Now that we've got a rough release date of Windows 7, Microsoft making sure that Windows 7's launch will go smoothly and not be plagued with compatibility issues reports Paul Thurrott and Channel Web.While Windows 7 could RTM at anytime, and is already compatible with most hardware and software, Microsoft wants to get as close to 100 percent compatibility as possible before the launch.
There has been pressure to release Windows 7 as quickly as possible, but Microsoft has stated that it will not succumb to this pressure.
"Many are pushing us to release the product sooner rather than later, but our focus remains on a high quality release", says Steve Sinofsky, Senior Vice President, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group.
But Microsoft isn't the only one that is making sure that Windows 7's launch will go smoothly, Nvidia says they're not going to screw up with the Windows 7 launch either, and AMD already has Windows 7 drivers out for it's ATI Radeon product. OEMs are also starting to get ready, and Acer already has a release date of October 23rd set.
Vista's launch was somewhat of a failure because all major players in hardware and software failed to deliver the support they promised.
Hopefully, all the people that skipped Vista won't have as many problems upgrading to Windows 7. I'm sure many of them are taking the support for granted when they must check if the software and software is supported before upgrading.
Here we go again. It was everyone's fault except MS. Vista was actually a great product and the rest of the world is just too stupid to understand it. (sarcasm)
Vista had tons of bugs on release, and still has some left. DX10 did not perform nearly as well as MS claimed, when vendors tried to write drivers for it they got horrible performance. GDI+ compatibility was also bugged, leading to poor performance (compared to XP and OS X) for applications like Photoshop. Vista was not as compatible as MS claimed. MS misled customers with "Vista capable."
Hardware manufacturers were also partly to blame, most notably Creative, but they still had to contend with Vista's bugs and MS's false performance claims even when they followed MS's guidelines.
Vista had tons of bugs on release, and still has some left. DX10 did not perform nearly as well as MS claimed, when vendors tried to write drivers for it they got horrible performance. GDI+ compatibility was also bugged, leading to poor performance (compared to XP and OS X) for applications like Photoshop. Vista was not as compatible as MS claimed. MS misled customers with "Vista capable."
Hardware manufacturers were also partly to blame, most notably Creative, but they still had to contend with Vista's bugs and MS's false performance claims even when they followed MS's guidelines.
Maybe I was just lucky, but I had much better luck with Vista than with XP when I upgraded - and that was near Vista's launch.
Vista had tons of bugs on release, and still has some left. DX10 did not perform nearly as well as MS claimed, when vendors tried to write drivers for it they got horrible performance. GDI+ compatibility was also bugged, leading to poor performance (compared to XP and OS X) for applications like Photoshop. Vista was not as compatible as MS claimed. MS misled customers with "Vista capable."
Hardware manufacturers were also partly to blame, most notably Creative, but they still had to contend with Vista's bugs and MS's false performance claims even when they followed MS's guidelines.
Blah blah blah...
1. Vista had bugs, but most bugs didn't affect performance. The ones that did, MS released a patch for it.
2. Hardware manufacturers had a lot to do with it. ATI managed to get working drivers fine. Nvidia / Creative have had buggy drivers, hell even to this date they still do.
3. MS misled nobody but idiots with Vista capable. Capable doesn't mean it can run everything, it just means it will run it (even at its bare minimum). If i tell you that you're capable of running 10miles, it means you can run 10miles but you probably won't get a world record time or something.
4. Vista's compatibility? All my programs worked just fine, and so did 90%+ of programs out there.
5. Dx10 performs fine, and is a great upgrade to DX9. Yet again just because Nvidia driver team sucks doesn't make Vista suck.
And if you somehow think Nvidia drivers are good go look at the nvidia forums. It took them over a year to fix a simple bug that caused the GPU to remain at 2d clock speeds, even after a fix by some random guy was made. Or how about the gpu on my laptop will be at 80+ and the fans will still remain on low. Or the full screen app minimizing bug.. etc etc etc
Vista may not have been as perfect as microsoft promised, but it would have had a MUCH MUCH better launch had driver manufacturers, especially Nvidia/Creative, got off their lazy asses and actually coded a driver that worked.
Everything crashed. Maybe if Vista was a beautiful coded software, they forgot everything needs hardware to run.
The problem was Microsoft was too focused on anti-piracy methods and activation crap, since they had to take care of their profits, than forgot to ask hardware makers to work on drivers for their soon to be released new OS. They same thing happened with Windows xp 64 and by the time vista came out, it was too late to backtrack work, so it just died in a corner. The other thing was confusing users by releasing lots of SKUs without any clear difference between them, and since Vista was mostly an eye candy thing, they really effed things up by making the "Ultimate" exclusives, with came months and even years later, and that was it, the Ultimate users got shafted with Dreamscape for 100 extra bucks.
I used Vista 64, and I can't explain how you can say Vista was a good OS, if it good better with the years, well it was supposed to, you buy original expecting fixes, that's what they charge you for.
No need for the rolling eyes IMHO; it's easy to understand this viewpoint with the combination of Microsoft's + OEM's track record. Let's just hope W7 changes that. Unfortunately, I can't trust their word on it anymore. I can only believe it when I see and hear it myself.
Everything crashed. Maybe if Vista was a beautiful coded software, they forgot everything needs hardware to run.
The problem was Microsoft was too focused on anti-piracy methods and activation crap, since they had to take care of their profits, than forgot to ask hardware makers to work on drivers for their soon to be released new OS. They same thing happened with Windows xp 64 and by the time vista came out, it was too late to backtrack work, so it just died in a corner. The other thing was confusing users by releasing lots of SKUs without any clear difference between them, and since Vista was mostly an eye candy thing, they really effed things up by making the "Ultimate" exclusives, with came months and even years later, and that was it, the Ultimate users got shafted with Dreamscape for 100 extra bucks.
I used Vista 64, and I can't explain how you can say Vista was a good OS, if it good better with the years, well it was supposed to, you buy original expecting fixes, that's what they charge you for.
They forgot nothing. They had a huge hardware developers summit before Vista was released to allow OEMs to bring any lingering issues to the table. As far as I know, Creative is the only major company that didn't attend. nVidia sat on their butts and assumed that the driver model was similar enough that they didn't need to adjust them any more than they did.
The anti-piracy features of Vista are only slightly tweaked from XP, so that's really not valid either.
XP x64: Was never commercially sold. It was available as an exchange for XP x86 for a while and as OEM. It is a branch of Windows Server 2003, not XP.
The Ultimate version of Windows Vista's main feature was not the extras. That's why they're called extras. Ultimate is designed to be the "has all features" version. If you didn't need domain login, full image backup, multiple languages, etc. you should have just bought Home Premium (or Business.)
I'm not even addressing toadeater's claims since they've been brought up ad nauseum and disproven. Really... It was DirectX's fault, yet Nvidia drives suddenly got fixed a few months later without a DirectX update?
Vista had tons of bugs on release, and still has some left. DX10 did not perform nearly as well as MS claimed, when vendors tried to write drivers for it they got horrible performance. GDI+ compatibility was also bugged, leading to poor performance (compared to XP and OS X) for applications like Photoshop. Vista was not as compatible as MS claimed. MS misled customers with "Vista capable."
Hardware manufacturers were also partly to blame, most notably Creative, but they still had to contend with Vista's bugs and MS's false performance claims even when they followed MS's guidelines.
Blah blah blah...
1. Vista had bugs, but most bugs didn't affect performance. The ones that did, MS released a patch for it.
2. Hardware manufacturers had a lot to do with it. ATI managed to get working drivers fine. Nvidia / Creative have had buggy drivers, hell even to this date they still do.
3. MS misled nobody but idiots with Vista capable. Capable doesn't mean it can run everything, it just means it will run it (even at its bare minimum). If i tell you that you're capable of running 10miles, it means you can run 10miles but you probably won't get a world record time or something.
4. Vista's compatibility? All my programs worked just fine, and so did 90%+ of programs out there.
5. Dx10 performs fine, and is a great upgrade to DX9. Yet again just because Nvidia driver team sucks doesn't make Vista suck.
And if you somehow think Nvidia drivers are good go look at the nvidia forums. It took them over a year to fix a simple bug that caused the GPU to remain at 2d clock speeds, even after a fix by some random guy was made. Or how about the gpu on my laptop will be at 80+ and the fans will still remain on low. Or the full screen app minimizing bug.. etc etc etc
Vista may not have been as perfect as microsoft promised, but it would have had a MUCH MUCH better launch had driver manufacturers, especially Nvidia/Creative, got off their lazy asses and actually coded a driver that worked.
Not sure why you say Nvidia driver suck cause they do not. I have SLI 8800GTX now 280GTX setup since day one, never had any issue. Infact the best ever gaming etc experience i had with 8800GTX-280GTX cards and Nvidia drivers especially SLI. Creative didn't do anything bad but MS ****ed up Audio Support in Vista as well as in Windows 7, cause sound under those two operating system is not even ****ing near the quality under Windows XP.
Funny thing is that Windows 7 is not any faster then Windows Vista SP2. They perform exact the same.
Technically, while it may not be any faster, the OS simply feels more responsive. You may not get your work done any faster, but the experience will be better.
Believe me, I've used and loved Vista, but Windows 7 is just awesome.
The bulk of drivers are exactly the same.
Only a few minor changes have been made to the driver models, compared to Vista (WDDM 1.1 being the most notable, I think)
without the hassle of going to a store and buying a box.
without the hassle of going to a store and buying a box.
Interesting idea... unactivated gives you a 30-day trial. Problem is it gives more people access to pirated versions through keygens.
AMD still didnt launched their AMD Live! for win 7 , several TV Tuner brands or all still didnt launched their win7 driver version ( And maybe due to this and WMC there are a few "problems-BSOD" )
I just hope that they ( companies ) dont do the following , using vista drivers as if they were win 7 drivers
AMD still didnt launched their AMD Live! for win 7 , several TV Tuner brands or all still didnt launched their win7 driver version ( And maybe due to this and WMC there are a few "problems-BSOD" )
I just hope that they ( companies ) dont do the following , using vista drivers as if they were win 7 drivers
The *several TV tuner brands* without Windows 7 driver support can't blame AMD, as all of AMD's current TV tuner base products (all the way back to the HDTV Wonder) are supported by Windows 7 (even 64-bit) today.
I would not call it "vista SE" ...is based on vista ,but has some major tweaks. On the visual side, except the taskbar, ii's 80% the same aero.
Digital Report Blog
VS 2010 beta 1 is getting release on May 18th for MSDN subscribers while May 20th for general public.
Upgrading an old system for 7 is just as doable, if not more so, than upgrading an old system for Vista. (I've done both.)
It's just as viable to upgrade an older computer for a new operating system today as it was when Windows 2000 Professional went RTM, and that was a decade ago. The issue (now and then) was finding the point it doesn't become *economically viable*.
The $300 computer is a *starting point*, and always has been. However, compared to when Vista went RTM, you have a lot less to add/upgrade on the $300 system today to make it truly usable over the medium haul, if not long haul.
It's just as viable to upgrade an older computer for a new operating system today as it was when Windows 2000 Professional went RTM, and that was a decade ago. The issue (now and then) was finding the point it doesn't become *economically viable*.
The $300 computer is a *starting point*, and always has been. However, compared to when Vista went RTM, you have a lot less to add/upgrade on the $300 system today to make it truly usable over the medium haul, if not long haul.
Of course, for us techies, $300 (plus a few reused parts from the last machine) gets us a dual-core 2.8 GHz machine with 4 GB RAM. I reused a GeForce 8500GT graphics card I got for $60 a while back, the power supply, the case... etc. This machine's not exactly high-end, but it sure is nice.
Last edited by jjrambo on 17 May 2009 - 16:55
Not enough people had the super computer that is required to run Vista, so when they upgraded their old machines, it became a total dog!!
Although Vista may be somewhat better now, personally, I think it still blows chunks!!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.