Windows 7 is the equivalent of Vista SP2
This isn’t new, this has been said before but it’s not exactly clear what Windows 7 will shape up to be when it finally ships. If you are to believe what Microsoft has said that it will "be available three years after the general availability of Vista" then that translates to a late 2009 or early 2010 release. So soon? The only way it could accomplish that is if it is basically Vista (and it is) with little changes.
When Windows Vista released it had so many changes that old device drivers didn’t work with it so lots of hardware was "broken" in Vista but now device manufacturers have more or less caught up and so have consumers. New devices function perfectly with Vista but some older devices will have problems or limited functionality.
As long as the hardware and peripherals you have are brand spanking new then Vista will love you, if not, well, go ahead and take your life into your own hands. The only new feature in Windows 7 so far seems to be multitouch for touchscreens which is only going to be good for specialized applications and tablet PCs.
What else is new? The taskbar appears to have changed slightly but there does not appear to be any further optimization or under the hood changes, at all.
According to ComputerWorld, it will include Internet Explorer 8 but the beta 1 is already available to download for every modern version of Windows including Windows XP. There’s no reason to believe that the final version won’t be made available for those versions of Windows.
So that leaves a new taskbar, yay. And Windows 7 is going to probably cost in the area of $350, no thanks. Microsoft is trying to convince everyone to upgrade to Vista now since it is "basically Windows 7" and that leaves me to wonder how it will convince people to upgrade to Windows 7 if they already have Vista.
Windows 7 should just be labeled Windows Vista SP2 and distributed for free or a nominal fee (say $50).
Related Posts:
May 29th, 2008
I’ve been thinking the same thing!!
Windows 7 should be named Vista SP2, if the code is basically Vista, and is basically tweaked and improvments, then make it a service pack.
And if MS doesn’t want to do that because they’ll lose money on their beta they gave everyone (Vista), charge a small fee like you said.
Vista users deserve a free upgrade to Windows 7, or Vista SP2 for all the trouble MS put them through.
June 9th, 2008
@Jared,
Vista users deserve a free upgrade to *Linux* – fortunately, this is very easy to arrange.
June 28th, 2008
Windows7 uses the new minwin kernel. We see a new version of WinFS hopefully.
I do think we are going to see a Vista SP2. This the only way MS is going get corporate accts to upgrade after 2009.
August 28th, 2008
Microsoft is not stupid to give SP2 so easily. They will make you all cry until they are ready with Windows 7 and just before the launch, couple of months before, they will release SP2.
So, actually Microsoft will make Billions of Dollars once again for seling a support pack as a new OS and already looted billions of dollars from consumers.
Why can’t somebody sue microsoft on these dirty games. Screwed you butt head balmer.
August 28th, 2008
Sorry Randy,
MiniWin, which I love. was an item from Muppet Labs. I mean Microsoft Test labs. Microsoft itself has said that MiniWin is not slated to go into any Microsoft OS.
WinFS is still just a dream and is going to stay that way. For WinFS to become a real proejct, you need an ultra fast SQL server under the hood. Better than the top of the line SQL server that Microsoft sells now.
If they put it under the hood for free, how are they going to keep you from hacking in and using it? It would kill the market for one of their best cash cows. Every time WinFS takes a step forward, the SQL team cuts it’s legs off.
December 4th, 2008
Will SP2 add support for USB 3.0 and Media Center TV pack ?
December 28th, 2008
Actually, Vista SP2 is already in beta and is slotted for release in April to the general public.
I agree that Win7 is nothing more than what Vista SP2 should actually be.
From bench mark tests I’ve seen on Vista SP2, the performance increase is a joke and pretty much non-existent.
In fact, in half of the areas tested, there were actually decreases in performance.
Chris
January 3rd, 2009
If MS doesn’t fix VISTA, and come out with a new OS, MS will come to a screeching halt.
The thinking would be, best to stick with what we’ve got and see what happens with the new OS, what ever it may be. At least that’s what I would do.
Matt O.
January 18th, 2009
I must confess to being a bit confused as to why MS are releasing a whole new OS?? As some have already said, they should have released a win7 upgrade pack for vista – costing around $50 for those who already own either vista retail or vista OEM on their machines! People who have spent good money on vista dont want to feel like the focus is going off their brand new OS, and onto something better already.
August 16th, 2009
Microsoft did what it REALLY had to do after XP -> break compatibility a little to make leaps forward and have tight default settings. People kept asking this. Not all apps were able to run under Vista and hardware was not designed for it yet, resulting in major problems with the OS.
BUT… Microsoft screwed up because of DRM (the sole reason Vista is so slow). They screwed up for wanting to sell some documentation driver developpers needed, instead of giving it away for free.
The fact that all the older hardware and apps sucks in Vista is not Microsofts fault, but the price you pay if you decide to go proprietary instead of free software. Don’t Q_Q; it’s your own damn fault.
So that’s Microsoft; trapped by their own tactics; lock-in…