Windows 7 will be released

[secretanchitman]

well i just finished reinstalling xp pro on my mbp/boot camp. i dont care if it sees 3GB out of my 4GB...xp is still damned good after all these years.

 

[blurredvision]

I would not want to be in Microsoft's position because of the bunch of net nerds like you guys. You always want something more secure and uses new tech, but when something comes along, you bitch because it uses more resources. Of course it's going to use more resources...I don't hear you guys bitching because Intel or AMD comes out with more powerful processors every year and wanting to charge you for it.

You say the drivers are crappy...
...but that's 90% on the developers of the hardware, not Microsoft.

You bitch about twice the RAM being used...
...1.) RAM is cheap 2.) turn off superfetch 3.) why have RAM if you aren't going to fucking use it?

You bitch about it using more CPU...
...1.) so what? 2.) why have the CPU if you aren't going to use it? 3.) Vista is an advanced piece of OS, you expect it to run on air?

You bitch about the administrator prompt...
...for crying out loud, turn it off!

You bitch about Microsoft coming out with a new Windows within 3-4 years...
...well, bitch about CPU's coming out every year, new video cards coming out twice a year, new iPod's every year (shit, Vista is cheaper than those), new cars coming out every year, etc etc.

It's unfortunate that it's become cool on the internet to berate Microsoft and anything they do, because Vista is a great OS, and a worthy successor to XP. I've been using it for over a year now, and IMO, it's stable as hell. From looking at the reliability and performance monitor built into Vista, in the past year, I've only had 2 Windows failures (which I don't even remember) and very few application failures. I've managed to crash iexplore a few times, but with Vista, it's always recovered perfectly fine without a reboot.

 

[Tempered81]

If you think vista or xp is better, vote for it in this poll in "Operating Systems" subforum:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2174608&enterthread=y

I'm trying to find out which one is the most popular here.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
I would not want to be in Microsoft's position because of the bunch of net nerds like you guys. You always want something more secure and uses new tech, but when something comes along, you bitch because it uses more resources. Of course it's going to use more resources...I don't hear you guys bitching because Intel or AMD comes out with more powerful processors every year and wanting to charge you for it.

You say the drivers are crappy...
...but that's 90% on the developers of the hardware, not Microsoft.

You bitch about twice the RAM being used...
...1.) RAM is cheap 2.) turn off superfetch 3.) why have RAM if you aren't going to fucking use it?

You bitch about it using more CPU...
...1.) so what? 2.) why have the CPU if you aren't going to use it? 3.) Vista is an advanced piece of OS, you expect it to run on air?

You bitch about the administrator prompt...
...for crying out loud, turn it off!

You bitch about Microsoft coming out with a new Windows within 3-4 years...
...well, bitch about CPU's coming out every year, new video cards coming out twice a year, new iPod's every year (shit, Vista is cheaper than those), new cars coming out every year, etc etc.

It's unfortunate that it's become cool on the internet to berate Microsoft and anything they do, because Vista is a great OS, and a worthy successor to XP. I've been using it for over a year now, and IMO, it's stable as hell. From looking at the reliability and performance monitor built into Vista, in the past year, I've only had 2 Windows failures (which I don't even remember) and very few application failures. I've managed to crash iexplore a few times, but with Vista, it's always recovered perfectly fine without a reboot.

I :heart: Vista, especially over XP. I seemed to be a rarity in that I hated XP for the most part, although it was pretty snappy. But Vista, the only complaint I have is file transfer times.
Given time, Vista will mature into exactly what everyone has wanted. As hardware abilities progress, the increased overhead will be unimportant, and development should take advantage of what Vista offers eventually.

Hopefully it is true that Windows 7 starts brand new and is from the ground up a new technology, however... that then puts fears into how stable it will be since it is Microsoft and its proven they need time to make things stable and secure, even with older technologies. However, it would be nice to have an OS that could do virtual applications with little performance hitch, while actually having a brand new core that just walks all over past versions. Microsoft needs that. They did the right thing by dropping the DOS backbone that was previously in the Windows line, now it's kind of time to drop the 'Windows' backbone and start fresh with an insanely capable OS and leave backwards compatibility for virtualization tech.

+

 

[SagaLore]

Your points make no sense, as they are not founded on logic. My reply below:

Originally posted by: blurredvision
You say the drivers are crappy...
...but that's 90% on the developers of the hardware, not Microsoft.
No, its on Microsoft, who has to provide the necessary specs to the developers with enough advance time to develop. You can't change so much at the last minute and expect everyone to catch up in a reasonable amount of time.

You bitch about twice the RAM being used...
...1.) RAM is cheap 2.) turn off superfetch 3.) why have RAM if you aren't going to fucking use it?
If my Vista runs slower than XP at IDLE, then the code and services are bloated. If I shut off every extra service and feature I possibly can, and Vista on a newer/faster machine still runs slower than XP on an older machine, then that is bad coding. That is not progress.

You bitch about it using more CPU...
...1.) so what? 2.) why have the CPU if you aren't going to use it? 3.) Vista is an advanced piece of OS, you expect it to run on air?
You're right, lets use that CPU. But how is Vista using the CPU any more than any other OS? The rest of the world is making technology more efficient - cars run on less gas but have more features, homes run on less electricity but have more space and features, even toilets are better than ever but use less water. So what point are you trying to make?

You bitch about the administrator prompt...
...for crying out loud, turn it off!
No idea what you're talking about...

You bitch about Microsoft coming out with a new Windows within 3-4 years...
...well, bitch about CPU's coming out every year, new video cards coming out twice a year, new iPod's every year (shit, Vista is cheaper than those), new cars coming out every year, etc etc.
All that new stuff you listed runs on either the same or evolved specs which are still compatible with the hardware infrastructure they were designed for. I think what they're bitching about is the lack of compatibility with no real world benefit. An operating system inevitably is used by human beings, and regardless of what the code looks like on the backend, it is designed to fit our needs. Microsoft has a habit of overlooking that.

It's unfortunate that it's become cool on the internet to berate Microsoft and anything they do, because Vista is a great OS, and a worthy successor to XP. I've been using it for over a year now, and IMO, it's stable as hell. From looking at the reliability and performance monitor built into Vista, in the past year, I've only had 2 Windows failures (which I don't even remember) and very few application failures. I've managed to crash iexplore a few times, but with Vista, it's always recovered perfectly fine without a reboot.

In a year, you've had 2 failures, and very few (but some) application failures? You crashed iexplore, even though its now completely integrated with the OS? Would you like to compare your Vista uptimes with a standard install of linux or cisco ios?

 

[nsafreak]

You say the drivers are crappy...
...but that's 90% on the developers of the hardware, not Microsoft.

As often as they changed the driver model and gave the hardware manufacturers little time to get their drivers in order I wouldn't lay total blame on the hardware manufacturers. Should their drivers be better? Yes and they know about it and are working on it. Is it entirely their fault? No

You bitch about twice the RAM being used...
...1.) RAM is cheap 2.) turn off superfetch 3.) why have RAM if you aren't going to fucking use it?

Hmmm, so that the applications that need to use have it available perhaps? Really, why on EARTH should the operating system by itself use in the neighborhood of 512MB to 1 gigabyte. Other operating systems use less RAM more efficiently than Vista to do just as much if not more. Hell Ubuntu with Compviz enabled will use less RAM than Vista and Ubuntu is doing far more.

You bitch about it using more CPU...
...1.) so what? 2.) why have the CPU if you aren't going to use it? 3.) Vista is an advanced piece of OS, you expect it to run on air

Same argument as RAM. Really, WHY does it NEED to use more CPU resources? There's no reason for it at all.

You bitch about the administrator prompt...
...for crying out loud, turn it off!

Kindof defeats the purpose though doesn't it? Frankly I think the graphical implementation of how Ubuntu does sudo works far better than Vista's UAC. It doesn't pop up nearly as often because its more intelligent about what actually needs root privileges to be done and what does not.

You bitch about Microsoft coming out with a new Windows within 3-4 years...
...well, bitch about CPU's coming out every year, new video cards coming out twice a year, new iPod's every year (shit, Vista is cheaper than those), new cars coming out every year, etc etc.

I don't think folks are so upset over the release of Windows editions every 3 or 4 years I think they're more upset over the fact that there are a lot of broken promises with each release that are then maybe fulfilled in the next release. There were supposed to be a lot of improvements in Vista that simply did not happen. A database driven filesystem among other things. Windows 7 is rumored to be based around the blackcomb codebase that Microsoft has been working on for quite some time. Whether or not this is true has yet to be seen.

It's unfortunate that it's become cool on the internet to berate Microsoft and anything they do, because Vista is a great OS, and a worthy successor to XP. I've been using it for over a year now, and IMO, it's stable as hell. From looking at the reliability and performance monitor built into Vista, in the past year, I've only had 2 Windows failures (which I don't even remember) and very few application failures. I've managed to crash iexplore a few times, but with Vista, it's always recovered perfectly fine without a reboot.

For the folks that purchased it with new PCs or built new PCs for Vista specifically they typically have no problems. For the folks that did not however there are problems a plenty even if they exceed the requirements to run the operating system.

 

[Chiropteran]

I'm using vista 64bit, and I love it.

Vista uses more ram, ZOMG!

It uses a little more, but if I was using 32bit XP I would be hard-capped at something like 3GB of ram anyway. I have 4GB of RAM, Vista "uses" 900MB and I still have more free RAM that any XP user. And I say uses in quotes because a lot of that ram is just cache, which is released the moment an application needs it.

Vista uses more CPU, ZOMG!

Not that I have noticed. How are you even measuring this? Task manager shows CPU usage at 1% or less unless I'm running some other program.

Vista sucks and crashes a lot, ZOMG!

I haven't had any Vista-caused crashes.

Vista drivers suck!

In my experience, 64 bit vista drivers are fine. Of course I stick to hardware that is well supported- ATI video card, Intel chipset boards, etc. When ATI drivers are 100% stable but nVidia drivers crash, that isn't microsoft's fault- that is nVidia's fault.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
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.

yeah wtf is up with the network settings? you got your 'network and sharing centre' and then the 'connect to a network' thing, the 'manage network connections' thing, then supposed maps of your network. you have to poke around everything just to figure out what it all does, it's not very self-explanitory. and definitely a step backwards in that regard.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
...

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.

I agree. This post make me recall that xp (sp1?) was the first version of ms-windows that would run for more than a day without crashing. I can vaguely remember being stunned when it ran for three days without needing a reboot.

One of the things that bugs me about vista is that some of the keyboard interface has been removed or changed for no good reason. It also requires more steps to get some simple things done. Vista does boot slightly faster than xp though - don't want to be totally negative...

In general, I agree that, on the surface, vista is largely hype. One thing that surprises me though is that ms' stock price increased last year after being flat for most of the decade. This would have to be a result of the new os and office versions since they are the vast majority ms' revenue. I don't get what investors/speculators see that I and others don't.

 

[Pepsi90919]

also:

you need to abandon the mantra of "more free RAM is good". vista likes to maintain itself by loading things you *might* use into RAM, defragment, index, all that good stuff in the background. the idea, if executed properly, is that vista should get out of the way if you try to do *something* and free up the RAM and CPU if you need it.

 

[Chiropteran]

RAM really shouldn't even be a part of the discussion. If you are considering buying an OS for $150-$200 you should be able to afford to spend $60 on 4GB of RAM, in which case you will get better use out of it than you would with XP.

 

[UsandThem]

Vista is not the fastest OS out there, but I have used it for over a year, and I can not recall any BSOD's or crashes. A this point in life since I do not play games on my PC, all I want is a stable OS that has pretty good security features.

Vista provides that for me.

 

[Avalon]

For the majority of my applications, Vista64 is 95-100% as fast as XP was. I've never had driver issues, and the system has been rock solid for almost a year now. I don't have a $2000 super computer, I have a lowly $550 machine comprised of an E8400 on a Gigabyte P35 DS3L and 4GB of RAM. The only problem I run into is that I can't run 16bit applications, but that's happened about as many times as the number of fingers I have on one hand. UAC has been off, and I've found features that I would miss if I dropped back down to XP, such as the search, added administrative control, and networking/sharing options.

It's a far cry from my old HP Pavilion P3 667 system running Windows ME. It's not to say I don't think a lot of you have valid complaints, but I'm guessing a good chunk of the problem is sitting in your computer chair.

 

[ultimatebob]

Honestly, I don't think that even Engadget really believes that Windows 7 will be released in 2009. They're just pointing out some obvious flaws in the XP transition date plan that Bill Gates was talking about. I think that title was just to grab people's attention and grab some additional page views, which I'm sure that it succeeded in doing.

Besides, I take almost every product rumor that I see on Engadget with a grain of salt. They've incorrectly predicted so release options on so many Apple products at this point that it's not even funny anymore.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I'm using vista 64bit, and I love it.

Vista uses more ram, ZOMG!

It uses a little more, but if I was using 32bit XP I would be hard-capped at something like 3GB of ram anyway. I have 4GB of RAM, Vista "uses" 900MB and I still have more free RAM that any XP user. And I say uses in quotes because a lot of that ram is just cache, which is released the moment an application needs it.

Vista uses more CPU, ZOMG!

Not that I have noticed. How are you even measuring this? Task manager shows CPU usage at 1% or less unless I'm running some other program.

Vista sucks and crashes a lot, ZOMG!

I haven't had any Vista-caused crashes.

Vista drivers suck!

In my experience, 64 bit vista drivers are fine. Of course I stick to hardware that is well supported- ATI video card, Intel chipset boards, etc. When ATI drivers are 100% stable but nVidia drivers crash, that isn't microsoft's fault- that is nVidia's fault.

Same here. I'm loving Vista 64. Granted I have a quad core machine with 4gb ram, but after you give Vista the juice it wants, it runs flawlessly. Not one program has managed to lock the OS. Even when games crash due to video card issues, Vista can recover from it without a reboot. Having that level of abstraction which allows it to recover from just about anything takes resources.

Also, dreamscapes is awesome. This is my desktop background (click on the video tab).

 

[Tobolo]

I work at a state government job that has a site contract with Microsoft. I attended a tech meeting where we were informed by Microsoft about this at that time. We were told that Vista was developed by micro's server team and windows 2007 was developed by the user team.

Hence the retarded security settings on vista. Makes sense on a server. The problem was that Vista was ready way earlier. So they just got it out there knowing that one was coming behind it. Why do you think Micro pushed Vista on all there vendors?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: zoiks
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.

He speaks for the Fortune 500, lol.

Vista isn't shit. I run it just fine on multiple configs.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
I would not want to be in Microsoft's position because of the bunch of net nerds like you guys. You always want something more secure and uses new tech, but when something comes along, you bitch because it uses more resources. Of course it's going to use more resources...I don't hear you guys bitching because Intel or AMD comes out with more powerful processors every year and wanting to charge you for it.

You say the drivers are crappy...
...but that's 90% on the developers of the hardware, not Microsoft.

You bitch about twice the RAM being used...
...1.) RAM is cheap 2.) turn off superfetch 3.) why have RAM if you aren't going to fucking use it?

You bitch about it using more CPU...
...1.) so what? 2.) why have the CPU if you aren't going to use it? 3.) Vista is an advanced piece of OS, you expect it to run on air?

You bitch about the administrator prompt...
...for crying out loud, turn it off!

You bitch about Microsoft coming out with a new Windows within 3-4 years...
...well, bitch about CPU's coming out every year, new video cards coming out twice a year, new iPod's every year (shit, Vista is cheaper than those), new cars coming out every year, etc etc.

It's unfortunate that it's become cool on the internet to berate Microsoft and anything they do, because Vista is a great OS, and a worthy successor to XP. I've been using it for over a year now, and IMO, it's stable as hell. From looking at the reliability and performance monitor built into Vista, in the past year, I've only had 2 Windows failures (which I don't even remember) and very few application failures. I've managed to crash iexplore a few times, but with Vista, it's always recovered perfectly fine without a reboot.

Heh, if MS actually release something that help running my apps faster, like those new CPU does, I'd have no problem with them releasing OS every year like CPU companies. All MS does is adding features I don't need, rewriting stuff that already works and make hardware companies re-write their drivers and introduce possible imcompatibilities, oh and not only there is no performance gain with the new drivers, you'd be lucky to get new drivers that performs as good as the one on the old OS.

You guys can feel good and happy about new OS'es and whatever new features MS decide to feed down your throat. I just want OS that runs fast, efficient, and work with the hardware/softwares out there. Any features I'd want I will do my own research and decide on the best companies out there that that provides those features.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I'm using vista 64bit, and I love it.

Vista uses more ram, ZOMG!

It uses a little more, but if I was using 32bit XP I would be hard-capped at something like 3GB of ram anyway. I have 4GB of RAM, Vista "uses" 900MB and I still have more free RAM that any XP user. And I say uses in quotes because a lot of that ram is just cache, which is released the moment an application needs it.

Vista uses more CPU, ZOMG!

Not that I have noticed. How are you even measuring this? Task manager shows CPU usage at 1% or less unless I'm running some other program.

Vista sucks and crashes a lot, ZOMG!

I haven't had any Vista-caused crashes.

Vista drivers suck!

In my experience, 64 bit vista drivers are fine. Of course I stick to hardware that is well supported- ATI video card, Intel chipset boards, etc. When ATI drivers are 100% stable but nVidia drivers crash, that isn't microsoft's fault- that is nVidia's fault.

Same here. I'm loving Vista 64. Granted I have a quad core machine with 4gb ram, but after you give Vista the juice it wants, it runs flawlessly. Not one program has managed to lock the OS. Even when games crash due to video card issues, Vista can recover from it without a reboot. Having that level of abstraction which allows it to recover from just about anything takes resources.

Also, dreamscapes is awesome. This is my desktop background (click on the video tab).

I've only been using Vista 64 for about 3 weeks now, but I'm with you guys, so far it's rock solid. I've had no driver issues so far, and I certainly couldn't say that when I first went to XP.

Thanks for the wallpaper, Mxylplyx!! It's so hypnotic.

And no way will Windows 7 be out next year. Engadget really needs to stop with the predictions. They really suck at it.

 

[JD50]

meh..I don't mind Vista. I'm running Vista Ultimate 64, and I've only had problems running a few games. Besides that, it's not too bad.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: zoiks
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.

He speaks for the Fortune 500, lol.

Vista isn't shit. I run it just fine on multiple configs.

I don't speak for the Fortune 500 as I'm not a rep for them. I however work with a great many of them. And yes, Vista is shit with pee all over it.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
I'm using vista 64bit, and I love it.

Vista uses more ram, ZOMG!

It uses a little more, but if I was using 32bit XP I would be hard-capped at something like 3GB of ram anyway. I have 4GB of RAM, Vista "uses" 900MB and I still have more free RAM that any XP user. And I say uses in quotes because a lot of that ram is just cache, which is released the moment an application needs it.

Vista uses more CPU, ZOMG!

Not that I have noticed. How are you even measuring this? Task manager shows CPU usage at 1% or less unless I'm running some other program.

Vista sucks and crashes a lot, ZOMG!

I haven't had any Vista-caused crashes.

Vista drivers suck!

In my experience, 64 bit vista drivers are fine. Of course I stick to hardware that is well supported- ATI video card, Intel chipset boards, etc. When ATI drivers are 100% stable but nVidia drivers crash, that isn't microsoft's fault- that is nVidia's fault.

im going to just agree with everything you posted
my vista expirence has been flawless in the 2 months ive been running it, running 64 bit as well
turned off UAC
no driver issues, and i even have a creative sound card LOL it works fine with their drivers
my nvid drivers are fine

 

[TecHNooB]

Is this 'vienna'? The quick shift is kinda like windows ME ~> XP?

 

[Modelworks]

From what I have read it sounds like they are going the right way with windows 7.
The kernel and basics of the operating system are supposed to be under 25MB.
That doesn't include the user interface though.

Some pics of windows 7 in use.
Look familiar ?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/win7_6519.asp

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
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.

When you use the real version numbers that all sounds very silly.

Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1

XP was baby steps, 2000 was their real triumph. In fact, XP was just PR mumbo jumbo for "Hey guys, 2000 now has stable drivers, everyone can come on board now!"