Windows 7 will be released

[Narse]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Wow...they must have realized how bad they screwed up with Vista. It's been out since Nov. 2006 and it's STILL screwed up. They originally blamed the hardware drivers, but now that drivers are out they don't have any other excuses. It just plain SUCKS. I have to use twice the processor, twice the memory, and twice the hard drive space to run apps at the same speed that WinXP ran, and all for the benefit of being asked to "confirm" changes every 10 seconds and use a semi-transparent interface.

If Apple got smart and started selling their OS retail, I'd be the first in line.

You are completely wrong, you in no way need twice the hardware unless you are running XP on its bare minimum. MS should have released only a 64 bit version of Vista and it would have put most of you naysayers to sleep. It's new, you don't run crysis well on old hardware, why should a new OS be any differant. I have been running Vista since Beta 1. Vista is far superior to XP but people like their comfort zone and do not want to change. read the article again. Windows 7 will be beta in a year, the release will be late 2010 or early 2011.
Apple guys don't even try to say anything, your 64 bit transition is in for far worse headaches than Windows.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Wow...they must have realized how bad they screwed up with Vista. It's been out since Nov. 2006 and it's STILL screwed up. They originally blamed the hardware drivers, but now that drivers are out they don't have any other excuses. It just plain SUCKS. I have to use twice the processor, twice the memory, and twice the hard drive space to run apps at the same speed that WinXP ran, and all for the benefit of being asked to "confirm" changes every 10 seconds and use a semi-transparent interface.

If Apple got smart and started selling their OS retail, I'd be the first in line.

You are completely wrong, you in no way need twice the hardware unless you are running XP on its bare minimum. MS should have released only a 64 bit version of Vista and it would have put most of you naysayers to sleep. It's new, you don't run crysis well on old hardware, why should a new OS be any differant. I have been running Vista since Beta 1. Vista is far superior to XP but people like their comfort zone and do not want to change. read the article again. Windows 7 will be beta in a year, the release will be late 2010 or early 2011.
Apple guys don't even try to say anything, your 64 bit transition is in for far worse headaches than Windows.

I always found it pretty funny that people complained about XP taking too much resources compared to win98 when XP first came out. Vista has been a PR nightmare, but it's actually a pretty good OS. Besides, RAM is so cheap that there's no reason everyone should have 2 GBs anyway. Even DD1 was recently around $30 a GB.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Bullshit. Unless they're planning on making people pay for Windows Vista SP2 by calling it "Windows 7", they'll never make a 2009 deadline. Hell... they don't even have a beta for Windows 7 released yet! Keep in mind that the beta test cycle for Vista lasted for almost TWO YEARS, and still somehow got shipped with some serious bugs and lousy drivers.

Mark my words... Windows 7 won't ship until early 2011 if not later. They learned their lesson from Vista, and will make sure that STABLE drivers will be available for most major products on it's release date. That means an even longer test cycle than Vista with multiple release candidates.

Vista was a major revamp of the Windows OS not seen since Win95. I doubt Windows 7 will be such a major overhaul. Like I said, the release date between ME and XP was less than two years I believe. I expect Windows 7 will just be an updated version of Vista with a few new features and tweaks.

Bah... not buying it. Windows XP was a far bigger revamp of Windows than Vista was, as it was the first consumer version * of Windows that used the NT kernel. Before then, every consumer version of Windows still had DOS underpinnings and wasn't even remotely stable compared to their business products.

Windows Vista wasn't much more than Windows XP with some added features and some (poorly implemented, in my opinion) changes in the network and multimedia interfaces. How they screwed it up as badly as they did still amazes me.

* Keep in mind that Windows 2000 was a business release. There was no "Windows 2000 Home Edition", or many consumer desktops that shipped with the OS.

It was a revamp for consumers, but wasn't really much effort for Microsoft, since they built on 2k to give us XP anyway.
XP was 2k with some additional features AFAI understand it.
But basically Windows 7 shouldn't really need 2 years beta time if it's just an incremental build on Vista.
And arguably some of the driver changes were part of the problem that meant it needed so much work. You still get 2k/XP shared drivers, Vista needs 32 and 64-bit drivers which are different to 2k/XP ones.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Wow...they must have realized how bad they screwed up with Vista. It's been out since Nov. 2006 and it's STILL screwed up. They originally blamed the hardware drivers, but now that drivers are out they don't have any other excuses. It just plain SUCKS. I have to use twice the processor, twice the memory, and twice the hard drive space to run apps at the same speed that WinXP ran, and all for the benefit of being asked to "confirm" changes every 10 seconds and use a semi-transparent interface.

If Apple got smart and started selling their OS retail, I'd be the first in line.

You are completely wrong, you in no way need twice the hardware unless you are running XP on its bare minimum. MS should have released only a 64 bit version of Vista and it would have put most of you naysayers to sleep. It's new, you don't run crysis well on old hardware, why should a new OS be any differant. I have been running Vista since Beta 1. Vista is far superior to XP but people like their comfort zone and do not want to change. read the article again. Windows 7 will be beta in a year, the release will be late 2010 or early 2011.
Apple guys don't even try to say anything, your 64 bit transition is in for far worse headaches than Windows.

I always found it pretty funny that people complained about XP taking too much resources compared to win98 when XP first came out. Vista has been a PR nightmare, but it's actually a pretty good OS. Besides, RAM is so cheap that there's no reason everyone should have 2 GBs anyway. Even DD1 was recently around $30 a GB.

Umm.. XP is an operating system in a different class. I don't think that 98 had services and numerous other features. I'd never never get an OS that would take more memory for performing a task that it could do with less. Enter Vista.
I don't friggin care that memory is cheaper. More memory would be justified if the OS or application would be performing some sort of task that absolutely required it. If my application required multiple parallel threads running or perhaps I required 20 apps runnning simultaneously then I'd add memory. I wouldn't add memory just because my OS independently of any app that runs on top of it takes 2gb. Fuck that.
Vista is bullshit. I work with fortune 500 companies and over 400 customers. Not one of them implemented Vista due to its inefficiency.

 

[Turkish]

If MS really releases Windows 7 next year, they better have a special upgrade discount for Windows Vista Ultimate owners, else I'll just buy a freakin Mac and put XP Pro on it.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Wow...they must have realized how bad they screwed up with Vista. It's been out since Nov. 2006 and it's STILL screwed up. They originally blamed the hardware drivers, but now that drivers are out they don't have any other excuses. It just plain SUCKS. I have to use twice the processor, twice the memory, and twice the hard drive space to run apps at the same speed that WinXP ran, and all for the benefit of being asked to "confirm" changes every 10 seconds and use a semi-transparent interface.

If Apple got smart and started selling their OS retail, I'd be the first in line.

Agreed. It's time for them to do what they should have done (continued) many years ago.

 

[punchkin]

Here's hoping that Windows 7 has fewer problems than Vista.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Wow...they must have realized how bad they screwed up with Vista. It's been out since Nov. 2006 and it's STILL screwed up. They originally blamed the hardware drivers, but now that drivers are out they don't have any other excuses. It just plain SUCKS. I have to use twice the processor, twice the memory, and twice the hard drive space to run apps at the same speed that WinXP ran, and all for the benefit of being asked to "confirm" changes every 10 seconds and use a semi-transparent interface.

If Apple got smart and started selling their OS retail, I'd be the first in line.

You are completely wrong, you in no way need twice the hardware unless you are running XP on its bare minimum. MS should have released only a 64 bit version of Vista and it would have put most of you naysayers to sleep. It's new, you don't run crysis well on old hardware, why should a new OS be any differant. I have been running Vista since Beta 1. Vista is far superior to XP but people like their comfort zone and do not want to change. read the article again. Windows 7 will be beta in a year, the release will be late 2010 or early 2011.
Apple guys don't even try to say anything, your 64 bit transition is in for far worse headaches than Windows.

I always found it pretty funny that people complained about XP taking too much resources compared to win98 when XP first came out. Vista has been a PR nightmare, but it's actually a pretty good OS. Besides, RAM is so cheap that there's no reason everyone should have 2 GBs anyway. Even DD1 was recently around $30 a GB.

Umm.. XP is an operating system in a different class. I don't think that 98 had services and numerous other features. I'd never never get an OS that would take more memory for performing a task that it could do with less. Enter Vista.
I don't friggin care that memory is cheaper. More memory would be justified if the OS or application would be performing some sort of task that absolutely required it. If my application required multiple parallel threads running or perhaps I required 20 apps runnning simultaneously then I'd add memory. I wouldn't add memory just because my OS independently of any app that runs on top of it takes 2gb. Fuck that.
Vista is bullshit. I work with fortune 500 companies and over 400 customers. Not one of them implemented Vista due to its inefficiency.

Unless someone bought a computer with WinME on it, the typical home user went from win98 to XP. When XP came out, it needed more resources to run compared to Win98 and RAM was a big part of that. If you had an older than a year or so when XP came out, it was not recommended to upgrade. Those problems went away of course when people bought a new computer. It's also no secret that businesses don't upgrade until the first SP comes out, which has been the case for less than a month now.

 

[Fox5]

My prediction:
Microsoft will lose user base to Apple each time a switch occurs. Also, it opens the door for alternative OSes.

Microsoft should get rid of the upgrade model entirely. Just have there be windows, with free updates, most of their revenue comes from new PC sales anyhow. Their license is already nontransferable, and this would keep consumers happy.

Also, Windows 7 likely won't be, it'll probably just be a Vista service pack with maybe a little pizazz added. (and how dick would be it be to have sold a windows vista ultimate addition, promise additional features regularly, and then instead just release a 'new' OS and charge for it without ever really having ultimate extras)

If microsoft does release a windows 7 in 2009, then Vista will be the last windows I'll ever buy. Linux has made enough progress imo that it's suitable for desktop use, and really only lacking a major OEM to support it full force.

 

[RESmonkey]

I just hope it's not bloated, and they call it "Windows 7" and not some homosexual cultural spinoff name like Vista (no offense to any gays, of course. ).

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Fox5
My prediction:
Microsoft will lose user base to Apple each time a switch occurs. Also, it opens the door for alternative OSes.

Sure. I can see a lot of businesses going Apple or Linux. :roll:

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
No way vista is the new ME. ME was nearly unusable on every machine it was installed on. I doubt anyone here would say that ME was just as good or even close to 98, but many people including myself have no problems with Vista. No, it isn't worth a paid upgrade over XP, but it is at least functional.

I actually had few problems with ME, but I have to reboot everytime I want to play a game on Vista. Also things that used to take 2 clicks in XP now take 6, information is hidden so you have to dig for it, and it's just dog slow.

If you're not having problems, you're one of the few.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Fox5
My prediction:
Microsoft will lose user base to Apple each time a switch occurs. Also, it opens the door for alternative OSes.

Sure. I can see a lot of businesses going Apple or Linux. :roll:

If they look at what Novell has to offer with Zenworks Configuration Manager and AutoYast, it makes SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop look inviting. You can deploy systems pretty quick after a little setup up front. If you ask me, it's a Vista killer as long as you can use Citrix to get through the mandatory Windows apps.

I've got SLED on my laptop and boot to it more than XP even.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Wow...they must have realized how bad they screwed up with Vista. It's been out since Nov. 2006 and it's STILL screwed up. They originally blamed the hardware drivers, but now that drivers are out they don't have any other excuses. It just plain SUCKS. I have to use twice the processor, twice the memory, and twice the hard drive space to run apps at the same speed that WinXP ran, and all for the benefit of being asked to "confirm" changes every 10 seconds and use a semi-transparent interface.

If Apple got smart and started selling their OS retail, I'd be the first in line.

You are completely wrong, you in no way need twice the hardware unless you are running XP on its bare minimum. MS should have released only a 64 bit version of Vista and it would have put most of you naysayers to sleep. It's new, you don't run crysis well on old hardware, why should a new OS be any differant. I have been running Vista since Beta 1. Vista is far superior to XP but people like their comfort zone and do not want to change. read the article again. Windows 7 will be beta in a year, the release will be late 2010 or early 2011.
Apple guys don't even try to say anything, your 64 bit transition is in for far worse headaches than Windows.

OK, first, to get ANY benefit from 64 bit, an application has to be compiled to take advantage of 64 bit.

Second, I am not wrong at all- we have over 200 workstations, and Office 2007 is so bloated you need 2GB of memory just to be able to use the damn thing (Office 2003 ran on 512K on a mid range Celeron perfectly). Access 2003 slows down to a crawl during table searches on Vista because of all the underlaying security crap. Trying to troubleshoot network problems is like pulling teeth because they made their network settings so diluted and spread out.

Very very poor implementation.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Fox5
My prediction:
Microsoft will lose user base to Apple each time a switch occurs. Also, it opens the door for alternative OSes.

Microsoft should get rid of the upgrade model entirely. Just have there be windows, with free updates, most of their revenue comes from new PC sales anyhow. Their license is already nontransferable, and this would keep consumers happy.

Also, Windows 7 likely won't be, it'll probably just be a Vista service pack with maybe a little pizazz added. (and how dick would be it be to have sold a windows vista ultimate addition, promise additional features regularly, and then instead just release a 'new' OS and charge for it without ever really having ultimate extras)

If microsoft does release a windows 7 in 2009, then Vista will be the last windows I'll ever buy. Linux has made enough progress imo that it's suitable for desktop use, and really only lacking a major OEM to support it full force.

dude.. MS is a software company. they make OSes. that's how they make money. this isn't apple, where they monopolize the hardware and software on a computer and sell it to you.

 

[Scarpozzi]

One more thought...

Microsoft should offer Windows 7 at a discount for Vista owners. I think it sucks that they would release an OS with so many driver compatibility problems and GUI overhead. I've heard the heavy windows users defend Vista time and time again, but when you take a fast Core2Duo system with 4GB of RAM and only get moderate performance out of it, using Vista undermines your hardware investment.

 

[moparacer]

Maybe 07 will be to us XP users like XP was when whe skipped right past Me.

How long before MS cans support for XP?

 

[FoBoT]

I :heart: DOS

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: maziwanka
what a crock of shit to release vista and then replace it so soon (and not with an upgrade to it)

This isn't the first time this rumour has been talked about. I read about Win 7 comming out soon several months back. From a marketing point of view Vista has not been very successful for MS. No where near enough people are migrating to it from XP. So perhaps the marketing guys as MS thought they would try again with an "all new" version.

There has to be some "technical" change as well.

Most likely some de-bloating of the Vista kernel that requires more than 1 gig of ram.

 

[mcturkey]

Windows 7 is supposed to be a completely new Windows from the ground up, not one built off Vista or XP. All the information thus far has pointed to it only even having backwards compatibility via virtual machine. Development has been ongoing for awhile, and so I'd be surprised if it wasn't out by the end of 2009.

Vista runs great if you've got the right hardware now that drivers have matured, and has better compatibility and stability than XP x64 ever did. Even so, XP runs faster because it is a simpler OS. In theory, Windows 7 will be even simpler, with a lot less overhead from trying to stay backwards compatible with nearly two decades worth of operating systems.

 

[mh47g]

I thought Bill Gates retired

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I think vista sucks and am glad I never gave up XP

QFT

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I think vista sucks and am glad I never gave up XP

me too, sadly i bought a new dell laptop that came with vista, but i put xp back on it

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
So does this officially make Vista the next Windows ME?

or ME the tragic precursor to the garbage heap known as Vista

 

[SagaLore]

Windows Vista is the NT version of Windows ME (which was 9x based). They're going to skip it as fast as possible.

I love how they keep shifting around the versions. 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 7...

Perhaps they need to go back to the KISS principle for the next release - build something that is really just an operating system, and let third parties create the addons - just build some type of addon manager that makes your customization seamless. Then Microsoft can just focus on all those cool OS features like file system, account security, interface, etc.