Next Version of Windows? Call it '7' 488
CNet has the news that Microsoft is currently aiming to release the next version of the Windows operating system in about three years. Previously known as Vienna, the OS is now simply known internally as '7'. After achieving a quality product, the article states, Microsoft's big goal with 7 is to recapture a regular release schedule for their operating system product. From the article: "Like Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The company also confirmed that it is considering a subscription model to complement Windows, but did not provide specifics or a time frame. Next up on Microsoft's agenda is Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista, which is expected before year's end. The discussion of Windows' future isn't surprising, given that Microsoft has been criticized by business customers for delays related to Vista. Many business customers pay for Microsoft's software under a license agreement called Software Assurance."
Re:They should really look to Leopard for inspirat (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's just a version number (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT4 = 4.0
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1
Windows 2003/Windows XP x64 = 5.2
Windows Vista = 6.0
Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (Score:5, Informative)
and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista
So it'll be progressively better operating systems (with the possible exclusion of XP over 2000 IMO) that aren't "perfect"? That sounds fine to me.
If your metric in measuring any product is if it lives up to the marketing departments hype, then ALL products are miserable failures in that regard. We all know products never live up to the hype, so I don't quite understand the criticism here.
Of course that's not to say I'm defending everything Microsoft has done, far from it. The problem I have with this announcement is the continued long lag times between releases. Vista wasn't originally planned at 5 years, but more like 2 or 3 years. Microsoft SAYS they've changed as far as release schedules go, but it sounds like same-old-same-old to me.
IMO software develops best with a mix of frequent releases of incremental change, and major releases that re-architect everything. Microsoft has done the major architectural changes on a regular basis, but has failed to produce very many good incremental releases.
For instance, Windows 95 was a pretty good product, while Windows 98 wasn't really much more than adding USB support. ME was of course utter crap. 2000 was the best product I've seen from Microsoft (and the best major release they've done). XP was useless IMO and added little to nothing to the OS. Vista is the buggiest Microsoft OS I've run so far, and doesn't live up to many of the claims (less reboots my ass). I _really_ like the menu search feature though, but wish the sleep feature worked a lot better (extremely buggy in my experience). Despite this I won't be going back to Windows 2000, though I might just go Ubuntu on my workstation. That would make me Microsoft free for the first time in 12 years. Everything else including my work machine is some variant of Linux.
Re:It's just a version number (Score:3, Informative)
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (Score:2, Informative)
This is so weird. MS seems so focused on unsigned code [which IMHO is mainly aimed at DRM, and less on quality/security from the end-users perspecitive], that it ignores obvious problems, such as having separate 32 and 64-bit releases.
If MS could figure out how to run both 32 and 64 bit code at the same time [such as how at least one other major OS can], it would greatly aid both developers and end-users. Suddenly, for applications that gain no benefit running in 64-bit, developers don't have to develop and ship a 64-bit version of their application. End-user's don't have to worry about 32 vs 64-bit applications.
If MS could figure out how to do this, then it maximizes the use of the end-users hardware [as it would automatically run 64-bit code if the hardware supports it AND 64-bit code is available, while still running 32-bit code if that's all that is present. The end-user doesn't get to the problem of "oops, I have 64-bit hardware, and I installed 64-bit Windows, but now, a critical app they need to use is only available as a 32-bit app, so erase and reinstall 32-bit versions of everything".
Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (Score:2, Informative)
Subscription models... let me tell you about Avaya (Score:5, Informative)
We use Avaya (formerly known as lucent, formerly known as AT&T) phone systems. They are truly awesome -- in a not-good-at-all way. I am the primary administrator (UNIX background, not old-fart-telecom background).
So first we bought them, paying thousands and thousands of dollars, but now we have to RENT them too. You see, you pay a maintenance fee every month that works out to something like $8,000. If we stop paying, it's Avaya's policy that they will dial into our phone systems and cripple them so that we can't use about half of the command set. No, I'm not kidding -- they've done it to us by mistake and they are being sued over it in other states.
What do we get out of it? Not much. If some of our server hardware breaks, then Avaya will replace it, but Avaya won't assist with programming unless we pay them something like $80/hour for assistance. Given that a 24-port digital line card costs as little as $3K from authorized resellers, and we've never had one break, we would be much better off just hording our cash and buying a couple of spare cards and parts.
Unfortunately, Avaya also has a tight control over their supplier market. They have "authorized resellers" and then the SCARY "GRAY MARKET" oooooohhhhh BE SCARED!!! It's also known as eBay, where part prices are roughly 1/3rd of the cheapest Avaya authorized-monopolistic reseller.
Our sales person reminds me of a used auto salesmen.
Subscription services usually suck when it comes to software. Be warned.
Re:History lesson (Score:4, Informative)
It's funny that you mention that. There were no NT versions prior to Windows NT 3.1. They started with 3.1 because people justly fear 1.0 versions.
Re:Your rose coloured glasses betray you. (Score:3, Informative)
This is perhaps the stupidest and most incorrect thing I've read on Slashdot in some time. I know most
For anyone interested in facts, service pack 2 for XP introduced a new limit of 10 concurrent half-open outgoing connections. By half-open, it basically is akin to calling somebody and waiting for them to pick up the phone. While their phone rings, the connection is half-open. SP2 does limit these to 10, but there is a queue, and as connections are accepted or time out, others are processed.
If you really want to, there are patches out there for the TCP DLL that allow you to change the limit of 10 to anything you want (up to the previous 65,535).
See? Learning is fun!
Re:meanwhile, out in the world (Score:2, Informative)
I agree with your sentiment - but new linux user's expectations are lower because of their experiences with windows. I don't mean this to be as provocative as it sounds, but as an example, I have a busy 67 yo who has been using Fedora core 2, which I recently upgraded to FC5. It does everything he needs it to and the upgrade was the only support he needed. They don't know that they have to delete and compress the old files on their XP box, or defragment the hard drive every so often, they just sit there wondering why their web pages take so long to load even thought they have a super dooper broadband connection.
Some of them are just utterly stoked that they don't have to re-enter the activation key every couple of months because 'something' broke (invoking the third R) but most of all, when they realise they don't have to worry about virus software so much any more - they are completely blown away and are wondering why they've had to put up with virus scans slowing down their computer once a week, paying for and downloading new virus signatures, it's just not an issue for them anymore.
My most recent Linux installs are on new machines, with the users ASKING for linux to be installed (I've been building a install server and kickstart profiles to deal with the unexpected volume). At the other end the users don't want to throw away a perfectly good 5 year old vaio when they don't have the budget for a new machine to do web browsing, email and word processing. I agree that new devices support vista, but I don't think that the M$ driver certification makes it a sure thing any more, even less so that a device will continue to work if certification is withdrawn because there is some sort of security problem with the device. You just don't have that assurance in windows anymore, especially if it becomes a hassle for a device vendor that wants to focus on their new products. The king is dead. Long live the King.