Windows 7 On Track For 2010 Release

That's the year we'll make contact, and not before.

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!

Link: Windows 7 May Come 'in the next year or so' (Posted on 5th April 2008)

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Europeans warn search engines: Delete user data sooner

Next Story

BBC announces Nintendo Wii deal

122 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wow HUGE! thread here. So many opinions on this is dizzying crazy!. No doubt that Microsoft will have learned something from the Vista fiasco next time. I think alot of the complaints against Vista is that at the time they released it, Vista needed another year to be released. Were getting there Vista is getting better after SP!. But hardcore people will argue for or against it just as the OS wars back when XP came out.

As hard as it sounds I don't think MS should put anymore time in a new service pack or new features in Vista. Instead focus on bug fixes and especially on Windows 7.
Back in the days when WinXP was released a lot of people were complaining about the instability and performance but you have to admin (and even MS does it) that a lot more users are not happy with Vista.

The ones that are happy with Vista => Make bugfixes for them
The ones that are not happy with Vista => Will most likely not be happy with a SP either so also make bugfixes for them and work on the new OS with what they've learned.

A lot of people wouldn't be happy because they paid a lot of money for an ultimate versions that was supposed to give added features (sure it has some) but those will be easy to satisfy with a reduction on the Windows 7 purchase price.

Pieter

I don't really have hope for Windows 7 either. I think Vista is a GREAT operating system as far as the innards go but they overcomplicated the UI. If they could have been a little bit more legacy in the way it looks, I would have already moved over. As it is, I can streamline the look of XP way more.

People will bitch about anything MS does. The facts are that there are only a few viable OS options out there. Yes there is Linux and Mac but they have their problems and limitations too. No OS is perfect. Considering that MS works for such broad hardware setups, I think that they are doing quite well. Is a MS OS perfect, no not by a long shot. I don't see a flood of OS's hitting the market, do you? If it was that easy to make a such widely comaptable OS then why are there not many choices. Stop all the complaining and be grateful for what options are available. If people don't like MS then go find another OS and yes that OS will have problems too. If anyone thinks that Mac or Linux is perfect, then I have a few bridges I can sell you. You all need to quit your whining.

No one thinks OS X (what is "Mac"?) or Linux are perfect. What they think is that they are stuck with Microsoft. Microsoft does not give users a choice, either you upgrade to Vista, or you become obsolete--eventually.

If Microsoft gave a damn about its customers, it would extend XP until Window 7. Instead, Microsoft is extorting users by preloading Vista on all new PCs after June 30th, eliminating XP as an option. USERS HAVE NO CHOICE! How is anyone in business supposed avoid Windows if it is 86% of the desktop market? Right now you have no choice but to use Windows, and Microsoft is trying to make sure you have no choice but to buy Vista! Vista isn't selling BECAUSE IT SUCKS, yet Microsoft using it's monopoly is once again screw over the entire planet.

(toadeater said @ #41.1)
No one thinks OS X (what is "Mac"?) or Linux are perfect. What they think is that they are stuck with Microsoft. Microsoft does not give users a choice, either you upgrade to Vista, or you become obsolete--eventually.

If Microsoft gave a damn about its customers, it would extend XP until Window 7. Instead, Microsoft is extorting users by preloading Vista on all new PCs after June 30th, eliminating XP as an option. USERS HAVE NO CHOICE! How is anyone in business supposed avoid Windows if it is 86% of the desktop market? Right now you have no choice but to use Windows, and Microsoft is trying to make sure you have no choice but to buy Vista! Vista isn't selling BECAUSE IT SUCKS, yet Microsoft using it's monopoly is once again screw over the entire planet.

Actually, the PC and OEM manufacturers are doing this. Sure, they get a lot of pressure from Microsoft, but technically, it's still them that end up making the decision to bend over and pre-load Vista on their PC's. However, not all of them do this. I know a lot of stores that sell you XP pre-loaded as well as Vista.

Likely he meant it'll be in it's alpha form or something resembling the next version will be began.

And while I like Vista, it is inferior to XP in performance. SP1 made a difference, but it's still not the best.

Doesn't matter what version Microsoft puts out, people will bitch about it. Its been that way for EVERY version. Yet I've never had major problems with any of them, including WindowsME. Vista works just great, whether poeple want to believe it or not.

I love my Windows Vista Ultimate SP1. I love it, it never crashes it always works "I feel" it is secure. And as Microsoft said way back, in early 2006, "Windows Vista works well in an Ideal Situation", Now, at this point, if it don't work well it's because of what Vista is being asked to work with.

Bah I just bought Vista x64 home premium (just missed the delivery from ebuyer grrr) for my 5GB ram usage and I read this oh well ill get a year and half usage out of it or maybe Windows 7 will get delayed like Vista did (i mean cutting features etc).

"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."


There were some who thought they'd never leave 98SE? My gosh, I couldn't wait to get rid of that POS! After W2K came out, there was absolutely no sense to even think about using ANY Windows 9 version!

Definitely not a MS fanboy, but personally, I will NEVER use Vista again as it an over loaded/bloated, flat out POS!
I'll take the simplicity (more or less) of XP Pro, and stay with it until the internet quits working while using it!

Or else, do the next best thing and quit lining MS pockets and use Linux full time, which I almost do now a days anyway!

im sorry but, server 08 is the best home OS i have ever used. it NEVER crashed. i need a running uptime meter in a signature or something. and this is on my performance gaming rig.

(Nose Nuggets said @ #35)
im sorry but, server 08 is the best home OS i have ever used. it NEVER crashed. i need a running uptime meter in a signature or something. and this is on my performance gaming rig.

I could say the same thing about my Vista install. /shrug.

(Nose Nuggets said @ #35)
im sorry but, server 08 is the best home OS i have ever used. it NEVER crashed. i need a running uptime meter in a signature or something. and this is on my performance gaming rig.

Server is *not* a home OS, and barely anyone bar students who get it for free would spend that kind of money per client.

The funny thing is, does he not realize Server 2008 is the same core OS as Vista except technically crippled from the standpoint of a home/business USER?

sorry I'm not a fan boy of either OS but honestly I really don't like Vista sorry to say. I got more of a performance gain going from Vista back to XP. I'm not saying people can't run Vista but my thoughts are to leave it alone until people start saying its got the same performance as XP or better.

the performance of vista is greatly better than xp ever could be on my system. i've used xp for months and vista since RTM on the same laptop, i could never go back and lose all the functionality and snappiness.

Windows 7 will be for Windows Vista, what Windows XP was for Windows 2000... finishing and polishing the os.

(Xilo said @ #32)
UAC needs to go.

Yea let's just get rid of all security so we can save a few clicks, hell with quad cores common, we can afford to have 3 cores spamming viagra emails to thousands of people all day.

I get a UAC prompt when I install new software or change some system wide setting in control panel, that's like maybe 3 times a day max and it takes a second max to deal with, obviously you are just on a fishing expedition and can't find anything like a real complaint.

(Xilo said @ #32)
UAC needs to go.

Yep, it's amazing how hard it is to disable UAC in Vista :rolleyes:

Actually, what really needs to go are idiots who have no idea what they're talking about (i.e. 99% of the people rubbishing Vista).

(7Dash8 said @ #32.2)

Yep, it's amazing how hard it is to disable UAC in Vista :rolleyes:

Actually, what really needs to go are idiots who have no idea what they're talking about (i.e. 99% of the people rubbishing Vista).


I used Vista for a month before I got tired of it. That UAC was one of the biggest annoyances. I kept it on for about a week before I got fed up with it. I don't mind how Linux and Mac do it, but Window's version is just a nagfest.

What they should have done is take XP and improve its GUI and overral components and re-release it as XP Second Edition instead of this overbloated, Vista they gave us. Now since Vista is out, what they need to do instead of shoving another OS up our nose and confuse the hell out of people even further, is improve Vista, take the useless crap off of it to make it lighter and fix the damn bugs and make it work like it should and forget about Windows 7.

Windows 7 = More bloat, more bugs, more useless crap.

MICROSOFT:

Concentrate on fixing and improving Vista instead of making another OS. We are tired of unsecure, unstable, unreliable OSs.

(Scorbing said @ #30)
MICROSOFT:

Concentrate on fixing and improving Vista instead of making another OS. We are tired of unsecure, unstable, unreliable OSs.


Then in 3-4yrs you just have a very stable/solid Vista that is also 4yrs out of date with technology and modern needs.


I DARE you to name ONE secure OS OOB...there isn't any, I also dare you to show me how Vista is NOT table or reliable. All I hear is people bitching that a driver or 3rd party program breaks Vista then blames Microsoft because other companies **** up.

It's safe to say that about 75% of posts made in Vista threads are just BS by idiots that have never even used betas or know how OS's even work (ie: OMFG Vista uses memory!!).

Ever 16yo thinks hes a computer wiz now just because he MAY know more then his parents.


God I may use OSX but I know you guys bitch at Microsoft WAY to much with out any research into what really breaks your machines. Five Vista boxes(2 or them 64-bit) and 2 OSX boxes in my house......none of them have any more problems my XP machines(2). I support an organization of over 350 users, about 60 are Mac the rest are XP. The OSX users have just as many problems as the XP users percentage wise, but at home Vista has wiped out a lot of issues I had with my network and crashing.

Ignorant people **** me off so much anymore.


/rant

(M2Ys4U said @ #30.1)
Vista isn't unsecuresic, unstable or unreliable.

SCORBING:

Concentrate on not being a troll, and a bad one at that.

It is unstable and unreliable, security wise their will never be a MS OS that hackers don't put the effort into cracking because MS is the top dog they draw that kind of attention unfortunately

(trip21 said @ #30.3)

It is unstable and unreliable, security wise their will never be a MS OS that hackers don't put the effort into cracking because MS is the top dog they draw that kind of attention unfortunately

No it is not unstable and unreliable, I've used Vista for over a year, no bluescreens and it runs everything like a champ, so shut your trolling mouth please.

I guess we can then close all the other threads across the internet about users complaining about Vista, since it runs fine on your PC.

I can visualize MS already having backroom meetings with Hardware Vendors on what 'hardware update needed' scam to present to the public..I know MS won't be suggesting the 'Windows 7 Capable'.....LOL

If Microsoft thinks they are on track for a 2010 release, it most likely won't actually be ready until 2012 and that seems like a better time for a new release anyway.

It will be interesting to see just how relevant Windows will even be in 2010 or 2012 (whenever it actually does come out). How much of the market will have gone with alternatives by then? I mean, for one thing, Microsoft are incredibly slow at developing new software when compared to Mac and Linux. It is possible that they will lose their monopoly grip before the next version of Windows comes out.

Mac OS X and Linux will not be taking away significant market share from Microsoft anytime soon and here's why:

  • Apple refuses to make a version of Mac OS X available for non-Apple computers and even though it's possible to do so, it's illegal according to Apple's EULA.
  • Linux has too many distributions and none of them provide a user-friendly experience (read: not requiring a console) nor support for premium applications available to Windows and Mac OS X. And of course, none of the distributions are marketed agressively in order to attract any attention.


I'm hoping Microsoft thinks very clear with this coming OS. Focus on faster os and lighter OS. I hope they get rid of the damn Vista GUI(Win7 screenshot if legit) I hate the **** with major passion, I won't hold my breath with Microsoft.

(mel00 said @ #26)
I'm hoping Microsoft thinks very clear with this coming OS. Focus on faster os and lighter OS. I hope they get rid of the damn Vista GUI(Win7 screenshot if legit) I hate the **** with major passion, I won't hold my breath with Microsoft.

The Vista GUI is very nice, it's functional and pretty. They should build upon it and not listen to hyperactve fanboys that want them to completely reverse course every release.

Im just going to put this out there but isnt it a rule in computing that things should not be hidden one click should run everything and thats what OSX has with the dock. The start menu up to vista was bearable but the default start menu in vista is so convoluted and stupid that it even needed a search just to find anything in it. MS just worked on how pretty it was and not its usability. Get rid of the start menu and move to a dock system or something similar, major app launchers should always be visible but god please MS do not copy the finder bar mac has its stupid! programs with their own menu bars is good and keep window maximization. Oh yeh and the mac installation is awesome but take it a step further, the installer dosent need to be mounted by the user, simply clicking it mounts it and it runs without installing anywhere. Do this and keep legacy compatibility and you have the windows that will save MS and squish apple and lin..... no just apple. PS microsoft should be allowed to do this given that apple pretty much took all the ideas from the longhorn and blackcomb idea pool when panther was first brought out.

Another thing given that Microsoft seems to have added more things to the start menu in Win 7 M1 like visible pins indicates that it will be another failure. The core of the GUI in windows which is essentially the start menu seems like it will be taken to an all new level or retardation and complexity when will the madness end and MS just fire all those idiots and get some youth who actually have an eye for the future rather than for just academia.

(Iridium said @ #25)
Im just going to put this out there but isnt it a rule in computing that things should not be hidden one click should run everything and thats what OSX has with the dock. The start menu up to vista was bearable but the default start menu in vista is so convoluted and stupid that it even needed a search just to find anything in it. MS just worked on how pretty it was and not its usability.

The dock is pathetic, I'm sorry. It's Apple's quicklaunch and taskbar equivalent (and a poor taskbar replacement at that). It serves it's purpose, but it's clearly designed to be pretty first and foremost. There is nothing like the start menu in the OS, to launch apps not in the dock you navigate the applications folder (now THAT'S usable ).

The search was added to improve usability, the start menu design layout had little to do with looks (the only change is all programs no longer folder out all the way across the screen when you have a ton of programs, the idea was you wouldn't have to move the mouse as far, beyond that it looks a lot like XP's menu)

The whole point of Vista's crammed Start Menu was to do these three things:

- Force developers to STOP using so many menu levels for the application folders! We don't need something like ProgramFolder > Support > For home users > Forums
- Reduce the amount of dexterity people have to put into mouse movements to precisely click on menu items: now only vertical movements and a mousewheel flick are required
- Prevent the frustration that comes when someone accidentally clicks outside a cascaded menu and all items disappear

That being said, they should've made the Start menu panel a bit wider instead of having to use automatic horizontal panning to display cut-off menu items. Otherwise, the Start Menu works. I'm pretty sure those 'idiots' you speak of just didn't go on a lololol session while designing it.

(rm20010 said @ #25.2)
- Prevent the frustration that comes when someone accidentally clicks outside a cascaded menu and all items disappear

It seems just like yesterday!

(rm20010 said @ #25.2)
The whole point of Vista's crammed Start Menu was to do these three things:

- Force developers to STOP using so many menu levels for the application folders! We don't need something like ProgramFolder > Support > For home users > Forums
- Reduce the amount of dexterity people have to put into mouse movements to precisely click on menu items: now only vertical movements and a mousewheel flick are required
- Prevent the frustration that comes when someone accidentally clicks outside a cascaded menu and all items disappear

That being said, they should've made the Start menu panel a bit wider instead of having to use automatic horizontal panning to display cut-off menu items. Otherwise, the Start Menu works. I'm pretty sure those 'idiots' you speak of just didn't go on a lololol session while designing it.

QFT - Actually from the sceenshots so far that they`ve widened the programs area to cover the whole start menu.

I think the Dock works great. In Vista I have my most needed program icons on the desktop as well as pinned to the start menu but I find that the Dock is faster to access. If you want to use apps not in the Dock, you can either press Cmd+Space and type the program name or you can drag the Applications folder to the Dock, essentially giving you an "All Programs" button that shows all the programs you've installed. Windows, on the other hand does not have any kind of All Programs menu available where you could open any program with a click, you instead have to browse the start menu tree.

Now, Vistas search works great and I rarely use the tree. That is a good thing because the tree sucks in Vista. It's cramped because the start menu is too small. I wouldn't be surprised if it widens in Windows 7 when browsing the tree.

What the Windows' Taskbar has over OSX's Dock is that it's easier to jump between programs. Clicking an icon on the Dock shows the window that is currently open in a program and you have to use Expose to show different windows open in the program whereas in Windows they are shown in the Taskbar. I think Windows is also more suited for running programs maximized. The + button in OSX is crap because while it widens the window fullscreen, it doesn't prevent you from moving the window still, so you could accidentally move the window outside the screen. When I started using OSX I had to learn to use windows again whereas in Windows I had been using most programs maximized.

What both Microsoft and Apple should work on is the file browsers. Finder is terrible, I mean who thought having folders sorted by name appear somewhere in the middle of the list along with files was a good idea? Microsoft should just license Directory Opus, add some eye candy to it and hide the more advanced stuff from view by default.

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.

(Shadrack said @ #24)
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.

Windows Vista had its retail release in early 2007. Windows 7 is apparently on track for a 2010 release.

So I assume this wasn't criticism, but a mere reflection?

Please...not another operating system. I'm fed up with this crap from Microsoft. People are already confused with Vista as it is.

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.

Well you have to remember, early Whistler looked like 2000, early Longhorn looked like XP. GUI changes will come with later builds.

(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.

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

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?

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.

(smooth3006 said @ #15)
so basically gates was lying through his a@% and he meant the public beta will be out in 2009. :angry:

uh how? if it is going to be out in 2010 they have to have a beta a year before that!

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.

(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.

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.

"The Road Ahead". Now where have I heard that before? ;)

Vi7ta - that is SO clever! Did you come up with that all by yourself?

(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.

"Windows 7 On Track For 2010 Release"

That is Microsoftese for 2015 w/ greatly reduced functionality from what is promised.

(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?


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.

(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.

"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.

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!

(sibot said @ #7)

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.

(James Riske said @ #7.1)


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

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.

(sibot said @ #7)

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.

(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

(HalcyonX12 said @ #7.6)

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.

(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.

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.

(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.

(James Riske said @ #5)

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

(James Riske said @ #4.2)

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.....

(Odom said @ #4.4)

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.

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.

(sphbecker said @ #4.6)

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.

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.

(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 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.

(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.

(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.

(James Riske said @ #4.10)


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.

(James Riske said @ #4.5)

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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).

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #3.6)

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

(Chicane-UK said @ #3.5)

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

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #3.6)

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.

Windows XP is really the only OS to have features added to it and I view it as an anomaly because there was so much time between it and Vista.