DisSuggs4u

So, we are right around the corner from Microsoft finally unleashing their next operating system, Windows Vista, upon the public. I cannot help but think that this will be another mediocre product from the folks in Redmond. This will not be for lack of effort or for trying to be all things to all people. Far from it. However, I do believe that this is also the main reason why Vista will not be good in the long run.

You see, with Vista, Microsoft fails to even remotely consider one of the basic principals of product development: K.I.S.S. How do I know this? Well, for starters, just look at how many versions of Vista Microsoft is releasing. Looks like four, right. Wrong. There are actually SIX different versions of Vista. You have to read the fine print in order to see that there is a “Starter” and “Enterprise” edition as well. (Granted, “Starter” looks like it is targeted for those folks in either developing nations or who have yet to upgrade their dusty old Pentium III box.) To add insult to injury, the PC you have which runs Windows 2000 or XP just fine right now may not even be compatible with Vista if you have not bought one in the last year and a half. How gay is that?

Why in the world would you want to offer so many choices? Have they ever met their user base? I can only imagine the support and maintenance nightmare they are going to have to deal with because of this, not to mention the same burden they are adding to anyone who makes Windows compatible software.

How, for one, will you know if the software/hardware you are buying will be compatible with your version of Vista? Because of the different versions, I am sure they will have to draw the line somewhere. But how will this be communicated?

Instead of nailing down the operating system and designing it from the ground up to be easy to use and secure, they are adding a whole list of features while at the same time needing to carry forward all of the legacy code in order to support their very large install base. Personally, I think this is a mistake, but I also think it is probably something they could not avoid without a lot of time and effort.

In order to make this work, you would have had to have made a business decision to either dump support for older 16 and 32-bit applications, or else run them in some sort of emulation mode or virtual machine. Doing so would allow you to dump a lot of the excess code need to normally support these applications, thus making the OS easier to support and maintain going forward.

Just think that is exactly what Apple did when they released the Intel compatible version of OS X, which no longer supports “Classic” — which are applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9. This was a design decision on Apple’s part and I think it was a wise one. By doing this, they no longer have to carry the weight (in code base) of the old applications, and can instead trim the OS down and add in new features with less risk of problems occurring. Granted, things will still go wrong — all code has bugs, after all — but I do not believe there will be as many as if there would be with all that extra/old code lying around.

This one of the (many) reasons why I think Apple “gets” it and Microsoft does not. Another is that with each new version of Apple’s operating system, there is only one version to choose from. (OK, technically two: one for servers, and another for everyone else.) Because of this, OS X is easier to support and maintain in the long run, and their code is able to keep pace with new technologies, features, and enhancements much better than if it kept the older code around.

After all, this is why Vista is coming out six years since Microsoft’s last major revision of their operating system: Windows 2000. (Windows XP was mostly an interface update when it was released in 2001. Most of the underlying code is the same as in Windows 2000, which is why I consider it a minor revision.) In that six-year time frame, Apple has not only released eight versions of its OS, it has also managed a significant platform shift in the process (from PowerPC to Intel-based CPUs) while continuing to develop new versions of the OS that work equally well on either hardware platform.

When Vista arrives in January, it looks to have some of the same features and functionality (not to mention look-and-feel) that Mac users have enjoyed for the past couple of years in OS X. And, I am willing to bet that the shared features of Vista will still not be as polished as those already found in OS X.

OS 10.9 “Leopard” is due to be released sometime before the summer of 2007. With it will be some great new features for the developers in Redmond to copy for their next OS release in 2015. And, Leopard will be far cheaper to upgrade to than Vista will be, something that has held true for the last six years: Windows is more expensive to maintain than Mac OS X. Don’t just take my word for it, see for yourself.

For me, the simple fact is that Windows Vista just does not have a “wow” factor associated with it like OS X does. There is no compelling reason for me to want to change or upgrade. Even if I did, which version would you pick???