Brandon Live Veteran Posted October 24, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 24, 2008 Agreed. After Vista you'd think MS would get totally away from the look and feel but if they are continuing to build on Vista then why not just call it Vista SP3. That's like saying that Windows 2000 should've just been Windows NT 4 SP6 or something. Or that Leopard should've been OS X 10.4.7. Or that Windows 3.1 was just Windows 1.0 SP4. It's a ridiculous thing to say, especially when you haven't even seen Win7 yet. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590014932 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soldiers33 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 any screenshots of the desktop and stuff? Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590015732 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 That's like saying that Windows 2000 should've just been Windows NT 4 SP6 or something. Or that Leopard should've been OS X 10.4.7. Or that Windows 3.1 was just Windows 1.0 SP4. It's a ridiculous thing to say, especially when you haven't even seen Win7 yet. When it's M. Balmer that goes on to say that Win7 will be Vista but better.... Oh yes he did, it was posted a while ago. So, when we remember that WinXP SP2 did bring new stuff in the OS, why would Win7 not be Vista SP3 ?? Vista was the Duke Nuken of the OS, it took a long while to turn gold. With the short dev cycle of Win7, it's not going to be a revolution, just evolution. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590015970 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted October 24, 2008 Global Moderator Share Posted October 24, 2008 this whole naming scheme e-fight is retarded.... reminds me of that special olympics picture. it's just the name of an operating system people. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590016036 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 this whole naming scheme e-fight is retarded.... reminds me of that special olympics picture. it's just the name of an operating system people. The fight is not only because of a name, you see, you're going to pay to get Win7... If it was SP3 for Vista, it would be free, like the SP2 for WinXP, even if it was a major SP. It's the money milking process that Microsoft puts on that irritate me. We are going to pay to have what Vista should have been from day 1. So they failed to bring tons of money with Vista, they are going to try it again with Win7. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590016210 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee99 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 When it's M. Balmer that goes on to say that Win7 will be Vista but better.... Oh yes he did, it was posted a while ago. So, when we remember that WinXP SP2 did bring new stuff in the OS, why would Win7 not be Vista SP3 ??Vista was the Duke Nuken of the OS, it took a long while to turn gold. With the short dev cycle of Win7, it's not going to be a revolution, just evolution. Windows XP was basically Windows 2000, but better. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590016416 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dee Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 When it's M. Balmer that goes on to say that Win7 will be Vista but better.... Oh yes he did, it was posted a while ago. So, when we remember that WinXP SP2 did bring new stuff in the OS, why would Win7 not be Vista SP3 ??Vista was the Duke Nuken of the OS, it took a long while to turn gold. With the short dev cycle of Win7, it's not going to be a revolution, just evolution. Actually, Windows Vista was developed within a normal time frame. Windows XP - October 2000 to August 2001 = 11 months Windows Vista - August 2005 to November 2006 - 18 months What confuses people is 2003 to August 2004 period when Longhorn was in alpha. The project was reset and they started over. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590016864 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 The fight is not only because of a name, you see, you're going to pay to get Win7... If it was SP3 for Vista, it would be free, like the SP2 for WinXP, even if it was a major SP.It's the money milking process that Microsoft puts on that irritate me. We are going to pay to have what Vista should have been from day 1. So they failed to bring tons of money with Vista, they are going to try it again with Win7. You think Vista is a commercial failure, or something? It's not even a bad OS, but I doubt that'll convince you. No, Windows 7 is way more than XP SP2 was. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590017366 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Actually, Windows Vista was developed within a normal time frame.Windows XP - October 2000 to August 2001 = 11 months Windows Vista - August 2005 to November 2006 - 18 months What confuses people is 2003 to August 2004 period when Longhorn was in alpha. The project was reset and they started over. I know about the code reset, but still, It took them a while anyway... Code reset = bad project direction? I'm running Vista Ultimate x64. I don't have any problem with it, but will all the buzz around WinXP, how Microsoft is keeping it alive longer than they would like, how business did not buy into Vista, .... I guess it could be called a failure. I'm just afraid that Win7 will not offer anything revolutionary. Only a better Vista. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590017410 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dee Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Its interesting that people would call Windows 7 SP3 without even actually experiencing it. As some have said, I guess Windows XP would Windows 2000 SP5 since its actually NT 5.1. We need to look beyond the kernel version. Its about the experiences that are built on top of it. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590017424 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 No, Windows 7 is way more than XP SP2 was. How do you know that? It's not even in Beta.... Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590017426 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 How do you know that? It's not even in Beta.... Because it's already more than SP2 was? SP2 just had a security overhaul, not new features like multi-touch, revamped interfaces, etc. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590017800 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dee Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Because it's already more than SP2 was? SP2 just had a security overhaul, not new features like multi-touch, revamped interfaces, etc. Actually SP2 for XP was a significant update that even made some changes to the kernel for security sake. This even introduced some incompatibilities. I remember NERO requiring an update to work again, so did some security products from Symantec and McAfee. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590017828 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Actually SP2 for XP was a significant update that even made some changes to the kernel for security sake. This even introduced some incompatibilities. I remember NERO requiring an update to work again, so did some security products from Symantec and McAfee. Yes, but that's not "features". Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018028 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted October 24, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 24, 2008 If Win7 wasn't coming out for another 3-4yrs you'd see everyone upgrading to Vista in another year or 2. With XP SP2 not coming out till like what, 2004 that's when most people jumped on and not after reading much about it and other testing. XP came out in 2001 and that's why it is where it is now. There's no way in hell most of you here and other businesses will be using XP in 2011 unless it's just on some old machine. I can't tell when last i saw Windows 98 or 2000 anywhere. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018048 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dee Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Yes, but that's not "features". Hmm: Windows Security Center Internet Explorer 6 with Pop-Up Blocker Internet Explorer Download Monitoring New Attachment Manager New Windows Firewall turned on by Default Automatic Update Enhancements Improved Wireless Support Improved Bluetooth support for devices Sure, there were no features in Windows XP SP2. :rolleyes: If Win7 wasn't coming out for another 3-4yrs you'd see everyone upgrading to Vista in another year or 2. With XP SP2 not coming out till like what, 2004 that's when most people jumped on and not after reading much about it and other testing. XP came out in 2001 and that's why it is where it is now. There's no way in hell most of you here and other businesses will be using XP in 2011 unless it's just on some old machine. I can't tell when last i saw Windows 98 or 2000 anywhere. I will agree that you rarely see Windows 98 machines, but there are still quite a few Windows 2000 system still around. Just last month I had to decommission up to 30 of them and I have at least 70 more to go. In addition to that, businesses are well known for slower upgrade cycles. Those 2000 machines we replaced are not preloaded with Vista Business, but with Windows XP Professional. We do have downgrade rights and all the systems come with Vista media. But because we are still using certain applications that have not been upgraded, we are taking a more cautious approach. Vista is on the agenda, but not until after Service Pack 2 is released and more testing. Give us until about 2010 to 2011 and then again, it will be phased. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018352 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hmm:Windows Security Center Internet Explorer 6 with Pop-Up Blocker Internet Explorer Download Monitoring New Attachment Manager New Windows Firewall turned on by Default Automatic Update Enhancements Improved Wireless Support Improved Bluetooth support for devices Sure, there were no features in Windows XP SP2. :rolleyes: What, and you think that's what Windows 7 is going to be? Upgraded versions of IE, security and device support? Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018426 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dee Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 What, and you think that's what Windows 7 is going to be? Upgraded versions of IE, security and device support? My reply was in no relation to that. It was in relation to XP SP2 being a major update or not. I whole heartedly know that Windows 7 is a major release. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018570 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 My reply was in no relation to that. It was in relation to XP SP2 being a major update or not. I whole heartedly know that Windows 7 is a major release. Fair enough, I just don't really count that changes SP2 made as particularly important end-user features (which is what matters for Vista-->Win7). As security features, they were great though. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018706 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dee Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Fair enough, I just don't really count that changes SP2 made as particularly important end-user features (which is what matters for Vista-->Win7). As security features, they were great though. Are you reading what you are writing. When it comes to end-user features, end user experience comes first. If you have viruses, Trojans, pop ups interfering with your general computing experience, then its a bad end user experience. Which made the security changes in XP SP2 detrimental. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018924 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Are you reading what you are writing. When it comes to end-user features, end user experience comes first. If you have viruses, Trojans, pop ups interfering with your general computing experience, then its a bad end user experience. Which made the security changes in XP SP2 detrimental. No, I'm not saying that. Security is important - but Vista already has that. XP SP2 improved the security experience, Windows 7 has little need for that, so it's not comparable. Windows 7 is about doing things far more "useful" to the end users than preventing security problems. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/642483-windows-7-6519-leaked/page/5/#findComment-590018996 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts