Whilst I appreciate that bringing new operating systems out is a good way for Microsoft to make money, they must realise that Vista won't have achieved good market penetration by 2010.
I strongly feel that they should be focusing on Vista SP2 and SP3 rather than new operating system versions, at least until Vista becomes a capable, fast and compatible operating system. Just not quite right to be starting a new software line without finishing your current one!
Vista with all its downfalls has to be the hottest thing ever hated. I wish my failures were that successful!
This is a good example of Microsoft's coverfire mentality. Basically, they want to release new products so fast that competitors have to spend time making sure their software is compatible with all the new stuff, rather than improving their own products. I believe it's largely the reason behind their "new" office document format.
I bet the 2010 OS has just as many issues as Vista, if not more.
|they must realise that Vista won't have achieved good market penetration by 2010. |
Oh they do very well, which is why they will call next release Windows 7 (or whatever) - Vista has become a very bad brand, so they really need to ditch it - going SP2 or SP3 won't help because there is still bitter taste in peoples mouths from that release.
I actually think that by then they might iron out main problems and also hardware should catch up with them too - Microsoft (and any big company) has got a history of poor products, like say MS-DOS 4.0 was not great (but 5.0 was much better), or Windows ME was not exactly superb. For Intel Pentium Pro was not great, but Pentium 2 was fine.
Windows Vista is the current Windows ME. A sooner release date just means Microsoft sees Vista as a weak spot that Linux could gain market share obviously at it's own loss. The only problem for Linux is that even the most polished versions still require you to go in to the console to setup literally everything you'd do in XP without having to go in to DOS. Perhaps instead of having 500 versions of every type of application Linux programmers could concentrate on eliminating the need to constantly go in to the console so even a computer enthusiast such as myself could be much more productive. A major distro I tried a year ago had no option whatsoever to change the audio card and everything has to have a binary/RPM the moment it's released otherwise guess what OS I'll still be testing nightly builds of Firefox and Safari on? Yup, XP.
I put it on my brother's computer (at his request) and he BEGGED me to get that crap back off, LOL. Have a friend who bought new laptop with Vista and within a few weeks took it to have Windows XP installed. I would say it is pretty thoroughly hated by a LOT of people. I haven't tried it as I don't want to buy new programs for them to work on Vista. Oh, and it takes FOREVER to put Vista on, OR take it off! It was maddening WITH a fast, new computer even!
[edited by: WiseWebDude at 8:00 pm (utc) on April 8, 2008]
2010 is 2 years away and 3 years after the release of Vista. And this is MS we're talking about, meaning a hinted 2010 release is really 2011 if that.
All the posts in this thread speak as though it's next tuesday :-)
After one week, I'm now used to Vista and actually like it, I think. No speed issues with 2Gb of RAM and duo core processor. Installing software is a often a bit of a hassle, but it seems that there usually is a creative work around.
I'm not looking forward to doing it all again with a new OS. What a waste of time... Just do updates Bill!
even more reason not to move to vista. Vistas problem is that it wasn't needed, windows next release will be needed because people will be stuck with vista and want an escape route, ala WinME.
Let me bring some light to some of the above speculations...
Microsoft had an enormous task in the year 2000.
The task consisted on moving all the installed base of Windows 9x systems (Windows 95, 98, etc) to Windows NT which was rebranded as 'Windows 2000' in 2000 and 'Windows XP' in 2001.
I think the above was the main reason to release Windows XP SP2 in 2004 using the same Windows XP brand name.
Since Windows XP SP2 was a clear step forward from the original Windows XP at about double its size, it might have been a good candidate for a different Windows brand name.
Nevertheless, at the time of the release of Windows XP SP2 in 2004, the installed base of Windows 9x systems was about 20% while Windows XP was about 50% and Windows 2000 was about 19%. See [google.com...]
So it was a good decision to keep the Windows XP brand name until 2006 just before the release of Windows Vista. It was also natural to give Windows Vista an improved user interface that would take advantage the latest innovations in hardware.
Since most of the world today is running on Windows NT (Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista) it's only logical to have a new brand name for Windows 7 in 2010.
I'll stick with Windows 2000 on most of my machines, thank you very much.
Here's my feelings on all of this...feel free to agree/disagree.
XP/Vista is needed for DRM (forced Digital Rights Management) on Windows Media Player, and Vista is needed for DirectX10 (for gamers).
XP is being forced onto some gamers on some new releases (Crysis), although there are workarounds to let these run fine on Win2K.
XP does startup/shutdown a few seconds faster, but that is offset by the fact it needs twice the memory to do the exact same thing once it's up and running.
XP SP2/Vista has a firewall (which only works one way, I think). I already use a firewall.
I've played with all of these configurations imaginable on different operating systems, and I still think the fastest, most stable systems are the ones running Windows 2000 with SP3, DirectX 90c, and IE 5.5 (IE6 is bloated beyond belief.)
Ah microsoft. Teasing us with promises of future crappy, overpriced software. As always, thank you.
No worries it'll be delayed a dozen times so we won't have to worry about it for a decade.
Till then y'all can enjoy vista (with a draconian DRM) and server 2008.
rise2it: IE5.5 ? Seriously ? I don't bother testing any website to see how it looks with that one (as a matter of fact I'm seriously considering dropping IE6 soon, it's too crappy to continue to support once I'll need to worry about IE8.
But worst of all you're not getting any more patches and you will have more and more known vulnerabilities waiting to be hit.
Windows version release history:
Windows 1.0: 1985
Windows 2.0: 1987
Windows 3.0: 1990
Windows 3.1: 1992
Windows 95: 1995
Windows 98: 1998
Windows 2k: Feb 2000
Windows ME: Sep 2000
Windows XP: Oct 2001
Windows Vista: Jan 2007
Windows 7: 2010
If Vista has a three year lifespan, that's well within the average life expectancy of a Windows product. It seems like XP is the odd-ball that drank from the fountain of youth for so long.
<sidenote> I wonder which versions they consider their 7. I count Windows 7 would actually be Windows 10 (since 3.0 and 3.1 are really the same version) Looks like they are counting versions of NT? </sidenote>
[edited by: SEOMike at 10:49 pm (utc) on April 8, 2008]
|It was also natural to give Windows Vista an improved user interface that would take advantage the latest innovations in hardware. |
In any meaningful way to 99.99% of the people who have to buy it? Seems like it just takes more processing power, more memory & computer upgrades or new machines.
Windows 1.0 - Windows 7 Revised Release History
US Fall 1985 Windows 1.0
1987-10 Windows 2.0
1990-05 Windows 3.0
1992-04 Windows 3.1
1993-07 Windows NT (New Technology)
1994-09 Windows NT 3.5
1995-08 Windows 95 (Windows 4.0)
1996-07 Windows NT 4.0
1998-06 Windows 98
2000-02 Windows 2K (Windows NT 5.0)
2000-09 Windows ME
2001-10 Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1)
2004-08 Windows XP SP2
2007-01 Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0)
Probably 2010 Windows 7
[edited by: zafile at 12:47 am (utc) on April 9, 2008]
If you swap the date format to be Year-Month and put the stuff in brackets after the date, that list will be a lot more readable.
SP2 is not a totally different operating system, it was not sold separately and has the same kernel. It was changed a lot because the security of pre SP1 XP was terrible (it is worm food).
What still amazes me is how MS-DOS is still under the hood. I had to clean up FuJacks virus on an XP machine the other day. FuJacks leave a hidden / system file in every directory on the machine -- the easiest way to clean it up was to open a Command Prompt window and run:
C:\> del filename_.ini /ash /f /s
D:\> (hit the up arrow twice and hit enter}
F:\> (repeat for each drive)
Ok, I'll admit it, ...I needed a refresher on what /switches I needed to use with the DEL command... it's been a while.. (for those who don't know or are rusty like me -- you can get HELP for any DOS command by typing the command followed by /?, e.g.-
C:\> del /?
|What still amazes me is how MS-DOS is still under the hood. |
This is a common misconception. MS-DOS is/was a 16bit command-line environment. It is no more "under the hood" than Notepad. The cmd.exe program is merely a console application designed to roughly emulate the old MS-DOS program command.com with some extensions and changes.
This criticism was often leveled at Windows 9x too, but it was still wrong (for essentially the same arguments above). However, in the case of Windows 9x, MS-DOS was used as a significant part of the boot process.
The Windows 2000 logo states that is was built on Windows NT. I wonder if Windows 7 will be built on Vista or XP. It would be a wise decision to go back to XP as the base and merely lift Aero from Vista. (UAC needs to be redesigned from scratch - they got it all wrong.)
|The Windows 2000 logo states that is was built on Windows NT. I wonder if Windows 7 will be built on Vista or XP. |
Vista and XP are both part of the NT family, they are all built on NT technology, but I suspect they do not like to brag about it these days.
Windows 7 is supposed to be getting a proper shell so you will not have to work with DOS anymore, who would have thought that Windows would be copying Linux's command line? I thought all Windows users hated the command line? Maybe because of DOS?
|The only problem for Linux is that even the most polished versions still require you to go in to the console to setup literally everything you'd do in XP without having to go in to DOS. |
You've made a similar comment on another thread - I realise it's a bit off-topic here, but I wonder why you're having such problems? I've been using a variety of Linux distros on a very wide range of hardware and most of it just works for me out of the box.
What exactly have you had to do in the console? What distro are you using? Do you fancy heading over to here [webmasterworld.com] to discuss this? :-)
Having said that, I've also had very few problems with Vista ever since I was beta testing it, so I'm not sure whether I'm just lucky or you're unlucky... or my hardware is less demanding. I don't really like Vista, but it installs and works for me just fine.
|Perhaps instead of having 500 versions of every type of application Linux programmers could concentrate on eliminating the need to constantly go in to the console so even a computer enthusiast such as myself could be much more productive. |
The (perhaps unpleasant) truth is that "Linux programmers" by and large work on a voluntary basis, and as such couldn't really give a hoot about whether end-users such as yourself have to go in to the console or not. Sign up for a few linux mailing lists and you'll see what I mean - "How can we make Linux more like Windows" is not a topic that gets discussed very much.
|It was also natural to give Windows Vista an improved user interface that would take advantage the latest innovations in hardware. |
Sorry, but who exactly thinks that Vista has an improved user interface?
At every single company I've visited in the last three years, the overwhelming choice for the desktop UI has been XP w/ Windows Classic Theme. This means that (give or take a few minor changes/improvements) the system looks like it would if it was running Windows 2000. Do we think these companies are missing a trick? Would rounded corners on windows and a bright green 'Start' button help their employees be 123% more productive? Perhaps we should make some of the windows transparent? Oh, wait...
I can understand gamers liking eye candy, I can understand that Microsoft likes to include eye-candy as an OPTION for those users who are in to that sort of thing, but for basic (business) productivity tasks I'm not aware of any independent evidence that the Windows Aero interface itself improves productivity over Windows XP or the Windows 2000 interface.
To be blunt, how are transparent edges and animations supposed to help the end user perform mundane day-to-day tasks on their PC?
Are we saying that eye-candy's sole purpose is to relieve bordom? ;-)
and the prize for stating the blindingly obvious goes to...
|Vista and XP are both part of the NT family, they are all built on NT technology |
The point I was making is that Vista has only two significant "improvements" on XP. Aero is just eye-candy and could easily be lifted and moved to XP. UAC whilst a good concept was designed all wrong from top to bottom. This being the case, I can see no earthly reason why Windows 7 should be built on Vista, they would do better to base it on XP and ditch a few thousand man-hours of effort that went into making Vista so problematic.
|Windows 7 is supposed to be getting a proper shell so you will not have to work with DOS anymore |
THERE IS NO DOS ANYMORE
Even if Windows 7 gets a new CLI (that's a command-line interface) so what - it's about as significant as a grain of salt on a beach.
There are few mortals who want to keep alive the Windows 2000 interface. That's ok.
Today, the rest of the world is moving to the Windows Vista interface as it did when it changed from the command prompt to the early versions of Windows and when it moved from the Windows 3.x interface to the Windows 95 interface.
Those who haven't made the change to the Windows Vista interface by 2010-2011 will do it then with Windows 7. That's ok too.
The next version of Windows is most likely to be 'built upon' server 2008 (its all still NT kernel with extra fluff), just with desktop roles instead of server roles. It will be more Unix like, thats for sure.
Command lines are incredibly powerful and quick for power users. The fact that all Windows users think the command line is pointless is proof of how bad dos is (if it looks like dos and smells like dos then it is dos). Microsoft and server administrators know the power of the command line.
|Those who haven't made the change to the Windows Vista interface by 2010-2011 will do it then with Windows 7. |
What exactly is the Windows Vista interface? Is this documented somewhere?
I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think of when they hear the phrase "the Vista Interface" - what does this actually mean to you?
Are we talking about what's called "Windows Aero"? I've read the Wikipedia article on Windows Aero and I must say it's not really very clear exactly what's meant.
Are we we talking about the 'cool' stuff - e.g. some windows being partially transparent - a.k.a. 'Aero Glass'? Not all Vista editions have this feature
Are we talking about the new way menu items are displayed on the 'Start' menu?
Are we talking about Segoe UI being used in dialog boxes?
Are we talking about the 'Start' button being round and a catchy(?) tune playing when Vista boots? Microsoft made quite a big deal of the new 'Vista sound' during the beta testing process... and got quite a lot of criticism for this ("forget the Vista sound, why is my system so resource-intensive" would be a typical response)
Are we saying the interface is the sum of all these things?
Finally, if the "Vista Interface" is so good for us, and ought to improve our productivity (?), why does Server 2008 ship with so many of these things switched off/disabled?
|Microsoft and server administrators know the power of the command line. |
Why would your average end-user want to go anywhere near a command line?
I spend quite a bit of time doing "sysadmin stuff" on *nix and Windows boxes, but for "end-user" tasks I wouldn't dream of using a command line
OK, I've ever surfed the web using the links browser over a serial console, but not exactly normal, is it?
IMHO all an end-user wants(needs) to do is surf the web, check their email, and write and print documents and spreadsheets. This is why the Eee PC appears to have found buyers - it's quite simply "good enough" for their needs, at an attractive price.
If you just want to do the basics, who needs "Aero Glass" if it in turn needs a $1500 laptop?
|Why would your average end-user want to go anywhere near a command line? |
The command line allows things they do often to be scripted, they also allow components that were not designed to work together to exchange data (via stdin/out).
I am sure the next version of windows will go back to a command line shell with the Windows GUI running on top of that (similar to Win 98 on top of DOS). The user will benefit here from a more stable and flexible system which uses less resources (hopefully). Then maybe they can finally get their latest and greatest OS to run on the Eee and they can EOL XP.
|If you just want to do the basics, who needs "Aero Glass" if it in turn needs a $1500 laptop? |
Even the cheapest Dell laptop will run Aero in 1GB of memory adequately (provided you perform a clean install). It will be slower than XP that's hardly news.
The "Vista Interface" is certainly not a step forward. In terms of usability, it is actually a step back. In terms of beauty, it is ok but the way the title-bar/menu-bar/address-bar area has been messed around in Explorer/Internet Explorer is just awful (and I know of no registry hacks to fix it, but they probably exist).
Also, it is much more difficult to differentiate between an active window and an inactive window in Vista. In all previous versions of Windows, the color of the title-bar identified which window was focused but in Vista you have to inspect the width of the drop-shadow - crazy. Also, why does the glass go black when a window is maximized - even more crazy. And why does the close-button have to "glow" - I believe this sole feature bumps up the graphic hardware requirements substantially. And why does it require around 256MB of video memory to operate Aero, that's 32-64 times more than is required by XP.
Incidentally, the glass effects could, theoretically, be achieved in Windows 2000 - it has the core functionality.
| This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 (  2 ) > > |