First Vista service pack beta for 07 Looks like Google will have to wait at least until 2008, and possibly longer, before it gets search satisfaction from Microsoft on Windows Vista. Microsoft has said it plans nothing more than a beta for its first Windows Vista Services Pack (SP1) for the rest of 2007, and is not giving dates on a final release date. The …
Vista performance and reliability, Vista compatibility and reliability...
Hmm, why is it that Microsoft always use improved reliability as a selling point, I'm sure they sold vista on "more reliable" too.
Microsoft should make reliable software in the first place, rather than using some orwellian style propaganda to try and convince people it _IS_ more reliable. Maybe if they tried to hit a 6 month release schedule like GNOME they'd get a more reliable desktop.
Delaying the patch will in turn delay the time until their their updates to allow competition get installed.
They've learnt over the last few years that enough of a headstart will stop people bothering with alternatives - so if google's search lags behind for long enough it'll stop being a competitor in the grand scheme of things. It's worked before (Wordperfect, et al.) and will work again.
Of course, it's quite possible that I'm being cynical and over-paranoid - but this IS Microsoft we're talking about. :)
I am not a OS programmer, but I really cant see what can they do to help Vista, paint it black ? wash it clean ? but underneath its still Vista with its crap core.
I think Microsoft is delaying the SP for one reason, hardware!!, by the time they release SP1, more computers would be capable of running Vista at a reasonable speed, and memory prices may drop so users can afford to add more memory to make it work faster.
Back to the original point, making the OS so large and hardware hurgry purely for the purpose of interface is just a stupid idea.
Last Fall, at a pre-launch conference, we were told that Microsoft intended to use the same build for Vista SP1 and Server 2008 (nee Longhorn) and that they would be launched simultaneously. The Microsoft presenters made a big deal about this - SP1 would essentially be a new version of Windows, not just a rollup of patches. Of course, that was 9 months ago and plans can change but using the same build for server and client makes a lot of business sense and launching both simultaneously makes a lot of marketing sense so it's hard to believe they would abandon the idea so easily. Does that mean Server 2008 will also be delayed until next year?
It's being delayed due to the Server 2008 kernel. SP1 for Vista is rumoured to upgrade the kernel so both will be running the same kernel, if so it seems it'll be released when Server 2008 is launched in February. 2009 is a bit of a joke, they want widespread deployment and that's not going to happen until SP1 is released, so why would they delay it any further? Hardware is cheap these days, shame on anyone running anything below a 5.0Ghz Dual Core with 4 Gb of RAM, really, shame on them!
Making a crappy core that hogs hardware is actually very good for us, the end-user. Hardware speeds and capabilities only really develop around need... Vista will make developers release better hardware sooner and cheaper which we can then get a real advantage out of on Linux!
I won't buy another windows OS after wasting cash on an OEM of vista ultimate.
...but the options for someone wanting to play games are Vista, XP or nowt.
If Linux would only stop having 40 + distributions and settle on 1 then games manufacturers could get involved and MS would actually have competition, they would actually HAVE to produce something that was good and worked or lose their strangle hold on the world.
I think MS are trying to put as much spin on their cruddy Vista as Jobs is on the Mac and we know what that means.
Windows XP Service Pack 3 should have been released at the end of this year and it should also be released way before Service Pack 1 for Vista.
Again to much power for one company. This appearance by Microsoft to shove Vista at all cost and just drop XP is what gives it a bad name, but Microsoft is not alone in this deceit. All of these media sites just let them get away with it.
Why should we expect a Service Pack to be available for Vista before a 3rd Service Pack for XP is available? That is because this is the company line from Microsoft and so the press is doing Microsoft's bidding making it sound like everyone is waiting and wanting Service Pack 1 for Vista. Not.
Why isn't the press crying out load for Service Pack 3 for XP? Politics of a different format...
Isn't that only half of the problem. Amongst other problems, how about "the Long Goodbye", losing interactivity during routine file operations whilst the O/S tries to work out whether you have the legal right to delete your own files ? This windows release is I agree essentially a bells and whistles release, but actually manages to make a horlicks of the routine operations that earlier versions managed just fine. I occasionally look after friends PC's and am advising them to avoid VIsta on new purchases because they want to actually use them and not spend more than they need to on memory in order to do so.
In addition there's the problem of legacy app and hardware support. One of my buddies is a professional musician and has a pile of kit and software he needs to run, in order to earn his frequently slender crust. Vista aint going to cut the mustard. Whilst the new frontend might well impress the hell out of him, he's going to be decidedly unimpressed by piss poor performance whilst he's on stage, or incompatibility with, what for him are working tools.
Add in a distinctly lacksadaisical looking approach to support from MS and he's going to have a problem buying a new laptop. If we can't find a bundle with XP Pro for him, or find a suitable license, his upgrade is going to cost him a whole lot more than a budget lappie.
Sure the bells and whistles are nice, but raely has so much functionality been compromised in a new O/S release.
Vista is a retrograde step. Lipstick for pigs.
Apple releases a new Mac OS every quarter or so, which is installed by the previous version. Microsoft is releasing a new Windows only once every two years. If you hook a box onto the Internet and leave the OS the same for 2 years that is a sitting duck even if it is Unix. If it's Windows, you might as well just get your box its own domain name and BitTorrent server, you are essentially live on the 'net.
That's not good enough anymore, not even for the typewriter OS.
Instead of Vista you are better to install Unix and a virtualizer with your current XP in there. You can roll your own or get a Mac if you want it dead easy. Your old system becomes an app on the new one. At the very least you get your Firefox out of Windows and onto a real networking stack and user account.
Or Windows 7 should do the trick, right? Circa 2012, what the hell is your youth for anyway? That's 17 years since Windows 95 and only 3 versions. Agile for a brontosaurus.
The 40+ Linux distros aren't the problem. A distribution is really just a collection of software packages with the Linux kernel. What they need is a better (and unified!) package management system. That and some kind of DirectX compatible video/sound system; with that, games could be more easily made for Linux. And I'd finally have a reason to dump MS completely, for personal use anyway.
i did say that i would not buy vista, but then it came as the pre-loaded OS on my new Toshiba laptop.
i have found it a very capable and secure OS to use.
i prefer it over win2k (which is our standard office OS) and prefer it over XP (which is on my other 2 machines).
i'm very impressed with it's performance with all the applications i use, including the resource hungry CS2.
with the addition of Readyboost to aid performace i see no reason why i shouldn't upgrade my other machines and recommend to out IT dept. that they consider implenting it in the office (compatibility pending).
Vista is a good system, i'm very impressed with it and hve yet to experience any bugs.
the only issues i have ahd with this new machine are the crappy add-ons Toshiba insist on installing
"If Linux would only stop having 40 + distributions and settle on 1 then games manufacturers could get involved"
You make it sound like Linux is owned by a single company. It isn't and this means there will never likely be just one flavour of Linux. But that's the beauty of it, developers will create niche versions that support specific tasks and users. While there are loads of distributions they are all still based on a Linux core and therefore software doesn't have to be written differently for each distribution. Sure there are sometimes incompatibilities, but it's not like that's a foreign problem to Microsoft.
Back on topic... I and many Windows users know from experience that you don't install an MS operating system for serious use (of course we have installed it, played with it, and consigned it to the 'what a load of rubbish' pile) until SP1 is available at the very least. If MS delay this SP there will be a lot of customers, in particular corporate customers sticking with XP for as long as they delay it.
i also did say that I would not buy Vista, but then it came installed as a pre-loaded OS on my new Toshiba laptop.
i am saddened as how uncapable it is, and how annoying its security system is.
I can't run many of my old Win2K programs with the right compatibility, and any time I try to run something that isn't "Windows Vista approved" it throws a bunch of dialog boxes my way asking me if I'm REALLY sure I want to run it.
It runs slower than dogshit, which shouldn't be a problem on a 2Gig memory, 1.8Ghz dual core system. I can't even run any iTunes video on it without it freezing up.
I can barely run more than 5 applications at any one time without some serious memory swapping. ReadyBoost is a joke and actually causes my system to run slower.
Vista is a horrible system, and I wouldn't even offer it to my enemies.
The only thing I can agree with the previous submitter is that the crappy add-ons make the system truly unusable.
"i did say that i would not buy vista, but then it came as the pre-loaded OS on my new Toshiba laptop.
i have found it a very capable and secure OS to use.
i prefer it over win2k (which is our standard office OS) and prefer it over XP (which is on my other 2 machines).
i'm very impressed with it's performance with all the applications i use, including the resource hungry CS2.
with the addition of Readyboost to aid performace i see no reason why i shouldn't upgrade my other machines and recommend to out IT dept. that they consider implenting it in the office (compatibility pending.
Vista is a good system, i'm very impressed with it and hve yet to experience any bugs. "
-----------
Thats exactly what I thought after my new HP lapley came with Vista inside - until the novelty halo wore off and problems started appearing out of nowhere . Readyboost just tears my HD apart so no to that, and the .Net security updates have utterly and totally screwed up my most used applications, which are old but trusted and justified . So basically Vista it's so crappy ,ohh its crappy .
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
