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."
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.
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.
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."
Debug faster or you'll be gettin' the chair, m'boy!
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
"What features are there that are "must have" apart from the "ooh shiny" aspect"
Never underestimate the power of the "ooh shiny" marketing. The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
Clearest indication Windows 7 will be released soon?
Astroturf levels go well past "histrionic".
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
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,
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.
Clearest indication Windows 7 will be released soon?
Astroturf levels go well past "histrionic".
I'm also using the beta and will buy W7 to replace XP on my laptop. Why - it seems to run faster, especially when accessing shared drives.
Of course, I run it on Fusion on my Mac (I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.
Just because some has a reason to upgrade doesn't mean they're part of a astroturf campaign.
Now, if Snow Leopard allows seamless connectivity with exchange and i can replicate Outlook's functionality on my MAC then I may just pop for the Mac version of Office.
And yes, I run NeoOffice but it doesn't quite handle Office files properly in all cases so I can't rely on it for critical client work. I'd love an FOSS solution for Word/PowerPoint/Outlook/Excel/Visio; but everything I've tried is not quite there, yet.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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
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."
A 2009 release or 'RTM' date shouldn't be a surprise at all.
The beta expires in July, so the 'Release Candidate' build should be out before then, and the final version soon after.
the beta expires in august. ms even tells you such when you sign up for your beta key.
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.
Interesting comment.
All the benchmarks I've seen so far show Vista/Win7 being close to 30% slower than XP running office apps on the same hardware.
Care to explain what makes it "better" enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars getting Win 7?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Why?
What can justify the cost and performance hit of Windows 7? Yes, it is faster than Vista but it isn't faster than XP.
Last time I checked, all games support Windows XP. Also, why on earth would someone want to BUY an OS without it being bought/bundled with a new PC?
What features are there that are "must have" apart from the "ooh shiny" aspect?
That's not to mention the inevitable problems of early adoption...
How about being able to use all of the ram instead of being limited to only 3gb and also being able to use the 64 bit processor instead of being stuck with only a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit pc. Both of these situations mean that Windows 7 is actually faster than XP in some situations as being able to use all the memory and processor power not just part of it
Just 2 thoughts that come to mind straight away.
Shame XP64 never got fully completed. Still if it had then I guess Vista would have had even more problems getting any users.
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.
There have been large amounts of astroturf around this latest release, Slashdot has certainly played its part in posting many articles fawning over the new operating system.
Personally, I installed the beta on a VM, it's certainly slower than XP (in terms of time to start up and resources used when booted). Once the feeling of wow, this really does look like KDE4! was gone, I was left feeling rather deflated and eventually just went back to my Ubuntu desktop. It looks, feels, and even the feature list reveals, that this is just another minor release of Vista. A Vista SE, if you will. :)
Having said this, it's is just my opinion and I'm not representative of the great computer-using public. Here are my predictions for the release of Windows 7:
One more thing: incremental releases, like Windows 7 are a good idea. Ubuntu, Apple, etc. do this themseleves. However, if Microsoft charge the same amount for seven as they did for Vista, they deserve to be mocked.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Really? I just pulled it off my son's machine because it refused to install America's Army, except for an old version. Nor would it take the patches.
On the plus side:
It boots noticeably faster than XP on the same machine.
It shuts down noticeably faster than XP on the same machine.
The from-scratch install was as easier than any previous Windows install, and damn close to as easy as Kubuntu 8.10 and Fedora 10.
Aero *is* spiffy.
It recognized all my RAM using the 64-bit version.
The 32-bit compatibility on the 64-bit version was transparent.
It picked up my WiFi-N/WPA-2 network early on in the install and used NTP to set the clock.
On the down side, how hard is it for Microsoft to add some code to accommodate people who have their hardware clock set to UTC? I mean just put a damn check box there!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
VMs, Games, and Photoshop.
Heck, *searching* brought explorer.exe up to 970MB.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
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.
The updated file browser (assuming it used the same one as Vista)
It is the best non-Linux default file browser I've used.
There's probably a few other little built in things that make life better too, but for me that is the one I use every day and really appreciate.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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?
but browsing the net and sending emails just isn't that demanding.
not a firefox user eh?
Most of their software including games will NOT continue to work.
Please don't spread such ridiculousness, it gives people who make the change the wrong impression, and sends them running back.
Saying that there are "good enough" Free replacements for most software (excluding games) and a few games that will still work is much more honest, and in the long run a better strategy.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Strange. This 5 and a half year old PC here with 1Gb of RAM on XP/Ubuntu hasn't had any problems doing all the things you have listed.
So I would guess a current PC with 3GB of addressed memory would really struggle and have to upgrade the OS.
The things you suggested aren't that demanding. Nothing (that an ordinary user would use) demands anywhere near the 3GB cap of 32bit OS's. Not even the most demanding new games require 3GB.
Buying a new OS for a PC that someone already has is pointless and a complete waste of money.
Until things genuinely require more than 3GB of RAM, why not stick with XP?
The chances are, by the time that happens, the PC you have will be obsolete and you'll be looking to buy a new one. When that time comes (assuming it's been a year after Windows 7 release), then consider getting Windows 7 64bit.
If you do have some genuine need for more than 3GB, then you don't have much choice, however the ordinary user does not need more, and so should save their money for a time in the future when they do.
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"
All the benchmarks I've seen so far show Vista/Win7 being close to 30% slower than XP running office apps on the same hardware.
[Citation needed]. Seriously, 30% is a lot, and how do you measure office application performance anyway? Post-SP1 game benchmarks have shown that the performance difference is less than 5% and in many cases identical, largely due to the fact that drivers for Vista no longer suck, so I don't see how office apps, which are much less demanding, could run that much slower.
For one thing, window management in Windows 7 is a lot nicer than any other Windows to date, and I would say miles better than OS X (although OS X's window management is retarded IMO), and performance is a bit better than Vista, and then all the reasons Vista had over XP (integrated search, intelligent prefetcher, hardware accelerated UI, etc.) Document libraries are a neat feature, as is the Homegroup home networking setup, Device Stage looks cool if I had a device to use it with, and the bundled programs like Paint, Wordpad, etc got a nice makeover. Wordpad even supports .odt now.
It sounds like you're trying not to see any benefits of new versions of Windows, which is strange, because XP really isn't that good of an OS in the first place. It's just kind of stable and more or less plug and play, although Vista is even more so with the huge number of bundled drivers (eg. I just plugged my roommate's printer into my laptop and it "Just Worked" (TM)). If you are really curious about what's improved and not just trolling, I'd advise you to check out the Engineering Windows 7 blog.
All your base are belong to Wii.
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).