Windows 7 on its way :|
- Thread starter mito
- Start date
Do we know that it's going to be such a huge overhaul, rather than say like going from 2000 to XP?
In several of the video interviews for Vista, Microsoft personnel have mentioned that part of the time spent on Vista was to "modularize" the major components of the operating system. This would give them far better potential for changes, optimization and OS updates in the near future.
They also said more than once that it will not take another seven years for a new OS. And I believe that... What was the time table before? Like once every 2-3 years at most?
Well, that depends what you (or, more accurately: they) mean by a 'new' OS. If we're talking Win2K -> Server 2K3 like new, then I agree: It shouldn't take seven years (it took half that). 'Windows 6' -> 'Windows 7' seems to indicate a bigger jump that that though, and I don't think it's in MS best interest to attempt to push out major architectural overhauls too often. Incremental 'added value' revisions (ala Win2K Pro -> XP Pro) within their ongoing market segmentation strategy on the other hand...
thats exactly what they said they had planned, its not suppose to be a complete replacement. Problably will be what Vista should of been.
But, but... Why hould such a thing be 'Windows 7' (even internally)? IMO, they wouldn't go around incrementing the major revision indicator for such a change (marketing?), and that was my point. Win2K was 5.0, XP was 5.1, XP64/Server 2003 was 5.2, Vista is 6.0, and the next Server 2008 will be 6.1. With statements such as that the next major revision of Windows will (IIRC) 'almost certainly ship only as a 64bit edition', 2009 just sounds too soon. I can see a 'Vista 09SE' (or whatever) within that time frame, though, but naming it 'Windows 7' would just seem inconsistent to me.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
2 words:
World-wide revolution. (Or does that count as three?)
There's no way MS would be able to go through with such an idea. I know Greedy Bill's fingers are just itching to try it, but he can't. People wouldn't accept being at the mercy of microsoft like that.
When yoiu subscribe to something it's so you'll get MORE of something. Like newspapers. You get a new newspaper in your mailbox most every day. But subscribing to windows would not work like that. It'd just shut your PC off if you DIDN'T pay your ransom money to Redmond.
Peace.
Subtlesnake
Regular
They could offer both models, by trickling out updates to subscribers and then consolidating those updates in major Windows revisions.
You overestimate people.2 words:
World-wide revolution. (Or does that count as three?)
There's no way MS would be able to go through with such an idea. I know Greedy Bill's fingers are just itching to try it, but he can't. People wouldn't accept being at the mercy of microsoft like that.
In some ways the subscription model is already in place, just with the pain not yet dialed up. Do look out for what happens when Microsoft stops activating Windows XP installs.
You would not be saying such if you played games. The main reason (that and Open Office sucks and the other free ones as well... sorry) I'm not using Ubuntu right now.
And being the intelligent chap he is he knows that freespace 2 open runs great under linux, that its free and he has no reason in the world ever not to be playing it because it is truely a gift from the gods..
oh + ps: skyring openoffice doesnt suck i use the word processor under xp
I'm playing just about all the games I've played on Windows perfectly.
Angband.
Sangband.
ToME.
Neverwinter Nights.
Disciples 2.
Nethack.
Emacs.
Emulators of various types.
Angband.
Sangband.
ToME.
Neverwinter Nights.
Disciples 2.
Nethack.
Emacs.
Emulators of various types.
Compared to Office 2007 Ultimate, it does indeed suck
But it's free, so that's good I suppose. Honestly, I spend very little time using OpenOffice under feisty fawn.
Of course, I get my Microsoft products free too so for me, it doesn't matter
Similar threads
