Microsoft sticks a fork in Vista, it's done

by Christopher Grant { Nov 9th 2006 at 10:45AM }

Back in 2001, Vista was a faint -- but sparkling -- glimmer in the software giant's glassy eyes. Now, after multiple delays and feature reductions, Microsoft's latest release of Windows is ready for the world. Sure, it doesn't look quite like they thought it would, back when it was still called "Longhorn," but Vista is here and we're sure they still love it. Of course, Microsoft wants to treat the Vista launch as a console launch ... they've even gone so far as to hand off the Games for Windows marketing to the increasingly capable Xbox guys. Pretty exciting, right? PlayStation 3, Wii ... and Vista!

Yeah, we're having a hard time getting excited too; however, if you want to play Halo 2 on your (capable?) PC, you don't have a choice (something about DirectX 10). Here's the skinny: The big businesses get it November 30th (because we all know how quickly major corporations upgrade to brand new Microsoft operating systems, right?) while consumers will have to wait until January 30th to either pick it up retail (which version?) or have it pre-installed on their latest beige box. Who's camping out?

[Via Engadget]

Tags: DirectX 10, Directx10, Microsoft, MSFT, Vista, Windows, Windows Vista, WindowsVista

Related From Joystiq

Darwinia+ for XBLA passes Microsoft certification
5 days ago
PSA: Games for Windows Live's Games on Demand launches
13 days ago
BBC iPlayer for 360 indefinitely postponed due to disagreement with Microsoft
30 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Ritz @ Nov 9th 2006 10:52AM

Defintaly need to wait a couple years for Vista support to begin to match the almost flawless support XP enjoys. Unless you REALLLLY need Halo 2 on your computer, but why?

Vista has potential, but it will be a while before I chose to upgrade.

skwisgaar @ Nov 9th 2006 10:53AM

Meeee! I've been waiting long enough to take master chief on a ride with a mouse. (silly control stick aiming, Wii ftw!!!)

Gerwurztraminer @ Nov 9th 2006 10:53AM

I only just upgraded from ME to XP this year! Gimme a break!

Krichmar @ Nov 9th 2006 10:56AM

The big businesses get it November 30th (because we all now how quickly major corporations upgrade to brand new Microsoft operating systems, right?)

typo - no offense.

Mat @ Nov 9th 2006 11:04AM

Businesses (not necessarily "that big") get it November 30th so that we their IS departments have a buttload of time to figure out any problems and the inevitable questions they are going to spend the next five years answering.

It's a courtesy, really.

crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 11:08AM

I'm still running 2K at work. There's like 1 guy in my office that has XP.

DeezNuts420 @ Nov 9th 2006 11:20AM

Unless Crysis absolutely needs Vista to run, I'll hold off for a year or so.

POed @ Nov 9th 2006 4:25PM

It's a nice OS, but when I upgraded from XP to the RC2 build only 1/2 of my old XP applications worked. Photoshop, WSFTP, ZoneAlarm, Homesite, Visual Studio Expesss...all dead.

KaneRobot @ Nov 9th 2006 11:33AM

"Wii ftw!!!"

So you're excited to play an XBox game on the PC, but you throw in a Nintendo shill for no reason.

Can't wait until 2 or 3 months from now where PC gamers start piling on the Wii as being inferior to using a mouse as well.

crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 11:47AM

"Can't wait until 2 or 3 months from now where PC gamers start piling on the Wii as being inferior to using a mouse as well"

I have no doubt that using a mouse+keyboard will be superior than wiimote. Thats not the point. The point he was making is that dual analog for FPS sucks, and that Wiimote is a huge step up for that genre as far as console controls.

Of course kb+mouse will always be superior.

Saneless @ Nov 9th 2006 11:42AM

"Vista has potential, but it will be a while before I chose to upgrade."

I'm tired of this. These OS's, unless you do some screwy crap, work just fine out of the box.

If there's issues, blame your hardware manufacturers for not releasing good drivers.

C. Grant @ Nov 9th 2006 11:44AM

Saneless: are you serious? It took Microsoft several years to correct some major security vulnerabilities in XP.

vidGuy @ Nov 9th 2006 11:45AM

So with this news, I'd expect Vista to break into business offices about the same time the next XBOX comes out (that'd be Holidays 2009 with the way MS is jumping the gun on the console cycle).

Shiro @ Nov 9th 2006 11:46AM

"1. Defintaly need to wait a couple years for Vista support to begin to match the almost flawless support XP enjoys. Unless you REALLLLY need Halo 2 on your computer, but why?"

Haha... He said "flawless", like, without the "not" in front.

Charles @ Nov 9th 2006 11:48AM

Well you'll need DX10 for Crysis and Age of Conan as well as Halo2 so you'll have to upgrade some time next year.

Corporate world only gets what 2 versions vs. the 4-5 that consumers will have as well. Plus I'm guessing they are probably getting the DL version instead of having a packaged version. As was mentioned earlier it's about getting IT prepared for it more than anything else (gotta test those in house apps)

Charles @ Nov 9th 2006 11:50AM

Forgot to put this in the previous comment but I'm pretty sure the new re-build of EVE Online (Kali?) is using DX10 as well.

Dot @ Nov 9th 2006 12:14PM

Personally I am upgrading to Vista ASAP since I am primarily a PC gamer, and I can't wait for those awesome DX10 graphics to come.
Also, I'd say that Vista will have quite an impact on the gaming market-not that anyone will camp out for it or anything, but its hefty system requirements will render all those integrated graphics equipped systems less popular amongst the casual buyers.
Oh, and #8: as far as recent articles on Wii Sports go, the Wiimote isn't that accurate as you might think it is.

skwisgaar @ Nov 9th 2006 11:52AM

thanx chrono

Patrick @ Nov 9th 2006 11:55AM

EVE Online being one of the first DX10 games? I guess that makes since, since we all know how taxing it is to render the voidness of space.

Steve @ Nov 9th 2006 12:15PM

Corporations should get Vista before home users. Corporations are the ones that are going to be creating the software and drivers that the home users are going to need, so anything that makes it easier for corporations to create more stable software is fine by me.

Aside from that I've been watching Microsoft OS launches since Windows 95 and most of them are highly buggy. 95 was junk and made most PCs of that era unusable. 98 was better but didn't really hit its prime until 98-SE was released. ME was absolute junk and Gerwurztraminer has my deepest sympathy for having to deal with that OS for so many years. The much loved Win 2K was great for networking, from what I hear, but it tended to be very buggy and difficult to program on when it came to the smaller things. XP was actually a pleasant surprise because it worked so surprisingly well for a Microsoft product. I'm not up on the whole security vulnerabilities issue, but it definitely seemed to finally be the OS that Windows 95 was supposed to be.

NT 4 seemed fairly stable though the incompatibilies between the NT line and the Win9x line were unexcusable. There was no need for the OSes to be built so differently since it's mainly the software installed onto a Windows system that truly makes it a user or business PC. It was so nice to see Microsoft merge the lines with XP and I think everyone eventually benefitted from that.

Judging by Microsoft's history I will not install Vista on my home PC until I absolutely must have it. Hopefully SP-2 will be out by then. My home PC works (more or less) so if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Pete C @ Nov 9th 2006 12:10PM

At my office all of our clients are XP and most of our servers have been upgraded to Server 2003, so I guess we are relative early adopters.

Anyone still using ME...wow, that is amazing. You should have upgraded years ago. I will be on the Vista train about 6 months after release. I had no problems with XP...best operating system ever IMO.

devi8i @ Nov 9th 2006 12:19PM

So let me get this right, to play 3 year old Halo2 (once vista is launced) which was originally released on xbox using a modified version of DirectX 8.1, I have to purchase Vista to use directX10..... does that seem funny to anyone besides myself?????

mike @ Nov 9th 2006 12:25PM

Halo 2 for Windows Vista isnt DirectX 10...but it is for Windows Vista only. However, Crysis, Company of Heroes, Age of Conan, Hellgate: London and some more games will have DirectX 10 versions this year. Not too mention NVIDIA just launched its G80 DirectX 10 card yesterday.

Wedge @ Nov 9th 2006 1:13PM

No games are going to be released for Vista only (aside from Halo 2 obviously, which is a pointless re-release of a two year old in-house console game). Unless they want to suicide all profits and Microsoft is paying them enough to make up for it.

I don't see why any sane business would buy Vista over the next version of NT (Server Edition 2006?). Your average business PC couldn't even run Vista.

navstar @ Nov 9th 2006 1:20PM

Gerwurztraminer (is that because you "whine")? :) Waiting FIVE years after an OS is released officially makes you a laggard.

I can't believe you tortured yourself with winME for six years!

Charles @ Nov 9th 2006 1:20PM

Wedge - No more NT @ the desktop level, MS got rid of NT with XP (XP Home /XP Pro). Vista comes in somewhat similar flavors.

While you don't have to have Vista to run these new games, you do have to have DX10 and since MS isn't releasing DX10 for XP you have to upgrade. Probably not @ launch but sometime next year.

Steve @ Nov 9th 2006 1:24PM

@#9 - "I'm tired of this. These OS's, unless you do some screwy crap, work just fine out of the box.

If there's issues, blame your hardware manufacturers for not releasing good drivers."

If there's issues it doesn't matter if they are the fault of the OS, drivers, software or the green fairy, there's still issues. For that matter, try installing an older version of XP (pre SP2) from a genuine MS CD, connect to the internet and play the grand old game of 'can I upgrade with all these security patches before the virus brigade find my machine' and then tell me these OS's work fine out of the box.

As a couple of people have pointed out, the business world gets Vista first so that we can evaluate the new software, find out how badly it breaks existing software, work out the realistic minimum spec for what we do as a business, have a brief moment to sob over the reallocation of our budget from the beer fund to the upgrade fund and, most importantly, find out where the major bugs are. This way, by the time most home users start to get their hands on it, there should be at least a basic set of fixes available through Windows update.

In the case of my company, I see no reason at all to even consider Vista for at least a year. We're currently on 2k and that works just fine, has a nice low overhead in terms of hardware and is still on the supported list. Vista really doesn't bring anything to the party that interests me, at least from reading the spec sheet, especially as we're transitioning to web-based applications from our current .NET apps.

Now virtualisation software, THERE is something that interests me as an IT manager...

Ritz @ Nov 9th 2006 1:26PM

@Saneless,
That is the point. I've played around in Vista and I like it quite a bit. But there is not enough manufacturer support for the system yet. My USB web camera refuses to install, Nero gets uninstalled, and I get some strange glitches with my graphics (using a Radeon X800 GTO).

I have no problems with any of that with XP. Most games will continue to support XP for a long while and DX9 cards will do the trick for some time as well.

Once the manufacturers do release decent drivers and Vista becomes more mainstream, I'll be sure to pick it up. But right now, Vista doesn't do anything in terms of improving my computer experience over XP.

So I wait.

epobirs @ Nov 9th 2006 1:34PM

Wedge, Vista Server will be the next generation of NT derived servers. There has been a major overhaul but the code base heritage is plainly there.

Nor would I count out the existence of Vista only games. It depends what the game is trying to accomplish and its intended audience. If the developer is looking to produce a unparalleled showpiece that appeals the people who have to have the best of everything for bragging rights, that can work out quite well financially. They will be a subset of the market but the attach rate within the subset would run quite high if the game is one of the better ways available to show off the new rig.

CD-ROM drives in PCs were still considered an expensive optional item when Myst appeared. Myst offered an easy way for people to show off what their machine could do and drove CD-ROM upgrade sales. Before long many companies were bundling Myst with their upgrade kits. Was Myst a good game? I hated it. Without the graphics that needed a CD-ROM drive to load the game would never have succeeded on its other dubious merits. I think Douglas Adams had it right when he called Myst 'a beautiful void.'

Another example was 'Defender of the Crown' on the Amiga. It wasn't so much a game as a great demo of the platform. The gameplay was an utter train wreck. Later versions, such the C64 release, had solid gameplay, but the Amiga version was practically a series of random events. But for 1986 it looked amazing and thus became the #2 bestselling Amiga software product for over a year, with Deluxe Paint as #1 and tied with the only decent word processor then on the Amiga.

ill trooper @ Nov 9th 2006 1:32PM

I'M IN UR OS, OUTDATING ALL UR HARDWARE

Anonymouse Rep @ Nov 9th 2006 1:33PM

Hey, guys - since this is something I'm supposed to know something about...

Corporations get a version that is not designed for home use on the 30th. So no bringing it home with you unless you've got a mainframe in your basement - which I'm sure someone out there does. (Think LARGE corporations - someone running 100 or more PC's that are all networked.)

Launch events in January start on the 16th - we're not sure if it releases that day as well, or as the article said on the 30th. Office 2007 is supposed to also release at the same time.

Vista has, basically, four (or eight) different configurations available for the retail consumer. Each of the four versions has both a 32 and 64 bit capability, thus the eight total versions.

Vista Home Basic is just that - a basic OS. Honestly, if you're running XP SP2 right now and you do NOT have TV tuner card or media center capability and you don't have a 128 MB graphics card - just keep XP SP2 and wait until you buy a new computer to upgrade. Consider this to be what you'll see on the cheap e-machines and lower end equipment that comes out.

Vista Home Premium is the primary product for most users. It does require a 128 MB graphics card (obviously 256 MB is better) and 1 GB of RAM - but it gives you a lot more usability and the elegant experience with the OS that Microsoft is trying to give the consumer.

Vista Business is the version for laptops and small businesses with slightly larger than home networks, but not in the big office range. Probably handles up to 10 or so on the network without any issues, maybe more. (I'm not totally up to date on the specs right now.) However, it does NOT have some of the media capabilities that Vista Home Premium does.

Vista Ultimate combines the best of Vista Home Premium and Vista Business - great networking, great media capabilities, and is the version for hard core and medium core gamers. If all you play is Solitaire, you don't need this version. If you want to play Crysis and you've got the video card (256MB), then this is the version you want.

The nice thing about Vista is that it works. Now - whether your specific hardware has drivers for it is another matter. There is, however, already hardware hitting the shelves that has Vista Ready stickers on it, which means that it's been tested with and works with Vista. There's also Works with Vista stickers out there, which means that it works, but it's not guaranteed to work all the time. (These are on video cards, keyboards, cameras - all the accessories for you computer.)

Anyway, I hope this helped.

rightonbud @ Nov 9th 2006 1:40PM

I love how the majority of people who complain so much about microsoft are probably running a microsoft OS. If you don't like how they do things create your own OS and let me know how that works out for you.

Vista is a pretty good operating system so far, companies just need to start develop compatible programs/drivers.

epobirs @ Nov 9th 2006 1:59PM

#10

The same can be said for every OS ever shipped. Whether they attract the same 'support' from those inclined to produce malware is another issue. anyone who thinks any new OS is shipping without a single security issue waiting to be discovered is hopelessly naive.

#20

Steve, you seem to have little grasp of history or recall of events just a bit over a decade past.

Win95 was a huge seller because it delivered a huge improvement in functionality. Was it stable as we would have liked? No, but then the MAcs I worked with back then crashed regularly as well. At least Win95 didn't need the user to tell it how to allocate memory for apps. I wouldn't want to use Win95 today but to claim it didn't have huge positive benefits at the time is to utterly ignore the realities of the era.

NT was starting as an entirely new code base at the core by a separate group within Microsoft after Windows was already in use as GUI shell for DOS. It takes quite a long time to bring a new OS to a really useful state and there were customers to serve in the meantime. That there were two separate development channels was unavoidable if there was to be a mature product to transition the to down the road.

Sure it would be nice if they were faster in development but real life doesn't work that way. Windows 2000 was intended to have a consumer version but the work was taking too long and PC makers were demanding an update to Win98SE to cover newer hardware and deliver some promised features. Thus the disaster of WinME. Fortunately that version had a very short market window.

#25

No, Microsoft only did away with the NT name in windows 2000. The code base is a direct outgrowth of NT 4 and internally 2K and XP refer to themselves as NT 5 and later.

For a desktop user, Win2K and later added a huge amount of stability to what cosmetically looked like what they'd already been using. But to a server admin, the facilities in Win2K were direct upgrade tot he NT4 functionality with a lot of new additions such as Active Directory and a much great focus on IP over homegrown protocols.

#26

Don't be silly. I've done hundreds of installs of XP and have never had a single infection. It's called a router and they sell for as little as $10. Anyone unnecessarily exposing a system of any OS directly to the outside world is asking for trouble.

crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 1:58PM

"I love how the majority of people who complain so much about microsoft are probably running a microsoft OS. If you don't like how they do things create your own OS and let me know how that works out for you"

You're just dumb as hell, aren't you? There are 3 major options for OS's. Windows (or its derivatives), OSX (if you have apple), or linux (if you're a programming genius).

Guess which one has all the programs made for it? How many linux applications do you find on the shelf at bestbuy? How many OSX apps are there on the shelf at best buy?

Its only the illusion of a choice. If you want ANY of the software produced anymore, it has to be on Windows. There is no choice.

Robotic House Plant @ Nov 9th 2006 2:03PM

Windows Vista is the replacement for Windows XP.

Windows Server "Longhorn" is the codename for the next server operating system, which will likely be called Windows Server 2007 or 2008, depending on when it is released. The release of the desktop and server operating systems will occur indepedantly. Vista will come out early 2007, while the server operating system will appear mid to late 2007.

The progression is as follows:

Server: NT 3.5x -> NT 4.0 -> Server 2000 -> Server 2003 -> Server 2007/8

Desktop: Windows 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista

We've been testing Vista for several months now, and the most recent build is quite nice, but completely different from XP. I'm not sure we'll upgrade anytime soon. Our policy is to never adopt a new operating system until at least 1 or 2 service packs exist.

Robotic House Plant @ Nov 9th 2006 2:07PM

Opps, I forgot the desktop versions of NT 3.5x and 4.0 in between the 95/98 timeframe and 2000.

I guess I blocked that experience out of my mind.

ill trooper @ Nov 9th 2006 2:09PM

"If you don't like how they do things create your own OS and let me know how that works out for you."

WORST INTERNET ARGUMENT EVER.

I swear, whenever I see someone write that it's like they're throwing up a big white flag saying "I expect nothing more, I'll take whatever you give me."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am a consumer, NOT a company.

I don't need to make an OS, I hope and expect a product to deliver what it claims. If it doesn't, or can't, I look for alternatives or hope my complaints fall on open ears. BUT 'make my own' is not an option guy, it's not Gilligan's Island where I have a bamboo computer I built myself. We as consumers need to work and create, and it's OK for consumers to want more.

But if you want to sit back and just accept things for how they are, enjoy that mediocre movie, meal, or automobile - or maybe you 'make your own,' since you've left no room for anything to be considered 'imperfect' in your argument.

And I use OSX by the way. You know, "Yesterday's Vista™."

Brian Sexton @ Nov 9th 2006 2:18PM

At my former place of employment (primarily a Web design and development company with print design and some specialized application development services), one of the partners still had Windows 2000 on one of his workstations and their file server may or may not also have been running an old version of Windows as of just over months ago when I left; I think all of the other Windows workstations in the office were running Windows XP. Some companies, such as that one, mostly keep using what operating systems they have in place and migrate to newer ones as they upgrade their computers.

I tried some of the test releases of Windows Vista and overall, it looks like a good, usable operating system with some nice features--such as its Mac OS X Spotlight-like search capabilities--and now that Microsoft has eased up on the enthusiast- and gamer-unfriendly licensing terms, I definitely intend to either upgrade or buy a full copy of Vista (in case I need to keep XP around for certain applications). Before that, though, I need to decide what to do about my existing hardware: it looks as though there may never be a Vista-compatible driver for my trusty old Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer, so I may need to either downgrade to my mainboard's built-in sound system or wait until I can afford a new sound card.

Brian Sexton @ Nov 9th 2006 2:21PM

Oops; "just over months ago" should have been "just over two months ago".

epobirs @ Nov 9th 2006 2:27PM

There is two big reasons why the big business customers get Vista a little sooner.

First, many of them are Software Assurance customers and get EVERYTHING that comes out of Microsoft. (Many also have MSDN subscription if any serious development happens inhouse.) It is to Microsoft's advantage to give the opportunity to try stuff out and see if they may want to implement it within their operation. Sending out a pile of CDs to these customers is a minor cost compared to the revenue potential.

Many corporate users do have Vista plans in the works but on their schedules this means late 2007 or into 2008 for these 'early adopters.' If things are done properly, there is a great deal of testing to be done, especially if there are any custom applications used that have no outside publisher that can be expected to determine their compatibility. There are still a huge number of 16-bit Visual Basic apps out there that are regarded as mission critical by their users and Vista does not support Win16 code. Just like the Y2K scare, this creates a great way for IT departments to demand tht this creaky old code finally be replaced. Lest the sky fall.

And as for the cost, it isn't an issue if there is believed to be benefits in ease of use that reduces the load on the IT staff longterm. (Short term, training load is inevitable but many companies don't seem familiar with the concept of training anymore.) By the time a typical big IT operation is ready for deployment to general users, the common integrated chipset used in new corporate desktops will have all of the DX9 throughput needed for running the full mondo deluxe modes and for a price measured in pocket change per desktop. The product roadmaps are there for anyone who cares to look.

So, once testing is completed, assuming the IT department is allowed the time to do it (and so many aren't) the real question is when the next major desktop refresh is scheduled. A Software Assurance customer will be paying the same to use Vista as to stay with XP, so if the machines are capable and it pleases the users, why not?

The really early corporate adopters will be in a special category. These are the pseudo-power users. This is usually a VP or some other person who make life hell for the IT staff. This guy, regardless of his ability or inclination to use it, always has to have better stuff than is issued tot he rank and file. If the stand company laptop has a 40GB, he has to have 60GB and a DVD burner. This guy will demand a full featured Vista setup long in advance of when the company is prepared to deploy them as standard.

The pseudo-power user has a counterpart who is terrified of change due to a severe lack of adaptability. This guy wants to stay on his old setup years after everyone else has upgraded. If the company is on XP, he wants to stay with NT4 running Office 2000. If he looks at anything else the text may as well be in a dead language unspoken in centuries. This guy is often as big a problem as the pseudo-power user because eventually there will be software deployed that cannot run on the old machine.