Slashdot Mirror
XP Users Are Willing To Give Windows 7 a Chance
Harry writes "PC World and Technologizer conducted a survey of 5,000 people who use Windows XP as their primary operating system. Many have no plans to leave it, and 80% will be unhappy when Microsoft completely discontinues it. And attitudes towards Vista remain extremely negative. But a majority of those who know something about Windows 7 have a positive reaction. More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch."
I would, but with some of the problems I had with Vistax64 (could have been hardware issues), I might wait until SP1 at least. Hell, it took me that long to migrate from Windows 2000. I waited until frakking SP1 was out!
The real test of Windows 7 won't be users, it would be enterprise customers. There are still a lot of large Windows setups which have not upgraded from XP (Investment Banks and their "excel sheet departments" for ex.). The decision to switch would in that case be taken by Sysadmins and the like.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Does Windows 7 have more DRM or less than Windows XP? I think my decision to switch will be primarily biased along that criteria.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why? Because XP came pre-installed on my last computer, and Windows 7 will come pre-installed on my next one.
and now that the various device drivers for vista works people like it... Is it a feat of engineering or marketing?
I acutally like Windows 7, it crusies on my low-end, Sam's Club Dell Inspiron 1525 Celeron with 2GB of RAM. I still have plenty of memory for doing other things. Gnome and KDE have some catching up to do again. Looks like Microsoft took a page from the open source play book of only accepting quality code. That said, I am still pro open source but, at my job, we are going to Windows 7 so I'd better learn it, kicking and screaming.
7 is a lucky number.
They needed it!
My guess is....they spent a lot of marketing dollars and found that people generally like the number 7.
I have Macs on my desktops, and I run Linux for my number crunching machines. So, I'm no Microsoft fanboy. However, it seems to me that Microsoft actually tried to do the right thing with Vista... namely they built a reasonably secure operating system from the ground up and decided to actually enforce the programming paradigms. The problem isn't with Vista, it's with the antiquated applications that still need tons of shims to work. For example, I recently installed Quicken on my father in law's XP machine and discovered that it wouldn't work unless running as an admin account, which is simply absurd! So, I worry that Windows 7 is just a light weight version of Vista with most of the security rolled back so that insecure applications will be able to continue running and users won't complain about their favorite applications breaking.
And this time, unlike Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, Windows 7 really will be secure. Really!
There isn't much choice on this issue. MS Windows XP is 10 years old. It has been stable for six years or so, but is now showing sign of age. On my older XP machines I am going to have to do a clean install to get them running, and the machines are older anyway, so they are not working really well. The Vista machines I have seen do not seem to work real well, have trouble doing simple things, so I don't think Vista is the way to go. But if MS Windows 7 does work, and if the major apps work, I certainly would want to try it. I suspect it will be at least a year before it is stable enough.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The thing with the businesses is CHANGE. See they have this software they know works with XP, Sysadmins who know XP front and back, users who are used to XP, zero in the buy-new-machines fund, and are looking to save money anywhere they can. To justify buying a new version of Windows might be hard since, despite its age, XP works.
Our university department is cash strapped right now and despite heavy discounts we will NOT be moving to 7 unless it comes installed on a computer. We might if we are lucky get it in the 2011 FY budget. Unlikely though. Our users are so used to the look and feel that they likely would balk at the 7 upgraded look, and ask us to put back in the "classic" look. Yes the Windows 2000 look. Not that new XP Luna stuff. 2000. Thats why we are not switching to 7 anytime soon. The users could care less and our administrators wont give us the money.
Plus, were a little lazy and dont want to reinstall all of those comptuers.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
Vista got bad press and users think they're being smart by eschewing the upgrade. "Vista, I heard bad things. XP is fine." But this is the same crowd that bought an ipod because all their friends had one. They would upgrade just for the newest thing, if it weren't suddenly hip and edgy and retro to claim to be an XP purist. So when they hear Windows 7, they automatically kick into MUST UPGRADE mode and, lacking any bad press, don't have any reason to adopt the negative position.
If Vista was so awful, Windows 7 isn't all that different. Vista was fine (when heavily reconfigured); Microsoft just needs to shed the bad reputation of the Vista name to get the dumb users back.
95
98
98se
nt
2000
xp
Microsoft believes the 7th time is the charm.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Lucky?
No, it's named that because that's how many years bad luck you'll get from installing it.
They arrived at 7 for the version number in this way: Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 lines are self-explanatory. The NT4 and Windows 95/98/ME family were all part of the 4.x version of Windows. Win2000 and XP were 5.x, so naturally Vista was 6.0. That leaves us at 7 for the new Windows.
.,.,. stop. typoRus.
Funnily enough, I've been giving Windows 7 (Vista Plus) a go on a dual boot system when I have time. It's slick and has some nifty features but poor backwards compatibility, ugly interface, and death by mouse click usability is driving me nuts. If OS X worked on generic systems and was cheap, or Linux just worked without the bollocks "community" attitude I'd ditch Windows TODAY and feel relieved.
There's just so many arbitrary decision made by Microsoft it's stupid. Poor DOS support for games. Bad move. Forcing .NET on everyone. Bad move. API's multiplying exponentially. Bad move. Forcing their own media formats. Bad move. Braindead userland security. Bad move. The worlds richest company playing party donations bother ways. Bad move. Fragmentation of export versions. Bad move.
I'm sick of overbearing politicians. I'm sick of Hollywood. I'm sick of Microsoft.
Remember the Mohave ads? Microsoft showed people a "new" OS and supposedly they liked it (although they could only really see it under very controlled conditions that would not show the faults, like driver incompatability). And then it was revealed that the OS was really Vista, which no one liked.
Now jump forward to the present. MS finally has a service pack that will fix many of the problems in Vista (although not all, and it still has very Vista characteristic performance benchmarks). Someone at M$ wants to release the service pack, but someone higher up who understands the M$ way of doing things better says "If we give people this service pack, even though it fixes many things, it will still have the stink of the Vista name on it. Lets do this: change the GUI around just enough that we can claim it's a new OS. Then rather than give people a new service pack for Vista, we can charge them for a whole new Operating System. Call it something other than Mohave and no one will get wise."
An so, with much hype, they release Windows 7. Everyone who bought Vista and was entitled to a workable OS gets screwed. M$ charges anyone who wants their Vista fixed for a supposedly different OS, even though Vista was so broken that even M$ executives called it a disaster. Profit.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
.. that what started out as one of Microsoft's worst releases is now a favorite. The eight year old XP is somewhat solid these days, but it is time for an upgrade. Place Vista on the racks next to Microsoft Bob, and let us move on.
This constant upgrade crap has to end. Christ! Imagine having to change the compressor on your fridge every 5 five years or less, then finding out the new compressor won't fit in the old refrigerator. This whole thing is planned obsolescence at its very worse. "polishedturd" was the best tag so far. Who's gonna put up "lipstickonapig"?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I've thought about this a lot. I feel Microsoft is trying to say that its returned to the roots of Windows. It's been many years since a Windows release was formally identified by a standard version number. It's very common now for software to have more eye-catching abstractly descriptive version identifiers like Pro, Lite, Special Edition, etc. Standard version numbers for an OS like Windows communicates a sense of a return to old school software efficiency and productivity.
Sounds a little silly maybe, but follow me a sec. "Windows 3.11" was just a piece of software; cold and boring. NT was "new technology". It communicated a sense of industrial strength computing. The Year-based Windows releases were all about being modern. You needed them to be modern. "Me" and "XP" were attempts at being trendy. Multimedia was standard, and Windows XP communicated a new kind of "Xcitement", "Xperience", etc. Vista is the post modern, post multimedia OS, communicating the idea that it's forward looking.
Windows 7 is simple, plain, and in the West, comforting. It's lucky number seven. It sounds like it's a serious operating system that is focused on doing its job, and not blinding me with flashy trends. It sounds like an operating system I can trust. In any case, that's the marketing strategy I got from the name. I have no specific insight into Redmond's actual reason.
I've been a 99% Linux user since 2000, including 3 years of law school where I really only used Windows during exams because of Exam4 requirements. However, I'm starting a job at a (small) law firm and my laptop has Win 7 all loaded up and running. My prognosis so far: I can live with 7, especially because it runs Firefox and Cygwin runs Bash and basic UNIX utilities OK as well. I can even use VIM.
Is it particularly fast? No, but it is not insanely slow. My laptop is recent but not super-high end, 2.2Ghz Core2 with 4GB of RAM is the good part, the Intel graphics are the bad part. Frankly, the Aero effects on Windows 7 work just as well as the compositing effects from KDE 4.3, meaning that they do work, but not blazingly fast like on my desktop with the Nvidia card. As for memory usage... despite claims to the contrary, Linux using a modern, fully featured desktop uses a little bit less RAM, but not significantly less. I'm not even close to filling up my 4GB even with office, firefox, and miscellaneous junk running, so no biggies there.
I'm not a fan of Windows, I think that Windows 7 is somewhat boring for a "huge" release, but it does get the job done. My new job is concerned with me being able to write office documents and access Exchange + a small windows network, which Win7 makes stupidly simple. Do I miss virtual desktops? Sure. Am I annoyed that Windows still doesn't have very good window management and that I can't get rid of the annoying borders on my windows that the Bespin KDE theme lets me annihilate? You bet. At the same time, Windows does make certain configuration tasks easier (especially graphics & wireless even though I can and do use graphical utilities under Linux).
I'm not saying that I couldn't do this just as well in Linux, but I am saying that I don't have the time to get my system tweaked to the rest of the office... at least immediately. This is a small law firm with technically proficient lawyers, and being the most junior associate I won't be shocked if I get some IT related tasks from time to time, but my day job is to be able to use nice boring office software, which Windows 7 allows for in a reasonably secure way.
As for the XP part of this... I had an old XP license that I did purchase fair & square (for $10 from my University back in the day). It could have gotten the job done for a while, but Win7 really does have better security and like it or not it is the path forward. One major feature that Win7 has over XP is the find option in the start menu. Since MS keeps screwing with the Control Panel and everything else, I almost never bother to hunt through menus. Instead I just type in what I want to do in the search bar and it does a very good job of finding what I want. In fact, it's likely faster that me clicking menus even if I did know where stuff was. I'm not sure if XP even had this feature but Win7 makes it very easy to use by default and I've saved quite a bit of time with it... so there ya go, one actual reason to upgrade!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
since Microsoft will soon stop XP support and updates, and refuse to patch any more security exploits.
"Soon" is not until 2014.
Most Windows XP installs don't make use of dual core or higher systems as one has to by the non uniprocessor version of XP to use more than one core or processor.
Cores and processors are different things in Microsoft's view. Cores are processors cores, while processors are the physical CPU packages. XP will use dual and quad core processors fine (7 arguably does a better job of distributing load across the processors, but that's beside the point), just you can't use a uniprocessor version of it on a machine with 2+ CPU sockets.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Keep in mind, MS owns Bungie...
Circumcision is child abuse.
Vista is the new coke...
But it's not different from any other MS OS. The first version sucked huge balls. Just as much as the original XP did. XP was inferior to 2k before SP1, some would argue even until SP2. The same applies to Vista. Vista SP1 is a fairly good and well supported system. Better than XP... I have both on different machines and I see little difference in performance. But that also means Vista is no "must upgrade" system. I don't get any more out of Vista than I get out of XP.
I took a look at Win7 and it's nice. It's an ok system, but no "must upgrade" system either. The same will apply to Win7 that did to every system before it: Wait 'til SP1. Maybe 'til SP2.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sucks for those who bought Vista - service pack used to be free before.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
As they've always wanted to be as cool as Apple, it's obvious - this is their chance to have their "System 7". Pity that was almost 20 years ago...
My main OS is currently debian(trying different distros) and I use windows only for gaming nothing else(I don't even let that bugger leave my lan.). I guess I have to change to windows 7 when some game doesn't work on XP, but before that I am sticking with XP.
Been running the RTM for about a week now. And I like it a lot. Sure, I wish Vista users would get this for cheap, but despite that, it really is nice. The new taskbar takes some getting used to, but it has some great features (Having shortcut controls in the preview has a ton of potential). It feels more responsive and polished, even on a netbook that Vista would choke on.
Much fewer hiccups compared to Vista (I can switch around between Visual Studio, Office, Eclipse, etc with no delays). There are lots of surprises. Try the math panel (best with a tablet, but mouse is okay), you can burn ISO images, it has basic color calibration and finally, the taskbar icons have been tamed. Aero Peek is nice and Aero overall takes less resources. It works fine even with Intel integrated graphics.
All in all, it really sets Windows back on good ground. It's the first version of Windows in quite some time that I really like running. Vista wasn't as bad as everybody said, and I'm sure Windows 7 won't be as good as some will hope, but for now, I am happy to run it.
Why not? It's been available since the RC. You do need hardware virtualization support, but that's easy to check (I dislike GRC because of his irrational fearmongering of UPnP, but this tool is the quickest way to check if you have virtualization available on your CPU). It's based on the mature VirtualPC product and running full XP, so if an app worked in XP it should work fine in virtualization.
First, read about why Windows 7 is 6.1. Cliff notes: app compatibility, because too many apps are stupid and don't handle major version bumps properly (witness all of the apps from Windows XP that wouldn't install on Vista simply because it was 5.1 to 6.0 and the installer assumed major version would always be 5 and so just checked minor version, resulting in 0 less than 1 == not supported). Win7 is certainly an enhancement on top of Vista, but then Vista was an enhancement on top of XP (really on top of the Server 2003 codebase, but that came from XP), and XP was an advancement on top of 2000, and so on. Some things haven't changed, like the new WDDM driver model that Vista introduced (though Win7 did bump to WDDM 1.1, which allows for easier/better drivers, especially in the realm of gpus). Other things have changed dramatically, though you wont really notice such as the DWM now being much more efficient, especially if coupled with a WDDM 1.1 driver (nVidia, ATI, and Intel already have such drivers available). In Vista, DWM memory usage would grow linearly with the number of windows open. In Windows 7 with a WDDM 1.1 driver, memory usage is now constant regardless of the number of windows (and with a 1.0 driver, it's still ~50% more efficient than Vista). Another example, Win7 is much nicer to SSD storage. But you should look at the list of new features yourself.
1GB is fine. I've used Win7 on netbooks with that little RAM and they were just as snappy (if not snappier) than when running XP. Of course I also like to upgrade netbooks to 2GB, and when you can do so for $20 why wouldn't you? You don't need a new video card, especially if you already have a DX9-capable card (DX9+ required for Aero, will be snappier with a 10.1 card but Aero will still work well). Win7 fits quite well into 16GB on netbooks with plenty of room to spare for your own content, and you can even hack it (though it's not recommended or supported) to get down into 8GB. Win7/Vista definitely have more startup services, but that's also a bit of a red herring as there are new things like the Aero Destop Window Manager and the new Audio server that show up as services now.
XP Pro supported 2 processors, so for most people that would be fine (assuming most people have single or dual-core CPUs, not quad-core). What's more important than that is 64-bit really shines in Win7 (it worked well in Vista as well, but it's even better in 7; for XP
linux? osx? debian? solaris? gentoo? GLaDOS?
If you're an XP user, Windows 7 appears to be a worthy upgrade. If you're a Vista user, I would be pissed about the upgrade price and wait to see the next version of Windows.
I am a Vista user.
We get the same story every time. People don't want to upgrade from [2 versions ago] to [next version] and [last version] sucked.. but it always happens.
A lot of people wanted to stick with 98, thought Me sucked, and didn't want to upgrade to XP until they absolutely needed to. Same shit, different decade.
Vista objectively sucked on release, before hotfixes and service packs came along. By the time it became a usable OS, it received too much negative publicity.
The difference with Win7 is that the latter works great out of the box (this isn't hearsay - I was using it since beta, and I use Win7 RTM since the day of its release for MSDN subscribers).
Except that Windows 7 is really version 6.1
If you start a DOS prompt under windows 7 you are presented with the following
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7100]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
And just to prove it the ver command says it too
C:\>ver
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7100]
Not quite. They only own a small stake now.
The first few interations of a new naming scheme suck compared to the refined later versions.
Bad: 3.0, 95, ME, Vista
Medium: 3.1, 98, XP, Seven
Best: 3.11, 98 OSR2, XP SP2/3, Seven's update
The main reason the first iterations suck is that's when they introduce entire new API's, driver models, memory models... and it takes a while for developers, both inside and outside of MS to develop the tools and skills for that API version. Seven, desipte it's name, is basically version 6.1 of the Windows API. That is the versions named after years (95,98) were 4.X, The two letter names (ME, XP) were 5.X, and the ones with single word names (Vista, Seven) are 6.X
Basically, Seven will be better than Vista in the same way that XP is better than ME. I knew before Vista was even released that the new API would take a while to adapt to and that it would be this generations ME.
People are going to want an operating system that can address lots of cheap, necessary RAM.
Further, processor power is cheaper than water at this point.
People are going to adopt Windows 7 for its adaptation to RAM above 4gb and optimized parallel use of multiple cores.
Then again, I don't think Vista was bad. The UAC is what drives most people nuts, unless they had driver issues. It's a nice operating system although a bit big.
I think what most people want is what XP seems to represent: a simple, pared-down, flexible operating system.
Unfortunately, many are not willing to learn as much about their computers as their cars, so they fall prey to all sorts of scams, trojans, etc. and get the Vista UAC as a consequence.
Futurist Traditionalism
Of course the people who've "tried" Windows 7 are gonna like it. They more than likely have used it on some special demo machine with the specs and thorough setup to make it usable. Just like Mojave, when users try it in a custom environment designed to make them like it, they'll like it. But that's not what they're getting on their Compaq POS-9000. They'll eventually realize they're unsatisfied with 7 and look forward to the new version of windows without realizing they're going to be duped again just like before.
Windows ME never happened.
In five years time, Vista will never have happened too. It's hard to write this in English because it doesn't have a Future Nonpast tense like Newspeak.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
*disclaimer* I work at MS */disclaimer* GDI locks reduced/removed Federated search Connecting monitors "just works" now. There are more, but the point is, there are "really new" things. Though it's not as if "really new" matters - being well polished and designed is more important than being new, first, etc. Google wasn't the first search engine, but they did a great job polishing up and refining previous ideas. Same with the iPod and mp3 players. "New" does not, prima facie, mean "better."
Correct. The commercial software industry has always treated version numbers as a marketing element.
It doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to look good on the box.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
In my country, Argentina, if it is easy to crack, the average joe 6 pack will use it. If not, no one here will pay for it. Here a computer costs a median of USD400. And is a lot of money here. Almost everyone that pays that for a computer, uses counterfeit software. Only enterprises use legal software.
If I wanted to use it in my office I would want the features in the full version. With the proposed price for that it's even beginning to look as if OS X on Mac hardware instead of what superficially looks like an OS X ripoff would be better value. However, the important thing is the applications so you buy the platform that will run them.
It's a pity that the 5 digits per seat software my users run starts and stop services just to put stuff on the screen so every user would need Admin access and UAC turned off. It's really not Microsofts fault that people are still writing applications with an MSDOS mindset even when they are paid a fortune to drag it screaming into the new century, but as I said, you get the platform that runs the applications.
The 6.1 refers to 7 being NT 6.1. Just like how 2k was NT 5.0 and XP was NT 5.1.
Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
I fully agree.
I haven't tried windows 7 yet. Before I even consider buying it (just to get away from Vista) can anyone tell me if Microsoft have continued the ongoing trend of assuming the users IQ and knowledge of computers is seriously diminishing with every new windows version?
Vista hides much useful information that XP shows, and has introduced even more pointless, time wasting and just annoying "are you sure" dialog boxes even with UAC turned off. Can anyone confirm if the following stupidities have been fixed in Windows 7 or is the trend still downward?:
XP's copy progrss dialog clearly states the filename and full path. Vista's doesn't even mention the name of the file you're copying any more and it only tells you a small part of the path of the source. It leaves you guessing which copy operation it relates to which is mindnumbingly clueless whenever you're doing multiple concurrent file copies.
If you move a folder containing files to a different place that already has a folder with the same name, XP merges them fairly quietly and properly. Even with UAC turned off, Vista introduces extra supremely annoying and unavoidable dialogs to confirm each file in turn (yeah I know theres a "do this for all" checkbox but its still annoying). This extra dialog is not disableable and is really a pointless intrusion if you have any knowledge of what a move operation should do. Worse, even after a successful move, the source folder is left behind. I'd love to meet the marketing moron who thought of these new semantics just so I can kick him in the nuts.
If there's even one file in a folder that Vista thinks might be a media file, Vista forces a media-style display on the contents of the whole folder. This results in all the useful info you need (such as file attributes and modified dates) getting hidden and replaced by a retarded popularity rating you will probably never use. It does this every time you create a new folder and you can't turn off this unwanted 'helpful' (snort) functionality.
Vista's DRM means it can't play MY media to ME. XP can play it without problem.
Vista still frequently forgets the last view settings you set ("sort by" choice etc) even if you set "remember each windows settings" and even do "apply to all folders". This is a problem Windows has had even way back to Windows 95 as I recall.
Feedback about how Windows 7 works in these respects would be much appreciated. I'm not giving Microsoft even more of my money just to find out its no better (or even worse) than Vista for the stuff I do most.
I think there's a big difference between Vista's bad word of mouth and the Ipod's "my friend got one, IT'S SO COOL!"
I sometimes like to pretend that browsing /. while I'm supposed to be working makes me more knowledgeable about computing than the average user, but probably not by much if at all. I couldn't tell you what people don't like about vista, but whenever people do rant about how bad vista is, they clearly know more about it than I do. I don't remember getting an option of sticking with windows ME when I bought my computer, and I don't remember hearing anything negative about XP. The one thing I know about Vista is that a lot of people don't like it and I have the option of not getting it.
An ipod on the other hand has a lot more going for it than being the newest, hippest thing. At this point, I think everyone in the country has played around with one at some point, and there is base appeal. The wheel was pretty appealing, the touch is too.
Maybe if everyone had been exposed to vista and it had a cool gimmicky feature, I'd agree that the only difference there was that one was trendy and the other wasn't, but that's not how it is, you're drawing a false comparison.
Another part of that equation was how much it was changed prior to release, it frustrated windows Beta testers which was reflected in negative publicity via blogs, etc. Some features simply never appeared, even today they aren't there, for example the WinFS file system. This constant game of "what's gonna be inside Vista?" got to even the most loyal Windows users.
I run Vista now because I get copies of it with my MSDN subscription. My take on it? Not worth an upgrade really. It works fine, but is it worth the cost of retail? Anyway that horse has been beat to death. I hope Windows 7 has more real features that I can exploit and not just eye candy.
.. Which is why people bring their Vista PCs to me to fix after it deinstalls its own drivers and blue screens when their Wireless cards go out of range of their wireless networks? Vista is better than it was, but it is still broken. I have no friends with XP that have the same kinds of problems. I have a laptop that came with Vista... It would hang on shutdown... I wiped it and put XP on it.
The hardcore are using Win2k because it has better USB support and better drivers than NT4. XP doesn't really give you more and 32 bit Vista gives you far less.
Nah, Vista was horrible. It saturates your disk IO like crazy, which is especially bad on those older 5400RPM laptop drives that don't have much cache. 64bit CPU and 2GB of memory does no good when the other pipes are clogged.
Win7 is much closer to XP at not consuming all your disk IO.
GDI locks reduced/removed
So does this mean Halo won't blue-screen every chance it gets and AutoCAD won't run dog slow? Halo runs fine on my XP machine. AutoCAD is about 4x faster on the Centrino Duo with 2GB RAM and XP, compared to a Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM and Vista.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Hurray - this is good news! If winver reported the wrong internal version, I don't think I'd have any faith left for Microsoft.
I tried Windows 7 x64, just to see what it's like. Sound card driver whinges (good old creative). Video capture card doesn't work at all. Who cares about all the screen candy with the DRM that lives behind it. Seriously thinking of going back to Windows XP Pro 32 bit, not that I use Windows for anything other than playing games anyway...
...Lyall
OK, I admit it, I like Windows 7. I've been running Enterprise x64 at work since it was released on Technet and it's really good - driver support was almost flawless out of the box (Although when I tried to install the latest Catalyst drivers they consistant BSOD it, but that's really an ATI issue) and it runs much better than Vista on the same machine. The only things I've had problems with so far are old or stupid apps with hardcoded OS detection limits or 32-bit only libraries and so far all of them have worked via the XP Mode VM (Although there are some quirks with multiple monitors). My current plan is to upgrade my home PC from XP Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (Technet again) in the coming weeks. One completely awesome feature that they should have added years ago is the ability to right-click on a DHCP lease and convert it into a reservation, which saves me a hell of a lot of time.
There are still negatives - there are some real issues with pinning certain apps to the taskbar, especially if they're located on a network drive (though there are workarounds), I'm not a fan of the way that they've over-simplified some of the menus making it difficult to find the advanced settings you want and the libraries are annoying, though I suspect they'll grow on me; also, Sharepoint still behaves inconsistently when trying to save documents directly to the site via Office 2007 as it did in Vista, especially with Visio for some reason. Oh, and even the new and improved UAC still annoyed me, so I had to turn it off completely - though I'd imagine non-power users probably wouldn't have as many issues with it.
All in all, I think we all know that Windows 7 is the OS Vista should have been - and probably would have been if Microsoft hadn't decided on an arbitrary release date for it whether it was done or not (ignoring the business implications of letting Vista development continue for another 2 years) and I for one am very impressed with it so far.
There's an old expression:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Yeah, it indicates that MS has become so bureaucratic that the left hand (marketing) can't even get the right hand (engineering) to fix the build scripts. Hardly sounds like a kick your competitors in the ass outfit anymore.
Either that and you take MS's explaination on face value, and it means the Windows development culture has become so corrupt that ISVs are now hardcoding version numbers into their apps to extort paid upgrades out of their customers.
(Hopefully the slashbot droid who called me a shill for posting about IE3 is reading this :)
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Microsoft had three OS.
MS-DOS what starts from PC-DOS (the original PC operating system) and MS-DOS 1.0. When the Windows came the Windows 1.0 - 3.11 was just the window manager top of the MS-DOS operating system. Windows 95 was the first Windows what got integrated MS-DOS operating system to itself. The windows 95 turn to be partically the operating system itself. Windows 98 and Windows ME were both as well the MS-DOS operating system line, even that IE and Explorer were integrated to the MS-DOS OS. Windows ME was last OS of the MS-DOS line.
Windows CE was other MS operating system. It is still in use in GPS and other devices and it has own small version history as well from compact devices to cellphones. The Windows CE was used to develop the Windows Mobile what you can find today on cellphones. Windows Mobile and Windows CE are close to each others. Actually the Windows Mobile use the Windows CE as it's operating system. Windows Mobile is little bit like Windows 1.0 - 3.11 for it.
Then the third OS what Microsoft has, is the NT. The NT from 3.0 to 6.1
NT 4.0 was released same time as windows 95. Windows NT 5.0 was the Windows 2000.
Windows XP was NT 5.1 and it was based to Windows 2000 but mixed with technologies from Windows 9x (MS-DOS) OS.
After Windows NT 5.1 came Windows NT 5.2 (XP mediacenter) and then NT 6.0 what was Windows Vista's Operating System. Now we are going on the NT series 6.1 what is the OS what is used to run the Windows 7.
Even that Windows 7 name is "Seven". It is the NT OS series 6.x. Same thing is with the Server edition. Windows 2008 R2 has the NT 6.1
MS has few development OS's as well what are not on product lines. Singularity and BigTop. Both are microkernel based OS's and Singularity is just great technology demo currently. Free to use in Universities but not allowed to customize or use it in commercial work.
Did you know that the ONLY reason why Windows 7 was 'trimmed down' (ram, cpu and resource hog that Vista was)... was simply BECAUSE of Linux running on NetBooks?
It is well known fact, that internal to MS, and to the top executives there, that they did not think Vista had ANY issues at all. Why do you think they spend all those MILLIONs of dollars on Mojave and the silly SienField commercials? They actually THOUGHT it was PUBLIC perception problem, not a technical one.
It was not until the massive influx of the Netbooks, running Linux, that MS went 'Oh SH*T' we better do something. So, they HAD to make Win7 run on a Netbook.
THIS and mostly only this, (seriously) was the reason for the 'trimming of the fat' and the rest was MASSIVE investment into WHY people hated vista. Hense, why the security popups are now GONE.
Just remember, MS does not innovate... they simply copy others or react to negative things. If it were not for LINUX...MS would STILL be pushing out retarded Mojave ADs and others...
Kinda ironic isn't it?
So they're willing to give it a chance... But how much are they willing to pay for that chance? Let's get some pricing details, MS. Still, an audiophile friend of mine resolutely refuses to use Vista/7 on his main machine because he claims he had problems doing 192 kHz audio playback in Vista with his E-MU sound card.
I'd recommend installing Linux Mint, and seeing if that works better for you.
It's literally pick your poison with OS's though. They ALL suck, just use the one you think sucks the least.
I hope Windows 7 has more real features that I can exploit and not just eye candy.
It is mostly UI (there's a mile long list of kernel changes too, but what do we care as end users?), but I find this a big deal as Windows UI was always mediocre. Got the job done, but with an occasional wart. This time... the new taskbar reboot is positively convenient. Vista's start menu with integrated search / command line makes things much faster to start. And so on - it's really mostly little things each on its own, but they do add up. As far as I know, this is quite similar to how Apple does things with OS X, in fact...
As a side note, Win7 includes the first version of Windows Media Player that doesn't give me the urge to punch the monitor on sight; in fact, after using it for two days I'm now seriously considering making it my default player (the only problem with that is its sub-par Ogg Vorbis support - my music collection is about 30% that).
Most importantly, the UI feels smooth and responsive - something very much lacking in Vista (XP was halfway in between... I hated hanging Explorer). I won't say "fast" because this is something only tests can tell, while "smooth" is a subjective user experience... but funny thing is that most people really want this, and don't care about the real numbers.
Upgrade of the technical side was mostly taken care of in Vista already - security, new kernel stuff (fully transacted FS is neat!), driver model update to keep up with hardware changes, better multi-core, smarter use of RAM (especially when there's a lot of it), and so on. Win7 takes that, and fixes problems (and makes improvements) in the layer that user immediately interacts with.
The fact remains that most businesses won't change from XP, which runs on primitive machines, to Win7 (alias VistaLite) which still, for the most part, requires hardware upgrades. You could run a serious office with AppleWorks on a 2E, for shitsakes, and that (mercifully) went to its reward 20 years ago. Primitive spread sheet, word processor and data base...and Mail Merge. For the most part, subsequent improvements have been more devoted to eye candy (sorry...I know I'm oversimplifying a bit). The computing power of an average desk-top computer today is more than sufficient to run just about every small company in the world. Why would a guy running a body shop with a P2 give a crap about upgrading? The machine does everything he wants, and rudimentary security will stop all the nasty things from reaching his rarely-online machine.
And if you honestly believe that The Boss gives a flying fuck about whether his staff have pretty transparent windows to look at while they're figuring out how much to charge for the bumper repair, you're smoking something I'd kill to get hold of.
The average home computer has been kicking the ass of the average work computer for at least 10 years, and that situation isn't going to change any time soon. Win7 may be better than Vista. It's still going to be irrelevant until they start giving it away along with a free multi-threading P4 (which these days is worth just about as much as a bag of chips).
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You forgot about Microsoft Bob... oh wait, that was a POS, not an OS. Nevermind...
Kickass Cheap Web Hosting
I have more interest in the rumors about the next version of Windows going to a microkernel sort of design, making use of what has been achieved so far with Singularity. So far from what I see, Windows 7 is pretty much Windows Vista with XP resource managment (which isn't great, just an improvment over Vista). Still the same NT6.1 kernel as Server 2008.
Rumors are the next Windows Mobile may use the Singularity microkernel, if thats true that could be a good sign of things to come. The options of moving pretty much anything Microsoft wants from userspace to kernel space and vice versa to suit various needs (like SQL Server in kernel space while leaving everything else back in userspace for a database server).
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Vista may have been fine "when heavily reconfigured", but Windows 7 also works from the start. Big difference.
http://www.tenjou.net/
Of course we're willing to try windows 7. This is because we have no idea as a group that windows 7 is descended directly from windows vista...
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Well obviously their marketing worked it's magic on some of us. However I'm not falling for it, their OS will always have issues, just like the beaten Microsoft child, I'll be wary and cautious for any undeserved strikes.
I rarely respond to ACs but this is too good to ignore. You're absolutely correct, plans for anything really new are set years in advance. Yet in May of 2007 Slashdot reported that Microsoft announced that Vista was to be it's last 32 bit OS and that the sucessor to Vista would be 64 bit only. See here: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/05/17/1452228.shtml
Now only two years later we are being told that Win 7 is the next great thing, and that it will be available in 32 bit and 64 bit versions (Just like Vista). If 7 really was the next new OS then you would be absolutely correct, it would have been years in development and Microsoft would not have stated two years ago that it was going to be 64 bit only if indeed it was designed to have 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The only way that this "mistake" could reasonably be made is if the real next OS was intended to be 64 its all along (as it should be), but then M$ decided to claim this repair job on Vista was a "new" OS at the last minute and surprise everyone with this OS that supposedly came out of nowhere. It's just a Vista fix with an alternate GUI and a new name (and a new price tag), to wash off the stink of Vista and to double bill all those who paid for Vista but want a working OS.
And to respond to another issue raised by another cowardly AC, it is completely believable that M$ could still release service packs for Vista, but fail to correct as much as they did in the version of Vista that they now want to call Win 7. Future service packs for the old Vista in no way disprove that they are just re-skinning Vista and getting people who should not have to pay for the fixes to buy it again.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Vista IS awful! Code long enough on any OS and you see it's true colors. The security is a blatant work-around to their early bad designs, developer tools require Admin rights, opening up more holes that equates to the ozone.
I'm concerned since 7 is a brushed-up version of Vista.
. . . my employer supplies me with a SchtinkPad with whatever version of Windows they decide to support. Corporate spy stuff installs updates automatically, checks if my passwords are "conform", etc., and automatically sends a email to my manager informing him that one of his "manageable entities" does not "conform to the norm." I have not used Vista, because my employer has not decided to roll it out. If they decide to roll out Windows 7, I guess I'll be on board.
But your "committed" statement reminds me of the old eggs and bacon breakfast joke: "The hen participated, the pig was committed."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
2000 was the original version of XP, just as Vista is the original version of W7. If you haven't figured it out yet, look at the version numbers.
The performance difference between Vista and XP is an illusion, every single test shows Xp as faster. You have Vista on a faster computer, but are too stupid to realize it.
XP Pro supported 2 processors, so for most people that would be fine (assuming most people have single or dual-core CPUs, not quad-core).
See here: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.
XP will run on a 2x quad core machine or even more powerful, as long as it is not more than two physical cpus.
70% of the people who used it are considering it. Since, only 22.5% (Somewhere between 20-25% in the graph) of the people actually used it, a mere 15.75% of the people interviewed have used it and are positive. So those '70%' are actually 788 people out of the 5000 people interviewed.... Not really something you can base a forecast on..... In their vista-review, 70% have used vista and of these people, and about 20% are (moderately) positive .... this means 14% used vista and were 'happy' , which is 700 out of the 5000 people.
700 comes awfully near the 788 ....
Based on this research I predict that Windows 7 will be just a big a failure as vista is.
There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
My bad. I've not run XP since Vista launched, which was also right around the time multi-core processors became popular. I never got a chance to personally try XP with dual- or quad-core (I did run it dual-proc), and I have no desire to go back. Vista wasn't perfect, but at least for me it was miles ahead of XP. And Win7 is that much better than Vista, again for me.
Kubuntu is the biggest pile of shit ever! Ubuntu's KDE implementation is horribly buggy, and then with that piled on top of Ubuntu's other buggy crap it really is the LAST distro I would use.
I quite like Fedora (I used to really hate it, but since F10 it has been really good), Debian (just works!) and I am currently using Arch Linux (I was hesitant because of the whole rolling release thing, but it seems OK so far). All three of the latter distros have good KDE implementations. Try them.
You are also way oversimplifying Wine - I can tell you from a look at the Appdb that the latest photoshop does NOT work out of the box (consistently rated GARBAGE!) except for some Kubuntu user (you?) who rated it Gold.
I am a Linux user (only one, rarely used VM of Windows), and a frequent Wine user (I am in #winehq every day as DDevine, and I play Steam games just fine).
Overall however I do agree with you that Windows is just a bunch of the same problems which continue to iterate and all mainstream distros provide features which have only recently been poorly implemented in Windows :) Virtualbox has acellerated graphics now so maybe Photoshop not working in Wine isn't really a big deal...
It is good to hear that Windows 7 is decent business software. Microsoft might still be sweating bullets, though. Though it seems that Windows 7 will be a reasonably valuable, reliable operating system, will businesses have the money to upgrade in the middle of this massive economic downturn?
The virtual XP mode is a nod towards compatibility, but what sort of nod is MS going to have to give towards mass conversion pricing, especially if it is accompanied by hardware upgrades?
The OS might be great, but the marketing fundamentals are unsound. This could be bad timing indeed. Though there may be a will, the real question is: is there a way?
As in, what sort of upgrade path do we have?
--
Toro
I have to say "REAL alternatives" every time? How about if you consider what I actually said rather than trivia it suits you to address.
For the record, I primarily use Ubuntu WHEN I actually do have a choice. At home that means about 95% of the time, though it's a little hard to estimate. Two machines are multi-boots that normally run Ubuntu, and one of those machines has my attention most of the time. One ancient clunker is pure Windows, but only gets used about 10 minutes a day, and the 'muscle machine' runs Windows because of licensing restrictions, but has virtual machines for Ubuntu, a RedHat variant (with a special corporate configuration), Solaris, and so-help-me DOS.
At work I have much less choice. Though I've configured a number of machines as multi-boots, I'm basically constrained to run Windows almost all of the time. I had a scratch monkey that was usually in Ubuntu, but it died a while back and I'm not sure if I can replace it...
Apple? When I was teaching at the university I actually was in a Mac environment. The more I learned about Macs the less I liked teaching on them. At this point, my basic feeling is that Apple is mostly the source for Microsoft's worst ideas or twisted implementations of what were formerly good ideas before Microsoft mangled them. Apple not-so-secretly wants to be Microsoft, but they've accepted that they can't be that, so they are basically exploiting their high-margin fan boys. Perhaps I'm too harsh on Apple, but I don't regard Apple as a real choice for me.
Sun? I have quite a bit of experience, but I regard them as a small desert island these days. Not a choice I like.
We're back in the Microsoft ocean, with nary a drop to drink. (Shall I regard Ubuntu as my handy dandy solar still.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I still wonder why Microsoft chose the name "Windows 7". Any ideas? For all other OS names, there appeared to be a meaning behind those choices, but for Windows 7, I labor to find a reason.
because mojave.com was already taken.
Windows 7 is a Service Pack to Windows Vista practically,
It's interesting how many people toss that out there without having any idea what changes really went on under the hood for Win7....
because I have a 5 digit UID and microsoft pai^H^H^H^H let me beta test it and it ROCKS.
anti-libel note: the above is a joke and is not to be taken literally.
Poor DOS support for games. Bad move.
So they should continue to support an OS that hasn't seen mainline support since 1990 or so? DOSBOX is what you want, anyway, because you can make virtual disks and such. People were already moving onto DOSBOX even with XP.
Forcing .NET on everyone. Bad move.
That'd be like saying Apple made a bad move with XCode, or MS made a bad move by 'forcing' DLLs on everyone. For end users, they don't care what the program is running on, really. By including .NET standard you can count on less people having to install it over slow connections.
API's multiplying exponentially. Bad move.
New technology = more APIs. Are you seriously expecting an API to stay static between every version of any OS forever? Once again, users don't care.
Braindead userland security. Bad move.
They have to make the security simple or else people won't use it. Since most developers have figured out how to stop making Vista and 7 throw up UAC warnings everywhere, you should hardly ever see a UAC prompt since more and more Windows programs won't need admin access to do everything.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
The reason the version number is reported as 6.1 is to not break stupid programs that check the major version number (or else they'd have a "MY PROGRAM IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH 7" fiasco, only due to stupid developers and their version checks). For all intents and purposes it is 7.0 for Microsoft.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
...upgraded a low end netbook from Windows XP to Window 7 the other day.
I'm more than happy with it, you can dial down all the OTT UI stuff and make it look like XP, it runs all my existing programs, and actually gives a really welcome speed increases (no, really, it does, even on a cheap machine).
Time has come to upgrade lads.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Why are we still calling the long (and painful) Windows 7 public beta Vista?
If Microsoft had any sense of decency they'd offer Vista users credits or vouchers for free upgrades. Windows 7 is about as unexciting as XP was, but as least it feels like an upgrade.
Quack, quack.
Most people are ready to try Windows 7 as the tried Vista. The interesting question is how many will stay on Windows 7. How about business and application compability? I know about XP compability mode, wont happen. If its much work going from XP to Windows 7 there will be tough resistance.
I suspect the most eager people to go to Windows 7 is those on Windows Vista, not those on XP.
Essentially the problem is the same for Windows 7 as for Windows Vista. It doesnt bring anything that isnt already in Windows XP. Its just not worth the hassle.
HTTP/1.1 400
"More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch." I'm betting that's not 70% of people who are currently using XP (versus Vista & XP combined)! I've literally just reinstalled XP from giving our Technet Win 7 (RTM) a go for a while, if they could make the interface more consistant and allow the old start menu behaviour - I could probably bear it permanently.
Windows 7 will be a huge success for home users that bought Vista boxes and are in desperate need of relief.
I've been running it in an experimental vm since RC, and now thats its RTM I can honestly say it doesn't suck as bad as Vista.
However, it still has the same core flaw that kept Vista from passing our initial predeployment testing. IT staff can't run it. Sure, you can surf the net on it, or RDP into a machine you can actually do work on, but as an IT person its a pretty useless environment to try to work in. adminpak hacks from vista aren't as useful as they used to be, and the rsat is pretty limited unless you've magically replaced every last server with windows2008R2 since last week. (which BTW, you can't because Windows2008R2 doesn't support ANY shipping version of exchange).
If you can somehow bypass IT and give it to end users, particularly the dolts that only run 3-4 apps in their entire work day yet somehow have fantastically overpowered workstations, they might just like it. But then you get back to the original problem: how do you support an OS in deployment that you can't run in IT.
Kubuntu is the biggest pile of shit ever! Ubuntu's KDE implementation is horribly buggy, and then with that piled on top of Ubuntu's other buggy crap it really is the LAST distro I would use.
There is no such thing as a KDE implementation. You like Debian (everything works) but hate Ubuntu (pile of shit). Wake up call: Ubuntu is Debian.
I quite like Fedora (I used to really hate it, but since F10 it has been really good), Debian (just works!) and I am currently using Arch Linux (I was hesitant because of the whole rolling release thing, but it seems OK so far).
Okey let me get this straight. You hate bleeding edge Debian (Ubuntu) that has been all preconfigured and scripted together, yet you love the most bleeding incompatible, research lab stuff even, Fedora, while Fedora is more buggy then Ubuntu. Hell the policy integration stuff in Fedora 10 and 11 is a nightmare. You do like KDE 'inegration' yet you use DIY Arch. You are absolutely full of shit.
You are also way oversimplifying Wine - I can tell you from a look at the Appdb that the latest photoshop does NOT work out of the box (consistently rated GARBAGE!) except for some Kubuntu user (you?) who rated it Gold.
No that's not me. There is no single mention of the stable Wine (1.0.x) in the CS4 entry of Appdb. So if you just use the stable version, packed with every distro, even Arch, you can just install it and use it. Google paid for it.
Here be signatures
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49303203-7,00.htm it's only faster at shutting down - all other differences are hardly noticable
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Giving Win 7 a chance is like giving peace a chance. Lots of good will and not much in return.
GDI locks shouldn't have anything to do with blue-screening. If they do it would have to be a subtle effect where the root cause is masked by better behaviour rather than fixed.
It could hypothetically speed up AutoCAD, but I don't know.
Remember kids. Always demand a refund for any Windows-flavor bundled with your new computers. Easy money.
NEWSFLASH:
Vista is NT6.0
Win7 is NT6.1
I dont want to use Windows7sp0. When Win7sp2 exist i'll try it. Assuming i havent switched to Chrome or Xubuntu by then. I'll use my tweaked XP until it stops updating around 2014.
In July, an article was posted claiming that no businesses are going to be moving to Windows 7.
I posted a comment pointing out that businesses have said this about the next version of Windows since 95 (excluding ME and Vista), complained that this wasn't really news and that Slashdot should stop recycling tabloid fodder. I got marked down for being a troll (my guess is that they're still trying to make Linux look like a desktop contender - good luck with that).
Oh, but look - here's an article point out that users *are* going to be moving to Windows 7. Just fancy that. Never saw that one coming.
No doubt Slashdot will moderate me down as a troll again - which is why I'm going to point out that I was trollified for saying so on every article they post about Windows 7 selling well - just so people are aware that on this site 'Troll' appears to mean 'non-Linux user' or 'someone that doesn't agree with us'.
And to think some claim that it's *microsoft* that are facists....
.. but when. All people whether on XP or not, will move to Windows some day. Unless they stop using Windows series that is.
They will pretty much change whatever they want whenever they want. In addition to the things you mention, lots of software for XP insists on SP2 or even SP3 to install, it was more than just bug fixes here. And somewhere in the series they snuck in .NET (although .NET is also available as a separate download, so that doesn't explain the service pack requirements for some XP software.
But perhaps the most significant example that shows how much an existing system was changed was Win98 Second Edition, a.k.a. Win98SE. Released less than a year after Win98, this version not only included fixes like the notorious memory leak fix, but it included new USB and AGP support, connection sharing, and plenty more. The changes in Win98SE were at least as significant as the changes being made to Vista, and with the exception of the GUI these changes were all things that the Vista team must have been at work on to address serious problems that were well protested in Vista. And the GUI changes are something that no one outside Microsoft really asked for, they are being done to support the claim that this is a new OS as much as for any other reason.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I swore that I'd never use Vista after hearing the horrible things about it. Then my work laptop died and I had the opportunity to buy a personal one for relatively cheap. Only problem was that it came with Vista preinstalled. It also comes with a free Windows 7 upgrade, so I figured I'd deal with Vista for now. I'll admit, there are things to like with Vista. For example, the application specific volume controls. Finally, I can tell my web browser to shut up while my MP3s play on.
Still, I hit upon a frustration before the laptop was completely set up the way I like it. I used this application called menuApp to bring up drill down menus of my file system. When I clicked on it in Vista, though, I was told "The publisher count not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" I unchecked the "Always ask before opening this file" and clicked Run. Then I clicked on menuApp again and was asked the exact same question. Vista wasn't remembering that I told it not to ask again.
Finally, I was pointed in the right direction for a fix. Long story short, there was an "alternate data stream" in the file that tripped up Vista. I'm very tech-savvy and even I couldn't figure out this one. What's Joe Averageuser supposed to do?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No, that's wrong. 6.1 is used for backward compatibility reasons because some broken installers/programs used the first digit of the version as a check. If they didn't do that, Windows 7 would've been NT 7.
It has nothing to do with broken build scripts. It's a feature against broken installers that check for the major version number. It has nothing to do with a corrupt development culture - It happens with freeware too.
6.1 was chosen for backwards compatibility reasons. Some installers checked the major version number and used it as a version check. It's really 7.0.
Vista was the new Windows ME, and Windows 7 is the new XP. Think about it... ME was the first of a new platform that re-did major portions of the UI (Like Vista), that had a lot of problems and got a bad rap (like Vista). Then they had some time to clean it up and refine their new platform and come out with an OS that people actually liked (Like Windows 7). There's a lot of parallels here that I've seen before.
Special upgrade package just for disgruntled Vista Users
Windows 7: Fool Me Twice Edition(tm)
Are you telling me that my AMD Athlon MP was lying at me when it showed two processors in Windows XP Pro? Windows XP Home doesn't allow more than one processor. However as compro01 tried to explain: a processor is not the same as a core. If Microsoft talks about a processor it means the chip put into the socket on your motherboard, this processor can have one or more cores.
So, if you have XP Pro you can have two processor sockets with each having four cores and each of those cores having HyperThreading activated. That would show 2x4x2=16 "processors" in your task manager.
Technically, if Intel or AMD starts to sell a chip containing 128 cores, XP should be able to handle all of them because in Microsofts view it is one single processor.
Ok, I'm an Ubuntu user who runs MS office 2000 (Yes, 2000, I've never seen a reason to upgrade) under wine and has both XP and Windows 7 running in VirtualBox. Both work perfectly in a virtual environment and I can run the apps I need and fiddle around without fear of messing up my system or losing data. Yes, there is nothing quite as funny as a BSOD in a window on your Ubuntu desktop :-) I find I kind of like Windows 7 except for one thing, I have a 64 bit system running an older AMD Athlon X3 3800 with 6 gigs of RAM. In VIrtualBox XP feels just fine, nice and responsive while Windows 7 is sluggish. That tells me that Windows 7 is not going to be acceptable on a lot of hardware that runs XP just fine. Also, since I have used Windows since version 3.0 I can claim some familiarity with the Windows UI. I can tell you that there are some things in the Windows 7 UI that drive me nuts. Why do they hide so much? I think they are trying to make it appear simple to new users but they aren't really doing that. They are just making it very hard to find the parts of the UI you need. They are definitely making it harder for long time users.
Imagine if the car makers tried to simplify the car UI by hiding the all the gauges and gear shift in the glove box, that would be a lot like the Windows 7 UI.
Stonewolf
Are you serious? What kind of kindergarten crap is this? "those who know something" tend to disagree, huh? The good 'ol appeal to authority.
Well, how about this:
"You might not agree with me, but most people with even a passing intellect do."
"You think you're right, but I did an informal survey of people with brains and they say you're wrong."
Astroturfer Harry, you might think you have a penis, but all the women I talked to said you don't. How about that for a summary?
Gullible has been removed from the dictionary too.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Sounds like you're a liar, alternately a shill. Based on several hundred first and second hand contacts, not counting schools, tech support calls go away after upgrading parents or non-technical users to Ubuntu or OS X. Really. If you failed to give a quick orientation, then you'll get a few days of 'how do I' calls. After that it's smooth sailing. Maintenance is a major savings once you leave M$ products behind.
A hidden savings is found with the end users. The end users are more productive as well, once you leave M$ products behind. Interestingly, even crusty, old KDE 3.5 is easier to use than XP, even for those with a Windows legacy.
YMMV, but I find the above based on several hundred first and second hand contacts, not counting schools.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
>> They arrived at 7 for the version number in this way: Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 lines are self-explanatory. The NT4 and Windows 95/98/ME family were all part of the 4.x version of Windows. Win2000 and XP were 5.x, so naturally Vista was 6.0. That leaves us at 7 for the new Windows.
Except that Vista was -2.1
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
It probably won't be noticed by most home-users but if I were still an admin, I would want to deploy W7 for the simple reason that it has a useful shell integrated. W7 includes PowerShell 2.0 and it is indeed pretty cool. I use Mac and Linux on my own but those are generally not an option in the workplace, in regard to the desktop. Microsoft has been trying to replicate the stability of Unix for years but just fairly recently, they've finally been getting around to trying to replicate the usefulness of the CLI.
The biggest advandage over XP is I/O prioritization. Auto updates and large file operations can be a serious bottleneck on my XP SP3, and it has gotten worse since running NT 4 on a p-233, not better. Probably because apps use more disk space and less optimization work.
Of course, vista also had this but I never found out until Windows 7 came out on MSDN. I would have updated just for that alone.
I'm still on XP-32 lol. I've pre-ordered windows 7, namely because of 64 bit support, DX 10, better gaming support and a better default install.
I have to upgrade sometime and by all accounts, this release will be decent.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
"Windows XP (original release) wasn't really much more stable than Win98."
Win98 could not prevent an application with a bad pointer to crash it since there was no process isolation. Such a crash would be impossible on Windows XP.
...the only advantage Win 7 is offering over Win XP is 64-bit gaming. But for that, you have to pay big when it comes to security, stability, comfort (seriously, Aero may look good, but imo, it's a pain to use - though, this probably is a matter of personal taste...), and control over your files (XP cannot lock you out from editing files on your own computer or prevent you from copying audio stuff during playback - 7 can). XP 64 may have driver issues, but it works for companies and other areas in which a 64 bit Windows environment is required (or they could just use Linux). I certainly will stay with XP until either somebody figures out how to disable all the Win 7 idiocy and it becomes more or less secure or gaming on a 32 bit machine becomes impossible (in which case I might install 7 on a partition exclusively used for gaming and use Kubuntu for anything else). I really don't think upgrading is worth it.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
I dunno. Whenever I heard "Root" and "Windows" in the same sentence, I get nervous.
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
Count me as one XP user thats not willing to touch Windows 7...
I switched from XP to Windows 7 Beta x64. All worked very well except for problems related to x64 third party drivers. Then MS forced me to abandon the Beta for the Release Candidate, so I went with Windows 7 RC x32. The device driver problems went away, but instead I have multiple problems of various sorts. The DVD drive cannot be used as a write device (worked in the Beta). Printers install but none show up in the "Devices and Printers" list. Clicking on a folder in Explorer always opens a new window, in spite of the settings to the contrary. My camera is recognized as a USB device, but the automatic downloading function no longer works. When I activate it manually, it tells me I need a scanner. WTF! It feels like I've gone back to Windows 95. I've reported these problems on the MS forums, and in spite of also seeing other people with the same problems, MS hasn't bothered to respond.
My first hands on experience with Vista was through Home Basic 32-bit. I had to format my hard drive which seemed so counter-intuitive, when Home Premium didn't have that restriction yet Basic offered an 'anytime upgrade' capability. After swapping out PC parts that weren't compatible or weren't signed I was never able to aactivate the product. I called MS activation, read the info from the inner ring, proved beyond a doubt that I had an authentic retail version but it never validated. In the end I put the disc back in the case and it sits under my desk unused, a $100 mistake.
"And this time, unlike Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, Windows 7 really will be secure. Really!" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18, @12:06AM (#29101087)
ROOTKIT.COM, says quite otherwise (& I say even more, & didn't get an answer from MS in regards to what I will put out next) - I sense your sarcasm: It's NOT unjustified either, because if you keep reading, all the way down to my "p.s." below? You'll be even more sarcastic... read on:
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can
OK:
To allow programs written by stupid developers to work in Windows 7. Many programs have OS version checks that would throw the "Not compatible" stop if it encountered an OS v. 7.0. Making it 6.1 reduces, greatly, the amount of "Not compatible" stops thrown.
I think there's no difference at all. My friend said vista sucked, so I'm skipping it. Same person said iPod is cool and they have on and I saw it and I liked it so I'm getting one.
The difference is, you don't just run out and upgrade your OS like you buy a new tech toy. My computer came with XP so that's what I use, or it came with Vista so that's what I use. And lots of people are saying don't buy a computer if it has Vista, choose XP if you have a choice.
The people we're talking about (and from whose perspective I have been speaking) think about an OS upgrade like buying a new car, not like an oil change. Or maybe like re-upholstering the seats instead of an oil change. Or maybe like getting the car painted, or a new door, vs. an oil change. Point is, the OS is part of the computer to them, not something you normally just pull out and replace.
Compared with Mac where it's all OS X. You might pay for the latest update to OS X, but it's just an update. People are used to software updates now with their anti-virus updates and phone OS updates and Firefox updates... if MS marketed Vista as a paid update you can install with a few clicks instead of a whole new OS, it would have much greater market share. But replacing the OS is a mystery, like replacing a hard drive or ram, and a lot like auto repair where you could do it yourself but people prefer to just run it into the ground.
Took me a lot of moving to go from Win2K to XP, quite a few years ago. I've loaded and am using the RC for Windows 7 64-bit @ home and have had no major issues (except for game compatibility - no big deal). I'll buy Win7 eventually - it works. My kids, however, are on Ubuntu (works GREAT) - to which I will go when I've finally decided to throw up my hands at big brother. :)
Fair is foul and foul is fair... and some are fairly foul.
The Intel PRO/100 network adapter in my laptop doesn't work with a default install of Windows 7. I have to disable/enable the adapter to make it work once it boots up. I'm assuming it's a bad driver that's shipped on the CD, and hopefully they'll have an updated one at some point. But having a bad driver for such a common network adapter is probably going to be a showstopper for a good number of people.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Speak for yourself and stop fixing what's not broken.
To run W7 effectively most XP users will require a hardware upgrade: DX10 minimum video card, more ram, virtualization-enabled CPU. At that point a new system overall becomes a compelling alternative meaning, are they really switching to W7, or just using what comes preloaded on their new system?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So are you saying that UI's from the 1990s (your words, not mine) are broken, always were broken, and are essentially unusable now?
Or that you want the latest and greatest eye candy, ribbons, or whatever which is exactly what MS and Apple are selling you in every new treadmill iteration of their operation systems?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I have not seen that usage of that word before. I presume you mean it in the context of being capable of doing significant damage.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Except in China. There they prefer 8.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
No, Vista was Windows 95, Vista with SP1 is Windows 98, and Windows 7 is going to be Windows 98SE - that is, Windows 7 is what Vista *should* have been at launch (like many Microsoft products).
I am not a gamer. I dual boot w2k/debian on my home PC, and run XP on my laptop. I just see no good reason to "upgrade."
All my apps, and hardware, work just fine with either w2k or XP. I am already familiar with those OSes. So what is the point?
Sure, msft may eventually force me to abandon w2k and/or XP. But until that day comes, why bother?
Please spare me all the "why not just run windows 3.1" comments, and give a compelling reason to upgrade - if you can.
Then I guess they will sell much more copies of their next version! Could it be their plan ?
I bought Vista for the PC I built in April. I guess I just missed out on the 'free Windows 7 upgrade' window. I don't care because as far as I can tell, Windows 7 is identical to Vista with the exception that they crippled UAC, thus making it less secure!
(Disclaimer - I am a Mac fanboi)
I BOUGHT and used Vista at its launch (mainly 'cuz I hated XP and its warts), through the SP1 cycle, and I actually like it. On decent hardware (at launch, I had a Dell Latitude 620, now a slightly faster 630) with supported drivers it was fine.
I didn't mind the UAC. Once I got all the SW I use installed, I see one maybe every month. It is a very usable, stable and in my opinion a good offering from the folks in Redmond.
We develop and make measurement and test equipment, and about 2 years ago, we came to a critical juncture. We needed a 64 bit transition, as increasing segments of our customers have begun to generate data sets that crippled Windows XP 32bit, and XP64 had such poor driver support that we never contemplated that path. Our service team railed against the plan to develop for Vista x64, whining that customers won't allow it (total bullcrap), and that it was the end of the world. I calmly looked in his eyes, and said, "What would you prefer, Vista, Linux, or Mac, those are the options". Once he started breathing he said that he "guessed" that we could make Vista work.
Naturally, we are on the eve of launching the application, and we will probably be shipping on Windows 7 to avoid the stigma of Vista.
Geoff
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
Three comments about your rant: 1) Way too long (didn't read it all). 2) You over used bold!. I'm sure you think the bold bits are important, but relax man. You have an over inflated sense of ego, and that in itself makes this hard to read. 3) *nix isn't for everyone. My gf tried Ubuntu, she didn't "get it", and she isn't going to waste her life trying to learn it to browse the web and type documents. She tried Win7 beta and loved it. She is currently using Vista and doesn't like it, but can't say why. So when it officially releases, she will be back on Win7. It may be bloatware, unsecure, and created by Lucifer himself, but your taking a very zealot like position. It's just an OS man. I myself like OpenBSD, but I'm not going to force anyone else to use it.
It's especially funny considering that our team is the "plug in a monitor / Win+P" team. Heck, most of the time, you plug in a monitor, and it configures automatically. Laptops default to clone, desktops to extend.
I'm currently running XP SP3 and Windows 7 on a dual boot. I would switch, but my FPS in Left 4 Dead fall off too much with W7. My current system started life in late 2003 and has been upgraded as I've needed. I'm still stuck with AGP graphics and an old P4 3.0 GHz with HT. Right now I'm running a BFGTech Nvidia 6800 OC with all 16 pixel channels unlocked. I bought a 7950 GT off eBay earlier this year. It lasted about 3 months. Sometime the first of the year I'm going to build a new system. I will put Windows 7 on it, as it will be build for it.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
It has been my experience that all Windows OS'es suffer from a lack of driver support in their infancy. Windows XP blew until SP1, Win 2000 was terrible until SP2, and so on. I was so annoyed with XP when it first came out, I formated the drive and loaded Mandrake Linux. When SP2 came out on XP, I decided to try again, and I was able to use my PC without crashing to BLUE everytime I installed a USB device. I really liked the Win 7 RC, until I put it on a newer PC. (First MOBO was an ASUS socket A with ATI x700) This machine worked great with all my devices. However, I upgraded my MOBO to a (AM2+ Asus board and geforce 9600) and every 5 minutes my wireless USB adapter would cause the device manager to freeze and I could only get it to work again by doing a hard reset. (win 7 would not shutdown on it's own.) I tried a fresh install... same problem. I replaced my wireless USB for another... same problem. I decided to install Vista SP2 and everything works without Flaw. I figure about the time WIN 8 is on the horizon, I'll be able to use Win 7 (SP2), until then... I am content using Vista. -Which, by the by, works fine when you disable UAC control. Games work better than XP, system is reliable, and I don't have to worry about my OS any longer. Rectum? Damn near Killed 'em.
In Soviet Russia, road forks you!
Why not just replace Wine with Virtual PC, move everybody onto a stable Ubuntu platform, and let them eat Quake?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Many WIndows users who were late getting into computing have only ever used XP. Others will have used 95 and 98 and XP's interface is basically just a themed version of 98 or a tweaked version of Windows 2000.
Rather than refine the desktop Microsoft threw much of it away and started again. This is the problem, novice users who don't want to be out of their comfort zone.
... do not go together unless you are Carrie-Anne Moss.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Yes, Ubuntu is based on Debian but Ubuntu IS NOT Debian by any stretch of the imagination.
And yes, there is "Implementations" of KDE - Kubuntu uses a self modified version of KDE and introduces changes which are NOT supported by the KDE project - and because it is modified to suit Ubuntu it qualifies as an "implementation" as they implemented their new KDE. KDEmod on Arch is an Implementation modified to work perfectly with Arch Linux (a distro which has its ups and downs, but I am experienced enough to know how to deal with them).
And CS4 DOES NOT WORK with Wine 1.0.1 - it is missing components that CS4 needs to work properly. You sir, are full of shit. Google did not pay for Adobe's product to work either. You must be confusing Adobe Photoshop with Google Picasa (which Google paid a guy to work on!) which are TOTALLY different products.
In my few years experience with Ubuntu and just one year with Fedora, I am definitely sure that things work a hell of a lot more reliable and easier in Fedora. Fedora, like Arch and Ubuntu has its rough edges because of the bleeding edge software but does not fail as consistently and is not put back together with dirty hacks like Ubuntu.
As far as Wine stable goes - if you turn up in #winehq with a problem you will be told to upgrade to the latest development version because the amount of advancement on the ancient stable version is huge. Much more progression than regression. The stable version, in reality, is actually unsupported.
Weaponised level, as in to "refine plutonium to a weaponised level".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
To the Microsoft fan boy who modded it off topic:
Thanks for proving my point about how shitty moderation is destroying /. (as if more proof were needed).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I said it won't use dual or quad core processors, I didn't say it wouldn't recognize them. XP doesn't make use of multiple cores.
...I find Windows 7 pleasant to use. I run it via VirtualBox at work in order to doing Windows-platform testing (Because in web-dev IE running through Wine is not always the same as IE running on Windows) and the performance level is actually great, as compared to XP running in VirtualBox which performs only moderately well. Maybe this "performance" is just a responsive GUI and nothing else, but I'm not complaining :-)
Yes, Ubuntu is based on Debian but Ubuntu IS NOT Debian by any stretch of the imagination.
It just uses the same software and the same versions and has a different installer. No that's sooooo tooootaly sifferent. Seriously... that is as different from Debian as Windows 7 is different from Vista, in other words totally not.
And yes, there are 'Implementations' of KDE - Kubuntu uses a self modified version of KDE and introduces changes which are NOT supported by the KDE project - and because it is modified to suit Ubuntu it qualifies as an "implementation" as they implemented their new KDE. KDEmod on Arch is an Implementation modified to work perfectly with Arch Linux (a distro which has its ups and downs, but I am experienced enough to know how to deal with them).
OK so basically KDE needs to be modified to suit the distro. What? A different package manager? C'mon... what is there for Kubuntu to 'implement'? And if every distro needs a different implementation than how can you compare Kubuntu's implementation to others? It's a different implementation, according to your words then.
And CS4 DOES NOT WORK with Wine 1.0.1 - it is missing components that CS4 needs to work properly. You sir, are full of shit. Google did not pay for Adobe's product to work either.
In your face -> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/02/google-intoxicates-linux-users-with-wine-improvements.ars
You must be confusing Adobe Photoshop with Google Picasa (which Google paid a guy to work on!) which are TOTALLY different products.
You must be confusing the truth with BS!
In my few years experience with Ubuntu and just one year with Fedora, I am definitely sure that things work a hell of a lot more reliable and easier in Fedora. Fedora, like Arch and Ubuntu has its rough edges because of the bleeding edge software but does not fail as consistently and is not put back together with dirty hacks like Ubuntu.
Ubuntu has never, ever, failed me. The entire point of a distribution is taping everything together with scripts and dirty hacks. That's what it's for! At least in Ubuntu stuff actually works!
As far as Wine stable goes - if you turn up in #winehq with a problem you will be told to upgrade to the latest development version because the amount of advancement on the ancient stable version is huge.
Dude I read through the fscking documentation and I am subscibed to the dev mailing list. Don't try to falsely educate me about Wine 'cus I do know a shitload about the project and where it's at right now.
Much more progression than regression. The stable version, in reality, is actually unsupported.
Once again; BS. The stable version has a base of what works and what doesn't, OK? It had so many bugs crushed. There has also been a tiny update to 1.0.x. You see; 1.1.x has more functionality, ofcourse, and most of the time I use it to see where it's at, but it constantly brakes everything that worked before... Wine 1.0.x doesn't have that. It has the most applications that work simultaniously like desired whereas in 1.1.14 A might work and B might not and in 1.1.24 B works better than in 1.0.x but A is broken again.
Here be signatures
Sorry, you're wrong: it does and has done so since the Win2K days (probably the NT4 days). The fact that it recognizes and uses the two cores and that the operating system is split up in multiple processes and threads itself proves you're wrong.
Activate the kernel timings in your task manager for a change and see if they never hit anything above cpu0.... Look if svchost never runs on on anything but cpu0....
but this could be the last opportunity that i give to ms inc.
I doubt any survey that Microsoft puts out, especially dealing with the fact and ALL of my corporate client base have ALL said "No classic startmenu & No Classic Desktop then NO WINDOWS 7" I hae also Beta test Windows 7 and I am NOT IMPRESSED. If you must switch from Windows XP then goto uBuntu or Red Hat and save your money!
Maybe the 70% XP users like me are forgetting that XP is still the most trustworthy of all Win OS's.
pochp