Microsoft to Deliver Vista SP2 Before Windows 7

[HaZ]

Microsoft rumored to release SP2 for Vista prior to releasing Windows 7

Microsoft to Deliver Vista SP2 Before Windows 7 : Read more

 

[caskachan]

SP SP SP SP SP

this is laughable.... so many service packs, gott alove multi os development, you coudl say they are multitasking HA!

serioulsy, vista shoulve have come out as 64bit only

 

[Guest]

i believe windows 7 is...

but yeah all current OS's should be 64-bit only... make developers start doing things that will further the advancement of their product

 

[hemelskonijn]

I so hope there will be a cleaned out version of windows 7 when it releases.
I am using windows server 2008 (240 day trial)on my desktop atm and it runs way better than any version of vista even when i clean them out.
I want, make that i NEED performance over toys and if they keep up there hogging semi impressive over bloathed eye candy releases i am afraid that my desktop will be stuck at running windows server os's for a long time to come.

 

[hemelskonijn]

oops

 

[blackened144]

[citation]61 percent of consumers, according to Gartner survey data, are skipping Windows Vista all together – a lot of these people are comparing the release of Vista to the release of Windows ME.[/citation]

I think 61% of consumers would be more happy with Mojave.

 

[blackened144]

DOH!

 

[Guest]

lol blackened144...

Mojave is the bomb diggity...
have you checked out mojaveexperiment.com and installed the silverlight version? It's pretty neat to navigate through the videos in a cloud like they have..

If you havent, check it out

 

[Guest]

In the time WinXP has been introduced to today there haven't really been enough technologic advancements to justify a new OS.

- DDR2 ram,now DDR3 Ram,
- the introduction of SSD
- A couple of top ranking video cards from ATI and Nvidia that nowadays are in the budget market, being replaced by even better ones in SLI (sort of Raid) configuration.
- The dual and quad core cpu

All of these work perfectly fine under XP.

Another invention not 100% compatible with xp would be Hybrid drives.
They work, but even under Vista in most cases there's no real benefit of having one over a standard HD,or SSD.

The only thing that changed dramatically is the usage of RAM, resources etc. Vista needs more than the standard 2GB; and you're literally wasting around 20% of ram trying to fit 4GB in your 32-bit system.

XP runs fine with 2GB.

Also, people where slow to understand XP was a slightly heavier but better OS than Win98 ever was. The last service packs of Win98 se made Windows 98 a very stable, responsive, and fast OS!
XP around it's SP1 and SP2 got most of the trouble away and functions as a rocksolid OS. Really, programs crash now and then, but never XP. Not in 5 years (unless infected).
Vista probably will become interesting to the public after the release of SP2.

I've been using Vista and XP simultaneously, and I have to say that their SP1 did a lot of good to it.
However, I still find Vista totally counterproductive, battery and resource hog, compared to Vista.

I have little faith Windows 7 will be better.
But there is!
A big issue might be, 32 bit programs designed for Win98 worked fine under xp, and if you're lucky might work under Vista.
I fear lots of them will have no compatibility with Windows 7.

I also fear that Microsoft will fill the Windows 7 with useless tasks and automated programs for 'increased security' which by itself is a trap full of holes. Often I think, doesn't Windows 3.11 with it's simplistic structure offer way more security than latest Vista?
It seems we have more security issues today than we ever had!
Why? because of certain tasks the user doesn't really care about being there doing background tasks, and the so many DLL's that according to MS need access to the internet at all times!

Some firewalls even don't stop these files.. I mean,what the heck?
Who ever said any other file then internet explorer needs connection to the internet?
Update service? Worked fine under Ie. Why do there need to be so many checkups, and system scans?
Windows defender last time complained in Vista because it hadn't done a scan in 3 days!
WTF??? "A security issue, windows is no longer safe!" Lick my ass MS!

I scan my XP system about once every 2 months, and even that is a lot!
On top of a bloodhound heuristic scan (live monitoring) my pc needs a virus scan every 3 days in order to be 'safe'?
FUCK THAT!

There where days I scanned my pc once every 6 months,and kept the virus scanner off all the time. Have only been infected once, and virus scanner solved the problem after browsing and stumbling on a dodgy site.

It's ok if Vista implies all these advanced every day scanning in their ultimate, or professional edition. But in the home edition people can be happy if their system gets a quickscan every month, because that's more than enough!
Not everyone out there is surfing dodgy and illegal sites, and not everyone goes on porn sites every day. So why the hell bother forcing a computer to scan 3-daily?
SHIT!
Motherfucker MS...

Go to hell!

 

[captaincharisma]

64-bit is still not that enticing to the majority sense the only ones going over 2GB of ram are the hardcore gamers and going 64-bit only gives if any a small performance boost. when i built my new system due to funds i was only able to get 2GB of ram and said why bother installing 64-bit vistya when the drivers are still a mess and find out some of my programs don't work well

if you think 2-3 service packs are bad try looking up windows NT 4 that had a total of 6 service packs with 2 versions of SP6

 

[hemelskonijn]

kami3k: or you just illustrated captaincharisma's point.

Its more than enough reason not to go to vista and btw 2gigs is more than enough for playing games to (unless its overbloathed bugware).

 

[seatrotter]

What Windows could greatly benefit from is a more lean, customizable core/kernel (no, I'm not talking about the marketing B.S. like Home, Business, Ultimate).

If a user just wants a setup that won't deal w/ legacy apps/programs (and just want to use the latest, version-specific), the core/kernel should be able to operate w/o support old apps.

If a user doesn't want Blu-Ray playback (and any industry-trumpeted format, and be content w/ DVD or PC-format videos), gut-out the DRM/secure-path.

Unfortunately for MS, there are ultimately two things that stops them from doing so: profit and tie-ups (with other industry). For the former, if MS allowed complete customization, then they'd be forced to sell the stripped-down versions w/c will be cheap. I don't know how many would opt for this version but MS wouldn't definitely take the chance of lowering their profit.

For the latter, let's take for example the movie industry. Do you think they'd allow a version of Windows where their DRM can be easily gutted from core/kernel? Ofcourse not (in this case, we all know that DRM doesn't work, and Blu-Ray titles are easily ripped, but like us they also have the mentality of "[use DRM since it's] better than nothing").

 

[crockdaddy]

I never had much of a problem with Vista with the small exception of a few minor UI dislikes, driver issues, some medium aged software not working on it. **sarcasm** .... however with SP1 out I will soon give my copy of Vista Ultimate a try again. The irony here is I do like Windows 2008 quite a bit. Of course, on my W2K8 servers I am not trying to run any games and I am using new hardware and it is the only way to get Hyper-V (yes laugh if you will but for smaller scale virtualization projects it works well).