Why would someone want to use vista whether it's SP1 SP2 when you can use an unbloated version of Windows 7 it comes out in 2009/10 but that does'nt mean you cant use XP till then right ?

My message to people who use Vista for the default OS..dont end of story get over it and wait for 7, some people waste Microsoft's time around the world while asking witty questions and reporting bugs, this is a cause of delayed products and why they release SP's. Hopefully Microsoft will ignore and slowly take their time needed to create this new OS instead of focusing on times + deadlines. Not only this but if your thinking of buying a computer or hardware you might have to buy more after because hardware vendors will need to support certain things within Windows 7 eg DirectX 11.

let the typing commence

uxevangelist.net

WRONG TOPIC CAN YOU PLEASE MOVE IT TO "Microsoft Beta Discussion" ? Thanks

This website here shows some Windows 7 screenshots, would'nt microsoft want to move away from vista lol i mean why release SP's and updates on two OS (vista, Windows 7) that look-a-like as each other, does not make sense they both will do the same things obviously unless vista will be use for only directX 10 and Windows 7 will be DirectX 11..but still the OS will do the same things..no sense hm im getting way ahead of myself now.

I personally find the features of Vista compelling to me (instant search, a much better x64 version of the OS, x64 MCE, everything laid out far more logical and easy to find, faster and better able to use RAM with superfetch, dynamic kernel memory management, SMB 2.0, to name a few). I also wasn't silly and bought a machine able to handle the OS, dual-core and 4GB of RAM - just like I did when XP released in 2001 (512MB of RAM!!!). As always, hardware and drivers being capable to handle the increased load a new OS and codebase puts on it is most important with a new Windows OS. XP is "fast" because it's design was for "high-end" hardware in 2001 with an NT kernel, which is sprightly but lacks security (hence SP2 brings the "bloat" in memory usage and running processes).


And since the next product is built on the last, fixing bugs so they don't exist in the new codebase is a bad thing?


Just like every new OS, you need beefier hardware to run it. And all of the hardware vendors will provide it to us in time - in fact, this seems to be the EXACT argument you are using for NOT using Vista...


Do you remember screenshots of the XP alpha builds in late 1999 and early 2000 (before 2000 even RTM'ed, no less) and how "shockingly" similar they looked until the new XP green/blue/clouds theme hit? This is normal (read above on how each version of Windows is based on the last to understand...).


I know this was meant to illicit flames and be trollish, but it's just silly. You take your time and wait for Win7 and skip Vista - we'll have the exact same issues when Win7 releases that we had with Vista, that we had with XP (I remember the EXACT same comments about slow performance and driver compat issues about XP back in 2001 and 2002, before SP2 released), that we had with 2000 (hardware/driver compatibility issues, anyone? Ever try to get an old scanner, sound card, or webcam working with 2000? It was horrible at RTM and SP1, until driver vendors got it figured out or just abandoned the old products altogether).

I'm with cluberti here...every new Windows release goes through the same thing. I think maybe the only release that didn't was NT4, but that was mostly NT 3.51 with the Win95 interface thrown on top. WinXP went through the same things. When it was released people said it sucked, was slow, had compatibility issues, driver problems...the list just keeps going on. Now look at it. It's a stable, mature OS that, when properly configured, runs great on even modest hardware.

I'm not running Vista...yet...but it won't be much longer. To be honest I'm just waiting on the Vista SP1 DVDs to hit MSDN (yes, I have a subscription). I have Server 2008 ready to go as well...but my DC/DHCP/DNS/WINS/file server isn't ready to go (I want to upgrade it to x64 capable hardware first...which probably won't happen before Hyper-V is released anyway, which is what I really want to wait on).

You keep waiting while the rest of us keep up with the advances being made right now.

Me three here. I'm already running Vista on my laptop, and it's the least capable machine of the three that I use. The other two would actually make better use of the optimizations in Vista/Server 2008 (64-bit support, multi-core, 4GB RAM). So far, the only drawback has been my touchpad drivers, but they're buggy even on XP, so that's no fault of Vista.

I think all that needs to be said has been said.

You realize the same thing that is happening with Vista will happen with 7 right? it will come out, vendors will not be willing to sink R&D money into writing drivers for it till they see people using it (ie SP1 for 7) it is the same thing that has happended with every other OS. the adoption rate of the OS with determine how quickly you will see drivers and applications for it.

I've never had a driver problem, i had drivers even when the BETA was out n it was all new hardware too But mainly the same thing happened to XP when it was released as said above, i agree with Cluberti 100%

yeah all the Vista hate is usually from people I wouldn't allow to touch my PC anyways. The kind of people that think 'ROFL OMG vitsa is teh bloated!!11 M$ is the sux!' is a well thought out argument against Vista.

a word of warning Vista haters: if you hate Vista, you're gonna hate windows 7 even more. you have been warned.

honestly the only legit complaint ive seen against Vista that hasnt been addressed as thoroughly as i would like is the 'file copying over network' issues. all the other 'bugs' or annoying features can be disabled or toned down. just like XP.

I wait till Windows 7 ist out i has more now technologies in it like a new NTSF ore options for not installing things like WMP11 ore IE7. Vista is only out to make quick money like ME.

Windows 7, think it will run in both 64bit and 32bit? Probally both...

and a new NTSF structure would be interesting

Actually, it should only come in x64! I hope so at least.

Why? Because, there's still too many devices without x64 drivers out there, and the amount of native x64 apps is still very low.

This would force companies to release x64 drivers if they want to continue selling hardware (write x64 drivers, or go out of business). It would also generate a huge demand for native x64 versions of most apps. And software that don't really work well on x64 platforms (like some codecs) would likely be upgraded real quick too. It would finally make x64 viable for everybody.

By the time Windows 7 is out, RAM will be even cheaper than it is now. And I already see kits like 2x2GB of PC6400 for as low as $73, like Corsair XMS2 at ncix right now. By then, 8GB will likely be like $50, so everyone's going to buy lots of it, and not be limited at 3.x GB. Besides, it's not like you'd want to run Windows 7 on a pre-64 bit CPU either, like an old P4 or Athlon XP.

I mean, right now, you can build a basic quad core computer with 4GB of RAM for ~$500 e.g. Phenom X4 9550, Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H mobo, 4GB Corsair XMS2 PC6400, Antec NSK4480 case/psu, LG G-H20NS10 DVD writer, and a 500GB P7K500 hard drive -- $527 at ncix for all of it, and it's basically the same price for a Q6600, and only like $50 extra if you want a nice motherboard instead. Now imagine in 2 years or more. Faster quad cores will be even cheaper, same thing for RAM. At some point, we have to make the big switch to x64.

New NTFS version? Well, it's only interesting if it brings new & useful features really. The current one is adequate right now. But hey, if they can improve some things, why not?

As for people hoping they'll be able not to install WMP and such, good luck with that. They want everybody to use their WM codecs and such, and WMP is a way to do just that, and it's also part of their "strategy" for media stuff (think media extenders, the XBOX 360 and all them things). And seeing how there's been zero demand for the "N" flavors of XP, you can pretty much guess they're going to include it regardless. IE wise, I think they clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to unbundle it before, and some parts of it are used by other apps too. So there again...

microsoft probally released vista with exspectations of vista moving the world into the 64bit era releasing 64x and 86x OS's... if you go to best buy now days (or at least around here) anything over $500 has 64x vista.

microsoft planned this movement haha

but yea i do agree with moving onto the 64bit OS's... for the several reasons you stated above crahank and + times change and you have to grasp reality and move foward

A lot of them now come with the x64 version, and I'm sure that does work fine for basic work nowadays. But when it comes to doing more than the basics, there always seems to be various issues -- things like missing drivers, codecs and such. Being x64 only would force them all to make their stuff work on x64 platforms for good.


Then they must have planned pretty poorly. They had 64 bit NT4 for the old Alpha chips 12 years ago, and x64 adoption is barely starting (true enough, x64 chips aren't quite that old). Despite even XP x64 being 5 years old, there's hardly anyone using it yet (I don't think I've ever seen a XP box running the x64 version actually). And despite being not new at all, the transition isn't always easy. You'd think basically everything would be available in x64 by now (5 years of XP x64 being out isn't long enough?) Even MS' own dev tools were lagging behind when it comes to x64 -- debugging x64 apps with VS2005 was a PITA. The transition to 64 bit on other platforms has been far easier seemingly (like 64 bit Linux, with the exception of flash). I mean, x64 Windows is getting there, but it shouldn't have taken this long. Then again, it's not completely MS' fault -- they can't force hardware/software vendors to release x64 drivers and apps.

Some people compare Windows Vista to Windows Me.

A more fair comparison would be:

Windows Vista RTM = Windows Me
Windows Vista SP1 = Windows XP RTM

If that trend continues, then Vista SP2 would be something like XP SP1...which is not bad at all!

Rumors Facts & News

1. Rumor
Windows 7 to include WinFS (Windows Future Storage)
WinFS Definition



2.Fact
Windows 7 releasing around the time touch screen LCD's are "affordable" of general home usage. Windows 7 to
take advantage of this?







Pulled From
http://windows7news.com/2008/06/04/multi-t...-7-is-released/




3.News
Better gaming, less resources used to run? We'll see?

If developers take the time to write drivers and software that is Vista compatible, they should have no problems with Win7.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsv...-windows-7.aspx

I think that Microsoft should start fresh for win7 because of how they screwed up Windows Vista.
Possible Features(I Want them):
Configurable Internet(Choose what you have)
- Could make Internet FASTER
DO NOT RELEASE ONLY ON x64
- Too early.Next Windows(8) should be x64 only

Have the original WinFS idea in it.
Remove Windows Media Player from 7 and bloat so to make it faster.

Cut down on how many editions

That's it!!

Start fresh? That would likely mean WAY more bugs initially (new code, not a codebase that's been tested and fixed for many years), it would likely mean very bad or no support for older/legacy stuff, it would take them MANY years to redo this from scratch, etc. It doesn't really make sense in any way I look at it. Besides, Vista works fine on a recent box.


Eh? Everything network-wise has long been configurable. You could configure your TCP/IP stack on Windows 3.x ... Hell, you can even do it with a DOS floppy! That would have been a new feature, hmm, 15 years ago perhaps.


No OS is going to magically make your network latency for the countless hops across different routers on your ISP's network and the backbone any faster, nor is it going to make the plan you have with your ISP have a better throughput, nor make the server you make requests from respond any faster. The OS has no impact on any of this, I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do.


That would be their biggest mistake EVER. Are you planning on running a version of Windows heavier than Vista on an old P4 or an Athlon XP? No? Then your CPU is 64 bit already. And RAM is already becoming dirt cheap, soon everyone's going to have 4GB or more, and want to use it. If they release a 32 bit version, then you can be sure lots of companies won't really bother releasing x64 versions of their drivers or software, making x64 a pain in general (even though it would be the only version worth using). The point is to FORCE everyone to make their stuff work with x64 already, against their will if it comes down to that. It's the future, no doubts about it in anyone's mind, but some vendors need a kick in the pants to start supporting it. When Win 7 is gonna be released, you'll likely get quad core CPUs for under 100$ and 8GB of RAM for 50$ or so -- why would you want to run a 32 bit OS on that? It doesn't make sense.


No happening either. They WANT everyone to have their player, to make their windows media codecs the standard. Besides, there's no demand at all for the versions of windows that doesn't have it (i.e. the N versions).

Seriously, there's lots of new stuff they could add, lots of things they could improve and such, but none of those make any sense.

mabe not fresh just revised

I would settle for total separation of kernel and user spaces. User mode apps and drivers shouldn't be allowed to bring an OS to its knees like is currently possible. Complete removal of all legacy code and systems from the main code base should also happen while all the older code were virtualized or at least (un)loaded on demand.

I think MSFT is going to have to do a radical overhaul at some point with the codebase of Windows. It is getting just a bit too big and heavy.

god i hate to think of the past with me and applications and drivers for vista.
i just now got my laptop at home to run xp (lack of finding drivers which now are avaliable) and its been a blessing.. for at least now.
im sure things should improve, mabe not asap but soon enough.

Actually, Vista is much better for that. For one thing, video drivers run in user mode now (lots more stuff does actually), so they won't take down your system (it'll just restart the driver), unlike in XP. And god knows them ATI/GeForce drivers are often the ones who do so... (That, and crappy unstable chipsets with poor drivers)

Let's not forget the support for heterogeneous video - let's say one 8800 GTS, one HD 4850 and one X1550. You could use the X1550 for PPU instead of an Ageia and the stronger two in software SLI. Everything done by the new XDDM2 and DirectX 11 driver model.

I think what we are running into here are people who didn't experience how the development (cycle) played out for those older OSes. They don't remember how EVERYONE wanted Millenium when it was in RC1 or don't remember how NOTHING WORKED on Windows 2000 on opening day or how Longhorn ruled until MS put a different GUI on it. It's because they weren't around, maybe they were younger, or not born (face it, there's a lot of kids on the Internet nowadays) or weren't into computers this much, etc. Yes there will always be the argument of "it sucks when it comes out" vs "its always been that way" because new people are coming in and saying their part. I encounter this in the other forum arena I work with, that being Transformers. While it used to just be a bunch of people (older) of the same age group, it has become a battle of the generations as more people enter the community.

Not even! NT4 needed more than its fair share of bugfixes (7 service packs if you count SP6a, plus the rollup too). And the time, driver availability wasn't quite that great. Most manufacturers made drivers mainly for windows 95 and such. For instance, my old Epson Stylus Color II, the only driver that existed for it would only print at half the resolution and such (and if I recall properly, I had to wait to even get that, it came in a service pack). A very large amount of apps from those days plain didn't work at all either (a lot of stuff was still for dos/win9x -- not really written having NT in mind). It wasn't exactly flawless!


Exactly. And there will be plenty of those complaining about Windows 7 soon too. Win2k was particularly atrocious at first in my experience -- not quite that stable (especially pre-sp2), somewhat buggy, and the lack of drivers for most of our computers was pretty apparent... Some drivers just took forever to come out for it (in a non-broken state), like Creative's...

There's really NOTHING new at all about most of of the complaints about the new versions (bloated, space it takes, lack of drivers, slow, interface changes or differences in general, price... the old one works fine/I don't need this, etc). Eventually everybody moves to it. History repeats itself with every new version.

Yep, very well said

Just to correct people who complain about companies not writing x64 drivers.
Today, to get a driver WHQL signed by Microsoft, you have to submit both a x86 and x64 version of it.

So they are forcing hardware vendors that wants their drivers signed to develop both versions

Micro$oft always creates huge learning curves every decate.
Their blue screen of death and their crashing dll-s is what keeps me employed.

For example: For years we've had c:\documents and settings\
Now in Vista we have c:\users .
Why? Because they want to annoy you. Let's just start fresh with another piece of crap software/os and let's not make it backwards compatible with the other Os-s we've shipped over the past decade.
Great! This is what keeps me employed.
So the new OS will look like Vista, but in another decade they'll come up with a whole new design which has nothing to do with the Windows we use now.

Huge learning curve? What's changed to the point where it's become difficult to use? If anything, things are getting easier for most people. For most end users, the main change is the new start menu, which now has a search box.


You mean the hardware makers and their shoddy drivers (who are causing the BSODs) are what's keeping you employed (ok, back when people used Win9x, sure, a large part of those were MS' own fault, but XP's been out for ages).


What's incompatible? 99% of stuff works just the same, even the 32 bit apps on the x64 versions of Windows. How is it not backward compatible? It's no worse than any previous version of Windows. The only thing that's not backward compatible specifically with Vista x64 is ancient 16 bit apps. That statement is at least 100% wrong.


Eh? The "documents and settings" thing was the annoying thing. And the name was fairly unrepresentative (should have been more like "User Profiles"). Those long names (like "Program Files") were meant to force developers to support long file names. Now that it's solved for good, we're moving to a more sane way to name things that's easier/faster to type. What's so hard about this anyways? Naming everything "my documents", "my pictures", "my music", and my everything was also pretty lame. Besides, I wouldn't complain about something that changed only once in 12+ years if you wanna complain about change.

With computers, you'll have to learn new things every so often, regardless of who makes the OS. Linux, Mac OS and others are no different. Some people adapt to change, others try to resist it. If anything, I'd complain it hasn't changed enough (they haven't solved many issues/made many things good enough yet).

'huge learning curves' = shorter paths to users files
BSODs, crashing dlls = employment
Micro$oft = Microsoft

You know i hate how greedy Microsoft is. They only released Vista to get more money. Yeah we need Windows XP SP12 in 2017 before they should try to make any money by releasing a new OS! They should just stop releasing new OSes and pay their bills with magic and smiles instead of dollars. Im sure their shareholders would understand. Sure they wouldnt make any money or push the market forward but shareholders like to make other people feel good so they wouldnt mind. Releasing a new product when their previous one has only been on the market for 5 years? Now thats pointless profit mongering im you ask me.


sounds like you hate Vista but id be willing to bet youd love Windows Mojave

Wow, a lot of Bill Gates lovers here.
I don't hate Microsoft, i'm just saying that their glitchy produtcs keep me employed.
Have fun with Windows 7!

In the same sense that not having irrational hatred towards this years' Ferrarri models makes you a Jean Todt lover?

Or is anyone that doesn't resist change, prefer the new ways, or plain disagrees with you automatically considered a "fanboy"?

That's why I love Microsoft, their mistakes are my profits OEMs, rejoyce!

It's great. This year for example, we have to train 2000 users on Office 2007. We have to teach them that Microsoft has created a ribbon.
This generates money (because someone has to pay for training), and that's why i love microsoft and their glitchy products.
Next year: Windows 7 training.
Awesome!

We're in for some big money, my friends and I think we love money at least as much as Microsoft

Also, let's not forget the concept of Software Assurance itself, it's always easier to milk companies than end-users

...riiiight, thats why they make it sooooo hard to report things, and why they have large dedicated teams just for specific bug types and OS areas etc, and umm.. cause the dev team for windows 7 are the same people who read your bug reports. . .

This just annoys me.

Windows 7 Kernel = Windows Vista Kernel + Despatcher Lock removed, Usermode scheduler added, Boot from VHD enabled and minwin + More. Now please tell me how you can possibly be so anti-vista and pro win 7 knowing what you now know....

i know it seems like a great idea to yell at him but he made the post in feb.. before we knew anything about 7 other than a few rumors...

LOL! sorry i did not see that
Oh well, my bad