Jump to content

MS Official: Windows Vista Available January 2007

Trombone_Bob

By Trombone_Bob,
in Windows Discussion

 Share
22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Riffer
Riffer
Posted
Posted

How long does it take for Microsoft to get their {censored} together and come out with an new OS.

 

If they have to rework the system does that not mean that the current system is so bad that they know it needs to be trashed? Could it show that the company has been putting off the much needed overhaul for years and now paying for the lost time? Or, could it show that the futures of windows will be stable and feature-full.

 

I have "tested" almost every releases of Longhorn/Vista since 4029 (call it "opposition research") and have found that although it could not be described as having added features in the beginning, it could be described as being unstable and buggy.

I remember an early release that had a memory leak (could have placed there to discourage piracy) in explorer.exe that would leak about 20 Megs a minute at idol and would crash while browsing. Granted, this release still used a Windows XP PRO boot screen and still used the bliss theme.

 

I do like the idea that they are not rushing the release and giving the dev's time to fix bugs and explore ideas that would otherwise be left out.

Only time will tell if Microsoft has unleashed a bloat-wear monster, created a work of art, or more likely... made another half usable and bug infested OS that layes shame the all hardware ir runs on.

Riffer

P.S Lkr.. don't waste money on Windows. Get yourself a Mac.

xequence
xequence
Posted
Posted
WOW. It takes Micro$oft six years to come out with a new OS and Apple makes one about every year and a half. Could you expect any better from Micro$oft? :)

 

That or @pple just wants to get more money and releases more frequent OS versions?

 

You know youd hate it if a new verison of windows came out every year.

 

"Oh, they are just trying to make more money buy making people buy a new version" :P

 

(Just giving a different opinion, not exactly mine though. I can see absolutly nothing in vista that I would want to use. OSX on the other hand accually seems to do good and meaningful upgrades.)

dponmac
dponmac
Posted
Posted
WOW. It takes Micro$oft six years to come out with a new OS and Apple makes one about every year and a half. Could you expect any better from Micro$oft? :star_smile:

 

??? Apple has been on Mac OS X since 2001. They just keep releasing and charging for their upgrades.. I can see this almost comparable to MS' Service Packs, except MS doesn't charge for it, they just let you update, and then sell it in place of the existing version. I could be wrong I've only followed the Mac OS just for a couple years.

 

macosx-1.JPG

there it is.. 2001: OS X 10.0. looks like the same os we have now in 2006

 

 

Anyways at the rate the upgrade their OS, we wont see OS XI until 2010!!

Colonel
Colonel
Posted
Posted
there it is.. 2001: OS X 10.0. looks like the same os we have now in 2006

 

It doesn't look entirely the same. They got rid of the pinstripes and made it the brushed metal instead. They also changed the way the Finder looks. But I get your point.

rohde
rohde
Posted
Posted
??? Apple has been on Mac OS X since 2001. They just keep releasing and charging for their upgrades.. I can see this almost comparable to MS' Service Packs, except MS doesn't charge for it, they just let you update, and then sell it in place of the existing version. I could be wrong I've only followed the Mac OS just for a couple years.

 

macosx-1.JPG

there it is.. 2001: OS X 10.0. looks like the same os we have now in 2006

Anyways at the rate the upgrade their OS, we wont see OS XI until 2010!!

 

That's nonsense. Sorry.

 

The current version of OS X is version 4 aka Tiger. And it contains significant new features compared to version 1, 2, and 3 of OS X. This is not comparable to service packs as service packs aren't allowed to contain any new features.

dponmac
dponmac
Posted
Posted
That's nonsense. Sorry.

 

The current version of OS X is version 4 aka Tiger. And it contains significant new features compared to version 1, 2, and 3 of OS X. This is not comparable to service packs as service packs aren't allowed to contain any new features.

I hope you're joking. Firewall. That was never in XP before SP2

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

Ouch
Ouch
Posted
Posted

I think you'll find it was - microsoft just had the brainwave that perhaps, just maybe, it would be a good idea to turn it on by default. Pfft I just can't get over how clever those redmond chaps are! :)

 

Anyway apple's point releases sit somewhere between windows major revisions and service packs, but then they are priced in between too so it levels out.

 

And to get back on topic (hopefully it'll stay that way) Vista in January - well i'll believe it when i see the boxes on the shelves

warmcola
warmcola
Posted
Posted
??? Apple has been on Mac OS X since 2001. They just keep releasing and charging for their upgrades.. I can see this almost comparable to MS' Service Packs, except MS doesn't charge for it, they just let you update, and then sell it in place of the existing version. I could be wrong I've only followed the Mac OS just for a couple years.

 

heres another point for apple

windows xp has had 2 significant updates (service packs)

and many minor security updates

 

for each of the last 4 versions of osx apple has released an average of five build updates (similar to what microsoft calls a service pack i.e. 10.4.4->10.4.5) and all the necessary security updates on top of that

INFNITE
INFNITE
Posted
Posted

the funny thing is....when XP came out, OS X 10.0 was superior

when Vista comes out, OS X Leopard is still superior

 

If everything between 10.0 and 10.5 are a whole bunch of service packs....shouldn't Vista be considered one big ol' bloated eyecandy service pack as well?

dponmac
dponmac
Posted
Posted
If everything between 10.0 and 10.5 are a whole bunch of service packs....shouldn't Vista be considered one big ol' bloated eyecandy service pack as well?

 

I wouldn't go that far to say that. Grant it, Vista is a lot of Eyecandy, There is a whole lot of other features too. I'm looking forward to the new gaming engine in Vista. Supposedly it's going to be a lot like how XBox runs it's games.

Colonel
Colonel
Posted
Posted
I wouldn't go that far to say that. Grant it, Vista is a lot of Eyecandy, There is a whole lot of other features too. I'm looking forward to the new gaming engine in Vista. Supposedly it's going to be a lot like how XBox runs it's games.

 

You're actually looking forward to Windoze Vista? :2cents: jk

INFNITE
INFNITE
Posted
Posted
I wouldn't go that far to say that. Grant it, Vista is a lot of Eyecandy, There is a whole lot of other features too. I'm looking forward to the new gaming engine in Vista. Supposedly it's going to be a lot like how XBox runs it's games.

 

if you wanna run games on Vista, be prepared to spend a hefty amount on upgrading your hardware....for example...2gb of RAM....and the latest graphics card

If I were you, I'd just save the money and buy a X360 or PS3 when it comes out. IMO, XP is good enough for gaming. The consoles run games at up to 1080i resolution now, and developers actually take full advantage of the hardware found in consoles. Vista transition will take quite a while, and not many game developers will jump on the bandwagon immediately. It will be a while before Vista truly revolutionizes gaming.

 

as far as features...Vista really doesnt have that many new innovative features. Most of the features are already nicely integrated in OS X. For example, the integrated search, 3d accelerated GUI, "gadgets", Expose clone etc.

rogabean
rogabean
Posted
Posted

From what I've seen of the screenshots of Vista (5308 build I believe). I'm a bit disappointed. Now I'm a Mac/Linux guy typically, but I do keep Windows around on some of my systems as a secondary OS.

 

XP when it first came out was very "Fisher Price"... and compared to OS X it still is, but I've grown used to it.

 

I expected better from MS for Vista... The interface looks horrible. It seems to have taken some good ideas from Apple (among other places) and mucked them up in a way only MS can.

 

But that's my 2 cents.

Colonel
Colonel
Posted
Posted

IMO Windoze Vista is

Mac: Windows Edition

 

Billy Bob just like to copy everything that Steve does. Steve makes a great, stable, working OS, and Billy copys it but turns it into a terrible, crashing, virus-infected OS. But that's just my opinion. :(

rogabean
rogabean
Posted
Posted
IMO Windoze Vista is

Mac: Windows Edition

 

Billy Bob just like to copy everything that Steve does. Steve makes a great, stable, working OS, and Billy copys it but turns it into a terrible, crashing, virus-infected OS. But that's just my opinion. :)

 

 

LOL 'cept it's still ugly! "Billy Bob" can't copy very well. My 6 yr old can do better. :(

Joe Moore
Joe Moore
Posted
Posted

It's much easier to release an O/S when you control the hardware it's running on. Honestly, though the Macs have hardware options, it's nothing like the Windows world where the motherboards change on a monthly basis, the add in cards number in the tens of thousands and even the CPU might be from Intel or it might be from AMD but guess what? The thing generally works and a lot more people bet their businesses on Windows than OS X. I actually use both and see strong points in both systems.

 

Windows Vista is almost a complete rewrite of the O/S and yet it's still possible to run programs from 10 years ago on it. Will things break? Sure, but's mostly programs that weren't written to well published standards. Even Microsoft products will break but it's a huge company. You don't really think the guys who write Office Apps and the guys who are doing Vista are the same groupd of guys (or gals) do you?

 

It's pretty easy to knock the product just because it comes from Redmond. To those who say it doesn't include innovations or new features - have you even tried it yet? OK - it copies some of the Mac interface but that doesn't make it {censored}. A lot of the features are in there for business deployment which is where they make the money. Coupled with Office 2007 they have a extremely useful offering.

 

Anyways, Vista will not RTM or go Gold until November (trust me on this one). That's six months from now. The goal is release a stable, secure O/S. Let's see how they do.

myzar
myzar
Posted
Posted
IMO Windoze Vista is

Mac: Windows Edition

 

Billy Bob just like to copy everything that Steve does. Steve makes a great, stable, working OS, and Billy copys it but turns it into a terrible, crashing, virus-infected OS. But that's just my opinion. :D

 

shame that 80% of the os is part stolen from old opensource stuff and part from next, steve only wrote part of the stupid gui

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...