Well, it looks like the next iteration of windows is about to start hitting the .... shelves. What do you guys think about it, did you participate in the beta, interested? unenthusiastic?
Printable View
Well, it looks like the next iteration of windows is about to start hitting the .... shelves. What do you guys think about it, did you participate in the beta, interested? unenthusiastic?
>> Well, it looks like the next iteration of windows is about to start hitting the .... shelves. What do you guys think about it, did you participate in the beta, interested? unenthusiastic?
One word - frisbee! (and an expensive one, at that)
Not really motivated to upgrade. Would have to eventually, I guess. With the end of XP support and all...
I have access to Win7 through MSDN. Sometime in the next couple of months, I'll try it out. Chances are I'll keep distancing myself from Microsoft.
I intend to upgrade most of my computer at around the time when Ubuntu 9.10 comes out, which should be a week after Windows 7 hits the shelves. At the moment I am running a dual boot of Ubuntu 8.04 and Windows XP SP3.
That seems to apply to everyone: Microsoft Support Lifecycle says extended support for all versions of Windows XP ends on 8 April 2014 (since that comes before 2 years after the release of service pack 3).Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
I'm crossing my fingers that MS makes it available on MSDNAA. Not really keen on spending $200 to upgrade.
I am so impressed by Windows XP, I'll be sticking with it until 2014, and beyond!
BEST OS EVER! :D
err... that was a major fail on my part. I didn't know XP support had been extended again beyond 2010.
With that, chances are I will not be doing the upgrade very soon. I will still try it out sometime soon, though.
Windows XP hit a sweet spot in that it is still applicable to all applications I use or plan to use in the near future. The following OS releases, including Windows 7, seem to not offer anything really substantial that justifies an upgrade. But by keeping to provide new software that is purposely not compatible with XP (like they did with ActiveX), Microsoft will eventually force me out of XP. That didn't happen with Vista, but eventually I won't be able to skip Windows 7.
Vista runs just fine on my machine, so I don't see any need to upgrade.
Maybe if they release a trial version in one of their Virtual PC images I'll try it out, but I'm not spending money on it.
No, I am using an advanced calendar system that is beyond your understanding. Poor you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
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 will only upgrade if I need to. The "new" Windows Vista was too expensive, I couldn't afford it quickly. Then I saw it wasn't as good as XP.
Even if I wanted to upgrade, I always wait at least a year or two before upgrading (until the first service pack is out), that way I can let everyone else test it in the battle field.
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? Well, not to promote piracy or anything, but the RC build is still out there, and it will last into about March/April next year, so you might still be able to test run it. Just don't expect to download it from Microsoft servers anymore.
As for the whole upgrade for me... well, I do like Win7. But is it worth the money to upgrade? No. Never.
Then there's the whole issue with Win7E, which hopefully will be resolved soon as Microsoft is opening up to the EU suggestion.
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.
There's a lot of hassle involved in both migrating to 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?Quote:
But it's not fine to say "Vista is good enough for me, Win7 costs too much" without even trying it out.
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.
If you tried it and didn't like it, that's fine. You tried it out and can make a judgment.
The testing period is soon over. Then you'll have to buy it to try it.Quote:
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.
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."
I think "Vista/XP is fine for me, I don't need Win7" is a perfectly acceptable sentiment. If you are happy with a particular OS that works for you, then why switch?Quote:
Instead of saying "Vista/XP is fine for me, I don't need Win7"
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"?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
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.
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.Quote:
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.
I think you missed laserlight's point. The fact is that most people don't have time to go around trying to OS's just to see if one of them is some sort of "revolution" for them. Most of us will find an OS that we are happy with, and then we will stick with that until we have a good reason to switch. You calling that mindset "wrong", is a little naive on your part.
It's all in the speech.
Don't dismiss it if you don't have time.
It gives the wrong impression.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Saying "XP is fine" is not saying anything about W7, therefore it's not passing judgment of W7. Even if W7 could serve somebody's needs better, that has no bearing on whether or not XP fulfills that person's needs, since "needs" is more or less a concept of minimum standards, not a concept of "best possible solution".
No, it just makes certain people very defensive, that's all.Quote:
It gives the wrong impression
Elysia you are funny. Thats just how people say things.
Cars for example:
I have a 1998 model. I don't "need" the 2009. That isn't saying I wouldn't want the 2009 model. Its just not worth it to me to get it until my 1998 one stops working for my needs.
But I heard that Toyota put a new revolutionary motor in their 2009 models.
People do not need to be more careful with their words, rather you need to be more careful with your understanding of those words. If someone says, "I don't need X", that means they don't need X. On the other hand, if they say, "I don't want X", then you can feel free to start arguing with them. Want and need are two different words with two different meanings.Quote:
If someone says, "I don't need X" to me, I take it that they simply don't want it for one reason or another, hence why it's necessary to be careful with words.
Elysia, have you heard the phrase "If it ain't broken, don't fix it"?
It applies to OS's too. If the one you have does everything you need, why upgrade?
Especially since upgrading would mean you need to test it on your system before you know if it'll work properly.
I hear lots of people complaining about Vista screwing up their systems and being a pain in the butt, but that's because they don't have the same hardware as me. On my system, Vista works just fine; on other hardware, it probably has some driver issues.
Also, as others have said, it takes time to properly test an OS on your system; and right now I just don't have that kind of time. Later, I might have some time and decide to try it out.
Microsoft usually releases trial versions of their OS's that run for about 30 days, so I can use that when I test it.
It's an interpretation question. Want/need sound exactly the same to me.
That's a flawed phrase.
Hey, my Turbo C compiler works just fine, why should I upgrade?
Or maybe,
Hey, Visual C++ 6 works just fine, why upgrade? It costs a lot of money for nothing!
Because it doesn't follow standards and it's output is objectively inferior to that of other compilers. Furthermore, there are free alternatives that do a better job, and the vast majority of people who have tried other compilers would indicate to me that it's worth my time changing.Quote:
Hey, my Turbo C compiler works just fine, why should I upgrade?
Windows, on the other hand, does not have such a reputation, nor does Windows XP fail to help me get my work done. No standards have changed except for the fact that Microsoft needs to release a new product to stay "in the game", made some cosmetic changes, and made other tweaks that may be good or bad. To get me to ditch something that's already proven itself, those 'other tweaks' need to be signifcant. And I haven't seen any reason to believe they are.
And nobody needs to craft their use of sentences to satisfy your sense of correctness, when everyone else in the conversation knows what they meant.
*cough* Same could be said about XP. *cough*
Are you comparing Win7 to Vista? There are only minor changes in those, but XP --> Win7, there are major changes.Quote:
Windows, on the other hand, does not have such a reputation, nor does Windows XP fail to help me get my work done. No standards have changed except for the fact that Microsoft needs to release a new product to stay "in the game", made some cosmetic changes, and made other tweaks that may be good or bad. To get me to ditch something that's already proven itself, those 'other tweaks' need to be signifcant. And I haven't seen any reason to believe they are.
And let me repeat: I am only saying you need to try Win7 before passing judgment. You can say, sure Win7 looks/is a nice OS, but it's not worth to pay $200 to upgrade to it.
(Which is also my opinion: Win7 is better than Vista and XP, but isn't worth the money to upgrade to.)
And I sincerely disagree that it's just a release to "stay in the game." Windows has received its first new major UI makeover since Windows 95. Clearly, Microsoft wants to improve Windows, rather than just spitting out a new version with a few tweaks to stay in the game.
A new UI is not enough for most people to upgrade. I don't understand why you can't relate to people that are happy with what they have, and have no desire to change...Quote:
Windows has received its first new major UI makeover since Windows 95.
I am not saying they should upgrade. I am saying they should try Windows 7 before dismissing it.
I don't plan to upgrade, for example, even though I like Win7.
Most people, including myself, would disagree with that within this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Elysia, no one attacked Win 7 (in this thread at least), and yet you get all irate because some people don't feel like upgrading tomorrow? No one was passing judgment. Saying "this works for me" is not the same as saying "the new one isn't better".
You should chill, MS can handle themselves. ;)
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, Elysia, so I'm done...
I'm from Missouri.
That is the worst sales pitch I have ever heard. You really should let microsoft marketing do their job themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Tee hee, are Microsoft people GUI wizards now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
They wanted a good 64-bit OS. Vista wasn't perceived as such by the market. A little spitshine and lo an behold, it's a brand new day.
No, I get a little annoyed when people announce "eh, XP works fine, who needs Win7"?
That is what I gathered from some replies.
I don't care one way or another if anyone upgrades or not, though. That's Microsoft's battle.
I am not selling anything. I don't care if people do not upgrade.
All I don't like is people dismissing or ignoring something without trying it.
Microsoft has always been good at GUI, have they not?Quote:
Tee hee, are Microsoft people GUI wizards now?
Vista was a failure, so they polished it among other things.Quote:
They wanted a good 64-bit OS. Vista wasn't perceived as such by the market. A little spitshine and lo an behold, it's a brand new day.
Of course Microsoft wants a good OS out there, and it makes sense then to improve what was broken in the last version. But they didn't just add a new UI, contrary to belief! I don't know why people keep bashing on that.
It is one out of all Windows 7's new features.
I WANT you to locate an english dictionary and look up the words "need" and "want". I do not NEED you to locate a dictionary and look up the words "need" and "want". I WANT chocolate-covered ice cream with sprinkles. I do not NEED chocolate-covered ice cream with sprinkles. I do not WANT to use stdout to print to the screen in standard C. I NEED to use stdout print to the screen in standard C. Etcetera.
Indeed. Vista SP3 with a new theme.
But to be perfectly honest there's a couple of things that will eventually make me turn XP obsolete on my machine:
DirectX 11: DirectX 10 did suffer somewhat from Microsoft's decision to not provide it for XP. Game vendors ignored it at large. But I don't expect them to sustain this for much longer. DirectX 11 will already mean a 2 version leap from XP's DirectX 9. So It's very feasable to expect game developers to start doing some serious work with it. I'm positive they are hoping for a wide Windows 7 adoption. That being the case, sticking to XP may become a problem for gamers.
SSD: Improvements to SSD support are small but very significant over Vista. These disks will almost certainly become mainstream pretty soon. Certainly hard drives will stay for a very long time, but I cannot deny the performance improvements of SSDs when taking into consideration that their prices still can, and will, drop considerably.
Of all the remaining features, they aren't either that useful for me (GUI crap), I prefer their third-party software equivalents (Virtual HD) or have yet to meet an application where or a usage pattern in which they become relevant (concurrency improvements)
This might be a monthly thing. We've entered an endless recursion of time.
Actually, I was rather impressed with KDE Oxygen, I thought it much better than Windows' Classic, Luna, or Aero theme. But hey, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, eh?
On topic: I am actually looking forward to trying out Win 7. Unfortunately, I know it has an ugly GUI, and I really doubt 7 affords the user more control, rather, probably the other way around, and it's still Windows, which means viruses and such. But I've heard that it has some new bells and whistles - one of the attractions of Linux. However, it's still Microsoft, which means tons of money, and some stupid registration that limits me to one computer per purchase. So, I would like to see it, yes, but I can wait until a friend gets it, and even then a miracle would have to happen to get me to actually buy it.
now that's gotta be an old testament sin :p
does windows still just have just the single workspace?
MS does a really nice job with the bevelling of the window widgets. I think the only thing they do wrong is charge too much. They could be like the volkswagen of the OS world, except you get charged for a BMW. I bet if they charged half as much, they could sell twice as many copies to people who will otherwise stick with their old copy of XP or whatever. Which amounts to the same thing financially*, but might earn them more respect amongst users, who otherwise will probably wait until they buy their next computer to upgrade the OS -- so they don't care and aren't interested that there's a windows 7. If it were $110, way more people might think, oh, windows, maybe I should buy the new one. If it were $110, I might even have bought a copy. Instead, I will send another contribution to GNU :p
* well, except they will have to provide some form of support to twice as many people.
Yes it did, a long time ago, then they did it again, and again... Every version of Windows has a completely new UI. They keep shuffling all the menus around just to make it that much harder for me to find something in the Start Menu or Control Panel...
The first thing I do when I get a new version of Windows is right-click the taskbar and select "Classic Start Menu". :p
Here's a frightening XP oversight I just heard about:
Free Public WiFi SSID at WLAN Book.com
I mean, it is kind of user ignorance to automatically believe that an SSID called Free Public WiFi is really free public wifi, when it could be anything, but a funny story about the consequences of bad design anyway. I wonder if they can come up with anything that good for version 7?
You're kidding... right?Quote:
Microsoft has always been good at GUI, have they not?
- I can have 3 scrollbars/comboboxes/buttons/your-favourite-control-here on my screen that all look and act differently, but they're all in MS apps
- start menu that forgets windows that are visible (there are visible windows not on the start menu -- clicking on the window, and the start menu 'remembers')
- Windows don't actually know if they're maximized or not -- I can have a window, not maximize, but the buttons and the window border indicate it is. (I can move it around the screen, it's size != the screens size, etc.)
- MS uses their own applications as examples of bad design in their (lacking) UX standards. (For a real treat, read the Gnome or the Apple HIGs.)
- There is no real standard font -- windows seem to pick and choose for themselves. Setting the font to something different is particularly hazardous. (.Net is bad for this...)
- I haven't noticed this since XP, but GUI stuff starts to fail at high window counts, but RAM is not exhausted. (This is defective-by-design, and a registry hack can increase the number of windows.) Depending on the number of GUI elements in the particular set of apps you run, the perceived number of windows can be quite low. Things fail in interesting ways when the limit is hit. (Who actually checks those return values anyways?)
hmm... I'm not sure UI elements consistency across applications is a desirable trait. I can certainly see the advantages. But there's functionality that makes sense to provide on a certain application and not on another. Considering the common ground could only be an UI element with minimum functionality, I'd rather see what you see.
If Microsoft always makes the right choice considering what functionality to provide a certain UI element, that's another matter.
The one that annoys me the most: non resizable windows with grid elements within.Quote:
MS uses their own applications as examples of bad design in their (lacking) UX standards.
I, too, heard this same guarantee. There is a middle ground called Windows Standard embedded which is not 100% Vista but not 100% W7 either but moving to it seems high risk to me.Quote:
I have a guarantee of continued support for XP embedded for at least another 5 years.
However what I do not have is guaranteed continued support for DirectX 9.0c. I suspect that as W7 becomes standard that DX9 will be dropped and DX10 and DX11 will be supported. That is assuming that DX11 will be ready soon. Because of this I see major changes ahead since I'm still in the process of porting DX8 code lines to DX9. Just about the time I get those ported DX9 will probably be deprecated. Yay me. :)
Is that why they replaced the good old fashioned menu with the ribbon bar? Definitely a step backwards in user interface.Quote:
Microsoft has always been good at GUI, have they not?
You must be watching too many advertisements. They aim to turn your wants into needs :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
It may be better not to upgrade if those compilers were still supported by the vendors and if you do not need to cater to other compilers in the near future. On the other hand, you need to consider the fact that new hires may be trained in standard C++, hence there would be a cost in getting them up to scratch concerning the non-standard aspects of these compilers so that they can correctly maintain the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
XP works great. Nonetheless, my computer is nearing the end of its lifetime. The computer itself still works great, but as it is nearing the end of its 3 year warranty I figure I will purchase a new computer near the end of this year, and install Windows 7 on that new computer. If I like it, I will keep it, otherwise I will remove it and install one of my already-owned copies of XP.
Meanwhile, I will take my current XP machine and install some Linux distro (most likely Ubuntu), and have fun!
I have no idea what this means?
I've never seen any problems with my Start Menu.
Why would you get a new computer just because your warranty is running out? If it works, it works. If something breaks, you should be able to fix it yourself.
I think it's just about partition alignment and block size, to make SSD block erases more efficient. It applies mostly to first-gen SSDs without (or with tiny) DRAM caches, though. Newer SSDs with caches and good controllers benefit little to none from it. Even if you still want to do it, there are guides online that walks you through it step by step using fdisk (for Linux at least).Quote:
SSD: Improvements to SSD support are small but very significant over Vista. These disks will almost certainly become mainstream pretty soon. Certainly hard drives will stay for a very long time, but I cannot deny the performance improvements of SSDs when taking into consideration that their prices still can, and will, drop considerably.
I LOVE the look and feel of it, too. It can certainly pass for Windows 8 (yes, I have tried Windows 7). Too bad it kept crashing on me, and I had to switch back to my trusty GNOME. I think I tried a pretty early release of KDE 4, though, so it's probably better now.Quote:
Actually, I was rather impressed with KDE Oxygen, I thought it much better than Windows' Classic, Luna, or Aero theme. But hey, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, eh?
(red mine, bold original)Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
And let me repeat: I am only saying you need to try Linux before passing judgment. You can say, sure Linux looks/is a nice OS, but it's not worth to pay $0 to upgrade to it.
It's a funny subject that of operating system GUIs. It's bigots vs zealots, most of the time. Linux GUI diehards scorn at windows GUI, but I've witnessed some of the most irascible GUI wars between KDE and Gnome self-appointed defenders. Next to it, Linux vs. Windows are intelligent debates. On the other hand Windows diehards scorn at Linux Gnome and KDE, but as soon as a new windows version shows up have no qualms in calling the previous version GUI a piece of trash.
:pQuote:
You can say, sure Linux looks/is a nice OS, but it's not worth to pay $0 to upgrade to it.
Shun them all, I say!Quote:
It's a funny subject that of operating system GUIs.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/soft...9294810,00.htmQuote:
It can certainly pass for Windows 8 (yes, I have tried Windows 7).
I've been using windows 7 since the RC 1 and I really enjoy it. It's much more compact task bar wise, I love the start menu, as it allows me to search my comp similar to a launcher program, minus the keywords.
The only real thing I wish it had natively was a Window Manager akin to total commander or the like. I mean I use Free Commander to replace using the windows explorer, but it would be cool to have all window manager actions route to a Single manager like application. Of course this is just a big want and I already use Free Commander, but I just don't see the draw of having multiple folder windows anymore, it's just less efficient.
But i'm going to buy it, I just would have liked for their upgrade process to be easier for people that have been using the RC 1.
SSD's have improved random access speeds, they do not have higher read/write speeds. They have advantages, but they will not be replacing HDD's any time soon, for one their storage density is much lower, and their production cost is higher per GB of storage. They do have a durability advantage, which leads me to believe they will replace HDD's in laptops and other field applications such as industrial or automotive environments. They will not be replacing HDD's in fixed applications where storage density, cost per GB, and read/write performance are the primary concerns.
It doesn't cost $0 to switch to Linux. Its actually quite expensive, unless you can find a magical fairy whose time is worthless that will switch your system over for you. I have tried it, many many distros, I try a new one every 6 months or so, in fact I'm due to try a new one here in the next few weeks. They are all fail for my needs. When I find a distro that installs 'out of the box' without me having to do any more than click and forget, then I will start using and developing for Linux. Yes 'I' can figure it out, but can my customers? Do I really need the headache (and expense) of holding their hands through the switch until they get comfortable with Linux? Do I need to absorb the expense of converting all my existing code base to run on Linux? Does Linux offer any advantages over Windows that would make the switch a no brainer? These are all legitimate concerns that the Linux Fan-boy community fails to consider.Quote:
(red mine, bold original)
And let me repeat: I am only saying you need to try Linux before passing judgment. You can say, sure Linux looks/is a nice OS, but it's not worth to pay $0 to upgrade to it.
As a linux "fanboy" I sincerely hope that this trend continues and that you, abachler, never never ever even consider for a moment "switching over" or (worse yet) writing any software for the platform. Seriously, and honestly. You and your customers are best served by windows and it should stay that way. Forever.
In my opinion, the best "out of the box" distro is Linux Mint. I suggest you give that a try for your next distro test.Quote:
When I find a distro that installs 'out of the box' without me having to do any more than click and forget, then I will start using and developing for Linux
I am arguing for trying, not selling. There is a difference... you know?
It really seems that way. I would think every casual users--well most anyway--love the Aero theme. I do too, of course. But some do not. Are they Linux junkies? Or computer veterans? Or something else entirely? I don't know what binds these people together who just tries to disable the new interface and go with the old plain.
As in control of the inner workings?Quote:
...and I really doubt 7 affords the user more control, rather, probably the other way around, and it's still Windows, which means viruses and such...
At least there will be more productivity in the GUI features - such as Aero Snap. Very good feature, that. A favorite.
Ah, now here's something that's iffy.
Microsoft arranged pre-orders for Win7 that cut off as much as 50% off the retail price.
But the stock was kinda limited and was sold out in a few hours to a few days everywhere. What was the point of that, I wonder?
Too few pre-order editions...
No, not a whole makeover like Win 3.11 -> Win 95.
But otherwise they have tweaked minor stuff, yes.
I'm talking about the fluffy stuff, the GUI (read: eye candy), not their start menu bugs and other bugs or non-working functionality.
The good thing is that DX11 will work on Vista too. Yay for DX11 - it's the future.
Again, eye candy, not the functionality. Functionality is often hidden or obscured. Not a good thing if you ask me.Quote:
Is that why they replaced the good old fashioned menu with the ribbon bar? Definitely a step backwards in user interface.
The ribbon was a breaker for me too. Suddenly all your menus are gone and you have no idea where stuff is located.
The good thing about is that some functionality is faster to reach, like strike-through in Word. And if a program is built with the Ribbon first, I'll bet it will be no different than menus. It's just that you can't just remove everything people was used to...
That can be said about new users too. They would be used to Vista/Win7.
And XP will not be supported forever. It's actually amazing that it's still supported considering how much Microsoft wants to get rid of it.
I have tried Linux. But it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Linux is a different breed of OS--it works differently than Windows, so I wouldn't say you can "upgrade" from Windows to Linux or the other way around. You can "switch," if you want.
Not really, you can sell things on a trial basis. What, you think all that trial ware is made available because the marketing folk are nice people?Quote:
I am arguing for trying, not selling. There is a difference... you know?
As for your sales pitch it still is the worst I've ever heard.
If you want to get a bigger commission one day, you need confidence in your product. Because now all the crowd knows we'd just be using something you wouldn't. Unless you got a bootleg.Quote:
As for the whole upgrade for me... well, I do like Win7. But is it worth the money to upgrade? No. Never.
Just sayin'
But really don't troll
Oh, please. The future is DX12... no wait... DX13... err... 14?
Most of us have been around long enough to know what the future holds; A big bag of smelly hot air. That's what.
That's not the future. That's just one goddamn piece of software. And one at that that a huge portion of the Microsoft user base (which is businesses and an important percentage of home users) doesn't give a damn.
The future is much more important things. Like a bloody relational file system for once, or a mouse replacement, or a true GUI abstraction, or sandboxed secure system environment, or speech recognition, or a full-proof natural language architecture, or serious AI advancements, or... gosh, a new Operating System to end all operating systems that finally understand that an OS shouldn't be a stupid tool, but an intelligently invisible layer between the user and what he wants to do.
For someone who thinks 'want' and 'need' mean the same thing, you've started an awfully long argument that's all about semantics, and now you're being picky about the word 'sell'. You're trying to 'sell' us on the idea that you should try things before dismissing them, when nobody ever really dismissed Win7, they just said they didn't need it - you can bet they've at least looked at what Windows 7 offers, and if MS's marketing fails to show them exactly how it can help them, nobody needs to investigate further. That's exactly the same as saying that you dismissed Linux because you won't try all the distros. Well of COURSE you're not going to do that, because nobody's been able to show you a compelling reason why your particular situation demands Linux.Quote:
I don't need to market, because I don't sell.
You're trying to defend a company that's made billions of dollars on less-than-unquestionable business practices, telling us we need to give them a chance? Yeah right. If you like it, more power to you. But you can't honestly say that anyone in this thread has made an ignorant, uneducated decision to ignore anything. Abachler makes a very good argument as to why he doesn't need Linux, and I think it's abundantly clear in everyone's post why they're choosing to not investigate Win7 further. I haven't seen any of the typical MS-bashing in this thread, it's all be very moderate statements like "I can't afford to upgrade" or "I'm going to wait a year to see how it does in the battlefield".
Now we're working with an alternative version of sell too? I guess it could be used that way, too, although not the word of choice I would prefer, but oh well.
Anyway, I don't think there's any need to further my "arguments" anymore. I think I've lined out them a lot! That should do, shouldn't it? It's up to people to choose, after all.
Oh and I'm defending the "try before you judge" approach, not just Microsoft. I'd do the same for any other product.