Microsoft Confirms Windows Seven
Posted by Steven Parker on 21 July 2007 - 13:10 · 152 comments & 35095 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(7 replies)
#2 Posted by jwjw1 on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:16
- sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)
-
#2.1 Posted by
neufuse on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:24
- Quote - (jwjw1 said @ #2)sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)
Why does having a new version coming out in 3 years make Vista a "suckers edition"? MS's old schedule was a new release every 2-3 years... -
#2.2 Posted by XerXis on 21 Jul 2007 - 21:27
- Quote - (jwjw1 said @ #2)sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)
right ... troll! -
#2.3 Posted by ThaCrip on 22 Jul 2007 - 02:17
- Quote - (neufuse said @ #2.1)Quote - (jwjw1 said @ #2)sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)
Why does having a new version coming out in 3 years make Vista a "suckers edition"? MS's old schedule was a new release every 2-3 years...
honestly i dont think we "need" new os's every 2-3 years... im thinking about 1 time per 5 years sounds about right.... cause i think from windows xp on forward we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works.... vista is more or less just a more bloated version of windows xp which needs more ram and for what? maybe better auto-hardware detection? ... i just dont get it.
but when is all said and done vista will probably be the standard in a year or so. -
#2.4 Posted by sirghost on 22 Jul 2007 - 14:22
- Quote - (ThaCrip said @ #2.3)Quote - (neufuse said @ #2.1)Quote - (jwjw1 said @ #2)sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)
Why does having a new version coming out in 3 years make Vista a "suckers edition"? MS's old schedule was a new release every 2-3 years...
honestly i dont think we "need" new os's every 2-3 years... im thinking about 1 time per 5 years sounds about right.... cause i think from windows xp on forward we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works.... vista is more or less just a more bloated version of windows xp which needs more ram and for what? maybe better auto-hardware detection? ... i just dont get it.
but when is all said and done vista will probably be the standard in a year or so.
And werent we part of the group that bitched that microsoft took 5+ years to do vista and bitched that they delayed it???? -
#2.5 Posted by neufuse on 22 Jul 2007 - 20:27
- Quote - (sirghost said @ #2.4)Quote - (ThaCrip said @ #2.3)Quote - (neufuse said @ #2.1)Quote - (jwjw1 said @ #2)sounds like Vista really is just Vista SE (Vista Suckers Edition)
Why does having a new version coming out in 3 years make Vista a "suckers edition"? MS's old schedule was a new release every 2-3 years...
honestly i dont think we "need" new os's every 2-3 years... im thinking about 1 time per 5 years sounds about right.... cause i think from windows xp on forward we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works.... vista is more or less just a more bloated version of windows xp which needs more ram and for what? maybe better auto-hardware detection? ... i just dont get it.
but when is all said and done vista will probably be the standard in a year or so.
And werent we part of the group that bitched that microsoft took 5+ years to do vista and bitched that they delayed it????
You just can not win... If you get one every other year like Apple its "evolution".. 2-3 yrs with MS its "incomplete and rushed"... 5yrs with MS its "where is it?" and every year with Linux its "yay more bug fixes!"
you just can't win -
#2.6 Posted by linuxamp on 22 Jul 2007 - 22:58
- Quote - (ThaCrip said @ #2.3)we only going to see "small" upgrades since all the major ones are already in windows xp and those are stability, reliability, stuff just works....
Typewriters were stable, reliable and just worked but somebody had to come out and make computers. DOS or other command line Operating Systems were stable, reliable and worked but someone, arguably MS, Xerox or Apple made GUI.
The truth is that there is always room for improvement and innovation. What kind of world would we live in if people just stopped creating things because "stuff just works".
I'm not saying Vista is innovative, on the contrary, Vista has some cool features but I agree with the overall tone of this thread that Vista is not the next great OS. -
#2.7 Posted by lbmouse on 23 Jul 2007 - 14:30
- Quote - (neufuse said @ #2.5)You just can not win... If you get one every other year like Apple its "evolution".. 2-3 yrs with MS its "incomplete and rushed"... 5yrs with MS its "where is it?" and every year with Linux its "yay more bug fixes!" you just can't win
After getting burned time-and-time again with 'revolutionary' products (i.e.: 3.1 vs 3.11, BOB, ME, etc.) many of us just want a good solid platform that works. Remember that an OS is nothing more than a tool (it's not a contest or a religion). Vista started out as a good idea but after MS slashed the features that meant anything to many of us, it's just a minor upgrade that is not worth the costs. XP works fine for most users and the vast majority of business users have absolutely no reason to switch to Vista. Just about everyone I talk to in corp industries are not going to touch Vista until at least SP1 or SP2. There is really no major ROI for switching (hardware/software upgrade costs, training, security and compatibility issues, etc). So most of us might as well wait for the next version of Windows to see if it will be revolutionary to mainstream and business users (not hobbyists).
-
(16 replies)
#3 Posted by +betadan on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:17
- As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.
I am really looking forward to what is in store.
And no i am not a "Fanboy" i use linux for my servers, not windows -
#3.1 Posted by LTD on 21 Jul 2007 - 14:21
- Doing something right? Not really - at least nothing that has investors pulling out party hats and balloons.
MS is in the position it is today due to licensing decisions made many, many moons ago. Nearly Every PC sold already has Windows installed.
The truly interesting and inspirational moves are being made by the competition. And the next great tech powerhouse will be Apple + Google. -
#3.2 Posted by MajinDark on 21 Jul 2007 - 14:58
- Quote - (LTD said @ #3.1)And the next great tech powerhouse will be Apple + Google.
Hahahahahahaha
Hahaha
Ha
No. -
#3.3 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 21 Jul 2007 - 16:52
- Quote - (LTD said @ #3.1)Doing something right? Not really - at least nothing that has investors pulling out party hats and balloons.
MS is in the position it is today due to licensing decisions made many, many moons ago. Nearly Every PC sold already has Windows installed.
The truly interesting and inspirational moves are being made by the competition. And the next great tech powerhouse will be Apple + Google.
...or whoever designed whatever you've been smoking... -
#3.4 Posted by toadeater on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:01
- Quote - (betadan said @ #3)As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.
It's called bribery, and extortion.
It's all about business, not quality with MS. MS is ruthless, and they grabbed hold of the market before the rest of the industry realized what MS was up to. MS's first victim was IBM, and they haven't stopped victimizing the industry and customers ever since. -
#3.5 Posted by kaiwai on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:41
- Quote - (toadeater said @ #3.4)Quote - (betadan said @ #3)As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.
It's called bribery, and extortion.
It's all about business, not quality with MS. MS is ruthless, and they grabbed hold of the market before the rest of the industry realized what MS was up to. MS's first victim was IBM, and they haven't stopped victimizing the industry and customers ever since.
Who's to blame for that? customers who keep coming back again and again - some sort of twisted 'battered end users syndrome, akin to the 'battered wifes syndrome'?
Instead of blaming Microsoft, take a stand and don't promote their products and don't use their products. I don't use Windows because I *CHOOSE* not to. Microsoft can market to me till the cows come home, but it won't change a damn thing.
Its time the average user stopped being a sheep, stopped blaming everyone else for the decisions they made when purchasing a PC. -
#3.6 Posted by MrCobra on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:58
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.5)Who's to blame for that? customers who keep coming back again and again - some sort of twisted 'battered end users syndrome, akin to the 'battered wifes syndrome'?
Instead of blaming Microsoft, take a stand and don't promote their products and don't use their products. I don't use Windows because I *CHOOSE* not to. Microsoft can market to me till the cows come home, but it won't change a damn thing.
Its time the average user stopped being a sheep, stopped blaming everyone else for the decisions they made when purchasing a PC.
The ones to blame for that is Microsoft. Due to some very strong armed licensing "agreements" Windows was assured success even without trying. The majority of consumers really have no other option other than Windows. Everything consumers and most businesses have been using has and is based on the Windows platform and when 90+ percent of the software is written for it...
As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).
Microsofts mantra for years has been "Embrace, extend and extinguish." It's held up pretty well all these years. -
#3.7 Posted by Evil Cretin on 21 Jul 2007 - 22:04
- Quote - (betadan said @ #3)As much as people say they hate Microsoft, it has to be doing something right if it has this much of the market share.
I am really looking forward to what is in store.
And no i am not a "Fanboy" i use linux for my servers, not windows
IMO, the thing they're doing right is mainly business and marketing. And in the real world, you can program the electronic equivalent of a turd and still sell a load of copies with some clever marketing (and licensing). On the technical side, there really is a lot they need to get sorted. But still, Microsoft's has good business skills - they are undeniably doing a good job of holding onto users, and this is supplemented by the shortcomings of alternative operating systems.
I use Windows XP. It often irritates me. But I intend to continue using it for the forseeable future - some things simply can't be done well on other OSes, and in my case, the two main things are gaming and game development. So I'm locked in. I've tried Ubuntu (with WINE/Cedega), and I've played with OS X for a few minutes, and I'm very impressed with both. But they just don't meet my requirements. If things were different, e.g. if I were a console gamer and I didn't develop PC games, I'd certainly be typing this on a Ubuntu system. -
#3.8 Posted by Boz on 21 Jul 2007 - 23:44
- Quote -The ones to blame for that is Microsoft. Due to some very strong armed licensing "agreements" Windows was assured success even without trying. The majority of consumers really have no other option other than Windows. Everything consumers and most businesses have been using has and is based on the Windows platform and when 90+ percent of the software is written for it...
As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).
Microsofts mantra for years has been "Embrace, extend and extinguish." It's held up pretty well all these years.
And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?
Microsoft started off as a small company and worked their butts off to get to a point where they are today. Let's not forget that. They started of with DOS, then Windows 3.0, then Windows 3.11 for Workgroups etc etc. All of these were revolutionary and gave businesses something nobody else would give them. This led to huge Windows support through custom applications and overall marketshare. There are no licensing agreements that last forever. You can't FORCE someone to use the operating system. The reason everyone is using it is because Microsoft keeps building a better version and more developer supported version of WIndows every time. Let's not forget that.Quote -As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).
Again, your conclusion is flawed. Manufacturers are not STRONG ARMED, what kind of a stupid "conspiracy theory" is that. They go with Windows because they make money out of it, they are well supported and there's STILL absolutely no competition in the OS arean that can give a user an alternative.
You see, take a look at OSX. It's nicely designed OS. and it can run Windows applications but it also has a bunch of alternative applications to their windows counterparts. So what's the problem here? Problem is that Apple wants to keep their circle closed and make money on hardware. Again, who's problem is that? It's not Microsoft strong arming anyone, it's Apple who doesn't want to come out openly on the market with their operating system that could very WELL run on any x86 machine and be a good competition to Windows.
What you fail to see is that Microsoft doesn't just SLAP the OS together. It's not just "oh let's code this out, slap nice packaging and that's where are job ends" thing. They keep SUPPORTING developers, businesses and others ON A DAILY BASIS. Do you know how much money, time, workforce this takes away? This is the reason why you don't have alternatives to Windows. Not because someone can't program a nicer looking OS (OSX for example) but they just DON'T HAVE the power to follow through on that OS on a larger scale.
So please, next time, try to turn your brain ON, instead of just SLAMMING Microsoft. In capitalistic and open market, the power of better product and support wins customers and business. Not strong arming deals. If this was the case Microsoft would be in SERIOUS legal trouble as you can't hide something like this, especially when you hold 90% of the market. -
#3.9 Posted by kaiwai on 22 Jul 2007 - 03:01
- Quote - (MrCobra said @ #3.6)Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.5)Who's to blame for that? customers who keep coming back again and again - some sort of twisted 'battered end users syndrome, akin to the 'battered wifes syndrome'?
Instead of blaming Microsoft, take a stand and don't promote their products and don't use their products. I don't use Windows because I *CHOOSE* not to. Microsoft can market to me till the cows come home, but it won't change a damn thing.
Its time the average user stopped being a sheep, stopped blaming everyone else for the decisions they made when purchasing a PC.
The ones to blame for that is Microsoft. Due to some very strong armed licensing "agreements" Windows was assured success even without trying. The majority of consumers really have no other option other than Windows. Everything consumers and most businesses have been using has and is based on the Windows platform and when 90+ percent of the software is written for it...
As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).
Microsofts mantra for years has been "Embrace, extend and extinguish." It's held up pretty well all these years.
But mate, my computer came preloaded with Windows Vista Business - I chose to go and download a copy of Solaris x86 and install it on my laptop. Am I lack software? nope. The amount of 'software lacking' people complain about tends to be piddly pointless crap they could actually live without or just plain stupid.
Heck, I can point to a huge number of people who have exchange but only use it as a mail server! I'm not kidding you, just as a mail server! christ, if you're going to do that, you might as well use sendmail and friends - but people are stupid, thats the problem. All Microsoft does is bank on that stupidity. -
#3.10 Posted by RealFduch on 22 Jul 2007 - 06:12
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)But mate, my computer came preloaded with Windows Vista Business
Ok. You are a dumb fool. But why blame MS for your foolishness?Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)Am I lack software? nope. The amount of 'software lacking' people complain about tends to be piddly pointless crap they could actually live without or just plain stupid.
You just do nothing. So what? You need nothing and you do nothing. How's that connected with MS?Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)Heck, I can point to a huge number of people who have exchange but only use it as a mail server!
Heck, I can point to a man who have purchased Vista just to uninstall it! Oh wait! This person is just before my eyes.Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)people are stupid, thats the problem. All Microsoft does is bank on that stupidity.
Yeah people can be really stupid. Just as you. And you're right. You paid MS because you're stipid.
But is that Microsoft's fault? -
#3.11 Posted by Esvandiary on 22 Jul 2007 - 09:49
- Quote - (Boz said @ #3.8 )And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?
Yes, you can uninstall Windows and install Linux. Except MS have already got the money for whatever version of Windows your PC came with. This is the problem - even if you don't want to use Windows, you're being essentially forced to buy it because you can't get a machine without it (OK, you can - but they're much harder to find). -
#3.12 Posted by billyea on 22 Jul 2007 - 09:58
- Quote - (Esvandiary said @ #3.11)Quote - (Boz said @ #3.8 )And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?
Yes, you can uninstall Windows and install Linux. Except MS have already got the money for whatever version of Windows your PC came with. This is the problem - even if you don't want to use Windows, you're being essentially forced to buy it because you can't get a machine without it (OK, you can - but they're much harder to find).
Isn't Dell beginning to offer PC's with linux? Isn't that a choice too. That would diffuse your 'hard to find' argument. -
#3.13 Posted by MrCobra on 23 Jul 2007 - 04:33
- Quote - (Boz said @ #3.
Quote -As for purchasing a PC, unless you build one of your own, which most do not know how to do, you've pretty much been stuck with Windows (due to the strong armed licensing deals).
And this is where you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to use windows? The same way bloatware comes installed on computers and we uninstall them, you can uninstall Windows and install whatever operating system you want. Wait. There's only Linux and that's it. Hm, who's fault is that?
THAT conclusion is not flawed. If you really want to know how nice they played then go read the court transcripts where it was found that they did indeed stong arm OEMs in to pushing Windows. The strong armed tactics were so bad that it pushed some OS makers out of business.Quote -So please, next time, try to turn your brain ON, instead of just SLAMMING Microsoft. In capitalistic and open market, the power of better product and support wins customers and business. Not strong arming deals. If this was the case Microsoft would be in SERIOUS legal trouble as you can't hide something like this, especially when you hold 90% of the market.
I suggest you turn YOUR brain on and do a little reading on the lawsuits that MS has faced over the years and then come back and try to reply. -
#3.14 Posted by TheNGTV on 23 Jul 2007 - 10:51
- Quote - (RealFduch said @ #3.10)Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)But mate, my computer came preloaded with Windows Vista Business
Ok. You are a dumb fool. But why blame MS for your foolishness?Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)Am I lack software? nope. The amount of 'software lacking' people complain about tends to be piddly pointless crap they could actually live without or just plain stupid.
You just do nothing. So what? You need nothing and you do nothing. How's that connected with MS?Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)Heck, I can point to a huge number of people who have exchange but only use it as a mail server!
Heck, I can point to a man who have purchased Vista just to uninstall it! Oh wait! This person is just before my eyes.Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)people are stupid, thats the problem. All Microsoft does is bank on that stupidity.
Yeah people can be really stupid. Just as you. And you're right. You paid MS because you're stipid.
But is that Microsoft's fault?
You jumped ship on the OS NAZI bandwagon just because you're a tool.
End of story I guess. -
#3.15 Posted by Azmodan on 23 Jul 2007 - 14:02
- Quote - (RealFduch said @ #3.10)Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)But mate, my computer came preloaded with Windows Vista Business
Ok. You are a dumb fool. But why blame MS for your foolishness?Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)Am I lack software? nope. The amount of 'software lacking' people complain about tends to be piddly pointless crap they could actually live without or just plain stupid.
You just do nothing. So what? You need nothing and you do nothing. How's that connected with MS?Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)Heck, I can point to a huge number of people who have exchange but only use it as a mail server!
Heck, I can point to a man who have purchased Vista just to uninstall it! Oh wait! This person is just before my eyes.Quote - (kaiwai said @ #3.9)people are stupid, thats the problem. All Microsoft does is bank on that stupidity.
Yeah people can be really stupid. Just as you. And you're right. You paid MS because you're stipid.
But is that Microsoft's fault?
You can either loss 250$ by buying a DELL with Ubuntu on it or just keep it with Windows Vista. Yeah, you've should read the article that says that Dell's going to sell their computers with Ubuntu on them, more precisely the part that says that Vista computers have free stuff on them, such as additional memory and a bigger HDD.
Oh, so being a "dumb fool" or a "stipid" equals buying a cheaper computer because companies such as Dell sell more expensive computers with a FLOSS Os which, instead of promoting FLOSS they're DESTROYING it.
[Conclusion] Get some common sense. -
#3.16 Posted by Boz on 24 Jul 2007 - 08:53
- Quote - (MrCobra said @ #3.13)THAT conclusion is not flawed. If you really want to know how nice they played then go read the court transcripts where it was found that they did indeed stong arm OEMs in to pushing Windows. The strong armed tactics were so bad that it pushed some OS makers out of business.
Please don't post "oh look up court documents" crap and give me your sources. What OS manufacturers did Microsoft put out of business. You are not convincing anyone by stating things without a shred of backup.
I have been following the scene for much longer then you might think as I'm 31 and I've been working on 286 computers and since Microsoft pretty much started growing. I've never heard that they were in a lawsuit for strong-arming deals and that they put out other OS businesses because of it.
Please enlighten me and provide your "facts".
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by windshear on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:29
- Weee... A new Microsoft OS for the 2012 Christmas!
-
#4.1 Posted by Magallanes on 23 Jul 2007 - 01:47
- Are you talking about the end of the mayan calendar?
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by EduardValencia on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:35
- Well i want to know if we are going to see some new interface,it's time to revoulutionize the Windows UI?,Are we going to have a more intelligent wise OS?
-
#5.1 Posted by Somnus on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:51
- Quote - (EduardValencia said @ #5)Well i want to know if we are going to see some new interface,it's time to revoulutionize the Windows UI?,Are we going to have a more intelligent wise OS?
More intelligent than double clicking on everything?
I remember when XP first came out with the Luna theme. Everyone that I knew was calling me asking where this and that was located. Once they figured out that you could use the Windows Classic theme, then it was on to drivers. After drivers it was programs that were still 16 bit and wouldn't run right. Then it was....
The more "intelligent" that you make something, the more complicated it is for the average end user. Heaven forbid they move the Start button or something.
-
(11 replies)
#6 Posted by tx83 on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:39
- I want Windows XP, yep... Windows XP, why would I want another OS when Windows XP is perfect for my need ? I only hope they release Windows XP. Oops, they already did.
-
#6.1 Posted by Netrack on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:41
- good then keep your windows XP, and stop complaining about windows vista/7...no one cares
-
#6.3 Posted by bluarash on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:19
- They did say that about Windows 98. When XP was released for the first half a year no one seemed to even know that it was released. I remember stopping at (gasp...Walmart) on the night it was released and checking with them if they had a copy. The sales person in the tech department had no idea what XP was. He, however, did manage to find a copy.
As for Windows 98 users, many of them not all believe that the Win9x kernel had better development for it at the time, but that it was much more stable than XP. They mostly complained about not being able to play the latest games, it took too much space, the design was vastly different (Luna), you had to activate it and Windows 98 was (good enough). Many individuals I talked to complained that Win98se was the peak of Microsoft design. If individuals did have to move they were planning on switching to Redhat.
I think very little changes. Within a year almost all of those who claim to never switch from XP will be running Vista. Very few people are going to move to Linux (sorry Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu fans). I really like Linux too (at least for servers) and it is developed enough for the desktop (has been since at least 2004), the problem is that no one seems to have an interest.
Finally, there is Apple. I do agree they are a threat, however, my experience is that most of the interest is in the hardware and not OS X (a lot of individuals are spending a lot of time in Bootcamp and the various VMs). -
#6.4 Posted by +M2Ys4U on 21 Jul 2007 - 20:48
- Quote - (bluarash said @ #6.3)They did say that about Windows 98. When XP was released for the first half a year no one seemed to even know that it was released. I remember stopping at (gasp...Walmart) on the night it was released and checking with them if they had a copy. The sales person in the tech department had no idea what XP was. He, however, did manage to find a copy.
As for Windows 98 users, many of them not all believe that the Win9x kernel had better development for it at the time, but that it was much more stable than XP. They mostly complained about not being able to play the latest games, it took too much space, the design was vastly different (Luna), you had to activate it and Windows 98 was (good enough). Many individuals I talked to complained that Win98se was the peak of Microsoft design. If individuals did have to move they were planning on switching to Redhat.
I think very little changes. Within a year almost all of those who claim to never switch from XP will be running Vista. Very few people are going to move to Linux (sorry Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu fans). I really like Linux too (at least for servers) and it is developed enough for the desktop (has been since at least 2004), the problem is that no one seems to have an interest.
Finally, there is Apple. I do agree they are a threat, however, my experience is that most of the interest is in the hardware and not OS X (a lot of individuals are spending a lot of time in Bootcamp and the various VMs).
I agree 110% -
#6.5 Posted by BriFi on 21 Jul 2007 - 22:15
- XP is turbo compared to Vista, even on newer dual core systems.
-
#6.6 Posted by bluarash on 21 Jul 2007 - 22:46
- This has been anything but my experience (Vista is not significantly slower). With glass enable and the hard disk properly optimized I have little problems with interface slow down or copying files between volumes (photography and video media).
It is somewhat buggy, but I remember the early days of XP (and for that matter NT4 and Win2k). I find the code to actually be more stable and usable than NT4, NT5, and NT5.1 when they were first released.
What applications are you having problems with (audio, video, gaming)? The only real problem that I have is a lack of drivers (mostly for scanners and printers), though this is improving. -
#6.7 Posted by +TCLN Ryster on 21 Jul 2007 - 22:48
- Quote - (BriFi said @ #6.5)XP is turbo compared to Vista, even on newer dual core systems.Rubbish. Sure XP has a slight speed advantage over Vista right now, but that margin is getting less and less all the time with each new driver revision that nvidia and ati release. On my system, I cannot tell the difference in speed between XP and Vista (I had a dual boot until a few weeks ago).
Is you opinion based on personal experience, or are you jumping on the anti-vista troll bandwagon? I would guess the latter. -
#6.8 Posted by BriFi on 21 Jul 2007 - 23:53
- Quote - (TCLN Ryster said @ #6.7)Quote - (BriFi said @ #6.5)XP is turbo compared to Vista, even on newer dual core systems.Rubbish. Sure XP has a slight speed advantage over Vista right now, but that margin is getting less and less all the time with each new driver revision that nvidia and ati release. On my system, I cannot tell the difference in speed between XP and Vista (I had a dual boot until a few weeks ago).
Is you opinion based on personal experience, or are you jumping on the anti-vista troll bandwagon? I would guess the latter.
Of course personal experience, used vista on both single and dual. I'm sure it will get better. -
#6.9 Posted by dagamer34 on 22 Jul 2007 - 01:19
- Quote - (TCLN Ryster said @ #6.7)Quote - (BriFi said @ #6.5)XP is turbo compared to Vista, even on newer dual core systems.Rubbish. Sure XP has a slight speed advantage over Vista right now, but that margin is getting less and less all the time with each new driver revision that nvidia and ati release. On my system, I cannot tell the difference in speed between XP and Vista (I had a dual boot until a few weeks ago).
Is you opinion based on personal experience, or are you jumping on the anti-vista troll bandwagon? I would guess the latter.
It's not that Vista gets better, it's that the support for XP goes to ****. Try playing next-gen games on Win98 or Windows 2000 and you'll see. Even top notch DX8 games flounder on those system for that reason.
Vista will get "better" only because manufacturers will neglect XP to push sales of new products. It's a shameful game that they just love to play to continue making profits. I don't see how Word 2007 writes documents any faster or better than Word 97, yet it uses up 2-20x more RAM. That's robbery!
For those who say "Don't buy a Windows machine?" I don't anymore. -
#6.10 Posted by bluarash on 22 Jul 2007 - 05:09
- Why play a next generation game on Win98 (with Win2k you might have a point)? What is wrong with shifting focus on older products to newer ones (this is basically how profit is made)? There really is not much of a market for enterprise level support for the home server (i.e. more mature, stable software). People generally want flash and cutting edge stuff...rather than something that just works and is relatively bug free.
If the market demanded extended support for Microsoft products I am sure that they would be more than willing ($1200 a seat, per year can do wonders). We of course know that this is not going to happen. Individual users simply do not pay for subscription maintenance, they want a new products with more buggy features (note: I am not talking about Vista).
As for Word 97 and Word 2007, there are a number of enhancements. Open up the products side by side and tell me if you don't notice a difference. If you don't want to continue paying the so-called "Microsoft tax" than load a copy of OpenOffice or use Cygwin to install KDE and K-Office. There is always WordPerfect (many legal office still use it).
If you want really light, I would suggest Vi. It is a create editor. If you want a user UI enhancement load Cream. You would be surprised how well it runs on pretty much everything (Windows, OS X, Unix, Linux and almost everything else). -
#6.11 Posted by Beaux on 22 Jul 2007 - 11:29
- Quote - (bluarash said @ #6.10)Why play a next generation game on Win98 (with Win2k you might have a point)? What is wrong with shifting focus on older products to newer ones (this is basically how profit is made)?The answer is in the first sentence of the previous post. Vista is slower and it does not get better. It may appear to get better because support for XP gets worse.
-
(5 replies)
#7 Posted by ramesees on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:42
- Its the 32bit edition thats got me annoyed.
Why do they need to release such a version, at the turn of a new decade, by which time most people should be on 64-bit hardware, and 32 bit being relegated to the realms of history.
If Vienna is 32bit compatible and is scheduled for 2010 (2011), then that means we'll have the 32 bit era until at least 2015 (until Windows 8 is released), much too long in my opinion.
32 bit computing has had its day, and the industry as a whole needs to move on. By 2010 it wont be so much of a "forced upgrade", as computing is moving to 64 bit all the time now, and 3 more years should be plenty of time for all manufacturers to ready 64-bit drivers for all their hardware.
I'm the kind of person who believes having an option in any decision in life is preferable to being told there is only one way to do something, but in certain cases (for the greater good) that option should be removed as it does not benefit anyone.
I hope that Microsoft decide to reverse their decision to have a 32 bit version of Vienna, as in the long run it will benefit everyone. -
#7.1 Posted by Palin88 on 21 Jul 2007 - 17:48
- Well, see, it's not quite cut and dry with 32 vs 64 bit. Not a lot of people benefit from 64 bit computing, in fact, the majority of programs out there run slower (and are larger) when compiled for a 64 bit processor. So although 64 bit processing is indeed, the next thing, it's a hard sell to the majority of customers who don't need it. 64 bit is meant for processing very large, or very precise numbers, the realm of physics simulations and cryptography.
The only cryptography or floating point math that the average business user will probably execute on their computer is to decompress a file or encrypted email. Meanwhile, they're getting these veritable four lane highways in their chips to handle integers that (statistically) are more likely to be a value smaller than 100 (a number that takes less than 16 bits in a register to hold.) The majority of mathematics that your computer is preforming any given cycle is counting to an arbitrary number and then using event to break a loop. You don't need 64 bits to do
for (i=0; i<10; i++) {} -
#7.2 Posted by Hak Foo on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:30
- I'd expect that a big part of a continuing 32-bit release will be for hardware support.
It seems like they're getting pretty absurd with the 64-bit drivers; notably, the all-but-requirement of signed drivers. Apparently XP-64 would just whine "These are unsigned", but Vista-64 flat out won't install 'em without tweaking (were there huge problems with people getting fooled into installing unsigned drivers? Not that I know of. And I doubt requiring signatures will prevent StarForce from being installed).
I looked into it, and several of my favourite peripherals can be supported 32-bit, but not 64-bit. For me, it's a matter of replacing $150 in gear. For some business that has a propriatery doohickey, it could be 100 times that or more.
IMO, the better approach would have been some sort of "penalty-box" way of handling 32-bit drivers, even with a performance hit, because there are too many good pieces of hardware that will be abandoned otherwise.
As for small integers, the whole point of x86-64 is that it *is* x86 still-- if you want to use 8-bit wide register components, well, AL and AH are still available. Nobody forces you to write every operation 64-bit-wide. -
#7.3 Posted by Somnus on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:41
- Quote - (Palin88 said @ #7.1)Well, see, it's not quite cut and dry with 32 vs 64 bit. Not a lot of people benefit from 64 bit computing, in fact, the majority of programs out there run slower (and are larger) when compiled for a 64 bit processor. So although 64 bit processing is indeed, the next thing, it's a hard sell to the majority of customers who don't need it. 64 bit is meant for processing very large, or very precise numbers, the realm of physics simulations and cryptography.
The only cryptography or floating point math that the average business user will probably execute on their computer is to decompress a file or encrypted email. Meanwhile, they're getting these veritable four lane highways in their chips to handle integers that (statistically) are more likely to be a value smaller than 100 (a number that takes less than 16 bits in a register to hold.) The majority of mathematics that your computer is preforming any given cycle is counting to an arbitrary number and then using event to break a loop. You don't need 64 bits to do
for (i=0; i<10; i++) {}
I agree with this.
Windows XP x64 has been out for quite a while, and _still_ the majority of programs either won't work on it, or don't work as well as their 32bit counterparts.
Unfortunately Windows Vista x64 won't install drivers if they are not signed, and is simply a HUGE waste of resources. Not everyone today has 2-3 gigs of ram or next generation processors to power it.
Windows XP x86 seems to still be the "go to" OS if you want full compatibility.
Note: I prefer Windows XP x64, but sadly almost everything I run is 32 bit. -
#7.4 Posted by MioTheGreat on 21 Jul 2007 - 20:43
- " the majority of programs either won't work on it"
Define majority. I used XP x64 a year or so ago before my full switch to Vista, and I encountered very few problems. -
#7.5 Posted by Esvandiary on 22 Jul 2007 - 09:53
- Quote - (MioTheGreat said @ #7.4)" the majority of programs either won't work on it"
Define majority. I used XP x64 a year or so ago before my full switch to Vista, and I encountered very few problems.
I had some pretty bad issues (some I could overcome, others I couldn't).
When Counter-Strike Source started going at double speed (in online games, no less) I figured I preferred the 32-bit versions of XP. (For the record, it wasn't just double-speed - it was sometimes half-speed too
)
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by SimGuy on 21 Jul 2007 - 13:55
- Why alienate those with older hardware by requiring as a minimum a 64-bit system just to install the OS?
To enthusiasts, last generation 32-bit Pentium 4's or Athlon XP's might not have a ton of power for the latest games, but it's plenty fast for those who use their computer for simple productivity tasks.
32-bit pervasive computing is long from being dead yet, and I think Microsoft realizes that. -
#8.1 Posted by +TCLN Ryster on 21 Jul 2007 - 22:53
- You do realise that we are talking about 3 years time right? 64-bit processors are in widespread use now. Anyone not having a 64-bit processor in 3 years time will likely be too underpowered to run even a 32-bit version of that new version of windows.
-
(10 replies)
#9 Posted by OblivionStalker on 21 Jul 2007 - 14:05
- Are you planning to use 32-bit hardware in 2011 or 1012? What? Pentium 4 3.2 GHz? LOL. The 32-Bit industry is over, just like the 16-bit years ago.
-
#9.1 Posted by reidtheweed01 on 21 Jul 2007 - 15:34
- Well guess what, here in the year 2007 most peoples cpu by far are only 32-bit. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the majority of computer users dont upgrade their system to the latest and greatest like people on this forum. The users here only represent a very small percentage of consumers. By 2010 all oem pc's will be shipped with a 64bit cpu, and they will install a 64bit OS, but at least its still an option.
-
#9.2 Posted by ensiform on 21 Jul 2007 - 15:54
- I'm running a custom built still with an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit). I have no need to upgrade. Runs Linux and XP just fine.
-
#9.3 Posted by m1h4 on 21 Jul 2007 - 17:56
- Quote - (OblivionStalker said @ #9)Are you planning to use 32-bit hardware in 2011 or 1012? What? Pentium 4 3.2 GHz? LOL. The 32-Bit industry is over, just like the 16-bit years ago.
FYI the transition from the 16bit architecture to 32bit was much faster that the transition to 64bit because of the enormous benefits it gave programmers. 16bit memory access can address only 65536 bytes of memory (64kb). It may have been fine in the old singletasking DOS days but today when every process has a default 1mb stack/heap it is just not enough. The 32bit architecture allows access to 4294967296 bytes of memory (4gb) which is enough for multitasking needs. I doubt everyone is planning on having more than 4gb of memory (thus a 64bit architecture PC) by 2010. Currently only servers actualy benefit from the virtualy unlimited address space since they can use the additional memory to load whole databases/etc into memory for increased performance. -
#9.4 Posted by bluarash on 21 Jul 2007 - 18:39
- There have been many processors that run 64bit code (around since the early 90s). The real problems is that in the commodity market with Apple, Microsoft and general purpose Linux there is not a lot of bad design that does not transition well to 64bit.
The transition is going to have to come soon, however. The average computer today ships with at least 1gig and more likely 2. It is not at all uncommon to see computers with 4gigs (at the moment). By early 2008 we will easily see 8gig systems with between 4 cores (home use) and 4x4 for 16 cores (typical business). The various extension for providing more than 4gigs of memory to the OS are not as effective or efficient as they were in the 16bit era (real mode, protected mode).
We also need to realize that the first true consumer 32bit system was Windows 95 and the first fully 32bit system was XP. It essentially took from 1985 to 2001 for a consumer, 32bit system to be available for the masses. This of course discounts OS/2, Linux, Unix, Mac OS and early versions of NT. -
#9.5 Posted by MrCobra on 21 Jul 2007 - 19:09
- Quote - (bluarash said @ #9.4)We also need to realize that the first true consumer 32bit system was Windows 95 and the first fully 32bit system was XP.
Uhm, the first true consumer version of Windows to be 32bit was XP. Win95 was not a 32bit system. It had 32bit components that thunked down in to 16bit code to do it work and then back again. Those 32bit components were nothing more than front ends to the 16bit Windows 3.1 dlls.
FYI, 64bit computers were out before the early 90s. -
#9.6 Posted by bluarash on 21 Jul 2007 - 19:56
- I am not aware of very many 64bit CPU before the early 90s (outside of Cray). Almost all attempts prior were limited (i.e. address space, elect). From a technical standpoint, the first true 64bit CPU (outside of lab construct) was released somewhere between 1990 and 91 (MIPS).
-
#9.7 Posted by MioTheGreat on 21 Jul 2007 - 20:41
- But the problem is that it JUST ended.
The Core Duos in many laptops, still being purchased today, are only 32-bit processors. Yes, they've been nearly completely replaced by the core 2 duos, but my laptop is a 2.16ghz Core Duo, and it's a pretty high end machine, by today's standards, but it's not 64bit. -
#9.8 Posted by bluarash on 21 Jul 2007 - 21:13
- It is not very likely by 2009 to 2011 you will still be using a Core Duo. You can get very average hardware with 4gigs of memory expansion (shipping with 1gig), SATA and 64bit dual cores for $599. For $1099 to $1599 you can easily get 2gig (8gig ma
and quad cores. The only 'real' choice will be whether to run it in x86-32 or x86-64 and this will depend on whether you want an optimized experience (many problems between the kernel and user space even with 4gigs when running a traditional 32bit version of Vista or XP.
The real problem is going to be memory. When XP was first released it ran fine on 256mb (hell, it booted with 64mb). Vista, however, requires 512mb to boot (at least running stable) and 1gig to run comfortably. I can easily see by 2008 that most 32bit installs of Vista will have between 2 and 4 gigs of memory (gaming, system tools). This is hitting the limits of 32bit memory access (without quirky extensions like PAE). Finally, the 64bit design enhances the processor (registers, etc). -
#9.9 Posted by RAID 0 on 22 Jul 2007 - 08:23
- Quote - (MioTheGreat said @ #9.7)But the problem is that it JUST ended.
The Core Duos in many laptops, still being purchased today, are only 32-bit processors. Yes, they've been nearly completely replaced by the core 2 duos, but my laptop is a 2.16ghz Core Duo, and it's a pretty high end machine, by today's standards, but it's not 64bit.
What are you smoking? EMT64? No? Nothing? Really? -
#9.10 Posted by TheNGTV on 23 Jul 2007 - 10:58
- Quote - (RAID 0 said @ #9.9)Quote - (MioTheGreat said @ #9.7)But the problem is that it JUST ended.
The Core Duos in many laptops, still being purchased today, are only 32-bit processors. Yes, they've been nearly completely replaced by the core 2 duos, but my laptop is a 2.16ghz Core Duo, and it's a pretty high end machine, by today's standards, but it's not 64bit.
What are you smoking? EMT64? No? Nothing? Really?
Core "1" Duos ARE 32-bit, w/o EMT64. Check everywhere.
Stop being such a pretentious wiseass when you can't even grasp the details of 1-year old hardware.
-
#10 Posted by ramesees on 21 Jul 2007 - 14:08
- Older hardware by todays standards will be approaching "ancient" hardware by the time Windows 7 is released.
I'm not saying that everyone has to have the latest and greatest 64-bit hardware to run Vienna (low end entry level models would be fine), as long as the vast majority of people are on that platform.
Its about being future proofed to make any further transitions a lot easier (and potentially cheaper) in the long run.
As another example, look at the proposed "analogue switch off" which is coming in the next couple of years. No more analogue TV signals, everything will be digital and if you dont have a digital tv you lose out. Its a forced, timetabled. staggered upgrade of hardware which people will have to adhere to if they wish to watch television. Those who dont make the switch will be "alienated" as you say. Big deal, play some violins, and move onto the next issue.
Now notice I'm not saying that you have to have a 65" 1080p ultra powerful HD television, just as long as its capable of receiving digital television. The same is true with my view point on moving people onto 64 bit computing and away from 32 bit.
Like most things in life, its a cultural battle more importantly, people dont like change and wont do something just because there are systems in place. They need to be made to do certain things which in the long run will benefit them. Obviously the vast majority of home users will neither care, or be all that bothered by the type of processor in their PC as long as it runs their applications without crashing, and that it looks pretty they are happy.
For the rest of us, academic institutions, businesses, enthusiasts etc... we will be more clued up and can better prepare for what is (and should be) coming.
-
#11 Posted by ichi on 21 Jul 2007 - 14:39
- "Stick with Windows!! OK, we under delivered this time, but if you move away you'll miss all the exciting feature of our next OS!!"
--MS, at any of their OS releases
-
#12 Posted by ShiZZa on 21 Jul 2007 - 14:40
- I think you took this wrong. Or at least they didn't explain it this way in the news part. Vienna is mainstream 64bit support and I think will only have a SAL version that is 32bit.
Kinda like Exchange Server 2007. Demo = 32bit / 64bit, Retail 64bit only, OEM 64bit only, software assurance 32bit/64bit. Theres a catch with this. MS will only release 64bit SP for Exchange. Only 32bit SPs for exchange 2007 will be for management tools.
Office 2007 was roadmarked as the last 32bit full release to the public from MS.
At Microsoft’s Global Exchange (MGX) annual sales conference in Orlando this week, Microsoft shared a bit more — albeit at a high level — on Windows Seven, according to a copy of a slide deck I saw that was distributed to the field sales force during the conference. Among the information shared was that Microsoft is anticipating it will take at least three years from now to get the next version of Windows client out the door.
Last time anyone got Microsoft to talk dates about Windows Seven, the next big Windows client release, a Windows exec slipped up and said something about 2009.
Microsoft officials told MGX attendees that the company is currently internally planning Windows Seven. So far, the company has determined Windows Seven will come in both 32- and 64-bit flavors. No word on how many SKUs or any kind of guidance on features was provided, but Microsoft did say it would address both consumer and business segments with Windows Seven. Microsoft is mulling the concept of how to extend Windows Seven with subscription-based services, according to the deck — more like Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP), which Microsoft currently offers to its Software Assurance customers, than Windows Live, however.