Vistas days numbered ?
http://apcmag.com/7874/windows_7_to_be_released_next_year
I thought Vista had been replaced by Windows XP.
Dell (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/winxp_inspndt?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs) think so too
Half 2 2009 has been mentioned before as the release date of the next windows!
On a side, how is it windows 7?
I count:
1 - Windows 1
2 - Windows 2
3 - Windows 3
4 - Windows 95
5 - Windows 98
6 - Windows 2000 / ME
7 - Windows XP
8 - Windows Vista
So Surely it should be called windows 9?
It does seem as though decent OS's skip a generation. W98 was OK, then we had ME. XP was / is fine, now we have Vista. Maybe Windows 7 will be something to look forward to! ;)
The replacement was announced around 6 months ago. From what I read, it will be what Vista was meant to be, but MS could not fix in time for the 2007 release due to the EC ruling against them.
But I think Windows Vista is fine, and sustitute ME for 2k and that was fine also! Hopefully Windows 7 will be great as well, but I can see it meeting the same resistence Vista has unless MS do a good coding job on it.
Vista is OK, but I think you need a pretty high spec machine for it to run efficiently. My new Vista laptop is actually slower than my 5 year old home built PC with XP on it, and the home build was nothing better than mid-spec at the time. It also seems to be taking some time for all programs to be Vista compatible. I don't know whether that's the fault of the design of Vista, or software vendors dragging their feet, but it doesn't help.
I think Vista gets an unnecessarily hard time. Sure, it's not as good as XP at the moment, but XP was not the most loved OS when it was first released from what I can remember.
Vista does require quite a high-end machine, and that's going to be its biggest issue until 2GB RAM and dual-core processors become the norm. At the moment, if you buy a cheap notebook, for example, Vista will run pretty poorly.
Quote from: Sebby on Jan 22, 2008, 22:48:01At the moment, if you buy a cheap notebook, for example, Vista will run pretty poorly.
My point precisely! ;D
What we really need is for 64 bit to become the norm - let's face it - all new machines come with dual core 64bit processors - yet most of us are still hanging on to a 32bit OS.
When manufacturers cotton on to the idea - then we can all start moaning about 128bit quad cores not being supported :)
Quote from: Lance on Jan 22, 2008, 22:11:14
I count:
1 - Windows 1
2 - Windows 2
3 - Windows 3
4 - Windows 95
5 - Windows 98
6 - Windows 2000 / ME
7 - Windows XP
8 - Windows Vista
I can't recall a Windows 2, Lance. I had Win1 runtime, then Win3, then 3.11 (Workgroups).
As Windows 2 would have been before I started school, I googled at a Wikipedia artical popped up. As it was late I couldn't be bothered to varifiy it!
I count Win 3.11 (and wind 3.1) as a part of the Windows 3 family :)
I didn't move to Winows until v3, but some DTP apps came with runtime versions to provide the GUI interface. I can't recall seeing a v2, though, but then maybe I didn't buy the right app. :)
Quote from: D-Dan on Jan 23, 2008, 00:16:33
What we really need is for 64 bit to become the norm - let's face it - all new machines come with dual core 64bit processors - yet most of us are still hanging on to a 32bit OS.
When manufacturers cotton on to the idea - then we can all start moaning about 128bit quad cores not being supported :)
Vista Ultimate x64 here. Dual Core 2 Duo 6600 2.4 @ 3ghz with 6gb of RAM. Couldn't run smoother!
If only I could get my iPhone to work...........and maybe CA Antivirus which I have a licence for but can't use.
Given how long it took to move from 16-bit, you just need to be patient for another decade or so. >:D
It's drivers/software that stopped me going for Vista x64, like everyone else, I'd imagine.
Quote from: Sebby on Jan 23, 2008, 18:03:19
It's drivers/software that stopped me going for Vista x64, like everyone else, I'd imagine.
All newish (a couple of years old) should have x64 drives available. The problem is that Vista doesn't accept non signed vista drivers which is problematic.
The only device I've had a problem with is the iPhone. Webcam, scanner, printer, wireless dongle etc all work fine.
General use feels smoother and when playing counterstrike i saw a 25% increase in FPS.
I find that providing you are willing (rich enough), to ditch all that perfectly functioning hardware/software and buy the latest versions of everything, you will have no problem using Vista 32 or 64.
It's not Vista at fault, but the greedy manufacturers/developers forcing you to buy new. :rant: :rant2:
Quote from: MoHux on Jan 23, 2008, 18:16:32
I find that providing you are willing (rich enough), to ditch all that perfectly functioning hardware/software and buy the latest versions of everything, you will have no problem using Vista 32 or 64.
It's not Vista at fault, but the greedy manufacturers/developers forcing you to buy new. :rant: :rant2:
The only thing I ditched was CA Antivirus. The iPhone I couldn't live without now so sync it via my laptop in hope of an itunes update soon :-D. Most newish hardware does have x64 drivers - I was suprised that my 3 or 4 year old webcam had newly issued vista x64 drivers on the Creative website.
Quote from: Sebby on Jan 23, 2008, 18:03:19
It's drivers/software that stopped me going for Vista x64, like everyone else, I'd imagine.
I had an initial problem of there being no x64 driver for AMD-Away (AMD Live!), but it is possible to install the 32bit driver and it works fine. Alas, the motherboard is dead now and I'm hoping to exchange it for a Core 2 Duo, but that's another story. ;)