Travel Technology - Why did MS "give -up" Vista so quickly for MS 7?

I have a 2009 Dell computer with Vista Home Premium I bought in January.

My question(s):

Why is MS so quickly replacing the much heralded Vista OP and should I consider upgrading Vista to MS7?

I am a pretty benign computer user. ( email, surf, word)

I have a 2009 Dell computer with Vista Home Premium I bought in January.

My question(s):

Why is MS so quickly replacing the much heralded Vista OP and should I consider upgrading Vista to MS7?

I am a pretty benign computer user. ( email, surf, word)They didn't "give up" on Vista - they got some of the features they originally wanted in Vista finally fixed so they can release it as Windows 7.

Windows 7 will be released about 3 years after Vista was released; this is actually pretty normal for Microsoft to have a new version of Windows on a 3-year-schedule. The exception was XP, which had a 5-year run.

You'll be fine with Vista, and if you upgrade you'll be fine too.

Because Vista pretty much sucks.

Vista was released in November 2006, so a little less than 3 years before the release of W7. Remember Win95/98/ME(2000) - 2-3 years apart each. XP had a long run due to the over-the-top Vista effort, with I'd say Win7 is about right on time.

Windows 7 is what should have been the final release version of Vista. Vista is a steamign pile of turds. MS likes for people to pay for the privilege of beta-testing it's crapware.

Windows 7 is what should have been the final release version of Vista. Vista is a steamign pile of turds. MS likes for people to pay for the privilege of beta-testing it's crapware.
:rolleyes: please. Nothing like a balanced viewpoint being shown here. Vista is running on how many mission-critical systems around the world quite happily today? Windows 7 is, as mentioned above, just an upgrade from Vista - the vast majority of it is identical.

I'm sure all the new users on this forum will greatly benefit from this type of alarmist message of yours though - good job :rolleyes:

Vista is running on how many mission-critical systems around the world quite happily today?

Please. Most mission-critical apps don't run on any end-user version of Windows. Some stuff on server editions, but most real important stuff out there is running on a mainframe or a farm of Unix-based servers.

That said, I won't go as far as to call Vista a festering turd, but W7 is definitely a needed upgrade.

Vista has bad name association. If they released a "Vista 2" a lot of people would translate that into "steaming turd 2". It seems like W7 has good name association so far and people are translating it into "super bad a** 7".

Vista is running on how many mission-critical systems around the world quite happily today?

Not many. My role exposes me to a heck of a lot of technology at F500 companies, and I see very, very little Windows server platform usage at the enterprise/mission-critical level.

Not many. My role exposes me to a heck of a lot of technology at F500 companies, and I see very, very little Windows server platform usage at the enterprise/mission-critical level.
We must work with different F500 companies ;)

Not many. My role exposes me to a heck of a lot of technology at F500 companies, and I see very, very little Windows server platform usage at the enterprise/mission-critical level.

That is my understanding too. Everything important is on Linux or Unix.

You'll be fine with Vista, and if you upgrade you'll be fine too.Yep, great post.
Vista was released in November 2006, so a little less than 3 years before the release of W7. Remember Win95/98/ME(2000) - 2-3 years apart each. XP had a long run due to the over-the-top Vista effort, with I'd say Win7 is about right on time.Also, they just recently released Vista SP2.

We must work with different F500 companies ;)

No, I think you work with the same F500 companies ;). The fact that many companies use Windows based front end workstations for pretty end user interfaces which then connect mainly to back end mainframes or UNIX servers in mission critical environments leads many to believe that the whole mission critical application is Windows based. As the old adage goes "There is more to it than meets the eye". There is no denying that there are mission critical systems that do run on Windows server based server platforms but in general the vast majority are not Windows based.

The real question is, is the upgrade worth my time and money?

I'm currently running Vista (home premium) on my personal desktop. I liked XP better, but, oh well. MS promises that the Windows 7 upgrade in my case is in-place, that is, no need to reinstall all my software.

I can pre-order the upgrade now for $50. If I wait until the OS is officially released in Q4, then it will be $120. Or, I can tough it out and stick with Vista.

Thoughts?

All of my computers are still running on XP Pro and I see no reason to change at this point in time.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it!!! @:-)

Because Vista pretty much sucks.

Why is that? Because I am really loves it brand newest Windows Vista. I can watch the television onto the computerized and lot of those stuff to do.

All of my computers are still running on XP Pro and I see no reason to change at this point in time.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it!!! @:-)

Yeah, I think you will be just fine for now. You don't have worried about newest Windows Vista. Once Microsoft will be releases newest Windows 7.

Windows XP is actually very good. In fact, so far, it is the very pinnacle of the NT architecture.

The only problem it has is the fact that it slows down as you install stuff over time, it's performance decreases. This is because of the underlying philosophy of Microsft's that any new app you install can and should start all or at least bits of itself when you start up the computer (so, one to two minutes start up time day one goes to five to ten minutes start up two to three years down the line).

Now, fast forward to Vista and what does it offer? Well:

i) Eye candy if you have a powerful enough computer.
ii) They copied OSX and ensured that no installation that changes anything outside of your personal folder can be done without your authorization (though in a way that seems to have annoyed a lot of people).
iii) Did I mention the eye candy?

And herein lies the problem: XP is actually very good albeit with ah higher overall maintenance cost over time. Why replace something as good as XP with something that doesn't offer some really serious new features and benefits?

Windows XP is actually very good. In fact, so far, it is the very pinnacle of the NT architecture.

The only problem it has is the fact that it slows down as you install stuff over time, it's performance decreases. This is because of the underlying philosophy of Microsft's that any new app you install can and should start all or at least bits of itself when you start up the computer (so, one to two minutes start up time day one goes to five to ten minutes start up two to three years down the line).

Now, fast forward to Vista and what does it offer? Well:

i) Eye candy if you have a powerful enough computer.
ii) They copied OSX and ensured that no installation that changes anything outside of your personal folder can be done without your authorization (though in a way that seems to have annoyed a lot of people).
iii) Did I mention the eye candy?

And herein lies the problem: XP is actually very good albeit with ah higher overall maintenance cost over time. Why replace something as good as XP with something that doesn't offer some really serious new features and benefits?

Yes, we still run XP. I dont have any machines with Vista in my group as far as I know. Many we have ordered we ordered with XP. There are probably some at the institution using Vista but we intentionally have been very slow to adopt Vista. It probably put some pressure on us to move more things to Mac and Linux in fact although that isnt as clear.

Microsoft screwed up, and sold us a bloatware OS without any significant improvements they called "Vista." If they fixed it, they'd have to call it a "patch," and issue it for free. But, by "fixing" Vista, and calling it a "new" OS (Windows 7), they can charge us, and milk us for a fix. Thanks again, Bill!

Ernie

The real question is, is the upgrade worth my time and money?

I'm currently running Vista (home premium) on my personal desktop. I liked XP better, but, oh well. MS promises that the Windows 7 upgrade in my case is in-place, that is, no need to reinstall all my software.

I can pre-order the upgrade now for $50. If I wait until the OS is officially released in Q4, then it will be $120. Or, I can tough it out and stick with Vista.

Thoughts?

IMHO, I have Windows XP Pro on my desktop and got Vista on my laptop...wish I had Windows XP Pro on both...Vista (in my experience) seems awfully "buggy" so I am pre-ordering W7 upgrade and hoping for the best!:rolleyes:

This is because of the underlying philosophy of Microsft's that any new app you install can and should start all or at least bits of itself when you start up the computer Seems unlikely that this is part of their philosophy. In fact, they added a feature in Vista just to help programs load faster (so software vendors wouldn't do this).

http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/29/windows-vista-superfetch-readyboost.aspx

I think Vista is way better than XP, but I guess to each his own.

Microsoft screwed up, and sold us a bloatware OS without any significant improvements they called "Vista." If they fixed it, they'd have to call it a "patch," and issue it for free. But, by "fixing" Vista, and calling it a "new" OS (Windows 7), they can charge us, and milk us for a fix. Thanks again, Bill!

Ernie

Seriously - if you look closely at what went into Windows 7, you'd realize that your statement is plain wrong. Same goes for the changes between XP and Windows Vista.

Vista is a great OS, but it has turned into a marketing disaster for them, almost on par with Windows ME. MS is selling a brand new OS for just $50, which is a real bargain IMHO.

All of my computers are still running on XP Pro and I see no reason to change at this point in time.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it!!! @:-)I'm sure there are some Luddites out there saying the same thing about DOS 6.0.

So what happens to the sale of new computers in the meantime? Dell has a free upgrade to Windows 7. Why hasn't HP and others matched that?

So what happens to the sale of new computers in the meantime? Dell has a free upgrade to Windows 7. Why hasn't HP and others matched that?

They have:

http://www.hp.com/country/us/en/mda/windows7/upgrade/index_ww.html?jumpid=ex_r602_go/windows7upgrade

HP was one of the first to offer this again this time.

I think every major manufacturer has their own program in place.

Seriously - if you look closely at what went into Windows 7, you'd realize that your statement is plain wrong.


Can you tell us what you are talking about, specifically?

-David

Can you tell us what you are talking about, specifically?

-David

Every aspect of the platform was evaluated for opportunities to improve performance, security, reliability, 3rd party hardware / software support, etc. A service pack simply tweaks and improves what's already there; A full version upgrade, as Windows 7 is, is a major overhaul of the kernel and architecture.

And don't forget that teams began working on Windows 7 at least 4 or 5 years ago, before Vista was even completed. Microsoft doesn't wait for OS to ship before starting work on the next one; they have multiple teams working on multiple OS's in parallel. Even though Windows 7 isn't shipping yet, there is already a team that's actively working on the next version after 7, and at the very least whiteboarding ideas for the next version after THAT (so 2 versions out).

Can you tell us what you are talking about, specifically?

-David

Yes;

Networking, security, driver support, media center, the taskbar, touch support, multitouch support etc...

Really, if you play around with Windows 7 for a bit, you'll "feel" that it really is a new OS, not just another hotfix.

Yes;

Networking, security, driver support, media center, the taskbar, touch support, multitouch support etc...

Really, if you play around with Windows 7 for a bit, you'll "feel" that it really is a new OS, not just another hotfix.

I agree with that statement^ I think MS is finally taking the market seriously and rethought everything about XP and Vista, improved it, then created Win 7....I'm still running a beta version on two workstations...and have had only one crash on me in the last five months running them constantly...I believe this is the upgrade you want to get...a worthy sucessor to XP

The one thing I like most about Win 7 is its performance - I can pop it on a 1.2GHz netbook, and it'll function so smooooth. Much smoother than XP or Vista.

The one thing I like most about Win 7 is its performance - I can pop it on a 1.2GHz netbook, and it'll function so smooooth. Much smoother than XP or Vista.

You guys have this already? I didn't think it was released yet.:confused:

You guys have this already? I didn't think it was released yet.:confused:

It came out in an open beta early this year, and is now on a release candidate. Even the RC is quite stable

And herein lies the problem: XP is actually very good albeit with ah higher overall maintenance cost over time. Why replace something as good as XP with something that doesn't offer some really serious new features and benefits?

Bingo. This is why Vista failed--the corporate adoption rate has been miserable.

There are a lot of people with select/enterprise/etc agreements with M$ who have drawn a line in the sand on Vista (I've got about 50k or so seats in house that'll go XP to Win7, assuming the latter proves itself not to suck large rocks thru a small straw the way that Vista has).

It will still take another 10-15 years, but Vista proved to M$ what everyone but M$ already knew: sooner or later, the client platform is going to become irrelevant. It's stupid to toss $$$ and hardware at something like Vista.

Most of my clients are on XP with some still on 2000. I haven't seen a single hospital make the move to Vista.

I'm not sure what the adoption rate will be in hospitals for windows 7. Many hospitals still use DOS hospital information systems so it's all going to depend on how well that system plays on Win7.

Many hospitals are still running MS SQL 2000 on MS Server 2003. Not many MS Server 2008s out there yet.

They have:

http://www.hp.com/country/us/en/mda/windows7/upgrade/index_ww.html?jumpid=ex_r602_go/windows7upgrade

HP was one of the first to offer this again this time.

I think every major manufacturer has their own program in place.

Can I have one for me? Where I need look for downloading newest Windows 7 into my PC computer? Thanks, ScottC. :)

Are you sure you really want RC1? Read everything before you do it. For example, you can't upgrade to the actual release when it comes out. You will have to re-install, and there's all sorts of other things you need to know. Really, this is for developers and beta testers at this point. On the other hand, if you have a spare machine to run it on to try it out and test your applications, great.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx

-David

At least in my portion of my F200, we held out on Vista as long as we could. The rumor I heard was that we were planning on going from XP Pro to W7. However, we do DoD work, and the Army wasn't going to be certifying W7 anytime soon, so we're reluctantly going to Vista in the Fall.

Althought admittedly difficult from a support issue, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if all PC's sold in the last say 5 years had the option of XP, Vista, or in the future, W7. It bugs me to no end with Microsoft says, "Vista outsold XP, is the best selling OS of all time", etc., when there's really no choice. The majority of Vista sales were because people wanted a new computer, and they were forced to get Vista on it. I doubt there's very few people who went out and either bought a new computer, or just the Vista media, because they actively wanted Vista.

Jeff

So here is my question: With all the beta testing and release candidate versions, when does MS freeze the product? Are they continually revising and tweaking right up to the release date?

(I realize that in actuality, the revisions and the tweaks never stop, with continuous updates and service packs!)

So here is my question: With all the beta testing and release candidate versions, when does MS freeze the product? Are they continually revising and tweaking right up to the release date?..........

I read earlier today they start shipping to the computer manufacturers sometime in mid Aug (i believe). That should freeze W7 for a while.

MisterNice

So here is my question: With all the beta testing and release candidate versions, when does MS freeze the product? Are they continually revising and tweaking right up to the release date?

Yes.

There are daily builds that only a small select group has access to, for testing purpose. Then there was the public beta in January and the RC in April (not including the semi-public beta from last October).

Windows 7 will be considered complete when it RTM's (Release To Manufacturing) this month. General availability is October 22.

Windows 7 has gone to RTM (Release to manufacturing). It will be available to the general public and on new computers on October 22.

I love it! Very stable and a great update to the UI.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/week-in-microsoft-windows-7-and-server-2008-r2-hit-rtm.ars

And RTM "feels" faster than the RC. Considering that the RC already felt faster than Vista, that's an impressive overall improvement in performance.

Bill has not been around for a while...Blame Steve.

Microsoft screwed up, and sold us a bloatware OS without any significant improvements they called "Vista." If they fixed it, they'd have to call it a "patch," and issue it for free. But, by "fixing" Vista, and calling it a "new" OS (Windows 7), they can charge us, and milk us for a fix. Thanks again, Bill!

Ernie

Bingo. This is why Vista failed--the corporate adoption rate has been miserable.

There are a lot of people with select/enterprise/etc agreements with M$ who have drawn a line in the sand on Vista (I've got about 50k or so seats in house that'll go XP to Win7, assuming the latter proves itself not to suck large rocks thru a small straw the way that Vista has).

It will still take another 10-15 years, but Vista proved to M$ what everyone but M$ already knew: sooner or later, the client platform is going to become irrelevant. It's stupid to toss $$$ and hardware at something like Vista.

See, my company was quite the opposite. We had 45,000+ users moved to Vista by December 08.

We were on Windows 98 seemingly forever, and on XP for only two years or so.

Having been using Vista for awhile, I don't see what all the complaining is about...

I know quite a few companies still on Windows 2000 and only one using Vista.

MisterNice

Vista was a CF and a giant turd for MS from before it hit the general market. Then the fact that since its release to today I still can blow up the OS in less then 45 seconds and microsoft still hasnt fixed that problem, just proves W7 is just a turd polishing and making the public pay for the beta testing.

To the person on the first page saying Vista is running mission critical systems please post who is doing that because I highly doubt that. Working in multiple fields I know that 99+% of all the mission critical systems i see are on Unix, linux, oracle, etc. that <1% that are on a windows platform are on 2K or NT still but were planned to be changed over to unix, linux or oracle in the very near future. I know this to be a fact for several major healthcare systems that none of there mission critical systems are on windows based platforms. This is because you cant afford to have a system go down at all because if they did it would effect patient care (IE ER, ICU, etc)

MS and its attitude & abysmal customer serivce with the CF during the roll out of Vista was the final nail, and after this cycle of hardware im going to changing to mac platform and keep a copy of bootcamp for the few programs i have that havent been converted for a mac option.

IMHO, I have Windows XP Pro on my desktop and got Vista on my laptop...wish I had Windows XP Pro on both...Vista (in my experience) seems awfully "buggy" so I am pre-ordering W7 upgrade and hoping for the best!:rolleyes:

I saw a piece on Fox Business a few days ago. If you upgrade from Vista to Windows 7, there shouldn't be a problem. You cannot really upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without having to reinstall each and every one of the programs you have on your computer, according to the NY Times tech reviewer who spoke to Fox Business. (And not everyone will be able to find all their install disks for other software they've added over time)

So if you have XP, stick with it, as others have said.

Windows XP is actually very good. In fact, so far, it is the very pinnacle of the NT architecture.

The only problem it has is the fact that it slows down as you install stuff over time, it's performance decreases. This is because of the underlying philosophy of Microsft's that any new app you install can and should start all or at least bits of itself when you start up the computer (so, one to two minutes start up time day one goes to five to ten minutes start up two to three years down the line).

Never had that problem with Win98 and don't have the problem with XP.

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htm

Never had that problem with Win98 and don't have the problem with XP.

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htm

You might be one of the few people. I've started using Startup Delayer, it's basically a way to delay starting some of the programs that load at start time. It's helped a little. I wish there was a way to increase the startup delay. Some programs, like Adode Reader loader, or Java update checker, I'd easily load 3-4-5 minutes after boot time.

In regards to not being able to upgrade XP to W7, I'm guessing there's some significant technological reason why. I'd think there's a sizeable XP base that would want W7. Not sure why MS would make it difficult for them (via a full reinstall) if there was another way.

Jeff