# Windows 7 May



## bigd54

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/251508/windows-7-rc-coming-5-may.html


----------



## bengal85

GreaT a new OS from microsft it will be faulty early and then over about a 2 year span it will slowly become better


----------



## alexyu

5 May! 5 May! Not much to wait! And I really dont care if its faulty. She's so sexy!


----------



## brendanmelanson

I have it right now. It's not faulty in anyway and believe it or not it works on my five year old desktop better than XP did!


----------



## Bodaggit23

bengal85 said:


> GreaT a new OS from microsft it will be faulty early and then over about a 2 year span it will slowly become better



It's perfect as it is right now.


----------



## gamerman4

bengal85 said:


> GreaT a new OS from microsft it will be faulty early and then over about a 2 year span it will slowly become better



If you haven't noticed the OS has been in Beta for quite some time so the kinks are worked out. They released the new Beta in January of this year. The old beta was released January of 2007 with the codename Vista.


----------



## Bodaggit23

gamerman4 said:


> If you haven't noticed the OS has been in Beta for quite some time so the kinks are worked out. They released the new Beta in January of this year. The old beta was released January of 2007 with the codename Vista.


Rofl. How true. It's still version 6.


----------



## Ambushed

I'm looking forward to it! I need to get a new motherboard as I found out pouring beer on it doesn't help.


----------



## DMGrier

Does anyone know how much HDD space it is going to use? I didn't like how vista uses 15 GB.


----------



## Bodaggit23

> 16 GB of available disk space



http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-installation-instructions.aspx


----------



## locorcr

Ambushed said:


> I'm looking forward to it! I need to get a new motherboard as I found out pouring beer on it doesn't help.



***Party Foul***


----------



## bomberboysk

RC means release candidate i hope ya'll know, but i think they are supposed to release the RC on may 5th to the general public, earlier to msdn subscribers...


----------



## Candy

If this is true it will be awesome. I wasn't expecting it so soon.
I'll be doing a fresh install I think.


----------



## Andy-

Looks promising, I just hope it doesn't have as much bugs as Vista did.
Is it just me or does Windows 7 look a little like Mac?


----------



## Jamin43

locorcr said:


> ***Party Foul***




Only if it's " your " computer or you get caught and it's someone elses computer.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Andy- said:


> Looks promising, I just hope it doesn't have as much bugs as Vista did.
> Is it just me or does Windows 7 look a little like Mac?



It's nothing like that. It's basically a revised edition of Vista, but it's lighter
than anything. You can run it on Netbooks with 1.6Ghz Atom CPU's if that
tells you anything.

I've been using it since before the public Beta and it works perfectly.


----------



## Andy-

Yes, I do know that, but the light and transparent taskbar just give me the impression of using Mac.

Anyway, I might be getting Windows 7 in a couple of weeks, based on the reviews, should do just fine.


----------



## bengal85

gamerman4 said:


> If you haven't noticed the OS has been in Beta for quite some time so the kinks are worked out. They released the new Beta in January of this year. The old beta was released January of 2007 with the codename Vista.



Yeah true I forgot about that I may look into it but not right now


----------



## vinnie107

I won't be getting it.

After using Ubuntu I have sworn never to buy another windows OS again.


----------



## Gareth

Im looking forwards to Windows 7, the only feature id optimally like, is a deafult taskbar stretch on monitors, rather than paying for apps such as Ultramon...


----------



## mep916

Andy- said:


> Yes, I do know that, but the light and transparent taskbar just give me the impression of using Mac.



Yes, I believe that Microsoft took that idea from Apple. Same with the Sidebar.


----------



## Intel_man

mep916 said:


> Yes, I believe that Microsoft took that idea from Apple. Same with the Sidebar.



But made it better.


----------



## Andy-

> But made it better.



No not really, Apple has a better taskbar.

I usually auto-hide the taskbar in XP, and use Aqua dock as a substitute.


----------



## speedyink

Eggh, I don't like the dock.  I much prefer the new taskbar to any dock.



Bodaggit23 said:


> It's nothing like that. It's basically a revised edition of Vista, but it's lighter
> than anything. You can run it on Netbooks with 1.6Ghz Atom CPU's if that
> tells you anything.



+1, works awesome on my 900HA, even in power saving mode (which clocks the cpu to a max of 1.2ghz).

For those who are going from the public beta to the RC are gonna be in for a nice surprise.  A lot has changed since build 7000.  It feels much more complete now, with some new icons, new much needed options, and a ton of default wallpapers and sound schemes.  Not to mention the performance increase.


----------



## hells3000

do beta versions if windows 7 update?


----------



## jashsayani

hells3000 said:


> do beta versions if windows 7 update?



Yes. There are newer build releases in Beta. But you have to manually get them and upgrade. Theres no Automatic Updates.

Win 7 Beta that M$ released at PDC was 6801, then the Public beta was Build 7000, the current build is 7068.

And Build 7100 is Coming Soon (Via Download Squad.com)


----------



## tlarkin

I thought end of 2009 is when 7 is going to be released....

Guess they are trying to compete with Snow Leopard?  I would rather wait the 7 more months to have it better at release...

Also, I hate the task bar and the start menu. Stacks + dock + keyboard short cuts FTW.  Much more efficient.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Win 7 could be released today and it would be fine.

It's a great OS.


----------



## Droogie

Bodaggit23 said:


> Win 7 could be released today and it would be fine.
> 
> It's a great OS.



it seems pretty sweet, can't wait to get my hands on it.  it's sweet that virtually everything compatible with xp will also be comaptible with 7.


----------



## Andy-

> Win 7 could be released today and it would be fine.
> 
> It's a great OS.



Microsoft took that literally with Vista.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Win 7 could be released today and it would be fine.
> 
> It's a great OS.



Never in my entire life of using MS Operating systems, has one been perfect at release or near perfect after three or four service packs.

I hope they offer a cheap upgrade for those that have Vista because really there is nothing new under the hood in Win 7, it it just an overhaul of the GUI and some minor tweaking to make things more smooth.  I have yet to see anything that indicates a major kernel overhaul or anything else that would exponentially increase performance.

I had the beta in a VM and it really just seemed like Vista 2.0 to me.  I do think that memory management may be slightly better, but that is subjective.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Some people are more particular than 
others and you just can't please some.

To me its the best yet but I'm not that picky.
If it does what I need it to do then I'm happy.

My 1.6Ghz laptop with 512RAM was a turd with
Vista on it. Windows 7 woke it right up.

I don't think VM is a good way to form an opinion 
about it either way is it? True its much like Vista
Except lighter and faster. What's wrong with that?


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Some people are more particular than
> others and you just can't please some.
> 
> To me its the best yet but I'm not that picky.
> If it does what I need it to do then I'm happy.
> 
> My 1.6Ghz laptop with 512RAM was a turd with
> Vista on it. Windows 7 woke it right up.
> 
> I don't think VM is a good way to form an opinion
> about it either way is it? True its much like Vista
> Except lighter and faster. What's wrong with that?




Why is that, it is not like I was gaming or 3D rendering in it, a VM is a very viable solution for testing.  I was looking at new features, and don't ever run a beta OS as my main OS and I only have one PC at the moment that can run such things.  My other PC is a HTPC running Linux which 1TB of media on it, no way was I taking that thing down to look at a beta OS.  My main PC is for gaming mostly and some minor things and everything else I do on my Macs.  

A VM is a great way and very valid on top of that to test an OS.  VM technology is so good now there is virtually no overhead for basic usage.  I mean there are enterprise deployments that run virtual desktop workstations and many virtual servers, if VM software wasn't viable why would they use it?

The only thing I may give you is that free open source VM software may not perform as nice as say the pay for kind, but I am running VMware fusion here.

This reminds me of when I lost all respect for Maximum PC magazine.  They gave Windows XP a perfect 10 score and said it was flawless.  I agreed with them that XP was, and still is the best released OS they have released so far, however no OS, and I mean no OS deserves a perfect 10 out of the box.  I fired up XP (all my jobs have always had MSDN subscription site licenses, so that means I get whatever I want for free, and I get early beta versions not available to the public) when I first got the release version and immediately found like over 15 bugs with it, then I thought of that Maximum PC article.  Then I thought what a crock of crap, and stopped buying their magazine.  Though, they first went downhill when they got bought out, their original zine was called "Boot Magazine," and it was some of the best written tech articles I had ever read.  Now they are commercialized and just one giant advertisement.  

I am in no hurry to give MS $150 for an upgrade that will be buggy, and lack features I want.  I mean they still have multiple versions which is retarded, and they still have 32/64 separate versions as well.  No other OS does that crap but them.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> Why is that, it is not like I was gaming or 3D rendering in it, a VM is a very viable solution for testing.  I was looking at new features, and don't ever run a beta OS as my main OS and I only have one PC at the moment that can run such things.  My other PC is a HTPC running Linux which 1TB of media on it, no way was I taking that thing down to look at a beta OS.  My main PC is for gaming mostly and some minor things and everything else I do on my Macs.
> 
> A VM is a great way and very valid on top of that to test an OS.  VM technology is so good now there is virtually no overhead for basic usage.  I mean there are enterprise deployments that run virtual desktop workstations and many virtual servers, if VM software wasn't viable why would they use it?
> 
> The only thing I may give you is that free open source VM software may not perform as nice as say the pay for kind, but I am running VMware fusion here.
> 
> This reminds me of when I lost all respect for Maximum PC magazine.  They gave Windows XP a perfect 10 score and said it was flawless.  I agreed with them that XP was, and still is the best released OS they have released so far, however no OS, and I mean no OS deserves a perfect 10 out of the box.  I fired up XP (all my jobs have always had MSDN subscription site licenses, so that means I get whatever I want for free, and I get early beta versions not available to the public) when I first got the release version and immediately found like over 15 bugs with it, then I thought of that Maximum PC article.  Then I thought what a crock of crap, and stopped buying their magazine.  Though, they first went downhill when they got bought out, their original zine was called "Boot Magazine," and it was some of the best written tech articles I had ever read.  Now they are commercialized and just one giant advertisement.
> 
> I am in no hurry to give MS $150 for an upgrade that will be buggy, and lack features I want.  I mean they still have multiple versions which is retarded, and they still have 32/64 separate versions as well.  No other OS does that crap but them.



Buy retail if you want 32 and 64bit, only the OEM editions come with seperate versions/serials for 32 and 64bit. Albeit only ultimate comes with the 64bit discs in the box, with home basic, home premium, and business you have to pay $10 or so to get the 64bit discs.


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Buy retail if you want 32 and 64bit, only the OEM editions come with seperate versions/serials for 32 and 64bit. Albeit only ultimate comes with the 64bit discs in the box, with home basic, home premium, and business you have to pay $10 or so to get the 64bit discs.



Why would anyone buy a retail version of an OS?

Also, every other OS in existence puts both the 32bit and the 64bit library files in the OS, so when it installs it detects what is going on and loads the proper libraries.  Some, Linux distros, to keep them more slim, don't always include both libraries, but others do.  Unix and OS X of course also do as well as solaris.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> Why would anyone buy a retail version of an OS?
> 
> Also, every other OS in existence puts both the 32bit and the 64bit library files in the OS, so when it installs it detects what is going on and loads the proper libraries.  Some, Linux distros, to keep them more slim, don't always include both libraries, but others do.  Unix and OS X of course also do as well as solaris.



I always buy retail as vista oem is essentially tied to the motherboard you orignally have, and i upgrade my motherboard every couple years, although i will probably end up buying windows 7 anyhow....


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> I always buy retail as vista oem is essentially tied to the motherboard you orignally have, and i upgrade my motherboard every couple years, although i will probably end up buying windows 7 anyhow....



Yeah just buy bundle deals and OEM is not always tied to the motherboard, you can bundle OEM with a keyboard if you want.  I used to work for a certified MS reseller and System's builder years ago.  I did plenty of OEM preinstalls in my time and I knew the license agreements.  OEM is tied to a machine if you buy it in conjunction with a new computer.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> Yeah just buy bundle deals and OEM is not always tied to the motherboard, you can bundle OEM with a keyboard if you want.  I used to work for a certified MS reseller and System's builder years ago.  I did plenty of OEM preinstalls in my time and I knew the license agreements.  OEM is tied to a machine if you buy it in conjunction with a new computer.



Nah, thats not what im saying, what im saying is windows activation tyes it to the motherboard, and its a pita to get it to activate once you change motherboards. Plus vista oem doesnt require you to purchase any other parts to be able to get it afaik. Windows XP required you to purchase some kind of hardware but vista does not


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Nah, thats not what im saying, what im saying is windows activation tyes it to the motherboard, and its a pita to get it to activate once you change motherboards. Plus vista oem doesnt require you to purchase any other parts to be able to get it afaik. Windows XP required you to purchase some kind of hardware but vista does not



OEM has always required the sale of something, and the activation doesn't tie itself to the motherboard, it ties itself to a hash code generated by an algorithm that parses your hardware configuration, so any major change (NIC, motherboard, processor, etc) will trigger that DRM crap.  Which is why I disable it on every Windows machine I ever have.

I used to sell OEM software with a case fan, for $3.99 at one of my old jobs.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> I was looking at new features, and don't ever run a beta OS as my main OS and I only have one PC at the moment that can run such things.  My other PC is a HTPC running Linux which 1TB of media on it, no way was I taking that thing down to look at a beta OS.  My main PC is for gaming mostly and some minor things and everything else I do on my Macs.


Who said anything about using it as your main OS? Or tearing down a server
to try it? Ever heard of a partition? 

I guess I don't know the particular VM program you have, but does it allow you to use 100% of your CPU and RAM to fully test the OS? 

I'm just saying, don't be so quick to bash it before you really try it.

Sounds like your mind was made up before they even announced it.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Who said anything about using it as your main OS? Or tearing down a server
> to try it? Ever heard of a partition?
> 
> I guess I don't know the particular VM program you have, but does it allow you to use 100% of your CPU and RAM to fully test the OS?
> 
> I'm just saying, don't be so quick to bash it before you really try it.
> 
> Sounds like your mind was made up before they even announced it.



I have a quad core processor and 4 gigs of RAM.  I can dedicate two cores and 2 gigs of RAM to a VM, and then the VM just runs on a virtual layer of hardware, which is your hardware.  It is not like it performs worse, except maybe in heavy 3D applications.  Plus Virtual Hard disks are small disks that are dynamic (expand when needed to) which are a specified section of your hard disk, making seek time super fast.  In fact a virtual hard disk may perform better than a regular disk since the seek time is generally a lot faster.

I am not bashing it, I am simply saying it isn't the best thing since sliced bread, and it still does not give the *average* user incentive to upgrade their OS.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> I have a quad core processor and 4 gigs of RAM.  I can dedicate two cores and 2 gigs of RAM to a VM, and then the VM just runs on a virtual layer of hardware, which is your hardware.  It is not like it performs worse, except maybe in heavy 3D applications.  Plus Virtual Hard disks are small disks that are dynamic (expand when needed to) which are a specified section of your hard disk, making seek time super fast.  In fact a virtual hard disk may perform better than a regular disk since the seek time is generally a lot faster.
> 
> I am not bashing it, I am simply saying it isn't the best thing since sliced bread, and it still does not give the *average* user incentive to upgrade their OS.


Point taken. :good:
It's still better than Vista in my opinion. I can't get my Vista install below 45 processes. 
Win 7 runs around 30. I have enough hardware to not notice a difference on this system, 
but like I said, it was new life for my laptop.


----------



## dubesinhower

tlarkin said:


> I thought end of 2009 is when 7 is going to be released....
> 
> Guess they are trying to compete with Snow Leopard?  I would rather wait the 7 more months to have it better at release...
> 
> Also, I hate the task bar and the start menu. Stacks + dock + keyboard short cuts FTW.  Much more efficient.



id rather have compatibility and functionality than a computer that no one cares about/ uses.

plus, its sooooo damn hard to click an icon in a dock in windows.

edit: seriously tlarkin, cut all the vm shit. you totally ruin the entire effect of an operating system by running it in a vm.


----------



## Droogie

tlarkin said:


> Never in my entire life of using MS Operating systems, has one been perfect at release or near perfect after three or four service packs.
> 
> I hope they offer a cheap upgrade for those that have Vista because really there is nothing new under the hood in Win 7, it it just an overhaul of the GUI and some minor tweaking to make things more smooth.  I have yet to see anything that indicates a major kernel overhaul or anything else that would exponentially increase performance.
> 
> I had the beta in a VM and it really just seemed like Vista 2.0 to me.  I do think that memory management may be slightly better, but that is subjective.



i think you're the only one on the forum that isn't excited about windows 7


----------



## tlarkin

dubesinhower said:


> id rather have compatibility and functionality than a computer that no one cares about/ uses.
> 
> plus, its sooooo damn hard to click an icon in a dock in windows.
> 
> edit: seriously tlarkin, cut all the vm shit. you totally ruin the entire effect of an operating system by running it in a vm.



Are you kidding me?   VMs run great if you run them the right way, great enough that major networks run VM.   You obviously don't know what you are talking about....



> i think you're the only one on the forum that isn't excited about windows 7



Same level as excited-ness as 95, 95-b, 95-c 98, 98se, millennium, 2000, XP, and Vista..and lets not forget about BOB the 95 companion!

I've been around longer I know what to expect that is the difference.   Same thing applies from versions of Ubuntu from version 7 to 9, nothing that made me stay up at night wondering about.


----------



## dubesinhower

tlarkin said:


> Are you kidding me?   VMs run great if you run them the right way, great enough that major networks run VM.   You obviously don't know what you are talking about....
> 
> 
> 
> Same level as excited-ness as 95, 95-b, 95-c 98, 98se, millennium, 2000, XP, and Vista..and lets not forget about BOB the 95 companion!
> 
> I've been around longer I know what to expect that is the difference.   Same thing applies from versions of Ubuntu from version 7 to 9, nothing that made me stay up at night wondering about.



do you understand why most networking is run through command lines? network managers use linux only in the command line interface. thats completely different then what i use windows for. as an enthusiast, i find that windows 7 is just what im looking for.

you need to realize that mac and pc are both different platforms, and that they can coexist. you dont need to put windows down all the time, especially when you dont know what your talking about. most serious computer enthusiasts that ive come across are all talking about windows. sure, snow leopard is going to be sweet, but im looking at windows 7 as my next permanent platform, not os10.6.


----------



## tlarkin

dubesinhower said:


> do you understand why most networking is run through command lines? network managers use linux only in the command line interface. thats completely different then what i use windows for. as an enthusiast, i find that windows 7 is just what im looking for.
> 
> you need to realize that mac and pc are both different platforms, and that they can coexist. you dont need to put windows down all the time, especially when you dont know what your talking about. most serious computer enthusiasts that ive come across are all talking about windows. sure, snow leopard is going to be sweet, but im looking at windows 7 as my next permanent platform, not os10.6.



What in god's name are the hell you talking about?  I just said I ran win7 in a VM, and you go off on some retarded diatribe.  

Most networking is run through command lines huh?  Hell you better tell Linux, OS X, Unix, and certainly Microsoft about that, considering all them run from some sort of GUI.

Most computer enthusiasts don't even know how an operating system works, nor do they care.  They look at it the same way people look at cars.  They want all the features and horse power but have no idea how it works under the hood.

Seriously wtf are you even talking about?


----------



## Shane

Im not sure if i want to get 7 or not,Its basicly what vista should have been in the first place,Its just like M$ are conning us and making us pay for their mistakes.

If its cheap then yes....but if they price it way way over the top like they usualy do then they can stick it.

I agree it performs better,But i dont think it looks all that good with its new bar at the bottom it just doesnt work for me.


----------



## tlarkin

Nevakonaza said:


> Im not sure if i want to get 7 or not,Its basicly what vista should have been in the first place,Its just like M$ are conning us and making us pay for their mistakes.
> 
> If its cheap then yes....but if they price it way way over the top like they usualy do then they can stick it.
> 
> I agree it performs better,But i dont think it looks all that good with its new bar at the bottom it just doesnt work for me.



Yeah I am really bummed to pay $150 for a service pack basically from Vista Ultimate.  I also really hate how they feature limit their OS.  That just drives me bonkers.


----------



## Andy-

Windows's is not on my favorites list, it's a real pain in the ass tbh.

I do use XP now tho, just because my current desktop isn't installing any other OS ( Linux ). Tho I use an Alienware theme, since it's nice and doesn't really use that much CPU.

I will get a new desktop, and will install Linux on it, hopefully around 3-4.

Back to W7;
Windows is getting closer and closer to becoming the exact replica of Mac OS X, seems like Microsoft has found a new source for ideas.
Also have you guys heard that you can't upgrade from XP to W7? Just from Vista to W7? That's really bad considering that Windows Xp has been bought way more than Vista.
And folders like Control Panel are too messy and have too much stuff inside.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Point taken. :good:
> It's still better than Vista in my opinion. I can't get my Vista install below 45 processes.
> Win 7 runs around 30. I have enough hardware to not notice a difference on this system,
> but like I said, it was new life for my laptop.



Well, processes and system daemons can be active but not in use.  Do you mean you can't get it under 45 running processes?  All OSes will have more than that, which are considered sleeping or zombie processes and they awaken when in use.  For example, you boot up a Linux box and sshd will be running automatically, but it sits idle at 0% resources being used until someone does actually use ssh.  Same thing goes for Windows Processes.


----------



## dubesinhower

Andy- said:


> Windows's is not on my favorites list, it's a real pain in the ass tbh.
> 
> I do use XP now tho, just because my current desktop isn't installing any other OS ( Linux ). Tho I use an Alienware theme, since it's nice and doesn't really use that much CPU.
> 
> I will get a new desktop, and will install Linux on it, hopefully around 3-4.
> 
> Back to W7;
> Windows is getting closer and closer to becoming the exact replica of Mac OS X, seems like Microsoft has found a new source for ideas.
> Also have you guys heard that you can't upgrade from XP to W7? Just from Vista to W7? That's really bad considering that Windows Xp has been bought way more than Vista.
> And folders like Control Panel are too messy and have too much stuff inside.



vista is similar in file structure to 7, whereas xp in an entirely different file structure. your better off reinstalling from xp to vista, as well as vista to 7, so why would that be any different from xp to 7?


----------



## Droogie

installing the windows 7 RC (build 7100) in a second


----------



## salman

tknick90 said:


> installing the windows 7 RC (build 7100) in a second



Just burned mine onto a DVD, will do it later on today!


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> Well, processes and system daemons can be active but not in use.  Do you mean you can't get it under 45 running processes?  All OSes will have more than that, which are considered sleeping or zombie processes and they awaken when in use.  For example, you boot up a Linux box and sshd will be running automatically, but it sits idle at 0% resources being used until someone does actually use ssh.  Same thing goes for Windows Processes.



I'm referring to the processes listed in the Task Manager.

"Sleeping" or not, they still load at startup, which takes time and resources.

When I want to use them, I'll wake them myself.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> I'm referring to the processes listed in the Task Manager.
> 
> "Sleeping" or not, they still load at startup, which takes time and resources.
> 
> When I want to use them, I'll wake them myself.



0% is 0% they aren't using anything.  Windows is a multi tasking OS.


----------



## speedyink

Andy- said:


> Windows is getting closer and closer to becoming the exact replica of Mac OS X, seems like Microsoft has found a new source for ideas.



That is the day I stop using windows 

Seriously, thats the second time you've said something along those lines...and the second time your completely wrong.  I've used OSX and Windows 7 and I can vouch for them still being painfully different (in use and in aesthetics...are you blind per chance?)

Sure little things get copied here and there, but everyone does it (yes, even Apple).


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> That is the day I stop using windows
> 
> Seriously, thats the second time you've said something along those lines...and the second time your completely wrong.  I've used OSX and Windows 7 and I can vouch for them still being painfully different (in use and in aesthetics...are you blind per chance?)
> 
> Sure little things get copied here and there, but everyone does it.



I think he means feature for feature, which is true MS did adopt lots of features that were already present in 10.4 and 10.5 into Vista and Windows 7.  

They may not have the same usage, but they have the same functionality.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I think he means feature for feature, which is true MS did adopt lots of features that were already present in 10.4 and 10.5 into Vista and Windows 7.
> 
> They may not have the same usage, but they have the same functionality.



The whole basis of Operating Systems itself is a copy.  

Yes, Apple has some good ideas, but don't say that this is a one way street.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> The whole basis of Operating Systems itself is a copy.
> 
> If I see someone wearing a cool shirt I'll find and buy it, I'm not gonna copy their entire wardrobe.



Well, in 10.4 Apple implemented:

encrypted home directories
indexed based searching - spotlight
new 3D aqua interace
expose
widgets
folder navigation

Vista took all of those features and repackaged them.

[YT]MDNuq94Zg_8[/YT]

This is from a basic user.  Mind you Tiger was out almost a full year before Vista, and Vista got pushed back so many times.


----------



## speedyink

Wow..that takes me back a couple years.  Yeah, pretty sure I've heard all those.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> Wow..that takes me back a couple years.  Yeah, pretty sure I've heard all those.



I mean to be fair every OS adopts anything that is innovative, but these last few years it seems more people are taking a hint from Apple than most other OSes.  

A lot of times a new feature will be put in Windows that has been in Linux for years.  Windows may not implement it the same way but the results of the technology are always the same and they do the same task under the hood, just you use them differently.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Well, most cars have 4 wheels, shiny paint, a speedometer, engine, trunk, etc.

It's just the way it goes. And just because someone comes up with a good idea
doesn't mean someone else can't do it better.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Well, most cars have 4 wheels, shiny paint, a speedometer, engine, trunk, etc.
> 
> It's just the way it goes. And just because someone comes up with a good idea
> doesn't mean someone else can't do it better.



Well I agree with that, but I have yet to see Microsoft do it better except with a few different things, and none of them are in the end user OS.  Their server side products are great.  Microsoft makes some real robust and great server side products.  They totally ripped all their modern networking technology from Novell, and then put them out of business by a more aggressive marketing technique.  

There is something to be said about a company that just eats up and swallows smaller companies and still can't make a good product.  It happens once a company gets too big and it happens to lots of companies.  I can parallel this to Cisco, their products are getting worse and worse and are still freaking expensive.  

Look at American cars, and one reason why they failed is their business model.  I recently read that most Asian car makers lived by a rule that every new model you could only do up to two major engineering changes.  Meaning that they only changed two major things to work out all the bugs and create a more reliable car.

Microsoft buys companies every day that make a great product but are small fish.  Whether or not MS implements the technology they buy to make it useful or just buy it and shelf it to control competition is not known.  

So when you have an OS and platform like apple, which has gained over 8% market share in the past 7 years (which is a HUGE increase for only 7 years) yeah MS is going to look at what they are doing and they are going to copy what they thing they are doing right to try to keep their market dominance.

Just because something is the most widely used does not mean it is the best, it just means it is the most marketed.


----------



## Bodaggit23

I think Microsoft makes a fine product. Many of them. 

Nobody's perfect. 

Talk about "control"? Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see a picture of Steve Jobs.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> I think Microsoft makes a fine product. Many of them.
> 
> Nobody's perfect.
> 
> Talk about "control"? Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see a picture of Steve Jobs.



You mean Steve Balmer?


----------



## Droogie

wow, just installed windows 7 x64 on my rig, and it's freakin sweet!!!

i really like the new taskbar, seems a lot more organized.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> There is something to be said about a company that just eats up and swallows smaller companies and still can't make a good product.  It happens once a company gets too big and it happens to lots of companies.  I can parallel this to Cisco, their products are getting worse and worse and are still freaking expensive.
> 
> Microsoft buys companies every day that make a great product but are small fish.  Whether or not MS implements the technology they buy to make it useful or just buy it and shelf it to control competition is not known.
> 
> So when you have an OS and platform like apple, which has gained over 8% market share in the past 7 years (which is a HUGE increase for only 7 years) yeah MS is going to look at what they are doing and they are going to copy what they thing they are doing right to try to keep their market dominance.
> 
> Just because something is the most widely used does not mean it is the best, it just means it is the most marketed.



While I completely agree with the market dominance problems I think for what Microsoft is doing they are making a pretty good product.  My options are pretty much Windows or Linux, since Mac doesn't just sell their OS (and I'm not paying the premium for the hardware, I'm all about the savings ).  Since I don't want to screw with my OS all the time or have any problems installing software or hardware like I had in all my linux experiences, I went with Windows.  So for my price point and for what I use my computer for yes, Windows is the best for me.  

Kind of like how some of us drive Porches and some of us drive Pontiacs


----------



## dubesinhower

tlarkin said:


> Well, in 10.4 Apple implemented:
> 
> encrypted home directories
> indexed based searching - spotlight
> new 3D aqua interace
> expose
> widgets
> folder navigation
> 
> Vista took all of those features and repackaged them.
> 
> [YT]MDNuq94Zg_8[/YT]
> 
> This is from a basic user.  Mind you Tiger was out almost a full year before Vista, and Vista got pushed back so many times.



thats like saying the original xbox ripped off the ps2. its a generation gap. it wasnt ripping anything off, these are just the new technologies of the time.


----------



## bomberboysk

Well, if anyone here wants to know, windows wasnt the first os to have a gui either, microsoft created windows to compete with apples os.


----------



## dubesinhower

bomberboysk said:


> Well, if anyone here wants to know, windows wasnt the first os to have a gui either, microsoft created windows to compete with apples os.



but the apple os wasnt the first os either.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> While I completely agree with the market dominance problems I think for what Microsoft is doing they are making a pretty good product.  My options are pretty much Windows or Linux, since Mac doesn't just sell their OS (and I'm not paying the premium for the hardware, I'm all about the savings ).  Since I don't want to screw with my OS all the time or have any problems installing software or hardware like I had in all my linux experiences, I went with Windows.  So for my price point and for what I use my computer for yes, Windows is the best for me.
> 
> Kind of like how some of us drive Porches and some of us drive Pontiacs



However, you do pay the premium for premium items.  A Sony TV versus a Poloroid TV costs a lot more.  A Porsche costs more than a Honda Civic.  A filet mingon cost more than ground beef.

MS makes a mediocre product for the the price, and they run the market.  Trust me, 10 years ago SMS and other Windows technology could not hold a stick to Novell and Zen works.  It really has to do with marketing more than anything else.  You can kind of parallel it to pop culture, and yes Apple definitely does the same thing with marketing which has given them the +7% market share over the past 6 years.   Marketing has a lot to do with it.

When it comes down to the core robust features, Windows technically delivers the least amount, however, they appeal to the masses and the masses are used to it.  We live in strange times, times where half the people on this planet don't know anything about technology and some straight up fear it.  

I would really like to see 300 years into the future, what will happen then?  When technology is so integrated into our lives everyone is just plain tech savvy.

Windows did make a very straight forward and easy to use product up to XP, but even myself, a veteran of technology, found Vista clunky and hard to navigate.  It took me over 20 minutes to just turn a feature off the first time I touched it. 

However, Windows delivers an ease of use system that most OSes can't quite reach and I will give them that, however, they are far from the best OS in my personal opinion.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> You mean Steve Balmer?



No. I mean Steve Jobs. 

Anyway, I must congratulate everyone posting in this thread. Although
it has turned into another Mac/Windows debate, it's remained civil and pleasant. :good:

Anyway, for me, Windows is the nicest looking, most versatile OS I can buy
to put on my PC. 

Seriously, I can't even buy OSX and put it on my PC (legally), and that leaves Linux...


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> No. I mean Steve Jobs.
> 
> Anyway, I must congratulate everyone posting in this thread. Although
> it has turned into another Mac/Windows debate, it's remained civil and pleasant. :good:
> 
> Anyway, for me, Windows is the nicest looking, most versatile OS I can buy
> to put on my PC.
> 
> Seriously, I can't even buy OSX and put it on my PC (legally), and that leaves Linux...



You have seen Compiz Fusion right?  Anyway, it is all a rip of Sun's "Project Looking Glass," and all the eye candy for all the OSes ripped off their innovation first.  Windows is not even close to the best looking eye candy out there, in fact they are probably bottom of the barrel in many people's opinion.

[YT]_ImW0-MgR8I[/YT]


----------



## Droogie

tlarkin said:


> However, you do pay the premium for premium items.  A Sony TV versus a Poloroid TV costs a lot more.  A Porsche costs more than a Honda Civic.  A filet mingon cost more than ground beef.
> 
> MS makes a mediocre product for the the price, and they run the market.  Trust me, 10 years ago SMS and other Windows technology could not hold a stick to Novell and Zen works.  It really has to do with marketing more than anything else.  You can kind of parallel it to pop culture, and yes Apple definitely does the same thing with marketing which has given them the +7% market share over the past 6 years.   Marketing has a lot to do with it.
> 
> When it comes down to the core robust features, Windows technically delivers the least amount, however, they appeal to the masses and the masses are used to it.  We live in strange times, times where half the people on this planet don't know anything about technology and some straight up fear it.
> 
> I would really like to see 300 years into the future, what will happen then?  When technology is so integrated into our lives everyone is just plain tech savvy.
> 
> Windows did make a very straight forward and easy to use product up to XP, but even myself, a veteran of technology, found Vista clunky and hard to navigate.  It took me over 20 minutes to just turn a feature off the first time I touched it.
> 
> However, Windows delivers an ease of use system that most OSes can't quite reach and I will give them that, however, they are far from the best OS in my personal opinion.



what do you mean by core robust features? i find it hard to believe that windows is the most popular simply because of the marketing.  ease of use is a good thing, sure linux has a lot of cool eye candy, but for me that isn't a major selling point (for lack of a better term since linux is free ).  when it comes down to it, i want my os to be compatible with all my hardware, software, games, etc.  and windows by and far (for my needs) delivers the best.  like you said though it's all really just a matter of opinion, i'm used to windows, been using it since windows 95.  it most likely will always be my main os, unless i deciede to quit gaming, lol.


----------



## Andy-

> However, you do pay the premium for premium items. A Sony TV versus a Poloroid TV costs a lot more. A Porsche costs more than a Honda Civic. A filet mingon cost more than ground beef.
> 
> MS makes a mediocre product for the the price, and they run the market. Trust me, 10 years ago SMS and other Windows technology could not hold a stick to Novell and Zen works. It really has to do with marketing more than anything else. You can kind of parallel it to pop culture, and yes Apple definitely does the same thing with marketing which has given them the +7% market share over the past 6 years. Marketing has a lot to do with it.
> 
> When it comes down to the core robust features, Windows technically delivers the least amount, however, they appeal to the masses and the masses are used to it. We live in strange times, times where half the people on this planet don't know anything about technology and some straight up fear it.
> 
> I would really like to see 300 years into the future, what will happen then? When technology is so integrated into our lives everyone is just plain tech savvy.
> 
> Windows did make a very straight forward and easy to use product up to XP, but even myself, a veteran of technology, found Vista clunky and hard to navigate. It took me over 20 minutes to just turn a feature off the first time I touched it.
> 
> However, Windows delivers an ease of use system that most OSes can't quite reach and I will give them that, however, they are far from the best OS in my personal opinion.



I cannot talk about how technology was 10 years ago, because I do not remember.
But I do know that Microsoft was a very good corporation until Vista's release.( Trying to get the topic back to Microsoft )The phase starting from W95 and ending with XP was a terrific and not to mention profitable phase for Microsoft.

It got expensive right after XP, I'm pretty sure that XP was expensive itself tho, not really sure.

Back to comparing Linux to Windows:
Linux is way better because of it's power, and simplicity( simple yet effective tho ), Windows loads a bunch of processes without any permission from the user to do so. Dual boot, that was a terrific boost for Linux...
Anyway, enjoyed the discussion, would be nice if it could be continued tho


----------



## tlarkin

tknick90 said:


> what do you mean by core robust features? i find it hard to believe that windows is the most popular simply because of the marketing.  ease of use is a good thing, sure linux has a lot of cool eye candy, but for me that isn't a major selling point (for lack of a better term since linux is free ).  when it comes down to it, i want my os to be compatible with all my hardware, software, games, etc.  and windows by and far (for my needs) delivers the best.  like you said though it's all really just a matter of opinion, i'm used to windows, been using it since windows 95.  it most likely will always be my main os, unless i deciede to quit gaming, lol.



Kernel > Shell > GUI, POSIX, and a command line interface for everything you do makes it way more robust and way more secure.  It is how the OS handles requests and commands by the end user, or say a program, or say even a virus.  

Why are there no self propagating viruses in the wild for Unix, Linux or OS X?  That is because by nature they really can't exist.  I am sure there are kernel hackers out there that find zero day exploits but it doesn't happen.  The argument of that they have a small market share is a fair one, but also moot.  Unix runs the internet, Unix runs DNS for everything, it isn't Windows.  If you wanted to crash the whole internet you would have to bring down all the Unix DNS servers world wide.  

As far as ease of use goes, OS X trumps Windows on that front so much.  The lack of a clunky, retarded, bloated registry makes it easier to use by far.  The Mac is the king of ease of use, but most people are sucked into the marketing that is Windows.  Windows marketed itself to every single machine manufacturer world wide, and then got into every market. Once you are the main desktop OS you can market your way into Networks and servers rather easily.

Back in the early 90s, probably before you used a computer heavily, Apple had clones you could build and load their OS on, and other companies besides apple made them.  You can still find them for sale and some people still like them, I could care less.  Apple lost so much money and almost went bankrupt because of it.  This was because Microsoft already aggressively marketed to a wide variety of companies and put Windows 3.11 on everything they could.  The technology boom was hitting and all these start up companies wanted to sell computers, but didn't necessarily want to build the own OS.  

When you look at the term 'robustness' it goes along the lines of what the end user can do, from the most novice of novices to the expert power user.  Windows offers very little in this area for the most advanced users.  Users that want to write shell scripts and want to automate things, run things over ssh and what not.  Sure Windows has batch files, but the API for them sucks big donkey balls.  Sure you can develop in C+ but that requires programming knowledge, where as every other OS out there has the command structure built in.

Which allows for developers to do lots of cool things and share resources.  I mean Compiz-Fusion is leagues beyond Aero and Aqua.  It is because there is a following of talented developers, robust APIs and command lines features, and open source codes that allow them to develop such things.

It is a perspective I have gained after many many years of using computers.  I have been using Linux for many years but it was never really my main OS, and until OS X 10.4 I was pretty much still a main Windows user.  

Microsoft does do somethings right, they do.  However, their new marketing scheme just pisses me off.  Why would I want to pay for feature limits?  It is dumb.  They should just make one OS, period.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> As far as ease of use goes, OS X trumps Windows on that front so much.  The lack of a clunky, retarded, bloated registry makes it easier to use by far.  The Mac is the king of ease of use, but most people are sucked into the marketing that is Windows.
> 
> their new marketing scheme just pisses me off.  Why would I want to pay for feature limits?  It is dumb.  They should just make one OS, period.



TLDR. 

Ease of use...I can't buy OSX and put it on myPC. I'd be forced to buy Apple hardware. You can put Windows on almost anything really. What does that say for Apple marketing?

Also, if there was just one Windows version, people would complain that they're paying for features they don't need. Not everyone needs a Business or Ultimate package, so why make them pay for it.

You have a choice to buy what you need. Who cares if there's versions that have less features if you're not going to buy it anyway? lol


----------



## Andy-

> Also, if there was just one Windows version, people would complain that they're paying for features they don't need. Not everyone needs a Business or Ultimate package, so why make them pay for it.



Can't Microsoft program an online buy center? Where you buy a package, and then it gives you a serial code that you put in Windows Updates, and then windows udpates the current windows you're using?


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> TLDR.
> 
> Ease of use...I can't buy OSX and put it on myPC. I'd be forced to buy Apple hardware. You can put Windows on almost anything really. What does that say for Apple marketing?
> 
> Also, if there was just one Windows version, people would complain that they're paying for features they don't need. Not everyone needs a Business or Ultimate package, so why make them pay for it.
> 
> You have a choice to buy what you need. Who cares if there's versions that have less features if you're not going to buy it anyway? lol



You are confusing hardware and OS, which are two separate entities.  You can say PC versus Mac or OS X versus Windows.  We are comparing OSes to OSes, not hardware to hardware.  

What is the difference between home vista and business vista?  the ability to connect to a domain and receive group policy, and what is the price difference?

What is the cost of any other pay for OS?  What do you get when you buy those OSes?  Oh yeah you get everything.

It is a marketing scheme.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> You are confusing hardware and OS, which are two separate entities.  You can say PC versus Mac or OS X versus Windows.  We are comparing OSes to OSes, not hardware to hardware.
> 
> What is the difference between home vista and business vista?  the ability to connect to a domain and receive group policy, and what is the price difference?
> 
> What is the cost of any other pay for OS?  What do you get when you buy those OSes?  Oh yeah you get everything.
> 
> It is a marketing scheme.



Who cares? You can build a computer with vista ultimate(as pricey as it may be), and for the price of components still build a superior system to anything that costs similar price with apple. For example, what it costs for a 24" totally decked out imac, you could have an i7 rig running windows or linux. Apple is too closed for me to take it seriously, as i cannot even put it on my rig legally. Maybe when apple takes their head out of the sand and realizes it would be profitable for them to license the os for use on pc's and not much macs, then osx would be a viable option for many users. But getting back on subject.... windows 7 release candidate should be out soon for public download from microsoft!


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Who cares? You can build a computer with vista ultimate(as pricey as it may be), and for the price of components still build a superior system to anything that costs similar price with apple. For example, what it costs for a 24" totally decked out imac, you could have an i7 rig running windows or linux. Apple is too closed for me to take it seriously, as i cannot even put it on my rig legally. Maybe when apple takes their head out of the sand and realizes it would be profitable for them to license the os for use on pc's and not much macs, then osx would be a viable option for many users. But getting back on subject.... windows 7 release candidate should be out soon for public download from microsoft!



Again, you are comparing hardware to an OS, you don't get it.  MS charges for crap that everyone else includes for free.  Is win7 going to be worth $150 to upgrade from ultimate, and then another $10 for 64 bit and then another few dollars here and there.

MS wants to start doing subscription licenses, and they are slowly testing the waters here by doing crap like this.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> Again, you are comparing hardware to an OS, you don't get it.



You're trying to compare an OS that I can't even try, because I don't own the specific hardware it takes to run it.

Speaking of cost, how much would it cost me to have OSX? I'd have to buy an Apple computer. That alone makes it more expensive than Windows...


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> You're trying to compare an OS that I can't even try, because I don't own the specific hardware it takes to run it.
> 
> Speaking of cost, how much would it cost me to have OSX? I'd have to buy an Apple computer. That alone makes it more expensive than Windows...



OS X every major release is $99 to $129 depending if you can get the coupon or not, and if you buy a Mac with in 3 months of the next release you generally get a free upgarde.  It has every feature Vista has and more if you count the Unix.

The hardware is not over priced either, it just has every feature.  You can't build a comparable machine spec for spec and have it be cheaper.  It will be around the same price.  

Earlier some kid was trying to compare an iMac to a core i7 build.  An iMac is an all-in-one machine and if you built a PC part for part it would cost around the same.  24" LED backlit monitors are not that cheap.


----------



## Bodaggit23

I understand all that, and I never said they were overpriced. You get what you pay for, and most Apple systems contain more hardware than necessary.

Anyway, back to OS's.

My point is...I can't try OSX unless I buy an Apple computer. 

If it's such a great OS then why can't I buy it and put it on a pc?


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> I understand all that, and I never said they were overpriced. You get what you pay for, and most Apple systems contain more hardware than necessary.
> 
> Anyway, back to OS's.
> 
> My point is...I can't try OSX unless I buy an Apple computer.
> 
> If it's such a great OS then why can't I buy it and put it on a pc?



That is their business model, if you scroll back several posts ago you will see I pointed out there was a time where you could build your own Mac clone back in the day, but it bankrupted Apple so they had to go back to being all in house.  Remember Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is not, Apple relies on the sales of their machines more than they do on the sales of their OS.


----------



## Droogie

bomberboysk said:


> Who cares? You can build a computer with vista ultimate(as pricey as it may be), and for the price of components still build a superior system to anything that costs similar price with apple. For example, what it costs for a 24" totally decked out imac, you could have an i7 rig running windows or linux. Apple is too closed for me to take it seriously, as i cannot even put it on my rig legally. Maybe when apple takes their head out of the sand and realizes it would be profitable for them to license the os for use on pc's and not much macs, then osx would be a viable option for many users. But getting back on subject.... windows 7 release candidate should be out soon for public download from microsoft!



you're right, no matter what you do the price gap between a custom PC and a Mac is not justifiable. (in my opinion)

and oh, i already have the release candidate


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> That is their business model, if you scroll back several posts ago you will see I pointed out there was a time where you could build your own Mac clone back in the day, but it bankrupted Apple so they had to go back to being all in house.  Remember Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is not, Apple relies on the sales of their machines more than they do on the sales of their OS.



Well, it may be a fine OS, but I guess I'll never know, because I'll always chose
a PC, because for much less money than a Mac, I can build a decent system that will do everything I need it to.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Well, it may be a fine OS, but I guess I'll never know, because I'll always chose
> a PC, because for much less money than a Mac, I can build a decent system that will do everything I need it to.



That is totally your choice but hardware is not the end all be all answer to how efficient a system runs.  It is more of how the OS utilizes the hardware over the actual hardware specs.

The new ubuntu does a full cold boot in like 12 seconds, pretty damn amazing and I am sure it will run everything faster than windows spec for spec but you would never run it because you like windows.


----------



## speedyink

I've been hearing a lot of good stuff about the new Ubuntu, I think I'm going to have to try it.

And yes, I'm quietly leaving the which OS is better argument..as it all boils down to personal needs and preferences, and thats an endless argument.


----------



## mac550

oh well, ill be sticking with vista anyways, dont like 7


----------



## Machin3

so did you hear about the really stupid Windows 7 glitch?


----------



## N3crosis

Midnight_fox1 said:


> so did you hear about the really stupid Windows 7 glitch?



The one where a basic program can hack into your account and take all of your valuable information such as passwords and credit card numbers? Yeah I heard .


----------



## Bodaggit23

speedyink said:


> And yes, I'm quietly leaving the which OS is better argument..as it all boils down to personal needs and preferences, and thats an endless argument.



I'm with you.

And about the "glitch", as we've heard of it, I'm sure Bill has too, so you can
bet it'll be fixed before release.


----------



## WeatherMan

For that 'Glitch' to be exposed a hacker needs physical access to your computer...




> Researchers Vipin Kumar and Nitin Kumar used proof-of-concept code they developed, called VBootkit 2.0, to take control of a Windows 7 virtual machine while it was booting up. They demonstrated how the software works at the conference.
> 
> [ Learn how to secure your systems with Roger Grimes' Security Adviser blog and Security Central newsletter, both from InfoWorld. ]
> 
> "There's no fix for this. It cannot be fixed. It's a design problem," Vipin Kumar said, explaining the software exploits the Windows 7 assumption that the boot process is safe from attack.
> 
> While VBootkit 2.0 shows how an attacker can take control of a Windows 7 computer, it's not necessarily a serious threat. *For the attack to work, an attacker must have physical access to the victim's computer.* The attack can not be done remotely.



No more 'unsafe' any any Windows version


----------



## tbird412

Why does windows keep spitting out new versions so quickly.  Seems everyone is still trying to avoid Vista, why pump out yet another one?


----------



## Bodaggit23

tbird412 said:


> Why does windows keep spitting out new versions so quickly.  Seems everyone is still trying to avoid Vista, why pump out yet another one?



Because alot of people were unhappy with the Vista release so I think they want to redeem themselves. 

I don't know what the issue is with Vista because I have no problems with it.

I think it was just when it first came out that it had a lot of issues.
It's reputation never rebounded. I love it.


----------



## Droogie

Bodaggit23 said:


> Because alot of people were unhappy with the Vista release so I think they want to redeem themselves.
> 
> I don't know what the issue is with Vista because I have no problems with it.
> 
> I think it was just when it first came out that it had a lot of issues.
> It's reputation never rebounded. I love it.



i agree, i think some of the initial releases left a bad impression.  i definitely found it easier to use than xp, and i never really had any problems with it.


----------



## tlarkin

tbird412 said:


> Why does windows keep spitting out new versions so quickly.  Seems everyone is still trying to avoid Vista, why pump out yet another one?



Win7 is Vista 2.0 man.  Vista was suppose to be what win7 is and for whatever reason ( I am guess poor project management, its not like MS can't afford to payroll super smart developers) they dropped so many features and scaled it back.  They then used Vista to test it in the market, fix all the bugs and what not and polishing it up with Windows 7.

Why are they charging for it then you may wonder? Simply because they can and they market it that way.


----------



## JlCollins005

tlarkin said:


> That is totally your choice but hardware is not the end all be all answer to how efficient a system runs.  It is more of how the OS utilizes the hardware over the actual hardware specs.
> 
> The new ubuntu does a full cold boot in like 12 seconds, pretty damn amazing and I am sure it will run everything faster than windows spec for spec but you would never run it because you like windows.




again u can say he wont try it because he likes windows, well i personally agree ubuntu is fast but program compatibility is a pain, in order to run alot of things u need to use Wine, well which is still kinda buggy and isnt compatible with a lot of things, i run ubuntu as a secondary os, just in case something happens to my vista partition, which btw just switched from xp, still have mixed feelings.. xp to me ran a little smoother, and had better program compatibility ive come across a bunch of programs that i cant use cuz they dont run properly.

Tnick i also have the windows 7 release, did u have a problem with realtek ethernet drivers, i cant get them to work for the life of me.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> Win7 is Vista 2.0 man.  Vista was suppose to be what win7 is and for whatever reason ( I am guess poor project management, its not like MS can't afford to payroll super smart developers) they dropped so many features and scaled it back.  They then used Vista to test it in the market, fix all the bugs and what not and polishing it up with Windows 7.
> 
> Why are they charging for it then you may wonder? Simply because they can and they market it that way.


You could say the same for Windows 2000 and XP then right? Basically the same OS, just XP looked nicer.
Did people complain when XP came out?



JlCollins005 said:


> Tnick i also have the windows 7 release, did u have a problem with realtek ethernet drivers, i cant get them to work for the life of me.


I don't understand this?

Every time I've installed Windows 7 (about 5 times) I've never *had* to install a driver. It always finds a driver by itself. Granted, it may not be the best or newest one, but it makes the system fully functional at least.

Try uninstalling the drivers and restart your pc. After it restarts, let it find the drivers for you and see what happens.


----------



## StrangleHold

Microsoft loves making money. 7 should have been a Vista Service Pack, but what a better way it fix something then charge you for it. They pulled it off twice before charging people with updated versions, 98 to 98SE to ME. Then from 2000 to XP. If you can blindside people and make money at it, why not?


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> You could say the same for Windows 2000 and XP then right? Basically the same OS, just XP looked nicer.
> Did people complain when XP came out?




Not quite.  Win2k was far different from Win XP.  XP was the first MS OS to ever fully incorporate the NT Kernel along with all the multi media extensions and end user ease of use as the 9x Kernel did for the previous version of Windows.  Windows 2k was just more of a stepping stone, and there were lots of features merged from the Win 9x era with XP.  Which is why I think XP is probably the best OS MS has made to this date.

XP was also the first OS to have a true multi user environment for the end user, where as 2000 was still geared towards NT workstation environments and did not run multi media and games as well.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> Win2k was far different from Win XP.


I'm not trying to change your opinion, but it would be nice if you could see someone else's point of view from time to time.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> I'm not trying to change your opinion, but it would be nice if you could see someone else's point of view from time to time.



Well its wrong, plain and simple.  This is not a matter of opinion or point of view, these are the facts.  Windows XP took all the multi media and all the of the end user features of the 9x Kernel and combined it with the NT Kernel so to say that XP is a clone of 2k is really a false statement.


----------



## Bodaggit23

2000 looked and worked the same for me as XP. 

XP just got some fancy buttons and taskbar. That's my point. 

Same as you argue for Win 7 and Vista.


----------



## Hugh9191

Midnight_fox1 said:


> so did you hear about the really stupid Windows 7 glitch?



The one where you have to sit in front of the PC to do doesn't really bother me. 

The one which doesn't let you map network drives from linux servers without syncing them bothers me a lot. If it's the same for the actual release I'm gunna stick with vista.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> 2000 looked and worked the same for me as XP.
> 
> XP just got some fancy buttons and taskbar. That's my point.
> 
> Same as you argue for Win 7 and Vista.



There are still plenty of differences and I am failing to see your point.  You are debating that Windows 7 is or is not Vista 2.0 and then you try to parallel justification for that because you think that Win2k and XP are the same but XP is just a rehash?

Try installing 2000 and running msconfig and see what happens.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Nitpick the analogy all you want.

It's obvious you can't have a discussion with someone who thinks they know everything.


----------



## tlarkin

Bodaggit23 said:


> Nitpick the analogy all you want.
> 
> It's obvious you can't have a discussion with someone who thinks they know everything.



I am not nitpicking, and your sentence implies I can't have a conversation with you because you think you know everything, grammar for the win!  All kidding aside though, I am failing to see your point, and I simply asked for a clarification is all.  No need to drive your underpants up your butt man.  

You seemed to be arguing the point that it is OK for Windows 7 to be a clone of Vista because every other previous OS is a clone of itself.  While I said I agree to some extent but the fact remains that it is not.  

There were easily tons and tons of more justifications for MS to charge for XP over win2k and millenium, and well MS millenium was just a joke.  

My whole point was and still is, that Win7 for $150 for an upgrade from Vista is not worth it.  However, an upgrade from ME, 9x or 2k to XP was way worth it because of all the technology advancements in the OS.  Whether you noticed them are not.  I also think and clearly point out that XP is not a clone or rehash of 2k.  It is way different.  XP is way worth the upgrade, win7 not so much IMHO.  

I fail to see what you are even saying any more?  Are you saying that win7 is worth the $150 to upgrade just because or what?


----------



## StrangleHold

When XP was released it was just a redid 2000, plain and simple. Sure they added 98/ME features and eye candy because 2000 was a business prepared OS. Hell when first released 98% of the drivers were just 2000 drivers. 

I mean what where they suppost to do. ME was a total flop, ME II ( I dont think so). By ME they had added so much to 98 it was a junk OS. Everybody I knew ran from it and installed 2000. 2000 was the only stable OS they had to build XP on. And if your trying to say XP wasnt just built on top of 2000 your just wrong! There was no more difference in 2000 and XP SP1/2/3 then there was between 98 98SE and ME. Now Vista/SP7

New times same crap.


----------



## tlarkin

StrangleHold said:


> When XP was released it was just a redid 2000, plain and simple. Sure they added 98/ME features and eye candy because 2000 was a business prepared OS. Hell when first released 98% of the drivers were just 2000 drivers.
> 
> I mean what where they suppost to do. ME was a total flop, ME II ( I dont think so). By ME they had added so much to 98 it was a junk OS. Everybody I knew ran from it and installed 2000. 2000 was the only stable OS they had to build XP on. And if your trying to say XP wasnt just built on top of 2000 your just wrong! There was no more difference in 2000 and XP SP1/2/3 then there was between 98 98SE and ME. Now Vista/SP7
> 
> New times same crap.



If you had used NT3 or NT4 you would know what I am talking about. XP is so much more than a rehash of 2k, which is why it is the best OS they have ever put out.


----------



## StrangleHold

I have used them, but I do agree that XP is by far the best desktop OS Windows has come out with. Think we are having a conflit between the words rehash and built on top of. 

I really hated XP the first year it was out. After 98SE I bypassed ME, well I had a few copies but always ended up uninstalling it and put 98SE or 2000 back on them. ME was ok if you stayed on top of it and really watched your drivers and what hardware you used. Still have a few with 2000 on them. 

But I felt the same way when XP was released, if you had 2000 what was the point? But after a period of time when Micro started putting files in installers like Media player and IE7 to keep you from installing them on 2000, which could be bypassed and ran fine, if you used them at all. I just got burned out and stopped fooling with it and broke down to XP, then XP grew on me.


----------



## Jamin43

Looks like I ended up with the better O/S.

I went from Win 95 laptop - to a Win 2000 Desktop - to a Win XP desktop.  I passed up on the Win 98 and Vista alltogether. 

Hopefully the Win 7 will be a keeper - cuz it looks like I'll be and end user for that one.


----------



## tlarkin

StrangleHold said:


> I have used them, but I do agree that XP is by far the best desktop OS Windows has come out with. Think we are having a conflit between the words rehash and built on top of.
> 
> I really hated XP the first year it was out. After 98SE I bypassed ME, well I had a few copies but always ended up uninstalling it and put 98SE or 2000 back on them. ME was ok if you stayed on top of it and really watched your drivers and what hardware you used. Still have a few with 2000 on them.
> 
> But I felt the same way when XP was released, if you had 2000 what was the point? But after a period of time when Micro started putting files in installers like Media player and IE7 to keep you from installing them on 2000, which could be bypassed and ran fine, if you used them at all. I just got burned out and stopped fooling with it and broke down to XP, then XP grew on me.



I would say that XP is an amalgamation of 2000 and the 9x Kernel.  Not a rehash or clone of anything, but perhaps a hybrid of the two.  So many things were combine that you can't really say it was a rehash.


----------



## StrangleHold

tlarkin said:


> I would say that XP is an amalgamation of 2000 and the 9x Kernel. Not a rehash or clone of anything, but perhaps a hybrid of the two. So many things were combine that you can't really say it was a rehash.


 
I agree its not a rehash or clone, but yeah Hybird it a good classification for it. Like the better parts of two things.


----------

