Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release
An anonymous reader writes "Someone over at Redmond flipped the wrong switch, it would seem. Ars Technica spotted that the Windows 7 download page on TechNet had switched to say Release Candidate instead of Beta. It's now back to Beta, but not before Ars got all the details off the page: 'The public RC will apparently be coming in May 2009, and not in April as previously rumored. The RC testing program will be available at least through June 2009, and the actual build will expire June 1, 2010. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions will be available in English, German, Japanese, French, and Spanish.' A screenshot and all the text on the RC download page, which was set to be published 'May 2009' is saved over at Ars."
So I have 32 bit laptop (vista 32) and 64 bit desktop (vista 64). Do I have to buy two upgrades or will one work?
All I can say is that if you're asking such a basic licensing question, I don't EVER want to see you chiming in on something more complicated like the GPL or BSD licenses.
why would anyone prefer 2000 over xp? what can 2000 do and xp can't?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
"why would anyone prefer 2000 over xp? what can 2000 do and xp can't?" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @09:18AM (#27356131)
Well, how about perform BETTER on, rather than "can't do"?
Windows 2000 Run SSD's faster than any other OS by Microsoft... as the "1 thing you asked for"...
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/270657/which_operating_system_best_ssds
----
PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:
"Of the recent operating systems that have been tested, would you believe the winner so far is ... Windows 2000?
That aging operating system, said Saeed Arash Far, engineering manager at SSD manufacturer Patriot Memory, is markedly faster than Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X or Linux when using NAND flash memory. Far said his company's tests showed that Windows 2000 is 5 percent to 8 percent faster over its newer rivals because "Windows 2000 doesn't run any applications in the background.
"We're getting ridiculous numbers with Windows 2000," he said. "When it comes to Vista, it is faster than XP, but with XP, you have the luxury of turning off background applications. ... With Vista, you can't."
okay if i understand this correct, 2000 is faster with nand flash because it "does not run background applications". and then it is stated that in xp "you have the luxury of turning off background applications." so, you can achieve the same performance with xp as you got with 2000. so i'll ask again:
what exactly can 2000 do that xp can't?
by the way, this not running background apps seems to be a truckload of crap to me. i want winamp and search indexer to run in the background. if 2000 can't do that, its just one more thing that it can't do, which every other os does: multitasking. and i don't want to be caught dead with an os that can't multitask.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Where did you get the idea that Windows 2000 can't multitask?
It does, & quite well!
APK
from your reference, which says 2000 "does not run background apps".
P.S.=> Have YOU ever used Windows 2000? It doesn't seem like it, based on your statements... apk
of course i've not used 2000, that's why i was asking.
you persistently show your inability to follow a coherent sentence and derive meaning from it. i'm amazed a person like you can even exist.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
you do realize you're comparing a BETA of Windows 7 to a fully functional NON-beta version of OSX, right? Its like comparing apples to oranges. If you were comparing the Release Candidate to OSX it would be a little more credible.