It's all a
silly misunderstanding, we tell you. Microsoft has been holding fast to its "three years" development time frame for Windows 7
since forever, the problem is that it's never been clear when that three year period started. Well wonder no longer, Microsoft has finally officially confirmed that the three years started at Windows Vista's general availability release, which was January 30th, 2007. Obviously that doesn't mean will have Windows 7 on midnight of January 30th, 2010, but it does mean we can look forward to sometime within that year for a release. Microsoft plans to give an exact release date only once Windows 7 "meets its quality bar for release." Sounds like a good metric to go by, if you ask us.
[Thanks, Isaac]
posted Mar 13th 2008 10:10AM
Screw them. I'll still use XP.
It took me a great headache to adjust from XP to Vista. I don't want to know how hard it would be to adjust to that.
Personally, I would like MS to sell "bare" versions. Meaning it is windows 7, without the performance-eating crapola designs in it.
Boofuckinghoo?
I've been using Vista on my MacBook Pro since the day it came out and didn't have any problems w/ it. While it won't make me switch from OS X, its no worse then XP. If your 5 year old computer can't run it... well, get a new computer. Its like whining about your '95 Civic not being able to participate in the 24 Hours of Le Mans...
People just like you whined about XP when it came out. All about it requiring a whoopin 128MB of RAM compared to 16 which '98 required, and about how it couldn't run on your 200mhz P2 any more.
Sometimes it's nice to say "I told you so"
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/28/windows-7-isnt-headed-for-2009-says-microsoft-more-like-2011/
" That's the problem, no one but Engadget said 2011.
MS said 3 years. They didn't say 3 years from now, just 3 years, which is what they said 1 year ago when Vista came out. That means there are 2 years left.
I'm sure they are very happy for you to assume they mean 3 years from NOW, which means they can let you assume wrong, and then over-deliver when it ships in 2010, 3 years after Vista launched, just as they promised.
Then again, I am sure that hating MS will still be the "in" thing then too, so you will find a reason to bash why they lived up to the expectations I am certain."
" They said 3 years or so prior to Vista being released. You can find numerous times where it was stated something along the lines of "5 years is far too long between releases, we'll be going back to a 3 year release schedule." Taking into account that Vista has been out the door more than a year now, 3 years is actually 2010, so you were wrong about '01 and wrong about '11. It's ok, I know math can be hard."
@Michael LaFramboise, stfu,
People get mad when windows takes more ram for doing nothing. like right now, my vista is, idono doing some stupid search indexing crap that i will never use. yet i cant turn it off, and it hogs ram from my GAMES. you know GAMES, you mite not know what that is, you being a mac user, but games need an awful lot of power, and it sucks when vista is taking up 1/2 a gig of ram.
people like XP cuz there are less useless processes hogging the system.
Neal... ahaha.
Get over it.
seriously... isn't it a problem when they're moving on to a New OS without really addressing the problem that is Windows Vista? What makes me confident that they're going to get it right next time?
And besides... this means nothing... all it means is we can expect a few years of delays. I was hearing about "Longhorn" back in like 2001... 6 years later out pops Windows Vista.
@ Motokin
First of all the indexing and search feature kicks ass. Second if you don't want it then turn it off. Surprise! Yes, you can turn it off if you stop complaining!
@ Tom B
Windows 7 is completely new OS, it is going to be built from the ground up, not just XP with fancy themes, some new features and higher specs. Supposedly they are trying to optimise 7 for performance.
Congratulations on being unable to adjust to new technology. Idiot.
@Motoken
You say GAMES like games are important(while demonstrating you have no idea how Vista actually uses RAM).
@Cal
They said Vista was a completely new OS, but at it's core it's based on Windows Server 2003.
Vista uses all the available RAM it can get to pre-fetch files and perform background services that improve your experience. But the INSTANT any other program needs that RAM, it gives it back, meaning your game can have all 4GB if it needs it (minus the background operating system processes that keep your computer running). It's actually very smart - why not use all the RAM you have at any given time. It's more efficient.
@Juaquin
Exactly. We can only explain it so many times. The "ram hogging" and "resource hogging" comes mainly from a service called Superfetch. It profiles you, and loads components of commonly used programs into memory. That's why you may have 50+% ram usage at idle. But load up a heavy program, and notice that the ram usage doesn't increase as much as it should. Superfetch just released some of the ram it had been using. Also, if you use certain programs with great frequency, they will load faster and faster. Case in point, Visual Studio. I had XP on my laptop, and Visual studio started slowly. I replaced it with vista, and it still started slowly. But after a while, it started faster, and now it starts much *faster* than it did in XP.
By the way, the FOSS equivalent of Superfetch (prefetch) will be included in Hardy, I wonder if people will complain about that?
If you really want the illusion that more free ram will help your vista system, type "services" into the start menu search bar, and select services. Disable superfetch. Done.
I've heard some good things about Windows 7, and MS seems to be going the right way these days... As much as I'm never going to buy Vista, it's not quite as bad a some make it out to be. That said, when Minesweeper takes up ~70MiB of RAM to run, there is a slight problem. But hey - it looks pretty!
One person I mentioned that to joked about it running Minesweeper from v3.1, through a sequential series of emulators... thus justifying the overhead :P
If they do a decent job on v7, I will probably buy it eventually, but at heart, I'm a F/OSS guy.
xp sp2 for me unless this win7 has increased performance
I'm pretty sure SP3 will be out so if it's alright with you I'll upgrade to that.
Unfortunately, when support ends, it's not going to be very practical to use XP for long. You're definitely going to take a performance hit when MS stops patching all the sploits. I'm not saying anything about your skills personally, but the average person is going to get hit hard with malware when it can run free.
I hope you don't game, cause it'll suck when you try playing games that require 3gb's of RAM and 1GB of vRAM to run decent on that 32-bit OS. Seeing as how games now can use 2gb's of RAM and 512mb of vRAM now, that's not a stretch for 2 years away.
*Crosses fingers and hopes current PC can last 2 more years before upgrading...*
Umm... this is Microsoft we are talking about... that isn't really Windows 7... that is Windows 2017 with a 'Silent' 201 at the front. They are slyly telling you the real release date... rather than the fictional one that is generally off by quite a bit.
so the vista successor is out in less than two years?
From all the complains I have heard of Vista, should i hold off buying a new laptop for another 2 years?
but then, what if blu ray becomes obsolete by them..
Oh the confusion!!
a) Blu-Ray won't become obsolete in 2 years, if you see them in most consumer laptops in Q1 2010 is another story...
b) There are always new technologies down the line but the thing that I would imagine you WILL be seeing in laptops in the next 2 years is a rapid expansion of the use of SSDs
c) Check out Intel/AMD's roadmap
2010 isn't all that far off...
I have used vista 3 times and those times. It looks great and i think a good step but I have gone back to xp. I just did not find it suited my needs. Slow file transfer, 3rd party programs crashing, 1st part programs crashing. Nero not working at all. coasters, burns not fixing. The whole system locking up trying to do one process. These "features" happened with more than one program. Not just with optical media related programs.
Now its all well and good saying "arr but nero is not vista". This is true but having a pc that is not fit for purpose (in my eyes). Doesnt mean i can accept that.
I am not vista or xp fanboy. When the day comes that vista improves to the level that i need and maybe one could nero and other programs on vista. Then i am stuck with xp.
Now its great that theres some of you where its worked out perfectly good for you but others it just has not.
You don't have to hold off on buying a new PC but I'd just use XP instead.
heres to hoping my 3 year old dell will last me another 2 years... sounds like a long shot to me!
is it me, or does this version look a lot like vista anyways?
It really doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind to release an os 3 years after releasing vista, especially when people are not willing to adopt it!
Sigh, if only apple had BD in the macbook pro release, life would have been so much easier!
You could get a cheap laptop, or an eee to tide you over.
after using vista for 7 months i still haven't had a problem... WTF is everyone talking about?
yeh, most of those naysayers probably haven't even used Vista. All the negative opinions on Vista are created by Apple fanbois, I reckon..
+1
They just hate it for two reasons:
It's Microsoft.
It's New.
If you think back, you will recall how XP received a similar hub-ub when it came out, and people were quick to realize how good it was.
I have been on Vista for a year now, and I have had absolutely no problems.
Anyone that claims "I haven't had a problem" with regards to ANY computer software is either forgetful, deliberately misleading you, or has a radically uncritical outlook of computers.
It is not possible to use any operating system for seven months and "not have a problem." Every computer user, no matter how advanced or how infrequently he or she uses the software, WILL experience unexpected, unwelcome, or unstable computer behavior. No matter what popular computer software it is, it is nowhere near perfect. You cannot use XP SP2 and "not have a problem" for seven months. Nor Linux, OSX, or DOS.
My guess is Vista has posed to you what most people would consider a problem--it's just you have overlooked it or are so lenient that you tolerate problems that most people would complain about.
i have used vista, it came with my R61 Think pad. there was nothing "wrong" with it. other then the fact that it used almost 500 mb of RAM for idle processes. when XP uses at most 200. i actually have it down to almost 90 :)
My experience exactly. It's cool to bash Vista, but there's no real problems behind it. It seems that vista bashes either
a) Don't know how to run a computer, and find problems that are really their own
b) Are stuck in a windows 2000, 'things were better in my day' mentality, or
c) Have never actually used Vista on a regular basis
@Marc
I bought a new laptop, with Vista Home Pro, a few weeks ago and returned it the next day. Vista was too restrictive, wouldn't allow me to use command line arguments, and would ask me if I wanted to use a program that I just double clicked - every single time. I'm sure you can turn these controls off, but seriously, how about these controls be turned off initially and then allow us to turn them on. I felt like I had a great 'looking' operating system with parental controls on it. I was insulted. Plus MS was trying to sell me AOL, assuming that I didn't already have an internet connection. Next, there was so much crap (useless programs) pre-installed. Finally, to get the new laptop to where I wanted it, i.e. remove the crap, take off the "parental controls", etc... It probably would have taken about 20-30 hours (including updates, etc...). So yeah, being a CISSP and having knowledge about different operating systems out there, I have to say that Vista is more secure than XP because it restricts users to non-power user functions, but by far this does not mean it is a secure platform. My next computer will be a Mac.
Erm...where to start?
OK, what about performance; it sucks. Moving/copying files, more clicks to get things done (the whole UI is almost designed like qwerty...made in such a way as to slow you down!), built in defectiveness like DRM and 30 millisecond polling of hardware to check if it has changed, snafu'd highdef, horrible and destructive diskaccessing. I chalenge you to change your mobo without a reinstall (xp has the same problem, but there's ways to get around that, if you're lucky).
Vista takes long to get adjusted to. Not because it's 'new', but because of it's horribly designed UI. Ubuntu and Leopard (or whatever animal it's called) takes less time to get used to.
Vista sucks on a hardwareacces and software-use level. XP does everything Vista does, minus several of Vista's flaws.
The people complaining about Vista are likely more knowledgable about computers than you are, thus they know what's wrong, why it's wrong and why they should complain.
@Mike
"My experience exactly. It's cool to bash Vista, but there's no real problems behind it. It seems that vista bashes either
a) Don't know how to run a computer, and find problems that are really their own
b) Are stuck in a windows 2000, 'things were better in my day' mentality, or
c) Have never actually used Vista on a regular basis"
a) I'm pursuing a bachelor's in computer science, and you'll have to take me at my word when I say the problems I had in Vista were real. (E.g., screen resolution randomly changing, cursor disappearing, dwm.exe frequently crashing, slow network performance, slow file performance, taking ten minutes to boot up, etc.)
b) I never liked Windows 2000, and think XP is dated and ugly. I want something that can run Windows-compatible software but that looks and behaves as well as modern versions of Linux or OSX.
c) I bought a laptop that was designed for Windows Vista, used it on a daily basis, and tried hard to like it for nine months. I went back to XP.
Now you know a 'Vista basher' that doesn't fall into your neat categorization.
Vista was rushed to market. Microsoft didn't give any other software or hardware company time to get compliant drivers and software ready. Lots of customers bought a brand new PC that came with Vista, mostly not of their choosing, just to find that their Logitech Keyboard wouldn't work, and their HP printer wouldn't work. Remember the Mac Ads about "Your Printer won't work with Vista, I say Buy a new Printer. Ask not what Vista can do for you; Ask what you can Buy for Vista"
Also, Vista's increased User Account Control (UAC) "security" prompts users every 10 seconds "Vista needs your permission to continue".
All in all, early adopters were really screwed by Vista. It has yet to be widely adopted in the business world because of the UAC changes that require software to be re-written to work properly. Many businesses are running software designed 10-20 years prior. They don't take kindly to having to throw more development money because Microsoft says so.
@ Josh
MS doesn't add any 3rd party software to their OS, the computer's manufacturer does. Blame them for your bloatware & AOL install prompts.
@ Josh
haha. i loves guys like this. "oh i have extensive knowledge about operating systems." and two lines before that "microsoft is trying to sell me AOL internet.. blah blah blah" haha. no idea whats going on.
anyway. i've had vista since the release date. had no major problems. disabled UAC, cuz i dont need that. so that doesnt bother me. and since SP1 i can say that I've had no problems. nothing unexpected. xp blows.
I find it funny how these people that say "people only hate it because it's Microsoft and it's new" at the same time constantly ignore the complaints of people that HAVE used it and STILL prefer Microsoft products over anything else, but then when the next anti-Vista article comes up, they'll say the same damn thing again.
I mean, are you just entirely incapable of believe other people's experiences or what?
While Vista may be OK for you - anyone who runs XP on the same equipment as Vista - EVEN new stuff - Quad Core 3 GHz, 4 GIGs of RAM, fast hard drive, good video card - XP just runs FASTER -that is what everyone is complaining about. For those who don't believe me - just GOOGLE Windows Vista XP benchmarks.
YES they have benchmarks that include SP1 - and XP is still faster.
No - there are no FIXES for the speed problems with Vista as so many have said - there are fixes to improve performance but those aren't FIXES - they only increase performance - but as any 3rd grader can tell you two times zero is still ZERO = Vista.
@Boe
And I'm sure Dos run even faster than xp on that box...
I sorta agree with Marc as well as MEAT! on this one. I have had Vista since October and while I have had problems, they have been minor and not disruptive of getting any real work done. I have automatic updates turned on and have noticed improvement in the performance of my system over time.
I realize that any OS has issues. I use OSX as well and it also has its own problems. But like Vista, is not disruptive to my workflow.
I'm sure Vista is super if you don't use anything much more complex than Wordpad and Solitaire but as a programmer I hate it with a vengence.
Microsoft have long recommended not placing changeable files in the same folder as the executable but many of their own efforts broke this rule but that didn't matter because it was not enforced. Vista changes all of that, there are many things that you just cannot do in Vista which breaks lots of old code. To ensure programs that work in all previous win32 envoironments work in Vista is a major PITA.
There are many other "security" aspects of Vista which cause all sorts of problems for the software designer
@ Scott
Just because someone has a bad experience using a machine with Vista doesn't mean it is attributed to Vista. I have heard many people who have used Vista and say it is rock solid and a great OS. Then there are people who have complaints. Some people have real insight and some just complain and make noise. For example the fact that getting to certain network configuration panels is a little lengthy is one of my complaints, however it is not a very big problem. Then there are people who complain without understanding what is truly going on and blindly blame the OS.
My cousin had a problem with Outlook in Vista where it would take a few seconds to perform any task, like load emails or click menus. Influenced by Vista's negative press and the fact that Outlook worked fine for him in XP, he concluded that Vista sucks. He asked me to take a look at the problem and it turns out that all the performance problems were caused by Google Desktop which came pre-installed with the machine and had embedded itself into Outlook. After uninstalling it everything worked fantastically. I didn't say anything to him about his false assumption but hopefully he doesn't make anymore in the future.
@Dave:
So you were doing something in your code that MS has said is bad practice and that you should not do, and now you're complaining when said code doesn't work anymore???
For everyone complaining about Vista and saying they'll wait until Windows 7 to upgrade: Windows 7 will not run faster than your XP anyways, it'll probably run slower than Vista on the same hardware. Every time a new version of the OS comes out, it runs slower than the previous version on the same hardware.
This has always been the case: Win98 was slower than Win95, Win2k was slower than Win98, XP was slower than Win2k, etc. The only reason why you don't notice that XP is slower is that the hardware has gotten a lot faster in the 7 years since XP was first released.
If you want the fastest Windows ever, just run Windows 1.0. It's so much faster than XP. It'll boot up in less than a second and you can still run your notepad on it.
@MEAT!
UXTheme.dll patch {free}
or
WindowBlinds {$$}
will take the ugly out of the XP
OK people. I'm thrilled with all your enthusiasm in my posed (although I'm fed up with all the emails) and from reading through all the comments I seem to have noticed one particular trend.
The majority of people who have trouble with Vista are those who have tried to exploit it or any software on it. This reflects the opinions of many other people I've talked to in various forums. A lot of complaints involve the use of unlicensed programs. The general rule of thumb.... as it appears, is only buy quality hardware and software. And, in fairness, technology evolves so rapidly that wouldn't this generaly be a good ethos?
@Marc
"...from reading through all the comments I seem to have noticed one particular trend. The majority of people who have trouble with Vista are those who have tried to exploit it or any software on it."
Didn't like Vista on hardware designed for it:
josh
myself
Didn't like Vista on unspecified hardware:
m.edgar
boe (I think)
Dave
Implied he or she was pirating Vista:
...no one did.
Implied he or she was "exploiting" software:
no one.
How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion the the majority of people who dislike Vista are pirating it or other software? Did you even read the opinions and experiences posted in this thread?
m.edgar..
Wasn't QWERTY designed to swap key strokes from one side to another so that they wouldn't get jammed? Not to slow you down. Makes it more uncomfortable.
Anyway man, stop moaning. I think most people who have problems with vista don't know how to use a computer. I've had a few problems but after 5mins on google I managed to fix it. Also, many problems are with 3rd party developers and users being stuck with rubbish hardware. It's cheap! Buy a new computer! Use an alernative OS, if your computers that old, Feather linux, Damn small linux. If your not happy with Vista, try something new! Experiment :P You'll either realise Vista is wonderful or appauling lol.
looks like micro$oft are gonna start to innovate i mean imitate
"Imma gonna' shoot me a troll, pa!"
Turn that gun around!
Oh, thanks- might have hurt myself. NOW I'm going to shoot me a troll.
Is that in real world time or Microsoft minutes? I once had Win98 tell me it was going to take 27 years worth of minutes to move 8 gigs worth of data from one box to another over a 10Mb network.
soo.. we should be expecting it around 2012 maybe?
Oh please, anyone who believe it will be out before 2010 is deluded. Or it will be lipstick on Vista.
Still waiting for WinFS. :-P
they better improve and review that quality bar.
Windows7 is vista recycled and patched (aka Vista SP2). Microsoft wants to get its vista money back. Don't be surprised if it is released earlier than that.
Yeah, it's totally just a service pack. Except for the new kernel, which is basically the entire core of the operating system.
Whoops.
Those are just my thoughts. @Zorque: you have proof its a new kernel or did you google it? By the way, what makes this kernel new? A different version number?
Well, besides watching several recent MS press conferences, Engadget themselves have done several stories on the new kernel. It isn't just a new version number, they're entirely rewriting the code so it's lighter, faster, more secure, and more stable. It's improved from Vista in basically every way.
..."lighter, faster, more secure, and more stable"...wasn't that the Vista promise? (I like vista by the way). The only way to know for sure is to wait and see.
"Microsoft plans to give an exact release date only once Windows 7 "meets its quality bar for release.""...says the company who loosed Windows Vista onto the world. "Since our standards are so high," the spokesman continued, "the unfinished, not-even-beta-quality Windows 7 should be available," he checks his watch, "five minutes ago. TIME TO UPGRADE!" Alarms sound. The war^H^H^H marketing machine grinds to life.
microsoft is burying themselves... Mac will more than likely be dominating the market by 2010, and then dominate if Windows 7 is as shitty as Vista is...
Bill Gates needs to come back and teach these newbies about quality products...
Windows 98's predecessor was XP, not ME or 2000
So XP's predecessor will be 2 platforms later... That's their trend...
Only in terms of popularity.
98's predecessor WAS Me...
XP was the predecessor to 2000.
Yeah in terms of popularity and functionality... ME was horrid...
I dont think you got where i was going with that comment...
How about both of you try "Successor". Predecessor is about what came before.
"predecessor (one who precedes you in time (as in holding a position or office)) "
My time machine must be out of wack, I saw software releases in the exact opposite order.
Yeah, just how they're failing with Vista? Sorry bud, but you're living in a delusional world. In terms of sales and web-hit metrics, the number of Vista installs are already well past the total number of macs operating in the world, both old and new. This month should see the total roughly 2-times as many Vista users as Mac.
This site has a very accurate accounting of page views by OS for the past 5 years, by month. Their data accurately mirrors the market's true numbers. While Mac has seen an increase of hits by 14% in the past year, they only account for 4.3% of traffic. Vista already eclipses Win 2000, 98, and Linux users combined.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
But yeah, keep telling yourself that Mac is going to take over the world with their proprietary hardware and software. I'm sure corporate America will embrace their 'hidden' development cycle and last minute product announcement process.
yeah but Steve A., those dont really mean anything because Vista is a Forced sale when you buy a new machine at best buy/circuit city/walmart etc... And Windows platforms are just the norm, that Vista is just handed out with the new PC... That, coupled with the fact that you cant just walk into a store and purchase an XP OS for your PC without hunting on newegg... So take your delusional comment and stick it up your delusional ass...
It's a friggin comment... Vista is not a good product... and thats my opinion... And the opinion of many other people I know that bitch about how lame vista is... TAKE THAT DELUSIONAL BOY!!! fucking retard keyboard warrior... yeah you one-upped me big time.... I'm crying at my desk because you are SOOOO SMART, making a long winded comment about a stupid "I dont think vista is a good product" comment...
and who the hell said anything about Mac taking over the biz sector? Macs arnt business computers... But they will sure dominate the home court... Gamers are switching to consoles, home buyers are switching to Mac, no one said anything about the biz sector... Stupid Tits mcgee over here... Take your man-boobs and go run around the block a coupelt imes...
andyg8180, are you a complete retard?
www.w3schools.com is not this guys site.
It's one of the most comprehensive and free-to-use web development sites on the net.
Get a f&^$'n clue douche-bag.
@Matt... ARE YOU A COMPLETE RETARD??? go to his profile and his site is linked to it... click around before you comment... Jeezus christ... I think everyone in the world needs a hug... I guess im drawing out all the keyboard warriors today... SICK BURN!!
andyg8180 are you kidding?
I forgot to mention,
Macs will never dominate any sector.
The average consumer is cheap and would not pay double or triple the amount of cash for a similar in performance computer.
Unless macs come-down in price...to a resonable level, they will always be stuck at the 2%-5% market share. Just the fanboys and graphic designers will dish-out the cash for them.
My bad...I was under the impression that you meant the site that he referenced in his post...
I don't care to know as much as I can about other posters.
Thats fine... and youre right... it'll take a lot to dominate the market.. I guess dominate is a strong word... I would change it to take a bigger share than what they currently have... But when you look at trends, Xbox didnt have crap share when they first came out, now they released a new product that was affordable and took back a big chunk of the gaming market...
Same thing with tivo, all the analysts said this technology was crap, or you can get a DVR from your cable provider... Now cable companies are bidding for tivos product to incorporate it into their product...
Im mostly saying, theres always that one product that will come out and take the market by storm... IMO if microsoft doesnt shape up with Windows 7, it makes it that much easier to introduce a product that will snag the carpet from under their feet...
none of my comments were meant for anyone to come and try to bash me... Steve A tried to pull out all stops but nothing he said was relavant... Theyre only comments, i dont know why people get so emotional about it... Not that i care, but its funny when a commentors gets his blood pressure up because he's right...
PS, VISTA SUCKS lol...
'The market' doesn't include the biz market? Oh ok.
And NO, Apple can't dominate Windows by 2010... Do you know how huge MS is? They can make shitty products for decades without going anywhere.
And the growing markets in Asia, do you think they know what Apple is?
Wow, after being dealt with criticism, andyg8180 is really spouting the 'haterade' this morning, even stooping as low to personal attacks.
As for the man boobs, yeah, I'll take your advice. Ran a 40-mile marathon 2 months ago. How about you?
http://www.steveallwine.com/images/marathonrun.jpg
My personal page does suck. Haven't had time to do much since my wedding. How bomb is yours? The one I webmaster work one is o-k, but I get paid to do that one.
http://www.jbdg.com/
Also, Macs do dominate many business sectors, graphics arts and video production are substantial markets - but Macs are beginning to lose out to Avid workstations on the high end, and PC's with the Adobe Suite on the low end.
/keyboard warrior out!
You guys are idiots. As much as macs have been selling, there is no way it will become market leader. I don't even think they have the production capacity to do so. And, the price is too high for that. Its not gonna happen.
that was a fun battle with Steve A and some others lol... Hope we can do it again soon... as for the 40 mile marathon... awesome job!! But no, i dont do competitions... I just work out a lot to stay healthy... And no i never even saw your picture lol Just talking smack...
I never understood the idea of a major OS release every three years... no, I take that back. Money. There's simply no need to "redo" everything you've done every three years unless you're talking about things that wear out. Even cars tend to go for 4-5 years before they start really showing signs of wear. Roads too. Operating Systems don't "wear". Sure, technology improves (32-bit to 64 bit) but it's been proven that you can just replace the kernel for the most part and run the same applications (as long as they are written correctly). Microsoft puts a lot of work into backwards compatibility so anything compiled in Windows XP should theoretically work in Vista as long as you save your program settings in the user profile and not the Windows folder. So again, why rehash the entire OS every 3 years if you can just replace the kernel and maybe a few driver files to keep up to date with the latest hardware? Why not just replace Explorer to get the fresh new interface? Oh, right. Money.
Someone get the Ban Stick
I remember back when MS had more frequent release schedules... Windows 95, 95b, 98, 98SE, ME (sure, it was crap but it was a new release), 2000, XP... and then six years passed.
There are arguments in favor of the slower release schedule, but all those arguments rely on the current release being solid enough to work well until the new release comes out. I suppose with the exception of HD media, XP, worked well enough from 2001-2007 (and beyond for many), but is Vista strong enough to last until 2010?
I think the answer is no. I think that as PC users approach the end of life for their current machines, they're going to increasingly look towards Macs for their next purchases, since those systems will have newer versions of their OS. I'm not even talking about quality - I'm talking about the perception of quality, where the consumer sees a new PC with the same OS he or she was using, as opposed to a Mac with a more recently updated OS and lots of buzz.
I resemble that "look towards Macs for their next purchase." I bought one of the recently updated MacBook Pros. My Time Capsule just arrived today (though I was gonna get one even if I didn't get a Mac, too). I'm using the same programs I used in Windows in OS X now. I'm glad to be off the path of Vista.
I Cannot see that many people siwtching to mac (most people who want to use macs already do), most people have only used PCs and are comfortable with them, and do not want the hassle of chnaging.
I think the popularity of linux will grow, but due to what it is it will never be in a dominant position (It will never be used by the average user).
@technophobe: "I Cannot see that many people siwtching to mac (most people who want to use macs already do), most people have only used PCs and are comfortable with them, and do not want the hassle of chnaging."
There are a lot more market forces than seem to realize. It's not just adults who have a computer today and have had one for years. Think of the 18-30 age group today. Over the next two years, the oldest 17% of that group will be replaced by people who are likely going to be buying their first computer. That's 17% of a highly coveted market.
And these people you speak of who have only used PCs and are more comfortable with them - they are not necessarily going to be comfortable switching to a new OS in 2010, whether it's a new Windows OS or a new Mac OS.
I accept your points, but a new Windows OS is going to be more simular to XP/Vista than a Mac OS would be.
Regarding the people buying a computer for the first time, most of them will have used windows computers previously either in school (In the Uk almost all computers in schools run windows) or in the home which would also probably be windows. Microsoft have a self surporting position of dominance and it would require a serious faux pas on their part to erode this. I do not think Vista is bad enough to cause this mauch damage.
I can't see that many people switching to Macs (I have nothing against them).
Instead, I see consumers switching to specialized non-PCs devices...
Games: Gamers have already largely switched to video game consoles. The PC had most of the hardcore games in the 486-era, but since then hardcore PC gaming has been in steady decline.
Media: Microsoft's vision of a Home Theater PC has never really taken off the way Microsoft envisioned. Now, with AppleTV and video game consoles vying with TiVos and cable boxes to become the entertainment hub, the HTPC just isn’t needed any more.
Internet: Most consumers only use their PCs to browse the internet, write email, etc. As people get used to doing those things on convenient mobile devices, the need for a full-blown PC for internet will diminish. It may even be more inconnenient to use a PC when all their messages and content is on their mobile device.
Microsoft plans to give an exact release date only once Windows 7 "meets its quality bar for release."
Not expecting that to be too high!
Are they playing the Xbox 360 trick where they put "Windows 7" to look better than Apple's 10.6? Or is it really the seventh release? I've lost count.
xp is 5, 2003 is 5.0, 5.1(sp1), 5.2 (sp2), vista is 6.0 (6.1 on sp1)
@m.edgar: "(the whole UI is almost designed like qwerty...made in such a way as to slow you down!), "
This is an urban legend. Check this out: http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html
Wait when did MS stop selling proprietary software? Last I checked the OS was completely closed source.
Windows 7 aka rebranded XP-SP.10. it will run faster than Vista. trust me.
by 2010 we'll all be using smartphones and cloud computing. (where is my beer ;))
I'd love to see what any of you naysayers would be saying if you ever actually learned anything from about Microsoft from a perspective other than ignorance and hatred. I saw plenty of Apple users attending MIX08 and they loved Microsoft's attitude. It's not the same Microsoft of yesteryear. Then again, it's typical of people to hate anything successful.
Well, popular or new. Macbook Air, Zune, iPod anyone?
I think by 2010 I will move to apple. Sick and tired of navigating the ultimate, business, home and other versions.
Great! I'll be skipping Vista, then.
Vista-bashers hate Vista because it is Microsoft and because it is "new", just like others posted. Definitely. I've been running Vista x64 for the last year with no issues except for drivers. And without 3rd-party virus/firewall. For drivers, I blame 100% HP, which for some UNKNOWN reason gets a COMPLETE PASS from people on these message boards, even though they release drivers MAYBE for the current OS (and even then, pretty flaky IMHO), and NEVER for future OSs. HP most definitely cannot walk (i.e., is lame). Remember everyone killing nVidia about their Vista drivers? Talk about storm in a teacup - they always worked for me, always had my games. Maybe I'm too stupid to notice that they were 0.001 FPS slower than with the previous version. Big fat hairy deal. Vista bashers - get a life, get realistic, stop pasting comments made by some idiot several years ago. We're tired of you now. Linksys sucks/blows as well - hardware and software. Oh, and I'm not a fanboy - I use Ubuntu on my HTPC.
You have a point about HP but the fact is Vista didn't bring much to the table other than "better security" and FLUFF. Have you ever seen PC manufacturers selling the OLDER OS because so many people clamored it? Vista never really got off the ground unless it came with new PCs. The hardware requirements are absurd for what you get in return.
Hopefully Microsoft will get their collective heads out of their a$$es and do it right with Windows 7.