Windows 7

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,323
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
is it really a chance to offer improvements or is it another run at users' wallets?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/22/windows.seven/index.html

It promises to come with a virtual version of XP 'so you can still run your older applications that are no longer compatible with the new Windows'. Aagh! So the new windows is planned to hamstring older software...thanks for that improvement!

The original plan was to have a version that would limit the number of open applications to 3! But they recanted under pressure.... but 'has maintained other limitations'. Limitations, just what we expect with a newer and 'better' OS.

I do not see ANY significant improvements for the average home user in that article.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
is it really a chance to offer improvements or is it another run at users' wallets?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/22/windows.seven/index.html

It promises to come with a virtual version of XP 'so you can still run your older applications that are no longer compatible with the new Windows'. Aagh! So the new windows is planned to hamstring older software...thanks for that improvement!

The original plan was to have a version that would limit the number of open applications to 3! But they recanted under pressure.... but 'has maintained other limitations'. Limitations, just what we expect with a newer and 'better' OS.
Click to expand...
The version would have been for netbooks, not the ordinary desktops or laptops. The 'has maintained other limitations' refers to netbooks, as well. Netbooks are generally more limited in abilities, so I expect they've got to trade OS functionality vs. the ability to have other programs running at the same time.

As far as the virtual XP, I see that as a big positive. I've got a lot of drawings in Canvas 3.5, a drawing package originally released for Macs but ported to Windows in the early '90s. I'd used it on the Macs at work, so I bought it for my first PC to be able to use the same package.

The drawings are so old they were limited to 8-character names. I subsequently bought a slightly newer version (Canvas 5.0), but I've been sweating upgrading to a new OS and finding out that the old version of Canvas can't be loaded anymore and all my old drawings are inaccessible unless I spend money for the upgraded program. It's not just theoretical; this week a friend asked for one of my old drawings. File date was January 1995.

The virtual XP is the kind of fallback I'd like. It lets them offer more features to the "Real" OS while keeping compatibility for the luddites like myself.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I also think the "XP Mode" is a fine idea.

One of the reasons Vista was such a mess was that MS tried too hard to maintain backward compatibility, which created conflicts and sorely limited the extent to which they could really improve the system. Now that we have hardware that can handle it, running the older OS on a virtualizer allows backward compatibility in a way that doesn't destabilize the host system.

I've never been a big fan of Microsoft, but this time I think they got it right.

-Rich
 
Been running it a few weeks now...much better than Vista. All the same features, but much more stable (never a crash yet) than Vista or XP and faster than either.
 
bullwinkle said:
Been running it a few weeks now...much better than Vista. All the same features, but much more stable (never a crash yet) than Vista or XP and faster than either.
Click to expand...

So my Vista Ultimate 64-bit install has been running great, never crashed.

Do I upgrade to 7? Why? (really bothers me that 64-bit Ultimate doesn't get an "affordable" upgrade option like the other versions, at least last I checked).

EDIT: I think I bought my version of Vista Ultimate 64-bit within the dates specified below; if that's the case it looks like I qualify for the $9.99 shipping-and-handling only upgrade... if I can find my receipt. ;-)

https://om2.one.microsoft.com/opa/V...-ac70-438f-9304-4bd05de66415&LocaleCode=en-us
 
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey said:
So my Vista Ultimate 64-bit install has been running great, never crashed.

Do I upgrade to 7? Why? (really bothers me that 64-bit Ultimate doesn't get an "affordable" upgrade option like the other versions, at least last I checked).

EDIT: I think I bought my version of Vista Ultimate 64-bit within the dates specified below; if that's the case it looks like I qualify for the $9.99 shipping-and-handling only upgrade... if I can find my receipt. ;-)

https://om2.one.microsoft.com/opa/V...-ac70-438f-9304-4bd05de66415&LocaleCode=en-us
Click to expand...

My answer would be if you like Vista 64 Ultimate and it's working well, why bother with the upgrade?

In general, I've found Vista 64 to be a lot more stable than Vista 32. I've also had very few complaints in general about Vista 64 from the relatively small number of my clients who installed it, other than the lack of driver support for some older hardware.

I have Vista 64 Ultimate on one of my machines. I installed it the day it was released. The initial install was pretty much a mess. I forget how many times it crashed during the install and configuration, but I remember uttering many words I don't often use.

But since applying the service packs and updates and tweaking things here and there, it's been pretty well-behaved. I'm still not all that crazy about it, mind you: It's a resource hog (Win7 is much more efficient), and I don't care much for the Vista interface. But in fairness, it hasn't crashed since I applied the first service pack.

So again, my advice would be that if your present Vista64 setup is doing the job you need it to do and you're satisfied with it, then keep your money in your pocket. Microsoft has enough of it already. But if you can get the free upgrade, take it and put it in the drawer. You never know when you might need it.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
My answer would be if you like Vista 64 Ultimate and it's working well, why bother with the upgrade?

In general, I've found Vista 64 to be a lot more stable than Vista 32. I've also had very few complaints in general about Vista 64 from the relatively small number of my clients who installed it, other than the lack of driver support for some older hardware.

I have Vista 64 Ultimate on one of my machines. I installed it the day it was released. The initial install was pretty much a mess. I forget how many times it crashed during the install and configuration, but I remember uttering many words I don't often use.

But since applying the service packs and updates and tweaking things here and there, it's been pretty well-behaved. I'm still not all that crazy about it, mind you: It's a resource hog (Win7 is much more efficient), and I don't care much for the Vista interface. But in fairness, it hasn't crashed since I applied the first service pack.

So again, my advice would be that if your present Vista64 setup is doing the job you need it to do and you're satisfied with it, then keep your money in your pocket. Microsoft has enough of it already. But if you can get the free upgrade, take it and put it in the drawer. You never know when you might need it.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I predict that Vista and Vista 64 are going to be very quickly sunsetted and swept under the rug, much like Windows ME was. Moving to Windows 7 is a logical move, as it feels the same as Windows Vista, but its much more responsive and the UAC isn't absolutely retarded anymore.

But, like yours, this is just my opinion.
 
SkyHog said:
I predict that Vista and Vista 64 are going to be very quickly sunsetted and swept under the rug, much like Windows ME was. Moving to Windows 7 is a logical move, as it feels the same as Windows Vista, but its much more responsive and the UAC isn't absolutely retarded anymore.
Click to expand...

"UAC"?
 
A Slashdot comment about windows 7
slashdot said:
I get the impression that the Windows 7 launch is a lot like seeing an old girlfriend suddenly show up on your doorstep wanting to get back together. She's had some work done, apparently: stomach stapling to take off some of the weight, breast augmentation, and a radical nosejob to make her look as much like your current girlfriend as medical science will allow.

She's pretty, of course, almost too pretty. She still wears far too much makeup and carries that desperate look in her eyes. The fragrant haze around her is the perfume she overuses to mask the scent of failure.

But standing there in that low-cut top, you'd almost forget for a moment what a psycho she was- how she used to shut down in the middle of a date and forget everything you were talking about and how she was only happy when you were buying her things. You'd almost forget about carrying around her legacy baggage or those nights when, for seemingly no reason at all, she would simply stop speaking to you and when you asked what was wrong she'd just spit a string of hex code at you and expect you to figure it out.

You complained about her for years before finally deciding to get rid of her, and here she is again. Though, somehow she seems like a completely different person now.

"I'm up here," she says when she catches you staring at her chest.

Tempted though you may be, you know that over time she'll get bored and slow down on you just like she always does. And then you'll be right back where you started: trapped. She keeps you by convincing you that you don't have a choice. You're just not smart enough for one option or rich enough to afford the other.

"But I'm different now," she says, batting her eyes innocently. "I've changed."

Indeed she has. Apparently, she's really into Cabala now or something like that. It's helped her discover loads of untapped potential in herself. But it also means that you'll have to buy all new furniture to fit with her understanding of feng shui. That's not the only change she has in store for you. The minute you let her move in, she'll have a new alarm system put in that succeeds only in preventing your friends from coming over on poker night.
She doesn't love you, but she doesn't hate you, either. The truth is that she couldn't care less one way or the other. She's here because she doesn't want to be alone. Like all human beings, especially those well past their prime, she wants to feel wanted and, after a string of lost jobs and bad investments, she needs a place to stay.

But all in all, she's OK. She's a seven. She'll do, I guess.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
That's......really bizarre.
Click to expand...

I love Slashdot. Best place to read the best anti-Microsoft, Apple/Linux/Open Source fanboy/apologist geek tripe on the Internet! :D
 
Win7 may or may not be worth upgrading to, I don't know, but Apple's ad campaign the last few days has been brilliant.
 
I've been using Win 7 for a few months now. It's been solid so far. I like how it handles recent documents and using search to easily find programs you want to run.
 
SCCutler said:
Win7 may or may not be worth upgrading to, I don't know, but Apple's ad campaign the last few days has been brilliant.
Click to expand...

What I find funny about Apple's Ad campaign is that the fanboys said that the Android commercials were all focused on Apple, and therefore they were cheapshots and a sign of a company that's already failed.

Apple has been running ads focused on Windows for years, but somehow its not the same....

But I agree, they're brilliant, and they've always been pretty funny.
 
SkyHog said:
What I find funny about Apple's Ad campaign is that the fanboys said that the Android commercials were all focused on Apple, and therefore they were cheapshots and a sign of a company that's already failed.

Apple has been running ads focused on Windows for years, but somehow its not the same....

But I agree, they're brilliant, and they've always been pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Apple fans are like Notre Dame fans.
 
SkyHog said:
What I find funny about Apple's Ad campaign is that the fanboys said that the Android commercials were all focused on Apple, and therefore they were cheapshots and a sign of a company that's already failed.

Apple has been running ads focused on Windows for years, but somehow its not the same....
Click to expand...

Naah, they're exactly the same. Everybody's gotta pile on the big guy. Apple's just not used to being the big guy!

But I agree, they're brilliant, and they've always been pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Are there others besides the one I posted? (Love Hodgman's "do" on the Win2 part. :rofl:)

OBTW - I'm posting this from my shiny new MacBook Pro that arrived today, just in case anyone thought I was gonna jump ship for Win7. :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
OBTW - I'm posting this from my shiny new MacBook Pro that arrived today, just in case anyone thought I was gonna jump ship for Win7. :)
Click to expand...
Are you spending about 6 hours getting your new laptop all loaded up and configured?

Oh wait, you said new MacBook, never mind. Those work right out of the box.
 
ggroves said:
So did my new Toshiba NB205 netbook w/ Win 7. So did my Dell w/ Vista.

Not sure who would be spending 6 hours...?
Click to expand...
Well my new Dell took almsot all day to get set up. I had to load all the software, virus check software, get the VPN setup, local network config, monitor settings, docked and undocked settings, pulling off all the bloatware, etc. My Mac, out of the box, turned it on, and stuff just worked. I run both types of machines and I spend far more time having to hand hold Wondoze than my MAC.
 
ggroves said:
So did my new Toshiba NB205 netbook w/ Win 7. So did my Dell w/ Vista.

Not sure who would be spending 6 hours...?
Click to expand...

It came with all the patches installed?

wow!
 
Bob Noel said:
It came with all the patches installed?

wow!
Click to expand...

Patches auto download in the background. VPN - < 5 minutes, Norton - 5 minutes to take my credit card, no bloatware, wireless network discovered and prompted for settings. Certainly not 6 hours.

The drama of the Apple fanboys is amazing....:D
 
ggroves said:
Patches auto download in the background. VPN - < 5 minutes, Norton - 5 minutes to take my credit card, no bloatware, wireless network discovered and prompted for settings. Certainly not 6 hours.

The drama of the Apple fanboys is amazing....:D
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand. It's now safe to put an unpatched
windoze machine on the network?

You must be very proud of the progress made by microsoft.
 
smigaldi said:
Well my new Dell took almsot all day to get set up. I had to load all the software, virus check software, get the VPN setup, local network config, monitor settings, docked and undocked settings, pulling off all the bloatware, etc. My Mac, out of the box, turned it on, and stuff just worked. I run both types of machines and I spend far more time having to hand hold Wondoze than my MAC.
Click to expand...

PEBKAC

Even when I built my computer from scratch with Windows7x64 I was *maybe* an hour and a half from the time I opened the first of the boxes until I was up and running. And that included putting all the hardware together, and installing the OS.
 
Bob Noel said:
Let me see if I understand. It's now safe to put an unpatched
windoze machine on the network?

You must be very proud of the progress made by microsoft.
Click to expand...

New machine with a factory load...the risk is slim to none...and frequently over-exagerated.

Not my company...why would I be proud? Of course I've never subscribed to all of the hand wringing over the evils of MS. That's usually reserved for the self serving consultant-types who generate business by scaring the hell out of unsuspecting clients. :D
 
I find it hilarious that as many IT "professionals" we have here aren't smart enough to not screw up Windows. Hell, my mother doesn't know squat about computers and she's never had problems.

Must be a special kind of professional.
 
SkyHog said:
I find it hilarious that as many IT "professionals" we have here aren't smart enough to not screw up Windows. Hell, my mother doesn't know squat about computers and she's never had problems.

Must be a special kind of professional.
Click to expand...

Us IT types are know-it-alls...haven't you heard??!! :D:D:D

The Mac vs. PC crap comes from the technical elitists, staring down their noses at the MS world as unworthy. It makes me chuckle when they start talking about form factors, elegance, and style like its a work of art. Hello??? It's a computer.
 
ggroves said:
The Mac vs. PC crap comes from the technical elitists, staring down their noses at the MS world as unworthy. It makes me chuckle when they start talking about form factors, elegance, and style like its a work of art. Hello??? It's a computer.
Click to expand...

What!!!! Mac is not just a computer it's a life style decision.:D
 
RMCN172RG said:
What!!!! Mac is not just a computer it's a life style decision.:D
Click to expand...

Hey, if Scott and I agree on something, you simply have to consider
that there may be good reason. :)
 
smigaldi said:
Are you spending about 6 hours getting your new laptop all loaded up and configured?

Oh wait, you said new MacBook, never mind. Those work right out of the box.
Click to expand...

For the Win-heads, here's how it worked:

1) Pulled machine out of box, opened it up and turned it on. Battery was already nearly fully charged.

2) First boot, so it automagically fired up the Migration Assistant, which asked if I'd like to load stuff from another machine, over the network, a backup, etc.

3) I chose my Time Machine backup. It started in the background as it grabbed my personal info out of my backed-up Address Book and auto-filled it into the registration info for the machine, which it sent.

4) About an hour later, 200+GB of files were copied, all of my applications were installed, all my settings were transferred, and this machine worked just like my last one. Grand total of my user interaction to get this to go: I hit Return three times and clicked the mouse once. Boom, done.

PC folks don't have it too hard IMHO, but they just don't get how stupidly easy the Mac stuff is to do.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
For the Win-heads, here's how it worked:

1) Pulled machine out of box, opened it up and turned it on. Battery was already nearly fully charged.

2) First boot, so it automagically fired up the Migration Assistant, which asked if I'd like to load stuff from another machine, over the network, a backup, etc.

3) I chose my Time Machine backup. It started in the background as it grabbed my personal info out of my backed-up Address Book and auto-filled it into the registration info for the machine, which it sent.

4) About an hour later, 200+GB of files were copied, all of my applications were installed, all my settings were transferred, and this machine worked just like my last one. Grand total of my user interaction to get this to go: I hit Return three times and clicked the mouse once. Boom, done.

PC folks don't have it too hard IMHO, but they just don't get how stupidly easy the Mac stuff is to do.
Click to expand...

There's a reason for that. :D
 
Well, on the 23rd I bought a Core Duo 4 gb box from the office store, with Win 7 Home premium on it. Hme Premium won't virtualize, but after discovering that requirements, changing bios to lock the two 32 bit paths togher in sync, and $200 fo the update to Win7 Professional, and a download I have XP in a window. I endowed the virtual computer with 1024 mbytes.

It runs my office software handily (XP only). Problem is, my buisness manage forgets and opens the browser in XP. That means, yet another McAfee subscription for the window that is ONLY supposed to run the financial software.

Remember, when you have a virtual computer, you really have two computers in the box. Win 7 is agressive on the network. So, I denied Win7 the network (software deactivated the eternet card in Win7, enabled in XP), and so only XP on the network.

Without the XP Prof features, here is no advantage- though the code is far less bloated than Vista and rus more quickly on the same resources.

That being said, most of my office boxes are P 2.66 single processors with 1 gig of memory and a 800 mhz front side bus. They do everything they need to, well.
 
political-pictures-bill-gates-own-you.jpg
 
bbchien said:
Well, on the 23rd I bought a Core Duo 4 gb box from the office store, with Win 7 Home premium on it. Hme Premium won't virtualize, but after discovering that requirements, changing bios to lock the two 32 bit paths togher in sync, and $200 fo the update to Win7 Professional, and a download I have XP in a window. I endowed the virtual computer with 1024 mbytes.

It runs my office software handily (XP only). Problem is, my buisness manage forgets and opens the browser in XP. That means, yet another McAfee subscription for the window that is ONLY supposed to run the financial software.

Remember, when you have a virtual computer, you really have two computers in the box. Win 7 is agressive on the network. So, I denied Win7 the network (software deactivated the eternet card in Win7, enabled in XP), and so only XP on the network.

Without the XP Prof features, here is no advantage- though the code is far less bloated than Vista and rus more quickly on the same resources.

That being said, most of my office boxes are P 2.66 single processors with 1 gig of memory and a 800 mhz front side bus. They do everything they need to, well.
Click to expand...
So -- if you are effectively bypassing Windows 7...Why even run it? Just install your XP copy, have one anti-virus subscription, and all your computer's resources.
 
jesse said:
So -- if you are effectively bypassing Windows 7...Why even run it? Just install your XP copy, have one anti-virus subscription, and all your computer's resources.
Click to expand...
'cause you know what' going to happen. MSFT will soon stop supporting XP, which is 9 years old. See, you get clobbered either way- the H_LL XP downgrade is now $100. You can get the added hardware for the difference. He owns us.

I needed to know if my office could continue with the current line of management software......which we can :). That knowledge was worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top