Print
Bill Veghte, Microsoft’s Senior Vice President has laid out the official roadmap going forward for the Windows Product Line. In his address to the public he makes it pretty clear that Vista isn’t going away and neither is XP. Additionally he reveals some interesting facts about Windows 7, and what people should expect.
Windows XP
If Windows XP were to make a guest appearance in a Monty Python movie, it would be the old man trying to convince everyone he’s not dead yet. The press release from Microsoft seems aimed at trying to reassure people that Windows XP will be supported for many years to come. He reminds consumers that XP is only going to disappear in its retail form on June 30th and will still be available to OEM’s until 2009. This date actually becomes much longer when you consider users have the option of downgrading to XP should they happen to own a copy of the business or ultimate versions of Vista. Perhaps the most important reminder contained in the memo is the reality that Windows XP will continue to be patched with security updates until 2014. That’s a long time in PC years, in fact, it’s a full four years after the presumed launch of Windows 7. Current owners of Windows XP will all so be able to activate copies of the OS well past its end of life.
Windows Vista
Despite the fact that this press release is clearly aimed at attempting to quell any impending riots over the demise of Windows XP, he is quick to lay on the Vista charm. Vista clearly has a serious perception problem, and it will take a concentrated effort by Microsoft to shake the stigma. Unimaginable damage has been done to the Vista brand, mostly by Apple. As a result average users have been trained to fear Vista like the plague, even if that fear is unwarranted. He continues by quoting statistics typical home users have clearly rejected such as, improved security, faster performance, etc. Informed readers know that Vista, when matched with the appropriate PC isn’t actually all that bad. We now know that Vista runs on par with XP performance wise, and that UAC can help prevent root kits. Vista isn’t a huge a step forward, but it is a step forward none the less.
Windows 7
Bill Veghte refers to Windows 7 within the press release as a “working name”. This suggests they will indeed rebrand the new OS prior to launch. Additionally he confirms that Windows 7 will be built off the same core architecture of Vista. This will improve compatibility, but unless Microsoft address’s the sagging fortunes of the Vista brand, it won’t improve public reception. Given the fact that Vista has been heavily criticized for it’s “bloat” many have speculated that Microsoft is likely use a core Kernel and will bolt on functionality to suit the device. This approach is similar to that of the Mac or Linux allowing for versions of the OS to run on everything from phones to powerful Quad Cores. If Windows 7 actually turns out to be the version of Vista we were all hoping for, will all be forgiven?
Comments are closed on this article
Lowell J. Haffner
July 02, 2008 at 3:30pm
haffcrazy
Vista is a product that is designed for the early adopter crowd and gamers. It doesn't offer the WINFS file system promised. It attempts to force the world to upgrade their hardware so it will "work fine", after working with Intel to install it on underpowered new systems that couldn't carry the weight. It is too expensive for a full featured version and if you go with a limited feature version, you have less features than XP, and you don't have their biggest selling point - Aero Glass. Since the world hasn't embraced it just because Mirosoft tells them to, they are starting to shut down the previous OS to force the consumer to move over to Vista. There are difficulties with networking, I know this because I went to IT at work and they told me to try things I'd already tried. They aren't planning to make the transition to Vista. I don't know what kind of Kool-aid Ballmer is selling but to sell a product by offering nothing useful, requiring a hardware upgrade to make it perform as well as XP, and then twist your arm by taking XP away when it is still functioning well for the consumer, smacks of the low-brow, calloused-knuckle crowd. Do it or else.
jwalch.hawk
June 30, 2008 at 10:07am
Well, given my recent exposure to a company that released a new version of a piece of software with less functionality than the previous version and yet still managed to call it an "upgrade"... Maybe my perception of Vista is a little more forgiving than it should be.
But I don't think it's that bad.
I think Justin (author) hit it right on the head with the whole perception thing. I would estimate that at least 80% of those average users who hate Vista could not cite a specific reason why they do. They've just been convinced by Apple or perhaps a more knowledgable friend (because there *are* legitimate reasons to hate Vista, and I do know some people that bring up some valid reasons) that they should hate it.
Another possible (and highly unscientific) theory is that a lot of the "Vista is slow" perception is popular software catching up with popular hardware. Yes, I have seen the benchmarks that establish that Vista's performance is hampered from XP's in some areas. I just think that there's a different problem here. Just as an example, I'm writing this from a laptop with a modest Intel dual-core and Intel's craptastic integrated chipset. My performance is perfectly acceptable in most tasks. But have you ever tried, say, playing a recent popular gaming title on integrated graphics? It's terrible - and that's not Vista's fault. The thing is, I think we're seeing lots of other things that tax your system (that aren't just games) becoming more mainstream... And the average user just doesn't get why it's different. They expect everything to be as fast as it used to be - when they had XP. The thing is, even on XP some of these things wouldn't be any better... But the fact that "well, stuff used to be so much faster" is being associated with XP, when it fact it could well have just been lower hardware demands from the software.
mikeart03a
June 30, 2008 at 1:55pm
I'm inclined to agree with you, alot of the 'I hate Vista' crowd is basing their opinion on misconceptions and also the majority of them are running on archaic desktop (sub-2.0ghz CPUs, 1gb ram, < 250gb HD) and laptop (pre 1.8ghz Pentium M/1.4ghz core duo, 1gb ram, <120gb HD) hardware. I hate it when most people assume something will work on their 5 year old junker because it meets the minimum requirements. That's the thing, if you just meet the minimum reqs, it's gonna run like shit. I can run Vista on my 2 year-old Core 2 Duo laptop just fine. Granted, I only have 1gb of RAM, but it's not shared as I do have a 128mb dedicated nVidia GeForce Go series graphics chip. Also, trimming some of the fat out of Vista isn't all that hard.
Here's a quick Spec sheet for my laptop:
1.66ghz Core 2 Duo CPU with 2mb L2 cache
1gb DDR2 ram @ 667mhz/Dual Channel (Max 3gb)
128mb GeForce Go Graphics Chipset
120gb HD - 5400rpm Hitachi
Intel 3945 ABG Wi-Fi adapter
Marvell Yukon 10/100 PCI-E Fast Ethernet
4x USB 2.0 Ports
1x Mini FireWire port (Texas Instruments Controller)
Sigmatel Hi-Def Audio Codec- mike_art03a
IT Technician
Gov't of Canada
horzo
June 30, 2008 at 9:48am
As far as I can tell, critcism of Vista falls into three basic cataegoies: performance, driver & software incompatibility, and the UAC.
Performance is legitimate I suppose, but not if you have a decent machine. The vast majority of driver and software issues have been solved, and if UAC really bugs you it's not difficult to turn off.
Vista is just Windows with a slightly different front end. It's not significantly better or worse than XP. I don't particulrily like it, but unless we start to see a massive increase in games designed to run on Linux in native mode, Windows is what I'll be running on my main PC.
bearcatacuda
June 29, 2008 at 3:50pm
I think your right on with the perception the difrent windows syatems ive personally had both XP and vista and there "pretty" nice as described by the article but i cant wiat for "windows 7"
Wareagle
June 29, 2008 at 3:27pm
The main reason for Vista's slow adoption is that it doesn't really do anything you can't do in XP. Install Google Desktop or Live search, upgrade to IE7 and Windows Media Player 11, and suddenly, you've got a lot of Vista's functionality in XP.
Plus, I think XP's control panel items (the "classic view") makes a lot more sense than Vista's. It took me about 20 minutes just to figure out how to assign a static IP in Vista, and another 5 to figure out what happened to Add/Remove Programs.
Then there's UAC. Sure, you can turn it off, but if it's supposed to be the feature that makes it more secure than XP, why upgrade? I think instead of having annoying popups every time you try to do something remotely dangerous, it would be much more effective to have a big red dialog come up and ask you for your administrator password only when a program wants to modify the registry or your browser in such a way that it causes a new program to run every time your computer or browser starts up. Most of the programs you install do not do this, and this may be undesirable even with legitimate programs. This way, if you get some kind of bug, it's gone the next time you reboot.
C5Loadmaster
June 29, 2008 at 7:00am
I still don't understand why everyone keeps using the Term "Bloat" on Vista. Sure on a fresh install there is a lot of useless stuff. But I have gotten it to the point now (By disabling, removing components and shaving it down) where I can get Vista to run pretty much like XP did. Vista is fine, people need to learn how to set it up for their needs and shave some of the "bloat" off and quit bitching about it.
Mobo: MSI P6N-Diamond nForce 680 SLI
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.42GHz
RAM: 2GB Corsair Dominator PC8500 DDR2 @ 1110MHz
GPU: eVGA GeForce 8800 GTX
Case: Lian Li PC-75B Custom modded
HDD: 2 Maxtor 120GB SATA in RAID 0 - 1 Seagate 750GB
the_brink
June 29, 2008 at 4:32pm
Dude, you shouldnt have to take a lot of time to get ride of the bloat that shouldnt be there. vista was a mistake. now, i hope linux steals the show.
pcfxer
June 28, 2008 at 9:20pm
They still don't seem to "get it". "blah blah... faster performance, etc." SLOWER performance on identically installed systems with 'equally mature' drivers. Fact: Quad Core Q6600, 4GB RAM, 2x500GB RAID 0 with hardware based RAID, etc. copies files MUCH SLOWER than a P4 1.7GHz, 20GB Maxtor 7200RPM ATA66 drive running FreeBSD. This was a situation I put my friends in, to prove how horrible Vista's code bloat and poor design "performs". You'd think with today's best hardware versus yesterday's old and used hardware that even if good code vs. 'bad code' were to be tested, that the hardware would make up for it.
It doesn't. Rather, my problem isn't Vista sucking, it's that Vista isn't what it was. Explanation- Vista will include an entirely new FS, self-healing, little to no fragmentation, run faster on new hardware, improve security by design, etc, etc. Basically Microsoft was going to catch up to the best from Linux and *BSD (Apple included of course) and possibly surpase them given their user base.
Instead Microsoft reintroduced redundant windows (Window A opens, click on a button, Window B opens, click on another button and you get Window A AGAIN! XP doesn't do this, nor does any properly engineered OS) and destroyed any performance aspirations with apparently 'code bloat'. I couldn't tell because I don't see the source code, but I do know there are inherent design flaws somewhere in the code.
Anyhow, that's my tirade.
