OSNews

I believe that MS announced a while back that ALL versions would be released on one and the same disk, so that would mean that they are all released at the same moment.

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6118434.html

Thanks. It only makes sense that all editions are released simultanously, since they are distinguished only by product key (all versions exist on each installation medium). But it would still surprise me if Microsoft were to sell consumer versions of Vista to enterprise and volume customers.

"wow hell froze over"

Bloodly hell I think it just did! I lie in wait for this one. But something gives me the impression that MS aren't going to f**k this up this time (We all remember ME don't we )

This is getting extremely old.

Hell, it was never even funny.

Vista has a completely new net stack, new drawing engine, new printing, new API, and just about every other piece of the OS has either been either 're-worked' or is new.

Enough with the 'Vista theme'.

Unfortunately they haven't done any work on the pieces that needed it most (for an end user).

But of course, that could come in the next Windows version after Vista (that would be around 2015).

What exactly is needed most for the end user, and who made you the person to decide it as such?

Next version of Windows will be out in 18-24months, I gurantee it.

As an end user I'm a logical choice, just like most other end users.

Next version of Windows is out in 18-24 months? Hmm... Sounds interesting. Tell me more

"Next version of Windows is out in 18-24 months? Hmm... Sounds interesting. Tell me more "

I believe that watching what happens to Microsoft in the next few years is going to be very interesting.
Vista *could* be a total flop, very much like ME.
And then? Would they go back to the drawing board and create something entirely new, or would they turn into an insurance company?

I don't think Vista will be a flop. I'm not going to upgrade, but many people will be running Vista due to Vista being pre-installed. And since they don't know how to get rid of it, they'll keep using it as they did when they bought a PC with Win98 or ME or XP installed.

Personally I'd prefer small incremental steps rather than big updates. Windows 2003 + SP3 will be fine for me, if SP3 doesn't add to much extra functionality. Using the Indexing Service in the searchbox per default if the Indexing Service is turned on, would be fine for me. And complete uninstallation of IE as well. And a new installation framework to make sure path and start menu items can always be customized - also after installation. And more extensive use of extended fileattributes. Small practical things that doesn't require an update to Vista.

"Windows 2003 + SP3 will be fine for me, if SP3"

That is a very good point. Problem is, there is no Windows 2003 Workstation (I know it can be easily modified)
A couple of years ago Microsoft was running a survey. I suggested a 2003 Workstation. They asked why, but then they replied they were unconvinced by the reasons I gave.

You didn't answer the main question of that comment.

What exactly is missing?

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16371&comment_id=178019

If you're genuinely interested I could put together a long list of things, some of these _are_ in Vista. Some aren't. But I won't do it if you're just going to boink (read: slap) my head (hmm... "boink" came out wrong, I think.)

EDIT: added (read: slap) and (hmm... "boink" came out wrong, I think.)

Edited 2006-11-03 00:19

Seriously.

Provide evidence to back that assertion up; so I guess all those features as listed in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

Are of no interest to the end user *rolls eyes*

Reply is in another thread.

And most of what you can find in those two links _are_ irrelevant.

Again, provide evidence; make a statement, back it up with evidence; something you seem to be, as an ABM'er, incapable of doing. *passes dylan a triangle* now go off and play it with all the other special kids.

I already did - follow the thread. I'm not going to repost every single time an uneducated wildman comes around.

I've done what you asked me to - before you asked me. So I'm not going to do it again. I could keep doing it for every single "kaiwai" not capable of reading.

And there is nothing in this whole repl-to-article thread which has actually outlined why there are no features useful to endusers.

There is a reply as to why it might not be useful for YOU but just because YOU find it 'useless' doesn't mean everyone else does.

This is the same song and dance as done 5 years ago when Windows XP came out, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the cheap seats, claiming Windows XP to be dead, a waste of time, but here we are, 5 years later, and Windows XP not being such a waste; 5 years later, and Linux yet to make a single dent in the Windows marketshare.

You can keep up the protest, but Windows Vista, like Windows XP is like sex with Kobe Bryant... Want it or not, it's gonna happen.

"I do not now a single major, or even small corporation or business that is adopting Vista any time within the next 2-3 years."

Agreed. If anything small business will switch when computers with XP can no longer be purchased, at which time the upgrade will start as machines are replaced.

I second this. We have around 50 workstations just in our department, and every single one is running Windows 2000 SP4. Our IT department has finally OK'd to deploy Windows XP Pro by the end of the year. I do not expect that Windows Vista will be installed until the end of support cycle for XP... Actually, I think that any attempt to install an untested OS on the corporate network would result in a head of this venturous individual to be cut off with a spoon by the manager...

It has nothing to do with Vista adoption (or lack thereof). The reason the consumer release is later is b/c it takes more time for MS to press the discs and package them up for consumer consumption (i.e. they have to press and package millions of copies to put on store shelves all at once, which takes a few weeks).

Businesses with software contracts usually get their software from MS via a download point somewhere and don't get the pretty packaging and whatnot.

"I do not now a single major, or even small corporation or business that is adopting Vista any time within the next 2-3 years."

Normally I'd agree but this time I actually do know of a company that is being brave (foolhardly?) enough to jump into Vista straight away.

Westpac; one of the Australian banks are looking to test it in December for a rollout shortly thereafter. They're mad!

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20393236%5E1530...

Probably because it won't be enough time to press all the DVDs (just my guess).

They are offering a coupon thing for any new computers bought between now and consumer release.

So that retailers (OEM's) can start selling PC's with Vista at about the same time that you can buy Vista in the shop.

If they've set an actual date that means they are already extremely close and are probably on the build that they think will be the gold release.

Just out of curiosity:

1 - how long does it take to built Vista
2 - what does Microsoft use the build Vista (ie Make, Visual Studio, etc.)

I don't know the exact numbers for Vista, but XP took a full 24 hours to build on an entire fleet of machines. I do know that MS uses a custom build process, and it's most definitely not make or visual studio as they are nowhere near robust enough for the 80+ million lines of code it takes to build Vista.

So you are saying you don't enjoy MS marketing? You must be wrong because they (MS) listenned to what customers want and need. You surely want it, you just don't know it yet .... ;-)

It is a somewhat common practice to try and generate as much hype as possible before the launch of a new product (in any industry), and MS having a huge marketing department does this to the extent of becoming a bit of a joke. But I can understand them, too. They have to "sell" the upgrade idea in a much more competitive environment

I don't think Vista will be "right" until SP1, regardless of when they release it. Just like Windows 3.x wasn't "right" util Win3.1, Mac OS 7 wasn't "right" until 7.1, OSX wasn't "right" until 10.1 (well, actually 10.2, for tha matter), NT wasn't "right" until 3.51 (the initial release was 3.1), etc.

I think making a general RTM release of a new OS is simply one step on the road to getting it "right" in the next release (be it a SP or a 0.1 (at least SPs are free)). Releasing an official RTM build to the masses gathers the massive resulting feedback which will be used to make SP1, at which time Vista might get "right". MS can wait for 10 more years, but it still won't be right until SP1. So they may as well release it now; the sooner they release it, the sooner they can release SP1 down the road.

That is very true. I have been "screaming" for ages that the system is being abused.

How is security going to work? If a person has Ultimate and encrypts a file/folder and copies it to a flash drive will a person that only has Home Basic going to be able to open, view, and/or save to the folder?

Are you talking Bitlocker or EFS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitLocker_Drive_Encryption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypting_File_System

Edited 2006-11-03 06:00