Windows is a massively successful product. But for a sizable chunk of its user-base, it is a constant source of frustration and confusion.
Quite smart users don't understand why their high-end 3D application can only access 2GB of RAM when they have installed 8GB.
Quite smart customers don't know which version of the Windows to buy. Why are there are six versions of something that ought to be a common platform? If someone has to ask: if I buy this version, will it work with this item? Confidence in Windows is reduced.
Hardware drivers are a constant source of frustration for some Windows users. It falls on the *user* to check for drivers and driver updates. If you opt for a 64 bit version of the OS, it's a risk whether drivers will even be available. In the Mac world, most driver updates are part of the system update mechanism.
Microsoft has made a number of decisions which make life worse for Windows users. These are both engineering decisions and sales&marketing decisions.
Some changes would make life better....
1) Unify the OS. The OS should be a common standard. 64 bit only. No Home/Business/Premium/Ultimate. If MS want to sell additional functionality, they should sell it. Leave 32bit support to XP.
2) Partner with key hardware manufacturers - so that officially approved drivers are automatically installed and updated by the update mechanism. MS could get revenue for doing this.
3) Prevent applications leaving hooks in the system. MS should block programs that go stomping around in Window's guts.
4) Install best-in-class virus protection right out of the gate. Buy the best AV company.
5) Prevent programming languages in applications like word processors doing bad stuff. Documents should be passive. When you load a document, you are expecting it to be data -not a mini application which does stuff to your computer.
Windows is a massively successful product. But for a sizable chunk of its user-base, it is a constant source of frustration and confusion.
The real problem is that most computer users are computer illiterate. That's a Mac problem, too, in case y'all haven't noticed. OS X is just a little bit harder to break.
The steps you outlined would help Windows in this regard, but they would also seriously piss people off. MS took several of those steps with Vista, look how it turned out. Now with Win7, they've neutered the UAC and some of the other security features, and it's getting them good press.
Most users of Windows would rather pay money for virus protection, someone to rebuild their system, and settle for busted behavior, then have MS change the fundamentals of the OS in such a way that they might have to learn something new. Srsly.
That, and there's a significant (hopefully dying out) contingent that believes, wholeheartedly, that if an OS *could* be better, then MS would provide it, because they are, after all, the biggest, and 'obviously' therefore the best. Therefore, no other OS can possibly be more secure, more robust, or more flexible, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant.
No, really, I've been told this to my face. The guy was a very successful stockbroker with a finance degree, and he insisted that he knew better, despite my CS PhD.
it''s whether enterprise will adopt it, consumers have little choice when they buy non-apple computer
enterprise IT guys i have talked to, say W7 is a made over vista and will wait at least 6 months BEFORE they evaluate it, the cost of IT support and hours to update have to be within a certain level. the cost can be staggering when you consider lost productivity, support, crashes, and required hardware incompatibility
this W7 will take a long time before many will adopt it. also many IT depts are seriously looking at apple as a real solution due to lower IT costs, upgrade lower costs and less productivity loss.
MS really shot themselves in the groin with vista....IT will be slow to embrace.
it''s whether enterprise will adopt it, consumers have little choice when they buy non-apple computer
enterprise IT guys i have talked to, say W7 is a made over vista and will wait at least 6 months BEFORE they evaluate it, the cost of IT support and hours to update have to be within a certain level. the cost can be staggering when you consider lost productivity, support, crashes, and required hardware incompatibility
this W7 will take a long time before many will adopt it. also many IT depts are seriously looking at apple as a real solution due to lower IT costs, upgrade lower costs and less productivity loss.
MS really shot themselves in the groin with vista....IT will be slow to embrace.
Enterprize IT was slow to embrace even XP. That is the nature of Enterprize. Our biggest customer is still refusing Vista not because they think it is bad, but because (their words) they don't know anything about it so they can't provide support to their employees (and they are obviously not willing to learn new things if they don't have to). They follow simple rule - don't complicate your life by replacing something that works good enough.
Unfortunately for MS, XP still works good enough for so many.
But I missed the point of the first part of your post - about consumers having little choice when they buy non-Apple computer. It is not like there's much choice when you do buy Mac, now, is there? At least there's much better hardware choice for Windows - I really think Apple should offer a box or two between iMac and Mac Pro...
Windows is a massively successful product. But for a sizable chunk of its user-base, it is a constant source of frustration and confusion.
Quite smart users don't understand why their high-end 3D application can only access 2GB of RAM when they have installed 8GB.
Quite smart customers don't know which version of the Windows to buy. Why are there are six versions of something that ought to be a common platform? If someone has to ask: if I buy this version, will it work with this item? Confidence in Windows is reduced.
Hardware drivers are a constant source of frustration for some Windows users. It falls on the *user* to check for drivers and driver updates. If you opt for a 64 bit version of the OS, it's a risk whether drivers will even be available. In the Mac world, most driver updates are part of the system update mechanism.
Microsoft has made a number of decisions which make life worse for Windows users. These are both engineering decisions and sales&marketing decisions.
Some changes would make life better....
1) Unify the OS. The OS should be a common standard. 64 bit only. No Home/Business/Premium/Ultimate. If MS want to sell additional functionality, they should sell it. Leave 32bit support to XP.
2) Partner with key hardware manufacturers - so that officially approved drivers are automatically installed and updated by the update mechanism. MS could get revenue for doing this.
3) Prevent applications leaving hooks in the system. MS should block programs that go stomping around in Window's guts.
4) Install best-in-class virus protection right out of the gate. Buy the best AV company.
5) Prevent programming languages in applications like word processors doing bad stuff. Documents should be passive. When you load a document, you are expecting it to be data -not a mini application which does stuff to your computer.
C.
utter tosh and FUD.
the biggest difference between Vista and OSX is perception.
That is down 25% to MS fault and 75% to great marketing by competitors.
in actual fact Leopard is a step back stability wise from Tiger.
Most users of Windows would rather pay money for virus protection, someone to rebuild their system, and settle for busted behavior, then have MS change the fundamentals of the OS in such a way that they might have to learn something new. Srsly.
That, and there's a significant (hopefully dying out) contingent that believes, wholeheartedly, that if an OS *could* be better, then MS would provide it, because they are, after all, the biggest, and 'obviously' therefore the best. Therefore, no other OS can possibly be more secure, more robust, or more flexible, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant.
No, really, I've been told this to my face. The guy was a very successful stockbroker with a finance degree, and he insisted that he knew better, despite my CS PhD.
There are some amazingly stupid people out there.
Correct you are.
My brother, who has a CS degree, told me that MS GUI designs were often the subject of "what NOT to do" in his human interfaces class. It has come to such a ridiculous level that people assume that because MS is so big they must be the best, indeed, even though these days people often want to hit their computers or throw them out of the window of their offices.
Also most people can't get past the "Mac OS is the same but just prettier than windows" mentality like the poster above. If that were true all apple had to do would be to create something similar to windows xp and throw in some really fancy graphics and buttons and such. Obviously the 1000 engineers working for apple must be busy with more than that. Leopard is a breakthrough above and beyond windows in EVERY way. I am terribly sorry many people can't see this. Beauty really is way deeper than the skin here.
what i meant was that when a consumer goes to buy a pc computer (non apple) its loaded with vista, they don't have the resources of a companies IT to load, buy xp. My IT dept can buy whatever but load, order xp. best buy does not offer a downgrade option. also my IT guys tell me thats another reason for netbook growth and interest is that they are loaded with xp, not vista. IT has a vista avoidance issue at least at my mega computer user company. I do like the idea of IT not wanting to learn new things, new support, supporting a mixed environment when it comes to vista, vs xp --it seems they are more likely to learn mac os x then vista, now thats at my IT dept.
my dept IT guy is buying and learning mac for the growing number of macs, and iPhones on their network, but doesn't want to learn vista. weird isn't it. seems he'd rather work with a" clean, neat OS--his words), then vista which he views in his words "a botched abortion"
1) Unify the OS. The OS should be a common standard. 64 bit only. No Home/Business/Premium/Ultimate. If MS want to sell additional functionality, they should sell it. Leave 32bit support to XP.
2) Partner with key hardware manufacturers - so that officially approved drivers are automatically installed and updated by the update mechanism. MS could get revenue for doing this.
3) Prevent applications leaving hooks in the system. MS should block programs that go stomping around in Window's guts.
4) Install best-in-class virus protection right out of the gate. Buy the best AV company.
5) Prevent programming languages in applications like word processors doing bad stuff. Documents should be passive. When you load a document, you are expecting it to be data -not a mini application which does stuff to your computer.
I agree with you on Windows flavours. MS licensing is such a hellish mess - I had to go through training and did licensing exam, and I only managed to learn how complicated it is. As the old saying goes, now "I know that I don't know anything" (something I was previously completely not aware of). Unfortunately MS transferred part of the same fuzzy logic to desktop as well. I could accept two flavours of OS - stripped down and fully featured version, but that's about it. Everything else is overkill.
MS did improve on denying programs' access to Vista's core. A lot of ground to improve still, but at least they did make first steps.
There is some good functionality in having scripts/macros/... in documents, but that should be limited as well.
what i meant was that when a consumer goes to buy a pc computer (non apple) its loaded with vista, they don't have the resources of a companies IT to load, buy xp. My IT dept can buy whatever but load, order xp. best buy does not offer a downgrade option. also my IT guys tell me thats another reason for netbook growth and interest is that they are loaded with xp, not vista. IT has a vista avoidance issue at least at my mega computer user company. I do like the idea of IT not wanting to learn new things, new support, supporting a mixed environment when it comes to vista, vs xp --it seems they are more likely to learn mac os x then vista, now thats at my IT dept.
my dept IT guy is buying and learning mac for the growing number of macs, and iPhones on their network, but doesn't want to learn vista. weird isn't it. seems he'd rather work with a" clean, neat OS--his words), then vista which he views in his words "a botched abortion"
That is an odd IT guy you have there
But it just takes us back to the fact that today, Vista's major (if not the only) problem is it's image. Mojave Experiment - a clever marketing as it was - did prove to some extend significant number of people would accept Vista if only they would not know it is Vista. Thus we have Windows 7 coming out soon. I wonder if W7 could have been Service Pack 2 for Vista instead of new OS, but even if it could, to many users it would still be Vista - and that obviously is not a good thing.
That aside, if you are buying PC with Windows today, there is no valid reason why it should not be Vista... so I do not see that as limiting factor. Also, if you really have any specific reason to stay with XP (like some prehistoric hardware no one bothered to make Vista compatible), you still can get number of computers with Vista Business, with included XP media and drivers. That is how my HP notebook came 2 months ago, so I would presume that option is still valid for some other models/brands... but as I said, there is really no valid reason to avoid Vista in it's current state. As example, when I moved to Vista only problem I had was my 8 years old Microtek scanner that had price tag of approximately US$60 - 70 at the time of purchase, and came only with Windows 2000 and older drivers. They worked with XP, but not with Vista. Realistically, I can't blame MS for not including drivers for almost a decade old, cheap, home scanner. I can't even blame Microtek for giving up on supporting such outdated product...
Anyway, all new Macs are coming with Leopard, I presume..? You can not get new Mac preinstalled with, say, Tiger, can you?
Honestly, Windows 7 is good. Properly the Best Window that have ever been released. ( If beta is any indication and they dont mess it up in the end )...
Meaning, it could be messed up between the promises of Beta to the actual gold master.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Installation was quick and surprisingly simple. Most hardware were detected straight after installation. Others ( 1 Devices ) were installed after Windows Update. A smooth experience compare to Vista.
Promising, but actual launch will expose Windows 7 to a very wide range of peripherals, devices, hardware, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Installed Vista Codec Pack, The Perian on Windows. EVERY Video Files i had in my HDD plays perfectly inside WMP12 ( Windows Media Player 12, for those who dont know ). And there are a lot of internet video encoded differently.
My big question is will 2008 and 2009 games all run well on 64bit Windows7 in DirectX10? How is the gaming experience? If anyone knows please report back.
My big question is will 2008 and 2009 games all run well on 64bit Windows7 in DirectX10? How is the gaming experience? If anyone knows please report back.
Well, if one uses Windows Vista, 64-bit is the way to go. Driver/hardware support is on parity with the 32-bit version (lack of drivers was XP x64's failing). And since Windows 7 uses exactly the same driver and software model, supposedly everything will work the same on it.
With many 2008 games, you practically need 64-bit anyway, because the system requirements are getting absurd, and 4+ gigs of RAM helps. It feels like a lot of modern games are being written for future hardware (in reality many are bad console ports), and that doesn't help the gaming experience if you don't have the power. That's not specifically a Windows problem, though.
Well, if one uses Windows Vista, 64-bit is the way to go. Driver/hardware support is on parity with the 32-bit version (lack of drivers was XP x64's failing). And since Windows 7 uses exactly the same driver and software model, supposedly everything will work the same on it.
With many 2008 games, you practically need 64-bit anyway, because the system requirements are getting absurd, and 4+ gigs of RAM helps. It feels like a lot of modern games are being written for future hardware (in reality many are bad console ports), and that doesn't help the gaming experience if you don't have the power. That's not specifically a Windows problem, though.
Yeah, 64-bit Vista is quite important now for gaming. 4GB of total RAM (RAM's pretty damn cheap right now) helps, and manufacturers have got the graphics and motherboard drivers improved over the past year or so.
I wonder how much RAM a modern shooter game can access. I wonder if they still max at 2GB or can handle more. And whether a 64bit version of a game makes much of a difference.
I think things have moved along quite steadily in the 64 bit Vista, DirectX10 gaming scene.
Time for me to say goodbye to XP if I rebuild my PC system. The key ingredient is an Nvidia 9800GT. 4GB of RAM, because its quite cheap... and so... 64bit Vista is important to make use of that 9800GT and 4GB of system RAM.
Even if a game only uses max 2GB RAM, at least it gives the rest of the PC 2GB of RAM to play with.
As opposed to XP 32 bit, which maxes out at total system RAM of 3GB.
My big question is will 2008 and 2009 games all run well on 64bit Windows7 in DirectX10? How is the gaming experience? If anyone knows please report back.
Much as I know, Vista 64 is fine with games in general; early problems were more due to quality of 64-bit drivers for graphic cards. If game is not native 64-bit application, it should run just fine in 32-bit "compatibility" mode.
I am personally on Vista 32, so I don't have any first-hand experience regarding that... but some of my friends/colleagues are on Vista 64 and I haven't heard from them regarding game problems... 'course it still does not mean there aren't any at all, but since they are all gamers, any significant problems would force them to move back to Vista 32 or XP - and that didn't happen.
in actual fact Leopard is a step back stability wise from Tiger.
What makes you say that?
I've had both and would say they are roughly equal from a stability standpoint. Each had some issues at certain point updates and both had a lot of issues at release.
Leopard finder though is much better and the other features such as quick look and TM make Leopard a much better version of OSX than Tiger IMO. Not to mention that Leopard is more 'teh snappy' in overall use than Tiger.
I don't get all the pining for Tiger. It was good in its day but Leopard is better.
Console gaming and computer gaming are completely different animals. That's like asking a baseball player to go play hockey because they both fall under the category of sports or one of us to go use vista because its a computer operating system.
I have a 360 but have been considering building a gaming PC, seems one can be made that will play just about any game for the price of a mac mini.. but then I remind myself that that's still a lot of money just to throw into gaming when I'm not much of a gamer.
Comments
Quite smart users don't understand why their high-end 3D application can only access 2GB of RAM when they have installed 8GB.
Quite smart customers don't know which version of the Windows to buy. Why are there are six versions of something that ought to be a common platform? If someone has to ask: if I buy this version, will it work with this item? Confidence in Windows is reduced.
Hardware drivers are a constant source of frustration for some Windows users. It falls on the *user* to check for drivers and driver updates. If you opt for a 64 bit version of the OS, it's a risk whether drivers will even be available. In the Mac world, most driver updates are part of the system update mechanism.
Microsoft has made a number of decisions which make life worse for Windows users. These are both engineering decisions and sales&marketing decisions.
Some changes would make life better....
1) Unify the OS. The OS should be a common standard. 64 bit only. No Home/Business/Premium/Ultimate. If MS want to sell additional functionality, they should sell it. Leave 32bit support to XP.
2) Partner with key hardware manufacturers - so that officially approved drivers are automatically installed and updated by the update mechanism. MS could get revenue for doing this.
3) Prevent applications leaving hooks in the system. MS should block programs that go stomping around in Window's guts.
4) Install best-in-class virus protection right out of the gate. Buy the best AV company.
5) Prevent programming languages in applications like word processors doing bad stuff. Documents should be passive. When you load a document, you are expecting it to be data -not a mini application which does stuff to your computer.
C.
Windows is a massively successful product. But for a sizable chunk of its user-base, it is a constant source of frustration and confusion.
The real problem is that most computer users are computer illiterate. That's a Mac problem, too, in case y'all haven't noticed. OS X is just a little bit harder to break.
The steps you outlined would help Windows in this regard, but they would also seriously piss people off. MS took several of those steps with Vista, look how it turned out. Now with Win7, they've neutered the UAC and some of the other security features, and it's getting them good press.
That, and there's a significant (hopefully dying out) contingent that believes, wholeheartedly, that if an OS *could* be better, then MS would provide it, because they are, after all, the biggest, and 'obviously' therefore the best. Therefore, no other OS can possibly be more secure, more robust, or more flexible, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant.
No, really, I've been told this to my face. The guy was a very successful stockbroker with a finance degree, and he insisted that he knew better, despite my CS PhD.
There are some amazingly stupid people out there.
enterprise IT guys i have talked to, say W7 is a made over vista and will wait at least 6 months BEFORE they evaluate it, the cost of IT support and hours to update have to be within a certain level. the cost can be staggering when you consider lost productivity, support, crashes, and required hardware incompatibility
this W7 will take a long time before many will adopt it. also many IT depts are seriously looking at apple as a real solution due to lower IT costs, upgrade lower costs and less productivity loss.
MS really shot themselves in the groin with vista....IT will be slow to embrace.
it''s whether enterprise will adopt it, consumers have little choice when they buy non-apple computer
enterprise IT guys i have talked to, say W7 is a made over vista and will wait at least 6 months BEFORE they evaluate it, the cost of IT support and hours to update have to be within a certain level. the cost can be staggering when you consider lost productivity, support, crashes, and required hardware incompatibility
this W7 will take a long time before many will adopt it. also many IT depts are seriously looking at apple as a real solution due to lower IT costs, upgrade lower costs and less productivity loss.
MS really shot themselves in the groin with vista....IT will be slow to embrace.
Enterprize IT was slow to embrace even XP. That is the nature of Enterprize. Our biggest customer is still refusing Vista not because they think it is bad, but because (their words) they don't know anything about it so they can't provide support to their employees (and they are obviously not willing to learn new things if they don't have to). They follow simple rule - don't complicate your life by replacing something that works good enough.
Unfortunately for MS, XP still works good enough for so many.
But I missed the point of the first part of your post - about consumers having little choice when they buy non-Apple computer. It is not like there's much choice when you do buy Mac, now, is there? At least there's much better hardware choice for Windows - I really think Apple should offer a box or two between iMac and Mac Pro...
Windows is a massively successful product. But for a sizable chunk of its user-base, it is a constant source of frustration and confusion.
Quite smart users don't understand why their high-end 3D application can only access 2GB of RAM when they have installed 8GB.
Quite smart customers don't know which version of the Windows to buy. Why are there are six versions of something that ought to be a common platform? If someone has to ask: if I buy this version, will it work with this item? Confidence in Windows is reduced.
Hardware drivers are a constant source of frustration for some Windows users. It falls on the *user* to check for drivers and driver updates. If you opt for a 64 bit version of the OS, it's a risk whether drivers will even be available. In the Mac world, most driver updates are part of the system update mechanism.
Microsoft has made a number of decisions which make life worse for Windows users. These are both engineering decisions and sales&marketing decisions.
Some changes would make life better....
1) Unify the OS. The OS should be a common standard. 64 bit only. No Home/Business/Premium/Ultimate. If MS want to sell additional functionality, they should sell it. Leave 32bit support to XP.
2) Partner with key hardware manufacturers - so that officially approved drivers are automatically installed and updated by the update mechanism. MS could get revenue for doing this.
3) Prevent applications leaving hooks in the system. MS should block programs that go stomping around in Window's guts.
4) Install best-in-class virus protection right out of the gate. Buy the best AV company.
5) Prevent programming languages in applications like word processors doing bad stuff. Documents should be passive. When you load a document, you are expecting it to be data -not a mini application which does stuff to your computer.
C.
utter tosh and FUD.
the biggest difference between Vista and OSX is perception.
That is down 25% to MS fault and 75% to great marketing by competitors.
in actual fact Leopard is a step back stability wise from Tiger.
Most users of Windows would rather pay money for virus protection, someone to rebuild their system, and settle for busted behavior, then have MS change the fundamentals of the OS in such a way that they might have to learn something new. Srsly.
That, and there's a significant (hopefully dying out) contingent that believes, wholeheartedly, that if an OS *could* be better, then MS would provide it, because they are, after all, the biggest, and 'obviously' therefore the best. Therefore, no other OS can possibly be more secure, more robust, or more flexible, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant.
No, really, I've been told this to my face. The guy was a very successful stockbroker with a finance degree, and he insisted that he knew better, despite my CS PhD.
There are some amazingly stupid people out there.
Correct you are.
My brother, who has a CS degree, told me that MS GUI designs were often the subject of "what NOT to do" in his human interfaces class. It has come to such a ridiculous level that people assume that because MS is so big they must be the best, indeed, even though these days people often want to hit their computers or throw them out of the window of their offices.
Also most people can't get past the "Mac OS is the same but just prettier than windows" mentality like the poster above. If that were true all apple had to do would be to create something similar to windows xp and throw in some really fancy graphics and buttons and such. Obviously the 1000 engineers working for apple must be busy with more than that. Leopard is a breakthrough above and beyond windows in EVERY way. I am terribly sorry many people can't see this. Beauty really is way deeper than the skin here.
my dept IT guy is buying and learning mac for the growing number of macs, and iPhones on their network, but doesn't want to learn vista. weird isn't it. seems he'd rather work with a" clean, neat OS--his words), then vista which he views in his words "a botched abortion"
Some changes would make life better....
1) Unify the OS. The OS should be a common standard. 64 bit only. No Home/Business/Premium/Ultimate. If MS want to sell additional functionality, they should sell it. Leave 32bit support to XP.
2) Partner with key hardware manufacturers - so that officially approved drivers are automatically installed and updated by the update mechanism. MS could get revenue for doing this.
3) Prevent applications leaving hooks in the system. MS should block programs that go stomping around in Window's guts.
4) Install best-in-class virus protection right out of the gate. Buy the best AV company.
5) Prevent programming languages in applications like word processors doing bad stuff. Documents should be passive. When you load a document, you are expecting it to be data -not a mini application which does stuff to your computer.
I agree with you on Windows flavours. MS licensing is such a hellish mess - I had to go through training and did licensing exam, and I only managed to learn how complicated it is. As the old saying goes, now "I know that I don't know anything" (something I was previously completely not aware of). Unfortunately MS transferred part of the same fuzzy logic to desktop as well. I could accept two flavours of OS - stripped down and fully featured version, but that's about it. Everything else is overkill.
MS did improve on denying programs' access to Vista's core. A lot of ground to improve still, but at least they did make first steps.
There is some good functionality in having scripts/macros/... in documents, but that should be limited as well.
what i meant was that when a consumer goes to buy a pc computer (non apple) its loaded with vista, they don't have the resources of a companies IT to load, buy xp. My IT dept can buy whatever but load, order xp. best buy does not offer a downgrade option. also my IT guys tell me thats another reason for netbook growth and interest is that they are loaded with xp, not vista. IT has a vista avoidance issue at least at my mega computer user company. I do like the idea of IT not wanting to learn new things, new support, supporting a mixed environment when it comes to vista, vs xp --it seems they are more likely to learn mac os x then vista, now thats at my IT dept.
my dept IT guy is buying and learning mac for the growing number of macs, and iPhones on their network, but doesn't want to learn vista. weird isn't it. seems he'd rather work with a" clean, neat OS--his words), then vista which he views in his words "a botched abortion"
That is an odd IT guy you have there
But it just takes us back to the fact that today, Vista's major (if not the only) problem is it's image. Mojave Experiment - a clever marketing as it was - did prove to some extend significant number of people would accept Vista if only they would not know it is Vista. Thus we have Windows 7 coming out soon. I wonder if W7 could have been Service Pack 2 for Vista instead of new OS, but even if it could, to many users it would still be Vista - and that obviously is not a good thing.
That aside, if you are buying PC with Windows today, there is no valid reason why it should not be Vista... so I do not see that as limiting factor. Also, if you really have any specific reason to stay with XP (like some prehistoric hardware no one bothered to make Vista compatible), you still can get number of computers with Vista Business, with included XP media and drivers. That is how my HP notebook came 2 months ago, so I would presume that option is still valid for some other models/brands... but as I said, there is really no valid reason to avoid Vista in it's current state. As example, when I moved to Vista only problem I had was my 8 years old Microtek scanner that had price tag of approximately US$60 - 70 at the time of purchase, and came only with Windows 2000 and older drivers. They worked with XP, but not with Vista. Realistically, I can't blame MS for not including drivers for almost a decade old, cheap, home scanner. I can't even blame Microtek for giving up on supporting such outdated product...
Anyway, all new Macs are coming with Leopard, I presume..? You can not get new Mac preinstalled with, say, Tiger, can you?
Honestly, Windows 7 is good. Properly the Best Window that have ever been released. ( If beta is any indication and they dont mess it up in the end )...
Meaning, it could be messed up between the promises of Beta to the actual gold master.
Installation was quick and surprisingly simple. Most hardware were detected straight after installation. Others ( 1 Devices ) were installed after Windows Update. A smooth experience compare to Vista.
Promising, but actual launch will expose Windows 7 to a very wide range of peripherals, devices, hardware, etc.
Installed Vista Codec Pack, The Perian on Windows. EVERY Video Files i had in my HDD plays perfectly inside WMP12 ( Windows Media Player 12, for those who dont know ). And there are a lot of internet video encoded differently.
Supports Matroska?
Will Snow Leopard be enough for Apple?
Yes.
My big question is will 2008 and 2009 games all run well on 64bit Windows7 in DirectX10? How is the gaming experience? If anyone knows please report back.
Well, if one uses Windows Vista, 64-bit is the way to go. Driver/hardware support is on parity with the 32-bit version (lack of drivers was XP x64's failing). And since Windows 7 uses exactly the same driver and software model, supposedly everything will work the same on it.
With many 2008 games, you practically need 64-bit anyway, because the system requirements are getting absurd, and 4+ gigs of RAM helps. It feels like a lot of modern games are being written for future hardware (in reality many are bad console ports), and that doesn't help the gaming experience if you don't have the power. That's not specifically a Windows problem, though.
Well, if one uses Windows Vista, 64-bit is the way to go. Driver/hardware support is on parity with the 32-bit version (lack of drivers was XP x64's failing). And since Windows 7 uses exactly the same driver and software model, supposedly everything will work the same on it.
With many 2008 games, you practically need 64-bit anyway, because the system requirements are getting absurd, and 4+ gigs of RAM helps. It feels like a lot of modern games are being written for future hardware (in reality many are bad console ports), and that doesn't help the gaming experience if you don't have the power. That's not specifically a Windows problem, though.
Yeah, 64-bit Vista is quite important now for gaming. 4GB of total RAM (RAM's pretty damn cheap right now) helps, and manufacturers have got the graphics and motherboard drivers improved over the past year or so.
I wonder how much RAM a modern shooter game can access. I wonder if they still max at 2GB or can handle more. And whether a 64bit version of a game makes much of a difference.
I think things have moved along quite steadily in the 64 bit Vista, DirectX10 gaming scene.
Time for me to say goodbye to XP if I rebuild my PC system. The key ingredient is an Nvidia 9800GT. 4GB of RAM, because its quite cheap... and so... 64bit Vista is important to make use of that 9800GT and 4GB of system RAM.
Even if a game only uses max 2GB RAM, at least it gives the rest of the PC 2GB of RAM to play with.
As opposed to XP 32 bit, which maxes out at total system RAM of 3GB.
My big question is will 2008 and 2009 games all run well on 64bit Windows7 in DirectX10? How is the gaming experience? If anyone knows please report back.
Much as I know, Vista 64 is fine with games in general; early problems were more due to quality of 64-bit drivers for graphic cards. If game is not native 64-bit application, it should run just fine in 32-bit "compatibility" mode.
I am personally on Vista 32, so I don't have any first-hand experience regarding that... but some of my friends/colleagues are on Vista 64 and I haven't heard from them regarding game problems... 'course it still does not mean there aren't any at all, but since they are all gamers, any significant problems would force them to move back to Vista 32 or XP - and that didn't happen.
So... I don't expect W7 will behave any worst.
in actual fact Leopard is a step back stability wise from Tiger.
What makes you say that?
I've had both and would say they are roughly equal from a stability standpoint. Each had some issues at certain point updates and both had a lot of issues at release.
Leopard finder though is much better and the other features such as quick look and TM make Leopard a much better version of OSX than Tiger IMO. Not to mention that Leopard is more 'teh snappy' in overall use than Tiger.
I don't get all the pining for Tiger. It was good in its day but Leopard is better.
MS Windows is now(has been) the Oldhead IBM. Big Blue. The Big 3.
It works but like an Oldsmobile you gotta keep going back to the dealer and getting upgrades and fixes for it.
Undue stress for the common man.
Gaming??? Go Console!!! Xbox360, PS3, Arcade.
Console gaming and computer gaming are completely different animals. That's like asking a baseball player to go play hockey because they both fall under the category of sports or one of us to go use vista because its a computer operating system.
Gaming??? Go Console!!! Xbox360, PS3, Arcade.
MS Windows is now(has been) the Oldhead IBM. Big Blue. The Big 3.
It works but like an Oldsmobile you gotta keep going back to the dealer and getting upgrades and fixes for it.
Undue stress for the common man.
Hey, I drive an Oldsmobile, and it runs fine!