digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Vista's successor now known as "7," due out within three years, Get RAM now

engadget.com — Although Vista still seems fresh as a daisy, that hasn't stopped Microsoft from planning their next major OS release, and it looks like a part of the plan is changing the internal codename from Vienna to "7."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mrpink.137, on 10/11/2007, -31/+430Is it called "7" because you will need 7 GBs of RAM to run it?
    • wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -3/+54I hope by then 8GB is standard -- maybe even 16GB if the memory cartel drops prices or technology improves significantly.
      • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13[quote]if the memory cartel drops prices[/quote]

        The memory cartel drop prices? Ha! Have you looked at the price of "old" DDR RAM? It still costs the same as DDR2. Now that DDR3 is out, DDR2 prices still haven't dropped either.

        None of these cartels, AKA monopolies, will ever change unless they're forced to change.
    • chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -34/+16by 2010 I should hope people have more than 7GB. I'm upto 4 at the moment.
      • JimDinger, on 10/11/2007, -23/+35You're so special!!!!!1111 You have a really big epenis,can I be your friend? Can I be cool like you?
        Ass wipe,who cares how much RAM you have at the moment.
        • mytea, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30Dude.. harsh.. no, I don't care either.. but the man was only saying his bit
        • darkfoxx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17jealous much? O.O
          • potp, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3in terms of epenis yes, in terms of real penis no.
          • mrFREEZE, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I don't know if you guys knew this, but apparently every time you buy a 1GB stick of (high quality) RAM, your penis increases in size by 1 inch.
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Out of your 4GB upper limit is 2GB and the rest will be reserved for hardware, but that's also useless.
      • theMurdocVolta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17We all know that it isn't going to come out in three years just like Vista didn't come out in 2003.
    • nick2, on 10/11/2007, -16/+164no, it will take 7 hours to install and activate it
      • GeekyGerge, on 10/11/2007, -6/+52And 13 more hours to apply the 72 patches.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -8/+51You do, of course, realize that new releases of Windows generally install faster than previous version?
        • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -29/+7I've been in IT for 10 years and nothing could be further than the truth. Particularly with Vista, where we've made the jump from an OEM CD install to an OEM DVD install. There's more bloat, more drivers, more of everything in the core OS with each release, which extends install times considerably.

          The only reason you could even consider making a grave error like yours is if you use the newest, fastest computer for each install, and even then Windows 98 will install faster than XP and 100x faster than Vista.
          • mattmcm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18You've been in the wrong IT sector, then. XP takes longer to install than Vista on my computer.
          • CaveatCanine, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8XP SP2 installs 100x slower than Vista.
          • Alex.w, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Is this including the time it take to walk to the nearest IT store and buy a ***** FLOPPY drive for my SATA drivers. That is at least one thing Vista has over XP, the sweet ass volume control being my next fav.
          • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"which extends install times considerably"

            No. The Vista installer is overall faster than the XP one, on the same hardware. You're wrong.
          • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Internet Testing?
        • geekoid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Vista may suck the plums off any donkey, but the one thing it is much faster at over XP is install time. That is a fact, even on slower machines. Even the Ultimate version installs very rapidly. Since you seem to know so little, I debate whether you've ever installed it on any machine.
      • Goatman, on 10/11/2007, -16/+25In fact OX X and Linux both take a lot more time to install than Vista does. Also with OS X after a fresh install you're still taking a long time to install patches etc.... so no difference there.
        • BigJ27, on 10/11/2007, -15/+0Ubuntu is fast el o el!!!1!
          • potp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5just did a full format and reinstalltion of my home PC that runs both XP and ubuntu and you are so wrong on that. the live cd version of ubuntu takes as much time as XP so STFU.
          • mercurysquad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7dude how come? XP takes at least 40 min to install on my computer, Ubuntu takes 15-20 min.
          • srg13, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I've had the same experience as mercurysquad. Ubuntu was much faster than both XP and Vista
        • turpenine, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9it took me 20 mins to install leopard on my ibook. It took 2-3 hours to install vista on my dad's pc.
          • tatical, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13"it took me 20 mins to install leopard on my ibook."

            *****
          • ElMoselYEE, on 10/11/2007, -2/+172-3 hours? you must have a fear of windows PCs which prevents you from using them normally.
          • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -13/+32-3? Like hell it did. The Vista installer takes less than half an hour to go from popping the DVD in to desktop, and that's not even on "high end" hardware.
          • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+102-3? Like hell it did. The Vista installer takes less than half an hour to go from popping the DVD in to desktop, and that's not even on "high end" hardware.
          • Eggman, on 10/11/2007, -12/+12-3? Like hell it did. The Vista installer takes less than half an hour to go from popping the DVD in to desktop, and that's not even on "high end" hardware.
          • mtheoryx83, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Christ, that must be a record. Quadruple post? Did you have a seizure whilst clicking the submit button or something?
          • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To be fair, it they can detect a double click on the digg / bury icon, why the hell can't they prevent a double submit? I mean, only allow me to click submit once every 5 seconds, or give each box an ID and only let me submit one reply with the same text to that ID. There are so many ways to prevent it. My mouse is stuffed and sometimes double clicks. Clearly others have similar problems.
        • Aninhumer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Errm 30 mins to install Ubuntu, maybe 1 hour at most to run updates (which aren't vital, and can be done in the background), and apps and drivers are already installed.
        • Cholito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, Linux takes longer than Vista, BUT Linux comes with a bunch of software which is totally free...
          • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Who the ***** cares how long it takes, you're most likely going to be using it for a few years to come - I don't know how often you people switch your OS, but the shortest I've ever gone between Linux distros and Windows was about 2 months I'd say. It's worth it.
      • elsJake, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Vista took me a lot longer to install than XP , and no , i didn't try to install it on a toaster.
        Second, goatmeat , Linux can take from about ..10 minutes to install to a whole week. Depends on the method , distribution , packets installed , etc
      • CompIsMyRx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19No, it'll cost $700.
        • joshuakuhn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5For the "Home Basic" edition...
        • Tredici, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3More like "Small Home Basic Regular Standard" edition.
      • ae6ai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Maybe more like 7 hours to boot.
    • BenO169, on 10/11/2007, -3/+42Maybe it's because Bill is a big Seinfeld fan ;)
      • DMDekoth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22I defy you to come up with a better name than Seven.
        • morguth, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Maybe it is just the Texan in me, but I liked the name Longhorn...
        • alexw, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11A better name?

          How about "soda."
      • billymumphrey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2How about Maxwell House or Mug?

        Ah, Mug Costanza.
      • CharlesMay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9VII (pronounced vee)

        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Remember remember the 5th of November release of Microsoft Windows!!!

          ...not cool.
    • scooper86, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28hello?!.... seven deadly sins....
    • ddxChrist, on 10/11/2007, -4/+33Damn. I only have 128MB of RAM. I guess I'm ancient.
      • tempusrob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25Just a little bit. Do yourself a favor and spring on another 128MB. Your sanity will thank you.
      • celkin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I also have 128MB RAM. I'm also running XP adequately. Of course, the only real app I have on my 6GB hard drive is Opera.
    • xst4t1kx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+130It's actually 7.0

      7 for the number of "new" features they will announce that consumers actually want, and
      0 for the number that will actually make it into the final build.
      • capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16actually I hear they're going to adopt the old linux system and call it 7.0.1. The .1 for the one feature that will be released late, but still work like crap.
      • DerekJ212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So THATS how AOL decides their product versions...
    • billymumphrey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+80Or maybe it will come it in 7 years, rather than estimated 3.
    • heliox, on 10/11/2007, -11/+9Seven security holes on it's release.
      You see, it takes planning to be able to release a product with seven security holes. Apple can't do it.
    • Yodacola, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Version 7 XP was 5.1 . . . Vista was 6
      • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3How long did it take you to realize that?
      • ggoyal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3So what number was ME?
        • netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ME? Why can't we just erase that from history, Vista is filling it's void quite nicely, don't you think?
    • Nerfdude, on 10/11/2007, -26/+16man, you anti-ms guys sure make some funnies. keekle, microsoft is bad! lololololol! i guess that's why vista has that 95% market share.

      but on a non-douchebag note, it's "7" because it's going to be the seventh MAJOR windows release.
      win 1.0
      win 3.1
      win95
      win98
      winxp
      vista
      "7"
      • Nerfdude, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1...and of course by vista i mean windows. goddammit.
      • jasongdx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Oh, what happened to 2? Did they just skip it...
        • Nerfdude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3no, it just wasn't.. MAJOR. i'm sure you're too young, since you're even asking, but 3.1 was a huge deal. 9x was a huge deal. but guess what: 2.0 wasn't a huge deal. neither was 2k or me, note i didn't list them either.
        • itanshi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4thats ME... wait what about 2000?
        • fractured, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Yeah i'd say 2000 is quite important
      • potp, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10You retard Windows has around 92% share not vista

        also you ***** idiot the seven is for the NT series not the 9x 95, 98, ME you listed

        NT 4, Windows 2000 (4.5ish), XP (5), Vista (6), 7 (7)
        • allhard, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1ME was not a major release..
        • strotee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Actually, 2000 = 5.0, XP = 5.1, 2003 = 5.2, Vista = 6.0
      • xst4t1kx, on 10/11/2007, -16/+7Another great example. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux/Mac/any other OS users speak from experience, Windows users speak from ignorance.
      • ggoyal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ME?
    • leonbev, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1No, it's because it's really going to take 7 years for it to be released!
      • dreimanis, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1dude.. like windows 98 ain't a major release.
    • Syntaxis, on 10/11/2007, -15/+3My guess is it can reach 7 years of uptime without rebooting. Much like Windows XP and Windows Vista.

      Oh wait did I just break the "Bash teh evil M$" thread? Ow. Ouch. Hmm.. So sorry. Please continue.
    • Pritchard, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1No. It's called 7 because development was delayed 3 years on Vista. . . It's the year 2007 now, and 7 has a 3 year time frame. You guys know how to do some math? :D
    • damentz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20It's the number of copies you will find on thepiratebay.org on launch.
    • Chicken001, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I have a feeling it's going to have 7 Features from Compiz/Beryl. Ah god sakes 7 Windows? Christ, it's all the better 'Cause I have 7 Rocks.
    • doodoodoodoo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2No. It will take 7 seconds to download. ;)
    • rejoined, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And they will be inviting Seven of Nine to release it.
  • ViRaZ, on 10/11/2007, -27/+287It's because of the 7 TOS agreements you have to agree to when installing it. Oh that 6th one about your soul? Just don't worry about that.
    • carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16seven deadly sins?
    • SethBoy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+101Microsoft 7.

      Features:
      Gluttony - System resource hog.
      Pride - Claims to be more secure, again.
      Envy - Features ripped off from OS X.
      Greed - Business Edition. Home Edition. Ultimate Edition!
      Sloth - Just building on Vista's code.


      Okay I give up on wrath and lust.


      • Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Wrath - Developers Developers Developers Wooooo!
        Lust - This one is impossible...Microsoft isn't cool enough for lust.
        • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Lust - Market Share
        • potp, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3you gotta admit that the new UI of office 2007 and Vista are pretty lustful.
          • mtheoryx83, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Interesting. I thought all the Apple-haters said that candy-coated UI stuff was for losers? Now that you finally have it, you love it?
          • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0OMG COMMENT TREEZ!
      • kevinmotel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Wrath-(Attempt to) Embrace, extend, extinguish (the linux community)

        I got nothing for Lust though
      • capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7wrath - against anyone who tries to take their money
        lust - against anyone who has money and isn't giving it to them

        frozen lake of hell with head eating demons - check.
      • bitORlogic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Lust - flashy shiny new interface that sucks but is all flashy and shiny and stuff
      • sakuraz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Lust - Any consumer purchasing the new Windows 7 will be *****
      • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wrath - Blue Screen of Death (duh)
        Lust - Windows Media Player 12 optimized for porn
    • SethBoy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3edit - double post.
      • seventoes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Ive never heard of the sin "edit", Is it from Bible 3.0?
        • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2It could be in the LOLCAT bible, but I haven't gotten that far into it.
    • sevenhelmets, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Without a doubt, sir, your comment gave me the heartiest laugh of the day yet. Bravo!
    • PatoLucas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We'll at least now they're sincere with that
  • aforsberg, on 10/11/2007, -47/+5god dammit, microsoft. Why? Why try? is just gunna be cracked and pirated before you even release the beta.
    • theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18i'm sorry - what?

      I think that most MS sales are from vendors like Dell and HP anyway. And yes, it's an awesome mentality: "x number of assholes are going to steal your product, don't make it anymore"
    • mishabear, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3They don't make any revenue fixing products so why bother? Just keep pumping out a new OS every 3 years, charge $300 for it (and more for the "upgraded versions") and then make the last version obsolete and unsupported so people will buy the new version - regardless of how much it sucks.
    • MrSarcasm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Umm, dunno... Maybe because it will still be the world's most popular OS? ah, the anti-ms zealots.
    • aaronm67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Also...the betas are generally public release, there's not any reason to crack them.
  • carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -28/+11Hmm.... windows 1.0x, 2.x, 3.xx, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista = 8 already. i guess 1 and 2 sucked badly enough they just won't admit to their existence? if that's the case shouldn't ME be excluded as well?
    • r2pro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34Based off of the NT track of versioning: NT 3.x, NT 4, Win2K(5), XP(5.1), Vista, and now vienna
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Indeed.

        Vista is 6.0. Server 2008 is 6.1, but rumor has it that Microsoft will be upgrading the Vista kernel to 6.1 with a service pack.
        • Noctem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Absolutely true. Vista and Server 2008 will essentially be the same code base once Vista SP1 is released.
        • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I just can't begin to imagine how much of a hassle that upgrade will bring.
    • chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -1/+51We don't talk about ME
      • ACalcutt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8ME == Virus
        • celkin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're a virus?
        • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's no virus, it's the ***** cancer of the computer world. Or, better yet, it's Lupis. Eating itself alive. Nice.
        • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2ME < Virus
    • Noctem, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6You grasp of the Microsoft versioning scheme is astounding.
      • Noctem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Doh! As is my grasp of the English language. :)
        • icedevil6, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2You grasp of the English language is astounding.

          (Even though you caught yourself, I had to.
          • abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6)
            There. Closed your open parenthesis. Be careful, you could have just blown up digg!
          • celkin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0YOUR grasp of the English language is sad.
    • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Windows 95, 98 and ME were not NT version anything. NT 4.0 was Windows NT Workstation 4.0.

      The Windows NT family starts with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (a spin-off of Windows 3.1). Essentially, NT 3.11 was the first release.
  • Crazysah, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8I actually liked the codename 'Vienna' and have no positive reason on why they changed it.
    • gquaglia, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5So do I. Vienna sausage. Which is exactly what you'll get, the sausage, up the ass.
      • Microdot, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4i just spit coffee out my nose. hahahahaha

        vista is a pile of *****. m$ knows this, and thus, are scrambling to find a solution.
    • dickeytk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It's kind of like how the code name of the Expression Web tools, the code names were Sparkle, Quartz and Acrylic, they changed the names to Expression Blend, Expression Web and Expression Design. Ugh :(
    • GeekyGerge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Vienna is ice-cream too, right?
    • Naga10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I liked the name Vienna, too, since it's always Springtime In Vienna.
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Microsoft always drops the cool codenames for a more dumbed down market name halfway through. We aren't halfway, so it's a safe bet that they'll drop 7 too.
  • aknowles5139, on 10/11/2007, -14/+973 years eh? Will see about that... Microsoft is worse than EA when it comes to release dates.
    • Ajjah, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7We'll*
      • Tredici, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No... He could have been saying "I will see about that..." and simply omitting the 'I'.
  • carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -10/+134didn't they say vista would be in stores in 2004 back in 2001?
    • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23So... it'll be out in 2013 then?
    • elsJake, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9shut up , shut up , you're messing with their mojo , you're not supposed to mention that.
    • estvir, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Oh shut up, Vista didn't exist in 2001 you lying whore.
      • srg13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4He's right - it was called Longhorn then
  • deadbaby, on 10/11/2007, -10/+122It won't be out in 3 years. Vista cost an insane amount of money to develop and if they release its successor too early they won't recoup the development costs.
    • virtualball, on 10/11/2007, -20/+18I didn't know see-thru bars and a ***** security system could cost so much!
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
        • vanden9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Development costs for slapping on a new gui and umm 5 names for Vista....Yea that will talk them a while to get...
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Maintaining market share is infinitely more important than reclaiming R&D costs. They will release another version soon, if they can.
    • gmillerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Not to mention the costs for hardware and software vendors.
    • imitokay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1unless 7 is a reimaged vista... then R and D goes to both and can still be recouped
  • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -7/+242Hmmm...I wonder if I can just use XP til then, and skip Vista completely..3 years isn't that long.
    • dignick, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29I wouldn't bet on that 3 year estimate. Microsoft said 2 years for Vista in 2001.
    • Jarodd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I didn't even plan to switch to vista until at least a year or two.
    • localzuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thats our plan at the school I work... By then educational software manufacturers will have adopted the new system style for writing their programs and we'll be able to actually have some working software!!
    • Squidly, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6I skipped Vista entirely, and went to OS X.
      • phaed, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3I went to Linux. bourne shell FTW!!! command.com FTL

        (note: OSX also has the bourne shell)
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1command.com? That hasn't existed since the 9x days.

          bash? Bah. A weakling CLI compared to PowerShell.
      • Archeologist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Dugg down for fanboyism
    • Morphinity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The only reason I will be switching to Vista someday is for Direct X 10 support. Damn you, Microsoft, and your tactics!
  • linkin1, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2167...hundered dollars
    • gquaglia, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36Yeah, for the home basic version.
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -19/+13No. Probably less than $200. And, free Maintenance packs. Unlike the yearly $130 Apple users pay.. since 2001, apple users have been charged $650 -- after OSX 10.5 is released ??? -- it will be up to $780.... making OSX actually cost your FUD "7...hundred dollars".
      • cwoolf34, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5O' RLY fool? I wish Apple released yearly OS's... but they don't. Your math sucks too. You mean to tell me that most people don't buy a new computer within seven years? Oh my god, free maintenance packs! Praise the lord! Too bad Apple makes you pay so much money for their maintenance packs.
      • awhiteflame, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Over the past 6 years, there have been 4 Mac OS X updates.

        Mac OS X 10.1 was a free upgrade to Mac OS X 10.0.

        Let's knock one off seeing as most people probably didn't buy the retail version of at least one of them, as most people aren't using six-almost-seven year old computers. So in total, 2.

        2 * 129 = $258, for TWO OS upgrades, with EVERYTHING included. Compare that to ONE OS upgrade of Vista to Ultimate (that is, to have everything included as well) at $259.99.

        So no, your theory that Mac OS X is more expensive over time compared to Windows is flawed.
        • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"Mac OS X 10.1 was a free upgrade to Mac OS X 10.0."

          Hey ass, MacOSX 10.0 cost $130. If you had 10.0, you got 10.1 for free. If you didnt, you paid $130 to get 10.1.

          "Compare that to ONE OS upgrade of Vista to Ultimate (that is, to have everything included as well) at $259.99."

          Are you ***** stupid? A FULL version of Vista Ultimate costs $180 @ Newegg. What the ***** are you talking about? Get. Your. Head. Out. Of. Your. Ass.

          "So no, your theory that Mac OS X is more expensive over time compared to Windows is flawed."

          Really? Any SINGLE yearly 10.X upgrade cost $130(ish). When you buy Vista Ultimate, you will not pay for an upgrade for 3-5 years (as was the case w/ XP).

          Your reality distortion field isnt strong enough to re-invent the universe awhiteflame - please stop insulting our intelligence.
      • kodek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3*****. Not again!
    • deadlikeoscar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13No...7 is for the colors of the rainbow. Now you are no longer limited to just a BLUE screen of death. Pick whichever one matches your current theme.
      • aaronm67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3...I thought I had read somewhere that blue (and red/orange/yellow/green/indigo/violet) screens don't exist in Vista?
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No. They do. The problem is that Vista rarely crashes, so you don't see them.

          For instance, video driver crashes have a MUCH less chance of taking down the kernel, because a great deal of the code was moved into user space. Bad RAM and video drivers were probably the biggest two causes of BSODs under XP.
  • diggscape, on 10/11/2007, -17/+5remind me of se7en (1995 Film by David Fincher)
    "Seven deadly sins. Seven ways to die."
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8That makes you about the seventh person to mention it.
    • buryme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Next time, spell it out for us just a bit better...I had no idea what you were talking about until you mentioned that tagline.
  • mannaran, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7That would be a Vista clone, if it's released on time. If it is not a Vista clone, then it will not be released on time!
  • juicebag, on 10/11/2007, -9/+753 years? That's silly. We still lack low priced computers that can efficiently run Vista.
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -15/+8Like ***** hell.

      $500 machine with Vista in all its Aero glory:
      http://www.jjmelo.com/blog/2007/02/16/how-to-build-a-cheap-vista-pc-aero-enabled/
      • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11I wouldn't even attempt Vista on a piece of ***** setup like his.
        • natenovs, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4are you kidding? it runs fine on my four year old laptop. pentium m 1.4, 512mgs of ram, and a mobile ati graphics card. well, no aero, but it runs smoother than xp did.
        • leahzero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11We're not talking about IE, Word, Solitaire, or Minesweeper. When you do real benchmarks of new media editing software (assuming you can even find Vista drivers for your cards/devices), let us know.
        • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@leahzero:
          "benchmarks of new media editing software "

          Yeah, because "media editing" is like, a big deman of worldwide computing effort /sarcasm. Get real.
      • juicebag, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I said efficiently. My laptop with a Core 2 Duo and a 7600 GT is still held back by Vista.
        • estvir, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Haha, yeah right. Vista runs flawlessly on any Core 2 Duo (E6300 up), a 7600GT is more than capable and you didn't mention RAM or any other specifics so I assume you're just lying and trying to get all the cool kids on Digg to like you.
        • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Cool kids like you?
      • netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Aero.....glory? More like Aero gory!!
  • themarq, on 10/11/2007, -6/+61The rumour I heard was that it was to be codenamed 'Blackcomb.'

    The reason being, XP was codenamed "Whistler" for the ski resort in BC (favorite of the Redmond developers), Blackcomb is right next to it and Longhorn (Vista) is a bar between the two resorts. Therefore, to get from Whistler to Blackcomb you need to stop at the Longhorn.

    Probably just an urban myth.
    • LowRentDiggs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Longhorn is a bar at the foot of Whistler, not between Whistler and Blackcomb. You get on the Blackcomb gondola at the foot of Whistler though. Maybe that holds the key to the mystery...
    • lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1actually GLC is the bar at the foot of whistler...
      • LowRentDiggs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Ok let's get super technical over the amount of metres from the gondola ;)
    • Jedimonkey27, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17 IIRC it was originally named Blackcomb, but last year they changed it to Vienna.
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It was originally going to be called blackcomb, but that was back when Longhorn was supposed to be a minor point release. The "Windows 98SE" of XP. Microsoft probably felt that Vista had advanced beyond what they had in mind for Longhorn and had started to encroach on Blackcomb - so they rejiggered the naming system, and then rejiggered it again...
    • Trollhammaren, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Man if they were so keen on codenaming their systems after ski resorts why didn't they include a new version of SkiFree? That game was better than Solitaire, Minesweeper and Pinball combined.
      • ike368, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i would digg this many times if allowed.
    • cactus476, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Blackcomb is actually the server version of "7."
    • buryme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Thanks guys, now I want to go skiing...
  • mattcoady, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1147 as in 7 years from now until it actually releases.
    • Fryguy8, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13I second this. Vista took forever to release, and this will as well.
    • swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I think you are being to generous. It will be more like a decade
      • G33k0ft3chz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2You mean how it will be 7 years to be actually manufactured and made and the additional 3 years to keep on saying that it will be great? Then yes, it will take a decade for it to come out.
  • bshep, on 10/11/2007, -15/+11When i saw "7" it made me think of 7 of 9 from Voyager.... the borg are coming... resistance is futile.
    • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Problem is they assimilate everything, even if it has the intellectual capacity of a brick. MS is going to be dead by then, but i liked your reference and the image of that voluptuous well formed character from voyager.
    • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3She should be called 10 out of 10 really.
      • damacus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1hahah yes. jerri ryan is absolutely FTW.
    • tdillo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I thought Seven Deadly Sins, Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Greed, etc etc etc.
  • MrSarcasm, on 10/11/2007, -13/+107Get RAM now? Umm, yeah. Buy loads of RAM at today's prices, regret that for the same ammount of money you get waaay more RAM when "7" is actually released. GOOD PLAN!
    • chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -12/+22It's just Engadget trying to be witty.

      Engadget /fail
      • tarmithius, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14The "buy loads of RAM" is not even in the article, in the comments yes, not the article. So your statement about Engadget failing fails.
    • gboone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3well, see you have to start buying more RAM now because when the revolution comes (when 7 is released) there will be a run on RAM and you'll be the last one with your back to the wall.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree. I'll just take the money I WOULD have spent on RAM now, and invest that with a modest return, and then I'll use the resulting sum in a few years to buy the much-cheaper-in-the-future RAM...
  • LeeVal, on 10/11/2007, -5/+437 this year, 6 next year. 5 the year after

    you get it
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3They wouldn't do that...then they'd have to invent new numbers between 0 and 7 in order to delay it whilst maintaining their super-cool codename veneer
    • celkin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2-20 when it's actually released
  • rapiddemon, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36Oh, 3 years Microsoft time=10 years normal time, no need to hurry on purchasing that RAM
  • NineElders, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4When you set artificial timelines Linux will just wait you out. You are just handing victory to Linux.
    • MrSarcasm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5yes, sure... the victory of a fraction of a fraction of a percent in userbase increase? Come on, the year of linux desktops is not until vista+1+1+1+1+1+1, or even more...
  • realdeal83, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32Ya 3 years is crazy, in three years there'll still be more computers running xp then vista.
  • kaffein, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1097 as in 7 versions to choose from!
    • swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12No, seven hundred versions to choose from
    • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -17/+5OSX has the following versions;

      Mac OS X 10.0
      Mac OS X 10.1
      Mac OS X 10.2
      Mac OS X 10.3
      Mac OS X 10.4

      Each version up the ladder costs $130. Whats the issue? Apple charges you $130 every year(ish) for a service-pack.
      • kaffein, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Microsoft made 5 different versions of XP each with varying features (not all created equal)... Home Edition, Professional Edition, Media Center Edition, Tablet PC Edition, Professional x64 Edition.

        Vista has(d) 5 as well: Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, Business, and Enterprise Edition...

        Mac has just 1 OS to choose from. (not talking about the updates, I'm basically saying if you use OSX 10.4, you have the same features as anyone else with OSX 10.4.)
      • starsky51, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Why are you rattling on about OSX?
      • CATSCEO, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5WTF are you talking about? Apple never releases service packs that cost money, ever.
      • Trollhammaren, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Apple never releases service packs period. There are a couple of updates for new features every month then a new operating system every ~ two years, even if an incremented decimal doesn't sound like one.
    • PatoLucas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So they'll reduce their SKU's, that's good!
  • nick2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+48george costanza will be proud
    • jicon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Someone stole my idea!!!! INDEPENDENT GEORGE IS GETTING UPSET!
      • jimsowden, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Stealin' my material too. I'm not offended as a Jew, I'm offended as a comedian.
    • wargasm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8all seinfeld refrences get a digg from me
    • celkin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Expect Windows Soda to be released in 2015 (a successor to 7, not a drink)
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The cat *RRAWWRR* is out of the bag!
  • Coded1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1This is pretty quick for MS isn't it?
    It does kinda remind me of the release of 2k and ME, maybe it will be the same thing but this will take over the roll of 2k (stable) over ME (pretty colors!)
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No. It's not.

      Vista was an abormally long release. Normal is 3 years.
  • dasunst3r, on 10/11/2007, -15/+9How many stages has Microsoft gone through with the desktop experience?
    DOS
    Windows 1 - 3.11
    Windows 95 - ME
    Windows NT - 2000 (new kernel)
    Windows XP (theming, which Linux already beat them to)
    Windows Vista (compositing desktop, which OSX and Linux already beat them to)

    Suppose they want to make this '7' another overhaul of the desktop experience.
    • MrSarcasm, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17since when is theming the most important feature of XP? I've been using XP since it's been released, and I don't think I've ever used themes.
    • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5No, it's the NT kernel version...
    • ender42081, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4ummmmm... you could change ALL the colors on windows going back to at least 3.1, so that should be considered 'theming'. also, theming actually got WORSE in XP because out of the box you get a whopping 3 themes and can't get more without hacking or buying.
  • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6called 7 because it will take 7 years to develop and still suck. Just like Vista took 5 years and never delivered any of the featured enhancements they where so keen to tell us all about.

    MS will be dead by then, there is no next Windows. They probably release something but no one will care.
  • Darrelc, on 10/11/2007, -8/+34Wow, Shame you can't pull with crappy microsoft jokes, Nobody on digg would be single. -_-
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 10/11/2007, -13/+11)Win 3.1
    2)Win 95
    3)Win 98
    4)Win NT
    5)WIN ME
    6)Win 2000
    7)Win XP
    8)Vista

    Sorry if I missed some, I was just counting to see if it made sense that way.
    • bittdude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Might help to get the order correct.
    • lazka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8vista is 6.0, xp is 5.1, 2000 is 5.0, nt was 4.0, all before that was based on DOS (1.0-3.x) something like that

      btw. this news is from february..
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2There was an NT3.5, and an NT3.1. There wasn't an NT before that, though.
    • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Windows ME did not exist in Microsoft's mind.
  • clichecow, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Its probably the next server OS release, a successor to server 2003 rather than vista. MS said vista was supposed to last 7 years or something.
    • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Not gonna last 2 years if you ask me. No one cares unless they get gagged to buy it with a new PC.
  • CrypticSkeptic, on 10/11/2007, -6/+47It's called 7 because if you check your My computer properties on XP you see that XP is Version 5.xxxx and Vista is 6.xxxx
    • Hypn0s, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Exactly. Behind all of the marketing, Windows does still have version numbers.

      Windows NT 4
      Windows 2000 = 5
      Windows XP = 5.5
      Vista = 6
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Close.

        4.0 = Win 95 / NT4 (depending on dwPlatformId)
        4.10 = Win 98
        4.90 = Win ME
        5.0 = Win 2000
        5.1 = Win XP
        5.2 = 2003 Server or XP64 (depending on sm_server2 flag)
        6 = Vista

        http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724429.aspx

        Before 9x, you have 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11 etc which were marketed with there major version number.
  • DaBrainiac, on 10/11/2007, -13/+717... people will upgrade to it.
    • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7made me laugh! Thumbs Up!
    • PatoLucas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3And you'll have to wait 7 years to get good drivers for it
  • ridium, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2As someone who used to love the latest-and-greatest tech, I read the title and thought: "Damn, I hope they're still supporting XP then because I'd rather not switch."

    I'm getting old :p.
  • quikboy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+107 as in lucky 7! Hopefully.
  • LakaiOrDie, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5That'd be pretty foolish to release a whole new OS within the next 3 years since people still haven't even warmed up to Vista yet. I'm not even compelled to switch to Vista anytime soon, if ever. When I get a laptop I'll probably be going with Apple.
    • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4People are already pissed off because Vista took 5 years, they had a subscription to MS and anything after 3 years means they pay extra. This is a scheme to get subscriptions back for the next OS. They will not be able to deliver within that time frame. They are loosing a huge amount of subscribers from big (i mean BIG) companies. Business is very reluctant to switch to Vista right now.
    • zumpiez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23 years is pretty close to their usual timeline of major releases.

      August 1995 Windows 95
      June 1998 Windows 98
      February 2000 Windows 2000
      October 2001 Windows XP
      January 2007 Windows Vista

      It's silly to say "Stop making it better and releasing new versions until people get used to the kind of lame one you've got out right now"
  • mpn401, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12It probably will take 7 calls to tech support to get it working, at 7 dollars a minute.
  • iplayyouandme, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2Vienna? Cough, cough, Longhorn, cough, cough, Vista is XP sp3, cough, cough, Longhorn development continues into its 7 year... to be complete in 9 years (2001-2010).
  • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -12/+357 seconds - time from installation to first infection! Improvement if you ask me!
  • blackbamboo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Can they just get all the VPN clients working for Vista first before they talking about yet another OS
  • ode1085, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3the blogspam is getting old.

    http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6197943.html
  • drcreek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32Windows System 7! I can see it now!
    • YourTechSupport, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Thank you, I thought I would have to point that out myself!
  • ddxChrist, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6Windows is too costly and restrictive. Win2k and XP were rather nice compared to previous versions as well as compared to Vista, but at this point I'm sticking to OpenBSD and Linux.
  • devilsanthem, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16I hope this one's built from ground up sans the stupid registry and all that. I actually preferred Longhorn to Vista.
    • techmaster, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Are you retarded? Vista IS Longhorn.
      • natenovs, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2well. no. longhorn is server 2008. vista is vista. but the grandparent is retarded, theres still a registry in longhorn.
        if you write in the .net framework your program should never touch the registry. unfortunately, programmers are slow to change their ways.
        • zumpiez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Longhorn Server 2008 and Vista are both codename Longhorn.
      • abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2There is a difference between the two.
      • clperez390, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think he meant name wise.
    • CalipsoII, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Wow, for someone called 'techmaster' you're not very bright. The Vista you installed is NOT the Longhorn that was in development. Microsoft removed EVERYTHING from Longhorn that was good, and released the mediocre Vista instead. Longhorn had features that would make the linux fanboys step back and stammer.
      • cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The one who is not very bright is the one who can't tell the difference between a develpment project (Longhorn) which has features that are still being worked on, and a resulting product out of that project (Vista) which focused on the features that were better suited (by MS definition) to client-side uses.
  • pierre, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5why cant they release an OS every 2 years.... its not impossible, other companies do it...
    • sammykeyes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2They release service packs, like updates to the already existing OS. They include some new bits of software too.

      OS X is kind of like an update itself sometimes. There's like minor new feature that get added in it, every so often.
    • natenovs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1if youre referring to OSX, those are point releases, not a new os
  • JasonCox, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8God you people are stupid. It's NT kernel 7.0, aka Windows Sev.en
  • Wang, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Inaccurate...both the name and time frame.
  • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -32/+24@linkin1 and all the other "7 hundred dollars" FUD-sters.

    Here are the prices of Vista (from http://www.pricewatch.com/m-182.htm)

    $ 175.00 - windows vista ultimate
    $ 63.99 - windows vista starter
    $ 69.93 - windows vista home premium
    $ 63.99 - windows vista home basic

    For comparison, lets talk about the price of one of the other non-free OS: OSX.

    Cost for OSX?
    Mac OS X 10.0 March 2001 - $130
    Mac OS X 10.1 September 2001 - $130
    Mac OS X 10.2 August 2002 - $130
    Mac OS X 10.3 October 2003 - $130
    Mac OS X 10.4 April 2005 - $130
    Mac OS X 10.5 ?? - $130(?)

    Cost to an OSX user for his Operating System since March 2001 (after 10.5 is finally released)? $780.
    Cost to a Vista Ulitmate user? $180(ish) or whatever he pays today. And zero cost for maintenance releases for the next 3-4-5(?) years (as has been the case with XP).

    So, who is getting soaked on the cost of their OS?
    • volanin, on 10/11/2007, -12/+18Ubuntu Warty - $0
      Ubuntu Hoary - $0
      Ubuntu Breezy - $0
      Ubuntu Dapper - $0
      Ubuntu Edgy - $0
      Ubuntu Feisty - $0

      Sorry, I know you mentioned "other NON-FREE OSes", but the above was just too beautiful not to post...!
      • cricoste90, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6Linux sucks man just stfu.
        • abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3If only you knew how it really is :(
      • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6I know, I've been using GNU/Linux for years personally and professionally. When i need a Free UNIX, I use GNU/Linux. For the life of me, I just cannot fathom how Apple got away with forking FreeBSD and getting credit with charging $130 per year for it. Apple is the very antithisis of the free software movement, with forking FreeBSD and putting a non-free GUI on a closed hardware platform, for the life of me, i cannot understand how the GNU/Linux advocates (which I count myself as one) dont routinely savage Apple for its anti-community activities.

        I mean, look at the ipod for another example -- why the itunes shackles? There is *NO* reason why the device cant ditch the proprietary 4-character song title and database scheme, who's sole purpose is to ankle-tie you to itunes. Its another anti-user maneuver by a control-freak corporation... and they get a pass?

        my -4 mod above is more digg reality distortion at its finest
    • GeekyGerge, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Huh? home premium is cheaper than home basic
    • eddieroger, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Congratulations on being the first person to bring a Mac into this thread. It really didn't have to go there, and no one else took it there. Big man.
      • houndeyex, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Actually they did, if you would have read.
    • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2You seem to forget that OSX evolves and is worth every penny. Within the time frame MS needed to develop Vista, OSX evolved with all and more features than Vista has. I am by no means an Apple fan boy, i actually choose the OS based on what i need to do and i prefer Linux/MS/OSX depending on the need. Server = Linux, Desktop = MS, Design/Creative = OSX.
      I work for one of the biggest Media companies and choose OS based on these facts. There is no perfect choice but you have to admit that OSX evolves faster than MS and if you ever seen CORE Animation/Video/Sound you know how big of a step that was.
      • sdlvx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9You forget, that M$ codes most of their OS.

        They code the kernel, the file system, they do a lot.

        Apple doesn't have to do any of that *****. The whole underlying OS is handed to them from unix. They don't even write their own file systems, they take an open source file system, and implement it into their Unix mod.

        For Safari, they just use KHTML and make a nice interface. I know Firefox is based off open source code, but guess what? Firefox is free! Imagine the outrage if Firefox was sold. Not only sold, but made to work only on specific hardware.

        I'm not an M$ fanboy, but if Apple had to code their own kernel, as well as filesystem, you wouldn't see OSX releases as quick as you do. I would expect it to be slower than M$s. Much slower.

        Apple just has to design the interface, the hard part is already done for them, because they take open source and use that. Code that thousands of people have worked on for no pay.

        Then, they take this code, and sell it to you for 130 dollars a release. Most of these maintenance releases have non-Apple code in them, because Apple isn't the one who always fixes security problems, because Unix isn't theirs, and it's not their responsibility.

        So, who is the real sucker now? The one who pays 130+ dollars for free software with a pretty GUI, or someone who spends the money on a company that creates the innovative technologies (DX, NTFS, ET AL.) while you macfags sit back and wank to your pretty GUI that lies on non-Apple code.
        • Kindjal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You are perfectly right. It is UNIX running the base. The job they do is slap on a pretty and usable front end. But you have to admit that full Open GL, Post Script Fonts, Core Audio/video as a native to the OS in absolutely stunning performance is a big step from a pure front end like so many window managers we know.
          As i said, i am not an apple fan boy. I have actually skipped the last release as i had no need for it. I will get the next one though as it is a big leap forward. The difference is in choice and usability. You choose whatever is most productive for your work environment. And in MANY cases it will be Windows.
        • garionw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why doesn't Windows use UNIX as well, they're only creating extra work for them
      • jcheng, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3For all that OS X gets right, you certainly can't say it has *more features* than Vista, not by a longshot. Windows Media Center (including full PVR capabilities), Windows Meeting Space, Remote Desktop (client and server), Remote Assistance, BitKeeper, Shadow Files, Offline Files, System Restore, Windows Backup, DreamScene, high DPI support, IE protected mode, dynamic disks, ReadyBoost, ReadyDrive, SuperFetch. And don't forget that the gestation of OS X was far MORE tortured and MORE delayed than Vista. Vista needed one reboot (2004?) while Apple's efforts at a successor to Mac OS burned to the ground at least twice (Pink/Taligent, Copland).

        Apple just doesn't have the resources to go feature-for-feature with Microsoft, not even with the advantage of open source. Fortunately for them, they're incredibly good at putting effort into the right places--when was the last time you bought an Apple product and said "Gee, this thing would be great if only it had more features"? Well, besides Apple TV. And the lack of FM radio on the iPod.

        If you're excited about Core Animation/Video/Sound you should also look at WPF (aka Avalon), including tools like Expression Blend and Visual Studio 2008 Orcas. Available not only for Vista but also for XP.
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1WPF is going to cause a huge shift in the quality of application user interfaces.

          The stuff you can do with it is amazing.
    • sirhomer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13So you are comparing the full retail price of Mac OS X to some OEM version of Windows sold by some shady dealer who happened to make it to pricewatch's cheapest? Just checking.

      Oh and every version of Mac OS X is the Ultimate version. So it's still cheaper!
    • zioxide, on 10/11/2007, -4/+910.0 was a free public beta and I believe 10.1 was a free update to it.

      All service updates to OS X are free too (most recently 10.4.9->10.4.10). Apple just gets out their major releases faster.

      Oh, and the full version of Windows Vista Ultimate is like $350.
      • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Re-read my post. Windows Vista Ultimate costs about $175 in the marketplace...here, $189 from newegg:
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 "

        I like how you confuse and lie in your response. The fact remains that OSX is VASTLY more expenisve than Vista -- in every single sense.
      • jcheng, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6In the Windows world, 10.0-10.5 wouldn't be called major releases, and the service updates are called "the second Tuesday of each month".
      • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If you include the costs for all of 10.0-10.5 then you must include the costs for Windows 2000-Windows Vista, since the differences between 2000/XP/Vista are the same as the differences between OS X 10.0-10.5.

        The market retail prices for each at release...

        Windows 2000 - $199
        Windows XP - $299 (Pro)
        Windows Vista - $399 (Ultimate)

        That puts a user who has used Windows from 2000 to Vista at a cool $900 compared to the $780 of someone who has purchased OS X from 10.0 to 10.5.
        • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Windows 2000 is another OS. No XP user would move from 2K to XP to Vista. Why are you impllying otherwise? They are different OSs.

          The prices you quote are just plain wrong.

    • bblades, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Great job comparing the lowest avaialble price on upgrade versions of Vista to the list price of OSX. Also, both XP and Vista have been released during the OSX lifespan, so add the cost of your copy of XP to that total. For those that don't have a copy of XP laying around, you can double most of those prices. I paid $80 for OSX Tiger just 6 months after its release, it was a useful update, and i didnt have to worry about DRM or about getting a crippled OS like the cheap versions of Vista are. So yes in total price over a 6 year period, yes you pay more for OSX, however you don't get stuck with an OS that bogs down your system and has driven many individuals and businesses to "downgrade" to XP.
      • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"Great job comparing the lowest avaialble price on upgrade versions of Vista to the list price of OSX" What? The prices I mentioned are for full Vista licenses. Retail for Vistal Ultimate @ newegg is $180. Retail for OSX 10.4-upgrade-from-10.3 @ newegg is $120. The "cheap versions of Vista" arent crippled in any sense. If they are (in your opinion), get Ultimate, its will cost you about 1/4 of what OSX costs.

        Here is a feature-by-feature Vista comparion:
        http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

        No mystery, no confusion, just choice. What do you need? Buy only what you need. Every choice costs less than OSX.
    • bumblefoot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3well technically mac os costs at least £400ish because you need a mac to run it and the mac mini retails at £399 plus VAT in the uk, it goes up to £1,299 for a MBP which sucks in my opinion but we get ***** over on most electrical products in the uk
    • exothermic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That's not exactly accurate as you're using Windows OEM pricing versus Mac retail pricing. If you buy a new computer with Windows OEM license, that's another OEM license you're supposed to buy. You just can't carry your old OEM license forward. Nevertheless, OS X is still probably more expensive, so what? If that's what people like to use, let them have at it and quit worrying about how other people spend their money.

      I'm not touching the Windows/OS X "my OS is bigger/better/badder" debate. Use what the hell you want and keep the evangelism to yourself; no one cares.
      • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I dont particularily care either -- but their is a bit of reality at question here. It is inaccurate to say "Windows Vista" is expensive unless your willing to say "OSX is *more* expensive".

        Its not a debate on the technical merit of the two, its a very clear and obvious reality that Windows Vista is *LESS* expensive than OSX. Clear and obvious, yet my post is -79189 (by now) and the Apple Reality Distortion effect runs rampant on Digg.

        That is what irks me.
      • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1OSX 10.4, *AT RETAIL* is $120 or $180 (not sure why there is two choices, but assume $120 is upgrade from 10.3, while $180 is upgrade from MacOS (or maybe 10.0-10.2)).

        http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&SubCategory=370&N=2153340370
        • macniatic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4$120 Single User License
          $180 Family Pack (5 Users)

          Both are complete installs. There are no Mac OS X upgrades.
          • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1What are you talking about? If I bought a Mac in 2001. I'd have had to BUY the "upgrades" each year (roughly).

            If I buy a PC, I bought XP. Ive had all my updates included since then.

            Are you stupid or intentionally obtuse to support your worldview?
    • iplayyouandme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+71) The 10.1 upgrade was free.
      2) OSX is the ultimate version so it can only be compared to Vista ultimate.
      3) I can transfer OSX to any computer I upgrade to as many times as I want.
      4) The retail price of Vista Ultimate is $359 retail is the only version that matches OSX licensing (see 3).
      5) So its $650 for 10.0-10.5 & $718 for XP & Vista Ultimate Versions in the same timeframe.
      • wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Unreal.

        1) 10.1 was free if you paid $130 for 10.0. It cost $130 if you "upgraded" from MacOS. 10.2 cost both states another $130.
        2) Lets skip the OSX/FreeBSD is better than Vista argument m'kay.
        3) As is the case w/ Vista.
        4) MSRP for Vista is $359 (taking your number). Retail price is $180. MSRP for OSX 10.4 Upgrade is $130. Retail price is $120.
        5) Your misguided in total. Presuming XP cost as much as Vista at retail (it didnt, it was less), the combined price is $360. And, OSX was $650. Further, XP is to Vista as MacOS is to OSX. Vista isnt a minor upgrade to XP, but a wholly new OS.

        Your 110% uninformed Son -- or -- trying to spread inaccurate FUD.
        • scootinger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Not exactly....XP/Vista are both based on the Windows NT platform, while "classic" Mac OS and Unix-based Mac OS X are entirely different OS's. A more accurate analogy would be to say that Windows 95/98 is to XP as Mac OS is to Mac OS X.
  • Springdaddy, on 10/11/2007, -18/+9Just buy a Mac. M'Soft is horrible at OS.
    • cyranthus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7just shutup
      • digiguy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3It does suck
      • CATSCEO, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Can't take the truth eh?
        • Chicken001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It does suck. I'm no Microsoft fan, but the day I switch to a Mac is the day hell freezes over. I'd use Windows over a Mac.
  • madroneDorf, on 10/11/2007, -7/+48I guess I fail to see whats wrong with having a new OS in four years, seems pretty standard to me

    Windows 3.0 -> 95 5 years
    Windows 3.1 -> 95 3 Years
    Windows 95 -> 98 3 Years
    Windows 98 -> XP 3 Years (ME doesn't exist ok)

    Really its only XP -> Vista (5+) Years thats out of the loop but thats still pretty close to the 4 years between Vista and this one
    • FortyCaliber, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Yeah... but 3.0 wasn't the big seller... 3.1 sold more... so it's more like 4 years.
    • natenovs, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1don't forget about XP -> XP SP 2 (free upgrade, but really a major improvement)
      and XP SP2 -> Server 2003 (2003 was probably their most stable OS they've made, and most of vista is based off of that)
      • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You haven't used win2k3 much have you?
    • LeoFREYed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Don't forget about the still-patched Windows 2000
    • theblacknight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7You do realize that you are missing about half of their Windows releases?
      11/1985 Windows 1.0
      12/1987 Windows 2.0 (25 months)
      5/1990 Windows 3.0 (29 months)
      4/1992 Windows 3.1 (23 months)
      8/1995 Windows 95 (40 months)
      8/1996 Windows NT (12 months)
      6/1998 Windows 98 (22 months)
      5/1999 Windows 98 SE (11 months)
      2/2000 Windows 2000 (9 months)
      9/2000 Windows ME (7 months)
      10/2001 Windows XP (11 months)
      1/2007 Windows Vista (63 months)
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Sort of, but home users were not meant to buy the NT series until XP, and business users were not meant to buy the 9x series. (I think 3.11, 3.5 is there somewhere too). Of course ME sucked so badly even home users started moving to 2K despite its initial lack of driver support. With XP, they deprecated the 9x kernel.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is what gave XP a soft landing.

          Since most of the 2000 drivers also worked for XP seamlessly.

          And before XP SP2 , XP was little more then 2000 with the Crayola Theme
        • cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12000 was built as as the bridge between Win9x and WinNT codebases. Home users were expected to move up to it as the OEM channel ramped up wide-spread development and sales of PC and peripherals to support the OS. That ramp-up didn't happen as fast as MS would have wanted, which made XP the next OS to target as the "break-away from the DOS legacy" OS.

          Which is also why MS was trying to be more agressive about driver support for both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista and Windows 2008 Server going forward.
    • Zap2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Also, standard? Just because MS doesn't, doesn't mean its Standard...few other OS take that long to update. Apple, Ubuntu all do big updates much sooner.
      • cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apple also went thru nearly a decade of delays of their next generation OS before releasing OS X.

        Ubuntu is based on Debian, and was able to bypass much of the development delay by relying of code that another group had already
        spent a significant amount of time on.
    • AprilEthereal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I think Microsoft should focus on making their current OS more universally compatible and less crappy before they move too heavily into the next generation, regardless of the time spent between releases.
  • VeganG, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8They'll end up scrapping it and releasing it as a Vista Service Pack.
  • skellener, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4> Vista's successor now known as "7," due out within three years, Get RAM now

    That RAM you buy now will be useless in 3 years. Besides, if they say 3 years, it means 4 or 5 at least.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.