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."
----
Since you asked for 1 thing, & that 1 thing happens to be what the future of high performance storage is leaning towards nowadays!
Especially since HDD's are the slowest part of your typical PC nowadays, since HDD's are mechanical in nature!
SSD's are not & electrical in nature instead (& thus, 1000's of times faster - want speed? You have to speed up the SLOWEST PART of any PC, & that's diskbound accesses, & this is what SSD's give you here (not a big fan of "FLASH RAM" based SSD's here though, I am more partial to units like the CENATEK "RocketDrive" &/or Gigabyte IRAM, which use PC-100 SDRAM & DDR-RAM, respectively))...
HOWEVER, based on the above speculation, from the article excerpt above? You could probably "tune/tweak" for that same effect, as in services you don't need running for your particular individual needs & cutting them off/trimming them, in XP or Server 2003 (or VISTA, Server 2008, & doubtless Windows 7 as well) to get the same results, but they probably won't be as good in this capacity, as they are setup "default/oem outta-the-box/stock).
APK
P.S.=> As far as your comments on this issue also (as regards HOSTS files in VISTA/Server2008/Windows 7 no longer being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address, & also the removal of the PORT FILTERING gui front-end control) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1177883&cid=27356099 ?
Your comment there was as useful as yours was here in this reply (well, your comment HERE actually WAS useful to myself, in that I immediately showed you a technically accurate & analyzed set of data in response to your question here, whereas you offered nothing even remotely the same to my question in the URL here in my P.S. above)
Your 'contribution' there was not even technically pertinent (so why don't YOU learn something about this art & science, first, then reply instead of 'trolling', yourself?)... so please - give up on the "english grammar wannabe" replies, & instead contribute something technically pertinent instead... apk
"so i'll ask again: what exactly can 2000 do that xp can't?" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @10:03AM (#27356611)
Ok, 2 things:
1.) 2000 cannot protect a user as well vs. bogus or rogue applications as XP, Server 2003, VISTA, Server 2008, or Windows 7 can, via DEP (DEP = Data Execution Prevention)...
&
2.) TcpChimney offloading of work done to the network cards that can handle it, vs. the CPU, for networking communications exists in XP SP#2-3 & beyond (Windows Server 2003, VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7 have it: and, Windows 2000 does not... via "EnableTcpChimney" here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
(How's that?)
----
"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" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @10:03AM (#27356611)
Yes, I know - because I already stated that much, so QUIT "SKIMMING": (proof of that exists on your part, via a quote of my own words from earlier, next below, which was from my init. post)
"HOWEVER, based on the above speculation, from the article excerpt above? You could probably "tune/tweak" for that same effect, as in services you don't need running for your particular individual needs & cutting them off/trimming them, in XP or Server 2003 (or VISTA, Server 2008, & doubtless Windows 7 as well) to get the same results, but they probably won't be as good in this capacity, as they are setup "default/oem outta-the-box/stock" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27, @09:41AM (#27356367)
Thus, there's the proof that I already covered that much (& guess who wrote up the first tuning guide for Windows NT-based OS? Yours truly, circa 1997-1998 @ NTCompatible.com as "Article #1", -> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text (there is where it was copied over to NeoWin forums & rated VERY GOOD, & years after I wrote it, circa 2001), & IF you can find one older than that which predates it? You'd be the 1st who has)...
My point was that Windows 2000 does actually outperform XP in terms of SSD performance, in their "outta-the-box/oem stock" configurations, sans having to do any tuning.
----
"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." - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @10:03AM (#27356611)
OK:
Where did you get the idea that Windows 2000 can't multitask?
It does, & quite well!
APK
P.S.=> Have YOU ever used Windows 2000? It doesn't seem like it, based on your statements... apk
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.