Microsoft has released an early preview copy of its new operating system, Windows 7.

[Orbinaut Pete]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7714080.stm
:speakcool:

 

[RisingFury]

Windows Vista Renamed

 

[Bj]

Its Windows Majave!

I hope they aren't going to actually attempt to sell that...

Xp fan all the way!

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

It is basically just Vista with a few more fancy graphics on some programs.

So you are paying another £200 (or $) for some batter taskbars.....


hmmm.....:dry:

 

[Artlav]

It's like the doctor trying to understand why the dressed wound do not want to heal.
He put the bandages right, everything is sterile, it's been several days, so it must work - regardless of the knife still sticking from it.

That new Windows (not unlike Vista) have nice graphics, it have a looks-easy interface, it have all the bells and lights, it have all the front-ends for all the features asked, so it should work fine and sell well, regardless of the lack of stable and fast foundation, that is, the lack of "operating system" itself.

Well, you can't expect someone who invented "managed code" to be able to think straight.

I think it will do them good if they make a big blunder soon with W7, that way it will become (hopefully) obvious to them that something is wrong and provide one last chance to get the company back up to the world class level.

 

[Brad]

Windows Vista Renamed

Not so... it is a complete re-write of the code. Vista will go down as nearly as bad as Windows ME. Hopefully M$ will get 7 right.

 

[Bj]

Not so... it is a complete re-write of the code.

um... wheres the proof of that?

Microsoft has said all along that Windows 7 would refine (but not rewrite) the Vista kernel.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/152895/windows_7_first_look_a_big_fix_for_vista.html

Rumors say Microsoft will rewrite 60% of Vista’s code

http://scobleizer.com/2006/03/24/rewrite-of-windows-vista-underway-hogwash/

 

[RisingFury]

Not so... it is a complete re-write of the code. Vista will go down as nearly as bad as Windows ME. Hopefully M$ will get 7 right.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

Come on! Of course Microsoft is just selling same crap under a different name, what do you expect?




And if I had to make a guess, the support for Vista will be cut as quickly or quicker then the support for XP has been cut. Microsoft has noticed the name "Vista" isn't selling, due to bad "rumors" on the net and the reality of the situation.
Most users that know little about computers will fall for the different name and buy the new operating system, because by now they know that Vista is slow and crappy. But in fact, this new Windows probably has as little work put in as possible, in order to minimize the costs and rename the software.

 

[Hielor]

Its Windows Majave!

Uh, no. Windows "Mojave" was just Vista.

It is basically just Vista with a few more fancy graphics on some programs.

So you are paying another £200 (or $) for some batter taskbars.....

hmmm.....:dry:

Oh, it's a whole lot more than that. Several hundred people haven't been working for two(ish? more?) years now just for some better taskbars.

um... wheres the proof of that?

It's not being completely re-written, but one thing that has been done is a huge emphasis on performance that wasn't there (and should have been) for Vista. Several of the larger meetings I was at over the summer mentioned that the performance target wasn't Vista--the performance target was XP. The people in the Windows team know that Vista wasn't the best thing to come out of Redmond.

There's a whole lot of new "bells and whistles" in 7, yes, but there's also been a lot of work on the lower-level stuff.

Trust me, it's not just a re-packaged Vista.


-----Posted Added-----

Come on! Of course Microsoft is just selling same crap under a different name, what do you expect?

Except they're not.

And if I had to make a guess, the support for Vista will be cut as quickly or quicker then the support for XP has been cut. Microsoft has noticed the name "Vista" isn't selling, due to bad "rumors" on the net and the reality of the situation.

Mostly rumors. I've had very few problems with Vista.

Most users that know little about computers will fall for the different name and buy the new operating system, because by now they know that Vista is slow and crappy. But in fact, this new Windows probably has as little work put in as possible, in order to minimize the costs and rename the software.

Most users that know little about computers don't buy operating systems on their own--they're not going to upgrade from Vista to 7. They'll be buying a new computer with 7 on it, and 7 will be better than Vista.

Vista isn't "slow and crappy" if your computer doesn't suck.

And the new Windows has had several hundred people (probably over a thousand) working on it for at least two years now. I wouldn't call that "as little work put in as possible."

 

[joeybigO]

I see seperatism here...

I'll get you all united again!!!!

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY MAC!!!!

 

[Hielor]

I see seperatism here...

I'll get you all united again!!!!

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY MAC!!!!

Yes you do: you can't run 95% of the games on the market today.

My PC can do everything your Mac can, but there are things my PC can do (ie, run, say, Gears of War) that your Mac can't.

 

[joeybigO]

Yes you do: you can't run 95% of the games on the market today.

My PC can do everything your Mac can, but there are things my PC can do (ie, run, say, Gears of War) that your Mac can't.

No, I run parallels and I can switch if need, just turn on the windoze, and it's all good.
EDIT: Also because Mac Games are nice enough to have cross platforms, most Windoze people don't... I.E. they don't know how, or they just suck.

 

[Hielor]

No, I run parallels and I can switch if need, just turn on the windoze, and it's all good.

So you have to have windows around anyway, because your mac can't do everything? I don't have a mac laying around..

EDIT: Also because Mac Games are nice enough to have cross platforms, most Windoze people don't... I.E. they don't know how, or they just suck.

Because "Mac Games" know that if they don't publish for PCs, they'll just be cutting into their own profits. Whereas PC game publishers know that going to all the trouble of porting their game to an inferior (for gaming) OS won't result in that big an increase in profits, because not many people use macs when compared to PCs.

 

[Andy44]

EDIT: Also because Mac Games are nice enough to have cross platforms, most Windoze people don't... I.E. they don't know how, or they just suck.

Yeah, well, man. That's profound. They just suck. Maybe they should leave the country?

 

[Bj]

Mostly rumors. I've had very few problems with Vista.

Well then you seem to not have used your computer for many tasks then...

Example, this Vista sometimes would crash when trying to connect to our print server, ending up having to reinstall it because it just stopped working... keep in mind, Xp didn't have a problem even though this Vista computer did.

also, you see new hardware nowadays has the tag, "works with Vista"
why do they say that if Vista was compatible with most everything? I don't see any "works with Xp" tags.

 

[RisingFury]

Vista isn't "slow and crappy" if your computer doesn't suck.

Since Vista, a single core CPU and 1 GB of RAM is not enough. When Vista came out, you needed at least 2 GB of RAM, a dual core CPU and a powerful graphics card to run it... now please, don't tell me that Vista isn't a complete and total failure.

And if I had to guess, minimum requirements for the new Windows won't be any lower then what they are for Vista... and performance won't really be that much better.

 

[Hielor]

Since Vista, a single core CPU and 1 GB of RAM is not enough. When Vista came out, you needed at least 2 GB of RAM, a dual core CPU and a powerful graphics card to run it... now please, don't tell me that Vista isn't a complete and total failure.

Funny, one of my test machines over the summer was several years old, with a single-core CPU and 1 GB RAM. It ran Vista fine. Note also that it didn't have a fancy graphics card.

I don't know where you got those minimum specs from, but it's certainly not the Windows Vista I know about. If you want all the fancy Vista Ultimate features, then of course you're going to need a more powerful computer. I think we had this discussion in another thread.

Moreover, I can buy a working GeForce FX 5200 128MB card for like $12 in the bin at the local Goodwill. If your computer doesn't have at least that (which is way more than sufficient to run Vista) then you're living in the past and shouldn't be trying to put Vista on such a crappy machine.

Vista was not a complete and total failure. If that were the case, nobody would be buying PCs anymore, and everyone would be buying Macs. PC sales are just as strong as ever.

And if I had to guess, minimum requirements for the new Windows won't be any lower then what they are for Vista... and performance won't really be that much better.

Windows 7 system requirements will be no higher than what they are for Vista. Last I heard they were the same. And you'd be guessing wrong about the performance, it really is better.

 

[liber]

Vista suck...XP with SP2 & 3 rule.

 

[Hielor]

Risingfury and liber: have either of you actually used Vista? On your own home machine, for more than a week.

If so, and you still think it sucks: What version of Vista, and what were the computer's specs?

If not, I don't think you're really qualified to comment on its "suckiness."

 

[joeybigO]

On a side note, with a new computer, i've seen Vista run well.

With upgraded from cross platform (i.e. upgrade) I've seen Vista run not so well.

It's just annoying to see that "allow/disallow" thing going off all the time.


-----Posted Added-----

Yeah, well, man. That's profound. They just suck. Maybe they should leave the country?

Maybe if they don't know how to cross platform, they should!