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?"
This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I like the way they think (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista was shoved out the door too early without enough time to season. So for their second whack at it, which they've conveniently renamed to disguise the fact that it's a second whack, they're shoving it out the door too early without enough time to season. Consistency is a good thing but not when you're doing it wrong.
Marketing play (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 is mostly a marketing play. It should have been Vista SP2 with the usual bunch of very useful cleanups, accelerations and simplifications (i.e. what Vista should have been).
However, the name Vista is now such a disaster that they had to change the name.
Release Candidate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like the way they think (Score:5, Insightful)
Bulk that up a bit and you could get work for the Register.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Not very (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very different. Face it, Windows 7 is simply Windows Vista SP3. Microsoft just can't call it that because of the bad reputation Vista gained thanks to MS's mishandling and misapprehension of what users actually want. What we're seeing isn't a shortened beta cycle for Windows 7, it's a longer-than-usual testing/beta cycle for a service pack.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
nomenclature (Score:2, Insightful)
If you knew you weren't going to release RC1, in what sense is it a release candidate?
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "release". They could spend another year and a couple hundred builds and still call it "Beta 1".
But yeah, I kind of get the feeling that they think the problem with Vista is just PR. They've managed to build some hype around Windows 7 and have gotten people to say some positive things, so they're going to kick it out the door and hope to get the sales that Vista has been missing.
I think they might be missing the point, though.
In beta for years. (Score:3, Insightful)
Snow Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they're trying to rush the release of Windows 7, Mac OS X "Snow Leopard" is right around the corner.
I guess that Apple ad about Microsoft putting all their money into marketing instead of R&D was closer to truth than some people would like to believe.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
"Either they are rushing it, or it's really just a minor change to Vista."
Yes
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
How many RC's do most projects plan for? I mean, if it goes to RC, it's a "release candidate" for god's sake! Unless you find a show-stopper bug during that time...
And that's the point. "Release Candidate" is supposed to mean, no known bugs remaining, abuse this until you find one.
So, you put the RC out for a month or so, or until someone finds a showstopper bug. When you find one, you put out another RC.
In other words, "as many as it takes." The fact that Microsoft is planning a specific number of them is kind of irresponsible -- if anyone was wondering that "Release Candidate" is Microsoft's slang for "Beta", this should seal it right here.
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.
It's not aimed at Vista users (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows 7 is likely more aimed at XP users and people considering the unreasonably expensive switch to Mac.
I don't think it's really aiming to be the next big upgrade for Vista users, although I believe it will be anyway.
If you want to consider Windows 7 a SP, that's not a bad call, since it's built on Vista's backend directly. It's really an overhauled and re-imagined userland which really does warrant a version change. It doesn't act like prior Windows so it is fair to call it a new system, for user's sake.
I've been using the Beta for a while and it isn't a beta like say... an Ubuntu beta. This is a beta of a quality the open source world cannot obtain. We call this a release in linuxland. For this reason, I don't think there's anything strange about them aiming for a single RC.
Alternatively, this could easily be a case of an upgraded installer/software update tool rendering it unnecessary to separate RC releases. They might just upgrade the RC if they need another one.
I think the marketing angle on this is that Windows 7 is correct by design. Besides, Apple releases new versions of OS X that are basically service packs at full price all the time, and they don't even have large public betas. Consider that Microsoft has a far larger and more effective QA system internally than Apple. They CAN release like this-- they've got an army of internal testers aside from the millions of beta testers out there.
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:4, Insightful)
* Faster on Less Hardware - They did make it work better on older slower hardware with less memory.
But still slower than XP on the same hardware. Faster than Vista is not saying much.
This should be included into Vista with a service pack
The whole thing strikes me as Vista SP3.
M$ takes a page from Coke (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just jaded/cynical, but isn't this a bit too convenient? MS goes from taking 6+ years developing a bloated, buggy, annoying OS to releasing a suspiciously stable, fast and well-supported OS in less than 2?
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be doomed regardless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the economy in most countries right now. Many people have either lost their jobs or are fearful for their security. Most firms need maximum productivity with minimum overheads to survive the storm.
Could there be a worse time to launch a new product? Especially when said product is a dubious, at best, improvement on XP. As a home user, and not a gamer, I see no reason whatsoever to switch from XP. For business users, I'm thinking it must be corporate suicide to introduce a new operating system that adds little extra features, and yet has such a different interface that it will require some extra training, and a noticeable decrease in productivity. Never mind the additional cost of licensing and installation.
I simply do not understand how they can possibly think Windows 7 will be successful.
Re:M$ takes a page from Coke (Score:2, Insightful)
It is hard to believe but it isn't impossible.
How many of the software developers here think that, given 18 months, that they could make their current project faster/more efficient/less buggy if they didn't really have to add any new features?
I know I could.
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that XP does just about everything Vista does. Can you say the same for DOS?
Re:Not very (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, Windows 7 is simply Windows Vista SP3. Microsoft just can't call it that because of the bad reputation...
You also can't charge several hundred dollars for a service pack.
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm using the Windows 7 Beta right now, and previously I've been using Windows Vista.
Is it really that much better? Here are the points I can think of it being better than Vista:
* Faster on Less Hardware - They did make it work better on older slower hardware with less memory. * Less Annoying User Account Control - It doesn't freak out every time I want to run a program from the desktop. This should be included into Vista with a service pack, imho. * New Starbar - I like it. Good Job Microsoft. But is it worth the upgrade?
Other than these things... why would anybody upgrade?
Oh... yeah, that's right... Everybody says it's "So much better." Right.
--Pathway
What has every new edition of Windows been other than a slightly better UI coupled with more support for more hardware? I mean, 2 out of 3 of your points are about UI, and from what I've been able to tell (also currently running the beta) it makes a fairly large difference. Finding windows/using more windows at once isn't a problem with the new taskbar, and as you said, it is slightly leaner than Vista was.
So why would anybody upgrade? Because the only real reason people ever upgraded their (Windows) OS was security (adjustable UAC helps with that tremendously) and UI. So, yeah, it really is "So much better" to those who don't realize how minimal of a change this is. In fact, its still "So much better" for those who do know how minimal the change is. Hell, I was an XP holdout til the beta. I even have an XP partition on my drive, which I've used all of three times. The UI in 7 just keeps driving me back towards it, and I feel that's the same reason people will upgrade.
That's not to say that Vista couldn't be essentially 7 - in fact, with a simple service pack, it really would be just a slightly beefier version - but since that won't happen, expect people to flock to 7.
The UI is the frontend to the entire OS. Even minimal changes, especially good, solid minimal changes (e.g., the taskbar), make a huge difference in the overall "feel" of the OS. Furthermore, they help increase the usability of the OS - and coupled with running faster, these two seemingly small changes can really help increase productivity on the OS.
So, sure, aside from all these things... why would anybody upgrade? Because only an idiot would discount these things.
Re:Marketing play (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:M$ takes a page from Coke (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, MS took 6+ years developing a stable, fast and well-supported OS but it inexplicably got a bad reputation. Then they took 2 years thinking up a new name for it and tweaking the interface so it doesn't look the same.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference with the Linux kernel developers though. The kernel itself isn't released to "end users" in the same way Windows is released to their "end users."
Distributions take a specific kernel they want to release... test it, package it and release it to actual end users. If there's a problem with some functionality beyond the kernel level, its the job of THOSE developers to make sure its working with the new kernel and notify the kernel developers if work needs to be done.
This is what most people don't understand about linux. No one installs and uses "Linux," they install an operating system that happens to use the Linux kernel's functionality. "Using Linux" is a misnomer when its used in the same context as "uses Windows."
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
By this very nature, to plan for more than 1 makes no sense, since you already think you are ready to release. Planning for 2 RCs is like you are planning for your QA team and Betas to have failed.
It does happen, and it happens often. I would plan for at least 2, and if you only need 1, you're ahead of schedule. But I can't remember when I last saw a large project use only one RC.
Re:Is it a coke classic move? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, and they can charge for it.
Brilliant.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they might be missing the point, though.
In my opinion they are right.
The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.
The launch kinks have mostly been worked out.
The driver situation has significantly improved.
And the price of 'suitable hardware' has continued its downward trend.
The only major obstacle in the face of Microsoft really is public perception that "Vista sucks"; and most of the people who think it sucks haven't even tried it, and won't.
Re:Strange Vibes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be messin' with Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate [microsoft.com], dude!
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
That screenshot comes from documentation, which is often one of the last things to be updated. I don't really think that's all that surprising.
In a related example, the "Create New Shortcut" (or something) screen in Windows 98 still showed a miniature screenshot of the Windows 95 Start menu (including the words "Windows 95") on the side. Does that mean Windows 98 was just Windows 95 rebranded? No, but it's hardly surprising that they are based on the same code.
Re:Marketing play (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they get rid of ftp.exe in Vista? I know it's still in XP.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason to plan for more than one. The point was that it is stupid to plan for exactly one.
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, W2K and XP are pretty close to "good enough". They're a pretty decent compromise between performance, stability, features, backwards compatibility, and driver support.
As long as the latest Firefox still runs on XP, as long as my games still work on XP, there's little incentive to upgrade to Vista/Win7.
Re:It's not aimed at Vista users (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista was stupid, not unstable. The failure was design, not QA.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, cause YOUR blog found that the documentation had yet to be updated? Look through the rest of the product's documentation. Building on Vista isn't a crime - we don't ask Red Hat to rewrite, clean room, every release of Enterprise Linux, nor do we scream and whine "OMG, does anyone have any doubt that FC10 is just a rebrand of FC9 with some updates?!?"
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista-- (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats because Windows 7 == Vista with some bloat removed.
UAT's a breeze when your codebase is shrinking.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that beyond the PR problem of "Vista sucks," there's yet another problem of "why should I want Vista?"
Maybe that can be solved with PR too, but it's not entirely a PR problem.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
If Windows 7 can maintain its "light and fast" reputation and Apple doesn't make any moves to upset it such as releasing a *real* low-cost Mac (less than $350), netbook, or start embracing OS X on non-Apple hardware, I can see MS not losing any major marketshare like they have been with Vista.
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:2, Insightful)
- Can XP transactionaly modify the filesystem and the registry?
- Can XP do the same composition in the UI as Vista?
- Can XP encrypt the hole disk ?
- Has XP Mandatory Access Control as Vista?
- Previous versions, ..., etc.
There are a lot of usefull think to do with Vista that people don't know how to use or that even exists.
7 to Vista is as SE to 98 (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is good at selling a repaired version of the original software at full price. I don't know any other business that can successfully release a broken product and then charge their customers full price for what essentially amounts to a product upgrade. Only lawyers get more money for less.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:1, Insightful)
You're an idiot.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
The kernel itself isn't released to "end users" in the same way Windows is released to their "end users."
Relax, it was a joke.
Also, there was a time, when the most important feature of the Linux kernel was that it actually booted. (Compared to, say, HURD.)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that Windows 7 is based on Vista, of course it is. The point is that all Windows 7 seems to be is Vista 1.1. Coming up with an entirely new OS name is disingenuous. It would be the same if Apple came out with yet another X.something release and called it "OS XI". If they are not releasing a new OS then they shouldn't be pretending that they are.
Sure, this is just nit-picking. It's not as if MS product names have ever really said much about what the product actually is. It is still annoying though.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually if a company decides to rewrite a program from the ground up (see: Adobe from time to time), the rewritten version is less featureful, less stable, and takes much longer to come out than the previous version.
Please mention that to the folks who are dropping KDE 4.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I'm pretty sure the post you're replying to was tongue-in-cheek.
Secondly, I'm guessing that the Windows 7 kernel has also been solidly finished for quite some time; few, if any, of the new features added to Windows 7 require kernel support.
Thirdly, Linux needs to get the goddamned semantics down already! Someone comes in, "I tried Linux and my printer didn't work" then the reply is, "Linux is a kernel!!! It doesn't do printers!" Well, ok, then CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. (Actually, I half-think the current confusing naming is on purpose, so there's always an 'out' to people who complain about Linux GUI problems.)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:2, Insightful)
I think most of the commenters here would prefer it if MS said, "We're planning on sending out 1 RC for sure, more if needed." The idea of "one and only 1 RC regardless of what turns up" is what they're objecting to.
This is Slashdot. Most of the commentators here are going to say it sucks regardless of how good it is.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and a human is 97% genetically indistinguishable from a pig.
Viva la Difference!
do not feed the trolls (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is parent modded +2 insightful rather than -1 troll?
(I was going to write more, but then I would just be feeding the troll.)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to know much about software development.
Alright, then. Despite working as a software developer for years, clearly I'm inferior to someone who doesn't even know how to use paragraphs.
There is no such thing as bug free software.
Wrong. It's just prohibitively expensive to produce it, in cases more complex than "Hello, World."
The question is whether or not those bugs are show stoppers...meaning they break something critical to the functionality of the product.
Also whether they are known.
I realize it's different in the commercial world, because with a few notable exceptions (Google), you can't sell beta or release candidate software -- you have to pretend it's a final release. However, in the open source world, aside from KDE, people have no problem leaving it pre-release -- by release candidate status, most software is easily desktop-ready, and once released, production server ready.
And you don't read very well. I did not say "no bugs remaining", I said "no known bugs remaining."
Is it the perfect product?... The myth of Linux being somehow above reproach is just that: a myth.
Strawmen. I never claim Linux was beyond reproach, or that I expect Windows to be perfect.
However, when there's a new Linux kernel released, it's pretty much ready to go into production. When there's a new Ubuntu released, people pretty much just push the Upgrade button. When there's a new Windows released, everyone waits for SP1 before even considering rolling it to production, or to corporate desktops.
What makes that really inexcusable is, Microsoft charges for that first release. With Ubuntu, if it doesn't work out, you've lost a ten cent blank CD.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never had any problems with Vista's speed. I think the reporting on how slow it is is based on:
1) A couple bad benchmarks during its beta (the infamous "file copy" one, for example, which was quickly fixed in the release version)
2) Massive amounts of exaggeration from people who haven't even tried Vista.
There's also a possibility of:
3) Shitty driver support from OEMs.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing Vista/Win7 offers is a more secure environment and if someone is currently using a firewalled and v-scanned version of XP, they will see little value in the new offering for that price.
You can bet once Win7 releases, XP will die because MS forces it to. They will kill it by expiring product support faster than you can blink an eye.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
>Win7 kernel feels like it's about 90% the same as Vista
How the heck do you know how a kernel feels? Is this slashdot or the Sylvia Brown psychic detective forums?
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is are people accusing win7... (Score:2, Insightful)
XP -> Home version. Win2k3 -> XP server. Vista -> Home version. Win7 -> Vista server.
Why is it being released so quickly? Because they have be doing internal testing on the server components of the OS since before Vista was released. Also, they are supposedly stripping down a lot of the unneeded crap in Vista to make it run faster and smoother. How much additional testing do you need if you remove 30% of the code base?
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
...Thirdly, Linux needs to get the goddamned semantics down already! Someone comes in, "I tried Linux and my printer didn't work" then the reply is, "Linux is a kernel!!! It doesn't do printers!" Well, ok, then CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. (Actually, I half-think the current confusing naming is on purpose, so there's always an 'out' to people who complain about Linux GUI problems.)
I think the semantic confusion is due entirely to a populace unwilling to reject mass media branding.
The media treats 'Linux' like a Windows alternative, and this is simply not the case. Linux is a kernel.
Notice that you end your post with a remark about 'Linux' gui problems. Even you still do not get the point.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
"Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can suddenly become upstanding citizens. I'm flexible, and not black-and-white.)" - Linus Torvalds
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Now think how much more useful that "suitable hardware" is with a real operating system that doesn't require 2GB of RAM to run Notepad without swapping.
Hell FreeBSD will run quite happily run on a 512MB machine with Compiz. W/o the snazzy OpenGL-accelerated wm (like using windowmaker instead), it'll run on an 64MB machine fairly well. It FLIES on a 2Ghz machine w/ 2GB of RAM and beats the disk much less than Vista will.
OS X Tiger ran great on a 450mhz G4 w/ 512MB RAM. It was even usable on a 500mhz G3 iBook w/ 384MB. OS X 10.4 has all the features Vista was touting and then some.
Just because Win7 "sucks less" doesn't mean MS deserves another chance.
And yes, I've used Vista. The 35 Vista machines we've been saddled with at work have been the biggest pains in our ass since they were purchased.
And anyone that willingly has DRM of that magnitude shoved down their throat on their own personal machine deserves what they get.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:2, Insightful)
his move would make me angry if I were a Vista user
As a happy Vista user, this does anger me. Granted, I got Vista from an MS handout, but still...
If you want to know who to blame for it, look no further than your own house. The backlash from IT professionals who have almost zero experience with the OS but trashed it--endlessly, for years--are the ones responsible for Microsoft moving their development from Vista to 7.
I personally can't wait for 7 to RTM, but honestly, I would have rather seen the improvements to come to Vista instead.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
When I recommend an OS, I tell them "Use Ubuntu." Not "use Linux".
That's the difference. You don't use Linux, you use Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.
Betas, RCs, and the Obama billions (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, different developers use "beta" and "RC" in different ways. With Microsoft, these terms have always been defined by marketdroids, not by engineers.
If Microsoft is only planning one beta and one RC, the most likely reason is that the company feels a need to rush this product to market with barely any of the pre-release hype that was done from Win95 and WinNT onward, through the multiple reviews of betas and RCs that Microsoft so lovingly nurtured in those halcyon days when it could dictate a schedule to its markets.
Those days are over. Their image is being battered by the Vista fiasco. Linux, especially the *buntus, are beginning to upstage them on the desktop. Several alternatives to MS Office have now become viable and are already stealing some niche markets. And Exchange Server is beginning to look a little shaky: there are other alternatives now.
With Obama billions to be pumped into the economy in a very short time, there are a lot of businesses that will be looking at renovating their IT infrastructure in the next 12 -24 months, and if Microsoft has no viable products at the beginning of this period... Well, it would not be the first company that had a meteoric rise, and ballistic crash.
Microsoft marketing needs to have Win7 in place, ready for purchase, in probably less than 3 months. It would be nice if Win7 actually worked, but that is secondary. Microsoft has enough ready cash on hand to smother any noise about performance concerns. It just needs to get the thing out there.
This is what Apple does... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
That makes no sense.
In OSS if you have a problem with something then you take the *name* of the package you are attempting to use, plug it into a search engine, and go talk to the developers or community surrounding the package.
There is absolutely no responsibility of the communicators to make sure they are understood by potential users if that entails breaking a working system because the end users want the illusion of a single provider solution. Changing the naming to reflect an illusory, homogeneous community would simply be taking power from the user and exposure from the developers. All bug tracking would be complicated.
Take your Linux GUI problem that a user may complain about. If the user can be troubled to find out the name of the package that they are using for their GUI then they are a few clicks away from interfacing directly with the maintainers of that package. This power is simply too much for most end-users.
There is no reason for the OSS community to change. Linux is a kernel. Distros handle integration. Names lead to responsible parties.
Re:This can help focus their marketing efforts (Score:4, Insightful)
This still doesn't address the "why should I want Vista?" problem, which is that after 5+ years of service packs and patches, XP runs just fine for most people, and they don't feel the need to re-learn how to use an operating system (and get on the patch/sp/patch treadmill again) just because MS tells them they need a new one.
If your Engineering department is tasked to work on "Suckage prevention and remediation" instead of "Product improvement and useful feature additions," your company is going to be in the unenviable position of having to compete with previous versions of your own product, which is exactly where Microsoft is now.
Marketing can bang the drum and say "look how much better Win7 is than Vista!" But if Win7 isn't any better than WinXP, the market (or at least that section of it that has a choice) is simply going to ignore the new product and hang on to the old one.
I worked for a law firm up until recently, and it was only in the last year or so that they'd even begun to upgrade the machines to ones running Windows XP from Windows 2000. I would bet that they're still not finished that upgrade process. The in-house IT guy there has already said that they'd be upgrading to Vista over his cooling corpse. He's not likely to willingly upgrade to Win7 unless he's forced to by the boss, who is more likely to fight for a switch to macs than upgrade to a new version of windows. Granted, my tale is anecdotal and subject to the usual caveats, but I don't think I'm too far off base.
It's common opinion on slashdot that people will do as Emperor Ballmer commands, because they don't know any better, but that's not really true any more. Joe Enduser is leading the charge in the anti-Vista crusades, and Joe sees that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Joe is not going to just swallow MS's marketing line, Joe has gotten skeptical, and with Jester Jobs' own marketing team telling him how much better his computing experience could be, Joe is considering his options, and they most likely don't include polished turds.
Re:This is what Apple does... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which ones? Even if there weren't a lot of new, user visible features added between some of the releases, there has been a constant supply of new APIs, bug fixes, and many many speedups added with each release of OS X. with 10.3 they added Altivec support to as much of the OS as they could, and all of a sudden the system ran faster than the previous rev. In fact, I have used all the OS X versions as my main desktop OS since 10.0, and it has gotten faster and more stable with each version. Who can claim that their same computer got faster with each new version of Windows they have installed on it?
The core of the OS hasn't changed much since the 1980s though.
Do you complain that Linux still has grep and an /etc directory and so forth? If something is good, it should stay.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
Stopped reading after this. People who cause themselves mental anguish, despite knowing that it's coming, and then complain about it later represent all that is wrong with society.
Re:Rebranding and relaunch (Score:3, Insightful)
"really is a huge step forward from Vista"
Or they have finally realised that to make Windows "seem" better it needs to be faster in its operation. A more responsive UI etc.. isn't "a huge step forward" ... Its a bloody simple concept that has been overlooked by Microsoft since they started making Windows. Finally they have got a kick up the ass over Vista and now they know they now actually have to make it look and operate more reponsively. So it is a Rebranding and Relaunching after (finally (starting to)) fix what was so badly broken in Vista.
There is definately a big PR campaign behind this over hyping of Windows 7. You are just blinded by the hype, "A huge step forward" my ass.
Still, the bigger they hype it up now, the bigger the fall they will suffer, when people realise it doesn't live up to the hype.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you aware of the irony in that first sentence? In one breath you've managed to deride users of Linux for using confusing terminology and then proceeded to call them "Linux." I cannot even remotely fathom how this got modded up as insightful.
The Linux community has had its "goddamned" semantics down just fine for as long as I can remember. Linux is a kernel. Ubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo, and so on are distributions based around that kernel. Just because that concept doesn't seem to make sense to the average user (or you, from what I can tell) doesn't mean it's wrong or needs to be changed. It means somebody did a horrible job of explaining to them what "Linux" means or the user was lazy and filled in the gaps of their knowledge with incorrect assumptions.
If you want to get all Semantics Nazi, you can start with the fact that 90% of all computer-illiterate users still refer to the black box on the floor with the Dell logo as a "CPU." Good luck.
Re:Rebranding and relaunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Your summarisation of the changes is actually wrong, they did a lot more than just "disable a few processes on startup", the startup is one of the major changes to the kernel, it now uses a multi-threadded approach that can load several systems at the same time, as opposed to doing it linearly (And, for example, being forced to wait for a drive to spin up or whatever). That's just one example of what I'm referring to.
Secondly, you appear to have either contradicted yourself or proved my point, I'm not sure which:
Right - so which is it, are people being fooled, or is 7 actually a genuine step forward for Windows? On the one hand you're saying that Microsoft just paid everyone to give positive reviews, but with only a handful of exceptions, everyone I know that has actually TRIED the beta has been extremely impressed with it. I'm not talking about big fancy reviews on tech sites or whatever, I'm talking about a few friends, online buddies, forums, etc. The general consensus is that Windows 7 is good. That's what I'm referring to when I say it's unlikely Microsoft has "fooled" everyone.
But still, you claim they bought reviews (and you know, they may well have, I cant' say one way or the other) and that's the only reason there's so much positive feedback, but from my own experience, the positiveness has all been word of mouth and after the clusterfuck that was Vista, wouldn't it be really odd for everyone to suddenly say "errr...well actually, it IS quite good?". People were ready to jump on MS for Windows 7 being shit (And I believe you and a few other people here are those exact people), hell everyone likes to hate on the huge, evil, monolithic corporation, but as crazy as it may seem, they actually got a few things right with 7 and it easily stands apart from Vista.
But don't take my word for it, go ahead and install both Vista and 7 side by side and see what the difference is. Then install XP and see for yourself that 7 really is a worthwhile upgrade from it - and it's still in beta.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe the populace should give up and not confuse people. Linux is commonly used as the name for the entire distribution, kernel and all. Hell, I do it too, and I know better. Yes, I'm typing this comment in Linux.
Words mean what people use them for. If everyone decides Linux refers to any distribution built around the Linux kernel, then that's just the way it is. It's not like it's the first English word with more than one meaning.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:1, Insightful)
True, but there's also no responsibility of the potential users to refrain from calling Linux advocates "a bunch of arrogant wankers" when they espouse arguments like:
Re:Why is are people accusing win7... (Score:3, Insightful)
XP -> Home version. Win2k3 -> XP server. Vista -> Home version. Win7 -> Vista server.
Er... what's Windows Server 2008? Chopped liver? Isn't that the server version of Vista? Or are you just commenting on an OS market you're entirely ignorant about?