Ars Technica get their mitts on the next version of Windows. Should we hold out hope that Microsoft will learn from the underwhelming reception of Vista?
Printable View
Ars Technica get their mitts on the next version of Windows. Should we hold out hope that Microsoft will learn from the underwhelming reception of Vista?
Acording to them, its going to be out in 2009. But they say they are doing it too fast.
Internet Explorer is offering the Beta version for version 8. Anyone had a look? I saw it on someone elses screen and im at school right now, so no personal look.
They were oh-so-enthusiastic a while ago about integrating the web-browsing experience with the windows experience, so when are they going to integrate those features that we expect from new browsers? A choice of tabs or windows, mouse gestures, bookmarks, etc. Perhaps add-ons may be too risky security-wise, but the above would be nice.
Looks nice, reminds me of the OS on my Linux laptop :laugh4:
Must say it looks pretty neat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's because you are already familiar with it. :wink:
Already thought it looked a lot like OSX. A well they can have their microwave meal. People are going to stick with XP anyway now that it is finally ready for release :beam:
I seriously don't know why everyone is not happy about Vista. I have Vista Ultimate 64-bits for like 1 year, and I am perfectly happy with it!
The only downside is the "feel" of Vista, its waaay too plastic. I prefer XP much more when it comes to graphics and stuff. For me XP is better than Vista only on the feel factor, the rest they are perfectly equal.
If they fixed the network management, I'll be happy.
Actually I like Vista's modern look, XP looks old and outdated to me.
There are a few bugs in Vista but there are worse ones in XP (like bluescreens, still haven't had one in Vista).
I still have a copy of XP that I use very, very rarely for the odd game that won't run in Vista.
This Windows 7 here doesn't look too different from Vista, some small new feature here and there it seems, though I didn't read the link or anything.
For the same reason albatrosses aren't happy when an oil-frigat sinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Vista is under-rated yes, but XP is still IMO the better operating system.
Windows 7 is something I look forward to greatly.
1) A "bluescreen" isn't a bug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
2) I've had this copy of XP running now for about 3 years and never seen a BSoD yet.
3) Seeing a BSoD isn't a problem in itself it's usually an indicator of an underlying problem, usually related to defective/overheating hardware or buggy device drivers.
4) BSoDs in XP are disabled by default, the OS reboots. I have always disabled the reboot option and have still never seen a BSoD on any XP machine except where defective/overheating hardware or buggy device drivers were the culprit. Usually the former and usually memory in particular.
5) There is no evidence to show that there are somehow "more bugs in XP than in Vista".
No, it's just the OS saying that it cannot solve a problem without restarting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I didn't see them often but Earth 2160 for example created one everytime I shut down the game, think it was a graphics driver issue but Vista just restarts the driver in that case, not the whole system, I call that an improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Some people report problems with Vista that I haven't had either. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
But I constantly see people claim that Vista is worse anyway, maybe next time I should just demand objective proof for that. Though I'm perfectly aware that counting bugs in an OS is some kind of almost insolvable task. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Besides, I said worse bugs, not more ~;p
I call it a problem with the game or graphics card drivers. And I'd rather know about this than have the OS just restart the driver. It's a cheap and dirty fix and doesn't help if the crash is in the middle of playing a game either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm not saying one is more bugged than the other. I'm referring to the fact that people often refer to Vista's increased stability over XP as some sort of justification for having it, whereas there is no evidence that Vista is more stable than 2K, XP or 2K3. In fact if Vista was more stable I'm sure that may more companies would have switched to it for workstation use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Gah. I can never figure out what these people are talking about half the time with how good a new OS will be when I can't see it in action. I'll see when it comes out.
AMD has released beta Catalyst drivers for Windows 7, which is not even beta yet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they try to get Vista right first?
LOL. Fix an already-sold product, when you can sell an altogether new product?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Commie.
:) j/k o'course, CA.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I wouldn't be surprised if they want to move past Vista because everybody hates it anyway. Once everybody has hated it for a few months it's almost impossible to change their opinions unless you release another product which is either worse so people will value the old product for being better or which is actually better so people will buy it.
:laugh4:It's so true...Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
From what I've seen there's little to get excited about. It looks like Vista, and it's largely going to behave like Vista with just one (thankful) exception: it promises to allow you to turn off all those pesky notifications.
But it's basic (not too water-thight) security system hasn't changed all that impressively. It's file management system: haven't heard they'd ditch NTFS. It's directory service: well, same stuff by the looks of it. Is it going to support pipes, finally? Will it have a proper shell, for a change? Will it feature a more modular design (so as to allow me to uninstall like 10-20% I don't need/want)? Will it actually allow me to choose what to install?
I'd be way more excited if the screenshot had shown something like a shell with (equivalents to) the following code:
That would mean much: (a) pattern matching on the command line; (b) proper, working function that changes working directory; (c) file listing command; (d) I/O redirection; oh and (e) no more need for the extension guessing game the OS *knows* what it stored in the file system.Code:~$: tar -xvf foo-*.tar.gz ; cd foo-*; ls -a | grep 'bar' >> list_of_files_in_tar.gz
Microsoft aims Windows 7 for 2009 holiday season
Wow, that seems pretty fast since it seems like Vista has come out so recently....