RSSPDC 2008: What did we learn today?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 1, 2008, 3:37 PM
Every year, PDC sets the pace and the mood for commercial software development over the next 12 months. So has the trumpet been sounded for the great exodus into the cloud? All this week, we've listened for the signs.
LOS ANGELES - The mood at this year's Microsoft Professional Developers' Conference was noticeably changed among both attendees and company representatives -- not altogether replaced, but certainly altered. In nearly each and every venue, there was a palpable energy, but I wouldn't call it "enthusiasm." I would, however, definitely call it "motivation."
First of all, there were significantly more attendees than we've noticed in years past, even on the last day. And they clearly had their interests mapped out; while several sessions overflowed into standby rooms that themselves overflowed, even up until end-of-day on Wednesday, other sessions only garnered a few dozen.
| MORE: Don Box stars as 'M,' the minister of sensibility |
It was no surprise at all that the crowd was energized about Microsoft's very serious entry into cloud computing, and CEO Steve Ballmer was right to give developers advance warning of the company's Azure announcement. But there was measurably less of a buzz about Windows 7 unto itself; while some of the new technologies that would be incorporated into Win7 (multitouch and PowerShell v2 among them) drew a lot of attention, the mood about a new client operating system brand was...well, subdued. Not altogether absent, but certainly less than enthusiastic.
| MORE: More details on Windows Azure, the Internet operating system |
But there was also an apprehension about appearing too enthusiastic about Azure; and among those who work directly on Azure, by Thursday there appeared to be a genuine air of indifference about the subject. During no fewer than three Thursday sessions about different aspects of cloud computing -- administration, programming, architecture -- where initial attendance was running well into the hundreds (filling a session on the last day is an amazing accomplishment), the lack of enthusiasm was so palpable that about two-thirds of the attendees left no more than half-an-hour into the hour-fifteen sessions.
It wasn't for lack of interest; in the particular case of Azure, it was for a lack of enthusiasm on the Microsoft managers' part that rose to the level of that interest.
The absence of Bill Gates was very keenly felt. We forget how often a conference keynote speech actually does set the keynote for the agenda, and does set the mood of everyone present. For all his dangling participles, Gates' cool optimism and almost mischievous confidence always put people in a good mood -- even those who mocked the guy more than praised him.
 |
| Even a bigger draw than Ray Ozzie this year...Who doesn't want to be seen with Channel 9 Guy?! |
| MORE: Ray Ozzie and company present the cloud |
| MORE: Sinofsky acknowledges Vista UAC is a problem, Windows 7 adds options |
Next: Did we get what we came for?
Going back to their roots with the Windows 1 taskbar?
Score: 0
|It was not a taskbar. Take another look.
Score: 0
|Someone dig this guy a shallow grave and stick him in, will ya?
Score: 0
|Grabbed the M3.
Amazingly, the Vista RC keys work to activate it (Gmail rocks so hard).
Wow.
It installed in under 15 minutes (Meaning; I was booted to the desktop and downloading Firefox/Minefield.)
It was fast. Not just, "Hey, that's more like it", but an actual, "Holy crap!" kind of fast.
I threw the DVD back in and formatted this time, getting rid of Vista. Even being a pre-beta without the new UI, it's already better.
The control panel is chock-full of configuration applets, *all* of my drivers were detected (I did update the chipset and GPU drivers, as I am wont to do).
It was quick, responsive, stable, and laden with all kinds of new functionality/configuration options. Those folks who thought Vista was dumbed down because the config options were buried are going to love this.
We'll still deploy vista with newly purchased machines, but we might actually *seriously* consider a site-wide upgrade to Win7 when it comes out.
My only real gripe is that they've apparently hamstrung UAC. Hopefully the defaults they have it set to on the Pre-beta will *not* carry over to the final build.
Score: 0
|Toolie - Are you on crack? Or did someone steal your ID?
Score: 0
|Neither. He's simply an M$ fanboy (But he could be on crack though).
Score: 0
|What are the specs on the machine you are using?
Does it truly manage ram better?
Does a good graphics card also help the performance that was promised in Vista but still felt a little short?
Did you have the new taskbar or is that the build without all the flash?
Score: 0
|He uses both fanboy7
The majority of people on here at least try other products and make our own opinions rather then spew nonsense and no actual discussion but to incite petty insults.
Score: 0
|IF you read the reviews on the pre beta it is all the things he states and the build was run on a netbook which had a 1ghz processor with 1 gig of ram.
Score: 0
|Did you have the new taskbar or is that the build without all the flash?
New Taskbar is only available in the latter builds of Windows 7 which was shown at PDC and that build (has to be 6933) is only available to M$ developers right now. Pre-beta versions have vista like taskbar with some minor changes to the UI.
Does it truly manage ram better?
Yes
Here's more: http://blog.laptopmag.co...more-about-pow-than-wow :)
Seems like we will have to wait for beta 1 to experience that new cool looking taskbar.
Score: 0
|We have had been waiting for Windows Vista SP2 (slip streamed) to deploy them in all our machines but now we're def. gonna wait for Windows 7! :P
Score: 0
|Neither. Used it all weekend. Not a complaint other than the UAC bit.
Score: 0
|Machine Specs:
Asus M2NPV-VM (w/ 4400+ AMD X2 CPU)
2GB 667Mhz DDR2
Ati 2900 XT 512MB PCIe
2-250GB Seagate 7200 RPM (RAID-0)
Does it truly manage ram better?
To be honest, I didn't once look at resource usage. Never even thought about it. Everything ran smoothly, and it's usually slowdowns that cause me to think of such things.
Does a good graphics card also help the performance that was promised in Vista but still felt a little short?
Likely. But they did get it running (with Aero) on an Atom Netbook, so... YMMV
Did you have the new taskbar or is that the build without all the flash?
M3, build 6801, was the build given at PDC. The build *Demoed* at PDC was build 6933, which is an internal MSFT build and will not be released. We will not see the new UI until the first public beta.
Score: 0
|Bill Engval give you your sign yet?
Score: 0
|Do that. I wouldn't suggest putting Vista on any machine currently running XP at this stage, even if it can handle it. no sense paying for the licenses.
Win7 looks like it is going to be a far better upgrade and is probably only little over a year away.
Hell, IMO, they should release this build to all current Vista owners and let them decide which they want to run...
Score: 0
|OK... 1st I thought Vista 'flies' on your system since SP1 so why the urge..?
2nd - You reformatted and replaced Vista with this? Either you want to re-live your rebellious youth and excitement or you are crazy without any excuse to put a pre-beta OS on a machine with all the internal and external risks involved...
Score: 0
|1st: It does. And Win7 is even faster yet.
As I said, it installed in under 15 minutes. XP can't even do that...on a bare-bones nlite'd Cd even.
Boots faster than both.
2nd: It's activated until August of next year. What, exactly, am I risking? The public beta will be out *long* before then (January at the latest), what am I risking? It's stable, quick, and supports my hardware...once again, what am I risking?
You may not be aware, but they've absolutely done a 180 on their dev process. Instead of putting the code into the main branch and testing it then, they've already done the testing prior to putting it in. What this means is that the main branch is virtually always rock solid stable. They could release this build and have less problems than they did with the Vista launch. (Vista used the old dev process...program the feature, put it in the branch, test it, as it gets closer to deadline it gets harder to pull non-functional or semi-functional code *out*, etc...)
Read up on the e7 blog if you want more detail.
it works with my programs, it works with my hardware, and it is faster than Xp/Vista SP1.
Why would I *not* want to use it?
Score: 0
|OK, but seriously. I have had nearly no problems with Vista [x64(!)] at all running several machines doing some serious stuff (others might complain about Vista, not me). Besides some of the UI corrections (how else can we call this), what makes Win7 thus far a really "new" OS? To me it seems like Vista SP3, nothing more. Not SP2, but SP3. But really NOT more!
See... we are not ethen talking about features that have been left out of "Longhorn" in the process of making Vista anymore! There seems to be absolutely NO substantial innovations right now. Just a cleanup of the UI and maybe as you say a little performance boost. Can You comment on this, as you have actually hands-on experience?
Score: 0
|Did they fix system restore?
I hate how you can't set it for a certain amt anymore it just does it automatically.
Score: 0
|#2 Maybe for the insignificant reason that it's a pre-beta and as such does not receive the same scrutiny in terms of security and plugging holes as production software..? It might just work fine but to actually migrate anything to it besides a test system smells like teen spirit.
Score: 0
|Maybe for the insignificant reason that it's a pre-beta and as such does not receive the same scrutiny in terms of security and plugging holes as production software..?
UAC. Stronger kernel. Still receives any Vista-based updates that apply.
Utterly failing to see your point.
Regardless, this is my personal home system. I use it to get the TV listings, browse the net, and play the occasional game (Currently hooked on Spider Solitaire). I don't think the world will cease to exist if the system gets compromised.
Obviously, I'm not running this on production, work-related hardware.
Score: 0
|??
I changed the amount in Vista. It was quite simple. Right click "Computer" - Properties - Advances System Settings - System Protection - Move the slider. I believe it's the same in Win7 (at least this build).
I've used it twice. Last night. Installed an updated driver for my RAID (I am thinking I used the wrong chipset version) and the system failed to boot. Hit "Startup Repair" (another nifty feature), did a system restore, and was golden. Then I went and did it again...hey, I got nothing but time. ;)
Score: 0
|What features? WinFS? Fo you even have a clue what that is? (Other than completely useless to the majority of users?...not to mention resource hogging?)
Yes, it's what Vista should have been. It's the next incarnation of the VItsa platform. This isn't a "New" OS, and was never intended to be. They usually go through 2 or three incarnations of a single platform before moving on to the next.
So what's the problem this time? XP is what Windows 2000 should have been. Windows 98 is what Windows 95 should have been.... SSDD.
They have *massively* improved the I/O (Performance), reworked the GUI (Exposing a lot more functionality and configuration options), and generally made the OS much more enjoyable to use.
One new feature that caught my eye last night:
Startup Repair. Failed boots allow you to launch this, which can be used to perform a system restore, drop to console, use repair utilities, etc.
Score: 0
|Thanks for answering. So basically you agree with my comments. (Although I can feel, you seem a little bit upset? A bit Windows critics based on solid facts is too much for you? Why?)
Win95 was a mass-revolution at that time for consumers. Win 2000 was a solid OS for business. So your comparison is a bit exaggerated, however not entirely wrong. XPs role was to unify both worlds - the 95/98 consumer world and the NT/2000 pro world. So also XPs role was a very significant one.
WinFS on the other hand was a great concept, that could have changed the way we use our computers and organize data! Nobody would have to force You to use it over pure NTFS on slower (one core) machines.
Now some time ago I heard MS-engineers promising a process away from the crippled concept of the "Windows registry" towards what they called "manifest" files inside the apps folders. Vista was promised to be a start. Next version should be a significant next step. How is about that in Win7?
We need much more true and real changes like this alongside (but not alone) with performance updates for a new OS to make really sense being "new" and not a service pack. Fixing Vista is a lame excuse for cashing in two times.
Score: 0
|(Although I can feel, you seem a little bit upset? A bit Windows critics based on solid facts is too much for you? Why?)
I get a little peeved when people are naive enough to think every new release = a new OS, when time and experience have more than proven otherwise.
Win95 was a mass-revolution at that time for consumers. Win 2000 was a solid OS for business. So your comparison is a bit exaggerated,
Not at all, you simply misunderstood. Let me try and make it clearer:
Win7 is to Vista what Win98 was to Win95 and what XP was to 2000 (though you are right, 2000 was a business only OS for the most part). Clearer? Win95 was indeed a breakthrough OS. It was the first incarnation of it;s platform, just as Vista is the first incarnation of it's platform. Win7 will be the next logical step, as was Win98. Following me?
WinFS on the other hand was a great concept, that could have changed the way we use our computers and organize data! Nobody would have to force You to use it over pure NTFS on slower (one core) machines.
You do realize WinFS was quite resource hungry, right? It was basically NTFS with a database backend (SQL Server). Now, imagine the outcry if a database like that was running 24/7 on the boxes people are currently whining about slow performance from Vista on? Metadata does the trick for now, without the performance hit. Win7 will index metadata and WDS will be able search that index, providing nearly the same functionality at a greatly reduced performance hit. Sure, they could include it as an option (aside from development having basically been stopped on it and it having been broken into multiple products), but why include a feature requiring heavy load and likely heavy support that virtually no-one will use?
Now some time ago I heard MS-engineers promising a process away from the crippled concept of the "Windows registry" towards what they called "manifest" files inside the apps folders. Vista was promised to be a start. Next version should be a significant next step. How is about that in Win7?
Registry is still there. They will not change anything that drastically until the next platform release. It would horribly break compatibility with literally millions of applications/services. They don't make changes like this in incremental releases.
We need much more true and real changes like this alongside (but not alone) with performance updates for a new OS to make really sense being "new" and not a service pack. Fixing Vista is a lame excuse for cashing in two times.
Again, ignoring the obvious troll, how is Win7 any different from any other MSFT incremental release? How different was 98 over 95? XP over 2000? It was all UI/performance and a few minor functionality/feature additions that didn't break compatibility. What you are asking for is a new platform. That is not what Win7 is or was ever intended to be.
Score: 0
|We could sum it up a little bit different. Users expected Vista to be that "platform", that now Win7 will be. (Again a couple years later.) That is why Vista does not sell the way expected by MS.
Win8 will probably be the platform that we earlier expected Win7 to be.
Still you miss some points: XP was about bringing the 95/98 world and the NT/2000 world TOGETHER - as I tried to make clear. That was the main point of it. Calling XP a "98" to the 2000 series is a clear mistake. It was much, much more. And that is probably why the expectations for Vista (add to this the long waiting time after XP) were so high.
As for the registry thing. They had an idea of not breaking anything at all, as the registry would be there for at least several Win versions to come. But it was supposed to be a "virtual registry" for older apps with a clean new way of doing things for new apps. So nothing would have to break and the transition process would be a very smooth one. They have to start such a big change rather earlier than later and slowly or else they could really get into trouble.
On another note. Being so uncritical like you tend to be in this post is very astounding at least (although I like many other reasonable comments of you in this forum). Do you really think that Win7 is a good response to XP and the industries expectations after 9-10 years of development time from a multibillion company with thousands of devs? I don't think so. Still I use Vista, like it more than other OSes (and yes, I used them all!). That does not mean, that I will stay still, saying nothing, like I was reality-distorted by a Steve Jobs kind of guy. Again: it is really the substantial changes that make a good OS, not the chrome. Also the "platform" is a misconception in the way you seem to understand it. The key to success in the future will be minor, but steady releases with the "platform" being key technologies that run on top of at least two generations of Windows - see: WPF/Silverlight, and all the other .NET stuff running on XP/Vista with Silverlight being even crossplatform! That is the real "platform", not the OSes themselves.
Score: 0
|That is why Vista does not sell the way expected by MS.
Agreed.
Win8 will probably be the platform that we earlier expected Win7 to be.
Maybe. I expect another incremental OS after 7, but who knows.
XP was about bringing the 95/98 world and the NT/2000 world TOGETHER - as I tried to make clear.
From a consumer standpoint, sure. From an OS platform standpoint, XP came from 2000, which was a complete departure from the 95/98 platform.
They had an idea of not breaking anything at all, as the registry would be there for at least several Win versions to come. But it was supposed to be a "virtual registry" for older apps with a clean new way of doing things for new apps. So nothing would have to break and the transition process would be a very smooth one. They have to start such a big change rather earlier than later and slowly or else they could really get into trouble.
They could, but then they add bloat and there is *zero* incentive for anyone to code for the new way of doing things. Why? The old way works just peachy, right? ;)
Do you really think that Win7 is a good response to XP and the industries expectations after 9-10 years of development time from a multibillion company with thousands of devs?
No. Win7 should have been the Vista release, but they borked it. They way you throw around the money figures, it would seem to indicate you think they should have written a new OS from scratch. You do realize they have maybe 30 developers working on Win7, right? The rest are working on one of their *many* other projects? MSFT doesn't *just* make Operating Systems. ;)
Platform is changing in meaning. The new platform will likely, in your opinion, be the cloud, right? By my meaning it is the basic underpinnings of the OS, in such a way that 3.x, 4.x, 95/98, 2000/XP and Vista/Win7 are thus different platforms. Sure, they all have much in common and are built from much of the same stuff, but each of these "platforms" introduced new tech/functionality that the following incremental releases built on. Think of it as "Major Version" vs "Point Release" in the greater dev world (Which is actually spot on, looking at version numbers...Vista being 6.0 and Win7 being 6.1).
Score: 0
|"UAC. Stronger kernel. Still receives any Vista-based updates that apply."
In pre-beta. Says who?
"Obviously, I'm not running this on production, work-related hardware."
Hehe - I'd test it out on those systems before anything is toching my own setup :)
Score: 0
|In pre-beta. Says who?
Seriously, check out the E7 blog. If you don't believe them, obviously you won't believe me.
Hehe - I'd test it out on those systems before anything is toching my own setup :)
Not cool.
Score: 0
|More on Windows 7:
Eee PC 1000H Runs Windows 7 Well (pre-beta) it's not the one shown at PDC: http://blog.laptopmag.co...00h-runs-windows-7-well
Windows 7 In-Depth Overview:
http://blog.laptopmag.co...more-about-pow-than-wow
Ya!! Doesn't that make rotten Apple's crap OS X look so ugly? :)
Score: 0
|Sorry? You can do that even on a PDA, as it only stands *one* point of touch.
Haven't you exaggerated that by a lot?
Windows Me : Year 2000, kernel win32
Windows XP SP3 : Year 2008, kernel winnt
Windows Vista: Year 2006 (actually 2007) kernel winnt
Windows 7 : Year 2010, kernel winnt
That, aside of the win Me characteristics (a bridge between win98 and win2000, that didn't have the best of both).
Score: 0
|"What did we learn today?"
That Microsoft is still playing catchup with Apple... as usual. Think that's BS? Think Microsoft is finally innovating this time and coming up with original ideas in Vista 2nd edition a.k.a. Windows 7? Here's something to chew on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0aS5t222_4
Score: 0
|internetworld7:
I watched the video...
The advancement is in hardware (touch screen). Touch screen as been out there for well over a decade (just not cheap enough for most people). Microsoft is software (the os). This does not impress me at all. This is something that should have been there already. This says nothing at all for MS. The annoying part of it is more that people are still thinking of MS based machines as "PC's"....they are ALL PC's.
Score: 0
|LOL you are such a joke aren't you?
Hey, I figured if Apple zealots could simply reply with the above 2 statements then they deserve to have it shoved back in their face! Whatever OS X has now that Windows 7 will have, I'm sure Microsoft will implement it better. I'm just sure of it. No need to offer proof. Nope.
Windows 7 doesn't seem to be a huge leap forward so what we actually have to do is go back into Windows history and look at the things that Windows has had for a while that OS X still doesn't have today.
1. True 64 bit support. Sorry, a 32 bit kernel with a 64 bit compatibility shim doesn't count.
2. Time Machine (Copy of Windows System Restore) done 3 years before Time Machine was "invented", with a familiar UI (no need to run a separate client, it is built right into Windows Explorer), support for 3rd party backup programs (yup, the Restore Previous Versions command is extensible and will show you versions backed up by other programs, unlike Apple's anti-competitive program), and the ability to still work even when your external drive is unplugged (important for laptops, Time Machine stops making copies the instant your Time Machine drive is disconnected).
3. Media Center. Way ahead!
4. Better support for Exchange clients than OS X and if you suggest that isn't important, why don't you ask Apple why they paid Microsoft for the ability to sync the iPhone with Exchange.
5. No lock in! Standardizing on the OS X platform restricts you to 3 models of computers. Standardizing on Windows allows you the freedom to purchase your hardware from any vendor should your current vendor piss you off. Also gives you access to different types of hardware which leads us to...
6. Tablet support. Awwww, none for OS X!!! And you guys keep asking for it every year. :)
7. As mentioned before, games suck on OS X. Is this important to all? Of course not. Is this important to some? If you believe the answer is no then you tell me who is injecting money into the multi-billion $$$/year gaming industry.
8. Hand and glove support for Windows server technologies like Active Directory. You know, the thing the EU said gave Microsoft an unfair advantage over the competition. Is Murphy right and the EU is wrong?
9. Virtualization. OS X can't be virtualized as a guest OS. Funny thing is that there is no technical reason for this, this is just Apple being Apple and withholding things from you guys just because they can. And you pay them for the privilege! I'm curious, do you have a "safe word" in your relationship with Jobs? You know, in case he goes too far with the sadism? :) and Windows 7 will bring support for VHD another great feature for us!
10: I can even encrypt my drives so that even if my laptop is stolen, my data will still be hidden and inaccessible. What about crap OS X?
The list goes on and on!!
If you can't list anything then please tell us all why the DoJ specifically singled Apple out as NOT counting as competition.
In the end Murph, no one needs to prove the case that Windows is better than OS X since the DoJ, the EU, and other European and Asian government agencies prove that case every single year. What you need to do is prove that these organizations are wrong and that Microsoft has always had competition. Poor rotten Apple!! GO!!
Now who is playing catchup? Apple will never be in the position of where Microsoft is and will be, got it? ignorant f**got!
Score: 0
|I'm sorry, I'm not interested in reading your book/post. But tell me, hows this working out for you:
http://www.computerworld...8718&intsrc=hm_list
Score: 0
|LOL that kept your mouth shut, didn't it? unfortunately today am not seeing youtube link in your post, that's amazing!! and sorry dude I don't trust CrapMac f**gots :P
Score: 0
|You got that the other way around, people that use Apple computers think they are different from PCS, when its just a tpm model with efi.
Score: 0
|Yeah the type of virus would affect Linux as well, the only reason it doesn't affect Apple because they use EFI, rather then Bios
Score: 0
|Well, MAC is different from Windows...but, what people think is exactly what I'm talking about. A PC is a personal computer...that's what PC means. It has never meant anything other than that. We have all lived with this idea of the definitions of all kinds of words being turned around to mean something that they are not for so long, we just accept it. PC does not mean Windows; it never meant Windows. PC refers to hardware...NOT the operating system. Regardless of what people may think. This is one of those areas that the world of advertising has screwed up. You take a pentium machine and erase Windows from it and put osx on it...that never changes the fact that it is still a pc.
Score: 0
|Well if we as PC users don't have it on our PC's, afaik, it's working out just fine. Post something that applies to us, perhaps?
Score: 0
|lol!
Score: 0
|Yeah, I agreed with you. Also MAC is not an OS its an acronym for Media Access Control. Now OSX is an operating system or even Mac OSX - its all in the way you write it...
Score: 0
|AMEN!
Score: 0
|I'd rather go without than go with an Apple. OS X is so severely lacking in so many things it reminds me of Windows 3. HHmmm, maybe that's what Jobs did, rewrote the kernel and added some new graphics. He was around when Microsoft was still part of IBM and had his hands in it.
Score: 0
|*laughing*
A virus. That's all you've got in response?
Really?
I honestly cannot remember the last time I had to deal with viruses. At work *or* at home. Nice try though.
Score: 0
|"That Microsoft is still playing catchup with Apple..."
Google Windows Market Share. Never were, never will.
Apple is for losers.
Score: 0
|Not interested in reading it? Wonder why. Don't want your flimsy "reality" shattered. After all, they are excellent points.
Score: 0
|Gotta love his completely absurd comments, don't you?
MSFT...playing catchup with Apple.
Next he's going to tell us Intel needs to catch up with AMD. ;)
Score: 0
|Well, Intel is catching up with AMD in some areas, like HyperTransport. :)
Score: 0
|Okay, maybe not the best case in point...
Score: 0
|