Each day, members of the Windows team gather inside the ‘shiproom’ to go over the bugs that remain, and to debate which of these can still be fixed in the days left until Vista is declared finished, a milestone that is expected any time now. The intense ‘end game’, as these final weeks are known, is a well-worn tradition inside the shiproom, which is on the third floor of the Windows development building. The small room, with its dated, dark wood conference table has been the war room for every Windows release since Windows 2000. In the meantime, Ars takes a look at running Vista on older hardware.
The development team must be spending whole day on Vista.
has been the war room for every Windows release since Windows 2000
wow EVERY release since windows 2000…. Who can count all those releases? Man that room is really well worn huh?
wow EVERY release since windows 2000…. Who can count all those releases? Man that room is really well worn huh?
Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Fundamentals, Windows Vista, Windows Longhorn Server.
Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Fundamentals, Windows Vista, Windows Longhorn Server.
According to your logic,you missed SP1 on XP . If a service pack can be considered a Windows release.
Dont forget all the hotpacks and fixes too.
Was ME after 2000? I didn’t think it was. Heck does ME count as a release? I thought ME was recalled and destroyed and stricken from the record books?
How much code changes were in any of those “releases”?
Don’t forget windows CE and Windows Kiosk and Windows embedded and…. Take a OS, rip out a few pieces and call it a new release? Nah, I dont think so.
They made the room sound like a old, venerated, back in the dos days, sort of war room with pictures of dos, win95, and so forth hanging on the walls.
I am just joking around guys, I usually rant on the linux threads only. Just thought I would be silly on this thread. Don’t get your panties(with Bill Gates) all in a twist please.
Edited 2006-11-08 16:46
ME was released approx. a month later than Windows 2000.
I still don’t understand why they even made ME, and considering how good a Windows version Win2K is I understand the existence of ME even less.
“I still don’t understand why they even made ME”
They probably had a meeting in the war room, and it went like this:
Bill: Let’s not even release ME, 2000 is great.
Others: But we spent so much time working on ME, can’t we go for it?
Bill: Hey marketing guys, do some numbers and see if we loose money by releasing it, or if we make a little off of it.
Marketing Guys: You won’t make any money, but it will make Microsoft look better if it has more products, even if they aren’t good.
That is my thinking.
Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Fundamentals, Windows Vista, Windows Longhorn Server.
There was also Windows XP Media Center Edition.
People saying that MS hasn’t released new version of desktop OS since Windows XP are just plain out of touch.
If we count every release of Fedora, Ubuntu or MacOS X as really big new thing, so we can count XP SP2, XP Media Center Edition, too.
Well, I would consider XP-64 to be a different windows release since it has a newer kernel.
But apart from Windows XP-64 and Win2K3 there has been no new OS releases as such.
There has been updates, but that’s not the same. An update to FC5 isn’t a new distribution release, but a new release would be exactly that – a new release (in this case FC6).
Personally I think people are spending too much time on releases rather than considering the incremental improvements in software.
The problem with Windows compared with the Linux distributions is the lack of modularity. It would be nice if you could update your Win2K kernel from NT 5.0 to NT 5.2. Or could eradicate elements you really don’t need (like WMP on a _server_).
With Linux (and *BSD) you don’t have to update to a new release in order to support new functionality. You can just update some packages, incl. the kernel.
For that matter you could be running Redhat 6.0 and still have Gnome 2.x running (if you don’t mind doing a lot of work manually – I cannot recommend the solution).
An update to FC5 isn’t a new distribution release, but a new release would be exactly that – a new release (in this case FC6).
Yeah, right. Fedora Core 6 was a new release (compared to FC5, that was a new release compared to FC4…etc), while XP Media Center is not (compared to XP)?
I don’t think so. We can only agree to disagree.
Of course we can agree to disagree. Especially when we’re looking at two different criteria in order to determine “release”. If that’s what we disagre about. Or perhaps it is whether or not people are staring to much at release numbers rather than the functionality of an updated system. We can agree to disagree on everything – just let me know
The basic system in XP Media Center is identical to any other XP, while the basic system in FC6 is different from FC5 which is again different from FC4.
On the other hand, Windows XP 64-bit has a different basic system than Windows XP 32-bit and therefore in my mind is a different release.
What you put on top is irrelevant to me in regard to determine whether it’s a new release or not. But that’s probably just me being old-fashioned and all.
Following your logic, Windows XP was not a new release itself, since it is not that much different from Windows 2000.
Yeah, right.
Every week there’s patchwork in Linux (kerenel), and more patchwork in apps like Firefox — and when you just put those together, you have a new release??? New release? Patchwork, nothing else. If it was like that, we’d have new Windows release every month when Microsoft releases updates.
If you don’t see enough new stuff in XP MCE compared to XP, then you’re simply biased. Because MCE incorporates SP2, it is already MUCH different from regular XP (SP1) to be called new release. And it is, indeed.
Following your logic, Windows XP was not a new release itself, since it is not that much different from Windows 2000.
That’s a right out lie. I made it clear that it did qualify as a release, since the basic system is different.
Every week there’s patchwork in Linux (kerenel), and more patchwork in apps like Firefox — and when you just put those together, you have a new release??? New release? Patchwork, nothing else. If it was like that, we’d have new Windows release every month when Microsoft releases updates.
I have made it very clear that we shouldn’t call minor revisions for major releases.
I even wrote it in a reply to you in the comments to the article –> http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16426&comment_id=180141
You could at least quote me correctly instead of twisting my words.
That’s a right out lie. I made it clear that it did qualify as a release, since the basic system is differen
Well, you’re confirming that XP is a new release compared to 2000, then XP SP2 also must be new release compared to XP, because of all of the changes under the hoods. With MCE, there’s even more.
Basic system is different when going from 2000 to XP, but, not different when going from XP -> XP SP2 or XP MCE ???
Don’t think you know what you’re talking about. FYI: it was Jim Alchin alone who made it possible that we get SP2 for XP as free upgrade, while Balmer wanted, new release launched. For a price, of course.
Windows XP SP2 isn’t a new release – not even if had been sold as such (and newer retail versions actually are Windows XP w. SP2).
It’s a minor revision, and not a major new release – no matter what people call it. You can then add on all kinds of applications – but that is irrelevant for the basic system.
The difference between FC5 and FC6 is bigger than the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
But why focusing so much on releases? The numbers mean virtually nothing – it’s the functionality that matters and I prefer to get them incrementally.
As I said already — looks like you don’t know much about SP2 for XP and the changes it introduced. Maybe you want to go to Wikipedia and see it for yourself about SP2.
People like you, you know, “Vista is just eye candy”, are just plain ignorant.
It’s a minor revision, and not a major new release – no matter what people call it.
Because you say so.. LOL
Anyway, Vista went RTM
OKAY! Let’s get this straight!
I have never said that Vista is only eye-candy.
Nor have I denied that Vista is a release.
I’m very much aware of the changes with SP2 for XP, but it doesn’t change my opinion. The fact you keep posting offensive comments about me doesn’t change my opinion at all. (Au contraire!)
The fact you fall for media hype says a lot about you. XP SP2 _is_ a minor revision. XP is a minor release up from Windows 2000. Not unlike FC5 -> FC6. The version numbering also indicates this.
And yes, Vista went RTM. Have I ever said it wouldn’t? Nope. I did however one say that we would have to see how much it would be delayed, and it did get delayed, though less than one could have feared. Personally I’ll just stick with Win2K3 Server and wait for SP2 (for Win2K3 naturally).
You are making an awful lot of assumptions about me. And so far they’ve all been wrong.
Following your logic, Windows XP was not a new release itself, since it is not that much different from Windows 2000.
You are probably right!
I think I agree.
Well there were a good bit of changes, even the theme files themselves changed, interface was very different. But if you say so.
Actually wasn’t windows 2000 called NT5 and XP was 5.1?
So maybe you are right they were just point releases. Has there been a release since then?
Win2K3 and XP 64-bit are NT 5.2
And Vista is NT 6.0 (well, actually Windows 6.0 – ME was weird enough Windows 4.9).
Win2K3 and XP 64-bit are NT 5.2
And since 5.2 is just a slight improvement over 5.1, which, then, is only a minor improvement over 5.0.. that means 5.0 = 5.2, practically, following your logic.
See, your logic is not working very well, since you say Win 2K3 and XP x64 are major releases.
And please, calm down. I know Republicans lost and Rumsfeld is gone, but hey, Microsoft is still here. And, yes, they just finished Vista.
That is _not_ my logic. You are twisting my words.
Where do I state that minor releases are not releases?
I’m clearly saying that minor _revisions_ are not releases. But revisions and releases _are not_ the same thing.
A minor release is a much bigger thing than a minor revision.
Don’t you know _anything_ about versioning schemes?
I’m clearly saying that minor _revisions_ are not releases. But revisions and releases _are not_ the same thing.
So, MCE is not new release of Windows?
Considering that it implements major changes under the hoods (since it contains SP2) and then some changes to GUI and functionallity (that’s why it’s called Media Center Edition!) I fail to see that it was not a new release of Windows.
You said that MCE is just XP with new theme. Well, it is not.
So, MCE is not new release of Windows?
SP2 is not a minor release. It’s a minor revision. Therefore MCE isn’t a new release.
There are no major changes under the hood in SP2. Just check wikipedia (like you suggested). It’s merely a minor revision on some of the components.
Yes, MCE is just XP SP2 with a new theme and a slightly different configuration. It’s not a new release. Just like Firefox 1.5.0.8 isn’t a new release.
I presume you fail in quite a few things
There are no major changes under the hood in SP2. Just check wikipedia (like you suggested). It’s merely a minor revision on some of the components.
Man, you must be crazy or something (no offense). Minor revision on some of the components?
Like adding the whole security center is revision? The whole security center did not exist before. And the firewall is protecting the whole system since the booting starts – this is a revision and not a major work under the hoods? Then, there are other things..
Look, what you think is minor revision, I see as a major release. Obviously, we’ll never agree.
As for the MCE, I don’t think you ever saw it or actually worked with it. If you did – you wouldn’t be saying that it is just XP SP2 with another theme.
The “whole” security center is merely an add-on. It’s not exactly low level.
I don’t care about your definition, I care about standards. And there _are_ standards for versioning.
The update in functionality can be very big without it counts as a new release. And the update in functionality can be very small and yet count as a big release.
The security center is more above the hood than under the hood.
[quote]The “whole” security center is merely an add-on. It’s not exactly low level. [/quote]
LOL
Security center is “merely an add-on”???
Do you have any idea on how many changes under the hoods were needed to make it possible?
Man, you have no clue. How can you be so ignorant?
It just shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. SP2 brought numerous under the hood changes. If you think it is eye candy or simple add-on, it is your problem. LOL “add-on” – like, a simple screen with a few buttons that invoke functionality that was already there, just didn’t have a nice GUI, right? hehehehe LOL
Yeah, right. You’re simply ignorant about XP SP2.
Well, you are still looking at it from functionality perspective. And in that regard it did more than “just” being an add-on.
Changes at lower level are no aa major as you think. It’s mid and high level which was mostly affected.
Yeah, right. You’re simply ignorant about XP SP2.
Stop being offensive.
I’m frantically trying to explain a novice what this is about. If you were a developer, you’d understand right away.
BTW:
We will never agree. I stick with objective criteria, while you use subjective criteria.
SP2 did bring numerous changes, and nobody has denied that. I surely hasn’t denied it. I just consider it logically that a revision to an entire OS will contain numerous changes.
Any revision of an entire OS will result in “numerous” changes.
But XP SP2 is still merely a revision when using objective criteria. You consider the added functionality so important that it must be considered a new release. That’s okay – but you are using subjective criteria.
If using objective criteria equals using flawed criteria, I prefer using flawed criteria.
It would be wise if you did some research on versioning. That would make things clearer to you.
And well.. I have seen MCE, I have used MCE – and to me it is no more different from XP Home than XP Pro is.
And please, calm down. I know Republicans lost and Rumsfeld is gone, but hey, Microsoft is still here. And, yes, they just finished Vista.
To your information I’m Danish. I couldn’t care less about your political or financial leaders. If I was an American I wouldn’t even be a republican, nor a democrat.
And yes, Microsoft has finished Vista. Nobody is denying that.
However I would like to know why you keep getting personal.
You reasoning sounds reasonable….even to me.
Well I guess a new theme counts….NOT.
Different kernel, different interface, different under the hood technologies – that is a new release IMO.
Maybe you should read about the changes in XP SP2 (that is also included in XP Media Center Edition) compared to XP (SP1).
I guess you’re one of those that say changes in Vista are eye candy only, too.
On the other hand, kernel changes in Linux are so frequent that, sure, almost every week we can have “new” version. Funny, patch work is now called “new version.” Same with Firefox: for example, here’s *NEW* version of Firefox – 1.5.0.8!!! When actually, it was only patch work for 1.5.0.7, right?
Well, we could extend it with not counting revisions as releases. Or only counting minor releases as minor releases instead of counting them as major releases.
But of course that would ruin all the media-hype
Nice slam. What about XP SP1?
It’s always great to get a glimpse of the inside of any project…especially one that represents the size and scale of Vista.
Bring it on.
I liked this review of Ars, it seems to me rather realistic in the fact that Windows Vista will require new hardware to run no mater which are the requirements specified by Microsoft. By new hardware I mean a dual core CPU (or high level single core one), 2GB fast RAM and big SATA hard disk, as well as a powerful graphics card.
In the computing world, may be my P4/2.4GHz, 1.5GB DDR333 RAM, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 256 DDR and 250GB 7200 IDE UDMA100 hardware can easily be called old hardware, and I’m almost sure that this one won’t be able to run Vista as fine as it runs XP or GNU/Linux, but I’d rather tend to make Microsoft guilty of that, not my ‘old’ hardware.
We have been testing Vista RC 2 on almost your exact machine – smaller HD and with just a slightly better vid card. It runs fine. Not quite as light on its feet as say, Mepis, but it has convinced me that I wouldn’t have to upgrade the hardware in every machine in at work.
Your machine will run Vista just fine. You’ve got >1GB of RAM, which is the major qualification.
I think your Radeon is fast enough too (it’s definitely more powerful than my Intel 945). I’ve been running Vista for a while now, and I can tell you that it boots faster and loads programs faster than XP on the same hardware. This all comes down to the HDD read optimizations of SuperFetch. Vista will probably be a monster on systems with ReadyDrives, when those come out.
Annoying Disk trashing isn’t a surprise even for XP. It will be annoying even on newer hardware, as disk access is few orders of magnitude slower than RAM access and slightly newer hard disks don’t change this situation very radically (except for, in some cases, huge on-disk ram cache). Key to this is not to waste all RAM with dozens of open programs.
Vista in prerelease stages might also still have bad memory leaks, RTM should have tons of such bugs fixed and have improved performance.
Edited 2006-11-08 16:32
What sidebar is this ?
http://news.com.com/2300-1012_3-6034529-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
There was supposed to be a feature in Vista called performance boost,I think,where you used a memory stick in a usb port.
I never recalled seeing any Vista review with it being used.Such as in Ars review with that old Gateway pc.
There was supposed to be a feature in Vista called performance boost,I think,where you used a memory stick in a usb port.
I never recalled seeing any Vista review with it being used.Such as in Ars review with that old Gateway pc.
Its now called ‘ReadyBoost’ and they mention using it in the ars review.
They said it made a slight improvement.
I tried readyboost on both rc1 and rc2 and noticed no difference…
The machine I was using had 768mb of ram on an athlon 1700+.
When I worked in IT I had this slogan hanging on my cubicle wall that said, “Uninstall, reinstall, service pack 2” Since people asked me all the time how to fix their problem I would just point to the sign.
Vista will probably follow this same path. All the missing parts and major bug fixes probably won’t surface until Service pack 2 comes out. It looks like it will be a significant upgrade from XP but I definately would wait until the first service pack came out before using it in a production environment.
The test machines
Momma’s five-year-old workhorse (July 2001)
Gateway 1200
Athlon 1.2 GHz
512MB PC133 RAM
20GB UDMA-100 hard drive
NVIDIA FX-5200 (64MB VRAM)
Vista performance Index: 1.6
The Small Form Factor Special (March 2004)
Shuttle chassis
Pentium 4 2.8GHz (Hyperthreading enabled)
1GB PC3200
160GB UDMA100 HD
NVIDIA FX5200 (128MB VRAM)
Vista performance index: 2.1
Mr. Corporate Laptop (August 2006)
IBM ThinkPad X41
Pentium M 1.5GHz
1GB PC4200 RAM
40GB SATA HD
i915gl integrated graphics (shared memory)
Vista performance index: 1.0
The higher the performance rating the better?
Just like the new MacBook Pros, the iSight led is nowehere to be seen
Nice touch. Although I use a MacBook Pro (Core Duo).
“In the computing world, may be my P4/2.4GHz, 1.5GB DDR333 RAM, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 256 DDR and 250GB 7200 IDE UDMA100 hardware can easily be called old hardware, and I’m almost sure that this one won’t be able to run Vista as fine as it runs XP or GNU/Linux, but I’d rather tend to make Microsoft guilty of that, not my ‘old’ hardware.”
Actually I have Vista RC2 installed on an AMD XP 3200+ with 1GB ram and ATI 9550 Video. It runs quite well honestly even with all the Aero stuff turned on. It’s still smooth. So I think the requirements might be bloated some. Any computer bought/built in the last couple years should be fine for Vista.
Edited 2006-11-08 18:12
The companies that come also get their own rooms that lock with a code combination that only they know. They can use PCs from Microsoft, or bring their own machines. Either way, the computers can connect directly to the Internet without going through Microsoft’s network.
Should he have said: either way, the computers running Vista have a number of backdoors that we unadvertedly placed so that we can gather information from our customers… and so we can get what they are doing?
I wonder.
Edited 2006-11-08 18:33
and I posted in the wrong article, I can only apologize
looking at Microsoft history… Lets wait for some time… and I dont see any need to rush and buy Vista… the later build we purchase more bug fixes will go!
In terms of normal live… i dont think vista is going to affect XP users in next 6 months. It is just gonna give different theme on top of Windows OS.
Vista has officially RTMed
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/08/i…
http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=4676b4eb-2b04-481b-bac3-ca582…
at last..
I’m not a huge fan of MS or Vista, but I do have to give them credit for one thing. I have some old machines that came with Win 98 on them but wouldn’t support any of the OS’s that came after that, i.e. Me, 2k, XP, but I can install Vista on them just fine. I know most of you are saying “Why not install Linux?”, even that wouldn’t run properly. MS must have significantly improved hardware support. They may not be the fastest machines on earth but at least they have a second chance with Vista.
“I have some old machines […] They may not be the fastest machines on earth but at least they have a second chance with Vista.”
If they have 640kB free, which should be enough for everyone… But I think you won’t have much joy using “Vista” on such machines, even if it’s possible to install it. BTW: Did you have to purchase a seperate license for every machine?
I’m running RC1 so I didnt really pay anything, sort of. I requested two license keys early on during the beta and I also bought RC1 on DVD from MS for something like $5, which gave me a 32bit DVD and a 64bit DVD which also came with another license key, giving me a total of 3 unique keys. If I remember right, each key can be used up to 10 times for the beta’s and RC’s, so I should be good for something like 30 machines
Edited 2006-11-09 03:13