×

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!

Preventing Another Vista-like Release With Windows 7

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the plenty-of-time-to-get-it-right dept.

396

CRE writes "An article at the OS News site details how Microsoft could best avoid Windows 7 becoming another Vista-esque release. The author advises Microsoft to basically split Windows in two. Windows 7 would be a new operating system based on the proven Windows NT kernel, but with a completely new user interface, with backwards compatibility provided by VMs. In addition, to please business customers and other people concerned with backwards compatibility, Microsoft should create 'Windows Legacy', basically the current Windows, which will receive only security and bug fixes. Relatedly, APCMag is reporting that Microsoft has moved Julie Larson-Green (the driving force behind Office 2007's Ribbon UI) over to work on Windows 7's interface."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

396 comments

Oh no (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969395)

The driver situation is going to be just crazy. Its bad enough now with windows.

Try Linux (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19970227)

The driver situation is going to be just crazy. Its bad enough now with windows.
Then try Linux, and you'll never complain about the Windows driver situation again...

Gee.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969429)

..create MORE 'Windows Legacy?' This is one of the major, abyssmal design choices in current Windows versions responsible for truck loads of the issues every Windows user and their grandma have come to hate said OS, simply because the Windows 'software engineers' (term used humbly) blatantly, as usual, fail with implementation. Truly a great tip.

Re:Gee.. (4, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970375)

..create MORE 'Windows Legacy?' This is one of the major, abyssmal design choices in current Windows versions responsible for truck loads of the issues every Windows user and their grandma have come to hate said OS

This is at least somewhat correct. Legacy support is responsible for a lot of Windows's problems.

However, it's also perhaps the biggest single reason for its success.

Not reverting to 9x vs NT days (4, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969431)

Horrible idea, would never be put into practice. MS already spent years merging the 9x consumer brand into the NT-based line. There's no reason they would then spit it again and have to deal with two not fully compatible platforms, requiring a separate support base for each one.

Re:Not reverting to 9x vs NT days (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969505)

I couldn't agree more. There's no way they're going to split again. They're going to continue what they're doing: same basic underlying framework, but the "Server" version has more features and services tacked on to the basic system. I can't believe that anybody who can remember 10 years ago would ever suggest going back to that again.

10 years ago (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969979)

I couldn't agree more. There's no way they're going to split again. They're going to continue what they're doing: same basic underlying framework, but the "Server" version has more features and services tacked on to the basic system. I can't believe that anybody who can remember 10 years ago would ever suggest going back to that again.
Why go back to 10 years ago and create many different operating systems? For most average users OS==Desktop environment and they don't give a rodent's fundament about what kernel it's running on top of. All MS has to do is expand what on you have already suggested. What's to stop MS from making two OS versions based on the same underlying framework? One version could be geared towards business. This corporate version would stick to the old crappy desktop environment to keep the bean-counters from blowing gaskets over increased training costs and lowered productivity per worker drone. The other version could be geared directly toward the consumer with an innovative and easy to use desktop environment. That's of course assuming that Microsoft is capable of creating an innovative and easy to use desktop environment that doesn't require tediously long sequences of mouse clicks and nag screens to accomplish the simplest of tasks.

Re:Not reverting to 9x vs NT days (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969595)

Where's the problem? They'll support the business line and for the "consumer line" you'll get a shrug and a "well, if you'd have bought our well supported product, you wouldn't have that problem".

It works for ISPs, hardware and other businesses, think it wouldn't for software?

Re:Not reverting to 9x vs NT days (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970047)

That is the opposite of the article's suggestion. The article suggests that the "business line" be the legacy version that doesn't get any new features, and the "consumer line" be the main focus of future Windows development.

I for one.. (1)

traveller604 (961720) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969907)

I'm wondering why they keep on calling 'em "Windows". Why not Microsoft "Doors"? Or more seriously perhaps "Microsoft Unix", now that would be interesting. And yes, I'm also looking so forward to a completely new kinf of GUI.

Re:I for one.. (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970349)

I think it was to advertise the fact that Windows was a GUI, with windows, and not a command-line only UI such as MS-DOS. I think Xenix would be the closest thing you could find to Microsoft Unix. If you can find it, and also find an ancient configuration to run it on.

How about pulling a Mac? (1, Offtopic)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969435)

Why not bite the bullet and go with an OSX type operating system? It'll be a bit painful but it'll cure a lot of the security woes and actually be a major upgrade instead of a major security update. Both Mac and Linux are running that style OS on an Intel platform isn't it time Microsoft surrendered and dumped Windows for a more stable and secure approach.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969581)

Mac users are a loyal fan base making huge OS Changes that breaks all sorts of compatability less damaging. People don't use windows because they are loyal to microsoft, or even like windows, they do so because all their software runs on it. Braking all that compatability would cause many users to rethink what OS they would rather use, free OS like Linux, OS with a good HUI like OS X, or perhaps try some other OS's if all their software goes down the drain then they will most likely feel a grudge toward Microsoft for obsoleting their software investment, and look somewhere else. By doing so I would figure that Linux could rise to about 30% market share, Macintosh would be about 20% and 45% towards windows and 5% going to other OS's from 95% market share to 45% would kill Microsoft or at leat cause a ton of problems for them... Or carry on as they did before and allow a slow leak in market share over decades which would lead to the normalize rate much further in the future vs. Jumping to it right away.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969607)

The number one thing windows has going for it is that there is so much software written for it. Dropping that to go with a unix based operating system would be there end without a doubt.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969771)

Like MSFT couldn't make their own version of wine in half the time, or even use a VM. OS X did. the OS 9 for PPC VM was advanced enough to play OS 9 games in. Yes I did. Are you saying MSFT isn't smart enough to make such a compatiblity layer? Not even the MSFT basher in me believes that.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969869)

Like the other comment implies, why not just get Microsoft involved in the Wine project?

Taking a Bond-esque analogy, if we had the 'enemy agent' working with us then we might be to diffuse the bomb and get to the goal quicker and without the major issues ;)

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969625)

Yeah, it's about time they gave up the platform that got them and kept them #1 in the market for some many years. What are they thinking?

If Linux or OSX ever manage to take over a dominant market share, I fully expect to see a 'nix-based Windows that has a WINE-like compatibility layer. Until then, Microsoft is probably best served by continuing as they have.

I love the idea of easy porting of my favorite KDE apps (K3B, Quanta Plus, etc) to Windows, but I just don't see a complete Windows rewrite as being worth anyone's time, especially Microsoft's, under these conditions. Your stated security issues would even be moot, as Windows that doesn't run Windows programs is useless, and the compatibility layer would be just as bad as Windows itself for bugs, as rushed as it would be.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969805)

If Linux or OSX ever manage to take over a dominant market share

I wouldn't expect OS X to take over dominate market share, (as I type on my Mac) The fact that OS X only legally runs on Macs, means that all the other people who sell PCs will put an other OS on it.

Linux could have a chance if they get some real inovation and developers who are willing to work on the booring deatils in the OS. Linux is as well polished as a wire brush metal. The sharp edges are now gone, but it still a far cry from a shiny luster. That extra 10% is difficult to find Open Source developers for because it is normally hum-drum work, with little back patting, but it is needed. I still test Linux with non-technical friends and there are a lot of questions of things their use to doing very simply in Windows that they cannot do in Linux. Most notably installing software. Yes linux has all these nice features but they are about 10% away from being usable for people who want to use thier computer to get stuff done not brag how leet they are.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970059)

Shiny happy Windows style installers have been available for Linux since when the consumer version of Windows was still just a glorified MS-DOS shell.

The notion that there is some lack of "InstallShield for Linux" is one of the more absurd bits of FUD that's cropped over the years (now decades).

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (2, Insightful)

FlatLine84 (1084689) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970265)

FUD or not, not everything is is easy for Joe Schmoe to install on Linux as it is on Windows. Besides apt-get or yum, or even cpan, it's a pain in the balls for the home user to install something and get it to work. Hell, even using yum or apt-get, a lot of times you still have to play around with conf files to get something to work. Too many years of being given that, and the average person won't spend the time playing around to get something to work.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970403)

Yes but how often are they Used... I would say about 90% of the software that I download for Windows (including open source projects) install by doubling clicking Install.exe

I never said there wasn't a InstallShield for linux. But they don't use it. Either you need a custom application to connect to a Distribution Friendly internet site (Debian, Ubento), or some crazy package management software that has software packaged. That assumes that everyone has S0libKickADeadHorse installed as default on their OS. If you don't they will sure not tell you where to get that package. There are also the software with scripts that kinda act like the InstallShield but tend to be programmed in some shell language that you may or may not have installed. Ask you questions where there is no way out, or stupid defaults.

It is never the case that Linux doesn't have a good X somewhere but more to the point does enough people use X to make it useful for everyone.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970165)

Sorry, but Linux will never dominate the market. That 10% will never be added, because its uninteresting to the geeks.

As a hard core geek myself, I used Ubuntu for over a year before it decided it hated the particular combination of my video card and monitor (neither of which changed). Four days of troubleshooting later, I still have no picture.

Sure, I'm doing something wrong. Sure, someone can come along and tell me how stupid I'm being, and explain the right modeline to put into my xorg.conf file. (Although nobody has, yet.) The point is that the driver for my monitor was right in 6.06, and somewhere between there and 7.04 got broken. End users won't put up with this. It isn't a case of "if I can't solve it, nobody can." It's a case of "if there's a problem, most won't even try."

There are some fundamental installation and usability problems. They're not that much worse than Microsoft Windows' installation and usability problems, but (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the support is better there. Questions get answered.

(Meanwhile, my 1GHz PowerBook continues to chug along. Too bad it's a lowly 1GHz PowerBook.)

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (2, Insightful)

jZnat (793348) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970255)

If you're looking for polish and consistency (well, those don't seem to coexist happily very often; think about it), look no further than Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mandriva, Linspire (which will be based on Kubuntu if it isn't already), and Fedora. I look forward to KDE 4 for a polish that should surpass any polish or consistency you come to expect in Windows (yeah right; polish, maybe, but consistency on Windows? laughable) or Mac OS X (polish definitely, and consistency is still weird when it comes to the GUI; I hear that will change in 10.5), but that's just me. For polish now, like I said, look at K/Ubuntu, Mandriva, Linspire, etc.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970013)

You are confused.

The platform that made them #1 was MS-DOS.

The rest was just inertia and network effects.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

cerelib (903469) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969685)

I am wondering if slashdotters will love it or hate it if Microsoft went of and forked FreeBSD to create a new version of "Windows". Some would be happy because at least they are going to base it on Unix, but I think many people would complain about how Microsoft is abusing open source. Hopefully they would at least wait and see if Microsoft contributes any changes to the community. Hell, half of the work is already done for them if they would contribute a group to hack WINE for compatibility and then pull an OS X move by creating a brand new proprietary platform on top(since WINE is LGPL). Also, Mono is making great strides. An interesting question is; how much work would it take for Microsoft to hack WINE and Mono, or port their own code to Unix, to near full XP compatibility?

Proprietary lock-in (3, Insightful)

leandrod (17766) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969773)

The issue here is proprietary lock-in. If MS would fix all the architectural problems of MS Windows, it would basically be a new OS. It could keep parts of the kernel, but the userland interfaces would change so much that only VMs could keep compatibility -- and with them comes a huge resources consumption boost on an already heavy architecture. But resources are not the main issue: it is that the new applications would be so different from old ones that vendors would most likely do something cross platform and MS would loose proprietary lock-in.

Also, it would take so long that GNU/Linux would have a huge window of opportunity, with the added benefit of low resources usage and true backwards compatibility.

Finally, it would be so different from MS Windows and so much like GNU/Linux or the Hurd that people would see the king is naked.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969791)

I have been saying essentially the same thing for years and years since the discussions about Win32 weaknesses that cannot be fixed without a restructuring of the API.

The Win32 API is a complete mess. Backward compatibility is important to be sure. But the future of stable operating systems is also an issue. Apple couldn't have been bolder in their move to create OSX. They created an entirely new OS and provided some really buggy means to run OS9 software... believe me, it certainly sucked but it generally "worked." It was more than enough motivation for people to migrate to the OSX versions of the same packages they've been using, but for those not willing to make the move for whatever reason, they were able to limp by.

Applying the same idea to a new Microsoft OS would probably work better. Virtualization environments on the PC have come a long way in a relatively short time. One might even suggest that it's fairly mature technology. (I'm not quite ready to say that myself though.) But to provide backward compatibility through virtualization while at the same time creating something like "Win64" and making it completely new, more modern and at the same time tossing backward compatibility out the window (figuratively speaking) would probably bring new life into the "struggling under its own weight" OS and the company who makes it.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (5, Informative)

dc29A (636871) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969905)

and dumped Windows for a more stable and secure approach.
You know, I am probably going to get modded down to hell.

But what makes you think Windows is less stable and less secure than *Nix or OSX? Other than people and their dogs running Windows as administrators (that's more an education problem vs Windows security), Windows is not less secure than *Nix or OSX. In fact, things like file system security is better than *nix, IMO. Windows ACLs just own, it's a breeze to use them versus the obscure *Nix FS security.

And for stability? The only time my Windows box crashed was because of piece of shit ATI drivers. People need to get away from the Windows 9x crashing every 3 minutes mentality. XP is rock solid (didn't drive Vista enough to tell on it's stability). I am currently running a VWare GSX server on Windows 2003, the only time I reboot is to install OS patches. Crashes so far: zero, nada, zilch. Been running it for 7+ months. Hardware: Do it your own el-cheapo components.

The vast majority of Windows crashes are due to defective hardware and/or drivers. Ever installed an unstable driver on Linux? Ever had a hardware failure on OSX?

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970043)

I hope you don't get mod'ed down, because you're spot on. Microsoft have nothing to gain from ditching NT; it's a fairly nice kernel architecture, and has a few advantages over existing *NIX kernels. A few subsystems need a bit of performance tweaking, but that's true of any OS.

The problems with Windows are all at the Win32 layer. This is a huge problem for Microsoft, since their biggest competitive advantage is backwards compatibility. There is a lot of Win32 software around. Hardly anyone runs Windows because they like Windows, they run Windows because they need to be able to use some bit of Win32 (or, in some cases, Win16) software, and trust Windows to do this more than WINE.

Ever had a hardware failure on OSX?
You only get those when there's a bogon overload in the RDF generator.

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970103)

What makes me think that Windows is such crap?

        The horrible state my work machine is. This is a win32 system managed by "professional sysadmins".

        The horrible state my mother-in-law's Dell desktop is in.

        The horrible state there other PC was in that led to them getting the Dell desktop.

        The occasional problems that the clued-in engineer spouse has had with her various Windows machines.

A pre-OSX mac would be a better choice.
       

Re:How about pulling a Mac? (0, Troll)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970253)


Why not bite the bullet and go with an OSX type operating system? It'll be a bit painful but it'll cure a lot of the security woes


I don't see how just moving to an OSX type OS will cure security woes.
For that you would need to also move to an OSX type fanboi base who can
threaten security researchers.

Proven? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969441)

based on the proven Windows NT kernel
The only thing the NT kernel has proven itself to be is a peice of shit.

Re:Proven? (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969679)

Take the Linux Kernel, Run every program as root, install a bunch of 3rd party drivers for cheap hardware that may or may not function properly. Have this in a distribution that is widly spread so about 90% of all people are using... See how good Linux holds up.

The Windows NT Kernel is actually a very good kernel. It is the fact that the rest of the OS is designed in a way that cause problems to occure.

Re:Proven? (1)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970259)

Take the Linux Kernel, Run every program as root, install a bunch of 3rd party drivers
Both is not required in Linux. Of course a distribution on 90% of desktops would be a huge target, but if security fixes came in as fast as usual, the number of PCs comprimised by an exploit would be relatively low compared to what we see with Windows today.

The Windows NT Kernel is actually a very good kernel. It is the fact that the rest of the OS is designed in a way that cause problems to occure.
Not so true. It was a good kernel until the 9x tree with all the DOS legacy was merged in. Suddenly we had a load of redundant APIs from different eras which were generally not fun to program. Believe me, I hacked Windows for 10 years until I vomited and went Linux-only. Windows has become more and more confusing and dumbed down, inside as well as outside.

The "current" Windows? (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969449)

Which of the 8 versions of Vista would that be then? I look forward to the 64 different flavours of Windows 7 Home Basic, Windows Legacy Home Basic, and so-on and so-forth. The variety of Windows available is one of many ways that the whole OS should be simplified.

Re:The "current" Windows? (1)

Avatar8 (748465) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970313)

I agree; avoid the confusion.


Does anyone else feel Microsoft would do better to get a clue from customer service? First rule of thumb, find out what your customer wants to DO with your product as opposed to forcing a matrix of features upon them which they may or may not know they need or want.

From my own experience MS could offer the following flavors:

  • Windows Home: basic, home user for internet usage, budgeting, word processing, music, pictures and video.
  • Windows Business: still basic, but geared towards a business environment so the entertainment aspect is removed.
  • Windows Developer: tools, utilities and VM environment.
  • Windows Gamer: graphic intensive environment (would also work for heavy photo, video, music or CAD environment)

Granted this, too, could be driven into the ground by having 40 different versions, but I think these cover most of the existing environments and usage.

kiss (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969455)

Keep It Simple Stupid the problem with Vista was that Microsoft wanted to make the Ultimate Operating System, that would put all other Operating Systems to shame (And give to us all the features they promiced us in Windows 95)... But with all the problems with such a large project then ended up with an OS that is arguable slightly better then their old one. I have tried myself to do ambisious projects and they always go over budget and over time, and end up having to do a lot of cuts. I learned not to go crazy and make the ultimate just get it to work correctly and impove on the other one, That way everyone is happy.

"Windows Legacy" (3, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969457)

It's called a service pack. And you can slipstream them right into the install (new XP discs sold today include SP2). There is no need to split it into a different product.

This convinces me that linux is going to make it. (4, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969483)

As long as Microsoft can maintain a quick pace of innovation, Linux will always be chasing behind it.

Once the problem becomes well defined and stable, Linux will catch up and O/S will commoditize.

The longer the release cycles- and the more windows UI changes with those releases, the more likely people will change to linux. I'm ready except for Everquest. Everything else is open source on my boxes now.

Re:This convinces me that linux is going to make i (5, Interesting)

vfrex (866606) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969899)

Its worse than that for Microsoft. The cost to develop a new OS has increased exponentially (with the complexity) since their 3.1/95 days. That trend isn't going to reverse, and it is going to become impossible for Microsoft to innovate and profit from the OS alone. That is why widespread support for ODF can break them, and why they are fighting it so hard.

The OSS model is working a lot better at spreading out the complexity and costs of innovating within an OS. Its simply a more sustainable "business" model than Microsoft's.

Re:This convinces me that linux is going to make i (2, Insightful)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969971)

As long as Microsoft can maintain a quick pace of innovation, Linux will always be chasing behind it.
It has been a long time since Microsoft and innovation used to be mentioned within the same sentence. This is not how they maintain their position in the marketplace.

Re:This convinces me that linux is going to make i (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970143)

...and where is that "innovation" exactly?

All I see are pointless changes to the UI and the occasional bit of inescapable DRM put in place to apease the RIAA or MPAA.

Most of what people "gush" about when they talk about Microsoft products where features available in non-microsoft products more than 10 years ago.

Ribbon UI... (4, Interesting)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969493)

...Microsoft has moved Julie Larson-Green (the driving force behind Office 2007's Ribbon UI) over to work on Windows 7's...

Oh, no...

As for the future Windows, I say build it to be a VM store, capable of taking on the personality of any VM---allowing you to have new fancy features as well as the legacy Windows (heck, maybe they should include everything, all the way to DOS, Win3.1, etc.). You don't really `need' an OS (assuming they figure out ways of enabling you to efficiently use the hardware from VM)---you might have a `primary' image that you use all the time, and a buncha others provided for compatibility with previous versions.

Re:Ribbon UI... (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969897)

You don't really `need' an OS (assuming they figure out ways of enabling you to efficiently use the hardware from VM)

Hrm. It seems to me that if you're running on a VM instead of an "Operating System" then your VM is your operating system. At least, the traditional definition of "Operating System" is "the bit of software that goes between the applications and the hardware as an abstraction layer." The only things I've seen that don't need "operating systems" are embedded applications which are the only thing running on the hardware ever.

Putting a VM between applications and hardware is the same thing as an operating system in my book; it just seems like the concept Application->OS->VM->Hardware is an added layer of abstraction and complexity. (If the "OS" was done right, it would have the necessary separation between applications, etc. that the VM provides without the complexity of the concepts currently involved with VMs).

Idiotic article... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969495)

but what else would you expect from osnews...

the site which bans those it disagrees with,
posts news that only follows its editor's personal biases
and astro-turfs its own forums.

Split = nuts (4, Insightful)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969541)

How about releasing a single OS that scales suitably and automatically to the users' dynamic needs, rather than piling options on the user who neither knows nor cares what the options do.

"Make it go."

Release Success (4, Interesting)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969545)

Deliver all the features you promise, and a few extras, when the time is right.

It's that simple.

Whether or not the Vista release was successful or not is generally troll bait but from my personal perspective it had none of the things I wanted and featured many things I didn't. I certainly won't be touching it until well after SP1 and even then only if there are several great games for me to play. It was a release "failure" to people like me who expected some goodies and a new Windows iteration but Microsoft delivered a more restrictive operating system. No thanks!

Re:Release Success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969915)

The *ONLY* reason I switched to XP from 98se was because my friend who had been using it for a year said 'I have not had a crash in a year'. I walked over to the store and bought it that day.

I will wait for sp1-2 and for the HW to catch up. Right now it is a 'pig'. Well thats .NET for you, a pig in memory and a pig with the processor.

You can run XP on a ppro 200 if you turn off the services. I susspect that Vista is in the same boat with dozens of services on by default that do not do much.

Office 2007 UI? (4, Interesting)

PhreakinPenguin (454482) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969549)

If they're planning on making the next Windows UI mirror Office 2007 then count me on the list of people likely to never buy it. The Office 2007 UI is horrible and badly done. Never before with MS products have I felt the desire to kill someone after using a software. Well except for that time I tried using MS Plus but that's a whole nother article.

Re:Office 2007 UI? (4, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969737)

If they're planning on making the next Windows UI mirror Office 2007 then count me on the list of people likely to never buy it. The Office 2007 UI is horrible and badly done. Never before with MS products have I felt the desire to kill someone after using a software. Well except for that time I tried using MS Plus but that's a whole nother article.

I beg to differ. First of all, they're not going to 'mirror' the new Office UI into Windows 7. If they wanted to do that, they would just need some code monkeys. They moved the guy who did it into Windows 7 development, which I think is a good move looking at how he improved the usability of Office. Lets hope that he work a similar type of magic for Windows.

I find the new Ribbon UI leaps and bounds ahead of the UI in Office 2003. The menus are just way more accessible instead of navigating through a labyrinth-like maze of dropdowns. You are more likely to use many features while you never knew even existed earlier because navigating was a chore. Also, I think it makes very good use of the extra pixels that modern screens have(a few years ago, it would have been a colossal waste of screen space).

Take the anecdotal evidence for what it's worth, but almost every person at work seems to love the new interface. I think that this is a good move by Microsoft.

Re:Office 2007 UI? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970123)

"They moved the guy who did it"
No they didn't the moved the gal that did it.
She is a woman at least from the pictures I saw.

Re:Office 2007 UI? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969769)

Never before with MS products have I felt the desire to kill someone after using a software.
You must be new here.

Re:Office 2007 UI? (1)

daskinil (991205) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969837)

Really, I switched from Open Office to Office 2007 after trying it. I found it much easier to find everything. Even after using openoffice for 4 years. Finding things such as formula variables and such in excel was truly amazing. I've never had trouble finding anything. At least for me, I found it very easy to do anything I needed. Same with Vista, previously hard to find commands have been moved to locations they make sense to be in the first place. I've tried going back to XP after using Vista and became very frustrated out of the difficulty of finding and installing drivers and countless other problems I don't even need to see in Vista, as Windows Updates finds and installs all your drivers without needing any user input. Most changes in Vista has most definately increased my productivity. I suppose to name my favorite changes would be the new networking stack, (wireless is much more reliable for me too), and the revamped file structure, which is alot more UNIX like and makes sense (as far as home folders go)

Re:Office 2007 UI? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969973)

It's perfect to create vendor-locking though.
Once regular people get used to having mighty-morphing-menus everywhere,
imagine a "Joe-user" trying linux or OSX after that.

YAWV (2, Insightful)

nachoman (87476) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969551)

I don't think the answer is to provide yet another windows version. Having a "new" and "legacy" version is only going to make the problem worse. Imagine if Microsoft came out now and said they were going to support XP for 5 more years with fixes as the "legacy" version. Now no one will be forced to upgrade. Many people like XP better but accept the fact that eventually they will need to go to Vista. For Microsoft, they want to keep people at their latest version because it is easier to support the newer and hopefully "better" code than the old.

I think a a better way is to do smaller incremental releases. Sure MS may only want to make people drop the 200$ every 4-5 years, but they could make make their service packs yearly and include more new features (similar to XP SP 2). Then when it comes to the next Windows release it hopefully will not be such a drastic change for users.

Re:YAWV (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969943)

Hmm, I dunno. I think you might be on to something, but only if MS changes their license to a pure subscription. The reason for this is simple (IMOHO): MS ~needs~ to have a large perceived benefit (new car smell) on a new product in order for most people to be willing to plunk down a chunk of change for an upgrade or to be excited about it. Therefore, you get these big changes bundled up into NEW VERSION XYZ.

Software assurance doesn't function like a true subscription based license model, both because if you stop paying, you still get to use it for as long as you can keep it running, and because they're NOT carrying through with your 'constant small updates/upgrades', thus their big service packs and version upgrades are still these massive flag days.

Personally, I don't know as I really want MS to just ding my credit card once a month, though I know they'd love to.

Here's a plan: (-1, Troll)

amazon10x (737466) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969553)

Admit failure and cut losses: drop Vista now.

Re-release Windows 2000 as Windows Classic (like Coca-Cola Classic!) for power/cheap/business users. It worked great and still does.

Slap Beryl on top of Windows 2000 and call it Windows XT. Market this to people_who_like_flashy_stuff/idiots.

For the next four or five years: fix up user security issues (what they tried to do with UAC) and other miscellaneous things. Release Windows 2.

How's it sound?

Re:Here's a plan: (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969709)

Are you serious? Windows XP has much better hardware support AND security (SP2) then 2000. All of the years of bug fixes that have NOT gone into 2000 would have to be backported... plus Beryl? I use Beryl. Beryl is NOT ready for the masses (and technically is being reforked back to Compiz). Why would they use somerthing like that that doesn't even RUN in a Windows environment when they have their own more limited but also more stable Aero interface? I despise using Windows, and love my Linux box, but seriously, just no. Vista won't be a failure as much as you may want it to be. It will succeed as bad as it is for the same reason every previous version has, it's Windows. Like it or not people will use it. I heard these same complaints about every release of Windows in the past, the only one that did flop was Millenium.

Microsoft will SP the problems out of Vista, and in 2-3 years people will be using it in droves.

Re:Here's a plan: (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969813)

Other than the fact that Beryl isn't available on Windows (since it works with the XOrg server) and that Compiz would be better for the masses as it's more stable (or Compiz Fusion, for the best of both worlds) then "Compiz-Beryl-Fusion" isn't just for "people_who_like_flashy_stuff/idiots".

Yes, it adds flashy stuff, but it also adds some usability things as well as the hugely sensible idea of offloading window rendering to the graphics card. If you've got a $200+ graphics card then why leave it idling when you can make it do some work (which it's far more suitable for) and leave more processing power for more 'useful' processing?

Coke Classic (1)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969839)

Microsoft selling Windows Legacy looks suspiciously similar Coke selling Coke Classic. Tell everyone they like "New Coke", realize the don't, and start selling "Coke Classic". Tell everyone they like "Vista", realize they don't, and then sell "Windows Legacy."

I am already bracing myself for the "Windows 7 the operating system that was supposed to ship in 2007" jokes. Microsoft picking Windows 7 as a product name in 2007 appears unfortunate.

Re:Coke Classic (4, Interesting)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970307)

Microsoft selling Windows Legacy looks suspiciously similar Coke selling Coke Classic. Tell everyone they like "New Coke", realize the don't, and start selling "Coke Classic". Tell everyone they like "Vista", realize they don't, and then sell "Windows Legacy."
Actually, numerous taste tests showed overwhelmingly that people did like the taste of "New Coke" more than "Classic". "New Coke" didn't fail because of taste.

Re:Here's a plan: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969855)

How's it sound?


Sorry, dropping DRM support is not an option.

Re:Here's a plan: (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969877)

who modded this troll?

though i'd prefer XP as the base rather than 2k (they're mostly the same, but i'm more familiar with the former), this is a reasonable idea.

take XP, take the stuff originally planned for vista (WFS, DX10, etc.) throw it in with security upgrades (like doing UAC properly) and bug fixes, then sell it for the cost of an OSX upgrade.

sounds reasonable to me.

Another Windows? (2, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969601)

Now if it actually incorporates VMs for backward compatibility built on the proven NT kernel, I think they may be onto something. What I see as the problem here is that Microsoft is going it alone like it has so many more times in the past. If this were a joint-venture between M$ and VMWare or some other company of that ilk, I could forsee this being a successful product.

Unfortunately, M$ won't do that and this product will be hyped to the max and actually provide a lackluster experience for users.

This is a serious question: (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969617)

Since when has Microsoft ever done anything specifically to make your life easier, your migration easier or your overall cost of ownership cheaper?

Seriously when did that happen? When has anything Microsoft done as regards any of those points been undertaken as a panicked reaction to market complaints and screaming after the fact? Every single time.

Re:This is a serious question: (2, Interesting)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969885)

Since when has Microsoft ever done anything specifically to make your life easier, your migration easier or your overall cost of ownership cheaper?
I thought the problem with Microsoft was that they always tried to be too nice to their users (e.g. maintaining backward compatibility with existing software, hiding important system options) at the expense of genuine innovation and improvements in security and stability?

Re:This is a serious question: (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970207)

Well they do do this. However, it's for the benefit of Microsoft Corp and not for the benefit of the end user. It's also done in the crappiest, easiest and cheapest way possible rather than being done robustly in a manner that allows them to move forward.

The whole "VM" thing is something they should have done with an XP-esque release made in 1992.

First thing they shouldn't do (2, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969619)

Windows 7 would be a new operating system based on the proven Windows NT kernel, but with
First thing they shouldn't do, if they don't want end up with another Vista, is to promise features before they are implemented, tested and integrated. It is a lose lose situation, just like it was when they were marketing Longhorn.

Re:First thing they shouldn't do (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970225)

As someone who writes for the lowest level of PC user, I'd say strip out the 70% of Vista features - the ones that 95% of users never use. That should make it a leaner, faster OS. Build genuine new stuff into that environment - stuff that advances how we use computers - organic and evolving 3D desktops, start developing desktop handles for this symantec web malarky now and it should be ready for release in, oh, 8 years.

They already tried that (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969635)

They created a whole new version of VB, relegating VB 6 to maintenance mode. Anybody who knows a VB programmer knows how popular that decision was. The Wikipedia article on VB doesn't even mention VB.Net!

dom

Well, I doubt that's the reason for the bomb (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969739)

Vista wasn't ill received because of the incompatibility. Plain and simple, it was not a step forwards. It wasn't something that improved your working, playing or surfing experience in any way. If anything, it was a step backwards.

Add various real and perceived problems with privacy, the data hunger of MS, the dread of DRM/TCP and other rather negative reviews, and you see the reason why Vista wasn't the next Win95 hype.

The problem is that XP already has everything the user wants. It can play games, it's compatible with almost any current hardware right out of the box, there is no USB (WinNT) or WiFi (2k) that would require him to update, whatever hardware he wants to plug in, XP can take care of it. Whatever software he wants to run, XP can do it. DirectX10-only games are still far from reaching the shelves, and no business software that I'm aware of requires Vista. The user interface of XP has all the main features that make working, surfing and playing in Windows enjoyable, and all the kinks and wrinkles were also taken care of by third party software vendors (where "vendors" does not necessarily mean you had to pay anything for the soft).

Basically, the reason why Vista didn't sell like hot cakes was simple: It was not needed.

Re:Well, I doubt that's the reason for the bomb (1)

Nephilium (684559) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970229)

Just a side note... DirectX 10 only games are out... but the only ones I've seen are the ones released by MS themselves...

Nephilium

Virtual Machines (5, Interesting)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969751)

with backwards compatibility provided by VMs

That just gave me an interesting idea: Why doesn't MS ship fully functional versions of previous OS's, wrapped in a VM, with newer versions? What would they lose? I know I'd be far less worried about upgrading to Vista if I knew I could load up a built-in VM of DOS 6.0 or Win98SE or WinXP and play all my favorite shareware games from the '90s as easily as the latest-and-greatest. Same goes for here at work...it would be nice to know that some of our older software could just be loaded in a VM until the vendors catch up with Vista. As long as they maintain security on the sandbox itself, they wouldn't need to worry overmuch about keeping the old OS up to date, and it's not like people would be buying Vista just to exclusively use it to run XP, but it would make for a much more obvious upgrade path than the current hard cutoff in backwards compatibility.

Umm, Why? (1)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969755)

Why come out with a new OS like 'Windows Legacy' that functions just the same as XP except maybe a few more features and guaranteed security updates, when simply supporting XP and releasing a SP3 or 'expansion pack' with new features for it would be enough. I'm sure Microsoft would rather patch and upgrade the old Windows than rather start from scratch, especially since it's not their flagship product anymore. But then of course, forcing Windows XP users to purchase a 'new' OS that runs exactly like XP just so they could continue using an XP based OS would be a typical M$ move as well.

How 'bout They Steal From Apple (again) (1)

the.nourse.god (972290) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969845)

Why doesn't Microsoft take yet another page from Apple's book with the next release of windows. They should break all backwards compatibility with COM, DCOM, VB6, etc and build Windows 7 from the ground up. They would still have to provide an emulation layer similar to what Mac did between OS9 and OSX. This way companies running all that legacy code won't be left in the dust, but they will have even more incentive to move on to more secure platforms.

Go Fornucate Yourself (1)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969849)

I'm quite happy with the Vista Kernel thank you very much. I find the multitasking I/O and http stack to be working better than NT. If you have speed issues then try using the XP desktop that is there in Vista. If you have driver issues, well yes it's not as good as XP on the driver front. If anything I think maybe a Vista Embedded Light or something could be made that has a smaller footprint and only runs .NET 3.0 apps.

How about FINISHING Vista first? (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969859)

Isn't it a little premature for Microsoft to be working on the next Windows release? Wouldn't it be more seemly for Windows to _finish_ VIsta first, i.e. fixing the big problems with it and delivering all the stuff that was promised to be in it (in the days when it was still called Longhorn?)

Re:How about FINISHING Vista first? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970395)

Isn't it a little premature for Microsoft to be working on the next Windows release?
It's not premature to be generating hype and interest, remember, Gabo is coming!

I'm afraid we'll have these "articles" (and I say that word with the highest level of irony and contempt) everyday (or every other day) from now until 6 months after the release of the next MS OS, at which point their generously budgeted marketing department will spam us with "news" about their next product.

simplicity... (4, Interesting)

smithcl8 (738234) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969911)

Two versions: server and workstation. That's it. No more "ultimate" or "home" or any other stripped down versions.

For Server: no client access licenses. When you buy a copy of the server software, you can have as many clients as you want. Each server version is capable of everything, including clustering, load balancing, and everything else.

For Workstation: one interface. It could be new or old, whatever, but exactly one. If it's new, we all need to learn the new version. Don't like that? Get Linux or a Mac.

Finally, both server and workstation should support a single hardware compatibility list. If your hardware isn't on the list, you can't load it; update the list monthly through Windows Update. There is Driver Signing already, but you can get around it by ignoring the warnings. Eliminate getting around the warnings.

microsoft has too much stubborn pride (0, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969935)

microsoft needs to accept the fact that they can not build a decently secure & stable OS and what microsoft should do is take a clue from Apple, use a core of some flavor of BSD and build on top of that...

Keep XP, fix Vista (1)

athloi (1075845) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969937)

XP is a good, level building block that's safe for almost everyone (if they run Opera as their browser, haha). Vista's the next generation. We don't need another Windows; we need better versions of the windowses we already have. But definitely put Julie Larsen-Green on the interface, because the mishmash of PARC and X-Windows has grown old already!

That's a good idea... (2, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969939)

...but, by introducing different product lines in their OS, Microsoft will only confuse the customer, and they're way too smart and customer oriented to allow something like that to happen.

What they really ought to do is something more like what Apple did with the Classic Mode environment for supporting OS 9 applications, which ran within OS X. Thing is, MS will probably have to support theirs indefinitely, while Apple was able to successfully kill Classic Mode within about 5 years.

Windows is unprofitable? (1)

billsf (34378) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969947)

My understanding is Microsoft has turned a profit by its Office suite and perhaps by stamping its name on a variety of cheap hardware, like some two-button mice. In a normal business, you sell off the unprofitable areas and concentrate on what makes you money. Windows doesn't seem to ever turn a profit and there is no reason it is needed to run Office.

If Microsoft wants to survive, they'd better concentrate on what is profitable and leave the whole Windows behind or better make it 'Open Source' and let the community make it a success. Windows is the biggest blunder ever, 100% cause of spam and many other problems that plague all users, not only Windows users. No more Windows looks like like the only "Road Ahead" for them that isn't a dead end.
     

Re:Windows is unprofitable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19970063)

My understanding is Microsoft has turned a profit by its Office suite and perhaps by stamping its name on a variety of cheap hardware...Windows doesn't seem to ever turn a profit...

What on earth gave you that idea? Take a look at their income statements.

Re:Windows is unprofitable? (1)

pscottdv (676889) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970185)

Windows is extremely profitable. Here, for example, is an article about how Google now has greater revenue than Microsoft's Windows division (called the Client division). But... it also says:

Operating profit was $2.8 billion in Microsoft's Client division for the quarter, a 74 percent profit margin -- the type of profitability that has made Windows legendary in the business world. Google's operating profit was $1.1 billion in the same period, a more modest 29 percent margin.

how? (1)

clubhi (1086577) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969967)

How does an article like this make it to the front of slashdot? I think I come here to feed an addiction rather than actually get intelligent news nowadays...

MS Already Failed At This A Couple Of Times (1, Interesting)

gig (78408) | more than 6 years ago | (#19969991)

Windows XP was the dramatic rewrite of Windows on a new core, if you are running XP that was almost 10 years on the making.

Microsoft has already failed at all of these things people want them to do, you have to look elsewhere and fast because Windows 7.0 is just one release after Vista (6.1) it is going to be mostly the same. Microsoft Research hasn't fixed major architectural flaws. The sloppy security of the app platform is just one problem. For example the apps are all hard-coded to 96 dpi and nothing has been done to move forward. Displays with 300 dpi are essentially print devices, MS hasn't got any printing chops, even Word is only WYSIWYG by 1980's standards. MS also does not have a Web 2.0 browser or a lightweight browser or modern media support (MPEG-4) and their 64-bit transition is a disaster.

This guy is the kind of dreamer Microsoft feasts on. He's so full of excuses for MS yet bitter also. He wants a reward now for all the years he did free grahics driver QA. Sorry, that time is gone for good.

Vista is not a failure (3, Insightful)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970073)

While the FUD machine has done an admiral job at making Vista seem like a steaming pile, that's all it has been: FUD.

I've been using Vista since November of 2006, essentially days after it was released to MSDN, and it is without a doubt better than XP. The improvements are both obvious and subtle. I'm not going to list them all here, because others have done a good job [wikipedia.org] already.

So if Vista is superior to XP technically, which was deemed by most as a great success, then Vista being a failure must be attributed to sales data. Many early reports showed Vista having poor sales, but those reports were flawed due to the fact that they compared the launch of Vista to the launch of XP. Vista launched Jan. 29th, long after the holiday season was over, where as XP enjoyed the entire holiday season to boosts its sales.

Once this was corrected, reports showed that Vista was selling on pace with XP. Indeed, as of March 2007, Vista's sales were double [zdnet.com] that of XPs.

In addition, despite being released to consumers and businesses separately, Vista's sales were only 4% behind XP, which was released to both simultaneously. In other words, Vista beat expectations [seekingalpha.com] by a long shot.

So it must be that sales of Vista have stagnated since March... opps, that's not true either. Apparently, Vista sold so well [cnn.com] that it offset the massive hit Microsoft took as part of extending the Xbox 360 warranty to 3 years.

And then there is the wonderful story that Vista has somehow boosted XP sales [computerworld.com], which is completely silly. It didn't boost XP sales. There was a larger proportion of XP sales than were expected, but the breakdown is about 80% Vista, 20% XP. Part of this is thanks to the FUD machine (good job guys) prompting some large OEMs, like Dell, to offer XP on lower end machines. Microsoft underestimated the FUD machine's ability to influence the market. (By the way, there were 7% more XP sales than were expected. Hardly a tidal wave of XP purchases.)

Sorry guys. I know you desperately want to believe that Vista is a failure, both technically and in terms of sales. But you're wrong on both accounts. 2 years from now, when 90% of PCs are running Vista, you'll probably still claim it's a failure, although you'll fall back to the technical side of things.

I'll be sure to bookmark my post and repeatedly link to it in all those flame wars.

Re:Vista is not a failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19970443)

I still refuse to use an OS that will cripple or remove my ability to view HD content, or that will require an expensive license from Microsoft to allow me to build any drivers for the 64bit version, or that, if you turn off the non-security "feature" of UAC suddenly disallows programs to write to the TEMP folder!

Sorry, but Vista is truly a steaming pile of feces. At the very least, Microsoft should have realized that, with most people acclimated to XP over the last 6-7 years, totally changing the look and feel of everything was a bad idea. (No, I don't want to customize the damn desktop, I want access to its properties!!!)

If you think Dell was simply responding to FUD when it decided to sell XP boxes again, you're deluding yourself. A big company like Dell has access to all kinds of data upon which to base a decision like that, and the business knowledge to know what will be profitable.

The thing is... (2, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970079)

As XP is the dominant OS out there, I point out that Vista so far is selling better than XP at the same point into XP's life. XP also had most of the same complaints now leveled at vista. I suspect by the time windows 7 (with the inevitiable delays) comes out, most will have an attitude of I'll buy 7 when you pry vista out of my cold dead hands.

Why another 'new' interface? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970121)

Windows 7 would be a new operating system based on the proven Windows NT kernel, but with a completely new user interface

What the **** for?
How will repainting, and then moving all the icons around help anybody get the next quarterly reports or respond to an email faster? Sheesh! An OS is supposed to facilitate a user's management of their hardware and software. Another 'new' interface that just shifts things around doesn't help anyone, and there is very little else that CAN be done.

I don't mean to put Linus on a pedestal, but I remember something he said that I've found to be very prescient over time. It was something along the line of, "We found that there was only one best way to do things. Implementations that didn't follow the typical pattern were usually trying to cover up for some other deficiency, and the implementation improved once it was made to look like everyone else's implementation."

It's the same for UI. Do something substantially different, and it's just different. More often than not, it is less effective.

First things first. (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970135)

First you have show that whatever you are proposing will force the users to walk the upgrade-treadmill. Anything that eases the pain or something that allows them to get off the treadmill is a no-no. So first learn to present the project in the correct perspective. It might benefit the users, it might benefit the developers. But if it offers even a theoretical respite from the upgrade-treadmill, the project is a non starter.

You seem to be under the impression, there is competition and if MSFT does not do what is best for the customers, they will desert it in droves. Time and again MSFT has proved that its customer base is loyal to a fault and is a sucker for punishment. Now go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan for Windows-7 that will force all the weary recently upgraded to Vista finally dudes to plunck down more money to upgrade to Windows-7.

If you build it free of DRM, they will come. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19970273)

Here's a tip. If you don't want another failure like Vista, then don't include the overly restrictive built in DRM schemes...in other words, stop taking it up the ass from the MPAA/RIAA.

Cut down version of 7 (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970345)

They could keep the Lust, Gluttony, Greed and maybe the Wrath, but loose the Sloth, Envy and Pride - that would speed things up.

Software Compatability... (1)

_14k4 (5085) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970399)

Find me a version of Linux, FreeBSD, etc that will run on my hardware and play the only game I really play on a regular (that is twice a week) basis; World of Warcraft... and I'll try to switch to it.

In windows 7 Unsigned code will be locked down.... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#19970441)

In windows 7 Unsigned code will be locked down in a sandbox.

M$ has said they are working a kind of VM like set that will sandbox all unsigned code for the next mayor release of windows as well as fully redone UI.

First of all if they are this alot of people will dump windows for mac or linux at that point and / or there may be a lot of anti Trust lawsuits.

also fully redoing the UT / forcing unsigned code to be locked down will brake so many apps that Up take of this will be a lot slower then Vista slow up take.

Unsigned code and antitrust lawsuits do have connection if you have to pay to get singed code and only m$ can say what gets signed. M$ is doing this right now some types of drivers for vista.

Some of the major programs vender's may come out and say you want a singed code BUY the new vision.
Also this code signing may force a major rewrite to want ever ms wants like singed code must be .Net or some thing like that.
also code signing is bad of open and free software even more so if MS wants you to pay for it like they do with some of the vista drivers.
Sand boxing may end braking a lot of old apps and code making people that need to use is house apps and older apps less like to move to a new version of windows cutting out the old UI will do the same thing as well.

Also running old apps in VM may lead to high ram use and lots of space need to pull it off. As you likely will have to run 2 full os 1 for all of your older win 32 / win 64 / old .NET / old UI apps and one for your new windows code with the new UI.

This will be the time of apple to come out with MAC os for ALL x86 systems or a lot of people will just go out and buy it and then hack it to run on there hardware.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...