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.

Comments

Will run on netbooks or drag?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[artor3]

My six year old laptop can run Windows 7 acceptably. It's not fast, but it's good enough to be usable for email, web-browsing, even YouTube videos. Therefore, I'd expect W7 to run fine on netbooks.

That said, there's the question of why you'd want it on a netbook. It's different enough from previous versions of the OS that your grandma would probably prefer to just use XP, like she has been for years. And if the user is willing to accept a change, why pay for W7 when you can use some form of Linux, custom tailored for netbooks?

The main draw of Windows is compatibility with all the apps out there. Netbooks aren't going to be running those apps, so why bother with Windows?

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[Nicolay77]

I want a tablet netbook to use as an ebook (txt, html or pdf) reader, to open some excel files in meetings, and not much more.

I already have two powerful desktops with big screens. And totally agree with you.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[quickOnTheUptake]

GP was mocking W7's imposed limit of 3 concurrent apps in it's netbook/basic/whatever-they-call-it version. Not the power of netbooks.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[jmorris42]

> 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.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[Colonel Korn]

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!

The 3 app limit will only be for the starter edition, which is being aimed at "developing markets." Expect African, Asian, and South American users to be dissatisfied and perhaps unwilling to use Windows 7 when they're targeted.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[whoever57]

I just love this stement in the article:

The decision in 2004 to move to open source, was raised by one of the Gendarmerie's accountants. "Microsoft was forcing us to buy new software licences. This annoyed our accountant, who tried OpenOffice." According to Guimard the proprietary software maker then started lobbying the Gendarmerie, which is how the general manager found out about the experiments. "When he saw OpenOffice worked just as well and was available for free, it was he that decided it should be installed on all 90.000 desktops."

Talk about firing both barrels of a 12 gauge footgun!

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[Tubal-Cain]

Netbook is a crossover between the standard laptop and PDA.

With 7's 3-app limit netbooks certainly would be glorified PDAs, and honestly it probably won't get in the way very often. But...
It is a computer. With all the flexibility inherent in computers not found in most PDAs or phones.
Running Linux, it can be a (mobile) Internet Appliance, a router, a firewall, a wireless access point, a web server, a front-end or a node in a beowulf cluster or render farm, a systems monitor, an email server, a cheap NAS, a multimedia player, a VoIP phone, a pet, a...

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[westlake]

We have talked about W7 performance on netbooks which will only allow to run 3 apps.

We were talking about a third-world starter edition for absolute beginners that can run on hardware far less robust than the ATOM netbook you can buy at any stateside WalMart.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[ozphx]

You are wrong. If your source is Engadget, then Engadget is wrong. Its also not a primary source... go read the MS site on this - its basically the same as Vista - which also had a Home Basic (no media center / aero) and Starter (developing markets) SKU.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[jaavaaguru]

I run 2 virtual machines, Komodo IDE, other development tools, manage my photo collection and play music/video on my netbook. It's really handy as I travel a lot. It handles all of those things flawlessly. And with an external monitor/keyboard plugged in, I don't use much else at home or in the office. It does the job, and isn't slow. Granted, it's not suited for big number-crunching applications, but is ideal for most things.

Netbooks being for just web surfing and email checking is a myth, and will be more-so once we start seeing dual-core netbooks.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[David Gerard]

For comparison, a MIPS notebook is currently available and doing reasonably well in the UK and the Netherlands: http://littlelinuxlaptop.com/ - the firmware is ass, but the haxx0rs have come up with their own distro which is presently at early-beta stage.

(I've tried typing on one. I can actually touchtype properly on it, which I can't on an Eee 701.)

A MIPS or ARM chip of a given processing power will always give better results with less heat than an x86, because RISC is actually better for that sort of thing. I realise all modern x86s are RISC inside with an x86 microcode interpreter on the front, but that interpreter's still fat enough to make the difference.

And Windows will never run on them ever (though I wouldn't mind trying NT4 for MIPS on the little laptop ;-) but GNU/Linux is exactly the same.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[gbjbaanb]

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 :)

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[darien]

Microsoft's page on Windows 7 SKUs confirms that Windows 7 Starter is the edition that supports "up the three concurrent applications", while Home Basic is for "emerging markets only".

So not only are you obnoxious, you're also wrong. And the guy you were sneering at was right.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag?

[SL Baur]

Therein lies the problem. Although XP is several years old, it actually does every single thing a user needs from an operating system.

Actually, no it doesn't. It's klunky looking and slow. On my corporate issue Lenovo T60, I was amazed at how fast a machine it really was when I was permitted to wipe the "Enterprise" XP and replace it with RHEL.

I found it difficult to give up the multiple desktops I had become accustomed to in over a decade (starting way back from olvwm) and I also found it difficult to customize. It takes a few seconds and no internet access to fix the large key to the left of the `a' key issue (should be control not capslock) on both MacOS X and KDE.

The only thing I ever found pleasurable about Microsoft Windows XP was how I felt when I turned the machine off.

I despise the citrix applications I am forced to use, but at least I can run them on a decent desktop system.

Huge wall of text? Check.
Microsoft sycophantry? Check.
High userid? Check.

Lord and Lady pair, I love the smell of astroturf in the morning!

release date

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

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?

Re:release date

[Jurily]

I wonder what's moving faster: Microsoft, or the goal posts?

Like it hasn't been proven enough with Win2k and Vista?

Re:release date

[girlintraining]

Between now and then, Apple will likely have released OS X 10.6, and there will have been two new release of Ubuntu.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack. It's still the same operating system, same applications, same API, etc. And new releases of Ubuntu... That's not really a fair comparison either. "Windows 7" might have perhaps 40 applications shipping with it that the user might actually interact with on a regular basis. But most linux distributions are a conglomeration of just about every application being developed for linux... And again, while the APIs and such in linux change a lot more frequently, it's still apples-to-oranges. Most linux apps have source code. Backwards compatibility isn't as big of a problem as with binary-only distributions.

This is going to piss off every fanboy in the house, but frankly Microsoft has higher standards to beat than your comparisons.

Re:release date

[hedwards]

OSX 10.6 counts as a new OS release? Isn't that a bit like saying that Win 98SE was a new version of Windows? Yes technically they are, but it's hardly a rewrite or necessarily a must have update.

I'm hardly a fan of Windows, but that's kind of a odd standard to apply. MS could definitely keep up if they were making such minimal updates and charging for them.

Re:release date

[DoofusOfDeath]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't think I am. I'm considering the total level of satisfaction with a Windows 7-based system, a Snow Leopard system, and a Ubuntu 9.10 system.

For example, I consider the difficulty/inability to run iTunes on Ubuntu to be a relevant factor when considering Ubuntu vs. W7. On the other hand, the ready availability of a bizillion applications on Ubuntu affects my happiness regarding my choice of operating systems as well.

Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack.

No argument there.

Re:release date

[marcello_dl]

> It's still the same operating system, same applications, same API, etc.

nope, it's a refined OS, or one with unrefined but new functionality that tries not to break too many older stuff. The same apps run more reliably or faster. The API gets extended instead of changed.

What you call higher standards are artificial barriers. You live in them for some time, you forget about them.

To get to MS higher standards Apple and linux should instead reinvent the wheel every iteration, changing the GUIs, getting performance problems in things like file copy...

Re:release date

[Anonymous Coward]

OS 10.7 - Schmoopy
OS 10.8 - Schnookums
OS 10.9 - Mr. Fluffles
OS 11 - Richard Scarry

Re:release date

[slyn]

At least Ubuntu has cute names I can rely on!

Yea, they should come up with a naming convention that empathizes cats to jump on the LoLcats bandwagon. Everyone loves cats!

OS 10.7: Garfield Y/N?

Re:release date

[jstott]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack.

No, the OSX equivalent to service packs are noted by changes to the minor version number (10.5.5 to 10.5.6 was the latest one — in Microsoft language, that would be 10.5SP6). Major releases (10.4 [Tiger] to 10.5 [Leopard]) involve significant changes to the API and introduce new features to the OS, as you can plainly see from Apple's web OSX page (Apple claims 300 new features added with the upgrade to Leopard; I can't verify the count, but I've found many of them to be very useful additions).

So yes, the shift from Vista to Windows.7 is comparable to one of Apple's major releases. That Windows upgrades leave a trail of wreckage has more to do with the general level of quality control [third-party's as well as Microsoft's] than the scale of the changes.

-JS

Re:release date

[Bored Grammar Nazi]

What are you? Another Microsoft marketing/misinformation drone? Or have you just been brainwashed?

You're an IT administrator for a bank. You support about 35 mission-critical applications that go to a mainframe. [...] All those applications were written for Windows 95.

And the mainframe is running what? Windows For Mainframes Edition? I don't think so.

Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and will still work.

I disagree. I only use Windows at work, but it is my understanding that it is very difficult to make older Windows applications run in newer versions of Windows, especially applications that were written for Windows 95/98.

But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.

That's assuming that you keep updating Linux or Mac OS to the latest and greatest. But you don't have to. In your mainframe "example" it is assumed that the system images running the applications are not being updated. And then you complain that Linux/Apple apps may break if you update the OS? Come on.

You might want to change your desktop background to this one.

Re:release date

[Anonymous Coward]

sudo apt-get install amarok

And you're done, with a better application that won't force you to reorganise your collection

And also won't initialise an ipod (or reinitialise a corrupted ipod), won't sync new ipods, won't connect to itunes (so no free iTunes-U, or sales from the biggest online provider of music), ...

Brilliant!

Re:release date

[jmorris42]

> Microsoft delivers what businesses want: Reliability. Long. Term.

You clearly don't know what the heck you are babbling on about. You were on target with the mainframe, that is reliability over the long term.

Windows? You think going back to Windows 95 is long term? Bah. Windows 95 wasn't even close to usable until OSR2 and that was practically Win98 and as I recall didn't ship until '97. So a puny dozen years.

> Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and
> will still work. They're horrible, out of date, and make your butt itch just thinking about
> them, but they work, and it's cheaper to keep them going than to invest in an all-new infrastructure.

Small midsize shops are the ones who fell into this trap, usually called Visual Basic. Crappy little apps written by long forgotten consultants. And nobody had enough sense to demand the source code so now changes aren't possible. I have about as much sympathy for these fools as the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street currently reaping their reward for being dumb. You base your business on stuff you can't repair, realize the problem and don't make fixing it a goal. Then someday when it does go foom they will be shocked! shocked! and probably be lining up at the nearest public teat looking for a bailout like the banks.

Oh, and see above about 'decades ago'. Now there ARE some industrial process controls still running DOS that can get over two decades old... barely. Go really get DECADES you have to look at mainframes and COBOL.

> But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten
> if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with
> the latest and greatest.

I won't argue about Apple, which is probably why it has had and has no future in the Enterprise outside of the occasional graphics arts dept full of Macheads nobody wants to piss off. Linux/Unix on the other hand.... Do you realize how old UNIX is? Even the POSIX standards predate Win32 and UNIX had a rich history already.... which was sorta the reason for POSIX in the first place but that is another tale for another day. Write to the specs and any end user app will probably be ok for the foreseeable future. Yea if you want to run an old 90s app today you will probably need to scrounge up the Motif libs but they are still available on supported Enterprise distributions. Sure it will LOOK like an old Motif app but then you want it to be the same, ya know, reliable. You could also get even older UNIX applications going but good grief, before Motif X programs were primitive, Gilligans's Island primitive, ugly things.

Re:release date

[vadim_t]

Win95 isn't supported as of 2001. So it's equivalent to old releases of Linux in that regard.

I worked on projects that still run on kernel 2.2 (this is from 1999-2000) as of today. So I can tell you how that works from personal experience. Hardware support is complicated, valgrind doesn't work (which makes debugging C apps a bit of a pain), some things like LVM and RAID are much inferior to their current state, but other than that, it's a perfectly functional system, and most software that's not tightly linked to kernel functionality (like valgrind) works perfectly fine on it.

Nothing stops you from using the latest version of firefox, vim and gcc on 2.2 if you so wish. Try to install IE7 on Win95 though.

I've seen ancient Windows boxes used in the same way, and in my experience it's a lot more unpleasant. At least you can coax Linux to work in unplanned situations, but good luck on getting anything modern installed on a Win95 box. The installer will probably refuse to even try.

You have exactly the same tradeoffs with both systems: Keep it running, even after the vendor pulls support, or keep upgrading. Keep it running for long enough, and eventually you will have to catch up with lots of things at once.

Re:release date

[Anonymous Coward]

Fantastic idea! So now, not only do I have to maintain and support the Windows installs in virtual machines, I also have to administer another OS which does nothing except a container for VirtualBox. Sign me up now.

Re:release date

[DoofusOfDeath]

Microsoft delivers what businesses want: Reliability. Long. Term.

I'm sorry, and I honestly am not trying to troll here, but are you fucking kidding me???

Long term? Linux supports pretty much the whole POSIX API and, for graphics, X11. Those were mature before Steve Ballmer threw his first chair. Many serious, graphical programs written 20 years ago for Unix still build and run no problem on Linux. And it's a pretty damn good bet that it I write clean Linux code today, it will build in 2019 version of Linux or its successor. Tried running a Win16 program lately? Or tried lately accessing a web page written in their proprietary dialects of HTML from back in the browser war days? Good luck being able to use those web applications with the browsers that are available in 20 years.

Reliability? Windows servers have historically needed a period reboot, just because. The DoD recently disallowed USB thumbdrives on any of their computers. Hint: it wasn't because of the Linux computers. And what would you rather hook up to the open internet for 24 hours after installing the operating system: Windows XP, or Linux?

Or maybe you're referring to their steadfast trustworthiness as a company. Surely we can trust their products because as a company they're so wise, right? Like their decision to encourage web page designers to include ActiveX controls on the web pages? Or how many apps broke when Vista was rolled out?

I must concede, though, that Linux might just not be ready for mission critical deployments.

But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.

I can't speak about Apple stuff, but for Linux, who cares if the people shipping a distribution needed to re-compile 50% of the apps when preparing a release, because of some library ABI change? When you have the source code to the apps, and someone else (the distro maintainers) recompile everything for you anyway, it. just. doesn't. matter.

Re:release date

[Saint_Waldo]

Okay, here's an "artificial barrier": You're an IT administrator for a bank. You support about 35 mission-critical applications that go to a mainframe. Why keep the mainframe? Because it's the only thing that's gone through the laborous process of being documented, audited, and certified for use. Those certifications could run into the tens of millions of dollars, plus another fifty million to retool your existing infrastructure, minimum. All those applications were written for Windows 95.

Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and will still work. They're horrible, out of date, and make your butt itch just thinking about them, but they work, and it's cheaper to keep them going than to invest in an all-new infrastructure. But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.

Microsoft delivers what businesses want: Reliability. Long. Term.

And that costs money, time, effort, and yes... it's a MUCH higher standard to reach for.

Whoever thought this was insightful, isn't.

Your use of "Mainframe" could have client apps written in anything. In fact, you fail to point out what the mainframe is running. If, as you claim in your hypothetical, the mainframe system is the part that's documented, you can always write a conforming client on just about anything, yes, windows included but linux and MacOs as well.

As a real-world proof, I've assisted building a web application that interfaces with a legacy PIC database and replaced proprietary desktop apps with a thin net client. After our work, what OS is required by the millions of users? We don't care, any browser made after 1998 could run the app, on any OS that runs the browser.

If you fail to see this, you deserve to pay Redmond every dime you already obviously do.

Re:release date

[Tr3vin]

http://www.virtualbox.org/register

Re:release date

[guruevi]

For example, I consider the difficulty/inability to run iTunes on Ubuntu to be a relevant factor when considering Ubuntu vs. W7. On the other hand, the ready availability of a bizillion applications on Ubuntu affects my happiness regarding my choice of operating systems as well.

I don't know what you're ranting about here but iTunes runs in Wine if you really need to have it. There are also a bunch of alternatives that you can use which do a lot of similar things to iTunes (AmaroK is I think the closest)

Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack.
That's Microsoft FUD and pure BS. It's the same as saying that Linux kernel 2.6 is a service pack to 2.4. There are a lot of differences between the several versions including but not limited to the kernel. Tiger for example was a 32-bit kernel with the ability to compile and run 64-bit apps and Classic. Leopard has fully 64-bit toolchains and frameworks and removed Classic support while Snow Leopard will be fully 64-bit (based on current pre-releases). Maybe you don't necessarily 'see' the developments because quite honestly, the GUI's for nearly all platforms are fairly mature (and don't necessarily need to be changed a lot like XP -> Vista just to make a difference) but on the inside and performance wise there is a lot of progress to be made on all platforms.

Re:release date

[Colonel Korn]

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.

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?

Like most new OS releases, those are likely to only move the goal posts side-to-side. For the most part I imagine the same may be true of 7, but my point is that real meaningful advances in new OS releases are rare.

Re:release date

[HooDee]

I'm hardly a fan of Windows

Well I don't consider myself to be an Apple fanboi either.

OSX 10.6 counts as a new OS release

Well uh.. yes? To be honest I really haven't paid any attention to the Snow leopard so I cannot argue with you on that, but for example: Tiger -> Leopard was a pretty big change. Just because Apple doesn't change every f**king thing everywhere in the user interface (XP -> Vista) doesn't mean there hasn't been major new features or improvements under the hood.

I'm hardly a fan of Windows, but that's kind of a odd standard to apply. MS could definitely keep up if they were making such minimal updates and charging for them.

What?? Isn't that exactly what Microsoft is doing with the Windows 7. As far as I know Windows 7 is the VISTA SP2. Everything under the hood is Vista. Or do you think Microsoft just rewrote everything in this sort time? Cut the amount of services starting at the boot process, cut down amount of programs installed by default.. do some user interface tweaks, tweak that a bit.. TA-DAAAAAAAAA. Ooh! Windows 7!! And I bet my tiny balls W7 ain't gonna be very cheap either and not to mention the 666 different versions of it. Sorry, I don't mean to start a OS-war but Windows does cause my blood to start boiling now days and as much I hate admitting it... I bought the Windows Vista. *gasp*. I feel so violated. But in more serious note, I don't understand the OS X pay-for-service-packs-bashing I have seen in couple of comments and the same time people basicly praise Microsoft for delivering the Vista as it should have been delivered in the first place.

And to Grammar Nazis:. I know, I know, my English "skills" suck ass.

Re:release date

[Bored Grammar Nazi]

It doesn't matter how good the alternatives are if it will cost them more money to switch than to keep it as-is. [...] The only thing that matters is "We've used this for X years, and dammit, we're not changing."

But then you have no point. You're talking about not upgrading a system because an application might break. There goes your argument about backwards compatibility.

Not you and I, we're geeks, but we're not making decisions

Talk for yourself.

Re:release date

[girlintraining]

You clearly don't know what the heck you are babbling on about. You were on target with the mainframe, that is reliability over the long term.

Take any linux binary compiled 10 years ago and run it today on a shipping kernel. Oh wait... you can't. Do the same under Macintosh. Oh wait... can't.

You think going back to Windows 95 is long term?

No, I think it's retarded. But there are a lot of embedded systems that run things as old as freaking DOS... still in production, still no plans to upgrade. Pray tell, why do you think that is?

And nobody had enough sense to demand the source code...

Oh, they can demand. And any business is going to say "Yeah... Right. Give up the only leverage we have on your balls? ha ha." Only they'll be more tactful about it.

You base your business on stuff you can't repair, realize the problem and don't make fixing it a goal. Then someday when it does go foom they will be shocked! shocked! and probably be lining up at the nearest public teat looking for a bailout like the banks.

I can't repair my car. Doesn't mean I don't drive one.

Linux/Unix on the other hand.... Do you realize how old UNIX is?

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. It's disgusting, frankly... But that's what the customers ask for, that's what they get. You try running anything from thirty years ago on a recently-released "unix/linux" anything. Oh yeah: No source code. Binaries only. -_- You can rail on about technology improvements, and how this operating system does xyzzy so much better, and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, the number one reason why Microsoft is in business is "Backwards compatibility". Your examples don't have it... Not out of the box, not without a helluva lot of work, and a lot of expertise that just doesn't exist in bulk anymore.

Re:release date

[Technomancer]

Take any linux binary compiled 10 years ago and run it today on a shipping kernel. Oh wait... you can't.

Sure I can! This is probably the oldest binary app that I have and coincidentally it was compiled more than 10 years ago.

root@damage:/usr/local/games/quake#ls -al quake.x11
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 427892 Feb 10 1999 quake.x11

root@damage:/usr/local/games/quake#uname -a
Linux damage 2.6.26.8 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Dec 22 02:52:09 PST 2008 x86_64 Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 285 AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

root@damage:/usr/local/games/quake#date
Tue Mar 10 22:28:41 PDT 2009

root@damage:/usr/local/games/quake#./quake.x11

Added packfile ./id1/pak0.pak (339 files)
Added packfile ./id1/pak1.pak (85 files)
PackFile: ./id1/pak1.pak : gfx/pop.lmp
Playing registered version.
PackFile: ./id1/pak0.pak : gfx.wad
Console initialized.
UDP Initialized
Exe: 14:08:23 Jan 25 1999
  8.0 megabyte heap ....

and so on

Re:release date

[mjwx]

For example, I consider the difficulty/inability to run iTunes on Ubuntu

Some of us consider this a desirable feature.

Same as when some of us look for an MP3 player we like to make sure it doesn't require a buggy loading program that ties it to one machine.

Re:release date

[Yuuki Dasu]

Okay, here's an "artificial barrier": You're an IT administrator for a bank. You support about 35 mission-critical applications that go to a mainframe. Why keep the mainframe? Because it's the only thing that's gone through the laborous process of being documented, audited, and certified for use. Those certifications could run into the tens of millions of dollars, plus another fifty million to retool your existing infrastructure, minimum. All those applications were written for Windows 95.

Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and will still work. They're horrible, out of date, and make your butt itch just thinking about them, but they work, and it's cheaper to keep them going than to invest in an all-new infrastructure.

Well, I'm no IT administrator for a bank. But I've kept plenty of programs I used to run in the old days of Windows, 3.11, 95, 98, etc, and every now and then I get a bit nostalgic and try to get them to work.

As Windows has gotten older, it's gained different tools to try to run legacy code. They're pretty confusing to me, and I'm lucky if I can get half my software from the 95 era to load without some trouble.

That doesn't sound to me like software that just works. In fact, I'd venture a guess that most people have experiences more similar than different to mine, as I know of few things that cause more headaches in tech departments like migrations to a new system; migration costs between versions of Windows can be very high when crucial systems break, and it's often common sentiment to wait until an SP1 release before even beginning your own migration.

Judging by your posts in this thread, either you're a troll, or you've got some kind of axe to grind. Regardless, you're also pretty much wrong.

Re:release date

[Yuuki Dasu]

You really seem to be studiously attempting to misunderstand the points everyone else is making.

Take any linux binary compiled 10 years ago and run it today on a shipping kernel. Oh wait... you can't. Do the same under Macintosh. Oh wait... can't.

If you have it for Linux, you've probably got the source code. If you're the IT guy, you'd better know the basics of compiling.

And nobody had enough sense to demand the source code...

Oh, they can demand. And any business is going to say "Yeah... Right. Give up the only leverage we have on your balls? ha ha." Only they'll be more tactful about it.

If it's bespoke software, it's only smart to ask for the source code. If it's niche proprietary, well, good luck getting it to run in any case ten years later. Windows really doesn't have that great a track record of maintaining proper legacy support, although you would make it seem to be the opposite.

You base your business on stuff you can't repair, realize the problem and don't make fixing it a goal. Then someday when it does go foom they will be shocked! shocked! and probably be lining up at the nearest public teat looking for a bailout like the banks.

I can't repair my car. Doesn't mean I don't drive one.

No, but if you're responsible for the purchasing and upkeep of a fleet of vehicles for your business, you'd better get a model someone can repair. Using binary blobs is like welding your car's hood shut: experts can't fix the engine, and amateurs can't even change the oil. You should think about your alternatives carefully before you bet the barn on them.

Linux/Unix on the other hand.... Do you realize how old UNIX is?

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. It's disgusting, frankly... But that's what the customers ask for, that's what they get. You try running anything from thirty years ago on a recently-released "unix/linux" anything. Oh yeah: No source code. Binaries only. -_- You can rail on about technology improvements, and how this operating system does xyzzy so much better, and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, the number one reason why Microsoft is in business is "Backwards compatibility". Your examples don't have it... Not out of the box, not without a helluva lot of work, and a lot of expertise that just doesn't exist in bulk anymore.

By ignoring all the POSIX-compliant software with viewable source code, you're trying to shift the argument to a binary-only battleground, which arguably should be Microsoft's forte. Unfortunately, you haven't even shown why or how Windows is better at carrying forth back-compatibility, only claimed that it is so.

If you're going to argue that Windows has better backwards-compatibility than POSIX systems, then let's have some proof. I'm all ears.

Re:release date

[Ralish]

And the mainframe is running what? Windows For Mainframes Edition? I don't think so.

Are you familiar with the client/server model? It allows a client application on effectively any OS to communicate with a server application on effectively any OS, provided they share a common network protocol. This isn't exactly a new development. So getting your "AIG Accounting '95" communicating with your AIX mainframe isn't really that implausible, or even difficult.

I disagree. I only use Windows at work, but it is my understanding that it is very difficult to make older Windows applications run in newer versions of Windows, especially applications that were written for Windows 95/98.

Not entirely accurate. Applications that just use the basic Windows APIs, such as the GUI framework and the TCP/IP stack are pretty solid going a very long way back. This tend to get difficult when you throw in DirectX (and the graphics driver that is going alongside it, which was never designed with running 90's era games in mind), or various other "secondary" APIs that aren't really core for basic applications, which really, is what is going to be running in the context of the GP. The hardcore processing and the real complexity is server-side anyway.

That's assuming that you keep updating Linux or Mac OS to the latest and greatest. But you don't have to. In your mainframe "example" it is assumed that the system images running the applications are not being updated. And then you complain that Linux/Apple apps may break if you update the OS? Come on.

You effectively do have to if you care for things like security updates, bug fixes, and product support. This applies to all operating systems. Where's the assumption that the system images running the applications are not being updated? Of course they're being updated, that's the whole point of what the GP is trying to get across, that he can update the OS without breaking the applications he wants to run on it.

Re:release date

[CrazeeCracker]

Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack.

I think the reason for this sentiment is that every release of OS X is a logical development from the last. Same fundamental idea, same feature set, wich a few things tweaked here and there, a few flaws removed, and a few features added.
With Microsoft, on the other hand, the development from OS to OS is more along the lines of: "fully redeveloped, complete with new UI, written from the ground up, extra extra, etc." Or at least that's how it's been since XP came out.
I don't know if it's a programming philosophy or a marketing strategy, but it gives people the impression that these systems are a "whole new OS experience," rather than just the next logical step in OS design. I think that's another reason for why they don't bother naming Windows OSes with incremental version numbers.

(just my $.02)

Re:release date

[vadim_t]

Linux support. te-he. I don't think that even existed in 2001.

Sure it did, the box in question ran Red Hat, and AFAIK the whole point of Red Hat was providing support for Linux. Red Hat itself was founded in 1995.

My car's alternator only works when it's above freezing, can only make left turns, and has one flat tire. But other than that, it's perfectly functional.

Well, since you mentioned Win95, it has no SATA, USB (in the initial release), or RAID support, doesn't have dynamic volumes (Windows' LVM equivalent), and doesn't have anything comparable to valgrind to my knowledge. So it doesn't do any better on that point.

Backwards compatibility is quite a bit different than "future-proofing", which is like unicorns, santa claus, and transparent changes. They don't exist in IT. And for the record, the latest versions of firefox, vim, and gcc are compiled under a new glibc that would break horribly on those older systems with regard to binary compatibility and you know it.

You're not making any sense. If you're going to compile something from source, you're not going to have binary compatibility issues by definition. Whatever you compile will be binary compatible with the system you built it on.

By coaxing you mean recompiling the kernel, tweaking six different config files, and pulling your hair out for days trying to understand documentation that references C header files.

Such things if they ever needed to be done were done on that box years in the past. To my knowledge that box had just been plugged in and running without anybody touching it for years when I arrived at the company. Also from the comment on the C header files, you seem not to know how to use the man command, which hardly requires a lot of experience.

Which is exactly the level of knowledge we should expect from every single person who's going to need to service that machine. That's what amazes me about the linux crowd -- sure, you can figure out a way to do whatever kludge you want, eventually. But when you need it working right now, and you don't have a guy who was born with Donald Knuth's book in his left arm and a keyboard in his right, you're kinda screwed.

You're confusing Knuth with somebody else, I think. Knuth heavily contributed to computer science and wrote books on algorithms. Things like the KnuthMorrisPratt algorithm may be very useful in computer science, but I fail to see how would that help administrating a Linux box, or any other OS for that matter.

I don't think it makes sense to continue this conversation any further. You're clearly demonstrating that you don't really know what you're talking about, and are trying to find anything that will support your position, even if it doesn't make any sense.

Re:release date

[BenoitRen]

At least you can coax Linux to work in unplanned situations, but good luck on getting anything modern installed on a Win95 box.

Windows 95 can still be very useful.

Re:release date

[home-electro.com]

I installed Ubuntu last year and tried to make it my main workstation. Did not work out, it is not stable enough. I brink my laptop to/from home every day and so I suspend/resume my laptop twice a day. Ubuntu takes much longer to suspend/resume (at least in a default configuration) and would give me kernel panic once a week.
XP on the other hand works without reboot for months at a time.

Additionally, Wine is now more or less ok for applications, but total lack of support for USB peripherals under Wine makes Unix unusable at the moment. And yes, I did try VMWare -- unfortunately they only support a couple of classes of USB peripherals so that did not help much either.

So my level of satisfaction with Ubuntu was rather modest, unfortunately.

Captain Obvious descends

[girlintraining]

"How Vista Mistakes Changed Windows 7 Development"

You got it wrong: Vista was the mistake that caused Windows 7 development.

Re:Captain Obvious descends

[MrKaos]

You got it wrong: Vista was the mistake that caused Windows 7 development.

Nu uh. Vista was the feature that caused Windows 7 development. That's why Windows 9 will be the bestest windows evaaaaaah!!!

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04

[morgan_greywolf]

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

Credit where its due

[mc1138]

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.

Re:Credit where its due

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

My theory is that Firefox will ultimately kill windows, if not Microsoft itself.

Since Firefox has been getting worse with every major revision, I rather doubt that will happen any time soon.

I'm currently writing this in Firefox 3, which now crashes all over the place where previous versions never did, which has had yet another moderate and fairly pointless UI revamp of the kind that makes Office 2007 critics rub their hands with glee, which is getting favicons mixed up in all my bookmark folders almost every day, which as far as I can tell can't print anything properly any more, and which is running add-ons for both Java and .Net that I never agreed to and can't disable, FFS!

This is not the famous easy-to-use, super-secure, super-reliable web browser I remember installing a few years ago. This is the browser that I and many of my friends are considering abandoning in favour of IE7. If Windows 7 comes along and has IE8, and IE8 actually follows web standards to the extent that it sounds like it will, then I imagine Firefox will go back to being a niche browser beloved of OSS fans and ignored by almost everyone else not much later if it carries on in its current direction.

Re:Credit where its due

[tiggertaebo]

Shhh... you do realise this is slashdot don't you? You're not allowed to say anything bad about firefox (especially when its 100% true) - *they* will burn your entrails on a stick!

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04

[Jurily]

Can't wait for those results!

Let's pitch those against my Gentoo. Next month, when I'm done with the compiling.

Whitewashing

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Whitewashing

[ThePeeWeeMan]

Uh... I'm running Windows 7 and I can tell you that it definitely is NOT a service pack. Even if I didn't read any pro-Windows 7 articles or have any prior knowledge, just the fact that it has a different UI and a lot of changes tells you something about it... Microsoft don't make major changes in service packs any more (though Vista SP1 was an exception), because people told them that they wanted only stability, performance and security fixes, not new UIs or ways of doing things.

Re:Whitewashing

[YttriumOxide]

Thankfully, not everywhere in the world. Mostly just the Americas I believe. They still use sugar in Europe, Australia and NZ at the very least. Haven't specifically checked elsewhere. I almost choked first time I had a bottle of coke in the US - the HFCS just makes it "thicker" which is quite disturbing when you're not used to it.

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04

[davester666]

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...

OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really!

[Trip6]

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.

Fool me 7 times....

[syousef]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 7 or 8 times, shame on me ;-)

Re:Will Windows 7 support the devices I already ha

[BradleyUffner]

"Vista wouldn't support the perfectly good Epson Perfection 1200U scanner that I bought some years ago, and for which Epson chose not to release Vista drivers. Likewise for other devices."

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.

Re:OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really!

[DJRumpy]

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.

So I read TFA

[inject_hotmail.com]

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.

Re:So I read TFA

[dave420]

The terms and conditions of Windows 7 beta builds prohibit direct benchmarking, most likely because it's a beta.

Re:Mind Boggling Legacy Junk Still In Win 7

[PimpBot]

DOS era drive letters for volumes?

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.

* The perfectly wrong choice of \ vs / for path names?

Hunh? They made a design choice back in the day. They didn't match Unix. BFD.

* The Win 3 era maximize button on windows?

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

* Files that can't be move when they are open by another application?

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.

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04

[Firehed]

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.

I don't want Windows on my netbook

[Gothmolly]

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.

Microsoft still goes not get it

[Dan667]

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.

Making Windows Faster

[Nom du Keyboard]

Yeah I can make Windows faster than its previous version - but it will take a huge memory footprint hit in the process.

What I would like fixed from vista

[the_Bionic_lemming]

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.

Alright, alright, I went and read the stupid thing

[inject_hotmail.com]

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!

He didn't test anything!

[Dead_Smiley]

He was just backing up his porn...

***
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

***

Re:Mind Boggling Legacy Junk Still In Win 7

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I use the maximise button all the time, and I'm writing this on a widescreen flat panel at 1920x1200.

Some of us don't like having borders and similar wasted pixels around the outside of our windows and don't necessarily want to work with fifteen virtual desktops. Personally, I prefer to concentrate on one thing at once, rather than constantly hopping around between several applications. For when I do want to multitask, well, that's what the other buttons are for.

Now, I would much prefer a window manager that could "lock" windows into some sort of tiled zone, so I can expand two windows to fill half my screen each, and some smart mouse handling so the pointer half-locks-on to things like scroll bars at the edge of those windows even if it's not the edge of the screen. And a decent notification system that was unintrusive but a bit cleaner than XP's current effort would go down well; I have no idea what they've done with that in Vista, since I have no intention of putting Vista on any PC I own. Maximise is certainly not the be-all and end-all of windowing UI, but it's still very useful.

Re:Will Windows 7 support the devices I already ha

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Will Windows 7 support the devices I already ha

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

Exactly!!

[SuperKendall]

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.

I've run both on my netbooks...

[jddeluxe]

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.

Correction Correction

[Lifyre]

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...

Re:Vista SP2

[NeverVotedBush]

I bet if you do a uname -a at the C> prompt, it will say something along the lines of:

Windows 7 Desktop 2.6.27.19-3.2-default #1 SMP 2009-02-25 15:40:44

Good but issues.

[BrookHarty]

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...

 

Re:Vista SP2

[redkcir]

How about the hardware issue? It still means most of your hardware won't work unless you buy "Vista" compatible hardware. And even then I have been hearing reports from BTs that not everything that runs on Vista will run on W7. Like my one month old printer that wouldn't run under Vista isn't likely to run under W7. So your still talking about throwing out good hardware just to get a "better" OS? It doesn't make sense to me, I don't have the kind of cash laying around to chunk what I have and buy new stuff. And if I were a business I would have to take into consideration how much it would cost to replace all of my computers and most of my other hardware. The company I used to work for wouldn't upgrade for that very reason. Anything change?

Re:Vista SP2

[Dreadneck]

I propose calling it ReVista

Re:Vista SP2

[Slorv]

No, Vista ME seems more proper

Re:Will Windows 7 support the devices I already ha

[DoofusOfDeath]

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:

• Once they're developed, they tend to be maintained with the rest of the kernel for years and years.
• They're freely available, and often baked into the kernel itself. So if a Linux driver for a device does exist, it's often very easy to get it, if you even have to install it at all. Contrast to Windows, where for older devices you sometimes have to do lots of searching to find a driver.

Re:Vista SP2

[shri]

Or Hasta La Vista? :D

Re:Most Expensive Service Pack Ever

[David Gerard]

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.

Re:Most Expensive Service Pack Ever

[hairyfeet]

That is why I advised my customers to avoid Vista like the clap(Which all but one did, and the one regretted it and went back to XP) and why I have advised them not to go Win7 until at LEAST SP2. That way we will see if Win7 is a "real" release, or if it will turn out to be another pile o' suck like Vista and end up getting dropped like Vista/ME. Besides, As we saw with XP, by the time SP2 rolls around they have gotten most of the bugs out and it is a MUCH nicer experience(anybody remember XP Sp1? /shudder/) with less hassles.

There is a good reason why "wait until the service pack" has been a rule in IT. I personally have decided wait until TWO services packs is best. There are still enough XP machines that I doubt even gamers will have to worry about switching before the first service pack. After MSFT shot themselves in the foot making Dx10 Vista only it looks like Dx9 will remain the sweet spot for quite some time. And with XP Sp3 running so well, why bother? XP Sp3 32bit supports 4Gb of RAM, which is enough for the games and apps which are out now, so unless you are doing high def video editing or CAD work I have told my customers it is better to wait and see. And after seeing how right I was about Vista most had me build them new XP machines and are going to wait out Vista and Win7 until SP2 arrives. Better safe than getting Vista'd, I say.

Re:Vista SP2

[blackest_k]

Which 1 month old printer is it? A make and model would be appreciated, it's the kind of information that is useful to know. I don't run vista, i'm not a fan , but really the lack of a printer driver isn't a vista issue but an issue with your printer manufacturer.

Unless of course what you meant to say was, Vista doesn't come with a printer driver built in, for your 1 month old printer. Thats just unfortunate the hardware was released after Vista got its release and the driver has to be installed from the manufacturers driver disk or downloaded from some website.

Now you could argue in the interests of windows security and ease of use, that Microsoft should maintain a site with installers for latest drivers for all hardware that works with it's operating system. heck it could even have a system where it checked driver versions and informed you an update was available.

but what kind of an organisation would do something like that ;)

Re:Vista SP2

[Lumpy]

I have found that most hardware problems stem not from Vista but from Vista 64bit. reinstalling with 32bit solves a LOT of issues. My company's IT wing does that for customers on a regular basis, and the number of calls from those people drop drastically after the reinstall to 32bit from 64bit.

the problem is that most hardware makers bork their 64bit drivers, and it's not easy to force the 32bit to install instead. I have seen it personally in the office with the Epson Workforce 600. Borked under vista 64bit, works under Vista 32bit and Windows 7 32bit.

Re:Most Expensive Service Pack Ever

[David Gerard]

No, that was Windows ME ;-)

The Edsel is a remarkably apt comparison for Vista. A huge development effort, a lot of hype, some great new ideas, some terrible new ideas, rather too pricey, not as reliable as it should have been, some appalling design flaws and a name that has resonated through culture since as synonymous with "lemon by design."

The Comet - which was an Edsel by design, make no mistake, but polished and usable - was a huge hit because they disassociated it with the Edsel and corected the most glaring Edsel design flaws, so its qualities could come out.

I've been trying the Windows 7 beta. I'm not a fan of Microsoft by a long shot, but it's not too bad. It's very responsive and usable, and it's SO PRETTY. It's damn fat, and it's painfully slow to boot ... but it's not quite the lemon Vista was.

Re:Vista SP2

[GMFTatsujin]

It's actually Vista XP, because they learned from experience.

Re:Vista SP2

[Civil_Disobedient]

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.