|
|
Wow, I just happened to come across this quote from MS about version 7
and figured it was worth posting. Interesting.
<quote>
While XP and Vista were different under the hood, Windows 7 and Vista
are virtually identical.
"Of course, we are doing refinements, but is it the same kernel in
Windows 7 as in Vista? Yes," said Mike Nash, corporate vice president of
Windows product management, in an interview at Microsoft's Professional
Developers Conference. "Windows 7 may seem more evolutionary than Vista,
but that is what customers are looking for."
Nash promised that Microsoft will resist the temptation to go back to
its old ways. The final version of Windows 7 to be released in early
2010 won't have any additional features in comparison with the beta
version given away to PDC attendees this week, he said.
"This is a feature-complete version of Windows 7," Nash said. "We are
not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions."
</quote>
Vista and 7 are "virtually identical". OK.
"We are not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions".
Huh?
Sooo, version 7 is a bug-fixed Vista? That sound like an update to me,
not an upgrade, and it should go to every Vista licensee as an update;
free and easy, since it's not an upgrade. NOW it's obvious that win 8
will be an update for win7, which was an update for Vista. That makes
sense since it's their SOP, but ... this time they're going to charge
the big bucks for the updates. I see trouble coming; this is exactly
what I thought might be happening since the first day I discovered 7 was
going to be "buil on" Vista.
Microsoft; ya gotta love 'em! Or something.
Twayne
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Wow, I just happened to come across this quote from MS about version 7
> and figured it was worth posting. Interesting.
> <quote>
> While XP and Vista were different under the hood, Windows 7 and Vista
> are virtually identical.
>
> "Of course, we are doing refinements, but is it the same kernel in
> Windows 7 as in Vista? Yes," said Mike Nash, corporate vice president of
> Windows product management, in an interview at Microsoft's Professional
> Developers Conference. "Windows 7 may seem more evolutionary than Vista,
> but that is what customers are looking for."
>
> Nash promised that Microsoft will resist the temptation to go back to
> its old ways. The final version of Windows 7 to be released in early
> 2010 won't have any additional features in comparison with the beta
> version given away to PDC attendees this week, he said.
>
> "This is a feature-complete version of Windows 7," Nash said. "We are
> not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions."
>
> </quote>
>
> Vista and 7 are "virtually identical". OK.
>
> "We are not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions".
> Huh?
>
> Sooo, version 7 is a bug-fixed Vista? That sound like an update to me,
> not an upgrade, and it should go to every Vista licensee as an update;
> free and easy, since it's not an upgrade. NOW it's obvious that win 8
> will be an update for win7, which was an update for Vista. That makes
> sense since it's their SOP, but ... this time they're going to charge
> the big bucks for the updates. I see trouble coming; this is exactly
> what I thought might be happening since the first day I discovered 7 was
> going to be "buil on" Vista.
>
> Microsoft; ya gotta love 'em! Or something.
>
> Twayne
Most of the problems that users have are with features in Vista that
should've been defaulted to disabled and also with the new GUI. The UAC
is also something new to new users of Vista but that can be disabled.
In fact, you can make the Vista GUI look a lot like XP, disable UAC, and
not bother loading a bunch of other stuff with Vista. As to
compatibility issues with software, well, that always happens whenever
moving to the next version of the OS. That is not unique to just
Windows.
|
|
<snipped for brevity>
[Quoted Text] >
> "This is a feature-complete version of Windows 7," Nash said. "We are
> not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions."
>
> </quote>
>
> Vista and 7 are "virtually identical". OK.
>
> "We are not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions".
> Huh?
>
> Sooo, version 7 is a bug-fixed Vista? That sound like an update to me,
> not an upgrade, and it should go to every Vista licensee as an update;
> free and easy, since it's not an upgrade. NOW it's obvious that win 8
> will be an update for win7, which was an update for Vista. That makes
> sense since it's their SOP, but ... this time they're going to charge
> the big bucks for the updates. I see trouble coming; this is exactly
> what I thought might be happening since the first day I discovered 7 was
> going to be "buil on" Vista.
>
> Microsoft; ya gotta love 'em! Or something.
>
> Twayne
>
>
No real surprise
Win2k and XP are virtually the same OS.
XP added system restore and some eye candy
reinstated msconfig etc...but basically the same OS...
so it is hardly surprising that Windows 7 will just be a de-bugged Vista
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23nFFQhVPJHA.4760[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Wow, I just happened to come across this quote from MS about version 7 and
> figured it was worth posting. Interesting.
> <quote>
> While XP and Vista were different under the hood, Windows 7 and Vista are
> virtually identical.
>
> "Of course, we are doing refinements, but is it the same kernel in Windows
> 7 as in Vista? Yes," said Mike Nash, corporate vice president of Windows
> product management, in an interview at Microsoft's Professional Developers
> Conference. "Windows 7 may seem more evolutionary than Vista, but that is
> what customers are looking for."
>
> Nash promised that Microsoft will resist the temptation to go back to its
> old ways. The final version of Windows 7 to be released in early 2010
> won't have any additional features in comparison with the beta version
> given away to PDC attendees this week, he said.
>
> "This is a feature-complete version of Windows 7," Nash said. "We are not
> adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions."
>
> </quote>
>
> Vista and 7 are "virtually identical". OK.
>
> "We are not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions". Huh?
>
> Sooo, version 7 is a bug-fixed Vista? That sound like an update to me,
> not an upgrade, and it should go to every Vista licensee as an update;
> free and easy, since it's not an upgrade. NOW it's obvious that win 8
> will be an update for win7, which was an update for Vista. That makes
> sense since it's their SOP, but ... this time they're going to charge the
> big bucks for the updates. I see trouble coming; this is exactly what I
> thought might be happening since the first day I discovered 7 was going to
> be "buil on" Vista.
>
> Microsoft; ya gotta love 'em! Or something.
>
> Twayne
Yeah we'll all complain but we'll all either buy the next "version" or steal
it but in any event most people will move onto it. Microsoft has made a
fortune out of exploiting human nature.
--
Xandros
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23nFFQhVPJHA.4760[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Wow, I just happened to come across this quote from MS about version
>> 7 and figured it was worth posting. Interesting.
>> <quote>
>> While XP and Vista were different under the hood, Windows 7 and
>> Vista are virtually identical.
>>
>> "Of course, we are doing refinements, but is it the same kernel in
>> Windows 7 as in Vista? Yes," said Mike Nash, corporate vice
>> president of Windows product management, in an interview at
>> Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference. "Windows 7 may seem
>> more evolutionary than Vista, but that is what customers are looking
>> for." Nash promised that Microsoft will resist the temptation to go
>> back
>> to its old ways. The final version of Windows 7 to be released in
>> early 2010 won't have any additional features in comparison with the
>> beta version given away to PDC attendees this week, he said.
>>
>> "This is a feature-complete version of Windows 7," Nash said. "We
>> are not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions."
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Vista and 7 are "virtually identical". OK.
>>
>> "We are not adding features, just fixing bugs and edge conditions".
>> Huh? Sooo, version 7 is a bug-fixed Vista? That sound like an update
>> to
>> me, not an upgrade, and it should go to every Vista licensee as an
>> update; free and easy, since it's not an upgrade. NOW it's obvious
>> that win 8 will be an update for win7, which was an update for
>> Vista. That makes sense since it's their SOP, but ... this time
>> they're going to charge the big bucks for the updates. I see
>> trouble coming; this is exactly what I thought might be happening
>> since the first day I discovered 7 was going to be "buil on" Vista.
>>
>> Microsoft; ya gotta love 'em! Or something.
>>
>> Twayne
>
> Yeah we'll all complain but we'll all either buy the next "version"
> or steal it but in any event most people will move onto it. Microsoft
> has made a fortune out of exploiting human nature.
Unfortunately IMO that's very true. I've even been the victim of their
abandonment and forced upgrades with RAD development but, though I've
found a way out of that, and their Office Suite, etc., I'm still hooked
on the OS. I've even played with Vista enough to think that if you dumb
it down it is also a functional OS but ... that shouldn't be necessary
and the constant learning curves just for their new and improved GUIs
are always annoying. I've always looked foward to the day when I could
completely kiss MS good bye or they wouldn't be a single-sourced
situation, but it doesn't seem to be happening very quickly. Switching
to Linux is always the first thing that come to mind but even that is
frought with frustrations considering the types of applications,
drivers, etc., that I use, especially hardware drivers.
Then when you add their very high pricing strategy from Vista and on
up, it becomes even more frustrating. ROI has gotten to be longer than
it's ever been with an MS OS & support. I managed to stick with 98 for
a long time after it was finally stabilized and reliable and switched to
XP when I found some verifiably useful features/functions I could make
good use of. I don't believe in fixing what ain't broke.
And now I'm doing the same thing with XP. I run a flavor of Linux
too, but MS is still my powerhouse of choice. I cannot see anything I
need or want in Vista to be worth the cost of going to it. Nothing in
Vista would increase my efficiency at any of my serious work, and in
fact seems to achieve negatives in an astoundinly annoying way. So
until I either am forced to buy new machines with Vista (which isn't the
case yet but will be), MS decides to turn XP off with one of their
updates as they did in China (proving they're not above doing so), I'll
stick to XP and its updates. I can always just reimage the drive if
they should decide to turn my XP off, but ... they have other ways to
force it out of existance.
Actually I'd rush to Vista (or 7, whatever) if it were *fairly
priced* and *stable*, but neither condition exists yet and won't for
some time to come. It's actually an expensive step backwards in
investment, reliabilty and stability, and the fact it has nothing I need
over and above what I have now. Going to Vista for me would be simply
"progress for the sake of progress".
Last thought: Guess who's really paying for all those US$30 MS OS's
you can now buy in China? Just goes to show, piracy can have some
pretty good advantages when it's widespread enough.
Sorry 'bout the soapbox,
Cheers,
Twayne
|
|
|