EPTWindows 7 Impressions - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
i mean i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a percent of that to program prettier graphics [edit] obviously there is a lot more but it doesn't look like it's the visual updates * 100 | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
maybe i'm off by order of a magnitude so then you can only pay them 50,000 for 20 years | ||
|
ish0wstopper
Korea (South)342 Posts
vista wasnt a smashing success and many people are still using XP. windows 7 is their way of keeping their enormous consumer base intact, which could be wooed by apple or linux | ||
|
topspinserve
United States147 Posts
On January 12 2009 14:32 EmeraldSparks wrote: what makes windows 7 more awesome than previous os's for the average user besides some random prettified shit? i'm pretty sure that it costs less than a hundred billion dollars to program an OS that can be made nicer looking; that's the cost of paying ten thousand programmers a hundred thousand dollars a year for a century working on nothing besides windows 7 i mean i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a percent of that to program prettier graphics [edit] obviously there is a lot more but it doesn't look like it's the visual updates * 100 That is actually a good question, but I don't know that they feel there's that much more they can make an OS do at this point. I guess they just work on stability and honing the features they already have, while adding a few more. Windows 7 is adding in a lot of touch/multitouch support, as that seems to be an important area for the future of computing. (Personally, I don't think that touch computing will catch on much in wide applications in the near future.) | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
Edit: WARP is what it's called apparently. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On January 12 2009 10:29 Manit0u wrote: [...] Something similar to most Linux updates, where you enter the menu, check the list of available software/OS upgrades, find something interesting, press the button and it automatically installs. [...] Due to the nature of Windows and closed source apps this can't work as well as in Linux. a) Most software you use on Windows doesn't come with Windows itself, so MS cannot update e.g. Firefox and OpenOffice b) Commercial software vendors want you to go to their download site anyway, and use their installer which can do all sorts of shit (e.g. install stuff you don't want, track usage etc.) All MS can do is provide easy updates for their own stuff (mostly Windows updates). For anything else, each and every application needs to have their own, special updater (=> no consistency)... it sucks compared to Linux, but it's not possible otherwise unless they all let MS distribute their stuff, lol. | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
To me so far, it just feels like a more "refined" version of vista with some new features and small visual and performance boosts. Almost everything that works for Vista works for 7 as well, which makes sense considering they're using more or less the same kernel. The only important thing that doesn't seem to work is Daemon tools... >_< | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
It always surprises me about performance complains from people that have like computers that are like 6+ years old which is more or less according to Moore's law basically the computer build for one like that would be like 1/6th the cost for 6 times the power lol My friend put vista on a comp running a Voodoo and a Pentium 3 it took like 10 mins to start up reminded me of like windows 98. | ||
|
Beamo
France1279 Posts
On January 12 2009 16:54 IzzyCraft wrote: Those specs aren't 4 year old comp lol that's like a 6+ year comp 4 years ago Dual core was considered mainstream and 1024 was also considered mainstream. Wikipedia : << The Core brand was launched on January 5, 2006 by the release of the 32-bit Yonah CPU ... In 2007, Intel began branding the Yonah core CPUs intended for mainstream mobile computers as Pentium Dual-Core. >> Please stop talking non-sense... Cheers | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2 From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htm Which was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. | ||
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
I had to install XP because Vista couldn't handle properly the basic functions my parents used with the computer(open browser, read Korean newspapers, watch Korean networks news and call through Skype). | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too. Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it. Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On January 12 2009 17:44 RamenStyle wrote: I know I bought a new PC for my parents with Vista and it would take literally minutes just to display a folder containing about 20-30 mp3 songs. Then whenever opening a folder with video files, it would prompt a warning pop up window. Not to mention the long time it takes to shut down. I had to install XP because fixed. | ||
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
Desktop Slideshow, Object Bar, Spotlight, Widgets and stuff. It's ridiculous. | ||
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
That must be it. Thanks for illuminating me, smartass. Except for two facts: 1 - The computer was brand new and high-end. I don't know what your experience with high-end stuff is, but when I pay top dollar for something, I expect it not to fall short at anything. 2 - My parents are not working for ILM or Pixar. They browse the internet. Yeah, that must consume terabytes of RAM. And even if your genius input was true and my parents computer needed more memory, it would make Vista require 8GB of RAM to browse the web, then it still proofs my point valid: Vista is a piece of shit. Right after installing XP it all went smooth. So again, Vista = Crap. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On January 12 2009 18:53 AdunToridas wrote: I'm still fascinated how they managed it to systematically copy Mac OS X.. Desktop Slide show, Object Bar, Spotlight, Widgets and stuff. It's ridiculous. It's because those idea's aren't original from Mac there i know for half those things were applications you could download before mac ever implemented them as part of the OS; good idea's are always integrated, you cant get a copyright on headlights although you can copy write a system for them there is always more then 1 way to skin a cat. And as long as it's not ripped code from mac which is impossible due to the nature of how the 2 os's are ran. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On January 12 2009 17:57 IzzyCraft wrote: I guess we have to repeat say this again. XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too. Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it. Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation. Your view is really inept. People love XP because it's faster than both Win98 and Vista. It's built upon the NT kernel which is an awesome thing and most of it's overhead compared to WinNT is due to increased stability and features that are actually useful. Your comparison is pointless since for modern applications XP is 1000 times faster than 3.1. It's not about letting something grow or not. It's more about that new Windows versions add a significant (actually, a horrendous) memory and speed overhead for no fucking reason. I would gladly get Vista if that overhead was backed up by a slight glimmer of concise thought, but it is not. With NT kernel we got a stable file system (google FAT and what happens if you switch off power during allocation table writing), we got a remedy to DLL hell and other nice things that are actually useful on the system level. What does Vista offer? DEP? Don't try to be kidding me. The only useful thing I found in W7's featurelist is native system support for *.vhd. That is useful, indeed. Others are just eye-candy, I don't care how the new taskbar looks or how large icons are, I took my time to remember the hotkeys. | ||
| ||
