Windows 7 seen in the wild...

[Humodour]

I'm sure Microsoft arrogantly thought the same thing, too. Which is probably part of the reason why Vista bombed so badly.

 

No, the reason Vista "bombed so badly" is because everyone decided it was bad - mainly based on the fact that people with crappy PCs tried to run it.

 

No, the reason it bombed so badly was because it it offset its performance gains with increased resource usage and and cut out more than 50% of the market in doing so.

 

MS fanboys would then go on to accuse normal users of "trying to run it on a crappy PC", yet the internal Microsoft emails from the 'Vista Capable' lawsuit show that MS was well aware of Vista's faults but targeted it at these machines anyway to make a quick buck.

 

It's ludicrous to accept, let alone expect an operating system to get ever more bloated with each version. Oh look ma, on a computer that's twice as fast, Microsoft's next OS is no faster than the previous one because it consumes, proportionally, the same amount of resources! Now that's progress, ma!

[Moatilliatta]

Krezack is just mad that Linux isn't going anywhere.

 

Has anyone mentioned that Vista is better than XP at giving up the ram that it is using when needed elsewhere?

 

Or the improved security?

 

I also still don't get the UAC bitching. I waste more time in lines at the supermarket and those lines aren't very long.

 

Vista still uses slightly more ram than XP, but really? is that what you guys are gonna bitch about? There are much worse developements with Microsoft that will affect consumers much worse than rising ram usage.

 

Why can't people just upgrade when they upgrade the rest of their computer and then leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to be angry at Vista?

 

@the actual topic.

Windows 7 will probably be seen as the good Vista which will be hilarious since the difference are quite small.

[Humodour]

lol people like you seem to forget XP was a "hog" compared to win98. zomg win98 run ok with 64MB RAM, why won't XP?!?!

 

You seem to have skipped Windows ME. And that's a far better comparison for Vista: a useless piece of crap that was widely ridiculed and swiftly replaced by new a Windows version (XP) which boasted actual improvements that people thought they were getting in ME.

 

Seems history is repeating itself: Windows 7 looks to be to Vista what XP was to ME. Except it's not at all evident that people particularly care about leaving XP, compared to 98; the gains are not nearly as worthwhile.

[Humodour]

Krezack is just mad that Linux isn't going anywhere.

 

Rubbish. This is XP vs Vista, nothing to do with Linux, and I use Mac, Linux (Ubuntu), and Windows (XP & Vista) in roughly equal measures on an average day (computer labs). Anyway, Linux is growing. It's marketshare doubled since Vista came out. Maybe I should be thanking Vista.

 

Why can't people just upgrade when they upgrade the rest of their computer and then leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to be angry at Vista?

 

Because people like XP. Vista breaks enough things and doesn't improve enough things to make an upgrade unwarranted. Why should people even be forced to pay for a new operating system they don't want anyway?

 

Indeed, some people request money back from their manufacturer because they don't want Vista shipped with their comp. When refused, they take it to court. None of them have lost yet.

 

Windows 7 will probably be seen as the good Vista which will be hilarious since the difference are quite small.

 

If the differences do turn out to be small, it's likely that Microsoft's revenue on it will be, too. People aren't kidding when they say they'll stick with XP, as the 68% of people who still use XP shows (c.f. 20% who use Vista).

[Tigranes]

lol people like you seem to forget XP was a "hog" compared to win98. zomg win98 run ok with 64MB RAM, why won't XP?!?!

 

I stayed on 98SE as long as I could. Only moved to XP as programmes started becoming incompatible. Will do the same with Vista/7 then, and not before.

 

Also, apparently if XP was a hog, it's okay for Vista to be a bigger hog? lulz.

 

Why do people feel the need to be angry at Vista?

 

Because Microsoft won't give people who like performance and stability over shininess and "Help" features an option.

[Bokishi]

Also, apparently if XP was a hog, it's okay for Vista to be a bigger hog? lulz.

 

Sorry, but that's just the logic of most computer software. It's why we are no longer using rigs with 512kb of RAM

[Tigranes]

*shrug* that's the case with programmes. And that's what I'm saying. I don't like the philosophy here. Microsoft understands OS as something like an Adobe programme, where you have to keep adding new crap and making things look shiny and whatever. I don't want revolution or shinies or help tools or whatever with my OS, I don't want them to keep making bloated crap like Live to try and "integrate" everything. I want them to stick with lean, basic, performance-oriented OS that gives me the freedom to do what I want.

 

I want to buy a freaking empty house, Microsoft only sells you IKEA full sets and have bolted down the furniture to the floor.

[Pidesco]

The problem with Vista is not that it is a hog, or that it is worse than XP. Relatively speaking, Vista is as big a system hog as XP, and in terms of features, it's probably a bit better than XP. However, jsut a bit better really doesn't cut it, if you want to get people to change to a new, quite expensive OS.

 

XP was a success because it was significantly more stable and secure than 98SE, which made it a worthy upgrade for a lot of people. I still use XP because it never, ever crashes and I've never had any security issues with it. Why would I spend an ungodly amount of money on Vista if I'm already happy with my current OS?

[Slowtrain]

Barring some sort of miracle revival of PC-only gaming over the next year or two, my current plan is to stick with my trusty XP system until it is no longer viable. WHen that day comes, I will switch all my gaming to consoles and purchase a mac for my computing needs.

 

If there is no longer PC only gaming, then there is no reason really to take a pc over a mac. AT least for me, anyway.

[mkreku]

No matter how cheap they make RAM, I will still want an explanation as to why Vista needs 2 GB of it just to start up when it does nothing better than an OS that only needs a few MB.

 

I want an OS that's small, slick and efficient. Vista fits none of those three simple criteria.

[Morgoth]

Vista is slick and efficient. Perhaps I can't really judge that on a weaker system as mine has 4 Gb RAM, but with that it runs like a dream. HD space shouldn't really be a problem in the days of terrabyte hard disks, either.

Also, developers will pick it up once DX11 matures (at the latest, when the next-gen console hardware uses DX11 gfx processors) due to many advantages over the stone old Win XP and DX9 API. It's time to let it go. Embrace the awesomeness that is Windows Vista/7.

[Slowtrain]

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

From where I stand once games are removed from the equation, nothing really stands out as a reason to stay with Windows. SO why play around in the Microsoft pc playground if you don't have to?

 

I'll probably still have to use their console, but at least I can go with other options for my non-gaming computing needs.

[Morgoth]

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

From where I stand once games are removed from the equation, nothing really stands out as a reason to stay with Windows. SO why play around in the Microsoft pc playground if you don't have to?

 

I'll probably still have to use their console, but at least I can go with other options for my non-gaming computing needs.

Oh come on, why using a Mac? Still way too expensive compared with a PC that has the same power.

[samm]

Bit-Tech preview based on the Beta

 

I'll install it as secondary OS on my "soon" to buy new computer. Along with XP 32bit for older games and applications (unless they all work in Win 7) and a Linux.

Edited January 16, 2009 by samm

[Slowtrain]

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

From where I stand once games are removed from the equation, nothing really stands out as a reason to stay with Windows. SO why play around in the Microsoft pc playground if you don't have to?

 

I'll probably still have to use their console, but at least I can go with other options for my non-gaming computing needs.

Oh come on, why using a Mac? Still way too expensive compared with a PC that has the same power.

 

 

Good point. I had forgotten that Macs are generally expensive. I've never actually owned one.

[Spider]

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

From where I stand once games are removed from the equation, nothing really stands out as a reason to stay with Windows. SO why play around in the Microsoft pc playground if you don't have to?

 

I'll probably still have to use their console, but at least I can go with other options for my non-gaming computing needs.

Oh come on, why using a Mac? Still way too expensive compared with a PC that has the same power.

 

 

Good point. I had forgotten that Macs are generally expensive. I've never actually owned one.

 

However, replace Mac with Linux and you're point is still valid.

[Slowtrain]

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

From where I stand once games are removed from the equation, nothing really stands out as a reason to stay with Windows. SO why play around in the Microsoft pc playground if you don't have to?

 

I'll probably still have to use their console, but at least I can go with other options for my non-gaming computing needs.

Oh come on, why using a Mac? Still way too expensive compared with a PC that has the same power.

 

 

Good point. I had forgotten that Macs are generally expensive. I've never actually owned one.

 

However, replace Mac with Linux and you're point is still valid.

 

 

Its definitely a thought. I'd hate to have to learn a whole new OS, but without games forcing me to use Windows anymore, it would be nice to do something different.

[Sammael]

Vista is slick and efficient. Perhaps I can't really judge that on a weaker system as mine has 4 Gb RAM, but with that it runs like a dream. HD space shouldn't really be a problem in the days of terrabyte hard disks, either.

Also, developers will pick it up once DX11 matures (at the latest, when the next-gen console hardware uses DX11 gfx processors) due to many advantages over the stone old Win XP and DX9 API. It's time to let it go. Embrace the awesomeness that is Windows Vista/7.

Heh. I guess that's why the meetings I had last year all ended up with "and please don't even try to advertise Vista... it will lower our Office 2007 sales." Most MS people I talked to were pretty negative about Vista. They were forced to use it themselves and they couldn't stand it. As a developer, I was willing to give Vista a try at first, until I learned that roughly half development tools I was using at the time wouldn't work under Vista, or would work in a diminished capacity. Oh, and those are Microsoft development tools I am talking about.

 

Here's an anecdote from a MS lecture we had on Vista back in 2007. The lecturer was employed in one of the MS training centers, and he was going by the book, praising this feature and that (while the audience was spewing sarcastic comments). At one point during the lecture, a high-ranking MS official walked in and asked the lecturer which part of Vista he was discussing at the time. The guy replied "UAC," since he had spent the previous half hour trying to convince us that UAC was the best thing since sliced bread. The MS honcho then turned to the audience with an apologetic look and said "don't worry, it can be turned off..."

[Rhomal]

Also, apparently if XP was a hog, it's okay for Vista to be a bigger hog? lulz.

 

Sorry, but that's just the logic of most computer software. It's why we are no longer using rigs with 512kb of RAM

 

Or in the case of the Color Computer 3 128K

[Rhomal]

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

The vast array of non-gaming software and options that linux and mac simply don't have. And no... 30 different text editors in linux or 6 different versions of itunes or ipod related apps I do not consider a valid counter argument

[Humodour]

Barring some sort of miracle revival of PC-only gaming over the next year or two, my current plan is to stick with my trusty XP system until it is no longer viable.

 

You'll see the most games ported to the Mac before that happens (as all big-name titles are already e.g. Blizzard, ID Software, Epic titles), so I wouldn't worry.

 

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

From where I stand once games are removed from the equation, nothing really stands out as a reason to stay with Windows. SO why play around in the Microsoft pc playground if you don't have to?

 

I'll probably still have to use their console, but at least I can go with other options for my non-gaming computing needs.

Oh come on, why using a Mac? Still way too expensive compared with a PC that has the same power.

 

Good point. I had forgotten that Macs are generally expensive. I've never actually owned one.

 

However, replace Mac with Linux and you're point is still valid.

 

Its definitely a thought. I'd hate to have to learn a whole new OS, but without games forcing me to use Windows anymore, it would be nice to do something different.

 

Form my experience, Ubuntu is easier to learn than Mac OSX, so if you were willing to learn how to use a Mac, Linux shouldn't be a problem. But as I said above, Mac has the Windows games list, whilst Linux doesn't yet, so that's a good reason to choose Mac instead, for now (unless you plan to do gaming on a console).

 

Other than gaming, are there any areas where an MS Windows pc is better than a Mac?

 

The vast array of non-gaming software and options that linux and mac simply don't have. And no... 30 different text editors in linux or 6 different versions of itunes or ipod related apps I do not consider a valid counter argument

 

Holy ****, you've really never used Linux, have you? One day you should sit down with a Debian-based distro and actually bother to take a look through the package repositories to see how wrong you are.

 

As for Mac - I can't really contain my laughter at your claim that it lacks applications. Anybody with half a brain (and a Mac) will be able to contradict you on the domestic front. And in fact there are areas of industry that Mac is really the only OS used (e.g. audio, visual media, CGI) because Windows just doesn't have enough high-quality tools for the job.

[Rhomal]

Holy ****, you've really never used Linux, have you? One day you should sit down with a Debian-based distro and actually bother to take a look through the package repositories to see how wrong you are.

 

As for Mac - I can't really contain my laughter at your claim that it lacks applications. Anybody with half a brain (and a Mac) will be able to contradict you on the domestic front. And in fact there are areas of industry that Mac is really the only OS used (e.g. audio, visual media, CGI) because Windows just doesn't have enough high-quality tools for the job.

 

I have actually a few distros. And between dependency issues and plain install issues it took x5 times longer to get anything done then on windows. Windows is a simple click setup.exe and in a few moments you are off and running. With linux its a pain in the arse from start to finish. Granted its been about 2 yrs since I tried linux but I follow the saying fool me once shame on you, fool my twice shame on me. I gave linux 3 tries and each time it was nothing but a head ache and limited apps.

 

And that was true for the mac TEN years ago. Now the PC has certainly caught up to it media editing wise. Or are all those studios using win servers or all the media editing apps just a illusion? Not the mention last I saw the PC outperforms the mac in media work.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Rhomal

[Diamond]

I have actually a few distros. And between dependency issues and plain install issues it took x5 times longer to get anything done then on windows. Windows is a simple click setup.exe and in a few moments you are off and running. With linux its a pain in the arse from start to finish. Granted its been about 2 yrs since I tried linux but I follow the saying fool me once shame on you, fool my twice shame on me. I gave linux 3 tries and each time it was nothing but a head ache and limited apps.

I am a full-time Linux user for 2 years and I can say that Linux-based operating systems (and open-source software in general) has quite a few shortcomings, BUT installation of software is NOT one of them (at least with today's package managers). In Linux, I can specify to install a few dozen of packages at a time, which are downloaded from my ISP's mirror (fast!) and installation proceeds quickly in batch.

 

So, when installing a new {U,Ku}buntu system, all I need is to have my list of post-install packages handy. I can read a list of needed packages from a file or (even quicker) off a web-page which I stored somewhere:

sh$ wget -O- http://example.com/my-site/my-list-of-packages | xargs sudo apt-get install

Now I can go have some coffee and generally find something useful to do.

 

On the other hand, it took me one attempt to reinstall Windows recently to appreciate Linux package management. I needed to install each program separately, each "setup.exe" performs its own install-time checks and preparations, and hence they generally take forever. Not to mention I can't automate this and have to be physically present at the machine to click the next "setup.exe", "Next", "I Agree", "Next", "Yes, I'm sure", "Finish" all the bloody time.

 

It's not for everyone, mind you, for some people doing something other than click-click is outside of their comfort zone, but for me personally, Linux (Debian's, to be exact) software management is far superior to that of Windows, since I like be able to do more in less time.

[neckthrough]

Granted its been about 2 yrs since I tried linux but I follow the saying fool me once shame on you, fool my twice shame on me. I gave linux 3 tries and each time it was nothing but a head ache and limited apps.

You should really try out one of the new Ubuntu-derived distros. The *complete* installation procedure from the CD (provided you do not want any fancy partitioning) is as follows:

 

1. Pop in the disc and wait for the live CD to boot into a fully functional Ubuntu environment.
   
2. Double-click on the "Install" icon.
   
3. Answer 5-6 straightforward questions (e.g., time zone, confirmation to automatically partition drive, admin passwd)
   
4. Fire up firefox and browse teh internets, check your email, edit some docs *while* the installer is doing its thing. It will ask you to reboot when its done.
   
5. Reboot.
   

It's incredibly smooth and painless. I've installed Linux on tens of machines in the RedHat 5.x days, and I know the pain you'd have to go through. Today's distros (esp. Ubuntu) are in an entirely different league. It is much less painful than a Win XP installation. Once your system is up and running, getting more software via apt is also incredibly painless.

[Humodour]

It's not for everyone, mind you, for some people doing something other than click-click is outside of their comfort zone, but for me personally, Linux (Debian's, to be exact) software management is far superior to that of Windows, since I like be able to do more in less time.

 

Just an FYI: Ubuntu (at least) offers a GUI of apt these days which is just point/click, so it really is for everybody.

 

Gnome Ubuntu even goes as far as to offer the apt GUI for 'advanced' users and an add/remove programmes apt GUI for typical users. It only contains highly-rated/used programmes and is as simple as ticking 'install' in the applications box, then 'upgrade'. Similar to Windows add/remove, but obviously better because you can download from the repositories.

 

Rhomal: yes, I'm speaking about the last couple of years. Mac blows Windows out of the water in the audio/visual industry. Maybe you can try to write it off as artists being 'preppy'?