Windows 7

[sithlrd98 66]

Originally posted by: warrior

 And in WIndows 7 you get XP mode, which is XP in a virtual PC so any programs that don't work in Vista but you really need you can run in the virtual XP.

Jonathanquote>

Yeah,but it takes forever for it to loadup(allocated 2 gigs) and games like SC4 perform terrible. I think really old games might be fine and of course legacy hardware, but other than that I find it useless!

Jayson

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: warrior

If you can't run a program on windows 7 or Vista now, then the program is bound to be so old you either don't need it or there is a newer version that will work with Vista.quote>

Nnnnn.... no. I'm not talking about continuing to run Microsoft Works '94 here. I'm talking about old video games. Which will never be replaced by a newer version nor made obsolete.

The thing just needs to be flat out packaged with a DOS/Win3.0 emulator.

If you make your user an administrator when you install 7 then you will have no problems at all with settingsquote>

We'll see. Pardon my skepticism.

And even then, we still haven't addresed the DRM issue. Which is more than just annoyance, it's a matter of principle.

[sithlrd98 66]

I'm not gonna argue with you. DRM sucks and generally causes more problems than solutions. I also wrote Vista off when I was beta testing RC1, but even though Vista has issues for some , and Win7 is built off of Vista , it still has some benifits over XP,2000. Its not just a  shiney GUI this time. I would love to have stuck with XP , but it was time for a new computer , and it came with Vista 64 , and because "I hated everything Vista was" I spent $150 on x64XP just to find out that it was as bad if not worse than Vista!

Maybe 7 is'nt gonna be the "next big thing" , but it does have some better selling points than Vista. But thats just my opinion , and you know what they say about opinions....

Jayson

[Mayor Dylan Thomas 2]

I've been running windows 7 for a few months now and I can say I like it more than both xp and vista. Its not a resource hog like vista but it does include some handy features. I think this is a huge improvement for MS if their new OS is even better than the beta is.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

From what I have seen Windows 7 is basically an improved version of Windows Vista. If so, I will welcome its arrival, but will not be obtaining it, as I have two computers now (which are 2 years old) which run Vista, and I will run them until they are dead.

[Ndragonawa 37]

Pre-ordered Windows 7 Home Premium a few weeks ago off of Newegg! Now, I just have get my "project" together so I can really start using it!

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Give me something that's actually a new installment of the Windows I grew up with rather than a sequal to Vista and I'll consider it.

XP is still the latest version of "Windows" and will be the last version. The new line instead builds off Vista (rather than DOS), which makes its compatiblity with old things limited. But besides that, there are other unrelated issues I still have with the way things are being done now. Give me an OS that doesn't have a mandatory built in DRM structure. Give me an OS which will let me modify my settings as I please instead of telling me I don't have permission.

But as for Europe telling MS they can't make Internet Explorer default browser by default, good for them!

quote>

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors. You can change UAC to no prompts at all in windows 7. Why on earth you'd want to continue using DOS, I've no idea.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: warrior

I don't use IE, and I think it's ok that Windows shouldn't ship with a browser, but Apple OSs should not ship with browsers as well, and there should somewhere on the OS you click to download a webrowser out of the common ones, so IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari. Microsoft are now expecting people to download a webbrowser put it on a pen drive then use that to install it. Some people won't have pendrives, some won't know how to do it, my mum would would have no idea where to start.

And I think that Microsoft not being able to have Upgrade versions of 7 E(just in case IE gets left on the machine) is just stupid, the ECC should have said by the next Windows release there must be no IE.

Jonathanquote>

Computer manafacturers will bundle whatever OS they see fit (along with all the other crapware they usually include) with prebuilt machines. I'm pretty sure that if you are buying a seperate copy it will contain the browser. Also, Apple's browser or OS does have 90% market share or whatever it is.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors.quote>

XP Has a command prompt. So it's still got that crucial old bit of DOS framework in there.

Why on earth you'd want to continue using DOS, I've no idea.quote>

...because I still have programs I use (games, mostly) that run on DOS.

[JayStimson 211]

IMO Windows 95 was the first real MS OS improvement. After that, each new MS "OS" simply becomes the next bigger resource hog. If it wasn't for most major applications and games being developed primarily for MS Windows .... I'd buy a MAC. And if I really had any say in the world (which of course I don't) I'd switch the whole world to Unix.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors.quote>

XP Has a command prompt. So it's still got that crucial old bit of DOS framework in there.

 

quote>

Every OS has a way of inputting commands without a GUI. UNIX systems have terminals, Windows has command prompt. There is command prompt in Vista and Windows 7. It doesn't make it DOS.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors.quote>

XP Has a command prompt. So it's still got that crucial old bit of DOS framework in there.

Why on earth you'd want to continue using DOS, I've no idea.quote>

...because I still have programs I use (games, mostly) that run on DOS.

quote>

DOS partition, that's what my friend did. Or just buy a legacy system, because some of those can be affected by clock speed

[TV-VCR 14]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors.quote>

XP Has a command prompt. So it's still got that crucial old bit of DOS framework in there. quote>

Basically what toxicpiano said. Support for MS-DOS applications has been phased-out. Edit: Not entirely. It's still possble to create an MS-DOS boot diskette from a floppy even in Windows 7 (although this "Version" of MS-DOS is quite watered down, as it's intended use is for aiding in system recovery and such).

Why on earth you'd want to continue using DOS, I've no idea.quote>

...because I still have programs I use (games, mostly) that run on DOS.

quote>

[Legosim 14]

I cant wait for a new HP desktop with windows 7 to comeout, I have my 1st pc still windows xp media center 2005, its still great, but i run my laptop hard, and the exhaust smells like burnt plastic :\

i always love HP never gave me a problem

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors.quote>

XP Has a command prompt. So it's still got that crucial old bit of DOS framework in there.

Why on earth you'd want to continue using DOS, I've no idea.quote>

...because I still have programs I use (games, mostly) that run on DOS. quote>

I still use a lot of DOS stuff in my work. Its usefull for loading firmware on some of the older printers and Copiers that are still around that you cant always have acess to a network  to do it that.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: TV-VCR

And what's stopping you from buying a Macintosh? It's like saying "Well, Bob Burr has no chance of winning because everyone is voting for Obama, so I'm going to vote for Obama." Not to mention you have other options like Bootcamp and VMware.

quote>

Don't forget WINE/crossover/cider wrappers

[Chptrk 86]

Hmm... I've been reading some of the posts about some games might not work on Windows 7 (I think thats what someone said) so what does that mean for..say.. SimCity 4? Would that be okay? (wow, i wrote okay, not ok)

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: chptrk

Hmm... I've been reading some of the posts about some games might not work on Windows 7 (I think thats what someone said) so what does that mean for..say.. SimCity 4? Would that be okay? (wow, i wrote okay, not ok)

quote>

Simcity 4 + rush hour work for me, I'm using 64bit windows 7

[warrior 169]

Windows 7 is very much based off Vista, anything that works in Vista will almost certainly work in windows 7.

Jonathan

[djrules5454 5]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Windows ME was the last DOS based windows OS made. XP is NT based, as are all it's successors.quote>

XP Has a command prompt. So it's still got that crucial old bit of DOS framework in there.

quote>

Duke: Vista has that same emulator. Windows 7, according to my dad, also has the DOS emulator.

Microsoft does realize that DOS is still necessary in some cases, and its emulators probably won't go away.

[chris0101 8]

Originally posted by: hym

Product development costs are often much higher than most people realize.  People complain about how a heart medication (I forget which one) costs $150 a bottle, but most don't realize that GlaxoSmithKline worked 20 years and spent billions of dollars to develop the drug.  The situation with Windows (and Office too) isn't quite the same, but it is similar.  Windows and Office aren't just having to pay for their own development (which isn't cheap); they're having to provide the money for the Microsoft to pay to develop other software that it gives away for free.  Microsoft can't afford to charge for them if it wants them to be widely adopted, but it can't just ask the developers to work for free while they're working on those projects.

quote>

The margins for Windows and Office have always been huge for Microsoft. Perhaps on the order of 80-90% even. Other things like the XBOX are often money losers (even after the profits from games are factored in). Microsoft needs Windows to survive right now. There's no other real reason apart from a monopoly that they can do this sort of thing.

For pharmaceuticals I can understand, however, if you compare the costs of pharmaceutical drugs from the US vs Canada or Europe, you really have to wonder. Every software or drug or R&D project is a risky venture and there is no assurance that there will ever be a profit from it. The only assurance is that spending money on it is a cost. I can accept that profits are needed, but not the way that Microsoft has been running things.

Originally posted by: hym

What exactly is wrong with Vista's application handling?  I have yet to see anything abnormal.

quote>

When Vista was first released, it was heavily criticized for its slowness, incompatibility with XP, etc. SP1 and SP2 have solved most of those, but when you look at benchmarks, XP tends to be about 10% faster. WIndows 7 in its current iteration is inconsistent. In some areas, it has been on par or perhaps even faster than XP, in others, slower than Vista. One thing is certain: boot time appears to be considerably faster. However, we should probably withhold judgement until the final release is out.

[chris0101 8]

Originally posted by: JayStimson

IMO Windows 95 was the first real MS OS improvement. After that, each new MS "OS" simply becomes the next bigger resource hog. If it wasn't for most major applications and games being developed primarily for MS Windows .... I'd buy a MAC. And if I really had any say in the world (which of course I don't) I'd switch the whole world to Unix.quote>

OR Linux. Of course, Linux is considered "unix-like".

We need a common widespread OS-OS "open source operating system".

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Competition is good for any market. It gives these companies an incentive (survival) to develop better operating systems. Google is now nibbling at Microsoft's share by their Chrome OS for netbooks, but for now at least Windows still dominates.