Cool - I wonder if I have even then Vista installed to my home PC :)
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6197943.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6197943.html
Windows 7 in three years
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Windows 7 in three years The mac gets a new version every most years, that you have to pay for. At least M$ havent done that. Couldn't care less personaly.
If its worth getting I'll get it, if not I'll stick with what I've got. Just like everything else.
People don't complain when a new year model of their car has more features even if it does mostly the same thing. So whats the problem?
If its worth getting I'll get it, if not I'll stick with what I've got. Just like everything else.
People don't complain when a new year model of their car has more features even if it does mostly the same thing. So whats the problem?
So whats the problem?
Another unnecessary OS to test a product on and tweak until it works.........as if Vista wasn't a bad sign already.
I never recalled the Mac OSX versions changing everything around requiring you to do stupid crap to get it working properly.
So whats the problem?
Its Microsoft. </sarcasm>Always makes me laugh how the anti-Microsoft brigade latch onto anything Microsoft ever do. Fortunately for us, nobody here works for Microsoft. If they did, This 'Windows 7' would spam the forums for six months, disappear for a year, then would come an announcement that the source code had been lost in a hard drive crash/flood/fire/alien invasion/dog ate it, followed by an announcement of a new version of DOS.
</more sarcasm>
Evak, you say it like Microsoft would give away new versions of Windows for free... I hope you remember that all of those desktop Windows versions did cost money and that they were released within seven years only:
Windows 95
Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Windows 95 OSR2 (only available with new PCs)
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
I think the fastest major update ever was from Win 2000 to XP. But after the release of XP it almost seemed as if they had stopped working on new versions of their desktop OS, except for two service packs for XP and a never-ending flood of monthly security fixes .
For me, this is not a sign of how mature Windows has become, it is a sign for Microsoft having become too big. They're now just another IBM. Too big to disappear, but also too big to actually produce innovation. Guess where all that Linux and OS X hype comes from: Microsoft became incredibly boring and insignificant (in terms of creativity and innovation).
Since Microsoft has decided to sell "modular" operating systems in the future, meaning that you will buy a base OS and then pay extra for the additional features that you need, they --might-- be able to stick to the three year schedule. But I doubt it. We might see the base OS, but the remaining features will drip in slowly in the years to come.
But like it happened to IBM in the 80s with the rise of the personal computer, Microsoft's reign on the home PC will now slowly but surely be coming to an end. New devices and systems will take over the consumer market that do not have Microsoft software on them.
In the business area, however, the process will be slower. As unlikely as it is that IBM mainframes will ever disappear, MS servers and business desktops will survive - somehow.
But I would not bet my long term perspectives on Microsoft anymore.
Windows 95
Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Windows 95 OSR2 (only available with new PCs)
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
I think the fastest major update ever was from Win 2000 to XP. But after the release of XP it almost seemed as if they had stopped working on new versions of their desktop OS, except for two service packs for XP and a never-ending flood of monthly security fixes .
For me, this is not a sign of how mature Windows has become, it is a sign for Microsoft having become too big. They're now just another IBM. Too big to disappear, but also too big to actually produce innovation. Guess where all that Linux and OS X hype comes from: Microsoft became incredibly boring and insignificant (in terms of creativity and innovation).
Since Microsoft has decided to sell "modular" operating systems in the future, meaning that you will buy a base OS and then pay extra for the additional features that you need, they --might-- be able to stick to the three year schedule. But I doubt it. We might see the base OS, but the remaining features will drip in slowly in the years to come.
But like it happened to IBM in the 80s with the rise of the personal computer, Microsoft's reign on the home PC will now slowly but surely be coming to an end. New devices and systems will take over the consumer market that do not have Microsoft software on them.
In the business area, however, the process will be slower. As unlikely as it is that IBM mainframes will ever disappear, MS servers and business desktops will survive - somehow.
But I would not bet my long term perspectives on Microsoft anymore.
Evak, you say it like Microsoft would give away new versions of Windows for free... I hope you remember that all of those desktop Windows versions did cost money and that they were released within seven years only:
Windows 95
Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Windows 95 OSR2 (only available with new PCs)
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
You forgot WinME.Windows 95
Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Windows 95 OSR2 (only available with new PCs)
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
Anyhow, this is slightly misleading. You're implying that Windows users have been forced to upgrade seven times in six years, when in reality this was not the case.
For example, very few people would use XP Home, then upgrade to XP Pro. A lot of Windows 95 users never bothered with Win98, while Win98 users wouldn't have paid again for Win98SE.
Personally I used Windows 95 for a long time. I upgraded to WinME because networking simply wouldn't work on Win95, then upgraded to XP Home. I have Vista on my dev PC now because I need to test my games on it.
Its called progress. You either stay with the game, or you don't. Nobody forces you.
Also, there's two product lines in that list. Those for the home user and those for business. Windows 95/98/ME/XP for the home user, and NT/2000/XP for the business user. OK, so XP is in there twice, but that's because this is the point that MS decided to merge the two product lines into one. Before XP came along you'd be lucky to get most games working on an NT based OS.
Gfk, do you know any Mac users that have been forced to update to new versions of OS X? There are still plenty of Mac users out there on Panther and older systems.
I was only making a point against Evak's statement: "The mac gets a new version every most years, that you have to pay for. At least M$ havent done that."
As for the two product lines: Right. That's the reason why most software developers back in that time had a dual boot system with both an NT-based OS and one of the 95-family, not counting all the necessary test environments.
Still, until XP the end user experienced almost the same product release cycle as the OS X users: Win 95 -> 98 -> 98 SE -> ME -> XP Home. The only stable and reliable OS in that line being XP Home.
As for the compatibilty: Never had big problems with my NT 4, Half-Life, (Win) Doom, (Win) Quake and Quake II ran perfectly well on it. Didn't care much for other stuff in those years. And in worst case, I still had 98. :)
I was only making a point against Evak's statement: "The mac gets a new version every most years, that you have to pay for. At least M$ havent done that."
As for the two product lines: Right. That's the reason why most software developers back in that time had a dual boot system with both an NT-based OS and one of the 95-family, not counting all the necessary test environments.
Still, until XP the end user experienced almost the same product release cycle as the OS X users: Win 95 -> 98 -> 98 SE -> ME -> XP Home. The only stable and reliable OS in that line being XP Home.
As for the compatibilty: Never had big problems with my NT 4, Half-Life, (Win) Doom, (Win) Quake and Quake II ran perfectly well on it. Didn't care much for other stuff in those years. And in worst case, I still had 98. :)
Gfk, do you know any Mac users that have been forced to update to new versions of OS X?
I don't know any Mac users, period.I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your above post.
lol....i told everyone this was gonna happen.
Yeah. Vista (aka. Windows Longhorn) was (originally) supposed to be released in 2004. The mac gets a new version every most years, that you have to pay for.
I've always thought it hilarious that Windows users - perpetually stuck on archaic hardware and operating systems - think it's a good thing a new version of their OS only comes out around every 5 years on average. If your anti-virus software was updated that infrequently, you'd be screaming bloody murder, but for some reason it's okay for your OS, which is the most important piece of software you have, to be hopelessly out of date. Priceless. People don't complain when a new year model of their car has more features even if it does mostly the same thing. So whats the problem?
For starters that it takes them 7 years, and they don't deliver on a single one of the things they promised. On the other hand both OSX and Linux get all the cool toys. Windows feels like the OS they used in Soviet Russia by comparison. I mean sure, Vista might LOOK like an Aston Martin, but it's like driving a Ford T. They're now just another IBM.
Except IBM lost their anti-trust lawsuit, and broken up by the US government, ironically giving Microsoft the break they needed to corner the market. I've always thought it hilarious that Windows users - perpetually stuck on archaic hardware and operating systems - think it's a good thing a new version of their OS only comes out around every 5 years on average. If your anti-virus software was updated that infrequently, you'd be screaming bloody murder, but for some reason it's okay for your OS, which is the most important piece of software you have, to be hopelessly out of date. Priceless.
Maybe because people don't want to backup, partition, and re-install a new operating system every day or so?
Windows 95
Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Windows 95 OSR2 (only available with new PCs)
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Windows 95 OSR2 (only available with new PCs)
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional
My understanding of the versionning:
1985 version 1 is Windows 1.0 (16 bit version)
1987 version 2 is Windows 2.0 / 2.1
1990 version 3 is Windows 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.11 WFW
1994 version 3.5 is Windows NT 3.5
1995 version 4 is Windows NT 4
1995 verison 4 is 95 / 98 / 98SE / ME (32 bit version, non NT)
2000 version 5 is Windows 2000 / XP 2002 (NT core)
2006 version 6 is Windows Vista
verison 7 ............ (!!!)
AFAIK NT was developed seperately. Then after ME they recycled the NT kernel and sold it as win2000, then as XP.
The Problem of Microsoft is they are signing insane deadlines. For example they promise to release a new Office version for a hardware manufactors new product line (eg. IBM PCs). Of course, Office isn't finished in time, so they ask "at the current state, will it explode the users hardware if you run it? No? then release it".
The security issues that's an other problem. It's a business. Vulnerabilities give power to those who know them. So for them windows has much greater value if it's unsecure.
It's todays bug of the average John Doe 2. We have bugged ourselfs.
The Problem of Microsoft is they are signing insane deadlines. For example they promise to release a new Office version for a hardware manufactors new product line (eg. IBM PCs). Of course, Office isn't finished in time, so they ask "at the current state, will it explode the users hardware if you run it? No? then release it".
The security issues that's an other problem. It's a business. Vulnerabilities give power to those who know them. So for them windows has much greater value if it's unsecure.
It's todays bug of the average John Doe 2. We have bugged ourselfs.
Well, then again, you got most Linux distros releasing new versions every year and a half, especially Ubuntu, unless you have the LTS versions of that, then it's more like 3 or 4 years.
As far as Windows, tho, I think that Service Packs are free, because they are treated as updates. However, new versions of Windows outside of that, like going from Win XP to Windows Vista, that's anywhere between $100 - $260 to do that, depending on how high-end of a version of Vista you want. Like me, going all the way to the cream of the crop. However, as with most OSes when they first come out, I usually like to dual-boot for the backwards compatibility from the older OS in XP. Much like when I dual-booted XP with 98 way back in 2001.
As far as Windows, tho, I think that Service Packs are free, because they are treated as updates. However, new versions of Windows outside of that, like going from Win XP to Windows Vista, that's anywhere between $100 - $260 to do that, depending on how high-end of a version of Vista you want. Like me, going all the way to the cream of the crop. However, as with most OSes when they first come out, I usually like to dual-boot for the backwards compatibility from the older OS in XP. Much like when I dual-booted XP with 98 way back in 2001.
I remember buying Red Hat Linux 5.... And then, was it 5.5 that got released few months later, and then 6 and then 7, in a manner of 2 years or something years.
In fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux
In fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux
OSX updates come every 2-2.5 years, not every year. During that time you get free updates like service packs (but they install much easier). For the actual version we're at number 10 (i wonder if we'll see a 11). After a new major version has been introduces you get fixes for the old os versions.
Secondly updates for OSX are way cheaper and easier than updates for Microsofts OS. If i remember right we'll have to pay $130 for the next one and there is no version hassle like with Vista, both the 32bit and 64bit version are included. Simple, reasonable, affordable, they way it should be. Due to this also most of the people use either the current or the predecessor of OSX, which is nice to know if you want to rely on certain features.
I welcome that Microsoft plans to introduce their next OS earlier this time and decrease the life cycle if they also decrease the price tag. A lot of the stuff i was hoping for in Vista was thrown out again and this way i hope to see it earlier.
Secondly updates for OSX are way cheaper and easier than updates for Microsofts OS. If i remember right we'll have to pay $130 for the next one and there is no version hassle like with Vista, both the 32bit and 64bit version are included. Simple, reasonable, affordable, they way it should be. Due to this also most of the people use either the current or the predecessor of OSX, which is nice to know if you want to rely on certain features.
I welcome that Microsoft plans to introduce their next OS earlier this time and decrease the life cycle if they also decrease the price tag. A lot of the stuff i was hoping for in Vista was thrown out again and this way i hope to see it earlier.
The thing about ubuntu tho is its free, all versions of windows I have come across (apart from NT4) you have to pay for
_33:
1995 -> Windows 95
1996 -> Windows NT 4
Early 1998 -> Windows 98
Late 1998 -> Windows 98 SE
2000 -> Windows ME
The Windows 9x family are also not true 32 Bit operating systems. They translate 32 Bit API calls to a 16 Bit OS-Core.
Gfk: The point is that Windows users also have to pay for very frequent updates, not only the Mac folks as somebody implicitly suggested. We can hardly say that we "know" each other, but there are plenty of Mac users right here in this forum.
Fuller:
When you use an operating system like OS X or Linux, you get used to OS updates that WORK. There simply is no need to backup, re-partition or format. I insert my OS X DVD, double click the update icon and a couple of minutes later I have an updated OS. It does not take hours like an XP->Vista update, and it certainly does not destroy any data or requires me to re-install any applications afterwards. In Linux, you update online through the update application, you don't have to download and use a CD.
FlameDuck:
Yes, you're absolutely right. The even stranger thing is that they still do not pursue any plans to cut Microsoft into smaller pieces.
1995 -> Windows 95
1996 -> Windows NT 4
Early 1998 -> Windows 98
Late 1998 -> Windows 98 SE
2000 -> Windows ME
The Windows 9x family are also not true 32 Bit operating systems. They translate 32 Bit API calls to a 16 Bit OS-Core.
Gfk: The point is that Windows users also have to pay for very frequent updates, not only the Mac folks as somebody implicitly suggested. We can hardly say that we "know" each other, but there are plenty of Mac users right here in this forum.
Fuller:
When you use an operating system like OS X or Linux, you get used to OS updates that WORK. There simply is no need to backup, re-partition or format. I insert my OS X DVD, double click the update icon and a couple of minutes later I have an updated OS. It does not take hours like an XP->Vista update, and it certainly does not destroy any data or requires me to re-install any applications afterwards. In Linux, you update online through the update application, you don't have to download and use a CD.
FlameDuck:
Yes, you're absolutely right. The even stranger thing is that they still do not pursue any plans to cut Microsoft into smaller pieces.
Hey, after 3 years vista will probably work *properly* (just like the XP story) then we will have the next generation of already-out-of-date, late, problem-riddled windows to all argue over :P
Thats assuming MS are still in buisiness and haven't been oblitterated by web 2.0/'webOS', thin clients, MAC & LINUX...
(Im sure the vista profits will inevitably keep them in the black for a while yet though, but unless they pull their finger out the day of reckoning will come :)
Thats assuming MS are still in buisiness and haven't been oblitterated by web 2.0/'webOS', thin clients, MAC & LINUX...
(Im sure the vista profits will inevitably keep them in the black for a while yet though, but unless they pull their finger out the day of reckoning will come :)
Gfk: The point is that Windows users also have to pay for very frequent updates
Why? Does Bill send the lads round if you refuse to upgrade?Who, exactly, is forcing you to do it?
*SIGH* This must be what is called selective perception or deliberate misunderstanding.
NOBODY forces ANYBODY to upgrade. NEITHER in the Mac NOR in the Windows world. BUT in BOTH worlds the upgrades USED to appear with almost an identical frequency. Some other statements in this thread were simply not correct.
I don't know if I can make it any clearer or simpler than this. And now I am leaving this thread.
NOBODY forces ANYBODY to upgrade. NEITHER in the Mac NOR in the Windows world. BUT in BOTH worlds the upgrades USED to appear with almost an identical frequency. Some other statements in this thread were simply not correct.
I don't know if I can make it any clearer or simpler than this. And now I am leaving this thread.
As far as I can see from that article, Microsoft is scheduling a 3 year development time frame, with no 'offical' release date.
So its all hear'say!
I can see myself using Vista for quite some time, probably 5 years... And after that, I would be happy to upgrade to the next release.
So lets get on with life, use and test on whats available now and check back on this topic in 2010! ;)
Dabz
So its all hear'say!
I can see myself using Vista for quite some time, probably 5 years... And after that, I would be happy to upgrade to the next release.
So lets get on with life, use and test on whats available now and check back on this topic in 2010! ;)
Dabz
So lets get on with life, use and test on whats available now and check back on this topic in 2010! ;)
Amen