Do we really need Windows 7

[Linkinfamous]

Agreed but its safe to trust unexperienced or shady programmers. Im sure nobody here is unaware of corrupted registry problems in the past :(

Im not blaming MS for this, I just think that a more secure way can be found.

As Brandon pointed out, you don't modify the registry directly. So you can't exactly 'corrupt' it by writing garbage to the file, or anything.

I guess you could do something nasty like delete the entire Software key or something. But the registry is no more vulnerable to that kind of hit than a config-file setup is to something deleting the entire configuration directory.

[jjrambo]

So basically you're saying Windows 7 should be free. That the product of years worth of work by thousands and thousands of people, with millions upon millions of dollars in R&D and engineering, should be given away for free...

Sorry, things just don't work that way.

XP SP2 was a special one-time thing. Don't count on it ever happening again.

As for whether you "really need" Windows 7, ask me again after we ship beta (if you still have any doubts, that is).

I'm not saying Windows 7 should be free. I'm saying that Windows 7 is going to use driver model as Vista for example. The bottom line is that any App which worked under Vista will perfectly work fine under Windows 7 unless something radical is done with Windows 7. We are almost in June, 2008. Windows 7 in my opinion will be shipped around January, 2010. That's less the 2 years from now.

I don't think that there will be a big gap between Windows 7 and Windows Vista. As far as DirectX. That's gonna evolve from DX10.0 and Audio Support in Windows 7 will be quite different then in Windows Vista. As far as GUI, we are staying with Aero/Glass but whole GUI will be redone, and it should be. Basically groundwork is already done with Vista, now Windows 7 will explore, patch, fix and expand that work.

Vista compated to XP was revolutionary step for Windows, and Windows 7 is more like Evolution from Windows Vista. I think one of the key features of Windows 7 is better connectivity then other Windows release, improved and intuitive security, new GUI interface (look and feel), new IE, WMP, Evolved DX etc, Hmmm not sure where is Microsoft with WinFS. I'm sure parts of it are already in Vista.

[MMaster23]

I'm not saying Windows 7 should be free. I'm saying that Windows 7 is going to use driver model as Vista for example. The bottom line is that any App which worked under Vista will perfectly work fine under Windows 7 unless something radical is done with Windows 7. We are almost in June, 2008. Windows 7 in my opinion will be shipped around January, 2010. That's less the 2 years from now.

I don't think that there will be a big gap between Windows 7 and Windows Vista. As far as DirectX. That's gonna evolve from DX10.0 and Audio Support in Windows 7 will be quite different then in Windows Vista. As far as GUI, we are staying with Aero/Glass but whole GUI will be redone, and it should be. Basically groundwork is already done with Vista, now Windows 7 will explore, patch, fix and expand that work.

Vista compated to XP was revolutionary step for Windows, and Windows 7 is more like Evolution from Windows Vista. I think one of the key features of Windows 7 is better connectivity then other Windows release, improved and intuitive security, new GUI interface (look and feel), new IE, WMP, Evolved DX etc, Hmmm not sure where is Microsoft with WinFS. I'm sure parts of it are already in Vista.

Wow .. you mean like .. older parts get like re-used in the new product? wow! How dare they!

Guys .. just stop posting .. we can't even begin to judge Win7 because we don't know anything.

Try new slimmer kernel, new Media Center, Castles/HomeGroups etc .. nothing has been announced but I'm sure it's no bugfix release which you're claiming it will be.

As Brandon said .. SP2 was a one time thing ...

Tnx Brandon btw ^^

[jjrambo]

Wow .. you mean like .. older parts get like re-used in the new product? wow! How dare they!

Guys .. just stop posting .. we can't even begin to judge Win7 because we don't know anything.

Try new slimmer kernel, new Media Center, Castles/HomeGroups etc .. nothing has been announced but I'm sure it's no bugfix release which you're claiming it will be.

As Brandon said .. SP2 was a one time thing ...

Tnx Brandon btw ^^

SP2 was a one time thing but it proved to be one of the best thing Microsoft did for the last 7 years.

[MMaster23]

SP2 was a one time thing but it proved to be one of the best thing Microsoft did for the last 7 years.

That's funny .. I was thinking the same about Windows Vista, Vista MCE, Office 2007 system, Server 2008 etc...

SP2 was great .. but it's not the best thing MS has done lately...

[Menge]

i don't think we need Windows 7, but how knows... Microsoft might come up with something new and cool and we might find that we actually can't live anymore without that (much like Expos? in Panther and Spotlight in Tiger).

[Mr. Gibs]

Hell no. We don't need Vista, XP, 2000, OS X, etc etc

Lets all go back to windows 98...

[Rebdomine]

Hell no. We don't need Vista, XP, 2000, OS X, etc etc

Lets all go back to windows 98...

That "joke" is getting old man.. and it sucks.. Win98 can't run with the newest hardware at all and is not optimized for it at all either. Vista is. So thats why the guy asks if we really need it, which we dont.. Good thing i dont buy my OS's..

[Mr. Gibs]

That "joke" is getting old man.. and it sucks.. Win98 can't run with the newest hardware at all and is not optimized for it at all either. Vista is. So thats why the guy asks if we really need it, which we dont.. Good thing i dont buy my OS's..

But then XP is optimized for it too, OSX is optimized for it too. So why change? Why spend money building updates to your programs and operating systems?

It's basically like saying why don't we all go back to Office 2000...it does everything we need.

Also I like your ending...you complain as if buying an OS every 3-5 years and paying what 150-200usd for it is costing you so much. Great.

[Lasker]

I think Microsoft want people to spend money in unnecessary upgrades, lets face it, XP was launched to the market in 2001, at that time XP was neccesary because Windows 2000 was launched for the business market, Windows 2000 was not created with the home users in mind. So, the launch of XP was need it because they launched in 2000 Windows ME, which was a failure. Why? because one year early they have Windows 98 SE which at that time was the best Windows, Windows ME failed to beat Windows 98 SE in the market. Now Windows XP was launched with the home users in mind and for the first time with the NTFS platform. We have now Vista which is basically a minor update to XP, there is really not to much differences, the only differences noticeable is new icons, few new tools but nothing really amazing that make an user to upgrade. With Windows 7, I hope Microsoft really re-design the whole Windows architecture into a new platform which people will be able to trust again, be more faster, less memory resource and possible virus free with the new system files. This of course is a dream that maybe impossible to accomplish in 3 years of development.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

why do people perpetuate this kind of stuff?

"do we need more than 640k of RAM?"

"why does anyone need a hard drive bigger than 1GB?!"

"Windows XP is the best thing evar!!1 why do we need Vista or any other successor?!"

"my Pentium 2 300MHz cpu does everything i need it to!"

c'mon.

[Galley]

If Microsoft wants to earn my respect, they need create an OS from scratch (for real this time).

[ANON86364]

Most uneducated people's opinion's are that we don't need a new version of Windows every so many years. The fact is though, that we do. Vista is neccessary as will be Windows 7. There is no way for you to have educated opinions on what Windows 7 will include, what GUI changes there will be, and what release date there will be. I mean come on how would you know this? You don't so this thread is pointless, other than the purpose to talk more trash on how Microsoft is in it to annoy the end users and make loads of cash. I would bet that Windows 7 is actually going to be cheaper than previous version as Microsoft wants to increase the frequency of releases and get some subscription service going. But my opinion holds no truth and isn't worth 2 cents. Same as this thread.

[bjoswald]

This is actually a very serious question. I'm happy with Vista, so I hope they spend more time helping it mature before "jumping ship" and starting over. I was shocked to discover the news of the announcement for 'Windows 7' so soon. If they [MS] are truly determined to change the way we use computers, that's awesome. But if they're grinding out "Vista 2.0" to save shareholders and corporate face, I think I'll pass.

[Srsly]

How would we know if we really need it. Before Vista was launched, did we know if we needed Vista? The answer is clear now.

But one day they will stop supporting Windows. I mean, would you dare to use Windows 98/2000 as your main OS now, if you dont look at the compatibility? Neh its too unsafe.

So we need to move on, but first lets see if Windows 7 will not be another Vista, because then i will buy a mac :p Ok thats a joke offcourse :D

[Linkinfamous]

If Microsoft wants to earn my respect, they need create an OS from scratch (for real this time).

I'm sure with their billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of customers, your respect is on the top of their wishlist.

[jjrambo]

That's funny .. I was thinking the same about Windows Vista, Vista MCE, Office 2007 system, Server 2008 etc...

SP2 was great .. but it's not the best thing MS has done lately...

To be honest. The best OS release was Windows XP X64 Edition, and Windows 2000 Professional. Microsoft Vista is great, and it has problems, but nothing is perfect. Maybe my question should be reformulated.

Is Windows 7 bringing enough to justify a desicion to be called as Windows 7 and not as Windows Vista SP2?

I have feelings that is more to get rid of name Windows Vista which already has bad image, a no bussiness wants to adapt it.

I'm sure with their billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of customers, your respect is on the top of their wishlist.

Making OS from scratch. Hmmm that's hell of job and Microsoft would probably need at least 5 years for something like that.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I think Microsoft want people to spend money in unnecessary upgrades, lets face it, XP was launched to the market in 2001, at that time XP was neccesary because Windows 2000 was launched for the business market, Windows 2000 was not created with the home users in mind. So, the launch of XP was need it because they launched in 2000 Windows ME, which was a failure. Why? because one year early they have Windows 98 SE which at that time was the best Windows, Windows ME failed to beat Windows 98 SE in the market. Now Windows XP was launched with the home users in mind and for the first time with the NTFS platform. We have now Vista which is basically a minor update to XP, there is really not to much differences, the only differences noticeable is new icons, few new tools but nothing really amazing that make an user to upgrade. With Windows 7, I hope Microsoft really re-design the whole Windows architecture into a new platform which people will be able to trust again, be more faster, less memory resource and possible virus free with the new system files. This of course is a dream that maybe impossible to accomplish in 3 years of development.

Wait... you think XP was a major upgrade to Windows 2000, but that Vista was a "minor update to XP?"

Give me a break. Half the OS was rewritten for Vista. That's why it has the compatibility reputation it does.

[PL_ Veteran]

I'd like to see components less hardcoded into the OS...I guess I've just been spoiled by Linux and Mac but it feels strange how I can't remove WMP or IE.

There are some other problems, like GUI inconsistencies for example. Its true that every OS have them, but: Just because others do it then its perfectly fine to have them?

My god. Especially in 3rd party apps this is where it's worst. What is this? Seriously? Why does your ****ty little app need a custom skin? It serves no purpose other than to provide a terribly inconsistent GUI and confusing interface.

[ViperAFK]

Wait... you think XP was a major upgrade to Windows 2000, but that Vista was a "minor update to XP?"

Give me a break. Half the OS was rewritten for Vista. That's why it has the compatibility reputation it does.

QFT! There was a LOT more changed under the hood in vista then there was from 2000 to XP.

I'd like to see components less hardcoded into the OS...I guess I've just been spoiled by Linux and Mac but it feels strange how I can't remove WMP or IE.

My god. Especially in 3rd party apps this is where it's worst. What is this? Seriously? Why does your ****ty little app need a custom skin? It serves no purpose other than to provide a terribly inconsistent GUI and confusing interface.

Definitely agree there, I would like to see more native apps, I really enjoy the consistent look of linux and OSX apps but windows apps are for the most part visually an unorganized mess. And there are some programs out there with ugly as hell custom skins that would look much better native.

[abcdefg]

Give me a break. Half the OS was rewritten for Vista. That's why it has the compatibility reputation it does.

I don't think there's as much new code as half. But doesn't that mean we should only pay half price? :p

[ViperAFK]

I don't think there's as much new code as half. But doesn't that mean we should only pay half price? :p

They pretty much scrapped what they were working on in the middle of development because the codebase was becoming too hard to maintain and they did rewrite a LOT of it which is why vista took so long to come out.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

They pretty much scrapped what they were working on in the middle of development because the codebase was becoming too hard to maintain and they did rewrite a LOT of it which is why vista took so long to come out.

QFT - That's what I understood.

[jphillips59]

I don't think we need Windows 7 if Microsoft commits to a real performance effort on Windows Vista. The biggest complaint I hear and most people have heard is performance. They need to address this head on with Windows Vista and not wait till Windows 7 to do this.

They need to redo all the Windows Logo programs to include a performance metric and they then need to rebarnd it and make it have a new name like Windows Ultimate Experience or something ....so that they have a carrot to get vendors to go back though the logo compliance with this additional metric.

Josh

WindowsConnected.com

[reactionary007]

Run XP for a while and you'll realize why we "really needed" Vista.... NOT!

I was thinking about the early nineties the other day and was waiting for an oppurtunity!

:)