![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
After reading several complaints (to say the least) of Vista, and of people running back into the welcoming arms of XP, I've had to ask myself, WHY do OS manufacturers insist on this method of versioning their software?
If I were to ask you, which has a more successful track record of version changes, Fedora/*buntu/linux in general, or Microsoft, the answer would probably be pretty near unanimously the Linux crowd. Along the same lines, if you were posed the question: which is the more successful upgrade: Vista or XP SP2, one would surely say SP2, which was a hugely successful upgrade that boosted the stability and security of the operating system greatly.
Now back to the first question, why does Linux have such a better track record going from, for instance, Fedora Core 1 to Core 2 to Core 3 and so forth? Well the answer is simply because those "versions" as most people know are a shroud to the superior packaged structure of Linux, which is its true genius (being free is just a bonus) so while you may have moved to core 2 from core 1, many of the software versions may be the same, a few will be upgraded, and you may get some new graphics thrown in.
Now examine the success of the Linux packaging system, put that together with the comparison of Vista and SP2, and ask yourself: why does Microsoft insist on completely rewriting their software in such a way that it throws the whole industry into turmoil when they could have just worked on another service pack or two? Obviously there is trouble when trying to do something as drastic as adding a permission system to XP, but I just don't think that this can continue, the industry is to large and to integral a part of the world now to be in the hands of some rag-tag programmers working from their moms basement in Seattle. Microsoft is a huge multi-billion dollar company, and they need to start taking the responsibility of one.
Personally I think Microsoft has no lack of great programmers, designers, etc. I believe they are a very successful company that has, in Steve Jobs words "earned their success, for the most part." However I think that their inability to embrace a more modular operating system is ultimately going to be their downfall if they cant do it at some point, or at least come up with some better upgrade path (though upgrade paths don't hype, it seems).
Anyway sorry for this ramble but I just wrote this on a whim to get my thoughts down. I realize this is stuff that has probably been pointed out before, but I think that with vista out now it is becoming more relevant as we've seen Windows upgrades are if anything getting worse not better as time goes on.
If I were to ask you, which has a more successful track record of version changes, Fedora/*buntu/linux in general, or Microsoft, the answer would probably be pretty near unanimously the Linux crowd. Along the same lines, if you were posed the question: which is the more successful upgrade: Vista or XP SP2, one would surely say SP2, which was a hugely successful upgrade that boosted the stability and security of the operating system greatly.
Now back to the first question, why does Linux have such a better track record going from, for instance, Fedora Core 1 to Core 2 to Core 3 and so forth? Well the answer is simply because those "versions" as most people know are a shroud to the superior packaged structure of Linux, which is its true genius (being free is just a bonus) so while you may have moved to core 2 from core 1, many of the software versions may be the same, a few will be upgraded, and you may get some new graphics thrown in.
Now examine the success of the Linux packaging system, put that together with the comparison of Vista and SP2, and ask yourself: why does Microsoft insist on completely rewriting their software in such a way that it throws the whole industry into turmoil when they could have just worked on another service pack or two? Obviously there is trouble when trying to do something as drastic as adding a permission system to XP, but I just don't think that this can continue, the industry is to large and to integral a part of the world now to be in the hands of some rag-tag programmers working from their moms basement in Seattle. Microsoft is a huge multi-billion dollar company, and they need to start taking the responsibility of one.
Personally I think Microsoft has no lack of great programmers, designers, etc. I believe they are a very successful company that has, in Steve Jobs words "earned their success, for the most part." However I think that their inability to embrace a more modular operating system is ultimately going to be their downfall if they cant do it at some point, or at least come up with some better upgrade path (though upgrade paths don't hype, it seems).
Anyway sorry for this ramble but I just wrote this on a whim to get my thoughts down. I realize this is stuff that has probably been pointed out before, but I think that with vista out now it is becoming more relevant as we've seen Windows upgrades are if anything getting worse not better as time goes on.
