Amiga.org
Operating System Specific Discussions => Other Operating Systems => Topic started by: mdv2000 on March 28, 2010, 03:18:04 AM
-
Okay, ever since I been seeing the stupid "Windows 7 was my idea " crap - I just can't keep quiet anymore.
So here goes - here is the primary version of Windows we have seen:
1.) Windows 1.0
2.) Windows 2.0
3.) Windows 3.0 (3.11 for workgroups more common one seen)
41.) Windows 95
5.) Windows 98
6.) Windows ME (Millennium)
7.) Windows 2000
8.) Windows XP
9.) Windows Vista
Now Windows 7 - but its the 10th version of Windows. (I am not even counting Windows NT editions - versions that you couldn't get on low end Dells, HP, Gateway or Server Editions - But the 9 I listed where ALL marketed as versions of windows and sold as "New OS" when released. So what the hell gives? Why hasn't everyone call MS on this crap marketing lie?
And don't get me its the 7th unique Build crap - I guaran-damn-tee there is still windows 1.0 source code somewhere in Windows "7".
Just had to get that off my chest while writing this on my Amiga 939 (That's what I call my Dual Core AMD-939 - if MS can make up a number/name why can't I?)
Later
-
Maybe "7" is their lucky number, good enough for me.
-
To be fair, the Amiga 1000 wasn't the 1000th Amiga, and the 500 want the 500th. Who cares how many versions of Windows there have been, and what number they assign now. They can the the next version Windows L1/2, and it won't make a difference on how it runs.
-
They are probably copying Ubuntu. Or they wanted to separate it from Vista. They will probably go 8 then if that sucks the next one will be named Windows Eye Candy edition EE for short.
-
Oh come on, not another "let's bash MS cuz Bill Gates is evil"...
Windows 7 has '7' as its version number, because it is in the NT 'branch' of Windows, as opposed to Windows 95, 98 or ME.
With Windows Vista having the official version number 6, there's no big deal in Windows 7 having '7' as it's version number. The only more or less weird thing with the NT version numbers was that the first real version of Windows NT was 3.1 (thus officialy named Windows NT 3.1). This was done for marketing purposes, as at the same time Windows 3.1 (which was developed into Windows 95, 98, ME) was already available.
Be happy they started using version numbers again, as opposed to names like 'XP' or 'Vista'.
This is (and should be!) common knowledge. Check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt) for reference.
-
Windows NT 3.1 was initially meant to be OS/2 version 3, and was partially developed together with IBM, which is why it has version number 3.
The .1 was added to make sure people didn't think it was worse than Windows 3.1 which was already released at the time.
-
Funny you're bringing this up. yesterday I had to install Windows 7 because apparently my Vista 'evaluation version' ran out. After hours of struggling with various BSOD's, lockups and crashes I reinstalled Vista instead. It's always the same: only after the first service pack is released Windows is stable enough to be usable.
Anyway I was thinking about the version number 7 aswell, and thought it was supposed to be something like this:
1: Windows 3.1
2: Windows 95
3: Windows 98
4: Windows 2000
5: Windows XP
6: Windows Vista
7: Windows 7
But I guess I was wrong.
-
With Windows Vista having the official version number 6, there's no big deal in Windows 7 having '7' as it's version number.
if you run the ''about windows'' you will see that windows 7 have the version 6.1
it's more like windows vista service pack 3:laughing:
-
Windows 7 is easily the best Windows since Windows 2000.
To somehow suggest that there wouldn't have been real progress since Windows 1 is intellectually dishonest and outright stupid.
-
I don't care about numbering since it's never an issue on every item sold even that is a car model, a computer model or OS version :)
I agree 100% with Piru since Windows 7 are definitely the best windows since 2000 even since the 1st betas.
-
as I was pointing out on another thread regarding what AmigaOS was orignally called.......M$ OS's are not exactly as clear cut as the label suggests.
1. PCDOS/MSDOS Version 1 to 7 could be loaded with the Windows 1.0 to Windows ME GUI respectively. (Ok by the time of 95,98 and ME the lines were blurring somewhat but you could boot and run software using a single boot disk with no GUI in sight.)
2. Windows NT 3.1 for Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha, with PowerPC, Itanium and AMD64 was fully GUI running for the first time ntoskrnl.exe which did not run on top of any other OS Kernel with its own HAL.
3. Windows NT 3.5
4. Windows NT 4.0
5. Windows 2000/2000 Server (Version 5)
6. Windows XP/2003 Server (Version 5.1)
7. Windows Vista/2008 Server and Windows 7/Windows 2008 R2 (Version 6 and 6.1)
Thats were I see we are at, as the underlying Windows 7 OS is still Vista but tweaked. ( I think I read somewhere they have same internal version no.)
But I would suggest like Windows 98 Se and Me....Vista is toast compared to Windows 7 the experience is excellent generally.
-
if you run the ''about windows'' you will see that windows 7 have the version 6.1
it's more like windows vista service pack 3:laughing:
Oops!
Windows 2000 calls itself Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1 (and Windows Server 2003 is NT 5.2)
Windows Vista is Windows NT 6
It would have made perfect sense if Windows 7 was Windows NT 7...
This also holds if you go by the internal versions of Win 9x editions:
Windows 95 4.00.950
Windows 98 4.10.1998
Windows 98SE 4.10.2222
Windows ME 4.90.3000
-
is there an honest point to debating the version numbering? Sometimes they slap a number at the end, other times its a word, sometimes its both!
XP was eXPerience, maybe 7 isnt actually the version #, and is a secret riddle.
either way, it could have been called Windows TreeStump and it would be just as nice.
-
Vista is 6.1, so therefore 7 is 7.0
Approx the number cpu cores you need to run it.
-
That may have been true for Vista but 7 runs happily on single core processors.
-
Am I alone just thinking is funny for Windoze haters to find it so hard to complain about 7 that they are having to resort to a "fault" with it's name?
Why cant people face the facts and say it's a decent OS, just like XP was, NT (Sever 2003 and 2000)?
I felt like posting my views on "Windows is buggy, lets buy a mac" topic but alot of the comments where so daft I didn't see the justification to put some common sence on there.
Simple answer is Windows is only as good as the person who installs it (With the exception of 98 and ME). Mac's are far from perfect if you ask me, not bad machines at all but these days there's fewer reasons why you would buy one of them over a PC partly thanks to it's Intel CPU.
-
Microsoft have done their marketing very well. Bag the old OS and pump the new.
There is bugga all difference in speed in "real terms" between XP SP3, Vista SP2 and Win 7.
In my mind there is bugga all OS difference between Vista and 7.
In 7's advertising they continue to mention features that are came out in Vista.
I saw a review of the new resource monitor capabilities of Windows 7 on a technology review site. All the features it pushed were available on Vista.
Actually I heard a rumour that sometimes Windows 7's accellerator can get stuck and it's brakes can feel kind of "funny". I think Micro$oft better apologise and do a recall. LOL.
Gertsy
-
Okay, ever since I been seeing the stupid "Windows 7 was my idea " crap - I just can't keep quiet anymore.
So here goes - here is the primary version of Windows we have seen:
1.) Windows 1.0
2.) Windows 2.0
3.) Windows 3.0 (3.11 for workgroups more common one seen)
41.) Windows 95
5.) Windows 98
6.) Windows ME (Millennium)
7.) Windows 2000
8.) Windows XP
9.) Windows Vista
Now Windows 7 - but its the 10th version of Windows. (I am not even counting Windows NT editions - versions that you couldn't get on low end Dells, HP, Gateway or Server Editions - But the 9 I listed where ALL marketed as versions of windows and sold as "New OS" when released. So what the hell gives? Why hasn't everyone call MS on this crap marketing lie?
And don't get me its the 7th unique Build crap - I guaran-damn-tee there is still windows 1.0 source code somewhere in Windows "7".
Just had to get that off my chest while writing this on my Amiga 939 (That's what I call my Dual Core AMD-939 - if MS can make up a number/name why can't I?)
Later
If you have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_windows you will see how windows versions are.
Windows 1 and 2 are the first generation.
Windows 3 is the second generation.
Windows 95, 98 and ME is the third generation.
(parallel is the NT series of windows, and ME is the first attempt to "merge" NT and desktop os.)
Windows 2000 is "counted" as the fourth generation, even though it never was intended as a home desktop OS. but it became one of the most popular OS from Microsoft of all time.
Windows XP is the fifth generation.
But here comes the disagreement.
Vista and windows 7
It is claimed that 7 is a different series than vista. New kernal and core.
Others claim it to be the same as Vista.
Microsoft self claims it to be the seventh generation of Windows OS.
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_versions you see another list of the windows series.
EDIT: editing some typos
-
Am I alone just thinking is funny for Windoze haters to find it so hard to complain about 7 that they are having to resort to a "fault" with it's name?
Why cant people face the facts and say it's a decent OS, just like XP was, NT (Sever 2003 and 2000)?
I'd say it's gotten worse. The only practical difference between windows 7 and windows XP is the system requrements.
"wow it looks shiny! Are there any new features I will find useful?"
"errm... Windows 7 was your idea? DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS BING BING ******* MURDER GOOGLE GRAHSSASJIDSJKDJKDSNJKDSJDNKJDJKNDSJKDS"
-
I'd say it's gotten worse. The only practical difference between windows 7 and windows XP is the system requrements.
"wow it looks shiny! Are there any new features I will find useful?"
"errm... Windows 7 was your idea? DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS BING BING ******** MURDER GOOGLE GRAHSSASJIDSJKDJKDSNJKDSJDNKJDJKNDSJKDS"
Ah that facebook factor strikes again.....Sorry HellLabs you might be a lovely in real life, but drop the caps and drop that attitude, I don't post on here for you to continuously spurt diatribes and pointless swearing. At less have the decency to * out the U......rant mode off....
PS Don't fire back I won't respond....back to LFC v Sunderland
-
"wow it looks shiny! Are there any new features I will find useful?"
Actually, you bet there is!
Compared to XP, there are tonnes of useful functions in Windows 7. Compared to Vista, not that much, but at least Win7's working properly before SP2. ;-)
-
Windows 7 has a lower internal version due to, per Microsoft, a lot of bad installers out there which do simple, stupid version checks which would break if the internal version was set to 7. Same reason they put the memory limit on Windows XP as of SP1: shitty programmers.
Windows 7 is leaps over Vista in just about every aspect, and I would not call it a Vista service pack anymore than 98 was a service pack for 95, or 2000 for NT 4. I used the betas and RCs of both Vista and 7 and, even in beta, 7 was much, much better. The only two things that keep me from moving to 7:
1) No in-place upgrade from XP. IMNSHO this is a big FU to everyone who refused to upgrade to Vista and there is no legitimate technical reason for the limitation.
2) I absolutely despise the Vista interface and that I must work my way through the equivalent of a phone tree to get to functionality I want, especially knowing it WILL change with the next Windows release.
XP x64 works very well for me, so I will stick with it until I am in a position to reload my machines or I absolutely have to move up. Renewing my MAPS subscription may help a little, too, since I have let it lapse and do not have any of the newer software :)
-
Windows seven is hands down better than XP and Vista. And YES there are major differences between Vista and 7. One of the most important being the rewrite of the Kernal, better hardware referencing and so on do the research from places other than Windows bashing sights. Upgrade from XP to 7 LoadWB????? Why?? As a network infrastructure and server specialist I would never reccomend upgrading an OS. What u get is sludge from the old OS sitting there which can cause instability, slowness ect. You should ultimately if you can create a complete image of your system, backup ALL files (pics, music, favorites ect) to an external source to restore to your computer after the install and then do a complete wipe of the HDD. Now the only time to really upgrade is 1 if you can't afford a full version or two .... refer to one.:). I do agree though LoadWB that if XP is working great for you and you are comfortable with it then there is no reason to switch. I currently have 2 Windows 7 comps and 2 wondows XP and have no plans to upgrade the XP systems. Cheers!!!
-
Ah that facebook factor strikes again.....Sorry HellLabs you might be a lovely in real life, but drop the caps and drop that attitude, I don't post on here for you to continuously spurt diatribes and pointless swearing. At less have the decency to * out the U......rant mode off....
PS Don't fire back I won't respond....back to LFC v Sunderland
You do know what quotes are for, right? I was doing a VERY accurate Steve Ballmer impersonation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc). Don't have nightmares. As for your bizzare superstitions, I invite you to move past tudor times, and into the modern world. It's great here, we have atheism and electronics, and a machine that makes ale cold.
-
Microsoft have done their marketing very well. Bag the old OS and pump the new.
There is bugga all difference in speed in "real terms" between XP SP3, Vista SP2 and Win 7.
In my mind there is bugga all OS difference between Vista and 7.
Your freakin kidding me right? No offence your either blind, not tried the OS's yet or not bothered looking at the facts on paper (not to intending to be a toll here but you couldn't be more wrong).
I'd say it's gotten worse. The only practical difference between windows 7 and windows XP is the system requrements.
"wow it looks shiny! Are there any new features I will find useful?"
"errm... Windows 7 was your idea? DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS BING BING ******* MURDER GOOGLE GRAHSSASJIDSJKDJKDSNJKDSJDNKJDJKNDSJKDS"
Totally agree. Though 7 does have decent features. Wasn't sure about it at first but it is good now iv'e tried it and comaring it to Vista, it may look the same but usability is night and day. Im sticking to XP though for the time being.
Ah that facebook factor strikes again.....Sorry HellLabs you might be a lovely in real life, but drop the caps and drop that attitude, I don't post on here for you to continuously spurt diatribes and pointless swearing. At less have the decency to * out the U......rant mode off....
I think he was just making a point, not ranting as such. If you find something as simple as caps lock such an issue then you can either just ignore it or find a plug-in for a browser that will change all capitals into lower case format. Chances are it may not exist (possibly because nobody gets frustrated by them).
-
I don't think his reading comprehention is up to much, thats all.
-
I don't think his reading comprehention is up to much, thats all.
pot meet kettle?
---------------------
There are a lot of nice differences in Windows 7. For one, the GUI gets the priority it deserves, so sometimes when you accidentally click a link that has music blaring at 20394820349823409 db, you can click the speaker in the task bar and IMMEDIATELY get to see and mute the sound. Instead of waiting 30 seconds :)
This results in some latency in a lot of emulators (PC engine, MSX, C64, etc), but they are all getting buttons in them to turn Aero off while the Emulator is running, and back on again when you are done. So, its kind of alright. Ootake does the Aero-kill immediately.
Its good to have the option to easily disable or change the look of things.
pardon the flame-war possibility, but, cant do that on Mac out of box.... and I hate the carbon theme. Needs more blue.
unless they've changed it since I had my macbook a few years ago :(
I think they are rehashing some of the old vista features because, back when Vista came out, they went stupid at advertise-time and didn't do a good job of anything. It seemed like vista just accidentally showed up in stores under the radar. 7 has a nice, fresh marketing campaign , and if you watch the commercials, followed by the Mac vs. PC ones, you can catch hints of the two arguing with each other like on a forum :D
kind of nice to see Windows taking the slightly "finger pointing" approach in advertising. Their commercials were all very well done for the Windows 7 launch
-
Upgrade from XP to 7 LoadWB????? Why?? As a network infrastructure and server specialist I would never reccomend upgrading an OS. What u get is sludge from the old OS sitting there which can cause instability, slowness ect.
Your credentials are impeccable, none-the-less my experience proves that this is not always the case. Now, in terms of upgrading a crappy installation to a new OS you will get, well, an upgraded crappy installation. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.
-
kind of nice to see Windows taking the slightly "finger pointing" approach in advertising. Their commercials were all very well done for the Windows 7 launch
I dunno, the windows 7 and IE adverts right now are incredibly irritating. It's just some random person talking really fast, as if to say Look how good we are! we've just "innovated" features everyone else already had ten years ago. But your stupid enough to fall for it.
-
I dunno, the windows 7 and IE adverts right now are incredibly irritating. It's just some random person talking really fast, as if to say Look how good we are! we've just "innovated" features everyone else already had ten years ago. But your stupid enough to fall for it.
Everyone claims inovation for whatever they are selling but who else has snap? Apple has an addon from a third party called twoup but 7 has snap built in. I didnt think it was much of a feature until I tried it and it really works well.
many of the features listed http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features here are seemlessly ingtegrated into the os
does mac have full 64-bit os yet?
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/checking_32_or_64-bit_kernel_boot_mode_in_snow_leopard/
7 is extremely good, apples ads for the mac were funny although not entirely accurate now the shoe on the other foot and some people are getting pissy.
-
btw I've seen the touch screen support and I must say, they didn't create it but they did it pretty freakin' well
oh i didn't answer the question... they believe the ads because they are true. Microsoft asked people what they wanted and then tried to put those ideas into the os. peoples ideas went into 7. I think part of vistas problem was that wasnt the case, they threw in feature after feature without thinking about how the whole thing would actually run
-
oh i didn't answer the question... they believe the ads because they are true. Microsoft asked people what they wanted and then tried to put those ideas into the os. peoples ideas went into 7. I think part of vistas problem was that wasnt the case, they threw in feature after feature without thinking about how the whole thing would actually run
Wut? I'm not talking about the "windows 7 was my idea" ads. I'm talking about the ones where the hyperactive tossers take credit on microsofts behalf for stuff people were doing years ago. An advert for tabbed browsing? COME ON! Internetworks 1994! Do they really need to advertise being 16 years behind the competition? and they're smug about it as well!
-
Same reason they put the memory limit on Windows XP as of SP1: shitty programmers.
I think you meant to say "shitty third-party driver programmers." At the time Windows XP was released, it was rare to see more than 2 GB RAM in any 32-bit Windows system, let alone a consumer PC. By the time Service Pack 2 was released, large memory configuration were becoming more common. Many legacy device drivers don't know how to deal with addresses above 4 GB, so 32-bit Windows client SKUs artificially restrict physical memory to 4 GB.
When an add-in card with a large amount of memory is added to the system, the memory is mapped into the area below 4 GB. E.g. A video card with 1 GB RAM lives at physical addresses 3 GB - 4 GB. The system remaps system RAM at those addresses to 4 GB - 5 GB. Since Windows ignores RAM above 4 GB for the sake of down-level compatibility, the remapped RAM is not usable.
Unfortunately, users expect Microsoft to maintain compatibility with legacy third-party device drivers, regardless of how poorly written they are. Now, you can run 64-bit Windows and be done with it, assuming your hardware vendor provides 64-bit drivers. (If they don't, I'd wager their 32-bit drivers are among those that won't work in systems with more than 4 GB RAM.)
-
btw I've seen the touch screen support and I must say, they didn't create it but they did it pretty freakin' well
oh i didn't answer the question... they believe the ads because they are true. Microsoft asked people what they wanted and then tried to put those ideas into the os. peoples ideas went into 7. I think part of vistas problem was that wasnt the case, they threw in feature after feature without thinking about how the whole thing would actually run
Windows Vista has already been compared to New Coke, so I won't repeat the comparisons here. Unlike Coca-Cola, however, I think Microsoft had the foresight to know it would take a sea change event like Windows Vista's failure to move users beyond the legacy Windows 95 interface into an environment more conducive to novel and innovative user interfaces.
Windows 7 has, however, taken most of the good ideas from Windows Vista--screen composition, object cache, etc.--and made them much more usable. Some things do clash, however. "Sticky" taskbar buttons, for example, attempt to force the UNIX and NeXT/Apple-like single (or forked) process, multiple window paradigm onto all Windows processes. Starting a new instance of a process is now a menu hunt instead of a single click of a Quick Launch button.
-
@hells labs
so youv'e only seen one of the commercials? windows 7 was my idea is microsofts ad way of saying they have listened to us and taken many of our suggestions and put them into the os.
Not even microsoft is saying it is all innovative. what it is is all these ideas incorperrated seemlessly into the os. you are the only one ive heard that thinks that microsoft thinks these things are innovative.
apples ads seemed to (very smuggly ) say that pcs arent usefull for anything as if they were actually innovative.
" Tabbed browsing
Tabbed browsing is the most requested browser navigation feature among customers who want to manage multiple websites within one browsing window."
that was from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/ie7-tabbed-browsing.aspx
not every feature is brand new and life changing, but together they work together to be a very smooth and user friendly os.
btw did you mean the internetworks 1994 that noone knows about? thats not really behind the competition if noone knows about it and noone uses it.
-
I find Windows7 a pain, but I'm 99.9% MacOSX now (for about 1.5 years) so my opinion doesn't really count.
-
Upgrade from XP to 7 LoadWB????? Why?? As a network infrastructure and server specialist I would never reccomend upgrading an OS.
I could be wrong but when you get an upgrade version of windows 7 i dont think it really upgrades your previous os, i believe it clean installs and is only called an upgrade version because you need to have vista already to be eligible to purchase it.
-
I could be wrong but when you get an upgrade version of windows 7 i dont think it really upgrades your previous os, i believe it clean installs and is only called an upgrade version because you need to have vista already to be eligible to purchase it.
For Vista to 7, you can do clean or in-place upgrades. You can also install clean without entering a license key, then "upgrade" the clean install, thereby bypassing the previous version requirement. The end result is the same as a clean install.
-
I think you meant to say "shitty third-party driver programmers."
I most certainly did indeed, thank you. Now, one of many things Microsoft did get right with 7 was the requirement for 64-bit drivers. If you wanted WHQL certification, your device must provide 32- and 64-bit drivers. Very nice.
-
I could be wrong but when you get an upgrade version of windows 7 i dont think it really upgrades your previous os, i believe it clean installs and is only called an upgrade version because you need to have vista already to be eligible to purchase it.
It depends upon what you consider an upgrade. It retains all of your settings, files, and programs, but replaces the entire system installation with 7. I consider that an upgrade.
If it just upgraded files with the same name and the registry schema, I suppose we would call that a Service Pack, eh?
I have upgraded several systems now from Vista to 7 and the change in performance and behavior is astonishing.
I have been partial to Laplink's PC Mover now for quite a while when moving from system-to-system as it also moves programs and not just data (very handy when you just cannot lose a thing.) PC Mover is now offering essentially an in-place upgrade from XP to 7. Going to have a customer try it out here shortly, but I suspect from my previous adventures with PC Mover that it will be brilliant.
-
Wut? I'm not talking about the "windows 7 was my idea" ads. I'm talking about the ones where the hyperactive tossers take credit on microsofts behalf for stuff people were doing years ago. An advert for tabbed browsing? COME ON! Internetworks 1994! Do they really need to advertise being 16 years behind the competition? and they're smug about it as well!
lets not forget, when Internetworks 1994 was out, you were about 3, and have no general knowledge of its impact on the world back then.
it was only recently (this decade or so) that the real-good browsers started having tabs and doing good with it... some of the early tabbed stuff was pretty goony. I think Chrome's doin the best with tabs so far. nice and fast
and the "16 years behind" thing is a bit overplayed by alot of people. Tons of "bitd" stuff was full of features that were neat, but as a whole, the application wasn't so great and didn't last.
and you were 3, so you weren't really aware of any of this.
:)
you really shouldnt comment on the "Bitd" stuff, since bitd you were still wetting the bed and getting tucked in.
I remember a friend telling me that Vista, when it launched, was full of things Linux was doing 10 years ago. At the time, any of these features that may have been present in Linux, were a PITA to use, because wayyyy back in the early days, Linux was not exactly user friendly. :D
-
Here's an OS Advertising challenge. Name a feature presented in the Window 7 Y-Gen adverts that wasn't already in Vista...!
1. Wireless Networking made easy: Select device type in passphrase (how can you make that easier?). Ohh same in Vista and 7.
2. Make it easier to handle my photos (WTF?)
3. List my folders the way I want them: (Hello !)
I've only remember 3 of them and all 3 of the features mentioned are available in Vista as settings you can enable or a view you can set. List folder and remember is available in 2000 and XP just by changing you folder list options and saving your folder setting. Just no pretty thumbnails.
The adverts should be: "It was my idea (no really) and now I remember where I saw it!"
Or maybe the "Perhaps we should have a look to see if I can do that rather than having someone tell me everything." adverts.
No no, it should be the "Yes it was your idea, and now you have to pay for it...!" Advert.
Ohh I see your writing a letter, grumpy old man !.....Let me stick a paper clip in the bloody way...
Resistance is Futile! You will be assimilated!
Gertsy
-
lets not forget, when Internetworks 1994 was out, you were about 3, and have no general knowledge of its impact on the world back then.
it was only recently (this decade or so) that the real-good browsers started having tabs and doing good with it... some of the early tabbed stuff was pretty goony. I think Chrome's doin the best with tabs so far. nice and fast
BTW: Can someone explain to me the difference in functionality between a browser Tab and "Right click" "Open in new window"?
Neither makes any difference in memory or speed that I can see.
Tabs up the top of the screen or windows down the bottom. I know what I'm used to when I run multiple programs. Why is the browser different ?
How do you tile tabs horizontally or vertically on a super wide screen. You cant!. Big X to that nice piece of functionality. But its new and cool. Hey what a good idea.
Geeze I'm grumpy today! Sorry I have an aching ankle and the drugs have gone right to my head.
Gertsy.
-
Okay, ever since I been seeing the stupid "Windows 7 was my idea " crap - I just can't keep quiet anymore.
So here goes - here is the primary version of Windows we have seen:
1.) Windows 1.0
2.) Windows 2.0
3.) Windows 3.0 (3.11 for workgroups more common one seen)
41.) Windows 95
5.) Windows 98
6.) Windows ME (Millennium)
7.) Windows 2000
8.) Windows XP
9.) Windows Vista
Now Windows 7 - but its the 10th version of Windows. (I am not even counting Windows NT editions - versions that you couldn't get on low end Dells, HP, Gateway or Server Editions - But the 9 I listed where ALL marketed as versions of windows and sold as "New OS" when released. So what the hell gives? Why hasn't everyone call MS on this crap marketing lie?
And don't get me its the 7th unique Build crap - I guaran-damn-tee there is still windows 1.0 source code somewhere in Windows "7".
Just had to get that off my chest while writing this on my Amiga 939 (That's what I call my Dual Core AMD-939 - if MS can make up a number/name why can't I?)
Later
Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.11 was different. Windows 3.11 was using different kernel (NT kernel). And totaly incompatible with MSDOS and Windows 3.0
NT product family is like this:
-NT 3.1 (Windows 3.11 or Windows NT)
-NT 3.5
-NT 3.51
-NT 4.0
-NT 5.0 (Windows 2000)
-NT 5.1 (Windows XP)
-NT 5.2 (64-bit XP)
-NT 6.0 (Windows Vista)
-NT 6.1 (Windows 7)
Original Windows Series (running on MSDOS) is like this
-Windows 1.0
-Windows 2.0
-Windows 2.1x
-Windows 3.0
-Windows 95
-Windows 98
-Windows ME
-
BTW: Can someone explain to me the difference in functionality between a browser Tab and "Right click" "Open in new window"?
Neither makes any difference in memory or speed that I can see.
Tabs up the top of the screen or windows down the bottom. I know what I'm used to when I run multiple programs. Why is the browser different ?
How do you tile tabs horizontally or vertically on a super wide screen. You cant!. Big X to that nice piece of functionality. But its new and cool. Hey what a good idea.
Geeze I'm grumpy today! Sorry I have an aching ankle and the drugs have gone right to my head.
Gertsy.
Because its nice to have all your pages in use open in ONE instance of your browser, instead of say 15, if you are browsing that many pages. Alot faster to flip between em all if its all in one browser....
i mean if you dont LIKE tabs, and want to tile a bunch of windows at the same time and see like 8 pages at once, use 8 instances instead.
:) Chromes got the nicest tabs though!
-
Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.11 was different. Windows 3.11 was using different kernel (NT kernel). And totaly incompatible with MSDOS and Windows 3.0
NT product family is like this:
-NT 3.1 (Was simply called Windows NT)
-NT 3.5
-NT 3.51
-NT 4.0
-NT 5.0 (Windows 2000)
-NT 5.1 (Windows XP)
-NT 5.2 (64-bit XP)
-NT 6.0 (Windows Vista)
-NT 6.1 (Windows 7)
Original Windows Series (running on MSDOS) is like this
-Windows 1.0
-Windows 2.0
-Windows 2.1x
-Windows 3.0
-Windows 3.11 (Win for workgroups)
-Windows 95
-Windows 98
-Windows ME
Nup. But close. Ive fixed it up for you above.
Windows 1 - Windows ME Including 3.11 were all on DOS. With 16 and 32bit code. You are confusing Windows NT 3.1 of which the LANMAN components were used to create Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Called such to stop confusion with NT 3.1. The PC/User versions of 3.5-4.0 were called Workstation and then Professional for 2000 and XP (Though the server was dropped here)
Sadly I was there...For all of 'em....
Gertsy
-
@Arkhan. Understand your opinion but will still point out that quite often in IT we re-invent things to make life easy without understanding the commonly used feature set. I see it happening in new generation development all the time.
BTW: Has anyone tested how much memory one instance of chrome with 5 open sites uses compared to 5 instances of chrome with the same sites&pages open. Which configuration can windows VM/paging handle best..?
I'd test it but I don't use Tabs or chrome. (o:
Gertsy
-
You are all wrong...
7 is the amount of Gb of RAM that the OS needs..... go on, just admit that I'm right about Windoze bloatware......:D
-
no your not correct your talking garbage
-
It's short for 7/10 the ratio of your applications that are no longer compatible.
-
7 is an odd number and a prime number..
7 Is the number of deadly sins
7 of 9 Is a nice looking Borg
7 Is one more than 6 and one less than 8.
7*7 = 49
The square root of 823543 is ...
-
The square root of 823543 is ...
+/- 907.492699695 (12 sig fig) ?
-
:) Chromes got the nicest tabs though!
You misspelled Opera :razz::razz::razz:
Btw, 10.51 is out, and it pwns.
-
Ive only seen windows 7 briefly but it didn't seem terribly different from vista. People swear its faster so I'll defer to experts on this one.
I did get to play with a friends netbook running 7 but that is barely usable. Kinda sad, as it was a neat little machine, but windows just isn't up to snuff on that sort of hardware.
-
I think microsoft is simply trying to combat the mac attack. Apple, you have to hand it to them has been pretty slick on trashing them on tv alot.
Personally, I think windows is a pile of crap stacked on top of another pile of crap, stacked on top of... well you get the idea.
If it was up to me, I'd still be running MSDOS :) I absolutely hated that point (I guess windows 95) when you were more or less forced to use
windows. I resented them making me use that piece of shit, and I still
don't like it. I use it because I have to. For fun, I use my amiga and linux pc's alot so I stay sane.
Pardon me, I have to go run some spyware zappers and malware detectors until morning. Who's !$#*^! idea was that for windows 7?
Steven
-
Windows 7 is much more than vista sp3. It is lean and fit for purpose now and a good successor to XP. I ignored vista totally like a lot of devs.
Runs on low spec hardware really well, like my dual booting acer aspire. However once we get wifi in six months on Aros i will not need windows on it any more.
-
Windows 7 is fantastic, it's not related to Vista. It may look similar but there has been some major code rewrites and it behaves like a different beast. Having supported Vista at my old job under a pilot and attending some presentations on Vista and 7 and explaining the changes in 7 it is a huge breath of fresh air.
Even runs on a humble netbook at full throttle, 30 second boot time vs 4 and half minutes by Vista... and that was on a machine with 512MB of RAM. Vista choked trying to multitask, 7 no problems.
It's fast, stable and does what it is told.
From the Windows blog...
"The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.1, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.
Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense."
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx
TBH it's a fantastic product and something I can finally replace XP with. I've also haven't used Ubuntu in awhile (apart from on my server, but then linux is great for that task.. apart from AD/PDC roles...)
MS Office on the other hand.... now thats bloatware :)
-
Windows 7 is fantastic, it's not related to Vista. It may look similar but there has been some major code rewrites and it behaves like a different beast. Having supported Vista at my old job under a pilot and attending some presentations on Vista and 7 and explaining the changes in 7 it is a huge breath of fresh air.
Even runs on a humble netbook at full throttle, 30 second boot time vs 4 and half minutes by Vista... and that was on a machine with 512MB of RAM. Vista choked trying to multitask, 7 no problems.
I don't know what the problem is with my buddys netbook then. It took several minutes to boot up to anything resembling a usable state, and trying to do anything on it moved at a crawl. Maybe he's got a bunch of junk starting up automatically or something.
-
For fun, I use my amiga and linux pc's alot so I stay sane.
Amiga is FUN, yes. Linux is fun if you have masochistic tendancies.
-
I have to say Windows 7 is the best version of windows I ever used, simple because it works, I have used and owned most versions of windows found problem with all of them, but so far after using win7 for a good few months, no problems, which I'm simple amazed by, there also even a few nice new features, even more amazing! It took microsoft a while but I think they finally built a half decent OS.
As for calling it windows 7, dont really fully understand why they ever changed it to names and dates in the first place. But it better name than my phone, i8910HD why call it such a ramdom name.
-
I find Windows7 a pain, but I'm 99.9% MacOSX now (for about 1.5 years) so my opinion doesn't really count.
You left yourself so wide open with that message I am just dying to make a really sarcastic remark about when your opinion ever DID really count, but I am trying to avoid such flame like remarks these days. :laughing:
-
You left yourself so wide open with that message I am just dying to make a really sarcastic remark about when your opinion ever DID really count, but I am trying to avoid such flame like remarks these days. :laughing:
:) perhaps not.
But I found going from WinXP to Win7 like starting on a new operating system... My 5 years of experience with Windows counted for nothing... I wasn't prepared to waste my time learning it :(
-
:) perhaps not.
But I found going from WinXP to Win7 like starting on a new operating system... My 5 years of experience with Windows counted for nothing... I wasn't prepared to waste my time learning it :(
Spot on bloodline.
And the number of features removed (like Classic Start Menu) smacks of "No you'll use the OS the way we think you should.." Who said "Our lessons of the past make for a better future." ?
IMO: If they want to be evoluntionary then it would make sense,, but they are not evolutionary, just making new something that was done differently before? Like a jaded FM radio station.
Rant gloves on:
When people compare OS speeds for new OS'es they tend to forget to clean install the older OS under comparison. Do a clean install of XP to SP3 or Vista to SP2 and compare them in speed on the same hardware to Windows 7. You will see differences around 3-5%. 3-5% after 10 years you're kidding me.. Don't listen to the hype. If you don't believe me do it youself. Most results are slow enough for a human to compare with a stop watch.. (o:
Hmmm, surely a "totally re-written kernal" would result in faster speeds...Yes I saw someone quote this little chestnut... Well yes it certainly would, in a sensible world..!
Does that mean the "Kernal" actually hasn't been re-written...Well yes it does, and it hasn't been re-written..!
So if that's the case on that point how can I tell the difference between what is hype and what is real ?
You can't. So default to hype and you will be right more often than not.
What I object to is that they automatically treat me like an inferior.
Rant gloves off. Soap box back in corner.
Sorry don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Windows 7 isn't a good OS. It is. But I wish it was marketed for what it is. there's no need to make up stories about it.
Cup'a'tea time.
Gertsy