Adios Vista! Windows 7 On The Horizon
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/te...29soft.html?em

I missed a chance at a preview of Windows 7 when other coworkers were chosen to attend a conference of sorts at Microsoft. But from what I understand, it's little more than Vista SP2. I imagine they've thrown a couple "new features" in there as well to justify selling it as it's own OS, but it's the same OS with a host of fixes.

What I haven't heard is if they'll be releasing a SP2 (sans new features) for Vista. That would be intensely lame of them to have made all of those fixes, which would be applicable to Vista, and not make them available.

I don't own a PC that runs Vista, nor do I own a Mac, and this may be a bit off topic, but the recent Apple commercials with the buzzer over the name Vista and the allocation of Microsoft resources to marketing make me laugh. They are really brilliant.

And if you take the time to think about it some marketing guy must have pulled '7' out of his butt.

Windows/386
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT
Windows XP
Windows 2000
Windows 2003
Windows Vista

Well, if you only count the ones that most consumers are familiar with:

1. Windows 95
2. Windows 98
3. indows XP
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows 2003
6. Windows Vista.

7

Don't forget there was brief period of time when there was Windows '97.
My high school library had it for a few months.

You would have to add Windows 3.11 and/or Windows ME to that list at the very least.

Clearly no one at Microsoft would want to count ME. And I consider the change from 3.11 to 95 a radical enough jump to disconnect it from the lineage. Someone who's never touched Windows 95 but has had experience with any of those later versions would be able to navigate Windows 95 fairly intuitively. Put them in front of 3.11 and they're in for a shock.

Yeah, shenanigans. Windows ME at the very least. 7 is HUH?


Still, I suppose any improvement on Vista is to be welcomed, no matter what it's called. And you can't blame them for dropping the name that finally equated Microsoft with FAIL.

There was never a Windows 97. Windows 98 was supposed to be out in 97. There may have been beta versions in 97, but those would have carried the code name "Memphis", not Windows 97.

There WAS an Office 97, that is often what causes people to think they've seen a Windows 97.

No, this was Windows 97.
It could have only been a beta version, but I remember it.

I know, I was trying to toss him a bone on that one but you had to call him out...

I would also argue that "Most Consumers" haven't got a clue what Windows 2003 is either.

Yep, I am clearly in the "most consumers" category and I've never heard of Windows 2003.





(Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)

I would argue that since Windows 2000 and Windows ME both came out, fancy that, around 2000, that they are counted as variations of the same release - even though one is VASTLY superior to the other

And all of this discussion only serves to support my argument. '7' was selected because it's a cool 'lucky' number.

He's either misremembering for the first time in his life, or he saw some weird hacked version, because Microsoft never put out a version of Windows branded as Windows '97, even in beta.

Alright, I'll pull 2K3 and concede ME.

Windows versions (consumer name / product version):

• Windows 1.0
• Windows 2.0
• Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 (including Windows for Workgroups)
• Windows NT 3.1, 3.51
• Windows 95 / 4.0
• Windows NT / 4.0
• Windows 98 / 4.1
• Windows ME / 4.2
• Windows 2000 / 5.0
• Windows XP / 5.1
• Windows Server 2003 / 5.1
• Windows Vista / 6.0
• Windows Server 2008 / 6.0

The next product version is 7.0, but as GD said Windows 7 should really be Vista SP2 and thus 6.1 or 6.2.

*forehead slap* Wow, I can't believe I forgot about that versioning.

When they jump version whole numbers (I.E.) 4.2 to 5.0 are they saying there are enough changes to warrent the new version and the 4.0 to 4.1 is simply a "fixed" version? Because it would seem to me that all versions were no more than fixes or patches with a few new features tossed in for marketing purposes (since I know nothing about the underlying code that makes it run).

Vista hasn't equated Microsoft with Fail for me. So far it has never crashed on me and the only time I have rebooted my computer since I got it was either for patch installs or because I was leaving the house for a few days and actually remembered to power down the computers before doing so.

Now, admittedly, I am not a super user. But for the average consumer who's computer use consists of email, YouTube, maybe a spreadsheet or word doc, and some gaming I have seen nothing at all problematic with Vista.

But the recent Apple commercials about budget priorities are funny (which most of them aren't, at least not in a way that is positive for Apple).

Windows X = Y.Z

Z and X change when there are significant feature adds to the OS without changes to the underlying architecture. Y changes when they change the basic underpinnings of the operating system. Meanwhile, there are actually finer grain version numbers (Y.Z.xxxxx) for bug fixes.

And, like Alex, I have never had the issues with Vista that make it supposedly so awful. And I'm somewhat of a power user.

The only people I know who haven't had issues with Vista are tech savvy people. So either there is an inherent technical nature to Vista that wasn't there with XP or people are breaking their computers.

Vista = Runs significantly slower than XP (on existing hardware)
Requires training for users coming from XP
Offers nothing new of any value.

For home users who surf, email and write documents it is a bloated behemoth of an operating system that just gets in the way.

Which is why I'm sticking with XP.

Here at work, we use the "Shared Docs" folder on MY (Vista) computer as our "server" (only 6 employees). I make a point of shutting down my computer at the end of each day, but even then we run into issues that require me to reboot during the day - sometimes more than once. Which means that everybody has to close any files they have open from Shared Docs - a real PITA.

We are supposed to be getting a real server soon.

BTW: if you are using Vista, do NOT the Windows Aero color scheme - it is a real memory hog.

Whereas I use Vista as my file server at home and the only time it's ever rebooted is after a system update.

Oh good lord man, what are you waiting for? Get a crappy old PC, load Unbuntu on it and use that for a windows file server. Done. Free.

Its not me: I wanted a server a long time ago.

Anecdotal or not .... I glad it's going. The sum of anecdotal I've been exposed to, whether or not it represents any accuracy, has led me to a distrust and disdain of Vista.

I haven't noticed this at all, then again I made sure I had enough RAM to run the program.
I didn't notice this either. Sure, things were laid out slightly differently but they didn't create any confusion that I recall.



Personally, I have had no issues with Vista at all. Never had a crash, never had any problem whatsoever, other than trying to get some older programs to work with it - but that is to be expected.

I hear all of the horror stories and find them puzzling. I'm perfectly happy with my purchase.

Permission is for L OSERS! Just do it. It'll be a month before anyone even notices they have stopped crashing and by then.....


(Or you could just stop downloading all that porn on your vista PC)

Vista is everything I had come to expect from Microsoft and its years of experience.

I like that one of Moonie's knocks on Vista is that it "requires training" for prior XP users, but then he suggest switching to Unbuntu.

So you spent exrta $$$ to make sure you could run Vista, and for that what exactly did you get in return? What is vista doing for you that XP would not do faster, better, cheaper?

Supports more than five simultaneous users logged into Shared Docs.

I'm giving Kevy credit for being above average in that area. Perhaps I misspoke.

Also, I did not suggest an across the board switch to Ubuntu. It just fits this specific issue, how to get a stable file sharing PC on the cheap.

:rolleyes: You run Windows XP HOME at your business?

I cry for you.

I wouldn't have paid to upgrade to Vista since XP is perfectly fine. But it came with a new computer and I've had no issues with it.

As for things I like in Vista, the preview pop up when you hover over an item in the taskbar is great. I use it all of the time to track progress of things in other collapsed windows. I'm sure you'll point out a dozen alternatives with XP and I wouldn't argue, but I hadn't experienced it before, it is there, and I like it.

The built in photo importing with tagging, filenaming, and directory structuring is good. The search functionality. WoW looks better with it. The built in voice recognition software worked pretty well for me though I quickly found that interacting with your computer verbally simply sucks balls.

Are any of these reasons in themself for an OS upgrade? No, I wouldn't have paid to do so. But they are things I like and so far I haven't run into anything I don't like. The only software problem I've run into is that the help files in my very old copy of PhotoImpact no longer work. Every other piece of pre-Vista software I moved over worked fine.

I'm sure, though, that you'll try to convince me that I really hate it and just don't know yet. Yes, it is bloated, all MS stuff is. Yes, it is technically inefficient, that goes with bloat. But it worked fine out of the box required no tweaking by me and makes Justin Long (in my own anecdotal experience) look like a liar.

Nope, didn't really spend any extra money. I bought a laptop, it came with Vista and had enough RAM to run it. So far, it has done everything I've wanted it to do. Would XP work just as well? Perhaps. But it was the same price to load the system with XP as it was Vista, and regardless, I wanted to have more RAM. So I don't feel like I sacrificed anything. And I don't think I am suffering in any way for my decision.

All that extra RAM goes into running the OS. Bleh. I'd rather see the focus on the applications.

Still, XP does have it's limits like the 4GB cap on RAM. Fortunitly the new memory hogging vista raises that limit to..... Oh, wait. Never mind Vista ram is capped at 4GB too.