Windows 7 [merged thread]

Hi Guys,

Windows Vista was Windows 6, Launched to the Business world officially on November 30th, 2006 & Launched to one and all on January 30th, 2007.

Now Windows 7 is already being planned for release Late 2009/2010! Mile stone 3 for Windows 7 is expected to be at Q3 2008.

In my opinion, Microsoft is rushing it! They are also saying this is the last 32bit Operating System, Since 64bit has advances!

Your thoughts?

Josh.

Many, but as I have a party to go to for my niece I’ll keep it brief.

Windows is rushing Windows 7 out and that’s a clear sign that things aren’t going as well as they had hoped for Vista. There are a bunch of recent articles running out there as to why that is, the majority of them point to one idea: Unless Microsoft changes it’s game for OS’s it is in trouble. Please don’t take this to mean that I think Microsoft will ever go under because I certainly don’t think that is true, but they stand to lose ground they once held onto so tightly. One such article is here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8428&tag=nl.e550

As far as 32 bit vs 64 bit operating systems go, that’s all well and good, more power to them for saying it but I think they’re running into a problem (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

While 64 bit has its pros it has a wealth of cons even today. I don’t know what, just remember reading about it. Perhaps the most important thing I can think of is this, and I’m a perfect example: I’ve held onto my Pavilion ZV5000 model computer since I graduated high school in 2004. I intend to use it until it can’t be used anymore. This computer, while good enough for my needs, can’t use a 64 bit operating system (as far as I know) and I certainly don’t intend to replace the computer for Windows 7 just because its here and new just like I didn’t (and won’t for Vista). My point is this: People aren’t going to run out and purchase a brand new operating system at extraordinarily expensive prices when they’re old one is doing just fine. I can’t find a good reason to migrate otherwise I would.

That is ultimately what this boils down to isn’t it? You want me to switch, give me a good reason and make it worth it for me. In truth, there doesn’t seem to be that reason out there right now.

Add on to that the ridiculous hardware requirements (and the requirements of software) just to run it and it doesn’t seem worth it. I’d rather hang on to my legacy operating system on my legacy computer to do whatever I need to do.

I believe the article mentioned above also talks about Microsofts ever expanding code base and how it is just somewhat too massive for them to build on. Now I know nothing about that so I shall stop right here and enjoy my 3 yr old nieces company, but that doesn’t seem like a good thing to me.

Now if someone wants to enlighten me (as I do believe I made a mistake) about the 32 vs 64 bits and whether or not computers are… interchangeable… in the sense that they can run either or depending on whats installed then please do. I have a feeling I missed something there and when it comes to hardware I’m out of my league. I just wanted to share my thoughts.

Dave

Just one thought - DELAY IT ANOTHER 2 OR 3 YEARS. Give Vista some time to grow and breathe, and XP to die out.

I think they’re on the right track with the concept of the MinWin micro kernel, but whether they do it right is another thing.

Ewen :slight_smile:

I know nothing about Windows 7, but I only have one wish: M$ should take advantage of their position as a multi-billion company, and use their financial strength to create a brand new OS from scratch. Don’t make Windows 7 to a further development of the old OS’s and make something completely new instead. Make it stable and fast from the beginning… Let the users chose what to install and not to install. Don’t make it even more bloated and heavy.

In the end, all I want is a non-bloated OS, so I guess that means I should stay on an nLited XP. Maybe I’ll get a vLited Vista some day, I don’t know.

LA

Surely MS won’t ask users what to install. We had that already in Win 3.0 and continuously decreasing to XP and Vista. Most users don’t care if there is too much but they do care if they aren’t able to do things because they are missing. And btw you could choose to not install “Windows Genuine Advantage” and DRM support which would inevitably lead to missing the “Windows Experience”. :wink:

I read an interesting article about how to convert Win Server2008 into a fast and usable desktop OS. Perhaps that’s the way to go for a fast and slim OS. Probably quite expensive though.

If you want to have full control, migrate to Linux.

My simple opinion (untrained) why there is talk so soon of another OS from Microsoft, so soon after Vista is just starting to be accepted by the general population; and software authors are releasing more programs that are compatible and work with Vista.

In reading reviews of Vista, it seems to have shut it self off from the past that its programming must have been overlapping with one script on top of a script that was given up on, without a deep script cleaning before its release.

Why Vista failed in its initial release

  1. The patch job in hurrying to get it out the door, rather than wait to perfect the new features.

  2. It was “NOT” backward compatible compared to previous versions. Even if the public raved about Vista if Businesses had problems it would not have a great start. If you are a Business Owner and 10,000 computers and need to spend money to improve your internal system you easily write it off to business expenses, but IF you are “required” to install new software because your old software is not compatible, and the cost for software could equal 5 yo 10 times that amount, most businesses will balk at making such a move.

  3. There were Too, TOO many glitches when Vista was first released, from security rules that caused more problems to glitches were certain features a user or business depended on just crashed.

4 The pricing seemed high, and for those willing to spend the most so they could have the Best because of ad ons, their pockets were picked. There were NO ad ons still many many months after (almost as if it was forgotten)? Not sure but currently were those ad ons worth the elevated cost of its price ?

If they can greatly improve on the backward compatibility, keep working on the sludge of pages that are not used but still are contained in the Vista programming, and ensure piracy prevention programs do not lock up a users system, will have a chance to catch on be accepted for several years to come.

Security can never be taken for granted because besides targeting the OS it is also targeting human behavior. I am making a prediction that by Feb of 09 both Linux and MAC will have major Malware attacks that will make newspaper headlines.
This will be because both OS have many many users/fans that are lax on security, and also the Malware programmers want to show it can be done!

Microsoft products will still be the major target, because of the number of users.

Microsoft to ensure Windows 7, 8 or even 11 is successful, must

  1. ensure backward compatibility

  2. make sure programming pages are tight and clean

  3. Make definitely sure the above does “NOT” occur again

  4. I see programmers at Microsoft dreaming about a system shown on some shows that have a holographic display with no mouse and image computer keys on a smooth surface or no keys at all.

    Dreams like that are not affordable to most, so should be a module that is evolving to the OS.
    Vista had too many different versions, home basic was not recommend by many. so maybe two versions for home and business should stay the standard with upgrade modules. And cheaper by the dozen could be a term used again?

Finally why do some software companies feel that their product should be marketed like a car, every year and in some instances like OS systems every 5 years?

When new features are developed they could be add ons, and when the software authors develop a new technique for better performance that is when a new OS should be released.
Look at how many programs want to run at startup and try and grab their piece of ram, does Quick Time, Adobe reader, Windows Media Player, etc etc updates really need to run at start up? Where 256 ram was a lot before 1 gig will now barely get you by in some instances. Many software authors forget about the end user and the use of other programs and only thing about their program. New OS systems must make better use of resources and be a better traffic cop when it comes to system resource use by all programs not just their own.

Microsoft must concentrate on improving XP and not in getting a NEW and BRIGHTER and More Gadgets out the door in 3 to 5 years. The Trust and Dependability issue comes into play with the fiasco they had the first year after Vista’s release.

By the way I am still using XP. Mainly because I did not need a new computer, nor could afford one? The compatibility issue and the fiasco were my biggest concerns.

UncleDoug

The left button on my mouse broke so I might have a few typo’s

The main problem with Vista is: There is no reason to upgrade. There is basically nothing that I can’t do with Windows XP.

Oh well, DX10 gets the gamers and the polished UI gets those that would have bought a Mac. They say security is better with Vista but you don’t get people with security, that’s not a killer app.

Why aren’t there kernel improvements that make it faster than XP? Speed would be a real incentive to update.
And if you don’t offer something that also convinces the pros they will write and tell everywhere that Vista isn’t worth it.

The problem of MS is that XP is rock-solid and fulfils most wishes. And it gets SP3. I bet MS would cancel SP3 if pressure to bring it wasn’t that big.

I’ve never used Vista, but this is the impression I get too. I did read a 20-page guide, carefully, with all new features and possibilities. I was blown away by its crappiness (not the guide, but Vista). Really, I couldn’t find a single thing I needed, it was all the opposite: “I don’t want this, I don’t want that, this is no improvement just a change for the cause of a change, that’s just bloated, this is just messy”.

Can’t imagine a better platform than the one XP has provided for me. It’s so simple, clean and straight. Fast and stable. Very secure with CFP 3 (concerning CFP 3, of course it’s the same on Vista). So, Windows 7 does have quite a lot to prove for me!!!

LA

Once you turn off UAC, you get a very XP like experience from Vista, with a few actual enhancements-but nothing I would pay for. It does seem to have a bit better stability and error recovery for some uses-in the year + I have been using Vista, I have only had the system get hosed enough to go back to an image once (Due to Comodo ;)) where with the same surf and installation habits it happened several times a year with XP. Also, once the drivers caught up, they don’t BSOD any more like they still did with a lot of the XP stuff. I almost never see a BSOD. I worried a lot about drivers initially, since a main use of my Vista computers is marine navigation and communication, with lots of RS-232 and USB instruments, but other than plain lazyness on the part of the vendors the drivers arrived and work very well. And the “found new hardware” really works right and finds the right drivers. Vista even found a good driver for a PC card serial adapter when the vendor said there wasn’t one yet.
So I am fine with it coming on my newer laptops, with enough power and space to deal with it, but certainly see no reason to upgrade a perfectly good XP machine to get it. And how MS will change all this perception for Windows 7 is certainly beyond me. ???

Windows 7 if they do a better job than Vista yes, I would not advise upgrading from XP to Vista it is not worth it.
The only reason I have Vista because it came on my desktop comp. I am disappointed that Acer supplyed it with only 1MB ram this did cause problems at startup a lot better since SP1.
I do like some things about Vista but not enought to upgrade, UAC is useful in a limited account but a total mess it a admin account.
Dennis

I have UAC turned off.

I also purchased an Laptop last year in November that came with vista, I did have a Desktop PC on XP for 4 years but it died on me.

Otherwise, I wouldn’t off upgraded to Vista. But it does have it’s enhancements.

Josh

I have an Acer PC with only 768mb of RAM. I have UAC turned off and use CFP3 and Avast antivirus and I must say that for the majority of things it is faster than any XP pc I ever used, including the one at work with 2gb RAM. I have a 1gb usb stick that I use for Readyboost.

I was no fan of Vista at first but it is growing on me now.

Of course I haven’t tried to set up a LAN at work with it yet… ;D

I got a new PC last year. I turned down a really good deal on a new PC because it had Vista. I ended up getting a decent deal on a new PC with XP. I was hearing about how they were having problems with Vista and I knew XP was pretty good.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Microsoft puts out a good one, then a couple really ■■■■■■ ones? For example, I thought Windows 2000 was really good. And Windows ME was complete garbage. XP has proven itself as a good, stable OS, and Vista is looking more and more like another ME.

I havent looked into Vista too much, but for me personally, from what I know, the only appealing thing about it is the built in encryption, but of course I dont trust Microsoft to not put in a back door. I’d rather just stick with XP and use Eraser and TrueCrypt - you can view the source code and know there are no back doors.

In my opinion, Microsoft needs to slow the hell down. Stay commited to Vista, get it to where its actually better than XP (like its supposed to be), and then focus on a new thing.

For me, there is a bit of a turnoff when someone puts out new stuff too quickly. Esp. for musicians and bands.

Black Label Society for example - Zakk Wylde. Great musician, hell of a guitarist. His first album was awesome, second one was quite possibly even better, third was was pretty ■■■■ cool in its own way, then his fourth was pretty decent, then the next year he put out another album, then the next year another album, then the next year another album, same the next year, again and again and again and again. God ■■■■, I just got turned off. I like to wait, I like the anticipation. When a band just puts out an album every ■■■■ year, I get sick of it. Come on, make us wait for it. Make us WANT IT. Make us say “GOD I CANT FKING WAIT UNTIL THE NEW ONE’S OUT!”

… plus, you know, thats kinda my style. I like to do something, and then do nothing for a good long while.

… then when I get around to it, I’ll do something else.

… then just kinda …

yep.

Also, I think Bill Gates needs to take a word from a very wise man

“If anything’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right” - Hunter S. Thompson

I agree.

Windows Vista has TOO MANY BUGS! Even with Vista SP1 out! It is too slow, too bloated, You now need the reccomanded 1gig RAM For Vista, While XP you only need 64MB! Plus it takes up alot off HD Space. I am GLAD I got XP HOME SP2 back on my Laptop now, Much more stable & Easier. IMO, XP SP2 is the most stable OS out.

VISTA POEM

Virus
Infections
Spyware
Trojans
Adware

Josh

(:m*) Two posts moved to the XP SP3 thread:

https://forums.comodo.com/general_discussion_off_topic_anything_and_everything/windows_xp_sp3_experiences-t22270.0.html

LA

I read somewhere that Windows Vista has roughly 1 million lines of code!!! That is huge, and at that point of course it is going to be unstable because it would simply take too long to look over every line and make sure one line doesn’t conflict with another.

Which is why there were many problems at Vista’s launch, and why so many patches need to be released, to fix the conflicting code.

Microsoft never should have allowed the code base to become that large, 1 million lines is just too big, especially since Vista offers no amazing new features! Only reason I use Vista is to keep up with new software so I can help with supporting it, but I keep XP on my notebook. They need to completely remake Windows 7 from the ground up and not worry about compatibility, they just need to make sure developers have what they need so there are stable drivers and programs that will actually run.

They need to completely remake Windows 7 from the ground up
+1

Xan

MS is always developing its kernel further.
XP RTM → XP SP2 → Server2003/XP64 → Vista RTM → Server 2008/Vista SP1
They are slowly migrating to that MinWin concept but that will still take time. There was an interview with MS’s Mark Russinovich (once Sysinternals) about the Server2008 kernel. They are putting lots of focus on virtualisation and security.

Basically the kernels are very powerful and versatile and exactly that is what makes them eat up all the hardware development. You trade comfort with speed. It’s the same with linux but with linux you always have the option to lean on either side. With MS you are basically on a fixed position and that is more on the comfort and not on the speed side.

I don’t think they need to redesign Windows 7 from the ground up but I think they need to do the transition to the MinWin kernel much quicker. And they should not forget about the users. UAC was a desaster which they mainly corrected in SP1. It’s like CFP on “Custom Policy Mode” - no good for novice users.

Just my 2c

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with this. If you are a programmer, you know how difficult it can be to develop software for Windows. Windows Vista has over 1 million lines of code, let me put that in number format:

X>1,000,000

This is the cause of the constant BSODs users experience, the problems with running software, and the overall instability of the operating system. In my opinion (and many may not agree with me), Microsoft needs to drop backwards compatibility all together, and develop from the ground up, that’s the only thing that can be done at this point, because if they keep adding on to the code like they have been doing, soon that 1,000,000 will turn into 2,000,000 and so on. And this does not just effect the overall user experience, if you look deeper, all of that code will cause major security issues, and Microsoft will only get blamed for not building a secure OS (again).

The best thing Microsoft can do for the next version of Windows, is scrap the current code they have for Vista, and create new code. They need to take there time and make Windows 7 good, or they will suffer drastically.