# Windows 7 Release Date



## Adelio Altomar (May 11, 2009)

Be on the lookout this August

Or Oct' 23. =3


----------



## AlexInsane (May 12, 2009)

This shit better be good; if it's another Vista nightmare, I'm gonna be using XP until my computer just has a stroke and dies.


----------



## Excentromatt (May 12, 2009)

I'm looking forward to it, my Vista PC has been _okay_ but i'm willing to try something that has fewer glitches.  

If this fails almost like Vista, everyone's going to be stuck using XP forever like an old man still driving his 15 year old Buick.  Classic but slightly unfashionable.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (May 12, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> This shit better be good; if it's another Vista nightmare, I'm gonna be using XP until my computer just has a stroke and dies.



Just stick to XP and keep up on news and reviews about Windows 7. =P

When I got my new hard-drive, I kept saying I was gonna install XP instead...
I still have Vista four months after I finally acquired the disk... 
I'm a lazy-ass 'coon. =P


----------



## AlexInsane (May 12, 2009)

It'd be more like an old man riding a rusty old bicycle in the middle of rush hour traffic on a four lane highway.

"I keep hearing this funny beeping noise...I wonder what it is? Oh, look, there's someone showing off their middle finger. I better do that right back to make sure they understand I noticed! Oh dear, I think my adult diaper is reaching maximum capacity..."


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 12, 2009)

Do not want..and will laugh at every stupid idiot who likes to fail by being on the bleeding edge of technology by rushing out to get it, instead of waiting to see how it pans out.

Then again even if it is better than Vistafail, I'm not getting another Microsoft Operating System again. After my XP dies, I'm going to get something else.


----------



## lilEmber (May 12, 2009)

Windows 7 RC is -much- better than Windows Vista except in one thing: Virtual disks don't work, but out of the box it can make Virtual Hard-Drives, burn ISO's, and there's a nifty program that can mount images to disk without having to make a virtual drive. SO far I've not needed a virtual optical drive but once Windows 7 is out I'm sure there will be one.

XP will be a dead OS so I'll be laughing at those not willing to purchase $20 worth of RAM and upgrade.


----------



## Captain Howdy (May 12, 2009)

I can't wait to see Windows 7 come around...I'm kinda ignoring everybody, everything until there's serious, wide-spread hands on reviews of it.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Windows 7 RC is -much- better than Windows Vista except in one thing: Virtual disks don't work, but out of the box it can make Virtual Hard-Drives, burn ISO's, and there's a nifty program that can mount images to disk without having to make a virtual drive. SO far I've not needed a virtual optical drive but once Windows 7 is out I'm sure there will be one.



Actually, "-much- better" might be a bit of an overstatement.  According to the most recent tests by PCWorld, it's about 5% better in terms of performance.  Harder to quantify though are the aesthetic and functional tweaks, which make it less annoying to use than Vista, but still not quite as streamlined and simple as Windows 2000 (which was arguably one of the best balances between functionality and simplicity).

Just to get everyone on the right track here - understand that Windows 7 is basically "Vista second edition", only Microsoft knows better than to call it that given the failure that Vista was.  That's not to say it's bad (or good) - just a statement of fact.  Windows 7 is based on the same kernel as Vista with a bit more thought put into functionality/usability.

Also important: for those of you who have downloaded the release candidate, be aware that it will only function normally until June 2010.  You will have to by a proper copy after that, or it will began shutting down your system.



NewfDraggie said:


> XP will be a dead OS so I'll be laughing at those not willing to purchase $20 worth of RAM and upgrade.



XP will not be a dead OS until April of 2014, at which time Microsoft will cease the "extended support" phase, and there will no longer be security patches for it.  It will continue to work, of course, but for every month past April you go, it becomes more and more hackable and dangerous to use.  Plus, there's the simple reality that most developers will stop supporting it, so it could be hard to find programs that even run on it by then.  Plus there's the issue with it only being able to use 2 gigs of RAM for any one application, and address no more than 4 gigs (unless using the 64 bit one) and on and on.

In short, yes, XP is *old* and 5 years from now, I should hope most people are not using it anymore.  There are plenty of other OS's out there (Microsoft and otherwise) that are vastly superior.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (May 12, 2009)

Windows 7 Beta works ok, and it's MUCH better than Vista, just wish I had more GB's and virtual memory. So I have hope for this, SO DON'T F*** IT UP MICROSOFT :[


----------



## Carenath (May 12, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Do not want..and will laugh at every stupid idiot who likes to fail by being on the bleeding edge of technology by rushing out to get it, instead of waiting to see how it pans out.
> 
> Then again even if it is better than Vistafail, I'm not getting another Microsoft Operating System again. After my XP dies, I'm going to get something else.


Im someone who likes the bleeding edge of technology, but I tend to do some research, and wait for the revised versions before parting with my cash. I bought a copy of Vista Ultimate when SP1 was in Beta to test it out, and it wasnt a bad OS to use, even given that my PC had only 1GB of RAM and a semi-decent graphics card. It was slower to start.. and transitioning from hibernate to poweroff.. and hibernate to poweron, is incredibly slow.. file-transfer operations were slow... the OS was heavy, but my applications ran just as fast on them as XP did.. and I place the blame on the processor which according to Vista is the slowest componant in the system (its an aging Pentium 4, so what do you expect).

My laptop runs Vista, and its always run just as well as XP does on my desktop, without any issues, and I have never run into any problems with Vista, and had no incentive to 'downgrade' my laptop.

Im presently running Windows 7 RC, and I'll be installing the 64bit version on my laptop shortly. I'll restore my laptop, or upgrade to Windows 7 Final depending on how it works over the next few months.. my desktop on the other paw.. will likely be going back to Windows Server because I honestly like it more.




NewfDraggie said:


> XP will be a dead OS so I'll be laughing at those not willing to purchase $20 worth of RAM and upgrade.


Thing is.. you shouldnt have to purchase extra RAM just to upgrade the operating system... Windows consumes an unnecessary amount of RAM just for itself, before you factor in the RAM used by running applications and third-party services.
This is one of the biggest reasons I avoided EVER running Windows as a server operating system, on production servers.. and coincidentally one of the biggest reasons I choose to use WS2003 as a desktop OS.. because its a bucketload more efficient than Vista or XP, and it makes better use of my hardware resources.


----------



## Wolfsmate (May 12, 2009)

I have tried Windows 7 for a few weeks it was not bad honestly.  I backed up my vista ultimate edition and then did an inplace upgrade and seriously this was painless.  I didnt lose a thing and no settings were changed ?  I couldnt believe it personally but when I check around everything was there and it just worked.  I am not going to stay with it due to wanting to learn more of the linux world but this is just my opinion.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 12, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Im someone who likes the bleeding edge of technology, but I tend to do some research, and wait for the revised versions before parting with my cash. I bought a copy of Vista Ultimate when SP1 was in Beta to test it out, and it wasnt a bad OS to use, even given that my PC had only 1GB of RAM and a semi-decent graphics card. It was slower to start.. and transitioning from hibernate to poweroff.. and hibernate to poweron, is incredibly slow.. file-transfer operations were slow... the OS was heavy, but my applications ran just as fast on them as XP did.. and I place the blame on the processor which according to Vista is the slowest componant in the system (its an aging Pentium 4, so what do you expect).



I would say that's mostly due to the extra services that keep getting added with every version of Windows.  Even on a modern PC, I disable half of the XP services and tweak the HELL out of it to get it down to a Windows 2000-like footprint.  I _hate_ inefficiency and fluff in an OS.



Carenath said:


> Im presently running Windows 7 RC, and I'll be installing the 64bit version on my laptop shortly. I'll restore my laptop, or upgrade to Windows 7 Final depending on how it works over the next few months.. my desktop on the other paw.. will likely be going back to Windows Server because I honestly like it more.



That's actually a great way to do it.  The Windows server versions are often much, much better than the desktop versions for intermediate to power users because they have no "fluff".  The extra services unique to the server can be easily shut down leaving a very streamlined shell to run your apps.



Carenath said:


> Thing is.. you shouldnt have to purchase extra RAM just to upgrade the operating system... Windows consumes an unnecessary amount of RAM just for itself, before you factor in the RAM used by running applications and third-party services.



In a fairly short term time span, I would agree, but given the exceptionally long life of XP, it's not surprising that machines built 7 years ago with XP would need some serious upgrades to run Windows 7.  When XP first came out, you could get away with a machine that only had 256M of RAM, because everying run on it was smaller - the browser, antivirus, firewall (if one was even used at the time) and so on all had much smaller footprints.  Today, if you want an XP box to run quickly and efficently, you have to shove at least 768M of RAM into it.  It'll still run on 256 (or even less), it just doesn't perform well.

On a sidenote, that's always amused me - what companies or groups state as a "minimum" for a system is often a far cry away from what it really needs to be efficient and tollerable.


----------



## Eevee (May 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> out of the box it can make Virtual Hard-Drives, burn ISO's, and there's a nifty program that can mount images to disk without having to make a virtual drive.


wooooooah windows 7 is just as good as stage1 gentoo in 2000


----------



## Rayne (May 12, 2009)

Eevee said:


> wooooooah windows 7 is just as good as stage1 gentoo in 2000



But it's so much shinier!


----------



## lilEmber (May 12, 2009)

ToeClaws, I meant it was much better in a bunch of ways, not just performance increase.
So far I find it more responsive myself, the areo is also got a bunch of new features I enjoy, the taskbar is much better, it will be released with Directx 11, windows explorer is done better, desktop background can be a slide-show effect, and a bunch of other things.

Overall the RC is a lot better than Vista.



			
				Carenath said:
			
		

> Thing is.. you shouldnt have to purchase extra RAM just to upgrade the operating system... Windows consumes an unnecessary amount of RAM just for itself, before you factor in the RAM used by running applications and third-party services.


Well do you mean like Windows 98 to XP's memory jump? Oh wait... If you can afford the $150-$200 OS and not the $20 RAM then don't buy the OS.

Edit: Oh and Vista usually took up about 50% of my 4gigs usually, Windows 7 RC takes up less than 25% usually.


----------



## net-cat (May 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> windows explorer is done better


And yet, it still locks up my entire shell when a network resource becomes temporarily unavailable.
It still tells me I can't delete a file because it's in use, yet it won't tell me what's using the file.
It still won't let me eject my thumb drive because it's in use, but it won't tell me what's using it.

Explorer isn't better. It's shinier. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## Leasara (May 12, 2009)

Edit:  Actually, nevermind.  The original message was essentially an inadvertently mildly inflammatory version of "Thanks, but I'm sticking with Linux"


----------



## lilEmber (May 12, 2009)

net-cat said:


> And yet, it still locks up my entire shell when a network resource becomes temporarily unavailable.
> It still tells me I can't delete a file because it's in use, yet it won't tell me what's using the file.
> It still won't let me eject my thumb drive because it's in use, but it won't tell me what's using it.
> 
> Explorer isn't better. It's shinier. Don't confuse the two.



Well actually navigation is a lot easier now, but you're right I do hate that "it's in use" it should be "it's in use, would you like to kill the process and delete?"


----------



## Ozriel (May 12, 2009)

I will wait until the 3rd or 4th generation to update, when Tech support becomes fully comptent in the new OS their company pushes out.


----------



## net-cat (May 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well actually navigation is a lot easier now


In what way?


----------



## Rayne (May 12, 2009)

net-cat said:


> In what way?



I'd have to ask the same. I'm being crazy and using Windows 7 RC1 as my main OS in my desktop, and Explorer is still as much a pain as ever for me to navigate around with compared to, say, Nautilus or even earlier versions of Explorer.


----------



## lilEmber (May 12, 2009)

The navigation on the side is easier with disks being integrated automatically, on the side of every windows explorer window...unlike vista where you'd have to add them manually, plug in a flash drive and it's there already; sifting through files no longer changes the size of viewing randomly, an issue I had with Vista; pinning items is easier than creating desktop shortcuts, I have no desktop shortcuts now and right clicking the pinned windows explorer icon brings up a list of specific folders I've pinned, say TF folder for Team Fortress 2 which I go to a lot. Multiple windows (and will be tabs once more programs support the superbar) are now in one button, and even if the program is closed I can have it showing on the taskbar (pinned). I find all of this, plus the new aero snaps/shake, the glassing, and the show desktop buttons all faster and easier to use than Vista.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> ToeClaws, I meant it was much better in a bunch of ways, not just performance increase.



Aye, which is why I did go on to state that the other things were not as quantifiable as the 5% performance difference. 



NewfDraggie said:


> So far I find it more responsive myself, the areo is also got a bunch of new features I enjoy, the taskbar is much better, it will be released with Directx 11, windows explorer is done better, desktop background can be a slide-show effect, and a bunch of other things.



But those are all unnecessary (and kinda silly) fluff.  Pretty much anything they've done after Windows 2000 to "improve" the GUI has been cumbersome and confusing.  Thankfully, I did notice Vista still has the "Classic" mode where it mostly assumes a more usable design and layout.  Hopefully, Windows 7 carries that on.

DirectX 11... yes, a nice advantage once the next gen of GPUs come out to support it, but depressing as hell they aren't doing it for XP (in their usual corporate bastard way of trying to force people to upgrade).


----------



## Rayne (May 12, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Thankfully, I did notice Vista still has the "Classic" mode where it mostly assumes a more usable design and layout.  Hopefully, Windows 7 carries that on.



It does. It also allows you to have the taskbar work like it did in previous versions, thankfully.


----------



## Liam (May 12, 2009)

I'm weaning myself off of relying on Microsoft.  The only real problem for me is with video card drivers.  Damn you Nvidia/ATI/Microsoft!
I moved my taskbar to the left and use quicklaunch instead of the desktop for shortcuts.
I had Ubuntu on this dell laptop, but the wireless card gave me so much shit I had to do away with it.


----------



## Shino (May 12, 2009)

I've been using 7 since it first hit beta on MSDN, (it's what I'm using right now) and it's everything Vista should have been. Microsoft has a win here, people.

The only thing I can see killing 7 (not counting bad Vista PR) is them making the mistake of releasing 5 different flavors again. They've said they'll go back to the XP home/pro approach, but I wouldn't count on it. I was working at Best Buy in PC sales when Vista came out, and it was a headache trying to explain it all to the clueless customers. Everybody wanted the open box XP machines.

Seriously, give 7 a try. You'll probably like it. I haven't touched my Vista partition in almost 4 months.


----------



## Eevee (May 13, 2009)

this is the worst experience I have ever had downloading an operating system

I was going to throw it in a VM but this is inconvenient almost to the point of turning me off completely

thanks microsoft


----------



## Pi (May 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The navigation on the side is easier with disks being integrated automatically, on the side of every windows explorer window...unlike vista where you'd have to add them manually, plug in a flash drive and it's there already; sifting through files no longer changes the size of viewing randomly, an issue I had with Vista; pinning items is easier than creating desktop shortcuts, I have no desktop shortcuts now and right clicking the pinned windows explorer icon brings up a list of specific folders I've pinned, say TF folder for Team Fortress 2 which I go to a lot. Multiple windows (and will be tabs once more programs support the superbar) are now in one button, and even if the program is closed I can have it showing on the taskbar (pinned). I find all of this, plus the new aero snaps/shake, the glassing, and the show desktop buttons all faster and easier to use than Vista.



so basically windows 7 is a ripoff of all of the good features of os x, which in turn are ripoffs of all the good features of various unix window managers???


----------



## Eevee (May 13, 2009)

Pi said:


> so basically every windows release is a ripoff of all of the good features of os x, which in turn are ripoffs of all the good features of various unix window managers???


ftfy


also I would like to congratulate microsoft on successfully implementing a quicklaunch bar and Super-D.  I eagerly await the next version of windows, in which they polish a handful more features that were already there and everyone applauds their innovation and brilliance


----------



## lilEmber (May 13, 2009)

Only it can play games. :awesome:
Windows is Windows, Mac is Mac, Linux is Linux, and so on; stop comparing them Pi. It's really sad that you must always compare Operating Systems when they all do different things.


----------



## Shino (May 13, 2009)

*Watches thread devolve into another OS war thread*


----------



## Pi (May 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Only it can play games. :awesome:
> Windows is Windows, Mac is Mac, Linux is Linux, and so on; stop comparing them Pi. It's really sad that you must always compare Operating Systems when they all do different things.



congratulations, you're vacuous

also i like to use my computer to do work, so go piss up a rope and stop spewing dumb trash


----------



## lilEmber (May 13, 2009)

They all do that.


----------



## Pi (May 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They all do that.



Remember what I said about you being vacuous? You're doing it again.


----------



## Liam (May 13, 2009)

If my laptop's OS can vpn and remote desktop to my desktop running Ubuntu, I'm pretty happy.

Vista is a bitch, but I managed to tame it a little bit.  Wireless got much harder to use since XP.  Is it better in 7?


----------



## Rayne (May 13, 2009)

gulielmus said:


> Wireless got much harder to use since XP.  Is it better in 7?



No, it's pretty much the same as it was in Vista.


----------



## Liam (May 13, 2009)

Ok.  7 is on my shit list then.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 13, 2009)

I find networking in general is harder in Vista (and thus Windows 7).  Again, Windows 2000 had it right.  XP tried to introduce a little automation to the Wireless, which often just screws it up, but Vista... holy crap, I don't know what they were thinking when they redid networking in Vista. :/  It's just... weird.


----------



## Liam (May 13, 2009)

I mourn what they did to the control panel and its friends.


----------



## AlexInsane (May 14, 2009)

That's it; I'm looking up Linux for Idiots.

That's the thing, though; I shouldn't have to know how to modify my own computer just so it can work. I want it to do very basic things which are within my level of comprehension, and everything else is just...I don't know, magic or some shit. I don't care what all the cables and guts of the computer do, or what specs I should have. It's confusing and I have no interest in it. 

I wouldn't mind using an alternative OS if it was like "Step 1: Install. Step 2: Double click this. Step 3: You're done." I wouldn't mind using Linux if it was easy to install and understand like Windows, you know what I'm saying? I need to be spoonfed when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## lilEmber (May 14, 2009)

Pi said:


> Remember what I said about you being vacuous? You're doing it again.


Oh right, I forgot the -only- operating system you can do work on is Linux, my bad.


----------



## WarMocK (May 14, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> That's it; I'm looking up Linux for Idiots.
> 
> That's the thing, though; I shouldn't have to know how to modify my own computer just so it can work. I want it to do very basic things which are within my level of comprehension, and everything else is just...I don't know, magic or some shit. I don't care what all the cables and guts of the computer do, or what specs I should have. It's confusing and I have no interest in it.
> 
> I wouldn't mind using an alternative OS if it was like "Step 1: Install. Step 2: Double click this. Step 3: You're done." I wouldn't mind using Linux if it was easy to install and understand like Windows, you know what I'm saying? I need to be spoonfed when it comes to stuff like this.


Thank you for reminding me to finish my little HOWTO for OS migration. ;-)


----------



## Adelio Altomar (May 14, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> That's it; I'm looking up Linux for Idiots.
> 
> That's the thing, though; I shouldn't have to know how to modify my own computer just so it can work. I want it to do very basic things which are within my level of comprehension, and everything else is just...I don't know, magic or some shit. I don't care what all the cables and guts of the computer do, or what specs I should have. It's confusing and I have no interest in it.
> 
> I wouldn't mind using an alternative OS if it was like "Step 1: Install. Step 2: Double click this. Step 3: You're done." I wouldn't mind using Linux if it was easy to install and understand like Windows, you know what I'm saying? I need to be spoonfed when it comes to stuff like this.



The closest Linux has come to that would be either Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Mint would seem better since all of the codex to play mp3's and other sound files, and Flash and Java, and such are already installed, so you don't have to risk destroying your computer with angry gorilla fists when you find out that your misplacing a little period that caused your whole code to crash when you tried to compile it in the terminal.

But seriously, try out a Live CD of the OS first and see if it really works for you. The beauty of that is that it won't ever saved, and if you don't like, all you have to do is shut down your comp and take out the disk. No harm done. =3


----------



## AlexInsane (May 14, 2009)

And which edition of Mint do I use?


----------



## WarMocK (May 14, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> And which edition of Mint do I use?


http://distrowatch.com/

Mint is No. 3 in the ranking atm (look at the table to the right). Version 7 just came out (9 days ago).


----------



## Adelio Altomar (May 14, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> And which edition of Mint do I use?



Hmm... Well the version I have installed on small partition of my comp is the 32-bit Felicia Main edition, even though I now know full well I could use 64-bit operating systems on this ol' thing.

Just to save you and me any headache, just go with the *32-bit* version if you don't know whether or not your computer supports 64-bit or not. 

Also, I'd wait and listen in on the advice of some of the more Linux savvy users here just in case they'll have something more to add because I know there has to be more than what I said out there.

http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php


----------



## WarMocK (May 14, 2009)

Adelio Altomar said:


> Also, I'd wait and listen in on the advice of some of the more Linux savvy users here just in case they'll have something more to add because I know there has to be more than what I said out there.


Yes, but I suggest we do that in another thread.We already derailed this thread, so I think we should stop here and create another one dealing with OS migration. ;-)


----------



## Adrimor (May 14, 2009)

Yeah, I'd pay for Windows 7. "Would" being the operative verb, since I'm quite certain I won't be able to afford a copy by the time it's available XD

Eh, I guess I'll just get as much computing out of the RC as I can while it lasts ^_^



gulielmus said:


> I'm weaning myself off of relying on Microsoft.  The only real problem for me is with video card drivers.  Damn you Nvidia/ATI/Microsoft!


NVidia actually makes good Linux drivers. So does Intel...I've never used any of the ATI ones myself, but it seems they're just shitty XD



> I had Ubuntu


Well, there's your problem. You should use a real distro =V


----------



## Carenath (May 14, 2009)

@ToeClaws... I went a few steps further..
My laptop came with a recovery partition, which is all fine and good, a few clicks and I can get my default Vista install back, I back up my important stuff to the network, so I dont lose it. I've installed Win7, and its running pretty nicely. A few odd quirks, but nothing to complain about. Everything works just as good, or better, than it did under Vista.

My desktop.. I generally use Windows Server 2003, its as you reminded us, lighter and far more efficient than XP was.. it boots from cold in under 40-seconds on 10+ year old hardware designed for 2000. Windows Server 2003 and 2008 are both free too, if you're a college student (google DreamSpark), or you know someone with an MSDN subscription.

Windows 7 in my opinion, is a right case of, dont knock it if you dont try it. As Windows OS's go, its rather nice, though I do have to say, Windows 2000 remains my favourite.


----------



## Eevee (May 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Only it can play games. :awesome:
> Windows is Windows, Mac is Mac, Linux is Linux, and so on; stop comparing them Pi. It's really sad that you must always compare Operating Systems when they all do different things.


well this is about the silliest thing I've ever heard

should we not compare Ford and Honda because their products do different things



AlexInsane said:


> I wouldn't mind using an alternative OS if it was like "Step 1: Install. Step 2: Double click this. Step 3: You're done."


remove step 2 and you have an ubuntu installation



AlexInsane said:


> I wouldn't mind using Linux if it was easy to install and understand like Windows, you know what I'm saying? I need to be spoonfed when it comes to stuff like this.


ironically the biggest problems for totally new Ubuntu users that I've seen so far have been that they _expect it to be as hard to use as Windows_.  the most notable example by far is that nobody thinks Add/Remove Programs will actually add programs, and then people complain they can't figure out how to install software.  durp.

Windows isn't quite what I'd call easy; you've just used it a lot.  have you ever _installed_ Windows?  XP was some ghastly console thing that used a different key for everything and had a lot of arcane steps and prompts that even I didn't care about.  even Windows 7 takes two reboots to install and still isn't done after both of them.


----------



## lilEmber (May 14, 2009)

> should we not compare Ford and Honda because their products do different things


Well actually Honda can't tow for shit and their only bedded vehicle has a tiny bed not able to carry a large or heavy load. so... yes?


----------



## Shino (May 15, 2009)

I shall now attempt to derail this thread in an attempt to re-rail it.

So, I just got a response from one of my friends that works with Redmond's Xbox marketing team, and he said that he heard from the Windows marketing team that they will indeed be releasing 5 different versions alÃ¡ Vista (though he didn't have the new names for them yet). He agreed with me that it was a stupid move, but they're doing it anyways.

Ok, you may now return to your regularly scheduled flame wars.


----------



## Neybulot (May 16, 2009)

Shino said:


> So, I just got a response from one of my friends that works with Redmond's Xbox marketing team, and he said that he heard from the Windows marketing team that they will indeed be releasing 5 different versions alÃ¡ Vista (though he didn't have the new names for them yet). He agreed with me that it was a stupid move, but they're doing it anyways.



Rather old news, also it's 6 editions. Most of which won't be widely available in stores. You're basically looking at Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate.

Box art here: http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/05/12/windows-7-box-art-leaks

Edition info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions


----------



## lilEmber (May 16, 2009)

Yeah, basic consumers will be looking at three. Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate.
They have others for specific environments, certain types of offices and countries, as well a core one that will run on systems that can't run home... though they might be cutting that one last I heard....
We'll see this fall. :3


----------



## Eevee (May 17, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well actually Honda can't tow for shit and their only bedded vehicle has a tiny bed not able to carry a large or heavy load. so... yes?


wow it sounds like you're *comparing them* and deciding which one is more appropriate for your particular use case

good job


----------



## lilEmber (May 18, 2009)

But that was my point in the beginning; each OS has a different use so...thanks for the support?


----------



## Kao (May 18, 2009)

Oh sweet! I didn't think it would be that early! I have to say I haven't really found anything majorly wrong with vista. Once you stick it on a decent with rig with over 4GB of ram and turn off all the crap like UAC its good and speedy


----------



## Eevee (May 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But that was my point in the beginning; each OS has a different use


htf do you expect people to map these uses to the functionality they need without comparing

"linux gets work done; windows is an ok console"

this is a statement of what they do differently; it is also a comparison


----------



## lilEmber (May 18, 2009)

Well seeing as Windows is used in the work place as well Mac, I'm pretty sure Lunix isn't the only OS capable of doing so.

To put it in an simpler way for you, all cars can drive you to work and back.


----------



## Ravkamon (May 18, 2009)

Windows 7's release Date is in September around the middle of the month.

they have yet to say the actual day .

Anyways im a Tester and Supporter of this product.

Since Microsoft Owns 3/4 of Apple you can see apples look on the new Windows 7 OS and you can notice that Mac's use Intel and Why they are compatible with Mac's now.

Anyways Windows 7 rocks, no need to install any drivers FINALLY

and the fact its Compatability Program WORKS unlike Vista, There is also one other thing that sets this apart from other OS's is the Speed and the fact it uses as much resource as XP, looks like a mix between Mac OSX and Windows Vista , this OS will run just as fast as XP if not faster using less resources. And finally for you VISTA users, Microsoft will be giving this product FREE to people who bought the Vista OS or had it come with the Machine, they will be prompting people to switch over as they ditch the whole Vista Operating System and make it a thing of the past.


Thats by 2-bits.

totally support this, the only OS Made with Consumer Feedback!

~Ravkamon


----------



## lilEmber (May 18, 2009)

They haven't said they'll be upgrading for free, they said if you've purchased vista at a certain date it might be getting upgraded, I heard nothing from Microsoft on the matter though.

And where do you get that Microsoft owns three quarters of Apple?
Intel isn't Microsoft either...

You're a beta user, that's not "tester" label.

And finally I heard it'll be out in October myself, but I'd prefer sooner anyway. :3


----------



## Ravkamon (May 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They haven't said they'll be upgrading for free, they said if you've purchased vista at a certain date it might be getting upgraded, I heard nothing from Microsoft on the matter though.
> 
> And where do you get that Microsoft owns three quarters of Apple?
> Intel isn't Microsoft either...
> ...




in truth microsoft does own 3/4 of Apple, Why do you think Microsoft doesnt sue Apple for those mac & PC commercials or take them off air, Because when apple makes money, so does microsoft, Since microsoft is USING the looks and gloss apple does as well as simplicity i am correct.

if you dont watch the markets dont bother trying to understand this, if you look into microsoft further or apple stocks you will see.

AS for the upgrades, it will happen to most PC's Bought within this YEAR , read it more carefully or contact microsoft yourself, i talked to someone from within that section yesterday.

And for the release Date, it will be Launching as of September (Read the RSS or contact them yourself newf) since you arent a microsoft employee you wouldnt know all this information, keep a better eye on all this, especially in detail.

And finally as for TESTER , i am, i was Emailed i quote "By Microsoft" the Full version RC including all Installation Versions of this OS, Version 7105 past RC. so dont tell me i am wrong in this regard.

that is all.

~Ravkamon


----------



## Eevee (May 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> To put it in an simpler way for you, all cars can drive you to work and back.


hey buddy make up your mind

are these things all comparable or do they all have different functions


face it, what you said doesn't make a damn bit of sense.  they all fall in the same market space so *people compare them to figure out which one they want*.


----------



## lilEmber (May 18, 2009)

Yes, but they all can do work... that's like saying a truck can tow, a car is easy on gas, but only one is good to drive. Sensemake.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes, but they all can do work... that's like saying a truck can tow, a car is easy on gas, but only one is good to drive. Sensemake.



Okay... then it goes without saying that Newf has nice footpaws.

There... first bit of sense in a while and one that need not be debated.


----------



## Eevee (May 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes, but they all can do work... that's like saying a truck can tow, a car is easy on gas, but only one is good to drive.


but for just driving the truck is pretty laughable, as it wastes resources and is far less maneuverable

8)


----------



## lilEmber (May 18, 2009)

Depends on the work I guess, but even so most work on PC's is text, and for video and images linux wouldn't be the usual OS preferred by most people...all three do text the same however.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 19, 2009)

Okay, you kids knock it off or you can both go stand in the corner.

Back on topic, I saw this not so great news tidbit on Windows 7 this morning:

Dell Says Windows 7 Price is Possible Barrier

Not smart on Microsoft's part (though... I suppose it would shock us if they _did_ do something smart).


----------



## lilEmber (May 19, 2009)

I didn't expect it to cost less than windows Vista, which is about $150-200 depending where you go and what version you get.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 19, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I didn't expect it to cost less than windows Vista, which is about $150-200 depending where you go and what version you get.



Yes, which is a problem.  Windows XP was already too expensive as it is.  If Windows were free/open-source, it wouldn't be such a bad OS, but when you consider you're paying money (and a lot of it at that) for something that's kinda "meh" in its abilities, that should be making people a lot more angry than it is.

If Microsoft were smart, they'd release Windows 7 at a really low price point - like no more than $50 for the best version.  They'd have NO trouble selling it then.  That's a low-enough price that people would be willing to try it and you don't feel it's a massive loss if things didn't work out so well.

Personally, I would NEVER spent over $100 for a piece of software (with the exception of Photoshop... though I'm angry it's more than $100 too) because anything over $100 is not only unreasonable, but puts it out of the affordability of a lot of people (especially in these economic times).


----------



## Shino (May 19, 2009)

Yeah, price has always been a big issue with Microsoft products. (Well, the software, anyways.) And they wonder why there's so much piracy of products.

Oh, and Pi? If you're going to be immature, go somewhere else. Last I checked, this is a tech thread about a release date for a Microsoft OS in a Furry forum. If you feel the need to whine, there's plenty of other places on the internet to do it.
I apologize if I'm ranting here, but I'm getting sick and tired of seeing every thread here mentioning Windows devolving into a flame war.

Sheesh. I think I need sleep.


----------



## Pi (May 19, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You don't need Linux to write a program, sorry your ego is so high up there you think your OS is top-shit, which is just plain stupid.



yeah sorry you completely missed my point. go try for reading comprehension sometime.



			
				shino said:
			
		

> Oh, and Pi? If you're going to be immature, go somewhere else. Last I checked, this is a tech thread about a release date for a Microsoft OS in a Furry forum. If you feel the need to whine, there's plenty of other places on the internet to do it.



lol


----------



## Neybulot (May 21, 2009)

All I could find on the free Vista to 7 upgrade is this. Don't know how legit it is. http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=609&pgno=0


----------



## Shino (May 21, 2009)

Neybulot said:


> All I could find on the free Vista to 7 upgrade is this. Don't know how legit it is. http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=609&pgno=0


 
That's a good point, I forgot to check my partner page...

Ok, here's the deal, yes, they'll be offering free upgrades those that purchase a new Vista PC within a certain timeframe of 7's release date.

Here's the big catch, though: this is through the OEM, not the store/Microsoft/etc. This means that if you by a Pavilion laptop from Best Buy in [whenever], the (most likely) rebate for the upgrade to 7 will be through HP, not Best Buy, not Microsoft directly. I was working at Best Buy when they did the XP/Vista changeover. We simply gave people a info sheet that directed them to the manufaturer's website after a given date. From what I heard, a few months later, they were mailed a install CD and upgrade key from the OEM, after they filled out the paperwork and mailed it in. (Strangely, Gateway buyers were the only one we heard back from at the store level. Not sure why.)

Simply put, don't count on getting a free upgrade. It's quite a hassle (at least it was with Vista), and most people didn't bother. Just like most people don't bother with most mail-in rebates.

As far as 7 itsself goes, I may hold off on buying a retail copy for a while, as they're offering the RC1 for a rediculously long period of time (long after the release date), and it'll give me the time to look into if I want to continue to upgade my tower (the Mobo's topping 6 years now) or if I just want to save up for a new 7-installed tablet.


----------



## Kao (May 21, 2009)

If they do offer it for such cheap prices as Toeclaws is saying then it will be a massive hit with people. I know for one that I would buy it for so cheap and that goes for everyone else who is "OK" with Vista and wouldn't pay a massive amount of money for an upgrade. In fact the only reason I went Vista and not XP was the fact that I can use more than 3.5GB of ram due to the 64 bit capabilites - xp's was crap....

Free upgrades sounds nice


----------



## ToeClaws (May 21, 2009)

The 64-bit system is a bit of an oddity at this stage though.  On the software side of things, proper support for 64 bit is still sorely lacking.  Often, you have to run software that scales back to 32-bit, or is 32-bit because of the lack of 64 bit versions of plugins, extensions and so on.  If software were the only thing that matters, 64 bit would be completely unnecessary for the consumer at this time.

But software isn't the only factor - hardware is actually what's pushing the change.  32-bit has a lot of limits as to how much RAM a system can address, and what sort of bandwidth memory and the system bus can use.   With video cards all being 512M and up now, and systems starting to ship with 3+ G of RAM, 32-bit has reached the end of it's ability to work with the hardware.

What I wish is that the software side of things would catch the hell up!  And I don't just mean Windows here - ALL of the major OS's have issues with 100% software compatibility in 64-bit, be it the software itself, or plugins/extensions used by the software.  

But then, change in the past was slow to come too.  32-bit processors came out in 1985 in the form of the 80386-DX, but it took another 10 years before consumer-level OS's and applications began to really make use of that, and it wasn't until the Pentium Pro and K6 processors that CPUs became truly optimized for 32 bit.  So I guess in retrospect, things are moving a little faster today.


----------



## Kao (May 21, 2009)

To be completely honest, I haven't had a single program that will run on 32 bit vista and not on 64 bit vista (I have 32 on laptop and 64 on desktop). In fact the only thing that didn't work on either before was my photo printer but they soon released the driver for it. I use both computers for photo, video and sound editing + gaming so its not like I don't get much use out of them either. After hearing lots of stories about 64 bit xp, I thought I'd give the Vista version a try and I've been pleasantly suprised, W7 just looks awesome though


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (May 21, 2009)

Protip: whenever you see a specific OS fag, simply refer to ED!

Anyway, Windows 7 being less consuming than Vista is already good news. Kinda annoying that it's pricey.


----------



## Kao (May 21, 2009)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Protip: whenever you see a specific OS fag, simply refer to ED!



I've seen this around quite alot and tbh I'm quite confuzzled.. what is ED? :S

Yeh yeh nab q and all that


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (May 21, 2009)

Encyclopedia Dramatica


----------

