| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Gives Up on Vista | |
|
||
| Time: 12:05 EST/17:05 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: The question now isn't "Is Vista Dead?" It is. The real question is: Can Microsoft get Windows 7 out in time to save its desktop domination? I think Microsoft "could" pull it off. Here's how.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:11:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 46122 (68.237.255.169) at 4/5/2008 1:25:03 PM |
| Nothing was said that it was going to be RTMed at that time. Most likely a beta version would be released, and RTMed for a 2010 release. |
| #2 By 75046 (201.52.225.19) at 4/5/2008 1:54:26 PM |
| Oh my... another stupid article about the "death of Vista"... It´s funny, but Windows 7 WILL be based entirely on Vista... |
| #3 By 7760 (98.173.218.183) at 4/5/2008 3:46:07 PM |
| Another shameless attempt to get hits to a website. Don't do him the favor by clicking the link. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about. As #2 said, Windows 7 will be entirely based on Vista. In fact, it'll likely be a lot like XP SP2, just marketed as a major release, rather than an update. XP wasn't "dead" with SP2. This author would've garnered more respect by suggesting that the Vista name might be dead soon... but, ah, that wouldn't have pulled in nearly as many hits. |
| #4 By 2231 (72.5.151.4) at 4/5/2008 4:10:12 PM |
|
Vista's biggest problem is that the business case is not there for XP users to change.
Computers are there to run applications. Server or desktop, it's about the apps. The OS is little more than an enabler. Microsoft needs to come up with something a lot more compelling than Vista, especially with the current economy. |
| #5 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 4/5/2008 6:19:06 PM |
|
Vista has 14% of the market. Its not dead.
Linux is dead. It is no longer seen as an alternative to anything. |
| #6 By 88850 (221.128.147.181) at 4/6/2008 2:21:03 AM |
|
Yeah another wannabe tech journalist, this Mr.Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols looks to be, who thinks VMs are child's play and doesn't know a thing he's talking about. I wish ActiveWin would stop posting such articles which all spin their own story on Vista's failure. The biggest and most frustrating thing that really pisses me off is when ppl claim Windows Server 2008 is a better OS, which is not possible because the codebases are same. In fact, if any Server OS could/would have been better than the client, theoretically it could have been Server 2003 (though that too isn't) because the codebases were forked. Such ppl who claim Server 2008 makes a great workstation should be first taught the basics of computing and what an OS is, what a kernel is, what Win32 is, how a server OS is optimized for serving vs a client OS and so on.
Edited: For typos. This post was edited by tuxplorer on Sunday, April 06, 2008 at 02:24. |
| #7 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 4/6/2008 10:22:54 AM |
|
#6 In theory you may be right. But I just installed Server 2008 at home and it rocks. (I've been running it at work since RC1).
The kernel is actually pretty small. Just because the kernels are based on the same codebase doesn't mean the whole OS is identical. I did move from x86 Vista to x64. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, April 06, 2008 at 10:28. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 4/6/2008 8:50:56 PM |
|
#6 If you have the possibility, MSDN or Technet, try to load Server 2008 and run it as a workstation, meaning without enabling typical server roles and enabling instead Aero etc. I think you could change your opinion.
I did out of curiosity and it is different indeed. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:11:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
