Steve Ballmer believes it's ok to wait for Windows 7

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has been at it again (no not the shouting) telling analysts that people can wait for Windows 7 if they like.

In a Q&A session with Gartner analysts Neil MacDonald and David Mitchell Smith at the Gartner Symposium ITxpo in Orlando, Ballmer said "Windows 7 will be Vista, but a lot better" according to ZDNet.

"If people want to wait they really can," said Ballmer. "But I'd definitely deploy Vista" he noted. Unfortunately that's not likely to fill the confidence boots of investors or customers who have been put off by Microsoft's Vista offerings.

Earlier this month Ballmer hinted at a forthcoming operating system "Windows Cloud" that would help developers write Internet-based applications.

Microsoft will be revealing all about Windows 7 at PDC and will unveil exactly what Windows Strata really is too.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

NVIDIA GeForce Release 178.24 WHQL

Next Story

Twitter hiring spam systems engineer

58 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm last person I'd have thought would say much less admit it, but Vista is working and I'm not going to install the extra XP license purchased out of fear I would need to regress. Sure there were headaches at first getting data transferred from the old XP system to the Vista , and a 7 yr. old HP scanner had to be scrapped due to incompatible drivers and no Vista updates (this was over due anyhow), and one minor app I'd installed which also caused problems on XP for some had caused several major problems on Vista. Like others I really didn't wish to learn yet another OS for having started out from DOS on, but so far am surviving the learning curve. It was confusing at first and still is now and then, but by now enough people know how to use Vista to dig me out when I get lost, and there's plenty of information online. I'd agree that nobody should be forced to change OS until their comfortable doing so, but eventually will have no choice as equipment and applications progress, so the longer they wait, the harder to live in the past.

If someone as resistant as myself can say all this, I'd bet there is truth in much of what I've read from other Vista fans. I'd never run this OS on my old system because it couldn't handle it, but now that I've upgraded into a more suitable system it's proven to be a surprisingly slick update as well. That said, it's probably not for everyone right now, but as people upgrade to better systems I'm willing to guess that if they can bypass prejudice and bad press Vista has received to give it a chance, they'll also admit it isn't as horrible as they imagined it would be. It's interesting that on the poll from this page, 89 out of 154 said they want to upgrade to Windows 7 yet are content using Vista, although this doesn't take into account how many didn't bother to weigh in.

It's not worth fighting over or making insulting remarks about regardless of the opinion however. Change is an inevitable.

LoquaciousOne said,
I'm last person I'd have thought would say much less admit it, but Vista is working and I'm not going to install the extra XP license purchased out of fear I would need to regress. Sure there were headaches at first getting data transferred from the old XP system to the Vista , and a 7 yr. old HP scanner had to be scrapped due to incompatible drivers and no Vista updates (this was over due anyhow), and one minor app I'd installed which also caused problems on XP for some had caused several major problems on Vista. Like others I really didn't wish to learn yet another OS for having started out from DOS on, but so far am surviving the learning curve. It was confusing at first and still is now and then, but by now enough people know how to use Vista to dig me out when I get lost, and there's plenty of information online. I'd agree that nobody should be forced to change OS until their comfortable doing so, but eventually will have no choice as equipment and applications progress, so the longer they wait, the harder to live in the past.

If someone as resistant as myself can say all this, I'd bet there is truth in much of what I've read from other Vista fans. I'd never run this OS on my old system because it couldn't handle it, but now that I've upgraded into a more suitable system it's proven to be a surprisingly slick update as well. That said, it's probably not for everyone right now, but as people upgrade to better systems I'm willing to guess that if they can bypass prejudice and bad press Vista has received to give it a chance, they'll also admit it isn't as horrible as they imagined it would be. It's interesting that on the poll from this page, 89 out of 154 said they want to upgrade to Windows 7 yet are content using Vista, although this doesn't take into account how many didn't bother to weigh in.

It's not worth fighting over or making insulting remarks about regardless of the opinion however. Change is an inevitable.

Your scanner would work if it was Linux

Everyone is wrong. Vista is NOT good, and neither is XP or Windows 7 or Server 2008.

Open Source is where the future is at, and if you want to have control over your PC that's also where you'll be too.

Ender2070 said,
Everyone is wrong. Vista is NOT good, and neither is XP or Windows 7 or Server 2008.

Open Source is where the future is at, and if you want to have control over your PC that's also where you'll be too.

I wonder why you even bothered to post

Oooooh yeah... and I don't believe the hogwash abt blaming other companies for drivers. M$ has called this card all well too long and claimed they had a new programme on drivers and signing and all. And apart from that, M$ has known about these problems that drivers create so why did they not work to ensure that the drivers were up to scratch. Because I don't see nVidia or ATI or whoever else loosing sleep over VISTA. M$ has lost out on a whole lot more that these guys have. I'm yet to here anyone talk abt don't get that laptop coz it has a nVidia GPU which has bad drivers or anything like that. Its been get that laptop but get it with XP coz Vista is crap or other politically correct terms. Thats why MacOS X whips them in this regard at least. They were almost in the same boat as Linux circa Red Hat 7/8/9.

Vista is fine right now, it's great actually. Just use something like this:
PC: < 2GB AND < C2D go XP
PC: >= 2GB and C2D >= go Vista

It's a new OS with more stuff in it, it's not so strange it demands more from your computer. Drivers were a bit borked at the beginning but that's NOT MS's fault at all, vendors had the time to make good drivers from the Beta's and RTM till release but some just did not (creative, nvidia for example). Windows 7 will be great, it has the stable foundation Vista has, the drivers *SHOULD* be compatible and they have made the changes to the OS that should have been in since Windows Me, the things that make our life easier when working with computers.

chaosblade said,
And again i have to mention that Vista ran perfectly fine for me on an AthlonXP 2400+ with 1GB ram.

Then you aren't someone to be used as a viable example, you're a noob.

Hmmmmmmmm! Its interesting how the Windows Server line seems to work much better than the client (key word here being BETTER). I just don't know where the bloat in the client versions comes from and why. Yeah I hear someone coughing up about user experience and M$ user apps and stuff but eish!!? Some of this eye candy is killing M$. I'm using VISTA and it seems to work very fine for me. Honestly I disabled UAC within an hour of getting my new laptop and then upgraded it to 3GB RAM and I've almost forgotten why I almost removed VISTA and installed XP (Ofcourse the laptop came with 1GB so it was pathetically slow and I'd already installed all my working applications SQL Server/VS 08/MySQL/PHP/Apache) and I'd transfered most of my files from the XP laptop. I'd also gone ahead and done some development and ... With time I'm used to it. Except if M$ botched VISTA and are release W7 as a cover for VISTA they should have made a plan for those running VISTA already. Maybe make it an SP?????

Do applications work on VISTA - some stats
I work for a company called ChangeBASE that has developed a product called AOK to report on whether apps will run on an operating system and then fix most of the issues - mainly by creating a transform file based on the origional installation script (often in MSI format)
We have an app compatibility lab with c. 1000 apps. Our findings are:-
c. 30 percent of apps run fine on VISTA
c. 65 percent need some 'tweaking' to work fully on VISTA
c. 5 percent need some code changes which the developer needs do do
So the bulk of app compat issues are not in the hands of Microsoft but the software vendor/developer
Regarding Windows 7 - we have had an early preview of this and most VISTA compatibility issues will still be there with Windows 7 - so if you are delaying going to VISTA to avoid these problems you won't get away with it

osirisX said,
Someone please shut Ballmer up. A gag will do just fine.

I can't hear what mutter from under the Steeeeeve Jobs' desk. Are you gagged with something?

RealFduch said,
I can't hear what mutter from under the Steeeeeve Jobs' desk. Are you gagged with something?

You couldn't hear my mutters but yet you replied

Most believe that Windows 7 should be considered Vista Release 2 (R2) or Vista SP2 . So thats what Ballmer means when he says: Great if you can start on Vista now and 'upgrade' later, as transition will be easier; or else its fine if you wish to wait for Windows7.

When people say "I don't want it. I don't know why." the most logical thing is to say "I improved something. I won't tell you what. You'll like it better."

hagjohn said,
Tired of the trolls... if you think Windows 7 is going to be much different in "feel" than vista, your crazy.

The feel of less resources i guess is crazy?

What, only ONE troll post from the known troll flamers? I'm impressed. Maybe Mojave did improve things after all.

Nothing new to this "news" article, really. Software is always a work in progress, always being improved.

huh, i have vista home premium x64 on my gateway laptop and it works like a dream, i have used vista since i beta testing days and while the rtm build still had some file copy bugs it still was better than xp imo. Since then sp1 has fixed that problem and the only issue i occasionally have is the network stack. Sometimes it acts a bit funny when i unplug and plug in some routers. Takes some disabling and enabling to accurately connect to the router.

Anyway, im looking forward to Windows 7. Will be beta testing it and will have it as main os for sure at RTM.

Would you believe that the only driver issue I had with Vista was for the VX 3000 webcam (Just out as well at the time.) from Microsoft? [rollseyes]

mrp: Do you realize what you just said? The same thing that I have been trying to point out since Vista launched; most of the issues with Vista are the fault of IHVs amd hardware OEMs writing Drivers That Suck.

-Manufacturer :Hi MS, can i sell a notebook with XP?.
-MS :no, xp is out, you must sell with vista. Vista or bust.
-Manufacturer :But its just a 1gb notebook.
-MS :Vista runs fine with 1gb.
-Manufacturer :But i don't have the network and video driver drivers right now.
-MS :like i care.
-Manufacturer :Hi Nvidia, do you have ready the video driver?.
-Nvidia :No, just wait a "couple" of month.
-Manufacturer :Hi Intel, do you have ready the network driver?.
-Intel :hell no, im still waiting the driver specification from part of MS.

Later and without the correct drivers, the manufacturer sell the notebook without any decent driver and still with a "Vista capable" Logo granted by MS.

Magallanes said,
-Manufacturer :Hi Intel, do you have ready the network driver?.
-Intel :hell no, im still waiting the driver specification from part of MS.

Later and without the correct drivers, the manufacturer sell the notebook without any decent driver and still with a "Vista capable" Logo granted by MS.


Are you hired by Intel, Mr. Little Liar?

This is FAR beyond a ridiculous, irritating joke now. Vista is FINE, has always BEEN FINE and all the FUD about it is frankly BIZARRE and propaganda like. Vista has been out a while now and at this point I think most people COULD wait for Windows 7 but then AGAIN - THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH VISTA <- Anyone hear that?

I agree. I used to be against vista before SP1. my compaq had all the necessary technology required to run vista but yet couldn't. with the release of SP1, and a bios upgrade from HP, Vista runs like a charm. SP2 could however include speed improvements as it still runs a bit slow. MS has changed my attitude towards vista now

ChrisJ1968 said,
I agree. I used to be against vista before SP1. my compaq had all the necessary technology required to run vista but yet couldn't. with the release of SP1, and a bios upgrade from HP, Vista runs like a charm. SP2 could however include speed improvements as it still runs a bit slow. MS has changed my attitude towards vista now

Honestly, SP1 didn't bring much of an improvement in speed. Your drivers probably just weren't good yet.

alsheron said,
AGAIN - THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH VISTA

If there is nothing wrong with Vista, then tell me why is it that 95% of the people out there want it off their PC.

I just did 2 again this week, a Dell and an Acer. Both were laptop with a Celeron D (single-core) and 1 Gig of RAM. And it was just the Home Basic version. They were so slow, it was unbelievable. In XP they look like little bomb. What the hell are they thinking about ?

Captain555 said,
I just did 2 again this week, a Dell and an Acer. Both were laptop with a Celeron D (single-core) and 1 Gig of RAM. And it was just the Home Basic version. They were so slow, it was unbelievable. In XP they look like little bomb. What the hell are they thinking about ?

I ran Vista Ultimate just fine on a P4 with 1GB RAM. The crap that is pre-installed on those machines is what slows them down.

Captain555 said,
I just did 2 again this week, a Dell and an Acer. Both were laptop with a Celeron D (single-core) and 1 Gig of RAM. And it was just the Home Basic version. They were so slow, it was unbelievable. In XP they look like little bomb. What the hell are they thinking about ?

I was under the impression that the GPU was the main factor as to if Vista ran fast or slow. Though I'd definately want 1GB of RAM - at least - if I ran Vista (which I don't).

Captain555 said,

If there is nothing wrong with Vista, then tell me why is it that 95% of the people out there want it off their PC.

I just did 2 again this week, a Dell and an Acer. Both were laptop with a Celeron D (single-core) and 1 Gig of RAM. And it was just the Home Basic version. They were so slow, it was unbelievable. In XP they look like little bomb. What the hell are they thinking about ?

I can make up statistics too, but I'm not going to bother.

Captain555 said,
If there is nothing wrong with Vista, then tell me why is it that 95% of the people out there want it off their PC.

Because most people I've encountered are too damn lazy to bother with learning the new interface. Normal people like to be stuck inside their comfort zone, and when things change on them they flip out. For example, my brother used Vista for 5 minutes, if that, before bitching about how he doesn't like it.

Also, it doesn't help with all the FUD floating around. When people come in (tech support at school) and request a reformat, I ask XP or Vista? They always say "XP, I've heard Vista is bad." That's it. No evidence to back it up.

Additionally, a lot of people's Vista experience has been crapped up with pre-loaded software from OEMs. This is a practice that REALLY needs to stop. No one likes it except the OEMs themselves, because they get paid.

That's why people request to go back.

Captain555 said,

If there is nothing wrong with Vista, then tell me why is it that 95% of the people out there want it off their PC.

I just did 2 again this week, a Dell and an Acer. Both were laptop with a Celeron D (single-core) and 1 Gig of RAM. And it was just the Home Basic version. They were so slow, it was unbelievable. In XP they look like little bomb. What the hell are they thinking about ?


95%? Really? And if it is that high, it's simply because those same people are listening to all the negative publicity about it and figuring that it must be true. Like a buddy of mine who bought a new Dell Desktop PC and had them install xp on it. Why? Because another friend of his who had never even touched Vista said it was junk and that he should make sure that he has them put XP on his computer instead. Now his new computer which could easily run Vista is running a 7 year old OS, and there's nothing he can do about it. People do stuff like this based on ignorance, not knowledge. And where do you get the figure 95%? From all the people getting their computers from OEMs that fill it with so much junk that it crawls right out of the gate, and everyone blames Vista for it!

alsheron said,
This is FAR beyond a ridiculous, irritating joke now. Vista is FINE, has always BEEN FINE and all the FUD about it is frankly BIZARRE and propaganda like.

Not FUD and not ridiculous (although in many respects Vista is a joke). On some hardware, particularly high-end, Vista may run ok. It chews up more cycles so your power bill increases, but you probably don't care enough to notice that. As a user of one system, you don't see the entire universe of systems that Vista ships on. Laptops in particular have limited resources compared to desktops, but M$ doesn't care, they demand all OEMs ship Vista (XP can't ship except as a downgrade, a bureaucratic mess). M$ has conceded that Vista is a wasteful memory hog by allowing netbook OEMs to ship XP out of the factory. They need to allow any OEM to make their own choice between XP or Vista.

I develop apps for XP and Vista and it's a nightmare. M$ broke so many things that much of the code has to have parallel streams, one for XP and another for Vista. It makes things a mess. We have to support Vista because alot of systems ship with it, and at the same time we can't ignore the established base of XP users. M$ could have done this alot better (sandboxes, API wrappers, etc...). They dropped the ball big time with Vista. Users don't understand all the shiite that goes on underneath, and you shouldn't have to of course. But don't blanketly say that Vista is "fine" out of ignorance.

Peas said,

Not FUD and not ridiculous (although in many respects Vista is a joke). On some hardware, particularly high-end, Vista may run ok. It chews up more cycles so your power bill increases, but you probably don't care enough to notice that.

Vista runs better than XP even on my old Athlon 64 3200+.
Vista has more effiicient power management.
Peas said,
As a user of one system, you don't see the entire universe of systems that Vista ships on. Laptops in particular have limited resources compared to desktops

And Vista is much better for laptops than XP.

Peas said,
, but M

What did you want to say? The end-of-post sentinel symbol was encountered while parsing the FUD post.

Captain555 said,

If there is nothing wrong with Vista, then tell me why is it that 95% of the people out there want it off their PC.

I just did 2 again this week, a Dell and an Acer. Both were laptop with a Celeron D (single-core) and 1 Gig of RAM. And it was just the Home Basic version. They were so slow, it was unbelievable. In XP they look like little bomb. What the hell are they thinking about ?


Having crap like Norton on your laptop is no excuse for being a dumb liar.
Put your percents back to the place where you took them from. where the sun never shines.

devHead said,
And where do you get the figure 95%? From all the people getting their computers from OEMs that fill it with so much junk that it crawls right out of the gate, and everyone blames Vista for it!

Even with all the crapware remove and the pc tuned-up, it's still a crawler compare to the same PC running XP.

I did the test myself. I have 2 PC in my showroom side by side. Both the same, Asus mobo, Athlon x2 3800+, 2 Gig ram, 160 Gig SATA2 drive, Geforce 6150SE. One is running XP Home and one running Vista Home Basic. It's not even funny how slower Vista is. I have this little demonstration with a free game that came with a Kingston USB flash drive, called Atlantis. You would sware the Vista PC is running on a Pentium 2. And there is no crapware in these 2 PCs. I've build them myself.

And before you start rambling about buying a bigger PC, these are the kind of PC the people where I live can afford. And that's what I sell. With XP. And everybody is happy.

Vista is a bust and it will be shelved.

Captain555 said,

Even with all the crapware remove and the pc tuned-up, it's still a crawler compare to the same PC running XP.

I did the test myself. I have 2 PC in my showroom side by side. Both the same, Asus mobo, Athlon x2 3800+, 2 Gig ram, 160 Gig SATA2 drive, Geforce 6150SE. One is running XP Home and one running Vista Home Basic. It's not even funny how slower Vista is. I have this little demonstration with a free game that came with a Kingston USB flash drive, called Atlantis. You would sware the Vista PC is running on a Pentium 2. And there is no crapware in these 2 PCs. I've build them myself.

And before you start rambling about buying a bigger PC, these are the kind of PC the people where I live can afford. And that's what I sell. With XP. And everybody is happy.

Vista is a bust and it will be shelved.


It's still not a reason to lie. Even with all the anti-MS trolls that haunt Neowin 75% of people are happy with Vista. In the outside world this number is obviously much higher. Just admit that you were lying and apologize before the Neowin members.

P.S. Athlon 64 3200+; 2Gb DDR I RAM; GF 7600GT. Vista is clearly more responsive and much more stable than XP. Maybe your hatred is working against you?

Perhaps you are so slow yourself that you don't notice how much slower vista is over xp because your won lag in your mind is preventing it. Plus stupid people are attracted to shiney objects.

Ender2070 said,
Perhaps you are so slow yourself that you don't notice how much slower vista is over xp because your won lag in your mind is preventing it. Plus stupid people are attracted to shiney objects.

LOL

RealFduch said,

Having crap like Norton on your laptop is no excuse for being a dumb liar.
Put your percents back to the place where you took them from. where the sun never shines.

Vista need 4gb of ram to compete with XP and 1gb

well , let's be honest... with the state of the economy right now many companies (big and small) will probably have better things to spend their money on right now than an operating system upgrade.

Beastage said,
MS still sells tons of XP and Vista copies... for all they care, as long as they sell... they sell...


The problem with windows begins to be that MS needs more control over it, this is something that Apple understood... bad 3rd party software causes people to blame the OS.

Wanted to edit ... got a quote

Beastage said,
The problem with windows begins to be that MS needs more control over it, this is something that Apple understood... bad 3rd party software causes people to blame the OS.

Actually the problem with Windows is that it's closed-source, and the vast majority of apps written for it are also closed. Why is that a big deal, you may ask? Because when MS tries to fix bugs or enhance the OS, some (most?) of the apps may break. Companies have no incentive to do the work of recompiling and packaging their software unless there's a significant financial return. That means alot of older but very useful apps get abandoned. It also ties Microsoft's hands when it comes to changing the OS.

Microsoft doesn't need more control over software. The reason Windows is so popular is mostly because of the established base of apps. If development were limited like on Apple's platforms, the pace of development would decline. Unfortunately M$ is already taking this approach, requiring OEMs to ship signed applications, much like signed drivers that are only allowed if they pass M$'s tests. Their "OEM Readiness" program goes into effect Jan 1 '09. Google it for details.