Question:
Ive just heard from a techie friend who is quite a genuine chap that Vista is a stop gap much like ME and they will be releasing a new OS that the like none of us have seen before, has anyone else heard of this?
Answers:
this is untrue :P
Answers:
this is untrue :P
now I dont what to make of that
Answers:
Yeah I doubt it. They spent 5 years or more developing Vista. It's the longest developed OS to date. I can't see them ditching it so soon, especially when people are still developing drivers for Vista, and people are still switching from XP.
They'll probably release an update pack that'll include many of the features that were supposed to make it into Vista but didn't. I think they're set for 2010 when their next OS is due.
Answers:
Windows "Vienna" has a release date some time in 2009 at the moment, but that doesn't in any way mean Vista is a "stop gap". But it does seem likely to have an "innovative" interface and have features that were originally promised for Vista. So really I think your friend is kind of exaggerating it a bit but I wouldn't say it was completely "untrue".
Answers:
Windows "Vienna" has a release date some time in 2009 at the moment, but that doesn't in any way mean Vista is a "stop gap". But it does seem likely to have an "innovative" interface and have features that were originally promised for Vista. So really I think your friend is kind of exaggerating it a bit but I wouldn't say it was completely "untrue".
Mmmm even if it is 2009 we are nearly in the middle of 2007 so you could say 2years away, how long has XP been out thats right Oct 2001 so i cant help thinking that vista is a bit of a stop gap.
Answers:
Mmmm even if it is 2009 we are nearly in the middle of 2007 so you could say 2years away, how long has XP been out thats right Oct 2001 so i cant help thinking that vista is a bit of a stop gap.
You can't really compare XP's lifetime as being typical, it is the longest shelf life OS microsoft have ever made. 95 to 98, 98 to ME/2000. Two to three years I'd say was a normal lifetime of an OS, XP was an exception unless you consider the big changes in service pack 2 being like another OS.
Answers:
You could also say XP's long life time was due to the resources and time they spent developing Vista.
It won't be going away any time soon. They may build on top of it, but the foundations of Vista will be around for a while I'm sure.
Answers:
You can't really compare XP's lifetime as being typical, it is the longest shelf life OS microsoft have ever made. 95 to 98, 98 to ME/2000. Two to three years I'd say was a normal lifetime of an OS, XP was an exception unless you consider the big changes in service pack 2 being like another OS.
i see what your saying but then again xp is a good OS now and so MS put all their efforts into sp2 but why the big Vista release hype when their arent really many features above xp for basic, ok i know they wanna push a new os but vista was released in rather more fanfare than some earlier os and not to mention xp had a new look and fell as where vista is a little samey, maybe folk should wait for this new os in 2009 as a lot of reports say about xp to vista, if it aint broke.
Answers:
You can't really compare XP's lifetime as being typical, it is the longest shelf life OS microsoft have ever made. 95 to 98, 98 to ME/2000. Two to three years I'd say was a normal lifetime of an OS, XP was an exception unless you consider the big changes in service pack 2 being like another OS.
I remember reading somewhere that they were considering releasing XP SP2 as a new OS, but someone inside Microsoft decided against it. I'll see if I can find where I read this.
Edit: No luck finding the web page. I think it was on Paul Thurrott's site somewhere...
Answers:
Answers:
As wolfman said, they've been spending all that time developing Vista, ie most expensive OS so far, so of course they'll want to hype it. There's a lot more gone into it from the ground up which you may not neccessarily see from the end user point of view.
Answers:
As wolfman said, they've been spending all that time developing Vista, ie most expensive OS so far, so of course they'll want to hype it. There's a lot more gone into it from the ground up which you may not neccessarily see from the end user point of view.
actually most of the time was spent on sp2 thats where the cost came into it and the fact they got fined 400million or so, thats probably why they released vista anyway so my mate was right that a new os is out soon, yet more money to spend, mind you i expect they have had xp the longest serving os at the moment because all the other were/are/will be rubbish
Answers:
I don't know about that. They spent a reasonable amount of time on SP2, but you're talking about a huge company here. Most of their resources were pointing at Vista. And I wouldn't say earlier OS's were rubbish. 95 and 98 were ground breaking, especially 95 when it first came out.
You mention XP having a new look and feel when it came out but Vista being "samey". I couldn't disagree more. XP followed on quite closely from Windows ME and 2000. Vista is completely different (with Aero). A lot of the familiarity is gone, and it's a newer, fresher experience with a lot more effects.
There's been a lot of work done under the hood. XP by design is flawed, and insecure. Vista corrects a lot of this and is much more security orientated. In terms of what you can do, it's not a huge step ahead of XP. But then again neither is XP that far ahead of something like Windows 95 when you think about it. Vista is a good OS, an improvement on security and media capabilities. Like with all things technological, it's good to keep up with the times if possible.
Answers:
Id they say Vienna is 2009, that will be delayed by at least a year.
Also companies would have fully integrated Vista and Longhorn by then, so I would say Vista will have a longer shelf life than ME did (so no, not a stop gap).
To really know, you would have to check features and projects regarding the future one.
I still prefer XP to Vista anyway!
Answers:
You mention XP having a new look and feel when it came out but Vista being "samey". I couldn't disagree more. XP followed on quite closely from Windows ME and 2000. Vista is completely different (with Aero). A lot of the familiarity is gone, and it's a newer, fresher experience with a lot more effects.
There's been a lot of work done under the hood. XP by design is flawed, and insecure. Vista corrects a lot of this and is much more security orientated. In terms of what you can do, it's not a huge step ahead of XP. But then again neither is XP that far ahead of something like Windows 95 when you think about it. Vista is a good OS, an improvement on security and media capabilities. Like with all things technological, it's good to keep up with the times if possible.
Vista corrects XPs flaws!! Vista is over the top and panics the casual user or new user for example, double click ccleaner and you get a prompt do you wish to run this program, how confusing is that so you then have to go into properties and change the security values for that one programme and yeah i can see all new users doing that
Vista is samey i dont know how much you have used it but to be honest if you took off the fancy dan graphics your left with xp but a few more security patches/upgrades, and anyway home basic will do most users so their goes aero in one foul swoop and i have to agree with BeerBelly XP is better but then again vista is still in child format.
Answers:
Vista corrects XPs flaws!! Vista is over the top and panics the casual user or new user for example, double click ccleaner and you get a prompt do you wish to run this program, how confusing is that so you then have to go into properties and change the security values for that one programme and yeah i can see all new users doing that
In XP every user is typically an admin, which is insecure for starters. You can run as a regular user, but it can have problems. Some applications just need admin rights.
Vista can get annoying with the security popups/requests, but that just takes time to "train" it, much like using a firewall (ie Kerio or ZoneAlarm). Apart from the frequent popups I don't think it's over the top at all. It addresses the security issues XP had and needed to be corrected, and takes an approach similar to Linux.
Vista is samey i dont know how much you have used it but to be honest if you took off the fancy dan graphics your left with xp but a few more security patches/upgrades, and anyway home basic will do most users so their goes aero in one foul swoop and i have to agree with BeerBelly XP is better but then again vista is still in child format.
I use it everyday at work (Am a .Net developer). I use Linux at home though. Ok, turn off Aero and it is similar to XP. But then again turn off themes in XP and it's just like Windows 2000. You said XP had a new look and feel but taking that approach it didn't.
Aero is a core part of Vista. I would hardly call it "fancy dan". It's how the desktop is evolving. OS X has similar, and Linux has Beryl/Compiz. 3D desktops will soon become the norm, at least for home users.
Not everyone will have Aero (basically anything above the Home package) I agree. Aero does change the way Vista works though. Of all the Windows releases, it's the most fresh, new experience. It becomes very different from the typical grey windows of XP/2000, and concentrates on media and search functionality.
Is this just a Vista flaming thread or is their reason behind it. Technically I can't see how you can say XP is better than Vista (or not an improvement). When it comes to money, or what people need for their money it may be a different story.
Answers:
Well Vienna is due at the end of 2009 so it's nearer 3 years away than 2 and it will probably be delayed by a few months.
DPS, make your mind up, on the one hand you say Vista is samey and then say it is confusing for the users!
The underlying OS is fundamentally different to XP and is far more secure. Vista is different to XP when you first use it but I don't know anyone who has upgraded and had any real problems with it. It's no different to when MS released 95 and people had to move from DOS/Windows 3.1.
Answers:
My two penneth:
Under the hood changes - It's only an O/S, we buy PC's to run applications.
Aero - who cares?
Search - crapper than crap, what was wrong with start, find in NT?
Gadgets - I had something similar in the WFW3.11 days.
UAC - If you make things so annoying that people allow everything or turn it off completely, it's pointless.
Improved security - we will see..
A shutdown/restart button would have been nice.
Having numerous different versions just complicates the market, they should have just released one.
Most radical improvent over previous O/S's: Sound recorder lasts more than a minute.
Answers:
My two penneth:
Under the hood changes - It's only an O/S, we buy PC's to run applications.
Aero - who cares?
Search - crapper than crap, what was wrong with start, find in NT?
Gadgets - I had something similar in the WFW3.11 days.
UAC - If you make things so annoying that they people allow everything or turn it off completely, it's pointless.
Improved security - we will see..
A shutdown/restart button would have been nice.
Having numerous different versions just complicates the market, they should have just released one.
Most radical improvent over previous O/S's: Sound recorder lasts more than a minute.
I will say thats the way as i see it also, but the bit i highlighted in bold that you wrote has me giggling like a little girl