Vista is nowhere near as big a change as 2000 was from 98 (First off, they weren't even in direct upgrade paths, so there isn't really a comparison, but just for fun, lets do it anyway).
Your comments are humorus. Yes, there was an upgrade path from 98 to 2000, though nobody did it because a reinstall was the only sure way that your system would be stable. I agree that nobody should upgrade to 2000 from 98, but MS did provide a way to do it.
If you want a valid comparison, you should do 98 to XP (almost the same as I have listed below), or 2000 to XP, or even NT4.0 to 2000, all of these would be better than 98 to 2000 (since one was for home, and one for business).
Windows 2000 was targeted at the business market, but was adopted by the Retail market almost immediately. Everyone wanted to upgrade to 2000 because of it's stability, and it's DirectX performance. While both 98SE and 2000 ran DX, 2000 did it flawlessly, and 98 crapped half the time. 2000 was not just a Business OS. My remarks referred to the differences in drivers between 98 and 2000. Notice that I do not mention Windows ME because I don't consider it a valid option as an OS. Nobody does....
I am sure there are a few things I missed here, and I think it would be great for people to update what I missed, but after looking at the list, I am really wondering what differentiates Vista from being just a new interface designed mainly for home users (WinME anyone?)
While I don't disagree with your list of comparitive features, one thing that I see as a huge improvement is the deployment of Vista. It no longer requires a DOS type installation mode. This was completly done away with. Vista actually boots from DVD with a Win32 GUI capable of loading device drivers using high level devices such as USB, CD, etc. In XP/2003 you still need a floppy to do that because it's the only device that the BIOS natively loads in mem, and what works in DOS.
Yes, I know, I'm about to get a response from someone saying, "But Dade, XP doesn't have DOS." Yes, I know it doesn't run on DOS, but it's installer is a DOS level app that is less then desired.
Also, No, Vista is not just targeted at home users. There are 5 or 6 versions of Vista, with different features geared toward different markets. There are Business and Enterprise versions, as well as Ultimate that will be marketed toward Businesses. Vista Home Basic, Premium and Ultimate are marketed at home users. There are really incredible advancements for companies with Vista. Group Policy has been rewritten to include policies for almost every concievable situation. You can lock down access to a device by group, which you still can't do correctly in XP. IE: USB storage devices. Business Desktop Deployment coupled with SMS are awesome. The installation of Vista is image based, so that you can make a simple edit to your corporate image to add a device driver for new hardware, instead of having to rebuild the entire image again like with XP.
I can't believe you compare Vista with ME at all. It is not a re-branded copy of XP. It bears more resemblance with 2003 server, then it does with XP. It's Kernel source is built on the last version of 2003, plus all new stuff.
I have heard the M$ has locked out the antivirus vendors (cept for some news about Panda) and that has me concerned.
To clear this one up, it is true that MS refused to allow vendors direct access to kernel processes. This is because calls directly to your Kernel cause issues if your AV software hangs, or a Virus takes over your AV software. They do provide an API, which gives them access to scan for viruses. I didn't hear anything about Panda, but I know that Trend was the first to have an AV client for Vista. They were actually the preferred vendor for AV software for Vista Beta because their programmers were willing to make it work. Symantec made a stink about not being able to call Kernel processes anymore and refused to participate in the beta program. I think they may have a working client now, but last summer, they released a statement that said that they would have a client out by the time Vista hits the Retail market, and that they would not support Vista Beta. Also, E-Trust, AVG, and many other AV companies already have clients that work with Vista. Symantec is the only one that seems to be lagging behind.
especially with all Micro$oft's security flaws
aside from that, VISTA is set up to blcok any software that is deemed illegitmate. who determines what is legit? Micro$oft, of course. VISTA might also decide that your version of the OS is illegitmate when you change a hard drive or video card or two
There is 1 flaw so far with Vista, and you actually have to have control of the local system to exploit it. A patch was already released for it. Microsoft doesn't decide what apps are legit and allowed to run, and what ones aren't. In Vista, they are all blocked, unless you allow them to run. That includes other Microsoft software.
From what I understand, Vista's Activation is very similar to XP. If you change some hardware, you may have to call MS to get them to reactivate it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram