What are you going to do with windows?

General Discussion (off topic) Anything and everyt
#1

Windows 7 will be the mainstream product for MS.
After they bring out Windows Vista, home users and corp users has been repulsed Vista.
Some people who have mid class system still like Vista. But some people who have
lower class system have been repulsed Vista.
This was just same as when windows XP came out.At that time, many people
who didn’t like windows XP didn’t want to use windows XP because of their lower class
Hardware systems(yes, it’s related with Money).
Also many people worried about the comparability with windows XP at that time.
But those people who don’t think about software developements always think
they are right. But they are wrong.
Do the software companies go to bed while the new version of OS is moving aroud or
before come out?
In the real field of software developement, software companies already perceived
what is going to be happened.
Yes.
Windows 7 will replace Vista and other windows.
It will take few years to do so just same as windows XP did.
There are many companies which are developing their products are capable of
Windows 7 NOW.
Are they stupid?
No…
They already found what is the real future.
Many software developing companies are developing their products
which have windows 7 comparability.
Do they provide people windows 98, xp perfectly for the future?
It is impossible to do that.
For instance, most of companies who provide their security products for Online Banking
already are developing softwares for windows 7.
But in the future they will not support windows XP anymore.
Why?
It’s not that easy to develope softwares having comparability for all of OS.
To do so, there will be required massive amount of money, developers.
Also, many governments that have ‘Public Procurement Service’ are already
preparing for Windows 7.
Do you think ‘Public Procurement Service’ will buy old version of windows?
Do you think Corps will buy old version of windows?
The answer is NO.
Let’s think about another example.
Anybody using Adobe products with windows 98?
In case of Adobe CS4, it does not support windows98 right?
Is it going to support windows XP in the future? I can say it is not.
(if we want use full fetures, should use vista or windows 7)
But somebody who does not know about software developement can say yes.
And we should think about 64bit systems.
Can you develope 64bit softwares with 32bit windows system?
(Are you kidding me?)
There is 64bit windows XP system. But there are very few people are using 64bit XP.
But many people are using 64bit Vista system now.
Why?
We can buy memories with low price.
Because Chicken Game is over now.(it will not be getting high price,
because of Global Economy Crisis)
Also many softwares and games require high amount of memories,
at least 4Gb of momories required or recommended.
Can you use 4Gb in the Windows XP as a normal way?
No, you can’t.
That’s why many people want the system which can support over 4Gb memories now a days.
That’s why many people just throw aways windows XP.
There are many people who can buy mid level system and high end system.
It doesn’t matter whether we like Vista or not.
If we want to use over 4Gb memories there is only one thing we can do. Using vista or Windows7.
Also there are more people who can buy only low level system or can’t buy anything.
(not even momory, 64bit system give us faster than 32bit
If you don’t know it, install 64bit system and feel it)
Let’s think.
The software companies are not volunteer working companies.
Their purpose is the Money.
Are they going to take care of somebody who can’t buy their products?
Are they going to take care of somebody who can use only low level system?
MS’s tactic is put windows 7 to mainstream products.
Yes, Windows 7 works really great.
(if you want feel it, install and use it)
I don’t like their tactic.
But I do know it is true.

What are you going to do?
Just stay with Old one?
or think about the future and prepare for it?
Before you talk about it, there is very important thing you should know.
MS’s finance is not good.
What are they going to do? ???

#2

GANDA is sleeping.
;D ;D ;D

#3
At that time, many people who didn't like windows XP didn't want to use windows XP because of their lower class Hardware systems
I had a K6 II 500 and 64 megs of ram with a 2 gig HD when XP came out. I still used it.

Vista, as we know, is a flop. Seven, is Vista with a different UI. You don’t need to say any more than that.

Forgot to say. If push comes to shove, then Linux fits the bill perfectly. Wine, or any virtual machine app will take care of the rest.

#4

Win7 is definitely not simply Vista with a new GUI. Much faster, smaller, and stable compared to Vista. It will give XP a run for its money with respect to performance. It has been termed ‘What Vista should have been’.

#5

Not from where i sit. For a start, the basic OS is the same.

The release candidate is using 7.3 gigs of space. Not that much less than Vista used, and for what?
I certainly wouldn’t call it much faster.

Companies are already holding back.

#6

Windows 7 is even faster than windows XP.

#7

Currently on Win 7 on older hardware and I will keep on using it. It is faster and more playful than Vista and has some nice new features/

Win 7 beta is faster than XP when copying large files for example. Comparing an older and new OS is not very useful as the two are made with different hardware in mind. Even Limux grew heavier over the years. It is merely flame bait.

For whom it concerns the MSDN blog on developing Win 7 is very informative and will learn that enhancing performance was an important design goal for Win 7.

There are companies who keep developing for older versions of Windows. Opera browser still supports back to Windows 95 for example. I guess there are different opinions in business about what business models to follow.

#8

7.3 GB is not much nowadays. You can get a 1 TB (1,000 GB) HDD for just a bit over $100. Also, in comparison, the game Crysis requires 12 GB of free space on the HDD. :wink:

#9

How can Seven be faster at file transfers than XP?

The hard drive is a bottleneck, so no matter what system you use, you can’t go any faster. I have a Raptor. Even though it’s “old” OS, XP maxes it out, transfer wise. Seven won’t better that. Of course, there might be some caching trick at work, to give the illusion it’s faster, but in reality, it isn’t so.

Yes, Linux has expanded, but it still requires less outlay than Seven.

7.3 GB is not much nowadays. You can get a 1 TB (1,000 GB) HDD for just a bit over $100. Also, in comparison, the game Crysis requires 12 GB of free space on the HDD.
With respect, Ragwing. That is one of the replies I hear all the time, and I have to say. It annoys me.

Not everyone has the funds to get what’s needed. Some people will never be lucky enough to own a 1TB drive in their life time.

7.3 gigs is still a ludicrous amount to run a desktop OS. It’s about Six times the amount XP uses. Certainly, there isn’t Six times the value, or performance, usefulness, or anything else. If it came loaded with cool software, then fair enough. As it stands, it doesn’t.

Crysis has an excuse. It is large graphics and sound. The rest of the space is required to run it on an antiquated OS running on antiquated hardware. Antiquated in the fact it is still tied to the old DOS architecture.

#10

Unfortunately I can’t find the article where this was tested

Yes, Linux has expanded, but it still requires less outlay than Seven.
That shows my point that OS's grow over time.
With respect, Ragwing. That is one of the replies I hear all the time, and I have to say. It annoys me.

Not everyone has the funds to get what’s needed. Some people will never be lucky enough to own a 1TB drive in their life time

7.3 gigs is still a ludicrous amount to run a desktop OS. It’s about Six times the amount XP uses. Certainly, there isn’t Six times the value, or performance, usefulness, or anything else. If it came loaded with cool software, then fair enough. As it stands, it doesn’t…

It means you can get a much smaller, but still big enough HD, for not too much money and breathe some extra life in older hardware and still run Win 7 (assuming you have the minimum of 1 GB of RAM).

Crysis has an excuse. It is large graphics and sound. The rest of the space is required to run it on an antiquated OS running on antiquated hardware. Antiquated in the fact it is still tied to the old DOS architecture.
No comment
#11

I don’t know how you manage to say “7” is more stable than Vista…
Although I hate Vista, still I had to use one.
Here’s why.
And I found Vista is quite stable so far.

I never had a performance hiccup; even though I never shut my Vista down.
I change the shutdown function to Hibernate; and my Vista would snap back in 15 to 30 seconds.

I won’t say “7” is better over any Windows released right now.
Considering it’s still in Beta stage…
And Microsoft’s habit on changing things around on their own benefits.

#12

Microsoft does actually listen. Please read the MSDN blog about developing Win 7 for which I gave in the url in the above.

I do agree Vista is a stable product. On my older hardware Win7 is faster. I like Win 7 a lot. It has nice new and handy features and has a more playful touch to it.

#13

Thanks for the link, Eric.
I’ve read it.
And I’m not too impress.

Microsoft HAD to do this.
It’s not because they WILL too, but they HAD!

So, in the meantime; I won’t be mesmerized over with 7’s performance or issue over any other Windows.

And for everyone else that stated “7” had a faster transfer rate in copying/moving around files; and thus worth the 7,3Gb - try to take a look at this “baby” here.

*. Teracopy is free for home user, and run well on Vista.

…how’s that justified the 7,3Gb?

#14

EDIT: Sorry Soy Joy, I missed your post.

Unfortunately I can't find the article where this was tested
Doesn't need an article. The fact is indisputable.
That shows my point that OS's grow over time.
True, but some grow exponentialy.
It means you can get a much smaller, but still big enough HD, for not too much money and breathe some extra life in older hardware and still run Win 7 (assuming you have the minimum of 1 GB of RAM).
If you can find a small hd these days.

The definition of “Older hardware” is open to debate.

It wouldn’t really work would it. On inbuilt mainboard video users systems at least, the video requirements needed to see what the hype was all about would see to it that the experience was wasted. It has been a thorn, as far as Vista was concerned, and M$ know it.

Wasn’t one of Vista’s biggest turn offs, the steep requirements? How come nothing has been done about the very reason many won’t wear it?
In fact, the picture is worse, since Vista home basic would run in 512 Megs.

Some older boards that will run the required CPU spec won’t handle the RAM needs. Can you imagine Seven on a P3 1 Gig?

No comment
Yep! there's not much anyone can do about it now.

I checked the MSDN blog and it goes into some detail about the window dressing that’s coming with Seven.
Touch screens, AKA what a tablet PC already does. Old hat.
Aero snap? Allows you to make two windows into a full sreen file manager? WOW!

Where’s the option to allow users to set up individual screens to the size and resolution they want to run an app on, using an inividual basis? Something that didn’t require the complete display to blank while the requested screen was enabled (and the current one, disabled). Where you can see all the different screens at once without any switching required, even if those screens don’t have the same resolution. Now that would be useful!

This performance issue raised a smile:

We discovered that by just trimming the shutdown and logoff WAV files, we could save up to 400 ms. Every little bit counts
Then why not just allow the option to have no sound scheme at all in the first place? Plus, the startup animation is wasting time. Get rid of that.

I’ve seen other reports of things done. The list of (mainly) visual changes that have been made fails to impress.

M$ collapsed in the face of adversity and knobbled UAC. The one Vista feature I welcomed. That, if nothing else, is a kick in the teeth for security minded people everywhere.

#15

I just want to explain this to everyone that seems can’t grasp the reality behind 7’s false transfer rate.

Today, on our so called modern PC we own and use right now…
We STILL have to and dependent on an ancient technology.
This technology is still in use by 1 important device, and several optional device on our PC nowadays.

And this important device is called: [tada!] Hard Disc.

Why Hard Disc?
It’s because the Hard Disc still heavily depends on the WHEEL!
And the same goes to CD/DVD/Blu-Ray/HD-DVD device.
It’s a bloody wheel…

And a wheel can only go as fast as the rolling mechanism it depends on.
It’s archaic and left behind the dust by the Flash Disc concept and architecture.

And why is that today’s OS can’t grasp any higher transfer rate upon this device, leaves a seriously big question mark…

#16

24 SSD in raid. Over 2 Gig a second transfer. Check the speed of that!

#17

SSD is fast and good.
But I got rid of SSD from my PC.
Sometimes, it makes PC freezing when I use it for OS.
If I use pc as a purpose of playing games or surfing websites, I use it.
But I don’t. My work should not be interpreted by anything even 0.1 sec.
It makes a lot of trouble.
Otherwise, SSD works great.
For your guidance, that yutube link brought to you by Samsung.

Creasy.