Filed under: OS Updates, Windows, Microsoft
Windows could get early release for good behavior
by Brad Linder Jan 18th 2008 at 7:30PM
While we weren't really expecting Microsoft to release the successor to Windows Vista until 2010, TG Daily is reporting that Windows 7 could be on track for a 2009 release. Considering how poorly Windows Vista has been received by many circles, we're guessing the news could be a mixed blessing for Microsoft. On the one hand, it's nice to know there's something new and hopefully more stable on the horizon. On the other hand, many individuals and businesses that may be holding off on "upgrading" to Vista might decide to skip the current generation of Windows altogether.
Microsoft is not officially confirming or denying TG Daily's report, but according to TG Daily, some parties have already received an early build of the operating system
[via ZDNet]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
With Halloween fast approaching, it's a great time to get in some practice defending your territory against zombies. In Graveyard Shift, you take aim at zombies and other creepy-crawlies, blasting them into splatters of cartoony green guts. It's a casual first-person shooter, and it's very easy to get the hang of - use the mouse to aim, click to fire. Graveyard Shift has at least 15 levels, and it might even have some secret stages I haven't unlocked yet.
They key to getting good at Graveyard Shift is learning to use ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joel I. Johnson said 9:19PM on 1-18-2008
More Stable? Hmmm...I've been running Windows Vista x64. Thus far the only issue was that iTunes refuses to activate an iPhone on 64 bit operating systems and I have a VPN key for which there is no 64 bit software. But for everything else it's been great.
I get the feeling this windows successor is an incremental update, like Windows M.E. was to Windows 98.
Reply
George said 7:57AM on 1-19-2008
Oh good grief! C'mon, Vista is already more stable than any other release. These stories are getting old and big deal if they release a new version next year. Hell, Apple does that too. I don't see anyone poo-poo'ing the current release of OSX because Apple might release a "NEW" version in a year. Gimme a break.
Reply
Mark said 7:58AM on 1-19-2008
Oh gimme a break "more stable".
1) Do you even use a Windows PC or do you use a precious little Mac which gives you a hard-on every time you see it?
2) When was the last time you saw a non-hardware/driver BSOD? A beta build? Windows ME? 98?
3) What circles was it poorly received in? The ones that bask in Jobs' Reality Distortion Field (TM) or those of the EU commission which will fine anything that is American and moves?
4) Windows Vista is perfectly stable and fine thank you very much. Been running it since RC1 and not a hitch.
Stop whining about problems that don't exist.
Reply
someaudioguy said 8:04AM on 1-19-2008
hmmm...
Osborne?
Reply
TurboFool said 8:05AM on 1-19-2008
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the reports of Vista "sucking" are greatly exaggerated. I'm using it as we speak, and with the exception of two unimportant programs that didn't work on it when it was first released, my experience has been great. XP was never this stable for me.
Now that said, I will admit that it's been a mixed bag to some degree. There are elements that feel rushed or tacked-on (the desktop sidebar has drastically less functionality than the Google sidebar did when Vista was released), and features that feel like a step down from XP (why take AWAY filmstrip mode? I used it, others used it, so why bother removing it and not replacing it with something comparable or better?).
So if they manage to treat Vista like they did ME and build from the features it introduced (ME added some of the now-standard special folders, scanner buttons, much better photo handling, context-sensitive folder sidebars, and other functions that became staples despite being surrounded by suckage) and improve everything that they missed out on, I won't complain at all, despite being quite happy with Vista as-is. Seven is welcome as far as I'm concerned. Heck, I kind of already like the name. Wouldn't "Windows Seven" (spelled out and everything) sound kind of cool?
Reply
TurboFool said 3:38AM on 1-19-2008
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks Vista is perfectly stable (more so than any XP build I've run). I've been running it since before its launch, and with the exception of two non-vital programs near the beginning that were incompatible, my experience has been perfect. I'm very happy with it.
Now that said, there are still elements of it that nag at me. Some things feel tacked-on and underdeveloped (the sidebar, for instance, which still has less functionality than the Google sidebar had when Vista launched), and other useful XP features were inexplicably removed (why bother to remove the perfectly useful filmstrip mode if you're not going to replace it with something better?). There's just aspects of it that feel a bit rushed, like it's not reaching the full potential of the framework they built for it.
So despite being happy with Vista, I wouldn't mind if Microsoft treated it kind of like they treated ME, and simply treat it like an interim release with its most useful features being carried over to something much more complete (like how ME introduced some of the now-standard special folders, much better multimedia management, scanner buttons, context-sensitive sidebars, and more). If that's what Seven is, I'll happily move on, as I can't complain about something being made better. Heck, I kind of like the name "Windows Seven" (spelled out like that), even though they won't actually stick to that.
Reply
helloworld said 8:05AM on 1-19-2008
Such a nice change to see people with some common sense (unlike the Mac fanboys at engadget)...
Reply
~J~ said 8:05AM on 1-19-2008
TurboFool, I had the same thought.
I'm convinced that the amount of people with problems with ANY version of Windows are those that mess about with the system, install hacked copies, games, overclocking or what-have-you.
I've used Vista x64 since Beta days, had no crashes, no slowdowns, it's worked each and every time. Every app I've installed has gone on flawlessly, every devices has been picked up with no problems.
I'll welcome any new Windows as every one I've used since Windows 2.0 (apart from ME) has worked with zero issues.
Reply
Brad Linder said 8:13AM on 1-19-2008
I don't want to get into a flameware here, but any digs I take at Vista are based on two things: the fact that there have been numerous reports of companies declining to upgrade, and more importantly, the fact that my last laptop came with Vista preloaded, met the basic requirements, and still had a ton of issues.
75% of the time I couldn't get it to sleep or hibernate, and when I could, it wouldn't wake up properly. Performance was sluggish, boot times were slow, and RC1 didn't do much to improve the slow file copy speeds. The final straw came when one day a new bug arose that caused glitches every time I tried to listen to audio.
While I actually liked the Aero interface much more than I thought I would (live previews of running programs is an awesome feature), after running Vista as my primary OS for 6 months, I found that installing XP on my laptop dramatically increased its responsiveness. I still keep Vista on a separate partition for testing purposes, but I find I rarely boot into that partition. FYI, I also use Ubuntu, but I have never in my life owned a Mac.
I don't deny that many users are perfectly happy with Windows Vista. But there are also many users who have tried it and been less than pleased.
Ka2Ri said 9:43AM on 1-19-2008
Typo in first paragraph "Microosft"
Reply
HB said 4:39PM on 1-19-2008
the problem s with vista are as follows:
1. it is a system resource hog so a less powerful computer, that runs xp fine with multiple apps open, will be very sluggish performing the same on vista.
2. vista performs poorly in an integrated network w/formal domain structure and terminal service apps.. from personal experience..
3. very serious security issues with regard to ssl, run a packet sniffer over your network and watch it yourself.. I trust vista about as far as I can move the universe
vista is not end user oriented, it is vendor oriented, and it allows personal data to be collected.. all not good, not to mention in order to run vista properly you really need a very high end computer
Reply
Lloyd said 8:40PM on 1-19-2008
Lol @ HB of course you need a faster computer but stop exaggerating I ran Vista (with Aero) on my XP machine with only 768 ram, it never missed a beat.
If you brought a new 3D game like Unreal 3 and it claimed to run on only 64 ram I bet you would have serious doubts about the quality of the game.
All of your problems can be either fixed by a simple and very cheap upgrade (the 3.3 gig ram cost me NZ$110) or by googling the problem
Mike said 1:13PM on 1-22-2008
We've stopped using the new Acer 5710 with Vista I purchased for my wife . It's turned out to be a real dog. The one gig of RAM isn't enough, and adding a flashdrive of 2 gigs with the "readyboost" feature didn't help to speed it up. Takes forever to start up and shut down, or start up things like Word. We have also had constant connect/disconnect issues with our wireless internet connection, a known problem with Vista when sharing with XP on the same network. The claim that a simple google search solves all these issues is false (I am a computer instructor). After several months of losing productivity with Vista we are now back to my 3 year old Acer with XP until I go out and my another copy of XP for our newer laptop.
Reply