If your pants / panties were in a "bunch" upon hearing news that
Windows 7 would be headed into your ever-loving arms "next year," you might just want to hold off on those party invites for a little bit. Sure, Bill Gates just happened to mention that we'd
see a new version of the OS "Sometime in the next year or so," but it's looking like that "or so" makes a world of difference. Microsoft wants to chill everyone out with the somber news that its got no plans to introduce Windows 7 any earlier than
January 2010 (three years from the launch of Vista), and reassure us that crazy old Gates may have just been talkin' developer speak. "As is standard with the release of a new product, we will be releasing early builds of Windows 7 prior to its general availability as a means to gain tester feedback," a spokesman for Microsoft said, downplaying Gates' statement. Of course, this means that XP's cutoff will suddenly move even further down the line, which makes us wonder what the point of
setting that June 2010 date was in the first place. Why are you toying with us like this, Microsoft?
[Thanks, Tony]
posted April 7th 2008 6:58PM
Can I be the leave Billy alone person?
@ AutoTom
I'm pretty sure that "pie thing" is called a clock..
@ Andrew
Hey everyone! This guy's on to something! He wrote @ AutoTom in his comment so that even if the reply didn't work.. he still doesn't look like a complete idiot!
Hey everyone! This guy's on to something! He wrote @ Andrew in his comment so that even if the reply didn't work.. he still doesn't look like a complete idiot!
2010 is still correct when Bill said "next year or so".
It's obviously still 'a world of difference'.
I don't recall currently living in 2009..
*crawls back under rock*
I just got a new core duo laptop and despite all the hate I figured before wiping the hard drive and installing XP I would give Vista a try. After uninstalling Mcaffee and installing SP1 and all my favorite apps, Vista pretty much rocks. I'm definitely not going back to XP. If you have the hardware to run it and are not a benchmark scrooge, Vista is a great OS.
But I've found in life people are so quick to hate, whether it comes to race, politics, high-density disc format or operating system.
I have a friend who uses Vista. He says he got a virus.
I'm never going to mess with an OS that gets viruses again; I thought they were finally past that. Turns out they aren't.
Microsoft won't fix this mess; google and codeweavers will.
@ethana2:
First off, no OS is immune. Simple fact. Secondly, some really high arbitrary percentage of viruses on computers exist simply because of user error. I'd call that 95%. The remaining 5% would be avoidable to some degree but largely easier to catch even for a power user. Sounds like you AND your friend need some remedial classes on computer security.
Ata -- I hate you and I hate your comment :) JK
Tom: that is incorrect. Viruses exist only because of several dumb factors:
--the OS can't do enough by itself so it needs all kinds of 3rd party software to gain basic functionality
--complete lack of proper package management (.msi might be close, I don't know)
---allowing apps to modify the OS
--basing assumptions about file contents on their name extensions
--running binaries that haven't been set executable
--Pathetic code quality throughout
It is possible to be immune. Don't do any of those, and your only problem will be the teething power user.
A virus called Vista!
@ethana2:
You remain incorrect. Viruses exist because of people. People create and other people destroy what has been created (although some sickos prefer to destroy their own creations). An OS can be created by anyone with an ounce of motivation, thus an OS can be destroyed by anyone with an ounce of motivation.
I'm going to assume you run either Mac or Linux, as those are the users who generally feel that they are invincible. That word... reminds me of something.... Oh yes, remember the Titanic? Invincible, they said it was.
"Viruses exist only because of several dumb factors:"
That's nonsense. A virus doesn't have to affect system files. An infected EXE could simply seek out other EXEs and infect them as well. The most secure OS in the world can still be infected by the USER--that is, in fact, how the vast majority of Viruses, Trojans and Spyware get installed in the real world.
Also, I feel the need to add the following paradox:
Viruses and malware force computers to be safer, more secure, and more private. People like this idea of security, but feel less secure because of viruses and malware.
Without viruses and malware, there would be little need for security software. People would like the idea of not *having* to lock the doors, but would feel less secure because of the inability to perform a solid lock down.
So, before you state that an OS is at fault for being vulnerable to viruses and the such, you must recognize that while all OS's have vulnerabilities, these vulnerabilities allow room to grow forward in security measures, allowing people to feel great about being more secure than they were yesterday. You must also realize though, that the coders who create malicious code will simply be more motivated and present a higher challenge to security companies, who can employ more people in the business of making others feel safe. Families eat, hackers get street-cred, and you have a smirk on your face knowing that you just installed the latest and greatest virus definitions - feeling like you can take on the world again.
Perhaps in 150 years or so (if computers as we know them are still around) there will be no need for new security measures because the bare minimum has not a single vulnerability. Then maybe those curious hackers can devote their time to curing Cancer 2.0 or finding a way to rid our planet of 30 Foot Roaches.
I'd estimate at least 400 years before Spam is a problem of the past, though...
And to juxtapose my sleep-deprived art major post of yesterminute, I will add one final quip.
We all have nice short names. Yay for us - Ethana2, GTFO with your two syllables and abstract numerical indicator.
I can't believe we missed this one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8
Mac OSX 10.6 Slated for 2010 says Apple, Steve Jobs talking initial feature set and previews
..or something like that I'm sure
Yeah - W2K was a very nice step forward from Windows 98 and a huge step forward from Windows ME. I was using it in the beta stage and even then short of drivers it performed nicely.
3. Retire IT department
Ha, yeah right. We have a very small percentage of Macs in the company, but call the helpdesk more per computer than our Windows users.
Plus if you need a working corporate environment compatible with the rest of the world, you will need an IT staff to run your servers and enterprise solutions.
Let's just forget about all the future MS Windows OSs and just keep upgrading Windows XP. Windows XP forever and ever, amen.
Add the present ones, Steffen.
...and an XP install can't even last a year, let alone forever.
If you're going to make something eternal, it needs uptime to match.
In conclusion, Ubuntu and Fedora will have made four releases during the time that Microsoft makes one, and with the head start they have now, it's fun to think what market share numbers will do in the mean time.
When Hardy is released in two weeks, it will have a working PlayStation 3 port. We will see what that does to the equation.
~~~~~~
Announced was an Ultimate Windows™
With “’09 Release”, so the spin goes
But poor Gates looked depressed
Mumbling “Kernel’s—*refreshed*…”
And that tech help’s still outsourced to—Hindos!
~~~~~~~~
I can't believe anyone seriously thought the next Windows would come out next year.
I like Vista. It has its quirks but it's a perfectly good OS. Perhaps not a huge leap from XP but I consider it better and I believe it is paving the way for more advances in the OS.
Remember when XP came out? People hated it. They said it's no different from 2000 with a facelift.
Remember when OSX came out? People hated it. It wouldn't work with anything and there were huge bugs and issues.
Guess what? Most normal consumers would have hated Linux (non Ubuntu) if you forced it on them when it first came out.
But, they are all good OSes and they all have very different development and release cycles. Given MS's history I can't believe any took Gate's statement seriously.
What microsoft needs to focus on is fixing security. They need to fix their operating system so it don't contain viruses nor have code that can be made into a virus. Microsoft is all about this and that, but they are certainly lacking in this department. Apple & Linux seem to have that covered, why the big dog (supposebly) failing in this area?
you're at a shooting range with 3 targets in front of you named, Windows, Mac OSX, and Linux. The Windows target is much closer and much bigger (the target size and distance will represent its market size), while each target gets smaller and further away from you. You are joined by say 500 other people (virus programmers) at this range. The group is told to get as many points as possible by shooting targets, each target is worth the same amount of points. Obviously you want to get as many points as you can, so you're going to shoot at the Windows target because its bigger, closer and as a result much easier to hit. Such as it is in the OS world, the more prominent target with the most market share is going to be hit with the most viruses and spyware, so security becomes much more difficult with everyone gunning for you. This is not to say all 3 OS's are the same in terms of security, but its certainly more difficult to maintain a secure appearance when everyone wants to exploit your code.
Ubuntu?
Please keep XP alive till then and give us the ability to hop right over vista.
Well as we all know Vista is so wonderful that not one of us hankers for a return to XP nowdo we?? I gave it 2 months and gave in. It is worse than Win ME by a Micrsoft mile!! I do not see a lot of business users clammering to upgrade to Vista.
It will take them 3 years to figure out how to rip off the cool stuff from linux and OSX.
AIGLX for example?
I've been using Vista Ultimate 64 for a month and it is easily the best user experience I've *ever* had. My installation went smoothly and I never had any problems with hardware (yet!) or the performance, and unlike most people, I'm actually utilizing my quadcore and 8 gigs of RAM when I do my work (DAW stuff).
And on the same machine I have Leopard, Windows XP 32, and Ubuntu. Strangely enough, I'm never on any of the three other operating systems.
So Windows goes from being yearly named (95, 98, 2000)to Mac themed (XP), to a general name (Vista) to a version number 7? haha