EPTWindows 7 - Make it or Break it for Microsoft - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Velr
Switzerland10862 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17696 Posts
That would seriously suck. | ||
|
vAltyR
United States581 Posts
On January 04 2009 15:59 Whyzguy wrote: Isn't 7 a rewrite? Like written from scratch? Not a snowflake's chance in hell. Microsoft has said that Windows 7 would not have the compatibility issues that Vista had. Anything that can run in Vista will run in Windows 7. a complete rewrite is what happened between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. All the third-party software for OS 9 had to be recompiled or rewritten entirely in order for it to work. Vista was closer to that than 7 will be. I feel that Microsoft should take a(nother) page out of Apple's book, and do what they're doing for OS X 10.6. Focusing on improving performance and streamlining the OS. Both operating systems need overhauls in the performance department, and I hope microsoft realizes this. and since we're bashing apple on their ads (yes, i find them annoying too), how 'bout those "Mojave experiment" ads? I'm sure stitching panoramic photos is the real killer app of windows vista. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
But I've also read that W7 isn't as stable at the moment. In any case, don't pay too much attention to hype and Betas... a lot of things might change in the release version, and they might even cut out some major cool features as well (like they did with Vista). Plus, no recent MS operating system has been good before SP1 or 2 (in XP's case). And yes, since MS has a monopoly they can easily spread crap and not fear anything. Hell, MS probably has the worst reputation of all big software companies ever since MS DOS - but does it matter? Maybe once Apple reaches like 50% market share (or Linux - but I doubt that's gonna happen), THEN MS has to worry about something... but since MS is rather steady at ~90% there's nothing to worry about - customers will buy it anyway because they're dependent on Windows-only software or hardware (of which there is a huge amount). Or they'll just buy it with a new PC and pay the MS tax of having Windows preinstalled. | ||
|
Proposal
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 31996
843 Posts
On January 04 2009 21:40 Proposal wrote: Where can I download Windows 7? hahahahhahhaha Keep in mind that there is always that 'year-wait' i ALWAYS do with any OS. I waited about a year before i moved from 2000 to XP, didn't even consider vista as i've had to format and install XP on about 10+ friends computers/laptops. I don't get the mentality with UI these days though. You need 4+ gigs of ram and all this video hardware stuff to run a UI. Why can't a UI be something so simple and elegant that requires 0 resources and gives all the required resources to the CPU to perform necessary functions like internet browsing, or calculations which is what people actually use a computer for, not to see some useless 3d junk shade bs when i click on a windows box. This is why i take new os's as a joke. win2k classic theme ftw, and fluxbox ftw  | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
On January 04 2009 22:03 liosama wrote: I don't get the mentality with UI these days though. You need 4+ gigs of ram and all this video hardware stuff to run a UI. Why can't a UI be something so simple and elegant that requires 0 resources and gives all the required resources to the CPU to perform necessary functions like internet browsing, or calculations which is what people actually use a computer for, not to see some useless 3d junk shade bs when i click on a windows box. lol i agree my xp looks pretty similar to how 95 looked , albeit with a greater resolution | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17696 Posts
On January 04 2009 22:03 liosama wrote: hahahahhahhaha Keep in mind that there is always that 'year-wait' i ALWAYS do with any OS. Well, waiting so long if you're running Linux is pretty dumb since you're missing on a lot of things and it doesn't have such fucked up compatibility issues as Windows does. What Microsoft should do is release updates more frequently (more frequent small updates over less frequent large ones). People then would have a lot less bugs to complain about and it could only do them good. | ||
|
white_box921
United Kingdom967 Posts
| ||
|
BBS
Germany204 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
Thank god my new computer has 4GB of ram, otherwise I'd be hosed. | ||
|
b3h47pte
United States1317 Posts
On January 04 2009 22:03 liosama wrote: hahahahhahhaha Keep in mind that there is always that 'year-wait' i ALWAYS do with any OS. I would do that just that I want to get rid of Vista ASAP | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
On January 04 2009 23:14 Mortality wrote: I hope it's better than Vista. I have a Vista machine and it hogs roughly 740MB of ram just to operate. I remember very clearly a time when 740MB of ram was inconceivable in anything other than a super computer. Thank god my new computer has 4GB of ram, otherwise I'd be hosed. That is the only problem that I perceive with Vista. People do not understand you need 4GBs of RAM. Just accept that fact and move on. You can buy 4GBs of DDR2-800MHz for $30-$40. So, whats the problem? Maybe people should get mad at the OEM distributors for charging $50-$80 per GB to upgrade the RAM in their system. Or people could get a brain and do it themselves since it takes about 5 minutes. Pretty much every other problem boils down to user error. Vista is the fist OS that is significantly different from MS. 98->2000->XP is about 5-6 years of pretty much identical looking products with only the behind the scenes software/networking improving in each release. People are inherently lazy and do not want to have to learn a new OS, so instead they bitch about it and stick with XP. Any gamer who is using XP and has a modern system actually has inferior performance that Vista users. Video drivers for Vista, especially in SLI or Crossfire, are superior. I use Vista 64 and have no problems with it. I think this is because of the following reasons: 1. When I have a problem, I google the error code and attempt to solve the problem 2. I am willing to learn a new OS 3. My computer has a fast processor and 8GBs of RAM ($65 worth of RAM, who cares?). What performance issues? To actually go semi on-topic ;p 90% of the reviews that I have read show Windows 7 using fewer resources and being faster than Vista. I do not see how Windows 7 can not be a step up seeing how MS is simply taking Vista, changing the look slightly, working out anything clunky in the code and responding to the millions of complaints regarding Vista. It will not have the compatibility problems at launch because it is Vista essentially. I am really just hoping that multi-threaded software becomes the norm for all apps. Now that the i7s are here and later this year the 8-core i7s. Not that that is a windows thing, it is just up to the software companies. Also, why is there not a 64-bit Flash plug-in yet. Fucking Adobe is a POS. | ||
|
Dalroti
Canada70 Posts
On January 04 2009 21:27 vAltyR wrote: Not a snowflake's chance in hell. Microsoft has said that Windows 7 would not have the compatibility issues that Vista had. Anything that can run in Vista will run in Windows 7. a complete rewrite is what happened between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. All the third-party software for OS 9 had to be recompiled or rewritten entirely in order for it to work. Vista was closer to that than 7 will be. I feel that Microsoft should take a(nother) page out of Apple's book, and do what they're doing for OS X 10.6. Focusing on improving performance and streamlining the OS. Both operating systems need overhauls in the performance department, and I hope microsoft realizes this. and since we're bashing apple on their ads (yes, i find them annoying too), how 'bout those "Mojave experiment" ads? I'm sure stitching panoramic photos is the real killer app of windows vista. True.. actually I dont find them annoying (if you read my original post). the apple ads that is. But i do find the Microsoft ads just plain confusing... I dont get it. The Mojave (or Mohave wtvr) I think those people are payed actors... | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
edit: the people in the commercials may or may not be actors, but they did document user reaction and the % of people that wanted to get that OS versus Vista, XP , etc. The Mojave experiment was a pretty decent success for Vista. | ||
|
liger13
United States1060 Posts
On January 04 2009 22:24 Manit0u wrote: Well, waiting so long if you're running Linux is pretty dumb since you're missing on a lot of things and it doesn't have such fucked up compatibility issues as Windows does. lol... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
Gets me every time. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
The common misconception is that XP is more versatile then Vista when in reality Vista runs quad cores and alot more current software a load better then xp would. But Vista isn't 3rd party friendly because it's not flawless emulation of XP. On January 04 2009 23:14 Mortality wrote: I hope it's better than Vista. I have a Vista machine and it hogs roughly 740MB of ram just to operate. I remember very clearly a time when 740MB of ram was inconceivable in anything other than a super computer. Thank god my new computer has 4GB of ram, otherwise I'd be hosed. Yeah people want more and more but don't want to pay the price lol 4 gigs of ram is dirty cheap to get now but for people to finally make the transition of x64 os for more ram is too slow. Ofc that would be death to ff x64 IE is much faster then any x86 broswer could be. | ||
| ||
