Microsoft's new project -> Vienna ?

[Guest]

I am shocked!
Your reaction and comments.Thanks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070209/tc_pcworld/128888

 

[Lakesidezx]

I like the time period of 5 years much better than 2 years. Damn if I want
to spend $200.00 every 2 years for an upgrade to my operating system (though
I know I don't HAVE to, but Im a tech junky, so I have to).

I'll be looking out to see what gets leaked out on what they feel they can
deliver in Vienna, Im hoping it's something really spectacular, but I no
holdie my breath

 

[Alias]

I am shocked!
Your reaction and comments.Thanks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070209/tc_pcworld/128888

What shocked you?

Alias

 

[Dale White]

I that was going to be Microsoft's approach starting back with Windows 2000,
then with XP. It's the model Apple uses with MAC.

If they do start rolling out OSes every 2-2/1 years, people will probably
get into the habit like the mac users and just upgrade ever other OS

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I am shocked!
Your reaction and comments.Thanks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070209/tc_pcworld/128888

You should research more.
The plans for the next OS after Vista have been in the works for WAY over a
year now.. At least.

Articles like:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/cont...b_is_now_vienna.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535

Clear show that way back in Janyuary 2006 - Microsoft not only had plans for
the 'next OS after Vista' - but was juggling names they had had for it
already.

 

[molitar]

Total BS.. The Vienna is what Vista was suppose to be. So of course and
they KNEW they would be planning to release Vienna in 2 more years with the
promised features that Vista was suppose to have. So basically M$ is
charging users $200/year for the use of Windows Vista to most users. They
are price gouging to the max and they know it. So no shock here if you read
anything of the Vista History you would know what is missing from the
promised Vista.

Marvin

 

[Roger Abell [MVP]]

I am shocked!
Your reaction and comments.Thanks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070209/tc_pcworld/128888

Look, Vista was going to have some things that (in various forms)
were going to be in XP, in W2k but which still have not fruited.

XP was cheap compared to Vista (some forms), but W2k released
to manufacturing in like Nov '99 with Feb '00 gen. availability for
most people, and was followed by XP in '01 in the Aug-Oct time
for most people. The price of the OS is driven by expected sales
vs cost of development and needed return on that investment.
Vista had a long (hence high cost) development.

If the next client OS is more on the order of the W2k to XP timeline,
actually predicted to be longer by the late '09 mentioned (i.e. 3 years
for some, and just under for all), then it would be appearing just about
at the average of the W2k to XP and the XP to Vista timelines.

Face it, XP's features were getting pretty stale and the internal
technologies dated after 5+ years.

Roger

 

[Troy McClure]

yet you continue to pay and use it..... why?

LMAO

 

[Chad Harris]

They've had plans for it way before then and some of them hit the cutting
room floor years ago for Vista, and then after Jim Allchin's famous 2004
memo to revamp much of Vista.

CH

 

[Guest]

Look, Vista was going to have some things that (in various forms)
were going to be in XP, in W2k but which still have not fruited.

XP was cheap compared to Vista (some forms), but W2k released
to manufacturing in like Nov '99 with Feb '00 gen. availability for
most people, and was followed by XP in '01 in the Aug-Oct time
for most people. The price of the OS is driven by expected sales
vs cost of development and needed return on that investment.
Vista had a long (hence high cost) development.

If the next client OS is more on the order of the W2k to XP timeline,
actually predicted to be longer by the late '09 mentioned (i.e. 3 years
for some, and just under for all), then it would be appearing just about
at the average of the W2k to XP and the XP to Vista timelines.

Thanks for making it clearer

Face it, XP's features were getting pretty stale and the internal
technologies dated after 5+ years.

Yes , but XP became really stable OS and secure (~in general) . I can't say
anything against XP - brilliant , in my opinion . Hope all next MS operating
systems are as good as XP is .

 

[Donald McDaniel]

I am shocked!
Your reaction and comments.Thanks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070209/tc_pcworld/128888

Actually, Microsoft wants its employees to call it "Windows 7" now, rather
than "Vienna".
It looks like place names are no longer "in" there.

 

[S. Pidgorny]

G'day:

Yes , but XP became really stable OS and secure (~in general) . I can't
say
anything against XP - brilliant , in my opinion . Hope all next MS
operating
systems are as good as XP is .

We have Vista today. I think it's at least as good as XP.

 

[BSchnur]

Frankly, based on the track record, if I were Microsoft, I'd target end
of 2009 so that I'd hit a 2011 ship date....

But I agree, pricing an OS at $130 to $400 and planning to ship a new
version 30 months later..

Perhaps that version will be 64 bit only, and, to capture a resistant
marketplace, will include a path to get from 32 bit to 64 bit in place.

 

[BSchnur]

If they do start rolling out OSes every 2-2/1 years, people will probably

get into the habit like the mac users and just upgrade ever other OS

Heck, I've a lot of clients running Windows 2000 -- heck I run it on a
few workstations here.

 

[Michael Bednarek]

in message


Actually, Microsoft wants its employees to call it "Windows 7" now, rather
than "Vienna".
It looks like place names are no longer "in" there.

Nice to see MS finally coming around to the nomenclature I always used.

 

[S. Pidgorny]

I still have W2K on my desk PC in the office. I don't know why - there isn't
a good reason - but I don't feel like letting go.

Besides, when I will, I'll know for sure the system is outdated beyond
advocacy.

 

[BSchnur]

Understood -- for me the thing is, I won't upgrade the OS on my
workstation OS -- instead, I'll replace it and install new hardware --
but probably with Windows XP Professional, since our primary home
office server is a NetWare 4.2 server.

Since Microsoft removed the IPX/SPX stack in Vista, Novell won't be
including support for it with their client for Vista. And I don't
expect to replace that well configured 4.2 server (duplexed SCSI
drives, LTO-1 backup) with something newer for a while.

I won't upgrade in place to XP for that Win2K workstation -- I'll move
local data (most data is on the server already) to a holding spot, get
a new workstation, install XP Pro, reinstall applications, and move
local data back.

In theory, that will position me for an upgrade in place to Vista
Business sometime later.

 

[Gary]

Your Novell system will run just fine with IP for the protocol.
Why haven't you changed from IPX/SPX yet?

 

[BSchnur]

Your Novell system will run just fine with IP for the protocol.

Why haven't you changed from IPX/SPX yet?

No it won't -- NetWare 4.2 - no native TCPIP support.

NetWare 5.0 introduced native IP support.

The Client for Vista that Novell will release will include support for
TCPIP only -- and formally will support NetWare 5.1 and up (though I'd
guess a NW 5.0 server with native IP will work as well).

I also have a NetWare 6.5 server -- and one of these days I might well
do a full rebuild so I have server class hardware running on it -- and
move all production data over to it. In fact, that is a likely
scenario for what I will do in order to move to Vista on the primary
workstations. Just not in a hurry to do all that.

 

[Roger Abell [MVP]]

Curiously, I have an edge box for the office, running W2k server that
mostly only Nats for me. While it runs fine and in performant, despite
not likely even being able to run XP well, its days are numbered due
to product support lifecycle.