Big deal. Only fanatics are going to install a new OS on their computer that will be disabled in the near future, just so they can determine whether it sucks less than Vista.
Fanatics and people who actually like to know what they're talking about rather than just repeating nonsense they've heard.
No, as I said, it's Vista 1.1.
You're not seriously claiming you believe the Microsoft have developed a complete new OS in two years, are you?
We've had this discussion a dozen times in IRC with Zoe.
No, it's not a "complete new OS." Scrapping everything and starting over is not the was OS development works. You start from where you were before, and add/remove/change things until you get someplace new.
Vista had a lot more changes than had been typically, and that pissed people off. So now you're getting pissed off that Win7 doesn't have as many changes?
Maybe you should keep up with the news: there have been several articles in the last week about 'Windows 8' and Microsoft hiring developers for it. This isn't the 90s anymore... my XP desktop has lasted six years; why would I want to have to pay to install a new OS on my PC every two years?
No **** Microsoft is hiring developers for Win8. I already answered this accusation. And it's ~3 years, not two.
Or, as you might say-- "Wow, Microsoft is hiring people for an upcoming software project! Stop the press!"
Development has not started on Windows 8. PMs and devs have started investigating possibilities and thinking about things.
Wow, several new features! Stop the press!
By "several" that means "hundreds." Again, I'm not going to take the time to sit down and go over all the new stuff with you if you can't even be arsed to google it yourself.
What the majority of Microsoft's customers want is... XP. They don't want to have to buy a super-fast system just to run the operating system, nor do they want to be forced to pay money to replace it with software which gives them no perceived benefit and requires massive retraining costs if they're using it in a business environment.
You don't need a "super-fast system" to run Win7. It runs fine on netbooks, and I would hardly call a netbook a "super-fast system." Plus, if you have existing hardware and an existing setup that works, why would you upgrade to Win7 anyway?
If you're getting new hardware, though, why not get a new OS?
I honestly see no reason whatsoever to install anything beyond XP on my computers; Vista (and Vista 1.1) provide nothing new that I want, yet Microsoft persist in trying to push it on me if I want to run Windows programs.
It's not Vista 1.1. It's just as much a new OS as XP was over 2000. And it's not being pushed on you. "Pushing it on you" would be if XP stopped working entirely, or if you got nag screens telling you that you should upgrade. Just like with the feature you were complaining about (without knowing anything about it), if you don't want the new version, don't get it. I'm not a salesman.
What's Microsoft's marketing tactic for every new version of Windows?
'Buy Windows X+1! This is the version of Windows that doesn't suck, unlike Windows X. Ok, we told you that Windows X was the version of Windows that didn't suck, unlike Windows X-1, but this time we really mean it!'
Actually, their marketing tactic is exactly the same as everyone else who sells any new version of anything: "It's better than the last version." That's not uncommon, and it's not unique to MS.
And you don't think it's an abomination full of half-developed APIs and vast swathes of junk that's in there purely for backtwards compatibility?
Wait, so backwards compatibility is worthless, now? What the heck?
I'm sorry, but I've spent years working with the internals of Windows, and the whole thing is an absolute disaster zone. And that's merely the operating system, even before we start on the garbage that's pushed on users from applications (e.g. every program wanting to start up some piece of crap 'update manager' when you boot so that you can't even use your system for two minutes or more after logging in).
Pretty sure you don't mean the "internals" of Windows. And the garbage from applications is Microsoft's fault, how?
Then, uh, what's the point?
The point is to give users who want the ability to organize their stuff into one folder without actually having it all in the same folder (for whatever reason) the ability to do so. The point is not to force people to do things Microsoft's way, as you seem to think it is.
Also, what the hell. You complain that you don't want it searching your computer, and then when you learn that it's not searching your computer, you complain. I guess some people can't ever be satisfied.
Microsoft tried to force people to put all their pictures into 'My Pictures', and then discovered that people don't want to do that.
Microsoft didn't force anyone to do anything. They realized that people were storing lots of pictures, so they gave you the "My Pictures" folder that you could use if you wanted to, or not use if you didn't want to. "Forcing" people to use it would be automatically putting all pictures in there regardless of whe
Why do they think that people who don't want to put their pictures there are suddenly going to go through the hassle of telling it where to go looking for the pictures they do have, so they can be put in a 'My Pictures' folder that they're not using?
Because there are people who will find this feature useful. You are not one of them. Simple solution: don't use it and stop talking about it.
You know why I don't put my pictures in 'My Pictures'?
No, and honestly I don't care.
Because of the freaking antiquated 1980s drive letter nonsense, and the way that Windows wants to put all user documents and all applications and the operating system all on the c: drive. You run out of space there and you buy a new drive to store your data on... and... uh... oh... but Microsoft want it to all go in 'My Documents', which is stuck on the c: drive. So you're stuffed.
And you don't think Windows is an abomination?
(And yes, I know that in theory you can move an individual users' files to a different hard drive, but doing so is vastly beyond the capability of the average user: even I couldn't get it to work in XP, particularly as so many applications ignore the settings and assume they can just use the normal path on c:\)
Your failure to use the operating system is not Windows' fault, nor is applications failing to respect the user's settings.
Seriously, I can barely stand to use Windows anymore: if it wasn't for the fact that I have numerous games and a few multi-thousand-dollar applications that are Windows-only, I'd wave bye-bye to Microsoft for good. I will celebrate the day I can toss the last Windows PC out of my house.
In other words, if it wasn't for the fact that all of these software developers (who have spent far more time than you weighing the pros and cons of each OS) wrote software for the OS, then you wouldn't use it. Except, by purchasing software for Windows you are supporting the very "monopoly" that you claim to despise by encouraging people to continue developing for Windows.
You know, I remember a time when ATMs didn't crash,
All OSes can crash. Yes, macs can crash. Yes, linux can crash. The ATM software was not written by Microsoft. Blame the people who made the buggy ATM software, not MS.
or come up with a screen asking me to press Ok to close the current application.
At which point you lose your unsaved work in that application. Most users find the confirmation dialog to be an advantage, in case they accidentally close it.
I remember a time when you could go to an airport and actually see the flights listed on the displays, rather than a blue-screen crash dump.
I do too, it was the last time I took a flight, all the way back in January of this year. Plus, again you are blaming MS for the failings of the people who made the flight display system (Hint: MS didn't make it)
A while back someone actually asked me why we use Linux for this system I'm installing, and not Windows. Substantial downtime could cost customers millions of dollars, inconvenience large numbers of people and put thousands of lives at risk, and we're going to run it on... Windows?
Yes, you're going to run it on Windows, because if it crashes you've got support for it. If something goes wrong on Linux...yeah, good luck getting support.
-- previous post merged from other thread --
Windows 8 (named "Mystic" or also "Orient") is known for about 2 years already. It is going to contain cluster-support, the ability of a one-way-replication, a new version of the distributed file system replication and an overhauled kernel. Microsoft just doesn't talk about the release date. But since Steve Balmer announced releases every two to three years, Windows 8 certainly will be availabe not too long after Windows 7 has been released, which is not too long after Vista had been released.
First off, please give me a source for that. I can tell you right now that it's absurd and untrue, because due to cultural limitations, MS could definitely
not name anything "Orient."
And "not too long after Windows 7" is three years, same as OS releases have been happening for ages.
And it's also complete news to me, and I daresay that I would be in a slightly better position to know about upcoming Windows versions than you.
"For the upcoming version of Windows, new critical features are being worked on including cluster support and support for one way replication. The core engine is also being reworked to provide dramatic performance improvements. We will also soon be starting major improvements for Windows 8 where we will be including innovative features which will revolutionize file access in branch offices."
@Microsoft
Source, please.
PS: Microsoft announced Windows 7 in 2000 already by the way (still named "Blackcomb" those days). Initially, Windows 7 was announced to become the XP replacement. Vista was just an intermediate version, but still lagged almost 6 years behind XP, while Microsoft released 5 major versions in the 1990's, beside the NT-line as well.
Yes, Vista was rather late after XP compared to previous versions. This is not news to anybody.
