Windows 7 beta available worldwide by weekend, says Microsoft, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 09:31 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Niall197



You know, for the average user, Vista works just fine. As does Windows XP, Windows 2000, Winows 98 and Windows 3.1.1. All we (average) users care about is that the programs we normally run, run well. In Vista I can surf the net, do e-mail, use spreadhseets, powerpoints, drafting sufware, etc. What do I care if the RTFM module does not play well with the framistan dll?


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 09:39 AM by numo16
reply to post by BorgHoffen



Nope, in case you missed my previous post, you can do a clean install of windows 7 (which means without vista, on an empty formatted partition...in case you didn't know what a clean install is).

Of course it expires in August, it is a BETA it is so it can be tested and bugs can be reported so the general public has a good, reliable OS by the time it rolls out.


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 09:48 AM by Rook1545
reply to post by KpxMarMoTT



Sorry I though your were saying W7 would be the new ME. W7 has lower minimum specs than Vista. I will try to find them online today.


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 10:13 AM by woogleuk
reply to post by thisguyrighthere



There is a timer reset google it (sorry if im breaking any rules posting that)

And Vista was the new Monumental Error (ME) Microsoft are encouraging people to stick with XP until they get 7 out, they have even extended XP's shelf life.

I'm bad for O/S's, my laptop is running ubuntu, but my main system has:

Ubuntu x64
XP x64
Vista x64
Windows 7
Mac OS X

Now thats what you call silly, the only reason I aint got 98 on there is because it doesn't support the hardware, lol.


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 12:38 PM by v3_exceed
Hey All,
The tag line for this site "deny ignorance", is really not meant to be "deny being ignorant". Sorry, I just had to say that.

The amount of complete misunderstanding on this thread is almost monumental. And for the most part the whole concept that Microsoft or other large software vendor is providing these operating systems for your daily use is not correct. These behemoth operating systems are designed to sell hardware.

You need the fastest cpu's with the most ram running state of the art video cards with massive gpu's to run....notepad?

The day to day use of your computer, could easily be handled by any old Pentium 100, with 128 mb of ram and an 8mb s3 video card. It is only when you start entering the realms of Photoshop, multimedia development and some accounting applications that these beastly computers have any real merit.

I have no doubt that some people on this thread has had a very positive experience with vista. I also have no doubt that others have had a similar experience with xp, 2k and some even had a positive experience with Millennium Edition, even though all of these editions have blue screened and lost data on many installs. "Windows firewall" is an oxymoron, as windows security is non existent.

Our individual personal experiences taint our perception of a product and this is the heart of Microsoft's survivability model. As long as there is a sporadic level of acceptance with their products, they will continue to provide half answers and broken promises and we will continue to eat it up like the good sheeple we are.

I dare anyone of us to put our cars through the same trials of level of accepted failure. If your car crapped out for no reason, only to leave you stranded and upon your return to "restart it" functioned correctly, it would soon be destined for the sales yard. If you were forced to "re-buy" your car every 2 years or purchase "upgrades" to make it function the way it was sold to you, you would again, run screaming from that model. Even if the upgrades were free, the lack of use would be enough to help you make a change.

Windows 7 will change little with your day to day computing. If you are already having issues with xp or vista you will also have issues with windows 7.

For many, Linux is fast becoming a decent alternative for day to day use. It is secure, fast and free. Ubuntu is an easier install that many early versions of windows and "out of the box", will provide the average user with the worry free day to day they think they are buying with windows. If Ubuntu were available the way it is today back in the windows 98 days, I believe we would see a lot fewer zombies on the net.

Mac's do not run on Linux. they use the Darwin projects version of FreeBSD. This is a variant of UNIX, which is also extremely secure, robust and efficient. (just clearing that up)

I like to compare windows firewall or any software firewall product as a "paper condom". Sure it looks like it will do the job, but don't put it to the test.

The bottom line here is that we have all been lied to about the operating systems we have been buying. Todays "next best thing" is basically the same as yesterdays "old thing". Sure it might crash less, or crash differently, but its certainly doing its real job, and that is to sell hardware. After all it's fun to boast about how BIG our hard drives are, or how sleek our ram is. As long as we keep buying, they win.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex



reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 01:49 PM by woogleuk
reply to post by v3_exceed



Hey V3, i'm sorry to contradict you, i agree with everything you are saying except for one thing, mac isn't stuck with Darwin............I have an eMac (G4@1Ghz) which is running yellow dog linux, there are several flavours of *nix out for ppc systems.

Back on to the subject of Windows 7, since reading this thread I have been playing about with it (i'm typing this from it now), and I really cannot see any difference over Vista, it is faster, but then its a beta with less memory hogging stuff, only DX11 WMP12 IE8 etc etc, oh an the sidebar hasn't got the big grey transparent bar going from top to bottom. As far as the speeds concerned, I remember when Vista // Longhorn was in beta stage, started off faster than XP, after a month practically ground to a halt. I have been running Windows 7 for just over a month now and still running smooth, Crysis and GTA IV run fantastic, as does MS Office 2007, PS CS2, and others. I have had no driver issues either.


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 01:55 PM by relu84
reply to post by v3_exceed



Haha, for many, Linux is fast becoming a decent alternative for day to day use since what, 1995? I'm hearing about Linux since the day I was happy with my Windows 95. And "oooh, Linux is gonna kill windows before the end of teh millennium", but still its market share hasn't increased over 1%.

Operating systems developed to sell new hardware? Yeah, but it depends on how you view it. Modern systems like Vista/7 or MacOSX are developped for modern computers. Sure, a Pentium 100 with 16MB of RAM can be a good performing machine for some tasks even today, but with Windows 95 (or a similar, low end OS) installed. You don't expect people to have Windows 95 on their quad core CPUs and gigabytes of RAM, do you?
Nobody is asking you to install Vista on a 486. Windows XP is not performing any better on modern PCs and the more powerful the hardware is, the faster Vista becomes, and XP is just old and slow.

The current Windows 7 beta is probably the best thing I've seen happen to Windows since 95. I never liked WinXP, because it was extremely slow and hardware demanding back in 2001. Hell, it's still slow as hell - launching, right after boot, OpenOffice takes up to 15 seconds. On Vista... ~3 seconds.

I'm not saying everyone should quickly move to the next newest thing - it's good to wait. Today, Vista is not as bad as it seemed to be when it was released. Most people who critisize Vista either had it on an incapable computer or never used it at all. A tiny percentage of such people actualy used it and found something wrong.

edit: Windows 7 looks like Vista? Maybe a little bit, the windows still have glass on them, but I don't think the taskbar ever look like this before:


[edit on 9/1/2009 by relu84]


reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:29 PM by woogleuk
reply to post by Copernicus



Now, the reason people use Windows is a) everyone know it and b) everyone knows how to use it, I was sat just before with Ubuntu Intrepid, ok, the repositorys have pretty much everything everyone wants, and its not to difficult to learn how to do it, but I cant see most people wanting something not in the repos and downloading the source, giving it, ./configure : make : make install, its just to long and baffling for most. Now I like Linux, I have been using it since roughly 1995/6, Ubuntu has to be one of the most user friendly distros, but it is not as convenient or as easy to learn as Windows, sad, but true.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^