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.
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....
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.
No it wasn't, it was the fact the release was barely beta quality (corrupting files during copy, UAC going nutso and not letting you do simple things, etc.), it hit the hard drive almost constantly, took 3 times as long as XP to start apps even when fed 4GB of RAM.
Drivers just wasn't the issue.
In the last year, about half of us at work bought new laptops. With only ONE exception, they all were upgraded from vista to either linux or xp.
That one exception was a software tester. She kept saying how she was able to configure vista so that it works "really fast."
Last week, she said "Maybe I should install linux on my laptop".
Who knows what happened. Maybe her vista horked up a hairball ... who cares. The bottom line is that if Microsoft can't keep its' most loyal fans on board, what about the millions who only use windows because they don't know there are alternatives?
They're not going to buy Windows7.
Me, I've already decided that my next laptop, I'm applying for a refund on the OS. I'll consider it a "Microsoft hardware subsidy."
Who cares when it will be released. Windows Se7en will still require the outlandish hardware that Vista does.
And by "outlandish" you mean "sub-$500 PC", right ?
Heck, even when Vista was released, a PC that could run it well was only about $800.
If you're in a "fortune 10 company", then you probably are aware that the ones that bitched the most at Vista being so late was the fortune tops. Usually, with volume licensing and license insurance and all that junk, you break "even" if a new OS comes out every 3 years, so anything beyond that and you're getting rimmed.
That said, if your Vista equipped 4 gigs lap-top is even significantly slower than XP, your department needs to do their job better. Making sure the software installed on it (anti-virus comes to mind...) isn't known to be just a quick port of the XP version on Vista to bleed customers, tends to help. We rolled out Vista pre-SP1 on 1 gigs machines for developers and designers at launch and it was more than acceptable.
Windows 7 is being rolled out this fast because: A) until the WinFS fiasco (among other things) that slowed down Vista's release like crazy, that was pretty much the accepted pace (Win2k vs WinXP anyone? 20-21 months apart. Thats a LOT closer than Vista vs Win7), and B) because the Vista name is tainted by people who didn't update their OS rollout knowledge.
Being in an extremely large company doesn't make t he sysadmins any smarter. I worked for one of the 5 largest corporations in the world where untested crap was getting rolled out semi-randomly and blew up everything, so its really no indication.
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
I have to ask though, what do you do with Vista that needs so much RAM, seriously? I'm a windows developer, with tons of high volume services installed on my box (from SQL Server to Oracle, from Visual Studio in multiple flavors to Eclipse, etc), and I often have most of that running all at once, and while I have 4 gigs of RAM (well, 2.75...I need to move to 64 bit, ugh...), It has been MONTHS, according to my system's stats, since I went over 2 gigs, and from memory, when I did, it was because I let Firefox run too long with its glorious memory leaks.
I know that having McAfee, Norton or AVG (among others), especially the enterprise versions, on machines, will totally trash performance. It does in XP too (my current job has been on an XP box with 4 gigs of ram and Norton...performance is unacceptable, and makes that 1 gig Vista box look like it flies), but it affects Vista worse. Thats definately a problem, and if you blame it on Vista or on the AV vendors, thats up to you. Vista is impossible to use with those installed, period.
Without that though? What the hell are people doing to need that much RAM? (I know extremely large compiles, design and editing, rendering, etc can...but it does on XP too...but I'm talking about stuff that isn't known to bust 6 gigs even on Linux here).
Yes Windows 7 is much faster...among other things, it implemented a massive "service trigger" system that allows services to be off until the very moment you need them, and go back to off when you're done... but it won't help any once you flick McAfee on it. The subsystems are still similar, and if third party app vendors still force their half-assed "break-all-windows-development-standards" versions, the same problems will happen.
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?
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"