Slashdot Mirror
How Vista Mistakes Changed Windows 7 Development
snydeq writes "For the past several months, Microsoft has engaged in an extended public mea culpa about Vista, holding a series of press interviews to explain how the company's Vista mistakes changed the development process of Windows 7. Chief among these changes was the determination to 'define a feature set early on' and only share that feature set with partners and customers when the company is confident they will be incorporated into the final OS. And to solve PC-compatibility issues, Microsoft has said all versions of Windows 7 will run even on low-cost netbooks. Moreover, Microsoft reiterated that the beta of Windows 7 that is now available is already feature-complete, although its final release to business customers isn't expected until November." As a data point for how well this has all worked out in practice, reader The other A.N.Other recommends a ZDNet article describing rough benchmarks for three versions of Windows 7 against Vista and XP. In particular, Win-7 build 7048 (64-bit) vs. Win-7 build 7000 (32-bit and 64-bit) vs. Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 were tested on both high-end and low-end hardware. The conclusions: Windows 7 is, overall, faster than both Vista and XP. As Windows 7 progresses, it's getting faster (or at least the 64-bit editions are). On a higher-spec system, 64-bit is best. On a lower-spec system, 32-bit is best.
They are marketing the name Windows 7 which is really Windows Vista SP2.
We have talked about W7 performance on netbooks which will only allow to run 3 apps. Perfect for an antivirus, a firewall, an antispyware, the WGA... oh crap!
Between now and then, Apple will likely have released OS X 10.6, and there will have been two new release of Ubuntu.
I wonder what's moving faster: Microsoft, or the goal posts?
How is this astroturfing? It's not like someone came out and said that Windows 7 was better than both Linux and OS X combined...
How the hell can it be 2009 and Microsoft still has:
* DOS era drive letters for volumes?
* The perfectly wrong choice of \ vs / for path names?
* The Win 3 era maximize button on windows?
* Files that can't be move when they are open by another application?
We are all going to be drinking Tang while going to work in our flying cars and this legacy garbage will still be in Windows.
"How Vista Mistakes Changed Windows 7 Development"
You got it wrong: Vista was the mistake that caused Windows 7 development.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Well, instead of throwing a chair at you, I've decided to take your challenge! I had Netcraft test our Microsoft Office benchmark suite with Office 2007 running under Wine on Ubuntu 9.04 32-bit and under the latest 64-bit build of Windows 7.
Unsurprisingly, Windows 7 wins by a longshot! Ha! *throws chair* I'm gonna fscking KILL Mark Shuttleworth! Muahahahaha!
-- Steve Ballmer
My blog
FTFA:
So, now that they admit that it's a steaming pile of crud, where's my refund for this defective product that I don't use that came bundled with my laptop?
Love em or hate em, at least this time they're trying to get a sense for catering to their market instead of just trying to shove crap down at people and expect them to buy it because its new and its Microsoft.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Can't wait for those results!
Let's pitch those against my Gentoo. Next month, when I'm done with the compiling.
Microsoft is basically doing a Vista service pack with Windows 7, but they have put out a TON on press on sites like Digg and Slashdot to change the mental landscape around Windows 7 with consumers and the core technical crowd. At this point I'm pretty skeptical of every pro Windows 7 article and poster, though of course by now you'd expect Vista to have been improved.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
From the summary: "...Microsoft has said all versions of Windows 7 will run even on low-cost netbooks..."
This is a fairly meaningless statement, as it winds up being self-defining.
"all versions of Windows 7", but no mention of which parts of Win7 will function and/or be disabled
"run" is inherently subjective
"low-cost netbooks" certainly doesn't refer to the netbooks you can go out and buy today. It's the ones 9-12 months from now, with faster CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, larger HDs. Effectively, it's referring to today's notebooks, which are next years netbooks
Assuming 'netbook' is still allowed to be used generically, and no longer trademarked by whatsitsname...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Talk about a gullible public.
Vista bombing? Don't fix it, have "another" OS release and try to recover the lost money.
All it is is the first non-alpha non-beta release of Vista. You used to get a few years out of the real release (i.e. XP SP2), but I guess we have to pay for the "real" releases now.
So then why is my system so damned IO bottlenecked? I have a hard drive with a rating of 5.9 which is CONSTANTLY in use by the OS, by the process "system" which can't be killed. The problem is not there in XP or Ubuntu or... It's even better on the laptop because the fucking OS doesn't give a chance for the disk to spin down. Great for battery life. Applications LAG LAG LAG LAG when launching because the disk is more bogged down than low flow toilet after several pizzas... Index service, or shadow copy; I don't give a fuck unless it's indexing the shadow copy of my girlfriend's ass.
MS deigns to send the message that they care about the customer and the community. It would have been nice if they did that the last time. Sorry, I'm already on OSX.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
This is like me saying "getting a ticket made me a better driver". Yes, that's true in a sense, but if I'd paid attention, and followed obvious signs, I'd have saved myself 123$, and still learned my lesson.
There are at least two reasons I didn't move to Vista:
I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and assume that Win7 solves problem #1. Anyone know whether Win7 will support all those perfectly good devices I have that work just fine on Windows/XP, and that I was supposed to throw out when I installed Vista? If the answer is "no", I'm sticking to XP for a long time (or moving to Mac, for which drivers are indeed available).
I don't expect 7 to be a good operating system, but the time between releases is a very poor indicator of OS quality and performance. Some distributions, like Ubuntu, release small increments often, while Debian release less often but each update usually marks a bigger change. In addition they both cower the other release cycles separately. Ubuntu has LTS releases for those that need stability. Debian has the testing and unstable versions for those that want more up to date stuff. Apple seems to have found a decent compromise where they release semi-often and have a reasonably stable system, giving their users a reasonably up to date system with acceptable stability.
Windows, on the other hand, tends to release rarely, and still have moderate improvements, and then change the system with service packs. You basically get the worst of both worlds. You don't get the latest and greatest features that you may have got with something like Ubuntu, when released Windows tends to be even more outdated than Debian stable , but it has nowhere near the stability since each service packs tends to fundamentally alter many critical aspects of the system ( WGA, UAC, new IE version etc... ).
I think a lot of Microsoft's problems is that they try to target both the curious power users, office users and business with the same releases. You can't realistically have a OS release that is going to be cutting edge over its life cycle, while simultaneously being stable and well tested. You will either have to compromise or do separate releases. Ubuntu, Debian and RedHat seem to be doing well having separate releases for different users, Apple seems to be managing the compromise rather well, Microsoft just fails horribly at doing either.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 7 or 8 times, shame on me ;-)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
A pro MS article?
KDawson posted it?
Now I'm scared. The world must be ending. Maybe someone hacked his account...
No. Epson choose to not support your scanner any more. It's not Microsoft's fault that a 3rd party decided not to fully support your hardware with drivers for the latest OS. Vista would support it perfectly fine if Epson would write drivers for it, but they are banking on you choosing to buy a newer model scanner.
Don't blame Microsoft for Epson's greed.
I agree. I dropped half a grand for a few copies of Vista Ultimate upgrade. I didn't even hesititate. I wouldn't call myself a Windows fanboy but I was definitely on the MS 'team'. I bought the upgrade version, only to find my 'upgrade' copy actually requires me to install XP so that I can then find out that I CAN'T actually upgrade the XP partition. I then have to install a fresh copy of Vista on an empty partition while keeping the XP partition around to prove I'm upgrading.
Every version of windows before that was just fine with verifying your old media and then installing. What moron thought this was an improvement? Did these guys even TRY the upgrade path? This was my introduction to Vista. It just went downhill from there.
I was then introduced to the joys of Vista. It's flaws have been discussed to death. I can at least say it did two good things for me. It introduced me to Linux again which was a refreshing change from the early 90's, and it prompted me to switch to Mac.
At this point I could care less about Windows 7. Too little, too expensive, too late.
screw apple, and screw microsoft, i built my own os from the ground up. its called legal pad and pen.
Don't worry, I'm not new. Actually, I didn't "read" the article, I looked at the ratings in the second link and that was it.
I would like see even "rough benches" of each OS, but, alas, all I see are playskool dumbed-down 1,2,3,4,5 ratings. Nothing to indicate actual facts. Who know how they were rating the damn tests. Cookies eaten per operation? Fingers counted? Beatings about the head?
Next up, on the Intel with 4GB they claim that overall XP SP3 was worse than Vista SP1? I call BS. And on the AMD with 1GB it said they were the same? As if (I won't comment on Win7's performance, because I haven't run it yet). XP SP3 rated 4th or 5th in almost everything! On the Intel it rated a 1 for "moving 100mb files", and 5 on the AMD...WTF! This guy has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
By the way, who the hell put the ratings in an image? 100k each, for 1k of data. They don't want people to c/p the results or something? How does anything get done anymore, I want my money back, I'm going home.
After getting sued over the whole "Vista-Ready" program, I expect Microsoft will be at least a little bit more careful with their subjective definition of "run".
The issue, if there will be one, will probably be with licensing. A previous article had suggested that MS will release a lower-cost version of Win7 that's geared towards netbook users that will impose an artificial limitation of 3 apps running at once. Which is unusually stupid for Microsoft, as that kind of thing could push more people towards browser-based web apps, rather than their desktop counterparts (Google Docs vs Office, for example) - as if the crazy cost of MS Office wasn't enough of a deterrent, now its competition doesn't eat up one of your three allowed apps because you already had a browser open? Idiots.
I mean, I guess MS is at least trying to "get" why people like netbooks (cheap), but that kind of stupid artificial limitation won't win them many brownie points. I think two versions of Windows (like XP, holy crap!) is plenty - home and pro/office. And the only difference should be that the home version can't join a domain. Charge $99 for Win7 Home like Apple does for OS X and call it a day. Simple, reasonably-priced, and it won't piss people off.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Not only that, it completely ignores the probable rise of inexpensive and energy-efficient ARM-based netbooks. Windows 7 won't be running on those *at all*.
I have a Dell Mini 9, and it does just fine with Dellbuntu 8.04. Even the 512MB RAM is fine - the screen size and form factor does not lend to massive multi-app multi-desktop kind of work. It's an über PDA, that I can put Postgres on if I need it.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Microsoft is still pursuing a marketing strategy to try and squeeze money out of the OS at the expense of their true Customers, the people who actually use the OS. Until they return to serving only the end Customer and not music industry and other competing interests people will continue to move away from them.
Yeah I can make Windows faster than its previous version - but it will take a huge memory footprint hit in the process.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
the best most favorite thing I could ever have as a fix from vista to windows 7 is the removal of the penalty to stay with XP.
If I can't have that - well , then. No more microsoft in this house.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
> I guess we have to pay for the "real" releases now.
http://www.osor.eu/news/fr-gendarmerie-saves-millions-with-open-desktop-and-web-applications
If you choose the right OS in the first place, you don't have to pay anything.
So sue me.
First things first:
He said Microsoft's move in March 2006 to put former head of Office development Steven Sinofsky in charge of Windows development was a key driver of changes in the process. Sinofsky is now senior vice president for the Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, and Nash credits him for bringing order to the group.
They need to fire that guy, and hire me. I'll do it for half the money, and pump out an OS that people actually want. It might even resemble Windows 2000 in its simplicity, and Linux in its features.
Gavriella Schuster, a senior director of Windows product management, cited the "stop-and-start nature" of Vista's development process as contributing to partners' lack of preparedness for the final release. Microsoft stopped Vista's development in the middle of the process to overhaul the security of the OS, a move that delayed its final release.
Wrong, they didn't overhaul security, they overhauled the whole damn thing because an OS made out of .NET wouldn't actually run any applications. What's it called when someone re-writes history?
I still didn't see anything specific to "How Vista mistakes guided blah blah". Guided? Guided? Not even close. "Vista mistakes" didn't exist until Win7 was announced. All I saw in this article was this: "Hey, look, we have a new and BETTAR one, LOOKIES! It's safer, more secure, faster, more reliable than any other" what? propogadvertisement we've ever seen before while installing it, that's what.
I know I sound like I have a chip on my shoulder. I do. It's because my clients, friends, family, and I have been forced into this crap if we plan to run the applications we are familiar with, or buy a computer from a big box store. I tried, oh how I tried, to get family on Linux...endless support calls later, they're all back on XP. Yes, XP. I like Linux dearly, it's close to market, but just not yet...I can operate a computer in the dark, under water, wearing blindfold with one hand behind my back. >95% of all other people can't, which precludes them from that platform.
As an aside, and completely off-topic, who the hell started the standard of making the non-functional progress bar? The first time I recall seeing it was during the XP installation. Now, it's everywhere. Is nothing sacred? Obfuscate! They must not know!
***
4. Move 100MB files - Move 100MB of JPEG files from one hard drive to another
5. Move 2.5GB files - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from one hard drive to another
6. Network transfer 100MB files - Move 100MB of JPEG files from test machine to NAS device
7. Network transfer 2.5GB files - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from test machine to NAS device
8. Move 100MB files under load - Move 100MB of JPEG files from one hard drive to another while ripping DVD to .ISO file
9. Move 2.5GB files under load - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from one hard drive to another while ripping DVD to .ISO file
10. Network transfer 100MB files under load - Move 100MB of JPEG files from test machine to NAS device while ripping DVD to .ISO file
***
I know what the Internet is, what the hell is this Interweb business?!
Technically, Windows XP will "run" on an old Pentium underclocked to 8 Mhz with 20MB RAM. Sure, it won't install, but if you take out the memory and underclock after the installation, it'll work. It'll take half an hour to boot and be at full cpu load when idle, but it will run. It's been done.
No need to exaggerate. It only takes half a week.
Vista twice trashed an XP system that was dual booting on the same system.
Let that be a lesson to you. Never, ever, under any circumstances should you use a dual boot system, no matter what two Operating Systems are at play. It's the one surefire way to guarantee you will have problems down the road. You went asking for trouble, and it found you.
If for some lame ass reason you need to go back and use XP, use VirtualBox or get a cheap spare hard drive.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
It's not Microsoft's fault that a 3rd party decided not to fully support your hardware with drivers for the latest OS.
It's not Microsoft's fault.
It is Microsoft's problem, if they want people with hardware older than a couple of years to upgrade to that latest OS.
The obvious way to solve this problem would be to implement standard interfaces for device drivers that were supported across all OS versions, at least for major categories of hardware that many people have, but for some strange reason Microsoft seem to be incapable of doing this even though just about every other OS in history has managed it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Oh lord... Don't bring the Adrian Kingsley-Hughes "benchmarks" into this. His numbers are magical, most likely figments of his imagination. Why is it that his "benchmarks" go against ever other we've seen? What sort of special magic does he have up his arse that makes this so? Windows 7 and Vista faster than XP? Yeah right, then I must be the Pope!
No. Epson choose to not support your scanner any more. It's not Microsoft's fault that a 3rd party decided not to fully support your hardware with drivers for the latest OS. Vista would support it perfectly fine if Epson would write drivers for it, but they are banking on you choosing to buy a newer model scanner.
Don't blame Microsoft for Epson's greed.
But you might reasonably blame Microsoft for developing an ecosystem in which each vendor keeps the source to his own drivers, but with no obligation to update those drivers to be compatible with future OS releases.
This is an area where Linux generally does much much much much better. For example, ATI is soon to stop supporting some of their old cards. For Windows users, this means that in not many years, new versions of Windows won't work with those cards. In contrast, and Linux user that uses those cards has an open source driver for them, and it's very probably that the driver maintainer will choose to keep the driver up to date, even as Linux's driver interface evolves. This feature of the Linux ecosystem really is just much better than what the Windows ecosystem offers.
Is anyone else reminded of the 'new coke' saga when they hear about Windows 7?
I hadn't thought of it before you raised the point but that is the perfect analogy. Vista is Microsoft's "New Coke" - in fact think of the name, without "Windows" really in it like Windows98 or WindowsXP (Sure the name is official "Windows Vista" but everyone just uses Vista).
So Microsoft has to give us a new Windows to take away the taste of the ill-received one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Jim Allchin.
Remember our munchin ... our toddie ... our troll .. where for Out Thou, Bubbles-kun?
Great Post but you missed the mark on thumbdrives slightly. The DoD didn't ban them from all computers, the banned them from all Windows computers. They're perfectly ok (by the DoD order) to use on Linux, Unix, and Mac boxes.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
I have both an Asus eee 900a upgraded to a 32Gb SSD drive and a Samsung NC10 netbook; both systems upgraded to 2Gb RAM. I have to have an MS environment for some systems at work, and have had both systems set up dual boot. Ubuntu 8.04 or 8.10 run fine on either system, after tweaking for the Atheros WiFi hardware. Windows 7 Beta runs BETTER than XP Home on the Samsung NC10 with a 160Gb HD, and is a better choice if you HAVE to run an MS environment. I have to run multiple versions of all Windows versions on work systems to test device drivers and system side software for products my company manufactures, and hands down even being a "Beta" Windows 7 outshines the other Windows commercial OS products. On the other hand, it is more sluggish running off the Asus eee system with the 32Gb SSD drive.
Now compare this to linux hardware support when the company has released an open source driver. Even if the company drops support for the driver it will continue to be maintained by the community.
It looks like the updated the order to anything that connects to the networks. Originally it was just Windows machines. Gotta love complex bureaucratic shit like this... It's my job to enforce these orders and even I can't keep up with them all...
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
I hate vista, other than the newer font rendering, its bugs drive me crazy. The links in desktop that tell you "Permission Denied"... The hidden directories. UAC smacking you in the face. The whole OS basically does 2 things. 1. Stops you from doing a task. 2. Annoys you with bugs.
Now Windows 7, hard link bugs are gone, faster, that great font rendering is there. Super fast tcp, firefox is faster (or at least to the eye..) M$ hid directories even with show directories is on in explorer, thats not really cool, but I understand it.
Biggest problems? Applications pause if its waiting on a resource, very noticeable and annoying. The window changes color and pauses. Some of my favorite apps dont work yet on x64 version. (aka demon tools) Had to hack my registry to get sound in flash for firefox (fix it adobe, its been broken since vista, should not have to use a registry hack)
My work laptop uses XP, and when I switch to Vista/Win7 the font rendering is like night and day. Vista/Win7 is crisp and clear. Ubuntu 9.04 is getting closer, 8.10 not so good... No idea what font rendering techniques are different from 9.04 vs 8.10 but its noticeable...
MSFT and Intel are REALLY scared right now.
It's all nice to go compare Windows 7 to XP SP3; and although xp64 is pretty much unsupported officially speaking (although most software is compatible, or has compatible versions), I think it'd only be statistically fair to compare 64-bit W7 to 64-bit XP. It is, by far, the fastest, most efficient, and most stable operating system I have ever used without major compatibility issues.
Dude, ditch Epson next time you need to buy a printer/scanner/etc. Go with HP. If for no other reason than that they provide open source drivers and work great under any OS.
Or you could just grab the stage3 install and be on your merry way in 20 minutes.
This got modded informative. On slashdot.
Shame on you, mods!
For the record: I run Xubuntu 8.10 on my EEE900A, and use it as a Desktop replacement & deelopment machine (It's my year abroad). An it works freaking fine, even if I have to make extensive use of a Ramdisk sometimes (upgraded to 2 GB Ram).
I learned most of the skills necessary to do that here. And that's why I am reading this site and why I like it. Not because of people like you who say "oh, don't bother, that's just a toy"...
Please have babies with me.
Oh come on..
Do you honestly believe that the Linux driver ecosystem is better?
"His name was James Damore."
I'd say go with any manufacturer as long as they support standards - then you don't NEED specific "drivers".
For printers, that's anything that prints LPR or Raw (AKA "Port 9100 printing", AKA "Socket", AKA "Jet Direct") over network or offers a standard USB interface identifying itself as a printer; and interprets PCL5, PCLXL or PostScript.
For scanners, anything that implements TWAIN over USB correctly (which is a much smaller subset than "has TWAIN drivers") or has network scanning support (FTP, SMB, Email, etc, take your pick)
And yes, I do work in the printer/scanner industry, but I won't hype my company's products.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
What defines a service pack these days? I keep seeing the term thrown around every time someone thinks an OS has similarities to a previous version? Is that really what a service pack is because I have installed them before and have never experienced the amount of changes I have seen in 7. Is there really a Windows service pack that has that many UI changes? I'm not saying they reinvented the wheel, but I'm definitely seeing changes beyond what I have seen in any service pack.
Oh come on..
Do you honestly believe that the Linux driver ecosystem is better?
I'd say they have different strengths and weaknesses.
Windows has the advantage that every consumer device that plugs into a computer is going to get a Windows driver from the manufacturer, and the driver will be pretty full-featured typically. Not so with Linux, where the typical lack of hardware documentation leads to drivers that take longer to develop, and sometimes lack the bells and whistles of the manufacturer-developed Windows drivers.
However, the Linux drivers generally have these things going for them:
Why is microsoft still releasing a 32bit version of thier OS. They need to get rid of that thing in favor of the future.
If they really want to support ancient software that has a 16bit component they should simply run it through an emulator/virtualizer.
The Betas of Vista became slower and slower towards RTM, which was a dog. On my old AMD Athlon test box RTM was sluggish and unusable where the early builds I tried were plenty zippy on a XP-spec box even with 512mb. However as RTM approached, Vista performance improved on up to date 32-bit and 64-bit hardware, and on lower spec turned to crap.
So clearly Microsoft is not abandoning users of low-spec gear like they did with Vista. Without the features and total ram of more current hardware, Windows 7 seems to be properly optimised to compensate for lacking multiple cores, extra instruction sets, and manages memory better. It will run on machines that don't really run Vista now.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Windows will never in nearest future run on ARM devices that are quite better then atom-based ones especially in energy consumption. I have ARM based Nokia N810 that works DAYS in online mode. It can run almost any linux application compiled for it and fits my shirt pocket.
I think that M$ will lose more and more in this market and Win7 can't help here whatever they change in it's development model. Dinosaurs were once big and scarry. Where they are now? :)
Yeah, yeah, yeah - Linux is best, so shut up.
Anyway, what's with the girlintraining thing?
"yes, we know the newest windows version is crap - but we listened to our customers and now we know what we did wrong and the next version will be great!"
how often have we heard this? are people really THAT stupid to believe the same shit over and over again?
"well I assume I can wait 2 years and pay 270$ for the next windows version to end my agony - at least thats better than getting used to a different OS..."
sometimes I just want to slap people in the face for their stupidity!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
why don't you peple stop spaming for WINDOWS 7
it was same with Vista...whenever you look you see windows propaganda... and now its just the same windows 7 everywhere :(
-Microsoft: We'll force-feed you a ton of crap!
-Windows users: WTF, you *&*(&*s!
-Microsoft: In our infinite goodness, we decided to only force-feed you half a ton of crap!
-Windows users: Not a full ton of crap! Yaaay, go Microsoft!
Windows 7: Sucks Less Than Vista (TM)
anon for moderation and general redundancy of comment, but
Hear, hear! That is exactly my situation (although I'm contemplating other distros). If what you're doing is not high-end gaming, then a netbook is fine for almost any task. I edit photos, download mp3s, do my finances, crack passwords, play games under Wine, and engage in various creative design tasks. My Eee travels almost everywhere I do. Netbooks draw comment, and I recommend them whenever possible.
Also my 2c on the original topic: it's said that in a good OS, the simple things should be easy, and the complicated things should be possible. Linux is still having problems with the first part, and Windows seems to have problems with the second part.
Well, it worked for my mom. She's been running Ubuntu for over a year. Set up her (new, built by me) machine, set up her email in Thunderbird (Which she knew form XP), set up her Thunderbird (Also known form XP, transferred bookmarks) showed her F-Spot and that's about it.
Sure, she actually doesn't do much more than email, surf and manage her digital photos, but that is exactly the point: it's up to you to assess the needs of your user and give her the tools required before they even think of it. I do this on XP too, and there my users run Limited User because I made sure everything works out of the box. (Do also note that I make sure standard applications from Linux are present on XP, it easer later migrations)
My mother in law also ran Ubuntu. Her son decided that it was no good (he's was 16 at the time, my wife is 11 years older) and reformatted it with XP. My mother in law actually wanted her "Ubuntu" back, but I told her to deal with the spoiled brat instead of me having to argue with him. No idea how her desktop is now, and I couldn't care. She has problems, she asks him.
Or you could just grab the stage3 install and be on your merry way in 20 minutes.
I prefer stage3 -> copy over my custom make.conf -> rebuild toolchain -> rebuild system -> build world. It actually works as intended that way.
The long part is browsing the portage tree and finding interesting stuff you never heard about before.
A change in how it's marketed is their response to a failing product?
We don't have to worry about Microsoft taking over the world. They're on the way out already
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
XP vanilla. Fast. Lean. Insecure.
XP SP1. Fast, sort of. A little podgy. Some security.
XP SP2. Getting slower. Podgy. Decent if patchy security.
XP SP3. Slowest. Podgy. Decent if still patchy security, but getting more coverage.
Compare Win7 with XP vanilla. No service patches.
Faster or slower?
Microsoft execs should be forced to go door to door for everyone who got vista forced on them, hand them a copy of windows 7 and an Ubuntu disc and then allow themselves to be beaten with a pool cue.
Don't underestimate Microsoft's capacity to screw this up completely.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
I didn't say I did no research. I specifically bought vista for the remote capabilities.
As to hardware, it was a Core 2 Duo 2.5 Ghz with 4 GB of Ram and a 7200 RPM Sata 2 drive.
Spare me your attempts to make Vista the victim.
...I can operate a computer in the dark, under water, wearing blindfold with one hand behind my back
Ah, so you run a liquid cooled system then?
"For the past several months, Microsoft has engaged in an extended public mea culpa about Vista..."
An extended public mea culpa would look like this:
"We realise Vista didn't live up to expectations, and as a result we're offering all Vista users a free upgrade to Windows 7, where we plan to deliver on the promises we tied to Vista."
Instead, what we got was basically the exact same acknowledgement that the current version had some ugly flaws, followed by a shameless self plug for the next iteration of software. Windows ME/XP anyone? You don't have to follow MS very long to find the pattern.
The biggest problem I have with Vista though is scalability. It runs FANTASTIC on my laptop with 4 gigs of ram. It blew chunks on my wife's laptop with 1 gig of ram. And there's no option to just say "Give me what I had with XP, that's what I have hardware enough to run". At least not one that works.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
What defines a service pack these days? I keep seeing the term thrown around every time someone thinks an OS has similarities to a previous version?
You know what, that is a fair statement. I don't think it really applies to many OS updates as well.
But turn that around. What defines a new OS? That's what Windows7 is being pushed as, when we know it's the same Vista core with a lot of fixes applied, and some new GUI elements. Not a service pack, I'd grant you... but it's also not really "Not Vista" which is the major angle being put on this thing.
And that to me fundamentally is why this is a whitewash, because it's scrubbing something that is basically Vista2009 to just get rid of the name. Lets keep it real and know that it's still Vista in there, with many of the same choices Vista made (UAC) substantially intact.
Whitewashing does not HAVE to be all negative you know.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of all the MS-hostile sites on the net Slashdot absolutely takes the cake -- nothing you see on this site was place by MS
You honestly don't think that there's something funny about the "MS Hostile Site Slashdot" putting up a number of positive Widnows7 stories?
You yourself just defined why it's odd. No I don;t think Microsoft "placed" them directly, but the Astroturfing flag is not misused here.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The beta sure as hell wont.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'd rather have 10,000 locked, binary drivers to which I have no access to source code over 1,000 fully-open drivers. Most people don't choose their OS for ideological reasons.
It is timing operations where Vista is as fast as or faster than XP. I'd like to see comparisons only on operations where Vista is *slower* than XP. Any performance improvement Windows 7 makes has to be on this front to be of any significance.
It might even resemble Windows 2000 in its simplicity, and Linux in its features.
Elaborate, please. I have Vista on my home system and XP on my work system, and for me going from Vista to XP (let alone 2000) is like going back to the bronze age. Also I develop on Linux at work, and I'm not sure what features it has that I should be wanting on my Windows machine.
I'd rather have 10,000 locked, binary drivers to which I have no access to source code over 1,000 fully-open drivers. Most people don't choose their OS for ideological reasons.
It's not really an idealogical thing, at least for me. Generally speaking, when I reinstall XP I have to do a web search for every major driver my system needs: sound, video card, printer, and on a really Catch-22 day, Ethernet.
In my experience, when I install Linux all of the drivers tends to be already installed. And at least with Ubuntu, if I have a video card sporting a closed-source driver, Ubuntu lets me know right after installation that the driver is available. Installing it just takes a few clicks and entering my password.
So for me it really is about convenience and lack of headaches.
While it's great that their development process has changed, it's going to be all for not until marketing learns from its mistakes.
Let's see...
People hated too many Vista versions... Screw 'em, we'll give 'em even more this time!
Let's disable our most compelling business features in anything below the Enterprise edition --including the Business edition!
Want BitLocker at home? Screw you! It's not like it costs us anything to give you, but that'd generate positive feelings, which we cannot allow.
Let's keep the Ultimate Gouge edition!
Researchers find security holes in UAC? Let's reply in a haughty tone that everything's working as intended, so it's not a problem. So there.
etc.
MS had so much goodwill built up from the 7 beta until their marketing department got involved.
Maybe they should be called counter-marketing, since their goal seems to be to discourage purchases.
That is also why some of us buy Coke products by the caseload from Mexico.
Hint: Mexican Coca-Cola uses real sugar too, not High Fructose Corn Syrup.
You can probably find a little store near you that will sell you the same, if you live in a moderate to large sized city.
And if you want another comparison, see Coca-Cola Light vs Diet Coke. CCL is MUCH better, in my opinion. By a lot. To date, I have no idea why CCL isn't sold in the USA and I have even written Coke to find out which ingredient(s) is the problem. No answer.
"At this point I'm pretty skeptical of every pro Windows 7 article and poster, though of course by now you'd expect Vista to have been improved" - by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday March 10, @10:12PM (#27144623)
Well, Microsoft HAS been asking folks what they would like to see in Windows 7, openly (& there was a posting on this site about it that led to this blog @ MS where you do have @ least SOMEKIND of chance to make changes in Windows 7 prior to its "full blown final release" here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage ) which was led to from a thread here called "Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard" here at /. ...
I posted a few things there that "perturb" me about Windows VISTA &/or Server 2008, in HOSTS files no longer being able to use the less diskbloating & faster to read 0 as a blocking IP address (vs. 127.0.0.1 the "loopback adapter address", which afaik does use SOME cpu cycles and is larger than 0.0.0.0 which is the next best one & they still allow that one, but as of the 12/09/2009 Microsoft "patch tuesday"? 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file is no longer useable... dumb!)
I also noted that PORT FILTERING has been removed there, & for VERY CONTRADICTORY REASONS (if you read what the VISTA reskit says, it literally DOES contradict itself as proves FLIMSY reasoning for its removal also there)
APK
P.S.=> Anyhow - that's your chance, or @ least PART OF IT hopefully as an end-user &/or potential customer to voice your views on those things, UAC, DRM, & whatever else bothers you about VISTA &/or Server 2008, so it is not like that in the upcoming Windows 7... apk
This is already true. Many mobility chipsets for ATI are no longer supported. ATI Radeon 380M IGP is one, and I have it. I have to run a very old catalyst driver that is filled with bugs. On Ubuntu, however, it runs fine.
These comparisons are meaningless. Each test is scored by the order of finishing so the fastest is 1st slowest is 5th. Then all the placings are added up. So if Vista is incredibly slow at some things (and it is), this is underplayed, so XP and Vista end up with the same score on a Dual Core Pentium with 1GB RAM!
The benchmarks are not statistically meaningful.
I think i'll wait until there is final release of Win7 and then look for some independent benchmarks.
Since when is being able to use your hardware in the future an ideological reason?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Seeing how I've been using the Win7 beta 7000 64bit version since it became available... and can testify to how fast it operates... I cant wait.
I told someone the other day. I don't care if 7 is only marginally faster or slower than XP. Not only will XP lose support sooner, but I feel like its the year 2000 and I'm still using windows 95. XP was windows 98, Vista was windows ME. I think windows 7 will be the new XP for the next 6-9 years.
Convince Adobe to port ALL of their suite to a linux distribution, and I'll use that OS more. But for now, an OS is only as good as the software I can run on it 'EFFICIENTLY'. IE: Photoshop can run on linux (CS2), but it runs like ass. Many of the features flat out don't work right either in the rest of the suite (Like bridge). You can say 'oh but I got it to work once', but when you work with this type of software every day, 8-10 hours a day, for a living... you don't have time or patience to sit and figure out 'how to make it work'.
$.02. Cant wait for win7 to release, I'll pony up my 200-300$ and be happy with it for the next decade.
I feel a great disturbance in Teh FOSS, as if millions of zealots cried out in terror... and were suddenly silenced.
Windows 7 is poised to be another huge success for Microsoft... and those tail lights just get farther and farther away for the "Teh Lunix on Teh Desktop" crowd.
There was some huge article about how Ubunghole was somehow going to overtake Microsoft. And I was sitting there, thinking "hey, why don't you guys first worry about all those Lunix users who are leaving and getting Apple laptops?". Since Teh Lunix has under a 2% marketshare, it seems like a better goal would be to focus on overtaking the OS with the 6% market share, right? I mean, thinking you will magically go from 2% to 92% seems kind of insane, right?
Sadly for all the MS haters, Windows will put out another great and easy to use version, it will continue to improve far faster than it's competition, and it may even end up grabbing back some of the market share it lost to Apple (although at least half their gains came at the expense of Teh Lunix, so they will still be ahead). And, Teh Lunix will continue to chase Microsoft's tail lights, forever.
"low-cost netbooks" certainly doesn't refer to the netbooks you can go out and buy today. It's the ones 9-12 months from now, with faster CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, larger HDs. Effectively, it's referring to today's notebooks, which are next years netbooks
In case you haven't noticed, there had been plenty reports on the Net of people installing Win7 beta on existing netbooks (with 512Mb RAM etc), and running it just fine.
Tip: Don't buy Epson
It might even resemble Windows 2000 in its simplicity, and Linux in its features.
Elaborate, please. I have Vista on my home system and XP on my work system, and for me going from Vista to XP (let alone 2000) is like going back to the bronze age. Also I develop on Linux at work, and I'm not sure what features it has that I should be wanting on my Windows machine.
The greatest asset Win2k had was it was very stable, and didn't try to do everything for the end user. All it did was OS.
One beneficial option of Linux would be giving the end user control over which programs are installed. If I don't link Totem for media, I can uninstall it completely. Media Player? Nope. Some people (businesses I would say drive most PC sales, but I could be wrong) don't need many of the programs that get installed with XP and Vista. It's an administrative nightmare to slim down XP or Vista without going to 3rd party utils like vLite (which may or may not be allowed depending on company "risk" assessments).
Also, the non-sense of 5 different streams of OS...craziness. Win2k was either client, or server. Perfect. WinXP was Home or Pro...alright, I don't like it, but can understand why MS would do such a thing...but Vista? Business 101 says segment your market, so I understand why MS would do that...but it's to the detriment of their users.
Linux installation goes like this:
Hi, I'm Linux, here's everything you might need to operate your computer. What would you like to install? Ah, Ok, almost everything. Great, here it is. Oh, wait, after you installed you changed your mind and want only the bare OS because you want to get rid of the cruft? Done. A different windows manager? Ok, glad I could help.
Windows installation goes like this:
Hi, I'm Windows. I've already decided everything for you. Oh, after installation you decided you want to remove your browser? Sorry. Win7 -- You want your classic desktop back? Sorry. We don't provide any facility for that.
But it is Linux's fault if a piece of hardware isn't supported in Linux.
This is in fact true, however the quality of the drivers provided is highly variable.
I have a Kubuntu box that I use for some general purpose computing and virtualizing a server or two on the side, but am frustrated by the terrible drivers for my integrated ATI card.
In KDE 4, even with no eye candy enabled I am getting strange artefacts and terrible window lag.
Not so for W2K and genuine ATI drivers.
Like many other devices in Linux, sometimes the only solution to fixing hardware compatibility issues is to buy hardware that has strong community support.
I am sure you could use wrappers in some instances, but that is a fairly advanced procedure for most users.
TLDR:
Often community support for obscure or very low-end hardware is spotty in Linux too.
Typing from a Win7 box on a 1.2GHz tablet. It's no netbook, but with 1GB of RAM, an ultra-slow hard drive, a slow processor, and Intel Integrated graphics, it's not much better.
Win7 runs GREAT! It takes a while to boot up, but that's mostly HDD I/O bound (1.8" drives are incredibly slow). Once booted, it's fast to start programs, responsive while doing things, and goes into and out of sleep instantly. More RAM would let me run more programs at once, but 1GB is enough for Outlook, a not-too-heavy Firefox session, and OneNote (I use the tablet capability to take notes in class) without swapping for more than a moment on switch.
I'm running Win7 Ultimate, with all the graphical effects and such enabled. Even on Intel Integrated graphics, Aero is responsive and smooth. All features appear to be present - media center, tablet (obviously), IIS (not that I'm using it), POSIX subsystem, etc.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Umm... WTF?
Within OS X, legacy drivers might be compatible, but I really doubt MacOS 9 drivers run on even PPC OS X.
Linux has *never* had a stable kernel binary interface, and unless Linus has a revelation and decides on the One Perfect Driver ABI, it probably never will.
NT drivers are actually forward compatible, most of the time. During the Vista betas, I used XP drivers for almost everything - companies hadn't released Vista drivers yet, but the XP drivers worked fine (if they used a .EXE installer, just set Compatibility Mode and they installed without a hitch. If they used a .INF/.SYS, slight modification of the .INF might be needed.
The only XP drivers I had trouble with on Vista were for network, particularly WiFi. I haven't tried legacy printer drivers, but I hear complaints about them too. Everything else has Just Worked; even if you forget the Compatibility mode, Vista will detect the error and prompt you to ask if you want to try again using Compatibility Mode.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I don't want Windows. FULL STOP. I was a Vindows Vista early adopter. I plan doing away with both Microsoft AND x86 Intel in my forthcoming netbooks. Arm Cortex A8 and home cross-compiled embedded Linux is fine for me. I don't plan buying Windows 7, _AT ALL_.
I don't agree with that statement at all. I've always blamed the hardware vendor. In fact, if you dig around in my posting history you will find a post where I take this exact stance against someone who suggested that it was RedHat's responsibility to provide drivers for his printer.
The operating system doesn't know anything about how hardware is implemented, that's why we have drivers in the first place. It's only the hardware manufacturer who has access to that information. The very fact that ANY hardware comes with drivers built in to ANY operating system is a little amazing to me.
> The conclusions: Windows 7 is, overall, faster than both Vista and XP
.zip files. I don't know how the Windows Explorer team managed to make that particular task so ridiculously slow in XP. Info-zip can actually do -9 compression in less time than it'll take Windows just to extract it. So I suppose Seven could actually beat XP at that particular task, and they'll probably find a couple of other corner cases to bookmark, probably involving new kinds of hardware acceleration that normal applications don't use.
Thanks, I'm going to have to spend the next hour and a half winding the needle on my bogometer back around to zero.
Every version of Windows is always said to be overall faster than the previous. One of the selling points for Windows 95 was that it would make your computer faster (as compared, presumably, to DOS 6 and Windows 3.11). Windows 98 was faster than 95. Windows 2000 was faster again, and XP was faster than that.
Except, if you do a side-by-side comparison on identical hardware, it's extremely obvious that in fact exactly the opposite is true. If you run Windows 95 on a 233 MHz system with 64MB of RAM, it performs well. Try that with Seven!
Vista was *theoretically* supposed to be faster than XP, except nobody believes that because it's system requirements are SO much higher, mostly because of the large number of years that passed while it was being developed. Seven will be more similar to Vista than Vista was to XP, because not as many years have passed and not as many changes were made. Nonetheless, it's officially going to be faster than Vista and faster than XP, but I'm pretty confident that if you run it side-by-side with XP on identical hardware, XP will come out faster for most tasks.
Although, it wouldn't be at all hard to beat XP at extracting large
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Sorry, I wasn't thinking of you personally, but of posts in general. Also, it would be difficult to release closed-source binary drivers for each kernel version, but on the other hand, kernel developers can write drivers if given the specs.
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1981 this might be of interest to you seems Vista has a driver for it and upgrading to windows 7 not only retains a working driver but finds a better one according to one post on this thread, however why windows 7 wouldn't offer a driver on his first go at installing it, well thats just one of those features...
For the guy with the nikon film scanner thats a real bitch but now google will index your comment and hopefully that will help other people before they buy a nikon scanner
nothing worse than being bit by something which you would expect to be included in the package.
Slingbox plugin your video source and watch anywhere provided you can watch live! no ability to save the video streams firmware updated and old firmware removed and blocked from working again a third party ap can manage to bring you this functionality and one other thing no streaming to more than one destination.
sometimes bitching on a third party website is the best that you can do manufacturers forums tend to be a bit harsh with users criticizing the products or pointing out how to get round the issues.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
The greatest asset Win2k had was it was very stable, and didn't try to do everything for the end user. All it did was OS.
Vista is very stable (for me) too, and I don't think it's ever done anything for me that I didn't want it to do (except for changing the folder views -- that drives me nuts sometimes). YMMV.
One beneficial option of Linux would be giving the end user control over which programs are installed. If I don't link Totem for media, I can uninstall it completely.
Sure, and I agree. But the thing is: the average person doesn't care which programs are installed. And memory and hard drive space are so cheap these days that it's would literally cost me more in time and effort to "slim down" the OS than to just install everything and just don't use what I don't want.
Also, the non-sense of 5 different streams of OS...craziness. Win2k was either client, or server. Perfect. WinXP was Home or Pro...alright, I don't like it, but can understand why MS would do such a thing...but Vista? Business 101 says segment your market, so I understand why MS would do that...but it's to the detriment of their users.
And how many Linux distros are there?
Linux installation goes like this:
Hi, I'm Linux, here's everything you might need to operate your computer. What would you like to install? Ah, Ok, almost everything. Great, here it is. Oh, wait, after you installed you changed your mind and want only the bare OS because you want to get rid of the cruft? Done. A different windows manager? Ok, glad I could help.
FWIW, Linux installation has never EVER gone this easily for me. Not even close. On the other hand, the only time I have ever had a problem installing Windows was when XP wanted SATA drivers that I had to hunt around for. Vista Untilate installed perfectly. The Windows 7 Beta installed perfectly in a dual-boot configuration with Vista. It may install things that you personally don't want, but Windows has Linux beat for ease of installation hands down.
The greatest asset Win2k had was it was very stable, and didn't try to do everything for the end user. All it did was OS.
Vista is very stable (for me) too, and I don't think it's ever done anything for me that I didn't want it to do (except for changing the folder views -- that drives me nuts sometimes). YMMV.
Sorry for me brevity, but I'm kinda tired.
You're missing the point. Linux's components are not integrated into the OS. XP, Vista, Win7, all the additional services/apps are integrated such that it's difficult to remove said services/apps.
Win2k, this wasn't a problem. Try easily removing MSN messenger, or Windows Live.
One beneficial option of Linux would be giving the end user control over which programs are installed. If I don't link Totem for media, I can uninstall it completely.
Sure, and I agree. But the thing is: the average person doesn't care which programs are installed. And memory and hard drive space are so cheap these days that it's would literally cost me more in time and effort to "slim down" the OS than to just install everything and just don't use what I don't want.
This is my exact point. Even if most people don't care, I care. I want choice, option, freedom, decision, and will. XP and forwards removes these valuable attributes for no beneficial reason to the end user. Linux will run with only the Kernel. Windows requires everything just to boot properly. In your example, in Linux, all you have to do is go to the package manager (like Add/Remove programs) and click the button that makes the installed OS just the bare minimum. The distros I've used have presests, too (like server, workstation, base, everything!, and a few more), which makes it very very easy to reconfigure the role of a computer. It may take a moment for the computer to complete the install/uninstall, but it takes very very few bum-in-the-chair minutes.
Also, the non-sense of 5 different streams of OS...craziness. Win2k was either client, or server. Perfect. WinXP was Home or Pro...alright, I don't like it, but can understand why MS would do such a thing...but Vista? Business 101 says segment your market, so I understand why MS would do that...but it's to the detriment of their users.
And how many Linux distros are there?
Probably 100 that are popular. Again, you miss the point. These are all by different companies. MS is one company. Also, being that most (if not all) Linux distros are FREE in every respect, it's a moot point. I don't have to pay more for any specific distro, so I have an incentive to download and install the one that fits its desired application. Purchasing Windows, there is a real difference between installing Vista Starter Edition, and Vista Ultimate, namely about $300 retail, which is almost the price of a whole computer!
Linux installation goes like this:
Hi, I'm Linux, here's everything you might need to operate your computer. What would you like to install? Ah, Ok, almost everything. Great, here it is. Oh, wait, after you installed you changed your mind and want only the bare OS because you want to get rid of the cruft? Done. A different windows manager? Ok, glad I could help.
FWIW, Linux installation has never EVER gone this easily for me. Not even close. On the other hand, the only time I have ever had a problem installing Windows was when XP wanted SATA drivers that I had to hunt around for. Vista Untilate installed perfectly. The Windows 7 Beta installed perfectly in a dual-boot configuration with Vista. It may install things that you personally don't want, but Windows has Linux beat for ease of installation hands down.
Well, I suppose everyone has different experiences. I've had stellar, and less than stellar installations with Linux. Ultimately, they are worked as intended, even printers. My LaserJet 1000 and 3055 (proprietary internal