Industry analysts differ on the importance of shipping Microsoft's Windows 7 operating system before the 2009 holidays, but agree that the release of the OS needs to be swift and smooth to avoid the sins of Vista's past.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-06-21
"When XP was released in 2001, there was countless whining about it. It was slow, Luna was ugly, it was bloated, etc. 6 years and 3 service packs later, people are now unwilling to leave XP."
Yes, I'd like a little cheese with that whine, thank you very much.
On the other hand, you might want to do just a leeetle bit more analysis there.
How about the XP upgrade was the arguably the first that didn't have people lining up in stores waiting to get their hands on it? At release, you had to upgrade your hardware to make it run without going woof (and 6 + years later, the hardware to make it run without going woof is _cheap_). Maybe folks don't want their OS upgrades make them change hardware - maybe they want to have a decision along the lines of 'if I pay for and install this, I want it to make my hardware seem better ...' Maybe after all those years of having to buy new versions (since there was no such thing as a fix or service pack) and now, fixes and service packs are free (like other OSes have been for decades) and after years of fixes/service packs, it is finally sorta stable and you want me to pay money to change to a first release?
I mean, come on.
I've kept Vista on my laptop so far because
1) It came with two drives, so I can do real things with the OS on the other drive and
2) it embodies everything I haven't missed in the 10 years since I left off even having an MS OS available on a dual boot machine. And more.
It simply confirms how difficult it is to take ones eyes off a train wreck when it is right in front of you ....
Member since:2005-07-07
How about the XP upgrade was the arguably the first that didn't have people lining up in stores waiting to get their hands on it?
Apart from Windows 95, when have people ever lined up to buy a new release of Windows? Windows 98? Windows 2K? Windows Me (ugh!)? I don't remember anyone being excited over a new Windows release post '95.
At release, you had to upgrade your hardware to make it run without going woof (and 6 + years later, the hardware to make it run without going woof is _cheap_).
Oh please, I ran XP on release on my trusty Dell Inspiron 3700. It was a 1999 laptop with a 433 MHz Celeron processor, and 256 MB RAM. It ran XP fine and I admit I disabled Luna since I considered it an eye sore back then
I think you're greatly exaggerating the hardware requirements to run XP, in the same way people exaggerate the hardware requirements for Vista. It simply confirms how difficult it is to take ones eyes off a train wreck when it is right in front of you ....
I returned to using Windows as my primary platform in April 2008 when I took up a new job as a Windows C++ developer. Previously, I'd spent 5 years being a Mac head. I'd hardly consider myself as a Windows apologist.
Member since:2008-01-01
The general feeling is that most OSes that I've seen don't have higher and higher reasonable hardware requirements with each new version as Windows has. Of course other suffer too. It's absolutely crazy that you can't install most of the leading linux distros on 64 MB ram. Of course Linux would run it, but the installer often tells you you need more RAM.
In my POV Vista's only sin is that runs slower compared to XP. I mean from all the hype of better (less wasteful) scheduling, i/o priorities, i/o cancellation, memory prefetch, et al. you'd be wanting better performance. And with 512MB you won't get it. You possibly do, provided you're at least dual core and 2GB of RAM.
Now, of course you can't say for sure that the lesson is learned, but we're already seeing (from PDC) that there is push to make windows 7 not needing even better hardware.
And yes, I agree, people love to whine about way too many things. And the worst thing is to blindly pass that whining on and on ad nauseum.
Member since:2006-09-27
A good and stable platform is great for both users and developers. I'd like Vista to be around for as long as XP has.
Maybe that's Microsoft's worst nightmare
Member since:2005-07-06
The stable platform is already there with Vista. If Windows 7 manage to accomplish what MS is aiming for and the keepy the same hardware requirements and (almost) total compatibility, not much will be broken and the transition will be very smooth.
Edited 2008-11-12 21:00 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-07
When XP was released in 2001, there was countless whining about it. It was slow, Luna was ugly, it was bloated, etc. 6 years and 3 service packs later, people are now unwilling to leave XP.
The problem, as I see it is two fold. One, people just love a good whine. Two, there are issues with any OS that MS releases and they need a few service packs to get it running smoothly. Vista is working great for me, and I think that if MS just focused on Vista and push out a few more service packs, Vista will become the new XP.
A good and stable platform is great for both users and developers. I'd like Vista to be around for as long as XP has.