With Windows 7, Vista may not be worth fixing
Microsoft is still preparing the final version of Vista SP2 and it will be released at some point before Windows 7. At least it should be released before Windows 7. But is anyone really paying attention to Vista at this point? Not really.
Frequent readers of this very website should have noticed that much of our coverage is now Windows 7 related. Windows 7 is the future and Microsoft has effectively swept Vista under the rug.
I doubt very much we will see a Vista SP3 as the company is no doubt dumping as many resources as it can into Windows 7. Other projects will take a sideline.
Consumers are eager to get rid of Vista and why not. It is a slow dog of an operating system even on 4GB of memory. It’s slower than XP and the GUI was never the most responsive.
Windows 7 may not be at the level of XP yet but it is pretty close. The UAC problems have by and large been fixed. Driver problems are non-existent, in fact it “just works” right after a format and full install with little interaction required on the part of the user. Those who don’t know how to set the clock on a VCR should avoid installing Windows 7 (or any other operating system) but if you can manage that, it’s very likely you can install Windows 7. The final version will likely require no more than the user to click the “Next” or “Okay” buttons.
This also may be the first large distribution of a 64-bit operating system. Vista tried and failed. Windows 7 is succeeding where Vista fell short. Problems with the beta are few and far between so it would not be at all surprising to see Windows 7 by the end of this summer or at least in time for the Christmas shopping season.
When it is released, it would be 100% foolish to purchase a 32-bit edition of Windows 7. Absolutely foolish. There are a few minor problems with Windows 7 which will be detailed in a full review coming shortly.
Related Posts:
January 12th, 2009
time to change the name to win7.blorge
January 12th, 2009
Disagree. Millions will care. A SP-2 will likely be free while Win7 is not likely to be free far most who have Vista now.
January 12th, 2009
I agree with DavidB – there are many people who do care. Despite Vista’s ‘failure’, it also needs to be remembered that millions of copies of have been sold. Owners of Vista did right by MS and they in turn need to do right by their customers – something to date they have not done! Did anyone, like me, buy Vista Ultimate? MS won us over with the extra capabilities of VU and promises of extras and specials. Well, a couple of DreamScenes, two sound systems and one game is about all they have given. I’ll never again trust MS!
January 13th, 2009
Um, I use Vista 64U everday. Gaming, Photoshop 64, BluRay, iTune64 and I run on 4 gigs DDR3. Extremely Stable, very fluid and responsibe. I rebooted XP more and I rebout OS X the same, maybe more with Apple’s RAW camera updates.
Third party crappy drivers are not the OS! If that were true, Apple would fold today. I use Linux, OS X and V. Agreed, V is a hog. No way to defend that. That is why well written games and bluray players disable Aero and then re-enable on close.
Foolish to buy a 32 bit OS? What would be foolish is if your rant caused someone with a 32 bit chip to buy a 64 bit OS.
I had WinME… THAT was a bad OS.
P.S. I run new and old devices from an Nvidia GTX280 to a 6 year old cyberlink remote interface. No driver issues.
January 15th, 2009
The anti-vista bias that I see on this site is absolutely incredible. Yes, the OS has had problems, but you guys take it to an absurd level. While perceived controversy might increase page clicks, manufactured controversy drives readers away.
Now, onto Vista. Your argument that “Vista might not be worth fixing” is a bit flawed. Windows 7, at its core, is a Vista operating system. In runs on the same kernel and has much of the same infrastructure. As a result, backporting code from 7 into Vista isn’t really all that hard. I expect that Vista SP2 will likely include many of the optimizations that 7 includes.
This happened with Windows XP. The reason that Windows XP is still a useable OS today is that Microsoft backported some really big pieces of technology from Vista (then Longhorn). Most people wouldn’t be nearly so keen on XP if they really were using the version that shipped in 2002.
Further, most of the really big pieces of Microsoft technology aren’t Windows spcific, but wrapped up in .Net framework. That means they will run on all versions of Windows that support .Net (which is everything back to Windows 2000).
This, “Vista not worth fixing” crap is just manufactured controversy looking for a sucker.
January 15th, 2009
“The anti-vista bias that I see on this site is absolutely incredible.”
No worries. The lapdog fanboy cheering in the Mac section offsets it.
January 19th, 2009
@Rob,
“Yes, the OS has had problems, but you guys take it to an absurd level.”
Actually, Vista took OS problems to an absurd level, and those with the wit to recognise that fact simply pointed it out. Vista does not spell the end for Microsoft, but it is symptomatic of the underlying malaise that will.
‘“Vista might not be worth fixing”’
Vista is most definitely not worth fixing – it is not worth anything at all (even Microsoft seems to have come to that realisation, albeit belatedly).
“[...] Vista SP2 will likely [sic] include many of the optimizations that 7 includes”
“Windows optimization” is an oxymoron (DRM anyone?)
“[...] Microsoft technology [...]”
Another oxymoron.
‘[...] “Vista not worth fixing” crap is just manufactured controversy looking for a sucker.”‘
Actually, Vista is crap looking for a sucker (ask Mike Nash, who certainly reckoned he was suckered – as an MS executive, he should be in a position to know). Furthermore, the only “controversy” comes from those who can’t or won’t admit the truth about Vista, something that is usually attributable to a mindless and ill-informed loyalty, a thoroughly illogical emotional attachment, or pecuniary considerations (some MS professionals, journalists who receive bribes, publications with an eye on advertising revenue, shills, astroturfers, and so forth).
January 24th, 2009
Yes, vista is truly slow operating system and the jump to it was huge. However, I think we failed to realize why it was so.
Transitioning the mainstream from win95 to NT based XP took years, a full two operating systems plus a concurrently released prosumer oriented windows 2000. Windows went from XP to Vista, practically a whole new kernel, in one jump.
May 7th, 2009
What do you mean worth fixing? Vista is quite a fixed right now and resembles win7 in every way. Too bad blogger doesn’t get it that win7 is just Vista SP3. He thinks this is whole new operating system where everybody wants to jump from XP or Win95. They don’t need it if they don’t need Vista.
May 7th, 2009
“It is a slow dog of an operating system even on 4GB of memory. It’s slower than XP and the GUI was never the most responsive.”
Facts?? Links??? IS this just Jonathans own opinion?