News - Windows 7 on the fast track, release candidate due in April?

[iworrall]

Methinks MS are getting a little worried. Look what else is released around then:-

April 16th - Mandriva Linux 2009.1
April 23rd - Ubuntu Linux 9.04
May 26th - Fedora Linux 11

Source - Distrowatch


IMHO Linux is for true computer users, Windows is "For teh G4m3rz"

[kalniel]

Methinks MS are getting a little worried. Look what else is released around then:-

April 16th - Mandriva Linux 2009.1
April 23rd - Ubuntu Linux 9.04
May 26th - Fedora Linux 11

Which means absolutely nothing to 99% of the market MS is aiming for. How can you make any kind of mainstream fanfare about a .04 release? I don't think MS are at all concerned.

[dangel]

IMHO Linux is for true computer users, Windows is "For teh G4m3rz"

Why, is there something I can't do on Windows that I can do in Linux?

[Singh400]

I do feel that Microsoft are rushing with Windows 7 slightly. However, having played with builds 6956, 7000 and 7022 the stability is there. All the code and feature set is now locked down. And now it's all about looking for the show stopping bugs. Quicker they can get it to RTM, the more time they can spend on polishing it.

Methinks MS are getting a little worried. Look what else is released around then:-

April 16th - Mandriva Linux 2009.1
April 23rd - Ubuntu Linux 9.04
May 26th - Fedora Linux 11

Source - Distrowatch


IMHO Linux is for true computer users, Windows is "For teh G4m3rz"

Errrr keep on dreaming mate. Microsoft aren't worried about some piddly little *nix distro

/me FLAME-ON!

[scaryjim]

To pick up a few comments:

just laze: I agree most benchmarks are meaningless. That was kind of my point. I'd be amazed if you can actually tell any meaningful difference in day to day use between Vista & XP (presumably 64bit) on a Core i7 with 6GB RAM!

JackUK: At certain pricepoints an extra £10 on RAM could make a big difference to marketability, and "just buy two sticks" isn't an option on some platforms (e.g. mini-ITX, netbook, all-in-one). Ideally, an OS should auto-detect the hardware it's running on and tune itself for performance, disabling unnecessary services. But how often does that happen in the real world?! Microsoft want the WOW! factor of all their new fancy features, so there's no way they're going to automatically disable them!

Kakkou: As I said earlier, I've already removed Vista from 2 computers, whereas I'm enjying my Windows 7 experience. On the other hand, I'm not using Windows 7 day-in day-out yet, so that may affect my opinion. But so far it is streets ahead of Vista in usability.

iworrall: I'm sure all the windows developers, large corporations using 5-year stable XP networks, casual home users, and major OEMs will immediately take note of your assertion that "Windows is 'For teh G4m3rz'" and switch to Linux within the next 6 months! I'll certainly be taking the 7 administrative staff and 4 academic researchers in my group to task about their use of Windows: obviously they must be gaming all day long rather than working!

[JackUK]

To pick up a few comments:


JackUK: At certain pricepoints an extra £10 on RAM could make a big difference to marketability, and "just buy two sticks" isn't an option on some platforms (e.g. mini-ITX, netbook, all-in-one).

Ok, if its not possible to add two sticks of 1GB in, put one stick of 2GB instead (if running a budget processor this usually means lower FSB which means slower ram speed which = cheaper). My point is that ram is now at a good enough price so that if you want to upgrade to the latest OS and want more kick then it is possible. If someones budget isnt enough for a ram upgrade then it isnt a big problem, Vista runs fine with 1GB IMO.

Ideally, an OS should auto-detect the hardware it's running on and tune itself for performance, disabling unnecessary services. But how often does that happen in the real world?! Microsoft want the WOW! factor of all their new fancy features, so there's no way they're going to automatically disable them!

I completely agree with you, although I wasnt saying automatically disable them, users should have an option as to how theyre operating system runs by being allowed easier access (point and click) to disable any feature that they do not require (with prompts and messages explaing why they might want to keep features enabled).

[3dcandy]

Ok, if its not possible to add two sticks of 1GB in, put one stick of 2GB instead (if running a budget processor this usually means lower FSB which means slower ram speed which = cheaper). My point is that ram is now at a good enough price so that if you want to upgrade to the latest OS and want more kick then it is possible. If someones budget isnt enough for a ram upgrade then it isnt a big problem, Vista runs fine with 1GB IMO.



I completely agree with you, although I wasnt saying automatically disable them, users should have an option as to how theyre operating system runs by being allowed easier access (point and click) to disable any feature that they do not require (with prompts and messages explaing why they might want to keep features enabled).

Sure thing...which is why windows let's you one click adjust for best performance, best looking etc.
It might not be comprehensive, but it's there...and has been for years. Same with your Linux distros, usually buried but it's there...and with Linux now, updates, package problems, adding removing stuff is miles easier than ever before.

I have 2 other pc users in my household, and they didn't like Ubuntu. I haven't enough cash to run a seperate server for web dev, so it went from Ubuntu to XP and is now W7. I really liked Ubuntu, but W7 gives me the best of both worlds, I run a XAMPP install for server needs, and it's stable enough to be left on 24/7.

[JackUK]

Sure thing...which is why windows let's you one click adjust for best performance, best looking etc.
It might not be comprehensive, but it's there...and has been for years

And has it helped improved overall performance on low spec machines? Does it include disabling things like indexing and prefetching like I mentioned earlier? There are more things than visual effects that can be disabled to improve performance on low spec machines which should be easier and more accessable to users.

[3dcandy]

As I said in my post, it's not comprehensive at all, but it is there. Microsoft's biggest issues I feel is still trying to keep a decent backward compatability in there. Windows should be 64-bit predominantly, with only an upgrade version available in 32-bit as the memory limits etc. are just stupid in 2009. If they made it 64-bit only, software would have to be made to run, even if it runs in 32-bit compatability mode, and even slightly older machines would benefit from extra ram. Also, Windows does dumb down tweaking the OS as I feel they (Microsoft) have decided how it should run, not the user. I would love to say I don't require to use Windows, but the basic fact is I do, and Windows 7 so far provides the features, power and ease of use I need and expect in 2009. It's not perfect, in fact a long way from it, but so far, best I have at my disposal!

:-)

[Anosh]

Have you run XP on your 6GB i7? And done any meaningful benchmarks?

No, I haven't done any benchmarking at all. But I do notice difference in starting up, closing, crash handling of games and software.

Being able to run smoothly on bleeding edge hardware isn't the job of an operating system. It should run smoothly on the lowest spec hardware..

Well, what I meant was that it takes better hardware to really see what Vista is about and that at this level Vista really shines. I remember XP not running very well when it was released either due both to the fine tuning it needed but also due to the hardware requirements even though the leap wasn't as big. But you're right about the lowest spec. The Vista we have today isn't what it originally was supposed to be.

Windows 7 aren't just about stability and performance, it's also a much better OS to use than Vista.

I haven't read in detail about the changes in Win7 but summarized articles suggest mostly fine tuning in general where the performance tuning has been more (but not entirely) about conceived performance than actual performance. The other part is the UI which will come across as the biggest change for most users. The UI changes are in many cases directly related to the conceived performance of 7, according to articles.

Windows 7 is only as much Vista as XP was 2000. Technologically it's not that much different, but the vast majority of users don't care about that. And I can guarantee it'll be a much greater commercial success than Vista, because people will enjoy using it. And that's the ultimate yardstick...

Can't disagree there. After the down hill from XP to Vista regarding public opinion I suppose going back up the hill would be natural. But then again, nothing about MS is natural.

Even though I haven't used Win7 all the press coverage, UI changes and new functions does make me more excited about 7 than I was about Vista. And I was skeptical about Vista until I changed to it when I assembled a new computer (P4 820D [2.8Ghz, 1GB 667Mhz] to 6GB i7) only recently.