but last I checked, Vista actually launched RTM in November 2006, and public Feb 2007...thereby a Christmas 2009 launch is inside the 3 years. Guess it depends on how you look at it though really.
Windows 7 in time for Christmas? No, not this Christmas - but Christmas 2009. Microsoft has reportedly told PC and systems engineering partners Windows 7, the successor to Windows Vista, will be on PCs in time for the next holiday season. That contradicts Microsoft's official party line that Windows 7 would not ship until …
Microsoft blew it with Vista, regardless of what the fanbois say.
I even have mom (70) & dad (73) running Slackware+KDE full time now, as of today.
Granted, it took a couple days of hands-on training and system tweaking to suit their individual needs, but at least now they don't have to constantly update both their core systems & the nearly useless anti-malware software du jour.
Makes it a LOT easier for me to administer from my home, too, if needed.
Now if I could only convince AutoDesk to write a Linux-native CAD system ...
...They dont rush it out riddled with bugs and bloated to the hilt, which has made Windows Vista so unpopular and why businesses especially are holding onto XP!
An operating system that works 99.9% of the time, at a speed acceptable for 21st century needs, and without the possibility of being hacked to high heaven or bombarded with viruses is the least we need - look at the demo on BBC when he tried out multi-touch and it DIDNT WORK - that is typical of MICROSOFT when it comes to systems......
Having been so comprehensively lied to by MS over what Vista would include, and when it will be ready by; I'm not going to hold my breath of Win 7.
To be honest, it just looks like a re-skinned Vista. Are people going to have to pay for this 'service pack'?
Vista made me go Mac, and I couldn't be happier. Win 7 ain't looking like it'll get me back.
So Vista really is the ME of the windows world. Microsoft butt fucked its customers with a shoddy OS to bring out a replacement (that sounds suspiciously like it should be called SP2) two years later, so its customers can shell out £300 for an OS that actually works - great business plan, I'm actually jealous.
Win98 released March 98 (bad)
Win98SE outed in 1999 (good)
WinME some time in 2000 (bad)
WinXP in October 2001 (Pro and Home versions) (good)
Vista Jan 2007 (bad)
Win7 December 2009 (?)
If you really don't know, all you need to do is ask The Elephant In The Room.
and the sales figures reflect it. There's no compelling reason for anyone to buy Vista, especially if they already have WinXP or Win2K. Only the MS monopoly with box builders is driving any kind of volume Vista sales, and even that monopoly is at risk on the fringes eg the netbook market and the corporate market (where XP still rules, or even that Lunix thing).
Windows 7 might remove some unwanted Vista bloat (the HD content protection and DRM-related stuff in particular) but what can it bring to the table to make it a "must have" upgrade vs XP? It'll still be Windows and it'll still be Microsoft so it'll still have more holes to discover than an average Swiss cheese, so there's no possible "security" justification.
Good luck Bill. Vista blotted your copybook, and now you have to "regain trust".
If you delayed implementing Vista then you can simply hold on a while longer.
If you did implement Vista then you've got half the Windos 7 beta testing over with already.
And if you switched to Linux because of Vista then you won't have to shell out to M$ to get them to mess around with your systems every three years anymore.
"Microsoft is keeping the operating system simple and cutting any features aren't working"
So that'll be XP with a "Vistadrive" graphical front end built-in!!
Will we get Firefox, Thunderbird and Zonealarm included???? Just to name the replacements of choice for three M$ packages that do not work properly??!!??
Sad face?? Because I am missing my Chinese fiancée.
It is after all another £300 I wont spend to find out its stuffed full of crap & DRM shite I dont want, with usless antivirus & the 32bit edition probably wont address installed ram if its more than 2Gb and so on...
M$ should focus on making their operating systems work well & less 'in your face' than the current crop of crap & more affordable to those who might actually buy it.
& despite Gordon Clown has tried his level best to ruin the UK economy, £1 still buys more than 1$ but M$ pricing will no doubt as always be punitive to European customers.
MS has no interest in Christmas buying. They don't make money out of home computer use.The main reason for this is not for the Christmas buying, but to allow the corporate IT people to budget for expenditure next year and slip in the sale before the end of the year.
They did exactly the same for Vista so why should that surprise?
Like Vista, the software will only be ready some time later (ie. in 2010), so hardly any change in the story.
Of course, talk is cheaper than action so lets see what they have to say a year from now.
How many Linux distros will have been updated by then? I'm guessing there will be another release on top of any that are due out shortly that means two new OSs per distributor by the time they get it out the door.
Maybe another one by the time they get a much needed patch.
What's the betting Microsoft will be looking at the next new new thing by then. I an't see them trying to keep Windows afloat in a year or two without another enterprise to fill the pot.
I don't think they will expand into music.
It won't be a Googleplex Yahwhosit. It won't be a forum thingumie blogsite not an office wahler. Well it might be something with office but it won't be a money spinner with officeware. So what can it be but a video/tv station?
Running Windows 7 PDC release at the moment and going by the fact that it is working really very well for something that isn't even in Beta, I can easily understand how it could be released by September.
At the moment it is running quickly, there are some features not yet there but I guess they didn't want to throw half working/half completed features at people but then neither would I.
Vista was junk though it has improved (only way was up though) by service pack 1.
Impressed so far with 7 and normally I am never impressed by Beta's let alone pre Beta, with what is there currently it seems to "just work" and do it quickly too. Let's hope they don't screw it up in time for RTM!
Whats with all the bitching ? I've been running the pre-beta and its amazing.
XP was a total dog when t launched it took sp2 to finally close the open doors and make it stable.
How can so many people think back with rose tinted spectacles ? 98 & 98SE were buggy crap, I praised the day XP was launched so i could escape the evil lock ups and blue screens (although not entirely).
XP was around for too long they screwed longhorn/vista bigtime, we should be getting new OS versions every three years that should be the norm, Microsoft isn't screwing anyone, use whatever OS you want.
The simple fact is no-one has to buy Win 7 for it to be a hit, it will come pre-installed on every new PC.
From actually using it I think this could be a surprising gem from Microsoft for a change, but you haters can't stop hating eh ?
...I play on Linux now.
I didn't beleive it could happen, but it was the perfect storm. Ubuntu is getting better as Vista completely f*cked Windows. Windows is for work, and relegated to a VM, and Windows 2008 at that. I wouldn't even trust Vista on a VM.
Java isn't so bad, NetBeans is almost as good an IDE as Visual Studio, and 10X faster for sure. The Ubuntu utilities are top notch and free! OO is a little rough around the edges, but you can't beat the price. Linux is great at Samba now, and reading NTFS. The compatibility amazes me. I didn't think anything could be compatible with anything else coming from the Windows world.
Drivers still suck. though. Ubuntu's slogan is that it "just works", which it does, unless it doesn't. Then you should just go buy another computer :-(
Would any knowledgeable computer professional recommend purchasing a computer with an operating system, for home or general business use, less than 6 months old?
If they release Windows 7 in November 2009, it won't be reliable enough for anything beyond testing and pilot purposes until after June 2010.
..software crap factory
At this point Linux is easier to install and deal with, it doesn't have millions of pieces of malware (some made by MS) out there, or holes like Swiss cheese, it rarely if ever breaks down. IT looks at least as pretty as windows and most versions are free. But supported (as in support that makes MS support look slack jawed) versions are out there.
.. umm wait WHY am I supposed to use windows again?!
PH cuz even SHE could figure out what to use.
I'm no pro- or anti- windos user, but I've still not come across a pc running Vista. I mainly use Linux and do not much gaming, and all the businesses I've worked with still use XP or Win2000 on their desktops. I really think Win7 will get a tough incubation. XP is still good enough, why adding more bloatware? Except for the eye-candy taskbar and probably some DirectX > 9 stuff.
Only boost will be MS intentionally adding incompatibilities into new applications, refusing them to run on older OS'es, but then software developers will revolt.
Let's face it, folk. Vista has been a marketing disaster. There may be those that think it's the dog's wobbly bits, but it has never caught on.
Remember, XP also had its early disaster period and it took two service packs and a lot of convincing to get people to switch over. That's seven years, roughly, to get XP into a state that people actually trust enough to finally let go of the previous two stable releases, Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE, and their buggy relation, Windows ME.
Vista was released into a very different world to that of the first releases of XP. Back then, Apple were still trying to claw back their early trust, Linux was still very much a hobbyists' pipedream. The only serious contenders back then were smaller folk such as RISC OS, Amiga and so forth, each suffering from their own particular brands of mismarketing and corporate disaster. In other words, XP had it very easy. All it needed to do was wean the baby off its 2000 bottle and the 98 chew toy. Vista, had it been released into a similar world, might have made it had it been given the time, but the situation that occurred with XP also gave the developers of the main competition the required impetus to get their own product up to scratch, hence the current problem for Vista.
Whenever something comes out about Vista or its impending successor, there is the inevitable slew of folk with their sob stories about how Vista stung them in the but and how they went off to another OS platform. And there, it seems, is where the problem lies. XP only realistically had to deal with the pre-existing Microsoft stuff. Vista has to deal with that AND the various Linux distros AND what Apple is now offering. All these are far more inviting to the great unwashed than they were back in 2001. That means that Microsoft can no longer get away with launching half-completed crud onto the market in the hope that we will do their beta testing for them unpaid.
It's all a matter of the technical folk at Microsoft, the people that are supposed to do all the work, getting off their lazy fat Merkan duffs and doing something worthwhile, notably telling the Marketing folk to SHUT THE FUCK UP. Then they should listen to what the market actually wants. Instead of launching a tarted up bit of bloat with hundreds of wizards to hold the hand of the idiots that should never be allowed near a keyboard, they should deliver something that works. Something lean enough so that they don't have to resurrect the code of the past just to slim down enough to fit on the latest low cost machines, but with the scaleability to work well on the high end kit. If Vista can't be slimmed down enough, then chuck it and get back to XP. There's nothing wrong with evolving an OS, whatever the morons in marketing might say.
To avoid marketing disaster, to sum up, give the public what they want. Don't claim "NEW" if it isn't, and don't load it down with useless tat.
Surely that's one reason why Vista failed to live up to expectations. So many features were promised, but cut at the last minute...then when it was released, it was rushed out, so e.g. by completely re-writing the network stack, all existing VPN software was rendered useless on Vista. Then of course there was the bone-headed attempts at implementing a couple of *NIX features, namely "sudo" (i.e. UAC - which fails to deal adequately with the 99% of software written before it was implemented) and Compiz (i.e. Aero /Glass - which eats resources whilst providing an inferior quantity of eye-candy to Compiz Fusion.)
And for those with Vista, I still can't see what the point is of anyone "upgrading" to Ultimate, since AFAIK the only "Ultimate Extras" released are a couple of games and DreamScene.
And if they're already planning to cut features on Win 7, it probably won't end up with WinFS or support for the much-hyped Multi Touch. As for DRM, it depends on whether the RIAA have a change of heart... :)
From what I've seen of it so far, it looks suspiciously like Windows 6.1 - in the same way '98 was 4.1, and XP was 5.1...
Personally, I think their best option would be to (a) fire their marketing department (when you have over 90% market share, do you really need to market you products?), (b) develop a coherent, multi-speed (i.e. default options to suit newbies, but powerful tools under the hood for us lot!), usable OS. Then the minor improvements coded to date could be refined and released as Vista SP2.
Personally, I'm still looking for why I should upgrade from 2000. Well, actually, I guess I already did, to 10.5. But that's another story. My windows machine is set up running 2000 in a stable, reasonably clean, configuration. They only thing I can't run that I wish I could is the netflix streaming video application. Are there any features released in the past 8 years (8 YEARS! In the computer industry!) that are worth the trouble of reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling everything from scratch? Because experience shows that that's what it takes; the upgrade-in-place option leaves a mess. My work is "upgrading" all machines to the latest version of office, so I'm looking forward to the usual headaches in that department, while the old bugs still won't have been fixed.
Also, how is this Windows 7? 95 was 4. Vista was presumably 6. So what are 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP? 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5, and 5.1? Actually, I guess that's plausible, now that I think of it.
I just installed the available Windows 7 premature release (no pun intended). It installed just like Vista, it looked just like Vista, and it felt just like Vista. I didn't keep it long before I wiped the drive because it wasn't worth a longer look.
But oh yeah, it's based on Vista alrighty. If you disable the cutesy startup screens you'll see Windows 7 is shown as Windows 6.1 build 6801. Why was I surprised? It is after all built on the Vista kernel and it is a Beta. There is room, and time (?), for improvements and enhancements.
As far as I'm concerned (I know MS is sweating this) Windows 7 is like a bad breakfast at the Waffle House: warmed over, re-fried, and some of it abc ... already been chewed.
I have Windows XP to keep me warm and Linux to keep me guessing. Why would I want anything more?
After XP is EOLd in 2009 , pretty much everything. Driver support, dev tool support, latest .NET framework support, WMP upgrades, DirectX updrades, IE upgrades, run the latest MS Office, etc, etc.
Same old same old.
Sure, lots of folks will just be happy with what they've got for a while, but sooner or later they'll want a new Office/WMP/IE/etc feature, or they'll try to install the latest FPS, or some must have app they DLd from the net and they'll get a dialogue along the lines of "This application requires Windows 7, pay up or fuck off".
By the time Windows 7 ships, fast quad-cores will likely be the norm, 4GB of RAM will also likely be standard. So Windows 7, being just Vista with a new name will likely run quite well, and I would expect MS are hoping that people will then just think their new OS is fast rather than just being the same bloated rubbish running on beefier hardware.
So next Christmas all the new computer users will be beta testers. What a wonderful Christmas THAT will be. I suppose it will be the economic stimulus package for next year. Got to sell those computers with built in operating systems to keep the stock price price of MSFT up. Look it is the only way the DJIA will be above 7000 or so with the new president getting us all on the dole!
"The simple fact is no-one has to buy Win 7 for it to be a hit, it will come pre-installed on every new PC."
Vista comes pre-installed on every PC, and it is hated by the people who are forced to use it.
My main objection to Vista is it is installed on new PC's, so people have to pay for it even when they have no intention of ever using it. Come on Mr Simpson, promise to buy the next Red Hat, SUSE and Mac OS when you buy new PC's and you will experience some of the feelings the rest of us have about Microsoft.
It is the only OS upgrade I have made where the PC ran significantly faster with the NEW OS.
I was upgrading an ancient AMD K6-2 500.
My bet is that Win7 will be XP Sp4 with a version of Aero; I also suspect it will be used as an excuse to force IE8 on everyone.
Still missing my China Doll, so mines the one with the pockets filled with Jade jewellery
(HA !! missed that, didn't you customs!!)
I think that beside the realm of high end gaming machines or corporatetions who have a big investment in Windows software there is very little incentive to still buy a windows machine anyway.
Look now at the netbook market: most HDD equiped netbooks could run Vista (badly, but it could run), however these come with XP or Linux not only for technical reasons but also because no manufacturer is crazy enough to spend $90 for a Vista license for a $400 machine.
The same can be said for most low end PC that will be used to surf the web, write documents, send mails and watch the occasional video or DVD (and Legal DVD playback is easy to accomplish on Ubuntu now that PowerDVD is in the canonical store).
For home usage, the only things that Windows still does better than Linux is hardcore games support (and now that game publishers are pushing gamers aways from computer gaming it is fading from the radar) and Blu-Ray playback which never caught on outside of the PS3 crowd anyway.
To get back market share on the home computer side, Microsoft needs not only to deliver a product that is better than Vista on the technical level, but also at a price in line with what consumers are ready to pay for a low end computer today (typically $400 on the low end), and do this without canibalizing its lucrative entreprise sales and high end sales.
The problem for Microsoft is that windows must fight on 2 different front in the consumer area: with apple on the high end (where cost isn't very important but quality and functionality is essential) and against Linux on the low end (where functionality is less important than a small footprint and cheap price). Delivering a single OS that can compete on both front without major compromises seems difficult.
Well I guess that 'upgrade' to Vista ultimate last year was a waste of money, thought what the hell it will be round a while and get better in time. Well thanks Microshaft thats the last time I sh!t over 150quid down the toilet on your crap.
It's a shame more software/games don't support Linux. Had a brief run in with Ubuntu and loved it, only I couldn't do anything I use my computer for! (i.e. gaming and web design).
They've got to give techies what they want.
Non techie users will pretty much accept what management gives them, but techies will moan, and moan, and moan about problems.
From what I see on this and other threads. Techies want...
An operating system. Not some exercise in a presenting facile entertainment related data in even more creative ways. (I agree with this, I never understood why media player had to look like some kind of real world piece of plastic, instead of a window. In fact the first thing I do, always, is switch the whole thing back to windows Classic.)
Consistency. There's some marketing type - high on coke, and a bunch of "business analysts" - (aka women who have to do the job once, and spend hours in meetings discussing the shade of green the GO button should be,} who decide what features exist, and how you get to them. (It's this that infuriates me. Why remove features?)
Performance & Response. Why is there so much going on in the background. The computer is executing trillions of instructions per second. What is it doing? Once a day I might search a directory tree for a piece of text in a file. Why is it trying to index the whole filesystem?
Control. It's MY computer, NOT microsoft's. WHY is it WASTING three quarters of MY hardware power, because some kid down the road is running illegal software, WHEN I'M NOT?
Finally. There's one thing that I would like. (Aside from dual table updates real/table variable in sql, merge and hash joins in linq, close buttons staying in the same place in Visual studio, the ability of a laptop to detect a monitor disconnect and moving the windows back to the main screen,) is the abiltiy to add huge amounts of ram for the sole purpose of caching C:\Windows, C:\Program Files & C:\Documents And Settings, and the DVD drive. So that when it starts up, every thing is instant.
"they'll want a new Office/WMP/IE/etc feature"
Such as? And who is going to pick up the costs which that new feature requires?
E.g. If the new Office requires a new OS (and thus new hardware), and requires new user training, let me tell you something: IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN in any sensible business or in any sensible household. It was already unlikely before the Western financial system shot itself (and its customers) in the head. Now everyone knows what "leverage" means, and consequently the IT upgrade budget is less than zero.
"This application requires Windows 7, pay up or fuck off".
See above. Any company whose business's future depends on the success of Windows 7 is going to be a high risk company in the next few years. Sensible companies will ensure that they have alternative strategies independent of Windows 7, *because Windows 7 is not where their customers will want to be*.
This is new territory for MS and the Windows-dependent ecosystem. When you've monopolised the market for more than a decade, there is really only one way to go,
It's not so bad. But is it IS bad.
I have Vista Home Premium with SP1 running on a laptop with 1GB RAM. It's slow, so painfully slow, compared with XP SP2. I can't recommend using Vista at all. I hate it.
I have Vista Ultimate x64 running on a Core2Duo desktop with 4GB RAM, and it is supremely fast, stable, and an absolute joy to use, even with the Aero interface. Faster than XP Pro SP2, faster than XP Pro x64 SP2. Vista is the canine's conkers. I love it. Highly recommended.
So Vista is good and bad, it depends on the hardware.
I've tried Ubuntu, too, but it needs special installers for the programs I want to use, and has (like all *nix flavours) some very sill terminology. It's way to complicated for Average Joe. Which is a shame, as it was pleasant to use.
"Hardware sound support" and related stuff will only be back if the end to end DRM stuff is left out, which would be interesting. You can't have unauthorised/untrusted drivers having back doors to access the MPAA's righteous Intellectual Property, can you? Who do you think owns this PC and that BluRay disc? They do, not you!
an upshot of windows seven being released to optimistic reviews is the slow decline of the fashion of vista bashing.
plenty has been said on this topic by people more reasoned, more amusing, and more sexually attractive than you.
am convinced that the people continuing to wheel out these old tired jokes are people who, as a kid, used to try to hang around with the bullies at school. we all saw you wait until that poor kid was on the floor facing the other way before you put the boot in.
The point of upgrading to ultimate isn't all the useless 'extras' , but that you get all the business functions plus the media stuff too. In particular there's the NFS client, the Subsystem for Unix, the downgrade rights and the ability to run your copy of Vista (guest) inside a VM hosted by the same license (host) of Vista.
It's not coming back built in, but you can get it to work. Microsoft dropped it so things would allegedly be more stable, predictable and so they could synchronise the XBox360 and Vista sound interfaces.
To maintain hardware support in the meantime there's either OpenAL, Creative Alchemy (been free for months now) or the Xonar DX/D2X drivers. So, basically, unless you're running either extremely old games or refuse to shell out for a discrete soundcard D3D continues to work.
My (75 year old) Dad just loves seeing his photos on his 32" TV screen. And the best kit that I've seen for doing that is a Linksys DMA2100 Media Centre Extender. But it only works with Vista Media Centre. His current XP machine is only 2 years old, and I've been torn between replacing it or upgrading it. But if Windows 7 is going to be here by next Christmas, then I think that's what he's going to get.
One of the more irritating niggles of Windoze (whichever version) is that practically any update will 'require' a reboot (and in some cases, multiple reboots). Not to mention a lot of 'ordinary' software installs.
Whereas in a 3hr period last night I installed Mandriva 2008.1 on a spare box, updated it, then *upgraded it* to 2009.0. All in all, a couple of dozen mouse clicks and ONE reboot (to load 2009.0 after installation - with no "Please wait while installing updates" nonsense during either the shutdown (post desktop) or startup (pre desktop) phases. Oh, and the process involved downloading about 3GB of data - stored conveniently on JANET - so download was ultra fast. Unlike you-know-who's sluggish servers...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019