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.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
How many betas does a service pack need?
"Regression testing"? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect." - Linus Torvalds
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, 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).
Re: (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.)
Congratulations - you win! (Score:5, Funny)
You have officially won the "semantics of the year" award!!
Re:Congratulations - you win! (Score:5, Funny)
You have officially won the "semantics of the year" award!!
Won? It's only January! This is a contender at best. At least wait till we get a few good car analogy threads before we start handing out awards.
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: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: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.
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.
Microsoft could fool such (Score:5, Interesting)
I took the plunge the day before yesterday and it is indeed different. I put it on two machines, one a low end 32bit and one a higher end 64bit machine. I've been using Vista for about a year and Server 2008 for about the same period of time.
Windows 7 looks and feels like Vista with a mildly snazzed up taskbar, but without most of the annoyances of Vista. Aside from the taskbar and a toned down UAC, it feels exactly like what I would expect a slimmed down version of 2008 to feel like. Everything I like about Windows 7 could have been done with Vista and the taskbar improvements.
Still, I do think they are at least as different as Windows 95 and Windows 98 were. I can't get the LAN to work on the 64bit install, though I can assign an IP to the adapter. I can't get our primary software package (and the reason I'm testing) to work on either one. The system locks occasionally on both, probably due to the same testing. IE8 is kludgy and, where I've been able to test it, doesn't perform as well as either IE7 or Firefox 3. My yardstick of major differences is based on how many things are broken, and if the beta is a fair representation, then I'd say it does indeed deserve to be classified as a new version of Windows.
I think most of the testers are using software and hardware recommended and better tested by Microsoft than our typical system, but I cannot believe how different my experience has been from the typical media publications. I believe it is precisely because most of the reviews are Microsoft friendly rather than workplace critical.
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, Funny)
Did Linus just with an argument on Slashdot? With himself? The guy's a superhero in my book.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
You accidentally the verb.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
How many service packs will this beta need?
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many betas does a service pack need?
If anyone has any doubt that Windows 7 is just Vista rebranded, read here:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/windows_7_vista.html [dotancohen.com]
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Coming up with an entirely new OS name is disingenuous.
To me there was a significant step in going from Windows 95 to Windows 2000. Then another big step from 2000 to XP and another big step from XP to Vista. I consider going to Windows 7 the same as upgrading Windows 98 to Windows Millennium Edition, catchy but insignificant except maybe for marketing. Corporations with very limited IT budgets are not going to move to Windows 7 any time soon.
Yet I think they should have done better.
Re: (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:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
NEW WINDOWS 7!!! Using the ALL-NEW, cutting edge NT kernel version 6.1!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, it annoys me when people are all "Windows N+1 is really just Windows N!".
Win 7 is based on Vista, which is based on 2003, which shares a lot with XP, both of which come from Win2k, which comes from NT4 (along with some eye candy and features from the Win9x line -- which is really Win 3.x with 32 bit thunking, which itself was little more than a GUI for DOS, which itself was much of a CP/M clone), which comes from older NT 3.x series, which inherited part of it's design from VMS (itself being based on
This is what Apple does... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
I hear that the developers for Windows 7SP1 will include a natively-built grep-like utility.
[/snarky]
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
M$ astroturfers.
Right, because /. is FULL of those. As made apparent by the overwhelming bias of opinion in Microsoft's favour.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and a human is 97% genetically indistinguishable from a pig.
Viva la Difference!
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, and a human is 97% genetically indistinguishable from a pig.
Well, that explains the taste.
Re: (Score:3)
Making look completely different or not has nothing to do with the underlying code structures and stability.
I can 'theme' Windows to look nothing like Vista but it will still be Vista.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
You're an idiot.
No, I'm a jerk. Get it right. Idiots are stupid, I am simply mean.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently you are doubly an idiot. One for thinking that screen means Win7 is Vista 2.0 and two for thinking that makes you "mean" and not a moron.
No, other things make me mean. My slashdot posts do not define me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I've used XP XP/SP2/Sp3 XP64 Vista32 Vista64 SP1 and I'm currently running Vista64 SP2-Beta alongside a Win7-64 version and can state they appear the same. So based on your statement
Windows 7 is NOT Vista SP2
is in correct based on my experience using both of them.
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.
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: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 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 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: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, 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: (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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
'The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.'
That and the buggy security model, incompatible major software issues, numerous issues with network printing, and the fact that even on 'suitable hardware' it is outperformed by its predecessor in almost all areas. And lets not forget the marketing screwup of releasing it in 200 flavors when two confused the userbase.
Vista still remains a downgrade from XP with no clear advantages (except video previews on the taskbar... ooo... ahhh...) and plenty of sho
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: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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
MSFT claims [windowsteamblog.com] that the reason it's 6.1 is because applications broke:
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.
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:
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
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: (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: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.
Is it a coke classic move? (Score:4, Interesting)
They can basically replace an unpopular product and hope to get some bump in marketshare out of it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, and they can charge for it.
Brilliant.
It's the same as vista (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:I like the way they think (Score:5, Insightful)
Bulk that up a bit and you could get work for the Register.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Marketing play (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they get rid of ftp.exe in Vista? I know it's still in XP.
Re:Marketing play (Score:4, Funny)
It should come without browser, and no ftp, and don't get me started on Telnet!!!
Release Candidate? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
Wanna bet? Just watch.
Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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.
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: (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: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.
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.
staffing reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
There's been a speculation on the Mini-Microsoft blog [blogspot.com] about layoffs hitting the Windows team after 7 ships. This could partly explain why only 1400 of the 5000 announced layoffs were said to have been notified immediately.
Someone posted a comment to the effect that, being self-interested, people the Windows dev team should react by dragging out the process as long as possible, hopefully not shipping until the economy starts recovering.
perceived lack of testing affects corporate users? (Score:3, Interesting)
or is this O/S only meant for "ordinary people" who have neither the ability to discern quality product, nor the option of choosing anything else (linux aside, but that's a different topic)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista was stupid, not unstable. The failure was design, not QA.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Then they took 2 years thinking up a new name for it...
I can see it now.
Developer A: Windows 5?
Ballmer: [ thows chair at him ]
Developer B: [ sheepishly ] Windows 6?
Ballmer: [ throws chair at him ]
Developer C: [ sheepishly ] Windows 7?
Ballmer: Thats the greatest thing I've heard all day!!!
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.
Strange Vibes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Strange Vibes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be messin' with Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate [microsoft.com], dude!
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.
Vista-- (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats because Windows 7 == Vista with some bloat removed.
UAT's a breeze when your codebase is shrinking.
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.