Windows 7 beta available worldwide by weekend, says Microsoft, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:35 PM by woogleuk

reply to post by relu84

On initial loading of software, Windows is the fastest, followed by OS/X then Linux, but Linux is more stable, less prone to viruses and spyware, as is OS/X.

When it comes to encoding its really down to the software you use, and in some formats one outshines the other, I would place that as Linix then Windows then OS/X.

OS/X tends to perform well when manipulating images, Windows is fast on load, Linux is just a good all rounder in every department, and is the most secure. (and I'm not being Linux biased, i use all three operating systems).

Anyway, we are forgetting IBM OS/2 WARP (now e-Commstation), lol, anyone remember that?

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:41 PM by apex

reply to post by woogleuk

To be fair, most programs not included in the repositories aren't things the average user wants. Even for studying at university, I've only used out of repository things a tiny bit. The only thing's even then that I've used have been external repositories, so except for things on Linux magazine discs, I've never had to compile much from source.

If someone really needs something not in a repository, they can probably be bothered enough to type in 3 small commands to do it. Actually, quite a lot of projects provide .deb files (or .rpm) for download like they provide .zip or .exe files for Win users.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:46 PM by Thaumaturgus

reply to post by Copernicus

It is not that hard to install compiz-fusion in Ubuntu; the synaptic package manager makes this a checkbox away.

The problem with Ubuntu is there are not as many applications available that run on it. WINE cannot run the software I use, such as the latest Autodesk and Adobe products. There are also several smaller applications that I use from time to time that do not run.

While certainly there are many free alternative programs available, I need those programs I have paid for specifically. Until developers start making applications for Ubuntu (which they won’t for free), I will continue to use a Windows OS.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:48 PM by woogleuk

reply to post by apex

That fact that Ubuntu has become so popular means we are seeing a lot of pre-compiled .debs, which is good, still, sudo apt-get, its not quite run as / save as. Linux, even Ubuntu, has a long way to go before it starts seeing more mainstream use, I actually respect the companys, like Dell and Tesco who are offering cheap systems / laptops with Ubuntu, its giving people more of an opportunity to learn these basic command us seasoned *nix users are used to. If it wasn't already pre-installed, and the machines they sold had no OS then it would just be a case of "oi marra, sort me a dodgy copy of windows would ya!"

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:50 PM by funky monk

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by relu84

..........

OS/X tends to perform well when manipulating images, Windows is fast on load, Linux is just a good all rounder in every department, and is the most secure. (and I'm not being Linux biased, i use all three operating systems).

I think thats a little more to do with the software that you use. I mean.... OSx is essentialy the same base (unix, but still very similar) as linux so security there is about the same imo. I think part of it comes down to UI. I mean, all the creative arts try to use mac OS (mostly) I think because they are so easy to set up and the interface seems to be optimal for tasks like that.
Windows is much better then it was imo. I mean, everyone seems to be able to complain about windows, but try guide an average user through a linux install... not much of an easy task esp if they have to do all their partitioning and such and dont get me started drivers - its much easier then it used to be though, Ill give linux that.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:56 PM by v3_exceed

Originally posted by funky monk

Windows is much better then it was imo. I mean, everyone seems to be able to complain about windows, but try guide an average user through a linux install... not much of an easy task esp if they have to do all their partitioning and such and dont get me started drivers - its much easier then it used to be though, Ill give linux that.

If you would like to get an idea how easy the current linux is to install to try out, visit wubi-installer.org. There are some screen shots that really give you an idea how far Linux has come, in some cases.

Also, I was not aware OSX had been made to work with some Linux distro's, I am a die hard FreeBSD fan, who would use FreeBSD for everything if I could. (damn accounting software)

..Ex

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 02:58 PM by woogleuk

I did state its down to the software you use, and it nothing to do with the feature of the UI, its how well the software has been coded to deal with the format you are working with and the hardware you are working with, one XVID encoder running on windows with clever coding, support for MMX, SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1yada yada yada, is going to outperform one that just says convert this file in whatever way you see fit.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:01 PM by funky monk

reply to post by v3_exceed

Thanks for the link

. Ill have to go have a good look at it.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:03 PM by moonrat

I really think that people who use any M$ operating system needs their balls feeling.

It is all virus and spy laden crap. And you actually PAY good money for it and then you have to PAY for all the software you use.

Linux is safer (no viruses no spyware), cheaper (free), more versatile (more and free software) and it's a damn site faster (new distros are all 64bit (with 32bit versions if your hardware can't handle 64bit)).

Anyway, isn't Windows 7 supposed to be a 'touch screen' OS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly don't want my plasma screen covered in greasy fingerprints, snot and melted chocolate. No freaking way.

Microsoft is no good. No good at all.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:11 PM by SKUNK2

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by SKUNK2
What the hell are you talking about???
Any machine can run in 64bit...Alls it does is makes it so your PC can use over 3.25gig of RAM with a maximium of 16gig

Errrm what are YOU on about???

A machine with a 32 bit processor (still most home PC's) cannot run any 64 bit apps or operating systems

You need a 64 bit processor - and no a dual core 32 bit does not equal a 64 bit if that's what your saying, is just 2 32 bit ones running off a single bus.

A 64 bit does just that, it handles 64 bits of binary in each cycle (thats why you have a processor speed of frequency)

Is 7 only for 64 bit machines then? Good job I've got me an AMD dual core 64 bit

Any one got a link to DL it from microsoft yet?? been looking for it, but I've got to go out soon, don't want to miss it, I've heard they will cap it at 2.5 million downloads.

Dude you must live in the stone age, what CPU do you use a 486DX2

...ALL CPU's made since the last Pentium4's have been 64bit....64bit is standard....

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:12 PM by ozzieman

reply to post by BorgHoffen

No Borg, that is incorrect. You CAN upgrade from Vista, buy why would anyone do an install of an O/S that is an upgrade....messy end results.

Win 7 can be installed from a clean install, which is how all O/S installs should be done. Do you actually know the difference?

People if you do plan on trying Win 7, for heaven's sake use it in a virtual machine. VMware Server is free to download and it will run desktop O/S's, don't be fooled by the 'Server' in the name.

Do not do upgrade installs, do a fresh install to make the most of it and give a true and untainted eval

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:18 PM by merka

reply to post by ozzieman

What does it matter? The "upgrade" option simply wipe the previous operating system anyway. Its just the installation program that's designed to run from a previous windows.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:29 PM by ozzieman

reply to post by merka

No not at all. It will wipe source code for the previous o/s installed, I agree with you there. But the configuration setting that are both o/s and application specific are kept. That is the messy ending I mentioned.

Upgrades are only for those that are to lazy to reinstall apps or not backup critical information.

But hey the choice is yours.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:32 PM by merka

reply to post by ozzieman

I'm fairly sure you can choose what to take with you on the upgrade. Otherwise, the answer is easy: Reinstall a clean Vista, install SP1 (what'll it take, a couple of hours?) then install the Windows 7 upgrade.

Last time I did an upgrade (98 to XP I believe) I *had to* wipe the entire system, because it didnt support my current language lol.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:42 PM by spitefulgod

reply to post by moonrat

In my day to day life at home and at work I can live without even having to touch macOS and linux.... err can you say the same?

[Edit]
To clarify I'm talking about desktop OSs

[edit on 9/1/2009 by spitefulgod]

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:43 PM by ozzieman

reply to post by merka

what language was that? I have never had that problem as I only speak english. but I have to admit that would be damn annoying

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:46 PM by andy1033

Here is an update from there blog.

Due to very heavy traffic we’re seeing as a result of interest in the Windows 7 Beta, we are adding some additional infrastructure support to the Microsoft.com properties before we post the public beta. We want to ensure customers have the best possible experience when downloading the beta, and I’ll be posting here again soon once the beta goes live. Stay tuned! We are excited that you are excited!

Still no public link.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:50 PM by moonrat

reply to post by spitefulgod

No I can't say the same.

In my day to day life, I can do all I need to do without touching anything from Microsoft.

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 03:52 PM by merka

Originally posted by ozzieman
reply to post by merka

what language was that? I have never had that problem as I only speak english. but I have to admit that would be damn annoying

Swedish. And yes it was pretty annoying because as an upgrade only, it couldnt run from a bootdisk. So I had to install Win 98 every time just to reinstall XP.

I have a suspicion that my swedish version of Vista will want to do same thing, the english Windows 7 upgrade probably say that I cant upgrade blabla reboot and the installation will continue with a wipe.

Unless of course installation is a little smarter this time around.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by merka]

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 04:55 PM by Anonymous ATS

I have Windows Vista on my laptop and it runs great. I've had it for more than a couple months now and after some minor tweaks, it runs great. And please stop talking about shelling ut extra cash for hardware because how much does a good cpu, hard drive, and 2 or 4 gigs of memory cost now? I can get it all cheap at neweg.com