backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by kingius.. on Oct 8 at 9:12 AM


Microsoft employees carry a coffin for Apple's iPhone  (Source: Carl J)

  (Source: Carl J)
Microsoft is pretty confident about how Windows Phone 7 will perform in the marketplace

Well, we can say that the folks from Redmond definitely have a morbid sense of humor. In celebration of the release to manufacturing (RTM) of Windows Phone 7, Microsoft held a mock funeral for two of the stars of the smartphone community: the Apple iPhone and RIM's BlackBerry.

According to Neowin, there were hearses for both the iPhone and the BlackBerry along with Microsoft employees dressed up in Windows Phone 7 garb. Microsoft even went so far as to have employees performing the infamous "Thriller Dance" to celebrate the hope that Windows Phone 7 will bury the competition.

Interestingly enough, while Microsoft definitely had Apple and RIM in its crosshairs today, “dead” Google was nowhere to be found. There were no hearses for the Android OS, so either Microsoft just overlooked this "minor" detail, or it doesn't think that it has the muscle to bury Android so quickly.

Windows Phone 7 is reportedly set to launch on October 11.



Comments     Threshold


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

It would be appropriate
By YashBudini on 9/10/2010 11:40:55 PM , Rating: 0
For people to ban together to burn their copies of Vista 64 bit, the biggest POS since ME.




RE: It would be appropriate
By p05esto on 9/11/2010 11:14:14 AM , Rating: 5
Another clueless one here boys.... Vista and Win7 are practically identical under the hood and mostly in interface as well. After the Vista service pack there's very little difference, you turn down UAC and everything is just fine. I'm a 15 yr developer who builds $3k systems every year or two and guess what, I PREFER Vista 64 over Win7. I won't get into why but it's usability.

And don't forget in benchmarks both OS are almost idential in performance and in MANY tests Vista is the fastest. Know the facts, don't just buy into media hype and jump on the banwagon, especially when spouting off on an enthusiast site.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Desslok on 9/11/2010 1:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
What is if the fun in that? Of all the nerve to ask someone to back up what they say. I mean this is the internet!!!!:)

/sarcasm


RE: It would be appropriate
By Belard on 9/11/2010 3:01:06 PM , Rating: 1
You may PREFER... but Vista still sucks.

Operations of Win7 is better than vista. Win7 ran good on my notebook with 1GB, runs great with 2GB. Even my quad core only runs on 2GB of RAM. While I've seen 3~4GB Vista systems struggle for mundane things.

Yeah, Win7 is based off the core of Vista. But MS spent 2 years cleaning up the vista mess. If it was just another skin job, it would have taken months. But there are lots of improvements in Win7. The memory handling WILL never be fixed in Vista... you NEED Vista64 & 4~8GB of RAM to have a usable computer. I run with 2GB, I run 3-4 different browsers, Photoshop, encoding video in the background... and I'm running just fine.

Every open window in Vista eats a huge chunk system memory, even multi-tasking and such is a killer.

And what benchmarks are you talking about? WinXP on most systems, boot faster, shut down faster and of course games run faster over vista. That is constant. now, running a job such as encoding a video or 3D - is brute CPU force.... whoopie. Do several multi-tasking jobs and vista blows it every time.

Hey, lets head over to Newegg and see whats there.

Hmmm... Theres no VISTA there. Just Windows7. Vista went away before Windows7 - thats how much it sucked and was hated. Vista never approached XP market share... and 5 years from now, there will STILL be more XP users than vista ;)


RE: It would be appropriate
By inighthawki on 9/11/2010 3:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if you look at most benchmarks, it shows gaming performance has just about no difference, and sometimes favors vista or 7 over XP, and im not speaking of dx10. 7 also boots faster than XP, so I don't know where you got that statistic from.

http://lifehacker.com/5124955/windows-7-beta-boast...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gami...
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/articles.php?article...

I don't know where people get these strange ideas that XP some some sort of "gaming machine" with average of 10FPS or more in games, when in fact it's often times worse or on par with 7/Vista


RE: It would be appropriate
By Belard on 9/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: It would be appropriate
By themaster08 on 9/12/2010 4:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
I find it quite funny that every time Vista is even mentioned in any comment, you're always there ;).


RE: It would be appropriate
By B3an on 9/18/2010 9:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
I've built over 150 PC's with XP, Vista, And Win7 machines over the years and i can say without doubt that Vista SP2 is very nearly as fast as Win7. And while it wont run as good with 1GB as Win7, it's not far off at all.

Vista had many problems in the early days thanks mostly to 3rd party drivers, but using Vista or Win7 today they are practically identical for stability.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Wonga on 9/12/2010 9:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
..."or in vista's case, it'll shut down whenever it feels like it."


Negative.

quote:
"A 1GB Win7 PC will run better than a 4GB Vista..."


That's a negatory.


RE: It would be appropriate
By inighthawki on 9/13/2010 10:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps my eyes work differently because with the exception of Arma 2, almost all games run within +/ 2 fps of XP, and in many cases 7 is leading. Even the second benchmark link I posted states in the conclusion that 7 performed better than XP. Denial much?


RE: It would be appropriate
By Wonga on 9/12/2010 9:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"...you NEED Vista64 & 4~8GB of RAM to have a usable computer"


Negative.


RE: It would be appropriate
By sprockkets on 9/11/2010 3:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another clueless one here boys.... Vista and Win7 are practically identical under the hood and mostly in interface as well. After the Vista service pack there's very little difference, you turn down UAC and everything is just fine. I'm a 15 yr developer who builds $3k systems every year or two and guess what, I PREFER Vista 64 over Win7. I won't get into why but it's usability. And don't forget in benchmarks both OS are almost idential in performance and in MANY tests Vista is the fastest. Know the facts, don't just buy into media hype and jump on the banwagon, especially when spouting off on an enthusiast site.


Actually one of the biggest differences is how the video sub system works. Anand went into detail about it, in short, they regressed one feature which sped up the processing considerably. Thus, Win7 isn't as sluggish.

But this is classic Microsoft. They get stuff right on the 3rd try. The Xbox360 hardware, their antivirus, Winvista to Vista SP1 then Win7, their Zune, etc.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Donkeyshins on 9/13/2010 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But this is classic Microsoft. They get stuff right on the 3rd try. The Xbox360 hardware, their antivirus, Winvista to Vista SP1 then Win7, their Zune, etc.


I'd argue they got the Zune right in v1.0 (I still have my brown Zune) and continued to refine it through v2.0 and v3.0. I actually prefer the original to the v2.0 'squircle' version.

Unfortunately, when you are competing against a product that has become the default generic term for MP3 players it's hard to make much progress. Given this, I'd say however good the Windows 7 phone is, it'll be a viciously uphill battle against both the iPhone and Android.


RE: It would be appropriate
By YashBudini on 9/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: It would be appropriate
By theapparition on 9/11/2010 9:01:45 PM , Rating: 4
XP x64 was far, far, far more problematic than Vista ever was. That was a true POS.

quote:
A driver problem? Perhaps, but there were no driver conflicts, problems, or non-Windows drivers installed. So even then it was a Windows problem.

Non windows drivers? Microsoft packages supplied drivers with it's OS as a convience to it's customers. Even after WHQT, they can't be responsible for every single issue, it's the driver manufacturers job to take care of them. In your case it sounds like the chipset drivers for your particular motherboard were not up to par.
That's the real reason Vista was a disappointment. Not that anything was inherently wrong with Vista64, which was a great OS. Just that Vista was the first OS after MS changed the driver model. Hardware manufacturers had to scramble to re-write drivers, some procrastinated and put out poor drivers, others just plain botched it. But as a whole, Vista was trouble free. SP1 fixed any lingering minor issues that existed, including updating many of the poorly written (non-MS) drivers packed into the service pack.

quote:
I've been building systems since Win 3.1, and your preferences remain little else than your own.

Nice attempt at appeal to authority. I've been designing systems that go back to mainframe DEC and IBM. By your logic, my opinion now carries more weight than yours.

FWIW,
On my companies computers, we ran exclusively Vista64. Even pre SP1, never had the majority of issues that people complain about (albeit we only run new hardware). Almost all computers have been upgraded to Windows 7 now, and that's primarily because as leases expire, the new hardware comes in with Win7, not because we had any issue with Vista.

Anyone who claims that Win7 is somehow dramatically different under the hood compared to Vista is delusional.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Reclaimer77 on 9/12/2010 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone who claims that Win7 is somehow dramatically different under the hood compared to Vista is delusional.


It doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is there ARE improvements and they are significant, and you can't get them using Vista, you need Windows 7. For example, and this isn't up for debate, SSD drive performance in Windows 7 is significantly faster than Vista. That alone is a deal breaker for me, because I own an SSD and plan on never going back to HDD for my OS.

If it makes you feel better, just call Windows 7 Vista Fixed. It's mostly Vista, sure. But it's the fixed version with goodies you can't get in Vista.


RE: It would be appropriate
By YashBudini on 9/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: It would be appropriate
By talonvor on 9/17/2010 7:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to say it, but vista had serious memory problems right from the start. Granted those issues have been addressed somewhat.


RE: It would be appropriate
By gcor on 9/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: It would be appropriate
By Reclaimer77 on 9/11/2010 8:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
I skipped Vista from XP and went straight to 7, but to call Vista MS's "biggest fail on record" is just trolling ignorance. Everyone knows Millennium was MS's biggest failure. Hell Vista is just fine after Service Pack 1, ME NEVER got better, it was just buried quickly. Also Windows 95 was no picnic either. I would rank Vista far ahead of those two.


RE: It would be appropriate
By gcor on 9/11/2010 9:05:28 PM , Rating: 1
By biggest fail, I'm referring to damage in the market. 95 was not a great product, but still better than 3.11. ME was a dud, but, as you say, it got replaced quick and NT was around as a solid alternative. Vista hung around like a bad smell for years, with only XP as fall back option. Joe average customers got to know it was horrible. I'd be saying Vista did more for OS-X than anything Apple's vile ads did. To me, tanking in the market AND giving market share to a competitor is the biggest fail. 95 & ME didn't have anything like that impact.


RE: It would be appropriate
By inighthawki on 9/11/2010 9:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
Vista only earned a bad rep for poor 3rd party drivers. In fact, many people had it fine. I actually used Vista since pre-beta when it was still longhorn and installed new builds on a monthly or even biweekly basis. And the result? I never once had a single problem with ANY of the builds, even beta. What does that mean? It wasn't Vista's fault t all, it was drivers. If you got crappy drivers for your hardware, then it means you picked some bad brands to work with because they can't even be good enough to release proper drivers. It's people like you who got bad hardware and believe all the mudslinging by people like Apple and assume that Vista was a bad OS, when in fact it was actually a really well-made polished OS that was ages ahead of XP.


RE: It would be appropriate
By gcor on 9/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: It would be appropriate
By inighthawki on 9/11/2010 10:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
No I didn't mean the hardware itself had problems like malfunctioning, but the hardware companies DID slack when making drivers for said hardware. Drivers that had matured for years on XP had been rushed out the door in days or weeks for Vista, making them unstable. If you look at charts, you will see that over 75% of the crashes caused by Vista in its early days were caused by ATi, nVidia, and Intel.

Also if you've seriously had that much trouble, you may want to figure out another problem. I mean, how many countless desktops and laptops do people like Dell, HP, etc ship that work FLAWLESSLY with all of MS's OSs, yet you can't seem to get ONE to work? Sounds like you might be doing something wrong. Even I have built dozens of systems that all work fine with a multitude of OSs ranging from 98 to 7 and everywhere in-between.


RE: It would be appropriate
By gcor on 9/11/2010 11:19:12 PM , Rating: 1
Good for you!

I'm so glad everything has been sunshine and light and nothing has ever gone wrong in your world. Looking at the forums where people have had trouble and have sometimes found the cause and even work arounds, I don't think I'm the only one who's had trouble with MS and compatibility. But, good for you and your ability to always get it right first time.

I'd love to see you get a motherboard working that occasionally used instructions reserved for the OS. That one took longer than the warrantte period before people discovered that one out.

Problems like that are many are varied. Of course, if you're prescient and choose only parts that work 100% with MS, well done you. Notice I said "work", not "comply with spec", because MS doesn't always work to their own specs, sometimes due to the spec being imprecise, at error (i.e. can't be implemented) or just a buggy implemention on their end. Yes, I've seen them all. I'd don't blame MS for making mistakes like this occasionally, everyone is human, they just seem to make a lot of them.

These problems happen. I worked specifying the 3G mobile phone air interface, which is an open standard, worked on by many vendors. So, I've seen my fair share of spec problems fall through the cracks and need work arounds after release. In my opinion, MS just do a LOT of them.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Belard on 9/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: It would be appropriate
By Reclaimer77 on 9/12/2010 2:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And in many ways, Windows7 isn't either.


I was a XP holdover who skipped Vista, but even I can't agree with this statement. On the same hardware, Windows7 is a total and significant upgrade from XP. No doubt about it. And I'm not talking about DX11, it's a lot more obvious than that in day to day use.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Belard on 9/12/2010 1:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about ability and business. For small business, schools and many people - there isn't any real advantage for Win7. Keep in mind that many were using DOS well into Windows98, some even into Win7 (ugh).

Yes, when using WinXP at a clients place is sometimes odd when I'm trying to do a Win7 GUI functions like throwing windows to the side, etc. But that doesn't keep me from getting work done. V/W7 are still based off of XP along with many of built-in defects NT in general, compatibility is important after-all.

But, other than DX10~11, what can Win7 do that XP cant? Networking, browsing, MS-Office, etc etc.. There isn't a single Win7 game out there... other than HALO2 and that was (A) artificial (B) a crappy game (C) there are hacks for that. Maybe 1-2 other MS games are also "DX10" only for sake of forcing people into vista (fail). It is completely in MS's ability to make HALO3 and REACH for PC - but MS wants people on Xbox with its LOW-res. So to a degree, DX10~12 are moot if high-end PC gaming dies (other than MMORPG and RTS games).

When you grow up on computers from the beginning such as Commodore 64 (8bit, 1Mhz - NO HD) and AppleIIs (same stats, but ugh) then to original 9" B&W MAC which were like "WOW!!" and Amigas at 8mhz. When going from 2 to 16 colors is a BIG jump, much less 256 and then thousands.

Windows 7 is a very good upgrade and change over the 10 year old WindowsXP.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Reclaimer77 on 9/12/2010 7:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For small business, schools and many people - there isn't any real advantage for Win7.


The added security over XP alone is "worth it." I don't think there's any debate that 7 is by far more secure down to the kernel level than XP ever was. The problem is, it costs LOTS of money to change OS's due to MS's licensing structure. So if schools or businesses seem reluctant to go to 7, that isn't a mark against the OS itself.

Having said that, I do believe I read that 7 is enjoying impressive business adoption rates compared to Vista.

quote:
But, other than DX10~11, what can Win7 do that XP cant? Networking, browsing, MS-Office, etc etc..


Well by this logic we could all still be using Windows 2000. It does all that stuff too! As far as the gaming stuff, high end PC gaming isn't going anywhere this decade in my opinion.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Wonga on 9/12/2010 9:13:59 AM , Rating: 3
"Out of box experince on a Vista PC, even with latest SPs... sucked."

Negative.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Belard on 9/12/2010 11:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
You are entitled to your opinion.

I pretty much know my way around Vista, since I have Windows7 on two of my own computers. I've set up a Toshiba notebook with Vista as good as it'll ever get (cleaned out crap, installed good tools - that I use on my own computers) - its technically FASTER & BETTER than my ThinkPad, even when I had 1GB RAM installed... it was still slower and still sucked right next to my ThinkPad... with XP and with Win7.

One of my friends, who does quite a bit beta-testing, tried to get me to use Vista... Sometime after SP1 was installed, even he got tired of Vista and went back to XP. He's been using Win7 only since RCs. I put an RC on my ThinkPad and loved it. Put XP back on for about a month or so... ;)


RE: It would be appropriate
By frobizzle on 9/13/2010 9:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also Windows 95 was no picnic either.

95 was world's better compared to its predecessor, Win 3.11! Yes, there were problems with 95 - among other issues, plug and play literally was plug and pray. And Microsoft recognized that. That's why there were 4 or 5 versions of 95


RE: It would be appropriate
By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 9:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
lol so true. But I didn't wanna go back TOO far in my examples.


RE: It would be appropriate
By dark matter on 9/12/2010 11:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another clueless one here boys.... Vista and Win7 are practically identical under the hood and mostly in interface as well.


Well the taskbar is nothing like Vista. Nor is the snap interface. The libraries in explorer are different. And then you have the fact that the GDI in Vista isn't hardware accelerated and every window needs to be buffered. Due to this Vista needs an AWFUL lot of RAM if you open a lot of windows as it has to buffer them all.

Windows 7 reverts this and all GDI interfaces are hardware accelerated. I cannot understand why ANYONE would prefer an un-accelerated 2D desktop environment over one that utilises the GPU.

quote:

After the Vista service pack there's very little difference, you turn down UAC and everything is just fine.


Millions would disagree with you, but given the advice above and the ridiculous pissing contest you come out with below I would be wasting my time offering any more justifications.

quote:

I'm a 15 yr developer who builds $3k systems every year or two and guess what, I PREFER Vista 64 over Win7.


WTF is this about? Did you mean to say you're a 15 year old "developer" who gets 3k off daddikins every year to build his latest and greatest and then has a $800 GPU sitting there not being used because Vista is unable to utilise the hardware properly to render your desktop.

quote:

I won't get into why


But yet you still do....

quote:

but it's usability. And don't forget in benchmarks both OS are almost idential in performance and in MANY tests Vista is the fastest.


Is this what you do with your time? Read tests on your 3k rig? What not learn a skill, like Maya, you know put that 3k rig to good use. Oh wait a minute, you can't put your GPU to good use. Still, you must have plenty of ram and plenty of CPU power to help you render those web pages.

quote:

Know the facts, don't just buy into media hype and jump on the banwagon, especially when spouting off on an enthusiast site.


Ha ha ha. You know what, you really had me fooled right up until this last point. You're taking the piss right. Well, it was really convincing I must say.

If you're not, well, words really do escape me. God help your employer is all I can say.


RE: It would be appropriate
By Belard on 9/12/2010 9:45:41 PM , Rating: 1
I've meet my share of "experienced" who don't know squat. Its rather odd that anyone would prefer vista over 7 and then claim to be experts.

When Vista was very new and limited XP, a friend's mother; about 80yrs old - needed a new PC right there and then. I didn't have time to build. So we picked up a Compaq with Vista. Yeah, not top-end with a P4-Class CPU, 1GB of RAM... but it was cheap and ALL she needs to do is (A) check her email and (B) play Solitaire since her hands are very bad. Her old Celeron 300mhz HP had died that day and a 2+Ghz CPU should be more than enough to handle the job.

I cleaned out the crap and useless junk and got that machine as fast as it'll ever get. For almost 2 months, at least once a week - she'd call me about THIS not working, lock-ups, not shutting down, not booting up, running slow... RUNNING SLOW for an 80 year old WOMAN?! Solitaire CRASHED constantly and while it looks great, MS's made the game require more hand-strokes/button presses to work so the game HURT her hands! I've donated another GB of RAM, a bit better.

Screw this!

She spent $100 for XP-HOME, I got on the phone with HP to find the hidden XP drivers over various FTP & HTTP locations.
I wanted the drivers ready to go, and I started unpacking the 40mb audio driver. Get this...

Vista spends about 2 minutes, calculating HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO UNPACK THE FRACKIN FILE! TWO MINUTES!! Then it starts unpacking and reports it'll take something like 8~10 minutes! WTF! I stop that, pulled the plug (screw shutting down vista and what little data she had was on my USB key), I completely wiped out the HD, installed XP.... get this, that SAME 40mb ZIP file unpacked in about 35 seconds! On my own desktop, that same file would take about 15~20 seconds (we're talking 3-4 years ago).

Yeah.. Vista rocks! 2mins+10min to unpack a ZIP file vs. 20seconds under XP... thats really advanced! Bull.

And of course she was complaining about the UAC... UAC bugs you about adjusting your video settings!! WTF?! etc etc, over and over again - non-stop. Yeah, I killed that too.. vista still ran like crap.

Anyways... since the day I replaced that vista crap with XP, I've never heard a peep about any computer issues. I talked to her today... she never talks about her computer or at least any issues.

Yeah, the people who lived through vista and have 8~12GB of RAM have nothing to complain about I guess. I was afraid Win7 was going to be just as crappy (memory wise) as vista, so I built even bottom-end PCs with 4GB and Windows7 MCE/PRO... memory was cheap back then too, $50~60 for 4GB (thanks to vista).

Since Windows7 came out, I've yet to upgrade my Quad core system from its original 2GB. I have other things to spend $50 on. A date and movie, gas, etc. Only 1 game, Supreme Commander - kills my memory with medium to large maps. oh well.

I've installed Win7-RC on very old computers... like 1.6Ghz AMD-32 with 512mb of RAM...and they ran better than vista systems with 3GB.

I've been encoding while typing this. 1GB free.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles
Windows Phone 7 Hits RTM
September 1, 2010, 10:53 PM













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