windows 7

[Wizzle]

Just checking it out the last few days (dual booting) seems to run very stable, and better gaming performance than Vista...

Maybe Mr gates has potential with this one

anyone else running/tried it? and if so what do you think?

Wizz



*edit* lols, the forum picks it up as windows NT 6.1
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<looksy

[Madbot]

It looks ok. Although the 6 editions of Windows 7 stinks..

 

[Nehilus]

It looks ok. Although the 6 editions of Windows 7 stinks..

 

Six editions?! WTF? lol irl 

[Lazula]

[Wizzle]

despite all the bad press, got to say, been using vista exclusively for 2 and a half years, not once have i had an OS problem that wasn't easily solvable

but it's still a hella funny comic strip

[Alchemius]

despite all the bad press, got to say, been using vista exclusively for 2 and a half years, not once have i had an OS problem that wasn't easily solvable

Agree.  Only issues ive had with Vista is not being able to play some older games I have (the load in "XP" mode doesnt always work).  Networking and Security has been sweet.

And Snipping Tool is the bomb!

Am curious to see how older games work on Windows 7.  Dan, can u test for me?

[Madbot]

Geek talk 

Vista sucked for me because:

1. 5 editions of Vista. The PC world had focused on providing 'choices' - how you want to build your machine, what you want to focus on, a lot of different choices etc. While this is great for the geeks, it's simply too complex for the common people. Vista also headed down this track to provide 'choices' and I think just confused the hell out of the normal home users. On the flip side, Macs even when they are much more expensive, presented simple choices (or no choice at all). Think of it in terms of 'usability'. Sometimes too many choices is just too confusing.

I really think the PC world should learn a few lessons from the Apple approach. Find ways to make things simpler, not more complicated. 6 editions of Windows 7 is a shocker.

2. Machines that run nicely on XP, when upgraded, sucked BAD under Vista. A new installation made it better but still not as smoothly since Vista needs more resources. No surprises here since usually each new edition of Windows/OS demands more resources. The problem here is that XP had been out for a long time and each "service pack" upgrades did not really demand substantially more resources, plus all the Microsoft marketing spin - all meant that most common people did not expect the need to upgrade their gear and therefore Vista sucked for them.

Other than that, when running on a properly geared machine, Vista runs fine. Except everytime when I'm copying files from one drive to another, I'm reminded on how much slower Vista is at this when compared to XP.  Other than the eye candies, I'm not sure how much more substantial advantage Vista offers over XP for the average user.

PS: I got myself an iPhone 3G and I am enjoying the ways Apple makes things simpler. It's not perfect, it's just a different way of doing things. Not enough for me to make me use a Mac yet but they have some nice ways of simplifying things.

[Alchemius]

But windows has ALWAYS been like that.  XP would not run on my Pentium 2 either.  There were times Win 98SE > Win 2000, until you got to a point when your hardware demanded an upgrade to take advantage of its resources.  In this case, XP would not be able to recognise the amount of RAM I am using, nor use DX10.  I've found IE has been excellent, although 64 bit browser still lacks.

I've seen no difference in transferring files, mostly due to the fact that I am not using the same hardware with Vista that I did with XP (ie a Raptor Hard Drive instead some standard one), so have no idea why or if Vista is slower in transferring files.

ME was the biggest failure in my eyes.  I can remember when XP came out, people were arguing it was shit for years.  Took me 1.5 years to decide to update 2000 to it, and even then I was still dual booting 98SE.

I dont think Vista was a failure, but, I think Windows has.  Given my machine can prob navigate a Chimp to Mars, I still don't think I've made any ground with Windows since 3.1.  With the Hardware and the OS, the end result seems to be the same performance wise.  Its not that much simpler (except the removal of DOS, although, we still need command promp to FIX any issues with XP/Vista).

WTB a Windows/Apple Hybrid OS

So whats this 6 Versions thing??

[Madbot]

There weren't too many years between Win98SE2 to win2000 to WinXP. Even if you jumped from Win98 to WinXP, its only a few years. XP to Vista was at least double that time and many many more people have computers that came preinstalled with XP. it's virtually a completely different generation.

For them, Vista was the first real upgrade and my point is that most people either forgot about the Win98 to XP upgrade pain (and yes, it was painful) or had never experienced it because their first machine was XP. And boom, first upgrade to Vista (with all the high expectations) leave you with a slow slow machine.

Didn't help with the "Vista capable" stickers which made people think the machine can run Vista as smoothly as their XP machines, when the "Vista capable" machines didn't come with enuf ram, etc. Vista as a software I don't think was any worse than the previous versions, but the way expectations were managed backfired on Microsoft.

Compare copying large files over the network in XP vs Vista. Vista makes me cry even on a fast machine.

Vista comes in 4 editions:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx

6 editions of Windows 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

Windows 7 starter is meant to be the one they install in Netbooks. I can smell the backfire already. Most netbooks can run XP Home/Pro nicely.. A starter edition actually cripples it..


So.. to the average users.. which edition of Windows 7 should they buy (and cost effective)? Or.. they just bought this machine that comes with win7 - can it really do what they saw on the next guys machine? 

In comparison.. OSX takes away these choices. One price for all like it was before Win2k!

[Alchemius]

I found Vista a lot more affordable than XP... Although exchange rates and the market over the past 7 years could account for that.

I can remember that XP Professional (lets be serious, XP Home was not suitable if you wanted an ounce of security on your network) costed around $499+ retail over here.  That back then was more than the average weekly income.

I purchased Vista Home Premium (I dont know why that website said $299) for $129 before Service Pack 1 was even a conceived entity (yes, Premium not Basic).  Thats about 1/5 of the average weekly income of today in Australia.  I could get the Ultimate Version of Vista, and it would still be cheaper (in relation to inflation) of XP, 2000, NT and possibly those before it.

I never experienced the XP--> Vista upgrade THANKGOD (I had XP on an old system which was previously 2000, before that 98SE) as I bought a new system from scratch.  It was the first time I had to start from scratch since 2000 (when GeForce first started), although Vista may have contributed to this full rebuild, the change away from AGP graphics cards was the biggest drive.  I can see how the XP--> Vista upgrade could've been frustrating for Pre-2007 machines (for non-gamers especially who didnt NEED a demanding system GFX wise)...which is why a lot of Government Departments went XP when they upgraded from 2000 this year and last.  My work went with Vista simply because they completely rolled out new Hardware.  Funny thing is though we still use Office 2003...go figure.

HOWEVER, given all that, I agree.  Vista wasnt the upgrade it was suppose to be.  If they simply stuck with say XP 64 Bit Version, with a few more updates, it probably would retail at the same cost as Vista does now and without the drain of resouces that has plagued Vista.

7 Versions ey..its going to get worse and worse... although, you must admit..the 7 versions of Windows actually make sense (6 and 7 are the same anyway)... the last 2 versions of Vista were just a wank session.  Seriously..who pays an extra +$ amount for PREMIUM WINDOWS GAMES AND TO MAKE MOVIES!!!! YAY

Which System shall the average user buy come Windows 7? Well, really, they only have 2 choices.  Home Basic or Premium (much the same as Vista and XP) as the other 5 versions are marketed for business or speciality interests or undeveloped countries. 

I'll most likely get Premium again, although it could be considered overkill.

[Alchemius]

Now that I think about it, any idea how much 7 will cost?

[Madbot]

No.. I don't think the 7 versions of Windows makes sense. It's way too confusing. Even 2 choices for the home users are confusing, and I bet many will also have the Vista starter edition because of netbooks.

For the geeks who are well aware of what the differences, the choice may be obvious. For the rest of the world who do not know/understand the differences, it's confusing. A computer can already be complicated to use (it's a LOT more complicated than a VCR), with all the hardware choices. The OS, regardless of which one you choose, can be even more complicated to use. It's just another layer.

Here's a youtube video doing the rounds at the moment. I think it shows very well how Microsoft just tries to add too much information and making things unnecessarily complicated, than say how Apple approached it. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0

Apple has simplified things and I am not quite comfortable since it doesn't show enough detailed info. On the other hand, I know Apple goes for a simpler design and things will probably work anyway. Apple is not perfect but it's a fresh breath of air. 

I dare say Win7 prices will be comparable with Vista. I don't remember XP being that expensive - thought XP Pro was around the 200~300 mark. OEM versions are obviously cheaper if you get it with hardware.

[Alchemius]

But only 2 choices will be available to 95% of the market.

Of the other 5, 1 is for those that live in non-western countries, 1 is a 32bit version, and the others are business/licensing related, which ALL products have, just Microsoft put a clear name to it took make "7" look cool by having "7" versions.

I agree, so much useless things added to a lot of these versions and can be confusing, but this isnt anything different than previous Windows versions.  The 7 versions in "7" are actually more distinct than the Vista ones. 

Apple is more simple, and I would love to see an alternative to Windows.  Unfortunately, there is none.

EDIT:  Maybe Windows and Apple should make out and have babies??

[Madbot]

But only 2 choices will be available to 95% of the market.

Na, I don't agree with that. Most of the markets, including Australia, I see:

Started edition - the netbooks
Home Premium - home users
Professional - "enthusiasts and small business users"
Ultimate - everything please. This is the ONLY edition that gets the multi-lingual interface

Most home users would be ok with home premium, until they want to do some stuff they get at the office (with the professional edition). Started edition uses would get fed up soon. Microsoft would be marketing Ultimate as the one that everyone REALLY wants because it's the "ULTIMATE".

[Wizzle]

Oh where do i start...

Firstly LOL at video link, oh so true

secondly

I purchased Vista Home Premium (I dont know why that website said $299) for $129 before Service Pack 1 was even a conceived entity (yes, Premium not Basic).  Thats about 1/5 of the average weekly income of today in Australia.  I could get the Ultimate Version of Vista, and it would still be cheaper (in relation to inflation) of XP, 2000, NT and possibly those before it.

no you didn't, you bought an upg, all you needed was the xp disk to verify you had a licence for windows, therefore you got to do a fresh reinstall from the upg disk, there is no way you could have bought vista retail for $129

Vista had 4 versions, Home basic, home prem, business and ultimate,  (more if you count 32/64)

home basic for ppl with older machines, home prem for people who like eye candy, business for ppl that need domain networking and bitlocker encription (and an easy downgrade to xp) and ultimate for everything + miving backgroundss (oh yes, MS made it an exclusive feature... woohoo)

From the word go MS insisted that this was to run with newer machines only, and for anyone that has built a maching int he last 2.5 years that it has been realeased it should run finr, the problem was ppl upgrading old machines that can't run it and then whining that their P3 can't run vista and microsoft has fucked them over.

standard deal that happens everytime they release a new OS, same hapened from 98 - 2000, 2000 - xp, and xp - vista.

just wait till you get to vista - windows 7, sit back and watch it all happen all over again.

this is always gonna happen as long as there is people around who don't educate themselves on current technology, and middle age men in sandals toting copies of CHOICE magazine exist. (true story, the statistics are mind bogling)

that said, not saying all people should be as IT educated as us, however those who aren't really should seek advice from someone that knows before the go upgrading their 5 year old system to something they know very little about.

*end rant*

/discuss