Vista 7 er ah Windows 7

C

crewzen

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
584
:eek:Next week we should see what Win 7 can do or cant do.:p:eek: Beta comming out. Sorry I just figured you would know buy now.:D

I just purchased Vista @$400.00 Just over a year ago and now they want me to buy another Windows next year?:mad:
 
#1 - Don't buy Ultimate. Buy Home Premium. Save yourself $270.
#2 - You don't have to use Windows 7 since no one's forcing you.

Also, what's coming up next week?
 
You are bitching because you finally show up to the Vista party after it is half way done? Give me a break. I bought Vista Ultimate on the day it was released. I also used a 25% off coupon from buy.com to get it for only $300.

I frequently change out hardware, run a full windows domain at home and use the media center. So a retail copy of Ultimate made the most sense for me.
 
$400? where did you buy it...Best Buy??

you can find Home Prem on newegg for like $120 max and Ultimate for $200 max, probably closer to $150 than 200.

those prices existed shortly after release
 
Remember 95? NT4? Then 95b? Then osr 2.1? 98? 98SE? ME? 2000?

In five years there were more than 5 releases. MS is just getting back up to speed. I expect Windows 9 to be out in 2010-11.
 
Vista will be good enough, so don't worry about having to upgrade to Windows 7 unless it has something you must have or dramatically improves stability and performance.
 
I'm not currently expecting to upgrade from Vista myself, unless 7 has some amazing new features, which I doubt. It's still based on pretty much the same underlying system as Vista - it's the XP to Vista's Windows 2000. I generally upgrade Windows only with a new computer.
 
I'll update to Windows 7 once I have the spare cash for the new touch screens that make the "special" programs operate to full potential.
 
Turning around every 2-3 years is about average for a "standard" Windows release.
We've just been sitting on XP for 7 years, that most people are "set in their ways" so to speak, which no matter what OS Microsoft released would have raised hell... It just happened to have been named Vista.

We'll be back to supporting 2-3 versions of Windows actively. XP-Vista-Windows 7.
It's just the past 7 years all we've really had is XP and a little bit of 2000.
 
Cyrilix said:
#1 - Don't buy Ultimate. Buy Home Premium. Save yourself $270.
#2 - You don't have to use Windows 7 since no one's forcing you.

Also, what's coming up next week?
Click to expand...

I agree with #1
#2, I feel MS forces you after a while, by dropping the support on the OS. Its a couple years, but prices of retail OS's don't seem to drop really.
 
Version_3 said:
I agree with #1
#2, I feel MS forces you after a while, by dropping the support on the OS. Its a couple years, but prices of retail OS's don't seem to drop really.
Click to expand...

A COUPLE years? Did you realize Windows 2000 is still on extended support?
 
Anybody know what W7 has to offer that would make me want it???

Three of my boxes (kids computers) still have XP Pro and I use Vista Home Premium.....mainly due to DX10 support and multi GPU support.

I don't like Vista all that much and would be interested to see what W7 has to offer??
Is there a beta release coming out???
 
Cyrilix said:
#1 - Don't buy Ultimate. Buy Home Premium. Save yourself $270.
#2 - You don't have to use Windows 7 since no one's forcing you.

Also, what's coming up next week?
Click to expand...


QFT.

Ultimate is a waste of money IMO. 99% of users don't need the extra features and the "Extras" are a joke.

Vista has been out since late 2006 and Windows 7 is not coming until the middle of 2009 at the earliest. If you look back, that's a pretty normal "shelf life" for a Windows OS ie Win95, Win98 1st and then 2nd Edition, WinME, Win2000 and XP all came out between 1995 and 2001. Windows XP was an exception because of all the delays that Vista suffered from.
 
Well I still have win 2k and I have had Vista since it came out almost 2 years ago. Still not impressed and that is why my wife wants her computer back to XP. She states Vista is crap and hard to get her work done on Vista. The drivers are not as refined working software. Yes the drivers look and act fancier but work like crap.:mad:

So it's back to XP again. You would think with all the extra memory that they would write programs that utilize 64 bit and lots of memory.

Back to something that I have more controll of XP!!!:eek:
 
crewzen said:
Well I still have win 2k and I have had Vista since it came out almost 2 years ago. Still not impressed and that is why my wife wants her computer back to XP. She states Vista is crap and hard to get her work done on Vista. The drivers are not as refined working software. Yes the drivers look and act fancier but work like crap.:mad:

So it's back to XP again. You would think with all the extra memory that they would write programs that utilize 64 bit and lots of memory.

Back to something that I have more controll of XP!!!:eek:
Click to expand...

You do know what drivers are, right? They're the interface between the hardware and the operating system. They don't "look" or "act" fancier. They just do what they're supposed to. You must be talking about applications.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
True, I still have many large customers using Windows 2000.
Click to expand...
Yup. Windows 2000 is very solid.
I'd expect those larger customers to actually start migrating to XP, since it's essentially just Windows 2000.

JimmiG said:
Ultimate is a waste of money IMO. 99% of users don't need the extra features and the "Extras" are a joke.
Click to expand...
Well, here's my breakdown.
Home Basic: Cheap OS for the "Basics"- amazing how they name it as such.
Home Premium: Aero, and additional apps that your casual home users like.
Business: Business capabilities. Amazing name, once more.
Ultimate: Home Premium+Business. This, IMO, fits into the VERY small percentage of folks running domains at home. Most folks in business aren't going to use Windows' built-in tools to make their DVDs, and most folks in business don't need Media Center.

Therefore, Ultimate is for home users. And only a small percentage at that.

JimmiG said:
Windows XP was an exception because of all the delays that Vista suffered from.
Click to expand...
Well, Windows XP waos needing such security fixes they had to go forward with SP2. At that point, XP had been patched so darn much that it was a pretty decent OS.
And for the record- Microsoft started work on Vista before the launch of XP...

crewzen said:
She states Vista is crap and hard to get her work done on Vista.
Click to expand...
Any reason why? Majority of home users like it, in my experience.
 
Haha, Techie.

Some people were asking for info on windows 7, here are two good links that will get updated as new info gets released:
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

Wikipedia lists the following:
Kernel features
Windows 7 will be a major topic of technical sessions at WinHEC 2008 [51] The following improvements and additions to Windows 7 (and Server 2008 R2) kernel components will be discussed:

WDDM 1.1
Direct3D 11
Desktop Window Manager requires Direct3D 10
D2D, a new hardware-accelerated 2D API built on top of Direct3D 10
NDIS 6.20
DirectX Video Acceleration-High Definition (DXVA-HD)
AVCHD camera support and Universal Video Class 1.1
Protected Broadcast Driver Architecture (PDBA) for TV tuner cards
Bluetooth audio stack
Hyper-V and VHD support
More than 64 logical processors
Click to expand...

Have to wait for PDC and WinHec in the coming weeks for more details, but so far so good. :)
 
SlowCobra said:
You mean ME isn't the best OS from Microsoft?!? :eek: ;)
Click to expand...

My god. If I did not experience ME I would not have believe it but since I had, I could safely say that it was the worst OS I have ever used! I dont know why anyone would use it over Windows 2000 which was readily before ME.
 
Grazehell said:
My god. If I did not experience ME I would not have believe it but since I had, I could safely say that it was the worst OS I have ever used! I dont know why anyone would use it over Windows 2000 which was readily before ME.
Click to expand...

I don't either. I'd consider it the greatest Microsoft blunder.

That thing would crash if it even thought about it ;)
 
Win98 SE was good in its day but far from being better than Win2k or XP. Someone needs his or her head examined.
 
Scream And Fly said:
Windows 3.1 FTW
Click to expand...

I'll take your Windows 3.1 and raise you .01 for Windows for Workgroups 3.11!

I remember when I was 7 years old I begged my parents for Windows 95 (floppy edition!!) so I could play fancy Windows games. DirectX 11? Pah! DirectX 2 was the rage in my time.
 
If you paid $400 for WIndows Vista, you're a damned fool. :D MS has been trying their hardest to give Vista away to anyone that wants it.

-- They gave away two copies of Ultimate from just letting them spy on a computer's usage and filling out the occasional online survey (okay they sent me one).

-- They gave away your choice Vista Business and/or Office 2007 Pro right before the Jan 2007 release just for watching three (or was it five) training videos.

-- The gave you a free upgrade to Vista Home Premium if you bought XP Media Center Edition between October 2006 and March 2007. Granted you still had to buy something first.

-- They had a 1 year Technet Plus subscription run last June for a whole $99 that give you access to Vista Ultimate, Business and Enterprise that you can use as many times as you want (each key lasts 10 activations, but you can request new keys if your subscription is still valid).


Hell, if you're a student, you can get access to Visual Studio 2008 and 2005, Server 2003 and Server 2008, and other expensive products through their DreamSpark program.
 
Even after Windows 7 has been released you should wait at least 1-2 years until SP1, did you forget that? ;)

All jokes aside, Apple releases an entirely new version of OS X every year (which seems to be lighter, faster and more full-featured, but that aside), so MSFT is taking it relatively easy :) It's also why MSFT charges more for its OS: they want to get the money from the yearly Windows releases they never released as well ;)

Personally I'm still firmly sticking to Win2k/XP (as well as Linux and BSD). By the time Win7 has SP1 ReactOS may even be a viable alternative for WinXP and I'd start using it full-time :)
 
Elledan said:
By the time Win7 has SP1 ReactOS may even be a viable alternative for WinXP and I'd start using it full-time :)
Click to expand...
They've been working on ReactOS since 1996 (that's 12 years) and they still have yet to reach their first goal of Windows NT 4.0 compatibility.

If you're lucky, they might be starting work on NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) compatibility by the time Windows 8 rolls around, but given their current rate of progress, it won't be fully compatible till some time in 2030.
 
Grazehell said:
My god. If I did not experience ME I would not have believe it but since I had, I could safely say that it was the worst OS I have ever used! I dont know why anyone would use it over Windows 2000 which was readily before ME.
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 was never a good gaming OS. Win98 ruled for gamers until XP came out except for a few brave souls who risked compatibility problems and poor performance just to use the allmighty NT kernel.
WinME worked fine on my system back then, believe it or not. The biggest problem with ME was IE 5.5 - there was some kind of bug that caused crashes when using "smooth scrolling" among other things. Other than this, the core OS wasn't less stable than Win98SE.. it was just that Win98SE wasn't very stable in the first place and ME didn't do much to improve the situation, plus NT was all the rage back then so noone cared for yet another 9x-based OS.
 
crewzen said:
The drivers are not as refined working software. Yes the drivers look and act fancier but work like crap.:mad:
Click to expand...
I think this quote tells us everything we need to know about this thread. :rolleyes:

I honestly couldn't tell you how my drivers "look". If this is what you are basing your OS decisions on, I think it's time for you and your wife to get matching his and hers typewriters.
 
Well if Vista is any indication, Windows 7 should be less bloated, boot faster and have very few compatibility issues because it W7 is closely related to, but an improved version of, Vista. Therefore, I fail to see what the problem is.

My only gripe with Vista is that for all the features (and stability), you pay a steeper price in new hardware than previous OSes. I know that new operating systems need new hardware, but relatively speaking compared to the hardware jumps required in previous Windows releases, Vista is a bit excessive... I'm talking my personal hardware recommendations (2GB RAM specifically), but still... I have friends who would run Vista but don't have the money for both a new OS and more RAM.

If Windows 7 delivers on being lighter-weight, Microsoft will have a winner on its hands.
 
Sovereign said:
Well if Vista is any indication, Windows 7 should be less bloated, boot faster and have very few compatibility issues because it W7 is closely related to, but an improved version of, Vista. Therefore, I fail to see what the problem is.

My only gripe with Vista is that for all the features (and stability), you pay a steeper price in new hardware than previous OSes. I know that new operating systems need new hardware, but relatively speaking compared to the hardware jumps required in previous Windows releases, Vista is a bit excessive... I'm talking my personal hardware recommendations (2GB RAM specifically), but still... I have friends who would run Vista but don't have the money for both a new OS and more RAM.

If Windows 7 delivers on being lighter-weight, Microsoft will have a winner on its hands.
Click to expand...

Say what? RAM is cheaper than dirt these days, and Vista works just fine on Prescotts and newer computers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top