Is Microsoft Rushing Windows 7?

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
From our front-page news:
That's the important question being asked, and after taking a look at all the facts, it's a hard one to answer. With Windows Vista, Microsoft wasn't too shy about getting information out long before its release. It was also the first version of Windows that had a rather intensive beta-testing period, although as we found out, that didn't seem to help out too much with the final launch of the product (or it did, and Vista's launch could have been even worse... but I'd rather not picture that).

Windows XP came out in 2001, though, and then Vista followed in 2007. That's a span of six years... so how on earth is Microsoft going to manage pumping out another OS after just ~2.5 years and avoid a major snag? Well, as Ars Technica explores, this release of Windows is unlike any other before it. Microsoft has done well to learn from their lessons with the Vista launch, and as a result, surveys, tools, error reports, et cetera, have all been vastly improved to prevent the Vista debacle from reoccurring with 7.

Personally, I think Microsoft has done a great job with their renewed development practises. After all, although I haven't tested Windows 7 to any degree yet, the general consensus is that it's good... and that for an OS five or six months before its projected launch date. Microsoft clearly has many more bugs to tackle before a final launch, but given how stable it is right now (Kougar from our forums is even running it as his main OS!), we can probably have much, much higher hopes for 7's launch.

windows_7_desktop_applications_020509.jpg

It's not Windows that people don't like; it's merely Vista. Many of the Vista haters are quite happy with Windows, just as long as it's Windows XP (a situation that, in many ways, mirrors the first few years of Windows XP's life, where many expressed a preference for Windows 98SE or Windows 2000, and vowed to switch to XP only when they had no choice).


Source: Ars Technica
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Hehe, thanks for the mention! I'm very curious what they'll do with the taskbar in the RC build, but its nothing a little tweaking can't fix! Otherwise I'm still quite happy with it. I'm just hoping they get the RTM build finalized before my TechNet subscription expires... ;)

Something a bit more interesting to note. Don't forget that Windows 2000 launched at the start of 2000... Windows XP launched October 2001, not even two years later. :)
 

spenstar

Obliviot
Honestly I don't know much yet. The GUI of this PDC version is almost identical to Vista but when you start poking around you do see some changes in the various menus - so far it seems snappier and less in your face than Vista

It boots very fast but then again I have no anti-virus running as there appeasr to be none for 7 yet. ;)
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Almost every manufacturer offers Windows 7 compatible AV and antispyware programs. Some are beta and some aren't... just find your favorite AV program and dig a little. :)
 

Merlin

The Tech Wizard
I went into mscofig, boot.ini and took out Win7.
It looks/feels too much like Vista
When you upgrade from WinXP to Vista, you can see the differences. They even say it was built on the Vista platform. Just a few little visual changes and call it another OS?
I feel hoodwinked
 

moon111

Coastermaker
I always thought Microsoft's development practice was to set a goal of what they wanted to do, then release a bastard half way there to make some profit. You had ME between 98 and XP. Now you have Vista between XP and 7.
 

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
Comparing Vista to ME on any level is stupid. ME was complete garbage that was based on 98 and was nearly unusable. Vista is leaps ahead of XP and has nothign to do with XP. Windows 7 SHOULD be a major service pack for Vista but M$ is greedy and figures they can sucker people into buying it over Vista since they are no longer using the stained Vista name. To see all these drones lining up to love 7 when all it is is a polished up Vista makes me laugh so loudly.
 

moon111

Coastermaker
Comparing Vista to ME on any level is stupid. ME was complete garbage that was based on 98 and was nearly unusable. Vista is leaps ahead of XP and has nothign to do with XP. Windows 7 SHOULD be a major service pack for Vista but M$ is greedy and figures they can sucker people into buying it over Vista since they are no longer using the stained Vista name. To see all these drones lining up to love 7 when all it is is a polished up Vista makes me laugh so loudly.
Comparing Vista to ME on any level is stupid. ME was complete garbage that was based on 98 and was nearly unusable. Vista is leaps ahead of XP and has nothign to do with XP. Windows 7 SHOULD be a major service pack for Vista but M$ is greedy and figures they can sucker people into buying it over Vista since they are no longer using the stained Vista name. To see all these drones lining up to love 7 when all it is is a polished up Vista makes me laugh so loudly.

Microsoft is doing a really poor marketing job with Vista if it's leaps ahead of XP. ME from a marketing prospective looked better. (Technically, I think ME's biggest weakness was it wasn't very good with ID-10-T errors, because I knew quite a few knowledgable ME users who didn't have any problem with it.) The only facts I see with Vistas's performance is that it's on par or worst then XP. Sorry, but most folks buy an operating system to run their hardware, not the other way around. The only people I know who ended up with ME or Vista did so because they needed to get their geek on with the latest OS, or had no real choice when they bought their new computer. Consumers didn't need ME, Microsoft needed ME. The same with Vista. Consumers would of been perfectly happy going from 98 to XP to Windows 7. Nothing wrong with Vista, but it was offered when people didn't need it. The Ford Edsel wasn't that bad of a car, but the economy dumped when it was launched. Can you imagine a car-maker right now releasing a new premier vehicle? Wouldn't go over well. It may be 'stupid', but people would look for faults in these products. In there, you have the ME, Vista, and now the Edsel comparison.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
To see all these drones lining up to love 7 when all it is is a polished up Vista makes me laugh so loudly.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and chime in since that comment is offensive. Considering that you think Vista is a good OS, I guess I can't take that too seriously. Has it been that long since you used XP b1k1? Have you ever even used Vista on a laptop before, then compared it to a laptop using XP? Then Windows 7?

Vista isn't ME, but it sure is the closest OS in terms of gaffes and stability. And ME was faster in general responsiveness (when it worked), just as XP was. With Vista it took half a year before graphics drivers were no longer in beta, and still longer before they ceased causing stability problems. Took nearly a year before Intel devised a complete solution to the broken RAID driver situation as well, because MS couldn't be bothered to fix that minor change in HDD power schemes they made between RC2 and RTM builds.

A coat of polish doesn't give faster GUI responsiveness, better file transfer handling (especially over the network), and a smaller install footprint. Or a smaller memory footprint. Or fix something that is broken.

In Vista parts of the OS just randomly decide to not work and I have to reboot to clear it. Now if that doesn't remind you of Windows 98se (and also Windows ME), then nothing will. Of course that ignores the situations where Vista was unable to finish shutting itself down properly forcing me to power off the machine, but again that was status quo for Windows 98se and ME too. I never used Win2000, but I used XP for far longer than Vista and in most situations never had to endure those same 98SE-esque issues.
 
Last edited:

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
Sorry to everyone that thinks THEY are right as well. XP was a steamy pile of garbage for years. It was the end of Microsoft according to almost everyone for the first 2 years. Then they finally fixed it by SP2. Took them YEARS to make XP workable.

I call people salivating over Windows 7 SUCKERS because they are going to basically pay for Vista's SP2 ( that Vista will obviously never get). Ever since I leftr XP I did not even want to or need to look back. Vista does everything I need and then some.

As for your "coat of polish" comment, then tell me this. Exactly what OS is 7 based on? I thought so.

You guys can take my comments personally, that is your choice. What truly pisses me off is that with a major service pack, Vista could be turned into 7. Easily. For free since most of us already paid for the Vista kernal. So buy into Microsofts greed to re-release yet another OS that is merely a polish of the previous release. If that makes anyone happy that is good.

PS: As for Vista and drivers, that was Nvidia's stupidness for not even trying to make any worthwhile drivers and for then releasing the crap they did. Same for Creative. Just how is this Microsoft's fault? Last I heard, Microsoft doesn't write drivers for hardware......
 

On_Wisconsin

Coastermaker
Then they finally fixed it by SP2. Took them YEARS to make XP workable.

It didn't help that no one had a powerful enough computer/had enough RAM until 2003ish too...

SP2, boy, I recall people moaning and groaning like they would when Vista came out..
 

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
That's my point really. XP was around long enough for hardware to catch up while Vista never had a chance really. I am not defending Vista as much as it sounds like. What I am trying to state is this one fact. If XP had been replaced within the first 2 years it would easily have been a bigger flop than ME ever was or Vista ever will be. Lucky for M$ back then was the fact that the internet was still relatively new for alot of people so you didn't get 1/4 of the bitch blogs like you have with Vista. I guarantee that 99% of the people that hate Vista that ran XP when it first came out said the same EXACT things about XP that they say about Vista now. Guaranteed.

Vista has progressed infintiely further with SP1 than XP ever did and Vista's drivers/compatibility are far better than XP's was in the same time frame.
 

Relayer

E.M.I.
Vista is a case of a company making a product that nobody wanted and then trying to market it. That's where 7 comes in. If they just made it Vista SP2 everyone still wouldn't want it, because it's still Vista. Make it a new product, because everyone wants something else besides Vista, and you can even charge for it. A true win win situation, if they can pull it off.

What everyone wants is an OS that doesn't need a firewall or AV and that all of our hardware and software runs at full potential on. Why is that asking too much?
 

b1lk1

Tech Monkey
You will never see an OS that can run safely without a firewall and AV because of human nature and the need for a certain amount of people to make life miserable for anyone they can. I call this an impossible task.

I also said that Microsoft is doing exactly what you said. They know the Vista name is perverted by the whining masses so they just came up with a snappy new name and instituted SP2 into a "new" OS. That is the part that makes me sick to my stomach. The same people who bitterly complain about Vista are the ones giving Microsoft a high-five for coming out with Windows 7.

The Internet has given way to the complaining masses and it allows those people that love to see/hear themselves complain a platform to do it. Just like the Seagate issue. Sure it is annoying, but it is blown completely out of proportion as well.

Windows 7 is nothing new yet it is being heralded as the Anti-Vista. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is still Vista just with a new name so people can feel better about themselves that they don't support Vista.

PS: I agree DS. I hate all New York sports teams as well since I am from Massachusetts and we are required by local laws to do so, lol.
 

madstork91

The One, The Only...
As much as I have earnestly fought the transition to Vista, I am actually looking forward to the 7 release...

"It is the first build of windows that has actually gotten faster between version" - something I read some place that I cant remember.

Really... The thing is actually built for what will be rather than what is for a change. Which also kicks ace.

As far as the complaints that it is built upon the same plat or w/e... Remember that vista is the bastard child of longhorn. 7 may very well be that legitimate child that we have all be waiting for.
 

moon111

Coastermaker
I was working for one of the largest OEM's when XP rolled out. My training consisted of getting a copy before it was officially released. That install was even ported over to a new 80gb drive, but I finally decided to start with a clean slate when I picked up a 500gb drive. The 80gb drive was insanely full of forgotten programs, etc... but XP still ran without a hitch. And I experimented with all kinds of hardware and software changes. I'm a huge fan of XP. Although, maybe I'll forget about MS altogether. That old 80gb drive drive is going in the kid's computer and I'm going to try installing Linux for the first time. Maybe it'll be the start of something even better. ;)
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
As for your "coat of polish" comment, then tell me this. Exactly what OS is 7 based on? I thought so.

It is based directly off of Windows Server 2008, which from what I've heard was a significantly cleaned up and actually performance tuned source of Vista. :p

You guys can take my comments personally, that is your choice. What truly pisses me off is that with a major service pack, Vista could be turned into 7. Easily. For free since most of us already paid for the Vista kernal. So buy into Microsofts greed to re-release yet another OS that is merely a polish of the previous release. If that makes anyone happy that is good.

Yeah. That is probably why W7 is a client-side port of what will become Windows Server 2008 "R2". They are just going to call it Windows 2008 Server R2. And I can agree, it should be a service pack. However, remember even Microsoft did not want XP SP2 to be a service pack, they wanted it to originally be part of a new OS to replace XP. But due to delays and supposedly other issues, some guy I don't remember the name of made the call to roll it all into SP2 and go with it.

As you said yourself XP was rife with its own bugs and inconsistencies pre-SP2. And I think you would agree XP SP2 was a significant improvement and went a long ways to making XP a very stable, functional OS. But as XP's SP2 was supposed to be rolled out in the next OS... its the same situation as Vista. W7 would have been a fully fixed and stable "Vista SP2" but this time around they did it as they originally planned and made it its own "new" OS. So following that logic, Vista is the same as XP pre-SP2 with all the bugs and inconsistencies still left to run rampant, and therefor Vista will never get the Windows 7 service pack that would've fixed it and made it a good OS. :D

PS: As for Vista and drivers, that was Nvidia's stupidness for not even trying to make any worthwhile drivers and for then releasing the crap they did. Same for Creative. Just how is this Microsoft's fault? Last I heard, Microsoft doesn't write drivers for hardware......

That's why I specificaly named Intel's RAID drivers. That was MS's fault for making last minute changes between RC2 and RTM builds, then not admitting/fixing the problem when the gaffe went public and most people with an Intel RAID array started getting some serious problems. The fact that Intel corrected the problem using their own drivers once they devised a means to do so, instead of Microsoft reverting to how the disk drivers worked in Vista RC2 is telling enough. Who really knows, maybe there was some truth to NVIDIA's and Creative's claims it was MS's fault for breaking various things that were supposed to still be working, or maybe they were just triyng to off-shoulder the blame.

You're right. I probably am taking this too seriously. As I said above I fully agree, W7 should've and could have been in Vista's upcoming SP2. Frankl,y it is also why I don't buy Microsoft's OS's anymore. I just subscribe to TechNet for less, and when they roll out Windows 7 I can upgrade directly from Vista without any additional cost, and for less than what I would have paid for one copy of Vista Home Premium. I'm happy, they're happy, and every time the stupid OS needs to reauthenticate itself because of a minor BIOS or hardware change I don't need to worry about exceeding the 10 installs per license key limit. (Which W7 hasn't yet done, but I've had one particular clean Vista install do when less than a week old)l

Vista is a case of a company making a product that nobody wanted and then trying to market it. That's where 7 comes in. If they just made it Vista SP2 everyone still wouldn't want it, because it's still Vista. Make it a new product, because everyone wants something else besides Vista, and you can even charge for it.

That is very true. Almost every recent Microsoft employee blog I read the author seems to say exactly that when the topic is related to Vista. It probably wasn't the main factor in their decision to do so though, is my opinion. As b1lk1 pretty much said, it was probably all done for financial and marketshare reasons.
 
Last edited:
Top