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.
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?
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.
They're getting there -- I don't believe they're all that present in Windows Home Server. It's going to take a few years to remove these, given backwards compatiblity concerns.
Hunh? They made a design choice back in the day. They didn't match Unix. BFD.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
That does suck, and they made improvements in Windows 7 from what I've seen. Now you will at least get told which app is locking a file.
Progress takes time, and Win7 seems like a good step. And before you label me a shill, I'm typing this on a Mac, and I use various flavors of Linux and Unix at work.
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.
> That said, there's the question of why you'd want it on a netbook.
And that is their problem. Lets assume they really do make it faster than XP. (I know, but go with me here.)
You are looking at netbooks. Three options are lined up:
1. Linux. Cheapest on display, looks pretty but not Windows so it makes you a lottle nervous. (From POV of lifetime Windows user)
2. Windows XP. Only a few dollars more than Linux, familiar, safe choice. That's why it is smoking the Penguin now. Of course this is only because Microsoft is basically giving it away.
3. Windows 7. Folks say it actually runs a little faster than XP! Of course you pay even more than XP but you only get to have three apps open.... unless you pay a LOT more.
So hands up if you would pick option 3. Uh huh, and that's their problem. Cheap XP stopped the Linux threat but now XP is likely to kill Windows 7 just as dead on the netbook. And if they kill XP the odds are pretty good that the penguin will resume rampaging all over the netbook market. But if XP is kept available and security updates are kept going how the heck do they get the corporate desktops to do a full refresh? Because they WON'T believe Windows 7 will run so well they won't have to refresh most of their hardware. And in this economy that probably isn't in the budget, especially if staying put on XP is an option.
And all these careful plans are subject to being void if the ARM netbooks ever show up in force and live up to their prerelease publicity. Because then it is full Linux with OO.o, Firefox+Flash+plugins and repos with thousands of apps vs WinCE fighting it out in a segment where the prices will be falling into the $100-$200 range. Even if Microsoft 'wins' the hit to their revenue stream from competing with zero is going to start to hurt. Meanwhile those $400 x86 netbooks are falling to $300... at least if the cost of a Windows license stays cheap... but then it kinda has to since Linux isn't likely to have a price increase.
And it gets better. As more corporate IT peeps learn Microsoft is handing out XP licenses for darned near $0 but won't let them get it unless they pay extra on top of a full Vista Business license they just might start asking their Microsoft sales weasels questions that really have no good answers. Or run some Linux pilot projects and make sure word get back to Microsoft, since that seems to get their attention. More downward pressure on revenues.
Democrat delenda est
You are looking at netbooks. Three options are lined up:
1. Linux. Cheapest on display, looks pretty but not Windows so it makes you a lottle nervous. (From POV of lifetime Windows user)
2. Windows XP. Only a few dollars more than Linux, familiar, safe choice. That's why it is smoking the Penguin now. Of course this is only because Microsoft is basically giving it away.
3. Windows 7. Folks say it actually runs a little faster than XP! Of course you pay even more than XP but you only get to have three apps open.... unless you pay a LOT more.
So hands up if you would pick option 3. Uh huh, and that's their problem.
They are paying OEMs to put Windows XP home on netbooks. Savvy people are buying these, wiping the disk, and putting Ubuntu on them. A full, unconstrained version of Ubuntu. Exactly what Microsoft cannot compete with and doesn't even want to try.
Savvy people such as the French gendarmerie:
http://www.osor.eu/news/fr-gendarmerie-saves-millions-with-open-desktop-and-web-applications
I find it amusing to think of Microsoft subsidising the hardware of my ex-XP Home-now-Ubuntu netbook.
The really amusing thing is going to be watching Microsoft try to figure out how to get Windows 7 installed on future netbooks in place of XP Home ... and yet still make a profit.
Same price as current XP Home ... no profit.
Reasonable price for Windows 7 ... no Windows 7.
Talk about firing both barrels of a 12 gauge footgun!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It worked for Ford! The Edsel was the Vista of its day and bombed horribly. Its successor, the Ford Comet, was a huge success ... after they changed its name from the original "Edsel Comet" and refrained from talking about its Edsel design roots.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
not as good as these 2 choice quotes:
The two biggest differences are the icons and the games. Games are not our priority."
love that one.
According to Guimard the move to open source has also helped to reduce maintenance costs. Keeping GNU/Linux desktops up to date is much easier, he says. "Previously, one of us would be travelling all year just to install a new version of some anti virus application on the desktops in the Gendarmerie's outposts on the islands in French Polynesia. A similar operation now is finished within two weeks and does not require travelling."
suddenly it doesn't seem such a good move.. to one IT support engineer who is still crying into his coffee :)
A make and model would be appreciated, it's the kind of information that is useful to know.
Agreed. It's up to users to complain if they have a problem with support. Slashdot is a huge resource, read by millions of people. If some hardware vendor refuses to release a 64-bit driver, hold their feet to the fire.
For example, NIKON -- Nikon has had more than five years to come out with a 64-bit driver for their dedicated film scanners like the LS-9000 or LS-5000.
Those are Nikon's top-of-the-line film scanners. They're being manufactured and sold around the world as you read this. Yet Nikon's "solution" to being too goddamned lazy to write 64-bit drivers? Just use this third-party's driver.
Awesome job, guys, thanks. Because after shelling out $1,000 for a film scanner, the one thing I really appreciate is having to spend another $400 just to be able to use your fucking product.