need be) to XP. In the meantime they could have written something which is
not a steaming pile of horse manure, which now will probably never see the
light
So you're saying features are not interesting in and of themselves, but
whether they are implemented in XP or not? So by definition, no matter WHAT
features were implemented in Vista the features would not be interesting,
because it was not added in XP?
But no, MS decided to milk its customers again, and again, and again, and
now with a product which by all counts is in its early alpha-stage
Do you honestly believe that Vista will be anything near the bug-count of
XP
as it is today? If you really believe that, I've got a bridge for you,
just
slightly used
I don't know how you infered anything about my beliefs on the bug count
based on what I've written anywhere, let alone what I've written in this
newsgroup, or in this thread. Is this a usage of the strawman logical
fallacy?
You see, I've got all of those which might interest me since quite some
time, as I use linux. MS is simply years behind with the really
interesting
stuff
MS could have added them just as easily in a SP3 to XP.
Do you honestly believe they could have added a completely rewritten
user-space driver framework in an SP3 to XP?
If they could not, their code base is even worse than imagined.
Imagined by who? By you? Roy says he doesn't expect the above changes to
be feasible in XP. I agree with him that those changes are not feasible in
XP.
Note your claim above:
<quote>
MS could have added them just as easily in a SP3 to XP.
</quote>
You made this claim. Roy and I (among others) agree that this claim is
false. Do you honestly believe this claim, or do you think maybe you spoke
too fast, and made assumptions about XP's archicture?
And in my
opinion it can't be much worse. But, if you think they could not, due to
their total incompetance, be my guest
I'm saying that some of the features in Vista are too big and complex to
be implemented as merely a service pack to XP. Do you now see that those
features are too big and complex to be implemented as a service pack to XP?
Do you understand that moving drivers from kernel-space to user-space is NOT
a trivial OS change? Have you ever taken an operating systems course in
university?
- Oliver
|
|
