Windows Vista To Be Replaced Within A Year

mjr600

Or So............

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080404/microsoft_windows_gates.html?.v=3&.pf=family-home

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001912

Xp gets a stay of execution for low end/spec PCs.

Ice_2

thanks but this is old news to us techies...new OS is code name VIENNA

robt_2

Errr old news coupled with the fact there will be no new Windows OS before 2010?

banger9365

and thats if we are lucky if you can say that

BigBouncyBall

wow you mean microsoft are actually working on a new operating system? Those employees never get a minutes rest do they. :rolleyes:

Conor_3

Yet again the same old factually incorrect stories from three months ago have been posted by yet another lazy journalist. And even if they do do it in 2010, you can bet it'll be the back end which is over 2 years from now.

And as it appears MS are taking the Mac OS X approach and removing backwards compatibility with previous incarnations of Windows, you may want it to be a bit further off as non of your current software is likely to work.

Win2Kuser

I'm surprised at MS if they do loose backwards compatability, that is a huge gamble for them. No one in their right mind is going to shell out for a new os only to have to then (again) shell out for all their normal software. On just one of my machines, with Paintshop Pro, Nero, PowerDVD suite etc, that comes to hundreds of pounds alone. Many would have even more, and don't even go there with games at £40 a pop.

The only reason vista is bearable and has sold as it has is because of backwards compatability. If it meant whole new software, I certainly wouldn't have upgraded 3 of my machines here.

Seems funny though, MS are working on a new os when it hasn't even ironed out half the problems with vista yet.
..

superscaper

Win2Kuser wrote: »

Seems funny though, MS are working on a new os when it hasn't even ironed out half the problems with vista yet.
..

Why funny? They've never in their entire history NOT been working on a new OS. People have developed a distorted view because we've become complacent with using the longest shelf life operating system MS have every made (XP) and the longest developed OS (Vista). But aside from these extremes the typical development cycle of MS OSes was about 18 months-2 years and they've always been working on the "next" OS even before the previous one was released.

(Mr Skint?)

Win2Kuser

It was meant to be sarcastic! Perhaps I should have used a smily or something :roll: :rolleyes:

I've been using PC's since the early days of DOS, I'm very aware of how MS do things. You are right about vista's development though, sooooo long to release what is essentially a lemon.

Conor_3

Win2Kuser wrote: »

I'm surprised at MS if they do loose backwards compatability, that is a huge gamble for them. No one in their right mind is going to shell out for a new os only to have to then (again) shell out for all their normal software. On just one of my machines, with Paintshop Pro, Nero, PowerDVD suite etc, that comes to hundreds of pounds alone. Many would have even more, and don't even go there with games at £40 a pop.

The only reason vista is bearable and has sold as it has is because of backwards compatability. If it meant whole new software, I certainly wouldn't have upgraded 3 of my machines here.
..

The reasons they have a lot of problems with new OSes IS because of having to have backwards compatibility in. You've got to cater for all the "bugs" that existed in older versions which sloppy programmers have used to their advantage to make applications work. Basically, you've got to break the OS just to run 5 or 6 year old software because people demand it.

Vista is a good example. People wanted security over everything so they wrote it in but this meant a massive change to how programs and drivers can have access to certain parts of the OS which broke stuff and people complained their 7 year old software didn't work so they had to downgrade some of the security stuff so it'd work. You've got people whinging because they can't run DOS applications on Vista and how good Linux is because it can, (even though you can add DOS support the same way on Vista). Really, come on !!!!!!, DOS was retired a decade ago. It's time to move on.
As a result some exploits exist which shouldn't have and now the very same people are berating MS for the lack of security they were told there'd be. MS simply cannot win.

What makes it worse is that a few months after release, there's always updates for the new OS for older applications anyway so the backwards compatibility thing would be completely unnecessary if people would be bothered to go and download the updates.

This brings me onto the performance thing where people complain about older hardware running like a dog. Well it was designed to run on the older OS. If you've got older hardware running fine on the older OS, stick with it.