Windows 7 in 2-3 years? What's the point in that?

In my personal view anyway, Microsoft is up to it's old self again, releasing newer versions of Windows without properly sortin out what was wrong with the old one. They didn't do a terrible job with Vista, it is passable, OK, that's about it, it has problems sure, namlely

1)Slower rsponse than XP-you can sort that out without needing a new version of Windows

2)Not making sure the OS was properly finished or that all major manufacturers had drivers ready for the launch - How shud this new version be any different to what has happened before, just look, XP was the same remember?

3)incompatibility and some fobbles as reguarding DirectX 10 - that too could probably be sorted just now, if only MS would just get thier head straight and focus on what maters, making a good -STABLE OS that's priced sensibly and has one version with everything in it(having several increases production costs and does the consumer and your revenue no good at all)..

Look at what Apple does(I am not a Mac fanboy, culdn't be further from the truth, but, MS shud stop wastin money on meaningless things like buying bits of other companies, stuff that does em no favours at all, and get back to what they do as a business

Anyway, on-topic again, what I'm getting at is, rather than slap-dashly overwrite it's mistakes and make ppl who bought Vista forget about the overpriced bloatware they bought, and buy the new one, why not either go back to the drawing board with what you have just now and look at the possibilities, Vista could be a great OS if only MS were to concentrate on improvin it in the right areas, look at how good XP now is compared with 5 years ago, don't need much explanation there do you?

Or, if a new version is really needed, why not get everything ready properly, no rush-outs or anything, you have the dosh, the ppl, the manpower, why don't you at least show the world one more time that you Can do something truely great, the potential is there, you basiclly have nothin to lose, the futuire looks bleak ahead as preasure from other companies begins to encroach on you, so why not give it a shot? You aren't hgonna lose much dosh just cause you took longer to release your product, and if it's good, ppl will understand you

What do you guys out there think, can MS give us aniother great OS?

Sam The Bam

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was three years. Windows 95 to 98 was another three years. Windows 2000 came just a little over a year after that. Windows ME was similarly just one year later. Windows XP was one year after that.

If there's anything strange going on, it's Windows XP, not Vista. And Windows XP was crap compared to Windows 2000, if you ask me.

I think windows 7 will be hugley better than vista.

But i'll stick with XP till then.

Come to think off it.. by the time windows 7 is realesed.. XP will of been out 10 years :D.

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was three years. Windows 95 to 98 was another three years. Windows 2000 came just a little over a year after that. Windows ME was similarly just one year later. Windows XP was one year after that.

If there's anything strange going on, it's Windows XP, not Vista. And Windows XP was crap compared to Windows 2000, if you ask me.

RayvinAzn

Ahh, not to me though, i could never digg all that grey, eww, was so plain and boring, XP looked refreshing and welcoming.

They probably figured Vista has so many problems instead of fixing them they will just support XP as best as possible for a few years and then hopefully get it right when they release their new OS ... which is a little frustrating for me since I own Home premium 64 bit.

.

They probably figured Vista has so many problems instead of fixing them they will just support XP as best as possible for a few years and then hopefully get it right when they release their new OS ... which is a little frustrating for me since I own Home premium 64 bit.

.

whitey_rolls

They probably figured Vista has so many problems instead of fixing them they will just support XP as best as possible for a few years and then hopefully get it right when they release their new OS ... which is a little frustrating for me since I own Home premium 64 bit.

.

whitey_rolls

XP has the largest support of any OS out there bar none( whether that's to do with MS's monpoly on PC territory is not clear, after all ppl have options when they buy a PC, most, yes, will stick with Windows cause it's already on there, but you don't have to have an OS on your new PC to start with, you can choose others such as the LINUX distro's. Aside from that, Windows is the dominant force, agreed, but Apple's the same way remember, I don't particularly like Leopard havin used it quite a bit, so MS really shud think about how it can improve it's OS strategy, cause by my own judjment(which is as good as what I see anyway), it desperatly needs some direction.

[QUOTE="RayvinAzn"]

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was three years. Windows 95 to 98 was another three years. Windows 2000 came just a little over a year after that. Windows ME was similarly just one year later. Windows XP was one year after that.

If there's anything strange going on, it's Windows XP, not Vista. And Windows XP was crap compared to Windows 2000, if you ask me.

rik666

Ahh, not to me though, i could never digg all that grey, eww, was so plain and boring, XP looked refreshing and welcoming.

Believe me when I say that IF Apple were in MS's position, they'd be the same, they are both buisinesses with a view to making money, and the real reason Apple inovates is because it has to destiguish itself from everyone else and doesn't have the bullyish nature of MS, if it did, you bet you right arm, it'd use it to it's own benefit all right.

I am NOT anti-Mac, and i ain't biased at all, I think both companies are very talented at what they do and both excel at different things, but at the end of the day, this is business remember, and Apple wouldn't give you your cake and let you eat it if they had the ways and means that MS has to retrict your choices.

Sam The Bam

i dont know why people find it remarkable, MS has always done this XP to Vista has been the exception.yoyo462001

Nothing wrong with it, the only problems i had were because of Creative and ATI so i went back to XP. I'm more interested in the so called Midori OS.X360PS3AMD05

They've wasted enough already, and Personally, I think they'd do better to take the above approach and spend the extra money on other stuff like developing new platforms, improving DirecX and so on and so on

Isn't 7 based on Vista?? Who knows we probably won't even see it for 4 or 5 years............By the time 64-bit and DX10 is needed i will be able to vLite my version of Vista and get it nice and tidy. ATI should have solved their problems and i may just ditch Creative. I know i won't be buying any of their products anymore.X360PS3AMD05

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]Isn't 7 based on Vista?? Who knows we probably won't even see it for 4 or 5 years............By the time 64-bit and DX10 is needed i will be able to vLite my version of Vista and get it nice and tidy. ATI should have solved their problems and i may just ditch Creative. I know i won't be buying any of their products anymore.yoyo462001

Sam Th Bam

It uses the RAM because it's faster than the HDD, if you want you can disable superfetch. X360PS3AMD05

Sam The Bam

That should do it, not sure if Vista drops everything when you run a game, i know it drops Aero. Just to be sure i disabled Superfetch, Indexing Service and a few other things with vLite. X360PS3AMD05

It uses the RAM because it's faster than the HDD, if you want you can disable superfetch. X360PS3AMD05