Neowin.net

It's just Vista SP2+, so yes it certainly will be the besterestest.

LOL, you guys kill me around here..

That's what people said about Vista and look how that turned out

How's WFS coming? Will that be included in this new Vista SP2/ME/Enhanced release or are we going to have to wait even longer?

If by "WFS," you mean WinFS... ain't happening.

It was axed... years ago.

*face palm*

HeartMan, I bet you couldn't even tell us exactly what WinFS is. Nor can most people who bitched about vista not inducing winfs.

It's finished. It's being used in other products right now. Get with the programme.

This is getting off-topic, but WinFS is still in development according to what Ballmer said after *parts* of it was integrated with ADO.NET and MS SQL Server.

http://www.crn.com/software/196600671

Or at least everything Vista should have been

One can only hope.

I think its possible. MS isnt really talking a whole lot of all the new features Windows7 will have. So expectations arent as high as they were with Vista. MS promised so very much with Vista, and when it didnt deliver everyone got pretty much dissappointed.

Whats wrong with Vista? Works great for me. I love it.

Its good.. But it was supposed to be even better.

It was actually supposed to be much better given all the stuffs they revealed to us 4-5 years ago compare to what we have now. But then again, Vista is doing good to my comps (that are relatively new), hope Win7 would do better though

I think it'll be like 98SE was to 98 to be honest. There will definitely be improvements that will push people off XP

Well, more like what 98 was to 95.

No, Vista is already that.

What, to XP? Considering Vista changed quite a lot of the underpinnings, it's certainitely can't be compared to 98 over 95. Windows 7 on the other hand shares nearly all the underpinnings of Vista, just like 98 did with 95, therefore you can make comparisons, with Windows 7 and Vista similar to 98 and 95.

Sorry, I assumed you were downplaying the changes in Vista like most people seem to.

That was for the Vista SP2 beta.....no letters have gone out for Windows 7 yet.

Yes there is speculation - http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1582

oops hehe.... Sorry, I'm not a morning person :p

hee~ same here~

I don't think Windows 7 will need a (much) more powerful computer anyway So you don't really need an excuse. In my opinion, Windows 7 should just be an optimization of Vista: clean stuff up, make everything more accessible and faster. Essentially streamline the product.

However a few new features that people actually want and need (I'm looking at you, Sidebar) would be nice.

And for God's sake get me screen zooming.

Vista did all the major changes under the hood, windows 7 will not be such a radical change. Chances are they will work or little will have to be done by the hardware manufacturers to make them work. this is a MUCH less radical change than xp to vista was so we probably won't have ridiculous driver issues this time around.

That's good to hear, thank you for the explanation. For me there is no reason now not to try out 7

nope it is still NT kernel

winmin is side project that they might incorporated some idea in distant future windows release (win8 / win9)

I don't have a time line, but I don't believe that Windows 7 is that close to Vista in the scheme of things. When you look at 95, 98, ME and XP all had only a couple of years turn arounds. A similar release schedule is happening over at Apple with their releases. Really it's only Xp to Vista that was more than a couple of years.

Well, based on the time-line, imo I would say Win7 would be similar to Vista in terms of technology used. Vista is an OS that offers a similar experience with XP but with most of the under-the-hood stuffs revamped (ie: audio, network, display through DWM/DCE). Win7 would by then be an OS that delivers a different experience that uses these Vista-era architectures.

To me, it's like Win98 (Vista) and Win98SE (Win7). Vista took longer cuz of MS' over-ambitious plan and the reset of codebase. Well, consider the architectures that are changed in Vista, I still don't think 5 years is a very long time for that, especially when these changes would be fundamentals for future Windows OS (rather than stucking with what we have in XP forever!)

Yeah thats true. My point was more that in order to make the OS better they need to turn a profit, be it selling the product or selling support.

I maybe was a big general with Linux as there are your Redhats and Novells which do distribute it as a commercial venture, but I was just pointing out that there are releases and developers doing it for non profit uses. Thing is those distros are either getting donations or likely don't have too many full time staff doing development.

What exactly is confusing you?

i dnt know, it just doesnt seem to get to the point. or maybe its just me

That's a great business model now isn't it :-P

So kind of like how Apple does business? Oh, hang on - they do the same thing!

Apple cranks out OS versions pretty quick to. But we all have the option on whether we want to upgrade or not. But I think the only OS that MS Created for profit was Windows ME...that was a joke of an OS.

As opposed to Windows? I don't think anyone was forced to upgrade to Vista.

and lets admit it, practicality is a matter of perspective from the user. I find Vista more practical than Xp.

Yeah I find Vista better than XP too even if it wasn't a perfect release.

Also how do you expect to fund these practical enhancements if your not making money on the products? Sure Linux gets by but for a company with staff on payrolls working day in day out you need to be turning over some money.

And if Windows OS's weren't in any way practical MS would have gone bankrupt years ago anyway.

You asked the question, then went about with the wrong answer on Linux. Red Hat has been solely a Linux/Open Source provider. They make their money selling service contracts, particularly on large enterprises. And they make money. IBM, Novell and others are doing the same thing, but on businesses comprised of both Open and Closed Source offerings.

Your Windows 8 and 9 "predictions" are obviously pure speculation. However, Microsoft's plans have always been to come out with new versions of Windows every 2-3 years, Vista was the exception, thanks to multiple issues (some involving XP, SP2 anyone?).

assuming that they dont have software assurance agreement with MS

wouldn't make a whole point to upgrade to vista for them ofc

You should be getting excited about your bird, not a Beta of an OS!

Well just so you know I'm not crazy obsessed with what's going on but I keep a follow up with some momentum of how I feel about certain things.

btw what bird are we talking about?

Yeah. I enjoyed the WinXP beta process but I skipped Vista until launch because of driver issues (couldn't even get sound working). With Win7 using the same driver model and supposedly aimed more towards performance (how could it not be?) it may be worth checking it out.

It's apparent you haven no idea what winFS is. It's not a replacement for ntfs.

1) why do you hate NTFS?
2) why do you think WinFS is a replacement for NTFS?

I think the answer to both is because you haven't a clue!

What is wrong with NTFS? NTFS has had a number of revisions since NT 3.5, and it is one of the more stable File Systems out there.

Further, WinFS is not, and never was a replacement for a file system. WinFS was designed as a layer on top of NTFS, mainly for indexing purposes on very large volumes.

You 'hate' NTFS?

Why? It's a better filesystem than, say, HFS+ or ext3.

The fragmentation issue? Irrelevant. There's actually a small filesystem performance benefit to pushing off the defrag to a scheduled task when you're not using it.

And as has been pointed out, you have no idea what you're talking about. What you said is like saying:

I hope they serve hamburgers today. I hate couches.

Last edited by MioTheGreat on 22 Oct 2008 - 22:16

LOL

The new Windows Explorer was my number one complaint about Vista, it's just that terrible. At least to me; most people don't seem to care. I tried all the replacement file managers I could find but they weren't that great either. Why can't someone just make a clone of Windows Explorer from Win95 and be done with it. I don't want thumbnails, previews, favorites bars, task panes, files that highlight as you mouse over them, flashing lights, buzzers, etc. I won't even mention the green bar of doom. I just want a simple, fast file manager.

Last edited by TRC on 22 Oct 2008 - 19:59

Much of this community is no where near qualified to talk about OS features. People have been screaming "WINFS IS NOT A FILESYSTEM!!!" for several years now, and they still don't get it.

Just be tolerant of others. Some people dont get and and they wont get it. If everyone got everything, then lots of people will be out of a job.

It's kind of Microsoft's fault. They never should have named it WinFS knowing full well that FS was going to be interpreted as "file system" and not the ridiculous sounding "future storage" that they wanted it to be.

Last edited by TRC on 22 Oct 2008 - 19:58

And you care about install size these days because..?

seriously? dude..... seriously?

there will probably be a windows 7 upgrade at a cheaper price as its pretty much vista fixed

hmm.. never had that issue. Even betas work fine for me . Sorry it sux on your system though, whatever the reason may be.

I wouldn't say RTMs are buggy per se, but I believe with the complexity of Windows a good jumping point is SP1. This isn't a jab at Microsoft, but I think we can all agree Windows is very, very complex software in the context with all the hardware/software it needs to be compatible with in order to satisfy its variety of users. Therefore, I tend not to get too excited about RTM, I just figure the time between RTM and SP1 is "extended beta testing", if you will. XP never became truly stable until SP2 and now Vista is a much better OS after SP1. But, to each their own.

Edit: Thanks mrmckeb, we all appreciate sacrificial lambs. There are millions of Joe the Plumbers and Aunt Sallys in this world who buy a computer with RTM (unknowing and uncaring) and confirm the water is safe, so to speak.

Edit2: Chrono951 - I forgot, that time also allows hardware manufacturers to better learn the OS and create stable drivers. I'm not putting 100% of the blame on MS.

Last edited by ozzy76 on 23 Oct 2008 - 02:08

But then if no-one hopped on at RTM, how would bugs be found? I'll be using it and ironing it out on your behalf I guess...

The funny thing is that wasn't it like 60% or so of Vista problems were caused by Nvidia drivers? Perhaps if hardware manufacturers weren't totally incompetent when it came to driver updates, we wouldn't have a problem.

But then to be fair, Microsoft could put even stricter driver controls in place... i.e. they could limit Windows to ONLY accept drivers that they'v certified to be good.

Hate to say it, but MS is working overtime trying to produce a Vista replacement. Why would MS not want to release Win 7? They don't care about "ticking off Vista users", because Vista will not suddenly stop working when Win 7 is released and to claim people not using Vista will not buy Win 7 is, well, just ridiculous. What proof do you have that this is true?

techbeck - Maybe "overtime" is the wrong word. I'm willing to imagine it's near the top of the priority list at least.

Last edited by ozzy76 on 23 Oct 2008 - 03:35

Ok, MS is not working overtime. The main reason I think they are replacing it is because companies, like Apple, and people who complain about needing a good PC for once...gave Vista a bad name. I mean, look at the Mojave thing MS did. People loved the OS and they knew what Vista was...and was shocked to find out it is Vista. Granted, they could of held off releasing Vista until there was better driver support...but crap happens...

You know, I'm not bashing Vista but that Mojave "Folger's Crystals" thing was such BS. I'm so sure they showed every single person that tried it and their reactions rather than hand picking only the good reactions. That's assuming the whole thing wasn't scripted to begin with.

That's pretty much all that needed to be said...

That and since the system requirement of vista are a lot steeper than XP, corporations would have to send A LOT of money to update their machines to even run vista smoothly