Microsoft warns hardware makers to begin Windows 7 testing ASAP
By Donald Melanson 
posted June 2nd 2008 2:17PM
posted June 2nd 2008 2:17PM
It may not even have a firm release date just yet, but it looks like Microsoft is already taking a pretty hard line on Windows 7, with it reportedly now warning hardware makers to begin testing their devices on the OS as soon as the first beta becomes available or risk not qualifying for its certified compatibility program. As Information Week points out, that move is likely being done in order to avoid the mess stirred up when so-called Vista-capable systems went on sale in advance of Vista's release, many of which, as we all know, turned out to be anything but.
I had no problem switching to XP. I had no problem AVOIDING Vista. If Windows 7 is another product created by the RIAA/MPAA/HLS/SBA like Vista was, instead of the OS I need to use my hardware, I'll avoid it too.
Hell, WINE has 1.0 RC's out. As soon as they get Direct X working under Linux... M$ will be living off the interest their money makes instead of sales.
I know the Micro$laves will bury this comment. They hate the truth.
"I know the Micro$laves will bury this comment. They hate the truth."
Dude, please don't play a martyr.
And MSFT isn't really about greed, they just have a huge chunk of the market, and makes the corresponding money.
I love Vista because:
1) it has indexed desktop search (though it should be faster)
2) it has live preview icons
3) they switched to triangles like OS X and I like triangles. Like, a lot I do.
Odd thing is I hear people around work complaining more about Vista than I do, and I'm the 'mac guy' of the company.
However, I do dislike Vista because it:
1) freezes up whenever I try to drag and drop files into the recycle bin.
2) will die and throw up a crazy-sauce screen with small solid rectangles on a lot of people's machines here at work.
3) asks me LOTS of questions.
4) tells me stuff like "A dialogue box is open, OK | Cancel"
5) get's uglier and uglier every time I use it
6) did a poor job of copying 'expose' from OS X, I was really excited when I saw they were sorta copying this. I'm all for copying stuff.
I've used Vista quite some time on my own pc until I just got tired with the constant nagging for updates that failed 90% of the time and deleted it. At first I tought that this was due to the fact that I ran Vista in a virtual machine but when I ran it natively it performed just as bad.
Just this weekend I gave the serial to my brother who installed it on his amd x64 athlon and yet again the same problems popped up. He was asked to download about 50 updates and after installing and rebooting he had to download another 40 or so. Only problem is that these 40 new updates weren't even new updates but just the ones that Vista had failed to install in the first round. This went on for about 20 times in which time the computer once refused to boot any longer and we had to use the Vista DVD to repair the operating system. An operating system that we hadn't even been able to use because of the amount of updates.
Our Linksys wusb54g wireless receiver wouldn't work with Vista either, the drivers wouldn't install so I just shared the wireless internet on my laptop and connected it to his computer. That way Vista did offer him the correct drivers for the device and he was able to get his internet up and running.
One strange thing was that Windows Update didn't push out the Vista SP1 update. We had to go to the microsoft site and download it manually in order to be able to install it. Since SP1 contains all updates/patches/hotfixes brought out before the initial release of the Service Pack itself they could have easily offered this standalone installer instead of 50 seperate fixes which would have saved me a few hours of work.
Come on microsoft, why don't you just do the work and make your OS compatible with other people's hardware. That way, we won't have to download tons of drivers after every install. People say linux has bad hardware support but in reality, windows built-in hardware support is much worse. Windows is just so popular that companies write their own drivers.
Agreed, Linux distributions are much more likely to work with your hardware straight after installing. The problem is Windows has more hardware compatibility with third-party drivers.
I did have a printer that didn't work with Vista and supposedly worked with the HP print module for Linux, but I found a driver built in to Vista for another printer worked fine.
I ran Vista during the alpha and beta days, it was an alright OS back then, for an alpha/beta.
However, I borrowed my buddy's new Lenovo thinkpad with Vista pre-loaded, and was positively shocked to see how unresponsive it was compared to XP on my system. Which is 4 years old.
WTF are you talking about? WTF is your friend running on his laptop in addition to the OS? I am running Vista Business on a ThinkPad T60, and it runs absolutely superb.
I am never going back to XP, ever.
Watch Creative Labs ignore the warning just like they did for the past three versions of Windows.
I'll take the highway thanks.
I have been fighting with Vista on a new machine that came with it. After migrating files and settings from my old XP Pro box, many things are borked with no way of fixing them. XBox360 can no longer connect to Media Center, Security center will not run, Service Pack 1 was not in updates, and would not install if stuff was migrated from XP first. Could only install SP1 before migrating. New system (C2D e6300) feels slower than old XP system (XP2400) both with 2 gigs of ram. I have already re installed the OS 4 times trying to get it right.
That being said, I can live with the UI differences. They really aren't that major. Aero is not worth the hype (Compiz kicks its ass).
I might just say screw it with Vista and throw XP on it.
I forgot to add that the hard drive grinds incessantly. I assume it is indexing everything. It also locks up for a while when deleting files sometimes. It also would blue screen intermittantly when ever my external firewire drive was connected. That seemed to be fixed by SP1 though.
Hmm...it looks like, if all company's start making multi-touch screen monitors, the other monitors will be more cheap, wich will be a good time to go shopping
For those wondering about Vista complaints, here's one. I have an AccessPort ECU flasher for my car, and you can connect it to your PC (or Mac) and download new maps for it, upgrade the device's firmware, etc. It works in XP but not Vista.
The reason is because in Vista, all hardware drivers have to be certified by Microsoft, which means they have to be rewritten and submitted to MS before they'll work in Vista. This is an ongoing problem for me because I can't update my firmware for this device in Vista.
The developer has said he's working on it but it's a long process. In the meantime, XP is the only option. So if you have devices that do work in Vista, it doesn't mean that there's no compatibility issues - it means that the developers already went through the certification process with MS for that device.
Zak - great example. But how is this a Vista issue?
The manufacturer hasn't complied with the certification process. They have had 3 years now to do so.
I am empathetic to smaller manufacturers who might not have resources to recode/certify their hardware/software. However, that is not a fault of Vista.
This has been an issue since time began. With a new OS released manufacturers have always needed to tweak drivers/firmware for compatability.
It's a Vista issue because of the certification requirements in Vista. The overall attitude of a lot of people here seems to be that there's no compatibility issues for hardware between XP and Vista, but that's not true. All the drivers have to be rewritten for Vista and certified, which is a huge pain. Even if the developers have gone through that process, it doesn't mean that XP drivers are compatible with Vista. They're not. None of them are.
Whether a developer is slow to get their drivers certified isn't really the issue. The issue is that it has to be done in the first place. I mean talk about zero backwards compatibility, right?
No drivers need to certified in Vista. They _can_ be certified but it's not a requirement. If in doubt look for my previous post where I used a hacked drivers for a network card which then worked fine.
3rd party hardware vendors have only had THREE YEARS to get their act together on Longhorn. Why are they going to act any differently to W7? Yeah, NVidea, I'm talkin' to YOU!
Honestly, what the hell is MS doing? I've never seen a release plan and cycle make less sence then theirs, and I work at $$%%#@, and our shit is really fracked up!
Wow...and the internets rally to Vistas..demise ? deletion ? destruction ? de...FENCE ?!?!?!?
Didn't know so many people cared enough to halla back at the naysayers.
I work in IT and I can honestly say that while Vista is probably the worst OS MS has put out since WinME, a large portion of the Vista hate you hear in the blogosphere is indeed recycled/regugitated FUD.
It's true, when Vista was first released, there was a huge problem with compatibility with very common, nigh industry standard hardware (numerous printers from major manus like HP, Canon, Brother, etc) and software (Nero for example). And many available Vista drivers were kind of unstable. Well, they've come a long way, popular titles like Nero have pretty much all got Vista compatible versions out now, and certainly all new printers and productivity peripherals are being released with appropriate drivers, and you can find appropriate drivers for many models that even predate vista by maybe 2 years. So while it was a big issue back in mid '07, the combatibility thing isn't so valid an argument any more...
System stability has predictably improved with the release of updates and now SP1. But some pretty major problems (IMHO) persist (SP1 only bossted Vistas anemic network file transfer speeds by a ridiculously low 10% - 20%...I can still occasionaly bit torrent an entire movie on my Win2K machine faster than I can copy it to my Vista box afterward).
And in general Vista still likes to crash/hang/freeze way more than a 6th gen OS should. And while XP was considered greedy for system resources when it launched, I'm sorry, but Vista is just a HOG. But, yet again the hype machine has taken that fact and blown it somewhat out of proportion. I ran Vista Business on an old (though well spec'd in it's time) system I built in mid 2003. All I had to do was bump the RAM to 1gb and it ran fine.
The big difference as I see it between Vista and XP was that XP was stable enough out of the box, and had enough new USEFUL items over it's predecessor to make it worth fixing and improving. Vista kind of doesn't. A large part of it's new feature set is cosmetic, and it's more task oriented new features don't really work so well in my opinion (though of course, I know some people like'em pretty well).
In this case I think MS is wise to move ahead...not RUSH...but move ahead to Windows 7. It's no secret that over the 5 year development cycle that went into 'Longhorn' as it used to be called, that many new and innovative features that were originally planned for XP's successor were pushed off to future releases. Vista was basically a 'bone' the MS threw us to keep us occupied a little longer. With Linux becoming a houshold name (as more and more quality desktop distros are cooked up and released) and Apple spitting out a new OSX version every year or two MS couldn't coast on the business sector forever. So they gave us Vista.
They've already said that Windows 7 will be built on Vistas core, so I'm guessing Win7 is simply going to be what 'Longhorn' was envisioned as back in 2002.
Just sit tight people. And pick up factory install disc for XP to tide you for the next 2 years...
wouldn't it be 8
3.1=1
95=2
98=3
2000=4
me=5
xp=6
vista =7
nt=?
No, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
Although that says Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1. Huh.
Well I am kind of in a strange position. Im 15 now and know heaps about computers. Im not talking just being able to build one either. Im meaning real in depth knowledge.
I am running vista 64bit happily on my main PC and 32bit vista on my server.
My main PC is:
E2140 clocked at 3.1GHz
4GB OCZ ReaperX 1000MHz
RAID 0 for boot
Geforce 7900GTX
you get the idea
However back when vista was released and i was 13, i my system was:
P4 3.4GHz
512MB DDR
120GB IDE hard drive
I installed vista RC2 on that and it run pretty ok. I always knew RAM was an issue but it wasent a huge one (for my needs at the time),
Now my main thing i do is video editing with a bit of gaming on the side.
I was able to run my vista RC2 and RTM quite happily on that P4 system. Obviously it would be hopeless now but it serves the point.
I am constantly telling people to try vista before they say its rubbish. Strangely enough, after people see my server which is often even lower spec than there PC's and how much faster it runs, they sere its not vistas fault there PC is slow.
My server btw is:
P4 3.4GHz (they very chip from my old system)
1GB DDR2
160GB + 750GB HDD (website and boot on first, file hosting and backups on other).
Quoted
"But some pretty major problems (IMHO) persist (SP1 only bossted Vistas anemic network file transfer speeds by a ridiculously low 10% - 20%...I can still occasionaly bit torrent an entire movie on my Win2K machine faster than I can copy it to my Vista box afterward)."
Well i think the keypoint being win2K box. I can fully saturate my 100mbit LAN on transfers between my PC, my sisters PC and my server which are all running vista.
What has irked me a bit other than the hardware compatibility issues for many Vista users, but why did Microsoft remove hardware sound acceleration? It doesn't make any sense at all.
If to my understanding, I thought software emulation wasn't good for system performance. Of course the performance hit is minimal, but wouldn't hardware acceleration be better?
Now, though I despise Vista, I do have to admit it is a good OS, but not great. I believe it was just rushed with very little thought about the consequences of current and past hardware.
Not everyone has or will have the money to purchase a computer or new parts that is Vista capable or compatible. That's the another didn't like.
I also disliked the fact that in order to enjoy DirectX 10, you HAD to buy Vista, so it felt like Microsoft was shoving it down consumer's throats.
I'm hoping that for Windows 7, Microsoft is more considerate this time and doesn't rush it out like Vista.
Ok...I know what you mean....
there are no 20 / 24 inch multi-touch display in the market, right?
If users won't change their monitor, what else do they "benefit" from upgrading to Windows 7? A speed bumb? a truly 64bit OS? or native compatability to Zune?!
M$ pls do not over emphasis on Multi-touch of your OS. Not all the ppl want to throw away their LCD and purchase a new one. Let us know more on the new functions.....thx..
For all the billions they make in profits every year, why the hell can't Microsoft get off their arses, work with hardware vendors, and then write all the device drivers themselves. Impossible due to the amount of hardware devices?, Rubbish, Microsoft have the funds and departments around the world to do it if the want, there just bloody lazy.
So what is Windows 7? another OS? or just a gui uprade on VIsta.
Here's where I get a bit confused, though. Some Microsoft execs claim 2009 will be the date, so that they can stay competitive and obviously because Vista wasn't the best.
Other execs are claiming 2011 (not 2010). I'm wondering if they may not even know?
I must say, though, I am excited about Windows 7. Some other good info I found on Windows 7 is here:
http://www.pcauthorities.com/pc-news/windows-7
I think the time frame that vendors had to write compliant drivers was fair, unfortunately for them, they're not on Microsoft's schedule! I also had printer driver compliance issues as well: absolutely had to get an all-in-one printer/scanner to replace the perfectly good system I had. To make matters worse, Lexmark released a whole slew of printers with XP drivers, making for a huge waste of time trying to install the thing initially. But, when I got the new driver, all has been well since. I had fears about anti-virus effects w/ Vista SP1, but they were unfounded ,as MS took their time to release a stable update. With an update of Network Dist. 1.1, it wouldn't install at all; MS hooked me up with the registry install and everything is "kosh"! Even as I have had driver problems on install and re-install and un-install etc, given the year I've had the OS---I give Vista a thumbs up; it's very stable for me now and I believe that I'll upgrade to Seven when it's relesed!!!!