Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate 856
b8fait writes "The head of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows development confirmed that Windows 7 will take the unusual path of moving straight from a single beta, which was launched earlier this month, to a release candidate. Sinofsky fleshed out the plan today and hinted that just as there would be no Beta 2, the company would also not provide a RC2 build. In other words, there may be only one released build of Windows 7 before it ships, possibly much sooner than even some of the most aggressive rumors about Windows 7. How much different can Windows 7 really be with such a shortened beta cycle?"
One thing I wish they'd fucking fix (Score:5, Informative)
I've been using Windows 7 on my Thinkpad for the last three weeks or so, and I've got a laundry list of bugs, issues and comments, and ironically one of the things that's broken in the beta release is the fucking "send feedback" feature.
I signed up for Microsoft Connect, and I still don't see any obvious way to submit bug reports. Maybe I have to be using IE or something.
And it's not like I haven't gotten Windows Updates in those three weeks. I think they don't really want any actual feedback. They're getting positive notes from the media, and Windows 7 will undoubtedly be far less reviled than Vista deservedly is, but the public beta has been out for a while; it's not like they could escape the fact that no one can send them bug reports.
I really think the fact that the "Send Feedback" button that's on every single open window in Windows 7 beta does not actually allow feedback to be sent is a deliberate move on the part of Microsoft.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Informative)
For what is touted as a major OS release I really can't believe that a single beta can get the job done. Either they are rushing it, or it's really just a minor change to Vista.
Having run the beta since its release, I can say it's more the latter than the former. Windows 7 is prettier and feels faster than Vista ever did on the same hardware. Underneath, Win7 kernel feels like it's about 90% the same as Vista. WinXP SP2 was arguably as big a change (or bigger) than Win7 is to Vista. I think it's ridiculous that MS is making customers pay for this as an upgrade when it's really a very pretty service pack.
That said, there are a couple of very rough areas still present in Win7. The ones I've found thus far are:
- It breaks quite a few AV packages, but then again what major system change (SP, upgrade, etc.) doesn't?
- The Windows Mobile Device Center is unusable with most phones. It just crashes when I plug in my AT&T Fuze (aka HTC Touch Pro).
- IE 8 is something of a disaster right now. All kinds of rendering issues. It shows a lot of promise but is probably the most "beta" thing in Win7.
- Windows Media Player is seriously buggy. There was an announced bug that adding MP3's to the library would irreversibly trim a few seconds from every file. Eek! Glad I don't use it.
There is one thing I find comfortably similar between Vista and Win7: stability. My Vista setup had not one single BSOD in over a year of operation. Never. Not once. It would routinely go any length of time between reboots that I cared to go, although I typically rebooted for patches once a month. Win7 has been rock solid stable, much more so than any previous MS beta OS I've ever used and way more stable than the Vista betas. Honestly, since I don't use IE or WMP, they could release Win7 today and I'd have no problem using it as my production OS. The WMDC is kind of a pain, but I sync OTA so I really only use it to add/remove files from my phone.
Reviewers for Win 7 all bribed by Microsoft? (Score:1, Informative)
I just read a report that basically all the Windows 7 reviewers were bribed by Microsoft, and their reports are biased. (Yes, included Gizmodo.)
If that is so (and their practices in the past tend to support the idea) then perhaps they have begun to believe their own propaganda.
Meanwhile, XP is still faster. One article suggested this was because Vista and 7 still have all the DRM hooks, which slows down the whole I/O stack massively.
Ubuntu and perhaps ReactOS keep looking better and better...
Re:Answer: not much (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not one to fuss much about UI design ... but there are still parts of the OS where they simply split apart a window with tabs in it, didn't even bother removing the tabs, and dumped it into it's own window.
So, you aren't one to fuss about UI design, but you will fuss over a minor cosmetic defect? Also, you borked the link. Here is one that works, and after looking at it, it looks fine, despite being exactly what you describe. With all of the problems with Windows, and even GNU/Linux and software in general, including genuine UI problems (UAC), a minor cosmetic defect is nothing to fuss about.
Working link to minor cosmetic defect [imageshack.us]
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, "as many as it takes."...For what it's worth, Vista had enough showstopper bugs on release day, it's hard to believe it ran through any kind of release candidate process.
Though "beta" and "release candidate" are supposed to mean particular things, the truth is that what they mean depends on the developer using them. Microsoft in particular usually does plan on having a set number of betas and a set number of release candidates. For them, "beta" seems to mean, "stable enough to be used, but everything is still subject to change; feature incomplete." Release candidate seems to mean, "feature complete, time to squash bugs." Their release candidates are what lots of developers would call "beta", and usually they have at least 3 betas and 3 release candidates.
So as far as I can figure, that Microsoft is planning on only doing one of each probably means one of three things:
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, Fedora releases multiple candidates of the OS before sounding the all-clear. The kernel in question is vetted by the distro, not by the user (in general).
The licensing is a Vistastrophe (Score:2, Informative)
Never mind the additional cost of licensing and installation. I simply do not understand how they can possibly think Windows 7 will be successful.
I recommend to everyone I know not to buy Vista -- and I'll likely do the same for Windows 7. This is not because Vista is bad, or too different, or hard to use. Apple's commercials are manipulative (albeit effective) and Microsoft's inept responses (Seinfeld and Gates, I'm A PC with posterchild for Uncool, Steve Ballmer, screaming like an enraged ape) are embarrassing. But Vista is an adequate improvement in appearance and seems stable enough, despite needing just as much critical patching every week [imageshack.us] as Windows XP.
My objection to Vista -- and to Windows 7 -- is the licensing strategy.
With MS Windows XP and all preceding versions of Windows, I have been able to install the OS on each new computer that I purchased as I upgraded my hardware. I always purchase and register my commercial software.
When I buy OS X, I can install it on my Apple computer and ever future Apple computer that I will buy. I don't even need a key. I can upgrade my hardware without having to pay Apple again, or to call them and advise them that I am upgrading my computer. This makes my life easy.
One can of course install a Linux distribution anywhere, anytime. OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, and others are very easy to install and to use.
But when you buy Vista, you buy a registration key only. This key cannot be re-used more than twice. (OEM Vista cannot be re-used at all, I understand.) I am not going to pay for MS Windows Vista every time I upgrade my computer. I'm not going to telephone Mr Ballmer and asking for permission to put his product on my computer. And since I do not intend to use Vista or Windows 7 illegally, I will simply have to stop using it.
Fortunately, for me, there are better alternatives to MS Windows today. I feel sorry for the users who are locked into the Microsoft Cycle Of Misery and can't -- or won't -- escape.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion they are right.
The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.
The launch kinks have mostly been worked out.
I've heard that one before.
The driver situation has significantly improved.
Which is why, last time I did a Vista install, both the printer and network drivers mysteriously disappeared a week later, only to mysteriously reappear the next day. New equipment, with Vista certified drivers, btw.
And the price of 'suitable hardware' has continued its downward trend.
Okay, I'll give you that one.
The only major obstacle in the face of Microsoft really is public perception that "Vista sucks"
and this perception exists, perhaps, because Vista really DOES suck?
I keep hearing that the problems with Vista have been solved, but every time (yes, EVERY time) I have tried Vista, or set it up for someone, I have had problems. I simply no longer believe any claims that Vista has been fixed.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Informative)
I'd say there was a big difference between win95 and win2k. Different codebases, win2k came from the NT line.
95->98->ME->Dead
NT->2K->XP->Vista(bad)->Win7
2K was a massive upgrade, regardless. XP eventually added a number of new capabilities, vista, well, tried.
Win7? I have the 64bit version installed on my laptop, not incredibly impressed with it, but it works. I'm planning to try it on my main computer as a dual boot to give it more of a stress test.
Re:Why is are people accusing win7... (Score:2, Informative)
2008 is the server version of Vista and 2008 RC2 is the server version of Windows 7.
Re:Snow Leopard (Score:1, Informative)
Every single software update has managed to brick it, necessitating a full recovery (which means all my data is gone and needs to be copied back).
brick
This word does not mean what you think it means.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:2, Informative)
Erm back when XP was released, a year after 2k, the two were very much identical fundamentally.
Its just that Microsoft maintained XP and let the 2k branch die.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:2, Informative)
'1. I use Vista, I'm an IT professional, and I don't think it's that great. It's not horrible, but it's not worth paying money for.'
I have Vista loaded at the moment. I'm an IT professional, and I don't think it's that great either. It IS pretty horrible, and its certainly not worth paying money for.
The entire system is plagued with permissions and security problems (whether you have UAC on or not). Nero is trashed. Network printing may or may not work depending on the day of the week. Backwards compatibility simply didn't exist, and the resource requirements are well within the realm of insane.
A typical new off the shelf vista system is a quad core with 8gb of ram and a half tb of storage. That box will run vista fairly well (such as it is), that box will run XP with insane speed, combine that with a decent video card and you can max out settings on any game on the market. Those are the specs of systems being sold for general desktop vista systems!