Microsoft exec: Windows 7 is no service pack
Microsoft is attempting a challenging task with its positioning of Windows 7. The company is trying to make the case that the product won't break things that work with Vista, but at the same time trying to convince users its a worthy upgrade.
Bill Veghte, the senior vice president of the Windows business put it this way in a speech to investors on Wednesday:
Bill Veghte, Microsoft's senior vice president for the Windows Business
(Credit: Microsoft)"It's a minor release when it comes to incompatibilities," he said, adding that most applications and hardware that worked with Vista should work just fine in Windows 7. At the same time, Veghte tried to make the case that Windows 7 will nonetheless be a significant step forward.
"There are plenty of great things in there that make it much more significant than a service pack," Veghte said. In addition to improving some of the annoyances of past releases, such as slow boot time, Veghte pointed to new features that make it easier to connect to both home and business networks.
"In Windows 7 there's a capability called Direct Access," Veghte said, that allows users to more easily connect to their corporate network. "You no longer have to VPN in," he said.
Windows 7 also adds an improved taskbar for managing multiple windows as well as support for multitouch--assuming one buys a touch-screen computer. But it is clear that one of Microsoft's biggest challenges with Windows 7 will be to convince users that it is an important upgrade.
With Windows 7, Microsoft is adding support for multitouch, demonstrated last month at the WinHEC conference.
(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET News)One indication of just how neatly Microsoft is trying to thread this needle is the fact that the server unit is saying its version of Windows 7 will be a minor release. The product that had been code-named "Windows 7 Server" is getting the designation Windows Server 2008 R2. The "R2" designation has in the past been used for very minor updates to Microsoft products.
Veghte was asked about things like how many versions of Windows 7 there will be and about pricing, but offered no new detail there. The company released a pre-beta version of Windows 7 for developers at two conferences earlier this year, with a broader beta scheduled for early next year, followed by a release candidate. There are some indications that January may be the timing for the beta.
As for the final release, Microsoft's internal goal has been to get it out next year, although its public target has been for release within three years of Vista's January 2007 mainstream launch. Veghte appeared to give even more wiggle room on Wednesday, though, saying its goal was a release to manufacturing (as opposed to a formal launch) by January 2010.
Note: The dates in the last paragraph were off by a year when I first posted but have since been corrected.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
I think the real reason 7 is coming out is to ditch the name "Vista" since that's what M$'s real problem is: PR. Not actual software issues at this point.
-Ina
Windows is Windows. If 2000 or XP is working for you there is no reason to change. ASAIC Windows 7 is Vista with lipstick, Microsoft's hope of an end run around Vista's failure to launch.
I know of quite a few VERY large companies that switched to 2008 BEFORE it was "officially" released...though mostly on domain controllers.
Since I switched to the Mac at the time Vista was released, I am planning on upgrading to Snow Leopard - an important new operating system that is focused on becoming the worlds most stable operating system.
And while the economy is on everyone's minds these days, technology is doing very well in this hostile financial climate.
Why is Microsoft so obsessed with the "Build it and they will come" mentality?
Never have I fought so hard with a version of Windows to make it do what it should. That?s be an OS. When it works I prefer it over XP. However I prefer things that work as they should over things that don?t. It?s as simple as that.
Well, Apple could cease development of OS X if they decide that the OS is perfect since they derive their revenue mostly from sales of hardware rather than software. I don't think they will since they can use a new OS release as a means to drive new hardware sales but ultimately it is the hardware that is important to Apple rather than the software.
Memory Hogs like Windows Aero have been dramatically improved to have 1/3rd the memory footprint And their new Font Rendering brings Windows graphics into the 21st century.
Any improvements to reduce the bloat should be free.
MS is just fleecing you.
1. What bloat?
2. What if you didn't purchase Vista in the first place?
3. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Stop trolling though.
Perhaps it was "incompetence", but I think it was more likely MS overestimating the willingness of people to actually spend more money on the hardware than they do on software. 99.99% of all "vista is slow" complaints are from people running a $250 OS on a $200 computer.
I would prefer them spend time making things "better" rather than wasting it on reducing memory usage. Add some more customize options to explorer, a built-in workspace switcher, etc. People just need to quit being cheap idiots, and spend $40 to upgrade to at least 2gigs of ram, don't make MS spend time coding around this.
Not to mention there hasn't been ANY annoucement of pricing or versions, so far all you know, they could improve it and do a "all versions of vista can upgrade to Windows 7 for $100", and make windows 7 modular like server 2008 and only have 1 version, like OS X.
$200 for stand-alone, $100 for upgrade, single version. That would pretty much shut up at least half of the apple-fanboys.
Oh yeah Apple's got tons of fanboys that would spend several hundred dollars on a LIMITED EDITION *scoff* copy of a POS operating system that has the CEO's signature on it... fools.
Oh my gosh! Wait! That was the WinDoze fanboys.
/sarcasm
Seriously, it doesn't take ad hominem attacks to defend against insipid comments like "Apple sucks" or "MS sucks" -- you just ignore them, knowing that 95% of the readership here will understand those people to be fools. Vista was a turd and everyone in the world knows it. Here's hoping Windows 7 gets MS back to where we SHOULD have been nearly two years ago.
Plus, touch support looks NICE!
@menehune9: They have that attitude because it has served them very well in the 1990s. Whether they realize that the environment has changed radically since then is another story.
"I'll wait until the public betas start firming up before passing judgment"
Wait, what? When did you start doing this? It's a welcome change for you if it is true. Keeping an open mind will help greatly. Up to this point you have been very quick to pass judgement on products you do not own, use, or plan to use at any later date.
...and no amount of hype from a MSFT talking head (or any corp's talking head) will change that.
Just shutup, sitdown and dont speak again.
Now go back to your table please - the adults are talking here.
This is ridicules!!!, it's very slugish and slow, needless to say there was an option to downgrade to XP, but he instead installed the latest version of Ubuntu and then I think he installed VirtualBox and install WIndows through there, for the few times that he will need to use it.
All the people at work are switching to Ubuntu, it's freaking great!!!!!!!
If Windows 7 is like Vista, then forget it.
Try a clean install without all the bloat that those same OEM's tag on and you may be quite surprised by the difference.
Now our network team here use to be huge Ubuntu fan's then 8.10 came out. Some went back to 8.04 others went back to XP. Now when I say that, I speak of there home machines not the office systems.
8.10 just sucks
Short answer: NO
I really like the pre-fetch built into Vista, 4Gigs of Ram when I need it, but when I'm not directly using it I get a performance boost to launching my most used programs. Win Win, stop complaining.
@celticbrewer. Fixing my Vista intsalls with XP reminds me of 2 things. How much Nicer the Vista interface is, and how much better XP just works. Man I'd love to move on with life, but Vista just keeps getting in the way.
I'll not hold my breath waiting.
I think that says all we need to know about your credibility.
Yes, you do. Direct Access is built on IPsec, a VPN technology. This is simply Microsoft's standard obfuscatory approach to marketing, and it's a shame that journalists allow it to pass without critical comment.
Now from the WinHEC presentations and demo, the solutions is a lot different than today's VPN. The machine appears to always be on the corporate network.
In typical MS style, it doesn't behave nicely with non-MS clients and other VPN software. If you've neither of those, however, and already have some PKI in place, you're good to go.
The real news about this is, you don't even seem to realize or get...
With Direct Access, users won't have to secure to the office servers, and limit all external connectivity 'through' the office servers. When you VPN, you are then using the office network as you are there locally, so even your internet access is directed through the office LAN/WAN. (This topic is actually more complex than just this, but trying to be brief.)
Additionally, the way computers are handled on the office domain are designed around the mobile market that a lot of companies deal with. Today you have users with laptops and dealing with VPN and other issues when they are in and out of the office and remote versus local and also dealing with 'offline' issues and syncing.
So computers are now all treated as remote 'in concept' even when they are at the office or at home logged into a company server, or a low bandwidth dial up, or even offline sitting in a park with no Internet. The domain policies and experience the users get will be consistent no matter WHERE they are.
This is what is important, and more important than just doing away with old VPN practices.
And these are some BIG STEPS...
You can do that in a corporate environment through a program called the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP). Inside this software bundle there are two technologies that accomplish this. App-V for application virtualization and MED-V for Desktop Virtualization. You can check out more of it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop.aspx
Hope this helps.
I wouldn't contaminate my worst enemies computer with this mess. OK, maybe I would on my WORST enemies computer ...
I agree that Vista is a tragic OS. Not just because it is slow but because Ballmer refuses to admit it - he runs around with his hands over his ears shouting "naah naaah NAAAH, I can't hear you" when there is bad press (when isn't there?) about Vista.
I think everyone at MS is afraid to say anything to the emporer for fear of getting a chair thrown at them so the idiot emporer doesn't know he has no clothes.
Dude -- MS has always had a discounted rate for upgrades -- whether it's XP to Vista, ME/98 to XP, 95 to 98, or whatever it might be.
That may be the case, but often it required a previous installation of windows on the disk, etc. Even though I have owned at least 1 copy of windows for pretty much every version (ME excluded, as 2000pro was obviously so much better), every time I "upgraded" I just forked out a few extra bucks and bought a full (oem usually) version so I wouldn't have to deal with installion hassles.
It's just unfortunate that windows 7 is still so far away. I haven't been this excited about Microsoft in years.
7's selling point is "Ok we fixed Vista" They should fix Vista and restore confidence in it. If they can make 7 work they can make Vista work. If they can't fix Vista, then they can't build 7.
Microsoft needs to start paying attention to simple logical detals like that. ME was the "whoops" did they learn the lesson? Not if they don't fix Vista.
Or are you just content to remain the king of unspecific generalisations?
Why am I not surprised?
Never mind, that eventually the new Windows 7 will of course find uptake, because M$ will put the thumbscrews onto the hardware vendors as usual, so that it will be more expensive to buy a piece of hardware installed with a cost-free alternative to Windows. However, it is nice to watch that Micro$oft appears to be in pains of how to sell their new and no doubt EXPENSIVE O/S. Get ready for a major M$ marketing onslaught over the next year, people.
And what was that, why we all should have to buy the new O/S: Direct Access for networking, touch-screen capability and couple of aesthetic improvements on the screen? GET REAL! GET LINUX!
J R Menzies
- by Fire Balls December 3, 2008 2:04 PM PST
- I have seen many companies moving to server 2008 It doesn't break the compatibility's of a 2003 network and it is far more stable then server 2003. Also the interface is user friendly and there are enough new features to make it worth it but not so many changes as to make you rework your network
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by boe_d December 3, 2008 4:46 PM PST
- I support both Windows 2008 and 2003 (as well as previous versions). I don't find it any more stable than 2003 - perhaps that is because I've NEVER had a 2003 server crash on me but I only support about 50 of them so maybe you have more servers than I do. I find 2008 a perfectly good OS but I don't find it more user friendly - just try to modify your IP address - far too many steps. Where the heck is the up folder in explorer?
- Like this
-
- by dwinks December 4, 2008 4:45 PM PST
- @ boe_d
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (94 Comments)I will say though that the remote desktop seems faster for some reason although you essentially have one less session available unless you go to terminal server licensing as they count the console session as an active session! You can mod the registry so you can have 2 people remoting but then the person at the actual server can't access it at the same time.
Windows key+R -> type ncpa.cpl & hit enter-> right click -> properties -> select ipv4 or ipv6 depending on situation -> edit and save
Aside from having the option to choose ipv6 (which xp doesn't have), this is EXACTLY the same process used in XP. Of course, if you are using the mouse to click click click your way there, then yes, Vista takes a few more clicks, but any admin worth their salt should be using keyboard shortcuts anyway.