Skip to comments.Windows 7—what's the rush?
Posted on 02/03/2009 7:10:52 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
Steven Sinofsky this week reaffirmed that Windows 7 would only have a single public beta releasebuild 7000, still available for download for a few more days. The current expectation is that there will be a single Release Candidate in April, with RTM around July, and Windows 7 hitting stores a few months later.
This plan marks a significant departure from Microsoft's historic Windows release strategy. Previous editions have had at least two betas and two Release Candidates; even Windows XP, a minor update to Windows 2000, received this treatment. Windows Vista went even further during its extended development period. In addition to formal betas and Release Candidates, a number of "Community Technical Preview" (CTP) releases were made available, to allow third-party developers to track the progress more closely.
How is this even possible?
This condensed release schedule is a result of a new development methodology. Underlying this is Microsoft's new commitment to what the company calls "quality." "Quality" is kind of a vague termafter all, it's not as if the company wants to ship something low-quality, even if it might not always seem that way. In this case, it means six things: device compatibility, application compatibility, performance, reliability, battery life, and security. These are not the only areas of concern for the new OSthings like the user experience and documentation quality are still important, but these six are viewed as fundamental. Windows 7 is intended to raise the bar in each of these areas and, to achieve that, Microsoft has used a new development process for this release.
(Excerpt) Read more at arstechnica.com ...
Vista works fine, at least for me.
Lets go back to Windows 98 SE.
Lets get back to BASIC(s). =)
It’s about working out the bugs in the software. If they release it worldwide on one day, they will get hit with a gazillion complaints and make them look bad. By slow releasing it, they can get the kinks worked out before it goes out to everyone.
How do you like the “view”
XP fine for me ... no Visduh ... no Visduh II
A big 10-4 on Vista, the most trouble free operating system I’ve ever used. Not one single problem, zero, zilch, nada, the best ever.
Windows 7 is running better in my VM than XP with the same resources allocated.
I agree with you two guys. I’ve been through all the Windows versions. Everything from playing video games, to downloading porn, watching FOX News, to using Photoshop and Dreamweaver at the same time— Vista has been the absolute best.
I've heard horror stories about Vista and then again I heard Vista was excellent for gaming and such.
You are very lucky or Vista is your first operating system.
Works great for me as well. But then again I don’t follow the drive-by tech media, so I’ve haven’t received the memo that it supposedly sucks!
Still on XP here. Gonna skip over Vista and go straight to Windows 7.
You guessed it -- "Starter Edition". What a crock. "Cheap but useless."
By comparison, the one-and-only SKU, full-featured version of OS-X sells for $129, or $199 in 5-user family-packs. Even at $129, full-feature OS-X is less expensive than Win7 Home Basic.
Pretty much identical to the Vista versions.
It’s true I mean I’m sure a lot of us download porn and Vista allows me to do my work or watch Fox News while it downloads in the background. And I don’t get any viruses either, at least on the computer, so Vista’s ok with me.
> ...Even at $129, full-feature OS-X is less expensive than Win7 Home Basic.
Assuming Win7 is priced about like Vista was.
.... or you know what your doing :)
"Windows 7? This isn't Windows 7. This is Windows Vista, with 'Vista' crossed out, and '7' written in crayon!?!?!"
Vista is a-okay with me. I run it at home and work. Very stable. Nice features. It just works.
> To paraphrase a Jobs joke,...
Yes, I'll have "Ultimate OS-X", please...
Same here, but it is quite bloated compared to XP.
I'll ignore the bootleg aspect. Believe it or not, I say get Vista.
If you get Vista Whatever with the system you will pay less than half the price of buying retail. Then when 7 comes out you will probably pay 1/3 for an upgrade, less if Microsoft has some promotion to win back customers it lost with Vista. Basically, you'll probably end up paying a bit less for Vista and the 7 upgrade than you would buying 7 at full retail.
This doesn't apply if you get your hands on a legit Windows 7 OEM copy in the first place. Local computer stores are often nice enough to sell them.
lol... the OSX comparision...
I can buy a 299.99 laptop (from multiple hardware vendors mind you) with windows.... by the time windows7 is ready, same laptop will be 249.99...
find me a Mac notebook that is 299.99 and I’ll by another copy of OSX just for back up...
fwiw.. I have OSX 10.5 running on a 4 year old dell d600... works pretty well, nice OS... seems rediculous to pay such a premium for the hardware... what’s Apple scared of, supporting more than 2 chipset configs?
They’re still selling a lot of XP O/Ss.
Of course you were actually using some version of DOS too if you were using Windows 3.x.
Yeah, but everyone loves the first OS they ever have on their first new computer......
“Vista has been the absolute best.”
Bill would have like to know that before they shelled out the money for the Mojave commercials.
Not scared; it's just not their business model.
Apple sells SYSTEMS, not software. The hardware and software are designed by Apple to work together. The result is a great experience for most users.
Apple would lose bigtime if they tried to sell OS-X for J-Random hardware-du-jour machines. Their business model is based on being a smaller player, for folks who want their particular feature mix.
Vista works ok, it’s just pathetically slow.
Don’t listen to them... they are paid by the Vista team. XP is still the best. That is why MS had to rush with 7.
7 will perform like XP in many ways, but have visual capabilities like Vista.
“to downloading porn “
That is why it worked so well for him. He was busy to notice it’s short comings....
They're certainly not selling a lot of Vista O/Ss:
Win XP 64% Win Vista 22% Mac OS X 9% ...Reference: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10
Yeah but that is the license for one year and only after you send Steve pictures of you wife with an iPod in the bath tub.
OSX is just flavor of linux...
Business Model or not, OSX runs fine on the SAME intel hardware they charge 1.5X for.
I look at this site daily. I laugh at all the computers that have the selling point “Windows XP Downgrade”.
People are looking for computers with XP because Vista is a pain in the butt.
Actually the license is good forever (though support will eventually drop).
The part about the iPod and the bathtub is news to me, but it wouldn't surprise me either... ;-)
Are you high or joking? That statement is so ill-informed as to be grounds for PWI (Posting While Intoxicated).
> Business Model or not, OSX runs fine on the SAME intel hardware they charge 1.5X for.
No argument there. Personally I find Apple's hardware electromechanically robust and pleasing to my tastes. Since your mileage clearly varies, that's cool with me.
Okay I made that up, but she would need to send a bathtub picture with an iPhone.
The most stable early Dos was Dos 2.0s on my Atari 800 back in 1980.
I’ll use it if Bill will pay me $100 a day for me to beta test it for him.
That's seriously kinky, dude.
Bring back Quarterdeck’s DeskView.
This is my third OS and I couldn’t be more pleased, so far, at least.
Avoid the rush. Install Linux instead
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.