Slashdot Mirror
More Indications Windows 7 Is Coming In 2009
An anonymous reader writes "Following on the news that Microsoft was going straight to a RC for Windows 7, the One Microsoft Way blog has put together some dates on the upcoming roadmap for Vista's successor. Microsoft has always said 'three years after the general availability of Windows Vista,' which was released on January 30, 2007, and that the release date was also dependent on quality. Internally though, Microsoft is saying other things. It looks like we'll see the RC coming in April, and a final RTM version before October 3. Yes, that means Redmond is currently hoping to get Windows 7 out the door in 2009."
I thought everyone knew this already. But I am enjoying the Windows 7 beta on my gaming desktop and netbook and look forward to *gasp* purchasing a copy to replace Windows XP.
This year looks to be the worst financial downturn since the great depression and Microsoft want to foist a new version of Windows on us?
Is it because the corpse of Vista, still seated at its desk, is stinking up the room? Sure, Microsoft insists Vista is alive and healthy but the smell of purification is undeniable.
But I don't see all those companies who took a pass on Vista suddenly deciding this year is a great year to upgrade their computing infrastructure.
Debug faster or you'll be gettin' the whip, m'boy!
If I recall correctly (rhetorical, I *do* recall correctly) the problem with Vista was *not* the OS itself, but driver support from Vendors.
Even Nvidia were ironing out Video card bugs months past the release date. It took Creative almost 14 months to release a Vista Audigy driver. That's not even touching on people who had to purchase new Wifi cards because the likes of Netgear refused to even release *any* drivers for supporting 'old' hardware (801.22g is super old?).
Unless Redmond is putting pressure back to hardware Vendors, regardless of the much impressed SDLC Microsoft are displaying, the OS will only an *end user* disappointment.
98-95=3, 2009-2006=3. Seems about right.
are celebrating their Vista SP 2-3, er, Mohave, um, I mean Windows 7 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and lining up to pay for it; I will still be getting my Ubuntu for free and with an (often) significant upgrade every 6 months.
The Protected Video Path has introduced several problems with pre-existing software that deals with video and works perfectly with XP but fails in Vista. I operate in the healthcare segment, and GE's medical records software still does not possess Vista support. PACS viewers from major companies like VEPRO and E-Film still do not support Vista.
Given that three are no architectural changes in Windows 7; these problems will remain with Windows 7 and corporates looking to use pre-existing application software will stick with XP as long as they can.
http://www.merge.com/na/efilmlanding.htm
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
So finally Windows will start telling the users to RTFM, well, without the F word?
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Who cares.
But, DirectX 11 will be supported on Vista too.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3507
"To be fair, the OS upgrade requirement also threw a wrench in the gears. That won't be a problem this time, as Vista still sucks but will be getting DX11 support and Windows 7 looks like a better upgrade option for XP users than Vista. Developers who haven't already moved from DX9 may well skip DX10 altogether in favor of DX11 depending on the predicted ship dates of their titles, all signs point to DX11 as setting the time frame we start to see the revolution promised with the move to DX10 take place. Developers have had time to familiarize themselves with the extended advantages of programmability offered by DX10, coding for DX11 will be much easier though OOP constructs and multithreaded support, and if the features don't entice them, the ability to run on downlevel hardware with a better coding environment might just seal the deal."
Many people I know agree that Windows XP SP2 was more than just a service pack for XP, it made XP feel like a whole new OS. All the newly added features, much needed tweaks, and even the usual program incompatabilities that come with having a "new" OS.
For those who loved Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2 was the version of Windows XP that finally got holdouts to switch.
Windows 7 is built on Vista. Like XPSP2, Windows 7 fixes almost all the bad aspects of Vista and adds new features and tweaks. With such a promising, upcoming OS, it's no wonder why MS is having a hard time finishing Vista SP2. It must be like coding for a dead fork.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
The fact that you can download Ubuntu without paying a single cent for it is not a very compelling argument for Ubuntu. Case in point: at my university, we have subscriptions to the "MSDN Academic Alliance" which grants us no-cost downloads of various Microsoft products.
Instead, one should focus on the legal restrictions on that software. MSDNAA lets me get gratis copies of Windows, sure, but reviewing the license reveals some interesting terms; for example, upon graduation, I am supposed to remove the software from my computer. With Fedora (likewise Ubuntu), there is no such restriction: I am free to use the software for any length of time, regardless of my status as a student or my employment. MSDNAA also forbids the use of the software for any use that is not personal or academic; once more, Fedora (etc.) comes with no such restriction.
Purchasing a copy of Windows in order to gain the right to use the software indefinitely only partially addresses that issue. I cannot modify Windows in such a way that allows me to access it remotely while someone else is accessing it (multi-user access). Again, in Fedora, there is no such restriction.
I do not agree with everything RMS/FSF has to say, but in terms of proprietary versus free-libre licensing, they are spot on.
Palm trees and 8
I have to admit, Windows 7 actually looks really good. I may even get a home PC loaded up with it again, just to have it on hand.
Still will be mainly a Mac user. But I will be finally comfortable recommending Windows 7 to those who need to run Windows.
Who cares when it will be released. Windows Se7en will still require the outlandish hardware that Vista does. Most Enterprises will not be migrating to it anytime soon due to cost and time of upgrading desktops and application incompatibility for their outdated software that they rely on to keep the business running. Trust me, I see this first hand at my job.
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
I'm curious why all these people who hated Vista are showering love on Windows 7. Is it some sort of mass psychology type thing?
I'm a UNIX guy, and I don't consider myself a Microsoft hater per se, the visual changes in Windows 7 just look hideous. I try and keep my screen as clean as possible to cut down on the distractions (meaning my windows machine looks about the same now as it did in 1995), and by this benchmark, Windows 7 is even worse than Vista with all its worthless gizmos and gadgets and stuff like that.
Is it really so hard to understand that I don't want shit moving around on my screen when I'm trying to think? Or that I don't want to see icons for anything except stuff I'm actually working on? The new Windows 7 taskbar looks -- crap, I already used "hideous" -- uh, distracting.
Combine with all sorts of stupid decisions in Vista like to replace the up-arrow button with a refresh button that does nothing in all common cases, and, yeah... I'm mystified why people are so positive about Win7,
This is not a new OS. M$ takes the putrid Vista code, finds the most bloated , slow junk. Does a little fixing to make it seem faster. Put's a pretty face on it. Poof Tada Windows 7.
What was that comment about lipstick on a pig?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Dude, you really, really should upgrade your version of Windows at home. Windows 98SE is much more stable.
from their mistakes. Vista was unleashed/released upon the Earth far too early, and their solution to this has been "Windows 7 will fix it all".
It's the Obama of Operating Systems, and it's been getting some damn positive pre-release press and general good vibes from techies who've seen the Beta.
So naturally, the only sane and rational thing to do (in M$ world) is cut the testing, drop a beta from the schedule, only have one release candidate and hit the markets.
No company this stupid should survive the credit crunch.
Guest post by Mary-Jo Enderle
I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT_VERSION build $MOCKUP.
I tried it on a low-end netbook with four Core 2 Duo chips and only 8 gig of memory, and trust me: $NEXT_VERSION is shaping up to be one heck of a product.
WordPad and Paint have seen major overhauls to their user interfaces. Forget the freetards and their "distros" full of all sorts of useless shovelware like "FireFox" and "OpenOffice" and, haha, "GIMP"! - the bundled software with Windows $NEXT_VERSION is clear, simple, sparse and to-the-point. The much-loved $HATED user interface from Office $HATED_VERSION is now part of WordPad and Paint!
The controversial Digital Rights Management system in Vista has been worked over, with user-downloadable "tilt bits," which you can configure to your own liking. It'll require every user to supply a blood sample for DNA analysis, and the beta nearly took my finger off, but of course that's only if you want to play premium content. The Blu-Ray(tm) of Battlefield Earth was unbelievable on this operating system.
A release candidate should be available by the end of this year. There's just no way that Steve "Trains Run On Time" Ballmer will miss the Christmas deadline. The final release should leave the midnight queues on Vista release day - the street riots, the water cannons, the rubber bullets - in the shade.
I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows. It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT_VERSION. And they're finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT_LEGACY_STUFF.
Also, there'll be $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM. It'll be awesome!
I wonder how $NEXT_VERSION will compare to $NEXT_NEXT_VERSION.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Removing the stuff from the Vista source code that shouldn't have been there in the first place? That shouldn't take long: just go back into source control and revert to last-known-good. Namely, Win2K.
I bet what they're doing is finding ways of crippling Windows 7 to "teach" people "how good they had it" with Vista.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
If Windows 7 can't run the games I create on XP, I don't really care for it. Windows XP may be old, but I am sticking with what works.
...using rumour, extrapolation and second-hand information. Sooo, can we please not call it "slippage" when your hopes and dreams are shattered when it doesn't appear in October? Because it seems bashing Millisoft on here for things they never promised is a very popular pastime. And no, I'm not new here. Bashing for letdowns is one thing, but when you're making up release dates for something you're not involved in, well, work it out for yourself. I'm not suggesting it makes you look foolish or anything.
Oh, and can you people bashing too much UAC or not enough UAC make your bloody minds up, please? Or, you know, use something else other than Windows? I'm not particularly fond of MS, but this constant pissing and moaning is getting rather old now.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Uh no wonder you think it is buggy. Windows 98 was based on Windows 95 code. Ever since Microsoft went to NT kernel based operating systems as the common baseline (Windows 2000) the operating system is much better.
If you aren't using something, you can't upgrade it.
yeah, whatever!
I bet that duke nukem forever will be released before windows 2009!
you stand corrected.
Read radical news here
Microsoft has always said 'three years after the general availability of Windows Vista,' which was released on January 30, 2007
then the next release date would be no earlier than January 30, 2010. And seeing how I can't even remember the last time Microsoft released software on time, the better guess would be somewhere around 1st quarter or 2nd quarter 2010 (and that's giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.
The Fortune Ten company that pays my bills has commenced a two year. multi-million dollar roll-out of a profoundly defective product. The development team I work with volunteered to be 'early adopters' within this process. I am here to report that my Vista-equipped 4GB Lenovo laptop craters occasionally and otherwise runs at speeds I recall from Windows 3.1. My group will likely get bumped up to Win7, while secretaries and such remain stuck w/Vista. My point is this: M$ is making a necessary decision on behalf of their consumer customer base that is going to have long-term and expensive consequences for their most ardent supporters within their corporate/enterprise customer base. No CIO who hasn't already signed off on a Vista rollout already is likely to do so now. Instead, they are going to retain XP for as long as possible...and just maybe start wondering if SLED isn't such a bad idea after all. I absolutely believe that Win7 is being rolled out as quickly as possible. Vista is perhaps the biggest mistake M$ has ever made, and the bleeding has to be staunched. But I remain highly skeptical that an aggressive Win7 is going to accomplish that much, long-term. The strategy that Microsoft used to dominate the software industry is unravelling even faster than their flagship product. Vista is hardly the end of Microsoft as a company.....but I think it may very well mean the end of an era.
Sure, thats easy. Blame it on the vendors. But you ignore the fact that MS has changed several core specs of the OS even weeks before its initial release. Changes which made it impossible for a majority of vendors to keep up, let alone get some drivers out at the planned release date. And that is ticking people off; (being force to) investing money into driver development only to find out that you can flush a majority down the drain and basically start over again.
So yes, the vendors didn't really jump on the Vista bandwagon here. But they sure had a damned good reason for that!
The prevailing driver for buying new versions of Windows has always been the hope that the next version would be decent and safe (a bit like Bush & Blair promising glory to get elected).
At least they have given up on that.
I still won't buy it.
Insert
we heard the same bull from them over Vista, XP and Windows 2000? They keep playing on the fools and idiots who believe this drivel and then, when they CAN'T deliver on time, everyone gets cheesed off. Be honest, MS, you can't deliver a decent OS in under 2 years. I wouldn't buy a MS OS for any amount of money.
Pax Vobiscum
It seems some people on slashdot can't stand the idea Windows 7 might actually be a good OS, and so you see the barrage of posts exclaiming "But it's just Vista!", almost praying that people will start to believe this.
Well, how is it not? Oh yes, there's a new taskbar and a new device-manager, and a few other eye-candy approaches to problems that mostly didn't exist.
So, here's some plain, undebatable facts:
- W7 is not the re-write Vista was over XP
Which it never really was: Many XP drivers still worked on Vista (saved my ass, when there were no Vista drivers from HP), the actual features of Vista, WinFS and Monad/PowerShell were quickly killed before the final release, and all that was left, was a bit of DRM support, Aero and Sidebar, as well as DX10 support (which I suspect was purposefuly cippled out of XP) and UAC. Considering the features cut out of Vista compared to XP, (NFS only in Ultimate and Enterprise, SFU gone) and the features not there due to lacking 3d party suport (WHAT, STILL NO NVIEW, NVIDIA?) it never felt like a worthwhile upgrade. And it never looked like the new computing experience that was promised. With still no WinFS and no Powershell, Win7 doesn't either.
- W7 contains some brand new tech, some brand new UI stuff, and generally tweaks across the board.
Yeah, which is pretty much what a service pack used to be about: some brand new tech (like a decent firewall), some UI changes (like a security center) and tweaks across the board.
- Service Packs very very rarely change anything on the surface. Take a Windows XP machine & tell me what SP it's running without going to System Properties....just using it like grandma would. You probably won't be able to.
Until the popup warns me that I have no AntiVirus installed...which is about 5 seconds in..
- Windows 7 will look & feel vastly different from any other Windows. UAC will be less invasive, the GUI is distinct, and most people report it running faster than Vista.
Well, most people report XP running faster than Vista. UAC is actually a good thing, as it encourages and enables users to run as users and only escalate to admin rights when necessary. Don't want to see that being diluted.
Look and feel "vastly" different? I think your definition of vastly is slightly stale...
Finally..... if you have any "doubt" W7 is indeed not a service pack here's some bedtime reading for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
Or just read the eight-point list at microsoft.com, of which four points are marketing speak for features that mostly already exist, and the other four are minor GUI changes or some performance tweaks that are getting us slightly ahead of the performance that XP was giving us with the advent of SP 2.
No really, Win 7 is so that people that are sticking to XP now will buy Vista with a fancy name and a service pack installed. It's a slap in the face for Vista users, because they're expected to shell out again, only because the Vista name turned into a marketing nightmare.
Unless someone finds a real feature in Vista or Win 7 that actually is really improving the experience over a well groomed XP (no, DX10 and DRM HD-playback don't count, I only have a DX9 card and DVI outputs, and they play HD just fine, as long as there's no crippleware).
Windows 7 is a polished Vista. That said, I'm testing the beta in a 512MB VirtualBox and it's slow to start up, but surprisingly responsive and usable. And ridiculously pretty.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Let me explain how it works:
... Seinfeld wasn't the expensive part. The costly part was to produce a mock-up product that was only meant to distract customer and media attention for long enough for the disappointment to wear off into "I'll settle with average"-ism. I tip my hat to thee Microsoft. This time, I'm actually impressed. Or rather I would be, hadn't I been able to see through it.
Phase 1:
People have high expectations of your new product. They're fed up by the repetitive software releases you've done over the years and the lack of innovation from your part. Then you release a software that draws all the attention (or aggro, for WoW players). Once everybody has jumped either on the hater bandwagon or put up with the new, yet old, system you go to the next step. You use popular figures (like comedians) and one of your famous company people (maybe a nerd) to make advertisements that make people go "Really? What is this shit? I won't buy, but I know it's Delicious" to sidetrack even more of the critics.
Phase 2:
You announce your "true" new product (which was in development all along and was intended to be the successor to your old product line in any case) as the next big thing "coming soon". Since that newly developed system doesn't have enough new ideas to convince people to switch, and people are already confused by your current shitfest of a project you need to give them an incentive, that's what they needed Vista for. MS released Vista saying it will be their new OS and after the confusion had manifested and the expectations had been severely disappointed they start the next phase.
Phase 3:
You release an older polished release candidate of a less important branch of your true product as "the real deal". Then when people start questioning your abilities you go ahead and re-release your original new product line under a fancy new name. This way the expectations have already been lowered from the outset and the "new alternative" looks like a worthwhile contestant all of a sudden. Without Vista, the very same criticism that hit it, would have hit Windows 7 instead. Win7 looks like a slightly improved Vista, whereas Vista looked like a slightly improved XP. So, instead of making real big jumps and actually innovating you do two little intermediary steps and consumers will praise you for two entirely different new version of the operating system.
Phase 4:
Profit?
Seriously this, to me, sounds like an elaborate plan to con consumers into buying into the age old "fuck up and re-release" cycle that we have come to expect from Microsoft. A clever usage of market economics of perception rationale. If you serve people average products you will eventually go broke. But if you sell them really terrible products for a short period of time, rule out all options for downgrading and then start selling average products again you will be better off than by simply selling average crap to begin with.
They've employed a 300 Million Dollar ad strategy and let me tell you
... won't be the Year of Windows on the Desktop either.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The improved derivative of Windows 6.0 "Vista": Windows 6.1, whatever fancy codename you'd like to name it with, is going to be released in 2009.
Improvements in the new version of Windows over the previous one are evident, luckily for Microsoft and for all small and big customers worldwide that see no choice but working with a Windows system.
Now, put the three columns aside (could I have done that on ./!) and you will notice what facts really are. XP won as relatively stabler success on its predecessors.
XP Release -> 1jr -> SP1 -> 2jr -> SP2 'too much' success'
Vista 'hurried' Release without good drivers -> 1jr -> SP1 -> still bad market and performance -> WINDOWS7/SP2
XP
Release 25 October 2001
SP1 9 September 2002
SP2 6 August 2004
SP3 April 21, 2008 w/ backports of Vista
VISTA
Release January 30, 2007
SP1 February 4, 2008
SP2 April 2009?
SP3 2010 around when Windows7 SP1 comes?
Windows 7
Release End 2009?
All that changed is timeline. At MS they're human beings, too. Who says all they do must be immediately perfect? The market? Wall Street? ./?
Well, not all everybody does should immediately ready and perfect. That's stupid black and white thinking and gets to overconfidence and worldwide market collapses. After all look at OpenSource: should such a fuss happen for every release of Ubuntu it would be plain dead by now. And what about the "Quality" when KDE4 came out?
Let the alas 'overcorporatized' guys at MS do their new fancy SP, put a new name on it, sell it as new OS and see what happens and have fun and/or get crazy with it, depending on your tendencies. End of story.
... with blood, cats and dogs began to live together, a plague of locusts infested Washington State and the Red Pentagram of Death issued forth from my Xbox.
On one hand, they need to get something out to replace the dirty name... Vista. Everyone knows it and hates it.
No they don't. You spend too much time reading anti-MS fud on Slashdot.
Vista was not a rewrite. What, other than UI changes, have actually changed the way you used your computer? Oh, that's right. None. They navigate your folders a little differently, sure, but that's Service Pack stuff. They have to change the way it looks, or else they wouldn't make money off of the people who don't know any better. Look and feel doesn't necessarily mean better, anyhow. And it's running better, yeah, that should have been the case in Vista to begin with. MS should have known better in 2006 than to make an OS that computers two years in the future would still have issues running well. Win7 is MS pulling their heads out of their rears, but unfortunately they're forcing the consumers to pay for their idiotic mistakes.
:-P
I've tried the W7 beta and though I don't personally prefer their products I do have to deal with them. The product doesn't look bad enough to dismiss out of hand. It might get traction. Is it better than XP? Um, it's different. A lateral move, maybe, in sum. But that might be good enough.
About pricing, we'll see. If anything the company's pricing people have got a good handle on how to fuzz the real cost so that nobody can give a straight answer about it.
The link was well worth the read. Thanks.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
They are free to choose.
And when they call for some informal friendly tech support, we're now free to offer them the help they really need: a disc that can relieve them of the pain of viruses and spyware forever. And if they decline, we're free let them walk the path they've chosen and leave them to their adventure.
Except for Mom, of course. Mom gets the same service as before.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It also doesn't come with a compiler, perl, python, or any other real programming environment.
When we talk about how crippled the thing is, let's not forget the basics.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Actually, and this is a conspiracy theory on my part, I think Microsoft is secretly planning to release Windows 7 as the Service Pack upgrade to Vista. If you own Vista already, you can upgrade (perhaps for a nominal fee). If you don't use Vista yet, you can skip buying Vista altogether and jump to Windows 7. Not only will this give Microsoft a bunch of street cred for not being as greedy as they are made out to be (though, really, Apple's overpriced, closed-system stuff is greedier) by making Vista owners buy a full-price upgrade, but it will allow Microsoft to completely ditch the unsavable Vista brand name. Let's face it, Windows 7 is a Service Pack for Vista. A damn fine one. "What everyone hoped Vista was going to be," etc. Microsoft is calling it a new operating system to get the hell away from the Vista name, and why not? With the rave reviews Windows 7 has been getting, there will be absolutely no reason not to finally upgrade from XP. Just a hunch on my part, but seriously, why not do this?
I operate in the healthcare segment, and GE's medical records software still does not possess Vista support.
Then GE needs to get its act together. From 2005 through 2007, I used to volunteer at a hospital whose patient record system (CPRS) and medical imaging system ran just fine on top of VistA. But then the version of VistA that we used was free software published by the U.S. government.
And by "outlandish" you mean "sub-$500 PC", right ?
My laptop is a $300 Eee PC. After Windows 7 is out, and Microsoft pulls Windows XP from the ULCPC market, will $300 hardware be powerful enough to run new copies of Windows? Or will netbook makers have to switch back to Linux?
"My major gripe with Vista was games performing poorly"
Complete and utter bullshit.
Games run with a couple of fps of each other on Vista and XP. Stop spreading lies.
VERY afraid...
See, people like me take some time so show our sysadmin and some of our programmers what KDE4 does in 256 MB of graphics RAM. I'm running a P-6301 by Gateway, and it has an integrated Intel chip. I didn't have the money to buy a 512 MB dedicated chip, so i got this, mainly because i wanted 17" of screen space to do ViaCAD and such.
But, when it's possible to run Sun Vm/VirtualBox and VMWare in 2GB of RAM, and have vista run faster inside the VM than natively, you KNOW microsoft's GOT to be fucking pissed off, pressuring its developers to SPEED THINGS UP. Well, it ought to infuriate msoft, for it's such a juggernaut that knows not what either hand is doing (playing with itself, self-aggrandizing, on one hand, and, onthe other hand, doing a faux-reach-around on the consumers, companies, and governments with that beast called vista.
If Vista Home Premium is unable to do what KDE4 and Compiz Fusion and plasma and other things related can do, then what does that say about microsoft? I think it says they and the graphics industry probably were in cahoots to drive the consumers/businesses/governments into paying for more hardware than they needed, probably to boost the computer sales industry. Not a novel or new idea. Actually, it's one that should spur anti-trust and other types of investigations. Like the one that ensnared LG and others for price-fixing around LCDs...
But, i imagine msoft will walk away ungrazed, unscathed... And, no, I am NOT one of they el-cheapo types of Linux/Open Source user. While I won't spend $1400 again (not soon anyway) on a laptop, i DID spend some $700, and got what i needed, AND some. I DID buy software (CAD), and upgrade my RAM to 2 GB from 1 GB. I DID buy upgraded hard drives. SO, i'm not complaining that computer peripherals can cost a lot. I'm kvetching that windoze vista graphics underperform, and were designed to screw over people. Hell, even some internal Intel documents (posted/alluded to/revealed here on slashdot) attest to frustrations Intel was having over the vista-ready/vista-capable labels.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
More Indications Windows 7 Is Coming In 2009
There were storm clouds on the horizon, and Rome witnessed a rain of burning frogs. Children's dreams were fraught with monsters, and glimpses were caught of the cloven hoofed man goat somewhere in the vicinity of Sparks, Nevada. The time is near and truth is out there. Eternal woe hath cometh unto the technocommunity. Oh, Discordia!
Talk about making lemonade. W7 provides the following warm fuzzy feeling to MS users:
"Gosh, I'm smart for skipping Vista!"
If W7 isn't basically the same as Vista, I'll be shocked. Remember folks, it took about 6 years for them to build Aero. How much new functionality do you think they completed in the 2 years since?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I think I'l wait for the third coming
Proudly Butchering code for 20 years
Honestly, if Vista was not a rewrite of the kernel, why was there such a driver/application compatibility problem? You're completely wrong on that point. Most of the changes in Vista are under the proverbial hood, whereas the changes in 7 are more prominent to the user.
All your base are belong to Wii.
I've been using Vista off and on since September '08 and the main issues that bugged me (slow transfers, random lockups, software / hardware issues, etc.) seem to have been resolved with Windows 7 (but I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to snatch defeat from the jaws of mediocrity).
look at how much Paint has improved if you think that this is a simple minor release
I've read that argument a hundred and sixty-seven times, and it keeps getting funnier every time I read it!
--With apologies to Beetlejuice
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I'm I the only one thinking that Microsoft should buy the source code of an OS like SkyOS? It's already reasonnably working well and they could throw all their programmers into it to make it usable and workable for PC. I think this way would be better than sticking with and old os that keep adding layer of complexity everytime there's a new version.
Sacrificing security for usability: UAC security flaw in Windows 7 beta (with proof of concept code) (Jan 30)
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090130/uac-security-flaw-windows-7-beta-proof/
and:
Malware can turn off UAC in Windows 7; "By design" says Microsoft (Jan 30)
http://www.withinwindows.com/
Leaks indicate Microsoft is un-rethinking the Win7 taskbar (Dec8)
http://www.betanews.com/article/Leaks_indicate_Microsoft_is_unrethinking_the_Win7_taskbar/1228780333
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Take a Windows XP machine & tell me what SP it's running without going to System Properties....just using it like grandma would. You probably won't be able to.
I can tell you if it has SP2 on it just by watching it start up (SP2 dropped the "Professional" and "Home" branding on the boot screen).
is not a rethinking of the taskbar, You can choose betwen just icons and old school icons and text, even theres another option that I just don't remember.
I can tell if it's SP3 cause it runs slow as shit. They hoked that one together to make Vista not seem so bad. I run SP2 with no updates at all. I's reasonably fast, stable, and secure.
Social Credit would solve everything...
And in Vista they dropped the Windows branding entirely!
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Well, to be fair, by staying with 32-bit, a probable majority of users might appreciate not being forced to address more memory than they can afford.
On the other side, for the best performance of the virtual memory system, it's important to have a memory address space which is an order of magnitude larger than the physical total amount of memory (both RAM and swap). So that the OS can quickly find free address ranges to which to map memory for the running applications.
With WinXP the situation is reversed : the OS is limited to 4GB address-space, out of which 2GB worth of addresses are reserved for applications (the rest is reserved for kernel). Whereas lots of 32bit CPUs can physically access 16GB or even more RAM.
But unless you pay for a server license and OS, Microsoft's OS are artificially limited and will quickly run out of addresses on which to map all the memory the hardware could afford.
Meanwhile Linux kernel can use PAE, which offer 64GB address space on CPUs as old as Pentium Pro.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Take a Windows XP machine & tell me what SP it's running without going to System Properties....just using it like grandma would. You probably won't be able to.
I can tell you if it has SP2 on it just by watching it start up (SP2 dropped the "Professional" and "Home" branding on the boot screen).
"Professional" and "Home" branding on the boot screen).
Yeah, and the colour of the "progress" bar changed from green to blue..
I really started losing interest in MS Windows when they stopped writing the OS for the end user, and started writing it for everyone but the user.
Supposedly 7 tries to eliminate codependencies, like IE <> Explorer. So, they're ripping off Debian.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"