News - Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate coming in two weeks

[3dcandy]

As said above....and I guess many times before, Vista's problem was that it quite often was a flat performer out of the box, especially on laptops. Windows 7 in comparison is quite snappy. Vista can be snappy, but only when you tend to throw hardware at it....
However, Windows isn't my favourite OS, that title belongs to AmigaOS, but that's another thread entirely!

Focusing on Windows 7 and the release candidate, even netbooks run 7 ok, and with the touch additions, I reckon that this is the real reson it's been brought to market quickly, rather than Vista's failings and associated problems. A netbook with touchscreen and 7 *should* be a killer combination. However, Ubuntu have a nice MID edition which on a quick look seems even better....

[scaryjim]

Vista on 3 machines here, without a single problem.

Then I envy you your luck I couldn't go a week on either of my Vista machines without a BSOD, and they were slow and claggy. I've never been happier to put XP on a computer than I was with this one!

As to 7 being a Vista service pack - I installed Vista SP1 a couple of months before I got rid of Vista. It didn't make any where as big a difference as switching to Windows 7

[TheAnimus]

edit: wrong thread please delete.

[shaithis]

As to 7 being a Vista service pack - I installed Vista SP1 a couple of months before I got rid of Vista. It didn't make any where as big a difference as switching to Windows 7

And that proves what? That W7 could not have been a SP for Vista?

The smallest tweaks can give huge gains.

And as someone that has used Vista since day 1 and have been running W7 for quite some time, I find that apart from bootup time and a few nice tweaks to the UI, they are essentially the same.

[scaryjim]

And that proves what? That W7 could not have been a SP for Vista?

No, I was just trying to add some much needed humour to the thread. Apparently I failed.

I find that apart from bootup time and a few nice tweaks to the UI, they are essentially the same.

I'm pretty sure you don't normally get those elements in a service pack - particularly the UI improvements. And, at the end of the day, that's what 95% of the people using it care about. Windows 7 looks and feels different to use - perhaps not significantly, but (in my experience and opinion) enough to warrant being classed as a new release. It doesn't just contain tweaks, fixes and minor improvements - it actually adds to the experience. It's the first Windows UI since 2000 that I've actually wanted to use: with both XP and Vista my inclination is to make them look as much like 2000 as possible. Windows 7 makes enough usability advances that I'm still using the full UI with everything turned on: and I don't want to turn any of it off. That's a big change for me...

[Agent]

Had Vista not been slated by the media and misinformed idiots all over the web,

Depends on what the nature of the slating was. You could just as easily argue that if it hadn't have happened, MS wouldn't have bothered with some of the impressive features Windows 7 has in the next service pack for Vista.

I was hit by the famous 'slow write' bug that was 'fixed' in a hotpatch....only that it wasn't for me and many other people. It was after SP1 that it was really fixed for me.

Any OS that is unable to write files at a reasonable speed is going to get bitched at by people. Don't be so quick to dismiss people as being misinformed - A lot of people did have genuine problems with Vista, myself included.

It's also partly Microsofts fault. Take UAC for example, there was limit education for new users to Vista of what it was buried in help files. You speak to average Joe and they will turn it off "because XP didn't do that and it's annoying" without actually understanding what it was. A 2 minute brief video after installing Vista / starting it for the first time would have been enough.

And then we have the entire 'Vista compatible' fiasco, which again hit the people who are not experience with computers the most.

In my experience the people who moan most about Vista are not the tech heads we find on places like HEXUS, but rather the normal user who is used to XP. It's easy to say "you're wrong" to them, but when they account for a huge sector of the market, Microsoft would be stupid not to listen. My initial impression from Windows 7 is that they have more than Vista.

[shaithis]

I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying "In my experience and in my opinion". No one will know for sure unless Bill shows us all the internal memos on the subject, like that's going to happen! But considering the bad press, the poor sales, the current climate and the short time between releases, you would have to be pretty naive to think that there isn't a distinct possibility that this could have been a service pack under different circumstances.

Yes, people had problems with Vista. Just as people had problems with XP, 2000, ME, 98, 95, 3.11, 3.1 and every version of MS-DOS and some people will have problems with Windows 7 as well.

[scaryjim]

you would have to be pretty naive to think that there isn't a distinct possibility that this could have been a service pack under different circumstances.

I don't think that's true, I'm afraid. As I've already said, there's more new functionality in it than you would normally get in a service pack. There's UI changes, the whole touch functionality built in, a number of changes to how you do basic tasks like setting up networks, a significant improvement to UAC - as a bundle it adds up to a lot more than you'd expect to get from a Service Pack. IMNSHO it's pretty naive to think that any company would implement all of those changes as a free upgrade to an existing product when they could sell it as a new one...

Anyway, since you say you're perfectly happy with Vista, I'm not sure why it bothers you - surely you'll just choose not to bother with Windows 7?

[[GSV]Trig]

Is it just me or does Win7 feel like service pack to Vista and is more or less just a rebranding exercise. I think we saw just as much improvement in Xp Sp1 > Xp Sp2 (minus a different task bar of course). I hope MS do a cheap upgrade otherwise they are screwing us with Vista.

No, Vista was 7 half way thru is dev phase, marketting wanted to release something and half of 7 was Vista.. imho of course

[HSK]

I'm still using 3.1 - time to upgrade?

[scaryjim]

I'm still using 3.1 - time to upgrade?

I wouldn't jump straight to 7, if i was you - go for 2000 first so you can get used to using a taskbar Then get Windows 7, which will show you what a taskbar *should* do

[dangel]

No, Vista was 7 half way thru is dev phase, marketting wanted to release something and half of 7 was Vista.. imho of course

Do what? No. Vista was XP Mk 2 until they realised the creaking codebase couldn't be sustained and (essentially) restarted the project. 7 was, and always was, scheduled to be based on the work done for Vista - but then what's suprising about that?

[dangel]

I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying "In my experience and in my opinion". No one will know for sure unless Bill shows us all the internal memos on the subject, like that's going to happen! But considering the bad press, the poor sales, the current climate and the short time between releases, you would have to be pretty naive to think that there isn't a distinct possibility that this could have been a service pack under different circumstances.

Aha, the service pack arguement from the other thread Whilst I agree (wholeheartedly) that 7 is a far better OS than (possibly) would of been because of commercial pressure (i.e. bringing performance to the fore over feature) I can't agree on the SP thang. Problem is, there's far too many changes in to warrant this - should XP been a SP for Win2k? There's stacks of changes under the hood of 7 - and it's all the better for it - but at some point in order to make those changes you need to break things. Lots. As I said before, I can't imagine my own patch process becoming what you're suggesting - effectively reworking the whole system in a patch. It's not a good way to go about things technically, nor commercially. So, I contend this would never happen in MS land, and hasn't before - even SP2 for XP (the monster of SPs which actually added a bit of new functionality) wasn't anywhere near comprehensive.

Certainly for something which is just a few tweaks, it's sure as hell night and day different on my old celeron M lappy or my netbook to Vista (which utterly kills them). Now that could be due to the fact we have trigger services, we have a new DWM etc etc but it's not - it's a sum of all parts rather than attributable to a quick nip and tuck here and there. That takes a much wider and deeper view in development terms IMHO. But of course if you judge things on what you see at the surface, there's only a faster boot and some new UI, right?

Some days (not often) I feel sorry for MS - they're late and they'll critised, they're (marginally) ahead on schedule and it's "too soon"

[scaryjim]

Vista was XP Mk 2 until they realised the creaking codebase couldn't be sustained and (essentially) restarted the project.

The unfortunate downside of this for Vista was that it was both late and rushed! And yet somehow I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for Microsoft... how heartless I am...

[dangel]

The unfortunate downside of this for Vista was that it was both late and rushed! And yet somehow I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for Microsoft... how heartless I am...

I think it's because they're rather well off compared to the likes of us, plus it's way cool to hate 'the man'

But yeah, twas a bad thing - lots of features got dropped (some were unobtainable really though like WinFS) and it probably got to market a bit on the early side. That said, it was third parties getting their heads around a new driver model that cause the major pain for most - 7 retains the same model (mostly aside from WDDM 1.1) so we shouldn't see too much of that this time. I'll give MS their due - it was a gutsy move to switch model like that (and sorely needed too) and they must of known how much trouble it would of cause for third parties (and thus themselves).

I suppose we could put our tinfoil hats on and suspect MS planned the whole thing to boost takeup of 7

[scaryjim]

I suppose we could put our tinfoil hats on and suspect MS planned the whole thing to boost takeup of 7

I could almost believe that if it wasn't for the fact that 7 is so damn good! Besides, I'd've thought Vista's problems would make people *less* likely to buy a new OS from Microsoft when it came out (I certainly refused to touch Vista with a barge-pole until I heard that SP1 was on the way, due entirely to how bad XP was on release (security-wise, at least)).

If I hadn't got hold of 7 Beta, I'd be refusing to switch to that until I heard the first SP was on its way too. As it is, there'll be a struggle between my wallet and my desire for shiny when it finally goes RTM... Thank God for the RC is all I can say