Vista Tutorial - MS in a hurry....

MS is in a hurry to get Win7 out...
they want to get vista behind them as fast as possible. They will support it
of course for 3 years as all OS, because they have to.

But as you will see, XP and Win7 will still be relevant for many years.
Vista will be mentioned only as a good example of what to avoid in the
future.

Computer savvy people like win7, but will it grasp the hearts of the
consumer?
Perhaps its just too much like vista. There was a rumor that they would slap
on a new GUI at the last moment..

Now that the RC is out, I don't see them doing that.

Many simple users just ask: they had a good product, XP.. why just they don't
improve upon that and forget everything about vista and its offspring
(windows7)?

My answer is that MS would never do that... even if it means losing their
market share to apple and linux.

Talking about apple... MAC OSX rocks!

-V.B.S

Inline..

"barrel" <barrel@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gts5ni$h8j$1@xxxxxxIf you look at MS operating system release history, you will find that 2 - 3
years is the norm
That is as maybe, but it was not all the fault of MS..
Windows 2000 is still alive too, but numbers are dwindling fast..
Windows 7 benefits in that anything which runs on Vista will run on Win 7.
Vista was left to make it on its own by virtually all 3rd party
manufacturers and software authors for a good six months That alone will
ensure a Windows 7 success..
The reason for Vista taking so long was because the XP base was not good
enough to be carried forward, and MS had to start over. Windows 7 can be no
more based upon XP than Vista could.
To each their own

--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eBOM6hlzJHA.1420@xxxxxxIt's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
secondary at best, IMHO.
<H>.

On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n@xxxxxx>
wrote:
In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
interests are satisfied.

You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
which is clearly not the case.

"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:egl305dincroe26vclt1rb2tb9qm2191j2@xxxxxxThat is not an implication but an indication with all the proof at hand.
Surely there have to be considerations, but they are clearly not primary,
that is my contention, or we wouldn't have these overwhelming problems.

On Wed, 6 May 2009 15:42:06 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n@xxxxxx>
wrote:
No. You have chosen the info you call "proof" and have made your
implications based on that selection. Might make you feel good, but
it's bad practice.
Your contention is wrong. You are clearly looking at matters from a
jaundiced viewpoint. I'll leave it at that.

I'm outta here.

>>This isn't true, by the way. Except in the trivial sense in that
you need to satisfy at least ONE interest. That interest is the
*stockholder's* interest in adequate returns. You can get those by selling
phlogiston futures to little old ladies, or by illegally manipulating
futures markets, or by selling parasitic financial instruments built on
optimistic algebra and lots of leverage. You still make money and you
still satisfy the one important interest.

It is very sad that Microsoft builds an Operating System Like XP or
Vista and Windows 7 and support it for only three years. They should well
call their selves crocks. People should not have to pay for their inflated
operating systems as they keep raising the prices when they release a new
system. Look Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 1 was $199.99 at Best Buy
in 2005 full version when I bought it and Windows Vista Home Premium Service
Pack 1 $239.99 on the present Best Buy Web Site. So you all tell me why they
should be allowed to tell people if you want a secure operating system you
have to keep buying their inflated software and why their prices keep going
up each time they release it. People should be able to by a computer and use
it for many years as long as they want. Very sad Microsoft is they way they
are and that is part of the reason they lost a lot of money. And by the way
the patent office rejected Microsoft's pay as you go patent computing patent
because very hard to patent something that has been around for years and for
other reasons.

"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u3r305163llr46um72h7pir6oa7rs39lfd@xxxxxx

On Wed, 6 May 2009 20:36:31 +0000 (UTC), wrat@xxxxxx (the wharf
rat) wrote:
Until it all comes crashing down, like when the banks crashed the
world's economy recently :-)