Eager Fan Campaigns for Windows 7 Release Now

Status
Not open for further replies.

ispyamoose

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2009
40
0
18,530
0
I'm sure that she also wanted the early release of Windows Vista as well. Windows 7 isn't THAT good. Microsoft should focus on fixing Vista first.
 

A Stoner

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2009
242
0
18,680
0
Go for it, Microsoft needs another Vista debacle about as much as, well I hope you get the sarcasm intended there... If it gets released as it is, I will stick with windows XP for another generation of windows.

What microsoft needs to do is work closer with anti virus companies and get the INTRUSIVE UAC to be more or less silent for just about every task. If I have to tell windows 3 or more times that I want to accomplish a task, that is 2 or more times more than needed. Unless Windows is informed there is a real threat it needs to just what I say. Are you sure you want to start a process from a file you downloaded from the internet? Yes. Are you sure you want to allow this signed by AVG process to continue? Yes. Process by AVG wants to change system files or folders, are you sure you want this to happen? Yes. Windows is currently blocking access to the internet for AVG, what do you want to do, allow access, keep blocking? Allow Access. I mean seriously?
 

JMcEntegart

Splendid
Moderator
Aug 25, 2007
8,445
0
30,780
0
[citation][nom]The_Blood_Raven[/nom]Wow lets rush Microsoft with the release of a new Windows... that's a good idea...[/citation]

My thoughts exactly. Not a good idea, at all.
 

fonzy

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
396
0
18,780
0
I think it's pretty close to being finished(I haven't run into any problems on Win7-64) It's way beyond what Vista was when it was in Beta.I wouldn't release it now though, maybe when the Beta expires on August 1 would be a good time.
 

SamanuelMC

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2008
25
0
18,530
0
Do we really need want another Vista like launch disaster...ya no go on this one. Take the time and do it right!!!
 

SirCrono

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2006
463
3
18,785
0
I think the beta is stable enough for release, but I can comfortably wait till august or october, that way they can iron out most bugs and improve the kernel efficency by removing all that testing software betas usually carry.
 

GoodBytes

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Windows 7 is not ready yet, there is A LOT of issues. Comparing Vista 64-bit and Windows 7, it seams that Microsoft recode some parts as bugs that were fixed in Vista 64-bit final release (from the Release Candidate or beta)are back in Windows 7. Moreover, drivers for the OS are not ready. If Microsoft release the OS, the same thing as Vista will occur... buggy and unoptimized drivers make eager review website benchmark the OS and go "new Windows os slower than the older one.", and due to the buggy driver issue destroy Windows image.
I know that Windows 7 is probably the most constant Windows ever made form Microsoft wince Windows 95, but the UI is one thing, the rest it another.

And even then the UI is far from being done. For example: UI related issues, is that the when you maximize a window the boarders are still transparent. This makes text on the transparent area hard to read, and if you have any bright (like orange, red, bright green) background or changing background (auto-switch or animated) it detracts you as you think that the OS ask you for your attention, and also it is ugly, and ultimately useless, as it serve no purpose.

I can name more issues... the list is long.

As much as I love Vista 64-bit, i must say that Microsoft needs more work for Windows 7, as I see no point for me to change. It is not a question of money for me, I still think that Vista was worth the money I spent. But Windows 7 gives no nothing much to jump.
 

cruiseoveride

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2006
847
0
18,980
0
How many years did Vista take? 5rs? 6yrs?

Unless Win7 is not a glorified Vista Service Pack, it should take Microsoft at least another 4yrs before launching it to get the same performance as Vista. If history is any predictor
 

jrabbitb

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2006
74
0
18,630
0
@cruiseoveride
Keep in mind that before XP new operating systems came out much more frequently. you could say that we've been spoiled with XP, and to it's credit, it is a phenomenal operating system to hold up this well for this long and do so much on so much hardware.

@All
Though win7 hasn't changed the kernel much from vista it has made some serious changes that make it a non service pack. it's memory management alone makes me happy. I agree with the majority here, let win 7 get polished off in the next few months. any coder knows it takes the most time to get the last 5% working just right on a project.

Also, the longer they take to get 7 completed, the longer we have to convince them that this obnoxious versioning is just that, obnoxious. i can see 3 real versions (not including the 3rd world developing countries version), Home, Business, Ultimate. where home is essentially home premium, business is what it is and ultimate is all the features of home and business. that's it, don't make home users unhappy or confused like vista did with home basic. just stupid.
 

GoodBytes

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Heuu cruiseoveride... no.
XP (NT 5.1) was based on Windows 2000 (NT5), which was based on Windows NT4, and based on Windows NT. Back-then the Internet concept as we know today didn't exists and security was Microsoft least concerns.

Windows XP was sooo bad security wise that Microsoft had to stop Longhorn development and put everyone together to make all the fixes for Windows XP so that it holds together and not have businesses and individual drop XP and switch to Linux. This was a critical moment from Microsoft. This made Longhorn first big delay, and made the release of XP SP2 instead. Remember that Longhorn is a new OS... a new kernel, a new system started from scratch, that had to be superior of Windows XP in many ways, and support all the millions of hardware configurations out there. And technology has no pause button... it goes on and faster each day. Making Microsoft do the big decision of dropping support for old technology... hence the reason why many people has problems with the OS.

Another issue, is that Microsoft realized that Longhorn UI was too fancy for CPU's... as the UI was all done on the CPU back then. Also, the OS had many many issues with computers in the sense of lack of performance. This made Microsoft restart the Shell system of Windows, which added more delays. However, brought GPU rendered UI in Vista and even more under Windows 7.

Another added delay was that Longhorn was available in 64-bit. Back then 64-bit CPU was not widely used. Many still had P4's... and AMD 64-bit was still expensive (Intel didn't have a desktop oriented 64-bit CPU (I mean a real 64-bit CPU)).This made Microsoft simply wait.. they did improvements but no development at full speed as it was before..
Then Microsoft decided to make the bold decision of quickly patch up a 32-bit version of the OS due to pressure among shareholders and investors in the company to release something... FAST. And that is why we got Windows NT6.0 (which is miss leading as it's actually a new core... it should be New NT 1.0 (or New New Technology 1.0)) but that was that, and that made chip makers think it's an upgarde version of XP, and not focus on their drivers, until Vista was out and they got blasted with angry customers. And add Microsoft bad decisions after that moment like: lack of documentation for IT's to adapt XP setup to Vista and not the same registry hacks (if any) which could brake the OS, focus the selling of the 32-bit last minute ultra buggy Vista, instead of the well done 64-bit counterpart), bad/lack of marketing, lack of informing companies to about Vista new Core, and well the rest..

You didn't buy Vista for the feature... the point of Vista was a new core and new ideas such as GPU rendered UI to make the CPU free for real tasks. Windows 7 takes that idea and and develop on it, with new features (their quiet a lot of new features... multi-touch, superbar, windows management, is just like looking at a delicious cake far far away. If you look much closer than it's packed with new features.
 

PrangeWay

Distinguished
Nov 21, 2008
99
0
18,630
0
Well I don't want a buggy product, but the sooner we move the 32bit-XP prehistoric cave-dwellers into the modern world of 64bit, the better.
 

joebob2000

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2006
788
0
18,980
0
You guys are looking at the development lifecycle ALL wrong. Look how much "good hard work" they put into Vista. As someone pointed out, it was ~6 years worth, and look what we got. Microsoft is encouraged (by the bottom line) to take as much time releasing an OS as they want. They don't have competition (except with their own older OSes) so they are going to sit around until the very last person has begrudgingly coughed up the cash for a Vista license. Then, they are going to drop Windows 7 with much fanfare, and let the wave of new licenses pad their bottom line for the next release cycle.

Why not just let Windows 7 hit it big now? There aren't any big feature additions we are holding out for. There are no major bugs (that we have heard about, at least). A lot of people think this OS in beta looks better than Vista did in release. The bugs will get fixed in the next 6 months to 1 year whether it's a released product or not. So, why not let it go? Get it out the door before some make-work software engineers throw enough bugs in it to keep them employed the next 5 years fixing them.
 

pug_s

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2003
357
7
18,815
21
[citation][nom]fonzy[/nom]I think it's pretty close to being finished(I haven't run into any problems on Win7-64) It's way beyond what Vista was when it was in Beta.I wouldn't release it now though, maybe when the Beta expires on August 1 would be a good time.[/citation]

Microsoft is anything but finished. Most of their revenue is thru license renewals from corporations. An average company of 1,000 would pay microsoft hundreds of thousands for that every year. They do not earn alot of money from an average consumer but as long as we are using Windows XP and Outlook, your company is already paying their sum to Microsoft.
 

LightWeightX

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2008
32
0
18,530
0
Let the eager fan(s) use the beta until MS can get a product worth release. They rushed Vista and didn't get it to be a viable product until SP1.
 

TwoDigital

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
285
0
18,810
6
This is news? There are far better petitions out there which could have been covered instead... such as "Release Lord of the Rings BluRay - NOW!"

Not that a movie release is bigger news than a new Windows release, but your story is about a solitary person who loves Win7 beta so much they started a petition to get it released immediately. Really?
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
0
A lot of haters on here. Mac fans are scared. It was easy to bash Vista because it was a resource hog, had an ugly GUI, had a ton of driver problems, and a myriad of compatibility issues.

Not so easy to bash Windows 7. Even at the beta stage fans are already grasping at straws.

Ever heard the saying "Don't kick a sleeping dog?"

You kicked.
 

fonzy

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
396
0
18,780
0
Why wouldn't this "Kelly Poe" just use the Beta until August 1st anyways?? Why release it now when she could use it for free for another 7 months?

Anyone else think this is Microsoft propaganda?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS