RSSVista's dead: Microsoft kills an OS and no one cares
By Carmi Levy | Published July 2, 2009, 12:51 PM
For anyone still burning a torch for Windows Vista, its time is rapidly approaching. Buy now or forever hold your peace.
I can't say I'm surprised at how any of this has turned out. After all, Vista's launch was, to be charitable, rocky. When it first arrived just before Christmas 2006, it was late, bloated and, for some, expensive. It may have looked pretty on the outside, but critics quickly pounced on it for driver incompatibility, sluggish performance on mainstream -- and sometimes even high-end -- hardware and enough bugs to fill a family-sized tent on a weekend camping expedition. Microsoft didn't help matters with its ill-fated "Vista Capable" designation -- a public relations debacle that convinced buyers who were too lazy to read the fine print that Vista would run just as well on hardware barely suited for XP.
It's always too late to change a first impression
Since first impressions are often the only things that matter in today's attention-deficit world, Vista got stuck with a reputation it's never quite been able to shake. Which is somewhat unfortunate given how nicely Vista has padded Microsoft's bottom line since then. It's sold hundreds of millions of copies and it runs on the vast majority of laptops on display at the average big box electronics retailer. Service Packs and updates have fixed most of the major bugs and security gaps and more devices than ever are Vista-friendly now that hardware manufacturers have gotten into the driver game. Vista hasn't been the failure its detractors long said it was.
But memories are funny things, and despite its market performance over the past two-and-a-half years, no one seems willing to forgive Vista for being inadequately baked and improperly messaged when it first arrived. So Microsoft, recognizing that the era of the operating system is past middle age, is killing Vista. There's been no press release, of course, no official announcement that it's ending production -- because it's still churning out retail boxes and pre-loaded builds for OEMs just as it always has. But last week's announcement of the Windows 7 Upgrade Option Program signals the likely death knell for Vista.
Free, cheap, and desperate
The Windows 7 Upgrade Option Program is a promotion under which customers who buy a PC equipped with Vista Premium, Business, or Ultimate between now and October will be eligible for a free upgrade when Windows 7 ships. It's designed to prevent the usual drop in demand for a current OS that precedes the launch of the next generation -- a critical move in the middle of a recession, when no one's buying anyway. To further stoke interest among folks not interested in picking up new hardware anytime soon, Microsoft is pricing pre-orders for Windows 7 Home Premium at $49 and Professional at $99 -- as close to fire sale pricing as we've ever seen on a Windows product.
What does all of this posturing and price manipulation mean? Simple: The writing is on the wall, and Microsoft will do anything it can to protect its Windows franchise, even if it means killing off one of its own. Vista's the new sacrificial lamb. Given how well pre-release versions of Windows 7 have been received, it's in the company's best interest to finish off Vista as quickly as it can and shift everyone's attention to Windows 7.
“Microsoft has always managed the Windows sub-brands in a chaotic, ever-evolving manner, grazing over naming conventions as casually as most of us would cruise the buffet table at a distant cousin's wedding.” |
Tomorrow's operating system won't be the headline-grabbing, Mick Jagger-attracting retail superstar that Windows once was. As long as it connects all the underlying pieces together (and stays out of our way while doing it) that will be enough. A leaner, meaner, cheaper Windows 7 bridges Microsoft toward this somewhat uncertain future. Likewise, big and brash Vista no longer has a place in the line-up, hence Microsoft's all-hands effort to make us forget it ever existed.
But I like Vista
As the transition from Vista to Windows 7 gathers steam, countless folks running Vista find themselves wondering whether Microsoft's accelerated transition to Win7 means they're about to be orphaned. Not especially. Like all Microsoft operating systems, Vista will receive the same tiers of extended support that have traditionally applied to all versions of Windows.
Microsoft is only shifting its marketing focus: Support timelines aren't being changed, and current users have nothing to fear beyond having less to talk about at their next party.
Protect revenue at all costs
In the end, what matters to Microsoft, as with any company, is moving product and maintaining revenue. Whether it's called XP, Vista, Win7, or even Bob is almost immaterial. If it sells, it stays. If it doesn't, it's gone. Microsoft has always managed the Windows sub-brands in a chaotic, ever-evolving manner, grazing over naming conventions as casually as most of us would cruise the buffet table at a distant cousin's wedding. The company's eclectic naming choices are coming full circle with Windows 7, returning to the simple numbering scheme that started it all.
Call it anything you want, as long as you call it Windows. That'll be good enough for Microsoft as it figures out how to make money in a post-Windows, post-Office landscape. With Vista out of the way, the company at least stands a fighting chance of convincing jaded consumers and enterprises alike that the OS is still relevant. Windows 7 is indeed a leaner and better product than Vista. The question on everyone's mind is whether that's enough to sustain the franchise.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. And in case you're wondering, no, Carmi is not wearing pants.
Microsoft will gain all in three windows. Windows Vista and Windows 7 and who wants Downgrade to Windows XP Pro....I have Windows Vista Sp2 running. If you have 3 P.C. Vista Windows 7 and Downgraded to Windows 7....think what happens.You can win with Windows.If you have Vista dvd learn dvd s 30 day trial key too.Think why? Who wants to win with Microsoft.....
Score: 0
|Agreed that Microsoft is doing everything possible to kill the OS. But doubt that most people using vista will ever dump it. I was one of the early adopters of Vista when I bought a laptop preinstalled with Vista (OEM). Yes, I had problem with speed (still have since it boots very slowly) but this was resolved without much investment by using "Readyboost" feature in Vista!! I invested in a pen drive and it was much cheaper than investing in additional ram. The only issue that I face presently is that it takes minutes to boot and shut down. Else, the machine is super fast with excellent multitasking capabilities. The performance has not dropped over the years (unlike previous versions of windows machines where you need to reinstall after a year or two) and I am happily using it day after day, everyday.
So I guess Vista will not die as suggested here although Microsoft will do its best to kill Vista (else who will buy Windows 7!). I am happy with Vista and look forward to use my present machine for years to come!!
Score: 0
|Stop shutting down the laptop. Hibernate or sleep the machine. Problem solved. If you ever need to reboot because of a MS patch, schedule it for when you are asleep.
readyboost doesn't help compared to simply adding more RAM. The speed and access latencies on a USB port are hundreds of times slower than your memory controller.
Also laptop memory is cheap.
Score: 0
|hmm........sure, not shutting down will solve the boot and shut time issue!! This resolves everything with vista!!!!
It is strange to see why people do not believe in "Readyboost"........Even if a pen drive is surely slower than RAM, "Readyboost" works!! I am a living example - its amazing to see fantastic improvement in performance without additional RAM. To use "Readyboost", the device (pen drive) must support readyboost. Vista verifies the device when you insert it and only if it is fit (is capable of minimum speed) Vista will present the option to enable it for readyboost.
Score: 0
|Hey that sounds great and all, but I prefer benchmarks to random forum postings, so back it up with some data. You probably have a laptop that is starved for memory to begin with, or with a very slow HDD. Basic physics and knowing a tad about I/O interfaces go a long way in understanding the point of diminishing returns with using flash memory as a performance enhancement versus much, much faster RAM.
Score: 0
|The headline of this article is not supported by anything below it.
The upgrade program and everything around the release of a new OS is part of the plan to get customers to upgrade. The intention was for XP to die when Vista was released and Win98/ME to die when XP was released. Unforutnalty XP didn't die off as fast as planned due to Vista upgrades. That doesn't mean MS is trying to kill it off any more than it will do with Win7 when Win 8 comes off. This could have just been a "another article on the challenge of vista, oh and win 7 is out"
Score: 0
|XP didn't die because MS has contractual obligations to maintain the previous OS and service pack with government and large corporate entities. Your largest customers don't take kindly to you just turning off support when you feel like it.
Score: 0
|OMG I can't believe a couple of things
Firstly that I have never come across this writer or site before. Well written, concise and logical is my response to the article. A lot better than some of the guff out there.
The other thing is that there are so many responses on this site from readers (very encouraging and proves I should be linking to this site often)
Now I think most people may have missed the major point of this and the associated stories written by this author on the subject of the desktop O/S. People have missed the fact that the O/S as an entity is becoming comoditised and will fade into obscurity by getting into an MS and Vista bashing debate.
IMHO Vista is fine, I have had no issues on it from day 1 and I was running crappy old hardware and peoformed a standard install. Sp1 improved things but I don't think (for me) it was any worse than any other OS provided by MS. However having tried W7 on my netbook and compared XP and Vista W7 ultimate basically flies !
I like W7 as it is light and does the job quickly and efficiently.
However the real story is the O/S is irrelevant and I suspect we will see this decline happen in the next 5 year cycle. For now things will stay as is for many reasons. So it is worthless talking about how much better Linux, MAC or Windows is better as less and less people will care.
Score: 0
|They may not care what the OS is, but until we have programs running directly out of thin air the OS is critical.
Score: 0
|microsoft is offering a free evaluation copy of windows 7.Answer a few questions and you can download it from them.They will email you a activation key for your install.7 is clean and sleek and so is vista with sp2 installed.I belive the only reason their killing vista is because of the bad press.As far as you mac users go get a life.even Windows 2000 is far superior to any mac os out there.
Score: 0
|It's a shame, but Vista has basic flaws...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28neSgQFVIA
Score: -2
|Windows 95/98/OSRs/ME/2000 & SPs = Windows 4, Windows XP/2003 & SPs = 5, Windows Vista & SPs = Windows 6.
Vista isn't 'dead' atm but it has come and will go pretty quickly, especially with these cheap upgrade prices and word on the street the 7 is 'better', While I agree that nothing is hugely wrong with Vista, especially after the SPs, the product has been hurt by mess ups on release and bad PR. It's pretty much unrecoverable and that's why I have to agree with Carmi - "it if sells, it stays, if it doesn't, it's gone"....and Vista hasn't really 'sold'. Too many have requested downgrades and the OS is so 'hungry' it doesn't run well on 'older' configs, something 7 manages to do.
I also think it WILL sustain the franchise. Our only other options are a free OS that just doesn't quite get it right when it comes to friendliness and ease of use, or a candy coated, watered down OS locked to a tyrant of a company. I'm not ready to become sheep, quite yet.
Score: 0
|Vista was and still is fine, once UAC and Indexing are turned off and extra memory installed. For me it's been a lot more stable (no crashes, freezes, or BSODs ever) than XP, but Windows 7 is even better, based on the RC. I'll happily stay with Windows, either Vista or 7 is just fine by me.
Score: 1
|Well... I can't stay from the start that I am a big Windows fan... but I do have vista on my laptop and I don't really have any big complaints about it... Of course Vista is not perfect... but Microsoft has always had it flaws... I have the early beginning that people had already many prejudices against Vista and it kinda never faded away.
btw, I like to use Linux... I like the fact that I can virtually configure everything... plus my battery last 2-3 hours longer than when it runs of vista...
Score: 0
|its true vista is utter guff, when they burn each copy the guy at ms wipes his butt with the disk, then sends it off to brain dead geeks who come on here arguing how good it is, long live the pentium II,
128 meg of memory and windows 98, thank you for taking the time to be offended by this!!!
Score: -2
|"Linux runs 2-3 hours longer than when it runs of vista.".
Forgive me, but that's a dangerously bold statement to use. Did you have aero effects turned on in vista? Did you change the default power profile in Vista? There are also some nice third party apps that turn aero off when not in use:
http://www.codeplex.com/vistabattery
I just think it's unfair to say switching to Linux will instantly give you 2-3 hours. I think there are too many variables and tweaks to compare them the same. :)
Score: 0
|The only problem I've ever had with Vista is video files don't have thumbnails. Never had another problem. Windows 7 has those thumbnails but is slower to shut down and uses far more memory than Vista. This is much changed from Beta. Beta was fast, used little memory. And as times gone on using RC1 I have severe doubts that I'd bother upgrading from Vista Biz to Windows 7 pro. Makes no sense to me to upgrade to an OS thats slower. So I don't think Vista is dead. Microsoft should instead say for those who didn't like Vista. here's 7. I love Vista, I understood it, never had a problem with it.
Score: -3
|I Have Windows Vista and I Think it's great, it hasn't given me any troubles. People just need to learn to read and understand what they're getting into is all.
Score: 1
|I to love Vista in fact Vista after SP1 has worked better for me than XP ever did, I got BSD's all the time I cant count how many times I had to reinstall XP.
But with Vista I have had only 2 BSD's and to get my system running again I just had to reboot and hit F8 ...
And that was on a single core P4 with 1.5 gigs of ram.. Now that I have a Quad core i7 system with 6gigs's of DDR3 Ram and Vista 64bit it really works grate.
I think many users tried to use vista on a real old system and many of em may have done upgrades I found upgrades never work well you all ways need a clean install.
So I hope VISTA is a round for some time ....I have the RC of windows 7 on my old PC it runs good but my color laser does not work on it nor does my scanner if windows 7 was going to have support you would think that companies would have beta drivers on there web site buy now.
I can't see pre ordering windows 7 if it's not going to support my hardware so I feel Microsoft has all ready messed up they should have made sure hardware venders had beta drivers out it looks to me like windows 7 has even less support that VISTA did ... and even if later windows 7 does get support I am not paying 200.00 for an OS...I will just STICK with VISTA .
Score: 0
|Yes, It is time for Windows 7 because it is better than Windows Vista.
Score: -2
|Just like Vista was better than XP. ROFL. They finally stabilized XP and then they threw it away on the horribly bloated, horribly broken, DRM infested Vista. Now they are rebadging Vista and making all the suckers pay for it again. ROFL. "It is better". "It is more secure". Pay us $219 again for the same OS we sold you in Vista.
Score: -2
|1. Its $50
2. There may be a family pack
3. You are still an idiot
4. With so much hate towards an OS why do you continually come on Windows topics and repeat the same thing over and over with your nonsense?
Score: 0
|Vista is not dead and will live on with those users who just won't let go of it just like those who won't let go of XP. Many people got vista as an OEM install, most on a laptop, and so unless they have a very good reason to upgrade, which they won't have even with Windows7, they will stick with Vista.
As for those that b**** about vista running badly they just didn't want to spend money on upgrading their six year old machine to let vista run properly. Sure, Microsoft screwed up on the specifications required especially around the whole 'Aero thing' but the fundemental advantages that have benefited me, as an IT specialist, is the massive improvements to the deployment, patch management and general supportability of the OS.
Essentially installing Vista on a old XP spec machine works as long as you turn off all the non-essential 'bells and whistles' (Microsoft never stated a mimimum spec machine would run Vista super-fast after all!).
The types of fundemental improvements I mentioned worked very well and have become the basis for all Microsoft OS since and so even if Vista goes down in history as a dud it's offspring will have all of it's good genes.
Score: 2
|Exactly. it was about time I upgraded my 2001 HP scanner too. Just in time. Scanned all the grandparents negatives and my own. And the Olympus P-10 which has an XP drive works on Vista. I got Vista Biz for $10.50 So unless Windows 7 comes about the same price, it's not a real big change for me..
Score: 0
|this news is pure FUD! Vista is not dead! There's nothing wrong with Vista.
Score: 2
|Just like there were no US troops in Baghdad when that Iraqi Propaganda Minister was on TV, right?
Score: -3
|comparing a computer OS to war, fail
Score: 4
|It's a really, really good idea to read the article before making a comment.
Score: 0
|don't care if vista is dead after 7 hits retail, sure i use vista ultimate (and like it) but i got it with my laptop... i'll be going out of my way to buy 7, not sure which yet, as its hard to justify the price for ultimate...
but whatever, i've tried 7 on both of the PCs i use, old and new... runs great on my older pre vista laptop as well so i'm looking forward to dumping vista now
Score: 0
|Microsoft leaks "Family Pack" licensing for Windows 7 Home Premium:
"If you are a "Qualified Family Pack User," you may install one copy of the software marked as "Family Pack" on three computers in your household for use by people who reside there."
Niiice.
Score: 0
|im not surprised the way things turned out. XP was the OS for 6 years and people were whining on how they were having issues with Vista on there 6 year old PC's.user ignorance was the reason Vista failed. this is why Microsoft had to put XP mode in windows 7 to make the ignorant users happy
Score: -2
|Newsflash:
XP Mode isn't for "users". It's for enterprises. The big giveaway? It is *not* in the general consumer edition of the OS. If Microsoft had any intention of using it to appease the whining masses, they'd have put it in the edition most of them will be using...don't ya think?
Score: 0
|IMO, in todays economy, ppl just don't want or need to be wasting money on unneeded upghrades to perfectly fine systems just to run the latest buggy bloatware from MS. Most common users are happy with a pc that is currently working fine for all their needs. With more and more home foreclosures and more and more ppl out of work, people are cutting back wasteful spending and just struggling to make ends meet.
Score: 0
|I ditched Windows during XP's reign when Microsoft made Windows Update too invasive. Even so, I still follow their news with interest. There is no doubt that Vista was a disaster for both Microsoft and the users that were forced to adopt it with the purchase of new hardware. I can't help but think that anyone with Vista should be offered a really cheap upgrade path to try and undo the damage Vista caused. Making it more or less the same price as Vista doesn't help the victims who don't qualify for a cheap upgrade because they were early adopters.
Microsoft has a chance to put things right with Windows 7. But, like usual, their management puts profit ahead of common sense.
Score: -2
|"when Microsoft made Windows Update too invasive."
*laughing*
Yeah...selecting "Do not update" is just *so* frikkin' hard to do. ;)
BTW: For following the MS news, you seem to have totally missed SP1 and SP2 for Vista which has since made it a very functional OS. The "victims" are "victims" no longer... (unless it's to the UI, but some folks seem to like it, so...)
Score: 0
|What your really trying to say is WGA got harder to defeat and you didn't want to spend money on a legit copy?
Score: 0
|Am i the only one who didn't get his mind stuck with the title, and found the article very correct?
Vista may not be dead "right now" (it has pulse), but it's deader ahead of time than i've ever seen in any production cycle.
Score: 1
|Uhh...maybe dead ahead of time that YOU have seen...I guess you must be 10 years old...
1992 Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.1 was released October, 1992.
1994 Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released February, 1994.
1995 Microsoft Windows 95 was released August 24, 1995
1998 Microsoft Windows 98 was released June, 1998.
1999 Microsoft Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) was released May 5, 1999.
2000 Microsoft Windows 2000 was released February 17, 2000.
2000 Microsoft Windows ME (Millennium) released June 19, 2000.
2001 Microsoft Windows XP is released October 25, 2001.
2006 Microsoft releases Microsoft Windows Vista to corporations on November 30, 2006.
2007 Microsoft releases Microsoft Windows Vista and Office 2007 to the general public January 30, 2007.
Score: 4
|Thank you Niro. Nice to see someone at last with a decent memory.
Score: 1
|1992 Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.1 was released October, 1992.
1994 Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released February, 1994.
a minor upgrade for wfw 3.1
1995 Microsoft Windows 95 was released August 24, 1995
a major upgrade from windows 3.1 (run cycle 3 years) to catch up with an at the time, far superior offering from IBM called OS/2 Warp
1998 Microsoft Windows 98 was released June, 1998.
a middle of the road upgrade for win 95. same basics, just bug fixes and a few new features
1999 Microsoft Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) was released May 5, 1999.
minor upgrade for win98
2000 Microsoft Windows 2000 was released February 17, 2000.
The major upgrade for the wfw 3.1 finally come to be (run cycle for 3.11 was 8 years)
2000 Microsoft Windows ME (Millennium) released June 19, 2000.
middle of the road upgrade for win 95/98. same core, more added features.
2001 Microsoft Windows XP is released October 25, 2001.
end of run cycle for win95/98/ME platform (run cycle 7 years) and win 2000 (run cycle 1 year)
2006 Microsoft releases Microsoft Windows Vista to corporations on November 30, 2006.
2007 Microsoft releases Microsoft Windows Vista and Office 2007 to the general public January 30, 2007.
end of run cycle for XP (cycle life 6 years)
when you post dates please be more precise so as not to misrepresent facts to the unknowing. Up until windows XP, MS marketed 2 brands of windows, the 3.1/95/98/me brand for home use and the 3.11/2000 brand to businesses. when giving the time line as you did, it made it appear that there was never a separation of the two.
Score: 0
|Erherm.... And one might also consider getting their info right when correcting others too...
Windows 2000 was not a replacement for WFW 3.11, Win2k was a replacement for Windows NT 4. You failed to remember the NT line has been around longer than many think. NT started back in the day when MS and IBM worked together to produce it. When they split, IBM put out OS/2 and MS put out NT. This was around the Windows 3.x era when this happened. MS touted all of their products for business anyway, regardless if it was Windows 3.1, Windows 95 or Windows NT.
The two product paths were:
Windows 1.0 > Windows 2.0 > Windows 3.0 - Windows 3.11 > Windows 95 - Windows ME
Windows NT - Windows 2000 - Windows XP - Windows Vista - Windows 7
XP was not so much a replacement to Window 95 line as it was a NT based transition so MS could drop it's old 16 bit stuff and focus on it's NT code and basically merge it's user base into one product line. The Windows Server line is also NT based as well which of course is obviously pumped to businesses.
Score: 1
|@eunich
Wow...you are probably the worst person to be arguing this. Do some research. To point out just a few of your most glaring errors:
Oh...where to begin...
Win 3.11 was a workgroup update to Windows 3.1. It was not intended to be a consumer OS, though it quickly became one. It was originally intended to be a part of Windows Advanced Server (Windows NT 3.1). This was the beginning of the split between consumer and business platforms for Windows
Windows 95 was a *huge* upgrade to Windows 3.1. It upgraded the entire platform from 16-bit to 32-bit and changed the face of the desktop completely. It also had *nothing* to do with OS/2. That would have been the server version of Windows 3.11, known as Windows NT.
Windows 98 was a platform update for the Windows 95 platform (just like Win7 is a platform update to the Vista platform). ME was their first (failed) attempt to combine the business and consumer OSes back into one line and was the last of the consumer-line split.
Windows 2000 was an update to Windows NT, not Windows 3.11. The 3.11 cycle ended with Windows NT 4.0. This was the last of the business line split.
Windows XP was what they had originally intended ME to be, the first OS after the rejoining of the separate consumer/business platforms.
The two lines, while they were separated, never skipped a beat. Their development cycles never exceeded 3 years by more than a few months....until Windows Vista due to the entire project being scrapped at nearly the end of the initial dev cycle. This (amazingly enough) started a new dev cycle lasting (*gasp*) approximately 3 years. (Woah...)
Windows 7 will be released almost exactly 3 years after that.
Seems the current dev cycle is pretty much the norm for them, doesn't it?
Consumer line:
92-95-98-01
Business Line:
93/94(NT/3.11)-96(NT4)-00(2k) (The 96 to 2000 split (NT 4 to WIn2k) was 3 years and 4 months).
Again, they joined in XP, which became available in 2001. They scrapped development of the OS to replace it near the end of what would have been it's dev cycle, starting a new one..which took(wait for it....) 3 years. This was Vista. 3 years later (amazing, isn't it?) We get Windows 7.
When you argue about OS lines, it might help if you actually *knew* some facts.. I cannot believe you totally glossed over the NT line....how amusing. BTW: none of your arguments did anything *but* prove our point. This dev cycle *is* the norm.
Score: -1
|i may not be as old as you, and i chose it the deader. but really what do you try to say posting all those release dates? it may be a point that i simply don't agree with so i'm not getting it...
Score: 0
|Because it's not.
The dev cycle is no different for Vista to Win7 than it was for 95 to 98. In fact, is was longer.
So:
"it's deader ahead of time than i've ever seen in any production cycle."
...is just plain wrong. Release dates were posted to back that up. Statement followed by proof. More people here should give that a try once in a while...
Score: 0
|>> far superior offering from IBM called OS/2 Warp
Yeah if a single input queue is your idea of 'superior'. OS/2 Warp was still a 16bit OS pretending to be offering 32bit features. Even 4.0 many of the supplied drivers from IBM were still 16bit. OS/2 was a 32bit version of work done by Microsoft and even Microsoft UI team's initial plans for the Object Desktop. IBM just slapped crap MS left and called it the greatest OS ever.
Ironically OS/2 was less full 32bit and less of a multi-tasking OS than even Win95, and didn't hold a candle of comparison to NT as for a real OS. The only thing OS/2 did well was run DOS applications, and wow, that is something to be proud of.
I get tired of the OS/2 history being revised and people thinking it was something it wasn't. If it had been a better OS people would have used it. PERIOD.
It was slower than Win3.1 and Win95 (less responsive than Win95), so people that wanted a basic computer OS, went with Windows here.
As for tech geeks and IT Pros, OS/2 wasn't a full 32bit OS, had a single input Queue which could allow any application to lock the UI of the system, and so they went with NT, which was fully 32bit and didn't have the shortcomings of OS/2 and the performance difference compared to Win95 was about the same, and if you threw RAM at NT 4.0, it was 25% faster than Win95.
>Win98 - Bug Fixes?
Really?
Adding in a realtime sound mixing system at the OS level, or a 'browsing' metaphor for folders that is used to this day an almost all OSes was bug fixes uh?
I still can't believe that people don't realize that the OS level mixing of sound didn't exist in the consumer world prior to Win98, and yet people just see Win98 as 'bug fixes' when it added a lot of features like this that apparently nobody else paid attention to.
Score: 0
|"i may not be as old as you, and i chose it the deader. but really what do you try to say posting all those release dates? it may be a point that i simply don't agree with so i'm not getting it..."
LOL translation:
"I don't agree with facts and I'm too dumb to understand this conversation so arguing with me is pointless"
Score: 0
|Does ANYONE remember a Microsoft OS( for lack of a better term) called "WINDOWS ME"? I'm just saying...
Score: -1
|I try to forget that I actually spent money buying a retail ME upgrade once upon a time...
Score: 0
|I try to forget that the Windows ME nightmare even happened.
Score: 0
|Windows ME == Star Trek V? :>
Score: 0
|well, one can only wonder how microsoft will compensate the customers who invested in vista.
if a product is known to be faulty or defective or fraduantly marketed, then it may require the feds to review the issue.
perhaps, microsoft needs to provide win7 as a free upgrade to vista users.
regardless of what happens, vista might be viewed as microsoft's embarrasment.
i haven't reconciled the dates, but can vista be associated to microsoft without a bill gates?
Score: -5
|While I'd love Windows 7 to be a free upgrade for the pain Vista has caused me, I'm pretty satisfied with the $59 price tag.
Most of Vista's issues were resolved, after all, with SP1, which is free.
Score: 0
|No, Vista wasnt the ms embarrassment, windows ME was :)
Score: 1
|I stopped reading this tripe after the 2nd paragraph. I agree with the others, the headline is too sensational. My rating of this article: full of FAIL.
Score: 2
|"Microsoft kills an OS"
"There's been no press release, of course, no official announcement that it's ending production "
"Vista will receive the same tiers of extended support that have traditionally applied to all versions of Windows."
...
I think this section needs a rename... "Wild Angle Zoom", perhaps?
There is no intention of "killing" Vista...as you so stated yourself. Nice headline.. Completely false and misleading, but 100% attention-getting. Nice job.
Score: 5
|""Microsoft kills an OS"
"There's been no press release, of course, no official announcement that it's ending production."
No; but Bill Gates borrowed my rifle and he ain't no deer hunter..
Score: 0
|so he's a deer hunter
Score: 1
|Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista sp2 with a slighly leaner UI. There is no significant feature difference, the underlying technology is the same.
Anyone who lauds Windows 7 and pooh-poohs Vista has no business being in the independent technology analyst business.
Score: 0
|*laughing my a** off*
No feature difference? Aside from the blatantly obvious UI changes which make working with the OS *much* more intuitive (IMO), there are, in fact, many other improvements...
HomeGroup
Integrated Powershell
Virtual Hard Disks
DirectAccess
New Media Center (Still some issues with region coding)
New networking API (supports SOAP-based web services -natively)
XPM
New RDP Client/Protocol supporting DX10
...to name a few.
Yeah...I can see how you'd think that's "nothing".
"Anyone who lauds Windows 7 and pooh-poohs Vista has no business being in the independent technology analyst business."
*laughing again*
Vista is a mess. Still is in the UI Department and it *still* doesn't run well on low-end hardware. Windows 7 fixes the UI and runs quite well on low-end hardware. It's also light-years ahead in terms of ease of management, doubly so when combined with WS2K8.
Nice try. Care for another?
Score: 0
|@Gerryf: Just STFU. I think you are one of those ppl who never TRY a product before giving stupid comments based on internet review.
Grow up, hater. If you don't use it, just shut up.
Score: 0
|Find myself having to agree with PC_Tool here, and never thought that would happen. It is a big improvement and seems to have a whole host of technical, feature and usability improvements.
Score: 0
|Aw crap...
Scott, stop that.
Next thing you know people are going to start thinking we're best buds...in cahoots, ya know.
/me shudders at the thought. ;)
Score: 0
|When I first installed Windows 7 x64 along side Vista x64 SP2 I thought there wasn't much difference between the two and couldn't see any reason to upgrade. After using Win7 for a couple of months now I find myself using it primarily instead of Vista. It runs a tad bit better, looks better, feels snappier.... just enough to convince me to upgrade.
Score: 0
|I think the most tragic part of this is Vista Ultimate was a dud, and ultimately(heh) not worth it at all.
I like Vista after SP1. The search is superior to anything XP has built in, as are the troubleshooting tools. I think it's a decent OS, but I think companies that go from XP-->7 will be doing the right thing. No use training people on a start menu change and taskbar change twice.
I think MS simply faltered on quality control with release of Vista, and it damaged the reception in the tech community. Doesn't seem to have impacted them financially as they haven't lost money on it, and not much share on the desktop either.
Score: 1
|And I remember that they have given temprary discount for early pre-ordering of Windows Vista too.
There is nothing new here for Windows 7 for that matter.
Move on.
The article is worthless.
Score: 2
|The main reason everyone goes on and on about how horrible Vista is - is because it was in development for 6 years (technically only 3 years as the original vision of vista was scrapped and started over with 2003 code)
Had MS kept their road plan (every 2-3 years a new OS) this would hardly be news. hopefully since MS has changed the way they code Windows that the next versions continue to keep getting better rather then a dud here and there like it always has been for Windows since its beginning at 1.0
Score: -1
|No.
The main reasons people go on and on about Vista are because:
1) It was bloated and slow. VERY slow. Still is.
2) It was buggy as hell
3) The interface STANK. It tried to do the "I'm a Mac and will tell you what to do instead of facilitating what you want to do" and blew it. BIG TIME.
4) It took five years to develop and delivered No Compelling Reason to upgrade to it.
5) The resource requirements were HORRIBLY misstated. Hell, let's call a spade a spade: they were a blatant lie. lawsuits were won over this.
Never mind the pundits and the excuses.
THOSE are the TANGIBLE reasons why the OS failed.
And this ain't 20/20 hindsight; I've been saying all this from Day One, when it was EXTREMELY unpopular to say it and the apologists kept claiming that the Emperor was wearing new clothes.
I'm just wondering why so many were too dumb to see it, let alone admit it.
Score: -4
|Because they had no problems, on new hardware Vista worked fine - it was only older hardware and that vista capable debacle which was an issue. If you have ever bought any software the minimum requirements is ALWAYS grossly understated. Also MS has always had a bum product in between major upgrades to the OS - Had Vista came out when it was supposed to there would have been less of a downfall.
Score: 0
|If you're stupid enough to table an OS that only runs properly on new PCs and doesn't take into consideration the VAST majority of PCs that your entrenched customer base uses then you deserve crashing (not crushing - CRASHING) failure.
And they got it.
And yes, it's funny how an extra year of development made all the difference.
Tragically funny.
Yet another corporation becoming a victim of its own greed...
Score: 0
|Meh...
Crushed in PR, perhaps...
But Microsoft knows most of it's OS sales is via OEM on new systems. The PR hardly made a dent in their sales.
I'm not saying they wouldn't like to be rid of the bad PR, but it's not like it has really taken much of a toll on them financially.
Score: 0
|OEM sales ain't sales - they're the equivalent of consumer waterboarding.
Corporate (the other main source of sales and the MUCH more important one because prestige and confidence in the company are linked to that and can result in gain or loss of the more important BackOffice sales) didn't touch it.
Yeah, some high profile sycophants like intel went there - are we surprised? Hell, they HAD to if only for a unified show of force.
However, most corps took one look at it, were decidedly underwhelmed because it offered nothing (not "nothing important" - NOTHING) and said "Cheery Bye".
Windows 7 rushing out the door this soon is if nothing else an emergency attempt to recapture that corporate confidence and restore the illusion of "were the 800lb gorilla".
This is after all the 21st century and perception (read: PR) is FAR more important than reality, especially in the terminally shallow corporate sector.
Gotta keep those Really Important BackOffice Sales.
Score: 0
|Windows 7 was not rushed its in the timeline of every previous upgrade to Windows except Vista - they have always been on a 2-3 year cycle. Vista was the exception. They started work on Windows 7 right when Vista was released. They have already started working on Windows 8 as well. Its how they have always done it.
Score: 0
|I see you've forgotten about the original timeline which said that the next version of Windows after Vista was due in 2012.
Score: 0
|source?
Because Windows 8 is scheduled for 2012 and its always been this way Vista was the exception
Score: 0
|@roj:
"OEM sales ain't sales - they're the equivalent of consumer waterboarding."
Ooh..jumping off the deep-end. That's sure to make you sound rational...or not.
"Yeah, some high profile sycophants like intel went there - are we surprised? Hell, they HAD to if only for a unified show of force."
Intel...you mean the only supplier for Apple's CPUs? Yeah, they're hard-core Windows folk...
"Windows 7 rushing out the door "
Uh... take a look at release time-lines prior to Vista. Hell, even look at vista's time-line (near the 3 year mark, they restart...and the cycle starts over for another 3 year run...nothing out of the ordinary). The release schedules for all MS OSes have been posted previously. *ALL* of them are @ around the 3 year mark. Every. Single. One.
"see you've forgotten about the original timeline which said that the next version of Windows after Vista was due in 2012."
*laughing*
Yeah, as term said, source that please. I would *love* to see where you got that gem from.
Score: 0
|This headline (even the article itself) is far too sensational. Of course Microsoft will s*** their focus to Windows 7: they want you to think it's cool, and they want you to buy it. They did this with Vista, too. And like the article mentions, they won't kill off support--that timetable is already established, and it's not going to be for a while. Even if they stop actively promoting Vista soon and start promoting Windows 7 well before its release, I'd hardly call any of this "killing an OS".
Score: 1
|I agree with Carmi that the speed with which they brought out Win 7 and the bargain upgrade offers do show that they are desperate to move on from a disaster and keep rebuild some positive brand equity in "Windows".
Headlines have to be a bit sensationalist to draw in readers in a crowded news world. This one was accurate as to the gist of the article, unlike many I see on NYT and CNET.
Score: -1
|"I agree with Carmi that the speed with which they brought out Win 7 and the bargain upgrade offers do show that they are desperate to move on from a disaster and keep rebuild some positive brand equity in "Windows"."
Speed??
Short memory, Scott? Vista's dev cycle was *long*. Microsoft, prior to Vista, stuck to a very normal OS dev time of ~3 years.
...as do, I believe, Apple and others.
The speed is normal, and as commented above, so is the "pre-order" pricing (citation needed...couldn't find anything on the "wayback" machine)...
The only thing that is unusual about this is how everyone seems to have such short memories...
Score: 1
|First off, th article is a little over sensationalized, but its pretty true if you look at things from the perspective of a non-geek.
Most people I talk to/deal with day to day are "joe sixpack" type users, they dont know a damn thing about "windows" or "linux" or whatever, hell alot of them call OFFICE "windows" (confusing as hell to deal with) a good portion of those people have it stuck in their head that vista is evil and bad, when fact is, that pre-sp1 it was pretty bad, but so have past ms os's been.
some examples.
windows 2000: Was marketed as a "business" OS mostly because it ran like crap on most peoples hardware, like vista on "vista compatible" hardware of the day, it required FAR more MEMORY(Ram) and HDD space, as well as a faster processor then most people had if you wanted it to run well, BUT if you had the hardware(as a gamer/geek ofcorse I did) it ran better then past versions of windows and was FAR more stable.
People said it was bad for gaming/you couldn't game on it, totally UN-true, as thats the main use i put my system to for YEARS on windows 2000.
Windows XP: Ran like a** on most peoples per-excisting windows ME/9x systems, had MASSIVE amounts of bugs and was BLOATED AS HELL, but like VISTA it had a prettier gui, If your honest and look back to when XP came out, it was in almost as bad a shape as vista was, drivers where slightly better since most devices could use 2k drivers, but alot of stuff just didnt work properly, Critical HotFixes broke drivers and programs(eventualy forcing me back to 2k)
XP was a joke till sp2 really, even then, SP2 killed ALOT of drivers, mostly 802.11 devices(wifi) forcing you to dig and HOPE the device maker has an updated driver, if not, u had to 1. wait for them to update their driver, 2. buy a device that had updated drivers 3. say screw it and go back to sp1 or another os.
Server 2003: what XP SHOULD HAVE BEEN, faster, less bugs, ran on same hardware 2k could handle with all the eye candy having ZERO perf effect.
XP-64: was such a horrible joke when it first came out, driver support was worse then vista, it was like trying to run all brand new to market hardware with lunux.......
By the time it grew up ms was working hard to get vista on the market and sales never made much headway, but xp-64 got to the point where it was/is quite mature and fully useable on any simi modern system(far better then 32bit xp) It IS NOT XP in a true sence tho, its server 2003 x64 workstation in reality :)
Vista: had 2 flavors, 32 and 64bit, at first the 32bit had FAR better driver and app support, but as times advanced 64bit's become the better choice, the drivers are more reliable/stable and it can support far more memory then 32bit, also from my exp as well as that of others i know, vista64 just runs better then 32.
Server 2008: what vista should have been, its fast, stable and dosnt got every service immaginable enabled by default.
Vista's main perf issue (especially on older hardware) is that it seems like EVERY SERVICE POSSIBLE is set to auto load, this leads to the os being FAR slower then it needs to/should be, once you disabled/set to manual the services you dont use alot, the os becomes VERY FAST even on so/so hardware.
One thing win7 changed for the better(as i understand it) is that it doesn't have all services loaded by default, services that aren't constantly in use aren't loaded when not in use/needed, this makes for it feeling alot nicer out of the box, good move that they should have made with vista to be honest.
the things I do not like about win7: HomeGroups, Sure it makes things easier for morons and lazy people but not being able to disable it fully pisses me off, just more in your face bloat ms is calling a feature, FORCED ms codecs for any file format they support, even if you install a codec pack your FORCED to use MS's codecs for any encoding format they support such as avc(h264), this sucks because if you own CoreAVC you cant use it with an MS media player, you have to install 4rd party software that lets you pick a codec for that media type(mediaplayer classic HC, or TheKMplayer for example)
there are other things I DO NOT LIKE but those are the most annoying, especially considering that classically MS's codecs for non-ms formats have SUCKED a** compared to stuff like ffdshow or xvid or coreavc.
I dont see myself moving from server 2008 to win7 or win7server(2008 r2) after testing them throughly I see/saw ZERO benefit in moving, and alot of little things that PISSED ME OFF far more then the few bugs vista/2k8's gui have.
Score: 0
|Microsoft XP what? Microsoft Vista huh?
Score: 0
|Niro you forget about windows 3.0 :) Windows 3.0 is the third major release of Microsoft Windows, and was released on 22 May 1990. Ah I remember windows 3.0 when came out on our first computer back in 1990 lol. So really windows 7 should be called windows 10 eh?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0
From Niro posted
Niro
Jul 2, 2009 - 4:32 PM
Uhh...maybe dead ahead of time that YOU have seen...I guess you must be 10 years old...
>1990 Microsoft Windows for Windows 3.0 was release in May 1990. added by me.
1992 Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.1 was released October, 1992.
1994 Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released February, 1994.
1995 Microsoft Windows 95 was released August 24, 1995
1998 Microsoft Windows 98 was released June, 1998.
1999 Microsoft Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) was released May 5, 1999.
2000 Microsoft Windows 2000 was released February 17, 2000.
2000 Microsoft Windows ME (Millennium) released June 19, 2000.
2001 Microsoft Windows XP is released October 25, 2001.
2006 Microsoft releases Microsoft Windows Vista to corporations on November 30, 2006.
2007 Microsoft releases Microsoft Windows Vista and Office 2007 to the general public January 30, 2007.
Score: 0
|