• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Windows *-> 8 <-*: RTM: Friday, July 1, 2011

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

johnz

Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
I don't think that's correct. MS has said they wanted to be on a 3 year release schedule. That's close. Maybe it's for the beta release.
 

turbohans

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Location
n43, w86
well windows 7 betta has been around to my knowlage a whole year now.
I amagine it was in the works long before that in a betta form.

That is a little soon though, but not compaired to OS's like Ubuntu witch has a 6mo cycle.
 

cyberfish

Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Location
London, England
As long as they can sell it...

XP-Vista took 6 years, but there were some "real" improvements - UAC (I know how everyone hates it, but it's a step in the right direction - mimicking Unix's sudo), power management, DX10, and cosmetic changes.

Vista-7 was ridiculous. 7 is like a patch for Vista, and they sell it for an arm and a leg. It would make sense as a free or very cheap upgrade from Vista.

Nowhere else in the commercial software world do you see people getting away with this.

Next thing you know they will be selling Windows 7.1 with a pink theme for $299. Ultimate edition allows you to change the color.
 

johan851

Insatiably Malcontent, Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
XP-Vista took 6 years, but there were some "real" improvements - UAC (I know how everyone hates it, but it's a step in the right direction - mimicking Unix's sudo), power management, DX10, and cosmetic changes.

Vista-7 was ridiculous. 7 is like a patch for Vista, and they sell it for an arm and a leg. It would make sense as a free or very cheap upgrade from Vista.
UAC doesn't come close to mimicking sudo. The entire permissions structure is entirely different. The kernels are far too different for them to get a permissions implementation as nice as sudo.

And I would say that Windows 7 is significantly different than Vista. Vista sucks. 7 doesn't. There are a lot of people who would agree with me on that. That's why 7 already has so much market penetration where Vista never did.
 

cyberfish

Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Location
London, England
UAC doesn't come close to mimicking sudo. The entire permissions structure is entirely different. The kernels are far too different for them to get a permissions implementation as nice as sudo.
Yeah, it's more of a patchy thing, but I was surprised they actually took a shot at it. I didn't expect them to because it would be a lot of work, for little visible benefit to average joes, and will draw a lot of attack (annoyances). So I like to praise them for it (one of the very few things I praise Microsoft for, since they don't usually do this kind of "background work"). It's very hard work, though. Windows developers have long assumed they (or their program) has admin priv, and taking that away will break many programs. Their solution was kind of neat, the Virtual Store thing (copy-on-write when application tries to write to a system directory).

And I would say that Windows 7 is significantly different than Vista. Vista sucks. 7 doesn't. There are a lot of people who would agree with me on that. That's why 7 already has so much market penetration where Vista never did.
I agree, there are a lot of differences.

Vista is buggy, 7 isn't (as). But when we buy software, we assume it to be bug-free. If not, the company is obligated to fix it for free, instead of charging $300 for it. This is very unfair to people who bought Vista.

When we buy a car, and find out the engine doesn't work, most people won't just throw it out of the window, and go buy a newer revision of the car with a working engine at full price. We expect the manufacturer to fix it for free.
 

johan851

Insatiably Malcontent, Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Yeah, it's more of a patchy thing, but I was surprised they actually took a shot at it. I didn't expect them to because it would be a lot of work, for little visible benefit to average joes, and will draw a lot of attack (annoyances). So I like to praise them for it (one of the very few things I praise Microsoft for, since they don't usually do this kind of "background work"). It's very hard work, though. Windows developers have long assumed they (or their program) has admin priv, and taking that away will break many programs. Their solution was kind of neat, the Virtual Store thing (copy-on-write when application tries to write to a system directory).
But it's implemented so poorly that users are either annoyed and always press "continue", or turn it off entirely. If it's not going to prevent anything from happening in practice, why bother? It prevents from doing minor things, like removing a Start Menu icon. The linux root/user model doesn't prevent you from stuff like that. I guess my opinion is that it's a great idea, but it's implemented so poorly that it's worse than useless.

When we buy a car, and find out the engine doesn't work, most people won't just throw it out of the window, and go buy a newer revision of the car with a working engine at full price. We expect the manufacturer to fix it for free.
True. But if you buy a model of a car that kinda sucks, it's you're fault for buying that model and not doing your homework. And if I buy a Prius and it has a little problem, I can't just download a patch from Toyota to fix it. I would argue that the actual "bugs" in Vista are patched, but it doesn't change the fact that Vista is a lemon of an OS. :)
 

ratbuddy

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
True. But if you buy a model of a car that kinda sucks, it's you're fault for buying that model and not doing your homework. And if I buy a Prius and it has a little problem, I can't just download a patch from Toyota to fix it. I would argue that the actual "bugs" in Vista are patched, but it doesn't change the fact that Vista is a lemon of an OS. :)

Vista just got bad press. It's better than XP which was better than its predecessors, and so on. It's just progress.
 

Younglin

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Location
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA!
Vista just got bad press. It's better than XP which was better than its predecessors, and so on. It's just progress.

I disagree, and agree at the same time. Although vista is better for gaming and is more "advanced" I prefer xp. It's just a nicer interface to me. (not the looks but how it is actually setup) Although I am slightly biased as I grew up with xp.
 

Bobnova

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
And if I buy a Prius and it has a little problem, I can't just download a patch from Toyota to fix it.

Actually.... That's exactly what Toyota does when they have to diagnose a Prius, it gets plugged into a computer, which communicates via sat. to Toyota Japan, at which point patches and updates for all the software that runs the stupid thing are flashed into the ECU.

I know what you mean though :p


7 is Vista SPsomething, it's the Win98 to vista's Win95. There was a decent difference, but it's the same OS.

On lower spec systems there is no comparison between XP and Vista, my dads 1.5ghz t5250 cpu'd laptop for instance. Vista took four minutes and change to boot, and ran sloooooow.
XP takes about a minute, and runs at normal speed (HDD access is slow, 5400rpm laptop drive).
Haven't tried 7 on it, i want to but it has business stuff on it.


Unless win8 is Vista SP++, there is no way it'll be RTM by july next year IMO.
 
Last edited:

johan851

Insatiably Malcontent, Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Actually.... That's exactly what Toyota does when they have to diagnose a Prius, it gets plugged into a computer, which communicates via sat. to Toyota Japan, at which point patches and updates for all the software that runs the stupid thing are flashed into the ECU.
Yeah, I was going to say that downloading patches for cars can't be too far down the road. :)
 

ratbuddy

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
On lower spec systems there is no comparison between XP and Vista, my dads 1.5ghz t5250 cpu'd laptop for instance. Vista took four minutes and change to boot, and ran sloooooow.
XP takes about a minute, and runs at normal speed (HDD access is slow, 5400rpm laptop drive).

Something might be wrong with it. My old lady's machine is a T2370 setup with 1.5GB RAM and a 5400rpm drive, it runs Vista fine, and takes nowhere near 4 minutes to boot.
 

Younglin

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Location
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA!
Something might be wrong with it. My old lady's machine is a T2370 setup with 1.5GB RAM and a 5400rpm drive, it runs Vista fine, and takes nowhere near 4 minutes to boot.

I don't know. My buddy put vista on his old pentium 3 and it took 10 minutes to boot up. When he had xp on it, it only took about 2.
 

ratbuddy

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
I don't know. My buddy put vista on his old pentium 3 and it took 10 minutes to boot up. When he had xp on it, it only took about 2.

Well P3 came out 10 years ago, so I wouldn't really expect it to run Vista very well :beer:
 

Bobnova

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
I'm surprised vista even booted on a P3.

I've been hoping he'd let me re-install vista from a clean disk, not the acer one packed full of garbage addons. Doesn't look likely.
XP performance was terrible till we found the ACPI patch for XP, amazing what not being stuck on 166x6 with no cpu fan can do!