Windows 7 -> 2011

L

LstBrunnenG

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 3, 2003
Messages
6,676
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/28/windows-7-isnt-headed-for-2009-says-microsoft-more-like-2011/
Contrary to previous rumors of Microsoft planning a Windows 7 release sometime in 2009, Microsoft has apparently gotten in touch with WinVistaClub and set the record straight: Windows 7 is in "planning stages," and development will take approximately three years.
Click to expand...

Seems as though those people who said they could just skip Vista and wait for Windows 7 are out of luck. Also, likely by then, people will have gotten used to Vista and start demonizing Windows 7 for whatever they perceive its shortcomings to be.
 
winvistaclub = reliable ?


since when ?



In that article they also say they haven't even started on 7 yet... but some people have already recieved M1 builds, i believe chris123nt.com verified these on a different forum. I don't understand why you like vista so much, as to attempt to bash on other people about it.
 
Windows 7 is way past just the "planning stage". There has already been at least one build using the minwin kernel. Most likely more than one.
 
Verge said:
I don't understand why you like vista so much, as to attempt to bash on other people about it.
Click to expand...
Because the level of Vista-bashing on here is way beyond legitimate critiques. Vista isn't a bad OS at all, but some people, for various ridiculous reasons can't go on living without baselessly bashing it. I also don't see where he was bashing anyone else, leading you to post these comments.
 
That seems like rather unreliable information, since the early builds of it are already floating around out there in the vendorsphere.

That said, however, after putting off my Vista adoption until September of last year, I've been running Vista 64 since then with no problems.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Because the level of Vista-bashing on here is way beyond legitimate critiques. Vista isn't a bad OS at all, but some people, for various ridiculous reasons can't go on living without baselessly bashing it. I also don't see where he was bashing anyone else, leading you to post these comments.
Click to expand...

the demonizing incinuation(sp i'm not in linux) is where i get the bashing from... regardless, i would take this news story with a large grain of salt.
 
MS needs to just totally drop all legacy hardware and software support for the next OS, make it a 64 bit OS that can not in any way shape or form run 32/16 bit apps. Then they can focus on cutting down on the bloated software designed to run on 1000 different versions of hardware.

Serial? Nope
PS/2? Nope
LPT? Nope
IDE/PATA/FDD? Nope
 
They should but they won't. PS/2 and IDE will be around awhile yet. LPT and Serial need to go as well as FDD. That stuff is beyond ancient.
 
serial aint going anywhere. Do you realised how simple the serial protocol is. Us hardware enthusiast love it

Also Voltech have a nice power analyser that cost a fortune right... on release they provided RS232 words for remote control, but they are yet to even provide one control word for the USB interface why? cause USB is a pig to work in with hardware, RS232 aint.
 
Nanan said:
MS needs to just totally drop all legacy hardware and software support for the next OS, make it a 64 bit OS that can not in any way shape or form run 32/16 bit apps. Then they can focus on cutting down on the bloated software designed to run on 1000 different versions of hardware.

Serial? Nope
PS/2? Nope
LPT? Nope
IDE/PATA/FDD? Nope
Click to expand...


Once again i will say, the average consumer makes up much less marketshare for windows than you think. Businesses require some of these ports (every work with cisco hardware, have fun with no serial console) and business make huge investments in microsoft products... a shitload more than the 8 bucks microsoft makes by selling vista home on a Emachine. Businesses don't like vista, and microsoft realizes this.. they are pushing through with 7.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Because the level of Vista-bashing on here is way beyond legitimate critiques. Vista isn't a bad OS at all, but some people, for various ridiculous reasons can't go on living without baselessly bashing it.
Click to expand...


That is because Vista bashing started off out of jealousy. The Vista Bashers first were jealous of the new Vista owners and started bashing it, hoping that it would flop and they would be right. But instead, Vista is pretty damn awesome and now the at first jealous Vista Bashers are realizing they have one of two options. 1) Eat their words and get Vista since they realize it is awesome and they do want it, or 2) Keep bashing it and making new shit up to say about it now that things like Superfetch have been beaten to death. Now this news about a 2011 release is not looking good for option 2 for Vista Bashers.

I hope all the Vista Bashers have learned a lesson, but I doubt it since this has been going on since when Windows 3.0 was upgraded to Windows 3.11.
 
I understand that serial ports are sometimes needed which is why things like PCI-SERIAL CARD come in handy. I wish my laptop did have a serial port so I didn't have to use a USB to Serial adapter when I do computer flashes for my car. I did several serial driven projects back in college working with PLC programming, I know that it is "easier" but really come on, it is 2008, why are we still using this technology?

But my point is almost no one outside of a few industry's use Serial/rs232 ports and such these days... The average home user on their Dell/Gateway/Sony/HP/ wouldn't even know what a serial port is, let alone have a use for it.

If you strip away backwards compatibility you will remove most of the issues with Vista, look at the PS3, almost all of it's issues are from backwards compatibility, granted this was a problem Sony made for themselves but really...


I love Vista 64 Ultimate, the only thing I have a problem with is the drivers signage enforcement crap that I disabled with VistaBootPro a few weeks ago.
 
well, reality is that people still use those "ancient" devices. You cant just tell people, tough, upgrade or lose out. I started using xp full time like way after sp2 was released. So, maybe I'll switch to vista in 2010.
 
MS really does not want it to come out how close they really are to Windows 7, especially how poorly Vista did. If every one knows to hold off, not just sale on operating, but also whole systems because people will avoid Vista if they can.
 
Negative press and a poor image in the eyes of the public (or as I like to say pube-lic). Hey it may have sold well, but walk up to any "Joe", "Dick" or "Harry" and ask there opinion on Vista and what everyone else thinks of it and 2 out of three of them will tell you how terrible Vista did, thats a fact Jack.

And if anyone can break the code in this message, kudos.
 
Nanan said:
I love Vista 64 Ultimate, the only thing I have a problem with is the drivers signage enforcement crap that I disabled with VistaBootPro a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...

I, and most other sysadmin's i have talked to do have a problem with it... it offers nothing to businesses.... sorry microsoft, waiting till 7


Lots of these people have EA agreements as well, so cost would be 0.00 dollars to upgrade... but it just isn't worth the headaches for freaking transparent windows.
 
I'm a sysadmin, and I couldn't imagine on a business computer how the driver signing requirements would ever cause a problem. Vista also gives you quite a bit more than transparent windows. A good sysadmin wouldn't close their mind to a product on such a trivial matter. A good sysadmin would keep an open mind, and would request several copies of Vista to be using and testing.
 
Verge said:
I, and most other sysadmin's i have talked to do have a problem with it... it offers nothing to businesses.... sorry microsoft, waiting till 7


Lots of these people have EA agreements as well, so cost would be 0.00 dollars to upgrade... but it just isn't worth the headaches for freaking transparent windows.
Click to expand...


Right on. The benefits of going through the upgrade from XP to Vista is not that great, and that is no fault of Vista, but more of a compliment to XP. XP works fine.

Back when businesses did the upgrading from something like 9x to XP, it was a no brainer. It took alot of trials and alot of testing, but the benefits were huge.
 
Met-AL said:
Right on. The benefits of going through the upgrade from XP to Vista is not that great, and that is no fault of Vista, but more of a compliment to XP. XP works fine.

Back when businesses did the upgrading from something like 9x to XP, it was a no brainer. It took alot of trials and alot of testing, but the benefits were huge.
Click to expand...

What "business" upgraded from 9x to XP? Maybe a mom and pop workshop or something, but everyone else was on 2k or at least NT4 with hardware that could barely run XP. So it really was not a "no brainer". In fact, the situation was very similar to the current one.
 
Maximus825 said:
What "business" upgraded from 9x to XP? Maybe a mom and pop workshop or something, but everyone else was on 2k or at least NT4 with hardware that could barely run XP. So it really was not a "no brainer". In fact, the situation was very similar to the current one.
Click to expand...

Well, our company did that. We were running a Novel Netware network and the client for W2K didn't work properly. We were stuck with 9x until we moved the entire system off of Novel servers to Windows servers, by then XP was out.

I miss my old DOS based workstation I had sitting here beside this one. It was a P233 16MB running DOS and Netware and I could run reports on that thing so fast.
 
Maximus825 said:
Windows 7 is way past just the "planning stage"
Click to expand...
Some [very ignorant] people think Microsoft put off work on Vista until years after XP. That was simply just wrong, work on Vista began about the time XP was released, and I even want to say a few months BEFORE release.


Nanan said:
MS needs to just totally drop all legacy hardware and software support for the next OS,
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. They FINALLY started doing this with Vista. The result? A more stable OS.

Not having to support all this crap that 1% of the population uses anymore can solve many issues.


Nanan said:
Serial? Nope
PS/2? Nope
LPT? Nope
IDE/PATA/FDD? Nope
Click to expand...
I'd leave that up to folks at Dell. Still need some serial support, it is such a simple interface.
PS/2 COULD go out the door, however until a minimum of 6 USB ports is used in all machines, you can't tie up your only two...

IDE will stay around.

FDD can die. I don't know anyone who uses them anymore. Heck, I haven't touched a floppy in over a year.


Verge said:
I, and most other sysadmin's i have talked to do have a problem with it...
Click to expand...
The only sysadmins saying anything about Vista are they very stupid ignorant ones that should have never been placed in their positions. Period. Stupid, stupid stuff is said that if you have used Vista for 5 minutes, you'd know isn't true.

Deploying Vista in my company would not be much of an issue at all. I have a single Vista machine running our apps on a notebook, and it is 100% fine.

It's just right now, the COST associated with upgrading to Vista is just too great to consider it. XP works. It's just the headache of people refusing to learn something new that keeps me away from pushing it into our business.

A great example: Office 2007. Much like Vista. All new machines have this on it. Those folks that use it HATED it at first. They wanted to kill me.
However after some time, they got used to it and love it. I sit them down in front of an Office 2003 copy, and they discover how much longer and more complicated it is to do things.

Much the same with Vista. Vista's interface really hasn't changed much compared to Office.

I'd personally wait until Server 2008 is released to provide some good server-side support first, personally. I'm assuming it will allow you to fine-tune the UAC settings and such. IE, don't prompt on all these apps, anything else is allowed.


However, for the home user, Vista is great. Everyone I've put it in front of has liked it.
 
Vista isn't a bad OS at all, but some people, for various ridiculous reasons can't go on living without baselessly bashing it.
Click to expand...

I don't like it because it doesn't perform as well on games and comes with lots of bloat. Not exactly baseless bashing.
 
the doesnt performa well in games issue has become such a small factor now it is almost non existant,maybe a year ago when it came out but recently since drivers have become better, which was the problem, NOT vista, but poor driver support, gaming is as good on vista as it is on XP, same as when XP came out, people said XP sucked stick with 2K, t his is the same crap as when Xp came out and in a years time everyone will have vista saying how great it is!

What is all the bloat? Are you one of the people who ran out to get vista ultimate even though you didnt need %99 of what it had and would of done fine with Home Premium.... and then com,lained Vista sucked cause it has all this crap!! Ultimate is So bloated and slow,... but i had to buy Ultimate so i could brag i have "ULTIMATEEEEEEE" edition.

Doesnt seem very bloated to me..

Any new OS is going to use more resources, as hardware grows, so does software, amazing how people cry when the OS uses your ram, or video card to work better and faster
 
DeaconFrost said:
Because the level of Vista-bashing on here is way beyond legitimate critiques.
Click to expand...

I find the opposite to be true. The level of Vista fanboism is beyond the norm on this forum. And before you bash me for saying that I am posting this from my Vista PC. But there is no way in hell I would use this Vista PC as my main gaming box. Not until the drivers are up to XP level anyway. I know that drivers are not really Microsoft's fault but they are the ones that changed everything around and made things difficult for the hardware driver writers. Both my PC's have 8800GT with latest video drivers. I downloaded a free game called UFO: Alien Invasion. When trying to get it to run in full screen on Vista it crashed every time and I could only run it windowed. On XP there was no issue running it full screen at all. And yet I see people in this forum post that Vista is the better gaming OS. In fact, I have seen some claim Vista64 is the better gaming OS. That says fanboys to me, big time, because I know those kinds of claims are absolutely bollocks.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Any new OS is going to use more resources, as hardware grows, so does software, amazing how people cry when the OS uses your ram, or video card to work better and faster
Click to expand...

But it doesn't work better or faster. An OS should be efficient and unobtrusive. Vista is neither. You know why consoles can run games so well for a fraction of the cost of a gaming PC? Because they are designed to be efficient from the ground up. PC's use the all muscle and no brains approach to run games. Sort of like American muscle cars from the '60's and '70's. That's backwards thinking IMO and needs to be changed.
 
milkweg said:
That says fanboys to me, big time, because I know those kinds of claims are absolutely bollocks.
Click to expand...
And right there is where I have a problem with both sides of the argument. Everyone trys to argue on their own personal opinions, and just makes the assumption that their system is typical of the norm. Honestly, I use my Vista x64 as a gaming box, and all of my games play as well or better than they do when I dual-booted with XP. Does that mean it will work that way for everyone? Absolutely not. But I sure as hell am smart enough to know my situation may not be the same for everyone.

They only thing that's "bullocks" is that anyone takes their own single computer and tries to stretch it's behavior to cover everyone. As you, I, and everyone else knows, there are so many variables at work here, and so many directions to points fingers when things don't work, it's damn near impossible to make generalized statements....however so many do, and argue with others on those statements.
 
TechieSooner said:
The only sysadmins saying anything about Vista are they very stupid ignorant ones that should have never been placed in their positions. Period. Stupid, stupid stuff is said that if you have used Vista for 5 minutes, you'd know isn't true.
Click to expand...


I got lucky and hit up the vista connect program very early(longhorn rather)... so assuming i, or most people in the technology field, haven't used vista for more than 5 minutes, is absolutely retarded.


It's not about it being bloated or not, it's that it offers nothing new for most businesses, so it's insane to waste countless hours of labor deploying vista to 5,000 pc's. Of course, you talk like you are in the industry, so i'm sure you know this.
 
It offers UAC. Now, I don't know how well Server 2008 can tune this, but it could be a huge advantage in controlling your network.

All the advanced security features are much better. Windows Defender is built in.
Superfetch means people can work faster.

Very many features I'd love to have. My main problem is the big amount of complaining I'd get introducing something different from what they are used to.
 
griffinhart said:
No, It's worse. It's uninformed, baseless vista bashing.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/default.asp

Vista has performed as well and in some cases better than XP while gaming for a while now. The early problems were due to imature drivers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I ask one question to those who argue otherwise: Give me a recent study to say otherwise.

The fact of the matter is anything RECENT shows just what you said: Just as good or better as XP in gaming.
Sure, you can give me links clear back from 2006 or earlier 2007, I'd agree. But anything RECENT shows differently.
 
I ran Vista 32bit Ultimate for a couple months until my Aero interface took a dump and glitched out. Switched back to XP, and lo and behold, my Aero doesn't die anymore :D

That was about 5 moths ago, maybe things are better these days?

Hopefully Windows 7 will have the features that Vista was supposed to have(Indigo, WinFS, etc.)
 
griffinhart said:
Vista has performed as well and in some cases better than XP while gaming for a while now. The early problems were due to imature drivers.
Click to expand...

Nvidia Vista drivers are still immature and Vista has been out in retail for over a year now. A friend of mine has been having major grief trying to get Vista stable with a Nvidia 7950GX2 video card and now he has to buy a new mb that is recommended by Nvidia for use with that video card to try and fix it. Vista has been far more problematic for the end user than XP ever was.
 
Met-AL said:
Right on. The benefits of going through the upgrade from XP to Vista is not that great, and that is no fault of Vista, but more of a compliment to XP. XP works fine.
Click to expand...

I think that's the best outlook on the matter. There are few reasons to upgrade from XP to Vista, but if you're about to buy a new OS, I can't see many reasons to get XP.

Vista has somewhat of an inherent disadvantage over XP: XP is a 6-year-old OS heavily based on an 8-year-old OS, which means that everyone's extremely familiar with the way it works, most of the bugs that people might encounter have been fixed, and drivers are mature. XP was also a huge improvement for people who'd been suffering with the 9x line (although I didn't see any reason to upgrade from 2000 to XP any more than XP to Vista). Vista can't offer any huge stability improvements since everyone's on NT now, and it did have bugs and poor drivers compared to XP on release, which isn't surprising for an OS with some pretty major changes underneath. Saying that you'll stick with old technology forever because it's known and stable might work for NASA and the military, but it's not ideal for most people, hence the most sensible attitude is usually to wait a bit before moving to a new OS.

I've been happy with my Vista machine which I got in December; I can't fault its stability and the only bug I've encountered is USB microphones not working properly on machines with 4GB of RAM, which a hotfix resolved. I've also not met any issues with the Nvidia drivers for my 8800 GTS 512.
 
milkweg said:
Nvidia Vista drivers are still immature and Vista has been out in retail for over a year now. A friend of mine has been having major grief trying to get Vista stable with a Nvidia 7950GX2 video card and now he has to buy a new mb that is recommended by Nvidia for use with that video card to try and fix it. Vista has been far more problematic for the end user than XP ever was.
Click to expand...
You're generalizing. The drivers for Vista are much more mature than they were a year ago. Sure, they got more maturing to do. And with Vista SP1 coming out soon there will be more improvements. XP had its share of issues with drivers well past a year of release. XP wasn't really solid until SP1 came out and got even better after SP2.
 
More mature drivers? WOW where have you been, MS has not even alowed for drivers that have been used for years now with some hardware to work in vista. All MS is worried about is if they are signed. Witch(get me a broom) they will not be because most sever software which I use there is not up to date program for, so why would they want signed drivers. Qlogic, Supermicro and others just are not getting things signed by the software police.

All they are doing is making life a nightmare for people using workstations. So the high end hardware it going elsewhere I guess. I shure will not build anymore for Vista for my customers.
 
crewzen said:
More mature drivers? WOW where have you been, MS has not even alowed for drivers that have been used for years now with some hardware to work in vista. All MS is worried about is if they are signed. Witch(get me a broom) they will not be because most sever software which I use there is not up to date program for, so why would they want signed drivers. Qlogic, Supermicro and others just are not getting things signed by the software police.

All they are doing is making life a nightmare for people using workstations. So the high end hardware it going elsewhere I guess. I shure will not build anymore for Vista for my customers.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone use Vista as a server?
 
TechieSooner said:
Some [very ignorant] people think Microsoft put off work on Vista until years after XP. That was simply just wrong, work on Vista began about the time XP was released, and I even want to say a few months BEFORE release..
Click to expand...

Yea, and they effed it up so had to go back to square one and use Windows Server 2003 as the base code instead of XP so Vista was not that long in development at all. That explains why it was released still in a beta state. I'm not going to say you are ignorant but you are misinformed if you think the Vista we have today has been in development since XP was released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top