Submitted by Microsoft has set November 30 as the release date for Vista (and Office 2007) to business customers and January 30, 2007 as the date for the official launch to consumers and The World At Large. ApproachingZero, are you still here? If this were a blog, I’d put a smiley here.
Any date for Ultimate Edition? Since it will contain everything from the enterprise and the consumer editions, it seems unclear when this version is released.
I believe that MS announced a while back that ALL versions would be released on one and the same disk, so that would mean that they are all released at the same moment.
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6118434.html
Thanks. It only makes sense that all editions are released simultanously, since they are distinguished only by product key (all versions exist on each installation medium). But it would still surprise me if Microsoft were to sell consumer versions of Vista to enterprise and volume customers.
wow hell froze over … also Ultimate is comming out in Jan. since it does contain the features of the consumer oriented version and those will not come out until then.
“wow hell froze over”
Bloodly hell I think it just did! I lie in wait for this one. But something gives me the impression that MS aren’t going to f**k this up this time (We all remember ME don’t we
)
Can’t wait for that cool new vista theme….errr I mean OS!
This is getting extremely old.
Hell, it was never even funny.
Vista has a completely new net stack, new drawing engine, new printing, new API, and just about every other piece of the OS has either been either ‘re-worked’ or is new.
Enough with the ‘Vista theme’.
Unfortunately they haven’t done any work on the pieces that needed it most (for an end user).
But of course, that could come in the next Windows version after Vista (that would be around 2015).
What exactly is needed most for the end user, and who made you the person to decide it as such?
Next version of Windows will be out in 18-24months, I gurantee it.
As an end user I’m a logical choice, just like most other end users.
Next version of Windows is out in 18-24 months? Hmm… Sounds interesting. Tell me more
“Next version of Windows is out in 18-24 months? Hmm… Sounds interesting. Tell me more
”
I believe that watching what happens to Microsoft in the next few years is going to be very interesting.
Vista *could* be a total flop, very much like ME.
And then? Would they go back to the drawing board and create something entirely new, or would they turn into an insurance company?
I don’t think Vista will be a flop. I’m not going to upgrade, but many people will be running Vista due to Vista being pre-installed. And since they don’t know how to get rid of it, they’ll keep using it as they did when they bought a PC with Win98 or ME or XP installed.
Personally I’d prefer small incremental steps rather than big updates. Windows 2003 + SP3 will be fine for me, if SP3 doesn’t add to much extra functionality. Using the Indexing Service in the searchbox per default if the Indexing Service is turned on, would be fine for me. And complete uninstallation of IE as well. And a new installation framework to make sure path and start menu items can always be customized – also after installation. And more extensive use of extended fileattributes. Small practical things that doesn’t require an update to Vista.
“Windows 2003 + SP3 will be fine for me, if SP3”
That is a very good point. Problem is, there is no Windows 2003 Workstation (I know it can be easily modified)
A couple of years ago Microsoft was running a survey. I suggested a 2003 Workstation. They asked why, but then they replied they were unconvinced by the reasons I gave.
It’s pretty easy to modify it.
It’s basically a matter of installing a few missing things and turn off/turn on a few services and settings.
They were unconvinced by the reasons, you gave? But.. but ..but that’s means you are to blame now – it’s all your fault
(just kidding).
Perhaps there will also be a SP4 for Win2K3 – that could be neat. Otherwise I’ll have to switch to ReactOS when Win2K3 must be left behind.
“Otherwise I’ll have to switch to ReactOS when Win2K3 must be left behind.”
LOL, aren’t most versions of Linux a lot better than ReactOS?
Edited 2006-11-02 20:24
That depends on whether you have to run Windows applications or not. Perhaps Wine at that time will be so good that ReactOS isn’t needed, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Right now ReactOS is at 0.3.0 so it’s far from being ready. But give it a couple of years, and things will look differently. ReactOS has the chance to become Windows as it should’ve been
ReactOS uses code from Wine to run Windows applications. If you don’t believe Wine will be good enough in two years then the same is true for ReactOS (well, except that Wine runs on top of a production ready operating system, while ReactOS has a lot of others areas that need to be developed).
I hardly think Wine isn’t good enough though. Doesn’t the latest version support Microsoft Office 2003?
Wine is good, but not all that impressive. There are many small quirks yet – some of them are hard to solve.
ReactOS does not use Wine. They cowork with the Wine team, but only some of the code is the same. What is more important is the fact that in a year or a year and a half I can use my Windows drivers with ReactOS in an almost native environment.
Since I only use minor parts of Office 2003 (Visio), I wouldn’t know how well it works with Wine. I use it for IE6 and an old version of WMP.
“ReactOS has the chance to become Windows as it should’ve been
”
Well, let’s hope so. I have just read at their homepage that it has been developed for 10 years.
You didn’t answer the main question of that comment.
What exactly is missing?
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16371&comment_id=178019
If you’re genuinely interested I could put together a long list of things, some of these _are_ in Vista. Some aren’t. But I won’t do it if you’re just going to boink (read: slap) my head
(hmm… “boink” came out wrong, I think.)
EDIT: added (read: slap) and (hmm… “boink” came out wrong, I think.)
Edited 2006-11-03 00:19
Seriously.
Provide evidence to back that assertion up; so I guess all those features as listed in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista
Are of no interest to the end user *rolls eyes*
Reply is in another thread.
And most of what you can find in those two links _are_ irrelevant.
Again, provide evidence; make a statement, back it up with evidence; something you seem to be, as an ABM’er, incapable of doing. *passes dylan a triangle* now go off and play it with all the other special kids.
I already did – follow the thread. I’m not going to repost every single time an uneducated wildman comes around.
I’ve done what you asked me to – before you asked me. So I’m not going to do it again. I could keep doing it for every single “kaiwai” not capable of reading.
And there is nothing in this whole repl-to-article thread which has actually outlined why there are no features useful to endusers.
There is a reply as to why it might not be useful for YOU but just because YOU find it ‘useless’ doesn’t mean everyone else does.
This is the same song and dance as done 5 years ago when Windows XP came out, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the cheap seats, claiming Windows XP to be dead, a waste of time, but here we are, 5 years later, and Windows XP not being such a waste; 5 years later, and Linux yet to make a single dent in the Windows marketshare.
You can keep up the protest, but Windows Vista, like Windows XP is like sex with Kobe Bryant… Want it or not, it’s gonna happen.
Actually XP _is_ waste of time. It has no more functionality than Win2K – well, apart from the drawing-thing in MSN
When it comes to desktop functionality Windows hasn’t evolved since Windows95. The underlying system has become better, yes. Much better. But the desktop is as lousy as back then. And OS X, Gnome and KDE aren’t any better.
And Linux on the desktop has made a nice dent btw. Not as much as Firefox has, but none-the-less a dent. Unless going from virtually 0% to approx 3-4 % isn’t a dent (I think it is). Not that Linux on the Desktop is important. It is as flawed as the Windows and OS X desktop.
You may think I’m insane about the desktop functionality, but since Ken Thompson agrees with me, he must be insane as well.
I agree; if one were to look at all the operating systems; they all suck; all the same stuff over and over again; its like the music industry, same lyrics, different melody. For me, they all suck, Windows just seems to suck less than the rest.
As for ‘changes’, its not going to happen; people like incrimental changes, and for those ‘big revolutions’ that I’d like to see, it would require throwing larges amounts out, which would upset the market.
People are boring, and people like the status quo; the whinge and whine, but they would prefer using something which they have relative familarity with rather than trying to grapple with a new paradigm.
Well, as I see it Microsoft could somewhat easily get a killer desktop. I mean the lower level functionality required to do it _is_ there. They just don’t use it. The same goes for the other big desktop environments. And I don’t get it.
It’s not because Microsoft hasn’t added more to the system. They have added a lot – just not in regard to how the desktop works, giving a pretty crippled desktop. Personally I think Gnome is better in regard to the functionality. But it has its own shares of issues.
I’m not sure about the incremental stuff. Well, I agree that people prefer incremental changes, but that’s the opposite of what Microsoft is doing. Always big changes in regard to applications and some lower level elements, while the basic functionality is as crippled as always. Not to mention the required backwards compatibility results in several un-intuitive ways to do the same task.
And in the eternal battle of the Desktop everybody adds the same kind of bloated multieverything applications, instead of going the other way.
The “big revolutions” you’d like to see – what are they?
Personally I’d like to see:
*a completely different approach to:
-mails
-contacts
(every mail and contact being a file – and every file being an object)
*better use of extended attributes (especially in regard to indexing, which we already have in Windows).
*A replacement for ActiveX. I want system wide plugins (for which ActiveX is useful to some extent) – but more like the BeOS-approach (can’t wait for Haiku).
*And of course – lower system requirements. I can’t stand having to use more power for the same or less – and that is exactly what is happening.
C# and .NET are however brilliant (brillant?). A stroke of genius from Microsoft.
If I had the control, I’d like to stop and go back and redo the work of the last decade. OS/2 2.x, AmigaOS 1.0 (and of course BeOS) have a better working Desktop metaphor than Windows, OS X and Gnome/KDE. Quite sad, actually.
Well, as I see it Microsoft could somewhat easily get a killer desktop. I mean the lower level functionality required to do it _is_ there. They just don’t use it. The same goes for the other big desktop environments. And I don’t get it.
The problem is, they’re software written by programmers, either for marketers or other programmers; very little input is accepted by users – if they don’t abuse a user for ‘nut understanding’ it is Microsoft giving customers the silent treament when it comes to requests.
It’s not because Microsoft hasn’t added more to the system. They have added a lot – just not in regard to how the desktop works, giving a pretty crippled desktop. Personally I think Gnome is better in regard to the functionality. But it has its own shares of issues.
Gnome does have a good mixture of Windows and MacOS X features, but it is still stuck to the whims of political motivate decisions and programmer emotional attachments to certain technologies – like how Sun refuses to support iPod because a manager at Sun considered it a ‘fad’.
I’m not sure about the incremental stuff. Well, I agree that people prefer incremental changes, but that’s the opposite of what Microsoft is doing. Always big changes in regard to applications and some lower level elements, while the basic functionality is as crippled as always. Not to mention the required backwards compatibility results in several un-intuitive ways to do the same task.
Hence the need for a clean break, with compatibility done via VM; there are good technologies within windows, but there is alot of crap that can be gotten rid of, which would make Windows alot more secure.
After having worked many years in the corporate world, I do not understand why the corporate release is before the retail release. I have generally found that industry is very slow in adopting a new release of an operating system. I tend to find more cutting edge technology on the desktop of private individuals in their homes than I do in the corporate world. In fact, were I work, there are still a large segment of users who are still running P3 computers with Windows 2000 on them. I remember last year seeing in the server room a couple of computers still chugging along with Windows for Workgroups. And this is not a small 2 bit operation, this is in the data center of a major Defense department contractor based in the Seattle area.
I do not now a single major, or even small corporation or business that is adopting Vista any time within the next 2-3 years.
“I do not now a single major, or even small corporation or business that is adopting Vista any time within the next 2-3 years.”
Agreed. If anything small business will switch when computers with XP can no longer be purchased, at which time the upgrade will start as machines are replaced.
I second this. We have around 50 workstations just in our department, and every single one is running Windows 2000 SP4. Our IT department has finally OK’d to deploy Windows XP Pro by the end of the year. I do not expect that Windows Vista will be installed until the end of support cycle for XP… Actually, I think that any attempt to install an untested OS on the corporate network would result in a head of this venturous individual to be cut off with a spoon by the manager…
It has nothing to do with Vista adoption (or lack thereof). The reason the consumer release is later is b/c it takes more time for MS to press the discs and package them up for consumer consumption (i.e. they have to press and package millions of copies to put on store shelves all at once, which takes a few weeks).
Businesses with software contracts usually get their software from MS via a download point somewhere and don’t get the pretty packaging and whatnot.
“I do not now a single major, or even small corporation or business that is adopting Vista any time within the next 2-3 years.”
Normally I’d agree but this time I actually do know of a company that is being brave (foolhardly?) enough to jump into Vista straight away.
Westpac; one of the Australian banks are looking to test it in December for a rollout shortly thereafter. They’re mad!
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20393236%5E1530…
Why doesn’t Microsoft release the consumer version in November as well? Why the two month space?
Not that I care much as I use my SUSE at home and XP at school (college), but Microsoft could have a very good holiday season if they did that.
Edited 2006-11-02 16:22
Probably because it won’t be enough time to press all the DVDs (just my guess).
They are offering a coupon thing for any new computers bought between now and consumer release.
So that retailers (OEM’s) can start selling PC’s with Vista at about the same time that you can buy Vista in the shop.
95% Chance of one or both releases being delayed again…
Anyone wanna take on that bet?
If they’ve set an actual date that means they are already extremely close and are probably on the build that they think will be the gold release.
Just out of curiosity:
1 – how long does it take to built Vista
2 – what does Microsoft use the build Vista (ie Make, Visual Studio, etc.)
I don’t know the exact numbers for Vista, but XP took a full 24 hours to build on an entire fleet of machines. I do know that MS uses a custom build process, and it’s most definitely not make or visual studio as they are nowhere near robust enough for the 80+ million lines of code it takes to build Vista.
Really. I’m tired of hearing about it.
I hope MS gets Vista out the door by January 30th for the shallow, selfish reason of being exhausted by all the “will they, or won’t they?’ punditry and “it will be so cool!” versus the “told you so: it’s Linux/Mac/BSD/BeOS/Haiku/SkyOS/DOS time!” triumphalism.
Ship it, Microsoft. I’m not a Windows customer, but I hope MS makes everyone get back to work or find something else to obsess over by actually putting disks on the street.
So you are saying you don’t enjoy MS marketing? You must be wrong because they (MS) listenned to what customers want and need. You surely want it, you just don’t know it yet ….
It is a somewhat common practice to try and generate as much hype as possible before the launch of a new product (in any industry), and MS having a huge marketing department does this to the extent of becoming a bit of a joke. But I can understand them, too. They have to “sell” the upgrade idea in a much more competitive environment
Until maybe March or April, just to make sure they get it right. I haven’t tried it myself, but a lot of people (even the non-ABM’ers) were saying that RC2 wasn’t quite ready for prime time, so will it be ready by 11/30/06? I hope so, cuz the last thing anyone needs is another Windows ME.
Hell, they’ve already missed the Christmas season, so why not release it in April and shoot for back to school?
I don’t think Vista will be “right” until SP1, regardless of when they release it. Just like Windows 3.x wasn’t “right” util Win3.1, Mac OS 7 wasn’t “right” until 7.1, OSX wasn’t “right” until 10.1 (well, actually 10.2, for tha matter), NT wasn’t “right” until 3.51 (the initial release was 3.1), etc.
I think making a general RTM release of a new OS is simply one step on the road to getting it “right” in the next release (be it a SP or a 0.1 (at least SPs are free)). Releasing an official RTM build to the masses gathers the massive resulting feedback which will be used to make SP1, at which time Vista might get “right”. MS can wait for 10 more years, but it still won’t be right until SP1. So they may as well release it now; the sooner they release it, the sooner they can release SP1 down the road.
So many comments getting modded down because of disagreement of opinion or they hate jokes… I didn’t think OSAlert had the same people as Digg.
I mod people back up when they’re modded down for no reason, wouldn’t hurt for others to do the same.
That is very true. I have been “screaming” for ages that the system is being abused.
…where do I go to see the Vista comparison chart. I am not talking about one that compares Vista to prior versions of Windows showing the “benefits” of upgrading, but one that compares the different editions of Vista to each other. Microsoft does have a page describing the different editions but it uses words that not only sounds like they’re fast-talking but makes it difficult to figure out if the feature mentioned in one version is available in a cheaper/lower version.
How is security going to work? If a person has Ultimate and encrypts a file/folder and copies it to a flash drive will a person that only has Home Basic going to be able to open, view, and/or save to the folder?
The Home Premium version contains all the components of Windows Media Center (to record TV shows), but could I get Home Basic and purchase a 3rd party application (suite) and do the same thing? If so, wouldn’t that mean Microsoft is bundling some apps and passing them off as part of the OS?
How is security going to work? If a person has Ultimate and encrypts a file/folder and copies it to a flash drive will a person that only has Home Basic going to be able to open, view, and/or save to the folder?
Are you talking Bitlocker or EFS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitLocker_Drive_Encryption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypting_File_System
Edited 2006-11-03 06:00