|
Being a Mac fan (not a mac head), i think Micrososft is trying to make it seem like they are trying not to copy OSX style, but then again they are.
Anyway, build 7000 has been leaked to torrent sites (DO NOT DOWNLOAD, THIS IS A WARNING).
Build 7000 is what Microsoft was going to release to selected people to test run, before they give a public beta available to download and install.
I am not linking any videos because I do not know if they are recording the torrented version of the real version.
I think Windows 7 will be:
1. Better than Vista and XP
This is because of the new interface, and all of the neato features such as libraries. Also, they have created a new Windows Explorer
2. Will not get as much bashing from Apple than Vista and XP did.
Apple will not get that much to make fun of in their ads. Such as recently they are poking fun at Microsoft's new ad campaing. I personally agree with Apple because the ads make noooooooo sense wat so ever. Emailing cake does not have anything to do with productivity, family fun, or hardcore gaming (like Starcraft 2)
3. Will still have some hardware problems, but it will be very minimal, like maybe like one person in a remote area in the Yukon (or some other not as populated region in the world) or something can't get it activated.
This is because of Microsoft's iniative to have a folder full of all the most popular drivers. Basically the application will look for it's driver from the foler and install it (I think that is the plan, or something like that). In Vista's launch, people were complaining about scarcety of drivers for just about anything. This includes the most popular printers and cameras.
4. Will bring a bit of Microsoft's reputation back.
Because their is barealy any negative feedback, Microsoft will be once again seen as a reputable company, just like when they were seen as reputable after the release of Windows XP (I think).
OR this can happen:
1. Steve Balmer could make something go horribly wrong
Like Vista, many things were taken out and messed around with at the last secondm even though people were saying it was fine except some UI tweaks here and there. This would also result in the resignation of Steve Balmer in my opinion because he has been getting a lot of negative feed back about everything that has been going on.
2. More ad material for Apple.
This is self explanatory. More negative feedback for Microsoft means more things Apple can use as basis for their advertisements. More advertisements means more sales for Apple (face it, who doesn't think the PC guy is awesome? He probably uses a Mac). more sales means more confidence for Apple. You can create the rest of the chain.
3. Microsoft will lose ALOT of market share.
If this goes horribly wrong, then I think that Microsoft will collapse. They will be like Apple when Steve Jobs was fired (Coca-Cola man....). I already think that Microsoft is too large of a company to be efficiently existing like this. The company is obese, it has to cut something (I do not mean jobs, i mean some product lines), or organize it self to became muscular. If this happens, then many MANY businesses will plumet, because they all use PCs, and the Linux and MacOSX market shares will rise. Also, basically every Linux environment will try to combine all it's OSes to one OS under the Linux kernal. This will happen because all the Linux businesses would want better compatibility with the world. And this would be alot easier if the Linux OSes combines themselves, but still made the OS free under the GNU liscence.
Apple will become the leader in this OS war because they will be looked as the best alternative to Microsoft. Apple will have to increase iWork's power to match Office's, or Microsoft will continue making Office for the OSX to keep their revenues high.
Well those are my predictions. In my opinion Windows 7 is almost a make it or break it situation for Microsoft, when you play their reputation as a factor. I mean XP is sooooooo old, and you do not even feel safe without Norton or something installed and the Windows Firewall turned OFF!
I hope Microsoft does not screw this up. Even though I prefer a Mac over Windows based computers any day, I just do not want Microsoft to go down like in my second prediction!
|
i doubt windows 7 will be this pivotal. if anything it's just an attempt by microsoft to gain more ground in the netbook market by replacing xp with something new and can actually run on netbooks. from what i've seen on windows 7 it does use less ram but the interface "improvements" are pretty gimmicky aside from the ability to move taskbar items around. then again these changes to the interface are probably to make using a 7 inch screen easier for netbooks.
also your impression of where linux and apple stand are horribly skewed.
|
I'm not well-versed in windows 7 but from what I've read (i.e. http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_big_windows_7_lie ), it doesn't look like w7 is going to turn out too hot.
here's an excerpt from the article
Randall Kennedy put the Windows 7 engine on a real test-bench and discovered that, at the kernel level, "When viewed side by side in Performance Monitor, Vista and Windows 7 were virtually indistinguishable."
In case you haven't used Vista, that means you can expect Windows 7 performance to be lousy. Kennedy ran the same application performance tests comparing XP and Vista and found that Vista ran 40% slower than XP.
|
Microsoft will continue to be king even if they royally screw this up. They control the PC market so strong they could release utter crap for 5 years straight and still have enough money and power to stay on top.
Early word is windows 7 is better than vista though so we'll see. I never thought Vista was that bad. Sure it crashes and has a few annoyances but so did XP.
|
On January 04 2009 13:07 JeeJee wrote:I'm not well-versed in windows 7 but from what I've read (i.e. http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_big_windows_7_lie ), it doesn't look like w7 is going to turn out too hot. here's an excerpt from the article Show nested quote +Randall Kennedy put the Windows 7 engine on a real test-bench and discovered that, at the kernel level, "When viewed side by side in Performance Monitor, Vista and Windows 7 were virtually indistinguishable."
In case you haven't used Vista, that means you can expect Windows 7 performance to be lousy. Kennedy ran the same application performance tests comparing XP and Vista and found that Vista ran 40% slower than XP.
article is pretty old there have been numerous versions released since then. i tried out beta 1 and at idle it used only 256mb of ram which is pretty nice. nothing really that revolutionary though.
|
I really have absolutely no problems with vista.
|
On January 04 2009 12:56 Dalroti wrote:
More advertisements means more sales for Apple (face it, who doesn't think the PC guy is awesome? He probably uses a Mac)
MEEEEEEEEEEEE.
I cringe and facepalm every time I see one of those advertisements.
|
you should try to get your hands on w7. I've heard some good things already ; )
However I don't mind Vista so I have no need to switch.
|
On January 04 2009 12:56 Dalroti wrote:
Apple will become the leader in this OS war because they will be looked as the best alternative to Microsoft. Apple will have to increase iWork's power to match Office's, or Microsoft will continue making Office for the OSX to keep their revenues high.
First off, let me explain that I am a mac user as well, but I use both Mac and PC.
Let's get this straight: No matter how much Microsoft screws up, Apple virtually never surpass them, no matter how much "better" their products are. The fact is that PCs are dirt cheap, and companies will always prefer them. They still technically work, and they don't need to niceties that Apple offers. So for 5x less, they can get the same job done.
Second, iWork vs Office is a joke. Microsoft Office conveniently comes with the package, so Microsoft with still stay > Mac in terms of industry. Don't get me wrong, iWork is very nice, except Excel is a very good program (better than Numbers imo), and Office has potential to be actually more professional than iWork.
EDIT: Never mind, I reread what I quoted. Then I agree with you. But now that I think of it, in a while, with the very, very minimal progress that Microsoft is making on Office, compared to earlier versions, iWork just might be an equal contender, though it is doubtful. Apple has been blinded by too many casual users, so they make a spreadsheet program without freaking standard deviation!
Basically, Windows 7 can be another flop just like Vista, but not much will change. Apple may gain ground, but that is because they have been doing that for a while now. Microsoft will keep throwing out the low quality junk, but it will stay efficient *enough* so people keep buying it.
That is just my two cents.
|
Windows 7 at its core is still Windows Vista. They re implemented their GUI a bit (namely redoing whateva it was that they changed in GDI processing) so it appears that the OS is running a bit smoother now.
Microsoft will still reign even if Windows 7 turn out to suck. I tried the beta on a Q9300 machine and it still feels laggy running on full graphics but then again i'm a fan of minimalistic GUI design.
I highly doubt that Microsoft is trying to copy OS X considering that OS X GUI is out of date by miles in today's GUI development.
Note: The above are from comments by experienced programmers, NOT ME.
|
On January 04 2009 13:16 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2009 12:56 Dalroti wrote:
Apple will become the leader in this OS war because they will be looked as the best alternative to Microsoft. Apple will have to increase iWork's power to match Office's, or Microsoft will continue making Office for the OSX to keep their revenues high. BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA. First off, let me explain that I am a mac user as well, but I use both Mac and PC. Let's get this straight: No matter how much Microsoft screws up, Apple virtually never surpass them, no matter how much "better" their products are. The fact is that PCs are dirt cheap, and companies will always prefer them. They still technically work, and they don't need to niceties that Apple offers. So for 5x less, they can get the same job done. Second, iWork vs Office is a joke. Microsoft Office conveniently comes with the package, so Microsoft with still stay > Mac in terms of industry. Don't get me wrong, iWork is very nice, except Excel is a very good program (better than Numbers imo), and Office has potential to be actually more professional than iWork. Basically, Windows 7 can be another flop just like Vista, but not much will change. Apple may gain ground, but that is because they have been doing that for a while now. Microsoft will keep throwing out the low quality junk, but it will stay efficient *enough* so people keep buying it. That is just my two cents.
Mac will never become a dominant market force simply because of their target customers and their business model. If OS X becomes as popular as Windows then the same will happen.
Even if Windows keep screwing up, some one have to be the janitor.
|
Windows is still the platform. Operating System theory isn't based on UI and all that stuff Microsoft is "copying" from Macs, it's about resource management. FreeBSD was a good switch for the Mac OS, but seriously? Apple is way behind in terms of the workings behind the UI. Just look at the DirectX API and how it's now the graphics platform for all games and 3D (along with the majority of hardware support). Honestly? Most companies just don't want to make software or hardware for Macs, mainly due to Apple having tight controls on its hardware and software.
Having to have firewall and Norton, well that's unfair. If Mac becomes 50% of the market share, then we'll see who's more secure, until then, nobody's going to waste their time making a virus or malware that only affects such a small portion of the population.
|
|
|
But still
did anyone read my "obesity" remark about Microsoft? I think this will eventually happen you know. They need to cut some product lines or do something. And yes, i hope Apple comes atleast close to what Microsoft is.
yes iWork is a joke, but its only been the first two releases. It is not supposed to be a full, engineering level office suite. IT is supposed to help individuals and SMBs get their work done wiht a nice finish 
|
When cloud computing becomes mainstream, all this talk about about which OS is better will be obsolete. We will just have to wait and see and hope the Linux penguins come out of the dark!
|
If windows 7 fails, people will probably just stick with XP. I dont think mac/linux is going to take over or really gain all that much.
If that was the case, Vista would have already done it
Also, basically every Linux environment will try to combine all it's OSes to one OS under the Linux kernal. This will happen because all the Linux businesses would want better compatibility with the world. And this would be alot easier if the Linux OSes combines themselves, but still made the OS free under the GNU liscence.
linux is a chimera with far too many heads to combine into one distribution. And it doesnt really have to happen. If one distrib gets pushed to the front because of capabilities, support or UI (suse, mandriva, etc.) then thats ok. The walmarts and other stores already have distributions picked out.
The fact that you can buy a computer with either no OS already installed, or buy a cheap PC with Linux already preinstalled is a big thing for linux, but this still isnt the year of linux on the desktop
|
I don't know why so many people automatically jump ship as soon as a new OS is released. I'm personally still using XP. Never had a single issue with it, and thus far I have absolutely no reason to change that. The next time I'll be upgrading will be when I build a new computer that has more than the maximum ammount of ram supported by XP. That won't be for many years at least.
If it ain't broke, don't pay 300 bucks for a new one.
|
I've tried windows 7 and its pretty decent. But to be honest vista was pretty decent too. It's just that a few bugs in the first version gave a negative buzz and then everyone avoided it.
|
I've been using windows 7 beta(7000 build) for a week now on an over clocked e4300 machine and its faster than xp for me, both in general windows work and gaming.
Its not much but in my own benchmarks Ive gained a few average fps(1-5) in Crysis, Far cry 2, and Devil may cry 4, They are the only graphically intense games I have with "performance test" modes
I know its not the most scientific or correct way of benchmarking, but its all I feel like doing.
The only compatibility issue Ive had so far was creatives sound drivers(knew that would happen...)
They don't allow you to install the drivers on anything other than xp or vista, but simply setting vista compatibility and running in administrator fixed the problem and they installed fine.Other than that anything that works for vista should work for windows 7 which is just about everything nowadays.
|
On January 04 2009 13:24 Dalroti wrote:But still did anyone read my "obesity" remark about Microsoft? I think this will eventually happen you know. They need to cut some product lines or do something. And yes, i hope Apple comes atleast close to what Microsoft is. yes iWork is a joke, but its only been the first two releases. It is not supposed to be a full, engineering level office suite. IT is supposed to help individuals and SMBs get their work done wiht a nice finish
The statement about Microsoft's business model which was tied to your speculations about Windows 7? The part about Windows 7 has been discussed above, the rest is too broad to say anything about. At that, there is no real need for Microsoft to trim down anything, they have taken an approach as most major companies have done in the past and opting for supporting and buying out ventures in place of their own R&D and shifted their own product line to be renewed in a way far from revolutionary. From an end-user perspective, yes, they would appeal far more if they focused on a few products instead. From a profit-generating perspective that is is not necessarily true.
I personally rather agree with Haduken, without a significant change in the current environment, we are not going to see significant changes from Microsoft. At that, they are also jumping on the cloud computing bandwagon, no? Google has struck first though~
|
Even is Windows 7 doesn't make it.
I am perfectly fine with XP...
|
ive been using vista on my new comp now for a couple months. I was really skeptical at the start, but it turns out that it works fine. Haven't had any problems with it, and I'm sure newer updates will help it run smoother.
I'm sure windows 7 will take some time to become mainstream (and for the price to go down), so I'm happy with my choice. If 7 does bring cool innovations to the table I might consider switching though
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 04 2009 13:20 I_are_n00b wrote:
Windows is still the platform. Operating System theory isn't based on UI and all that stuff Microsoft is "copying" from Macs, it's about resource management. FreeBSD was a good switch for the Mac OS, but seriously? Apple is way behind in terms of the workings behind the UI. Just look at the DirectX API and how it's now the graphics platform for all games and 3D (along with the majority of hardware support). Honestly? Most companies just don't want to make software or hardware for Macs, mainly due to Apple having tight controls on its hardware and software.
Having to have firewall and Norton, well that's unfair. If Mac becomes 50% of the market share, then we'll see who's more secure, until then, nobody's going to waste their time making a virus or malware that only affects such a small portion of the population.
This.
On January 04 2009 13:35 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +
Also, basically every Linux environment will try to combine all it's OSes to one OS under the Linux kernal. This will happen because all the Linux businesses would want better compatibility with the world. And this would be alot easier if the Linux OSes combines themselves, but still made the OS free under the GNU liscence.
linux is a chimera with far too many heads to combine into one distribution. And it doesnt really have to happen. If one distrib gets pushed to the front because of capabilities, support or UI (suse, mandriva, etc.) then thats ok. The walmarts and other stores already have distributions picked out. The fact that you can buy a computer with either no OS already installed, or buy a cheap PC with Linux already preinstalled is a big thing for linux, but this still isnt the year of linux on the desktop
And this. Open source development will have its day, but its not now, and it won't be for a while.
On January 04 2009 13:24 Dalroti wrote:
did anyone read my "obesity" remark about Microsoft? I think this will eventually happen you know. They need to cut some product lines or do something. And yes, i hope Apple comes atleast close to what Microsoft is.
Is this a quip about Microsoft/Apple as companies, or Windows/Macintosh as operating systems? They're two different things, and talking about Microsoft's "obesity" is a statement about the former. As an end user, there's no reason you should care about how Microsoft operates, is business, so long as it operates fairly. Honestly, who's going to think less of Windows because Microsoft as a company is too big? It's irrelevant.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
better gui design is hardly a "mac style," just common sense. macs are just noob, seriously.
|
Well you can never trust what you read nowadays. We should all know that. But if it goes under I am fine with XP. If it succeeds that is even better news, but until then we will wait and find out.
|
The problem is that the average mom and dad and business users don't really care about the fancy 3d Aero or this and that on their desktop.
What they want is a minimalistic system that will do everything and anything that they expect they can do with their computer. Windows OSes sort of satisfied that but M$ problem is that they need to some how generate revenues in a world of unsympathetic customers.
IMO we don't need to improve the desktop GUI or anything else, rather give the dumb users something that they can manage with out a steep learning curve and give the power users something else.
Too bad we live in an age that people have to upgrade even tho they don't need to. Vista is actually a good OS but problem is that no one want to learn how to use it.
I can see that Linux becoming big simply because your average user is getting smarter and smarter and willing to learn extra things. But then again, they exists a significant majority of users that don't really care about what they use as long they get what ever job they do on a computer done.
|
Windows 7 is really Vista incarnate, but because it is Microsoft's reattempt, they're surely set on not committing the same mistakes as they did with Vista. Windows 7 should be inherently better because Microsoft listened to the community following Vista's release to see what types of things they would like changed. I believe Windows 7 will be success for this reason.
Gamers will always be native to Windows. You aren't ever going to play a decent game on a Mac or Penguin.
Microsoft can only improve on performance for W7. They know people hated the performance loss of Vista so I'm sure code optimization has been a primary focus of designing W7.
I rather liked the GUI for Vista, but I'm sure there can be some useful improvements (and removal of dumb features like Windows Flip) to make computer use easier . I only wish Microsoft would support the custom GUI community more, since Aero got stale after seeing it on every other computer passing through my workplace. Maybe making the design of themes accessible and compatible with all versions of the OS would help.
The only thing I think W7 will have problems with is software compatibility. This has always been a problem for new OS's however, and is usually fixed with time. Consumers should not be deterred. However, professional software for engineering or 3D will be left another generation behind. It's time Microsoft pays attention to the fact that huge companies are still on XP because their necessary software doesn't run on Vista.
|
On January 04 2009 14:43 haduken wrote:
IMO we don't need to improve the desktop GUI or anything else, rather give the dumb users something that they can manage with out a steep learning curve and give the power users something else.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
So far all I've heard from my friends, a mix of XP loyalists and "vista tolerant", that 7 is pretty damn good. A bit of a shame, I was rather hoping for another blunder and the slim hope of linux going mainstream heh.
On January 04 2009 12:56 Dalroti wrote:
This is self explanatory. More negative feedback for Microsoft means more things Apple can use as basis for their advertisements. More advertisements means more sales for Apple (face it, who doesn't think the PC guy is awesome? He probably uses a Mac). more sales means more confidence for Apple. You can create the rest of the chain.
Apple's ads are unbelievably stupid. Some of their more recent ones I can't even tell what they're trying to say (the holiday claymation crap), and some of them even seem to proclaim the "PC" character as the hero. I guess whatever they're doing works well on the unwashed masses but I've happily never owned an apple product in my life, including mp3 players (iriver wins... another thing SK does better!).
|
On January 04 2009 13:13 Vharox wrote:
I really have absolutely no problems with vista.
My updates won't work....so I'm stuck with Vista bleeping 64 UPDATES YOU SHOULD INSTALL every time i get on because whenever i try it never works. But i get used to it. I don't have any serious problems with VIsta though.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Any word on a full release date?
|
forget i said anything too muhc speculation
|
On January 04 2009 15:13 b3h47pte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2009 13:13 Vharox wrote:
I really have absolutely no problems with vista. My updates won't work....so I'm stuck with Vista bleeping 64 UPDATES YOU SHOULD INSTALL every time i get on because whenever i try it never works. But i get used to it. I don't have any serious problems with VIsta though.
404 user error?
I heard they are trying to have the release date set to late 2009 early 2010
|
I wish I knew more about Windows 7.
I do know that Vista is getting so much hate and i guess this is why Windows 7 is so crucial. I'm running on XP 32bit atm and I'm pretty happy (except for the fact that it can't read my 4gb RAM, it only reads 3gb... gg).
|
I wish Microsoft would put XP back in the market. =[
My new awesome computer comes with vista and that makes me a little sad. But atleast its premium so i get all that aero crap with the sexy themes
|
putting XP back in the market would help them a bit wouldn't it?
I mean since Vista is so infamous and Windows 7 is just they're lame excuse of a remake for vista... >.>
I remember reading somewhere that Vista is no longer getting updates/fixes because of Windows 7
|
Isn't 7 a rewrite? Like written from scratch?
|
windows 7 isnt really that monumental, but it defenetly runs better than VIsta.
like on my old laptop, it ran smooth whereas vista just wasnt worth it 
but as soon as drivers and things update things should be ok, which is the reason why m$ is working to get it out to the devs to work on.
is Dx11 suposed to come out with W7 as well? i don remember
|
apple makes very expensive equipment
they will be hit alot harder in the recession than PCs you can make yourself for 1/4 the price
windows will be fine
|
I've had some small problems with Vista. But I would never consider going back to XP. And I would never consider paying 2x the money to get a Mac.
|
there are still people caring about mac?
|
One question: Won't completely new system architecture and stuff like that make everything released for previous versions of Windows not compatible with the new thing?
That would seriously suck.
|
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.
|
Some benchmarks already confirm that W7 is a bit faster than both XP and Vista.
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.
|
Where can I download Windows 7?
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
I have been using vista on my new computer for a year now and have no problem with it. apart from the odd crash, which half of the time I asked for it and knew it coming. Also, the sidebar is the coolest thing ever.
|
hopefully this new windows version doesn't turn out to be another netbook and laptop killer with it's hardcore demand for ram .. -,-
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
On January 04 2009 21:27 vAltyR wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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...
|
That mojave thing was legit actually. From what I have seen if a person has never seen Vista before they will just assume that it sucks ass. People are dumb herd animals.
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.
|
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...
|
Until Mac can gain some traction in the gaming communities nothing will change me thinks.
|
Vista sucks. Other than looking slightly better with all the useless fancy graphics, it does basically the same thing that XP could do. I will try out Windows 7 when it comes out, but I don't expect it to be any much more useful than XP. Microsoft is slumping.
|
The thing that gets me about the Apple ads is the assumption that a PC can't view photos or videos, nor can it listen to music. It can only look at spreadsheets and pie-charts.
Gets me every time.
|
The fact that i can get 10000 seeds on windows 7 or any Microsoft os proves that it's not make it or break it. Frankly because apple seriously is not playing ball with their most recent os's because you have to buy apple compatible computers meaning it's a apple monopoly of all things dealing with their os making it cost too much. People bitch so much about Vista because we love Microsoft and we are disappointed same thing will happen for years to come Microsoft releases an ehh ohkay os then released an updated version of the same kernel that we are like sweet we can use this.
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.
|
On January 05 2009 05:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Until Mac can gain some traction in the gaming communities nothing will change me thinks.
Macs have gained much traction in the media community though (graphics, music, etc)
And programs like Codeweavers, Wine, and Cedega will eventually make everything compatible. I had SC:BW (w.o. ICCUP/Chaos) running perfectly on my Linux.
Winblows just utterly failed with Vista. My fresh-out of the factory Lenovo froze every 10 minutes before I dual-booted Linux and XP (for ICCUP/Chaos lol). If Microsoft keeps on failing, I'm sure one of the major game companies will start looking into making games compatible for other OS's and then it'll snowball from there.
|
You guys should watch the interview with Bill Gates that recently aired on PBS, it was fantastic. It really shows why he is so smart. He isn't worried at all about the "demise of microsoft" like so many of you are crying about. The guy is smart, and from what he said in the interview, it sounds like 7 should be solid as hell. Basically Vista that runs way more efficient and is cleaned up a ton.
|
On January 05 2009 16:49 redtooth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2009 05:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Until Mac can gain some traction in the gaming communities nothing will change me thinks. Macs have gained much traction in the media community though (graphics, music, etc) And programs like Codeweavers, Wine, and Cedega will eventually make everything compatible. I had SC:BW (w.o. ICCUP/Chaos) running perfectly on my Linux. Winblows just utterly failed with Vista. My fresh-out of the factory Lenovo froze every 10 minutes before I dual-booted Linux and XP (for ICCUP/Chaos lol). If Microsoft keeps on failing, I'm sure one of the major game companies will start looking into making games compatible for other OS's and then it'll snowball from there.
OEM manufacturer's are a large part of the problem. Someone buys a laptop, which probably is not very good specs to begin with and that is also pre-loaded with tons and tons and tons of bloatware, trialcrap, and unnecessary lenovo programs.
Then said pissed off person does a fresh re-install of some other OS and surprise! the system runs much better. Do you really think other Vista users have computer freezes every 10 minutes? Or even once a week?
You changed more than one variable in a problem and then called it good. That is pretty sloppy logic.
|
On January 06 2009 03:16 maleorderbride wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2009 16:49 redtooth wrote:On January 05 2009 05:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Until Mac can gain some traction in the gaming communities nothing will change me thinks. Macs have gained much traction in the media community though (graphics, music, etc) And programs like Codeweavers, Wine, and Cedega will eventually make everything compatible. I had SC:BW (w.o. ICCUP/Chaos) running perfectly on my Linux. Winblows just utterly failed with Vista. My fresh-out of the factory Lenovo froze every 10 minutes before I dual-booted Linux and XP (for ICCUP/Chaos lol). If Microsoft keeps on failing, I'm sure one of the major game companies will start looking into making games compatible for other OS's and then it'll snowball from there. OEM manufacturer's are a large part of the problem. Someone buys a laptop, which probably is not very good specs to begin with and that is also pre-loaded with tons and tons and tons of bloatware, trialcrap, and unnecessary lenovo programs. Then said pissed off person does a fresh re-install of some other OS and surprise! the system runs much better. Do you really think other Vista users have computer freezes every 10 minutes? Or even once a week? You changed more than one variable in a problem and then called it good. That is pretty sloppy logic.
I know that is what I am thinking. I see my friend's computers with Vista and it works perfectly fine (except one where his stuff lags alot, and he gets viruses cuz hes a bad boy xD).
But what I am trying to say in the ad is that really I think Apple is going to use this window of opportunity to increase their sales. They even said in their release of the brand new notebooks (which I must say are very nice from what I have heard) that Vista is one big reason why they think they are doing so well lately. Because Vista is getting all of this bad rep.
|
On January 06 2009 06:51 Dalroti wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2009 03:16 maleorderbride wrote:On January 05 2009 16:49 redtooth wrote:On January 05 2009 05:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Until Mac can gain some traction in the gaming communities nothing will change me thinks. Macs have gained much traction in the media community though (graphics, music, etc) And programs like Codeweavers, Wine, and Cedega will eventually make everything compatible. I had SC:BW (w.o. ICCUP/Chaos) running perfectly on my Linux. Winblows just utterly failed with Vista. My fresh-out of the factory Lenovo froze every 10 minutes before I dual-booted Linux and XP (for ICCUP/Chaos lol). If Microsoft keeps on failing, I'm sure one of the major game companies will start looking into making games compatible for other OS's and then it'll snowball from there. OEM manufacturer's are a large part of the problem. Someone buys a laptop, which probably is not very good specs to begin with and that is also pre-loaded with tons and tons and tons of bloatware, trialcrap, and unnecessary lenovo programs. Then said pissed off person does a fresh re-install of some other OS and surprise! the system runs much better. Do you really think other Vista users have computer freezes every 10 minutes? Or even once a week? You changed more than one variable in a problem and then called it good. That is pretty sloppy logic. I know that is what I am thinking. I see my friend's computers with Vista and it works perfectly fine (except one where his stuff lags alot, and he gets viruses cuz hes a bad boy xD). But what I am trying to say in the ad is that really I think Apple is going to use this window of opportunity to increase their sales. They even said in their release of the brand new notebooks (which I must say are very nice from what I have heard) that Vista is one big reason why they think they are doing so well lately. Because Vista is getting all of this bad rep.
Apple have always made nice laptops, they just have a shitty OS.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On January 05 2009 05:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Until Mac can gain some traction in the gaming communities nothing will change me thinks.
Nah, more like professional communities.
|
xp is the best still
|
macs are like the girl you have a one night stand with
windows is the wife.
|
On January 06 2009 07:17 Zalfor wrote:
macs are like the girl you have a one night stand with
windows is the wife.
Fun vs Accomplishment O.O?
|
I wish Mac would actually advertise how good their OS is instead of bashing Windows. Its hard to have confidence in a company if they have to ridicule competitors to gain an edge
|
United States3824 Posts
Microsoft can't really lose very much market share because Apple computers still cost as much as they did before the vista release. People are eventually going to realize that they just don't have they money for them, though they seem to be convincing themselves of that as of late.
Oh yeah and Linux? Not going to happen.
|
I browsed through the other pages, and it doesn't seem like this was posted yet:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236
In the RECENT tests done, Windows 7 is not just more snappy and quick than Vista (duh), but it is also faster than XP in almost every single test. Windows 7 is turning into what Vista should have been. Everything will be pretty and awesome while still running like a champ. Also keep in mind that this is a *BETA* build which is outperforming XP. The final code will of course be better. As for how much better, who can say. But as it stands, an unfinished Windows 7 is still faster than XP.
|
On January 06 2009 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:I browsed through the other pages, and it doesn't seem like this was posted yet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236In the RECENT tests done, Windows 7 is not just more snappy and quick than Vista (duh), but it is also faster than XP in almost every single test. Windows 7 is turning into what Vista should have been. Everything will be pretty and awesome while still running like a champ. Also keep in mind that this is a *BETA* build which is outperforming XP. The final code will of course be better. As for how much better, who can say. But as it stands, an unfinished Windows 7 is still faster than XP.
Lol so what microsoft isn't lieing when they said Windows 7 is what Vista should have been =p Lol those tests also show quad core just runs better on vista then XP.
|
On January 06 2009 11:07 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2009 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:I browsed through the other pages, and it doesn't seem like this was posted yet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236In the RECENT tests done, Windows 7 is not just more snappy and quick than Vista (duh), but it is also faster than XP in almost every single test. Windows 7 is turning into what Vista should have been. Everything will be pretty and awesome while still running like a champ. Also keep in mind that this is a *BETA* build which is outperforming XP. The final code will of course be better. As for how much better, who can say. But as it stands, an unfinished Windows 7 is still faster than XP. Lol so what microsoft isn't lieing when they said Windows 7 is what Vista should have been =p Lol those tests also show quad core just runs better on vista then XP.
I don't quite understand this post. Grammar and proper vocab use would be helpful.
|
On January 06 2009 11:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2009 11:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On January 06 2009 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:I browsed through the other pages, and it doesn't seem like this was posted yet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236In the RECENT tests done, Windows 7 is not just more snappy and quick than Vista (duh), but it is also faster than XP in almost every single test. Windows 7 is turning into what Vista should have been. Everything will be pretty and awesome while still running like a champ. Also keep in mind that this is a *BETA* build which is outperforming XP. The final code will of course be better. As for how much better, who can say. But as it stands, an unfinished Windows 7 is still faster than XP. Lol. So Microsoft was not lying when they said that Windows 7 is aimed to be what Vista should have been. =p Edit: Lol. Those tests also show that Quad-core processors just run better on Vista then on a XP system. I don't quite understand this post. Grammar and proper vocab use would be helpful.
Happy?
|
I've used vista for exactly one year now, and so far I've had exactly zero problems. In fact I just reinstalled because it was getting a little sluggish, but that was my choice because I had so much crap installed. I have dicked with it quite a bit, and the only trouble I had was when I disabled the themes service and couldn't figure out why aero would not start. Again, my mistake, vista was only helpful in getting me to fix it. I don't see why people have a problem with it. It runs just as speedy if not moreso than XP, and there are a lot of little things that make it a lot easier to use. (The searchable start menu comes to mind)
I won't be upgrading to windows 7 when it comes out, primarily because I have no problems where I'm at.
|
Well Vista is a good os now, key word is now. But it was buggy when released and now there is a huge Vista stigma that it's the most fucking horrible os in the world and everyone seems to believe it.
|
Apple will never have dominant market share, at least not as long as there are no disruptive technologies.
The network effect is too large. Everybody uses Windows.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is really not that much of a vista stigma, except occasional complaints about minor issues. not many people frequent popular tech forums where they hear this kind of stuff, and for most people, if the os is somewhat stable, they wont have complaints. it came with the computer after all.
|
Don't count Linux out yet. Vast majority of computer users only use computer to web browse, listen to their music and do basic office tasks.
Linux is capable of performing these tasks.
For your average mom and dad, having MS Office and Open office will not be that different.
|
Lol yeah but you dont go out and buy linux and follow easy instructions to install i'm sure the mom and dad that just does those things would rather have easy install and easy find. Hey i'm sure for alot of people sun micros openoffice would be just fine but then why don't people use it is because it's not popular and easy to get as a store purchase
|
lol.... Microsoft isn't going anywhere. You're nuts. It's been said a couple times—Apple's target audience and business model would have to change for anything to ever happen. Not everyone needs super sick comps. You can get a working PC for dirt cheap if you just need it for net/MSword.
|
Anybody that's saying MSFT is going down is smoking something really good. MSFT is one of the few still making huge!!! profits under this economy. XBox, MSN, Live Search, etc may be losing money and not making any profit but the Windows and Office department profit is so much that the other departments do not matter. In fact, there are rumors MS will be laying off 10-17% of it's workforce worldwide, which means they are trying to cut off the extra fat (MSN, Live, etc) for a higher profit and happy stock holder. Anyways, Windows 7 build 7000 is really good, I don't like MS but I have to admit they are doing it right this time.
|
open beta in case you haven't tried it yet
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx
Windows 7
Over the past few years, you've asked us to make some changes to Windows. We listened closely. Now it's time to share an early look at how we've used your feedback. Windows 7 is faster, more reliable, and makes it easier to do what you want. Both the everyday things and the killer "is that really possible?" things. Dig into this site to see what's coming. Want to try the Beta? Come back the afternoon of January 9. And remember—this is just a preview. There's more to come.
|
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people.
|
Beta will only be available for 2.5mill downloads, according to Wiki.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Hmmm my computer's too slow to even try it :o
|
FreeZ, that's the first time I've seen someone interpreting layoffs as a positive sign.
|
On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people.
They don't rob you if you buy the stock but any upgrade and it is just robbery T_T 300 dollars for just 1 more hard drive its only 500gb wtfffff
|
On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people.
And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ?
Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ?
|
On January 09 2009 21:37 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people. And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ? Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ?
You can buy one with Linux on it (not all the models though) and the price difference is like 25-30%...
And you have to take into account that in most cases when you buy a comp with pre-installed Windows you want to re-install it anyway to fit your needs better.
|
On January 09 2009 21:37 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people. And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ? Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ?
Well Mac only is sold by apple they don't allow license outside of them =p also mac isn't compatible with alot of hard wear well the current macs.
What you wanna buy one with Linux on it install it yourself all Linux are free its why they aren't put on computers very often hard licenseing issue
|
On January 09 2009 21:37 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people. And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ? Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ?
well you can make your own pc
you cant make your own mac
|
IzzyCraft, that's not true. Licensing isn't an issue, the issue is with getting people to buy something that doesn't have the nice familiar Windows sticker on it - many people think that Windows IS the computer.
Actually, we saw last year that the Asus Eee sold pretty well with Linux. I think it was Compaq that was selling the budget PCs with Linux as well.
|
PobTheCad: You can't make your own laptop and not many are offered with Linux (I don't mind installing it I just mind paying the Windows license I wont use)
Can't make your own Mac but I think they are willing to refund the MacOSX licence if you send it back wich is not true with all Microsoft vendors.
What should be done is :
Selling the computer with whatever software installed (for people who don't want to install anything and just want a ready to go computer) but not activated.
The software licenses of these products should be mentioned in the price (that is the law at least in France even if it is not respected) and if you decide you do not want these software they just don't give you the activation codes, they take them out of the price and you take them out of the system.
I currently have Mac hardware with a Linux installed :o
|
w7 is rape. have any of you tried it? I get better benchmarks for everything with it than I did with vista or XP.
...you can make your own laptop if you know enough about hardware.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 09 2009 21:37 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people. And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ? Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ?
completely irrelevant. apple is considered even more offensive in its marketing tactics because how blatantly it perpetrates ignorance. ignorance of the mac premium, and why exactly this premium is charged. it is not because of superior worksmanship and such, it is because of apple's effort of creating a distinct market of "macs" against pc, when they are the same. apple wants to frame the choice of buying a mac as not merely "choosing a computer" but buying something distinctly different from pc. other apple gimmicks are designed to minimize competitive exposure to the pc market. apple minimizes the concept of specs and supports usability out of a rotisserie oven infomercial; they do not mention price comparisons, otherwise people will deviate from the desired track of thought and see macs as just computers. yes, macs look pretty and stylish, and that matters, but that alone does not explain the premium apple charges, nor does it explain the herds of money rolling their way. look at the router market, does the aesthetic superiority of a particular mac-ish router explain its pricing premium, if any exists? apple's design is a part of their strategy of constructing a distinct market for their own products, it is manufactured brand fetish.
this strategy relies in part on ignorance of the users, and even informed mac users tend to justify macs against pcs, rather than complaining about mac's pricing. the mac premium is just hateful, why do mac users put up with it? because apple is their company in the struggle to justify their commodity purchase against "microsoft pc."
you can still buy macs without buying into their marketing philosophy, and that's fine. if i were rich enough i'd consider it, but goddamn their marketing is hateful.
|
On January 09 2009 23:24 Beamo wrote:
PobTheCad: You can't make your own laptop and not many are offered with Linux (I don't mind installing it I just mind paying the Windows license I wont use)
I ordered my laptop custom and had choice of OS and could have gone with linux ~.~
Went with XP
|
United States12226 Posts
On January 06 2009 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:I browsed through the other pages, and it doesn't seem like this was posted yet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236In the RECENT tests done, Windows 7 is not just more snappy and quick than Vista (duh), but it is also faster than XP in almost every single test. Windows 7 is turning into what Vista should have been. Everything will be pretty and awesome while still running like a champ. Also keep in mind that this is a *BETA* build which is outperforming XP. The final code will of course be better. As for how much better, who can say. But as it stands, an unfinished Windows 7 is still faster than XP.
I got a chance to check out Win7 on my coworker's new netbook, and it really did impress me. I'm in the same boat as a lot of other guys around here -- wary of a new OS upgrade due to compatibility problems or lack of optimization. I ran Win2k until about 5 months ago, when I finally upgraded to XP SP2. I swore never to get Vista.
But after seeing Win7, I'm very tempted to buy it on release day. It really is that good. The UI is so customizable that you really can't go wrong. It does have some annoying features by default, such as the return of the UAC, but even the UAC can be customized to only send reports/confirmation requests on one of four security infraction levels (much better than the simple On/Off that I heard Vista used).
I know there are a lot of anti-MS bandwagoners on this site, but really you guys don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Win7. I'm pretty confident that once it's fully optimized and out the door that you'll all be eating your words.
Projected release date is October 2009.
EDIT: So not only is Win7 already faster than XP/Vista, it uses less memory (though it does use more HD space). While XP will use ~500MB/1GB of RAM just for the OS, and Vista allegedly uses 1-2GB, Win7 was using only 200-300MB, which is incredibly efficient considering it has all of the previous versions' features rolled in.
|
Will would be about time for it to use less RAM...
I have Pidgin (MSN like), Firefox, a screenlet, a ftpserver and a stylish dock launched and I'm at less then 450Mo RAM used...
|
I'll give it 3 1/2 years (when I graduate from university)!!! If it passes the test of time, then I'll get it haha. However, these reports coming in are very comforting. Hopefully this "new" OS will work out and not pull a Savior.
|
Windows 7 beta is up for download at microsofts site...i should have it in about 3 hours
|
ah finally been waiting to see get to put somethign besides linux on my lappy
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/downloads/default.aspx?pv=36:350
On January 09 2009 22:36 BottleAbuser wrote:
IzzyCraft, that's not true. Licensing isn't an issue, the issue is with getting people to buy something that doesn't have the nice familiar Windows sticker on it - many people think that Windows IS the computer.
Actually, we saw last year that the Asus Eee sold pretty well with Linux. I think it was Compaq that was selling the budget PCs with Linux as well.
Lol you wonder why people think windows is a computer i mean the way apple advertise mac osx they make you think they are completely different things not just different os.
|
doubt post T_T Quote not= edit
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Damn, the download limit exceeded? won't let me download it.
|
Oh yeah it was pulled lol but it was pulled due to high demand porb to be re put up there later when the Microsoft servers can handle such a heavy load.You could try to torrent the beta but you wont have a key for it yes Microsoft has keys for their betas you get them though email at least for every other beta I've tried with Microsoft.
|
where is MS link to the dl?
|
They pulled it severs where about to crash microsoft isn't the type to allow that.
|
I was checking the windows 7 main page for whole day, NEVER saw one single link to the dl, except it keeps saying check back on Jan 9th in the afternoon......
|
You should see now a small edit under that announcement saying it will be back up with more servers later
|
I saw that messege after it got pulled, but before that I never saw anything, not even a new word on that main page. There was no way for me to find out the download link.
|
I read some more about this OS. I'm really excited for it. I want to do a beta, will they have x64 beta up?
|
Imo it still is pretty bloated with features people wont be using but not nearly as much as vista was. People tend to have a love hate relationship with those items anyways i swear by Microsoft essentials like the resource kit tools for everything like burning .iso and i avoid torrenting software that doesn't need to be like how people steal winrar i wonder if win 7 will have a good enough default compressor.
Not sure how the beta will go i know in the tech area you can get a beta for x64 or x86 both are a livable off the tech site by Microsoft so yeah x64 beta porb will be available for download to general public.
|
I managed to get an x64 beta key, and I'll be installing it probably sometime Sunday. I still have work to do and backups to create on this XP machine before I install 7 on it.
|
Vatican City State491 Posts
On January 05 2009 16:35 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I dont want to buy a new computer just because Microsoft updated their program with a flashy GUI that I will turn off after 10 minutes. If they earn billions of dollars and hire the best programmers, why cant they program windows in fucking assembler, so that the new OS will run 5-10 times faster? Why cant they make the new system work on old machines? It's definitely possible. It's just called optimization. Take a look at the consoles.
Why do we need a new GUI anyway? I dont want to spend the next 3 months trying to figure out where can I change some option, just because they decided to redesign all the menus?
Actually "redesigning the menus" means that all the options will be moved somewhere else, so that noone will ever find them.
All the companies I know are working with Office 2003, just because their employees do not want to move to Office XP. The latter did simply not introduce any important changes, yet all the menus and functions got redesigned - consequently noone knows how to use them. (The only important update was that Excel can have a million rows now, but most people can survive with like 1000 anyway.)
Cant they make "XP2"? An upgraded and optimized version, that would run much faster on the machines WE ALLREADY USE, + offer more SECURITY and STABILITY options + support for other new technologies (directx 10, blueray)?
To be honest I didnt even install service pack 2, because it makes my computer like 20-30% slower and all it did was an introduction of irritating popups like "this file was downloaded from the intrawebs, it can be dangerous".
In theory the computers are getting faster and faster, yet it still takes like 10 minutes to start them (with all the antiviruses, firewalls, proxy settings etc.). Why?
What did windows XP give me in comparison to 98? A bit more stability? New directx? Usb support? Is this really a big update? The only new functionalities that I recongize are the "ctrl+alt+del" manager and upgraded file sharing in networks (which still sucks balls and doesnt work).
Have you guys ever tried running windows 98 on a dual core machine? Microsoft doesnt update it, so there are many driver/compatibility issues, but the comp runs FAST AS HELL.
The testers never benchmark computers in real environment. Run all the company crap (AV, FW, outlook, excel, powerpoint, perhaps some communicator) and your computer will still run slow. Despite your new Vista and 4gb of ram.
It's just like the browsers. They use acid3 test to benchmark them. I dont give a fuck about acid3. Teamliquid is very simple and does not use any acid3 crap, yet it takes like 2 seconds to load it on my company computer despite its dual core. It took the same amount of time on my windows 98 comp! Not to mention that in real work environment all the browsers crash for me regularly. Open 50 tabs (including 10pdf files) in firefox, chrome or IE and all of them will crash at least once time per day.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
If the world was as simple as you just put it, Microsoft would have found those solutions before you could type that whole thing out.
|
On January 09 2009 21:37 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people. And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ? Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ?
You seriously think that the cost of an OS is equal to the extra money that Apple charges on upgrades? Just looking at the retail for desktop replacement laptops, for equal specs, you're paying an extra $2000 dollars. An OS costs what...$100 max?
|
Vatican City State491 Posts
On January 10 2009 18:07 Klogon wrote:
If the world was as simple as you just put it, Microsoft would have found those solutions before you could type that whole thing out.
They know about the problems but do not want to solve them. M$ is signing deals with computer manufacturers in order to "provide better hardware support" (basically they bribe M$ not to optimize Windows so that new, faster computers are required).
Just like MS never cared about the fact that 99% of people will hate the DRM in Vista. Dont you remember all the uproar? Noone wanted it, yet they included it, just because the media companies pushed it.
Windows 98 runs fast like hell on modern machines. Linux distributions like puppylinux can be run on old computers, yet offer the same functionalities as modern OSes (apart the GUI). Why is Windows so slow? Due to all the bloatware and lack of optimization.
|
On January 04 2009 12:56 Dalroti wrote:
Being a Mac fan
Stopped reading here.
|
On January 10 2009 18:02 closed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2009 16:35 IzzyCraft wrote: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. I dont want to buy a new computer just because Microsoft updated their program with a flashy GUI that I will turn off after 10 minutes. If they earn billions of dollars and hire the best programmers, why cant they program windows in fucking assembler, so that the new OS will run 5-10 times faster? Why cant they make the new system work on old machines? It's definitely possible. It's just called optimization. Take a look at the consoles. Why do we need a new GUI anyway? I dont want to spend the next 3 months trying to figure out where can I change some option, just because they decided to redesign all the menus? Actually "redesigning the menus" means that all the options will be moved somewhere else, so that noone will ever find them. All the companies I know are working with Office 2003, just because their employees do not want to move to Office XP. The latter did simply not introduce any important changes, yet all the menus and functions got redesigned - consequently noone knows how to use them. (The only important update was that Excel can have a million rows now, but most people can survive with like 1000 anyway.) Cant they make "XP2"? An upgraded and optimized version, that would run much faster on the machines WE ALLREADY USE, + offer more SECURITY and STABILITY options + support for other new technologies (directx 10, blueray)? To be honest I didnt even install service pack 2, because it makes my computer like 20-30% slower and all it did was an introduction of irritating popups like "this file was downloaded from the intrawebs, it can be dangerous". In theory the computers are getting faster and faster, yet it still takes like 10 minutes to start them (with all the antiviruses, firewalls, proxy settings etc.). Why? What did windows XP give me in comparison to 98? A bit more stability? New directx? Usb support? Is this really a big update? The only new functionalities that I recongize are the "ctrl+alt+del" manager and upgraded file sharing in networks (which still sucks balls and doesnt work). Have you guys ever tried running windows 98 on a dual core machine? Microsoft doesnt update it, so there are many driver/compatibility issues, but the comp runs FAST AS HELL. The testers never benchmark computers in real environment. Run all the company crap (AV, FW, outlook, excel, powerpoint, perhaps some communicator) and your computer will still run slow. Despite your new Vista and 4gb of ram. It's just like the browsers. They use acid3 test to benchmark them. I dont give a fuck about acid3. Teamliquid is very simple and does not use any acid3 crap, yet it takes like 2 seconds to load it on my company computer despite its dual core. It took the same amount of time on my windows 98 comp! Not to mention that in real work environment all the browsers crash for me regularly. Open 50 tabs (including 10pdf files) in firefox, chrome or IE and all of them will crash at least once time per day.
Why even have a GUI, you can use the command line prompt. Why have NTFS, FAT32 is faster right? There are tradeoffs and benefits , most of them are not easily visible to the end user (consumer).
Have fun with win98.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On January 10 2009 18:12 closed wrote:
Windows 98 runs fast like hell on modern machines.
Pretty sure Vista is faster on modern machines.
|
On January 10 2009 19:41 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2009 18:12 closed wrote:
Windows 98 runs fast like hell on modern machines. Pretty sure Vista is faster on modern machines.
Ture Vista will read hard drives and write them faster due to better data management and also use quad core alot better. running a 10 year old program on a modern computer ofc it's fast
Why have a car that can do 300 that looks like shit and you never even take it out of the city.
|
On January 10 2009 18:08 Centric wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 21:37 Beamo wrote:On January 09 2009 18:45 Centric wrote:
I hate all things Mac. In this terrible economy they are robbing people. And Microsoft isn't ?! Selling Windows on every sold computer ? Ever seen how hard it is to buy a computer (espacially a laptop) without Windows on it ? You seriously think that the cost of an OS is equal to the extra money that Apple charges on upgrades? Just looking at the retail for desktop replacement laptops, for equal specs, you're paying an extra $2000 dollars. An OS costs what...$100 max?
Seeing Microsoft has 95% of the market, yes I do think the charges of their OS is at least as much as "the design" you pay when you get a Mac.
My main problem with Mac is not about how expensive their products are, if people want to pay for the design it's their problem. That's called added value and that's what companies sell (look how much a painting costs compared to how much it's worth creating (time included).
The part where I think they act like bastards is on how they force you to use their products the way they want you to. Imprisoning you with their tools. Take a look at an I-Phone, it has a perfectly working OS on it but you can't install tools you like you have to install the tools they sell using their format. Same for I-Pod, they tatooed the firmware of the last generations preventing you to use an other one and preventing you to use anything else then I-Tunes.
On the other hand we have Microsoft who gained a quasi-monopole on desktops and laptops and who keeps on abusing (which is not legal, see the anti-trust laws) it's position forcing suppliers to sell out Windows & Office, forcing people to perpetually upgrade their hardware for few added functionalities, bribing countries and the ISO to adopt their unfinished OpenXML format when an ISO certified document format already existed (ODT) etc... etc...
So yes I think both companies are equally bastards that are robing miss-informed people.
I'm not saying theor products are bad, I just don't like how they force you to use them.
Do you really think IE would still be over 70% used if it was not forced by Windows (you can't even uninstall it...) and if Windows did not hold 95% of the market ?
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Actually, some time I had to pay +$75 to take Windows XP off a premade computer than if I ordered it with it. I think it has to do with the money other companies pay the computer maker to put the bloatware in there. So sometimes having Windows installed on the PC LOWERS the cost.
|
I don't know what the thing about mac is...
I mean JESUS, its only a computer, not a change of lifestyle...
Mac, Linux, Windows, it doesn't make too big of a difference, you will mostly do the same stuff anyways.
I like linux the best, but i use windows because i am a gamer.
Also i use a PC because it's simpler to upgrade, i mean, i dont have to buy a new computer to get some new component or something
|
so... for the ppl who downloaded the beta
how is it? ^^
|
On January 04 2009 13:19 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2009 13:16 Archaic wrote:On January 04 2009 12:56 Dalroti wrote:
Apple will become the leader in this OS war because they will be looked as the best alternative to Microsoft. Apple will have to increase iWork's power to match Office's, or Microsoft will continue making Office for the OSX to keep their revenues high. BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA. First off, let me explain that I am a mac user as well, but I use both Mac and PC. Let's get this straight: No matter how much Microsoft screws up, Apple virtually never surpass them, no matter how much "better" their products are. The fact is that PCs are dirt cheap, and companies will always prefer them. They still technically work, and they don't need to niceties that Apple offers. So for 5x less, they can get the same job done. Second, iWork vs Office is a joke. Microsoft Office conveniently comes with the package, so Microsoft with still stay > Mac in terms of industry. Don't get me wrong, iWork is very nice, except Excel is a very good program (better than Numbers imo), and Office has potential to be actually more professional than iWork. Basically, Windows 7 can be another flop just like Vista, but not much will change. Apple may gain ground, but that is because they have been doing that for a while now. Microsoft will keep throwing out the low quality junk, but it will stay efficient *enough* so people keep buying it. That is just my two cents. Mac will never become a dominant market force simply because of their target customers and their business model. If OS X becomes as popular as Windows then the same will happen. Even if Windows keep screwing up, some one have to be the janitor.
the extra price of macs is the smugness tax and the superiority complex surcharge oh and the attention whore hidden fees..
If your gonna get anything other than a PC just get ubuntu or whatever other free OS.
personally I don't see anything wrong with vista, i just turn off the graphics off and it works just like xp did.
|
shit isn't downloading..... directs me to profile page, and the shit keeps spinning in the middle, nothing loading...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i got a key, but i don't have a machine for it. hopefully that will change soon.
|
On January 11 2009 03:47 oneofthem wrote:
i got a key, but i don't have a machine for it. hopefully that will change soon.
I got a key but i dont have a dvd burner lol but that is what friends are for.
|
|
|
Would this work with vmware?
|
Linux user here, but I've heard good things.
I don't really think this will make it or break it for microsoft. From their position, they really just have to stop releasing bad software, rather than release good software.
i.e., if they rebranded XP as "Windows 2009" and released it, people would call it the savior of the company.
|
Why not as long as it's still the same as your oringal os it should work last time i checked you can install as many 32 bits or as many 64bit oses useing vmware as long as the bit is the same as your oringal os.
|
i think the great difference with win and mac is the amount of software people has and will develop on top of it. i don't know about mac, but with windows i can just develop any stupid app on it and make it work. (kinda like appstore for free) i think this is why a lot of enterprise companies still use win.
for mac people out there is there anything similar on your side? development tools ? not quite sure on how the model looks like in mac.
thanks!
|
On January 10 2009 19:41 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2009 18:12 closed wrote:
Windows 98 runs fast like hell on modern machines. Pretty sure Vista is faster on modern machines.
finding drivers for modern computer equipment for win98 is a pain , if not an impossibility
|
Microsoft will not loose market-share as long as you can still get XP.
I think they went too hardware heavy with Vista and thats why it failed.
People buying new PC every 3 or 4 years don't want to upgrade since it slows down teir systems and companies don't adopt it since the functionality advantage over XP it brings is very small, but the hardware requirements are too big.
So why in the hell change windows, except to give microsoft even more money?
No reason what so ever, apart from DX10 there is virtually no reason whatsoever to switch from XP to Vista.
Windows 7 on the other hand will get more adopted, since people would have recycled their hardware and bought new PC's.
More demanding applications is also forcing companies to buy new and better PC's and they might as wel switch to windows 7 when it gets released.
|
Well Windows 7 was working perfectly fine until now--Starcraft isn't working, with an error saying that the game can't find the file font/font.gid. Some googling suggests this is the file that contains the CD key you used to install the game.
Running in compatibility mode doesn't work, regardless of which OS you choose. Nor does running as an administrator.
Does anyone have an idea how to fix this?
|
On January 11 2009 12:49 Cobalt wrote:
Well Windows 7 was working perfectly fine until now--Starcraft isn't working, with an error saying that the game can't find the file font/font.gid. Some googling suggests this is the file that contains the CD key you used to install the game.
Running in compatibility mode doesn't work, regardless of which OS you choose. Nor does running as an administrator.
Does anyone have an idea how to fix this?
reinstall under compatibility mode
|
On January 11 2009 12:52 ilovehnk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2009 12:49 Cobalt wrote:
Well Windows 7 was working perfectly fine until now--Starcraft isn't working, with an error saying that the game can't find the file font/font.gid. Some googling suggests this is the file that contains the CD key you used to install the game.
Running in compatibility mode doesn't work, regardless of which OS you choose. Nor does running as an administrator.
Does anyone have an idea how to fix this? reinstall under compatibility mode
I can't believe I didn't think of this. Attempting now.
EDIT: Nope. Still not working.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
fuck they got rid of quick launch. i think i like build 6800 more 
|
On January 11 2009 12:57 Kentor wrote:fuck they got rid of quick launch. i think i like build 6800 more
I kind of like the Pin system it's like quick launch system but expands on it i only think it's a bit hard to navigate the pin system of multiple windows that easily using a touch pad plus only using pictures boxes allows for more windows to fit on the start bar.
On January 11 2009 12:52 Cobalt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2009 12:52 ilovehnk wrote:On January 11 2009 12:49 Cobalt wrote:
Well Windows 7 was working perfectly fine until now--Starcraft isn't working, with an error saying that the game can't find the file font/font.gid. Some googling suggests this is the file that contains the CD key you used to install the game.
Running in compatibility mode doesn't work, regardless of which OS you choose. Nor does running as an administrator.
Does anyone have an idea how to fix this? reinstall under compatibility mode I can't believe I didn't think of this. Attempting now. EDIT: Nope. Still not working.
You porb have a messed up windows install of Starcraft
Because I'm running Windows 7 x64 and i have Starcraft working only problem is that the colors are messed up except in game and on b.net which i guess works out.
|
I have Windows 7 setup at work. I really don't see why people are jumping up and down about. It is still laggish and the interface looks a bit streamlined but everything still spell Vista to me.
To be honest, Vista wasn't even bad to a power user like me, but I still went Linux just because i can't stand the M$ model.
M$ free for 2 years and counting! ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
