Clever insight into win32 bloat

[Thrax]

A former engineer at Intel <a href="http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-intel-giveth-microsoft-taketh-away.html" target="_blank">quantifies</a> Microsoft's bloat-factor, coins a brilliant new acronym, and shoots straight about Intel's past. Well worth the read.

[fatcat]

Enjoyed the read. Thanks:thumbsup:

Win2k anyone? ;)

[Thrax]

I'm tempted to give it another shot to see how well it does. It's been a long time; SP2 is what finally sold me on XP, and that was a while ago.

[Leonardo]

Win2k anyone?Between home and work, I use the following every day: Win2K, WinXP Pro, WinXP Home, Office 2002/XP, Office 2007 Enterprise, Word Perfect Office Suite, and Open Office 2.3.

I much prefer XP SP2 over Win2K. In my opinion, Win2K has become dated, but sure, it's still a very viable OS. For functionality and versatility, I really like XP, but it really needs an aesthetic refresh. Of course, that won't happen. MS wants us to purchase Vista.

Office suites. The 2007 Enterprise version I have at home I purchased through the Employee Purchase Program for a ridiculous pittance ($24.95 shipped!). It's really strange at first, but the more I use it, the more I like it. I really dislike Word Perfect Office Suite. It's hard to believe people actually pay for it. I am very pleased with Open Office. Considering it's free, it's quite an accomplishment for the open source community. But then, Open Office might not be available if it weren't for Sun Microsystem's generous (or is it stick-in-the-eye of Microsoft?) efforts.

Resource intensive? Well, yes, things have become bloated. Microsoft is trying to be all things to all people, and is the crux of the problem. Or is that a benefit? That's the classic argument, isn't it?

[fatcat]

We would do it simply for the speed. I agree WinXPsp2 is much more polished, but I cant honestly think of even trying win98 these days. I'm sure win2k could hold it own even after being 8 years old.

[Thrax]

Win2k can definitely hold its own.

[Leonardo]

Win2k can definitely hold its own.Yes. It's probably the best OS Microsoft ever developed. There would have been no XP without 2K. But as you well know, a properly configured XP comes close to Win2K's speed, but without being so Spartan. I was very happy to let go of Win98. I hold no similar feeling in the eventual move to Vista. Vista SP2? Multi-CPU license pack for a reasonable price? Hmm. We often castigate Microsoft for the "bloated" software, but who among us would want to return to Win98? Also, I don't see a groundswell of interest for Linux. We all want something fast, but we also want OS and office applications that don't make it seem like we are only punching buttons to make a machine function.

[Qeldroma]

They better have the 4GHz Octal core with 64MB out soon- MS is busy working on Windows 7 (Vienna) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7)

Think they might have Windows Vista ironned out by then?

[fatcat]

Think they might have Windows Vista ironned out by then?

some things are just too big and bulky to iron...

[Zuntar]

I still think Vista will be a "ME" in the long run.

[Thrax]

I think so too.

[Keebler]

Do you think this is applicable to their server software at all? I don't have any experience with it, just curious (all the servers I deal with are Red Hat or Centos-based).

[Thrax]

Windows Server 2003 is so like 2000 Server, that it's hard to tell. I think it's similar to the separation between Windows 2000 Pro and XP Pro. The real test of Microsoft's skill in the server space will be Windows Server 2008; so far it's shaping up to be a pretty nice OS. More modular, robust and more easily-administrated than prior OSes.