StarDestroyer.Net BBS

And then there's the fact that Windows Vienna (or whatever the final name will be) has a tentative release date of late 2009.

Which means it will actually come out in early 2016.

Mange wrote:And then there's the fact that Windows Vienna (or whatever the final name will be) has a tentative release date of late 2009.

Windows Vienna? I've not heard of this. Any linkage to info?

General Zod wrote:

Mange wrote:And then there's the fact that Windows Vienna (or whatever the final name will be) has a tentative release date of late 2009.

Windows Vienna? I've not heard of this. Any linkage to info?

Jesus fucking H. Christ, google?
This is all thats known about Vienna.

can we go back to Vista now?

Personally, I find it difficult to get excited about the next Microsoft OS when the paint isn't even dry on the latest one, and it has a long way to go before it's a worthy successor to the one we've had for years. It's not like this Vienna won't need multiple service packs before it's worth a damn itself, and it's not like it won't have controversial "features" and its own set of uglies. For all we know, it could be so bad that people flee to other OS's in droves. For the life of me, I don't understand excitement about new MS operating systems.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Personally, I find it difficult to get excited about the next Microsoft OS when the paint isn't even dry on the latest one, and it has a long way to go before it's a worthy successor to the one we've had for years. It's not like this Vienna won't need multiple service packs before it's worth a damn itself, and it's not like it won't have controversial "features" and its own set of uglies. For all we know, it could be so bad that people flee to other OS's in droves. For the life of me, I don't understand excitement about new MS operating systems.

It's not so much excitement as stupification that it's being projected for such an early release when Vista's barely out the door.

Personally, I'm just getting another stick of 512MB RAM, which doubles what I have, and another hard drive, preferably a large one. I'm not getting Vista until a Service Pack or 2, and only on a new PC. For all I know, I might get sucked into Linux by then anyhow.


Maybe a nice LCD monitor, too...

Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows wrote:Q: So is Vienna going to be a major Windows version?

A: No. Windows Vista was a major release, and Vienna will be a relatively minor, or interim, update. Microsoft is currently on a development path where every other Windows version is a major release.

Really? So working backwards:

Vienna: Minor
Vista: Major
XP: Minor (?!)
ME: Major (Fuckup)
98: Minor
95: Major

I doubt it goes that far back, but honestly, do you want to call XP a "minor" release?

XP started as a minor release, it was definetly not intended to be the dominent OS untill 2007.

No surprise here... (that Vista sucks, that is) I'm still running on 2000, since I got pretty put off my seing how slow and unstable the systems of some of my friends became when updating to XP.

2000 has served me well, even though I think I'd rather be running on linux next time I have to update my OS.

Psychodelica wrote:No surprise here... (that Vista sucks, that is) I'm still running on 2000, since I got pretty put off my seing how slow and unstable the systems of some of my friends became when updating to XP.

2000 has served me well, even though I think I'd rather be running on linux next time I have to update my OS.

If the system became slow and unstable when they put XP on it, that just means their computers weren't very powerful. Or they didn't know what they were doing. I've been able to run XP on an outdated P3 500mhz system with 256mb of ram with minimal trouble and only very minor slowdown.

Phantasee wrote: Vienna: Minor
Vista: Major
XP: Minor (?!)
ME: Major (Fuckup)
98: Minor
95: Major

I doubt it goes that far back, but honestly, do you want to call XP a "minor" release?

Actually, I'd say it is when compared with Windows 2000. XP introduced several shiny features, and certainly had some nice improvements over 2000, but 2000 was a big revision over NT 4.

I guess I'm basing it on shininess. I mean, I had a friend with 2000, and it was good, but I was stuck with lousy ME (I still keep that computer up in my room, all unplugged and under the bed. I kick it sometimes). So I guess 2000 should take the place of ME then? XP always looked like a major release to me, I mean, ME wasn't that much different from 98 before it, and considering I was going from 95 to ME, it still didn't seem much different, other than being crappier.

Phantasee wrote:I guess I'm basing it on shininess. I mean, I had a friend with 2000, and it was good, but I was stuck with lousy ME (I still keep that computer up in my room, all unplugged and under the bed. I kick it sometimes). So I guess 2000 should take the place of ME then? XP always looked like a major release to me, I mean, ME wasn't that much different from 98 before it, and considering I was going from 95 to ME, it still didn't seem much different, other than being crappier.

2k wound up completely replacing the kernel that was used from Windows 95-ME. XP on the other hand still used the NT kernel that 2k had, but added a good deal of functionality on top of what Win2k already offered.

Ace Pace wrote:XP started as a minor release, it was definetly not intended to be the dominent OS untill 2007.

I was actually working on development for 'Longhorn' as early as 2003. No one intended XP to be dominant until at least this year, least of all Microsoft.

That said, I'm amazed anyone even blinks when Microsoft announces their next OS. It's their usual MO: they have pie-in-the-sky goals that will eventually be cut, as we've seen so many times (WinFS in Cairo, anyone?).

Actually the trail for XP should be:

NT 3.51
NT 4.0
Win 2k
Win XP
Vista

Win XP really is only a minor upgrade over 2k.

So 95/98/ME line ended with ME? What a way to end a product line.

Windows 2000 is the huge leap over NT4, and XP was just nice looks tacked on? Interesting.

So the whole thing with the business and home versions kind of ended with ME/2000, then? Because if XP Home and XP Professional are based off the same thing (Win2k) then it's just like buying the same car, but without the power windows/stereo/leather seats.

Phantasee wrote:So 95/98/ME line ended with ME? What a way to end a product line.

Windows 2000 is the huge leap over NT4, and XP was just nice looks tacked on? Interesting.

So the whole thing with the business and home versions kind of ended with ME/2000, then? Because if XP Home and XP Professional are based off the same thing (Win2k) then it's just like buying the same car, but without the power windows/stereo/leather seats.

It's more like XP Professional is the car with all the power locks, power windows, power steering and nitro while XP Home is the car with power nothing, even if it looks like the same model on the surface.

ray245 wrote:Well...gamers are going to change to vista sooner or later...

It wasn't until 2006 that you actually needed to upgrade from win2k to winXP in order to play the latest games. I don't think there's any hurry.

Phantasee wrote:So 95/98/ME line ended with ME? What a way to end a product line.

Windows 2000 is the huge leap over NT4, and XP was just nice looks tacked on? Interesting.

Nice looks + some extra features + some compatability mode stuff.

Darth Wong wrote:

ray245 wrote:Well...gamers are going to change to vista sooner or later...

It wasn't until 2006 that you actually needed to upgrade from win2k to winXP in order to play the latest games. I don't think there's any hurry.

Except Microsoft realized how well that worked and is now trying to get developers to make everything Vista-exclusive (and dirty tricks like Halo 2 for Vista).

I'm amused by the fact that Vista is actually only officially compatible with 800 applications. One is actually better off running Linux and WINE/Cedega/Crossover at this point in time...

Darth Wong wrote:

ray245 wrote:Well...gamers are going to change to vista sooner or later...

It wasn't until 2006 that you actually needed to upgrade from win2k to winXP in order to play the latest games. I don't think there's any hurry.

Microsoft noticed that too. So they're making DirectX 10 Vista-only.

RThurmont wrote:I'm amused by the fact that Vista is actually only officially compatible with 800 applications. One is actually better off running Linux and WINE/Cedega/Crossover at this point in time...

Right, because only 800 apps work on Vista. It's just an official list of "Will work whatever".

Durandal wrote:Microsoft noticed that too. So they're making DirectX 10 Vista-only.

Yeah, but most games won't require DX10 for some time. Also, Microsoft effectively rewrote the entire Windows graphics driver stack to accommodate DX10, so no real surprise that they weren't going to spend the cash and backport it