Is holding out for Windows 7 a gamble worth taking?
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 24.10.2008
Tip: Click here to update all your PC's outdated driversWith more and more information about Windows 7 coming out almost daily, I’m getting increasing numbers of emails from people wanting my advice on whether they should skip Vista and hold out for Windows 7 or make the plunge now and make plans relating to “7? once the OS is out.
Having discussed this issue with several people I’ve come to a conclusion that it’s far too early to make any plans relating to Windows 7 and your OS migration plans should be based solely on Vista in the here and now and not on what Windows 7 might or might not bring.
The first thing that you need to bear in mind is that there no firm date for the release of Windows 7. The ballpark guess range is between late 2009 or early 2010. Pundits are carpet-bombing that range with guesses as to when we’ll see Windows 7, but remember that they are all guesses right now. And there’s even no guarantee that the 7’s release date won’t fall outside of this range. After all, quality of the release will count more than ever. Peter Bright of Ars Technica put it well:
Though Microsoft’s customers clearly won’t tolerate a kind of Duke Nukem Forever “when it’s finished” approach—the software does need to ship, after all—a first-rate Windows 7 in the first half of 2010 will make customers much happier than another release with Vista-like teething trouble in late 2009.
BINGO! Microsoft can’t afford to botch the release of Windows 7 in the way it did with Vista. If Microsoft doesn’t get plenty of “WOW!” right from the start with Windows 7, the Redmond giant has a big problem on its hands.
But here’s my worry in advising people to skip over Vista and wait for Windows 7. Vista, as it stands now with SP1, is a pretty decent version of Windows. Compatibility issues have largely been fixed (if you hardware of software isn’t supported by now, it’s unlikely to be supported), performance is on-par or marginally better than XP (depending on the benchmark that you choose), and reliability is light-years ahead of what it was when Vista was first released. But these fixes took months. What if Windows 7 is plagued by the same issues and that OS takes a year to fix? Taking the most optimistic release date that we have (mid-2009) that would mean that Windows 7 wouldn’t be “ready” until mid-2010. This has several implications:
* That makes XP awfully old (9 years old).
* It’s likely that hardware/software support will be getting patchy.
* The abandonment of support for XP by your vendor would likely push you into having to come up with a migration plan, rather than come up with one at your own speed.
Jump or be pushed? Which is best? You decide!
source:
blogs.zdnet.com
>> Click Here to Run a Free Scan for PC Errors <<
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Amazon is now taking OS X Snow Leopard pre-orders || Windows 7 RC Brings Windows XP Mode Beta and Windows Virtual PC Beta || Windows Reactivator 2.0 - Backup & Restore Activation Status of Windows XP with Windows Reactivator || Week in Microsoft: Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 9 || Internet Explorer 8 MUI packs for Windows XP, Windows Server 03
Comments(3)
...'cause that nice man said its performance is "on-par or marginally better" than
that of xp. so shell out the dough.
-what's been patchy and slow to develop
is hardware/software support for vista. wonder why.
-the abandonment of
secondary support of an os that people have embraced, compared to one that has come to be
a bigger joke than me? you gotta be kiddin'. sure, that's probably gonna happen any
day now.
-7 could very well be a rushed mess worse than vista, with m$
digging itself even deeper into its hole. and if it ain't, that will just show that
it's nothing but a cosmetic re-make of vista (which is probably what it will be). the
campaign to market this thing will be the real test. like..."what's gonna be the
selling point here? hey, how 'bout this - 'it ain't vista!'"
-so, in the
two years it takes to "fix" 7, there's just no way we'll have enough time to migrate
from xp to vista sp4 (or not). i feel so rushed.
-i spend gobs of time
building an installation, and i'm gonna start rebuilding - for what? for "marginally
better" performance and different icons? i wouldn't do that if the thing was perfectly
stable from the beginning. this is not like going from 3.1 to 95.
like me,
most people don't even want to go to the trouble to crack this thing to run it. i
wouldn't run it if it was 20 bucks (m$ wants a lot more than that.) but that's what
happens when you operate a virtual monopoly, and i'm glad to see the greedy m$ get its
come-uppence on this one.
-and lastly, dude, who's pocket are you in?
people bashed windows 95 when it was released and with every new os that has ever been
releaed, you get the same type of cry babies out there that bash it.
it is time
you people grow up...
this article and the other are about costs. the ironic thing is that it's that much
easier to crack vista than xp even though it costs more than xp.
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Windows 7 RTM 7600.16385.090713-1255 HERE !
Mommy, please buy me Vista
By Liitle Johnny on 25.10.2008 - 00:10