Can you hold your breath until Windows 7?

[ahhaa]

Vista took long enough to arrive, and even then a lot of promised features got left out... (like ironclad security, fast booting, etc )
Now it seems that M$ VP Ben Fathi has hinted that Win7 may be out as soon as 2009.

Oddly, their official position is:

“The launch of Windows Vista was an incredibly exciting moment for our customers (yeah, right ) and partners around the world, and the company is focused on the value Windows Vista will bring to people today. We are not giving official guidance to the public yet about the next version of Windows, other than that we’re working on it. When we are ready, we will provide updates.”
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/feb07/02-13NextVerson.mspx

What about you? Will you hold off for a couple years? Or do you think it will be longer?

Or put a different way, what could excite you about a new operating system?

[Nelson37]

Actual, real improvements.

An understanding that all I want my OS to do is provide a platform for my chosen hardware and software to work. That's it. The most important word being "work". In both meanings of the word, as in function correctly and also as in to produce useful output.

A realization that when the OS costs more than the premier Word processing, Spreadsheet, presentation, database, and E-mail suite, something is Very, Very wrong.

Someone to take the dumbass that thinks I am willing to pay $400.00 to have transparent icons and tilted windows out behind the woodshed for a serious educational session.

Is the guy that came up with the Vista concept (whatever that is) the same one that invented Microsoft Bob?

[Dubber]

And since the competition like Ubuntu has drasticly matured, is free and provides with good to excellent performance, compatibility and feature set....

[Nelson37]

Vista may be the Microsoft mistake that finally drives me to seriously investigate Linux as an alternative to Windows for regular commercial use. Not as in will I use it but as in can I recommend this to my customers. Linux may actually be more compatible with more current Windows programs than Vista is.

The problem is that Linux needs a coordinated, massive strike kind of ad campaign, Right Now, as Vista stumbles lamely out of the gate. The nature of Linux makes that unlikely to happen.

This is a similar moment like when IBM blew it with OS/2 versus Win 95. Possibly one of the last opportunities of its kind for any alternative to Microsoft OS.

This time, it is Microsoft's product which is buggy, has security issues, more demanding of hardware, more expensive, and not really what people want. Unfortunately, Microsoft has marketing muscle and advertising dollars and knows how to use both.

[Nitemare]

I only recently upgraged to XP. I'm not going to upgrade again until I have to.

[Kairo]

Interesting.... If at all possible (ANY) new version of Window$ will (NEVER) touch a machine I own, old or new ever again. Why?

1. Cost
2. Hardware and Software incompatibilities, or lack of support.
3. Useless eye candy and applications that only slow down my workflow.
4. Micro$oft's policy when it comes to licensing and customer rights.

I don't hate Window$, as an operating system it dose what I want it to most of the time. But I am tired of Micro$oft's Bullsh*t.

I've been using, repairing, and building computers for over twenty years and the only OS I have yet to work with is BSD. The closest M$ has ever come to winning me over was Server 2003 and XP. Both are good OSes but the way M$ do their business made damn sure that my satisfaction with them would be neutralized by things like product activation. Don't get me started on that.... Right now I have a legit XP disc I cant use because the product activation has run out. And as far as Vista goes the fact that one cannot go back to XP after upgrading to Vista has ensured that I will never install it on any of my machines that have XP already on them. Another thing that comes to mind is the fact that M$ is not focusing enough on making their OS more efficient. The first thing I do on a clean install of any version of Window$ is turn off services and and get rid of apps I don't use. A good example of what an operating system should be is Xubuntu. As long as M$ has been around you'd figure that get a clue and work more to streamline their OS.

Anyway enough of my rambling.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dv8ted2]

And as far as Vista goes the fact that one cannot go back to XP after upgrading to Vista has ensured that I will never install it on any of my machines that have XP already on them. Another thing that comes to mind is the fact that M$ is not focusing enough on making their OS more efficient. The first thing I do on a clean install of any version of Window$ is turn off services and and get rid of apps I don't use. A good example of what an operating system should be is Xubuntu. As long as M$ has been around you'd figure that get a clue and work more to streamline their OS.

Anyway enough of my rambling.

Just my 2 cents.

Back up your data, format and install XP - That is not a big deal

[Faustus]

I purchased Windows Vista and got my copy from newegg about 3 days before the "launch".

By the time of launch it was off my computer already and never going back except maybe under virtual pc for my job.

If a game comes out that requires DX10 it can get bent. I'm not going to that cluster F of an OS and MS can't make me. Its the new Windows ME and just like ME I'll wait for the next OS when they make something worth running.

[fritzi93]

And since the competition like Ubuntu has drasticly matured, is free and provides with good to excellent performance, compatibility and feature set....

That's the most popular distro at the moment. It's encouraging that Dell is offering a choice now between Windows and Linux. Maybe it'll reach critical mass and become real competition.

I have to wonder though. It has to penetrate the mass market, which means devoting more effort to accommodating users absolutely NOT interested in having to configure anything.

I refuse to pay 400 bucks for another OS. Microsoft won't get another dime from me. XP is fine, which keeps me from switching over completely to Ubuntu. That and my wife. :P

One other thing, I've bought my last pre-built computer. Built this one and am very pleased with it. (Thanks again Redwudz for the guide!). So nobody's gunna force-feed me Vista.

[Faustus]

I have to wonder though. It has to penetrate the mass market, which means devoting more effort to accommodating users absolutely NOT interested in having to configure anything.

I just read a review of the new Ubuntu and it looks like its about one baby step away from being there for your average user.

[vico1]

Is the guy that came up with the Vista concept (whatever that is) the same one that invented Microsoft Bob?

Ha!...Bob, almost forgot about that Brain-Fart!...

[MOVIEGEEK]

Vista makes Me look like XP.
Windows History 101:
3.1=Good
95a=Bad
95b=Good
98Gold=Bad
98SE=Good
NT=Bad
2000=Good
Me=Bad
XP=Good
Vista=do you see a pattern?

I have no intentions of upgrading soon,I can wait til Win7.

[Faustus]

Vista makes Me look like XP.
Windows History 101:
3.1=Good
95a=Bad
95b=Good
98Gold=Bad
98SE=Good
NT=Bad
2000=Good
Me=Bad
XP=Good
Vista=do you see a pattern?

I have no intentions of upgrading soon,I can wait til Win7.

The only note I'd make here is I loved 98 original until USB came to town.

[Nitemare]

I've always said that Windows peaked with Win98. For inuitiveness, ease of installation, and customization-- it just didn't get any better than that.

M$ makes a lot of odd "improvements" to their software that no one really needs. Active Desktop on Win98 has always been an un-needed, unwanted resource hog. The "3D" windows in Vista? What good are they? Sure, they look cool but they have no useful purpose.

I dread every new windows release for these reasons. Microsoft has a habit of killing off features I love and building up bloatware that I don't like, don't need, and can't use without a hardware upgrade. Once you toss in the high price (for crap I don't want it seems doubly high), the activation, (from India even though it's a US company), DRM, etc. It seems like I can only do less and less with each new Windows version. How is that an "upgrade"?

[ahhaa]

"can't use without a hardware upgrade"

& that's why they call it Wintel...

[ViRaL1]

NT=bad?

[oldandinthe way]

I found NT 3.x to be a great system. NT 4.0 was less attractive due to the Win95 influence. Thought Win 95/98/ME sucked. Found Win2000 and XP to be usable. And frankly a new user interface in Vista may be too much to bear. But fortunately there is no killer ap which runs only on Vista to make me upgrade.

[ViRaL1]

It's been less than 90 days, but still, I doubt there will be a killer app anytime soon. Although I don't remember the push for XP where 98/ME machines weren't for sale much of anywhere after launch day, so we may see greater consumer adoption than XP had in the first year.

[fritzi93]

I have to wonder though. It has to penetrate the mass market, which means devoting more effort to accommodating users absolutely NOT interested in having to configure anything.

I just read a review of the new Ubuntu and it looks like its about one baby step away from being there for your average user.

Yeah, version 7.04. More here:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/topic/Windows+to+Linux+Chronicles.html?tag=nl.e539

Gunna have to DL and try it. Version 6.10 still has a rather geeky flavor in places.

[guns1inger]

If you are a frequenter of this site and considering Ubuntu, this is probably the version to wait for : http://ubuntustudio.org/ - if they can get it all tied together. Unfortunately Cinelerra doesn't appear in the package list, and is, from what I have heard, pretty much impossible to get running under Ubuntu.

[disturbed1]

If you are a frequenter of this site and considering Ubuntu, this is probably the version to wait for : http://ubuntustudio.org/ - if they can get it all tied together. Unfortunately Cinelerra doesn't appear in the package list, and is, from what I have heard, pretty much impossible to get running under Ubuntu.

Not really

http://www.kiberpipa.org/~gandalf/ubuntu/README

[guns1inger]

Just going on the advice of a few who had tried. Obviously they didn't try hard enough.

[gerryc]

I just bought a new computer and purposely ordered it with XP instead of Vista. I know my programs work on XP. The interesting thing is the sales person didn't question my request for XP. When I bought my last new computer shortly after XP came out, I ordered that with Win 98 and then they did question why I wanted the older operating system.

[RabidDog]

Soon, Xp will be the "extra cost" option, whilst vista will be "free" (very inverted commas) then the BandTank will really be rolling. Talk of a new OS is stuff and nonsense, V. is the last monolithic os they will ever do. From now on they will upgrade separate parts of the Os, which coincidentally will be a better money spinner than one big mega launch. This is it, the high point of OS development.. from now on its all downhill.

Broker ? Sell m$ sell, sell, sell for whatever you can get!

In reply to the question.. I can certainly hold my nose..

[Faustus]

Lemme just say the new Ubuntu is almost all they've cracked it up to be. A few of the new "look how easy we made this" features did not work for me but the work arounds to get them working were relatively painless.

Meanwhile I had to load less drivers to get it running then I have to on a Windows XP or Vista install.

Thinking of paying for Cedega so I can get help getting WoW working and booting XP to the curb completely.

[AlecWest]

I've always said that Windows peaked with Win98. For inuitiveness, ease of installation, and customization-- it just didn't get any better than that.

I'm with you. I still have 98SE on one partition (I'm using it right now) and use it almost exclusively. The only reason I put XP on another partition was to get around the FAT32 4gig barrier for filesize. If there'd been a Win98 3rd Edition that worked in an NTFS environment (and if software was written to support it), I'd never have upgraded to XP.

[Nitemare]

The only reason I put XP on another partition was to get around the FAT32 4gig barrier for filesize.

Me too! NTFS file system was my ONLY reason for upgrading. Don't get me wrong. I don't "hate" XP, I just didn't see the need/point.

I will say this though... under our DSL connection, with 4 machines sharing it under a LAN, XP is by far the fastest running internet machine in the house. All bandwidth is shared equally but the 98 machines (and 1 ME machine) choke on things like YouTube while my XP machine does fine. My wife's win98 machine chokes on YouTube even when she's the only one online and has the full band. I've done some tests (with Virtual PC installing 98 and XP with identical settings) and I've proven that XP does it better, but I don't know why.

Maybe I'll start a new thread on that... hmmm...