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."
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
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.
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