Thread: Windows 7 Released to Manufacturing

Originally Posted by Elysia

Why do I see a lot of "I might test it" in here?
It's been in beta and RC forever. Why haven't you snagged a copy and tried it out? Seriously? Does anyone here think Microsoft is just going to hand out a test version for free?

As I said, I have an MSDN subscription which gives me, among a lot of other software, Windows 7. I'll test Windows 7 on my machine when I feel like it. Not when you see fit. Which may be sometime in the upcoming couple of months, now that it was sent for manufacturing.

I never was, am not, and never will be, interesting in beta testing operating systems.

That is what the RC is for. Basically the (hopefully) final build.
It is also the best, almost finished build that you can get without a subscription. But since you do have a subscription, that's great. You can test whenever you want. Others are not so lucky, and it wasn't aimed at you specifically.

One thing I will say is that everyone should try Win7 before passing judgment (because that is an impression I'm getting from some people). Saying things like "XP is best, I'll never upgrade" is pure idiocy and ignorance. Also saying "Vista is good enough for me" is also the same thing. Try it first. Then pass judgment.

And remember: it's fine to like it, but not upgrading due to price reasons. But it's not fine to say "Vista is good enough for me, Win7 costs too much" without even trying it out.

Originally Posted by sean

There's a lot of hassle involved in both installing and testing a new operating system. I tried out the RC because I happened to have a few spare hours and a machine that wasn't being used for anything else. Considering I don't like a lot of Microsoft's recent design decisions, and XP is sufficiently fast ans stable for my needs (i.e. no reason to leave it), can you explain to me why it otherwise would have been worth the investment of time?

If you tried it and didn't like it, that's fine. You tried it out and can make a judgment.

I suspect most of the posters in this thread share those sentiments. I don't think anyone's saying that Win7 sucks without trying it, they're saying that it isn't worth any investment to investigate immediately.

The testing period is soon over. Then you'll have to buy it to try it.
And I can tell you that installing Win7 RC isn't going to break your system.
I have used it since the Beta period as my main OS without troubles.
That says that you can afford to try it as your main OS.
Perhaps make a backup of your current OS and roll back if anything goes wrong, but other than that, no problem.

And if you don't want to try Win7 for reason, that's fine, but don't dismiss it.
Instead of saying "Vista/XP is fine for me, I don't need Win7", try "Vista/XP works fine for me at the moment and I have no desire to test Win7 right now, so I'll stick to Vista/XP for now."

Because you are passing judgment on the OS.
What if Win7 turns out to be a revolution for you? You won't know until you try.
Or maybe I should rephrase that: maybe you have a tool that works for you. But if you found a tool that's is better than what works for you, would you get it? Or would you completely ignore it because your current tool "works for you"?

Originally Posted by laserlight

Jokes aside, I am not sure why I made that comment. Presumably if there is no future service pack after SP3, then that criterion can be disregarded.

I think SP4 already exists, because when I installed the latest version of AVG Antivirus on a new installation of XP, it said the program required SP4 or later.

So I had to use "windows update" 4 times to get each SP.

There is no SP4 for XP.

The windows 7 feature list surely doesn't look like a revolution. Neither I hear the market itching all over for it. Sound, well based decisions can be made without ever touching windows 7 too. And if meanwhile Microsoft can't handle the FUD, I'll be surprised and find that extremely ironic. ROFL material even.

Originally Posted by Elysia

What if Win7 turns out to be a revolution for you? You won't know until you try.

Take a look at Distrowatch. I expect you to try every new release of each distribution listed, because that release may well turn out to be a revolution for you. You won't know until you try.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Or maybe I should rephrase that: maybe you have a tool that works for you. But if you found a tool that's is better than what works for you, would you get it? Or would you completely ignore it because your current tool "works for you"?

I would perform a cost-benefit analysis first. It may well be the case that the cost of switching outweights the benefits from switching, if any.

Originally Posted by laserlight

Take a look at Distrowatch. I expect you to try every new release of each distribution listed, because that release may well turn out to be a revolution for you. You won't know until you try.

But the argument is two-fold:
Don't dismiss an operating system. Sticking to Vista/XP is fine, if you admit that you don't have the time/desire to try the new OS. But you might admit you want to in the future. But saying "XP is fine, I don't need anything else" is just wrong.

I would perform a cost-benefit analysis first. It may well be the case that the cost of switching outweights the benefits from switching, if any.

Of course, but to do that, you would have to try it first, no? That's what it's about - try it first before making a decision.

It's all in the speech.
Don't dismiss it if you don't have time.
It gives the wrong impression.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Sticking to Vista/XP is fine, if you admit that you don't have the time/desire to try the new OS. But you might admit you want to in the future. But saying "XP is fine, I don't need anything else" is just wrong.

If one perceives Windows XP as sufficient for one's needs, then one may have no desire to try Windows 7 while Windows XP is still supported.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Of course, but to do that, you would have to try it first, no?

Not necessarily. I may be unwilling to spend the money required for the tool, hence trying it out would be a waste of time. Speaking of a waste of time, a trial period itself may result in a loss of productivity (even though it may be compensated in the long run), and this may be something that I am not willing to risk if I am working on a project with heavy reliance on the current tool.