Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Microsoft Offers a Peek at "Windows 7"

Microsoft's Windows Vista is barely a year and a half and many of you seem in no rush to adopt it, but the company is already starting to reveal some features of Vista's successor.

Yesterday, at the Wall Street Journal's D: All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, Calif., company representatives showed off a "multi-touch" interface in the operating system it's calling "Windows 7" for now. A short video of the demo shows a user manipulating photos, browsing a map and playing an onscreen piano with simple one and two-finger taps and gestures.

This feature appears to work much like the touch-sensitive screen of Apple's iPhone. But it also owes much to the "Surface" software Microsoft revealed last year (and now installed at AT&T Wireless's Chinatown store here in D.C.).

Microsoft has yet to reveal much else about Windows 7--note the lack of detail in Wikipedia's entry on it. In a post yesterday, company blogger Chris Flores wrote that the company wanted to limit its public chatter about this operating system for now:

...several months ago we began privately sharing our preliminary plans for Windows 7 with software and hardware partners who build on the Windows platform. This gave them an opportunity to give us feedback and gave us the opportunity to incorporate their input into our plans. As the product becomes more complete, we will have the opportunity to share our plans more broadly.

Flores also wrote that "we're still on track to ship approximately three years after the general availability of Windows Vista"--which would have Windows 7 landing on store shelves in early 2010. But given the history of this company and, well, pretty much every other operating-system developer, I wouldn't put too much money on it sticking to that schedule.

Just in case the Windows 7 architects read this, what features would you like to see in that version?

By Rob Pegoraro  |  May 28, 2008; 12:02 PM ET
Categories:  Windows  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What's In a Username?
Next: Call, The Question: Your Wireless-Phone Choices

Comments

All I want from Windows is reasonably fast performance. Why, for example, does it take Vista several minutes to boot up? My processor operates at GIGAHERTZ speeds, so 5 minutes is enough time to index every book in the Library of Congress. What is Vista DOING during all that time. Hey, Microsoft, does the word "bloatware" sound familiar. Just clean up your code, go for efficiency, and give us the power our processors promise us.

Posted by: Bill Prince | May 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Vista was a shining reminder of the Windows ME days, and then when XP came out we all sang their praises again. Hopefuly this trend will continue and Microsoft will do as suggested by Bill Prince and slim down the code, cut out the garbage, and go for efficiency. Create the software that allows current hardware to perform as it should... we promise, you WILL make money still.

Posted by: Mister Skiba | May 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Another Windoze promise, start from scratch, they are already behind Linux and Macintosh.
Give us something easy to use and easy on our processors not CRAP like vista

Posted by: Mitch | May 28, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

As others have posted, MS should go for efficiency rather than extra gimmicks. I was very disappointed last year when I discovered that my brand new computer with Vista ran slow. I hear the hard disk cranking, but I have no idea what it's doing.

Posted by: EL | May 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, I don't want some "cool new" visual interface. I don't even like touch screens - and the prospect of cleaning them and calibrating them all the time. Forget that rubbish.

Give me something that doesn't have issues running the programs I know and love - and maybe some highly graphics intensive games as well - without requiring me to jump through hoops to fix the compatability issues.


This is, of course, asking alot from a company who can't even keep their own MP3 player compatible with it's own software. 2.5 zune update pissed me off.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

To echo the previous postings, software is very well received when it is fast, available, effective, and efficient.

As a laptop user who often needs to run off the battery and over a wireless network, I would greatly appreciate a Window OS that would recognize this state and run or at least optionally run only the minimal set of services, updates, and administrative programs.

Please :+)

Posted by: Rick in Victoria | May 28, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Wah wah wah... again with the M$ h8. I've used every iteration of every major OS and while yes, ALL of them stumble, I can still count on M$ to do what I need. If your Vista system takes more than 1 minute to boot - your machine has OTHER issues (like it sux). If you think Linux is the answer to everything, try again (Whats your favorite Linux game? Circle Eater?). And if you are an Apple-ite, PLEASE get ur heads out of your Assple and figure out that its a PC (thats right - CISC, not RISC) and Apple is just a glossy OS (and when your rainbow wheel runs forever - THAT IS A CRASH my deluded friends!!).

Posted by: h8rzRl0s3rz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

To me the point of an OS is to help your programs use your hardware in an efficient way so that you can accomplish your goals quickly. Where does it leave you when your OS is already chewing up your resources just to boot(Vista).

I would like to see what others have already suggested: Efficent hardware/software management and compatibility.

Posted by: Bob from IT | May 28, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Of course you can't use vista when you don't clean install it by yourself. The third party apps bog it down by starting up every single one upon booting. If you keep the registry clean and stop downloading and installing everything you find it will run perfectly fine. That said I still use xp since it is a bit faster, however it seems like people either have some weird need to hate an "evil corporation" or they are lintards. Sure, lets all use linux, even though trying to install that is a nightmare on any new hardware, not to mention that if people can't do regular maintenance on an xp/vista machine, how on earth will they ever learn how to use linux. I agree with Bill Prince, vista (or the next OS) needs to be slimmed down a lot for efficiency, no one uses all of those windows programs on there. Why would I use media center when I can just pop up media player? Its the same thing!

Posted by: rediculous | May 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I just bought a laptop with Vista on it. So far, I have been pleasantly surprised at its performance. Of course having 3GB of ram probably helps but so far I am thinking Vista's bad reputation might not be totally deserved.

I think most of the problem with Vista can be attributed to people trying to run it with cheap hardware.

Posted by: Bart | May 28, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Performance should really be the focus of the OS. The touch-sensitive would be nice to have but if it bogs down your programs there's no point.

Posted by: Stu | May 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Isn't performance relative to how good the hardware is? No matter how good the OS is, if you run it on crappy inadequate hardware, it'll suck. And you can't say "Well XP (or a previous version of Windows) runs reasonably fast on the computer".

Posted by: Bart | May 28, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

It is not relative to how good the hardware is. Why would one OS require more resources than its predecessor? Its hard to compare them since they do different things, and do the same things differently. If I wanted to run some program on a clean install of xp, it could indeed run faster than another OS. Vista has a lot more background processes which probably slows it down a bit, but I don't think it makes since to say "the operating system is faster" since all the OS does is provide a place to run other programs.

Posted by: No | May 28, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Although, if you have the same OS running on 2 different machines, with those OS's configured exactly alike, then the machine with better hardware will run programs quicker.

Posted by: No | May 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Agree with EL, less gimmicks, bells and whistles and more efficiency. Lean code is needed for phat performance.

Posted by: Frank | May 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I have 2 PC's on my desk, one for everyday use with XP and one with Vista for testing - pending future deployment. I have never had any hardware issues with either PC, both have the same specs and applications. Vista does not run applications any better than XP does; however, when it comes to user experience XP is a lot more straight forward. If you have Vista, there's nothing wrong with it, there's just not much benefit to upgrade from XP.

Posted by: Joe | May 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Well written software, including an OS will make efficient use of the hardware running it.

My 4 year old Powerbook G4 with 500 MB RAM running OS X has never had a problem bogging down. (This isn't intended as 'Mac-boy bashing windows,' just stating my experience.)

Posted by: Patrick | May 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I know several people who are older computer users. Some of them used to write code in the 1980s. One recently clicked on a program, but the program was expired. Yep, it was a trial version of some program; he sort of realized PCs had these trial programs, but didn't realize HIS PC had them.

He is a typical PC user. He liked the interface the Vista people promised, and selected a computer that was "Vista Ready" or whatever the sticker said. Of course, like many others, he was promised one thing, but received something else after he paid for the promise.

I am an Apple user and have been for years - I don't see myself going back. However, I realize the business world is stuck with PC so I have to keep my PC-knowledge up to date. I can't believe M$ came out with an OS that required so much power that it limits how it runs on a particular system. I think people are shocked by that and the constant need to grant permission to this or that function. It's hard for the users to see M$ emulate another company's innovation and do it so poorly.

Posted by: umm.huh | May 28, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The excitement of pinching and pulling photos doesn't last too long. Let's hope Microsoft innovates a little instead of ripping off the iPhone interface and making it clumsy.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

i agree with the previous statements. i definitely would like the code and bloatware to be cleaned out. for all your usual activities, windows does what its made for, running programs. it just needs to do a better job at it, ie, lean, mean, and efficiently. an OS is supposed to MANAGE hardware resources, not used them all. apple PCs are nice and easy to use (use it at work) but it doesn't have the software people want/need + its expensive for the average sally and joe.

Posted by: Sally & Joe | May 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Have they thought this out???????????

1) Hot humid day. Sweat dripping over everything and fingerprints all over the screen. A quick wipe over with a sreen cleaner and "What happened to that progam?"

2) Conference meeting, giant screen so everybody can see,refreshments freely available and the CEO makes a point while finishing his Danish. No problem, just peel off the top screen saver. See Grand Prix and Nascar racing for demonstrations.

3) "This screen is coffee proof, isn't it?"

What they really ought to be doing is creating an OS that doesn't eat processor availability and will inter-operate with vendor and user programs from day one. Not something which behaves like a beta tryout.

Posted by: manny.b | May 28, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

My two biggest requirements for an OS or for a car are "start and run", not the navigation system nor home entertainment unit. Vista sounds like a core-hog, who knows what "7" will be,
My perception is that these "once new" 64-bit systems with dual or quad processors are hamstrung by processors that are unable to resolve addresses greater than 2+ GB. Those that remeber the 286, may remember that everything about 64K could only be used to simulate a fast drive. Years before TRS80s had to be tricked to use anything above 32k.
Touch screen sounds like the need to hit micro areas. More is definitely not better when attempting to dial a micro phone or key a blackberry. You seldom want the all 3 of the characters you've entered.
Now if "7" could run in some of this unused capacity, instead of reducing user memory, now that could be something.

Posted by: lrmc623 | May 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

That Windows 7 running under Windows XP right? I hope for that. I heard from people said that Vista is running under Windows ME and keep annoy us. I hope Windows 7 will be more improve than Vista. Windows 7 use half memory ram, hard drive space, video ram, reduce processor pressure(Like CPU usage 100% that what we use Task Manger to check out) from Vista. That one. Make like same as XP more better and make us very happy. Bring all old @ new PC games and programs for Windows 7. Like you play on old games - Starcraft, Warcraft II, Age of Empire, all Nintendo roms, Playstation roms, etc. Bring old memorial back please! If people can't afford new games at any stores and they can download free games from internet at no charge. Play your old favorite classic games and make your life more happy and no more complain. I hope Windows 7 must be error-free. More stable than Windows Vista. Windows 7 allow you to update daily or not need update(You use manual download Update list off from Microsoft website to save your time) In the future, If any happen to internet will going down and you can't update, play games online like World of Warcraft, etc. If Earth going bad @ worse, what we are go doing? Move out to Mars or other unlike Earth have life and water from our old Earth. You can bring your laptops come with solar panel on top cover of laptop look like future to feed power battery to full rechargeable from bright light or Sun. AC Adapter can do to laptop anytime like what we use normal way. You can bring your laptops to any where in space without problems. I recommend you must have Solid State Disk(SSD) unlike hard drive. SSD can live longer than Hard Drive's life. Due to vibration problems or magnet pull on gravity so hard. I hope for that! Laptops come with Dual core and Quad core, 4 GB RAM, Powerful gaming video card. Newer laptops will be more cheaper than currently. Example: Quad Core with 2.88 GHz @ 12 MB Cache, 4 GB DDR2 RAM @ 800 MHz, 512 MB Nvidia 8800M GTX or 1 GB Nvidia 9800M GTX, OS: Windows XP, Vista, and 7. Price about $2,000. You don't need buy lot of money more than 2,500 or above. Because laptops are junk right? People said YES! I got it. I hope for new powerful Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware, Anti-Malware, etc for on Windows XP, Vista and 7. Lifetime update or without update. Will never expire your software. No restrict on multiple computers like accounts. I stopped buy Norton, Panda, etc at stores, because waste our money and hurt our feelings! These are junk, serious! Why one year limit for us to use it? Too bad! I stick with AVG and McAfee for free at no charge. I still use Webroot Spy Sweeper now(2007 to future) with my old key - one year update to expire on year 2005-06(out date) still work and protect against spywares in real time without problems that what I bought from store! I refuse to buy new Anti-Spyware again from stores! What a full of junk softwares from stores! I saved my money more easily! More powerful than any softwares that what we bought from stores. Stop buy Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware, etc at stores to save your gas and money. Think more harder and we must to try doing best we can!

Posted by: Guest86 | May 28, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Having seen the new GUI I am highly impressed. I am scrambling to get into the Win7 Closed beta. I was in the closed Vista beta and really was not impressed at all through it. There however is no reason why Win7 gui and os should not be able to run on a 1Ghz machine with 1gig ram and a 50 dollar graphics card.
Code efficiency is vital and not that hard as long as you dont use MS compilers which when you create a MDI window creates 14 pages of code to do what you can hand code in 7...

Posted by: Chase | May 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Guest86,

I also hope windows 7 doesn't suck, because when we use it on Mars, we don't need it crashing.

Posted by: lol | May 28, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

To lol,

I agree with you. :-)

Posted by: Guest86 | May 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

- Take full advantage of future hardware configurations (See Solid State Drives).
- Native 64bit support without having to buy a "separate" operating system.
- Leaner/faster kernel.
- Give me an optional plug-in for a "feature" instead of forcing me to use it.
- Seamless and Intuitive interface with mobile devices.
- Stop eating my hard drive!
- K.I.S.S.

Posted by: Tray.M | May 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I waited for Vista since I really enjoyed my experience with NT and then XP. My new and powerful Sony Vaio came with bunch of useless demo programs preinstalled. It took me months to clean and configure Vista, which is something that a less computer literate person is unlikely to be capable of doing. The problem with Vista is its performance. Indexing is done too often and it takes too much of the resources (why isn't the spy-ware scan and virus check combined with indexing?). Wireless performance has much to be desired. Frequent crashes of Explorer are unacceptable on the high-end hardware and very limited set of programs installed. Multitasking has too long of a context switch and programs are allowed to monopolize CPU time (at least that is how it feels to me).

A recommendation to MS would be to modularize and optimize Windows kernel for each specific processor/bus architecture. Also, forget about being backward compatible and make a whole new system with perhaps a free simulator for the previous Windows versions. Introduce new software industry standards. These steps would mitigate some of the performance wows.

I don't know how many people will use touch-screen to edit photos, but we all need to reboot, check email, and get on the web. Hence, concentrate on making the system faster.

Posted by: Peter | May 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

called Windows ME that they recovered from with Windows XP, is, alas, no longer...

On a MacBook Pro - one can run ALL - XP, Linux + Mac OS X.

MS Office exists for the OS X.

UNIX and clones (Linux) have cornered the server market.

Microsoft is on their way to reinvent either UNIX all over again, or possibly VMS...

Mark my words.

Posted by: The luxury of the past... | May 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

It will be more of the same Windows that we all know, perhaps slimmed down to size, and a bit optimized, but have no illusions of any kind - Windows 7 is _NOT_ going to be a radical departure from what you see in Win XP or Vista.

Microsoft hasn't had a radical departure in operating systems since the days of NT.

Time's afoot at Microsoft to bring out Singularity from the woodwork.

Or migrate to OS X or Linux completely.

Or reinvent UNIX.

Posted by: Windows 7 isn't new... | May 28, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

This "demo of Windows 7" is just a tape that was released a while ago that is actually a demo of multi-touch in Windows. It's a rather trivial demonstration actually, something on the level of a driver. There was a high school student who recently made a multi-touch version of OS-X, it's not really that hard (once Apple shows the way). Basically this is classic "vaporware."

Interesting that all the elements of the "new interface" that you can see are direct rip-offs of Apple interfaces, many of which are patented. They even have a dock that is *indistinguishable* from the OS-X dock in Tiger. Wow. That's innovation from MS for you.

The little circle interface idea they show is interesting also, but I thought it was interesting when I read it in an Apple patent application last year.

I suspect that what we eventually see in Windows 7 will be nothing like this "demo" at all.

Posted by: Jeremy | May 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"And you can't say "Well XP (or a previous version of Windows) runs reasonably fast on the computer"."

Yes you can.
If older OS does what you want and does it faster, then that is a huge negative against the new OS.
Its no argument to say "the new OS does more" if the new things it does arnt anything you need.

Frankly, I think its amazing we have to wait for Windows to load at all with the processors we have now.

Cant we have at least the email/web functions pop up straight away while the rest is loading?
Given how fast Windows95 boots on current PC specs (near-instant), I dont see why not.


Posted by: Darkflame | May 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Windows 95 on current PC specs? I didn't know it supported dual core processors, or any of the other ultra fast hardware from manufacturers like nvidia or intel..

Posted by: hmm | May 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

After Vista, I SWEAR: I will never, ever, EVER, E-V-E-R buy another PC machine!!!

I am going Mac.

Posted by: Shamblinthru | May 28, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for bell's and whistles like touch-screen -- when I want to use them. When I don't, I need a simple way to turn them off - i.e. if I'm playing a game, to be able to shut of anything not absolutely vital. Without trial-and-blue-screen errors.

Make it:
1. Fast
2. Configurable - ui or command line - just something centralized
3. Consistent
4. Well documented - in the system - don't make me have a working internet connection
5. Secure

And please add a centralized software/driver manager -- or fund a company to build one. I'm sick of each program doing it's own checks for updates and adding background bloat to my startup times.

Posted by: mtndog | May 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

To hmm,

You can running VMware software to run Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP(any version), Vista(any version) on Windows XP and Windows Vista without problems. Much fastest running on Dual core and Quad core or more. Windows XP will pull Windows Vista and 7 on Windows XP core. If you don't like use on Vista or 7. You can use XP to pull Vista and 7 on it and will running fine. Note: Remember XP have solid core. Vista don't have solid core. Too bad.

Microsoft company will be warned by people what they said recall on Vista. We hope Windows 7 must not recall like Vista. We want same as XP. I still running Windows XP Service Pack 2 without problem so far. I wait to update SP3 in June or July for my XP.

Posted by: Guest86 | May 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Just stop dropping support for the 'good' operating systems to try to force your customers to move to 'junk' operating systems. Let us choose which operating system we WANT to use. Our company tried Vista in our test lab, found it wasn't compatible with several required applications and we went back to XP. Now that those applications are now Vista compatible, they still don't perform as well as the old XP versions, users complain about the interfaces... I see NO need to replace every monitor for touch screens when 90% of people's work is reading and typing. Who really cares about the bells and whistles when it comes down to getting business done? The bad thing is that even if you don't want those bells and whistles, it still slows down the computer as there are so many unused processes running in the background.

How about this one feature, give us a nice easy way to knowlegably be able to turn off all the unnecessary processes that run on the machines when we aren't doing anything.

Posted by: Mel | May 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

fastest way to make any OS boot is to stop all of the start-up programs except your anti-virus. The only reason i would ever "upgrade" to Vista would be for DirectX 10. If that ever becomes available for XP i would have no reason to ever upgrade to some bloated OS

Posted by: yarbie | May 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

People hate vista cause their hardware is out of date do your self a favor go buy new hardware at least 3 gb ram a processor that is above 2 gb and the most awesome video card you can get then you wont have issues and if you dont like that go pay an over priced amount for the same thing that has an apple on oh and if you still have issues with vista take your computer unplug it from the wall and throw it out the window you dont deserve to own a computer

Posted by: bobbybuilder | May 28, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

To me Vista's downfall is it's slower than XP. It's a new OS, it should be faster. I understand Vista has to run more also, but it shouldn't be slower doing so. That's backwards! If it has so much more that it's slower, then something is wrong. It's too pretty, and not enough speedy.

Posted by: Manning | May 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

oh and if you dont like stupid fresh options like touch screen I have a old windows 3x boot disk you can have, use that and leave the future tech to people that should own computers and not people that say stuff like "our company tried vista" fist off its not your company fool its the company you work for

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Every OS has its strengths and weaknesses. Making comments about Windows sucking, Linux being difficult to use, or MacOS being too dumbed-down are both true and false at the same time.

Windows offers many users the ability to install and run a variety of software without too much hassle. Windows is also buggy and slow, and Vista has extremely high hardware requirements in order to run properly.

Linux (at least some of the most modern distributions, such as Ubuntu and openSUSE) is fast, reliable, and not susceptible to the same sort of threats that Windows is. However, there is a learning curve, and it is true that driver support is still lacking in certain areas, such as ATI graphics. Gaming is not as much of an issue as it used to be with programs such as Wine ... and there is hope for any Steam-powered games, as Steam has hired a crew to convert their games to openGL.

MacOS (which I have little experience in) is essentially FreeBSD, and thus has the same pros and cons as Linux, with the exception that it is more user fiendly.

Overall, it is a good thing that Microsoft is looking beyond Vista, and I generally agree with the statements made about efficiency above. However, I think Microsoft will need to shift its "patch-to-prevent" security paradigm if it will ever have a chance of being used by a person like me.

Posted by: PhD | May 28, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I'd just be happy if they stuck with the name "Windows 7" rather than letting marketroids come up with another stupid name.

I will grudgingly accept that "Vista" is maybe mildly better than the meaningless-two-letters trend they got into for awhile. (Cue the old joke about a new Windows that combines the features of Windows NT, Windows ME, and Windows CE : Windows CEMENT.)

Posted by: KR | May 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the D Conference, cnn.com reports the following:

"The software company's top two executives defended its last operating system, Vista, while acknowledging missteps. Gates said he has never been 100% satisfied with any Microsoft product, and that the company prides itself on fixing shortcomings in later versions."

Query, does anyone think that Steve Jobs or any CEO for that matter would come out and publicly say that, barring routine progress, they weren't completely satisfied with a product when it was introduced? I simply think that is tantamount to saying "I know this isn't the best, but settle for it for now, and we'll charge you later to upgrade when we get it right."

I cannot believe that MS shareholders wouldn't be enraged to have a corporate leader make such disparaging remarks.

IMHO!!

Posted by: Dan Margolis | May 28, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

from a blind user's perspective or the view of someone who can't use their hands the idea of an os excluding them is a little scary.

Posted by: kgc | May 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure they'll have to have a toe-touch interface to comply with the ADA for those that can't use their hands.

Posted by: kgc responder | May 28, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

What pisses me off here is seeing people who say were using old or outdated hardware is ludicrous.... The O|S (a.k.a Vista) Should be getting leaner and more efficient... not more and more bloated. And Speaking of Bloatware.... Why is it that when I buy a Laptop or PC from HP, Dell, Sony...etc... Do I (the End User or Network Administrator) have to deal with all the Crap thats loaded on this "NEW" Up to date piece of Hardware??? I run Vista only because of the machines I'm now forced to buy new with Vista Business on them. Thier is no greater benifit to upgrading to Vista other than wanting new " EYE CANDY" I hope that Windows 7 will be the OS that XP is..... cos frankly I cant forsee going any other way except the MAC way. The Only Downfall I see with MAC is that they are Stoned out of there mind for the price of replacement parts. Logic Boards costing the same price as a new iMAC is another Insane topic of conversation in another colum.

Evil Homer has Spoken >:-/

Posted by: Evil Homer | May 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Touch screen is not good for our hands to touch on it. Screen easily get dirty and wet. Better use Dual Stylus on screen without get dirty. Remember Nintendo DS have stylus? That one. I agree with users what they said hands touch on screen is not nice. Right?

Posted by: Guest86 | May 28, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

U nailed it Bill Prince. What I need is a feature rich but fast OS that does not include Canel, or Allow, and does not freaking get in my way. I simply has to be fast, efficent, and feature-rich.

Posted by: Vista? (sigh...) | May 29, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I *hate* *hate* *hate* it when people at touch my computer screen... it just means more nasty, greasy fingerprints to wipe off.

So now we will have an OS that *requires* you to dirty up your screen. Just shoot me now.

Posted by: James | May 29, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

To "The luxury of the past" and other MAC users:
Office on the MAC "Includes: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage, Microsoft Server Exchange Support " according to Amazon.com.
WHERE IS ACCESS, THE RELATIONAL DATABASE???
Do MAC users do all their database applications on line using mySQL and php?
This "office Suit", it's not a suite, folks, is rather like buying an off-road vehicle without 4-wheel drive.

Posted by: lrmc623 | May 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

To all the people that have an issue with Vista good job for having your opinion I am happy for you but before you slam it do you like a new learning curve if so then you will like it once you get the hang of it. if you think that xp was awesome and windows was perfect stay with it and to all other people that only hear about the issues with vista and want to slam on it think about this in a hacking competition vista couldnt be hacked after three days however osx was with the use of safari and to make it known the only thing I cant stand about vista the voice recognition sucks no matter how much I train it

Posted by: guest666 | May 29, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The boys Tristan Black and Ji Cecil...I'm sure will be talking about that.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/447192

Posted by: Frank | May 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Note to Microsoft:
People buy computers to run software programs, not to look at the operating system. Stability, security, and small footprint are key. Vista made us spend extra money on faster computers than we normally would have needed. Don't do that again w/ windows 7.

Posted by: ugh | May 29, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Microsoft is promising "bigger and better" again, meanwhile, Mac is taking over the market where PC's loaded with windows used to have the majority of the market. I remember when 98 was first released, it had many bugs and took too long to load. Then there was ME and 2000 which were just terrible for hogging space and making the processor less efficient. When XP came out, it did not take long for it to totally take the market by storm, even though alot of programmers would agree that it was not ready for release. It was slow and buggy, SP1 gave it some speed and fixed some issues, SP2 made the experience better, but, hard drive space took a large hit, and SP3 (I have an advanced copy of this) takes even more space. Vista is a space hog, and, it is too gimmicky for the day-to-day user and the older generation. It also does not work with a great many softwares and hardwares that were already on the market.
If "Windows 7" is anything like Vista (gimmick wise", I can for-tell that there will be more Macs sold than PC's the year it is released.
This is a side note to the poster pissed off with the Microsoft Zune player, you should never have bought that piece of garbage. Here is a good idea, sell it on Ebay (some sucker will buy it, that I am sure of) then go to Tiger Direct and purchase the Apple Ipod.

Posted by: C. Morvant | May 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Enough of the multiple versions of the OS already...Basic, Home, Business, Ultimate. Make it just one version with the ability to turn features on or off.

Posted by: IT guy | May 30, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I hope Microsoft will make it possible to turn off the touch screen support and that they'll soup up their command line interface for those of us who can type like demons. :) Alternately, I hope they will beef up the speech recognition for voice-activated computing. I value speed and effectiveness over all else. I agree with others that fast, stable, and flexible are the path to a successful launch. We'd pay for that kind of performance. Bells and whistles are fun sometimes, but they're annoying when you're working under a deadline.

Posted by: Monica Willyard | May 30, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Very small issue but perhaps Microsoft should purchase a text editor like Notepad2 and replace its Notepad with it.

Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

when a M.S stops suporting XP their copy rights should run out

Posted by: ray | June 2, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

They can come out with Windows 27 for all I care, I'm sticking with XP for as long as I can.

Posted by: mdyoung | June 3, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company