Does anyone here believe that Windows 10 will be very likely to come out in June 2015 or is that wishful thinking? I want it now so badly but I would hate to have to wait until September or even July or August.
Microsoft needs to speed things up!
Where did you hear June 2015? The only date Microsoft has given so far is "late 2015"
Oh? You'd like to have another Windows ME? Or maybe another Vista? Or maybe even a repeat of Windows 8?
I don't know what happened with Windows ME, other than it failed miserably, but I do know what happened to the beta of Windows Vista. We, the beta testers did our best to convince Microsoft that Vista wasn't ready yet, but Marketing overruled us and because of an arbitrary release date, the rest is history. I also don't know what happened with Windows 8, but I do know that the large cross section of beta testers out here in the wild were "dismissed" and we didn't get any input in the disaster known as Windows 8.
Microsoft seems to have learned something over the past few years. They're listening to us again and we get a chance to give feedback on Windows 10, which almost isn't even Alpha. It's certainly not a Beta yet. And look how good it already is!
Personally, I want the best of all worlds, and that begins and ends with however long it takes and whatever it takes to make Windows 10 the best it can be. I don't want a repeat of Windows 8, although Windows 8.1 did offer some improvements.
So I say Microsoft needs to take its time and get it right. The best is worth waiting for.
What happened with Windows ME is that it wasn't supposed to exist. Windows 98SE was supposed to be the last 9x based Windows, to be replaced by Windows 2000. However, Windows 2000 did not end up being capable of being a consumer release (it lacked proper gaming support, and many other consumer technologies among the many things that slipped from its release schedule).
The problem Microsoft had was that Windows 98SE was becoming long in the tooth, and no longer had OEM support, so they needed a new release to satisfy new hardware, so they basically hacked together a release to support new hardware, plus add in some stuff they had been working on for Windows 2000 that didn't ship with it... and voila, a mess was born. It was a stopgap until XP was ready.
I wouldn't call it arbitrary. It was already 5 years in the making, and 3 years late. The larger problem was the OEM vendors insistence that low-spec hardware be compatible with it... which Microsoft marketing caved on. That, combined with the deliberate over-tuning of UAC to force ISV's to make their products compatible with the new security model created a publicity nightmare.
Vista's problems were largely just that, publicity. Yes, it had some real issues as well that could have been ironed out with a few more months of testing, but that was hardly what gave it the black eye.
The things that give Microsoft the most grief are not bugs... they're unfulfilled promises, and not taking into account the fact that many users will refuse to change. That's not to say that MS should cater to the whims of such people, but they should find ways to encourage them to move forward, not just expect them to.
I didn't know that vendors had pressured Microsoft to low-ball hardware specs. I did notice that MS set the minimum ram requirement for Vista at 512K, which is ridiculously low. The first wave of Vista machines came with 1gb, which you'd think would be OK since it was 2X the minimum, but of course it was horrible. I worked on a number of those machines and they provided a terrible "user experience" that contributed to the belief that Vista was broken. The other serious problem I saw was the lack of drivers for older printers, scanners, etc. People got really upset when they realized after upgrading to Vista that they weren't going to be able to use their peripherals. It seems to me that was the manufacturers responsibility, but people blamed MS for it. Eventually more ram became the norm, drivers became more available and service packs fixed the bugs, but Vista couldn't recover in the public's perception.
Neither did I, Victek. And I didn't have many of the problems others had, but there were enough discovered by the beta testers that we didn't want it released.
Oh, yeah, I was caught up in that one! I had just bought a new HP Color LaserJet and there were no drivers for it. HP refused to build new drivers for this expensive printer and I was forced to keep a computer with XP on it so I could use it. I didn't blame Microsoft; I put the blame squarely on HP where it belonged. For several years, I refused to use anything HP, but I relented because their desktops and laptops (to me) are the best. Also, I believe HP now builds drivers for new operating systems, even for older technology.
Wynona,
Drivers can be a pain,
My old hp printer wouldn't work for windows 7, then all of a sudden a package popped up through windows update and now it works. If you still have vista installed in a virtual machine, you might try windows update again.
All,
What changed so drastically from windows loghorn to vista? I read people say windows loghhorn was better then vista.
Quote