Print 79 comment(s) - last by myhipsi.. on Aug 18 at 11:36 AM

Windows learns a thing or two from the world of blogging

As part of Microsoft’s efforts to promote its Windows projects, the Windows team is launching a new initiative -- a blog to promote its new upcoming Windows 7 operating system.  The new blog is titled Engineering Windows 7 and the first post went online August 14 at about 5 PM.  The blog is going to provide exclusive insight from Microsoft's development team about the progress of the OS.

The first blog, unsurprisingly, comes from Windows senior vice presidents Jon DeVaan and Steven Sinofsky.  The pair has already stated that official engineering details will not be fully discussed until October 27 at the Professional Developers' Conference in Los Angeles.  However, they hope to drop a few hints in the blog, along with getting feedback from what people hope to see with Windows 7.

The pair writes:

The audience of enthusiasts, bloggers, and those that are the most passionate about Windows represent the folks we are dedicating this blog to. With this blog we’re opening up a two-way discussion about how we are making Windows 7. Windows has all the challenges of every large scale software project—picking features, designing them, developing them, and delivering them with high quality. Windows has an added challenge of doing so for an extraordinarily diverse set of customers. As a team and as individuals on the team we continue to be humbled by this responsibility.

They also announced that the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference, a week after the Professional Developers' Conference, will feature more technical details on Windows 7.  Interestingly the team seemed to allude to the hype and moderate disappointment surrounding Windows Vista, stating, "We, as a team, definitely learned some lessons about “disclosure” and how we can all too easily get ahead of ourselves in talking about features before our understanding of them is solid. Our intent with Windows 7 and the pre-release communication is to make sure that we have a reasonable degree of confidence in what we talk about when we do talk."

Mr. Sinofsky and Mr. DeVaan believe revealing too many tentative technical hardware details too early can be very detrimental.  Not only does it waste resources, they say, but it also confuses partners.  This argument seems slightly more logical when you consider that Microsoft has to work with over 10,000 hardware partners, each with unique needs.

Both say they will post "regularly" to the blog, to provide behind the scenes info.  They also promise to try to respond to selected user comments.  Mr. Sinofsky encourages readers to send him emails to his corporate email suggesting topics and suggestions for Windows 7.

While blogging is no means new in the Microsoft community, the new Windows 7 blog seems to represent a more concerted effort to use a public dialog to help it create its new OS.  With the blog expected to run through 2009 when the OS is scheduled to release, it should be interesting to see what tidbits of information it offers.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 10:16:14 AM , Rating: 4
I for one am not really bothered too much about Windows 7. Firstly Vista is a decent and stable OS. Installed a 64 bit version on my PC the other day and all of my hardware works fine and all of my games and apps work fine. It also networks fine with the wifes PC with x86 Vista.

I just dont see what Windows 7 can/will do that Vista doesn't do other than have a name which people don't dislike as much. Vista as a brand is screwed but as an OS it's great.

RE: Not really bothered
By cochy on 8/15/2008 10:19:05 AM , Rating: 5
Your logic is flawed. In that case what would be the point to upgrade from XP to Vista. XP was stable, works with all my hardware and networks with all my other PCs.

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 10:26:28 AM , Rating: 5
In all my posts on here I've never advocated upgrading from XP to Vista.

Thing is 64 bit support is still not the best with XP64 and in the very near future most enthusiasts will be using 4gb+ of memory. So 64 bit will be a must and Vista x64 will be the only reasonable choice.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you're going along fine with XP now then don't fret about not running Vista but if you build a new PC now then you'd be silly not to spec Vista for it.

RE: Not really bothered
By taylormg on 8/15/2008 10:50:49 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with Vista is that it was designed on the idea that computers will all be powerful computers and everyone will buy a new one after having one for a couple of years. However things have changed, all most people want is a computer to look at the Internet and do low resource hungry tasks. Meaning that they want cheap PCs, and with the uptake of cheap laptops and less powerful PCs being bought the quicker people are getting Vista off them to put XP on.

Also no business will use Vista cause they can not justify giving out computers that are powerful enough to run it. Working for the NHS HIS myself we are all not going to Vista at all as it is totally incompatible with nearly all of our systems, and not just the programs that we use but the server side as well.

This is the reason why they are getting Windows 7 out quicker, due to businesses not willing to use Vista. Now I know with any new Windows release it takes some time before a business migrates to it, but with Vista it will cost far to much money giving to much of a bad cost/benefit ratio.

RE: Not really bothered
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 11:04:40 AM , Rating: 5
Completely bogus logic and conclusions, because you are assuming that Windows 7 will have lower hardware requirements, which it won't.

RE: Not really bothered
By taylormg on 8/15/2008 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
What I am saying is that Vista is good for the home but not for Business, but Windows 7 will be good for both. I am not assuming anything, simple stating that Windows 7 should be able to work in both enviroments like XP can.

RE: Not really bothered
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 11:23:37 AM , Rating: 5
Again, I disagree. Windows 7 will not be used by businesses early on for the same reasons that Vista, and XP before it, were not when they were first released.

One reason is having all their hardware up to a level that is supported/efficient/productive to support the new OS.

Another reason is that new OS versions do not typically have highly compelling feature sets that make it a high priority for most businesses (business case).

And finally, IT staff needs a lot of time to perform compatibility testing, and to typically upgrade apps or wait for their vendors to do the same.

All of these reasons (and probably more), make it such that most companies are on the 'n-1' upgrade system, meaning that they are typically always running the previous generation of OS.

RE: Not really bothered
By overzealot on 8/15/2008 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Or lower, if they can't afford to replace all aging hardware or don't want to retrain, ever. Or if it just works well enough
NT4 is still around in business, and will be until PS2 peripherals are phased out.

RE: Not really bothered
By Steve Guilliot on 8/15/2008 10:29:49 PM , Rating: 3
You're all looking at this wrong. Businesses don't roll out new OSs. They roll out new PC's on a revolving replacement schedule. The OS comes with the PC, not the other way around.

As long as Vista doesn't have any glaring compatibility problems with a business' IT infrastructure (or a user insists on XP, which does happen), it will be used on new PC's as they are purchased. Businesses won't upgrade old systems to Vista for the same reason they won't ever upgrade the OS without a compelling reason. IT pros aren't looking to make their jobs more difficult.

At least that's been my experience.

RE: Not really bothered
By Jimbo1234 on 8/15/2008 1:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Our IT department is rolling out Vista machines with this round of hardware upgrades. Vista64 that is. For any business that needs >4GB RAM Vista64 is the way to go. XP64 is dead, long live Vista64.

And what businesses need machines with >4GB? Ask any with an engineering or graphics department and they're running at least that. CAD / Graphics workstations have plenty of horsepower to run any OS.

Our non engineering machines are lower end Vista64 machines. Why does the secretary's computer need to be that powerful? To keep things more homogenous, aka the fewer differences in machine types, the easier the management. Oh, and the number crunchers our scientists use are beefy machines too.

RE: Not really bothered
By rudolphna on 8/15/2008 11:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
supposedly, windows 7 WILL have lower hardware requirements... Or at least wont use nearly as much RAM at idle as vista does. When you think about it, the actual "requirements" arent that bad (800mhz, 512etc) If they could just make it so that those would be feasible to actually run.....

RE: Not really bothered
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 11:35:44 AM , Rating: 4

In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7.

RE: Not really bothered
By Spuke on 8/15/2008 12:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Unless they drop in WinFS, I'll wait till there's no support for XP then switch.

RE: Not really bothered
By omnicronx on 8/15/2008 2:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 will not be released with WinFS, Microsoft has hinted that they may release a subscription based version with WinFS, but that is still up in the air.

RE: Not really bothered
By Klober on 8/15/2008 2:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting considering a DailyTech article that was posted the same day as your blog reference. From the article located at it is stated:
He [Steven Sinofsky] says that Windows 7's kernel will be an evolution of the leaner kernel from Windows Server 2008, which in turn was an evolution over the Windows Vista kernel.

To me this alludes to an even leaner kernel than Server 08 has, which is a leaner kernel than Vista has, and which in turn should equate to (theoretically) better performance on the same hardware than Vista currently shows.

Just another reference to throw in the mix to inspire further discussion. :P

RE: Not really bothered
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 2:30:08 PM , Rating: 5
That's interesting. Here what Sinofsky said:

The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.

And here is what Jason Mick wrote in his article:

He says that Windows 7's kernel will be an evolution of the leaner kernel from Windows Server 2008, which in turn was an evolution over the Windows Vista kernel. (emphasis mine)

So, I guess Jason is probably the one who thinks that these kernels have become "leaner," since Sinofsky didn't say that.

RE: Not really bothered
By Klober on 8/15/2008 3:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Good call, I just skimmed through the cnet article looking for the info, and when I found it I guess I didn't read thoroughly enough to see the absence of "leaner". I should have known better. :)

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 5
Oh god. Not another one of these posts. Vista will use lots of RAM @ idle because this is a good thing. When I first ran Vista I was running it of 512mb of RAM and it would typically use about 400mb @ idle. Then I got a PC with 2gb of RAM and typically it would use about a gig of memory @ idle. Got another 2gb of RAM the other day and suddenly Vista uses about 2gb of memory. You may be thinking wtf???? But Vista uses superfetch which caches commonly used programs in the RAM so that they launch quicker and by god it does work well. When you launch an app like a game Vista clears the cache of all unnecessary files and your RAM is free for the game.

RE: Not really bothered
By KingViper on 8/15/2008 1:02:12 PM , Rating: 4
Won't use as much ram at idle? Do you even know why it does that? Vista was optimized to use as much of your memory as it could at all times. Why only use 10% of your memory at certain times? It's a waste of having all that memory. Vista was created to use your memory for its intended purpose, to speed things up.

RE: Not really bothered
By Jimbo1234 on 8/15/2008 1:51:31 PM , Rating: 4
And does that ever work well. Autodesk Inventor fires up in 12 seconds instead of 40.

RE: Not really bothered
By KingViper on 8/15/2008 1:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
No businesses will use Vista?

I work for a company that employs over 7500 associates and we're all running Vista, and we're all running on laptops. Was all the software compatible when Vista came out? No, but that's not necessarily Microsoft's fault. Our company worked with software vendors and Microsoft to get things working and now we're running Vista just fine.

I agree, Vista uses a ton of resources out of the box, but with a little tweaking, you can eliminate most of the resource intensive crap that is set by default.

RE: Not really bothered
By silversound on 8/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not really bothered
By ATC on 8/18/2008 2:14:04 AM , Rating: 4
I think that's unusual. I work for a company that has only 5000 employees and it was only last year that we upgraded to XP. Shocking, I know. But speaking to friends who work for similarly sized companies and it's the same story.

It's nothing against Vista, it's just that so many large companies wait for the product to mature enough before even begging internal testing on it which is then followed, rather slowly I might add, by the roll out and deployment.

Personally, I love Vista. I cannot go back to XP. I'd love to see what they have in store for 7.

RE: Not really bothered
By Segerstein on 8/15/2008 5:31:06 PM , Rating: 5
I cannot see how applications that don't work with Vista will work with Windows 7.

The same way XP SP2 broke certain applications, Vista broke some. Mainly for security reasons, but nevertheless. The software vendors will update their applications by then to make it work with Vista.

There has never been an OS with greater binary compatibility than MS OSes. You can still run the old DOS applications on a new Vista :D

RE: Not really bothered
By cochy on 8/15/2008 10:50:52 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with that. 64-bit is very solid on Vista.

RE: Not really bothered
By Springfield45 on 8/15/2008 11:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
It amuses me that people dismiss 64-bit XP. I have been running it for quite awhile now. It is true that in the beginning, there was little to no support for it, but now, it is doing quite well. Unfortunately, most people wrote it off before drivers started showing up. If you can find a copy lying around, give it a shot. You may be suprised.

RE: Not really bothered
By Runiteshark on 8/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 12:17:18 PM , Rating: 5
It isn't as good as Vista, it isn't quicker, it isn't more stable and best of all it uses less RAM so it launches your commonly used apps SLOWER than Vista.

Google Vista Prefetch and you'll see why Vista is supposedly so RAM hungry and why this isn't a bad thing.

RE: Not really bothered
By Dark Legion on 8/15/2008 12:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
The same can be said of Vista.

RE: Not really bothered
By Jimbo1234 on 8/15/2008 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Been there, done that. Benchmarked both XP64 and Vista64 for CAD workstations. Vista wins. Current versions of the software are now DX10 capable. The choice was easy.

RE: Not really bothered
By emboss on 8/15/2008 9:39:33 PM , Rating: 1
Ditto. I've changed my machine back to XP x64 from Vista x64 (which I had changed to from XP x64 in the first place) after about a year of struggling with Vista. I won't repeat my post about the problems I had with Vista (just look back at my previous messages), suffice it to say that compared to XP x64 it was slower (networking, UI response, too aggressive paging of active apps to disk), less stable (bluescreen about once a week, frequent Explorer crashes), and didn't really offer anything except DX10 (which was important for my work for a while, but now doesn't matter). Since changing back to XP x64, I haven't had a single bluescreen or Explorer crash, multiple desktops work properly again, and the only thing I miss is the new alt-tab functionality.

I should add that under low-concurrency conditions (including gaming), Vista was fine (though Explorer still crashed every so often). However, really pushing the system - 4 cores maxed out, 80+MB/sec over the network with multiple processes, GPU flat out doing GPGPU things, all at the same time - seemed to cause some problems. I might try Server 2008 sometime (yay for MS's trial system) to see if that's any better, but right now I've got more important things to do.

Finally, the OTHER 64-bit XP really is terrible ...

RE: Not really bothered
By tastyratz on 8/15/2008 10:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
I for one am looking forward to windows 7 - I have been looking forward to it since it was "blackcomb" and not even alpha state (while longhorn was alpha and xp was still beta)

It's a natural progression. There are going to be new things and support for new technologies. Some people couldn't see why they would want xp over windows 2000 in a business environment but they upgraded.
Vista has features and capabilities not found in xp, and the same will be said of 7 when compared to vista.

While you see no reason to go to 7 from vista, I for one see no reason to go from xp to vista with my needs. I will likely go to 7 from xp however.

RE: Not really bothered
By nitrous9200 on 8/15/2008 7:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
The point is not to upgrade from XP to Vista (that doesn't make much sense unless Vista has a feature you really need) but when buying a new computer, Vista is the way to go. And about hardware - I installed Vista on a 6-7 year old laptop and used XP drivers for everything. Plus, Vista finds drivers for you automatically (with an internet connection), which XP can't do.

RE: Not really bothered
By althaz on 8/16/2008 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
XP was tremendously flawed in what is, IMO, one of the most important areas - general system responsiveness. The 9000% improvement of Vista in this area is reason enough to purchase it for me :).

Plus there's also the absolutely woeful support for 64-bit Windows XP which is not as much of an issue under Vista.

I really disliked Windows XP, especially when compared with the excellent Windows 2000, but Vista is quite excellent.

RE: Not really bothered
By JasonMick on 8/15/2008 10:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well its hard to say with details scant about the OS, but among the things that it can and likely will possibly do:

Release a new graphics API (Direct X 11 ?)

Touch Screen Functionality

Improved multithreading/operation on multicore machines

Leaner builds for less powerful systems

People say these kind of things with every generation of OS "Why do I need it? My old OS works great!"

Yet, there are always perks that have kept OS's selling since the days of Windows 3.1.

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 10:34:36 AM , Rating: 3

But DX11 would most likely get released for Vista.

Touch screen functionality - Not sure I really want it on my PC at home. What's wrong with a good ole keyboard and mouse? But this would be excellent for a lot of other uses.

Improved multi-threading? Isn't that mainly down to the applications to support? Vista doesn't have any problems in this respect for me.

Less powerful builds - PC's are getting more powerful by the day. Most new low end PC's can run Vista happily with Aeroglass enabled. For devices like the eee and other netbooks they should just keep XP alive.

I know people say "Why do I need it" about new OS's and always have and this frustrates me. But I think this might be a genuine opportunity for people running Vista to say "Why do I need Windows 7?" when in reality Vista is a great OS and does just about everything Windows 7 supposedly will.

RE: Not really bothered
By Diesel Donkey on 8/15/2008 11:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
Most new low end PC's can run Vista happily with Aeroglass enabled.

I think you've captured the crux of the matter right there.

RE: Not really bothered
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 11:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Let's get to the root of the problem: any PC with 1GB RAM or more can run Vista w/Aero just fine. When Vista was released, the major complaints were due to vendors selling Vista on 512MB machines, thinking they could just sell XP SKUs with Vista loaded instead. Even Celeron 430s with Intel IGPs can run Vista just fine with 1GB RAM.


RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I've always argued all along that upgrading an old PC from XP to Vista is a stupid move. My argument is that there's no reason not to spec Vista on a new PC and that most new PC's will run it great. Plus anyone can afford 4gb of RAM these days and Vista will fly along as long provided you have a semi-decent CPU and GPU combination.

RE: Not really bothered
By Jimbo1234 on 8/15/2008 1:58:07 PM , Rating: 3
And why not even 8GB or more? RAM is dirt cheap. $80 for 4GB (2x2) on Newegg.

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 2:28:34 PM , Rating: 1
True. But I prefer to buy decent RAM so getting 8gb of RAM for that much money is just a dream for me. I paid about that much for 2x1gb Dominator modules just last week. 4gb of RAM will be plenty for most people for a while to come yet. Not forever of course but for at least 18 months for most people

RE: Not really bothered
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 6:53:24 PM , Rating: 5
LOL @ "decent RAM"

Unless you're in the upper echelon of over-clockers, you don't need anything beyond budget RAM. If you don't believe that, I have a $120 gold-plated Monster parallel cable to sell you.

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/16/2008 2:22:37 AM , Rating: 3
Wow! He quotes me and says I'd buy a monster cable and I get rated down and he gets a 4 for no reason. What I mean is RAM that is not ****. Yes you could go for budget RAM like Corsair Value Select or Kingston ValueRam but for a little bit more you could go for something like Corsair XMS2 which costs a little more and in my experience is more reliable. RAM doesn't need to overclock to be decent. Not breaking is something I also like in my components.

OMFG you'd buy a Monster Cable! Rate me up for my snappy remark lolz! *sigh*

RE: Not really bothered
By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2008 1:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
Even Kingston ValueRAM is too expensive! I'm talking A-DATA and every other brand that's at the bottom rung - with free shipping! :P You ought to reconsider paying the bare minimum sometime, you may be surprised at how good the stuff is. I haven't built a ton of systems in the past 5 years, but of the 10 I can remember, all of them used "bottom-rung" RAM and not one had memory problems. Just buy some and run MemTest on it to see if you should return it or not.

Seriously, don't take the rating system here so hard, opinions are like buttholes... yada yada yada.

RE: Not really bothered
By Maximalist on 8/16/2008 9:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
You need to understand what you are eluding to. Show me many desktop or laptop machines with 8GB RAM capability. I guess it did not cross your mind that most of the machines out there support only upto 4GB of RAM, and most of them can only make up to 3.2GB available to a 64-bit OS. Unless you're running server-class or workstation (trimmed down server-class) chipsets, the OS cannot utilize more than 3.2GB in most circumstances.

The huge problem with current desktop- and mobile-class chipsets is that they are really based on legacy 32-bit architectures. Hardware makers are lazy bums who found themselves out of step with the industry requirements. Only now they are coming around with new designs to address these needs.

Same situation continues to exist in most software development shops, who to a large degree are responsible for Vista's sabotaged launch and slow adoption. Not only the industry (hard- and software) failed Vista, many parties continue to actively create various obstacles.

RE: Not really bothered
By jvillaro on 8/15/2008 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
I heard Windows 7 will cure cancer...

I really don't know why or how people can be saying they will wait for Windows 7 to switch because it's going to be leaner, faster, less of a resource hog, compatible with my 16bit software, compatible with my 8 year old printer o scanner etc etc etc.

You can't just assume that. Neither think it will be available next year. Not just because they say so. I'm not a hater, mind you. I'm a Windows user, I loved my Win XP and I'm loving my Vista64.

I really don't know why people think that the hardware requirements for the new Windows are going to be lower. In to years when it will maybe come out or when the SP1 comes out for it (you know many people will automatically say they'll wait for SP1) ram will be even cheaper, CPU's more powerful etc.

Do you still have/need to use your PIII 500 mhz with 256mb of ram or whatever people still use, then keep using XP or your OS, who's forcing you to change?

I can still remember when I had my PII 233 mhz with 128mb running Win98SE that was cool till XP came out and it was sluggish... XP's fault? hardly. I upgraded to a faster pc and XP suddenly was the best thing since sliced bread.. oh wait that was after SP2. Todays Vista bashing is just the same thing...

Windows 7 could probably just be a more modular and faster Vista (Just because theres going to be better hardware).

RE: Not really bothered
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 11:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Touch Screen Functionality

I believe it goes well beyond mere functionality. As I understand it, the OS is being built with touch being a centerpiece - it will be the primary interface. This excites me mostly because there really is a LOT that you can do much easier with your hands than you can do with a traditional mouse and keyboard. All perverted jokes aside, I can't wait to touch my computer.

But I can already see the problems. The majority of LCD/LED screens sold at present are not touch-enabled, so there will be a whole slew of touch screens with different degrees of touch "resolution" and response times, etc. Windows 7 will be blamed for any and all faults due to manufacturers not meeting proper touch standards. Like Vista being sold on 512MB machines, W7 will be blamed when vendors sell it with poor-performing touch screens.

RE: Not really bothered
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 11:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
I personally have no interest in touch for a desktop or laptop. You'll always need a mouse anyway, because touch is not that precise (think about finger size compared to mouse pointer size), and touching a screen will always lead to it being dirty.

For portable devices with canned user interfaces (e.g., big buttons), I do think that touch is worthwhile.

RE: Not really bothered
By skaaman on 8/15/2008 12:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I look forward to the day where I can replace my coffee table with a nice Surface PC... Lets pay attention to where this technology is heading.

RE: Not really bothered
By skaaman on 8/15/2008 12:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Not really bothered
By Jimbo1234 on 8/15/2008 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how will it react when Jr spill his kool-aid all over the table?

RE: Not really bothered
By skaaman on 8/15/2008 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... I would image they are fairly well sealed. I was pondering jow long it would tale someone to hack it and leave a less than desirable image on the desktop. "Mommy, whats that???" Mother faints...

RE: Not really bothered
By Icelight on 8/15/2008 12:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'll stick with mouse/keyboard thank you. The last thing I want to do is stretch my arm to reach a monitor constantly to touch it.

And who has room on their desk to put a big monitor on its side if that's the way things go?

RE: Not really bothered
By whickywhickyjim on 8/15/2008 11:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
Touch Screen Functionality

No. Touch screens have been around forever - people just don't want them. I've deployed touchscreens with windows products as far back as winNT in the late 90's. They've probably been around longer. Google microtouch.

RE: Not really bothered
By DEredita on 8/15/2008 10:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
If I recall correctly, Windows 7 is actually going to be Windows 2008 without the networking/server features and with the Vista interface/media center.

RE: Not really bothered
By omnicronx on 8/15/2008 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Then you recall incorrectly, 7 will be built from Server 2008, but it is not going to merely be a stripped down version with media center. The driver model will be the same, and there probably will not be too many deep changes to the kernel.

Vista was the move to a new driver model and modified certain API's (sound and video) that had become old tech, which is one of the reasons most people did not notice too much of a change in Vista, because its mostly under the hood. Expect to see major revisions including a totally redesigned explorer, which will apparently be similar too the ribbon in office 2007. I also expect many other changes aimed at an improved user experience.. instead of just having to go one menu deeper to do the same task as in XP(Vista).

I currently run server08 converted for desktop use and it just flies, if this is any idea of what Windows 7 is going to be, I think we are all in for a great surprise.

RE: Not really bothered
By mikefarinha on 8/15/2008 12:19:38 PM , Rating: 2

I do believe that this is the first Anti-Win7/Pro-Vista post I've seen! You sure beat everyone out of the gate on this one! And to think the Anti-Vista/Pro-XP fiasco is barely just beginning to die down!

This is internet troll history in the making folks!

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
You fool. Feel free to look through my history and look at all the pro-Vista posts I've made. I'm not some idiot who listens to his dogs sisters brothers cousin for his advice on buying a computer.

That's why I made my decision to buy Vista based on all the experience I had beta testing it.

All the idiots go on about how Vista is just XP with a fancy skin and they couldn't be more wrong. But Windows 7 isn't going to be extremely different to Vista in regards to it's codebase. It probably won't look much different and as you can see above it probably won't offer much more over Vista. Now this isn't Microsoft doing this on purpose to screw people out of money. They have to do this because Apple and millions of tards who pretend to know about computers ruined the brand perception of Vista.

I'll definitely be beta testing Windows 7. Perhaps I might be very wrong and it'll be a big leap over Vista but I'm not holding my breath for it to be as big a jump as Vista was over XP. If Windows 7 is as good compared to Vista as Vista is to XP I'll buy it for sure.

RE: Not really bothered
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 12:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
But Windows 7 isn't going to be extremely different to Vista in regards to it's codebase. It probably won't look much different and as you can see above it probably won't offer much more over Vista.

The "trolling" part of your posts is really related to this particular assumption you are making. Practically nothing is publicly known about Windows 7, so how could you possibly reach such a conclusion (rationally)?

RE: Not really bothered
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 1:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps true. Perhaps Microsoft is keeping their cards close to their chest because they don't want Apple stealing ideas and implementing them in OSX before Microsoft gets Windows 7 to market. Or perhaps Windows 7 is going to be a fairly minor release when compared to Vista.

I do hope I'm proved wrong but I don't think Windows 7 will have the wow factor that Vista has over XP. We'll see it going into public Beta in about a year or so, so I guess we'll know for sure then.

RE: Not really bothered
By mikefarinha on 8/15/2008 3:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I thought I was pretty clear when saying that your post was Pro-Vista/Anti-Win7. And like TomZ said, how can you know enough about Win7 to make any informed decision about it? No one knows anything about it!!! That was the whole point of this news article.

Also, I sure hope you don't listen to a dog's advice when buying a computer... That's just not right!

Don't Tolerate Apple Mud Slinging.
By Mitch101 on 8/15/2008 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 5
I hope Microsoft learns this time around not to let Apple come out with commercials that downtalk the Microsoft OS and say it has problems making people believe the OS is junk while never demonstrating how their own OS is somehow superior.

Vista works great for me. Not a single problem since SP1 and if you want to complain about drivers well my Scanner, Video Capture, drivers from XP work great on Vista.

I'm not here to start a fanboy war but I am getting tired of seeing those Apple ads running that simply aren't true.

By smilingcrow on 8/15/2008 2:32:16 PM , Rating: 3
"I am getting tired of seeing those Apple ads running that simply aren't true."

Apple is well known for their BS marketing campaigns that contain blatant lies. It’s one reason why I dislike Apple the Company but try not to hold it against their products.

Not Bothering
By gamerk2 on 8/15/2008 1:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Right now, i'm passing on eveything NOT windows XP; it works, why upgrade?

I'm waiting to see how Midori does when it finishes in a few years. For those of you who don't know, its one of Micro$ofts new ideas: consider it the replacement of the Windows line, written in managed code. In theroy, it should scale well too, something all versions of windows do NOT do very well.

And as for businesses, most of the comps we have at my workplace have pentium III or low end <1.8 GHz Pentium IV's. Thats why we run windows NT, 2000, or in some cases, XP. We won't touch vista because we don't have the resources to run it (BTW, my work comp has 64MB RAM :D). Besides, the cost of upgrading over 200 computers to a new OS offsets any advantages the OS has (which are...?)

RE: Not Bothering
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 1:57:35 PM , Rating: 4
Ignorance is bliss. :o)

RE: Not Bothering
By 306maxi on 8/16/2008 2:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
You mean stupidity is bliss :o)

He says they run NT on some of their computers..... is this because XP uses too many resources? OMFG then XP must suck too!

I wish I could just send a spam message to every single person in the world saying "YES! Vista has requirements which make it silly to run on most PC's bought more than 2 or 3 years ago. That just means your PC sucks, not the operating system"

Seriously dude if you or the business you work for doesn't have the money or the need to upgrade your PC's then don't. If you can type at more than 10 wpm and you're using a PC with 64mb of RAM @ work then your company is losing out on productivity for sure.

Disappointed in you, Jason Mick
By jonmcc33 on 8/15/2008 2:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
Just when I thought you'd post something good you go ahead and mention some stupid garbage like this:

That was never verified to be true, correct? So no need to spread FUD in your blog posts...

RE: Disappointed in you, Jason Mick
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 3:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
But this was never verified to be not true, correct? So no need to post useless garbage here, jonmcc33.

Lite version
By Retrospect on 8/18/2008 8:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
I wish they make a lite version

RE: Lite version
By myhipsi on 8/18/2008 11:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
You can make a completely customized lite version yourself with a program called "vLite". Google it!

My Windows 7 wish list
By AlexWade on 8/15/2008 4:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
1) 64-bit only!

2) Make the Vista kernel more efficient. While Vista works great, you should be able to improve performance. You did improve performance when going from 2000 to XP, so I see no reason why you can't do the same with this.

3) Give UAC a memory and make UAC less restrictive. While UAC is a good idea, I turn it off because safe tasks "require elevation". The "ipconfig" command requires elevation. Also, if you do the same thing twice, it asks for confirmation twice. If I accidentally closed something and restarted it, why can't you remember I was just there and already agreed to do said actions?

4) This is a tall order, but would it be possible to save your desktop state when restarting? For instance, if I leave a Word document open and Windows 7 installs a security update, would it be possible to do the restart and return everything back the way it was?

5) Add Blu-Ray/HD DVD movie support to Windows Media Center.

By dondino on 8/15/2008 7:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
I upgraded to Vista 64 on a quad core system and haven't been having any problems with it. I did try it when in beta however and the hardware support was lacking and at the time I had a "lowly" X2 4200. Did not run very well.

This is probably easier said than done but Microsoft needs better scalability in their OS's to support lower end hardware. I hope Windows 7 will scale better than Vista.

By itzmec on 8/17/2008 8:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
i swear i read these same posts about a month ago

just a part of it..
By Tamale on 8/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: just a part of it..
By 306maxi on 8/15/2008 10:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with Windows? The vast majority of people out there use Vista, XP or 2000 either at home or in the workplace. As long as hardware keeps on moving on at the rate it is these days there will always be demand for operating systems.

Microsoft is still on a good wicket with Windows and even though Apple is gaining ground they will never become dominant. Same with Linux.

Windows OS's just work and with the exception of Linux it's the cheapest way to get an OS for your PC. I'm not really a fan of paying for service packs as you do with OS X

RE: just a part of it..
By Pirks on 8/15/2008 2:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not really a fan of paying for service packs as you do with OS X
You sound like a Windows zealot :)

Fortunately, reality is pretty different from what you just said: Mac OS X service packs are free.

Apple releases them regularly, starting with 10.x.1 release, for example 10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.3 and so on.

Perhaps you should do a bit more research before posting here.

RE: just a part of it..
By 306maxi on 8/16/2008 2:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
What about Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard?

Lets say you have 2 computers in 2001. 1 Mac and a PC.

You start off with OSX 10.0 and XP.

Later that year you upgrade the Max to 10.1 free upgrade. This is good! I'm going to be able to upgrade for free just like Microsoft always does with service packs!

Then in 2002 you upgrade to 10.2. They bone you by making you pay. Oh crap! I didn't think they'd do this. Well perhaps they'll give me my next SP for free.
Microsoft gives you SP1 for free.

In 2003 Apple goes to 10.3 and bones you for some more money. Oh crap. No fair! But at least I look cool with my Mac! It doesn't get viruses you know!

In 2004 Microsoft gives you SP2 for free!

In 2005 Steve realises he hasn't boned you for what Microsoft would give you for free and decides it's time to give you 10.4. I had to pay for another SP but at least Apple is releasing ads that make fun of Windows users. That's soooooo cool!

It's the year 2007 and Steve is getting restless. You guessed it 10.5! And do you get it for free like you would with Microsoft? Nope. At least I'm not running Vista. Steve says Vista is evil and we shouldn't use it. I trust Steve.

2008? Yet another free service pack from Microsoft.

So in summary.... with all due respect you're the one who should do some research. Just because Apple call it another operating system doesn't mean it is. It simply annoys me that people have the balls to accuse Microsoft of overpricing Vista when you have to pay multiple times for OSX. If Microsoft did this they would be accused of being moneygrabbing b@stards yet Apple get away with it.

RE: just a part of it..
By Tamale on 8/15/2008 2:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
my point is that microsoft had to start a whole new campaign just to 'save vista'.. if windows 7 is expected to be anything as well-liked as XP, microsoft can't just make windows 7 "not suck", they need to really listen to what people are asking for execute it very well.

RE: just a part of it..
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 3:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
Vista has a PR problem, not a product problem. Vista already "doesn't suck."

What Microsoft needs to "fix" for Windows 7 is to make sure it doesn't have another PR problem.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki