# Windows 7 price slashed for students



## Aurali (Sep 20, 2009)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/172258/windows_7_deal_students_win_others_lose.html

$30 dollars for something I paid 100 for a few months ago... Well I'm glad I can still cancel that order XD.

Yeah, if you have a student email, you can download a copy for 30 dollars. 

Thoughts?


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 20, 2009)

Well, I got it for free, thanks to MSDN AA. :3


----------



## Aurali (Sep 20, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Well, I got it for free, thanks to MSDN AA. :3



I actually have an msdn aa copy, but I want a legal one for my business.


----------



## Nocturne (Sep 20, 2009)

STILL TOO EXPENSIVE D:

POOOOOOOOOOR


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 20, 2009)

Eli said:


> I actually have an msdn aa copy, but I want a legal one for my business.


Understandable, as MSDN AA doesn't cover commercial use for a reason. ;-)


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2009)

Well, the point behind the price cut for students is that the school finances a good portion of the cost; Couple that with the fact that the students are learning on Microsoft products, and will tend to stick with what they learn, they get great lock-in. Even if it's at a loss (which, let's face it, it REALLY isn't), they'll recoup it that way. Hell, for that matter, the students will get their hands on it in the end anyway (read: pirate it), so making something where otherwise there would be nothing is a good business practice; Particularly since it could be seen as Microsoft "supporting" tomorrow's computer technicians/operators/word processors, etc, which is a PR win.


----------



## Remy (Sep 20, 2009)

I got it for $55. Amazon preorder/Release date delivery. $30's nice though, too.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 20, 2009)

Slashing the price is a start, but they should really slash the people responsible for vista. Slash them up real nice.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Slashing the price is a start, but they should really slash the people responsible for vista. Slash them up real nice.



I hope you don't mean the programmers. It was all they could do to keep up with the changing and often absurdly confusing process of design and integration into the OS; By at least one account, it took the better part of a year to commit the code for the shut down applet in the Start Menu.

Blame the bureaucracy behind the madness and company policy.

Still, and I want to stress this, Vista post-SP1 is actually very stable on modern hardware. It was mostly a marketing fuck-up that led to the whole "Vista compatible" debacle (not to mention a shady deal with Intel regarding its subpar IGP).


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I hope you don't mean the programmers. It was all they could do to keep up with the changing and often absurdly confusing process of design and integration into the OS; By at least one account, it took the better part of a year to commit the code for the shut down applet in the Start Menu.
> 
> Blame the bureaucracy behind the madness and company policy.
> 
> Still, and I want to stress this, Vista post-SP1 is actually very stable on modern hardware. It was mostly a marketing fuck-up that led to the whole "Vista compatible" debacle (not to mention a shady deal with Intel regarding its subpar IGP).



Well it was mostly meant as a shitpost. But no, it wasn't really aimed at the programmers. My dislike of vista wasn't caused by problems with stability or compatibility, it's the design, everything being moved around or hidden/dumbed down. And yes I fucking hate the start menu and that whole confusing mess of shutdown options. If someone never knew much about computers anyway and they don't care what's going on in the background as long as it "just works" then they'll probably think it's a great OS, and it probably is... for them.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, the point behind the price cut for students is that the school finances a good portion of the cost; Couple that with the fact that the students are learning on Microsoft products, and will tend to stick with what they learn, they get great lock-in. Even if it's at a loss (which, let's face it, it REALLY isn't), they'll recoup it that way. Hell, for that matter, the students will get their hands on it in the end anyway (read: pirate it), so making something where otherwise there would be nothing is a good business practice; Particularly since it could be seen as Microsoft "supporting" tomorrow's computer technicians/operators/word processors, etc, which is a PR win.


Same rule applies with Microsoft's DreamSpark. They give away WinServer and Visual Studio for free, in the hope that you'll develop web applications using their server platform and one of their languages, which you might already be familier with (Java -> C#, C++, VB6 -> VB.NET).



Runefox said:


> I hope you don't mean the programmers. It was all they could do to keep up with the changing and often absurdly confusing process of design and integration into the OS; By at least one account, it took the better part of a year to commit the code for the shut down applet in the Start Menu.
> 
> Blame the bureaucracy behind the madness and company policy.
> 
> Still, and I want to stress this, Vista post-SP1 is actually very stable on modern hardware. It was mostly a marketing fuck-up that led to the whole "Vista compatible" debacle (not to mention a shady deal with Intel regarding its subpar IGP).


Vista took 6 years and a cost of nearly $6m to develop largely because of the spaghetti code that is, the Windows NT (and NT Server) codebase.
I've often argued, that if Microsoft had done something like Apple and dumped the old Windows codebase completely and started over...


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Vista took 6 years and a cost of nearly $6m to develop largely because of the spaghetti code that is, the Windows NT (and NT Server) codebase.
> I've often argued, that if Microsoft had done something like Apple and dumped the old Windows codebase completely and started over...



Yeah, particularly considering they currently get by on patchwork and things of that nature, I wonder whether or not they'll make the next major release of Windows backwards-compatible via technologies like AMD-V and Intel VT-x instead of relying on the concept of corking holes and stringing things along the way they have been. Even between XP and Vista, and Vista to Win7, there have been compatibility issues (and regardless of the reasoning, when things are broken, they're broken). So why not just do it that way? It'll even be less painful with those newer virtualization techniques and the fact that there isn't an architecture shift than the Mac OS X PowerPC -> Intel swapout.

Though Microsoft's said before that the next major OS will be a 64-bit only release. Frankly, I'm not sure Win7 should have had a 32-bit release, to begin with. We're hitting the wall here.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 20, 2009)

Carenath said:


> I've often argued, that if Microsoft had done something like Apple and dumped the old Windows codebase completely and started over...



Everyone would bitch that their favorite 22 year old program doesn't work anymore^^



Runefox said:


> Though Microsoft's said before that the next major OS will be a 64-bit only release. Frankly, I'm not sure Win7 should have had a 32-bit release, to begin with. We're hitting the wall here.


EDIT: sneaking in on me...
That's an easy one though Runefox, to get those last few stragglers with a 32 bit processor.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 20, 2009)

Eli said:


> Everyone would bitch that their favorite 22 year old program doesn't work anymore^^



That's where a compatibility layer would come in.  It's not like Windows hasn't accumulated enough of them to give the inside developers experience doing one right.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2009)

> That's an easy one though Runefox, to get those last few stragglers with a 32 bit processor.


I have to wonder just how lucrative the Windows 7 upgrade market will be for people still running pre-64-bit Extensions Pentium 4's. Hell, the original Athlon 64-series is pretty ancient nowadays, and you have to consider the hardware that went into these machines, too - Chances are, they're running 512MB of RAM with a shitty DX8 (Radeon 9250 or earlier, if not onboard SiS or S3) video card. I'm fairly sure machines of this age are going to be replaced more often than not, if for no reason other than hardware failure due to that era being subject to the Capacitor Plague.

In other words, if you're running a 32-bit CPU and you're trying to upgrade to Win7, you're probably going to have major problems.

But anyway, like I said, if they completely rewrote Windows for a 64-bit only, completely new code base, they could easily introduce compatibility by taking advantage of AMD-V and Intel VT-x, which is already widespread in virtually every 64-bit x86 processor (from the Athlon 64 "Orleans" chips and the Pentium 4 662/672 series). By the time of its release, the next major version of Windows should easily be able to do this without worry for backlash from the consumer community.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> But anyway, like I said, if they completely rewrote Windows for a 64-bit only, completely new code base, they could easily introduce compatibility by taking advantage of AMD-V and Intel VT-x, which is already widespread in virtually every 64-bit x86 processor (from the Athlon 64 "Orleans" chips and the Pentium 4 662/672 series). By the time of its release, the next major version of Windows should easily be able to do this without worry for backlash from the consumer community.



Which is funny, because Win7 already does XP virtualization.
http://windows7center.com/windows-7-feature/windows-7-windows-xp-mode-faq/


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2009)

Eli said:


> Which is funny, because Win7 already does XP virtualization.



Only via Virtual PC, though, unless I missed something. I've done it; It's more or less the same as running VirtualBox, only without the Seamless Mode and with a number of features disabled / etc (the "connection" to the virtual XP is via RDP, rather than providing any sort of acceleration). Frankly, I find VirtualBox to be a more versatile option. XD


----------



## Aurali (Sep 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Only via Virtual PC, though, unless I missed something. I've done it; It's more or less the same as running VirtualBox, only without the Seamless Mode and with a number of features disabled / etc (the "connection" to the virtual XP is via RDP, rather than providing any sort of acceleration). Frankly, I find VirtualBox to be a more versatile option. XD



The machine requires virtual PC to be installed... though it has a seperate runtime for XPM.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I have to wonder just how lucrative the Windows 7 upgrade market will be for people still running pre-64-bit Extensions Pentium 4's. Hell, the original Athlon 64-series is pretty ancient nowadays, and you have to consider the hardware that went into these machines, too - Chances are, they're running 512MB of RAM with a shitty DX8 (Radeon 9250 or earlier, if not onboard SiS or S3) video card. I'm fairly sure machines of this age are going to be replaced more often than not, if for no reason other than hardware failure due to that era being subject to the Capacitor Plague.
> 
> In other words, if you're running a 32-bit CPU and you're trying to upgrade to Win7, you're probably going to have major problems.


I'd like to point out that Core Duos are all 32-bit and that all but five of them support VT-x.

And that many badly written, legacy business apps only run on 32-bit.

There is still plenty of demand for a 32-bit OS, which is why Microsoft hasn't dropped 32-bit support yet.

(Though they have on their server line-up. Windows Server 2008 R2, the server counterpart to Windows 7, is 64-bit only.)

Also, bought the Win 7 Pro Upgrade for $30. Mostly because my .edu address is still good for a year. :3


----------



## hitokage (Sep 21, 2009)

Two quick comments:
1 - Student priced editions don't always allow you to use them for commercial purposes
2 - The other reason for 32-bit Windows 7 is Netbooks


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 21, 2009)

hitokage said:


> 2 - The other reason for 32-bit Windows 7 is Netbooks



That reminds me.  Are Microsoft still pushing Starter Edition as the edition tailored for netbooks?  If so, have they eased even some of the absurd restrictions on it, such as the inability for the user to set his own wallpaper?  Microsoft's Starter comparison page implies not, but it's mum on expressing its limits.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 21, 2009)

hitokage said:


> 1 - Student priced editions don't always allow you to use them for commercial purposes


I've seen that for Office and Visual Studio. I've not seen it for operating systems just because they are expecting you to keep the system past school and, unlike reinstalling programs, reinstalling the OS is a major undertaking.



ArielMT said:


> That reminds me.  Are Microsoft still pushing Starter Edition as the edition tailored for netbooks?  If so, have they eased even some of the absurd restrictions on it, such as the inability for the user to set his own wallpaper?  Microsoft's Starter comparison page implies not, but it's mum on expressing its limits.


... seriously? Can't change the wallpaper?

My Verizon phone can do that. And we all know how Verizon is.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 21, 2009)

I think it's just an attempt, as usual, to try and hook students on a product that they know they'll be less apt to wish to change from (people generally resist change) later on, rather than encouraging them to try all options.  

In my personal view, charging ANY sum of money for a Microsoft OS is asking too much, given their poor quality,terrible security, and lack of end-user rights.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 21, 2009)

hitokage said:


> Two quick comments:
> 1 - Student priced editions don't always allow you to use them for commercial purposes


From the website





> Are these products Academic license(s)/version(s)?
> No, these are retail versions, which provide all the benefits you would receive if you bought it at the store.


----------



## Shay Feral (Sep 21, 2009)

The only way I'd get windows 7 is if someone can show me that it can play old games, like old windows 95/98 games, along with new games as well...


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 21, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Well, I got it for free, thanks to MSDN AA. :3


QFT =]


----------



## Runefox (Sep 21, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> The only way I'd get windows 7 is if someone can show me that it can play old games, like old windows 95/98 games, along with new games as well...



Oh, it can - Just as well as XP/Vista can. I was playing F-22 Total Air War (an early DirectX game) just fine with Win7 64-bit. Other games wouldn't work, though, but that's likely a result of running the 64-bit edition; For that matter, those older games usually run nicely in a virtual machine using software rendering (if it's a 3D game).


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 21, 2009)

I've been playing Duke Nukem 3D on it yesterday. :3


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Sep 21, 2009)

You know I hope that Windows decides to stick with one type of computer programming and if it starts to break that they would work on it and come out with a new version of that program. Like if they would stick with Windows XP I would be happy, also Windowsâ€™ problems arenâ€™t so bad that I would switch to Mac.


----------



## Shay Feral (Sep 21, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Oh, it can - Just as well as XP/Vista can. I was playing F-22 Total Air War (an early DirectX game) just fine with Win7 64-bit. Other games wouldn't work, though, but that's likely a result of running the 64-bit edition; For that matter, those older games usually run nicely in a virtual machine using software rendering (if it's a 3D game).



I have two games I want to play, gearhead garage and sim tower...

I can get gearhead to run for a minute, then it'll crash... It's not the game it's self cos I can run it on an XP machine. Sim Tower just wont install, I get the message "please check to see if you need a 32 bit or 64 bit patch for this program"


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 21, 2009)

Steel_Wolf said:


> You know I hope that Windows decides to stick with one type of computer programming and if it starts to break that they would work on it and come out with a new version of that program. Like if they would stick with Windows XP I would be happy, also Windowsâ€™ problems arenâ€™t so bad that I would switch to Mac.



I'm sorry.  I tried to understand this, but I can't.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 21, 2009)

(Sorry, this is off-topic, but related to some of the posts)

Wouldn't the really old Windows games work under WINE?


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 21, 2009)

All my favorite games work under DOSbox. I'm not even that old either


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Sep 21, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> I'm sorry.  I tried to understand this, but I can't.



I'm... I'm sorry I get to nerdy enough that it surprises myslef


----------



## Runefox (Sep 21, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Wouldn't the really old Windows games work under WINE?



Most likely, or even better, a virtual machine. They're almost guaranteed to work under a true, virtual Windows 95/98 environment. Software rendering was still common and popular back then, so the lack of hardware acceleration under those OS'es isn't even really a concern.



> Like if they would stick with Windows XP I would be happy


So by programming, you mean version of the operating system? Technically, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and now Windows 7 are indeed all based on a single version of Windows - Windows NT, which dates back to 1993, and split off from the DOS-based Windows 3.x and Windows 9x series that were marketed toward end users. The only major shift Windows has made in any market in terms of OS code base has been from Windows 9x/ME to Windows XP, switching from the DOS-based hybrid kernel to the pure 32-bit NT kernel.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 21, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> (Sorry, this is off-topic, but related to some of the posts)
> 
> Wouldn't the really old Windows games work under WINE?


If I remember right, Shay won't touch it unless it's running XP or 98. Though... this was 2 years ago, he might have changed his mind since then.



Shay Feral said:


> The only way I'd get windows 7 is if someone can show me that it can play old games, like old windows 95/98 games, along with new games as well...



I play sim tower on vista/win 7 all the time :/


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm not a student any more, but I still have a student email address.

...now I just need $30 and I won't have to go to Baltimore


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 21, 2009)

Eli said:


> If I remember right, Shay won't touch it unless it's running XP or 98. Though... this was 2 years ago, he might have changed his mind since then.



Ahh... well I knew a lot of folks like that.  Once they try something else and realize it's no harder to use, it's usually okay.  Gonna have to dig up some of my old games and see if I can get the working in WINE now to see, once I'm back from vacation.


----------



## Duality Jack (Sep 21, 2009)

personally i am waiting for the next refinement of Ubuntu :V


----------



## Aden (Sep 21, 2009)

Eli said:


> Thoughts?



http://thepiratebay.org


----------



## Azbulldog (Sep 22, 2009)

I'm not really in college yet, but I'm trying to take advantage of this using the email I got with my dual enrollment class. Haven't got a confirmation email yet, their server is slow.


----------



## Irreverent (Sep 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> http://thepiratebay.org



Which would be a discussion about piracy and we wouldn't want to go there....


----------



## Aden (Sep 22, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Which would be a discussion about piracy and we wouldn't want to go there....



I'm just talking about procuring backup copies for the license that I've already bought, in order to protect my fine and wise investment. What were YOU thinking about? D:


----------



## Irreverent (Sep 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> I'm just talking about procuring backup copies for the license that I've already bought, in order to protect my fine and wise investment. What were YOU thinking about? D:



My bad.  I though you wanted the $30.00 media kit from MS.  Or you could claim developer status and get everything MS makes via their "Select CD" program.


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Sep 22, 2009)

Runefox said:


> So by programming, you mean version of the operating system? Technically, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and now Windows 7 are indeed all based on a single version of Windows - Windows NT, which dates back to 1993, and split off from the DOS-based Windows 3.x and Windows 9x series that were marketed toward end users. The only major shift Windows has made in any market in terms of OS code base has been from Windows 9x/ME to Windows XP, switching from the DOS-based hybrid kernel to the pure 32-bit NT kernel.



Yes...


----------



## Horrorshow (Sep 22, 2009)

It'd be nice to have a legit version. Plus I'm not poor, so 30 dollars sounds pretty sweet.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 22, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> My bad.  I though you wanted the $30.00 media kit from MS.  Or you could claim developer status and get everything MS makes via their "Select CD" program.



Isn't it still illegal to download software (not backup)? Though... now we are entering a gray area.


----------



## Shay Feral (Sep 22, 2009)

Eli said:


> If I remember right, Shay won't touch it unless it's running XP or 98. Though... this was 2 years ago, he might have changed his mind since then.



I'm running vista on my laptop now, and I fucking hate it. Simtower will _not_ run on vista 64 bit. Atleast not without a virtual machine emulator in which I can't figure out how to set up...


----------



## Aurali (Sep 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> I'm running vista on my laptop now, and I fucking hate it. Simtower will _not_ run on vista 64 bit. Atleast not without a virtual machine emulator in which I can't figure out how to set up...



You aren't doing it right. I have gotten it working, though it involved a few edits.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

Eli said:


> You aren't doing it right. I have gotten it working, though it involved a few edits.



Agreed, you're not doing it right - you're running Windows on a laptop.   *whaa whaa horn*


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Agreed, you're not doing it right - you're running Windows on a laptop.   *whaa whaa horn*


Someday, I'll find a Linux distribution that supports things like "Suspend" and "Hibernate." 'till then, no Linux on laptops for me.

(And yes, I'm well aware that Ubuntu allegedly supports these things, I've just ever actually seen them work. )


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 23, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Someday, I'll find a Linux distribution that supports things like "Suspend" and "Hibernate." 'till then, no Linux on laptops for me.
> 
> (And yes, I'm well aware that Ubuntu allegedly supports these things, I've just ever actually seen them work. )


Ubuntu allegedly does a lot of things. "Don't trust anything that uses PulseAudio", that's my motto :V


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Someday, I'll find a Linux distribution that supports things like "Suspend" and "Hibernate." 'till then, no Linux on laptops for me.
> 
> (And yes, I'm well aware that Ubuntu allegedly supports these things, I've just ever actually seen them work. )



Works on my laptop.  Prior to 9.04 (IE, the older kernels) I had to manually edit the ACPI support files to change out a couple of the defaults to get it to work.  After that, all I have to do is make sure the xorg.conf file has a certain entry for the nvidia card and it works fine.

Given that so few manufacturers provide ANY drivers or support for Linux, it's amazing that you can make it work.  On newer laptops, works either out of the box, or with very minor adjustments.



Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Ubuntu allegedly does a lot of things. "Don't trust anything that uses PulseAudio", that's my motto :V



Oi... yeah, pulseaudio was sure one stupid move.  I see the potential for it one day, but holy crap - it was not remotely ready for prime time inclusion in anything yet.  Fortunately, you can get around it's issues with some old fashioned entries into the config files to force the right configs through.  But yeah, if I had to pick one major beef with the Ubuntu family, that would be it - stupid, stupid choice.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Oi... yeah, pulseaudio was sure one stupid move.  I see the potential for it one day, but holy crap - it was not remotely ready for prime time inclusion in anything yet.  Fortunately, you can get around it's issues with some old fashioned entries into the config files to force the right configs through.  But yeah, if I had to pick one major beef with the Ubuntu family, that would be it - stupid, stupid choice.


Fedora users have it even worse. They're the testing dummies for PulseAudio...

Though I've found plenty more to hate about Ubuntu than just PulseAudio. Rolling-release + code-correctness > 6-month development cycle + outdated software


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Fedora users have it even worse. They're the testing dummies for PulseAudio...
> 
> Though I've found plenty more to hate about Ubuntu than just PulseAudio. Rolling-release + code-correctness > 6-month development cycle + outdated software



Heh, yeah, all sorta frustrating, BUT, you have to remember that Ubuntu's made for the masses, as well as industry, so stability in the software is a high priority than how current it is.  Since it's heart is Debian though, you can tweak it any way you want.  I add all sorts of additional repos as well as just download the latest stuff myself.  Even compile a newer kernel if I need it.  Point is, for 95% of normal users, that stuff isn't necessary, and for the 5% that need/want it, they're tech-savvy enough to easily attain it.

Remember too, think in a Windows mid-set here - there is no software repos for Windows, the version updates take years, and customizing is somewhat limited because you don't have access to changing out core components of the OS.  The only perk is there is much better vendor support since there's money in Microsoft's path vs. charity in the open source movement.

Back on thread-topic, I was just thinking - I wonder why MS hasn't offered a similar $30 for Windows 7 as an upgrade option for current Vista users.  Given Vista's relatively low market share plus the fact that just about anyone using Vista would be more than happy to try something better, I'd think that make for a nearly guaranteed success.  The same price point worked out great for Apple and the recent MacOS update.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Heh, yeah, all sorta frustrating, BUT, you have to remember that Ubuntu's made for the masses, as well as industry, so stability in the software is a high priority than how current it is.  Since it's heart is Debian though, you can tweak it any way you want.  I add all sorts of additional repos as well as just download the latest stuff myself.  Even compile a newer kernel if I need it.  Point is, for 95% of normal users, that stuff isn't necessary, and for the 5% that need/want it, they're tech-savvy enough to easily attain it.


Why not just change as little as possible in the underlying binaries so you don't _have_ to withhold updates for stability testing, though?



> Remember too, think in a Windows mid-set here - there is no software repos for Windows, the version updates take years, and customizing is somewhat limited because you don't have access to changing out core components of the OS.  The only perk is there is much better vendor support since there's money in Microsoft's path vs. charity in the open source movement.


Windows Update doesn't count, I'm guessing? :V



> Back on thread-topic, I was just thinking - I wonder why MS hasn't offered a similar $30 for Windows 7 as an upgrade option for current Vista users.  Given Vista's relatively low market share plus the fact that just about anyone using Vista would be more than happy to try something better, I'd think that make for a nearly guaranteed success.  The same price point worked out great for Apple and the recent MacOS update.


You just answered your own question


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Why not just change as little as possible in the underlying binaries so you don't _have_ to withhold updates for stability testing, though?



*shrugs* I dunno - I've got nothing to do with the project.  



Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Windows Update doesn't count, I'm guessing? :V



Not quite - it only includes a few software updates and security fixes, not distribution upgrades (though in some cases, the service packs are darn near like a new OS).  Just mentioning it to illustrate two different approaches to OS maintenance and upgrades.  To me, each has pros and cons.



Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You just answered your own question



Heh, well if it concerns money only, then yes.  But I'm thinking as well as the positive hype such an upgrade would cause in the Vista crowd - good PR would help sell it to others.  Windows 7 is definitely an improvement over Vista worthy of the good PR if they can muster it.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Heh, well if it concerns money only, then yes.  But I'm thinking as well as the positive hype such an upgrade would cause in the Vista crowd - good PR would help sell it to others.  Windows 7 is definitely an improvement over Vista worthy of the good PR if they can muster it.


I meant because of the Apple comparison...


----------



## hitokage (Sep 23, 2009)

RE: SimTower
Eli, are you using 32-bit or 64-bit Windows 7?

Being how old SimTower is and the fact it runs on Windows 3.x, it is very likely a 16-bit app. If it's not the box/manual should state it requires that the Win32s be installed, and they would be included on the disks/disc. A quick search says the Win32s required Windows 3.1x, which would leave out Windows 3.0, so unless the other information I've found is incorrect (possible since this is the internet, and I don't have my box or manual handy for the game), it is in fact a 16-bit program.

Which brings us to this - 64-bit versions of Windows lack support for nearly all 16-bit apps. There is some very, very limited support for a few installers, but nothing beyond that. This means installing some kind of VM, dual booting, or some other solution.

*EDIT:*
I meant to mention Yoot Tower. It's basically a sequel to the original game, but most (all?) of the game play is the same and so it didn't do well here. It was produced by the lead designer of the original, and was released in North America by Sega. There are apparently some localization issues, and some items that are unfamiliar to American audiences (Wikipedia sourcing this last sentence - haven't played it myself yet). However, it was released in early 1999 (for Windows), and thus has a higher chance of being a 32-bit app - which means it should work on 64-bit versions of Windows.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Works on my laptop.  Prior to 9.04 (IE, the older kernels) I had to manually edit the ACPI support files to change out a couple of the defaults to get it to work.  After that, all I have to do is make sure the xorg.conf file has a certain entry for the nvidia card and it works fine.


My love for tweaking config files only goes so far. There are a host of other issues with my laptop which I'm sure could be be fixed with some good old fashion config file tweaking. But if something's not up and running after a day of tweaking, I say "fuck it."



ToeClaws said:


> Given that so few manufacturers provide ANY drivers or support for Linux, it's amazing that you can make it work.  On newer laptops, works either out of the box, or with very minor adjustments.


I have to wonder about this argument, actually. Why? Because ACPI support is one of the things Microsoft seems to actually be able to do. With generic drivers too, in most cases. I have to wonder why the Linux folks can't quite grok ACPI support...


----------



## Aurali (Sep 23, 2009)

hitokage said:


> RE: SimTower
> Eli, are you using 32-bit or 64-bit Windows 7?



Shay didn't mention running x64 at first

SHAY: it's not vista that is causing sim tower to crash: Sim tower wouldn't work on XP 64 bit either. It's a 16 bit program, and they don't run on 64 bit OSes >.> 


hitokage: SimTower ran on my copy of vista, though my copy is 32 bit. It is running in windows 7 64bit as well, but I'm running it in a virtual PC (the included Windows XP mode Microsoft is giving Win7 users)


----------



## Azure (Sep 23, 2009)

What the hell is the difference between 7 and Vista anyway?  Couldn't they just fix it with updates instead of charging 100 some bux for something that isn't discernibly different?


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> What the hell is the difference between 7 and Vista anyway?  Couldn't they just fix it with updates instead of charging 100 some bux for something that isn't discernibly different?


7 has a dock! And you don't have to click Maximize anymore, you can just drag the bar to the top of the screen!

The main reason it's a new OS and not a service pack is the Vista brand is so incredibly tainted that Microsoft needed to move away from it. The money you'll have to pay to move is just icing on the cake to them.

(Incidentally, the version of Windows Server that corresponds with Win7 is... wait for it... 2008 R2.)


----------



## Azure (Sep 23, 2009)

net-cat said:


> 7 has a dock! And you don't have to click Maximize anymore, you can just drag the bar to the top of the screen!
> 
> The main reason it's a new OS and not a service pack is the Vista brand is so incredibly tainted that Microsoft needed to move away from it. The money you'll have to pay to move is just icing on the cake to them.
> 
> (Incidentally, the version of Windows Server that corresponds with Win7 is... wait for it... 2008 R2.)


What the hell is a dock?  Shit, you know what?  All this profiteering is gonna drive me to Linux one of these days.  I won't know what I'm doing, but I'll be damned if they're going to make me pay hundreds of dollars every few years to stay current.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I meant because of the Apple comparison...



Ahhh... gotcha.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> What the hell is a dock?


That thing Apple has on their OS. Microsoft more or less ripped it off for Win7.

(Granted, they did a much better job than Apple's dock. Though I haven't seen OS X 10.6 yet.)


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

net-cat said:


> My love for tweaking config files only goes so far. There are a host of other issues with my laptop which I'm sure could be be fixed with some good old fashion config file tweaking. But if something's not up and running after a day of tweaking, I say "fuck it."



Aye - I'm the same way.  We have gurus at work who have been doing Unix (and later Linux) for over 30 years; folks who can easily code their own drivers if they need to, and they all run either Ubuntu, Fedora or Mint nowadays because they can't be bothered spending more than a day to set up a new OS - it's a waste of a person's time to do more.  Fortunately, the ACPI tweaks and stuff I needed to do took all of about 90 seconds and a reboot to make work, so no big deal.



net-cat said:


> I have to wonder about this argument, actually. Why? Because ACPI support is one of the things Microsoft seems to actually be able to do. With generic drivers too, in most cases. I have to wonder why the Linux folks can't quite grok ACPI support...



I'm not sure - I have a feeling that MS has a lot more access to hardware info than the open-source community, which translates to better understanding of the hardware, thus better drivers.  Could also be that the Linux community is approaching it from too complex an angle - maybe over-complicating it?  Not sure.



net-cat said:


> That thing Apple has on their OS. Microsoft more or less ripped it off for Win7.
> 
> (Granted, they did a much better job than Apple's dock. Though I haven't seen OS X 10.6 yet.)



Which Apple ripped off from NeXTSTEP, which NeXTSTEP ripped off from Arthur.   Original ideas are hard to come by.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> I'm not sure - I have a feeling that MS has a lot more access to hardware info than the open-source community, which translates to better understanding of the hardware, thus better drivers.  Could also be that the Linux community is approaching it from too complex an angle - maybe over-complicating it?  Not sure.


Actually, I think it's because the people who have the resources that fund Linux development are more interested in developing it as a corporate server/workstation architecture than a consumer desktop/laptop one. So the people developing the laptop features are the hobbyists and hackers who largely take a "well it works for me" approach to their contributions.

That, and Linux on a laptop is a relatively new idea.





ToeClaws said:


> Which Apple ripped off from NeXTSTEP, which NeXTSTEP ripped off from Arthur.   Original ideas are hard to come by.


That was less a comment about the originality of the dock and more about the fact that Microsoft thinks it, along with a few other GUI tweaks, is worth an OS upgrade.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Actually, I think it's because the people who have the resources that fund Linux development are more interested in developing it as a corporate server/workstation architecture than a consumer desktop/laptop one. So the people developing the laptop features are the hobbyists and hackers who largely take a "well it works for me" approach to their contributions.
> 
> That, and Linux on a laptop is a relatively new idea.



Excellent point.  I am glad though that the idea of it on a laptop is finally taking off.



net-cat said:


> That was less a comment about the originality of the dock and more about the fact that Microsoft thinks it, along with a few other GUI tweaks, is worth an OS upgrade.



I was just amused at the whole dock thing (which is a 22 year old idea) being such a "new" thing with Windows.  Personally, I think few GUI upgrades are worth money, however, I'm also a minimalist, so to me dock bars, widgets and stuff are resource-wasting clutter that don't need to be there.  Ultimately, it'll come down to what the majority crowd thinks is easiest to use or not.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 23, 2009)

There is one thing about the Windows 7 dock that sets it apart from the others in the market right now (that I'm aware of), and that would be the concept of jump lists and the ability to see and select individual open documents in applications that support it (like IE 8's tabs), and the line-blurring of the system tray functionality, task bar and quick launch. With MSN - Sorry, Windows Live Messenger - for example, right-clicking on its icon in the dock/Superbar will give you the application's controls as well as the standard window operations. I believe OS X's dock does something similar to the latter, however, but I've got no way to be sure.

That alone isn't worth the upgrade tax, but it does expand on the concept, if only a little.


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Excellent point.  I am glad though that the idea of it on a laptop is finally taking off.


I'm using acpitools on K-9 right now, and it seems to work flawlessly. S3 within two seconds, and it gets back in 3-4, depending on how much stuff I have open. I need to try S3 on Windows Seven eventually for comparison, but since my gaming desktop is a few hundred kilometers away right now that won't happen too soon. xD




ToeClaws said:


> I was just amused at the whole dock thing (which is a 22 year old idea) being such a "new" thing with Windows.  Personally, I think few GUI upgrades are worth money, however, I'm also a minimalist, so to me dock bars, widgets and stuff are resource-wasting clutter that don't need to be there.  Ultimately, it'll come down to what the majority crowd thinks is easiest to use or not.


As long as the dock does nothing but the task it was created for (aka launching programs) I don't see a reason not to use it. What really pisses me off is that people tend to throw things into it that the dock simply wasn't designed for. It's like they want to kiss the taskbar goodbye and cramp everything into a tiny bar. What an efficient usage of screen space - NOT.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Personally, I think few GUI upgrades are worth money


Sure. But not when it's the only thing. The difference between Windows Vista (6.0) and Windows 7 (6.1) at the kernel and feature level... well...


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 23, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> I'm using acpitools on K-9 right now, and it seems to work flawlessly. S3 within two seconds, and it gets back in 3-4, depending on how much stuff I have open. I need to try S3 on Windows Seven eventually for comparison, but since my gaming desktop is a few hundred kilometers away right now that won't happen too soon. xD



Oh - not heard of that - will have to look into it.  My laptop takes about 8 seconds to go into S3, and the same to come out, which is the same in XP as in Ubuntu (older laptop with an nforce3 chipset... which is cursed).  At work, the newer Core2 Dell Precision M65 does it in about 4, which is about the same as XP as well.



WarMocK said:


> As long as the dock does nothing but the task it was created for (aka launching programs) I don't see a reason not to use it. What really pisses me off is that people tend to throw things into it that the dock simply wasn't designed for. It's like they want to kiss the taskbar goodbye and cramp everything into a tiny bar. What an efficient usage of screen space - NOT.



*chuckles* Aye - and honestly, it's just up to personal preference.  Some folk just love widgets andn docks, and if they use them efficiently (and as you say, don't do things they weren't designed for), then more power to them.  But yeah, when people try to do too much, well... that's about the same as people buying minivans and trying to drive them like a European sports car... then wondering why they got in an accident. 



net-cat said:


> Sure. But not when it's the only thing. The difference between Windows Vista (6.0) and Windows 7 (6.1) at the kernel and feature level... well...



Aye - in this case, the .1 version change is a nice improvement.  Back a few years ago, Windows 2000 was 5.0 and XP was 5.1, and just about everything XP had to offer was bloat ontop of the 5.0 version.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Aye - in this case, the .1 version change is a nice improvement.  Back a few years ago, Windows 2000 was 5.0 and XP was 5.1, and just about everything XP had to offer was bloat ontop of the 5.0 version.


XP SP2 was actually a remarkably clever bit of marketing on their part.

I'm reasonably certain that, kernel and API-wise, there were more changes from XP SP1 to XP SP2 than there were from 2000 to XP. (I could be wrong on that, of course...)

However, releasing SP2 as a service pack rather than a new OS allowed them to yank the plug on XP SP1 far earlier than they would have been able to if they had made XP SP2 a new OS.

And can you imagine if SP2 had been a new OS? Remember all the problems it had with compatibility? I know of people to this day refuse to use XP SP2. (Though they rarely actually have any legitimate reason to do so.) It would've encountered Vista-like levels of resistance and failure in the marketplace.

Win 7, on the other hand, is more akin to the 2000 to XP transition. Lots of new eye candy, not much changing under the hood. Mostly because, in this case, they need to distance it from the horribly tainted "Vista" brand.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 24, 2009)

net-cat said:


> XP SP2 was actually a remarkably clever bit of marketing on their part.
> 
> I'm reasonably certain that, kernel and API-wise, there were more changes from XP SP1 to XP SP2 than there were from 2000 to XP. (I could be wrong on that, of course...)
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, totally - SP2 was a whole new OS, and for me was the much needed punt needed to make XP actually worth using.  It did cause big headaches in business, but then - it was honestly a whole new OS, not just a service pack.  Savvy IT folks new this and prepared, the ones that didn't probably just took the "hehe DUR!  Service packs are GOOD!" approach. 

Well said, sir.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 24, 2009)

net-cat said:


> XP SP2 was actually a remarkably clever bit of marketing on their part.
> 
> I'm reasonably certain that, kernel and API-wise, there were more changes from XP SP1 to XP SP2 than there were from 2000 to XP. (I could be wrong on that, of course...)
> 
> ...



That was also Microsoft remembering the marketing mistake they made releasing Windows 98 Second Edition as a separate, boxed full-price OS (at the dawn of Internet on the Desktop) instead of a free service pack.  Yes, 98SE was recommended over 98 Gold, but anyone with half a brain knew they were buying a boxed bug-fix, and many simply refused to upgrade 98 to SE, like those refusing to upgrade XP to SP2.


----------



## hitokage (Sep 24, 2009)

You could get an upgrade CD from Microsoft to take 98 to 98SE for about $20 (maybe $30) if I remember correctly. Cheaper would have been better, although $20/$30 isn't terrible considered what you get, and at the time downloading it such an update would have taken forever. They didn't have this version available in store, which is why many people never knew about it - you had to order it from Microsoft. This is also another case similar to SP2 for XP, where there was quite a bit changed - it introduced the WDM driver model, upgraded IE to version 5 (5.x helped finish off the browser wars), introduced internet connection sharing (home routers weren't really common yet), and possibly some other things I can't remember at the moment.

I upgraded to 98SE from 95 (OSR2) specifically for ICS, but then again I've had a home network since about 1994.


----------



## Bacu (Sep 24, 2009)

Holy crap I might actually buy Windows for the first time in my life.


----------



## fwLogCGI (Sep 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> The only way I'd get windows 7 is if someone can show me that it can play old games, like old windows 95/98 games, along with new games as well...


Dual-boot it with XP.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 24, 2009)

fwLogCGI said:


> Dual-boot it with XP.



Or if your computer has enough power then use XPM >.>


----------



## fwLogCGI (Sep 24, 2009)

Eli said:


> Or if your computer has enough power then use XPM >.>


Virtual PC can play games?


----------



## Aurali (Sep 24, 2009)

fwLogCGI said:


> Virtual PC can play games?


The older ones yes. I use it for Populous and Sim Tower


----------

