I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the "OS X killer"....yet it can't even kill Windows XP.
If HP chooses to install XP rather than Win7, it will be making a very stupid decision.
I'm using Win7 on my MSI Wind netbook, and subjectively it easily outperforms XP - and that's with all the graphics options turned on.
Make no mistake, Win7 is a big step forward. Would I choose it over Mac OS X? No. But if I'm using a non-Apple PC, there's no way that I'd want to run anything else.
Perhaps Microsoft can spin this point of fact in their next ?Random Computer Shopper? ad. As is so often the case with Microsoft, the ?bug? can be transformed into a ?feature.?
In some future ad a ?technically savvy? buyer, like Giampaolo, can cite the ability to ?downgrade the OS? as a reason to buy a boat-anchor of a Windows laptop over the ?otherwise sexy? Apple laptop!
Cha-ching! In pour the customers (to the Apple stores, that is.)
Post writer you are both stupid and biased to hell. No wonder Apple fanboys are such over grown morons I mean...
Quote:
"Windows 7," CEO Steve Ballmer stated, "is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance."
Quote:
That means that many of the reasons customers have for not migrating to Vista will also be reasons for not wanting to shift to Windows 7, making the availability of an "XP downgrade" an important factor to vendors selling Windows PCs.
That doesn't make sense you sad sod performance issues is Vista's problem, if Windows 7 improves greatly on that then how did you come about with the second quote???? jack of all asses \
I almost would. I use XP at work and every day curse it because it's slow, annoying and obviously not made for modern computers. I mean its default window size is even a puny 640x480. I have had a much more pleasant experience running Vista and even more so with Win7.
Microsoft should try cramming Win7 down people's throats as much as they can. It's the first MS operating system that has really impressed me. I've actually started to prefer it over OSX. I see no valid reason to use XP or Vista over Win7.
If HP chooses to install XP rather than Win7, it will be making a very stupid decision.
I'm using Win7 on my MSI Wind netbook, and subjectively it easily outperforms XP - and that's with all the graphics options turned on.
Make no mistake, Win7 is a big step forward. Would I choose it over Mac OS X? No. But if I'm using a non-Apple PC, there's no way that I'd want to run anything else.
Yeah it's a big step forward which is why Windows XP is being kept around.
A little perspective for all these gloating, self-congratulating, and self-righteous Mac users:
There are far more people using Windows Vista right now than all flavors of Mac OSX combined.
Quote:
W7 is basically exactly the same as Vista, same look and feel, same UI, maybe there are tweaks under the hood. but at best W7 is like Vista with a service pack 2.
The same could be said about every version of Mac OSX since OSX 10.0.
MS doesn't get it. A "new" OS that is just like the old one. Dealing with activation/authentication, same issues with drivers, etc.
As an OS X user, I love that there isn't activation. Every time I have to wipe my PC, I have to call MS, convince the person I am who I say I am and 20 reasons why I should be able to install my $199 software back onto the same computer I've always had it on. It's frustrating. I think about the day that MS might not be around and my $199 software becomes a drink coaster CD.
Steve Ballmer really put the proverbial shoe in his mouth regarding how much like Vista that Win7 will be. With the PR and Techie nightmare Vista has been, I would have stayed away from it like the plague and made all of the marketing and layout of Win7 look nothing like Vista.
But I'm not MS. I'm a satisfied Mac OS X Leopard user.
MS doesn't get it. A "new" OS that is just like the old one. Dealing with activation/authentication, same issues with drivers, etc.
It's quite a bit better than the old one, but it does look the same for the most part. However, when a product fails you have to rebrand it if you want to sell it again so renaming it was a smart move on MS' part.
Quote:
As an OS X user, I love that there isn't activation.
Since you buy OS X with each Mac and the SW uses EFI, not BIOS, Apple currently has that luxury. Of all of MS' faults this is one that they have no choice over. Even Apple has a validation code for iWork and QT Pro, OS X Server and their pro apps.
Post writer you are both stupid and biased to hell. No wonder Apple fanboys are such over grown morons I mean...
Really, Mr. Ballmer. Based upon the problems you are having with your core OS offerings, don't you have better things to do than post your dribble here?
Come on, now. Repeat after me: "Developers, developers, developers, developers!"
Given that securing a computer's resources is one of the core functions of an OS, I assume that Windows 7 will finally end the need for anti-virus, which has been something unique to Windows for years.
Given that securing a computer's resources is one of the core functions of an OS, I assume that Windows 7 will finally end the need for anti-virus, which has been something unique to Windows for years.
Really, Mr. Ballmer. Based upon the problems you are having with your core OS offerings, don't you have better things to do than post your dribble here?
Come on, now. Repeat after me: "Developers, developers, developers, developers!"
Typical Apple drone, predictable as ever. I made sense and you as usual when sense is made, speak allot of crap. We both know the post writer quotes made no sense whatsoever yet you chose to defend nonsense instead This proves why Apple fannies go out and buy the latest Apple minor upgrade products for $2000
As an OS X user, I love that there isn't activation. Every time I have to wipe my PC, I have to call MS, convince the person I am who I say I am and 20 reasons why I should be able to install my $199 software back onto the same computer I've always had it on. It's frustrating. I think about the day that MS might not be around and my $199 software becomes a drink coaster CD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Even Apple has a validation code for iWork and QT Pro, OS X Server and their pro apps.
Validation codes are fine, that's not the same as "activation". Validation codes exist to prevent trivial widespread piracy with virtually no bother to the user. And you can walk into a store, pay cash for a piece of software, and go home and install it without being traced, tracked, monitored or marketed to. Activation is evil.
The last version of Photoshop I bought (and probably will EVER buy) was CS2. After that they require activation. And I never run Windows XP or newer except from within a VMWare shell where I am (almost) entirely in control the outbound communication.
suspect that the prolonged existance of XP will be an issue for sw developers. After all XP is 32bit as far as I know.And writing a sw Win7 and XP will ne really time consuming.Developers will have to choose, if XP stays as successfull, whether to take full advantage of Win7 or create an identical sw for XP, maybe avoiding some specific Win7 possibilities.
If I buy 64bit hw and run a 32bit OS on it, can I take full advantage of 64bit apps?I don't know.
Forcing developers to write for a new os and, at the same time for a 10 year old one will be expensive and time consuming.It will make the transition for MS to a fully 64bit system a lot slower.I bet Ms's strategy is,similar to Apple, to convince private users to adopt the OS and subsequently companies.
But MS itself will have to write the next version or Office for both Xp and Win7..Since they are still officially supporting it..
suspect that the prolonged existance of XP will be an issue for sw developers. After all XP is 32bit as far as I know.
XP was originally released as a 32-bit OS.
MS did briefly release two 64-bit versions of XP for Intel's Itanium processor, with a 32-bit x86 emulation layer for compatibility with existing software. One version, the 2002 edition, was based on Windows XP's code base. Another version, the 2003 edition, was based on Windows Server 2003, but with XP's default theme and bundled apps. But neither ever gained acceptance in the marketplace. XP for the Itanium was quietly killed off in 2005 when HP, the final distributor of Itanium-based workstations, pulled out.
MS followed up on this with an AMD64 (x86-64) edition of Windows XP in 2005, also based on the Windows Server 2003 code base but with XP's look and features, shortly after the Itanium edition was discontinued. Although MS maintained active sales of this OS right up until the introduction of Windows Vista, it remained on the fringes in the marketplace, with most users choosing to stick with the 32-bit edition for compatibility reasons.
Quote:
If I buy 64bit hw and run a 32bit OS on it, can I take full advantage of 64bit apps?I don't know.
32-bit editions of Windows XP cannot run 64-bit apps.
Quote:
Forcing developers to write for a new os and, at the same time for a 10 year old one will be expensive and time consuming.It will make the transition for MS to a fully 64bit system a lot slower.I bet Ms's strategy is,similar to Apple, to convince private users to adopt the OS and subsequently companies.
But MS itself will have to write the next version or Office for both Xp and Win7..Since they are still officially supporting it..
Heck, MS still officially supports Windows 2000 until July 13, 2010, but they have stopped releasing new versions of Office and Internet Explorer for that operating system.
Most developers who care about supporting the 10-year-old operating system, probably don't bother creating two versions of the software - one for the old OS and one for the new one. They probably just write the app to work with the 10-year-old OS, and stick with only those APIs which have remained stable in the intervening time according to MS's documentation.
Comments
I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the "OS X killer"....yet it can't even kill Windows XP.
If HP chooses to install XP rather than Win7, it will be making a very stupid decision.
I'm using Win7 on my MSI Wind netbook, and subjectively it easily outperforms XP - and that's with all the graphics options turned on.
Make no mistake, Win7 is a big step forward. Would I choose it over Mac OS X? No. But if I'm using a non-Apple PC, there's no way that I'd want to run anything else.
In some future ad a ?technically savvy? buyer, like Giampaolo, can cite the ability to ?downgrade the OS? as a reason to buy a boat-anchor of a Windows laptop over the ?otherwise sexy? Apple laptop!
Cha-ching! In pour the customers (to the Apple stores, that is.)
"Windows 7," CEO Steve Ballmer stated, "is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance."
That means that many of the reasons customers have for not migrating to Vista will also be reasons for not wanting to shift to Windows 7, making the availability of an "XP downgrade" an important factor to vendors selling Windows PCs.
That doesn't make sense you sad sod
I wouldn't go that far.
I almost would. I use XP at work and every day curse it because it's slow, annoying and obviously not made for modern computers. I mean its default window size is even a puny 640x480. I have had a much more pleasant experience running Vista and even more so with Win7.
Microsoft should try cramming Win7 down people's throats as much as they can. It's the first MS operating system that has really impressed me. I've actually started to prefer it over OSX. I see no valid reason to use XP or Vista over Win7.
If HP chooses to install XP rather than Win7, it will be making a very stupid decision.
I'm using Win7 on my MSI Wind netbook, and subjectively it easily outperforms XP - and that's with all the graphics options turned on.
Make no mistake, Win7 is a big step forward. Would I choose it over Mac OS X? No. But if I'm using a non-Apple PC, there's no way that I'd want to run anything else.
Yeah it's a big step forward which is why Windows XP is being kept around.
Linux PWNS.
There are far more people using Windows Vista right now than all flavors of Mac OSX combined.
W7 is basically exactly the same as Vista, same look and feel, same UI, maybe there are tweaks under the hood. but at best W7 is like Vista with a service pack 2.
The same could be said about every version of Mac OSX since OSX 10.0.
As an OS X user, I love that there isn't activation. Every time I have to wipe my PC, I have to call MS, convince the person I am who I say I am and 20 reasons why I should be able to install my $199 software back onto the same computer I've always had it on. It's frustrating. I think about the day that MS might not be around and my $199 software becomes a drink coaster CD.
Steve Ballmer really put the proverbial shoe in his mouth regarding how much like Vista that Win7 will be. With the PR and Techie nightmare Vista has been, I would have stayed away from it like the plague and made all of the marketing and layout of Win7 look nothing like Vista.
But I'm not MS. I'm a satisfied Mac OS X Leopard user.
MS doesn't get it. A "new" OS that is just like the old one. Dealing with activation/authentication, same issues with drivers, etc.
It's quite a bit better than the old one, but it does look the same for the most part. However, when a product fails you have to rebrand it if you want to sell it again so renaming it was a smart move on MS' part.
As an OS X user, I love that there isn't activation.
Since you buy OS X with each Mac and the SW uses EFI, not BIOS, Apple currently has that luxury. Of all of MS' faults this is one that they have no choice over. Even Apple has a validation code for iWork and QT Pro, OS X Server and their pro apps.
Post writer you are both stupid and biased to hell. No wonder Apple fanboys are such over grown morons
Really, Mr. Ballmer. Based upon the problems you are having with your core OS offerings, don't you have better things to do than post your dribble here?
Come on, now. Repeat after me: "Developers, developers, developers, developers!"
A little perspective for all these gloating, self-congratulating, and self-righteous Mac users:
There are far more people using Windows Vista right now than all flavors of Mac OSX combined.
So, I suppose that when ill-informed corporations dictate the use of a "standard" OS - that has nothing to do with those numbers?
With that logic Apple should bring back the Superbowl "Lemmings" ad.
My point being that neither was a good decision.
So, I suppose that when ill-informed corporations dictate the use of a "standard" OS - that has nothing to do with those numbers?
With that logic Apple should bring back the Superbowl "Lemmings" ad.
That brings me way back.
That brings me way back.
Ah, the calvary arrives...
Given that securing a computer's resources is one of the core functions of an OS, I assume that Windows 7 will finally end the need for anti-virus, which has been something unique to Windows for years.
Doesn't look like it.
Really, Mr. Ballmer. Based upon the problems you are having with your core OS offerings, don't you have better things to do than post your dribble here?
Come on, now. Repeat after me: "Developers, developers, developers, developers!"
I never have to pay to upgrade my operating system. And I get every single upgrade with all the latest features as soon as it comes out.
Linux PWNS.
What does the Linux Desktop pwn actually???
As an OS X user, I love that there isn't activation. Every time I have to wipe my PC, I have to call MS, convince the person I am who I say I am and 20 reasons why I should be able to install my $199 software back onto the same computer I've always had it on. It's frustrating. I think about the day that MS might not be around and my $199 software becomes a drink coaster CD.
Even Apple has a validation code for iWork and QT Pro, OS X Server and their pro apps.
Validation codes are fine, that's not the same as "activation". Validation codes exist to prevent trivial widespread piracy with virtually no bother to the user. And you can walk into a store, pay cash for a piece of software, and go home and install it without being traced, tracked, monitored or marketed to. Activation is evil.
The last version of Photoshop I bought (and probably will EVER buy) was CS2. After that they require activation. And I never run Windows XP or newer except from within a VMWare shell where I am (almost) entirely in control the outbound communication.
If I buy 64bit hw and run a 32bit OS on it, can I take full advantage of 64bit apps?I don't know.
Forcing developers to write for a new os and, at the same time for a 10 year old one will be expensive and time consuming.It will make the transition for MS to a fully 64bit system a lot slower.I bet Ms's strategy is,similar to Apple, to convince private users to adopt the OS and subsequently companies.
But MS itself will have to write the next version or Office for both Xp and Win7..Since they are still officially supporting it..
suspect that the prolonged existance of XP will be an issue for sw developers. After all XP is 32bit as far as I know.
XP was originally released as a 32-bit OS.
MS did briefly release two 64-bit versions of XP for Intel's Itanium processor, with a 32-bit x86 emulation layer for compatibility with existing software. One version, the 2002 edition, was based on Windows XP's code base. Another version, the 2003 edition, was based on Windows Server 2003, but with XP's default theme and bundled apps. But neither ever gained acceptance in the marketplace. XP for the Itanium was quietly killed off in 2005 when HP, the final distributor of Itanium-based workstations, pulled out.
MS followed up on this with an AMD64 (x86-64) edition of Windows XP in 2005, also based on the Windows Server 2003 code base but with XP's look and features, shortly after the Itanium edition was discontinued. Although MS maintained active sales of this OS right up until the introduction of Windows Vista, it remained on the fringes in the marketplace, with most users choosing to stick with the 32-bit edition for compatibility reasons.
If I buy 64bit hw and run a 32bit OS on it, can I take full advantage of 64bit apps?I don't know.
32-bit editions of Windows XP cannot run 64-bit apps.
Forcing developers to write for a new os and, at the same time for a 10 year old one will be expensive and time consuming.It will make the transition for MS to a fully 64bit system a lot slower.I bet Ms's strategy is,similar to Apple, to convince private users to adopt the OS and subsequently companies.
But MS itself will have to write the next version or Office for both Xp and Win7..Since they are still officially supporting it..
Heck, MS still officially supports Windows 2000 until July 13, 2010, but they have stopped releasing new versions of Office and Internet Explorer for that operating system.
Most developers who care about supporting the 10-year-old operating system, probably don't bother creating two versions of the software - one for the old OS and one for the new one. They probably just write the app to work with the 10-year-old OS, and stick with only those APIs which have remained stable in the intervening time according to MS's documentation.