Microsoft: Windows 7 on track
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. 
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.
The problem with the internet is, sarcasm doesn't translate very well.
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.
* 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?
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?
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 ********.
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.
http://www.emule.com/2poetry/phorum/read.php?7,153503
It's far more stable then 98 or ME ever were.
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.
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.
"...still scheduled to ship within three years of Vista's January 2008 debut. "
But I thought Vista came out in 2007, right?
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.
It also explains why Apple is growing like crazy and why MSFT is losing marketshare.
"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.
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.
There are a lot of sheeple out there.
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 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.
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.
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.
Are you saying that none of us here exist, that this is all dream? Dude! You must be smoking some powerful stuff :)
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.
You switched from OS X to Vista? REALLY??
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.
Monkey Boy
"BS Artist, par excellence"
"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.
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.
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.
...but you can't.
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.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (85 Comments)