Results tagged “Windows Vista” from CLICK

I predicted that Dell would cling to Windows XP as long as possible, with the sole reason being that customers want it.

But now you'll have to pay between $20 and $50 extra for the privilege on the low-cost Vostro line of desktop and laptop PCs, as I read at ZDNet, via Computerworld.

Yes, you heard right. To "downgrade" to XP from Vista, it'll cost you. And the downgrade is only available for Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. If the machine you choose ships Vista Home, you're out of luck.

But if you're like some of my readers, who really, really want XP, that might not be too much to ask.

The good news: Other Dell business computers, specifically those in the Latitude, OptiPlex and Precision lines, will have an XP option at no additional charge.

And the consumer-aimed Inspiron? No XP for you.

Even though the driver situation and the need for 2 GB+ of RAM in order to run Windows Vista and not want to kill yourself is getting to be old news, most of the bloggers out there are writing about what the next Windows OS — now called the very-catchy "Windows 7" — has in store for us.

Expert Microsoft-watcher Mary Jo Foley opens up her rumor bag and spills it, with the following catching my eye:

• Windows 7 is being designed around five pillars (The five, as reported by AeroXP: specialized for laptops; designed for services; personalized for everyone; optimized for entertainment; engineered for "ease of ownership")
• Windows 7 will be more modularized and componentized than Vista or other previous Windows releases. Microsoft hasn't said whether it will allow users/PC makers to opt into (and out of) installing subsystems, the same way that Windows Server 2008 users can choose specific "roles," but hints that Microsoft is considering this approach for Windows 7 abound. Microsoft officials have discussed their work on "MinWin," a streamlined version of the Windows core. But MinWin may or may not be won't be part of Windows 7. (Update: Months after bloggers and reporters first discussed MinWin, Microsoft finally said MinWin won't be part of Windows 7, via the Sinofsky Q&A on News.com on May 27.)
• Windows 7 will be a minor update to Vista -- with "minor," here, meaning as less disruptive as possible to users and their applications. Microsoft has said Windows 7 will use the same driver model that Vista did.
• Windows 7 will allow users to run legacy applications in virtualized mode to minimize backward compatibility problems. Whether Microsoft will deliver this virtualization via an application-virtualization solution like SoftGrid, the new Kidaro enterprise virtualization product or in some other way is not yet known.
• Windows 7 will add native support for Virtual Hard Disks (VHDs) -- a feature Microsoft already provides in Vista, in the form of Complete PC Backup (in the Business version of Vista).

In other words, not too exciting. Oh, and it's scheduled for release in 2010. So expect another couple of years of ... not much out of Microsoft.

I think the problem for MS has been the growing length of time between major releases (with thanks to Wikipedia for the info):

Windows 95 Released Aug. 1995
Windows 98 Released June 1998
Windows 98se Released May 1999
Windows 2000 Released Feb. 2000
Windows Me Released Sept. 2000
Windows XP Released Oct. 2001
Windows Vista Released Nov. 2006

So the five years between Windows XP -- after the leap from 98 to 2000 took less than two years -- had the effect of a) making XP more established than any previous incarnation of Windows, engendering "just works" or "works as well as can be expected" loyalty and building up a volume of compatible applications unequaled previously and b) not making people happy about upgrading hardware for the diminishing returns of a new, unproven, buggy and driver-poor OS.

And we all know that Windows and its success is about one thing -- and one thing only: drivers and the hardware compatibility they bring to the system.

So after a five-year drought in new OS releases, Microsoft had to hit one out of the damn ballpark, not a feeble grounder up the first-base line.

Just look at what Apple adds to OS X every year and then some. Hell, look at the leap from the "Classic" Mac OS to the Unix-based OS X. And look at how far Linux has come on the desktop in the past three or so years. If all you do with your PC is browse the Web and churn out a few documents and spreadsheets, you don't need Microsoft, or Windows or Office.

It's easy to catch your competition if they're standing still.

People need passion, excitement, new (ahem) vistas -- in short, compelling reasons to upgrade. And I don't see anything like that. "Touch functionality" is intriguing, but that's not a game-winner, and greater interoperability with mobile devices is a given, no more.

The increasing importance of OS integration with computing in the cloud is something that MS is no doubt working on, but any move to the cloud makes traditional applications and operating systems less relevant, so I can't see MS going wholeheartedly in that direction.

So where's the passion? Where's the compulsion to stick with Microsoft? If anybody knows, please tell me.