Windows 7, are we really ready?

[Steven P. Administrators]

It took almost 10 years to migrate from 16 bit legacy to 32 bit true OS (and hardware), the same could be said about 64 bit migration, it won't be widely adopted until at least 2012 which will be exactly 10 years after it was made widely available with Windows XP 64bit, not counting Windows 2000 Itanium

[Boeing 787]

It took almost 10 years to migrate from 16 bit legacy to 32 bit true OS (and hardware), the same could be said about 64 bit migration, it won't be widely adopted until at least 2012 which will be exactly 10 years after it was made widely available with Windows XP 64bit, not counting Windows 2000 Itanium

What a waste of time Itanium 64 was....if only they could get back all that money they invested in that thing.

[Mr. Dee]

What a waste of time Itanium 64 was....if only they could get back all that money they invested in that thing.

No, its not a waste of time, its used in different markets such as Database, OLTP and other intensive server based task. The Windows XP for Itanium based systems simply failed to catch on because it was: Incompatible with x86 based software, expensive and was not widely adopted by the developer community, not to mention the introduction of the x86-x64 processor from AMD and Intels eventual adoption of the instruction added to their class of x86 based CPUs which pretty much made Windows XP for Itanium based systems irrelevant.

Itanium on the server remains a viable solution for businesses who want cheap RISC based computing compared to traditional competitors such as SUNs Sparc or IBM's Power.

[Victor V.]

What's the point of getting a newer OS? Are there things XP or Vista can't do? What do you need Windows 7 for?

Do you want a more flexible OS? Faster? Better looking?

I'm happy, because I can run all the software I want to run. I don't need more than that.

Dont make of yourself such a coward.

@topic Hmm, I don't see the point of such hype about Windows 7. You say it like if it was going to be launched tomorrow. Concerning technology, a whole bunch of things WILL change between now and 2010. We have barely started the year and already got super thin/small chips (Macbook Air and Intel rumour of selling retail chips). Of course, researches might have started by 2007, but by 2006 it was most likely not even thought yet. You guys are in slow-motion, and that sucks.

Now, looking after Windows 7 right now is really, really useless. We don't know what will happen, nor do Microsoft. Not to mention that a company that wants to make money and be successful will always be making new improvements for their products. I wouldn't actually be surprised if Windows 7 research had started before Vista was released.

I'm 14 and you look so much inexperienced =O

I disagree.

Everything is slowly moving to 64-bit, but alot of people just don't wan't to. For people who use computers just for general home use, probably wont want to spend alot of money going to a 64bit system as of yet, and if M$ are going to push OS updates onto users, then they will be forced to upgrade to 64bit, and won't be offered a 32 bit alt. When I say forced, I mean, as the OS moves on, older 32bit OS's (2000/XP/Vista) support/updates will be unsupported.

And that is the catch of technology and reason why 64bit will be adapted, prices get lower.

[Glowstick]

Wall of text.

Just because an operating system is old measured by its age of creation, doesn't mean it's old in regards to technology used and implemented. The WinNT kernel is "object" based? Big whoop! Some other operating systems, which you would deem prehistoric, are also. I'm using Solaris and the current version I'm running is using "objects" all over the kernel, in a similar style.

And seriously, whether applications are using Unix sockets or RPC calls to communicate, where's the difference? It's just semantics. Your mentioned pipes and text messages however only apply to shell scripting.

(--edit: PS, "objects" is just an fancy term for data structures, just like Gnome isn't object oriented.)

Edited January 31, 2008 by Tom Servo

[1Frothy]

Let's see Windows 7 before we decide how good it is.

Or let's judge Windows 7 by a pre beta, Milestone 1 build. :p j/k

[Windam]

You're not ready..

Go buy another PC..

[Izlude]

I'm still mad nobody gave windows ME a chance, it hadn't even reached full functionality!!! Why do we need to do the same to Vista?

[Windam]

I'm still mad nobody gave windows ME a chance, it hadn't even reached full functionality!!! Why do we need to do the same to Vista?

Because Vista isn't crap..

[Tews]

I'm still mad nobody gave windows ME a chance, it hadn't even reached full functionality!!! Why do we need to do the same to Vista?

Yer kidding me right?? :wacko:

[Stokkolm]

I'm still mad nobody gave windows ME a chance, it hadn't even reached full functionality!!! Why do we need to do the same to Vista?

People didn't give Windows ME a chance because it was a dying breed. Microsoft is going back to their normal release schedule with Windows 7. It will be released 3-4 years after Vista, same thing happened with Windows 95 to 98 and 98 to XP. ME was just a throw in to try and make some extra money, IMO.

[Izlude]

It was a gag post, i had to see the replies :) but yeah... Vista's pretty good. I have a system rating of 1.0 due to my graphics card on 2 of my boxes but they're very productive. Don't believe the rating system is all that accurage anyway. I'm fine with using it right now.

I think if Windows 7 comes out that it should require high specs and refuse to install on legacy hardware! For those who want to push on and leave legacy users with Vista and XP they can move to Windows 7. That way both OS' will sell. People who want something new can go with 7, while people still using XP and old hardware can decide if they want to up it to Vista once they feel ready for such a move, as they claim they cannot afford high end gizmos.

That's it! That's it! Vista is for legacy users while 7 can be for the high end hardware only crowd! It's perfect!

[Scorbing]

Not another version of Windows please. We have enough with Vista already. MS needs to focus on fixing Vista instead of thinking about another OS.