So far, we have heard only about new touchscreen features as well as – and probably most interesting – MinWin, a much smaller kernel of the operating system that takes up only 40 MB of memory.

well the problem is not with the kernel taking up so much memory, its all the other crap that windows its self adds. windows is a bloated application, you can't call it a os because it hasn't been a os for awhile now. whats windows 7 going to take 3 dvd's for install?

Looks like Microsoft is feeling need the need for a new Windows... soon. Now how could that be with Vista being such a huge success.

And I don't consider 40MB small for a kernel, but I suppose you see these things a bit different when you are used to Linux. ;)

Just how big are the kernels of Vista and XP then?

Another Windows !!!!!!!!!!
they should fix the current one instead !

If it is like Vista, it will probably be a memory and resouce hog and be the only real choice in operating systems on new computers. It would be nice if new computers came with an option of which operating system one wanted instead of which one Microsoft wanted us to have. I would have eComStation installed instead of Windows. http://www.ecomstation.com

Microsoft's success is it's marketing model. Mac and Linux just don't get it yet - Mac from a price standpoint and Linux from the apps side.
Linux apps need to get on the ball and and ship with the dependencies (dll's) needed. Mac's need competitive pricing. Folks don't buy Mac's because of the big gulp at the prices. They also do not get a sense of satisfaction from downloading files to configure software. They consider it a PITA.
They're just giving Microsoft more opportunities to get it right with no consequences when they don't.
As far as a new Windows in 2009, don't hold your breath.

I don't know about the rest of you, But I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over again... Give 'em a break for christ sake, everything they do, you people end up hating on 'em... Jeez... You're all like lonely housewives...

Anyways, I'm not a MS Fanboy... I agree with John, they do need to look at their current OS rather than put in development into the next one...

MinWin won't necessarily be included in Windows 7 as you seem to be implying. The kernel will obviously be there, but the point of MinWin was to show that the basic core kernel of Windows is still quite small after all of these years.

If they can actually hit H2 2009 that would be amazing.

I agree with ThomFrost to an extent. Much of windows doesn't even involve the kernel (which most consider to be the real OS). On the other hand, most distro's of linux also have huge kernels and Mac hasn't made a new OS since OSX, they mostly just add features like resizeable docks (woohoo).

Microsoft is at least addressing the problems they have and working on an entirely new system, which is always good. They can take this opportunity to trash the bloat (with the exception of the libraries that developers want - which usually account for most of the "OS" size).

I can only hope that Windows 7 is actually a new OS, and not just a collection of "hey, this looks cool" stuff like Vista seems to be (don't get me wrong, I use Vista and greatly prefer it over XP, but it seems that a lot of people had whiz-bang pet projects that were just thrown into the OS).

As for the release date, who knows. Either way, the OS will be over-hyped and people will be pissed when it doesn't reach their extravagant expectations.

Well,

I even think is was an article features on Tom's. Microsoft is taking a huge hit in their wallet because of large companies not renewing their software maintenance contracts. Those contracts stipulates that within a 3 year period, you the software subscriber receives a free update of the OS and other supported products.

With the gap between XP and Vista release, those big companies paying for software maintenance figured it was no longer worth paying for support because M$ was releasing the new software after the support period ended.

So, there we have it. M$ wanting to please their paying customers, and also the fact they said they were going to release (again seen on Tom's) a new OS within 3 years of Vista release.

And as far as the kernel, it is looking more and more like a linux kernel to me.....

Jay

Wahoo - I'm stoked MS is giving up on Vista same as every IT professional already has. If they gave up right now I think it would be best for everyone as Vienna has got to be better than Vista and hopefully this time better than XP.

I will never roll out any VIsta machines until it is AT LEAST as fast as XP for file transfers, copies, and network throughput. I also work for a gaming company along with financial, university, venture capital etc. I will probably only role out A vista machine if they are working on a game using DX10 - otherwise everything will remain XP as frames per second in Vista is horrible.

I have no idea what the developers of Vista were thinking but slow downs are not acceptable - you can run a virtual copy of XP in Vista if you need fast file copies and transfers and network speed and fast video performance - umm on second thought, why not just stick with XP - save the money on the hardware and the OS?



http://gizmodo.com/337768/battlemodo-windows-vista-service-pack-1-rc1-vs-shipping-vista

http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html

If MS doesn't get Vienna to perform at a faster speed than XP on identical equipment - chances are I will move to some form of linux for my end users.

I disagree about them needing to concentrate on improving the current version of Vista - I look at Vista as a house full of mold and lead paint - some times it is easier to wipe out what you have in place and start again.

Vista shows no promise of ever having network throughput, file access, copies, moves and transfers even close to XP and will probably never see FPS in gaming close to XP.

Mind you I am not an MS hater - I run XP on a few thousand PCs and 2003 on a couple hundred servers. I also do support other OS's but in a much smaller percentage. I am not however an MS fanboy who says Microsoft can do no wrong. I don't think Vista can be salvaged and just like Windows ME - it is time to put it out of it's misery. Frankly Windows ME wasn't as bad as Vista in my mind but at least MS moved on quickly.

Hopefully the developers for Vienna will only be given P4's with 512mb of memory and all files will have to be saved on the server - that way they might actually try and make it perform at least as well as XP does. Yes I can buy a faster PC only to make it run as fast as my old PC running XP - but for what benefit - I don't see anything in Vista that offers benefit to users. No one who doesn't really understand PCs know what the right answer is to the UAC and it is in your face every two seconds so every either just turns off UAC even though it nags you when you boot or they say yes to everything. UAC is an abomination.

I just forked out big time to get vista, now there'll be another one within 2 years?

damn

Sure there are smaller, but when you consider that 4GB can be found for under 60 bucks, a kernel that takes up 1% of that seems pretty darn small.

With that said, i haven't a clue what XP or vista's kernel uses.

As for David Clay's Mac/Linux piece, I think you're mostly correct, though I think Mac is all about marketing. I just don't see Linux becoming a contender in the next 5 to 10 years. It's nice that it's small and free, but the lack of commercial apps hurts it.

Finally, David's dead on about a new windows in 2009. It's unlikely to happen. As I recall, Windows 95 was supposed to be out by mid to late 1994....instead it came out fairly late in 1994.

It'll be late.

Apple comes out with a new OS ever 2 years and people love, M$ tries it and people go nuts saying we don't need another OS M$ is just greedy.

I'm not really an M$ supporter but I find people (mostly the sheep) funny as heck. I wonder how many love there right hand but hate there left hand? Maybe we can get a university to study this phonomena.

I don't get it ie 'An interesting feature that has been highlighted by Microsoft is the ability of the M1 software to handle a heterogeneous graphics system consisting of multiple graphics cards from different vendors." Well, windows 2000 can do that! I've got multiple cards in this machine, with multiple monitors, and W2000 supports it out of the box...

I remember hearing that "longhorn" (then thought to be what vista is now, not the server software) was supposed to come our arround '04, and it was late. However I think a lot of people liked the idea of Win XP. One OS that lasts for a really really long time. It helped make a lot less issues for compatability, and now XP is really a great OS (especially considering what it started as).
As for vista itself I think they only really released it in order to get people to buy new computers and end the stagnation in the hardware market. It is obviously not a finished product, as Karson said, it's full of "wihz-bang" eyecandy, and nothing to really make life easier or better. But a 2 year lifecycle? That seems a little rediculous. I thought we had "arrived" and that new releases would be more on like a Mac schedule adding features, but not actuially changing anything in the core. But here we have a new new windows? Sounds like a mistake.

Gates is retiring. Maybe this is the reason. Maybe they found out they cannot keep the old trend (that used to generate jokes around) that new OS, new system, and hardware manufacturers pay MS for their increased sales. If XP does everything Vista does, and better (cool visual interface and stuff too, and with fewer chances of getting sued by the EU because of including the cool/memory hog UI with the OS), then there is no reason to go to Vista except for the trouble of resisting it when you get a new PC with the OS ready.
Vive la resistance!
So maybe next time people will buy the new OS because it is better performing on their hardware and new hardware because it will be better performing with their software, but not on a tight link. If true competition was around, Vista would not have even ever come out in the first place. That's what shows MS's superiority. They can come out with something like Vista, and still be in business as strong as ever!

@ David Clay: There's a reason why Apple's stock is worth nearly 5 times what Microsoft's is. Microsoft is proving with Vista that they've nowhere to go but down, and they're hell bent on it. "Monkey Dance" Ballmer will be holding the reins. They continue to prove that they can only copy, not innovate. Windows still lacks features that were in Mac OS X when XP came out, and Microsoft continues to fail miserably at security. On the other hand, Apple's marketshare continues to increase, with retail stores that are spreading exponentially. BestBuy is expanding their store-within-a-store program to get in on the Mac sales. When Gateway was forced to close their stores because they couldn't profit from peddling Windows PCs in their specialized stores, Apple started opening stores right and left, and they're wildly successful. Every year Macworld overshadows anything said at CES. Despite XP being obsoleted, the vast majority of computers shipped with XP in 2007, not Vista.

Microsoft needs a new OS ASAP, to convince people that there's a reason to buy it, because Vista is a bloated, insecure failure.

@ Karson: You apparently don't understand how Apple is handling Mac OS X. the 10.x versions are not like Service Packs for Windows. Between 10.4 and 10.5, Apple added 300 new features to Mac OS X. Can Microsoft say the same about Vista? Vista obviously doesn't work as well (or as fast) as 10.5 Leopard, even on twice the hardware. 10.5 benchmarks *faster* than 10.4. Vista *is not* faster than XP, even if you have 5 times the hardware. I've seen people toss their new Vista machines in the trash and go back to using their old XP machines, because they don't realize that they could just reinstall the new machine with the old OS.

Between the release of XP and Vista, Apple released *three* new operating systems, each an improvement upon the last, with a *fourth* immediately following Vista.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

The Vista failure is also furthering Linux, with Ubuntu-installed PCs available through Dell, SuSE preinstalled on Lenovo ThinkPads, and even Linux machines on sale at Wal-Mart. Their marketshare may not compare to Apple's, yet, but given time and the crap that Microsoft's churning out, I wouldn't be surprised if more people continue to switch to Ubuntu when they realize that it's free, it'll work on their current hardware better than Windows does, and every six months, there's a newer/faster/better Ubuntu, which doesn't force them to reboot every time that they do an update, that understands what security is, and that offers a ton of free software, easily installed by clicking a few things in Adept.

Microsoft has too many competitors on too many fronts to keep dropping the ball, and their competitors are either winning (Google, Apple with the iPod, Nintendo), or gaining ground rapidly. I'm not holding my breath, though.

To Abishek - the point is that we pay at least £50/$50/€50 for this stuff everytime we buy a PC and we have no (or very little) choice and what we're being forced to buy is just not of good enough quality - we'd all be complaining loud enough if the govt. slapped a tax of that amount on a new PC

I recently bought the laptop I wanted except for one unwanted feature - Vistuuurgh. So choices were, stick with Vistuuurgh, roll back to XP Pro (not a bad OS in my opinion) or go with something completely new. In the end, I went with openSUSE Linux (tried it and others in VMWare Player first). It is an excellent OS: fast, reliable and actually makes *use* of the new resources rather than just swallowing them. There are some negatives though - drivers are a real pain: WLAN didn't work without some serious investigation and a firmware upgrade, I still haven't got bluetooth working (not that I've tried very hard) and the multiple dependencies when installing an app can be very frustrating.

Overall though, other than times I have no choice, I won't be going back to Windows as my main OS.

40mb just to boot the kernel is TOO MUCH. Linux, BSD, Minux, and others open source OSs can do that with much less resources (eg: Minix can boot at a 386 system with 16mb of ram... and it´s not just a kernel... a full unix-like system! with no graphics, of course).

Mark this words: Windows7 will lauch at 2010 if not 2011. People will adopt it at 2012, 2013... by that time, Syllable and others Open source OSs will be mature enought, less resource hungry and will do everything the user needs. And... windows will loose big part of the market :)

It would be great if Microsoft used an open source os to build the next version of Windows but they would probably steal it and keep everyone else from using it. :(

I was thinking ReactOS - an open source clone of WinNT - but they would probably mess it up.
http://www.reactos.org

In the original article, MinWin was running a kernel, shell, webserver and after bootup there was 7mb left in memory. The 40mb wasn't just the kernel.

ALRIGHT! HELL YEAH!

Man, I can't wait to experience all the NEW, wonderful, exciting, BUGS! OH, I CAN'T FORGET THE NEWER, AWFUL, viruses, also! Can't wait to try the Master Beta, UH, I mean "Official" release!

YEEEEEEEEHAW! I got crabs!

I'm intrigued to see what the next Windows is like. I for one am not in anyone's, Microsoft, Apple, or Linuxes camp. I was running XP Pro on my older home cpu until my hd died Tuesday night. I played with Linux in the past so since I ordered a new 500GB hd online and it won't arrive until Friday I've been running a live CD of Kubuntu. Being able to run an OS straight from memory is definitely a plus which Microsoft can learn from.

However, while I'm using Kubuntu now I'll definitely go back to XP Pro once my new hd arrives. Why? Even though I like the look and feel of Kubuntu I clearly see my hardware is not running optimally. While Linux is definitely leaps and bounds from when I ran Red Hat before they dropped their non-business client lack of official driver support and applications can be a total pain. Sure if I were to build a new system from scratch and ensuring Linux was supported their would likely be better results, but for now my older machine will have to stick with XP.

The reason Kubuntu would be running slowly is because it is running and loading off a CD drive. Not trying to get you to even install Kubuntu on your HD when it comes in, just pointing out that (Running_from_CD < Running_from_HD)

@MordEth You have no idea how stocks work, do you? Stock values have to do with number of shares and the value of the company. Apple is 872.33 million outstanding shares, Microsoft has 9,335 million outstanding shares! You also have no idea what % of PCs in the world are actually using Micosoft operating systems, last I checked Linux based PCs actually accounting for less market share then Windows 98! (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070903-linux-marketshare-set-to-surpass-windows-98.html) Pull your head out, seriously...

I am glad to see they are pushing Windows 7 up. I tried Vista when it was first RTM, thanks to msdn. After playing with it for a couple months I switched to Ubunutu, which is what I now run on my home laptop. For work I run XP until I am forced to switch to Vista for development reasons. At home I will not upgrade my Windows Media Centers PC until I have to. I refuse to pay for Vista Ultimate to get Remote Dekstop and Media Center. I hope MSFT see a lot of the errors in it's ways with Vista and fixes them for Windows 7.

In 2008 I buy a new XP Media Center with SP3.
In 2009 I buy Vienna.
So, what for I would buy a Vista now !!!
I just zap Vista : it is no more !
Its a dead OS ! Finish !
Who really wanted it anyway !
No good is no good !
Good is coming to those who give time to time !

Ok so im running XP sp2 and Ive seen Vista on a friends computer and like mentioned it looks pretty but thats it all flash and no bang.

I think open source OS's are showing more and more potential they just need a little backing and they could really start to shine.

If ms was smart they would try to pick up some of these ppl who make the open sourse os's and put them on the development teams.

I'm not sure if ms is smart for giving up on vista or not given all the ppl who did invest in it but i do support them trying to build a new os as long as they learn from their failures.
I also agree they need to be given p4's and stuff .(though personely it should be less)

They need to build something like XP only in that it shouldnt need a monster computer backing it to wrk.

I personelly will stick with xp pro as it does quite well and it last awhile.(im goin on 5 years:D)

I Will also continue trying out the open sourse os out there as i find some have great promise.

The whole computing model that microsoft builds its business around seems out dated to me. You can't continue to release more of the same these days, you have to innovate and offer new usage modes.

I can see big things happening with online apps that render the choice of operating system redundant. I already use the google suite to negate the fact that I move between many OS environments within one day.

My first work computer was an original 1981 IBM PC. The operating system and whatever program you were running all fit on a 360K floppy. The surprising thing is that all of the programs ran reasonably fast when not reading or writing to the floppy. Everything was very lean and written in Assembly code. I've wondered what modern computers could do with code like that.

I Think you will see the first M3 build on the 27th Oct this year, as this is the first day of the PDC where Microsoft shows its new goods to the developer comminity.

So what do I do with my Vista CDs now? A 64 bit paperweight to use to hold down my Vista stack of performance tweaks while I upgrade to Windows 7.

Anybody who thinks they need to say they aren't a fanboy is definately a fanboy.. We give windows shit because we see what else is out there and then we see what MS does with Windows. The fact that you can't even run most of the software out there on it's own puts the bar squarely in MS court to make a decent fast graphically pretty OS.

Come on MS, you have spent all these years making sure we need you for running mainstream software, now step up to the plate and build a great OS. Don't keep slapping patches on what doesn't work and make.. a.. good.. OS.

If Microsoft would release just a OS, that would be fine. But they will still pack in every application they can think of trying to make the choice for you what programs you will run,

Trying to uninstall that bloat is harder than getting the crap ware off a new computer you buy from Dell or any of the other big manufactures

Mike

you've got to remember that the windows development team has a new lead engineer, and that he's proven to be more competent than the old one while he's worked on Office. that with this new guy in front the windows team was able to put out a complete running version of windows (sans GUI), including the kernel, core OS, and a web server, running on a VPC server limited to 40MB of RAM, with 7MB to spare (meaning the kernel itself is much smaller than 33MB), IS actually an impressive feat. while 40MB is large when compared to a Linux kernel, it's damned smalled when compared to NT kernels from windows 2000 and up.
while I don't think that it will actually show up in the 2nd half of 2009 like they're claiming right now, I don't think that they'll make the huge mistake they did with Vista again. there's absolutely no reason it should take another 5 years for it to be releasable.

i am SOOOO sticking with my XP x64- it's rock solid and doesn't need to get 'better' for my money.
Vista is a failure of catastrophic proportions and Vienna....don't even get me started.

People are very quick to flame both the OS and M$ but have u actually used both OS to compare? Do you realise what a massive feat of engineering building an OS that caters for millions of system configurations is like? Vendors have been reluctant to optimise drivers for 64bit versions of any hardware so blame needs to be attributed there also. I have run vista on my media centre and XP on my desktop for ages and am happy with both. Most of this Vista bashing is industry mistrust of Microshaft and the recycled hate perpetuated in media from sites like this one! Your average end user doesn't care about this, they surf the web, collect e-mail and genuinely ambivelent to anything hardware or software other than it working and what it looks like.

As with the comment above, im all for windows... does anyone ever think about what they would be doing right now if it werent for windows, or mr gates?
I certainly wouldnt be writing this email and my whole existance would be very different.

Sure if he diddnt come up with it someone else wouldve (cue apple) but still, I personally like the direction things have gone, and understand the complexities of making something that will be used by the whole world... you cant please everyone.

I think the 8 years or so that XP had the stage was far too long... i think if they can roll out a new OS every 3-5 years thats pretty spot on and exactely what they should be doing ;)

why patch the hell out of something thats not all that good when you can re-create it?

Please visit
googolAlphabets
It's more original idea
At that page you can see unique servise - letterlink!

G.

Microsoft can plan to upgrade its operating systems every two years or so but it is the consumer who dictates the demand figures. Why would anyone keep upgrading software and possibily hardware just to suit Microsoft ideas of the next OS is better then the current one. We are not earning billions and some of us are still using Win98. My suggestion is to have have Microsoft give out free OS. If not the masses will just embrace linux to stop all the escalating cost Microsoft is inducing to all its users.

@spammage: Have you even seen Vista? Every computer I have seen with Vista installed has been horribly slow and difficult to use. Opening and using applications is slow unless you've over 2GB RAM. Accessing things over a network is slow. Many functions like installations, downloads, opening web pages, etc... is more of a hassle with Vista's super annoying security warnings ("Warning! You are about to initiate a completely logical and normal task in keeping with your standard day to day computer use. Do you really want to do this?") Ha! Out of everyone I know that bought a new computer with Vista on it, only 2 have NOT already loaded XP in place of it. Out of those two, one is planning to do so shortly (the other one isn't, but he whines constantly about how crappy Vista is).

Face it...the only good thing about Vista will be the fact that XP will still be viable enough to work on until they release a new OS. They have too many problems with Vista that need to be fixed before it is actually a viable OS. I doubt that it will ever gain more popularity than XP. I also doubt that companies will switch over to it voluntarily, as that would lead to an increased cost in upgrading most (if not all) systems with faster hardware to compensate.

No...Vista was nothing but a blunder by MS... and hopefully a short-lived one. One can only ask the proverbial "What the heck were they thinking?" in regards to Microsoft's "latest and greatest" (that was sarcasm, btw).

Apple lost my business when they released a ONE BUTTON, round mouse.

I use G4 video editing stations. They suck. When they aren't freezing up, they are just annoying as hell to use.

Have to drag your flash drive icon to the trash before disconnecting it? LOL.

No physical button to open the DVD tray? LOL.

No right click? LOL.

No standard ergonomic keyboard? LOL.

Not to mention they are SLOW. Any power user can build a PC that will whip the snot out of any Mac for the same price.

Next OS by 2009.... Heck there'll be 2,000 different flavors of Linux by then, and each just as useless as the next, except for the one specific task you can get it to do after you've read hours and hours of type this and that download this patch and if you don't succeed drop kick that ASUS MB down the hall - don't forget protective footgear.

I have used both WinXP and Vista. WinXP is definitely better than Vista. I continue to encounter frustrations regarding Vista (on an Acer Aspire 3050).

I run eComStation on my other computers (a desktop and an IBM Thinkpad T23). I had to install them myselves since one can only get Windows on a 'pc'.
http://www.ecomstation.com

I have Linux on my Asus EEE PC but it will also be running eComStation once I install it. :) I might try ReactOS http://www.reactos.org before I try eCS on it. :)

Depending on what you've read or experienced: Windows Vista is really great, really bad, or somewhere in between. For the most part, I'm not too excited about Vista. I think there are a bunch of technological improvements, and lots of potential, but overall I'm just not terribly impressed with the completed product. To say the least, I think some major polish and serious optimization are needed. I've heard some other people feel the same way. This brings us to Windows 7, which is the the next...

http://dataland.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/windows-7/

You're an uneducated toss pot. You're definitely living in the past when you're still complaining about G4 machines... I managed to crash five PCs over the weekend by just having a look around Vista at the shop. Go and talk to your group of idiots, and stop protesting your ignorance on the internet.

I hope the next windows will just be ONE flavor. None of this home, business, premium, ultimate stuff....

"I use G4 video editing stations."
A G4 Video editing station? I presume you mean a Power Mac G4. Well, they did get discontinued in June 2003. If you mean a powerbook G4 or iMac G4, they got discontinued in April and July 2004. maybe you should look at buying a computer that isn't nearly 4 or 5 years old.

"No right click? LOL."
Apple desktops do come with a 4 button mouse... Left, Right, Centre and sides.

"No physical button to open the DVD tray? LOL."
There is a button on the keyboard to eject the DVD drive.

Why do people insist on posting stuff that simply isn't true? Come on guys, just use some common sense.

First, i'm glad MS is replacing vista sooner rather than later (if it happens).

Second, running a windows kernel, shell, and webserver in 40MB of memory space with 7MB free is still pretty impressive. No, it's not *nix but it proves MS is serious about providing the ability to strip out and add in different parts. That's the "big dog" offering the flexability the little guys have been touting. I'm impressed. Besides, show some current development needs where 40MB of ram isn't available. My backberry has 64 or 128...and a 4GB flash cart.

Third and most important - Vista. I've used it at home on my main PC for a good 3 months next to my gaming rig (warcraft, etc.) running XP. It annoys the crap out of me. Everyone can list their pages of complains so i'll skip mine.

Where Vista EXCELS is actually the corporate enviornment. Yes, exactly the group that's refusing it so strongly. There are an unbelievable number of tools for deploying, managing, securing, and using vista in the enterprise. Most of them are included free. Many are easy enough to begin using with minimal or no training/experience.

Unfortunately the individual experience is poor and that will always precede the corporate usage (for techies). In addition, Vista does not provide $2-400 additional benefit to equal it's price. Techies can no longer get free (aka bootleg) copies to play with easily. Activation schemes like vista has actually hurt sales. MS should learn that some time.

I was reluctant to try Vista but did anyway. It's way better than XP. Those who think it's slow are probably running it on a ten year old pc. If you have a new pc like mine it flys. Pretty much all I use it for is gaming. Besides XP has more security holes than the US Mexican border. Happy to say goodbye to XP I love my Vista

You can get a Linux Kernel, web server, and probably a router in 4MB. If we're making comparisons, lets at least compare apples to oranges to see which tastes better. Only an idiot would want to do a taste comparison of apples and crap. As it stands, Windows 2000 and XP take longer to install and configure than Gentoo Linux! Regardless of any benchmark (most of which Linux would win), I find Linux tons faster simply because of a more advanced and elegant user interface. Having multiple desktops set up to do different things quickly and easily and the ability to very quickly switch is sweet.

@Kool Beans
On every computer I've tried, Ubuntu (or nearly any other LiveCD) runs from the moment I boot the CD with no patches or extra software to install. I even get a good web browser, a nice selection of solitaire games, an Office Suite, lots of other useful software, all the proprietary goodies (tons of codecs, flash, etc.) are just a few clicks away, and it tracks ALL of my updates for ALL of my software. What's more, I don't even have to reboot once to start running things from the hard drive (although it frees up resources if you do).

With Windows 2000 (on two cores of a core 2 quad @3.5 GHz through VMWare), I spent 2-3 hours installing drivers and patches, had to reboot 11 times, and defrag more than I care to count (analyze was usually just red and green). Then I could finally start using regedit to change the hidden settings that greatly annoy me, and installing all the software that Ubuntu comes with. Lastly, I find that if I want the latest C compiler, I have to pay money to upgrade my license, AND reinstall everything! I'm a computer science guy (software engineering, system building, OS support, etc.) who currently does data processing systems, and if I'm buying, it's 64-bit or nothing!

If crashed five PCs over the weekend "by just having a look around Vista", you should keep your hands off of it. In fact, you shouldn't even be allowed near a pc. The ability to crash five pcs isn't a bragging right. It shows you are an imcompent end user.

Just give us what was promised for the last version. Like that shiny new filesystem that got trashed.

First review: http://www.istartedsomething.c...dows-7-m1/

Confirmation:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080123/insider-confirm-windows-7/

Screenshots:
http://ctfblog.977mb.com/wordpress/?p=830

Of course, this is just the M1 release, basically MinWin with a Vista UI. New features and UI changes could come in several months.

Perhaps the next version of Windows would be called Passport? A continuation of the Vista name? :)

Looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. Microsoft's official response, by an email dated 26th January, 2008, to WinVistaClub's enquiry, states that Windows 7 is still in the planning stage and will take approximately 3 years to develop.

While the answers to the other 2 questions may have been on predictable lines, what is important to note that Microsoft TODAY maintains that Windows 7 is STILL in the planning stages and it will take approximately 3 (more) years to develop.

Source: http://www.winvistaclub.com/i7.html

wow you people must have crap for machines or just dont know how to configure them. I HAVE HAD 0, ZERO problems with vista. Learn to use a new os before you bash it. get a life losers.

HappyAndyK, WinVistaClub is a group of Vista fanboys. They are not a relyable source and its likely that Q&A was faked. Otherwise, they would have gone to a real source, like a reputable tech or general newspaper. I highly doubt Microsoft will do again what people complained so much about: wait 5 yrs for an OS. If they leave the public with Vista for another 3 years, most will have switched to an existing good OS that is updated regularly without a $300 price tag: Mac OS X. More likely, TG Daily is reputable and reasonable. They already had over a year to work on it, and an extra 1.5 years is more than enough. (Apple puts out a new OS about every 1.5 years.) The M1 is already out there, and they only have two more to go before Beta. I don't know why you would think TG Daily is hard to believe while a Vista fan club is reliable.

Don, you are in the minority. Only about 20% of people say they are "highly satisfied" with Vista, something much lower than other operating systems. http://www.changewave.com/free...nd-Up.html So do you mean to tell me that most people who bought Vista are stupid? I know a lot of people good with tech and computers, using new high-end computers, had lots of issues. You just got lucky. Nothing wrong with wanting something better. It's just like it was with ME and XP. ME was not so reliable for a good number of people, and it was more or less a crash-prone preview to the features in XP, which seems to be what is the case with Vista and 7.

I don't understand why Apple does develop a version of their OS for PC's and put microsoft completely out of business. They use the same processors now, Apple could make so much money and make me so much happier if they did. I'm not that into the mac computers, but if I could install their OX on a PC I would in a second. Someone mentioned this in a post sometime ago and said the reason that Apple wouldn't do that is because they'd sell less of their computers, but their computers are priced relatively fairly given their specs and style, so I don't buy that excuse.

I think the problem is that if they release a version which runs on non-mac computers, There's no guarantee that the number of OS' they sell would go up enough to cover the losses from a drop in hardware sales. It'd be a very risky move. If they did end up having major losses and wanted to go back to using only their hardware, people would boycott them simply because they wouldn't like the idea of only using apple hardware after having the freedom to use any hardware.

Also, the reason that OSX is (Arguably) much more stable etc. is because it only runs on apple hardware. Releasing it for use on other hardware means a LOT of extra work to make it run smoothly seeing as you'd need new drivers etc.

Well these are my views anyway...

Well Mike the reason why Apple does not put out Mac OS X for PC's is simple. Apple can control the hardware, so they only have to make a hand full of video, sound, etc.... drivers. With Windows you have thousands of combinations of drivers but with OS X you have a few hundred. If you could get Mac OS X you could install it with some hacks on to a PC. All OS X is, is FreeBSD with some Apple touches. I too do feel that Steve Jobs is doing a dis-service to Apple by not releaseing OS X. With so many people dissatsfied with Vista they could make a real run for the OS top spot. But with Steve Jobs at the helm I doubt it will happen. If Linux would straghten up and have just one destro they could give Microsoft and Windows a run. But with all the destro's it confuses the new user when they download a program that says it runs on linux and they try to install but it don't work because it's not for the destro they have. Right now with the ease of install of programs on OS X I think it could be at 40% market share, if Apple does it right by the time Windows 7 hits the shelfs.
So someone forward this to Steve Jobs so he can see that by trying to get people to buy Mac's to get OS X hes just shooting his self in the foot. Bill Gates made his fortune making and selling software not hardware, and until Jobs sees this and wakes up Apple will be no more then something for Microsoft to point at and say "See were not a monopoly". I as well as many people I know would so switch to OS X in a heartbeat if Jobs would just sell OS X to everyone with out having to buy a over priced Apple PC.

Man, vista have 1/2 the performance of Windows XP and brings almost nothing expect visual advantages. No matter how, Vista sucks, it's like 1 1=2.
There's no wya to fix Vista becuase Vista's architecture, not beucause it's bugged. I'll never use Vista even with a DX 10 vga because I simply don't like to see my fsb cutted by half for no visual enhancements.

Vista's the only windows that has really came out with a minimum ram requirements of 512mb well windows xp home or pro will run on any high high then 64mb now can some 1 tell me wich 1 is better of ram vista is a ram monger untill they fix this prblem i will stay with window xp pro ps2

...people will download illegitimate copies instead, "what Microsoft you don't want to make any more money on you top seller?"

just add windowblinds and you can get a prettier OS than Vista

If Microsoft waited for graphics support from ATI and Nvidia they would have had a much better launch, and only allowing the OS on new machines would have been a good choice to relieve compatibility issues. The Eye-candy that Vista employs are still sub-par to compiz-fusion and all the mythical promises made about the Ultimate Edition were delayed. I still wonder how many features Microsoft pulled from Vista just to get the damn thing out the door in 12 flavors (instead of one or two flavors).

they should have had a much better launch then 95 or ME but they chose greed.

I never upgrade my Windows unless I buy a new computer. And then I just use the default version that comes with it.

I don't see any reason to upgrade to another version that uses more system resources to do the same job and often is full of even more bugs.

Best wishes,
Ron

======= =======
Get Free 100% Unique Content at
Endless Free PLR

======= =======

Yeah so if vista uses more ram, more is better anyways i think vista is sweet. more organized better skins wallpapers, windows aero! i mean come on. ive experinced all versions and i think premium is the best one.

Vista wil b the OS 4 the nex 5 yeers
it wil get bettr an cost les
evrone on XP will upgrad within 3 yeers to vista or get left behnd

POPPCORN

I must say, I am not too fond of the whole Windows experience. Especially Vista, but on the flipside, everyone should recall 2001. Remember XP when it came out. It sucked, and now it is the most widely used OS to date. I am going to give Vista a SP1, and possibly 2, before I make my final decisions. Personally, I stick with Linux Mint Daryna, but dual boot into Windows 2000 Pro SP2. Honestly, what Windows version I use doesn't matter to me, as long as it runs iTunes on it. The Linux distro I use, well that's a different story. That has to be good. FOSS RULES!

Okay, Lets see, Not counting the NT versions (NT and 2000):
3 = 3.0, 3.1, 3.11)
4 = 95
5 = 98, 98se, ME
6 = XP (Home, but really part of the NT family)
7 = Vista (really part of the NT family)
8 = Next gen or Blackcomb

If you count the NT version of NT and 2000, or even just 2000.......then you have Windows 10....don't you?

IE version now is 7 Media Player is closer to in line with Windows versions and it is version 11.

News articles talk about the internet hubbub created on this site and the Wiki article.

Are you all sure about this?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the windows versions are counted by the NT kernel Version. Vista was 6.6000.16386, and Se7en will be 7.7000.{secret}. Otherwise, yes, you are right, and it would be Ei8ht.

MordEth posted pieces by a few people on MAC OS X compared to Windows.

One of the things these people are seeming to miss is MACs do not have the major market share in computer sales, their current stock market share has been driven up not by their computers and OS as much as by iTunes, iPods and iPhone. Anyone watching the stock market knows this.
When Apple announced that is was going to INTEL for it's boards and chipset, their market share rose. When they announced their change to a UNIX core OS, it rose. When people found the value of using iTunes over Windows Media player due to DMS issues, it rose again.
Then better iPods and finally iPhone.

Prior to that, Apple was facing constant bankrupcy. The change was not due to the abilities of OS X. Though I like Apple, many version of Linux and even like Windows for what they are trying to accomplish, OS X has had it's issues as well, though they are not as well publicized because it is Microsoft that the world is trying to break down. Even the European market is trying to force it's way to access to MS code.
If MS Windows is such crap, why does everyone want the code to release their own stuff off the core?

Just a thought.

Seriously you guys are pathetic. Have any of you ever tried putting out a OS of your own. All you ever do is complain about the problems, YES, Vista has a lot of them but they are trying to fix this by working out a completely new OS.

I also hope that they learn from the mistakes they made with Vista and at least make it all more stable and I'm begging them to make it able to play all those old games we love (DOS games and legacy software) and return the backwards compatibility we need.

I know a lot of these problems aren't MS fault and are due to third-partys not putting in the effort they need to.

I may not be the smartest person out there but give credit where credit is due and stop being so pathetic.

For those who are counting the versions of Windows, in case you haven't noticed there are two branches of kernels (the one derived from 9x/Me and the current that derived from NT).

The 9x one was killed once Windows Me was released, being Windows XP the merger between consumer and business using a re-hash of Windows 2000 kernel (named version v5.1).

The right branch to be looking is the NT one, and the about dialog says it all right in front of version:

NT4 = Windows 4
2000 = Windows 5
XP = Windows 5.1
Vista = Windows 6

So finally they return back to heterogeneous graphics system support(Vista has got problems with it). It is really a good and usefully feature.Thank you MS.
Will it(system having heterogeneous graphics card) support aero?

500MB of page file usage makes vista oozing slow for games and slow at anything, the draconian security functions the drm and forced activation to determine how many housold pcs it can go on has been annoying and repulsive, microsoft even changed the task mmanager in vista so that it doesn't read page-file usage anymore (like it did in xp sp1), they just wrote (memory) instead , this has confused the hell out of noobs who started thinking it was ram usage alone

A pc is only as fast as its slowest component so top rated cpus and more Ram is not the be all and end all solution to a fast pc when the bottleneck has been the hard drive for the last 2 decades
mysteriously ssds had to come out with a bottleneck (oh geez what a surprise) Add 500 MB of pagefile usage (mostly useless processes you don't need) to an ssd drive and try gaming on that!

Underneath it all I have no grudge against Microsoft, but they have to stop being a crutch for hardware vendors, hardware vendors will just have to sell new models with different colors and thats it, rather than useless overkill higher performance models.

Vista has proved a wise old saying: Newer is not always better. But hopefully this time around windows 7 will live up to its new speed claims (and bring the accurate pagefile monitor back (plz)