• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
July 24, 2008 12:01 PM PDT

Microsoft: Windows 7 on track

by Ina Fried
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 85 comments
Share

Update 4:10 p.m., with additional comments from CEO Steve Ballmer.

Windows unit head Bill Veghte said on Thursday that Windows 7 development remains on track.

The company has officially said it would ship by January 2010, but top executives have also said from time to time that it would be done by the end of 2009.

"The product is tracking very, very well," Veghte said. "We are committed and looking good, relative to our commitment--(shipping Windows 7) three years from general availability of Windows Vista."

Microsoft has released few details on the product, largely assuring customers that it would be making big architectural changes and that it will have a new multitouch user interface.


Video: Multi-Touch in Windows 7

Most of Veghte's talk, as expected, was on Windows Vista and how Microsoft sees a large perception gap. Veghte showed the Mojave Project, first detailed here, in which users predisposed against Vista reacted favorably when shown Vista when it was presented under the guise of being a new version of Windows, code-named Mojave.

Even outside focus groups, Veghte said that not only are customers buying the operating system, but more are liking it, pointing to recent internal figures showing that 89 percent of users said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the product. Some 83 percent said they would recommend Vista to a friend or family member, Veghte said.

He also demoed Internet Explorer 8, which he said would be released in final form later this year. An early beta was shown off at the Mix '08 trade show in the spring.

Update: In the closing Q and A session, CEO Steve Ballmer was asked what Windows 7 would look like, but declined to offer any new details saying to do so would be a "no-win" situation.

"It's going to look great; It's going to be quite compatible," he said, to some laughter. "If I wanted to start selling Windows 7 today, we'd start selling windows 7 today. Then you'd complain."

He did reiterate what has already been said, saying that Windows 7 is designed to avoid making big changes. "The design point is compatible form the get-go in large measure," he said.

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.

Recent posts from Beyond Binary
Windows 7 family pack starting to sell out
Behind last night's Bing outage
Microsoft's Bing goes down
Bing's iPhone plans (and more)
Microsoft's Mehdi on financial impact of Yahoo deal
Microsoft: November security updates are fine
Using tunes to tout Windows 7
Inside the Apple, er, Microsoft Store
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (85 Comments)
by Hammerhand July 24, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
Vista sucks.

It's one of, if not _the_ most unstable MS OSes I've ever used.

Things just don't work like they're supposed to. I'm either "downgrading" to an infinitely more stable XP, or buying a Mac next go round.
Reply to this comment
by fredtheviking July 24, 2008 1:12 PM PDT
How about ME? It can't be worse than that OS. I mean come on, it really not that bad... Really, I own it myself.
by dadsgravy July 24, 2008 1:25 PM PDT
Yeah, that's it, buy a mac! You'll be totally happy with it.

The problem with the internet is, sarcasm doesn't translate very well.
by RDO CA July 24, 2008 1:27 PM PDT
I have put Vista on about 20 computers and it is the best. Never had a BSOD on any one of them. I think if you are having trouble with Vista that the problem is you.
by smokified July 24, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
So many people say Vista sucks, but none of them ever give a real reason why.

The point in the article about people being predisposed against Vista, actually liking when thinking they were using something else, is just more evidence that most of the people complaining about Vista have never even really used it.

Like RDO said, if you are having problems, the problem is you. Vista is 10000% more functional and stable than XP.
by Penguinisto July 24, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
smokified: allow me to give you just a few reasons why:

* bloated architecture that requires far higher system requirements than the competition, sometimes by orders of magnitude.

* bugs, bugs, bugs... file copying that takes minutes instead of seconds? Blecch.

* near-total incompatibility with cutting-edge hardware. SSD's, video cards, you-name-it... either broke or crippled under Vista, yet runs just fine in OSX, Linux, and even XP. It's easy to blame the makers, but the blame falls flat when one sees everyone else's products using the stuff with no problems at all.

* No compelling reason --at all-- to upgrade to it. That is, unless you count a pestering UAC and CPU-sucking eye-candy to be "compelling reasons".

* No real improvement in anti-malware protection... new bugs find Vista just as vulnerable as XP in most cases.

...shall I continue?

As for the idiotic assumption that all vista problems are the user's fault, I submit that no, any problem with proprietary software is a problem for the vendor who built it. Vista flopped hard because of a negative image. It may well be the best thing since sliced bread on certain hardware sets, but when it runs foul in spite of promises that it would run well, the problem is MSFT's to deal with. So far, it's costing them $300m to attempt to put lipstick on the proverbial pig. I'd say that the whole customer dissatisfaction over Vista is a pretty big and expensive problem for MSFT, no?
by kelmon July 25, 2008 1:23 AM PDT
Vista "sucks" for the simple reason that after 5-years of development, plus the addition of SP1 after release, there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade. The only aspect that interests me is the pervasive search facilities that I am used to with OS X, but I can't justify the upgrade price simply for that. XP continues to do what is needed and I've not come across an application yet that needs Vista. For these reasons I am giving it a miss and Microsoft wasted their money. I can only hope they do better with Windows 7.
by Imalittleteapot July 27, 2008 9:03 PM PDT
smokified:
There's been a lot of valid reasons. However, I think this is the real reason for the bad press. You want a decent machine with 2+ gigs of ram and at least a dual core to run it. When Vista came out Microsoft basically implied and lied that a computer with only 512 megs of ram was "Vista Capable". Another reason was Intel said they'd have to throw away a whole bunch of graphics chips that didn't quality for the Vista stickers. That's where the Vista capable sticker and Home Basic comes in. Microsoft lied to save Intel's inventory and because Microsoft was scared nobody would buy an OS that needed 2+ gigs of ram and a dual core. That's pretty heavy lifting just to boot the computer. Now technically the computers could run it, but it's like running XP on 64 or 128 megs of ram. Yeah, you can do it, but I don't advise it. But there were all these computers that claimed to run it just fine. After all, they had the sticker right? Well, if it isn't the machine that sucks then it must be the OS right? The actual truth was that those budget boxes should have never been with in a hundred feet of Vista. I personally would have respected Microsoft more if they had just been honest and said, hey look guys, if you want to run this you're gonna need to be packing some heat, but like I said, they were too afraid to do that. Their web page still says 1 gig of ram is good to go. Possible yes, but that isn't going to hack it. If Microsoft wanted to say their new OS would run on a single core, 512 meg machine with integrated video then Microsoft should have built an OS that runs well on a single core with 512 megs of ram with integrated graphics. It's really that simple. The developers built one product, but marketing wanted to sell another. That's been the problem since day one. Even in the Mojave demo Microsoft ran it with 2 gigs of ram. If Microsoft feels they need 2 gigs of ram to run the Mojave demo, then why on earth does the box say you only need 1, and *** is a Vista Capable sticker doing on a box with 512 megs of ram?
by smokified July 27, 2008 9:21 PM PDT
All of these problems that you claim are Vista problems either do not exist any longer or are not even really problems.

People want to continue to use their 8 year old computers with a new operating system and then they complain when they can't use the Ultimate version with all settings on max. Not being able to use the operating system on full blast and not being able to use the operating system period are 2 different things. The standard for computer technology today is more than enough to handle this operating system. My main computer is no where near the best that can be built and for about $300 I am building another one that is almost the same minus the vid card and I can run Vista Ultimate with Aero the way it was intended.

The full release of Vista has been out for over a year and it sounds like some of you are still complaining about bugs in the RC2 version.

I would also like to know which hardware you have compatibility issues with. Maybe you should find a computer professional to assist you with installing drivers. Or you could buy a Mac and have like 0 hardware options at all.

New bugs find any operating system and it will always be that way. Just as some humans break the mold and create cutting edge security, other humans find holes and break that security. If you expect that making anti-malware software is easy, then why arn't you doing it? You could be rich. Or you could get a Mac and be...More suceptable to bugs as there are not a 1000th of the options available to secure yourself from such threats. Having used both operating systems, I would take the easy cleanup of a Windows PC over OSX any day.

The only thing you were slightly right about was the fact that there really is no reason to upgrade. There was no real reason to upgrade to XP either for a couple of years. There is no real reason to switch to a Mac either other than being a bandwagon jumping poser.

None of you still have any valid reasons. The ones given either do not exist anymore, did not exist period, or are ********.
by Imalittleteapot July 28, 2008 1:07 AM PDT
smokified: Ummm. Well you tried to counter everyone else's arguments but mine. My point was people used crap computers because Microsoft told them to. MS let OEMs put Vista stickers on computers that couldn't handle Vista. Some with as little as 512 megs of ram even though their own Mojave demo uses 2 gigs (4 times the Vista capable amount). If the cheap computers hadn't had the Vista sticker maybe people wouldn't have bought those systems. Maybe they would have gotten better systems instead. That would have led to a better Vista experience for those people which would of led to better Vista stories in the press. You'd have to agree with me there. You just said people shouldn't be running Vista on outdated machines right? Well maybe had Microsoft said no no no, this is a BIG BOY OS and you need BIG BOY HARDWARE maybe that would have worked better. But they didn't. They lied because they didn't choose to build an OS that would run on slower computers, but they didn't want to lose the profits from selling Vista on those slower computers either and neither did Intel. Their greed got to them and that's all it is. So, that leads us to today's bad press. It's called sleeping in the bed that you make. There's consequences for telling your customers things that aren't true. One of them is getting flamed on the Internet for the rest of eternity.
by Hammerhand July 24, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
Vista sucks.

It's one of, if not _the_ most unstable MS OSes I've ever used.

Things just don't work like they're supposed to. I'm either "downgrading" to an infinitely more stable XP, or buying a Mac next go round.
Reply to this comment
by cinupina July 24, 2008 5:27 PM PDT
Then you will probably like Mojave.
by Perry_Clease July 24, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
Still on "track" eh? So who is in charge of the clattering train? :)

http://www.emule.com/2poetry/phorum/read.php?7,153503
Reply to this comment
by polaris20 July 24, 2008 1:11 PM PDT
You must be doing something wrong then, because it's fine on the many machines we have running it in my office. Perhaps you don't know what you're doing?

It's far more stable then 98 or ME ever were.
Reply to this comment
by ballmerisanape July 24, 2008 2:00 PM PDT
A typical M$ fanboy response is to blame the user.
by smokified July 27, 2008 9:22 PM PDT
It is hard not to blame the user when he hased used it on many machines and has not had any of the "problems" that you anti-MS, non conformist activists have had.
by chrgeorgeson July 24, 2008 1:11 PM PDT
This was a horrible blog. Just to let everyone know, my bowel movement is also on track for about an hour away.

Thanks for all that wonderful insight to recycled news that's been presented about Windows 7 and the Mojave report (which was interesting) that you reported about earlier this morning.
Reply to this comment
by chrgeorgeson July 24, 2008 1:12 PM PDT
This was a horrible blog. Just to let everyone know, my bowel movement is also on track for about an hour away.

Thanks for all that wonderful insight to recycled news that's been presented about Windows 7 and the Mojave report (which was interesting) that you reported about earlier this morning.
Reply to this comment
by chrisaroz July 24, 2008 1:17 PM PDT
The home page says:
"...still scheduled to ship within three years of Vista's January 2008 debut. "

But I thought Vista came out in 2007, right?
Reply to this comment
by Dalkorian July 24, 2008 4:10 PM PDT
How DARE you use your brain! Fall to your knees before your GOD fista and acknowledge the TRUTH - if you can lie about what year fista came out, you can buy more time to fail to release the child of fista and still claim it's on time.
by gsmiller88 July 24, 2008 6:47 PM PDT
That's what I was wondering, I'm not entirely sure but it seems like it's been out a lot longer than January 2008.
by vtchuck2000 July 28, 2008 1:13 AM PDT
Typo or CNET should fires its entire fact-checking department.
by stalexone July 24, 2008 1:23 PM PDT
I generally try to find every reason I can to run Linux on my machines, and was recently thinking of buying a Mac. After one bad start with Vista (I got a blue screen), I continued to think about Mac and Linux in my computing future. But then I bought a used laptop and installed Vista myself (complete not upgrade) and have not had any trouble whatsoever. I have done this now on other laptops and desktops and have had very positive results. Looking back, I now realize that the blue-screen I suffered when using Vista the first time was a result of a faulty memory stick that I put in...not Vista itself. So if you are having problems with Vista at this point, you probably have a hardware issue, not an OS issue. And definitely install using the Complete Install option, not the Upgrade option.
Reply to this comment
by smokified July 24, 2008 1:44 PM PDT
The upgrade option works fine, but that is assuming that your file system and hardware is working properly also.

Thank you for pointing out what most people don't understand....If you are having problems with Vista, it is because of you or your crappy computer.

Linux and Mac are not a complete alternative to Windows period, and not one Mac fan boy can give a valid argument as to how I am wrong...because one does not exist.
by Penguinisto July 24, 2008 2:36 PM PDT
Thus illustrates perfectly why it is that a problem with Vista is Microsoft's problem.

It also explains why Apple is growing like crazy and why MSFT is losing marketshare.
by Dalkorian July 24, 2008 4:18 PM PDT
smokified sparked up a fatty, then lost control and regurgitated this comment:

"If you are having problems with Vista, it is because of you or your crappy computer."

Need anything else be said? Most OS's don't require proprietary degrees or supercomputers to work properly, I guess that's because they're somehow "less" than fista, despite doing more for you (and less against you) with less.

No worries, go tell your dark masters that you have done their bidding. We will just ignore you and allow you to enjoy your self inflicted masochistic pain of UAC, DRM, WGA and all those other acronyms that leave you screaming in bondage and pain. I'll get back to work now - on my Mac. When I get home tonight, I'll fire up half the machine you have and work twice as fast on it because of Ubuntu. I'm truly at peace.
by jerrymacGP July 27, 2008 7:13 PM PDT
Most regular home & family users have no interest in doing a "Complete Install", which I presume means backing up & wiping the hard drive, then restoring all the user files after the install is complete. Apple did not make me do that when I upgraded from Panther to Tiger a while ago, and would not if I upgraded to Leopard now. I don't have a full-time IT department at my fingertips; just me, myself & I. Just one more nail in Vista's coffin. the Mac OS is much more ordinary user-friendly. We had Win 98 back in the day, but now that we have switched to Mac, we would never go back.
by smokified July 27, 2008 9:28 PM PDT
Who is it that requires the proprietary computers? Try to custom buld a Mac dumbasses.

You do not need to wipe and reload your system to upgrade to Vista. Once again sombody forming an opinion and basing a decision on false information. I have performed countless updates from XP to Vista and have not had one problem with this.

I don't understand this false pretense that a "super computer" must be used for Vista. For around $300-$400 I could build you a computer that runs Vista Ultimate with Aero and would be decent in the gaming world also. I highly doubt you can get a Mac with similar performance for the same price. Plus once you get a Mac, you are stuck with it. That is why most people don't go back because they are still making payments on a computer that was obsolete within 3 years with no real options for upgrades. No thanks, I will take PC any day and you will not find many IT professionals that would disagree.
by Jon N. July 24, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
Fascinating. Microsoft actually had to "Trick" focus groups into thinking this was Vista. That says a lot. If M$ is having to doop people to try their products now, what will be next? When "Mohave", Windows 7 comes out (2010), Apple, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE will have had at least 2-4 major update releases on their Operating Systems. Microsoft may have the lions' share of off-the-shelf compatibility, but this lion is old, and there are younger, stronger lions (Apple being the one to attempt it) looking to take over the pride. If Vista is any indication, Mohave 7 will be a make or breaking point for Microsoft. They better get it right. Apple already has, and Linux is looking better every day.
Reply to this comment
by rapier1 July 24, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
I'm curious if you thought about actually reading the article. If you do decide to go back and do that you'd have noticed that Mojave is *not* Windows 7. What they did was put users in front of Vista and tell them it was a new OS called Mojave. Then they got their reactions. The large majority of those reactions ended up being favorable. The point was to show that people are reacting to the perception rather than the reality of Vista.
by rapier1 July 24, 2008 4:49 PM PDT
Please go back and reread the article. You didn't understand it.
by One-Eared Gundark July 25, 2008 10:19 AM PDT
People buy into what they hear from the media. Mac ads were trashing Vista. Web sites were trashing Vista. People heard so much negative press about Vista that they had a preconceived notion that it was junk. Only when they actually gave it a try - thinking it was a new OS - did they realize that it is actually quite good.
There are a lot of sheeple out there.
by smokified July 27, 2008 9:33 PM PDT
People didn't bother to actually try Vista before running their mud flaps about it, just like this guy wanted to comment on this article without even reading it.

What has Apple gotten right besides realizing that if they make a commercial with false information in it that any TV watching moron was going to belieive it?

I find it amusing that you are so confident in your ******** that you actually feel that the corporation that basically controls 94% of the electronic world is going to crumble becase of 6% of the world being misinformed or ignorant.
by Jon N. July 24, 2008 1:54 PM PDT
Fascinating. Microsoft actually had to "Trick" focus groups into thinking this was Vista. That says a lot. If M$ is having to doop people to try their products now, what will be next? When "Mohave", Windows 7 comes out (2010), Apple, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE will have had at least 2-4 major update releases on their Operating Systems. Microsoft may have the lions' share of off-the-shelf compatibility, but this lion is old, and there are younger, stronger lions (Apple being the one to attempt it) looking to take over the pride. If Vista is any indication, Mohave 7 will be a make or breaking point for Microsoft. They better get it right. Apple already has, and Linux is looking better every day.
Reply to this comment
by zeryck July 24, 2008 9:14 PM PDT
Jon N, Microsoft didn't have to "trick" anyone. Many people who have never used Vista have a bad perception of it. That means that if Microsoft told them they were using Vista, they would automatically dislike it, no matter what their own experiences were.

By telling them it was a different version of Windows, it would let the user decide themself whether they like it or not, without any outside influence. That way, the study finds out the reaction to true user experience and not to bad reviews.
by jmannewsie5 July 24, 2008 2:02 PM PDT
polaris20

the fact that you would even consider comparing Vista to an OS from ten year ago is very telling, don't you think? Vista is more stable than 98 or ME? Did you forget the last 8+ years of XP?

The main and at least in my opinion, only two reasons to use any OS, is the software that you can buy for it, and it's stable. Are you really going to argue that the Mac OS or XP is dysfunctional in some way compared to Vista? Add to that reasoning that developers are ignoring Vista and the answer is clear. Vista is a failure for Windows.

Why else do you think they are promising Windows 7 in three years? If they thought Vista was such a hot product they would wait 8 years like they did after XP came out. In the meantime Apple smells blood and is capitalizing.
Reply to this comment
by jmannewsie5 July 24, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
polaris20

the fact that you would even consider comparing Vista to an OS from ten year ago is very telling, don't you think? Vista is more stable than 98 or ME? Did you forget the last 8+ years of XP?

The main and at least in my opinion, only two reasons to use any OS, is the software that you can buy for it, and it's stable. Are you really going to argue that the Mac OS or XP is dysfunctional in some way compared to Vista? Add to that reasoning that developers are ignoring Vista and the answer is clear. Vista is a failure for Windows.

Why else do you think they are promising Windows 7 in three years? If they thought Vista was such a hot product they would wait 8 years like they did after XP came out. In the meantime Apple smells blood and is capitalizing.
Reply to this comment
by Perry_Clease July 24, 2008 2:04 PM PDT
"because one does not exist"

Are you saying that none of us here exist, that this is all dream? Dude! You must be smoking some powerful stuff :)
Reply to this comment
by jonahemery July 24, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
Vista haters are retarded. I remember when XP first came out. It would shut down for no reason at all, the interface looked to be designed by Fisher Price, and you would get adware just by being connected to the Net. XP actually drove met to the Mac until Vista came out.

If your machine has the specs, and your not an idiot, Vista is wonderful. Big deal you can't plug in a 5 year old printer.
Reply to this comment
by technewsjunkie July 24, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
"XP actually drove met to the Mac until Vista came out"

You switched from OS X to Vista? REALLY??
by rapier1 July 24, 2008 4:35 PM PDT
Actually, I had several people in my company do the same. When they needed a new computer they went and bought a Mac. Inside of a couple months they got rid of their Macs and bought new machines with Vista on it. They haven't switched back. Personally, I use OS X as a development platform but I used Vista as my personal system.
by Penguinisto July 24, 2008 7:35 PM PDT
Proof positive that on the Internet, you can make any claims you want - even claims that "several" people would suddenly --and for no clear reason other than an irrational love of Vista-- dump ~$1-2k of computer investment (not counting software purchases) in exchange for a slower OS on lower-specced machinery.
by rapier1 July 25, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
They didn't like OS X so they switched back. They found it frustrating and hindering for them. This happen to two of the people in my company who actually got the mac books on my recommendation. I suggested they give it more time but they really feel like it. These people could afford to switch back and forth every week if they wanted to so they didn't feel trapped in the choice they made. And really, the choice wasn't about 'faster or slower' but which platform made that individual more productive. A lot of people don't care about performance metrics in the face of a sense of decreased productivity.
by Renegade Knight July 24, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
It's a cheezy trick.
I like the Vista Interface. It does seem more stable than XP. However key things don't work that do work in XP. That's after SP1. Vista, Mojave, or 7 they need to do the job. In my case that means sync for windows mobile needs to be robust and work as well as it always did for me under XP. I've hit a point where I'll be downgrading if I can't get sync to work.
Reply to this comment
by anythingbutmicrosoft July 24, 2008 3:28 PM PDT
I support health care IT systems and Vista is a No-Go for many reasons. 1) Many systems running nuclear cameras, MRIs, ultrasounds, etc. are NOT qualified/certified to be connected to a local network never mind the Internet. To use Vista I would have to hire a full time tech to call Microsoft 100's of times a year to keep re-activating each PC? 2) I would have to deal with Vista determining if the MRI movies being reviewed by a radiologist are pirated and if the OS is going to decide to degrade the playback? I think not. 3) I build out a gigabit network to handle a heavy load but the Vista bug slows network speed by up to 90%? Hello MS, is this going to be fixed ever? I have to stop here due to lack of enough time. Also there isn't enough space to list the worst of them all where any one is a show stopper on its own. I do declare, Vista is a flop.
Reply to this comment
by rapier1 July 24, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
Hi, you do know that Vista 'bug' is actually a problem with your routers right? Some older routers corrupt the winscale option when its set to 7 or higher. The causes the winscale to revert to 1 which leaves you with a 64KB rwin. You'll have the same problems under linux or OS X if they are using autotuning TCP stacks (2.6 and 10.5 respectively) and the default winscale is above that threshold value.
by Kainchild July 25, 2008 4:41 AM PDT
anythingbutmicrosoft, your comment has to be the best thing I have ever heard about Vista. It's a shame the Media companies made all those deals with MS and screwed over the consumer in the process, but in the end MS lost most of their customers in the process. Maybe in the next one they could have learned their lesson and removed all that "protection" but according to C-Net, MS isn't making any big changes on the new os that's suppose to come out. Oh well, looks like a lot of people will be sticking to Apple and maybe even Linux.
by celticbrewer July 25, 2008 6:21 AM PDT
You support IT? Wow- what moron hired you? Oh, and it's classic you're blaming MS because your "many systems" won't update their hardware/software for Vista. Who's fault is that? Why don't you switch to Linux or Mac and see how many of your systems support those OSes.
by 62Sparkplug July 24, 2008 3:34 PM PDT
Hold off on all those VISTA purchases, Windows 7 is just around the corner (really), and it will be much, much better than VISTA (faster, bigger, more features, cheaper, more colorful, more secure, and it will even include a deed to some very valuable land in Florida!).

Monkey Boy
"BS Artist, par excellence"
Reply to this comment
by vader81551 July 24, 2008 3:57 PM PDT
I really don't understand why so many people hate Vista. my computer has run better with vista than i feel it did with even XP. As long as you're not an idiot and try to run it with a 10 year old computer, it runs great. Plus, vista takes more advantage of newer systems that people need to be using to run today's latest software anyway. and i can't wait till MS releases betas for windows 7.
Reply to this comment
by patrick_i July 24, 2008 9:12 PM PDT
What latest software? You mean your precious video games? How much hardware power do you really need to surf, email, and write a letter which is what most people do everyday. Ridiculous. BTW, I have a 10 passenger SUV I'd like to sell you that uses 10mpg on the highway!!! It's really powerful and fast especially when I'm the only one in it!!!
by montex66 July 24, 2008 10:37 PM PDT
@vader81551
"As long as you're not an idiot..."

It always amazes me how Windows users are the first to blame less technically adept users for their problems with Windows. If it were designed better, it wouldn't matter if the user is an "idiot" or not. This is the reason my 72 year old mother is on a Mac and not a PC. She doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte, but she can send email, use the internet and play music without call me to ask how to do it. She's even figured out how to get her pictures into the Mac without any help from me - and this is a lady who thinks she has to hit the return key at the end of every line like she did on a typewriter for 50 years.

Blaming the user for badly designed software is totally pathetic and so is Vista. Microsoft needs to ditch the whole thing and start from scratch.
by smokified July 27, 2008 9:50 PM PDT
Once again the people who have never used Vista are chiming in.
I find it funny that it is only the less technically adept users in here are the only ones hating on Vista, yet when they are told that their opinions are based on incorrect knowledge due to their technical inadeptness, they get offended.

I can build you a computer that is perfect for surfing, writing letters, and checking your email that will also run Vista Ultimate with Aero for less than you can buy and middle of the road Mac. Your claims that you need some super computer are bogus. Stop watching TV and get a real education.
by AlbooMED July 24, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
@anythingbutmicrosoft

Everything you just said is completely false and I would take the time to show you why, but why bother, go and do it yourself if you're looking for the truth.

Oh, and if you support healthcare IT then I truly feel sorry for that hospital/clicnic/medical center. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto July 24, 2008 4:23 PM PDT
"...I would take the time to show you why, but..."

...but you can't.
by rapier1 July 24, 2008 4:47 PM PDT
Penguin, actually I can.

I already addressed the third issue he was having. The first issue is resolved by the use of the MAK activation. This doesn't require network activation. The key is stored locally on the machine. The second issue isn't an issue if the video doesn't have a DRM wrapper.

As such, the guy doesn't sound like he did the research before he made up his mind.
by Dalkorian July 24, 2008 4:06 PM PDT
HAHAHAHAHA! Riiiight. We've all heard this before .... it's right on track ... it's better, stronger, faster ... it'll make you feel like more of a man (or woman when appropriate:)) ... it cures cancer ... it's perfectly secure ... it'll have a new filesystem ... it's - delayed. Again. If I remember correctly, fista gave us all these promises too, and more. Yet look what a disappointing little snot nosed brat it turned out to be. M$ actually has to pay shills like jonahemery, polaris20, RDO CA and smokified to convince the idiotic sheep that they're too stupid to understand fista and the sheep should just shut up, stop thinking and hand over their money to M$ in order to be enslaved by the crappiest OS ever to be devised by mankind. OK, maybe that's a little harsh - ME was a blatant attempt to rip off the public, fista is just a disaster. It'll be loved by masochists and fanbois, but everyone else will soon wake up and realize there are BETTER options out there. Options that work, don't enslave you and have FAR FEWER security risks overall. Some of those options will even run on the same identical hardware that you formerly had winblows on - except it will now run faster and will be infinitely more stable. On the exact same hardware.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 3 pages (85 Comments)
advertisement

The yogurt makers of tech: Gadgets to avoid

Don't buy these one-trick ponies--unless you like gizmos that gather dust.

Google wants to unclog Net's DNS plumbing

The Net giant, ever eager for a faster Internet, debuts its Google Public DNS service. With it, Google could become even more central to the Net.

About Beyond Binary

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.


Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Beyond Binary topics

Binary Bits

    Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
    advertisement
    advertisement

    Inside CNET News

    Scroll Left Scroll Right