Windows Longhorn vs Vista

heat33330

Which is better with stability,security and reliability the current windows vista or this build of longhornhttp://longhornization.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/4074/ ?

INFO:Windows longhorn was what vista was originally going to be like(?)but then microsoft scrapped the idea and began working on current day vista.

LeinsterDub

heat33330 wrote: »

Which is better with stability,security and reliability the current windows vista or this build of tophorn.

Windows 7

heat33330

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Windows 7

What about windows 7?I was aking which is better longhorn or vista.

Torqay

1. Windows Vista is not current but obsolete.

2. "Longhorn" is hardly better than Vista in stability,security and reliability. Longhorn releases were a variety of test builds, far from finished and not suitable for regular use. To make matters worse, no security patches or bugfixes were ever released, so they are no better than a Swiss cheese where security is concerned.

Next question: "Which is better with stability,security and reliability the current Windows XP or this build of Windows Neptune?"

fionny

Im quite happy with my copy of Vienna AKA Blackcomb. :P

Torqay

fionny wrote: »

Im quite happy with my copy of Vienna AKA Blackcomb. :P

You mean Mojave 2.0?

fionny

No, at least not according to the 2 seperate sources i checked.

http://www.howtogeek.com/wiki/Windows_OS_Code_Names#Windows_7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_codenames

Torqay

fionny wrote: »

No, at least not according to the 2 seperate sources i checked.

http://www.howtogeek.com/wiki/Windows_OS_Code_Names#Windows_7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_codenames

As I said, Mojave Reloaded.

fionny

I give up.

Torqay

fionny wrote: »

I give up.

Ah c'mon, I'm kidding...

Back on the topic, sure it's exciting to test developers' or early beta releases, to play around with new features (some of which may never make it into the final product), when they're new. There is no gain in using some 8 year old beta version.

Beta versions may indeed feel faster, snappier and more responsive but they are no match for the final product when it comes to "stability, security and reliability", last but not least because they are not supported with bugfixes and security updates.

Against popular belief, it's not that some evil b*stard in Redmond decided to shelve all the goodies only to torture the end user with rubbish, or is it? (read on)

As for the version in question, Build 4074 was one of the last betas based on Windows 2003 Server, before they have ditched the lot and started over from scratch (for a variety of reasons) which ultimately caused the huge delay of Vista. This means, you can hardly compare these builds to Vista, as they are much closer to Windows 2003 Server. So if you are looking for reliablity and stability, you might as well choose Windows 2003, which makes for a formidable desktop OS if accordingly tweaked... if you have $999 to spare for a license.

fionny

Well as a slightly off topic I hope they ditch windows 8 and do a u-turn... its sadly brutal.

Torqay

fionny wrote: »

Well as a slightly off topic I hope they ditch windows 8 and do a u-turn... its sadly brutal.

Support for XP will cease in April 2014? Still plenty time to get it right once more.

Seriously, this Metro **** for tablets on a PC? What are they thinking. And the tablet version of Windows 8 has actually very little in common with the PC variant, never mind compatibility. So why didn't they put the tiled interface where it belongs and roll out the desktop OS with a desktop (and I care not for this "desktop app")?