Gates: Windows 7 may come 'in the next year'

[פֿяαιп βαмαgεפ]

Originally Posted by Cnet News.com

MIAMI--Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Friday indicated that Windows 7, the next major version of Windows, could come within the next year, far ahead of the development schedule previously indicated by the software maker.

Full article here

Well whatdajaknow! Vista was a disaster so they're already moving on!

[Innoc]

Redmonds disappointment with Vista has been drifting on the rumormill winds for a while.

[Damascus]

Windows freakin' 7.

Looks JUST like Vista, just with a little more spice.

Really......

[Backstaber]

Windows 95: Shit
Windows 98: Not bad
Windows ME/2000: Shit
Windows XP: A lot better
Windows Vista: Shitty
Windows 7: ?

Wonder if it will follow that trend?

[Mooga]

From Best to worse:
XP
98
95
ME

Where is vista? Well, since you need 7 TB of ram for it to actually run... it's on another list... OSs that should DIE:
Vista
ME

[Damascus]

You forgot Windows 1 and the laptops with 1 Megabyte RAM.

[Suite307]

So if they follow that trade Windows 7 is going to be "OMFG BATSHIT FUCKING AWESOME" or a less shitty version of vista.

[BinaryLife]

You forgot windows 2000 and windows nt, both of which were decent programs. I used windows 2000 until 3 years after XP came out.

[Sh4x]

I just wish they would release an OS that's thought-out from the ground up to optimize performance instead of all the fucking glitter.

It's impressive how MS managed to take so many years to come up with an OS that's shittier than the previous one.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Sh4x

It's impressive how MS managed to take so many years to come up with an OS that's shittier than the previous one.

[Ihmhi]

Originally Posted by Sh4x

I just wish they would release an OS that's thought-out from the ground up to optimize performance instead of all the fucking glitter.

The only way to do that would be to code an OS from scratch instead of cobbling together code from hundreds of different sources.

I recall reading an article when they said Vista was (originally) going to be "coded from scratch". The author said we can either expect it in 2014 (as it would take about 10 years of dedicated work by a team of 100+ programmers and engineers), or they're lying.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

The only way to do that would be to code an OS from scratch instead of cobbling together code from hundreds of different sources.

I recall reading an article when they said Vista was (originally) going to be "coded from scratch". The author said we can either expect it in 2014 (as it would take about 10 years of dedicated work by a team of 100+ programmers and engineers), or they're lying.

Each generation of Linux is not done from scratch. It's been incremental improvements of various portions of the kernel, various daemons and services and utilities. Both windows and Linux have had their successes and failures. Look at SELinux...holy crap what a Piece of junk that was at the outset. It was WAY too draconian for what was intended. Even now I think there are a number of people that disable some or all of it's features.

That said...

As per this thread I do not believe that we'll ever see Vista reach a point in it's maturation where it will be as trusted as XP. I believe that MS has learned a few things due to Vista and various other "new" things they've tried. Being overzealous with WGA is chief among those lessons. Will W7 be better? Who knows? I know that I continue to be disappointed with Vista....I'm still toughing it out...but it's very disappointing.

[KubeDawg]

TBH, Windows 2000 wasn't all that bad. It was the ME version that sucked balls.

So it's like this:

Win95 - Old and crappy
Win98 - Better, but still old
Win2000 - Actually pretty decent
WinME - SUCKS
WinXP - Better than Win2000
WinVista - SUCKS

So Windows 7 would probably not suck because of the fact that all previous versions have at least 1 halfway decent version in between the sucky ones.

[Hammock]

I don't have Vista, but I've operated a bit on it, and boy let me tell you, I could honestly care less about all these windows fading in and out of transparency, like stated above, all that glitter and glamor is useless.

I want an O/S that's easy to use, user friendly, well supported and spews performance.

[DarkeN_HellspawN]

Win95 - Blew aways 3.11 for Workgroups and finally but the knife into Apple and OS\2. THIS MADE M$ into what it is today. 95' Whoop ASS!!!!!

Windows NT 3.1 and 4.0 - It was so beatifull. Manage Services and event viewer and the Domain setup 1st for MS. LOVED IT. Adding devices was a pain in the ass and the DNS sucked with errors until SP6 finally came out.

Win98 - Slighty better then 95' but no boot cd ability or plug n' play until 98' 2nd edition in which blew USB 1.0 to angelic levels, bootable cd, diagnostics that worked

Win2000 - Some of the best programming M$ has ever done but was made more for the professional. Not as pretty as XP but XP Was built on it. Hard Level could make you scream for joy.

WinME - SUCKS - YES!!!!! - .DLL comes to memory as most of us older folks will be able to attest to. Really brought the BSOD to life all the time.

WinXP - Built upon 2000 - Seperated the security profiles from a basic user version which was AWESOME. Best diagnostics of any OS ever and still is rocking to this day. Not based on running on top of DOS but still could run it in emualted mode.

WinVista - Luke Warm - Performance memory whore but can be fixed. Some legacy software will not run properly and drivers can be a PITA. Very pretty + eye candy but did not need 4 different verions of it in which confused too many people. Should of had 3 verisons max, home, ultimate professional.

dh

[פֿяαιп βαмαgεפ]

^I agree with DH, win95 mand M$ what it is today.

Apple moves good, but too slow.