Microsoft: Vista Follow-Up Name 'Just Makes Sense'

Yes! It's another naming convention!

Posted by Staff
Microsoft: Vista Follow-Up Name 'Just Makes Sense'
Okay, so maybe Vista wasn't the most fantastic of operating systems ever to invade your PC (the least fantastic being ME) but now the Steve Balmer-lead Microsoft is already talking follow-up. In this blog, Corporate VP, Windows Product Managemet (sic), Mike Nash gives the reasons for the new name.

"The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity.

"Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or 'aspirational' monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista.

"And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new 'aspirational' name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.

Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense."

Riiiight, so Windows 7 is not aspirational although it does "stay firmly rooted in our aspirations". And unlike the datey versions, it "makes sense". Phew.

You'll be able to find out more about the O/S, "In a few weeks", when "we are going to be talking about the details of this release at the PDC and at WinHEC. We will be sharing a pre-beta "developer only release" with attendees of both shows and giving them the first broad in-depth look at what we've been up to. I can't wait for them to see it."

Huzza! Time to start investing in RAM and GFX cards maybe?

Full spiel is here.
Companies:

Comments

SuperSaiyan4 14 Oct 2008 12:59
1/8
The only issue I have with Vista is the amount of memory it needs i.e. 2gb is required for a 32bit Vista and 4gb for 64bit! I am running 64bit with 2gb which is the minimum requirement although have not had any issues with it at all to be honest.
Daz 14 Oct 2008 13:05
2/8
I can't wait to see how MS f**k this one up as well
more comments below our sponsor's message
SuperSaiyan4 14 Oct 2008 13:28
3/8
Well its not like there are other operating systems out there that are compatible with the large range of software on the market that is PC only like games for example. Mac OS is not compatble with most of the stuff on the market and I dont see anyone else making an operating system for the PC that is well known enough to get support its only Windows.
Daz 14 Oct 2008 15:33
4/8
that's true, but in my opinion the price's are outrageous, maybe it just me.
deleted 14 Oct 2008 16:38
5/8
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Well its not like there are other operating systems out there that are compatible with the large range of software on the market that is PC only like games for example. Mac OS is not compatble with most of the stuff on the market and I dont see anyone else making an operating system for the PC that is well known enough to get support its only Windows.



Hold that thought, Linux is up and coming in a lot of ready made systems now, and although its not as easy to use for my Mum as Windows is im sure it will get there, Vista was the start of the end for MS and its OS monopoly, i also suspect it wont be long before Apple takes OS into the mainstream PC route, after all their is money to be had out tehre for a good OS with compatability.

i have Vista x64 and i cant see any difference than x86 versions, i dont use 64bit software enough for it to pay off, but i also know its far more secure than any 32bit OS.
piginapoke 14 Oct 2008 17:17
6/8
I have 32 bit vista,my problem is the hard drive never stops. It is so annoying I am thinking of downgrading to xp. That seemed to work so much better (just my experience though).


tyrion 14 Oct 2008 17:56
7/8
haritori wrote:
i have Vista x64 and i cant see any difference than x86 versions, i dont use 64bit software enough for it to pay off, but i also know its far more secure than any 32bit OS.

I'd take exception to that. The CPU register size has nothing to do with how secure an OS is. Don't forget that Vista x64 is based on Vista x366 is based on XP x386 is based on 2K, etc, etc with there more than likely being some code in there left over from the original NT. And NT had backwards compatibility with WIn95 and Windows 3.1.

Security comes from low-down design and architecture. Unix was designed from the ground up to be a multi-user operating system and has security to reflect this built in from the ground up. Linux and Mac OS X have inherited this inherent security design. Windows was designed originally to be a single-user system which is why so many things still need to be run by Administrator or users with administrator rights.

Having your web browser run as a super-user is a sure fire way to get viruses, trojans and zombie infections. It's not the CPU, it's the actual code.
headcasephil 14 Oct 2008 22:35
8/8
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Well its not like there are other operating systems out there that are compatible with the large range of software on the market that is PC only like games for example. Mac OS is not compatble with most of the stuff on the market and I dont see anyone else making an operating system for the PC that is well known enough to get support its only Windows.

think you on one of your have not got it must be s**t things if you go and look at games for mac there you will see that most of the big pc titles are all so for mac just looking at the list heres some call of duty 4, spore, wow, Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars, sims, Guitar Hero 3 just to name some but hay why dont you go back to you hole to think up some more s**t that over rates microsoft
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.