I've heard Vista is being dropped next year and the new windows operating system is being rushed out true ?

yup, vista is just another ME Clicky.. (http://www.windows7.co.uk/) screenshots (http://forums.it-suite.net/index.php/topic,210.0.html) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7)

........................

Thank you daz.

I've heard Vista is being dropped next year and the new windows operating system is being rushed out true ?
The Wikipedia article says that it's not due for release til 2010.

Quoted article here (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/13/microsoft-finally-confirms-windows-7-for-2010-launch/).

Not much of a lifespan for Vista though, given that it's only been out for about a year.

ETA: Then again, when did XP come out? 2001? Three years after Win98, with ME inbetween. Was ME supposed to be a full new operating system or some sort of Win98 patch? I skipped from 98 to XP, and I've yet to jump to Vista (and probably never will).

ETA again: And where does Win2000 fit into all this? Or did I just hallucinate that one?

They announced in a keynote speech that it's been brought forward to 2009. But since they never hit a deadline anyway who cares.

ETA again: And where does Win2000 fit into all this? Or did I just hallucinate that one?

Windows Me was the "home version" and Windows 2000 was the professional version. XP was a minor upgrade on Windows 2000.

i think they should not have ever brought out vista anyways as to me vista is a bag of sh** and always will be

im on lastxp 17 and iv'e never had any probs with it

xp baby all the wayyyyyyyyy

XP was a minor upgrade on Windows 2000.

That has neverthless needed three Service Packs :P

That has neverthless needed three Service Packs :P

XP? Yes, it it soon be SP3, one short of W2K, which had four. :)

if for one will not miss it, just feel sorry for the fools that spent £400 on the Ultimate :hihi:

if for one will not miss it, just feel sorry for the fools that spent £400 on the Ultimate :hihi:

Everyone I know seems to have got ultimate for free. Vista is excellent, never had any problems with it. In fact in its the best straight out of the box OS I have ever used in 20 years of Microsoft use.

Everyone I know seems to have got ultimate for free. Vista is excellent, never had any problems with it. In fact in its the best straight out of the box OS I have ever used in 20 years of Microsoft use.

same here, dont know why its slated so much ive never had a problem with it! IMO its better than xp in every aspect (apart from the fact u need a spaceship to run it :hihi: )

Windows Me was the "home version" and Windows 2000 was the professional version. XP was a minor upgrade on Windows 2000.

No it wasnt!

At the time there were 2 operating systems running side by side.
Aimed at the home user there was windows millenium which was an update to 98 which was an update to 95 which was an update to 3.11.
on the buisness side the was windows 2000 which was an update to Nt4
The home users system used the fat system early operating systems used fat 16 updating to fat 32.
The buisness users got the more reliable,stable Ntfs file system
Microsoft then took both operating systems and created one from both.Xp in the early days could run on both file systems,users chose which one,but the option to use Ntfs was included.
The problem was at the time very few drivers were available for the Ntfs system and to all those vista haters,Xp was much more of a problem when realeased than vista has ever been.

same here, dont know why its slated so much ive never had a problem with it! IMO its better than xp in every aspect (apart from the fact u need a spaceship to run it :hihi: )

Ill bet some of the Vista haters would blame their car manufacturers for it hitting the gate post!

Ultimate is good but not worth £400. I bought the upgrade version for £60.00

http://www.software4students.co.uk/Operating_System_Software-list.aspx

No it wasnt!

At the time there were 2 operating systems running side by side.
Aimed at the home user there was windows millenium which was an update to 98 which was an update to 95 which was an update to 3.11.
on the buisness side the was windows 2000 which was an update to Nt4
The home users system used the fat system early operating systems used fat 16 updating to fat 32.
The buisness users got the more reliable,stable Ntfs file system
Microsoft then took both operating systems and created one from both.Xp in the early days could run on both file systems,users chose which one,but the option to use Ntfs was included.
The problem was at the time very few drivers were available for the Ntfs system and to all those vista haters,Xp was much more of a problem when realeased than vista has ever been.

Most drivers don't know or care what file system you use. The problem with drivers was simply availability, nothing to do with the FS.
The problem with Vista is worse, there are less drivers available (or maybe more hardware out there that is advertised as vista compatible when it isn't). Vista also has serious issues with it's implementation of the network stack which can manifest in extremely slow network file copying, and it's had an ongoing bug since release where it can take 100's hrs to delete a file.

Most drivers don't know or care what file system you use. The problem with drivers was simply availability, nothing to do with the FS.
The problem with Vista is worse, there are less drivers available (or maybe more hardware out there that is advertised as vista compatible when it isn't). Vista also has serious issues with it's implementation of the network stack which can manifest in extremely slow network file copying, and it's had an ongoing bug since release where it can take 100's hrs to delete a file.

Not like you to produce more than one line!

No operating system is perfect,they are far too complicated and have to take into account many variables.Having earnt a living from computers since the zx81 i know which operating system the proffesion would sooner not have.Give me windows 98 and millenium back any day, very very big earners.
A monkey can install and operate vista!Did you do yours yourself?

I dont know what everyones problem with Vista is, because it was written from NOTHING (from the ground up, not "an update of an older system" (like 95, to 98, to me etc).

Because its written from the ground up, things are different, the way it talks to the hardware is different, hence why it needs 'Vista' drivers for things to work because the drivers need to know how to use the new way.

Vista, as an OS, is the most stable, least problematic OS that microsoft have ever released STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX, Sure some people had crashes, yes they have released Service Pack 1, but on the whole, compare this to when Windows XP FIRST came out, before any Service packs etc, people said EXACTLY the same about XP.

Windows 98 SE was the most stable 'at the end of its life', with windows ME being thrown together built on Windows 98 SE, with a few of the looks of things changed but the way the HAL worked was more NT like and hence was Windows 2000 driver compatible for some hardware (hence people had trouble finding ME drivers for things) - ME was probably the least stable, most problematic OS for the home user..

Windows 2000 was designed for the server market, although it brought in the advent of DirectX for an NT based platform (which NT4+SPs lacked).

Windows XP was then re-built from the NT platform using the base NT kernel (the main bit) and everything else was re-written for it, since it used the base NT kernel it was windows 2000 driver compatible. but XP was meant to bring the power and stability of a windows NT platform to the home user with better gaming capabilities and more user friendly.

Then along came Windows 2003 Server/Home Server, this is basically a Windows XP with all the theme stuff taken out, various fixes applied prior to release and a bit more server functionality (such as multi user remote desktop, full IIS etc) this was designed as a replacement to Windows 2000, with the 'feel' of XP (just to bring Win2000 up to date a bit more)

Then, we have Vista, as already stated, this wasnt based on ANYTHING, this was written from the ground up, totally... im not going to go into any more info on Vista ;)

Not like you to produce more than one line!

If my responses to you are normally short, that's because that's all that is needed to be said.
No operating system is perfect,they are far too complicated and have to take into account many variables.Having earnt a living from computers since the zx81 i know which operating system the proffesion would sooner not have.Give me windows 98 and millenium back any day, very very big earners.
A monkey can install and operate vista!Did you do yours yourself?

I thought you earn a living from driving?

Did I do my what myself? I have 3 xp installations, one kubuntu installation and I've set up my parents laptop which has vista which was enough to put me off upgrading any of my own machines, as if the reviews weren't.
A monkey may be able to install it, but I doubt a monkey could get it talking to a windows xp machine or non windows share (ie samba), which should be it's basic bread and butter.
Take up of vista has been dire and the situation isn't improving for MS, the reason is widely accepted as being that Vista stinks like month old cheese.

vista is a waste if time!!!!!

to me last xp 17 can not be beaten its a great installation to use and can handle any task you throw at it

xp all the wayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!

No it wasnt!

At the time there were 2 operating systems running side by side.
Aimed at the home user there was windows millenium which was an update to 98 which was an update to 95 which was an update to 3.11.
on the buisness side the was windows 2000 which was an update to Nt4
The home users system used the fat system early operating systems used fat 16 updating to fat 32.
The buisness users got the more reliable,stable Ntfs file system
Microsoft then took both operating systems and created one from both.Xp in the early days could run on both file systems,users chose which one,but the option to use Ntfs was included.
The problem was at the time very few drivers were available for the Ntfs system and to all those vista haters,Xp was much more of a problem when realeased than vista has ever been.


The Win.X line ended with ME, Win.X9.0. NT5.0 (W2K) and NT4.0 (ME) were joined before becoming XP (5.1).W2K was NT5.0 and XP was NT5.1 just a minor upgrade I would say. W2K been the better OS (for me)
Vista (NT6.0) was completely rebuilt.
I agree there was far more problems with XP than there is today with Vista and the same will happen when NT7.0 is released.

someone mentioned problems xp had when it was launched.....i think that was down to a lack of driver support and alot of incompatability at the time.

Xp has turned out to be extremely stable when it comes to the OS itself (blue screens of death?).

Vista is really sufferering and its partly due to bloated marketing. It hasnt helped them one bit in the gamer market either as they chose to rub shoulders with the development of direct x 10 which might look a little prettier but shows in most cases almost zero increase in performance and sometimes is slower than xp.

It is also suffering from the lack of driver support.....which might be getting better by now......i have used it on other peoples systems and some of the UI does have benefits i must admit but anybody upgrading just to use vista is wasting their time atm.

It is not living up to the hype...and i can bet you if there is another windows on the way youll hardly know about it till launch and then wont be disapointed by market hype.

For an architecture (dx10) that supposed to offer 6x or more improvement in performance it is getting alot of people angry....adding to the fact that 8800 series nvidia cards are about to be outgunned by a 9 series card people are wondering what they spent their money on....a game that runs worse on the suggested platform (vista and dx10 card) than it does in xp. Ok fair enough it will run every other game on the market like you wouldnt believe but not with the increase in performance they state. Pick up a decent cpu with a decent cache and a good graphics card, and a good speed hard drive and youll be happy with the saving.

I dont know what everyones problem with Vista is, because it was written from NOTHING (from the ground up, not "an update of an older system" (like 95, to 98, to me etc).

Then, we have Vista, as already stated, this wasnt based on ANYTHING, this was written from the ground up, totally... im not going to go into any more info on Vista ;)

If that's the case, why are there some security flaws in Vista that are exactly the same as in XP?

Like the industry said and wanted at the time, it would have been better to recompile XP and release it as "XP Reloaded".

At the end of the day, the operating system is just an interface between the user, the hardware and the user's desired application. Besides the flashy interface, what exactly does Vista provide that XP can't?

There are several things that it was supposed to do that XP didn't. But apart from Aero (which is just flashy graphics) they all got dropped.
The major onewas a completely new file system, winfs.

what exactly does Vista provide that XP can't?

Things that Vista does, which XP doesnt, or requires 3rd party applications to acchieve..

Increased security
> Parental Control,
> User Account Control (UAC),
> Windows Defender,
> New Windows Firewall,
>> Note on the Firewall: Compared to XP's...
Vista features two different firewalls: the standard firewall that was available in Windows XP and Windows Firewall with advanced features. The latter offers true firewall protection, including bi-directional filters, meaning that both incoming and outgoing data is scanned before being let out.

Booting process..
The NT Boot Loader present in XP has been replaced by Windows Boot Manager, which reaps many more options for booting, recovery and overall security.

There's also various other differences (some visual), such as..
> New Start menu
> Windows Aero
> Windows SideBar
> Windows Search : much faster and easier now because of the new indexing system in Vista) with auto completion.
> Improved folders : My Documents, My Music, My Videos, and other icons have been simplified and now appear simply as Documents, Music, Videos etc. These folders are always present when one searches folders.
> Live Icons : When Windows Aero starts, users can hover their mouse over open windows in the taskbar and see a live representation of what's running in them. They can get the same preview by using the Windows Flip 3D feature or even by pressing ALT+TAB to toggle windows and folders, which makes navigation much smoother
> Also, the icons appearing on the desktop have been made larger compared to Windows XP. Microsoft has done away with word "My" in the terms such as My Computer, My Document, in Windows Vista.

Accessability
Vista has great improvements for disabled people, with larger and clearer icons, improved speech / screen reader, and very good built in voice recognition.

Then dont forget, DirectX 10, and other such 'tweaks' like Unix subsystem compatability etc.

Hmmm, seems to be just gadgets & shiny geegaws that appeal to the Mac brigade.

There doesn't seem to be anything there for the more professional PC user or business, especially when one of it's features is doing away with the prefix "My" before "My Computer" and "My Network Places" - something that can be done by right-clicking said icon and clicking RENAME!

the parental controls, firewall features, boot manager and such like are useful, those I listed are just from the top of my head, im sure there's 100's more that I dont know about / havent discovered or played with yet.

And in compensation for a few minor improvements they crippled the speed with bloat, leveraged a monopoly to put a few more software sectors out of business and generally produced an operating system that no one likes and no one is buying.

Things that Vista does, which XP doesnt, or requires 3rd party applications to acchieve..

> Windows Defender

I've had Defender on my XP system since beta for going on 3 years! Never even noticed it on Vista, shows how observant I am. :)

I just love the way it takes my copy of Vista 2 hours to write 1.5gig worth of data to a USB stick...

XP laptop does it in a couple of minutes....an obvious improvement there!

It makes sense now that the nice people at Dell tried to persuade me to have XP installed rather than Vista.....How i wish i'd listened!

2 hours ?? that's outrageous are you sure that it's just Vista or is there another problem with the machine ?

2 hours ?? that's outrageous are you sure that it's just Vista or is there another problem with the machine ?

I would say so too. It took me just minutes when writing 2GB of data to a USB stick with Vista (Beta)

2 hours ?? that's outrageous are you sure that it's just Vista or is there another problem with the machine ?

No other problems have manifested, just that any attempt to write to a USB storage device takes aaaagggggeeeessss

That is very strange Ming i would drive me potty.

Do you have Vista Service Pack 1? there has been some File transfer speed issues resolved with regards to external (USB) and LAN (Network) file transfer.