backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by kalak.. on Nov 10 at 2:51 PM


Microsoft's Windows 7 was looking good running on an ASUS laptop (with bamboo paneling) at WinHEC. The OS is set to ship in mid 2009, much earlier than expected.  (Source: Ina Fried/CNET News)
Windows 7 is set to drop mid-year 2009, says Microsoft

At Microsoft's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC), an important yearly event for the tech giant, new hardware details on the upcoming Windows 7 weren't the only revelation that Microsoft had in store.  Perhaps the most significant development of the conference came as a minor clarification -- Microsoft set a solid timeframe for when it plans to release Windows 7, barring unforeseen problems.

Originally, speculation was that Microsoft might field a Windows Vista successor in 2011 or 2012 as there was over 5 years between the release of Windows XP and Windows Vista.  However, with less than glowing reception of Vista, largely due to poor hardware partner support and a large footprint, Microsoft stepped up its efforts to launch its new Windows OS, which would set right the places where Vista went wrong.

Early this year, 2010 was what some Microsoft executives were saying to expect for a release date.  However, as the year progressed, Microsoft's top executives became increasingly optimistic that the OS could be delivered in late 2009.  Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer first floated the possibility of a 2009 release earlier this year.

Microsoft director Doug Howe showed slides in a WinHEC presentation that all but confirmed a 2009 release -- and even earlier than expected.  His slides stated that Microsoft will be releasing Windows 7 mid-year, in time to be included on the machines to be sold during the holiday buying season.  Mr. Howe stated, "Definitely the holiday focus is going to be on 7."

Also revealed by Mr. Howe were more details on Microsoft's secretive Velocity program aimed at improving Windows Vista PC quality.  The program, according to Microsoft, will run through next spring, conveniently terminating at about the time that Windows 7 will be preparing to ship.

The new program was initially only open to select computer manufacturers, but will now be opened to select software and hardware partners as well.  The basic premise is that the partners will have to engineer their products to work optimally with Vista and will have to undergo rigorous certification testing.  Partners will benefit from the good publicity, and Mr. Howe revealed in a slide that Microsoft might do some advertising for their products first-hand.

No list of the criteria was given, but one of the criteria, confirmed by Mr. Howe, was the ability to boot Windows Vista and have it ready to run within 50 seconds.  Many of the Velocity-certified machines boot significantly faster than this, according to Mr. Howe, but Microsoft wanted to set a widely obtainable goal.

After the debacle of Microsoft's "Vista Capable" program, which saw the company's stickers placed on underpowered bargain machines clearly not Vista ready, Velocity is both an effort on Microsoft's part to show that it's turned over a new leave and an effort to overall improve Vista machine quality.  The program launched in July 2007.

The program targeted the sluggish system performance that was plaguing many Windows Vista machines.  Originally intended as a three month program, it was extended far past the planned termination, due to Microsoft realizing there was still much work to be done.  In particular the program aims to speed up the time it takes for Vista computers to start up, shut down, sleep, and wake up.  Other goals include that all the hardware and software is completely compatible with Vista, as compatibility is a perennial trouble-spot or Vista.

Microsoft's labs in Redmond, Wash. are in charge of the Velocity testing.

Overall, Windows observers should be able to appreciate that Microsoft sincerely seems to be trying to improve the OS.  However, what it can't improve like memory and processing footprint, should be remedied with the release of Windows 7, which has now been all but confirmed for mid next year.   

One last interesting note -- Microsoft previously stated that it would release Vista's Service Pack 2 before Windows 7 -- so that means that if it sticks with this plan, Vista SP2 is likely coming in Spring of 2009.  Stay tuned for more details on that one.



Comments     Threshold


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

Footprint?
By acer905 on 11/7/2008 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 5
I still don't see the issue people have with Vista's footprint. Right now you can get storage space for 10 cents per GB. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...

Around the time XP was launched, storage space went for around $10/GB.

http://www.alts.net/ns1625/winchest.html

In order for Vista's footprint to be economically worse than XP's, it would have to be 100x the size. Last time i checked, it wasn't.




RE: Footprint?
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2008 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 1
While I don't like how big it is, I don't really care. As you say, space is cheap. My 250GB drive is more than big enough. Games go on my 2 raptors in RAID 0.


RE: Footprint?
By Chaser on 11/7/2008 11:00:55 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah. It runs fine on my pair of Raid 0 Intel 80GB SSD drives too.


RE: Footprint?
By therealnickdanger on 11/7/2008 11:09:48 AM , Rating: 5
If you actually have that... I hate you.


RE: Footprint?
By gemsurf on 11/7/2008 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you actually have that... I hate you.


I'm not him but I do! :-)


RE: Footprint?
By Lakku on 11/7/2008 6:29:08 PM , Rating: 1
Eh don't feel bad. Just get some 15k RPM SAS drives with an X58/i7 and you'll feel just right with everything, plus you will get a whole new PC and more storage space, for the price, or a little more, of those two SSD's.


RE: Footprint?
By Pirks on 11/7/2008 7:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'd go for investing into a nice young hot woman instead of this i7/sas/blas/shmas junk you know. Much better ROI I say :P


RE: Footprint?
By jonmcc33 on 11/7/2008 8:21:30 PM , Rating: 5
Till that young hot woman starts nagging you, whining that they aren't getting enough attention, etc. Women are only good for one thing to a man but that's another blog altogether.


RE: Footprint?
By Pirks on 11/7/2008 8:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Then instead of a next i7/sas/shmas/$$$$$$ PC I'll invest in a next woman when it's time. Still getting more ROI this way


RE: Footprint?
By sweetsauce on 11/7/2008 10:47:10 AM , Rating: 5
Too much logic. Much easier to spew random blurbs like OMGZ its like so big and stuff, cuz this one guy that uses it says its slow and stuff.


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Footprint?
By TamaIe on 11/7/2008 10:51:20 AM , Rating: 3
Isn't that 50 cents per GB?


RE: Footprint?
By therealnickdanger on 11/7/2008 11:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
$0.46/GB, but who's counting?


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
D'oh! Stupid decimal points...


RE: Footprint?
By Mr Perfect on 11/7/2008 12:44:53 PM , Rating: 5
Nice math, Michel Bolten. ;)


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 1:03:53 PM , Rating: 4
You can just call me Mike. :P


RE: Footprint?
By theapparition on 11/7/2008 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
That's Mike Bolten. :-)


RE: Footprint?
By rmlarsen on 11/7/2008 2:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
The most bang for your buck is currently Seagate's 1.5 TB drive, which is 10 cents per GB.


RE: Footprint?
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 3:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's also pretty easy to pick up various 1TB drives for around $99.

The problem with the Seagate 1.5TB is that a number of users are reporting problems with that particular drive. Also, some users are reporting that the drive occasionally hangs for 30-second periods from time-to-time.

I've got a couple here that are running fine so far, but the reliability is something that I'm concerned about.


RE: Footprint?
By kevinkreiser on 11/7/2008 10:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
more content in less space is always better. personally i'd rather the install use less space if it is possible. and with ssd's coming into play, space is a commodity.


RE: Footprint?
By mikefarinha on 11/7/2008 11:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
With Windows Vista and the proliferation of cheap & large HDDs Microsoft made a philosophical change to how you deal with additional functionality.

Prior to Windows Vista you had the concept of 'add/remove programs.' This let you actually free up disk space when you removed stuff but conversely you had to use the install disk to add features back in.

With Windows Vista you have the concept of turning features on or off. This is why they changed the control panel description from "Add/Remove Programs" to "Programs and Features."

When you install Windows Vista all the features are installed, you can choose to turn them on or off instead of adding or removing.

The end result is that it makes it easier to work with Vista since you don't always have to go dig out the install disk when you want to add something.


RE: Footprint?
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
No, all the features are not installed. Some are left out, it is only the MOST OFTEN USED, according to Microsoft, ones that are put on your hard drive.

Or, at least they are only UNZIPPED AND UNPACKED when they are chosen to be installed. Really, most of Vista is 'drivers, drivers, those nasty freaking dri-vers' (sings stuff in quotes) to the tune of 4 Gigs.

If they would make it so that if you installed something new, you had to put in it's install disk OR it immediately went online to find the driver or you had to put in the Vista disk..... Vista would be about the size of Windows 7.


RE: Footprint?
By epobirs on 11/8/2008 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
The change really started with Windows 2000. This was the first version of Windows that put the driver library on the boot volume by default. Huge improvement. Before that, NT4 users had to copy the i386 directory to the system for themselves. Likewise, there was the CABS folder that needed to be copied onto Win9x systems.

I'm entirely happy with the Vista way of doing things for desktops and fullscale laptops. Microsoft admits they went wrong in not offering more options for those in special circumstances but they didn't see the netbooks coming.

The needed options would allow the installer to selectively trim categories of device drivers from going on the system. This makes up the great majority of the space consumed. For instance, my current laptop doesn't have the old PCMCIA slots, they've been replaced by the ExpressCard slot. So there isn't much value in having drivers for any PCMCIA device on my laptop. Likewise for SCSI controllers and devices. Those probably don't have much of a footprint but it is an example that comes to mind.

On my laptops' 320 GB drive I would probably only eliminate the most obvious of device categories the unit will never encounter. On a desktop, where 500 GB is quickly becoming an entry level drive, I'd not bother at all. On a netbook however, it would be a very worthy effort. Especially if the OEM can do most of the work in advance and Windows Update could still make the whole library available.


RE: Footprint?
By Silver2k7 on 11/7/2008 4:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
" and with ssd's coming into play, space is a commodity. "

Thats perhaps why SSD isnt really in play yet.. cause they are too small.. Bitmoicro or some company do have a 1.6TB 3.5" SSD but until they let the price down to the harddrive levels SSD won't come to my computer.

10-15GB isnt that much, if someone is cheap and buying a small hdd then they have nobody but themselfs to blame. 1TB is good value today.. even 1.5TB is not that expensive. If your a laptop owner, get an external drive to store things on.


RE: Footprint?
By emboss on 11/8/2008 2:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, for me SSDs are just too expensive for the space I need. I just got a new laptop and put my "standard" dev environment on it - Vista-x64 (I'd prefer XP x64, but it's a long story ...) + Visual Studio + Xilinx ISE + Office + Delphi. Current HDD usage is 76 GB (that real GB, not HDD-manufacturer-GB). And I still haven't done things like put on the Windows DDK, Opera, and the usual collection of other apps and stuff. All up I wouldn't be surprised if I hit 80-85 GB, and that's without any data.

The laptop was pretty cheap - AU$500 with another AU$110 spent on upgrades (*). Even the craptastic OCZ JMicron 128 GB drives go for nearly AU$600. Assuming I managed to strip things back and get it to be inside 64 base-10 GB, I'd still be looking at over AU$1K for a MTRON drive or similar. There's simply no way I can justify spending twice as much on the drive as I did on the rest of the laptop.

(*) I was actually surprised how much laptop ~AU$600 gets you nowadays - after the upgrades, it's got a T5750, 2 GB RAM, 120 GB HDD, 15.4 inch 1280x800 screen (Intel X3100 graphics), 802.11g, DVD+/-RW, ~3.5 hours battery life (Visual Studio typing/compiling). Weight is spec'd at 2.7 kg (6 lbs). Sure, it's not going to be much good at 3D games, but for work duties the only negative points I've found so far are the screen resolution and the lack of TV out.


RE: Footprint?
By omnicronx on 11/7/2008 10:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
MS was also smart this time around, they are allowing for a base Windows install, and are allowing users to add in functionality as needed.


RE: Footprint?
By StevoLincolnite on 11/7/2008 11:14:08 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds a little similar to the Windows 98 installation procedure, hope it is, I used to save a couple hundred megabytes off the install by not installing the stuff I didn't require, I would rather the Install process let me choose what I want, the average Joe' doesn't know how to do a Format and Install windows anyway, thus I would rather it be more "interactive".

What I would "love" is a similar lay-out of all my folders and what-not to XP, but have the search function of Vista.

But I would also like the removal of the "Desktop" folder located in the Documents folder, all to easy to delete and lose something important on your desktop. - I tried "rolling back the folder" once it reappeared to no avail.

And possibly bring back the old Networking center look from XP... I have to do several more "clicks" (And get lost in the process half the time) just to change my I.P addresses to a Static one.


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 11:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have a link for this? All I had heard was that you'd be able to remove unneeded items after the install, similar to Vista. And that it won't come with an email or messenger app, instead prompting you to download the Windows Live apps.


RE: Footprint?
By mikefarinha on 11/7/2008 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think he is referring to Microsoft removing the photo gallery, movie maker, etc. and letting you download them as Window Live apps.

Microsoft has explicitly stated that they aren't focusing much on trimming the installation.

Having said that I doubt the Win7 install will be much different than the Vista install.


RE: Footprint?
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
Well, ZDnet says that the installation size is a little over 2.7 gigs..... with everything installed or the most common stuff needed installed. Hopefully, Microsoft has gotten the message and is NOT going to put all the drivers on the hard drive.

It will either tell you to put in the Windows 7 install disk or automatically go online to download and install the drivers (with the second being the best case scenario here).

The installation size cannot be trimmed very much UNLESS you get rid of storing those drivers on the computer for 'instant plugin and installation'. The only drivers that should be put on the computer's hard drive: basic motherboard drivers, basic processor drivers, basic networking drivers, basic ram drivers..... just basic EVERYTHING, and the ACTUAL DRIVERS THAT THE INSTALLER HAS SAID YOU NEED AT THAT EXACT MOMENT FOR YOUR HARDWARE.


RE: Footprint?
By The0ne on 11/7/2008 11:10:37 AM , Rating: 3
My personal issue is the bloat that gets crammed in a piece of software, whether that's MS software or any other. It is because of the advances in storage devices that managers (imo) are pushing programmers to put everything they can in there without any thought of optimization. I think many of us remember the good old computing days where great programs fit into a few floppy disks.

Although a bit off-topic, I would think most embedded firmware programmers would agree mainstream software could be done more efficiently.

The point is if there is no thought to even consider optimization then some improvements will never see the light of day. Gadgets wouldn't be so small, light, efficient if there were improvements and optimization. Software, I think, is just getting away with it because well...people either don't understand or don't are. Yes, I have almost 4TB but that doesn't mean the software should get so bloated to take up 10gig+ For an OS? I don't think so.


RE: Footprint?
By acer905 on 11/7/2008 11:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, yeah i remember my first computer, a Tandy 1000 with dual 3.5" floppy drives. One disk held the OS and a handful of programs. And anything that wouldn't go on that disk went on a second one...


RE: Footprint?
By XBMC Fan on 11/7/2008 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 3
I had a Tandy 1000 as well. I think you mean dual 5.25 floppy drives...

To chime in on footprint, yes, memory and hard drive storage are cheaper these days, but that shouldn't be an excuse to be sloppy. Besides, it still takes time to read all of that crap off the hard drive, even with slowly increasing mechanical hard drive performance and the advent of SSDs.


RE: Footprint?
By acer905 on 11/7/2008 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, never had 5.25's for it. Had those for my second computer... though i can't remember what it was... I actually still have the Tandy... complete with monitor, and ribbon printer. And it works perfectly


RE: Footprint?
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
Little problem: you are automatically assuming that they are being sloppy. Truth is: most Microsoft code is as optimized as it is going to get, even WITH a total rewrite.

You add more 'funky pictures', more 'funky schemes', etc..... it's going to take a lot of space for those pictures, schemes, pointers, etc.


RE: Footprint?
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 12:03:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The point is if there is no thought to even consider optimization then some improvements will never see the light of day.

Your approach only makes sense if engineering labor is cheap or free, which is not generally the case. The economics are such that fast CPUs are cheap, RAM is cheap, HDD space is cheap, but labor is expensive.

Therefore, it makes sense for software teams to focus on developing and testing new functionality, and optimizing only on an as-needed basis where performance and/or small footprint is an important requirement. Blanket optimizing everything as you suggest/imply is a waste of valuable resources.


RE: Footprint?
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right now.... totally optimizing everything is a VAST waste of resources. That's why most adults have a 'if it works, don't replace it!' view of the world.... they gone through 'optimization' of their jobs like my parents have with new hardware at their lab.... it usually means MORE work and less actually getting done.


RE: Footprint?
By nangryo on 11/8/2008 4:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
I full agree with you Mr. TheOne.........

But Mr. Z and his follower will disagree..., with 'why not use the capacity when it's there' reason.


RE: Footprint?
By quiksilvr on 11/7/2008 11:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
Though this logic makes sense for today's notebooks and desktops it isn't the case for earlier ones. If you have a notebook with 1 GB RAM, you are either forced to get Vista Basic, stick with XP, or upgrade your RAM. Now for techies like us that's no problem but for the average consumer it isn't the case.

You also have to keep in mind netbooks and other ultraportables. Having the RAM and space needed jacks up the price very painfully. As a result, XP is kept and Vista sales decrease. This is where the space issue becomes a problem.

On top of that, despite the new service pack and upgrades, Vista still takes more battery life. So in a logical standpoint, the only real benefit for Vista is DirectX 10 gaming. The skin and aero interface with its transparent bars and whatnot can all be replicated on XP with 3rd party programs. So the reasons to get Vista decrease more and more.

So I agree, if you have a modern desktop and notebook, Vista shouldn't be much of a problem, but what's the point? If you can get XP for cheap you might as well get it and cut down the resources your computer eats up and wait for Windows 7.


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 11:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is incredibly different from XP under the hood. DirectX 10 gaming support and Aero are just icing on the cake.

What's more, Windows 7 is built from Vista. The hardware requirements are not changing.


RE: Footprint?
By kensiko on 11/7/2008 12:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
There you are false.

I can assure you, the new OS is way more lighter when run in slower computers !

And for the news, I'm not surprised, the Win7 BĂȘta 6801 is already fully stable ! It runs fast, very fast, I love it !


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'm just inferring the hardware requirements from the statements MS has made saying that if it works on Vista it will work on Windows 7.

I'm sure performance has been tweaked in Win7.


RE: Footprint?
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 1:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think that Microsoft is doing performance optimizations in Windows 7 in order to effectively support the netbook/ultra-mobile/low-cost markets - devices that have processors like Atom and only 1 or 2GB of RAM maximum.

It is important that Windows 7 runs there so that they do not have to continue to sell and support XP into that market.


RE: Footprint?
By epobirs on 11/8/2008 4:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
This is specifically due to a technique coordinating the display buffers with the memory in the video subsystem. They demonstrated this during the WinHEC keynote.

This trick is pretty much just to enable Windows 7 in the netbook market. As explained in one of the technical sessions, it reverts back to the normal way of doing things if anything is done to complicate the system, most particularly having more than one GPU and/or monitor.

This won't even matter for the netbooks for long. The way memory prices and density are going I wouldn't bother with less than 4 GB in a new system and would have at least 8 GB in any machine for a power user. (The first i7 desktop board I've seen supports up to 16 GB, albeit with reduced performance for the 4th DIMM.) A $300 netbook is going to have 2 GB minimum pretty soon.

There is plenty of tweaking that can be done to make Vista less processor intensive and most of that will likely still apply under Win7. There are a bunch of system services a netbook user isn't likely to invoke.


RE: Footprint?
By kalak on 11/10/2008 2:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On top of that, despite the new service pack and upgrades, Vista still takes more battery life. So in a logical standpoint, the only real benefit for Vista is DirectX 10 gaming. The skin and aero interface with its transparent bars and whatnot can all be replicated on XP with 3rd party programs. So the reasons to get Vista decrease more and more. So I agree, if you have a modern desktop and notebook, Vista shouldn't be much of a problem, but what's the point? If you can get XP for cheap you might as well get it and cut down the resources your computer eats up and wait for Windows 7.


Couldn't agree more....


RE: Footprint?
By Solandri on 11/7/2008 11:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hard drive prices may have dropped 100x, but sustained read speeds have only improved by about 4x, and access speeds have barely improved (mostly due to going from 5400 to 7200 rpm). Vista just takes a lot longer to boot, and seems to thrash more whenever it hits the hard disk.

Heck, my current laptop takes longer to resume from hibernate (due to having to read 4 GB off the hard drive) than it took my 10-yo laptop to boot Win98/Win2k. For comparison, that had a 4.3 GB hard drive.


RE: Footprint?
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
How long? If it's more than 60 seconds...... you have a driver issue somewhere. I had a friend whose computer was doing what you describe....... I found out by using DriverAgent that about 10 of his drivers were SERIOUSLY outdated AND he had a couple of viruses on his machine. Ran Norton Anti-virus, updated those drivers, defragmented his hard drive..... 30 seconds to resume from hibernation.


RE: Footprint?
By Kary on 11/7/2008 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still don't see the issue people have with Vista's footprint. Right now you can get storage space for 10 cents per GB.


I hate bloat! This has nothing to do with hard drive space, though. Microsoft can give me all of the free programs...I have no problem with getting extra programs without adding to the cost of the operating system (I like this).

But didn't I say I hate bloat? YES! If I don't ever use it and it loads into RAM every time I turn the computer on it is BLOAT. I have 4GB of RAM in my system..it only can use 3.5GB because it's a 32bit system. 64-bit Vista won't run some of my apps so it isn't really an option for me yet (though I would love it if they fixed that).

So, no matter how much money I throw at RAM, I'm limited to 3.5GB of RAM. Now the bloat:
Windows Search Indexer (I don't lose my files and they don't index theirs...not helping me)
Network Media Sharing (ok, would use...if I had a device for it to share with...since I don't, why is it on? Why is the operating system [Vista Premium] that forces this on the best for notebooks?)

Really, if Vista took up 20 to 30 gigs of hard drive, I don't think that would be bad so long as they did included useful programs...heck, that many useful programs could be great!!! :)

(also, this isn't just picking on Vista...MS OFFICE Quick Start, Quick Time, Real Audio, iTunes, ....if I'm not running them at the moment then leave my RAM alone so I can use the computer to work on WHAT I'M ACTUALLY WORKING ON!)

<rant complete>


RE: Footprint?
By mikefarinha on 11/7/2008 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you need to learn what Vista's SuperFetch feature is all about...

From wikipedia.org:
"SuperFetch is a technology that pre-loads commonly used applications into the memory to reduce their load times."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfetch#SuperFetch


RE: Footprint?
By Kary on 11/7/2008 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps you need to learn what Vista's SuperFetch feature is all about... From wikipedia.org: "SuperFetch is a technology that pre-loads commonly used applications into the memory to reduce their load times."


...not sure why I would need to read about that..maybe I wasn't clear

SuperFetch makes my computer more responsive for stuff I do...good thing, not a problem

Windows Network Sharing Service takes CPU and RAM resources away from what I'm doing to provide a service to share files (of which I have told it to share 0) to network devices that support it (of which I also have 0). I can shut it down, but I have had it turn on if I mistakenly use Media Player (I like Media Player being included, but I use VLC because I prefer it).

The OS can use all the RAM/CPU/whatever it can get at to make things more responsive for what I'm wanting to do on my computer. That's great and what I expect from an OS...using my RAM/CPU/what have you on something I don't want and slowing my computer down as a result...BLOAT


RE: Footprint?
By mikefarinha on 11/7/2008 12:38:39 PM , Rating: 3
You must have the senses of Super Man to be able to notice the minuet performance penalties such services create.

By all current benchmarks Vista performs on par with Windows XP.

Sure it is your right to be upset about such inconsequential things but that doesn't make it something most people should give two hoots about.


RE: Footprint?
By Kary on 11/7/2008 2:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You must have the senses of Super Man to be able to notice the minuet performance penalties such services create.


Versus people complaining about the hard drive space MS Paint takes up :)

Background might help..
Windows Search Indexer used to make even old games pause on my Pentium D 805 (I have turned it off since I don't use it and can't comment on the updates they have made to it... we are talking C&C: Generals paused for no reason). IF Microsoft made an easy way to turn off background processes (MS CONFIG isn't an easy method for everyone) it would be better.

I'm also computer tech..I have spent the last 3 hours trying to remove background programs (admittedly mostly spyware/viri) from a computer. 30 background processes on the computer MIGHT be on purpose...several are rather pointless (Quick Time, Real Audio, MS Language Bar, one of the 2 wireless configuration programs in addition to the built in XP one,...). Now I get to sort through a list of 100 or so things running in the background and figure which ones are causing the slow downs and pop-ups.

A cleaner system is just easier to maintain and background processes that aren't running when not needed are considerably less likely to cause problems.


RE: Footprint?
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I have to agree that WNSS being activated EVERY SINGLE FREAKING TIME you run Windows Media Player gets on my nerves as well... but I actually use that functionality (though I didn't realize I was at first!) so I got used to it and left it on.


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 1:14:40 PM , Rating: 3
You can turn off both the Indexer and Media Sharing. But it doesn't make much sense.

The indexer has a low-priority IO thread, so it doesn't slow down other apps. The amount of CPU and RAM that it uses is miniscule. It would drain the battery in a notebook pretty quickly until the index gets built though (took about 5-6 hours on my desktop).

Media sharing simply causes your computer to show up as a media device. Again, an unnoticeable amount of resources is used.

You can go into the registry or use msconfig to disable the other startup items you listed.


RE: Footprint?
By emboss on 11/8/2008 7:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The indexer has a low-priority IO thread, so it doesn't slow down other apps.


Although this is commonly-stated, it is, alas, incorrect unless you have a SSD. The problem is that the I/O scheduler in Vista doesn't appear to use anticipatory techniques properly when pulling items from the background I/O queue. Since most applications don't read an entire file in a single read call, this means that low-priority requests are inserted between closely-spaced normal priority requests.

This creates problems if the low-priority requests are to distant locations on the disk than the normal priority requests. For example, if you're streaming a file off the disk, this might be done at the application level as a series of 1 MB reads. These 1 MB reads are broken up into a number of 64 KB reads prior to the I/O queue. Since all these reads are at normal priority, they are all done prior to any background I/O reads. All up, they might take 10 ms on a modern disk, giving you a total throughput of 100 MB/sec.

Now, once all the 64 KB reads have been emptied from the normal priority queue, there is a small delay until the reading thread gets resumed and it can dispatch another 1 MB read. During this time, the normal priority queue is empty. So, the I/O scheduler notices this, and notices that there's a request in the background queue, so dispatches it. The end result is a 64 KB read operation from the background queue in between the 1 MB normal priority reads. On a SSD, this doesn't matter since there's effectively no seek time. On spinning rust, you're looking at about 25 ms for the two seeks (one to the background request, one back to the foreground file), bringing your total throughput down to 28 MB/sec.

Vista isn't quite this bad. I did a test exactly like this (sequential 1 MB reads) and it showed a ~30% drop in throughput when the indexer was active, as opposed to the ~70% drop from the calculations. Also, after 30 seconds or so the indexer would realise that it was getting in the way and back off.

Streaming may appear to be the most extreme example of this problem. However, it actually shows up more significantly when doing compiling. If I do a rebuild in Visual Studio (2005) while the indexer is currently running (or if SuperFetch is shuffling things around), it takes around twice as long as if there were no "background" I/O tasks running. The problem is less pronounced when using the GNU toolchain, presumably as the parallel make keeps the disk queue full enough that background I/Os can't sneak in so often. This should apply to VS2008, since that finally supports parallel building, but I haven't tried it yet. Also, in this case, the indexer does not appear back off.

This is one of the things which hopefully will be fixed in Windows 7, or in a service pack to Vista. It just requires a bit more tuning and testing in the I/O scheduler to be a bit less aggressive in processing background requests if normal priority requests keep coming in while waiting on background I/Os to complete. As it is, background I/Os aren't truly "background" unless you've got an average normal-priority I/O queue depth of something greater than 1.

SuperFetch itself could use some tuning as well, but that's another long post ...


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/10/2008 10:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Vista might not get it completely right, but it's a heck of a lot better than XP. XP doesn't even have prioritized I/O. Windows Search 4 appears to monitor CPU usage to know when it can start updating the index.

The Engineering Windows 7 blog did imply that they have further tuned I/O performance in Windows 7, so hopefully we'll see an even better system that Vista has.


RE: Footprint?
By Spivonious on 11/10/2008 10:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Vista might not get it completely right, but it's a heck of a lot better than XP. XP doesn't even have prioritized I/O. Windows Search 4 appears to monitor CPU usage to know when it can start updating the index.

The Engineering Windows 7 blog did imply that they have further tuned I/O performance in Windows 7, so hopefully we'll see an even better system that Vista has.


RE: Footprint?
By LazLong on 11/7/2008 12:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
The footprint referenced here isn't the space on disk, but rather the RAM and processor power required to provide functionality similar to that which would be available from an XP-based system.


RE: Footprint?
By DeepBlue1975 on 11/7/2008 12:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is, as has always been, people trying to run state of the art applications and OSs on 4 year old machines.

This time with Vista, that stupid question was accentuated by OEMs selling laptops with 512mb of ram and Vista installed. Not even the home basic version runs well on that quantity of RAM... But going to 1gb it starts to run well, and upgrading to 2, you forget completely about performance issues on Vista.

I happen to like my vista 64 installation, though I never felt it was a quantum leap from XP, just a good enough (for me, at least) evolutionary step.


I'm excited
By DEredita on 11/7/2008 10:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to hear about their plans for Windows 7 (64-bit), since most manufacturers are now pushing Vista 64- bit on most of their budget retail store laptops and desktops.
Since Microsoft is claiming Win 7 will use half the memory of Vista, should be interesting for those of us who are running Vista 64-bit now with 8GB of ram, if we decide to jump to Windows 7.




RE: I'm excited
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 10:45:16 AM , Rating: 2
From what I've heard, Microsoft is "strongly encouraging" OEMs to go 64-bit. This is the last consumer OS from Microsoft that will have a 32-bit version.


RE: I'm excited
By StevoLincolnite on 11/7/2008 11:21:12 AM , Rating: 1
Not sure if they will Ditch 32 bit just yet, there is still Athlon XP and Pentium 4 as well as Pentium M rigs which can handle Vista just fine, and if Windows 7 will be lighter...
Which then I would imagine Windows 8 to be a little heavier... Well I think we may have another few releases with 32 bit support as of yet.

However I would love the move to 64bit everything, But when I tried Vista x64 I had nightmares of some programs having compatibility issues even while running in compatibility mode. - Mind you those programs were several years old but still handy.


RE: I'm excited
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 11:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting. I've been running Vista x64 at home for almost a year now and have had zero compatibility problems that were due to 64-bit. A few Vista-related problems, but it was software that was originally programmed for Windows 95, so I'm not complaining.


RE: I'm excited
By StevoLincolnite on 11/7/2008 11:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well I had issues running: Dungeon Keeper 2 - Which worked fine in XP and Vista 32bit for me, 64bit was a no-go unfortunatly.

Plus my compiler had issues also, then again it had issues with Vista 32bit also, so that's not saying much.

And at the time the Intel IGP drivers for Vista was like Molasses, where the XP versions were head and heels above it. (although the quality has increased now somewhat...)

And it has hated all my older printers because the Manufacturers refused to update drivers!

WarCraft 2, WoW would randomly Blue Screen of Death randomly for me also, this didn't happen with Vista 32bit, so I'm guessing it was a combination of Hardware/Drivers in that regard.

Vista x64 is great for some users, it's just not for me at this stage.


RE: I'm excited
By Klober on 11/7/2008 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I have a feeling there may have been other issues at play on your x64 system. WoW runs great on Vista x64 - not just for me but for several people I know who also run Vista x64. The only program I've encountered that would not run on Vista x64 was the original Lineage, which isn't a huge surprise since it was released in 1998. However, even Lineage will now run fine on my Vista x64 after a couple of updates. :)


RE: I'm excited
By Lerianis on 11/8/2008 1:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
What? How old are your 'older printers'? If they are anything less than 7 years old, Vista should have a driver for them, unless they are some 'bargain basement' brand like Koneko (yes, that is a real name of a printer maker, I saw a 'Koneko' online that someone was trying to get Vista drivers for, even had a PICTURE of the name).

Dungeon Keeper 2 also runs fine on Vista 64-bit, I've played that game myself on it.... there's got to be some incompatibility issue with your hardware somewhere, or you haven't installed the latest update for it (which fixed some 64-bit compatibility issues a long time ago).


RE: I'm excited
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 12:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interesting. I've been running Vista x64 at home for almost a year now and have had zero compatibility problems that were due to 64-bit.

The biggest problem for me, and which keeps me running 32-bit OSs, is that the 64-bit OS will not load 32-bit drivers, and I have certain devices that don't have 64-bit drivers available.


RE: I'm excited
By Pirks on 11/7/2008 4:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Throw away that ancient webcam


RE: I'm excited
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 5:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I have some engineering tools that require device drivers because of their USB interfaces. And even the latest driver version doesn't support 64-bit.


RE: I'm excited
By Pirks on 11/7/2008 7:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ever tried to complain to their support?


RE: I'm excited
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 7:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, actually I do put in a request a couple of times a year. I wrote annother request today after writing the above post.


RE: I'm excited
By Lord 666 on 11/7/2008 4:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
The Cisco VPN client will not work on either XP or Vista x64... This is preventing me from migrating.


RE: I'm excited
By Jimbo1234 on 11/7/2008 10:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
I've been running it as well for about a year with some good surprises, and some bad.

Bad: Ancient webcam no longer works - had to buy a new one.
Bad: Logitech mouse buttons cannot be programmed - purchased new mouse
Bad: Wife's hospital VPN does not work - use Virtual PC with XP32.
Bad: Sony Vegas 9b Plainum (I'm not buying the $400 pro version) crashes every few minutes in the trimmer (tried compatability mode, etc). Vegas 8 ran fine.
Bad: Autodesk Inventor and Adobe Acrobat crash the print spooler when trying to print to a Sharp MX2300 color laser copier. Tried PCL as well as postscript drivers. Black and white Sharp copier works perfectly - go figure.

Good: Diablo II is lightning fast on my hew hardware and doesn't even need compatability mode with their latest patch.
Good: Superfetch kicks ass with 8GB of RAM.

So, it's mostly, if not all, the vendors' fault for not providing adequate drivers and / or crappy programming such as Vegas 9 Platinum which was just released. It was a waste of my $60 for the upgrade from 8.


RE: I'm excited
By Dribble on 11/7/2008 11:48:04 AM , Rating: 2
I hope there is no windows 7(32 bit). One of the problems with vista is they kept both 32 and 64 bit versions - meaning most companies then had 2 sets of drivers to write.
Partly because it was easier most concentrated on vista 32 bit drivers, and hence 64 bit ones suffered.

Now I see lots of machines out there with 32 vista and 4 gig of memory - which is silly as you can't use all the memory - but manufacturers do it because 32 bit is so much more stable, and hence means many less support problems.

Only 64 bit means companies only need to write one set of windows 7 drivers, which should hopefully mean it all works better.


RE: I'm excited
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only 64 bit means companies only need to write one set of windows 7 drivers, which should hopefully mean it all works better.

That's not relevant, since the same source code for a particular driver can be used to compile both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers. In other words, write once, compile twice.

The only additional effort is that you need to validate your drivers in both 32- and 64-bit environments. For small companies, I can understand the burden, but for large companies selling thousands or millions of a particular product, it really is inexcusable, IMO.


RE: I'm excited
By Dribble on 11/7/2008 1:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
There's a whole host of reasons why that's not true:
-driver code contains stuff that won't work in 64 bit - typically passing around pointers in 32 bit variables which don't automatically become 64 bit.
-driver relies on other drivers and libraries that don't exist for 64 bit.
-Vista 64 bit's additional security (Vista 32 bit is a bit of mutant child of XP and full Vista 64, and does not fully implement everything Vista 64 bit does specifically so it is more compatible with XP applications and drivers).

Proof is in the fact that most companies released 32 bit drivers long before they released any 64 bit ones (if at all), and when the 64 bit ones arrived they generally worked worse.


RE: I'm excited
By TomZ on 11/7/2008 1:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that poor programming practices and assumptions will make it impossible to use the same source code base for 32- and 64-bit. But by following Microsoft's best practices and programming conventions, it is easy to have a single source code base for both.

ref. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/64bit_...

Also: The 64-bit version of Microsoft Windows is designed to make it possible for developers to use a single source-code base for their Win32- and Win64-based applications. To a large extent, this is also true for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows drivers .
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa489557.a...


RE: I'm excited
By emboss on 11/8/2008 2:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
The key part, which you forgot to bold, was "To a large extent". For most non-trivial drivers, there is additional twiddling that needs to be done in the 64-bit code to handle 32-bit processes. Conversely, a good 32-bit driver will handle PAE, which doesn't exist in 64-bit mode. There's also subtle differences in how DMA is handled in both platforms. And IA64 is another whole can of worms, especially with regard to memory ordering semantics.

Of course, there's a lot of code in drivers that is (or should be) 32/64-bit agnostic. But when you're hitting the hardware, or shuffling things between kernel and user space, there's different issues to take care of on the different platforms.

Things are getting better, though. The x64 support in XP/Server 2003 was a hack on top of a kludge on top of spaghetti code. Vista/Server 2008 (and the supporting DDKs) really cleans things up, and introduces a number of interfaces that are 32/64-bit agnostic, which means that if you drop support for (32- and 64-bit) XP you can reduce the amount of architecture-specific code needed in your drivers. I expect Windows 7 will improve this further, though obviously the full benefit of this new functionality will only kick in once it's acceptable to drop support for XP.


RE: I'm excited
By epobirs on 11/8/2008 4:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
There are going to be 32-bit only systems to support for a good while. Especially the highly power conscious chips going into netbooks. Likewise, the footprint for a 64-bit version of the OS (plus any 64-bit native apps) is unavoidably larger and a serious obstacle to use in systems with very limited storage.

I disagree about putting 4 GB in a 32-bit system. First of all, when I can get 4 GB of RAM for less than $50 to put in a new system, I'm not going to whine about half a gigabyte not being available. It's worth it to make the other half of that gig usable. On systems with integrated video the penalty is reduced because the memory mapped to the video is outside the addressable range. At least that is what appears to be happening in the machines I've examined.

So, at $10 a gig for the first three gigabytes, I don't mind paying another $10 for an additional 512 MB. It's a transitional thing. Eventually it'll be 64-bit almost everywhere but we aren't there yet.


Hmm...
By on 11/7/2008 10:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
So MS moves to the OSX like shorter release cycles with less "stuff". A good move I think provided they drop prices as well. Windows 7 is looking great (if a little bit like a KDE OSX mashup) and I'm looking forward to a possible upgrade.

At least the fanboys can't call OSX updates service packs any longer =)




RE: Hmm...
By homernoy on 11/7/2008 10:35:59 AM , Rating: 5
Looks to me to be closer to Microsoft's normal product cycle than anything else. Vista's longer release time was an exception, not the rule for Microsoft OS's.


RE: Hmm...
By gcouriel on 11/7/2008 10:43:07 AM , Rating: 4
no, MS is moving back to their original timeline, which is a couple of years between OS releases. 95, 98, ME and XP were released within 2-3 years of each other. in addition, all the major updates (SP's) were available for free online (unlike OSX, which requires you to buy a whole new OS).

XP was an anomaly, in that it took so long for a suitable replacement to come out, and originally, it wasn't much of a replacement at all. however, much like Win95, after a while, the bugs were worked out, and it's a pretty stable OS (coming from a guy who was running XP up until about 3 months ago, when he made the switch).


RE: Hmm...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/7/2008 11:17:19 AM , Rating: 5
ME never existed! Stop bringing back nightmares!


RE: Hmm...
By Merry on 11/7/2008 11:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
The first time I saw screenshots of Windows 7 I thought KDE 4 too.

Whether this is a good or bad thing i have no idea....


RE: Hmm...
By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 11:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard this comparison a lot since the 7 screens were released, and I just don't see the similarity. If anything, KDE 4 copied Vista, just like KDE 1 copied Windows 95. Can you give more details on this?


RE: Hmm...
By Merry on 11/7/2008 1:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Could just be the way the screenshot was shown with widgets and such. In terms of looks I just think the taskbar looks the same. The 'look' of the clock on the taskbar was very similar too

Note the look, I doubt functionality is as similar.

As for your KDE/Vista comparison i've never seen it, but then i've never used KDE or Vista to any great degree, therefore i wouldnt.


wood trimmed laptop?
By Tamale on 11/7/2008 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
I feel the same way about wood trim on a laptop as on a PT cruiser...

taaaaaaaaaackeeeee




RE: wood trimmed laptop?
By Tamale on 11/7/2008 10:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
I should add that a stock PT cruiser isn't any better necessarily, just that for some reason that seems to be the car that people love putting wood trim on still.


RE: wood trimmed laptop?
By omnicronx on 11/7/2008 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.wwujd.com/fights_files/ptcruiser.gif

Ya my neighbor has one with the wood paneling, so god damn ugly that it comes close to rivaling the Aztec..


RE: wood trimmed laptop?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/7/2008 10:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Bamboo IIRC


RE: wood trimmed laptop?
By piroroadkill on 11/7/2008 10:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
It does look tacky. The Dell Studio Hybrid with bamboo trim looks good, though


RE: wood trimmed laptop?
By Indianapolis on 11/7/2008 10:40:04 AM , Rating: 5
I could be wrong, but I believe applying bamboo to any product automatically makes it environmentally friendly.


RE: wood trimmed laptop?
By anotherdude on 11/7/2008 8:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could be wrong, but I believe applying bamboo to any product automatically makes it environmentally friendly.


+6


Good thing I'm still a student...
By Fenixgoon on 11/7/2008 10:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
student discount FTW!

Got vista ultimate for $35




RE: Good thing I'm still a student...
By RabidDog on 11/7/2008 11:13:08 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone can also subscribe the the MS TechNet+ program. There are discount out there but the MSRP is $350 and you get ALL profesional software that MS makes. It's one of the best deals going. Check it out:
http://technet.microsoft.com


By Spivonious on 11/7/2008 11:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
But the software is only licensed for evaluation use. You're violating the license if you use it in a "production environment".

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/m...


RE: Good thing I'm still a student...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/7/2008 11:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
Allot of people I know got it for nothing. xD

I'm not sure if I paid anything for mine either, came with my notebook and it wasn't "Added" to the overall price, but I did get Vista Ultimate x64. - However after about 5 months of use I had to go back to XP, the battery life was a bother, and the HDD sounded like it was going into over-drive or something, which isn't healthy while running on battery power, despite having 4gb of Ram.


By FredEx on 11/8/2008 5:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
Just had that disk thrashing issue with my wife's laptop, just fixed it yesterday. As she has used it, it got slower and slower. A few services were accessing, indexing, poking and prodding more and more as more files were being added to the system. That was why it got worse the more she used it and the more that was added to it. I shut the crap down and the disk quit thrashing. I put some third party stuff on to better take care of things.


PROPER USE OF THE WORD
By Choppedliver on 11/7/2008 10:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
This isnt a typo, you used the wrong word.

It should say "turned over a new leaf" which is a noun, not "leave" which is a verb and has nothing to do with the plant/tree




RE: PROPER USE OF THE WORD
By Choppedliver on 11/7/2008 10:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, here's the quote I was referring to

"...turned over a new leave and an effort to overall improve Vista machine quality. The program launched in July 2007"


RE: PROPER USE OF THE WORD
By Chernobyl68 on 11/7/2008 11:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
8) *Slaps forehead, Shakes Head*

"Now why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here!"


RE: PROPER USE OF THE WORD
By Choppedliver on 11/7/2008 11:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
Great back to the future reference :)


windows7 who cares
By elcubanito on 11/9/2008 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
anybody think of linux they are getting better and better so why pay so much when you can get it for 0$ and work almost like xp or better




RE: windows7 who cares
By kelmon on 11/9/2008 12:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
There's a few problems there, which roughly parallel those of switching to the Mac but Linux has it worse. Your problems run roughly like the following and I'm sure I'll forget some:

* No one has heard of Linux outside of the likes of SlashDot and your company's server room. The Linux community needs to learn how to market their product.

* Even if you have heard of Linux, which one of the distributions do you choose? There is no clear "winning" distribution and the customer faces the same sort of issue that they did when Vista came out (which version should I buy?) except now the problem is much worse.

* Will it run my applications? Linux may have its own applications but they are often not as good as commercial versions available for other platforms. OpenOffice is great, for example, but let's not kid ourselves - MS Office for Windows (or even Mac) is better.

I love the idea of Linux but at the moment it really isn't going anywhere fast and the complete lack of marketing is what is holding it back. Unless someone has heard of your product then they aren't going to buy it, particularly when you are up against the 800lb gorilla that is Windows, which everyone has heard of and probably already uses. Free is great but everyone needs to advertise their "special offer".


RE: windows7 who cares
By Choppedliver on 11/9/2008 2:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ive been following linux since 1992 and I would agree with most of what you say. However, I do think that Ubuntu is coming close to bringing Linux to the masses. It is ridiculously easy to install, and makes wireless networking a breeze. Its absolutely gorgeous, and comes with most programs people will need. If wine can get to the point that 99% of windows programs will run, then I think you will see a major shift. It also takes much better advantage of the horsepower you have. I can do things in Linux that are impossible on the same hardward running Windows. For example, just the other day I put Ubuntu on with compiz-fusion. I then enabled both monitors ( independently ). I have a laptop, core 2 duo, nvidia mobile quadro nvs140m. Nothing exotic.

I was running 5 tabs in firefox, playing a dvd, playing an mp3, ripping a dvd ( external usb ), running pidgin with AIM and YAHOO accounts, virtualbox running windows xp, and a few other windows were open. I then enabled the cube plugin, and 4 workspaces. I had different windows in each workspace. I rotated the cube, with live video playing on one face of the cube. Each face was a different workspace, rotating on the cube, and nothign stuttered or skipped. I was seriously blown away. I have "liked" linux for a long time but never felt it was a suitable replacement for Windows. This just blew me away, and made me realize how close it is getting to being the true windows alternative.


Marketing Showdown
By ltcommanderdata on 11/7/2008 10:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
If Windows 7 has been pulled into mid-2009, I believe that's pretty much the same time as Apple's Snow Leopard will ship. Given how Microsoft and Apple are really having a direct marketing faceoff right now with their recents commercials, I wonder how much worse it's doing to get in mid-2009. They'll both probably be flinging money at commercials like no tomorrow.




Title confusing
By pxavierperez on 11/7/2008 12:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft to Release Windows 7 Release Mid '09, Reveals Vista Improvement Program

sorry, but:

Are they Releasing a product called Windows 7 Release in Mid '09.
Or are they Releasing a product called Windows 7 in Mid '09.




I'm not surprised
By SiliconAddict on 11/7/2008 7:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Only the densest of people didn't realize that the main reason for the leg between XP and Vista was the complete under the hood overhaul of Windows. Note that this took Apple ALMOST as long with the start and stop progress of OS X that was more buggy then Vista when 10.0 shipped.
Now that MS has a solid framework they simply need to continue to refine the core OS, add feature, and really just continue to refine the OS like Apple did in 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3. And that sure as hell doesn't take 5 years to do.




Too Succesfull XP
By rizki0309 on 11/8/2008 8:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problem with Vista, is some:

1. Vista Visualization isn't great, enough people doesn't looking for great visualization. For great visualization we have hyped Mac OS, MS is only follower.
2. Lack of essential feature "current apps" (like a simple download manager).
3. Incompatibility with HW and SW.
4. Complex Security (is good "but have a wrong approach")perhaps a free anti virus can be download with vista is a better approach.
5. Too Big and slow compared to slim and fit windows XP

The conclusion is the Vista is GOOD enough, but we have a little , smaller, Compact and easy windows XP without have to have pay another copy.




MMS 2009 logo
By rodtrent on 11/10/2008 10:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Nice use of the MMS 2009 logo for the article. However, the graphics for MMS 2009 have been updated:

http://www.myitforum.com/myITWiki/MMS.ashx




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki