Windows 7 demo & pre-order (Mac-aronis need not apply)

[Danthedawgfan]

Originally Posted by Davecm203

I sure hope it does not have the issues that Vista has had. I regreted installing Vista. Now, it runs fine after countless updates though.

The best update I found for Vista was when I removed it, and installed XP Pro... I hated Vista, and sure it could be because my computer doesn't have but 2gigs of RAM, but it shouldn't take most of that just for your operating system... I haven't seen anything about Windows 7 yet, but if it is more like Vista, and less like XP I guess I'll just stick with what I like...

[Porcelina Goddess]

Isn't Win 7 just a glorified Windows Vista? If that's the case, the computer industry is moving up in a parallel motion that Windows did through all its upgrades. Thing is, I'm not like NC and when given a computer, I want it to work. And fast. And well. So far that's my XP... and if Win 7 *is* just a glorified Windows Vista, I may wait until a 3rd or 4th upgrade before I give it a chance -- let all you guinea pigs find all the misfires and mis-whatevers and then I'll pick up on a newer version of it some 10 years later.

[Davecm203]

Originally Posted by Danthedawgfan

The best update I found for Vista was when I removed it, and installed XP Pro... I hated Vista, and sure it could be because my computer doesn't have but 2gigs of RAM, but it shouldn't take most of that just for your operating system... I haven't seen anything about Windows 7 yet, but if it is more like Vista, and less like XP I guess I'll just stick with what I like...

I am still thinking about removing Vista because I still like XP better. The problem is that, eventually, an upgrade will have to be made in order to run the latest programs. I have to get my Mother a new computer because ITunes will not run the latest version on her Window 2000 and she loves her new Ipod.

Was it a total pain to get Vista off your computer? I have heard it is a total pain.

[inspiron]

Originally Posted by Clint

What on earth would you guys be using that for now?

1) Because I can select a file, click F3 and view it in a read-only viewer. Or click F4 and open it in a text editor. And do mass renaming of files (often needed when prepping a bunch of picture for a website).

2) Because of the integrated FTP functionality, to send/receive files to/from a web server.

3) Because of the built in file-comparison, to compare two different versions of a given text file (needed often when comparing CSV files or LOG files).

4) Because of the built-in directory compare and synchronization function, to keep the backup of my "My Documents" folder on the file server up-to-date, and to keep the backup of my source code (web sites, etc.) up-to-date between my computers, portable hard drive and backup NAS drive.

I think that's enough reasons to justify the purchase in my case

[inspiron]

Back on topic (sort of): My customer (an international pharmaceuticals company) has just recently decided to scrap several YEARS of effort invested in a Vista standard desktop in favor of Windows 7. The decision was primarily based on the concern that by the time they are ready to roll-out the next standard in 2010 (timeline is dictated by a 3 - 5 year hardware replacement lifecycle), rolling out an obsolete system (Vista) would be politically unacceptable. So now they've pushed back the whole timeline by 3 - 6 months and will begin Win7 engineering as soon as the RTM is available.

The next challenge, along the same lines, is Office. My project will deliver Office 2007 to almost 100,000 desktops. Because of various dependencies, the project won't be completed until Q3 2010 (ignoring the field sales forces, which will continue into 2011). By the time we're ready to roll out (early 2010), Microsoft will be launching Office 14 (2010). We can't afford to wait for Office2010, but we will have to defend this decision when it comes around.

The relatively short product lifecycles by Microsoft Windows (2000, XP in 2002, Vista in 2006, 7 in 2009) and Office (XP in 2002, 2003, 2007 and 2010) make it impossible for large corporations to keep up. And the idiotic decision to go to the "ribbon" interface in Office 2007 (with no backward compatibility option to enable the "classic" menus) has made the rollout of the new office even more expensive, because of the huge training requirements - many people who are familiar with Windows XP and "older" Office products have problems adjusting to the new ribbons.

[Clint]

Pfft. Anyone who can't figure out the ribbons shouldn't be let near a computer anyway.

I encountered it for the first time at my new job, and I really like it. Much better than strips of tiny icons.

P_G, when isn't a new software package "a glorified version" of its predecessor? Inspiron makes my point when he tells us of the huge retraining required to change working environments. I expect that if you looked at the source code (!), you wouldn't call it "glorified". According to the primer I posted, it's quite an evolution. Who knows. If they've cleaned up some of the major Vista gripes, it should be pretty good.

[Thundurburd]

Originally Posted by Clint

If they've cleaned up some of the major Vista gripes, it should be pretty good.

One would hope.

As an aside, the Microsoft response to the Apple ads was pathetic. If they can't defend their product better than that then maybe Vista is really that bad. Or maybe the marketing department hired idiots.

For Win7 they'll have to do better.

[Porcelina Goddess]

Originally Posted by Clint

P_G, when isn't a new software package "a glorified version" of its predecessor? Inspiron makes my point when he tells us of the huge retraining required to change working environments. I expect that if you looked at the source code (!), you wouldn't call it "glorified". According to the primer I posted, it's quite an evolution. Who knows. If they've cleaned up some of the major Vista gripes, it should be pretty good.

Well, that was my point: it is a glorified update of Vista. And by glorified, I mean they're marketing it to the working class demographic that knows, maybe, 10-20% of how the OS works. So, in order to convince *them* that it's worth a purchase (since chances are that that said population had crap luck with Vista and either went back to XP or switched to Apple), they have to glorify Win 7, and make it sound, seem, and look like Windows has flogged themselves enough for how they brought about the introduction of Vista. What I was trying to convey, was that Windows did the same thing with OS's 97-XP. Each upgrade was an improvement over the former OS. The difference between Gates' generation and the sans-Gates generation of Windows, is that they effed up with the introduction of Vista. They're hoping to recover with a "new and improved" Win 7, and doing their damndest to disassociate it with Vista (although impossible, since Win 7 is the *upgrade* of Vista).

I was convinced with Windows 97-XP. I'm not convinced with Vista-Win.7

[inspiron]

Back in the day, there were two different development sources for Windows:

Windows 3.0 - 3.1 - WfW 3.11 - Windows 95 - 98 - Me .. these versions could trace their roots back to MS-DOS 1.0. They were pseudo-32 bit operating systems running on a 16-bit kernel that was an extension to an 8-bit DOS system.

Then there was Windows NT, originally released as 3.1, then 3.5 - 3.51 - 4.0 - 2000 - XP - Vista - Windows 7. This was a fundamentally different beast than the DOS-based versions, as it was designed to run on different hardware (the original Windows NT ran on MIPS as well as Intel platforms). The NTFS file system with access control (ACLs), preemptive multitasking and other "mainframe" features were included - the original Windows NT was designed by the same brains that originally designed Digital Equipment's VMS (one of the best operating systems, IMHO).

Comparing Windows 98 to Windows XP is like comparing a Model T Ford to a Ford GT. They both came from the same company, but that's about all they have in common. Windows 98 "looked" like Windows NT 4.0, but under the covers, they were two totally different systems.

The DOS-based Windows line died with Windows Me (no great loss!). The development of Windows NT, which started in the early 90's, continues into Windows 7. I'm sure that there is still quite a bit of original Windows NT 3.1 code in the Windows 7 kernel!

In other words, there hasn't been a "revolutionary" change in Microsoft operating systems since the early 90's. Most, if not all, of the changes from Windows NT 3.1 up thru Windows 7 have been feature-enhancing (e.g. adding Internet Exploder), bug-fixing (patching security holes due to sloppy programming in the past) or cosmetics (wow, a sexy new Aero-interface, woohoo ).

[NCxM50]

The bad rap that Vista continues to get amazes me. Particularly when people continually compare it to how "stable" XP is. Of course XP is stable, it's been around for the better part of a decade, and has had more updates that Joan Rivers face.
Truth is, before the release of SP1 (which was already in deveolpment when XP went gold), XP was a blue screen monster. The general public got an OS that had a hard time running anything other then MS Office without taking a dump in it's own shorts. But, compared to ME, it was the best thing since sliced bread.
At the time of XP's release, Windows 98 was stable too, but it had compatibility issues that couldn't be overcome without a kernel overhaul, and it didn't have the security required to meet things like HIPAA standards. For companies who needed that security, they only had two options at the time, and that was XP Pro, or NT 4.0 workstation, which was already close to ancient (in terms of computing) at that point, and horribly incompatible with modern productivity software and the (then) up and coming popularity of external drives and storage sources. XP became the norm in the workplace, and hence, became the norm in the home, because people were comfortable with it.

Truth is, that on the day it went gold, Vista was far more stable than XP at the same stage in it's life. It's primary problem was that it was/is a severe memory hog, which can be fixed in under 15 minutes. A handful of changes will have Vista running on less than half a gig of memory with little to no impact on functionality (unless you really like flash, smoke, and mirrors, in which case, you're SOL)
Microsofts biggest problem is that they misjudged the general public. They made decisions based on the people who more or less drive technology in the computer industry, gamers. Unfortunately, gamers tend to be more computer savvy than the general public through forced necessity (anyone who managed to get Falcon 4.0 or MS Flight Simulator to run on an "avg" PC at the time of it's release knows what I'm talking about here) So MS designed Vista with a computer savvy public in mind, and didn't realize that most folks want to yank the computer out of the box, and have it do amazing things as soon as they plug it in. Vista would have done much better had they made it clear that the OS was best used by someone who needed advanced media library capabilities, wanted to do video editing and couldn't afford a Mac or high end software, and gamers. If you are none of the above, XP is more than sufficient for any use you might have for a computer.

[Porcelina Goddess]

Yup, NC, that's me lol

I'm not computer savvy, and want more than anything to be able to take it out of the box and have it do what I want with very little problems. I don't know how to troubleshoot or tinker so that it'd play fetch if I asked it to. So ya, Vista screwed up IMO. My XP and lap top luv me and I luv them.

[Clint]

Sounds like you need a Mac. Isn't that their marketing pitch, in a nutshell?

[Porcelina Goddess]

lmao Clint!

DON'T TEMPT ME

[omegajim]

I keep wondering if only apple had a cheap low end computer about 15 years ago, where would we be now..............

[Clint]

Downloading the demo now for my backup machine, which I just upgraded to 2GB RAM. I bought one copy at the discounted price for October. Might buy another knowing I can cancel the order later.

[cyclesinct]

I ran the beta and I have the RC (haven't had time to install it yet) for Win7 and it was darn nice. I have an XP machine (ran 7 virtually) and my wife has Vista. Say what you want about Vista, but I think a majority of home PC users want to be able to type an e-mail, surf the web, and play with pictures. Vista does this all well, yes there were compatibility issues int he beginning, but personally I think the blame should be with the hardware/software makers not Microsoft. If you know a new OS is coming out, as a company you must make sure your hardware/software will work with it if you want to stay on that platform. With that said, using Win7 just for daily poking around (no heavy gaming, no movie editing etc) It was great and worked fine in beta. The only issue I ran into was a couple of programs wouldn't install because they didn't recognize the version of Windows, which should be expected since Win7 isn't out. Vista was also a new code build (done from the ground up, if I'm wrong please let me know). Windows7 is simply an upgrade of Vista, but they don't want to call it Vista because that name has a bad reputation. I've listened to a number of Windows professionals that actually say Win7 is what Vista was originally supposed to be. As with anything new, there will be a couple of issues, but I'll betcha Win7's launch is much smoother than Vista's and will get much better reviews. Oh, and yes, I did buy a copy for $50.00

[Uncle B]

I've got Vista on a Dell. Not sure about Vista, but I {07/03/2009} just started using the Dell.
Windows XP on a HP. Not too different than Windows 98 second add.

[donny662]

I remember when XP came out. There were plenty of compatibility issues with that, as well.

From the little I've heard, Windows 7 looks like Microsoft tried to fix most things people didn't like about Vista, except for the complaint that Vista "isn't XP".

I probably won't switch to Windows 7 for a few years. I got the first computer I could call my own sometime in 03/04. I put Windows 2000 on it. I upgraded to XP a month or so before Vista came out. My current computer I got in 07 and put XP x64 on the hard drive.

My computers have always been extremely stable for a personal workstation. They have been able to run for months without rebooting. Restarting for a performance kick-start is not acceptable. A restart only occurs for a major program update or a power outage.

[Clint]

I tend to run weeks without a reboot, too. Some Win updates or other software installs are often the only reason I do it. XP has been great to me. I wish I could put 7 on my work notebook.

I just got a repeater, so I'm on a nice strong signal shared from the neighbor at the lake.

[Clint]

Well, after a month or so with Win7 on the backup machine, I got antsy and threw it on the main machine. I think I'm in love. Everything went very smoothly, and the OS seems fast and highly automated. Customization/personalization looks nice, and the Aero interface isn't just eye candy-- it does something to make working on the computer more intuitive. I especially like the taskbar previews.

Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking and put the 32-bit version on here. I'm currently downloading the 64-bit version from a third-party site. MS quit offering it already.

On a related note, I'm planning on ditching Quicken. It got the job done, but I always felt like it was trying to sell me something. I'm thinking of trying Wesabe. Anyone have experience with this?