MS Windows 7

[HopperJF]

stefcep2 wrote:

Oliver wrote:

stefcep2 wrote:
...MS wants to wash its hands clean of that name so as not to deter people wanting to shift from XP

If that is really the case, they may have a hard time selling Win 7 to people bought Vista. Perhaps they will do a discounted upgrade.

no actually there are a lot of people so disappointed with Vista that they can't wait to get their hands on Win 7 so that they can get rid of Vista.  W

I know a lot of people who have switched back to XP from Vista

[gaula92]

You guys are bored...
Instead of trying new bloatwareOS, try HAIKU if you need a new OS on your X86 machine. It boots directly in my eeebox:

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=15104

It's fast, seems stable in the current pre-pre-alpha state, it's open-source so you can't complain if you don't like something (because you can actuall CHANGE it), and it feels like BEOS, the X86 OS that should have been. It's in fact a BEOS re-implementation.

[stefcep2]

vista has been in use since Jan 2007, Win7 due in late 2009 or Jan 2010.  MS would think you've got your money's worth.  But if you bought Vista few months before Win 7 was released you might get a free upgrade to vista voucher.  Most users i know only got Vista with their new PC all laptops incidentally.

[persia]

Microsoft has taken a page from Apple yet again and are selling a heavily bug fixed version of their OS under a new name and with great fanfare.

[Amigaz]

persia wrote:
Microsoft has taken a page from Apple yet again and are selling a heavily bug fixed version of their OS under a new name and with great fanfare.

Agree....alot of the new user interface reminds a lot of OSX Leopard
"How unexpected"  ;-)
(Running Vista X64 Ultimate here)

[adolescent]

gaula92 wrote:
You guys are bored...
Instead of trying new bloatwareOS, try HAIKU if you need a new OS on your X86 machine. It boots directly in my eeebox:

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=15104

Yep.  Haiku isn't hindered by bloat like...  working network, sound, or chipset drivers.  :roll:

[adolescent]

HopperJF wrote:

adolescent wrote:
But, who expects to run a modern operating system on a 10+ year old hardware?  

Me!
An OS should be the foundation not the resource-hog M$ have made it out to be

1Gb just to run an OS is unjustifiable.

Then you really shouldn't upgrade.

1GB RAM is <$10 these days.  Plus, we're not talking AmigaOS here.  It's not just the "OS" that is running on the 1GB of RAM (think extras that you add to the OS like networking, USB stacks, filesystems, etc.).  If you want to see what a stripped down Windows OS really needs look at XP FLP, or XPE.  

Plus, 1GB RAM is <$10 these days.  Seriously?

[adolescent]

Oliver wrote:

adolescent wrote:
...need to get a key...

What is the arrangement with real keys for this beta? I had expected that this wouldn't be a full software offer, so I wasn't going to bother with it.

I am going to buy a new PC sometime soon (probably buying components), so wouldn't mind grabbing a freeby Win OS for it.

The public beta keys are only good until August 1.  So, it isn't really a full free copy.  Registered beta sites probably get a full copy after the beta is done.  (Although, I haven't been beta since Windows 2000 so this may have changed).

[HammerD]

I am running the beta now.  Don't expect anything innovative, compared to Vista.  It's basically an incremental update to Vista, fixing some of the more annoying existing "features".

Otherwise it's pretty boring and very very similar to Vista.

Check out the Wiki page on Windows 7, it gives a very good run down of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

[Fransexy_]

But, who expects to run a modern operating system on a 10+ year old hardware?  

 :roll:

[adolescent]

@Fransexy_

Since you gave me the :roll:, how about an example of ANY 10+ year old hardware running a modern OS (usably).  Can't be done on Windows and Mac for sure.  Maybe a BSD/Linux might get close, but even the major distros have gotten bloated.

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:
@Fransexy_

Since you gave me the :roll:, how about an example of ANY 10+ year old hardware running a modern OS (usably).  Can't be done on Windows and Mac for sure.  Maybe a BSD/Linux might get close, but even the major distros have gotten bloated.

I expect you could use Xpostfacto, to install Leopard on a top of the Line 1998 Mac... Wouldn't be my idea of fun though :-D

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:
I expect you could use Xpostfacto, to install Leopard on a top of the Line 1998 Mac... Wouldn't be my idea of fun though :-D

Nope.  

1) XpostFacto only supports up to Tiger.
2) In 1998 the top of the line was the "Beige" G3 running at a mind-blowing 333MHz!  (Even if we go to 1999 the fastest was a G4/350 which is far less than the minimum required for Leopard)

BTW, I had Panther on my G3/400 and it ran okay...  Until you opened an app.  :lol:   Same machine absolutely flies with OS9.

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:
I expect you could use Xpostfacto, to install Leopard on a top of the Line 1998 Mac... Wouldn't be my idea of fun though :-D

Nope.  

1) XpostFacto only supports up to Tiger.
2) In 1998 the top of the line was the "Beige" G3 running at a mind-blowing 333MHz!  (Even if we go to 1999 the fastest was a G4/350 which is far less than the minimum required for Leopard)

BTW, I had Panther on my G3/400 and it ran okay...  Until you opened an app.  :lol:   Same machine absolutely flies with OS9.

Ahhh... ok, well I still run Tiger on 2 of my Macs here... so it is still a modern OS... sort of... :-)

[Argo]

Got the X64 and x86 versions with keys. Debating on dual booting on my only X64 system, as it is my main computer. So, I have the x86 version running in Vitural PC as of last night. This afternoon I got it on an old 1.86 GHz , 1Gb ram box I keep around for playing with stuff like this. Have to say it's faster than when Vista was on it and more responsive than the emulation. Now to run it through the paces.
Just have to say, at first glance it looks and feels like a modified and fixed up Vista. I haven't had any problems with Vista so I don't see it as much of a bad thing. Though I'm thinking that abit of XP and some Vista programs may not be compatable, just as some XP programs did not work on Vista.

[zylesea]

@ adolescent

Then you really shouldn't upgrade.

1GB RAM is <$10 these days.  Plus, we're not talking AmigaOS here.  It's not just the "OS" that is running on the 1GB of RAM (think extras that you add to the OS like networking, USB stacks, filesystems, etc.).  If you want to see what a stripped down Windows OS really needs look at XP FLP, or XPE.  

Plus, 1GB RAM is <$10 these days.  Seriously?

Tell me how to get 1 GB Ram for $10 for e.g. my 7 years old PIII laptop which still is fine and running?
Don't tell me about cheap prices, Lucky me has enough funds to purchase all this stuff. But I don't like to. It is just a resource wasting. It's exactly that attitude which is driving the global ecologic crisis.
Furthermore I'd like to point out that e.g. MorphOS runs quite well on my 400 MHz/128MB RAM Efika (and tell me how to get 1 GB for that for $10). It starts usb stack, network, 3d accelerated gfx, some file systems and a lot of other stuff. And since many of you don't consider an Amigaish system as a serious system, let me tell you that my QNX setup also requires very low resources.
The way to compensate for bad system design by increasing hardware power is not curing the prob, but dealing with its symptoms. And that is simply not sustainable nor a smart way.