91热爆

That's not a demonstration of Windows 7, it's a demonstration of multi-touch.

I would hesitate to call Vista a failure. A lot has been made of a perceived poor uptake by businesses but it's worth pointing out that in early 2005 - four years or so into XP's lifecycle - only 40% of companies were running it, the majority of the rest were using 98, 2000 or NT. In it's first year XP was only installed on 10%.

Personally I think the hype around Vista has created a perception that isn't supported by reality - it is selling well both to individuals and customers and it's actually a pretty good OS. Businesses won't move to Vista until there's a compelling reason to do so, which was the same for XP.

Perhaps Vista can be considered a victim of XP's success rather than a failure in its own right?

Until such time as Microsoft manages to provide service packs that do not mess up perfectly normal systems (internet forums agree) and help centres that respond to people in an efficient and timely manner (respond to request to give the same information three ways and that counts as them replying within 24 hours!), no-one with a working system should even think of upgrading.

Yawn, I've had Multi-touch on my iPhone for 12 months now, Jeff Han and the guys at Perceptive Pixel have been doing the kind of work M$ are touting as "new" for years now (I also believe Mr Han worked with Apple to develop the multi touch interface in the iPhone/iPod touch).

How many times will Microsoft say "our next version will be better, trust us!" before people realise they simply cannot innovate.

Multi touch is already being done by many different companies. This is yet another "me too" product from the champions of mediocrity.

Wake me up on June 9th, Moscone Center, San Francisco. You'll see some innovation then.

www.perceptivepixel.com

@ Darren Waters,

I'll just quote what I wrote in my original post:

"(I also believe Mr Han worked with Apple to develop the multi touch interface in the iPhone/iPod touch)" Nothing wrong with a business employing the services of others, as long as they acknowledge it. Microsoft behave as if they invent everything they release, and we all know that is simply not true. Apple also bought a small company that created 'CoverFlow', and integrated it into iTunes and then Leopard. Is that also a bad move?

And what exactly is wrong with "off the shelf hardware allied to good software design"? If Microsoft could even do that it'd be a start! Instead of copying everything Apple do!

Bigger isn't always better Darren, McDonalds are the biggest restaurant chain in the world, but their food isn't exactly gourmet now, is it.

multitouch....


where have I seen that before?

@twelveightyone

I think you'd do well to look into the development of multitouch as the technology has been around since 1982.

If you did you'd also be aware that MS have been working on multitouch technology since 2001 and seriously since 2004.

Apple do innovate but it's a mistake to believe everything they do is innovative.

Windows 7 will clearly need to be allied to a new hardware purchase with an appropriately compatible touchscreen. Vista will get a longer life if Windows 7 compatible hardware makes it to market ahead of its eventual release though the same issues that dogged some hardware badged as 'Vista compatible' will also apply.If W7 is to be allied to very specific hardware (akin to the poorly implemented tablet PC) then that has other issues. Interface niceties aside, for the corporate market Msoft still need to assure users (and admins) that replacing or upgrading their XP desktops with Vista will not give these users (and admins) more headaches than benefits.

aside from the apple vs microsoft debate about innovation, its important to look at HOW each company boasts innovation.

Under OS X, users can do most of the things they need in day to day life by buying the software from apple, and basic tasks are easily performed either under Finder (the apple equivalent of explorer.exe) or iPhoto, iWeb (the list is endless) etc.

Apples idea of innovation is to expand the uses of Finder and improve its handling of other applications and whatnot, whereas the wonders at M$ seem obsessed with keeping the uses of explorer.exe minimal, favouring adding different processes instead. The facts dont lie - to search on a mac the only process you need is Finder. (granted its much bigger than explorer.exe), how many processes did XP need? 29. Combined with that - theres the XP vs Vista debate. I think that the m$ update was the inverse of the apple update - in that visually tiger and leopard hardly differ (why change what worked so well, right?) Fabulous, but behind the scenes not only is leopard now more power efficient, comprehensive and altogether much easier to use and amend, its not like learning to use a whole new Operating System - its what an update should be, similar to use but better at being used.

Now to M$ - XP and Vista work in similar ways, having used both for considerable time i found it problematic that Vista could not address the flaws XP brought up. When a program crashes, there is little that can be done to fix without seeking the help of task manager, and underlying the processes XP and Vista appear (to me) to be similar in the way they process. However visually, you cannot compare the two; vista is much more aesthetically (sp?) pleasing.

ANYWAY - W7. @the video - its all very well being able to do that through the touch screen with the photos, but whats the point? What can you do after youve seen the photos get bigger/smaller, twirled? Obviously its a WIP - but M$ just seems to be showing what you could do for fun; and isnt M$ supposed to be for DOING THINGS, and getting them DONE, as opposed to the perception of apples nancy fancy way of having fun?

The only genuine reason to buy Vista is if you game on your PC and need DX10.


Now they've decided to keep WinXP updates rolling till 2010 (due to the threat of now very user friendly Linux distros like Ubuntu - much like they did with Win98 because of Linux) there really is very, very little reason to buy Vista.


Of course knowing MS Windows 7 might not see the light of day till 2013, but given MS's track record you'll probably find Windows 7 is just Win Vista with a new desktop theme and "multitouch" added for a cost of 拢200.

balls to W7, OS X 10.6. By the time either are properly made, google will probably have their own internet OS or Y! OS?

If not, lets prey some billionaire buys linux universally, and spreads the seeds of open source software and OS throughout the world.

@ Mark_MWFC,

I guess I'll have to quote my original post again:

"Multi touch is already being done by many different companies. This is yet another "me too" product from the champions of mediocrity."

I am fully aware of ALL the companies developing touch technology. 'Multi-touch' is actually an Apple patent (see for details - Patent No. 20070257890). I have not mentioned once that Apple are the only company developing touch technology.

I disagree with the 91热爆 covering Microsoft's announcement as 'groundbreaking' and not having a bad word to say about M$ (they didn't mention the grilling Ballmer and Gates got from Walt Mossberg at the All Things D conference). There is also no mention of any other competitors products, something they nearly always do when they review products that are not produced by M$ ("product x is good, but it's not as good as y, made by M$").

Microsoft have been working on 'Surface' since 2001, which is massively different (in more ways than one). It uses rear projection camera to detect input, which is why you can only fit it into a gigantic table that cannot be very comfortable for extended use.

Regarding the video of Windows 7 - wow, there's quite a considerable delay in touch before anything happens on the screen.

@twelveightyone

Look, I don't want to get in a running argument here, it's just your assertion that MS are being "me too" is totally wrong as they've been working on multitouch since 2001 and researching it since the 1980's.

Apple's patent that you refer to is for a multitouch controller, it is NOT for multitouch technology as a whole.

The patent abstract reads:

"A multipoint touch surface controller is disclosed herein. The controller includes an integrated circuit including output circuitry for driving a capacitive multi-touch sensor and input circuitry for reading the sensor."

It's important you don't confuse the two because it leads to the kind of errors you make in your post.

Apologies, Darren. You're right - this argument is pointless.

@Mark_MWFC,

I never once entered into an argument with you Mark_MWFC, I was getting my point across, something a forum is designed for. You think I'm wrong? Feel free to dissect my points then...

Microsoft may have been "working" on touch technology since 1980s (I wouldn't know, you haven't provided any evidence of this, but I'll assume you are correct for the sake of debate) but, as the saying goes "it's the software, stupid". As we both know, software isn't Microsoft's strong point. So they've (allegedly) been working on this, but we haven't seen any implementation of any description until now, and it looks suspiciously similar to Apple's successful implementation (pinch to zoom etc.).

If you could provide me with any links to Microsoft touch technology from the 1980s, I'd be most grateful.

Also, I mention the patent because my point is this - 'Multi-touch' (Apple's patented technology) is the breakthrough technology that allows them to put it in devices as small as the iPhone. The patent clearly describes the technology that is OUT RIGHT NOW (not out in 2010 or whenever) and it is not possible to put the touch technology Microsoft are touting into hand held devices, because of the way the hardware works (rear projection, cameras, in a phone? I don't think so). Apple's technology uses the electrical charge in your fingers, so it allows for small, precise, low power devices using Multi-touch.

The 91热爆 article reads "Microsoft's next operating system (OS) will come with multi-touch features as an alternative to the mouse."

So, have Microsoft licenced Multi-touch from Apple? Or are they simply using touch technology?

Finally Mark_MWFC, it's important you don't confuse the two because it leads to the kind of errors you make in your post.

Regards,

1281

Firstly, the fact that zjayzjay thinks Yahoo will be able to create an entire operating system is laughable because they can hardly string a portal together.

Multi-touch is hardly anything new, M$ once again touting as the 'next big thing from redmond', something new please.

@Benjamin; whos to say that Y! will need to dedicate their collective might to coming second in search when they are all but acknowledged as surpassing both microsoft and other competitors' portal; can you get such continuity from live that you benefit from with mY!? (my-yahoo).
No.
In terms of web hits (not searches!!) yahoo has been #1 since googles birth. Yes, granted google is more profitable, does more searches and serves more ads on more websites to more people, however in terms of people visiting the actual site, yahoo has a 1% advantage in terms of traffic and reach. (alexa.com).
Also, combined with the fact that y! and google offer their own slightly modified versions of browsers (firefox, IE) it is hardly a step further to consider that either of them could buy up smaller companies providing them - opera, camino, dare it be mentioned - NETSCAPE?!
Either way, y! should not be ruled out as a vital player in the inception of online OS - unlike google they dont have to worry about the feat of continuing to dominate search: people know they will never beat google realistically, so they have the freedom to devote their time and efforts to other projects, such as, online OS.

Anyway, in terms of multi touch, isnt the apple patent only relating to smaller devices - iPhone and iPod?
Hands up for all those who think apple will create a carbon copy of m$7? Nope, didnt think so.
Hands up those who think OSX 10.6 will be here for cheaper, be here first, and be more 'revolutionary' than yet another rebranding of XP?
Thank you, and adieu.

I really HATE Vista. When I bought a new laptop I wanted XP again. and was told Vista was pre installed in all laptops sold by the major suppliers and that I had no choice. It has problems with peripheries,it is irritating to use,menus are all over the place,its full of silly gadgets like the sidebar and is not logical[try moving a file!]It was obviously designed by nerds to impress other nerds,not for a custom base used to XP. Businesses have trained staff on XP so why should they retrain for Vista with its dubious benefits?

The reaction against Vista was demonstrated when,last Autumn,The Dutch Consumer Organisation panned Microsoft for ignoring complaints about Vista and demanded they install XP in recently bought PC's instead.

An online campaign and petition has started to save XP and there are demands that the support for it be extended. A few weeks back, Dell announced that they will continue selling business computers with XP as long as possible...[Microsoft caved in as long as they load the unwanted Vista at the same time!]

Nearly everyone I know who uses it hates Vista...sales of Macs have increased enormously and people are getting very interested in alternative Operating Systems like Linux.

A great success for Microsoft?Yep because they forced people to buy an inferior product. They should admit it has been a great failure and at least offer free XP downloads to dissatisfied Vista customers.

It looks cute, but is probably of little value for business use. There is a lack of precision to the control, solved probably by using stylii. There could be a whole heap of issues around repetitive strain injuries and correct posture too.

What businesses tend to care about is what goes on underneath the user interface. Ability to seamlessly network with Unix equipment for example, is not something the average user cares about but would be very important to many businesses (I don't know if this is any better in Win7 by the way, just an example).

I agree with another poster about Vista not doing the simplest of things very well, he/she mentions moving files. A good example: The time remaining calculator is all but useless with large files, and used to work fine on WinXP. There are other examples.

I am probably not alone in now limping on an ancient desktop PC because I can't have by business crippled by my applications not running under Vista, and can't readily buy / build a new PC running XP (and if I did so, I would only be delaying the pain for later).

In my office today the first trial users were upgraded to XP from Windows 2000. New systems are only worthwhile if they give the users an advantage and the various Windows updates really only give marginal advantages.

Yet again, another product idea that Microsoft has decided to recycle, repolish, and call their own.

However, a release of 2010 intrigues. I mean, let's face it, with MS's track record, we'll be lucky to see it before 2012.

Another thing to point out, if they are so hell bent on getting Windows 7 out, then what was the point in releasing Vista on such a global basis? They knew that people buying a new computer and regular users were going to upgrade, but now they are going to have to change the whole thing yet again. Getting a tad bit annoying, don't you think?

Not to defend MS because Vista is IMO a step back from XP but to call Apple innovators is laughable. Apple take other people's ideas and wrap them in creative marketing, make it inaccessable and then sell it to a cultish user base.

I love how all discussion of Microsoft comes down to a bitchfest between Mac and PC users. The better comparison would be Mac v Scientology.

One would have thought the lack of take-up of origami/UMPC and tablets over standard laptops would have indicated to MS that the market just isn't ready. are we all about to switch to touch sensitive screens ditching our current monitor? only if price drops dramatically. One of my laptops is 7 years old and runs win98 but on a day to day basis of word/ppt/web it does a fine job.

I probably would change but no doubt the premium that shall be charged for this software + screen + graphics driver + CPU will be considerably more than the current OTS 拢300 which has seen the growth of home pc market. but then maybe moore's law will prove me wrong again.

I fail to see how this is innovation or where I would desperately want/need such an innovation. This seems to me like just another 'Wow' (I have been distinctly unimpressed by the wow of Vista I have to say) feature which probably doesn't have much practical use and coming from Microsoft is sure to eat up system resources for dinner, this isn't a problem for me because I tend to have PCs which are more than sufficient for the job but many many people don't because of Microsoft's userbase. It is something of a paradox that Microsoft's userbase is the least hardware-demanding and yet have the most hardware-taxing OS. I think Microsoft should concentrate on getting the basics right first before such useless wowing (which in any case is vastly inferior to Compiz-Fusion and Beryl which are actually useful as well as stunning eyecandy). I've had many problems with Vista and a lot of them are unresolved. The stability of Windows Explorer is still very poor and crashes while performing basic operations and goes berserk when you run the 'wrong' program such as Ares. I don't like UAC and tend to use the 'super-administrator' account for doing admin. It's tried to copy the limited root access that GNU/Linux has but it's failed completely. The drivers aren't mature enough yet (some of which is Microsoft's fault because they have limited kernel access and this includes anti-virus and firewall manufacturers who have been slow to introduce Vista-compatible anti-virii and firewalls due to this). Accessing documents on another partition is a pain in the arse and you cannot have dual access to 'private' documents in an XP partition. I understand the security aspect of it and I appreciate but surely there should be some way to prove you're the owner of the XP account whose documents you are trying to access, for instance, by entering the password of that XP account whilst in Vista? Basically they've got a few problems to solve in Vista, they're getting there but for now XP is better if you want to use Windoze. The only reason why I keep it installed is because I use the Media Centre and I don't have XP MCE and I haven't given Linux MCE a try yet. Once they have Vista sorted out, by all means, spend another five/six years and ten billion dollars developing an OS whilst the rest of the computing world continues to surpass them, but until then, they should realise they have a userbase who just want a reasonable quick, reasonably simple, secure and reliable OS that works for basic needs and that 'wow'ing should be quite far down the list of priorities because they aren't even very good at it.

I work for a world wide communications company and we are using Windows 2000, apparently later in the year we are going over to..... XP!

whereas the wonders at M$ seem obsessed with keeping the uses of explorer.exe minimal

-----------

Very unfair that.

Consider that last time they tried to expand the use of explorer they were charged by the EU (the IE case). Is it any wonder that they go down the route of seprate processes if they will be fined for bundling next time as well?

As for touchscreen> Your right, it might not be massively innovative but so what? MS are right to include functions like this as some people want them, those who dont dont have to use them, you wont HAVE to have compatible hardware to use Windows 7. And ALL companies will paitn this as their innovation, MS and Apple included.

I think that it's time that there is some innovation in input because we've seen so much software innovation in the past few years.

Microsoft are going to have to be patient on the uptake of Windows 7 however as it will definitely not be taken up as quickly due to the learning curve and hardware demand.

To be honest I'm surprised that it's Microsoft doing this first and not Apple. I think the business model Apple has could pull this sort of this off better than Microsoft, for example the fact that Apple control the hardware and software in their machines.

It'd definitely be more of a home device than an office device there's just no room in an Office for a piece of software that could probably get a little bit irritating after a while.

Their best bet is to probably do two versions of Windows 7, one based at industry that can perform solidly for business, one for home use that is a little bit more fun and maybe one "ultimate" version that gives you the best of both.

As for the ongoing argument about who invented touch I don't really think that it's that much of an issue. Richard Branson didn't invent the aeroplane, Bill Gates didn't invent the computer, it's just the way that they implemented them that made the product/technology a success.

I'm a software developer. I write applications using the .Net platform which is a MS technology.

MS are very innovative in the area of development. The web based development langauges available on Macs are not an Apple innovation.

As most of my programs are web-based, I need to move with the times. Eventually, programmers like me will need to move to IIS7. Vista Business runs IIS7, so it's ideal for me.

To use any other web-based language (ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion etc etc) would be a real step backwards. Nothing comes close.

I spoke to a Mac fanatic who told me he was running a .Net development environment (Visual Studio) on a Mac that was running Windows.

He failed to see that what he had achieved was completely pointless, and in fact what he had was a very expensive PC!

I've got Vista Business running on a 3.0GH Duo Core, on a RAID0 (2xWD Raptor Hard Drives). It's amazingly fast and reliable.

I work with the second-user market, where Windows 98 and Office 97 are perfectly adequate for most of our users. Everytime there is some new OS launch we get a surge in donations of unfashionable but fully serviceable hardware. However, we probably won't be distributing any XP systems (due to product activation problems) but will reload them with Ubuntu instead.

@DotNetDeveloper

I too am a software developer and was at the MSDN roadshow a few weeks back. ASP is currently the only technology that Microsoft have that provides a true web experience. There is Silverlight which is coming along leaps and bounds with version 2, which WILL support C# and VB in the browser - cross platform.

I disagree that IIS is such a great server product. I was working with the police a few weeks ago and they specifically refuse to use Windows or IIS in any of their servers because it's just not stable enough.

Microsoft hit a gold mine with the PC, but when it comes to servers, they're still far outmatched by the likes of Solaris and RedHat, which most web servers run on.

Why bother with a 32 bit OS such as Vista why not wait for Vista 64bit in the meantime?

XP 32 bit working perfectly for me here. As my main work machine machine is not connected to the net I'm happy to use it until it doesn't work. For a start my music software would need to be upgraded if I did go for Vista as well as my machine to run it alone.
If I had to upgrade I would get another Mac such as the Mac Mini or iMac. Then I could run windows and Linux on it as well as OsX.

Does anyone really want to touch their laptop screen? The touchscreen on my iPhone is great, but only because it's small and using a thumb stick or tiny buttons on a phone doesn't work well because of its size limitations; it's impracticle to carry around a full sized keyboard and mouse along with your phone!

Personally, I have no desire to reach for the screen of my desktop PC (running XP) as I type this. That's not to say it won't have its applications, but I'm happy with a mouse and keyboard.

This is technology for technology's sake. It's correcting a problem that doesn't exist. A pure gimmick to distract from the failings of Vista, and a weak attempt by MS to show that they are still "with it".

(I also can't help but notice that when he's dragging the photo, it doesn't stay 'glued' to his finger - seems like it doesn't even work yet!)

I for one can't understand why you'd want a touch screen on anything you'd like to see anything in detail.

Maybe I have greasier fingers than most though. The thought of watching a video on an iPhone or photos on Windows Touch with my grubby fingerprints smeared all over them is not something I yearn for.

If Windows 7 creates as much confusion as Vista in so far as the user interface is concerned, then I don't think we need to worry.
Perhaps Microsoft should just wait for Apple to introduce some more innovative features in their next OS release and copy that. They should try and make a better job of copying than they did with Vista.

Does Microsoft do customer research? Would anyone ever use a touch screen computer apart from the novelty value? ok so they have their uses in kiosks but they have specialist software and hardware for the job. I wouldn't want to stare at a screen that has finger prints and blotches all over it from it getting poked all the time. Another idea M$ have copied and tried to adapt for an consumer that doesn't exist.

> Does Microsoft do customer research?

> rich86

you bet they do. they spend more on customer resear than most companies entire turnover!

Great, a way to zoom into a map using two hands... I'd rather just spin the mouse wheel for the same effect ;o)
Good design is great, gimmicks are a waste.

Ha Ha.. Buy a real computer. get a Mac.

@mollyringworm

Sometimes it's best to type nothing and to be thought an idiot than to type something and confirm it.

The truth of the matter is that Microsoft needs Apple, and Apple needs Microsoft.

I firmly believe that without such competition, innovation would become totally stifled. In the same way that competition between individuals is the primary force of evolutionary change, so it is that new concepts from one company will act as the spur to goad its competitors on to similar advancements.

A world without Apple may have all its users stuck using MS DOS, happily typing away their line commands to open files; but conversely, a world without Microsoft would probably see Mac users stuck with OS 6, clicking away on their single-button mice.

I work in the Research department of a major oil company; here, we are encouraged to think creatively and to take risks with our ideas. Some work, but many do not. After all, if we knew exactly where we were heading, it wouldn't really be research!

I haven't yet used Vista (we haven't installed it at work yet), but at home I use Leopard on my Macs, and run XP with Parallels. As long as we don't degenerate into the Bloatware approach to software upgrades, I applaud the efforts made by all companies to continue to evolve their products...at the end of the day, everyone wins, be they Mac, Windows, or Linux users.

Have you ever tried holding your hands out in front of you unsupported for any appreciable length of time? I think in some places it is used as a method of torture.

Windows 7 will be a failure just like Vista, but this time for different reasons:

Windows 7 with multi-touch - 拢300
Windows 7 capable PC - 拢850
PC Desk with horizontal monitor bed - 拢450
Touch Screen monitor at 1080p - 拢800

Yeah, well done Microsoft. Not only are you releasing a techonolgy now nearly 3 decades old, but most people will never get to use it properly!

Let'shope microsoft go bust sometime soon, Credit Crunch... do your magic!

The cost of upgrading operating systems for small to medium sized businesses is huge. In addition to the financial cost of paying even more in license fees to Microsoft, there is a far more fearsome cost associated with upgrading, namely learning a new system ... again. It's frustrating to business users everywhere to almost know where things are and to almost know what to do! Remember, for business users, the computer is but a productivity tool.

Consequently, my business has switched to MAC. We have left all this Microsoft nonsense behind. Oh, and if we do need a Windows environment, (very rare) we can still run it on our MACs. And we use XP, not Vista!

Good luck

Corporate IT departments wait years to upgrade software regardless of how good the new version is. For example, my university only upgraded its computer clusters to Windows XP (from Windows 2000) in 2006. Vista could be the Second Coming and corporate customers still wouldn't buy it this early.

Vista is appalling. It has some really nice features, but is incredibly annoying to use for the most part and hogs the power of the comuter and Windows 7 looks to be more of the same. I like to see how microsoft have managed to progress by requiring two hands be used to resize a picsture rather than 1 with a mouse. 2 MUST be better than 1 right? Also quite funny how all the windows were at odd angles as the user seemed unable to get them straight, which 99% of the time is how you would want them. Most of the features hog memory and the CPU and cannot be turned off. As soon as games run on Linux/Ubunto, im off!

Wait till a fly lands on your screen and hits the delete button. Don't believe it? I have hours of fun watching them wreak havoc on my brothers touchscreen computer.

I am an IT manager for a firm using 100 desktop windows PCs. I simply don't have the budget to upgrade to Vista or 7 from XP, so as PC's get replaced we will switch to the latest version of Windows.

However, recent PC's I've bought have always been XP if offered the choice, and so far have not got any Vista machines in.

Generally speaking there is nothing Client side that would sway a specific purchase of new licenses for non-XP windows versions...it took a good few years to get to 100% XP OS throughout our organisation.