Preventing Another Vista-like Release With Windows 7

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."

Try Linux

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...

Re:Try Linux

Then try Linux, and you'll never complain about the Windows driver situation again...

Yeah. Cause then it'll be Linux that you're complaining about.

I mean seriously, when you have driver troubles in Linux, it's NOT going to be solved by running a self-executable installer downloaded from the hardware manufacturer.

Re:Try Linux

At least Linux gives you a choice of user interfaces...

The fact that Microsoft can't figure out that making a massive non intuitive change to the UI (when it isn't required for functionality) is insane. Business needs simple and straight forward solutions. It doesn't need a 'cartoon' interface.

BTW - How come their new, more secure OS lists EVERY USER NAME at login? (and you can't turn it off...)
Lets play "Guess which user has a weak password"! The game is much easier if you start with all of the user names.

Re:Try Linux

BTW - How come their new, more secure OS lists EVERY USER NAME at login? (and you can't turn it off...)
Lets play "Guess which user has a weak password"! The game is much easier if you start with all of the user names.

Nice rant there. You can turn it off (first), and second, the username is not supposed to be part of the secret, just the password is (I know for example your Slashdot username is Gription. Got weak password?). Ubuntu will also show (among other distros) list of users on startup.

Re:Try Linux

I'm still trying to figure out what XP and Vista do that Windows 95 didn't, which requires them to take up so much more HD space than it did.

Win95 ran happily on a 1GB HD, with several hundred (maybe as much as 700, IIRC) MB left for apps, and I can't really think of more than one or two very minor new things that XP does that I actually use. Image/video thumbnails are nice, I guess, and having a CD/DVD burning program integrated into the file manager seems like a no-brainer, except that the one they made sucks so badly that I only use it as a last resort, usually on someone else's machine, so frankly I could live without it. The new network management system is obviously better, but doesn't justify more than 2-3MB of extra disk space usage, tops.

Why are XP and Vista so huge? Is there something I'm overlooking, or has MS' code really become so bloated that it takes 1.5+ GB to accomplish what 200-300MB did before? Hell, I can fit a Linux desktop that does SIGNIFICANTLY more in that much space, with Openoffice and a real CD burning app, full-featured media player and all kinds of other goodies. Why does the basic MS OS take up so much room?

Re:Try Linux

Neither Gnome nor KDE require a GB. A basic Linux system with X and either of those desktop managers and no other applications installed would probably come in at 500-700MB. With that extra space one could easily cram in Abiword, Gnumeric, Firefox, and pretty much every other "must-have" desktop app that one could need in less than a GB. Substitute Openoffice for Abiword and Gnumeric and it might put it a tad over the 1.0GB mark, but not by a whole lot (the download from their site is 120MB, so the installed size is probably not over 200MB).

(Oh, and I just told Synaptic to mark Gnome and every package that depended on it for removal, and it said that 315MB would be freed. Vanilla gnome with no other apps installed, then, must take up less than 315MB. I think KDE uses a bit more. Linux+basic terminal apps+X takes up MAYBE 200MB, so the 500MB low end of my estimate was closest to reality for a no-app (or, rather, apps comparable to a vanilla Windows intallation) system with a full-featured GUI.

Re:Try Linux

You are comparing a light DOS/Win32 assembly optimized OS with a rather large portable C based OS that has a central client/server kernel, security, and on TOP of that full subsystems that are OSes in themselves like Win32 and BSD.

If you take any fundamental feature of the NT product base that has become XP or Vista and try to compare it to a DOS/GUI hybrid OS you need to stop and compare what 'weight' the differences would have.

For example, when you start adding in Multi-languages, full Unicode support, or even the Font sizes to support the Unicode specifications, you are adding literally 100mb of space there ALONE.

Next add in security which DID not exist in Win9X, and this is NOT light security it is a full token based security system that EXTENDS beyond just the FS. And this is not even mentioning NTFS encryption abilities, journaling abilities, compression abilities, etc.

Also realize that a significant amount of the OS install is for a backup of the install media and drivers so you don't have to grab the DVD when adding new hardware or if a system file gets changed so the OS can self repair. Just in drivers alone Vista supports approximately 500 times the devices Win95 did, and just the INF files for this alone for these devices, not even including the binaries is over 40mb of data.

See how quick this starts to add up?

Now let's add in basic system disk usages, like shadow copies, system restore, larger pagefiles and hibernation file support ALL OF WHICH Win9X did not have to deal with with the exception of the pagefile and it was usually dynamic and around 200mb in Win9x. So once Vista is installed the OS is already shadowing files, managing at least one restore point, and has 2-6gb of data just for the pagefile and hibernation store.

Arguing the difference between any NT based OS and Win9X is easy for anyone that understands the massive changes in OS over the years and the difference between an assembly optimized single purpose OS to a portable scalable OS. As for features this gives users that you DIDN'T have in Win95, there is better threading, better caching, security, full networking services, multi-cpu support,(Vista even adds multi GPU support, preemptive GPU scheduling, and GPU RAM Virtualization ), and with NT there is also platform independence like running on anything from Itanium to x86 to x64 with barely more than a recompile because of the code portability that doesn't 'quite' compile as tight as was allowed with the Win9X OSes. You also have a lot of 'high' end services, servers, and features from things like *nix based printing support, SNMP management all the back to user seen features like RDP (remote desktop/terminal services), concurrent multi-user login support, etc etc.

Now to argue why Vista uses more HD than XP, start with the basic features of XP, then add in Media Center, Tablet PC Edition, and then start with support for a NEW API system for the graphics, audio, networking, printing, video, and even the animation API sets as well as the communication APIs, and this has to CO-EXIST with the older APIs as Vista still allows basic GDI based printer drivers, kernel XP video drivers, XP audio drivers in addition to the new driver models, and it also has internal compatibility layers so that the XPS printing system 'seamlessly' talks to older GDI printers or older applications printing using GDI technology or old Audio software or old Video software, and will ensure that they all convert BOTH ways so that old and new applications can use both old and new devices.

To further the XP Vista comparison, you then have to add in all the 'Vista' visible features like the search system(which even indexes ink, can do OCR on image documents, and even index voice notes so that recorded conversations can be text searched), the Text to Speech, the speech recognition, the .NET frameworks, the installers, and the MS development DLLs that never shipped as part of the OS, tons of new applications, tools and utilities, codecs, et

Re:Try Linux

Then try Linux, and you'll never complain about the Windows driver situation again...

How dare you, sir? How dare you?

I hope you go to GNU/Hell for such slander and heresy. I hereby declare GNU/Fudwah upon you.

The Prophet, holiness and peace be upon RMS, will surely smite thee in the name of the All Sharing GNU. There is but one GOD and GNU is its name, and RMS is its Prophet, and its Holy Writ is GPL (now in the GNU and IMPROVED, heretic ass-kicking, version 3, call now GNU/Operators are standing by).

"Uh, just one question, what does GOD need with a driver?" - James T. Kirk, Star Trek

GNU/Linux, although written by a heretic and apostate, is GOD's perfect design the Prophet has claimed as His own, GNU/Peace be upon his posterior. It is the weapon to crush the Infidels of Redmond and their Satanic Gospel of Commerce and Property.

Face east, kneel, and pray towards MIT before it is too late.

GNU/Fudwah has been proclaimed.

Re:Gee..

..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

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

Consumers might not know the difference between "XP" and "Vista," but they do know the "Windows" brand, so as long as it has "Windows" in it, they will seek out and buy it.

Re:How about pulling a Mac?

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?

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.

Proprietary lock-in

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?

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?

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?

kiss

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"

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.

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

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.

Ribbon UI...

...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.

Split = nuts

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

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!

Office 2007 UI?

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?

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.

YAWV

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.

First thing they shouldn't do

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.

Well, I doubt that's the reason for the bomb

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

I'm not saying computers are "solved" and we don't need another, better OS. What I said was, that Vista was not needed.

What I'm saying is not that software as a whole can't evolve. What I say is that Vista offers not enough additional value to warrant switching, and that the average user is quite fine with XP as long as architecture or system requirements don't force him to move away from it. Vista offers nothing the average user misses in XP. And that's actually a first since WinME.

Win2k was the quite successful "merger" of the NT line with the 9x line. It offered the stability and sturdyness of NT along with the "game compatibility" of 9x. It was a huge step forwards for both lines of products, not to mention USB support that NT lacked completely and 9x's support was ... well, not really what USB support was supposed to be.

XP offered less additional value, but it did. More stability, better support for certain drivers, easier integration of WiFi equipment, easier update support, a bit more security.

Vista doesn't offer anything really measurable that you can't get easily with free third party tools. More importantly, its performance is not on par with XP due to a lot of changes that appearantly aren't really optimized yet.

Vista's problem is that there was no need for it. There is no new hardware that isn't supported in XP, as it was with USB and WiFi. There's no must-have new architecture out that requires Vista. And the only Vista-only software we'll see for quite some time to come are games, and even that only if studios dare being DX10 only.

That's why I said it's not needed. There will be a need for OSs that support future developments, no doubt. But Vista, in its current state, has no selling point.

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

Your ignoring the big performance hit and high hardware requirements for Vista. Granted 2k is slightly faster than XP on the same hardware but unlike Vista you don't need to make such a quantum leap in order to get XP to run as quickly as 2000.

Also XP brought us things like a built-in firewall, clear type, remote desktop, 64bit support, etc.

It also brought some unwelcome things like product activation and DRM, but on the whole it is widely agreed that XP is a respectable upgrade over 2000. This is where your argument pretty much falls apart, it is not widely agreed that Vista is a worthwhile upgrade over XP, in fact it is quite the opposite. So your statement that "But XP, in its current state, has no selling point." isn't really true. If it had no selling point then why are people still clamoring for XP and why are we seeing vendors who had moved to Vista had to cave in to the huge demand to bring XP back?

That simply did not happen on such a large scale with XP. I remember the XP haters(I was probably one of them) and the complaints about speed when XP first came out but they pail in comparison to the revolt I'm seeing against Vista. IMHO this is new and different then any other MS transition to date. Or maybe I should just say this is the worst Microsoft OS transition to date and when you look at what happened internally during Vista's development cycle nobody should be surprised at the outcome.

Your right that in 200x when Windows 7 comes out that these same old arguments will crop up, but unless MS pulls a rabbit out of their asses with Vista SP1 your going to see a huge amount of users sticking with XP until Windows 7 comes out.

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

All good points, and I agree: Vista was not enough of an improvement to warrant an upgrade. From my experience, I purchased a new computer in February this year (Core 2 Duo E6600, 2Gb RAM, 2x nVidia 8800 384Mb cards in SLI, 320Gb SATA) that I felt would easily exceed Vista requirements and provide me the promised "gamer experience."

Install was easy if not quick. The UAC pop ups were expected and not so annoying to begin with. I started clearing them and changing the factors that caused them. Everything I did caused another one. I started trying to get my SLI and dual screen setup to work. Vista would never see the second screen. I went to download the latest nVidia driver (~60Mb) via IE 7. It took it nearly 12 minutes over my 15Mb FiOS connection. Installed the driver and still Vista would not see my second monitor. That did it for me. Three hours was enough time wasted when I should have been surfing at the speed of light and playing.

Installed XP and updated it in less than 2 hours. Downloaded the same ~60Mb patch via Firefox in less than one minute. By hour three I was playing World of Warcraft faster, more smoothly and more richly than I'd ever seen it before.

I could have eventually worked through the technical glitches, but there's no way I can improve Vista and IE 7's sluggish performance THAT much.

Virtual Machines

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.

simplicity...

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.

That's a good idea...

...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.

Vista is not a failure

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.

The thing is...

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.

First things first.

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.

Businesses don't want the "Advantage"

The reason you're not seeing the business side jump all over this OS isn't because of just compatibility issues. It's the Genuine advantage.

For example. here where I work, we had Vista running everything most office workers need; Office, IE, SCT, Even wintegrate, which is an ancient terminal program from 96. There was three reasons we didn't go to vista. One was the System requirements we were not ready to meet, another was that F-secure did not have an official Vista version at the time, but the real reason we decided to stay with XP was simple. The Genuine Advantage is for lack of a better word a total pain in the ass.

In vista there are two ways of handling corporate keys. One with a Key Management server and the other with a Multiple Activation Key. Under KMS. You are required to have a KMS server on your network, tie it to DNS and give it your VLK (which can be changed if your old key is disabled and propagated to networked PC's). once you do that it will activate any Business version of vista automatically every 3-6 months without entering any keys, but if the computer is no longer on the network (say a Laptop) after 3 months, the system locks you out in a reduced functionality mode which can be described as useless.

The Second method; MAK isn't much better. basically MS handles the KMS for you. this means that you don't have to worry about traveling users not being disconnected from your network for too long since it works over the internet, but now MS is handling your activations, and you have to contact them every time you hit your quota in order to activate more windows. (which isn't as bad as it sounds. According to MS activation isn't counted against your licence count, and you can request indefinitely) However, if MS sees a huge activation spike. (say your activation rate average goes from 100 a day to 10000000 a day) they disable your key (which brings us to reduced functionality mode for all MAK'ed PC's) and then you must go to each and every MAK managed PC and change the key to a new one supplied by MS.

So basically, to use Vista you either have a server on your network and pray no one's laptop cripples while their on a business trip, or you contact MS until the break of dawn and pray that no one pirates your key so you don't have to touch 1000 Crippled PC's with the Dreaded "YOU ARE A PIRATE!" message

Office 2007, however, doesn't have the "YOU ARE A PIRATE!" system built in it and still has the old VLK licencing system like XP. I can guarantee that it's adoption in business is much higher than Vista. I know we're using it here, but Vista is sitting on the shelf.

Deja vu

Wow. A completely new OS with an emulation layer for backwards compatability? I seem to remember that that's happened before [apple.com].

An OS lesson from... STAR WARS???

I'm ambivalent, at best, about the 31 Flavors of Windows. But it raises an interesting point...

Old computers that still kick A55 and would be a shame to throw out. I have a PIII-400 that stills does what it needs to, and a Mac 8500 that still does nearly everything I ask, except that IE Mac doesn't work on most sites. What we need to do, sometime <BLINK>REALLY SOON</BLINK> is to freeze a subset of computers and OS forever into an R2-Unit standard.

Recall that the R2 unit loaded into Luke's X-wing was the SAME unit that Obi-Wan used. How likely is it that ANYTHING we have on a computer now will even physically plug in, let alone work in 40 years. Some computers can do 90% of what we need from now until at least 20 years from now. Can we PLEASE pick a set of standards and let that class of computer be supported? For example, ATA-100, USB 2.0 (or Firewire800, I don't care), DVI, RJ-45... I have peripherals in my garage with no computer capable of connecting them. I still have a copy of X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter... as if. Something. Anything.

And Windows Whatever. XP, XT, 2KSP17. I don't care. That way, as we retire, the Geek Squad can say, "Do you want us to replace your computer? This one's seen a lot of wear." "Not on your life. That G4 Titanum and me have been through a lot together."


PS: The blink tag was fake.

Dimsal failure

For Microsoft to be talking about the next Windows release so soon after its first main release in 6 years, Vista, and potentially putting customers off buying into Vista now, speaks legions about just how bad Vista adoption is going (notwithstanding fanboi propaganda FUD like the /. article comparing Vista to OSX marketshare). It says to me that Microsoft must really be panicking, badly.

Why?

Why comment on "Windows 7" at all?

It's obvious that MS is pushing the PR now in order to draw attention from Vista. Vista is a trainwreck, so they're playing the "look, shiney!" game.

No. That won't help.

More choices is absolutely the WORST idea. We already have what? 5-6 variants of Windows and that's just English. Two completely different versions of windows each with X variants would just complicate the problem.

What we need is Three things.

A. Make features, not bullet points. This means give us features to help us. Not a newly designed interface that just looks pretty. Make stability and bug free a FEATURE. Look for features we can't get elsewhere, and ways for us to extend it. That means don't worry about firewalls (ship with Zonealarm) don't give us a weak anti-virus and pretend that's a major feature. Don't pretend "integrated music player" is a feature. Microsoft's current beliefs are bullet points are better than other goals. Games that run at 60 fps are more important than games that are "fun". Office suite that integrate perfectly are better than bug free. Get over it and get us actual innovation. And if you offer Backwards compatibility with old windows code make sure it's 100 percent Backwards compatibility before you ship.

B. Ignore the side projects. Windows 7 is about WINDOWS not Media player, outlook, office, and the rest. Want to include those? Great make them bug free, and allow us to uninstall all of them, otherwise focus on Windows. Giving us 30 programs along with windows doesn't make you my friend, when I have to work around 29 of them to get MY functionality back.

C. Cut the price, cut the fat. Two versions of Windows. Upgrade for 100 dollars, Full for 200 dollars. don't try to nickle and dime us saying "well ultimate has..." Ultimate has shit. Either an upgrade or full and make them AFFORDABLE. When Windows costs more than any of 4 tvs I own. (Including a 52 inch CRT) that's a problem.

Vista died because no one needed it and no one wanted it, but Windows is slowly forcing it's bloated corpse on us. That's what caused the Vista Like release, an unwanted unneeded product who's only benefit is making Microsoft more money and looking pretty.

Re:Proven?

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:Coke Classic

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:Coke Classic

Actually "New Coke" did fail because of taste. When New Coke was "enginered" it was tested for marketability by with "sip tests" (i.e. people taking a sip of the drink and comparing it to other versions). "New Coke" was sweeter than "Original Coke", therefore more people prefered it to the other candidates when taking sip tests. But when "New Coke" was relesed and people drank the stuff for real the taste was too sweet to bare.