They are just moving to Apples model of releasing service packs as full blown upgrades. I don't think anyone can say the evolution from mac OS X 10 to 10.5 has been something other that service packs with 1 or 2 new features. BTW apple gets $120 every time they do this.

Once again, consumers are getting jerked around by monopoly!

Release a service pack for a crappy product and make the consumer pay for it again! Brilliant! The saddest part is that consumers just keep accepting it like a bunch of brainless lemmings.

Meanwhile, life is pretty good in Linux land. True, my friend the Windows fan, Linux isn't perfect. But I run my crap for free while you have to keep paying for yours.

It looks indeed that Windows 7 is more of a Vista 2 or SE. If Microsoft really makes 7 better then I don't mind moving to Windows 7. But for those who already paid for Vista, Windows 7 should be a free upgrade/patch/SP2.

just wonder.
life is pretty good in Linux ? or are you just constantly patching?
I mean how many red hat linux version there are?
like every few months there is a .1 .2 .3 .4 etc etc
And then countless patches all over the place?
And where is the automatic patching? oh ...you have to download it and read the read me file oh how to install it?
And how many time you have to "compile kernal" during the upgrade? And all the text config file you have to change or patch just to make one driver work?
Life is pretty hellish in Unix/Linux Land.
It's not for a average joe.

Windows 7 has more than what a service pack offers hence why they are marketing it as major release and not a minor one. I am sure Enlighten can tell you all the goodies since I only know a some of the things about it. It has lots of changes compared to Vista.

Some of the things for Windows 7 (some notes from Enlighten also)

-parallelism improvements
-less bloat
-15 second boot time
-threading improvements
-DirectX 11 (also for Vista)
-Major improvements to speech and hand writing recognition
-ability to make virtual hard disks
-no CPU utilization spikes
-I/O, Task and CPU priority revamped
-.NET 4
-improved task bar and start menu
-improved search performance

I know there is a lot more to Windows 7 and I can't wait to try the beta.

The precedent is ample, not just from Apple, but from MS themselves. It's just the same thing as Win95->Win98.

At the end of the day, the pc is a very mature platform and barring parallelism really opening doors up for us, there's not a compelling story to upgrade anymore for Joe the Plumber. (had to throw a US Election reference in there ;))

In reply to Action Jackson statement about upgrades in Mac OS X, he obviously never used it or he'd never parrot something so blatantly false.

It is true that the version 10.1 upgrade was more of a service pack, and Apple did offer that for free, but the kind of changes in new versions of OS X (like Time Machine, desktop spaces, spotlight, etc., or for the next version Snow Leopard where the under the hood changes are going to be enormous) are similar to the changes in new versions of Windows.

And Mac OS X also gets free "service pack" updates. Like version 10.5.4 to 10.5.5. Where there are new some minor new features and a bunch of stability improvements. Just like with a Windows service pack. Except Mac OS X gets about 5x as many service packs as Windows, all with new features and stuff like that, and without making users wait a year or two before fixing problems.

The reason MS takes longer to release fixes for things is that they have to make sure it doesn't cause more problems for the thousands of different configurations out their compared to the maybe hundred or so configurations of a mac. That is also why mac will never be as big as windows. Only Linux could be as big as windows but that will take decades to do and that MS wouldn't let that happen easily.

I've been following the tidbits of info of Windows 7 closely and this article makes completely the wrong point.

Yes Win7 will be based off of Vista, this is a very good thing. At its core Vista is secure and rock solid. However if you look at Windows history XP was based off of Windows 2000. The Win2k was kernel version 5.0 and XP was kernel version 5.1. So basically XP was a face lift for Win2k.

Vista kernel is 6.0 and Win7 kernel will be 6.1. Win7 will contain a lot of Vistas foundation but everything else will be completely overhauled. Win7 will be more different from Vista than XP was from Win2k.

This is typical Microsoft... this isn't Microsoft adapting to the 'Mac model.'

Huh? Once a week or so I start Synaptic and reload the repos just to see if any of my 100's of great free applications have been upgraded for me. If there are any they just get installed..

upgrade, schmupgrade. for all the feisty whiners and complainers: just live with what you got. I upgrade when they come up. No big deal. It works. Everything gets better. I'm a mac and a pc. There are things macs do well and others win pc does well. My could care less when an upgrade comes about...i just upgrade when it's time.

shheeesh...

i have to disagree with you Patrick. linux is a fine OS and all but the learning curve is very steep. too much for the average joe. i have to admit that Microsoft did a good job making windows as easy to work with as it is today (compared to linux).

at least in windows, i don't have to type commands in terminal just to get stuff configured/ installed right. trust me, clicking buttons on a GUI is so much easier than typing 1-3 cmds.

Andy hit the nail right on the head with his comment.

For a second I thought you used Windows 7. Who cares what Steve Ballmer says. Microsoft always lies. Remember they said Vista was faster and much better that XP. They say that about every new OS.

Microsoft, Crytek, and others supposed that the processors would keep the performance increase, at the historical pace. But they hitted the 4 Ghz wall.

Instead lossing time with Vista, Microsoft should have spent time facilitating the programmers life with multiprocessors. .NET platform lack even basics parallel features (like a thread class capable of stay in memory doing nothing until are called with new data). Thread managing in .NET is an absolute piece of crap, and XP/Vista suffer from wasted resources, wich Vista could had being designed to facilitate the programmer life.

But Microsoft is busy ruining the programmer life, so Vista is useless, and I have removed 3 Vista this week.

The .NET 4 Framework is focused on multiprocessors and will include tons of parallelism features. The CLR is going to work more on multiprocessor configurations. Why would you want a thread to stay in memory doing nothing? That would be a wast of resources. It's not hard to manage threads in .NET. Create a thread and do something with the thread. Is that really that hard. If it was a perfect world, you wouldn't even have create threads since either the OS or CPU should be able to spread the load over the multiple processors. Here is a simple c# example of a multi-threaded Hello World app. Seems pretty easy.

using System;
using System.Threading;

public class Test
{
static void Main()
{
ThreadStart job = new ThreadStart(ThreadJob);
Thread thread = new Thread(job);
thread.Start();

for (int i=0; i < 5; i )
{
Console.WriteLine ("Main thread: {0}", i);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}

static void ThreadJob()
{
for (int i=0; i < 10; i )
{
Console.WriteLine ("Other thread: {0}", i);
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
}

Here is an article on the .NET 4 Framework.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/NET-Framework-4-0-and-Parallel-Computing-for-Windows-95538.shtml

Another thing I forgot to mention about Windows 7 features is a very toned down UAC.

Seriously....

"And where is the automatic patching? oh ...you have to download it and read the read me file oh how to install it? "

Have you got any clue what you are talking about??? You just run the automatic updater and it does anything for you... As for installing software, you search the repository for what you need (out of literally thousands of programs ALL FREE!!!) and click install... gee thats difficult... much easier then searching the net, downloading an exe, then clicking next next next etc....

"And how many time you have to "compile kernal" during the upgrade?"

If there is a kernel (notice the correct spelling of kernel) upgrade, it's handled by the automatic updater, and unless you actually wanted to see what was happening when setting up the kernel, you wouldn't even know it was being upgraded...

"And all the text config file you have to change or patch just to make one driver work? "

I have never had anything that didn't work out of the box (including my wireless card, my nokia phone etc...)

"It's not for a average joe. "

On the contrary, it is EXACTLY what the average joe needs... all basic programs are there pre-installed when they install the OS (which for ubuntu takes about 15 mins in a 6 step process), if they need something else they can easily install it without searching the net, and having bloody yahoo toolbar installed (not to mention malicious software which can come from some downloads if "average joe" does not know what they are doing...).

Give ubuntu (or any of the other easy to use distributions) a try, before you make a fool of yourself...

or that was what they told me when they got me to shell out money for Vista.

So, I am basically gonna have to shell out another $100 to $300 bucks for what they should have given me when I bought Vista?

Now I am confused... or am I angry?

I'd like to see your definition of "great free applications" is, but I guess Linux is great if you do little more than surf the web and write emails... oh, I forgot, Open office... yes, because you can't get that on windows.

I think what people need to realize here is that the issues were worked out with Vista and it has since become a very stable and secure OS. With this new foundation the next installment of windows will be one where the focus will be on usability. Vista got the basics right and now they are trying to work on the usability and eye candy that everyone no in the business world thinks is the most important part of an OS.

I am a software developer. I seriously would ask everyone to look at what they are expecting to get every time ANY one releases a new product. Nero, Mac, Corel, Adobe, etc - How many of those companies give you new features when they release updates for existing products? - ahem, and for free? - (not talkin about open source world)... I think we are pampered by Microsoft a little bit in that when they release Service Packs, immediately people are expecting new free stuff (as in features). And now, MS is releasing Windows 7 and all of a sudden words like "underwhelmed" or Windows 7 aka Vista SP2 or some other title gets associated with their new release.

Face it, a new product can still be the old product but with new features - as in, they don't have to rewrite everything every release. A very common tactic in this business world. So there is no need to be "confused" - that is just how the software world works. Yes, people still pay out lots of dough and get a new product that doesn't have everything they wanted - even problems they wish they never had.

From the Vista perspective, waiting 5 years to release a new OS with big alterations to the core and new technologies was probably a bad idea - especially when you think of how many copies of XP were sold to everyone during that time - then everyone had lots of software/hardware based on the XP model during those 5 years, a very big problem indeed. Now if MS had created "stepping stone OS", that came our 2-3 years after XP, that would of helped, not fixed the problem but minimized the impact of a new core change. One thing MS is really good at is improving products over time - few will dispute Windows ME to Windows XP was a failure... I have been programming in VB6 and now I love all the new technologies coming out in the 3.5 .NET Framework. Totally different from where they use to be - just comparing Microsoft to itself, not to other companies.

There are great technologies underneath Vista that are just beginning to be tapped into... give it time and you will see things take shape. Lots more could be said regarding this topic and I'm sure MS learned from their big mistakes when releasing Vista but like everything else in the technology field - it's always in motion.

Okay - I am done with this rant. Don't mean to offend anyone, just wanted to shed some light from a software developer perspective.

A lot of oversimplified and inaccurate things were written regarding Linux.

For instance there is Windows version of Open Office. Also I will remind that Open Office derives its roots from Sun's Star Office and share some code.

Linux is used in mission-critical application as well.

Film studios use Linux boxes for animation and visual effects. For example "DreaStudio Animation" made "Shreck" with more than 1 000 Linux-driven desktops.

Not to mention that MS's products have never been taken by the community as example for quality. They have great distribution because of good marketing (and not very ethical action) policy but not due to technical superiority.

I am not going to go in details. It is useless. I have seen this argue many time.

Im not a fan of vista. like to know where the ;secure; idea comes from. ive had to repair countless vista boxes that came in smothered in malware. vista's no better protected than xp is.

And the whinging. Are you sure you want to do...? yes. ARE YOU REALLY SURE? ... end users keep clicking yes anyway.

they better fix the whinging. I use xp usually, and am dabbing in the world of mac. atleast mac and xp dont whinge.

remember nt 5 or windows 2000 as it was popularly called. It had some bugs, some old programs didn't run right but the .1 version just took over the market; you know nt 5.1 or windows xp as most people call it. I will hold off judgement until I get my hands on it. besides vista isn't that bad, it's not as bad as windows ME.

andy probably tried linux 8 years ago, nothing worked and he was not smart enough to fix it so he gave up.
after this experience he thinks that time in linux world stopped. well, it didnt. in 8 years we only had one new windows, which should not even be out since the previous one is better in any way. vista just does not deliver anything else then aero. But since I use Aston shell on my xp machine, I really do not need aero anyways. But they say directX 10 is only available in Vista. So what ? Games do not play any better because dx10 incorporation. Dx10 is just tool for programmers to programe games easier and thats it. Not big of a incentive to get a new computer working slower then the old one, with much,much faster hardware.
Thats why I use (Cracked) XP even the Vista came with my new computer. I also test different linux versions and waiting for hardware manufatures to deploy ful hardware support so I can go Linux all the way.
Even now its just better, and I use it on my lap-top full time, but I just invested too much time in learning of applications that I use under XP so no point to have that knowledge going to waste...Thats why my working/gaming station is dual, my internet download station is linux-only, and lap-top is linux.

@bob
Yes you will still get malware with Vista because a lot of consumers are uneducated and love to click the "Click here to win" links. I have been using Vista for more than a year and yet I have not had one virus or even spyware. The UAC in Windows 7 will be toned down a lot and gives a lot better info on what is happening. It's funny how everyone whines about it asking. I have it on at home and yet it only asks when I install programs or am doing administrative tasks. They also made it so it gets developers to change how the program, so there software doesn't need admin privileges when it shouldn't need it. Sometimes it takes a whining to get people to change.

@huh
I think you should go read on what is even in Vista because you obviously don't know. Do you know about the driver model? MS made big changes to it, hence a lot of the problems. Drivers are now separated from the OS itself, which if ones crashes, the OS can just reload it without taking the whole machine out. Have you ever noticed with Vista that when you install a video driver that you no longer have to reboot? There is lots of other changes that improve the security and stability of Vista but it not worth the upgrade since Windows 7 is so close.

You guys obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Really, download the latest Ubuntu or Linux Mint (both FREE!) and give them a spin so you are in touch with reality.

You don't even need to install them to give them a try. Just download and burn the CD image and boot from the CD. (Ever seen Windows do a similar trick? Didn't think so.)

I find it especially funny you criticize a supposed lack of automatic updating, since automatic updates in Linux are vastly superior to anything Windows can offer. A little icon in the system tray notifies me when there is an update for _anything_ on my system, not just the OS. I don't get bothered by every single stupid program that wants to be updated separately, it's all done in one simple system update. Nothing easier for Joe User.

And to further reduce your ignorance by thinking Linux is only good for basic web surfing and office stuff, here is a list of things I tend do with my PC: I write documents (OpenOffice), use the web and e-mail (Firefox, Opera, Evolution), program in C, C and Python (Eclipse, Anjuta, IDLE, ...) for PC and embedded systems, draw schematics and lay out circuit boards (Eagle), make bitmap and vector images (GIMP, Inkscape), talk to my family (Skype), run a custom Windows programs (Wine), manage my pictures and music (F-Spot, gThumb, Rhythmbox, Songbird), convert and edit audio and video (Audacity, Avidemux), play guitar with drum machine assistance (Hydrogen) and do multi-track recording (Jokosher), and watch TV with full-blown DVR functionality (MythTV).

And I don't have to pay a penny for any of that. No, I don't play many games, although I could play some if I wanted (www.linux-gamers.net). If that's what you want, go ahead and spend money on a colsole. Wii, PS, Xbox, Windows - your pick. Yes, I consider Windows to be just another game console platform. That's the only value it has to Joe User nowadays.

"Windows 7 has more than what a service pack offers "

-parallelism improvements // Unless this is an entire kernel overhaul, then it is service pack stuff
-threading improvements // You already mentioned parallelism improvements
-I/O, Task and CPU priority revamped // I give up.. Are you going to stretch this issue out indefinitely?

-less bloat // hardly a significant improvement.. this is basic maitenance stuff
-no CPU utilization spikes // again, basic maintenance
-improved search performance // basic maintenance

-DirectX 11 (also for Vista) // will be available for Vista, so not a reason to upgrade
-.NET 4// will be available for Vista, so not a reason to upgrade

-Major improvements to speech and hand writing recognition // worthless for 99% of users...
-ability to make virtual hard disks // partitioning? ISO disc images? What is new here?
-improved task bar and start menu // vague...

What I said about Vista is that this: Vista has not a single advantage over XP. It is not faster, it is not more stable (XP with it's SP's is solid as a rock, even more then ubuntu/few others LX's I tried), it is not more secure (since UAC has to be turned off in order to do anything on my computer, and it is not more supported. Lets see; 64bit programs are hard to find (no advantage there), so lets go to 32bit version......oh no, 3/4 of my old hardware is not supported. And I DO NOT WANT to buy a new $450 scanner since my old one is not broken. As I said the only thing that Vista has is Aero, but if you used Aston in win2000 pro days, you had it anyways...(and this was almost 10 years ago).

I wanted to use linux, but the ATI drivers were so crappy i had to go back to windows....

I laid out many things that are significantly improved upon. In the other windows 7 post.

LOL your answer is simple Loosely_coupled... Hold on to your beloved vista till the end of time. The kernel was overhauled in vista x64 in SP1. And will be changed again in windows 7.

I would also suggest that you do some reasearch/reading before you post threading and parallism is the same.

tasks, multitasking, superscalar, threads, multi-threading simultaneous multi-threading are spelled differently because they are different, DUH!!!. There is instructional-level, task and data parallism. You can make improvements to parallism without ever considering the threads. Do you know what the difference between superscalar, tasks, threads and processes?

Vista can't take advantage of simultaneous multi-threading. This is why depending on your cpu purpose/use you should hold out upgrading your system.

Unless you investigate the differences please don't post its the same. Here I'll help point you into a great learning area, look into the limits of win32 programming. Also even though the buddies intel and microfluff have been hush hush. After intel dumps their current line of processors you will begin to learn what the intel i7 and windows 7 share.

This is why I pleaded with people who simply restated microfluff vista propaganda and the generic "improved" claim. The question was always "well if it is so improved to the point I need to have it now, why are you revamping it and moving the windows 7 date UP...".

Hold on to your beloved vista thinking you'll get it in a service pack.

Microfluff is down-playing the changes and improvements to lessen the uproar from vista lovers who was dupped into being open beta purchasers.

Vista was a screwed product and that's why microfluff uncharacteristically hot fixed, retrofitted the kernel, even fixing parts of the server 2003 code.

Again if you only surf the net, read email, use excel, burn dvds, make a document in work, don't game stay with XP.

IMO I think directx 11 will be very valuable. However you need windows 7 to take advantage of its special features. For example tthe toned down GUI and all graphics will now benefit from your purchased GPU/multi gpu.

Vista suckers have only hard their hardware used beyond its most basic level only for directx 10 games. And everyone knows they waited well over a year to get a game that showed a difference and was worth while to have.

And just a reminder backward compatibility doesn't mean everything is equal and the same. LOL at "directx 11 will be available for vista so no reason to upgrade".

And now that the tables have turned you'll here more vista suckers who couldn't name 10 to die fore vista features, down play windows 7 and state here "theres no reason to upgrade". LOL you guys are too funny...

Hold onto your fools gold...

Not a single advantage? Have you even used it or know what is in Vista? Sounds like you don't. There are many advantages over XP but it is not worth the upgrade now with Windows 7 so close.

"It is not faster, it is not more stable"
Where do you get that from? It is more stable because of the new driver model and is just as fast if not fast in some things and there are countless benchmarks that prove it. So are you always installing/uninstalling programs? UAC does not stop you from doing anything it. Sounds like you are just blowing smoke. You don't need 64 bit programs on Vista 64. 32 bit will work also but some will just not install on a 64 bit copy (not MS fault but the developer). 3/4? Really? You are blowing so much smoke that I can't breath. There are maybe a 1/4 of old hardware that doesn't have drivers because the manufacture is to lazy to write a new driver so that is not MS fault.

You really do need to go read on what is in Vista before you make uneducated comments. Vista is better than XP but Windows 7 is to close to be worth the upgrade now.

Stop becoming another generation of Mac-esque fanboys. Linux is definitely not for everyone (like for 90% of laptop users out there that have proprietary drivers).

And to afstech, you don't know what you're talking about. If you did you wouldn't be saying Vista was an improvement over XP. There' a reason every tech forum has hundreds of posts with people wanting to go back to XP...and it's not because of emotional sentiment.

"UAC doesn't stop you from doing anything"...oh gee then what do you call making the entire screen go black and locking you out until you click "Continue"....wait they should make another prompt that asks "are you sure you're sure you want to do that"....that would definitely make the OS even more secure.

Hmm don't know what I'm talking about but yet been using it at both work and home for over a year? How long have you used it? Most of them posts were per SP1 I would guess anyways. What you don't see is the thousands of posts that would be there if people actually posted the good. You almost always see the negative more. MS has already proven that it is mostly perception that people don't want to use Vista.

"UAC doesn't stop you from doing anything"...oh gee then what do you call making the entire screen go black and locking you out until you click "Continue"

Does it stop you for a second? Yes but it does not stop you from getting the task to complete after you click OK. It is more of a pause and not a stop because if it stopped then you would never get to finish the task. I wouldn't of said anything if huh would of said pause and not stop.

Now don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. I have obviously used it longer than you. All your basing it of is perception just like a lot of other people do. One thing that I do say is that it is not worth the UPGRADE currently as Windows 7 is so close. If you can prove you used it longer than me then I will listen to you but if otherwise then you are just a smoke blower.

I've been using Windows Vista for a year now. I'll let you know its 100 times better then XP. 99% of vistas major improvements are under the hood. Of course a Pseudo linux fanboi such as yourself can't see that since you use pirated (most likely jammed packed with trojans) Windows products.
I have switched all my machines to windows vista (legal copies btw) and have yet to have problems with it. I don't think I'll be moving from vista for a while. Windows 7 will be a meh moment for me unless it really does deliver more.
Here is some of what I love about vista...

UAC is a huge improvement over XP's security. It forces developers to stop using the damn system directories for storing user/application files. Able to encrypt whole drives and lock individual files from view over specific networks (helps laptop users by the butt loads). Vista has built-in malware protection as well.

Vistas Kernel handles resources better then XP ever could. Multi-threading is way better under vista then XP.

Sound API is greatly improved (no more random sound spikes anyone?)

Network API is improved (doesn't take 100% memory and CPU time when copying 12GB files over a 1000Mbps connection)

The whole OS doesn't lockup when a device driver fails to function. The OS can restart hardware individually.

32bit support under x64 with Wow64 is like 99.99% (lol@Server 2003 Itanium all x64 linux/unix, AM64 rox!).

programmers should be writing programs that are self contained that is, everything lives in its folder no cling ons, dependencies maybe like directx or dot net. myob (an australian made accounting package) is one example of software that needs admin access, and this stops me from running customer boxes in restricted user accounts.

ive run my sisters pc in restricted mode for 2 years, and even with an old version of avg (7.5 up til last week) has not got a virus YET,

I admit I was a little put off by Vista when it first came out. The same way I was a little put off by XP when it came out. It takes a little effort to learn a new OS. There are always going to be some problems with an OS when it is first released. I'm sure there will be some problems when Windows 7 first gets released. But I took the time to learn Vista and found it was a lot better than XP, especially after SP1.
I have never gotten a virus or spyware on my Vista system either. But I do use the best antivirus-spyware tool there is (common sense) hehe
I will upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as it comes out because I like having the newest and best that I can afford.

I've been using Microsoft products since the early 90's and I felt I was pretty pleased with their products.

Being the fan that I was, I purchased Vista Ultimate right before the first service pack was released. After upgrading from XP, I initially felt that Vista was a much better, visually speaking, OS from XP. The UAC took some getting used to, but I had other software that pretty much performed the same function and did a better job of explaining what was happening.(COMODO Defense )I was extremely disappointed with the performance of Vista and I tried tweaking the OS in many different ways to decrease the boot up time, but I was only successful in getting it decreased marginally. I also noticed many applications sometimes taking an extremely long time to load for no reason whatsoever. I tried just about all the tricks I could find on the internet to fix my issues, but nothing ever worked. After finally getting fed up with the Vista, I decided to dual boot it with Kubuntu(Linux).(I use Vista for games only)

I have little experience with Linux, but I've learned a lot in a short period of time. It is an extremely fast booting OS and programs are way more responsive. I will never go back to running a Microsoft OS as my primary OS and I recommend that everyone unhappy with MS should take the leap and switch to Linux or at least try a Live CD. As Patrick said, Ubuntu or Linux Mint would probably be the most user friendly for people who want to switch.

If Windows 7 is anything like Vista, then Microsoft hasn't learned how to get customers to come back. Microsoft always claims that their new product is faster and better then the last version. I have yet to see any product live up to both of those statements. Sure new features are nice, but the price for them is high when you start bogging down someone's system. Windows is just too bloated and they need to do something about it now if they want to stay in business.

Reasons I switched to Linux:
1. Free
2. Faster
3. Less Viruses and Malware
4. Easy to use
5. Free applications
6. Easy to update

Re:LionHell

The Ati driver is much better now. Try Linux again. There is also this website that will help you install Ati drivers in Linux. http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Main_Page

The real death blow for Microsoft is coming when businesses switch to Linux and their employees realize how easy, stable, and cheap it is.

The only downfall for Linux to me is the games. This will be corrected when the OS market share increases for Linux, then we'll see game developers making Linux versions. It is only a matter of time!

let's throw Apple's MAC OS through Windows 7 :D

.NET 4! Ok. I needed it some years ago. Not in the future. (I want it anyway).

Sleep is not free. It does something, eating resources. (half hack: timer controls).

I make real world programming, and .NET offer 2 modes:
1. Start and end a thread each time you need one. Is useless, because starting ending threads are very heavy resources consuming, and it is slower than only one thread.
2. Keep a thread in memory, with a hell in thread interconectivity: makes impossible to reach complex codes.

What it needs:
a- You start a pool of threads, (example, one for each available processor).
b- You divide your data in the number of processors.
c- You pass the data as a function call, one for each processor/thread.
d- An event is fired each time a threads reach a stop.
e- Each thread keeps himself in memory, waiting more data, and NOT eating resources meanwhile, unless you pass the order of get out of memory.

And some common tasks like array copy, or linear array combinations should have already been implemented on standard array classes.

Yes I know sleep is not free. There is ways around sleep that actually releases resources unlike sleep but that is another topic. I am also a .NET C# developer but I am not expert of everything in .NET.

"1. Start and end a thread each time you need one. Is useless, because starting ending threads are very heavy resources consuming, and it is slower than only one thread."
Yes it can be heavy on resources, but you got to remember that most applications would not benefit from multiple threads anyways but applications that would are already programmed or are being programmed that way. It would take to much time and money to convert most apps to multi-threaded that it would out way the benefits of some minor performance, which could be negated with having to handle all the threads.

"2. Keep a thread in memory, with a hell in thread interconectivity: makes impossible to reach complex codes."
Here is one for you. From MSDN: "The ThreadPool class provides your application with a pool of worker threads that are managed by the system, allowing you to concentrate on application tasks rather than thread management. If you have short tasks that require background processing, the managed thread pool is an easy way to take advantage of multiple threads."

"a- You start a pool of threads, (example, one for each available processor)."
So now you have to program from every number of CPU's that would in any system.

"b- You divide your data in the number of processors."
Now you have to put in the time to have the threads be synchronized to prevent any possible corruption. It can be done is is done on many applications.

"c- You pass the data as a function call, one for each processor/thread."
Again you now have to program for the different amounts of CPU's in a system.

"d- An event is fired each time a threads reach a stop."
You could do that now.

"e- Each thread keeps himself in memory, waiting more data, and NOT eating resources meanwhile, unless you pass the order of get out of memory."
I just have to ask this one simple question. How do you have something in memory that doesn't eat resources? Now I know what you mean by that but I just wanted to say something. You are implying some magic that it will just take nothing to have something. It is like having a pencil that is in your pocket. It is there but not doing nothing. You can use it to write on paper and then put it back in your pocket. The pencil still eats up space. Enough on that topic. .NET 4 will have parallelism improvements in the CLR along with Windows 7 itself.

The array copy can be completed but is probably not that easy. There is a function called CopyTo in arrays that allows you to copy from one array to another. Yes that is limited to one-dimensional arrays. I don't know why you are complaining anyways. The .NET framework is FREE. It would be different if MS was charging. You can't expect to have everything that is possible in the beginning. No one could possibly think of everything and they always find ways to do things better.

Just venting my frustration.

I know all that. The point is, MS created a bloated Vista. Maybe it need to sell an OS, but they needed to put a lot more work on .NET.

As result, we have today a bad new OS, without all the software capable of taking advantages of the new technology.

.NET approach to threads is too restricted. In real world programming, I need combined Thread and ThreadPool features. MS put so many restrictions on each one. Is my problem to avoid thread colission. I can manage it.

And I want to code without knowing how many processors are available. Otherwise, tomorrow intel makes a 8 cores processors with hiperthreading, and I need to recode to take advantage of more than 4 cores.

Yes they did create a bloated OS. It is actually a good thing as they know what not to repeat and can slim it down more than Vista to around XP levels.

MS puts lots of Work into .NET. Just look at how easy and fast you can create apps that have loads of functionality. If they put every possible thing every developer wanted, then .NET would become bloated.

You can write apps that take advantages of all the new technologies. It may not be as easy as developers like but it can be done. Programming doesn't come easy. It takes skill and lots of time to become a good developer. Here is something interesting for you though. About 80% of C# developers are the best compared to the 20% of VB developers that are the best. The amount of the best developers is equal between the 2 languages because VB is easier to program in and allows you to get away with more. C# teaches better programming practices. Anyway, just out of curiosity, what language do you program in? If you say c .NET then I guess I would just have to bow to you. I started with VB but it was just to easy, so I switched to C# and love it even more. You got more power than VB and I guess I just love curly braces :).

You could always write your oven thread pool class that does what you want. I know it would not be easy but hey, who doesn't love a good challenge.

What I think MS should do with .NET is either program CLR to split the load among the cores or have the OS itself do it. That way you can get the best of both worlds, no worrying about managing threads but yet get multi-threading. .NET 4 is supposed to be more multi-thread friendly and the CLR is going to work more efficient on multi-core systems. Just wait for .NET 4 to see what comes out of it. You might be surprised.

"If you say c .NET"

It said C Plus Plus .NET. Comments must not like a plus sign.

I mix Cpp, CSharp, VB, and cuda.

.NET is already bloated, so, looking for .NET help with microsoft search engines, is an useless task.

But fortunately, we have google, so we ever found the way on each obscure moronic documented class. and generally they work.

Of course, MS had put a lot of work on .NET. But is not enough.

And .NET is what makes micorsoft the king, because it seed uncountable Windows developpers.

So, I rant and whine, hoping some MS dude gets kicked, and they make the parallel work the ALREADY must have done.

I don't understand why people hate Vista. I've been using it for more than a year now and I find it better than XP. What I like about Vista is the search function and windows explorer which is very much easier to go to one folder to another. I don't really see any advantage of XP over Vista. I never got a virus even I tried to search in a lot of porn sites lols. The best thing to do to make your Vista much faster is to lessen those not needed start up programs and services, and you will be amaze how fast Vista compared to XP.:)