Windows 10
-
@IRJ said:
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
How do you define an amount? As of Windows 8.1. it is running more than sixteen years behind in some pretty common features. But Windows 10 should fix some of that. But that is just one feature. They are different OSes. For sixteen years it has been a "feature they don't want to provide." Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK what other features are they missing?
Native network is massive. Native multi-user is pretty massive. That's less a feature and more a license limitation, but still.
What about paravirtualization and containerization options?
-
@Dashrender said:
@ajstringham said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
Microsoft has often not added in features other OSes have had, and have stuck to a certain path. Multiple virtual desktops is a huge step forward in my mind, because even though they're behind the curve, they are at least waking up.
OK what other features are they missing?
Off-hand, I'm drawing a blank. This was a big one I added on my first XP desktop with a 3rd party utility. That was back in 2006. My Ubuntu box had that, as had the OS for years, back in 2005.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
What is a native networked interface?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
What is a native networked interface?
It was a change that should have happened years ago.
-
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@ajstringham said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
Microsoft has often not added in features other OSes have had, and have stuck to a certain path. Multiple virtual desktops is a huge step forward in my mind, because even though they're behind the curve, they are at least waking up.
OK what other features are they missing?
Off-hand, I'm drawing a blank. This was a big one I added on my first XP desktop with a 3rd party utility. That was back in 2006. My Ubuntu box had that, as had the OS for years, back in 2005.
One 'feature' does not lagging make.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
How is that not fixing an issue of lagging? You can call any lack of features that get added late as having "changed direction." Technically, catching up in any way is a change of direction - from lagging a lot to lagging less.
-
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
What is a native networked interface?
It was a change that should have happened years ago.
If Bill Gates didn't think so.. and Balmer after that.. why? just because you and some small percentage want/like/use it? Can't say I agree with you there.
-
@Dashrender said:
One 'feature' does not lagging make.
Not but they have lagged in basically every feature since day one. Windows has always been in the position of catching up. This one feature was really glaring and lasted an incredibly long time in the queue. But what aspect of the Windows desktop has not been a lagged feature since the 90s?
-
So what you're saying is that MS isn't innovating. OK I'll give you that.
-
What about Active Directory and what that has done to advance manageability of users, workstations, and servers? I believe Active Directory in itself is a huge accomplishment in the Windows world.
Sure Novell came first but from what I heard the it was harder to implement and did not have as many features.
-
Maybe this link from 1998 is just Microsoft Propaganda, but I dont know enough about Novell to say either way.
-
@Dashrender said:
What is a native networked interface?
The UNIX desktop interface is networked, always, even when local. UNIX does not have the concept of a local console like Windows does. Windows has a local console and then you use protocols like RDP or RFB (VNC) to connect to that console or a copy of that console. This is based on the DOS legacy and the assumption that computers have a local monitor and a person sitting physically at them.
The UNIX world does not have this assumption. If you have a local console, it is actually connected over a network. The network might be local, but there is a network connection. Using a UNIX machine locally or remotely is transparent, you are always a network connection no matter where you are. The X protocol handles this. This loose coupling of the desktop and the hardware helps to give UNIX the native multi-user feel that Windows lacks.
The entire concept of VDI is a Windows thing because it doesn't need to exist on Linux. Linux natively handles multiple users in a way that Windows does not. Windows is using virtualization to make containers to mimic what UNIX and Linux were doing in the 1970s.
-
@IRJ said:
What about Active Directory and what that has done to advance manageability of users, workstations, and servers? I believe Active Directory in itself is a huge accomplishment in the Windows world.
Sure Novell came first but from what I heard the it was harder to implement and did not have as many features.
There are still features that Novell Netware had that MS has not implemented (I can't remember what, I only barely scratch the surface of Netware, and will admit, it's possible by now that MS has actually caught up to feature parity). But Novell lost marketshare and funding therefore died - plus I'm guessing their pricing structure had something to do with it.
-
@Dashrender said:
So what you're saying is that MS isn't innovating. OK I'll give you that.
Correct. They make a great product, but to get their stability and to save costs they lag far behind UNIX systems. They let UNIX forge the modern desktop and they follow along gleaning what makes sense for their userbase.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
What is a native networked interface?
The UNIX desktop interface is networked, always, even when local. UNIX does not have the concept of a local console like Windows does. Windows has a local console and then you use protocols like RDP or RFB (VNC) to connect to that console or a copy of that console. This is based on the DOS legacy and the assumption that computers have a local monitor and a person sitting physically at them.
The UNIX world does not have this assumption. If you have a local console, it is actually connected over a network. The network might be local, but there is a network connection. Using a UNIX machine locally or remotely is transparent, you are always a network connection no matter where you are. The X protocol handles this. This loose coupling of the desktop and the hardware helps to give UNIX the native multi-user feel that Windows lacks.
The entire concept of VDI is a Windows thing because it doesn't need to exist on Linux. Linux natively handles multiple users in a way that Windows does not. Windows is using virtualization to make containers to mimic what UNIX and Linux were doing in the 1970s.
ah ok. SO that is kind of what Microsoft is trying to do with Server Manager?
-
@IRJ said:
What about Active Directory and what that has done to advance manageability of users, workstations, and servers? I believe Active Directory in itself is a huge accomplishment in the Windows world.
Sure Novell came first but from what I heard the it was harder to implement and did not have as many features.
Both were just following along in a tradition of directory servers. Yes, AD is an amazingly polished version of LDAP and Kerberos. But both existed, in a form that would do AD, prior to AD. Novell eDirectory was not the original either but was super powerful and probably harder to implement.
AD was really great but is not a desktop component. It's a server side component that replaced NT SAM. It's great and in an ease of use perspective it was somewhat innovative. But the overall concept and productization of directory services goes back decades before AD.
-
@IRJ said:
Maybe this link from 1998 is just Microsoft Propaganda, but I dont know enough about Novell to say either way.
That's two proprietary vendors facing off. Something is really fishy there as that is Windows 2000 and AD but the article is from 1998. That was a pre-release of AD versus the fifth generation of NDS. One was more than a year away from release and the other was mature and on the market already. Microsoft didn't even release a pre-release preview of AD until 1999 and the first production release of AD 1 was 2000.
LDAP, on which AD is based, predates not just Windows but Microsoft itself being from 1971. AD is definitely a great implementation of a lot of stuff, but the innovation is in the polish.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
What is a native networked interface?
The UNIX desktop interface is networked, always, even when local. UNIX does not have the concept of a local console like Windows does. Windows has a local console and then you use protocols like RDP or RFB (VNC) to connect to that console or a copy of that console. This is based on the DOS legacy and the assumption that computers have a local monitor and a person sitting physically at them.
The UNIX world does not have this assumption. If you have a local console, it is actually connected over a network. The network might be local, but there is a network connection. Using a UNIX machine locally or remotely is transparent, you are always a network connection no matter where you are. The X protocol handles this. This loose coupling of the desktop and the hardware helps to give UNIX the native multi-user feel that Windows lacks.
The entire concept of VDI is a Windows thing because it doesn't need to exist on Linux. Linux natively handles multiple users in a way that Windows does not. Windows is using virtualization to make containers to mimic what UNIX and Linux were doing in the 1970s.
Aww yes, I knew this, just not it's name.
I have to ask - what do you sacrifice doing it this way? Performance? anything?
Considering what a Windows desktop machine is a desktop - it was always intended to be used by a single person with an attached keyboard, mouse and monitor - I'm not surprised it works this way.
But Unix, and later linux (based on unix, right?) Those guys grew up in the datacenter, away from the users, the need for multiuser remote access was there from the start. It naturally makes sense they would do that for their xServer (is this the right name?) environment too.
-
@Dashrender said:
There are still features that Novell Netware had that MS has not implemented (I can't remember what, I only barely scratch the surface of Netware, and will admit, it's possible by now that MS has actually caught up to feature parity). But Novell lost marketshare and funding therefore died - plus I'm guessing their pricing structure had something to do with it.
Novell was really hard to use. And it was really expensive. It still exists though. Novell is still around and eDirectory was sold to NetIQ:
