Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More Indications Windows 7 Is Coming In 2009

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the can't-hardly-wait dept.

Windows 369

An anonymous reader writes "Following on the news that Microsoft was going straight to a RC for Windows 7, the One Microsoft Way blog has put together some dates on the upcoming roadmap for Vista's successor. Microsoft has always said 'three years after the general availability of Windows Vista,' which was released on January 30, 2007, and that the release date was also dependent on quality. Internally though, Microsoft is saying other things. It looks like we'll see the RC coming in April, and a final RTM version before October 3. Yes, that means Redmond is currently hoping to get Windows 7 out the door in 2009."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683749)

Is mine!

Surprise to Anyone? (1, Interesting)

ShedPlant (1041034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683777)

I thought everyone knew this already. But I am enjoying the Windows 7 beta on my gaming desktop and netbook and look forward to *gasp* purchasing a copy to replace Windows XP.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683839)

Why?

What can justify the cost and performance hit of Windows 7? Yes, it is faster than Vista but it isn't faster than XP.

Last time I checked, all games support Windows XP. Also, why on earth would someone want to BUY an OS without it being bought/bundled with a new PC?

What features are there that are "must have" apart from the "ooh shiny" aspect?

That's not to mention the inevitable problems of early adoption...

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683871)

"What features are there that are "must have" apart from the "ooh shiny" aspect"

Never underestimate the power of the "ooh shiny" marketing. The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684441)

See NYSE:AAPL for further evidence.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684279)

Besides that, there is no Windows 7. That is just a new name for an old operating system that has had a very few changes.

It is my observation and opinion that every one or two operating system releases, Microsoft puts out a deliberately bad release, because that makes more money.

Why get excited about a habitual abuser?

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (3, Informative)

Jaknet (944488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684419)

Why?

What can justify the cost and performance hit of Windows 7? Yes, it is faster than Vista but it isn't faster than XP.

Last time I checked, all games support Windows XP. Also, why on earth would someone want to BUY an OS without it being bought/bundled with a new PC?

What features are there that are "must have" apart from the "ooh shiny" aspect?

That's not to mention the inevitable problems of early adoption...

How about being able to use all of the ram instead of being limited to only 3gb and also being able to use the 64 bit processor instead of being stuck with only a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit pc. Both of these situations mean that Windows 7 is actually faster than XP in some situations as being able to use all the memory and processor power not just part of it

Just 2 thoughts that come to mind straight away.

Shame XP64 never got fully completed. Still if it had then I guess Vista would have had even more problems getting any users.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683861)

A 2009 release or 'RTM' date shouldn't be a surprise at all.

The beta expires in July, so the 'Release Candidate' build should be out before then, and the final version soon after.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (2, Informative)

kennedy (18142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684153)

A 2009 release or 'RTM' date shouldn't be a surprise at all.

The beta expires in July, so the 'Release Candidate' build should be out before then, and the final version soon after.

the beta expires in august. ms even tells you such when you sign up for your beta key.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (4, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683873)

I am enjoying the Windows 7 beta on my gaming desktop and netbook and look forward to *gasp* purchasing a copy to replace Windows XP.

Clearest indication Windows 7 will be released soon?

Astroturf levels go well past "histrionic".

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (3, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683927)

I am enjoying the Windows 7 beta on my gaming desktop and netbook and look forward to *gasp* purchasing a copy to replace Windows XP.

Clearest indication Windows 7 will be released soon?

Astroturf levels go well past "histrionic".

I'm also using the beta and will buy W7 to replace XP on my laptop. Why - it seems to run faster, especially when accessing shared drives.

Of course, I run it on Fusion on my Mac (I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.

Just because some has a reason to upgrade doesn't mean they're part of a astroturf campaign.

Now, if Snow Leopard allows seamless connectivity with exchange and i can replicate Outlook's functionality on my MAC then I may just pop for the Mac version of Office.

And yes, I run NeoOffice but it doesn't quite handle Office files properly in all cases so I can't rely on it for critical client work. I'd love an FOSS solution for Word/PowerPoint/Outlook/Excel/Visio; but everything I've tried is not quite there, yet.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684149)

Just because some has a reason to upgrade doesn't mean they're part of a astroturf campaign.

OMG! They're everywhere!

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (2, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684243)

I need to run the Win versions of Office for work, and W7 so far appears to do that better than XP.

Interesting comment.

All the benchmarks I've seen so far show Vista/Win7 being close to 30% slower than XP running office apps on the same hardware.

Care to explain what makes it "better" enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars getting Win 7?

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684271)

My brother is running Vista on a 1/2 gigabyte of RAM. If I upgrade it to Windows 7 in 2010, will it run faster or slower or not at all?

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684255)

I thought everyone knew this already.

We did, but it won't stop the sweaty Slashdot hordes quacking about how 7 is/was being rushed.

Re:Surprise to Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684321)

We did, but it won't stop the sweaty Slashdot hordes quacking about how 7 is/was being rushed.

Astroturf technique # 11,

Logical fallacy: Poisoning the well [wikipedia.org] .

Windows 7 == Financial Calamity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683783)

This year looks to be the worst financial downturn since the great depression and Microsoft want to foist a new version of Windows on us?

Is it because the corpse of Vista, still seated at its desk, is stinking up the room? Sure, Microsoft insists Vista is alive and healthy but the smell of purification is undeniable.

But I don't see all those companies who took a pass on Vista suddenly deciding this year is a great year to upgrade their computing infrastructure.

Re:Windows 7 == Financial Calamity (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684043)

No, but what about those that could afford and desired an upgrade, but chose not to because Vista got such bad press? They might be considering Windows 7...

Re:Windows 7 == Financial Calamity (2, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684119)

In the last year, about half of us at work bought new laptops. With only ONE exception, they all were upgraded from vista to either linux or xp.

That one exception was a software tester. She kept saying how she was able to configure vista so that it works "really fast."

Last week, she said "Maybe I should install linux on my laptop".

Who knows what happened. Maybe her vista horked up a hairball ... who cares. The bottom line is that if Microsoft can't keep its' most loyal fans on board, what about the millions who only use windows because they don't know there are alternatives?

They're not going to buy Windows7.

Me, I've already decided that my next laptop, I'm applying for a refund on the OS. I'll consider it a "Microsoft hardware subsidy."

Faster! (0, Offtopic)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683797)

Debug faster or you'll be gettin' the whip, m'boy!

Re:Faster! (3, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683855)

Debug faster or you'll be gettin' the chair, m'boy!

Re:Faster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683899)

And not the good, electrical kind either.

Drivers (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683801)

If I recall correctly (rhetorical, I *do* recall correctly) the problem with Vista was *not* the OS itself, but driver support from Vendors.

Even Nvidia were ironing out Video card bugs months past the release date. It took Creative almost 14 months to release a Vista Audigy driver. That's not even touching on people who had to purchase new Wifi cards because the likes of Netgear refused to even release *any* drivers for supporting 'old' hardware (801.22g is super old?).

Unless Redmond is putting pressure back to hardware Vendors, regardless of the much impressed SDLC Microsoft are displaying, the OS will only an *end user* disappointment.

Re:Drivers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683807)

The bloat and the DRM weren't the problem. Riiggghttt.

Re:Drivers (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683909)

Even if that's the case, it shouldn't be a problem. Little or no driver support from hardware manufacturers is par for the course for every other PC operating system, and they all seem to get along okay.

Re:Drivers (5, Interesting)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683945)

No it wasn't, it was the fact the release was barely beta quality (corrupting files during copy, UAC going nutso and not letting you do simple things, etc.), it hit the hard drive almost constantly, took 3 times as long as XP to start apps even when fed 4GB of RAM.

Drivers just wasn't the issue.

Re:Drivers (2, Informative)

nosfucious (157958) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684061)

Changing OS verions is almost as in depth and challenging for a business as completely changing OSs. And costly. There is no "low cost" upgrade path.

Drivers for us were THE issue. Big business class printers cost real money and not one driver was released for Vista. And that was spread amount several manufacturers, so it wasn't isolated. No drivers for our scanning solution either, which handles many thousands of invoices per month.

UI bugs you mentioned are quite legitimate problems preventing adoption. However these seem to have been (mostly) dealt with by SP1. But too little MS, too late.

I still don't expect that the driver issue will be fixed with Windows 7. However, the UI will be much more polished. (I wait to be proved wrong).

P.S. if you're haviing trouble starting apps, try turning off pre-fetch. Makes an appreciable difference to application startup. Downside is that when the app grabs some memory, there will be delays. Maybe these delays are noticable, perhaps not.

Re:Drivers (5, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684091)

Windows 7 uses the same driver model as Vista. So as long as companies have released Vista drivers (which many finally have over the past few years), then the hardware will work fine with Windows 7.

Don't ignore the reason for that! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684319)

Sure, thats easy. Blame it on the vendors. But you ignore the fact that MS has changed several core specs of the OS even weeks before its initial release. Changes which made it impossible for a majority of vendors to keep up, let alone get some drivers out at the planned release date. And that is ticking people off; (being force to) investing money into driver development only to find out that you can flush a majority down the drain and basically start over again.

So yes, the vendors didn't really jump on the Vista bandwagon here. But they sure had a damned good reason for that!

Re:Drivers (1)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684351)

And it looks like Microsoft bitch slapped Nvidia over it. I guess that is why they have this page linked right on their front page. Linky [nvidia.com] Did they have anything about Vista up in 2006?

Re:Drivers (1)

weeb0 (741451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684399)

The OS is part of the problem. It is so slow even with a very good computer. But regarding the driver, why should the vendors support old hardware? How may microsoft force hardware company to build new driver because microsoft changed totally the internals of the OS?

Vista 2009 better than Vista 2006 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683805)

98-95=3, 2009-2006=3. Seems about right.

And as the fanbois over the internet (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683811)

are celebrating their Vista SP 2-3, er, Mohave, um, I mean Windows 7 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and lining up to pay for it; I will still be getting my Ubuntu for free and with an (often) significant upgrade every 6 months.

Don't focus on money! (OT) (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683865)

The fact that you can download Ubuntu without paying a single cent for it is not a very compelling argument for Ubuntu. Case in point: at my university, we have subscriptions to the "MSDN Academic Alliance" which grants us no-cost downloads of various Microsoft products.

Instead, one should focus on the legal restrictions on that software. MSDNAA lets me get gratis copies of Windows, sure, but reviewing the license reveals some interesting terms; for example, upon graduation, I am supposed to remove the software from my computer. With Fedora (likewise Ubuntu), there is no such restriction: I am free to use the software for any length of time, regardless of my status as a student or my employment. MSDNAA also forbids the use of the software for any use that is not personal or academic; once more, Fedora (etc.) comes with no such restriction.

Purchasing a copy of Windows in order to gain the right to use the software indefinitely only partially addresses that issue. I cannot modify Windows in such a way that allows me to access it remotely while someone else is accessing it (multi-user access). Again, in Fedora, there is no such restriction.

I do not agree with everything RMS/FSF has to say, but in terms of proprietary versus free-libre licensing, they are spot on.

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (4, Interesting)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683929)

Your university is a for profit organization. Guess from where they are getting the money to pay Microsoft for the university wide license.

That's right, your tuition. I hope you are using Windows, as you are paying for it in any case.

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684073)

So you know for certain which university betterunixthanunix attends and that it's not public/non-profit?

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (1)

delsvr (687275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684329)

This is not always true. I can't speak for other universities, but ours does not pay a dime to Microsoft for licenses supplied by the MSDNAA program. We only incur the costs of hosting the CD/DVD images of the software they provide for students to download.

Microsoft has an incentive for providing their software to university students--specifically, their Visual Studio and Windows Server brands. They will license these out for nothing if it gets them educated, motivated developers, much like they often hand out Visual Studio disks at conventions and tech talks just for attending.

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684363)

Most universities are not-for-profit in Europe. Also, check out the actual cost [microsoft.com] of MSDNAA membership. £268 per annum, for the whole academic department. Frankly that is peanuts.

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684425)

just fyi, most universities (at least here in america) are actually not-for-profit organizations.

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (2, Informative)

lyml (1200795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683949)

Really, my MSDNAA license says nothing of the kind. Perhaps this is a regional thing (swedish here).

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684041)

The fact that you can download Ubuntu without paying a single cent for it is not a very compelling argument for Ubuntu. Case in point: at my university, we have subscriptions to the "MSDN Academic Alliance" which grants us no-cost downloads of various Microsoft products.

But I don't goto your university. That's only useful for people who are even at unviersity and have that "MSDN Academic Alliance". So it certainly is a compelling argument for me, and the majority of the planet that isn't in a university with a "MSDN Academic Alliance".

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (2, Informative)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684173)

I do not agree with everything RMS/FSF has to say, but in terms of proprietary versus free-libre licensing, they are spot on.

Your complaints above are not about the licensing, but the cost (albeit in an indirect fashion). If you are prepared to pay for an appropriate Windows license, all of your complaints are addressed.

Re:Don't focus on money! (OT) (2, Interesting)

cenc (1310167) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684335)

I focus on money very very much. My company is an all linux and open source shop, and my total cost of ownership as MS once loved to push is saving me an easy $250,000 a year or more. From servers and routers to desktops. We are not an IT company, and most of employees could hardly type when they came through the door. I am not against paying for software, I just have found free open source software which is superior for my purposes.

The open source biz model works. At our current small size, whenever possible I do things like select open source software projects that I can find commercial support for when we either grow or get in trouble. Using CentOS on our server would be a case in point, or Asterisk for our PBX phone system. When I make money, they will make money.

Yes, it is more however than just about the money. I simply do not trust MS. They have a proven record of insecurity, and a proven record of burning their customer base, holding them hostage to whatever bad decision comes down their company pipe, and generally ignoring the demands of their customers. Any company that does that, does not deserve to receive a part of my IT budget. I am simply not going to risk my future and my companies future on that.

Re:And as the fanbois over the internet (3, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683907)

For all the Linux and open source community says about embracing freedom there are always a few "evangelists" who completely miss the point. While people such as yourself continue to "promote" Linux by rubbishing the opposition (both product and people) millions of Windows users will continue to think of Linux as a geek toy used by nerds and children.

Anyone and everyone should be free to use whichever OS they fancy. If someone asks why Linux is great then explain, but please don't refer to Windows users as 'fanbois'. It just makes you, and the rest of the OS community, look stupid.

Re:And as the fanbois over the internet (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684201)

But then what sort of smug satisfaction can we derive? For Apple users it comes from the fact that we paid a premium for a stylish and well done product. For Linux users, it comes purely from the fact that we aren't using Windows. And for Windows, well, there isn't much to be had since everyone runs it.

If what you say is true, then this has serious implications for my self-identity.

Re:And as the fanbois over the internet (1, Informative)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684221)

I will still be getting my Ubuntu for free and with an (often) significant upgrade every 6 months.

You mean like the significant upgrade you got in 8.04 which broke password protected windows share browsing in Gnome? Or the next significant upgrade in 9.04 which is that it will finally stop killing laptop hard drives.

Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (5, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683817)

The Protected Video Path has introduced several problems with pre-existing software that deals with video and works perfectly with XP but fails in Vista. I operate in the healthcare segment, and GE's medical records software still does not possess Vista support. PACS viewers from major companies like VEPRO and E-Film still do not support Vista.

Given that three are no architectural changes in Windows 7; these problems will remain with Windows 7 and corporates looking to use pre-existing application software will stick with XP as long as they can.

http://www.merge.com/na/efilmlanding.htm [merge.com]

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683841)

Here is a more relevant link... this page has remained so for the past 1 year and more...

https://www.merge.com/NA/estore/content.aspx?pname=eFilm%20Workstation%E2%84%A2&returnUrl=&productID=215&contentTypeID=4 [merge.com]

MS Vista Users:
eFilm Workstation 3.0 is currently undergoing testing for operation within the MS Vista operating system environment, and will be validated for use in Vista systems soon.

Supported Operating Systems:
Windows 2000 Professional (SP4 or higher)
Windows XP Professional (SP2)

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26683987)

And that is a problem with your application provider. Yes, the PVP was introduced with Vista, but it's up to your app provider to update their app to work with newer versions of the OS. Same as it ever was. Now, if they don't update it, then yes, you'll be using XP for a long time to come. Again, same as it ever was.

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (4, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684019)

" Yes, the PVP was introduced with Vista, but it's up to your app provider to update their app to work with newer versions of the OS. Same as it ever was."

What gives Microsoft the right to change the way the Windows platform handles media content? Healthcare providers have no necessity to watch Hollywood movies on their screens... just patient's medical records. Why should software providers keep rewriting their code just because of Microsoft's whims and fancies? The cost of software deployment keeps going up without any increase in value... the value proposition for Windows gets diminished as a result.

I am now trying to get a Linux version of the viewer to replace all Windows PCs and get rid of the problem forever.

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (1, Offtopic)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684359)

you are aware that there is no stable branch of linux right. so linus has the right to change the way the linux kernel handles content, whenever he wants.

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684103)

Except that before Vista software was not broken by a 'feature' that does nothing to enhance the operating system.

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684197)

The Protected Video Path has introduced several problems with pre-existing software that deals with video and works perfectly with XP but fails in Vista.

Given the Protected Path is not even active unless you're using DRM-encumbered media, I think you need some evidence to back that up.

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684249)

Given the Protected Path is not even active unless you're using DRM-encumbered media, I think you need some evidence to back that up.

Why else would video software that worked with XP suddenly stops working with Vista? Is PACS video DRM encumbered? Why should software vendors be compelled to keep rewriting their code everytime Microsoft releases a new driver model, concept or Operating System?

Re:Problems in Vista still unresolved in Windows 7 (0)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684373)

Why else would video software that worked with XP suddenly stops working with Vista?

With no more information that "video software" and "stops working", it's impossible to say.

The fact is, however, that if you don't have DRM-encumbered content and a DRM-capable playback tool, the Protected Path is not active. That's just how the system works. No DRM-encumbered input, no DRM-encumbered output.

Is PACS video DRM encumbered?

I can't imagine so, but only the vendor would know for sure.

Why should software vendors be compelled to keep rewriting their code everytime Microsoft releases a new driver model, concept or Operating System?

For the same reason they are "compelled" to keep "rewriting their code" each time every other OS vendor releases major OS updates.

In reality, if their code had been written properly in the first place, it wouldn't have needed "rewriting" at all for Vista.

RTFM? (2, Funny)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683819)

and a final RTM version before October 3.

So finally Windows will start telling the users to RTFM, well, without the F word?

Re:RTFM? (1)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684069)

RTM means "Release To Manufacturing" not "Read The Manual"

Re:RTFM? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684155)

Yeah, I know ... I was just kidding ;) And I know "RTFM" really stands for "release to factory manufacturing".

Bah (0, Troll)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683821)

Who cares.

But, DirectX 11 in Vista too (2, Informative)

C0quette (1466487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683843)

But, DirectX 11 will be supported on Vista too.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3507 [anandtech.com]

"To be fair, the OS upgrade requirement also threw a wrench in the gears. That won't be a problem this time, as Vista still sucks but will be getting DX11 support and Windows 7 looks like a better upgrade option for XP users than Vista. Developers who haven't already moved from DX9 may well skip DX10 altogether in favor of DX11 depending on the predicted ship dates of their titles, all signs point to DX11 as setting the time frame we start to see the revolution promised with the move to DX10 take place. Developers have had time to familiarize themselves with the extended advantages of programmability offered by DX10, coding for DX11 will be much easier though OOP constructs and multithreaded support, and if the features don't entice them, the ability to run on downlevel hardware with a better coding environment might just seal the deal."

Re:But, DirectX 11 in Vista too (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683867)

I read it as "Direct X11" and panicked.

Re:But, DirectX 11 in Vista too (1)

soupforare (542403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684163)

There hasn't even been a DX10 game that's wow'd me and they're pushing 11?

Windows 7 = Vista Service's version of XP SP2 (3, Insightful)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683857)

Many people I know agree that Windows XP SP2 was more than just a service pack for XP, it made XP feel like a whole new OS. All the newly added features, much needed tweaks, and even the usual program incompatabilities that come with having a "new" OS.

For those who loved Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2 was the version of Windows XP that finally got holdouts to switch.

Windows 7 is built on Vista. Like XPSP2, Windows 7 fixes almost all the bad aspects of Vista and adds new features and tweaks. With such a promising, upcoming OS, it's no wonder why MS is having a hard time finishing Vista SP2. It must be like coding for a dead fork.

Windows 7 (3, Interesting)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683875)

I have to admit, Windows 7 actually looks really good. I may even get a home PC loaded up with it again, just to have it on hand.

Still will be mainly a Mac user. But I will be finally comfortable recommending Windows 7 to those who need to run Windows.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Informative)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684241)

I had the opposite reaction. I put Windows 7 Beta on a VirtualBox partition on my Mac and tried using it for awhile, and I find using it awful. Compared to XP it feels like a mish-mash of web interfaces and compared to MacOS X it feels like a toy. I would still recommend XP over Windows 7 any day of the week, and recommend neither to any non-geek or non-business user.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

bmartin (1181965) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684391)

Unless its virus defenses have been upgraded, I'll have a hard time recommending Windows 7 to the people getting new computers.

The US computer market is saturated right now; there are almost 0 "first time buyers". As a generalization, the only people who are getting their first computer are the elderly and a few middle-aged people. Even with virus protection, spyware protection, and a firewall, the last two people in my life who bought PCs needed a "quick restore" due to viruses or worms. This is unacceptable.

I use Linux, but it's not for everyone -- I understand this -- and many fixed-income customers don't want to shell out the extra money for a Mac -- or perhaps they feel the "cool" thing is not for them. The elderly I've talked to aren't sold on "trendy" things; they tend to think they're impractical.

"Home" version of Windows would be better off if their security were indeed targeted towards the general public. They could ship Windows 7 with no open ports, like the default Ubuntu install. They could rebuild IE with security in mind; it needs a complete overhaul. It seems like these two "improvements" would prevent many headaches. I remember plugging my Windows XP computer in at college; within 7 seconds, I had the sasser worm and skynet (or whatever it was called). There's no reason for that sort of worm infection to be prevalent nowadays.

Business versions could have services running with open ports... corporate security can deal with that. Home PC users shouldn't have to suffer the wrath of 1000 vulnerabilities just so system administrators can use home versions in a corporate setting.

I apologize for the unrealistic idealism.

Hmmmmm (-1, Troll)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683877)

Given M$'s reputation for problematic, buggy software, I remain unconvinced that it is a good idea to rush Windows 7 to market. Especially because in these economic, I don't think people will be rushing. Anyways, I haven't used Windows at home since Windows 98. I'll probably load a VM of Windows 7 just so I have some knowledge of it for the workplace.

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683905)

Dude, you really, really should upgrade your version of Windows at home. Windows 98SE is much more stable.

Re:Hmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684199)

If you aren't using something, you can't upgrade it.

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684143)

Uh no wonder you think it is buggy. Windows 98 was based on Windows 95 code. Ever since Microsoft went to NT kernel based operating systems as the common baseline (Windows 2000) the operating system is much better.

!notnews (1, Insightful)

Khan (19367) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683881)

Who cares when it will be released. Windows Se7en will still require the outlandish hardware that Vista does. Most Enterprises will not be migrating to it anytime soon due to cost and time of upgrading desktops and application incompatibility for their outdated software that they rely on to keep the business running. Trust me, I see this first hand at my job.

Re:!notnews (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683923)

But most companies (anecdotal IÂm sure) have not upgraded from XP yet, and no matter how good it is, it is showing its age. Windows 7 could actually be perfectly timed, and with the right marketing perhaps they can land some deals that Vista failed to do.

The hardware demands are not finalized and most companies will turn off the visual effects anyway.

Re:!notnews (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684049)

You're showing your bias. Windows 7 performs very well on the same hardware that XP runs on. And that's one of the reasons why people are actually getting excited about it.

Re:!notnews (1)

ratbag (65209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684193)

Pedant alert: didn't you mean to title your comment "notnews" or "!news", rather than "!notnews"?

Anyway, with my "Systems Manager for a London University" hat on, I agree. We're still using XP on our student desktops and in classic mode, to boot. We're agonising over Vista right now because some staff have a perception that students "want Vista" and also a tiny percentage of the applications we provide are starting to require Vista.

Rob.

Re:!notnews (2, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684235)

Who cares when it will be released. Windows Se7en will still require the outlandish hardware that Vista does.

And by "outlandish" you mean "sub-$500 PC", right ?

Heck, even when Vista was released, a PC that could run it well was only about $800.

Re:!notnews (-1, Flamebait)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684247)

Who cares when it will be released. Windows Se7en will still require the outlandish hardware that Vista does.

Of for fuck sake. Anything built in the last 3 years with 1GB will quite happily run Vista and certainly Windows 7. Just because you're so fucking poor that you can only afford decade old handmedown computers doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same.

Why the fuck are you posting on Slashdot? It's obvious you have fuck all interest in current IT, preferring instead to be a decade behind. Cunts like you would have had us still using 1Mhz 6502/Z80 with 1KB RAM.

Curious (5, Insightful)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683893)

I'm curious why all these people who hated Vista are showering love on Windows 7. Is it some sort of mass psychology type thing?

I'm a UNIX guy, and I don't consider myself a Microsoft hater per se, the visual changes in Windows 7 just look hideous. I try and keep my screen as clean as possible to cut down on the distractions (meaning my windows machine looks about the same now as it did in 1995), and by this benchmark, Windows 7 is even worse than Vista with all its worthless gizmos and gadgets and stuff like that.

Is it really so hard to understand that I don't want shit moving around on my screen when I'm trying to think? Or that I don't want to see icons for anything except stuff I'm actually working on? The new Windows 7 taskbar looks -- crap, I already used "hideous" -- uh, distracting.

Combine with all sorts of stupid decisions in Vista like to replace the up-arrow button with a refresh button that does nothing in all common cases, and, yeah... I'm mystified why people are so positive about Win7,

Re:Curious (5, Insightful)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683943)

It's natural that people would lower their expectations after the dissatisfaction of Vista. Once the expectations are lowered, they are in turn easier to satisfy. Especially when most of the customers have few other choices.

Yes I know they do have choices. But MS now is still a monopoly.

Re:Curious (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683979)

As another poster wrote, this is the vista equivalent of XP SP2.. it gets the major bugs out and finally produces something usable.

Yeah it still has some of the UI stupidities of Vista (although they've fixed quite a few too) but at least it's not actively preventing you from getting any work done any more..

Re:Curious (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684117)

Yeah it still has some of the UI stupidities of Vista (although they've fixed quite a few too) but at least it's not actively preventing you from getting any work done any more..

Yes, it does still have some of the UI stupidities of Vista (thankfully you can turn some of them off), but it also introduces some really nice usability changes. The Win-arrow key shortcuts, for example, are great (win-up to maximize, win-down to minimize, win-left to dock to left half of screen, win-right to dock to right half of screen). I've been finding myself using those a whole lot on my netbook. I actually find that I miss them when I sit down at my desktop machine. Sure, it's little, but it's a really handy feature. And there are quite a few things like that that they finally got right in Win7.

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684003)

Posting AC due to mod points -- just wanted to let you know that gadgets are OPTIONAL just as they are in Vista. It's so that people can customize their desktop how they want to, which is one of the big selling points of Linux. The new taskbar in Windows 7 is a bit bigger than normal, but you get used to it pretty quick, and it's CLEAN. I mainly use Linux and only use Windows on my gaming machine (sorry, but Wine doesn't cut it for everything), but I really love how the new taskbar makes things look much cleaner when I have 10 windows open, no tacky "show desktop button" (it's been moved and made nearly invisible, something I like a lot), and I can easily find the window I want due to the thumbnail previews from each icon. I'd love to see the capability of Windows 7's taskbar added (as an option of course) to the taskbars in Gnome, KDE, etc.

Re:Curious (4, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684009)

I'm curious why all these people who hated Vista are showering love on Windows 7.

My major gripe with Vista was games performing poorly, having a few heavy processes caused the system to perform poorly, pretty much poor performance all around.

On the same machine, where I had recently installed Vista. With the same drivers from Vista I install Windows 7, poof, problems gone away - I am certain it wasn't a driver issue.

I'm a UNIX guy, and I don't consider myself a Microsoft hater per se, the visual changes in Windows 7 just look hideous. I try and keep my screen as clean as possible to cut down on the distractions (meaning my windows machine looks about the same now as it did in 1995), and by this benchmark, Windows 7 is even worse than Vista with all its worthless gizmos and gadgets and stuff like that.

The taskbar? I just unpinned everything, set it to small and stuck what I regulary use in the bit that often shows recently, frequently used programs menu. Taskbar has more space now than ever before. More space than Win95 ever had.

Is it really so hard to understand that I don't want shit moving around on my screen when I'm trying to think?

No idea what you're talking about? If you're talking about graphics, like any modern *nix system's default setup (excluding OS X), you can disable effects if you don't like them.

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684077)

It's a less sucky version of Vista, basically. Had they bought this out instead of Vista, they probably wouldn't have had nearly as much resistance.

Vista really felt like it wasn't finished, for a number of reasons, but Windows 7 feels much better. It still has a lot of the stupid design decisions carried over from Vista, but it's a lot less bad. Probably about the same as the difference between Windows XP RTM (eww...) and SP2.

That said, since I only use Windows for gaming, and use either Ubuntu or Mac OS X for everything else, I'm not planning on moving on from Windows XP until games stop supporting it. At the current rate, that's probably not for another two or three years at least.

Re:Curious (1)

Smooth and Shiny (1097089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684157)

You DO realize that all those "gizmos and gadgets" can be disabled, right? My Windows desktop consists of the wallpaper and three icons. The icons being the Computer, Network and Recycle Bin icons.

Re:Curious (3, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684227)

You are not the target audience. You'd prefer to remain in a stoneage of GUI (no offence, but it's true), and people have gotten use to a pretty interface for their operating systems.

Plus, those gadgets aren't worthless. I have gadgets to show me the weather, CPU and network activity, etc. They appear when I want them to appear, and they aren't distracting because you get used to them. Why can't you evolve like everyone else has? That's my question.

Re:Curious (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684343)

Because I actually tested the beta and compared it to Vista? I'm not saying it is the world's greatest operating system. Eventually, XP will die and neither Mac nor PC are going to be an option where I work. And in the enterprise, there are some good client management reasons to go with windows.

But anyway, on to the comparison of Vista and 7. On a Dell Optiplex 620 with 1 gig of ram, 7 runs faster and is more responsive than Vista. I gained about 30 seconds in boot time and application launches, while not really significantly faster, feel faster. I don't consider a 1 or 2 second load difference really significant.

The interface differences are going to confuse some people, but they'll learn.

Given a choice between XP, Vista and 7, for the very near term I would rate them XP, 7, and Vista in a distant third. But a year from now, we may be hard pressed to find XP drivers for new hardware. In our 2010 purchasing year, XP will be about 9 years old. Considering that the driver model changed, hardware manufacturers are going to have to choose between Vista/7 driver development and developing for a 9 year old os. I'm betting the opt for 7 drivers before XP.

I think the reason that everyone is so happy about 7 is that it means they can skip the oh so very painful Vista release entirely. I know I'm thinking that if we can just hang on to XP for another year, we can avoid Vista and go to 7, which isn't as bad as Vista.

Win7 is just Vista SP3 (0, Troll)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683901)

This is not a new OS. M$ takes the putrid Vista code, finds the most bloated , slow junk. Does a little fixing to make it seem faster. Put's a pretty face on it. Poof Tada Windows 7.

What was that comment about lipstick on a pig?

Proof (if any were needed) that M$ can't learn (1, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683965)

from their mistakes. Vista was unleashed/released upon the Earth far too early, and their solution to this has been "Windows 7 will fix it all".

It's the Obama of Operating Systems, and it's been getting some damn positive pre-release press and general good vibes from techies who've seen the Beta.

So naturally, the only sane and rational thing to do (in M$ world) is cut the testing, drop a beta from the schedule, only have one release candidate and hit the markets.

No company this stupid should survive the credit crunch.

Re:Proof (if any were needed) that M$ can't learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684283)

No company this stupid should survive the credit crunch.

Wow, you're ignorant. Regardless of how you feel about it, Windows 7 will likely be very successful.

Windows $NEXT_VERSION will floor all comers (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684007)

Guest post [today.com] by Mary-Jo Enderle

I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT_VERSION build $MOCKUP.

I tried it on a low-end netbook with four Core 2 Duo chips and only 8 gig of memory, and trust me: $NEXT_VERSION is shaping up to be one heck of a product.

WordPad and Paint have seen major overhauls to their user interfaces. Forget the freetards and their "distros" full of all sorts of useless shovelware like "FireFox" and "OpenOffice" and, haha, "GIMP"! - the bundled software with Windows $NEXT_VERSION is clear, simple, sparse and to-the-point. The much-loved $HATED user interface from Office $HATED_VERSION is now part of WordPad and Paint!

The controversial Digital Rights Management system in Vista has been worked over, with user-downloadable "tilt bits," which you can configure to your own liking. It'll require every user to supply a blood sample for DNA analysis, and the beta nearly took my finger off, but of course that's only if you want to play premium content. The Blu-Ray(tm) of Battlefield Earth was unbelievable on this operating system.

A release candidate should be available by the end of this year. There's just no way that Steve "Trains Run On Time" Ballmer will miss the Christmas deadline. The final release should leave the midnight queues on Vista release day - the street riots, the water cannons, the rubber bullets - in the shade.

I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows. It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT_VERSION. And they're finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT_LEGACY_STUFF.

Also, there'll be $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM. It'll be awesome!

I wonder how $NEXT_VERSION will compare to $NEXT_NEXT_VERSION.

Should it take that long for a rollback? (0)

Squid (3420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684051)

Removing the stuff from the Vista source code that shouldn't have been there in the first place? That shouldn't take long: just go back into source control and revert to last-known-good. Namely, Win2K.

I bet what they're doing is finding ways of crippling Windows 7 to "teach" people "how good they had it" with Vista.

Cue the "W7 == Vista SP3" posts (-1, Offtopic)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684083)

It seems some people on slashdot can't stand the idea Windows 7 might actually be a good OS, and so you see the barrage of posts exclaiming "But it's just Vista!", almost praying that people will start to believe this.

So, here's some plain, undebatable facts:
- W7 is not the re-write Vista was over XP
- W7 contains some brand new tech, some brand new UI stuff, and generally tweaks across the board.
- Service Packs very very rarely change anything on the surface. Take a Windows XP machine & tell me what SP it's running without going to System Properties....just using it like grandma would. You probably won't be able to.
- Windows 7 will look & feel vastly different from any other Windows. UAC will be less invasive, the GUI is distinct, and most people report it running faster than Vista.

Finally..... if you have any "doubt" W7 is indeed not a service pack here's some bedtime reading for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 [wikipedia.org]

Asinine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684109)

If Windows 7 can't run the games I create on XP, I don't really care for it. Windows XP may be old, but I am sticking with what works.

So we're guessing... (1)

Epsillon (608775) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684133)

...using rumour, extrapolation and second-hand information. Sooo, can we please not call it "slippage" when your hopes and dreams are shattered when it doesn't appear in October? Because it seems bashing Millisoft on here for things they never promised is a very popular pastime. And no, I'm not new here. Bashing for letdowns is one thing, but when you're making up release dates for something you're not involved in, well, work it out for yourself. I'm not suggesting it makes you look foolish or anything.

Oh, and can you people bashing too much UAC or not enough UAC make your bloody minds up, please? Or, you know, use something else other than Windows? I'm not particularly fond of MS, but this constant pissing and moaning is getting rather old now.

More Indications Windows 7 Is Coming In 2009 (1)

fredan (54788) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684205)

yeah, whatever!

I bet that duke nukem forever will be released before windows 2009!

Windows XP 2nd edition is coming in 2009 (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684245)

you stand corrected.

Can anyone do math anymore? (1)

trboyden (465969) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684265)

If

Microsoft has always said 'three years after the general availability of Windows Vista,' which was released on January 30, 2007

then the next release date would be no earlier than January 30, 2010. And seeing how I can't even remember the last time Microsoft released software on time, the better guess would be somewhere around 1st quarter or 2nd quarter 2010 (and that's giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.

Great way to alienate enterprise customers (1)

earthwirehead (1466509) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684301)

The Fortune Ten company that pays my bills has commenced a two year. multi-million dollar roll-out of a profoundly defective product. The development team I work with volunteered to be 'early adopters' within this process. I am here to report that my Vista-equipped 4GB Lenovo laptop craters occasionally and otherwise runs at speeds I recall from Windows 3.1. My group will likely get bumped up to Win7, while secretaries and such remain stuck w/Vista. My point is this: M$ is making a necessary decision on behalf of their consumer customer base that is going to have long-term and expensive consequences for their most ardent supporters within their corporate/enterprise customer base. No CIO who hasn't already signed off on a Vista rollout already is likely to do so now. Instead, they are going to retain XP for as long as possible...and just maybe start wondering if SLED isn't such a bad idea after all. I absolutely believe that Win7 is being rolled out as quickly as possible. Vista is perhaps the biggest mistake M$ has ever made, and the bleeding has to be staunched. But I remain highly skeptical that an aggressive Win7 is going to accomplish that much, long-term. The strategy that Microsoft used to dominate the software industry is unravelling even faster than their flagship product. Vista is hardly the end of Microsoft as a company.....but I think it may very well mean the end of an era.

Will Win 7 run a 10 year old PC? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26684323)

If not then it's too slow.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?