And Microsoft's new OS is...

[JoEsMhOe]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/microsoft_vista/index.htm?cnn=yes



Vista.

Comments??

[CreepColony]

Microsoft (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=MSFT) ( (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=MSFT)Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=MSFT)) has promised that the new system will have several improvements, including better security features, more comprehensive search capabilities and a friendlier user interface. (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=MSFT)

Better than Win XP? Great scott we're doomed. :cry:

I wonder what the price will be on this. Probably something like $100+. I'm not to happy with Windows, they say they're the most user friendly OS but to be quite frank... they're not.

[Toucan]

I wonder what the price will be on this. Probably something like $100+.
Damn, you guys get off light.
WinXP Pro retail is still $630 off the shelf here, OEM its $249
WinXP Home retail is $430 and OEM is $139

I think they will mark up the new one twice as much, and then wait about 12 to 24 months to release an OEM.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Specific features include a new way to manage files involving the use of virtual folders, which will make storing and finding information easier, Sullivan said.



Several privacy capabilities, such as protected user accounts, have also been built into the new system, he said.



Last I checked, they had "virtual folders" in windowns 95, as well as individual password-protected users. I would've appreciated it if they get a little more specific on what's so NEW about this >_<.

[Modred]

Last I checked, they had "virtual folders" in windowns 95, as well as individual password-protected users. I would've appreciated it if they get a little more specific on what's so NEW about this >_<.
As far as individual, password-protected accounts, most of what I've heard is reference to limited priviledge accounts, somewhat similar to the limited account on WinXP only better. On older versions of windows you could create seperate accounts for different people, but there wasn't much an administrator could do, security-wise, to limit how another user could manipulate the computer. As Windows progressed, most obviously in the XP versions, features for limited access began to come into play, however they are not great. Compare a standard Windows machine to comparable hardware running a stable Linux distro (such as Debian). Virtually all linux distros include a root account that alone has access to system wide directories. Thus any infections, mistakes, etc that a user encounters will only affect that user's documents and settings and not the entire computer. How many versions of Windows can boast that?

It's possible to set up XP that way, however there are a few hassles. First, many programs written for older versions of Windows, such as StarCraft, have issues with a limited account in XP (and may not even work in Vista...). Under a limited account, I can play the campaign and such, but I cannot connect to battle.net. Program compatability issues such as this prevent the widespread use of limited accounts. Plus, XP requires that you have at least one administrative account (logically). But if it takes just as long to boot up a limited account and an administrative one, you might log into your limited account, discover a new program, switch users and log into the administrative account, install the program, log out of the admin account, and then get back into your limited account. The average PC user isn't up to that and would rather just have everything under one administrative account, even if it slightly increases the risk of system wide failure.

[WeekendLazyness]

They should call it Windows NT 6.

[bluemicrobyte]

Whats wrong with windows xp!??!??

I can see why they went from ME to XP, and even ME from 98se. But what's wrong with XP? In my opinion, when setup correctly windows xp is a very stable operating system with very few flaws. You can tweak it to do prety much anything you want, and maintain it to be perfect in every dimension. So why ruin the fun? I think this is all a conspiracy!

[TimP]

Just because there's nothing wrong with it doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

[Whiteknight]

Whats wrong with windows xp!??!??

I can see why they went from ME to XP, and even ME from 98se. But what's wrong with XP? In my opinion, when setup correctly windows xp is a very stable operating system with very few flaws. You can tweak it to do prety much anything you want, and maintain it to be perfect in every dimension. So why ruin the fun? I think this is all a conspiracy!

"When set up correctly"

The average person is not up to setting it up correctly.

"Oh, what's this email? A person on my contact list is changing emails and all I have to do is download this program to see what the new changes are? Alright!

Hell, even advanced users arn't all the time. I myself have had many problems with XP, especially the bloating effect. And to be honest, I'm too lazy to go and tweak everything perfectly so that it runs how I want it.

And you hit the money with the last comment. It is a conspiracy, all technology is. However, you have to bite the bullet some time, even though it will continually upgrade amazingly fast.

[ZeroDarkStar]

Weeee, downloading Windows Vista Beta 1 from MSDN Suscriber's network!

[Black.Ice]

I didn't know it was on the MSDN network. I'll get it shortly for kicks. :)

[Modred]

"When set up correctly"

The average person is not up to setting it up correctly.
The average person doesn't know how to set it up. =D

And the more advanced person attempting to set it up correctly is hindered by bloat and compatability issues.