PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7??



hotdog182
04-06-2008, 07:46 PM
Not too sure if it's been noted.

But i came across this

Windows 7 (http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9911470-56.html?tag=txt.caro)

fearlessfreap24
04-06-2008, 08:44 PM
why dont they make it look and work just like OSX and get it over with.

Derek McNelly
04-06-2008, 08:49 PM
I'm hoping this goes over better than Vista.

I like my Mac market share how I like my gas prices.

Low.

Leukeh
04-07-2008, 02:33 AM
Microsoft developers ahead of schedule? lol

powermacj7
04-07-2008, 05:32 AM
Microsoft developers ahead of schedule? lol

That statement is ironic within itself. Microsoft plans to just forget Vista, and move on, keeping the causalities to a minimal.

fleurya
04-07-2008, 05:39 AM
^^ probably the best move, honestly. Just cut your losses and move on. Though, I seriously doubt anything will come out in a year. Even some kind of beta release is difficult to believe, that is, unless it's just a warmed-over XP or (God help us) Vista.

Wait a minute, didn't that guy quit???

mac57
04-07-2008, 12:32 PM
Vista may become to the XP line what ME was to the 9x line - a release that is universally reviled and best forgotten!

Kash
04-07-2008, 12:46 PM
The problem with Windows is legacy support. The ability to run old hardware and software is what is essentially holding Windows back. If Microsoft were to pull an Apple and go the OS X route with an entirely new architecture and an emulation layer for older programs, Windows could actually become a great OS.

Derek McNelly
04-07-2008, 01:41 PM
The problem with Windows is legacy support. The ability to run old hardware and software is what is essentially holding Windows back. If Microsoft were to pull an Apple and go the OS X route with an entirely new architecture and an emulation layer for older programs, Windows could actually become a great OS.

In some ways I agree, but in others, I have to disagree.

Part of what makes Windows, well, Windows is the fact that it is compatible with so many legacy applications and devices.

I for one am miffed that Apple completely cut classic Mac OS support in OS X 10.4 and .5 on the Intel Macs. I really do wish they would've kept at least some sort of emulation (even as an optional install) in the OS.

With Windows, I at least know that my legacy applications are going to run, and that old Sound Blaster that I've been using in my computers since, oh, 1998 won't have to be completely dumped for a newer (and in my opinion inferior) card.

Wow. You've brought out the part of me that still has respect for Windows.

Well, 2k and older.

louishen
04-07-2008, 03:46 PM
You can get classic support on Intel macs through a third party app

I guess part of the reason why OS X runs so well s that apple often choose just to cut out some backwards compatibility to stop bloatware

I guess MS have realised what a dog Vista has become and they need to come up with a fix that does not have the name Vista associated with it

D R
04-07-2008, 11:25 PM
Hopefully no one actually thought that Vista was the last OS coming from Microsoft. It would be pretty foolish thinking if so.

The Vindicat3d
04-07-2008, 11:28 PM
Hopefully no one actually thought that Vista was the last OS coming from Microsoft. It would be pretty foolish thinking if so.

I don't think anyone did... lol that's where they get all of they're money from, they would probably go out of business if they stopped makes OSs and people would be in chaos! Hehe :Smirk:

ogacon
04-07-2008, 11:37 PM
Rather funny how Windows makes most of its money from OS's... when CLEARLY there is a superior alternative ;)

Derek McNelly
04-07-2008, 11:39 PM
Rather funny how Windows makes most of its money from OS's... when CLEARLY there is a superior alternative ;)

LINUX

nbrowser
04-08-2008, 02:23 AM
On the Vista hate front.........

And on another Windows related note, MS has given XP a 2 year extension in production....because of lower powered computers still being made and developing countries wanting it still, they've even extended the support period so I'm gonna make a prediction, XP will have a fourth service pack probably Q2 of 2009 while Vista langushes until Windows 7 is released........yes I tried Vista, yes on a high performance computer, it runs better with XP........'nuff said.

mac57
04-08-2008, 01:17 PM
I have a home built computer that I have been running Linux on for quite a while. I decided to add Win XP to it recently, so that I can take advantage of a few web sites that use ActiveX controls, one of the few things that Macs just can't do. My monitor (Viewsonic VP2130b) has two video inputs, so I connected both my Mac and this PC to the same monitor and I can switch the display back and forth at the touch of one button. Not quite VMWare Fusion, but not a bad setup.

I got a fresh copy of Win XP via eBay and installed it yesterday. Whilst Vista continues to make negative headlines with its huge hardware footprint, its massive resource needs and its ongoing problems, this new copy of Win XP just slid right onto the computer like a hand into a glove. The install has to go down in my books as one of the easiest and most complete OS installs I have ever done. It picked all of the hardware right away, with the exception of a third party IDE controller I had added (in addition to the two on the motherboard).

The machine is unconditionally stable, very fast and almost a pleasure to work with.

Against a backdrop like XP, I can see why Vista is struggling so hard. We can only hope that Vista fades away quickly, replaced by a hopefully more capable successor, Windows 7.

None of this makes me pine to use Windows again though. The whole time I am in Windows I miss "simple things" like my widgets, my menu bar meters, and lots of other trappings of Mac OS X. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to add a comment about XP vs. Vista based on this very pleasant install experience. Microsoft got a lot of stuff right with XP.

andersmj
04-08-2008, 01:45 PM
I like my Mac market share how I like my gas prices.

Low.

You're so right.

knightlie
04-09-2008, 08:21 AM
LINUX

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

mac57
04-09-2008, 11:10 AM
Thanks, I needed a laugh.

Linux may not be for "the average bear" yet, but I tend to agree with Derek - it is superior to Windows, at least when it is used by an experienced person. Given the choice between Windows and Linux, in a world that didn't contain Macs (gasp!) I would go for Linux. In fact, I did! When I had finally had enough of Windows I moved to Linux. It was only later that I rediscovered Macs and then moved from Linux to Mac.

Linux these days is fast, stable, FREE, and supported by a HUGE range of excellent applications, including Mac and Windows favorites such as Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice. The Linux KDE GUI is drop dead gorgeous, beating Windows XP by a mile, and Windows Vista (my gawd it's GUI is ugly) by a thousand miles.

I would recommend trying out a live CD version of openSuSE 10.3. I promise you will be amazed.

Derek McNelly
04-09-2008, 11:48 AM
You're so right.

For everyone but Apple, that's a good thing.


Linux may not be for "the average bear" yet, but I tend to agree with Derek - it is superior to Windows, at least when it is used by an experienced person. Given the choice between Windows and Linux, in a world that didn't contain Macs (gasp!) I would go for Linux. In fact, I did! When I had finally had enough of Windows I moved to Linux. It was only later that I rediscovered Macs and then moved from Linux to Mac.

Linux these days is fast, stable, FREE, and supported by a HUGE range of excellent applications, including Mac and Windows favorites such as Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice. The Linux KDE GUI is drop dead gorgeous, beating Windows XP by a mile, and Windows Vista (my gawd it's GUI is ugly) by a thousand miles.

I would recommend trying out a live CD version of openSuSE 10.3. I promise you will be amazed.

Before I used OS X, I used the dual boot combo of Windows 2000 and Fedora Core. Tried Ubuntu for a while, but it just was too bloated to be of any use to me. Then I went full time OS X (just this month, in fact, was I able to get all my Windows programs to work under OS X) and I get frustrated EVERY TIME I have to use Windows.

I've gotten jaded. OS X just seems so much more intuitive.

mac57
04-09-2008, 12:01 PM
able to get all my Windows programs to work under OS X

Hopefully this was a typo Derek? Did you actually get all of your Windows programs to run under OS X? I don't think that this is possible, unless you are using VMWare or some such to also run Windows on the same machine.

Derek McNelly
04-09-2008, 12:38 PM
Hopefully this was a typo Derek? Did you actually get all of your Windows programs to run under OS X? I don't think that this is possible, unless you are using VMWare or some such to also run Windows on the same machine.

Not a typo, but the only Windows programs I was really missing were Unreal Tournament 2004 and well, that was it.

Luckily I found a Mac version of it that would run on my machine, and since I own a copy (read: License) of it for Windows (currently not installed on any machine, Mac or PC), I went ahead and downloaded the Mac .iso.

Runs pretty darn good, I must say, especially for an integrated graphics chip. (The GMA950 is a lot better than people give it credit for.)

mac57
04-09-2008, 02:03 PM
Phew. OK, that makes sense. And I am glad that it worked out so well for you.

Derek McNelly
04-09-2008, 05:59 PM
Phew. OK, that makes sense. And I am glad that it worked out so well for you.

Nah, I managed to find the source code for every Windows program I ever used and recompiled it for Cocoa. :P

I really wasn't all that dependent on Windows to begin with. 99% of my programs were multi-platform anyway, and the few that weren't there were better alternatives to.

harryb2448
04-09-2008, 06:09 PM
ME was a complete write off, 2000 a little better, XP reasonable, Vista back to ME status so see no improvement unfortunately. Same problems under a different name don't make it better Bill.

Derek McNelly
04-09-2008, 06:41 PM
ME was a complete write off, 2000 a little better, XP reasonable, Vista back to ME status so see no improvement unfortunately. Same problems under a different name don't make it better Bill.

I could not disagree about 2000 more. I think that was the best version of Windows Microsoft has released to date. It was stable, fast, and had low system requirements.

XP was really just 2000 with added eye candy.

mac57
04-09-2008, 08:18 PM
Agreed. Windows 2000 (and Windows NT 4.0 before it, which I used for years) were both superb for their time. Absolutely stable, fast, and able to run on even the lowest spec'd of my computers.

ME was a mess, I agree, but treated properly, I didn't find it much better/worse than the celebrated Windows 98. The whole 9x stream, of which ME was the last member, was a little fragile.

Vista, now Vista is a REAL mess. Despite being how many years too late, it is almost as if they let out of the lab way before it had even finished basic sanity testing. And the GUI is UGLY in the extreme, to my mind. I always say that it looks like an old Linux window manager on a bad hair day!