Windows 7 On Track For 2010 Release
Posted by Steven Parker on 09 April 2008 - 12:46 · 123 comments & 32960 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
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by Venkatesh on 09 Apr 2008 - 12:54
- Hmm Vista SP2... letz c how would that impress the crowd.... Would defn look forward for Win 7.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by WICKO on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:08
- Don't waste time on adding new features to Vista.. just do bug fixes, and focus on Windows 7 please.
-
(9 replies)
#3 Posted by Chicane-UK on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:23
- I really hope Microsoft sieze the chance to make Windows 7 a fresh, light, and FAST operating system. Please - trim the fat.
-
#3.1 Posted by michael.dobrofsky on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:49
- Nice dream. Don't hold ur breath
-
#3.2 Posted by ThaCrip on 09 Apr 2008 - 22:58
- vista aint as bad as people claim it is... i switch to it late march 2008 (basically for SP1) and i have ZERO issues with it so far although i aint tested out all my games with it yet.
sure Vista takes quite a bit more ram and does seem to tax the CPU a little more than XP did but overall i feel it's a solid OS cause it's eye candy makes the overall OS feel cooler than XP and at this point i would rather not go back to XP... although XP is still a top notch OS.
i just like the little things in Vista like when transferring a file you can see it's transfer rate in MB/s and it's sorta cool to see that small icon of whats inside the window when you highlight it with the mouse pointer on the taskbar etc etc.... and that new search function is quite nice overall.
i got a copy of Vista for free myself (it's legitly activated... no cracks ) .. if i actually had to buy Vista i would have said screw it cause it aint worth the price to justify using it over XP if you gotta pay 100+ dollars for it. -
#3.3 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 10 Apr 2008 - 00:31
- Vista is more sluggish than XP, even x64 SP1. I still like the features it offers but performance is definitely down and stability is still flakey as ever (though some apps will fade out and are well contained others can bring Vista to its knees, making the entire system unresponsive). I really hope Windows 7 improves performance AND finally stops any apps from being able to grind the system to a halt.
-
#3.4 Posted by J_R_G on 10 Apr 2008 - 02:17
- (theyarecomingforyou said @ #3.3)Vista is more sluggish than XP, even x64 SP1. I still like the features it offers but performance is definitely down and stability is still flakey as ever (though some apps will fade out and are well contained others can bring Vista to its knees, making the entire system unresponsive). I really hope Windows 7 improves performance AND finally stops any apps from being able to grind the system to a halt.
It keeps getting repeated that Vista is more sluggish than XP but Vista is lightning quick on my Core 2 Duo, so I think it's just the typical lies the fanboys spam every forum with about MS products. -
#3.5 Posted by Chicane-UK on 10 Apr 2008 - 07:36
- It keeps getting repeated that Vista is more sluggish than XP but Vista is lightning quick on my Core 2 Duo
Ugh - I aint getting into another Vista argument - it has been done to death on Neowin, on virtually every OSX and Vista article that gets posted.
So regardless of whether you feel that Vista is fat or not (which was my original point) you simply can't say with a straight sincere face it runs as smoothly as Windows XP does. It might run lightning quick on your Core 2 Duo, but i'd argue that XP would run even more quickly on your Core 2 Duo.
I'm using Vista (and am posting this message) on Vista Enterprise, on a Core 2 Duo E6600 with 3GB of RAM so it's not like i'm talking as some fanboy who hasn't used the product or something. Simply I think Vista is heavier - look at a commit charge and total memory usage.. of course it's going to be heavier. My original point was that i'd like Microsoft to try and trim out the fat and use the technologies put into Vista to improve overall performance into a lighter, meaner, quicker, more efficient product. -
#3.6 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 10 Apr 2008 - 16:02
- It keeps getting repeated that Vista is more sluggish than XP but Vista is lightning quick on my Core 2 Duo
I couldn't care less how it runs on your system. On MY system Vista is slower than XP. On MY system I have to increase my ASIO latency to properly mix/record audio. On MY system some VST instruments cause my machine to grind, necessitating a reset. On MY system Vista constantly grinds my hard-drive - on a friend's machine it keeps accessing his external hard-drive even though indexing is not enabled on it. On MY system navigating hard-drives and browsing folder is slower, whilst generating folder thumbnails DOES take longer. On MY system sending files to the Recycle Bin or emptying it DOES take longer. On MY system, and the other 4 that I maintain in a network, Vista's networking and file / printer sharing IS a chore.
My system is a C2D @3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 8800GT o/c, with 150GB Raptor hard-drive (on which Vista is installed). I am running Vista x64 SP1. I know how to configure my system.
I have absolutely no interest in how well other people's system run, nor do I care whether a single other individual believes a word that I say - that does not concern me. All I know is that Vista IS slower than XP for me. All I know is that I WANT to use Vista because it offers better features. If Windows 7 improves performance then I will very seriously consider getting it (if it doesn't break compability with most software I use). -
#3.7 Posted by WICKO on 10 Apr 2008 - 16:06
- (theyarecomingforyou said @ #3.6)It keeps getting repeated that Vista is more sluggish than XP but Vista is lightning quick on my Core 2 Duo
I couldn't care less how it runs on your system. On MY system Vista is slower than XP. On MY system I have to increase my ASIO latency to properly mix/record audio. On MY system some VST instruments cause my machine to grind, necessitating a reset. On MY system Vista constantly grinds my hard-drive - on a friend's machine it keeps accessing his external hard-drive even though indexing is not enabled on it. On MY system navigating hard-drives and browsing folder is slower, whilst generating folder thumbnails DOES take longer. On MY system sending files to the Recycle Bin or emptying it DOES take longer. On MY system, and the other 4 that I maintain in a network, Vista's networking and file / printer sharing IS a chore.
My system is a C2D @3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 8800GT o/c, with 150GB Raptor hard-drive (on which Vista is installed). I am running Vista x64 SP1. I know how to configure my system.
I have absolutely no interest in how well other people's system run, nor do I care whether a single other individual believes a word that I say - that does not concern me. All I know is that Vista IS slower than XP for me. All I know is that I WANT to use Vista because it offers better features. If Windows 7 improves performance then I will very seriously consider getting it (if it doesn't break compability with most software I use).
+1 -
#3.8 Posted by Venkatesh on 10 Apr 2008 - 17:45
- (Chicane-UK said @ #3.5)It keeps getting repeated that Vista is more sluggish than XP but Vista is lightning quick on my Core 2 Duo
Ugh - I aint getting into another Vista argument - it has been done to death on Neowin, on virtually every OSX and Vista article that gets posted.
So regardless of whether you feel that Vista is fat or not (which was my original point) you simply can't say with a straight sincere face it runs as smoothly as Windows XP does. It might run lightning quick on your Core 2 Duo, but i'd argue that XP would run even more quickly on your Core 2 Duo.
.
Well Vista is a resource Hogger for sure .. But Sure it runs faster than XP on my Core 2 Duo E6750 too. I dual Boot XP and Vista. I rarely use XP though. XP is tweaked to the core and there is not lotta applications installed or runs while booting up. Still XP is Slow compared to Vista. You can make out the Responsiveness of the OS. The responsiveness of XP on MY system is slow compared to Vista!
4GB RAM, VistaSp1, 300GB HDD, Intel Dg33Fb mobo -
#3.9 Posted by madkingsoup on 11 Apr 2008 - 08:23
- (theyarecomingforyou said @ #3.6)It keeps getting repeated that Vista is more sluggish than XP but Vista is lightning quick on my Core 2 Duo
I couldn't care less how it runs on your system. On MY system Vista is slower than XP. On MY system I have to increase my ASIO latency to properly mix/record audio. On MY system some VST instruments cause my machine to grind, necessitating a reset. On MY system Vista constantly grinds my hard-drive - on a friend's machine it keeps accessing his external hard-drive even though indexing is not enabled on it. On MY system navigating hard-drives and browsing folder is slower, whilst generating folder thumbnails DOES take longer. On MY system sending files to the Recycle Bin or emptying it DOES take longer. On MY system, and the other 4 that I maintain in a network, Vista's networking and file / printer sharing IS a chore.
My system is a C2D @3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 8800GT o/c, with 150GB Raptor hard-drive (on which Vista is installed). I am running Vista x64 SP1. I know how to configure my system.
I have absolutely no interest in how well other people's system run, nor do I care whether a single other individual believes a word that I say - that does not concern me. All I know is that Vista IS slower than XP for me. All I know is that I WANT to use Vista because it offers better features. If Windows 7 improves performance then I will very seriously consider getting it (if it doesn't break compability with most software I use).
This has to be one of the most pertinent and sensible posts on the whole issue. Sod the testers with the expensive, clean, shiny new machines, and think about the ordinary user for once.
I, for other reasons, am in no rush to move away from XP as it would mean buying a totally new computer and several hundred pounds seems an awful lot to pay for a new OS.
-
(15 replies)
#4 Posted by Sartoris on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:29
- If it is coming out in 2 years then I WILL be skipping Vista. I am not bashing Vista as I use it at work without any problems. The thing is, if my computer can hold out another 2 years with XP then I can save money by waiting until 2010 to build a new one.
-
#4.1 Posted by RAINMAN on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:34
- But in 2010 people will complain that windows 7 is buggy and doesn't work as good as Vista and you'll probably end up on Vista anyway.
-
#4.2 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:37
- (RAINMAN said @ #4.1)But in 2010 people will complain that windows 7 is buggy and doesn't work as good as Vista and you'll probably end up on Vista anyway.
If windows 7 turns out to be anything like vista we could see people still using XP well past 2010. -
#4.3 Posted by mad_onion on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:44
- i doubt that people will complain as much. microsoft won't be changing the driver model as much for windows 7, i suspect that's why they are confident they can get it out by 2010. not as much background stuff will be going on.
of course that also means that it technically won't be as different from vista as some people seem to want it to be. so if people like 7 and didn't like vista it's probably just driver issue rather than there was actually anything fundamentally wrong with vista because it won't be different in 7.
also, don't expect it out at the beginning of 2010 more like the middle or end. so it's still at least two years mabye a bit more. -
#4.4 Posted by Odom on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:49
- (James Riske said @ #4.2)(RAINMAN said @ #4.1)But in 2010 people will complain that windows 7 is buggy and doesn't work as good as Vista and you'll probably end up on Vista anyway.
If windows 7 turns out to be anything like vista we could see people still using XP well past 2010.
By then we'll have Vista SP2 and it will be running as well as XP SP2 is now. Then people will be bitching how buggy Windows 7 is and bash it and say they'll stick with Vista SP2 until Windows 7 SP1/SP2 is out.
But then, 3-4 years later, Windows 8 will be out, with new features & enhancements, and people will say "Oh, if it's only a couple more years, I'll hold out with Vista SP2/3". And then Windows 8 is out and buggy and in need of a SP, and people will stay with Windows 7 SP2.............
It's the same old story over and over again..... -
#4.5 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:53
- (Odom said @ #4.4)(James Riske said @ #4.2)(RAINMAN said @ #4.1)But in 2010 people will complain that windows 7 is buggy and doesn't work as good as Vista and you'll probably end up on Vista anyway.
If windows 7 turns out to be anything like vista we could see people still using XP well past 2010.
By then we'll have Vista SP2 and it will be running as well as XP SP2 is now. Then people will be bitching how buggy Windows 7 is and bash it and say they'll stick with Vista SP2 until Windows 7 SP1/SP2 is out.
But then, 3-4 years later, Windows 8 will be out, with new features & enhancements, and people will say "Oh, if it's only a couple more years, I'll hold out with Vista SP2/3". And then Windows 8 is out and buggy and in need of a SP, and people will stay with Windows 7 SP2.............
It's the same old story over and over again.....
That's pure fanboy logic, we don't even know if SP2 will make vista into a stable and usable os, win 7 is probably SP2 for vista. -
#4.6 Posted by sphbecker on 09 Apr 2008 - 14:13
- That's pure fanboy logic, we don't even know if SP2 will make vista into a stable and usable os, win 7 is probably SP2 for vista.
No, he makes a logical argument. There is always a fuss when a new OS comes out. Does anyone remember the first year of Windows XP? Many hardware problems and people where still talking about how great Windows 98 was. The truth of the matter is that Vista is a solid system with a lot of 3rd party support problems. As time goes on and Vista's market share grows (primarily through new computer sales) venders will correct driver problems and improve support. By 2010 I predict that not only Vista will be the dominant OS, but that few people will be still claiming that XP is better.
In comes Windows 7 and the process starts over again. However, the rumors (as well as common sense) seem to indicate that Windows 7 will not be changing the driver model again, so most devices that work on Vista should work on Windows 7. Also, the 64-bit world will be more mature and better supported by then so the 64-bit version of Windows 7 shouldn’t been seen as the step-child like Vista-64 is now. AKA, fewer compatibility problems and an easier adoption. -
#4.7 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 14:30
- (sphbecker said @ #4.6)That's pure fanboy logic, we don't even know if SP2 will make vista into a stable and usable os, win 7 is probably SP2 for vista.
No, he makes a logical argument. There is always a fuss when a new OS comes out. Does anyone remember the first year of Windows XP? Many hardware problems and people where still talking about how great Windows 98 was. The truth of the matter is that Vista is a solid system with a lot of 3rd party support problems. As time goes on and Vista's market share grows (primarily through new computer sales) venders will correct driver problems and improve support. By 2010 I predict that not only Vista will be the dominant OS, but that few people will be still claiming that XP is better.
In comes Windows 7 and the process starts over again. However, the rumors (as well as common sense) seem to indicate that Windows 7 will not be changing the driver model again, so most devices that work on Vista should work on Windows 7. Also, the 64-bit world will be more mature and better supported by then so the 64-bit version of Windows 7 shouldn’t been seen as the step-child like Vista-64 is now. AKA, fewer compatibility problems and an easier adoption.
You fanboys are too funny, when XP first came out yes there were some people who complained, yes there were some who swore they would never leave their beloved 98SE, but if you were to compare the number of XP complaints back then to the number of vista complaints today you would notice a huge difference, some 100 to 1, and it's well over a year and a service pack later and vista is still the same steaming pile that it was when it was released and the complaints are still rolling in. -
#4.8 Posted by Odom on 09 Apr 2008 - 14:40
- Whatever gave you the impression I'm a fanboy??
Today, you have much more people using PC's than back then. Also, the internet back then wasn't what it is today. So there is no real possible way to know if people complained more back then than today.
Actually, since more people use PC's today than back then, and even have a more easier access to the internet than back then, there would be more people being able to complain today. So yes, you are right, more people are complaining today than they were back then. -
#4.9 Posted by reidtheweed01 on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:46
- (James Riske said @ #4.7)(sphbecker said @ #4.6)That's pure fanboy logic, we don't even know if SP2 will make vista into a stable and usable os, win 7 is probably SP2 for vista.
No, he makes a logical argument. There is always a fuss when a new OS comes out. Does anyone remember the first year of Windows XP? Many hardware problems and people where still talking about how great Windows 98 was. The truth of the matter is that Vista is a solid system with a lot of 3rd party support problems. As time goes on and Vista's market share grows (primarily through new computer sales) venders will correct driver problems and improve support. By 2010 I predict that not only Vista will be the dominant OS, but that few people will be still claiming that XP is better.
In comes Windows 7 and the process starts over again. However, the rumors (as well as common sense) seem to indicate that Windows 7 will not be changing the driver model again, so most devices that work on Vista should work on Windows 7. Also, the 64-bit world will be more mature and better supported by then so the 64-bit version of Windows 7 shouldn’t been seen as the step-child like Vista-64 is now. AKA, fewer compatibility problems and an easier adoption.
You fanboys are too funny, when XP first came out yes there were some people who complained, yes there were some who swore they would never leave their beloved 98SE, but if you were to compare the number of XP complaints back then to the number of vista complaints today you would notice a huge difference, some 100 to 1, and it's well over a year and a service pack later and vista is still the same steaming pile that it was when it was released and the complaints are still rolling in.
I suggest you go back about 30,000 threads in the xp support forum, and take a look, before you start acting like you know what you are talking about and making up wrong facts. -
#4.10 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:03
- (reidtheweed01 said @ #4.9)I suggest you go back about 30,000 threads in the xp support forum, and take a look, before you start acting like you know what you are talking about and making up wrong facts.
I suggest you go check out the millions of threads where people are complaining about vista before you act like you know what you are talking about, fanboy. -
#4.11 Posted by Deviate_X on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:47
- (James Riske said @ #4.7)You fanboys are too funny, when XP first came out yes there were some people who complained, yes there were some who swore they would never leave their beloved 98SE, but if you were to compare the number of XP complaints back then to the number of vista complaints today you would notice a huge difference, some 100 to 1, and it's well over a year and a service pack later and vista is still the same steaming pile that it was when it was released and the complaints are still rolling in.
You've got to be kidding, people were complaining about XP, resource usage bugs, security for years after its release. The people complaining about vista are just riding the bandwagon. -
#4.12 Posted by Danrarbc on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:55
- (James Riske said @ #4.10)(reidtheweed01 said @ #4.9)I suggest you go back about 30,000 threads in the xp support forum, and take a look, before you start acting like you know what you are talking about and making up wrong facts.
I suggest you go check out the millions of threads where people are complaining about vista before you act like you know what you are talking about, fanboy.
Millions... Yeah right. You accuse others of being a fanboy, look in the mirror. -
#4.13 Posted by helios01 on 10 Apr 2008 - 00:01
- (James Riske said @ #4.5)(Odom said @ #4.4)(James Riske said @ #4.2)(RAINMAN said @ #4.1)But in 2010 people will complain that windows 7 is buggy and doesn't work as good as Vista and you'll probably end up on Vista anyway.
If windows 7 turns out to be anything like vista we could see people still using XP well past 2010.
By then we'll have Vista SP2 and it will be running as well as XP SP2 is now. Then people will be bitching how buggy Windows 7 is and bash it and say they'll stick with Vista SP2 until Windows 7 SP1/SP2 is out.
But then, 3-4 years later, Windows 8 will be out, with new features & enhancements, and people will say "Oh, if it's only a couple more years, I'll hold out with Vista SP2/3". And then Windows 8 is out and buggy and in need of a SP, and people will stay with Windows 7 SP2.............
It's the same old story over and over again.....
That's pure fanboy logic, we don't even know if SP2 will make vista into a stable and usable os, win 7 is probably SP2 for vista.
Vista is already stable and usable... there were complaints of XP as well when it came out, so his point of view makes sense, I expect a lot of complaining when Windows 7 comes out and people have finally warmed up to Vista. -
#4.14 Posted by pippi123 on 10 Apr 2008 - 12:57
- Would they plan to release in Jan/Feb of 2010, they'd now give us 2009 as a release date. With a release date in 2010 you can expect very late 2010 or first quater 2011. That's 3 years from now on. WinXP will feel unusable old by late 2009 already.
-
#4.15 Posted by sphbecker on 10 Apr 2008 - 17:37
- (James Riske said @ #4.7)You fanboys are too funny, when XP first came out yes there were some people who complained, yes there were some who swore they would never leave their beloved 98SE, but if you were to compare the number of XP complaints back then to the number of vista complaints today you would notice a huge difference, some 100 to 1, and it's well over a year and a service pack later and vista is still the same steaming pile that it was when it was released and the complaints are still rolling in.
I should probably not even reply to your unfounded comments, but for the sake of anyone who cares about the truth XP did not have a 100 to 1 adoption advantage over Vista after one year. They are right about even--yes, XP was a little higher, but we are talking about percentage points, not orders of magnitude. Keep in mind that the vast majority of users get a new OS when they buy a new computer it is only the highly technical that will chose to reinstall their operating system.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:34
- (article said @ #0)however we can speculate that SP2 for Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile
I wont be holding my breath but it would be nice to see Vista at least turn into something worth using. -
#5.1 Posted by paesan on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:11
- (James Riske said @ #5)(article said @ #0)however we can speculate that SP2 for Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile
I wont be holding my breath but it would be nice to see Vista at least turn into something worth using.
Vista is something worth using. I have been using it since Nov 06 and would never go back to XP. I even use the 64bit version and have only had a few minor driver problems which are the fault of the third party venders not issuing drivers. Sure there is a learning curve with anything new. Some of you cry babies are like the folks I work with. When we upgrade our software in the hospital (not windows but the user interface for performing necessary patient input, charging, etc) all I hear is why did they change this blah blah blah. Then once they get used to it they love it and say how much an improvement it is from the previous software. Some people hate change even when it is for the better. Take some people out of their comfort zone and their world is turned upside down. I always say to them embrace change because change is good.
-
#6 Posted by +Lt-DavidW on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:44
- we can speculate that SP2 for Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile. Pure speculation of course!
Judging from what we've seen of Ultimate Extras, I highly doubt that.
-
(8 replies)
#7 Posted by sibot on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:47
- Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile.
Its official, even Microsoft feels upgrading to Vista from XP is not worthwhile. Thank you for accepting your mistakes. Finally the war can end! Peace! -
#7.1 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:26
- (sibot said @ #7)Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile.
Its official, even Microsoft feels upgrading to Vista from XP is not worthwhile. Thank you for accepting your mistakes. Finally the war can end! Peace!
lol so true, unfortunately the war will never end as long as there are M$ fanboys out there who can't accept the fact that their beloved law-breaking monopoly can actually make a mistake now and then, their latest mistake being vista of course. -
#7.2 Posted by X'tyfe on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:45
- (James Riske said @ #7.1)(sibot said @ #7)Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile.
Its official, even Microsoft feels upgrading to Vista from XP is not worthwhile. Thank you for accepting your mistakes. Finally the war can end! Peace!
lol so true, unfortunately the war will never end as long as there are M$ fanboys out there who can't accept the fact that their beloved law-breaking monopoly can actually make a mistake now and then, their latest mistake being vista of course.
+1 For Epicness -
#7.3 Posted by C_Guy on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:53
- And the dead horse takes another beating. It's sad to see how few people understand that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market with many choices available. Perhaps a basic course in economics would help you understand?
You two may have trouble grasping Windows Vista. But it remains Microsoft's fastest-selling OS with, what, over 100 million licenses out there? That's not really a failure. That said, Microsoft has readily admitted that software can never be perfect because it is prone to human error.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. -
#7.4 Posted by Danrarbc on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:57
- (sibot said @ #7)Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile.
Its official, even Microsoft feels upgrading to Vista from XP is not worthwhile. Thank you for accepting your mistakes. Finally the war can end! Peace!
You do realize that was an editorial comment right? Microsoft, nor anyone that works there, ever said something like that. There are already worthwhile features, choosing to ignore them is all you. -
#7.5 Posted by RAID 0 on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:59
- (C_Guy said @ #7.3)And the dead horse takes another beating. It's sad to see how few people understand that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market with many choices available. Perhaps a basic course in economics would help you understand?
You two may have trouble grasping Windows Vista. But it remains Microsoft's fastest-selling OS with, what, over 100 million licenses out there? That's not really a failure. That said, Microsoft has readily admitted that software can never be perfect because it is prone to human error.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
QFT -
#7.6 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 09 Apr 2008 - 20:21
- (RAID 0 said @ #7.5)(C_Guy said @ #7.3)And the dead horse takes another beating. It's sad to see how few people understand that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market with many choices available. Perhaps a basic course in economics would help you understand?
You two may have trouble grasping Windows Vista. But it remains Microsoft's fastest-selling OS with, what, over 100 million licenses out there? That's not really a failure. That said, Microsoft has readily admitted that software can never be perfect because it is prone to human error.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
QFT
A lot more PCs are being sold now, and how many converted back to XP? -
#7.7 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 21:29
- (HalcyonX12 said @ #7.6)(RAID 0 said @ #7.5)(C_Guy said @ #7.3)And the dead horse takes another beating. It's sad to see how few people understand that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market with many choices available. Perhaps a basic course in economics would help you understand?
You two may have trouble grasping Windows Vista. But it remains Microsoft's fastest-selling OS with, what, over 100 million licenses out there? That's not really a failure. That said, Microsoft has readily admitted that software can never be perfect because it is prone to human error.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
QFT
A lot more PCs are being sold now, and how many converted back to XP?
Yes, with some places (dell) charging more for a system with XP installed than vista it makes vista appeal to the new and clueless pc buyers, fortunately I already had an unused XP64 laying around still wrapped in plastic or I would have had to pay them another 50 bucks for my new XPS just to get XP installed or pay even more for a new XP disk.
I did give the preinstalled vista its fair try though, and of course it failed miserably, and for you fanboys, yes the dell installation was erased in favor of a fresh install of vista with all the latest drivers and it was still crap. -
#7.8 Posted by Kirkburn on 09 Apr 2008 - 22:17
- (James Riske said @ #7.7)Yes, with some places (dell) charging more for a system with XP installed than vista it makes vista appeal to the new and clueless pc buyers, fortunately I already had an unused XP64 laying around still wrapped in plastic or I would have had to pay them another 50 bucks for my new XPS just to get XP installed or pay even more for a new XP disk.
I did give the preinstalled vista its fair try though, and of course it failed miserably, and for you fanboys, yes the dell installation was erased in favor of a fresh install of vista with all the latest drivers and it was still crap.
I do not think you know what fanboy means. That, or you're a big fan of irony.
What made it "crap"? How did it "fail miserably"? You gotta have substance to your claims.
-
#8 Posted by rdmiller on 09 Apr 2008 - 13:48
- "we can speculate that SP2 for Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile. Pure speculation of course!"
I LOVE pure speculators. They add so much to real life.
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by lbmouse on 09 Apr 2008 - 14:22
- "Windows 7 On Track For 2010 Release"
That is Microsoftese for 2015 w/ greatly reduced functionality from what is promised. -
#9.1 Posted by Xenomorph on 09 Apr 2008 - 14:38
- (lbmouse said @ #9)"Windows 7 On Track For 2010 Release"
That is Microsoftese for 2015 w/ greatly reduced functionality from what is promised.
Microsoft doesn't delay *everything*
WfW 3.11 in 1994
Windows 95 in 1995
Win95 OSR2 in 1996
Windows 98 in 1998
Windows 98SE in 1999
Windows Me in 2000
In six years, they released six versions of Windows.
Why couldn't they release a trimmed down Vista in 3 years? -
#9.2 Posted by C_Guy on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:00
- And in 3 years when Microsoft releases a product that reflects everything they've learned from their Vista release you might re-consider your ignorant anti-Microsoft bias.
-
#9.3 Posted by lbmouse on 10 Apr 2008 - 19:18
- (C_Guy said @ #9.2)...ignorant anti-Microsoft bias.
Why is anything critical of MS "ignorant anti-Microsoft bias" ?
In my case, I'm just not an ignorant fan-boy who is blinded by brand loyalty and equates support of a technology tool company to religion. I keep an open mind and encourage my developers to use the best tools for the job. The company I work for is one of the world's largest MS Cert Gold Partners, but it would be a mistake to hamstring ourselves to one product brand. As a consumer of MS products since DOS 2.1, a professional using MS tools for almost 20 years, and a MS stockholder since the mid-90's, it is not only my right to be critical of Microsoft, it is my responsibility.
So I hope they have learned from the nasty mistakes they made in Vista, but with how MS has been acting lately, I'm not holding my breath.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 14:39
-
#10.1 Posted by C_Guy on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:03
- "The Road Ahead". Now where have I heard that before?
Vi7ta - that is SO clever! Did you come up with that all by yourself? -
#10.2 Posted by James Riske on 09 Apr 2008 - 21:30
- (C_Guy said @ #10.1)"The Road Ahead". Now where have I heard that before?
Vi7ta - that is SO clever! Did you come up with that all by yourself?
Yes I did, thank you for the compliment, very flattering.
-
#11 Posted by M118LR on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:00
- With Vista, Beta 1 came out in July 2005, RTM 8 Nov. 2006, and General Release 30 Jan 2007. So if Windows 7 takes the same amount of time to develop, you have a working timeline.
-
#12 Posted by mfarmilo on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:07
- Actually, 2010 is just a little OVER a year and a half away.
Just being pedantic ....
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by ikyouCrow on 09 Apr 2008 - 15:48
- please please please just take the server system and put the desktop experience on it as the default.
and leave it that way. and don't make another 7 versions, we only need three: Home, Business, and Server. -
#13.1 Posted by +Black.Mac on 09 Apr 2008 - 21:04
- (ikyouCrow said @ #13)please please please just take the server system and put the desktop experience on it as the default.
and leave it that way. and don't make another 7 versions, we only need three: Home, Business, and Server.
I still don't get how people don't know Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are the same damned OS just configured differently.
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by devHead on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:07
- ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS
EXCEPT EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE -
#14.1 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:22
- ...
Ya don't see that everyday... -
#14.2 Posted by
markjensen on 09 Apr 2008 - 17:57
- (Tha Bloo Monkee said @ #14.1)...Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: The Year we Make Contact
Ya don't see that everyday...
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by smooth3006 on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:16
- so basically gates was lying through his a@% and he meant the public beta will be out in 2009.
-
#16 Posted by chaosblade on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:19
- The way i see it, Vista was the back-end release - With much needed restructuring and base work done on the kernel and the overall way the system works - It's now easier to replace parts within the OS because of the modularity brought on with Vista\WS2008.
Win7 will probably be the front-end release - Changes to the way people perceive the system, or even a whole new (and supposedly better) User Experience.
It's very much doable in the given time line, Considering the changes that code base went through for Vista\WS2008 are not only per-release, but far-reaching into future development.
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by MulletRobZ on 09 Apr 2008 - 16:33
- Come on. First, they say 2010, then 2009, then 2010 again? Which is it, Microsoft?
-
#17.1 Posted by +abulfares on 09 Apr 2008 - 17:25
- hey i would rather get it complete and functional even if by 2012
-
#18 Posted by bluarash on 09 Apr 2008 - 17:13
- I think a 2.75 year time span between Vista and Windows 7 seems about right. I think we can expect to see Windows 7 between October 2009 and June of 2010. The problem, however, is going to be that Windows 7 from all press reports so far seems to be warmed over Vista. Why not just call it Vista SE?
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by 7Dash8 on 09 Apr 2008 - 17:30
- Lol all you morons waiting for Windows 7... idiots! Don't be suckered in by Bill Gates!! Windows 7 is just Vista ME!!! I'm skipping Windows 7 altogether, I'm going to stick with XP until Windows 8 comes out in 2011
-
#20.2 Posted by OblivionStalker on 09 Apr 2008 - 19:54
- Man, you really need to refresh yourself. Click F5.
-
#21 Posted by Chaks on 09 Apr 2008 - 17:36
- Just wait until next week, and you will see a news,
"Windows 7 on Track for October 2008!"
-
(2 replies)
#22 Posted by LaXu on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:21
- It seems like people are expecting Windows 7 to be some sort of savior OS. Considering the current screenshots of the OS in action look exactly like Vista I doubt that we will see that many changes in how the OS is used. Microsoft will most likely fix what went wrong with Vista (the overzealous UAC for example) and work on adding some features but I don't think we'll see any big overhauls.
I do wish MS took a hint from Apple when it comes to installing programs. The "mount image, drag app icon to Applications" method is so much better than "press next, read terms of use, press next, press next, choose install directory, press next, press next, wait for install, press next, press finish" installation currently in use. -
#22.1 Posted by MajinDark on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:34
- Well you have to remember, early Whistler looked like 2000, early Longhorn looked like XP. GUI changes will come with later builds.
-
#22.2 Posted by J_R_G on 10 Apr 2008 - 02:24
- (LaXu said @ #22)It seems like people are expecting Windows 7 to be some sort of savior OS. Considering the current screenshots of the OS in action look exactly like Vista I doubt that we will see that many changes in how the OS is used. Microsoft will most likely fix what went wrong with Vista (the overzealous UAC for example) and work on adding some features but I don't think we'll see any big overhauls.
I do wish MS took a hint from Apple when it comes to installing programs. The "mount image, drag app icon to Applications" method is so much better than "press next, read terms of use, press next, press next, choose install directory, press next, press next, wait for install, press next, press finish" installation currently in use.
UAC is not overzealous and it would be hard to make it work any better, a standard user can't access admin objects without elevation, what could possibly change that, fairy dust? You'll always have to enter your credentials (or click OK) for the things that require this in Vista.
And the install method is up to the apps, you could code apps that are drag and drop installed on windows and in fact I see them once in awhile.
-
(2 replies)
#23 Posted by Scorbing on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:40
- Please...not another operating system. I'm fed up with this crap from Microsoft. People are already confused with Vista as it is.
-
(1 reply)
#24 Posted by Shadrack on 09 Apr 2008 - 18:45
- I think that if MS's Windows release schedule more closely resembled Apple's Mac OS release schedule people would be less up-in-arms about Vista. If there were an OS between XP and Vista I doubt Vista would be getting as much slack. They really should consider releasing a new OS no more than 3 years apart.
A Microsoft source confirmed to Neowin that Windows 7 would not be released next year and that it is still on track for 2010, already disclosed earlier this year on Microsoft PressPass and Microsoft Road map charts.
Bearing in mind that 2010 is just a little under a year and a half away, it's unreasonable to think that something would be released in between; however we can speculate that SP2 for Windows Vista will come before then and may introduce some new features making the upgrade from XP worthwhile. Pure speculation of course!