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.
I am no microsoft apologist but give them a break as they are at least trying. I use XP, Vista and Windows 7 daily. and Windows 7 actually is the best of all three. They took out all the mental retardation that they put into vista and did something I never EVER would expect microsoft to do. but revert to naming that makes sense.
Windows 7 is the OS that will save their ass. So it only took them 7 years to get it right... Hey! I just figured out how they got it's name!!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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).
Now let's look at the reality. M$ admits finally the faults in Vista that it has spent the last two years lying about. M$'s attitude, so what, we lied for two years, so what, companies have been burdened with thousands of dollars attempting to make a faulty OS work, so what. Believe them now, you have got to be kidding. They have routinely as a matter their idea of normal business practice that they will lie to the customer, not once but virtually every time they launch a new advertising campaign.
How about some refunds, how about they pay for the costs incurred by those lies, tens of thousands of dollars wasted by companies in keeping a faulty OS running. M$ delivers nothing but lies, pay for the privilege beta testing for products that should never have been released, M$ delivers bugs and security flaws that it lies about and keeps hidden and of course M$ delivers M$=B$ endless marketing in every place they can.
Yes, it is true, M$ has reliably been delivering lies in marketing for decades, the old version that we said was really good and that we said was more secure, more stable and more reliable, well 'er', actually sucks but, hey, the new version is really great and it is more secure, more reliable and more stable than the previous version, we promise (except where it is excluded by the no-warranty EULA, warning our program is crap and we guarantee nothing, absolutely nothing).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
> 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.
It's all about the Linux!
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
Somehow I don't think binaries compiled under Solaris will run under Linux. Binaries compiled for the Alpha architecture won't run under x86... and so on, and so on. I'm talking about binary compatibility, and that's what Microsoft delivers, version to version, year by year. Even Vista, the horrible failure that it was, bloated and crusty... still backwards compatible back to windows 3.1. ;).
I'm pretty sure that binaries compiled for NT 4 for PPC will no longer run on your x86 windows box too
Similarly, it's well known that most DOS applications or in fact, many 95/98 applications will not run on even Windows XP, let alone the latest and greatest.
You're talking uninformed rubbish at best, and deliberate FUD at worst.