Windows 7

[E]

Does this mean we can officially pronounce Vista dead?

Originally Posted by Reuters

Chairman Bill Gates and Chief Executive Steve Ballmer showed off new Windows features based on software it calls "multi-touch" that will be part of Windows 7, the next version of Windows, which Ballmer said was due out in late 2009.

http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...31847620080528

[ultrafilter]

Remember that new file system that was supposed to be in Vista?

[Renaissance Man]

Originally Posted by E

Does this mean we can officially pronounce Vista dead?

No.

[Phil]

Once Windows 7 comes out, then I'll feel safe about upgrading to Vista.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

I thought Vista was Windows 7.

Windows 3.11
Windows 95 = Windows 4
Windows 2000 = Windows 5 (I just typed ver at the command prompt in Windows 2000 and it showed "Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]")
Windows XP = Windows 6
Windows Vista = Windows 7

[mlschop]

Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary

I thought Vista was Windows 7.

Windows 3.11
Windows 95 = Windows 4
Windows 2000 = Windows 5 (I just typed ver at the command prompt in Windows 2000 and it showed "Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]")
Windows XP = Windows 6
Windows Vista = Windows 7

typing "ver" at the command prompt in XP gets 5.1.XXXX, so that's probably where you are wrong.

[Tight Tin Foil Hat]

Some predictions: 1) Apple will beat them to the punch 2) Widespread acceptance of companies to manufacture touch screens on laptops for Microsoft's operating systems will be sluggish and 3) with a 30-inch touch screen on a game of Dune 2 or Starcraft will give the user 9 extra digits compared to a mouser hence creating an unfair advantage - awesome!

[E]

Originally Posted by Tight Tin Foil Hat

Some predictions: 1) Apple will beat them to the punch 2) Widespread acceptance of companies to manufacture touch screens on laptops for Microsoft's operating systems will be sluggish and 3) with a 30-inch touch screen on a game of Dune 2 or Starcraft will give the user 9 extra digits compared to a mouser hence creating an unfair advantage - awesome!

I'm also skeptical that the touch interface will be practical. It's difficult to imagine it increasing productivity in most current applications of desktop computing. And to the extent that it's laggy or unstable, it will cause a good bit of frustration.

I would really like to see MS tear down the 50+ million lines of legacy code that Vista was built on, and design something more stable. It would be nice if the design team focused on making things more efficient rather than making things "look cool."

[ultrafilter]

Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary

I thought Vista was Windows 7.

Windows 3.11
Windows 95 = Windows 4
Windows 2000 = Windows 5 (I just typed ver at the command prompt in Windows 2000 and it showed "Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]")
Windows XP = Windows 6
Windows Vista = Windows 7

NT is a separate product line from the earlier Windows family. Here's the breakdown:

Windows 3.1
Windows 95 (4.0)
Windows 98 (4.1)
Windows ME (4.9)

Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)

There are earlier products in both lines, but they're obscure.

[Tight Tin Foil Hat]

Originally Posted by E

I'm also skeptical that the touch interface will be practical. It's difficult to imagine it increasing productivity in most current applications of desktop computing. And to the extent that it's laggy or unstable, it will cause a good bit of frustration.

I would really like to see MS tear down the 50+ million lines of legacy code that Vista was built on, and design something more stable. It would be nice if the design team focused on making things more efficient rather than making things "look cool."

I'll agree with you in terms of productivity. Mouse speed or accuracy can't possibly be the reason why Western civilization isn't advancing faster.

Also, maybe folks don't mind mouses(sp?(ent?)) that much. I know I'd rather sit slouched in my chair with my elbows splayed across the table than have to sit upright, and REACH to click a link. Barbaric in my opinion.

But then again, perhaps the Chief Software Architect at Microsoft will foresee this hindrance and allow people to toggle this ephemeral novelty off.

Really, the only possible reason why consumers would desire universal touch screens is gaming.