Vista successor in 2009

[huppy]

What does Vista do that XP doesn't which would constitue a rollout of 000's desktop? (other than the fact Microsoft stopped supporting XP...) > nothing

A lack of support is complete reason enough. As far as I can tell, 'not supporting win XP' means no more updates, etc (correct me if i'm wrong): if that's the case and some hacker or other finds another exploit in XP beyond April 2009, anyone who has an XP machine will be a sitting duck if that exploit gets exploited.

Additionally, as I and others have mentioned in this thread, Windows Server 2008 is said to provide a lot of vista-specific functionality.

Big companies dont move until they HAVE to, and they wont have to if Windows 7 comes along in 2009 (and it's stable),

But if MS can't get Vista stable enough (as apparently its not), what are the chances of Windows 7 being stable enough, at its release? If it gets released in 2009, as it's said to, it won't be until 2011/2012 before companies actually start using it. And in that time you expect them to continue using XP?


Bill Gates has also said this of Windows 7 being more 'user-centric':

That means that right now when you move from one PC to another, you've got to install apps on each one, do upgrades on each one. Moving information between them is very painful. We can use Live Services to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things. So that's kind of the user-centric thing that Live Services can enable.

Source was wikipedia, quoted from an interview in Newsweek.

That to me sounds like one massive experiment. For a company to subscribe to that at its launch would be even crazier than justifying not moving to Vista right now.

 

[v0n]

Instant Search...
Saved Searches...
(..) Basically the "better design" won at the end of the day and IMO that shouldn't be considered a "loss" nor should it damage Vista's reputation.

To be fair, in general "search" in Vista is a massive step backwards. It's messy, it's frustrating, it has way too many factors affecting it and in effect unless you really know something is or isn't where you are searching for it you'll never be 100% sure of the outcome, I'm sure by now it creates tons of problem to support people.

I'm sure most home user, especially casual users not clued up enough to go and tick all the boxes in display options - would prefer picture of a stupid dog wagging it's tail at them but search actually doing what it's supposed to do, rather than creating all that "it's there but you won't see it" malarky. It's not a rocket science, it's simple indexed search. If the user doesn't have rights to the file, then just flipping highlight it in different colour in search hits - don't hide it - how stupid is this:

 

[Macro]

XP will be supported until 2014 in extended support phase ( http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223 ).

The differences between mainstream and extended support are

 

[Macro]

as I said they wont move to Vista unless they HAVE to... today there's no reason to move to Vista, if it pans out that Windows 7 is going to be a distruptive technology, then Vista may start being deployed late 2008/2009.

If business can get away with the leap from XP to Windows 7 they will, most don't want the hassle and expense of XP > Vista > Windows 7... I wonder if MS thinks this way

Don't forget a lot of businesses are still on Windows 2000, for the the upgrade to Vista SP1 makes a lot of sense. In fact I expect to see the rate that large enterprises delploy vista accelerate once we're past the "never deploy before SP1" mindset.

 

[huppy]

Cheers Athanor, I was trying to find that just before

 

[badbob]

Fathers business still runs Windows 95..

 

[NathanE]

To be fair, in general "search" in Vista is a massive step backwards. It's messy, it's frustrating, it has way too many factors affecting it and in effect unless you really know something is or isn't where you are searching for it you'll never be 100% sure of the outcome, I'm sure by now it creates tons of problem to support people.

I'm sure most home user, especially casual users not clued up enough to go and tick all the boxes in display options - would prefer picture of a stupid dog wagging it's tail at them but search actually doing what it's supposed to do, rather than creating all that "it's there but you won't see it" malarky. It's not a rocket science, it's simple indexed search. If the user doesn't have rights to the file, then just flipping highlight it in different colour in search hits - don't hide it - how stupid is this:

http://v0n.bulldoghome.com/pages/v0n_bulldoghome_com/ocuk/search.jpg[img][/QUOTE]
Why would the Indexing Service index some file that is clearly just a config file for a game? That's not what it is for and never has been. Indexing is about finding files it *does* understand (e.g. Word documents, e-mails, spreadsheets etc) and then providing a full-text search on them, as well as basic filename matching. How can you possibly expect it to index some random configuration file, probably in a bespoke file format, for a game that came out after Vista? What would be the point? It's a one-off file that any advanced Crysis player would know where it is located anyway.

If you really do want to search for such files then you must click "Advanced Search" and then tick the "[I]Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files[/I]" check box. See below screenshot. Alternatively you could modify your indexing settings so that the ".dat" filetype is included in the index - or just a specific folder location. You can for example, if you wanted, index the entire C: drive...

[img]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4963/vistasearchadvmn6.gif

So no I don't think you are being "fair" at all in your judgement that it is a "step backwards". I practically laughed out loud when you said that. Windows Search in Vista is brilliant and is the envy of the developers of many rival operating systems.

Worst of all, all of this information that a new user of Vista needs to know about the indexed search is available in the Windows help file:

 

[v0n]

Why would the Indexing Service index some file that is clearly just a config file for a game?

Cause that's what even most basic indexed search is supposed to do, locate all the files and remember where they are, reading contents is an extra, if it encounters contents it doesn't understand or files it cannot open, the least it should do is to know such file exists and where. "locate" command springs to mind. Just about any index search works that way. Except in Vista.

If you really do want to search for such files then you must click "Advanced Search" and then tick the "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files" check box.

Mate, I know how to search in Windows. I'm just saying the utility is useless. Just imagine how many non power users are now sitting in front of their laptops and home computers looking at the screen with "I know it was there, I saw it, but can't find it now" disbelief on their faces. And you thought the old Paper Clip individual in search was annoying...

So no I don't think you are being "fair" at all in your judgement that it is a "step backwards". I practically laughed out loud when you said that. Windows Search in Vista is brilliant and is the envy of the developers of many rival operating systems.

What systems would that be? Unix, linux, MacOS, they all have better and more logical file utilities. I'm really curious which OS developers are so envious of Vistas search?

I don't think boys at MS fully grasped what indexed search is supposed to offer to the user. I think it's one of those things they saw other systems do and people like it. It's sort of like UAC when Vista was launched was poor excuse for "sudo" without developers fully understanding what and where should truelly have elevated permissions. It's the same thing. Any search that prioritizes reading file contents over actually showing what files are there is just wrong. Just like not understanding root of query - what good is search in Start button when it shows you contents of emails rather than just programs. What a mess.

 

[NathanE]

Actually I think it's these other OSes (or indeed, just yourself) that have missed the point of indexed search. Indexing isn't about dredging up all and everything on the hard disk and bunging it into the index. The vast majority of files on the average computer are just system files or program files that the user *never* wants to see. It is much more user friendly to not index those usually irrelevant files but hide them away with an easy to reach checkbox (like on Vista) in the case the user really does want to do an advanced search of that type.

Can you imagine how confused the average Windows user would be if they typed into the search box something like "system failed 2007" (to search their e-mails) and then it brings up loads of crap from the System32 directory?

If this is how rivals do their indexed search then it's plain to see now why they are envious

Although I do happen to know that on OSX they do it the proper way - the same way as Vista - which is to "dumb it down" for the average joe users that don't want it searching all that junk. Even power users rarely perform such searches.

Search is all about ranking and relevancy. It is *not* about showing as much as you possibly can despite whether it's really relevant or not to the search query.

 

[v0n]

Actually I think it's these other OSes (or indeed, just yourself) that have missed the point of indexed search. Indexing isn't about dredging up all and everything on the hard disk and bunging it into the index.

We'll just have differ on that - for me a search utility that doesn't find files in directories which are specifically picked to be indexed, just because it doesn't understand them, is a misunderstanding. I'd rather have separate index for mail and file system than find utility not producing answers to most basic queries.

The vast majority of files on the average computer are just system files or program files that the user *never* wants to see.

Well, chances are that if user ticked "show hidden files and folders" and unticked "hide protected operating system files" in folder options he actually wants to see his files. Worst case scenario, there should be an option to tick "no, no, actually, find that file, not just see if you can read it" or something. At the end of the day, this is probably moot point - the file in my example is a regular text file, placed neither in non-indexed location, nor hidden or system file. It's in users own directory, v0n has full access rights to it, inheritable permissions, he's just not the creator of the file. The file is being ignored by search on grounds of inexcusable silliness of the utility.

Can you imagine how confused the average Windows user would be if they typed into the search box something like "system failed 2007" (to search their e-mails) and then it brings up loads of crap from the System32 directory?
(...) Even power users rarely perform such searches. (...)Search is all about ranking and relevancy. It is *not* about showing as much as you possibly can despite whether it's really relevant or not to the search query.

I understand how coders might feel they know better than user what he likes to search for and not offer permanent option to change characteristics of the search, thus making it permanently broken for some. But with all respect where it's due, we are not even talking about spouting every dll and sys files under the sun with every search - how confusing it must be for regular punter to try and locate file his game saves in his personal directory and nothing comes up in search. Double click few dirs, it's there, search for it, not there. Now, that's just not right. From any angle. No matter how lame the coder presumes his clients to be.

 

[Burnsy2023]

as I said they wont move to Vista unless they HAVE to... today there's no reason to move to Vista, if it pans out that Windows 7 is going to be a distruptive technology, then Vista may start being deployed late 2008/2009.

If business can get away with the leap from XP to Windows 7 they will, most don't want the hassle and expense of XP > Vista > Windows 7... I wonder if MS thinks this way

Lets be honest, this is entriely dependant on the type of business sector and the IT policy within the organisation. You can't have such a sweeping statement when for some industries it's pretty much a requirement to have the latest technology.

Burnsy

 

[badbob]

Can you imagine how confused the average Windows user would be if they typed into the search box something like "system failed 2007" (to search their e-mails) and then it brings up loads of crap from the System32 directory?

If I search for a file, I want it to show every file with the name I entered, and not because the OS doesn't want me to display them even if I tick show hidden/system files. It should still show files from other users, if I have admin rights.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If I search for a file, I want it to show every file with the name I entered, and not because the OS doesn't want me to display them even if I tick show hidden/system files. It should still show files from other users, if I have admin rights.

Then select those options. Most people don't want this though.

Burnsy

 

[thecremeegg]

dont like vistas indexing - uses the hard drives far too much, doesnt seem to be clever enough not to do it whilst gaming either

 

[Final8y]

dont like vistas indexing - uses the hard drives far too much, doesnt seem to be clever enough not to do it whilst gaming either

It does not do that on my setup & i have 3TB of harddrive.
It would not have to keep reindexing un less your installing & un-installing all day long with huge amount of files & harddrive space.
It has never indexed while im gaming.

 

[Fr0dders]

It does not do that on my setup & i have 3TB of harddrive.
It would not have to keep reindexing un less your installing & un-installing all day long with huge amount of files & harddrive space.
It has never indexed while im gaming.

your dealing with somebody who'se probably used it for a couple of hours and given up

its well document that the disk does thrash about a lot during the first few days of ownership as it index's stuff, and that after the first few days, it dies off.

 

[Final8y]

your dealing with somebody who'se probably used it for a couple of hours and given up

its well document that the disk does thrash about a lot during the first few days of ownership as it index's stuff, and that after the first few days, it dies off.

A fresh install of vista & a lot of files on the hard drive should not take take days..mine is done in hours & the only thing i can thing of is where i keep my pc on & others who only turn on & use then turn off & will not give vista time to finish indexing as its a lower priority that should only run when the pc is not being use heavily so it could take days, but as soon as they have finished using the computer they turn off or let it going into sleep.

 

[chesterstu]

Just reading Ed Bott's Blog (this entry) and came across this. The article basically says that with in one year of XP's release only 10% of MS install base had upgraded to XP.

As Ed Bott says you always have people resisting the change and it will be the same for every version of Windows and Vista is not different