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!

How Vista Mistakes Changed Windows 7 Development

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the expensive-education dept.

Windows 483

snydeq writes "For the past several months, Microsoft has engaged in an extended public mea culpa about Vista, holding a series of press interviews to explain how the company's Vista mistakes changed the development process of Windows 7. Chief among these changes was the determination to 'define a feature set early on' and only share that feature set with partners and customers when the company is confident they will be incorporated into the final OS. And to solve PC-compatibility issues, Microsoft has said all versions of Windows 7 will run even on low-cost netbooks. Moreover, Microsoft reiterated that the beta of Windows 7 that is now available is already feature-complete, although its final release to business customers isn't expected until November." As a data point for how well this has all worked out in practice, reader The other A.N.Other recommends a ZDNet article describing rough benchmarks for three versions of Windows 7 against Vista and XP. In particular, Win-7 build 7048 (64-bit) vs. Win-7 build 7000 (32-bit and 64-bit) vs. Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 were tested on both high-end and low-end hardware. The conclusions: Windows 7 is, overall, faster than both Vista and XP. As Windows 7 progresses, it's getting faster (or at least the 64-bit editions are). On a higher-spec system, 64-bit is best. On a lower-spec system, 32-bit is best.

cancel ×

483 comments

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144341)

i win!

kdawson is a sack of faggot shit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144371)

someone please find his punk bitch ass a new job.

Re:kdawson is a sack of faggot shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144443)

Come on, don't hold back, son.

Tell us how you really feel.

Vista SP2 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144389)

They are marketing the name Windows 7 which is really Windows Vista SP2.

Re:Vista SP2 (1, Informative)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144499)

Surely Vista R2 is more accurate.

Most Expensive Service Pack Ever (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144645)

Talk about a gullible public.

Vista bombing? Don't fix it, have "another" OS release and try to recover the lost money.

All it is is the first non-alpha non-beta release of Vista. You used to get a few years out of the real release (i.e. XP SP2), but I guess we have to pay for the "real" releases now.

Re:Most Expensive Service Pack Ever (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144721)

Good to see Microsoft continuing to copy stuff from Apple.

Re:Vista SP2 (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144763)

SE

Re:Vista SP2 (1)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145021)

Don't you mean Windows Vista SE?

Re:Vista SP2 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145265)

Don't you mean Windows Vista SE?

Oh that's really clever and original - did you make that up yourself? You should post a link to your comment on ubuntuforums.org so that you and your little friends can laugh and wee your pants. The only criticism I have is that you missed 3 opportunities to replace the letter 'S' with a dollar sign.

Will run on netbooks or drag? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144411)

We have talked about W7 performance on netbooks [slashdot.org] which will only allow to run 3 apps. Perfect for an antivirus, a firewall, an antispyware, the WGA [microsoft.com] ... oh crap!

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag? (0, Redundant)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144571)

Please... Netbooks are primarily for getting e-mail, web access, and running your basic MS Office applications. If youâ(TM)re looking for some serious processing power and screen real-estate, the netbook is *not* for you.

In short, the Netbook is a crossover between the standard laptop and PDA.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag? (3, Insightful)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144831)

I want a tablet netbook to use as an ebook (txt, html or pdf) reader, to open some excel files in meetings, and not much more.

I already have two powerful desktops with big screens. And totally agree with you.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145239)

Sorry to go off-topic, but

Always Innovating's Touch Book [venturebeat.com] Might interest you. It is coming out soon. It's a netbook who's screen seperates from it's keyboard (like the HP TC1100). It will be ARM based, lots of battery life (10-15 hours), etc. If I recall correctly, the price point will also be around $200. Sounds right up your alley.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag? (2, Informative)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144839)

GP was mocking W7's imposed limit of 3 concurrent apps in it's netbook/basic/whatever-they-call-it version. Not the power of netbooks.

Re:Will run on netbooks or drag? (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144681)

My six year old laptop can run Windows 7 acceptably. It's not fast, but it's good enough to be usable for email, web-browsing, even YouTube videos. Therefore, I'd expect W7 to run fine on netbooks.

That said, there's the question of why you'd want it on a netbook. It's different enough from previous versions of the OS that your grandma would probably prefer to just use XP, like she has been for years. And if the user is willing to accept a change, why pay for W7 when you can use some form of Linux, custom tailored for netbooks?

The main draw of Windows is compatibility with all the apps out there. Netbooks aren't going to be running those apps, so why bother with Windows?

Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (-1, Troll)

detox.method() (1413497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144437)

Can't wait for those results!

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144543)

Well, instead of throwing a chair at you, I've decided to take your challenge! I had Netcraft test our Microsoft Office benchmark suite with Office 2007 running under Wine on Ubuntu 9.04 32-bit and under the latest 64-bit build of Windows 7.

Unsurprisingly, Windows 7 wins by a longshot! Ha! *throws chair* I'm gonna fscking KILL Mark Shuttleworth! Muahahahaha!

-- Steve Ballmer

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144613)

I love you.

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145063)

I love you.

I love you too

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144629)

From the summary: "...Microsoft has said all versions of Windows 7 will run even on low-cost netbooks..."

This is a fairly meaningless statement, as it winds up being self-defining.

"all versions of Windows 7", but no mention of which parts of Win7 will function and/or be disabled
"run" is inherently subjective
"low-cost netbooks" certainly doesn't refer to the netbooks you can go out and buy today. It's the ones 9-12 months from now, with faster CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, larger HDs. Effectively, it's referring to today's notebooks, which are next years netbooks

Assuming 'netbook' is still allowed to be used generically, and no longer trademarked by whatsitsname...

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144985)

After getting sued over the whole "Vista-Ready" program, I expect Microsoft will be at least a little bit more careful with their subjective definition of "run".

The issue, if there will be one, will probably be with licensing. A previous article had suggested that MS will release a lower-cost version of Win7 that's geared towards netbook users that will impose an artificial limitation of 3 apps running at once. Which is unusually stupid for Microsoft, as that kind of thing could push more people towards browser-based web apps, rather than their desktop counterparts (Google Docs vs Office, for example) - as if the crazy cost of MS Office wasn't enough of a deterrent, now its competition doesn't eat up one of your three allowed apps because you already had a browser open? Idiots.

I mean, I guess MS is at least trying to "get" why people like netbooks (cheap), but that kind of stupid artificial limitation won't win them many brownie points. I think two versions of Windows (like XP, holy crap!) is plenty - home and pro/office. And the only difference should be that the home version can't join a domain. Charge $99 for Win7 Home like Apple does for OS X and call it a day. Simple, reasonably-priced, and it won't piss people off.

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (1)

Niten (201835) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144989)

Not only that, it completely ignores the probable rise of inexpensive and energy-efficient ARM-based netbooks. Windows 7 won't be running on those *at all*.

Re:Let's see it against Ubuntu 9.04 (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144619)

Can't wait for those results!

Let's pitch those against my Gentoo. Next month, when I'm done with the compiling.

release date (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144465)

Moreover, Microsoft reiterated that the beta of Windows 7 that is now available is already feature-complete, although its final release to business customers isn't expected until November.

Between now and then, Apple will likely have released OS X 10.6, and there will have been two new release of Ubuntu.

I wonder what's moving faster: Microsoft, or the goal posts?

Re:release date (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144533)

I wonder what's moving faster: Microsoft, or the goal posts?

Like it hasn't been proven enough with Win2k and Vista?

Re:release date (0)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144595)

Done with the OS X.6 already! Why don't they call it OS XI? Or OS Y? Or iOS?

At least Ubuntu has cute names I can rely on!

(on a side note, if I spelled Ubuntu wrong, it's because of the parent because I never remember if we put the "n" before or after the "b" :) )

Re:release date (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144643)

Done with the OS X.6 already! Why don't they call it OS XI? Or OS Y? Or iOS?

At least Ubuntu has cute names I can rely on!

Such as, Tiger, Panther, and Snow Leopard?

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144717)

Those are names, but they aren't very cute.

Re:release date (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144827)

OS 10.7 - Schmoopy
OS 10.8 - Schnookums
OS 10.9 - Mr. Fluffles
OS 11 - Richard Scarry

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144865)

Ubuntu's main strength is their rational versioning system.
Some people just start at 0 or 1 and make shit up from there, but Ubuntu goes by the year.

They understand something Microsoft forgot 9 years ago, that version numbers are pointless, and your best bet is to at least make them sort-of useful by encoding the date into them.

This is something Ubuntu and Mandriva has done to great success.

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144981)

Ubuntu? Mandriva? Success? Hahahahah Cannonical has the revenue of a little grocery store.

Yeah can't wait for them to take over the world any day now... LOL

Its funny to come here and see the penguin dance.

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145217)

Success isn't only monetary you drooling idiot.

Re:release date (4, Funny)

slyn (1111419) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144891)

At least Ubuntu has cute names I can rely on!

Yea, they should come up with a naming convention that empathizes cats to jump on the LoLcats bandwagon. Everyone loves cats!

OS 10.7: Garfield Y/N?

Re:release date (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144655)

Between now and then, Apple will likely have released OS X 10.6, and there will have been two new release of Ubuntu.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack. It's still the same operating system, same applications, same API, etc. And new releases of Ubuntu... That's not really a fair comparison either. "Windows 7" might have perhaps 40 applications shipping with it that the user might actually interact with on a regular basis. But most linux distributions are a conglomeration of just about every application being developed for linux... And again, while the APIs and such in linux change a lot more frequently, it's still apples-to-oranges. Most linux apps have source code. Backwards compatibility isn't as big of a problem as with binary-only distributions.

This is going to piss off every fanboy in the house, but frankly Microsoft has higher standards to beat than your comparisons.

Re:release date (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144713)

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't think I am. I'm considering the total level of satisfaction with a Windows 7-based system, a Snow Leopard system, and a Ubuntu 9.10 system.

For example, I consider the difficulty/inability to run iTunes on Ubuntu to be a relevant factor when considering Ubuntu vs. W7. On the other hand, the ready availability of a bizillion applications on Ubuntu affects my happiness regarding my choice of operating systems as well.

Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack.

No argument there.

Re:release date (0, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144797)

I don't think I am. I'm considering the total level of satisfaction with a Windows 7-based system,

What the frack does total level of satisfaction have to do with the price of tea in China?

Hey. My ford pinto has four cup holders, compared to your Ferrari which only has two. And my pinto is purple while your Ferrari is a boring grey. Clearly the Pinto is a better product based on "total level of satisfaction". -_- Seriously...

Re:release date (1, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144875)

You forgot the part about you banging my wife in the back seat of your Pinto because I'm soo worried about my Ferrari that I never talk to her anymore.

Re:release date (0, Troll)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145233)

Ok let me try it the other way and see what happens.

You forgot the part about me banging your wife in the back seat of my Pinto because you're soo worried about your Ferrari that you never talk to her anymore.

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144903)

Okay well that didn't make sense.

Just because Microsoft decides to re-invent the wheel every release doesn't mean that they should get excused for problems with their OS. Apple / *nix are developed incrementally, so the important question is how many "service packs" should a Windows upgrade count for.

In terms of qualitative development, Microsoft and Apple can't touch what Ubuntu has done. The improvement from the late 90s to today is far greater than the improvement realized by Microsoft and Apple.

Oh and about your comment in your profile -- you don't get respect not because you "wear a skirt", you don't get respect because your Slashdot ID number is so high.

Re:release date (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144867)

I consider the difficulty/inability to run iTunes on Ubuntu to be a relevant factor when considering Ubuntu vs. W7

sudo apt-get install amarok

And you're done, with a better application that won't force you to reorganise your collection

Re:release date (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145147)

sudo apt-get install amarok

And you're done, with a better application that won't force you to reorganise your collection

And also won't initialise an ipod (or reinitialise a corrupted ipod), won't sync new ipods, won't connect to itunes (so no free iTunes-U, or sales from the biggest online provider of music), ...

Brilliant!

Re:release date (3, Informative)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144793)

> It's still the same operating system, same applications, same API, etc.

nope, it's a refined OS, or one with unrefined but new functionality that tries not to break too many older stuff. The same apps run more reliably or faster. The API gets extended instead of changed.

What you call higher standards are artificial barriers. You live in them for some time, you forget about them.

To get to MS higher standards Apple and linux should instead reinvent the wheel every iteration, changing the GUIs, getting performance problems in things like file copy...

Re:release date (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144841)

What you call higher standards are artificial barriers. You live in them for some time, you forget about them.

Okay, here's an "artificial barrier": You're an IT administrator for a bank. You support about 35 mission-critical applications that go to a mainframe. Why keep the mainframe? Because it's the only thing that's gone through the laborous process of being documented, audited, and certified for use. Those certifications could run into the tens of millions of dollars, plus another fifty million to retool your existing infrastructure, minimum. All those applications were written for Windows 95.

Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and will still work. They're horrible, out of date, and make your butt itch just thinking about them, but they work, and it's cheaper to keep them going than to invest in an all-new infrastructure. But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.

Microsoft delivers what businesses want: Reliability. Long. Term.

And that costs money, time, effort, and yes... it's a MUCH higher standard to reach for.

Re:release date (0, Redundant)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144973)

apt-get install virtualbox

Re:release date (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145213)

Fantastic idea! So now, not only do I have to maintain and support the Windows installs in virtual machines, I also have to administer another OS which does nothing except a container for VirtualBox. Sign me up now.

Re:release date (5, Insightful)

Bored Grammar Nazi (1482359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145053)

What are you? Another Microsoft marketing/misinformation drone? Or have you just been brainwashed?

You're an IT administrator for a bank. You support about 35 mission-critical applications that go to a mainframe. [...] All those applications were written for Windows 95.

And the mainframe is running what? Windows For Mainframes Edition? I don't think so.

Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and will still work.

I disagree. I only use Windows at work, but it is my understanding that it is very difficult to make older Windows applications run in newer versions of Windows, especially applications that were written for Windows 95/98.

But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.

That's assuming that you keep updating Linux or Mac OS to the latest and greatest. But you don't have to. In your mainframe "example" it is assumed that the system images running the applications are not being updated. And then you complain that Linux/Apple apps may break if you update the OS? Come on.

You might want to change your desktop background to this one [dilbert.com] .

Re:release date (1)

Bored Grammar Nazi (1482359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145075)

Ooops, 404. Try this one [vox.com] .

Re:release date (0, Flamebait)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145057)

Now let's look at the reality. M$ admits finally the faults in Vista that it has spent the last two years lying about. M$'s attitude, so what, we lied for two years, so what, companies have been burdened with thousands of dollars attempting to make a faulty OS work, so what. Believe them now, you have got to be kidding. They have routinely as a matter their idea of normal business practice that they will lie to the customer, not once but virtually every time they launch a new advertising campaign.

How about some refunds, how about they pay for the costs incurred by those lies, tens of thousands of dollars wasted by companies in keeping a faulty OS running. M$ delivers nothing but lies, pay for the privilege beta testing for products that should never have been released, M$ delivers bugs and security flaws that it lies about and keeps hidden and of course M$ delivers M$=B$ endless marketing in every place they can.

Yes, it is true, M$ has reliably been delivering lies in marketing for decades, the old version that we said was really good and that we said was more secure, more stable and more reliable, well 'er', actually sucks but, hey, the new version is really great and it is more secure, more reliable and more stable than the previous version, we promise (except where it is excluded by the no-warranty EULA, warning our program is crap and we guarantee nothing, absolutely nothing).

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145099)

Now let's look at the reality. M$ admits finally the faults in Vista

Uhhh....no. I$ that you twitter? Go $uck a $ailor's $alty $eacock!

Re:release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145125)

Windows 95 support mainframe? Since when do banks use Windows 95 for their financial system?
I think you're confused Windows with Unix. Only recently the London Stock Exchange switch to .NET, and see what happen: http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/09/08/185238.shtml [slashdot.org]
I know you're trying to make a point somewhere, but at least please try to use correct facts.

> But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with the latest and greatest.
Why? You're not doing that with Windows so why would you do that with Linux or Apple? Your argument isn't very consistent.

Re:release date (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145185)

> Microsoft delivers what businesses want: Reliability. Long. Term.

You clearly don't know what the heck you are babbling on about. You were on target with the mainframe, that is reliability over the long term.

Windows? You think going back to Windows 95 is long term? Bah. Windows 95 wasn't even close to usable until OSR2 and that was practically Win98 and as I recall didn't ship until '97. So a puny dozen years.

> Now, Microsoft is a safe bet because you know those applications were written decades ago and
> will still work. They're horrible, out of date, and make your butt itch just thinking about
> them, but they work, and it's cheaper to keep them going than to invest in an all-new infrastructure.

Small midsize shops are the ones who fell into this trap, usually called Visual Basic. Crappy little apps written by long forgotten consultants. And nobody had enough sense to demand the source code so now changes aren't possible. I have about as much sympathy for these fools as the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street currently reaping their reward for being dumb. You base your business on stuff you can't repair, realize the problem and don't make fixing it a goal. Then someday when it does go foom they will be shocked! shocked! and probably be lining up at the nearest public teat looking for a bailout like the banks.

Oh, and see above about 'decades ago'. Now there ARE some industrial process controls still running DOS that can get over two decades old... barely. Go really get DECADES you have to look at mainframes and COBOL.

> But you go with Apple, or Linux and what do you get? Every five years, maybe ten
> if you're lucky, you have to rebuild and redesign everything to make it work with
> the latest and greatest.

I won't argue about Apple, which is probably why it has had and has no future in the Enterprise outside of the occasional graphics arts dept full of Macheads nobody wants to piss off. Linux/Unix on the other hand.... Do you realize how old UNIX is? Even the POSIX standards predate Win32 and UNIX had a rich history already.... which was sorta the reason for POSIX in the first place but that is another tale for another day. Write to the specs and any end user app will probably be ok for the foreseeable future. Yea if you want to run an old 90s app today you will probably need to scrounge up the Motif libs but they are still available on supported Enterprise distributions. Sure it will LOOK like an old Motif app but then you want it to be the same, ya know, reliable. You could also get even older UNIX applications going but good grief, before Motif X programs were primitive, Gilligans's Island primitive, ugly things.

Re:release date (5, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145189)

Win95 isn't supported as of 2001. So it's equivalent to old releases of Linux in that regard.

I worked on projects that still run on kernel 2.2 (this is from 1999-2000) as of today. So I can tell you how that works from personal experience. Hardware support is complicated, valgrind doesn't work (which makes debugging C apps a bit of a pain), some things like LVM and RAID are much inferior to their current state, but other than that, it's a perfectly functional system, and most software that's not tightly linked to kernel functionality (like valgrind) works perfectly fine on it.

Nothing stops you from using the latest version of firefox, vim and gcc on 2.2 if you so wish. Try to install IE7 on Win95 though.

I've seen ancient Windows boxes used in the same way, and in my experience it's a lot more unpleasant. At least you can coax Linux to work in unplanned situations, but good luck on getting anything modern installed on a Win95 box. The installer will probably refuse to even try.

You have exactly the same tradeoffs with both systems: Keep it running, even after the vendor pulls support, or keep upgrading. Keep it running for long enough, and eventually you will have to catch up with lots of things at once.

Re:release date (2, Informative)

jstott (212041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145027)

You're comparing apples and oranges. Each new release of OS X might, at best, be compared to a service pack.

No, the OSX equivalent to service packs are noted by changes to the minor version number (10.5.5 to 10.5.6 was the latest one — in Microsoft language, that would be 10.5SP6). Major releases (10.4 [Tiger] to 10.5 [Leopard]) involve significant changes to the API and introduce new features to the OS, as you can plainly see [apple.com] from Apple's web OSX page (Apple claims 300 new features added with the upgrade to Leopard; I can't verify the count, but I've found many of them to be very useful additions).

So yes, the shift from Vista to Windows.7 is comparable to one of Apple's major releases. That Windows upgrades leave a trail of wreckage has more to do with the general level of quality control [third-party's as well as Microsoft's] than the scale of the changes.

-JS

Re:release date (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144683)

OSX 10.6 counts as a new OS release? Isn't that a bit like saying that Win 98SE was a new version of Windows? Yes technically they are, but it's hardly a rewrite or necessarily a must have update.

I'm hardly a fan of Windows, but that's kind of a odd standard to apply. MS could definitely keep up if they were making such minimal updates and charging for them.

Re:release date (1, Flamebait)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144733)

I am no microsoft apologist but give them a break as they are at least trying. I use XP, Vista and Windows 7 daily. and Windows 7 actually is the best of all three. They took out all the mental retardation that they put into vista and did something I never EVER would expect microsoft to do. but revert to naming that makes sense.

Windows 7 is the OS that will save their ass. So it only took them 7 years to get it right... Hey! I just figured out how they got it's name!!

Release cycle is not a measure of quality (1, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144855)

I don't expect 7 to be a good operating system, but the time between releases is a very poor indicator of OS quality and performance. Some distributions, like Ubuntu, release small increments often, while Debian release less often but each update usually marks a bigger change. In addition they both cower the other release cycles separately. Ubuntu has LTS releases for those that need stability. Debian has the testing and unstable versions for those that want more up to date stuff. Apple seems to have found a decent compromise where they release semi-often and have a reasonably stable system, giving their users a reasonably up to date system with acceptable stability.

Windows, on the other hand, tends to release rarely, and still have moderate improvements, and then change the system with service packs. You basically get the worst of both worlds. You don't get the latest and greatest features that you may have got with something like Ubuntu, when released Windows tends to be even more outdated than Debian stable , but it has nowhere near the stability since each service packs tends to fundamentally alter many critical aspects of the system ( WGA, UAC, new IE version etc... ).

I think a lot of Microsoft's problems is that they try to target both the curious power users, office users and business with the same releases. You can't realistically have a OS release that is going to be cutting edge over its life cycle, while simultaneously being stable and well tested. You will either have to compromise or do separate releases. Ubuntu, Debian and RedHat seem to be doing well having separate releases for different users, Apple seems to be managing the compromise rather well, Microsoft just fails horribly at doing either.

Astroturfing? (0)

ThePeeWeeMan (77957) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144501)

How is this astroturfing? It's not like someone came out and said that Windows 7 was better than both Linux and OS X combined...

Re:Astroturfing? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144605)

Duh... kdawson is a well known MS shill.

Whitewashing (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144623)

Microsoft is basically doing a Vista service pack with Windows 7, but they have put out a TON on press on sites like Digg and Slashdot to change the mental landscape around Windows 7 with consumers and the core technical crowd. At this point I'm pretty skeptical of every pro Windows 7 article and poster, though of course by now you'd expect Vista to have been improved.

Re:Whitewashing (2, Interesting)

ThePeeWeeMan (77957) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144669)

Uh... I'm running Windows 7 and I can tell you that it definitely is NOT a service pack. Even if I didn't read any pro-Windows 7 articles or have any prior knowledge, just the fact that it has a different UI and a lot of changes tells you something about it... Microsoft don't make major changes in service packs any more (though Vista SP1 was an exception), because people told them that they wanted only stability, performance and security fixes, not new UIs or ways of doing things.

Re:Whitewashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144795)

Revising Windows to work only with a CLI instead of the mandatory Explorer.exe seems like a big step to me in a better direction, design-wise.

Re:Whitewashing (0, Troll)

zenyu (248067) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145015)

I've heard and read this "Windows 7 is a service pack to Windows Vista" meme everywhere and I just don't get it. I've only spent a few hours with Vista, and only a few more with "7", but that should be enough for anyone -- I don't really see a full service pack of differences. What really jumps out at me using both of them is how clunky they are compared to KDE or Gnome. Also both seem to have abysmal driver support and lack of any compelling applications. The Microsoft Media Center is also particularly primitive; MythTV had better stability and more features before I got married and had kids (i.e. years ago). All-in-all both operating systems feel like a total blast from the past, with one exception. When testing both last month I felt they were quite a bit less agile than I remembered Windows 2000 Pro being, so I installed it from an old CD. The first thing I noticed was that the UI really did look better, even in 'classic' mode Vista wasted pixels on uneven margins, those same layouts were obviously hand tuned in 2000 and looked good despite having that same 'blast from the distant past' look and feel as Vista/7. And yes, 2000 feels significantly snappier than Vista/7.

PS 1. All tests were on a recent Lenovo T61p with nVidia graphics and the latest drivers available for each of the three Windows distros.

PS 2. I didn't need to try XP, since that was the abomination that drove me away from the Microsoft franchise in the first place.

Re:Whitewashing (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145061)

Is anyone else reminded of the 'new coke' saga when they hear about Windows 7? I know it's not exactly the same thing (unless Windows 7 turns out to look exactly like XP), but still...

Re:Whitewashing (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145253)

Classic coke wasn't the same as original coke anyway - Coca-Cola used the confusion to change the sweetener from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup. (Mmm... diabetes.)

Mind Boggling Legacy Junk Still In Win 7 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144509)

How the hell can it be 2009 and Microsoft still has:

* DOS era drive letters for volumes?

* The perfectly wrong choice of \ vs / for path names?

* The Win 3 era maximize button on windows?

* Files that can't be move when they are open by another application?

We are all going to be drinking Tang while going to work in our flying cars and this legacy garbage will still be in Windows.

Where's my rebait! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144561)

FTFA:

For the past several months, Microsoft has engaged in an extended public mea culpa about Vista, and in the past two weeks alone has given a series of press interviews to explain how it changed the development process of Windows 7, the forthcoming client release, to learn from the mistakes it made in the past.

So, now that they admit that it's a steaming pile of crud, where's my refund for this defective product that I don't use that came bundled with my laptop?

Re:Mind Boggling Legacy Junk Still In Win 7 (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144589)

You have to realize, that several of those Microsoft easily could have changed, but didn't because of all the grief their customers would have gave them. It's not technological problems that are keeping all those legacy decisions in place.

Re:Mind Boggling Legacy Junk Still In Win 7 (4, Interesting)

PimpBot (32046) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144967)

DOS era drive letters for volumes?

They're getting there -- I don't believe they're all that present in Windows Home Server. It's going to take a few years to remove these, given backwards compatiblity concerns.

* The perfectly wrong choice of \ vs / for path names?

Hunh? They made a design choice back in the day. They didn't match Unix. BFD.

* The Win 3 era maximize button on windows?

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

* Files that can't be move when they are open by another application?

That does suck, and they made improvements in Windows 7 from what I've seen. Now you will at least get told which app is locking a file.

Progress takes time, and Win7 seems like a good step. And before you label me a shill, I'm typing this on a Mac, and I use various flavors of Linux and Unix at work.

Re:Mind Boggling Legacy Junk Still In Win 7 (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145045)

. . . My sarcasm meter is swaying for this post, I can't tell if you're serious or not.

What's wrong with good ole c:? Whenever you read it, you know exactly what the person is talking about. If you go with hda3 or somesuch, you're not going to know if you're talking about a swap file or what have you. Linux is unnecessarily complicated on this point. I've gone through hell trying to get my flash drive working on different linux machines at work because they aren't set up to mount sda volumes or somesuch. Then I couldn't fix the problem because the only guy who knew the su password was out of town. Went home early that day -- so I guess it wasn't all bad.

Is there a reason for slash direction preference? Or are we in the realm of keyboard layout?

What's wrong with the maximize button? Don't they all have that?

Okay, I agree with you on the file moving thing. Mostly because I like to delete programs that crash, and part of them lingers in the memory so I can't delete them without rebooting first.

I never liked tang, but the world of tomorrow according to yesterday is pretty fun. Fallout 3 is quite enjoyable. I bet they considered putting in tang. But they definitely should have put in more poontang. ... What was I yapping about?

Captain Obvious descends (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144523)

"How Vista Mistakes Changed Windows 7 Development"

You got it wrong: Vista was the mistake that caused Windows 7 development.

Re:Captain Obvious descends (2, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144657)

You got it wrong: Vista was the mistake that caused Windows 7 development.

Nu uh. Vista was the feature that caused Windows 7 development. That's why Windows 9 will be the bestest windows evaaaaaah!!!

Re:Captain Obvious descends (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144673)

So Vista is the broken condom that resulted in the bastard child....

Re:Captain Obvious descends (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144705)

I wish people would stop bashing Vista. I know it's cool to bash Vista, but it's really not bad at all, MS has released far, far worse over the years. Remember Win 95 or Win ME? Those were legitimate dogs.

Crashed constantly, sluggish, not easy to work with at all. I've been bothered to fix my parent's computer only a tiny, tiny, miniscule number of times compared with the huge number of times for either of those two releases.

Re:Captain Obvious descends (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144745)

I wish people would stop bashing Vista. I know it's cool to bash Vista, but it's really not bad at all, MS has released far, far worse over the years.

Someone on the internet is wrong. Do you wish to continue reading?
[ allow ] [ deny ]

Re:Captain Obvious descends (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145059)

+1, xkcd.

Honestly, though, I've been using Vista at work for the last week and it's growing on me. The mini-command-line launcher thing in the start menu is tres cool. Everything seems similar enough to XP to be easy to pick up. The shutdown-that-really-hibernates is good too, I wouldn't have tried hibernate if it hadn't just gone and done it for me because hibernate is historically so unreliable, but this's been working flawlessly for a week. I'm still not about to go out and buy Vista for my home computer but I'm not so bummed about having to use it at work.

Re:Captain Obvious descends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144799)

lol vistaids.

Credit where its due (4, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144569)

Love em or hate em, at least this time they're trying to get a sense for catering to their market instead of just trying to shove crap down at people and expect them to buy it because its new and its Microsoft.

Re:Credit where its due (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144813)

...and that would be a first for Microsoft. +1 funny for you. That was a joke, wasn't it?

as was pointed out in a recent article, they're in the business of selling licenses, not software. They found out they need to license something that actually *works* in order for people to buy it.

My theory is that Firefox will ultimately kill windows, if not Microsoft itself. Once the mass consumer market finally realize they don't really need anything but a browser and that OS's don't matter, I don't see where Microsoft will really matter. I thought netbooks would finally break this open, and they still might, but long term the migration to the cloud has Google and not Microsoft written all over it.

Re:Credit where its due (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144957)

"My theory is that Firefox will ultimately kill windows, if not Microsoft itself."

That's like saying tires are going to replace cars, it doesn't make any sense.

Faster?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144651)

So then why is my system so damned IO bottlenecked? I have a hard drive with a rating of 5.9 which is CONSTANTLY in use by the OS, by the process "system" which can't be killed. The problem is not there in XP or Ubuntu or... It's even better on the laptop because the fucking OS doesn't give a chance for the disk to spin down. Great for battery life. Applications LAG LAG LAG LAG when launching because the disk is more bogged down than low flow toilet after several pizzas... Index service, or shadow copy; I don't give a fuck unless it's indexing the shadow copy of my girlfriend's ass.

Re:Faster?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144785)

My guess is because you're full of shit and you are a moron who has no idea what he is actually talking about.

OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really! (5, Funny)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144679)

MS deigns to send the message that they care about the customer and the community. It would have been nice if they did that the last time. Sorry, I'm already on OSX.

Re:OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144881)

no one gives a fuck what you do. fuck, we wouldn't even care if you died.

Re:OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145143)

Well there would be on less apple fag on the internet. I'd be happy..

I always wonder.. could MS get any more successful? I think they should just give up so that the linux can get some marketshare.I mean Linsux sure as hell cant win on their own. Or maybe MS can throw some cash like they did with Apache to help them out...

Re:OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really! (2, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144933)

I agree. I dropped half a grand for a few copies of Vista Ultimate upgrade. I didn't even hesititate. I wouldn't call myself a Windows fanboy but I was definitely on the MS 'team'. I bought the upgrade version, only to find my 'upgrade' copy actually requires me to install XP so that I can then find out that I CAN'T actually upgrade the XP partition. I then have to install a fresh copy of Vista on an empty partition while keeping the XP partition around to prove I'm upgrading.

Every version of windows before that was just fine with verifying your old media and then installing. What moron thought this was an improvement? Did these guys even TRY the upgrade path? This was my introduction to Vista. It just went downhill from there.

I was then introduced to the joys of Vista. It's flaws have been discussed to death. I can at least say it did two good things for me. It introduced me to Linux again which was a refreshing change from the early 90's, and it prompted me to switch to Mac.

At this point I could care less about Windows 7. Too little, too expensive, too late.

Re:OK, so we fucked up. It's good now, really! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144941)

screw apple, and screw microsoft, i built my own os from the ground up. its called legal pad and pen.

Well...yeah (0)

Groggnrath (1089073) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144765)

This is like me saying "getting a ticket made me a better driver". Yes, that's true in a sense, but if I'd paid attention, and followed obvious signs, I'd have saved myself 123$, and still learned my lesson.

Will Windows 7 support the devices I already have? (1, Flamebait)

TwobyTwo (588727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144821)

There are at least two reasons I didn't move to Vista:

  1. Vista twice trashed an XP system that was dual booting on the same system...I think it got over anxious about updating file system indexes while booting (and I'm sort of picky about running OS's that trash my systems)
  2. Vista wouldn't support the perfectly good Epson Perfection 1200U scanner that I bought some years ago, and for which Epson chose not to release Vista drivers. Likewise for other devices.

I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and assume that Win7 solves problem #1. Anyone know whether Win7 will support all those perfectly good devices I have that work just fine on Windows/XP, and that I was supposed to throw out when I installed Vista? If the answer is "no", I'm sticking to XP for a long time (or moving to Mac, for which drivers are indeed available).

Re:Will Windows 7 support the devices I already ha (5, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144911)

"Vista wouldn't support the perfectly good Epson Perfection 1200U scanner that I bought some years ago, and for which Epson chose not to release Vista drivers. Likewise for other devices."

No. Epson choose to not support your scanner any more. It's not Microsoft's fault that a 3rd party decided not to fully support your hardware with drivers for the latest OS. Vista would support it perfectly fine if Epson would write drivers for it, but they are banking on you choosing to buy a newer model scanner.

Don't blame Microsoft for Epson's greed.

Fool me 7 times.... (3, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144885)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 7 or 8 times, shame on me ;-)

Apocalypse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27144901)

A pro MS article?

KDawson posted it?

Now I'm scared. The world must be ending. Maybe someone hacked his account...

So I read TFA (4, Interesting)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27144953)

Don't worry, I'm not new. Actually, I didn't "read" the article, I looked at the ratings in the second link and that was it.

I would like see even "rough benches" of each OS, but, alas, all I see are playskool dumbed-down 1,2,3,4,5 ratings. Nothing to indicate actual facts. Who know how they were rating the damn tests. Cookies eaten per operation? Fingers counted? Beatings about the head?

Next up, on the Intel with 4GB they claim that overall XP SP3 was worse than Vista SP1? I call BS. And on the AMD with 1GB it said they were the same? As if (I won't comment on Win7's performance, because I haven't run it yet). XP SP3 rated 4th or 5th in almost everything! On the Intel it rated a 1 for "moving 100mb files", and 5 on the AMD...WTF! This guy has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.

By the way, who the hell put the ratings in an image? 100k each, for 1k of data. They don't want people to c/p the results or something? How does anything get done anymore, I want my money back, I'm going home.

I don't want Windows on my netbook (5, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145013)

I have a Dell Mini 9, and it does just fine with Dellbuntu 8.04. Even the 512MB RAM is fine - the screen size and form factor does not lend to massive multi-app multi-desktop kind of work. It's an über PDA, that I can put Postgres on if I need it.

Microsoft still goes not get it (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145115)

Microsoft is still pursuing a marketing strategy to try and squeeze money out of the OS at the expense of their true Customers, the people who actually use the OS. Until they return to serving only the end Customer and not music industry and other competing interests people will continue to move away from them.

mel gibson was right! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27145225)

jews do cause all the wars in the world. are you a jew?

Making Windows Faster (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145231)

Yeah I can make Windows faster than its previous version - but it will take a huge memory footprint hit in the process.

What I would like fixed from vista (2, Interesting)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145275)

the best most favorite thing I could ever have as a fix from vista to windows 7 is the removal of the penalty to stay with XP.

If I can't have that - well , then. No more microsoft in this house.

Horizontal Span (0)

Dunge (922521) | more than 5 years ago | (#27145291)

And yet, they probably won't fix the multi-monitors span mode, which worked great in XP, got broken in Vista and that Microsoft seems to ignore.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?