Vista users will cry now: Windows 7 confirmed

No worries; perhaps my jab at the City of NY wasn't clear enough though - I just got through paying taxes to the ersatz socialists who free-load in City Hall off of those of us who do actual work, and felt like posting a petty little rebuke.

 

I'm glad you saw the humor. I was born and raised in NYC and left a lonnnnng time ago so I know what it's like. I'm sure it's a lot worse now.

 

Fun. My first computer that I could call my own was on ME. I just recently upgraded in August of 07 to Vista. Vista is a nice upgrade.

 

Probably some better, some worse; however, I can't leave - I married a NY'er, and when you do that, it's like marrying the Mob - you'll never get out alive.

Ok. Back on topic, I suppose. Anyone got any more leaked info on whether or not ole B.G. is gonna give us the OS we want, or the OS we deserve, with Windows 7?

 

I hope you don't mind the irony there - there are some (myself included ), who've accused _Vista of being ME, service pack 2.

 

So you are saying I'm a moron? For my needs, Vista cannot do what I need it to do and is ME2.

Please, watch the personal attacks...thanks.

 

Look, the problem is that before Vista even becomes completely stable..they ve announced Windows 7.

so it makes us Vista users feel betrayed..

am i right?

there is nothing to be happy about for Vista users because by next year the XP users will laugh at us & say 'look, i told u'..

and if Windows 7 is really a Hit unlike Vista..then we ll have to spend more on either OS or Hardware.


So lets wait n watch.

XP is anyway going to be retired now. all that petition wont work.

 

They never specifically said Windows 7 if you actually read the article. It says 'new version'.

Obviously the Vista bashing people would jump all over that, the same way they call it ME2.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/30/vista-security-too-tight-on-casual-games-claims-wildtangent/

If it hasn't been posted already, spyware that gets into your system is generally blocked by Vista.

So yeah, Xp fanboys, enjoy your spyware. Us 'ME2' users will enjoy a clean, working system.

And btw, try reading up on actual history before you call Vista 'ME2'.

Before Xp had been released, all MS OS's were released in 2-3 years.

Xp was about to be dead before Service pack 2, and what exactly did Microsoft do? Take some of the Vista team working on Vista to add security to SP2.

You can thank the fact that Xp is even ALIVE due to measures of security FROM Vista that was added to it.

Look it up yourself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista

This build also contained an updated version of Internet Explorer with a version number of 6.05. New features noted by reviewers included a Download Manager, pop-up blocker, add-on manager and a tool to clear browing history.[7] With the exception of the download manager, which was eventually discarded, these features all appeared in builds of Internet Explorer included with preview builds Windows XP Service Pack 2 a few months later.

That's all I can find as proof at the moment. But it is obvious if features of Vista translated to Xp BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED, the same devs were working on XP.

If you wanna call Vista ME2, then you need to call Xp ME2.



The truth is, there's gonna be no real rebuttal from the bashers.

THERE IS NO POINT TO BEGIN WITH, EXCEPT TO TROLL.

Unless you care to actually respond to the reason why the first post was made in such a trolling way?

 

u know something guys...i still occassionaly use my windows 98se!!!!!!
well actually more my little kid bro than me on my old P2 333 MHZ with 128MB RAM

 

people dont like vista over XP cuz they are much more fond of XP....i mean XP was such a major update over the previous versions...i still remeber when i ran it for the first time i was stunned by the interface...the blue taskbar, the sleek line etc etc....and also no more system hangs and forced to restarting it...people wanted to avoid system lcokups and hangs and also the computer becoming useable as soon as it showed the explorer.....XP offered all that...b4 XP the computer used to lock up at least twice each day...took abt 1 mnute to become usable after the explorer showed....VIsta did not add anything much new in this regard so people were not amazed as much by it....
also keep in mind that most of the public aint experts or sufficiently proficient at computers thus they oppose change....

 

Well said, Umar. I'm in agreement. This sentiment has been noted time and again, but people persist on making comparisons and saying one works better than the other. Its simply pathetic to me, for sure.

Whatever works for one person may not necessarily work for another since we all have different needs. If XP works for you, then continue to use it. If Vista works for you, then continue to use that. It's really that simple. I use both and like both. XP has some advantages and Vista has others. I use the one that suits the task I'm trying to complete and move on. Maybe if Windows 7 really brings it, then everyone will switch to that and they'll be no more of these ridiculous comparison threads where all that can be said has been said by page 2.

 

I'm not saying you're a moron specifically, just people that call Vista ME2.

Last time I checked, Vista wasn't built from Win98 code...

 

Well, at the risk of inflaming certain people, let's take a look at the history, shall we?

All of the windows 9x versions, including Windows ME, all essentially sat on top of an MS-DOS kernel. See the Wikipedia WinME article and related links.

On the other hand, Win XP and _Vista are both built on top of the Windows NT kernel. See the Wikipedia WinXP article and related links.

So, quite obviously, _Vista cannot literally be a continuation, derivative, or update of WinME. Windows 9x/ME is fundamentally different from WinXP/Vista.

However, this comparison is a two-edged sword, because, as the evidence regarding prerelease _Vista components that were added into WinXP makes crystal clear, _Vista is nothing more than an incremental variation on WinXP, which was itself a variation on Win NT when it - XP - was first released. The difference, however, is that WinXP was a sufficiently different variation on WinNT that the two systems can, with some justness, be treated as qualitatively different; that qualitative difference does not exist between WinXP and _Vista.

In particular, since - as the evidence presented proves - most of the under-the-hood components that are supposed to be peculiar to _Vista work just as well (or, as WinXPSP3 seems to show, even better) when stuck under WinXP's hood, the essential difference between _Vista and WinXP is, at bottom, nothing more than a different GUI, one that, in the case of _Vista, has been larded up with a lot of inefficient, unnecessary eye candy.

To put it another way, if we took away aeroglass and the different colour schemes, and replaced them with the WinXP colour schemes, we basically end up with just a refreshed version of WinXP.

In other words, what _Vista really was, and what it should have been sold as, is the real third service pack for WinXP. On that basis, the recently released XPSP3 should really be called XPSP4 (assuming that, because of the closeness in time, if we were to fold _Vista back into XP - where it belongs - we could more or less discard _Vista SP1 as being substantially replicated by the current XPSP3).

Basically, this is comparable to arguing that linux kernel 2.6.25 with the Gnome GUI sitting on top of it is a qualitatively different OS from linux kernel 2.6.25 with the KDE GUI sitting on top of it. It's not; it's the same OS - linux kernel 2.6.25 - with two different ways of visualizing the OS and interacting with it. There are, obviously, differences between Gnome and KDE, and things can be done on one that cannot be done on the other (or can be done only with difficulty), but fundamentally, the two packages - linux/Gnome and linux/KDE - are the same OS.

Now, and this is where my half-joking comparison to ME comes in, is that _Vista was sold as being a qualitatively different OS from WinXP - as being the next quantum leap in the development of the Microsoft OS system - when it was nothing more nor less than an overhyped refresh of WinXP that, far from being a quantitative leap forward over WinXP, was actually somewhat of a leap back down from WinXP. That same basic paradigm played out with the switch from Win98SE to WinME - WinME was sold as a "new" OS when it was nothing more than a klutzy refresh of Win98SE. What WinME actually should have been called, since the term "Windows 2000" had already been allocated to the WinNT OS and therefore could not be used to indicate that ME was in reality a progression of the old Win 9x OS, is something like "Windows 98 Third Edition" aka Win98TE.

That, in a nutshell, is where those of us who liken _Vista to ME are coming from, mainly because we're a bunch of smart-a$$es who like to poke fun at ole B.G. whenever we get a chance (probably in part because we're envious of the vast wealth he's gotten by hawking substandard wares to a gullible public); it has nothing to do with anyone seriously thinking that _Vista is a literal reincarnation of WinME.

Of course, that leads to the speculative point - since the fabled Windows 7 (or, as has been said, "the next version") will from all appearances still be built on top of the WinNT kernel, will this Windows 7/"next version" really be a qualitatively new OS worthy of staring a new naming scheme - equivalent to going from linux 2.6.25 to linux 3.0.0 - or would it be more appropriate (and more honest) to call it WinXP Service Pack 4? Or, should we undo the past, be thoroughly honest, and just call it WinNT 8?

That, of course, leads me to another speculation that is consistent with all this, if Win2000 was WinNT 5, WinXP was WinNT 6, and Windows 7 therefore essentially WinNT 7, doesn't that mean that _Vista is really just a half-way house between WinNT6 and WinNT 7, which means that it is either just a refresh/service pack of WinNT6, aka WinXP, or else it's a sterile sport sitting half-way from WinNT 6 and WinNT 7 and should be called WinNT 6.5, or perhaps WinXP 1+1/2.

 

Personally? I think anyone saying Vista is Me Sp2 or whatever do not recall the horrors of Windows 95/98/ME.

D: