That said, the general public should NOT go installing unsigned drivers for shits and giggles. With a few exception of some open source projects, its the fastest way to bluescreening your butt.
The logic here is that without the DRM stuff, you can run the same content as any other machine without the DRM, and nothing more. With the DRM, yuo can play that -same- content, and some more.
Not that I'd buy content with that crap in it...but thats the great thing, I don't have to:)
You can in Vista too! Only 64 bits stops that, and you can disable that behavior if you want! Otherwise how exactly would developers write their drivers? Think a little?
Win7 installing fast is an understatement. It asks only 2-3 questions (your location, and if you want to use the new home network features, and if you say yes you just note down an auto-generated password and thats all it asks), and then it does its thing.
Windows 7 is extremely lean... it has very few built in things, and most everything is an optional add-on aside the browser and media player (at least this version, i'm guessing on the other side of the ocean, even that won't be built in)
I installed it in Virtual PC (which is notoriously slow), and it took 15 minutes flush before I had a usable desktop (I actually timed it). Then if you want all the garbage like Live Mail and Movie Maker, they're a few clicks away to download and install them, but they're not built in. And yes, its fast. Really fast. Really flipping fast. It definately should work on your older machines, but without Aero (WARP10, the software DX renderer is not in it yet, so no Aero in VMs or older machines). My VM after installing a few software is a little short of 6 gigs, so it takes much less room than Vista. Oh, and the new UAC implementation is pretty much right on the dot.
I'm half considering really putting it to the test and installing it on my old 256 megs box for shits and giggles...
You just need to look for the direct link. The main page uses a download manager like MSDN, but its the only reason, and if you dig a bit you find the direct downloads. It seems to be up and down in getting the initial connection with the site being hammered, but once download starts its really fast.
Well, you can still download from them directly at like 2mb/s (thats as far as my connection will go, dunno if it can be done faster) even with the rush (it was a little slower last night on MSDN, but...). Maybe they don't want to get complains from ISPs? Vista's beta had caused issues back then...imagine if you add Bittorent to that...
There's a reason that the profitability of most airlines started being questioned as soon as oil prices went up and that ticket prices are 2-3 times higher than they were 6 years ago... (I fly every couple of weeks to various cities, and while a vacation flight to Orlando will be packed, more casual non-vacation destinations often have as few as 4-5 people in em... sure, the plane is a lot smaller, but that can't be good for the profitability of the airline...)
You got it. Recessions like how mostly (not exclusively...) affects the bottom people. If you're straight out of school you may get hit hard too, depending on where you live. So right now, unemployment for IT is fairly low, at least in metro areas... Then if you look at unemployment for highly skilled IT, it is pretty damn near 0%. Anyone who knows their stuff for -real- (not just a "LOLZ I KNOWS C++ EVERYONE LOOKZ OUT I CAN WRITE A LINKED LIST AND DO BIG OZ NOTATION") can get a job right now within 2 weeks flush unless they live in the middle of nowhere. Even -more- so since companies don't take risk in slower economies, and aim straight for the devs that don't need training.
End result: if you're good (for -real-, not just in your own little head), and you're being abused, just give them your 2 weeks notice and enjoy the raise from your next job.
I actually have better conditions, better benefits (it doesn't get much better than "everything is covered, zero payments, and deductibles are paid by the company at 100%....), more vacations, and a better salary than basically anyone I know that work for the few companies that have unions for IT. So I think I'll pass, thanks.
Unions reflect the majority of people in them. Most IT people are lazy morons who want to be paid to screw up their employers over. A union of them will be the same.
Btw, you've been spitting that same example over and over... I'd drop the "pro athlete" from your list, since those are some of the most ridiculously spoiled clusterfucks there is, pro writers recently went on a strike that screwed over their customers big time, actors...lets not go there... Don't know about directors though. There's a bunch of good examples out there. Those aren't it.
Yes, you're right. I was more thinking in absolute than relative though (basically I was trying to show how much fuel was in a plane, wasn't talking about efficiency, hehe..though keep in mind its not uncommon for a plane to be mostly empty, not just cars). Regardless of how efficient it is, its a LOT of fuels. Just the little bit of bio fuel that is used in consumer grade gazoline right now had a visible impact on food prices, for example. Imagine if you start loading planes with that stuff, ESPECIALLY if its done by law like it is with car fuel in some countries, it would be a disaster.
Considering the insane amount of fuel that goes into a single flight (i think a single transcontinental flight takes more fuel than a car during the lifetime of its owner), this can't be good. As you said, we are displacing food crops, which is part of the reason behind raising food costs. Making humans starve can't be a very good change. Thats how wars start.
Thats exactly what they're saying. "Since most things that happen are independent, and that there's very few "links" at any given time, its very easy to do things in parallel".
Vista is actually better for developers... it upgrades versions of built in services to something that doesn't suck and is more in line with the Windows Server line, it has a lot of new APIs that do a lot of work,.NET is built in so you don't have to expect your users to install it unless you need the very very latest version, stuff like roaming profiles are much easier to manage and access... Service control didn't change as far as I know, unless you're meaning something else than what I'm thinking off... my installers and integration apps that require it didn't need to change at all.
There's a hotfix for it that predates the beta's release, it just wasn't integrated with it, so it will screw over your MP3s before you have time to install it, thus the warning. Obviously the hotfix will be present in a later version. I don't think you can ever put a beta in the hands of people too early, and people are stupid if they give access to their primary files to a beta OS... what if it breaks files on a network share? What if it messes up NTFS (after all, Windows 7 does use a slightly different version...same way as if you let XP play with a Vista partition, shadowcopy can mess up...).
On my current machine? No. I got games that required upgrades (would have had for XP too). I still was on that machine for over a year with Vista though, and my -workstation- was a Pentium D with 1 gigs of RAM. Workstation! For a programmer! It worked fine! Sure, I would have liked an upgrade, but I would have for XP -too-. -AND- it was with all the bells and whistles on, so if I wanted even more performance or if the machine was much weaker, I could have just disabled some stuff. On another machine the videocard couldn't take aero. Big deal, no transparency and 3d flipping. The UI looks the same beyond that.
If your machine cannot run Vista, you better be using Chrome or something, because Firefox is going to make it choke.
As a general rule, having a 64 bit native vs a 32 bit native version of programs is just a recompile away in Windows too. The only difference is its a bigger pain for distribution, since you'll need 2 installers or 1 installer that detects Windows' version, and while in the open source world, there seems to be a lot of people who have fun with that stuff, commercial entities seem not to like it too much.
As you mentionned, Windows' 64 bit's backward compatibility is pretty much flawless, and native 64 bit versions are usually just a recompile away. Its only a pain with plugins, and thats true in the other side of the fence too.
You read me wrong. I said that Windows 7 will not be a Win95 success, but will not be a Vista disaster. I didn't say Vista's launch wasn't a disaster, quite the opposite.
as for:
May be able to run on the same box as XP but EVERYONE who ran Vista on those XP boxes had to upgrade their graphics card and their RAM ($300+ the price of Windows)
Everyone? No. I ran Vista on my P4, with a years old non-gaming videocard and 1 gig of RAM just fine, same machine I ran XP on. Yes, the people who bought their computer at XP's launch at to upgrade, I'll admit, but not everyone with XP boxes had to upgrade, heck no. Hell, one of the last companies I worked for upgraded to Vista because all the machines we had could run it fine, and they were years old and far from top of the line... No "grandma checking her emails on a minimalist Linux distro" hardware, sure, but if it can run typical business apps without you falling asleep, its powerful enough.
For older hardware. Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista (it technically runs on much weaker hardware, but for now thats the official requirements anyway), so it is likely to be used on the same machines in some cases. So still need a 32 bit version. Windows 64 bit does 32 bit backward compatibility -really- well, there are extremely few exceptions, but for all practical purpose, the only reason people with Vista don't use 64 bit, is because for whatever reason, many OEMs don't ship it.
And considering that every Microsoft product requires new hardware
Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista, and in the real world, runs on the same boxes as XP easily (it IS being designed for netbooks, after all), so I doubt hardware will be an issue.
Keep in mind that many of Microsoft's customers go through subscription-like volume licensing...so they're paying for it recession or not, too. Considering the enthusiasm I see on various forums and community about it...it will do decent. Not a Win95 launch, but no Vista disaster either.
Slashdot Mirror
Run a command prompt as admin.
Bcdedit.exe /set nointegritychecks ON
Reboot.
That said, the general public should NOT go installing unsigned drivers for shits and giggles. With a few exception of some open source projects, its the fastest way to bluescreening your butt.
The logic here is that without the DRM stuff, you can run the same content as any other machine without the DRM, and nothing more. With the DRM, yuo can play that -same- content, and some more.
Not that I'd buy content with that crap in it...but thats the great thing, I don't have to :)
You can in Vista too! Only 64 bits stops that, and you can disable that behavior if you want! Otherwise how exactly would developers write their drivers? Think a little?
So where's the whoops?
Look around in the thread, you can simply use the direct link.
It will brick in august.
Win7 installing fast is an understatement. It asks only 2-3 questions (your location, and if you want to use the new home network features, and if you say yes you just note down an auto-generated password and thats all it asks), and then it does its thing.
Windows 7 is extremely lean... it has very few built in things, and most everything is an optional add-on aside the browser and media player (at least this version, i'm guessing on the other side of the ocean, even that won't be built in)
I installed it in Virtual PC (which is notoriously slow), and it took 15 minutes flush before I had a usable desktop (I actually timed it). Then if you want all the garbage like Live Mail and Movie Maker, they're a few clicks away to download and install them, but they're not built in. And yes, its fast. Really fast. Really flipping fast. It definately should work on your older machines, but without Aero (WARP10, the software DX renderer is not in it yet, so no Aero in VMs or older machines). My VM after installing a few software is a little short of 6 gigs, so it takes much less room than Vista. Oh, and the new UAC implementation is pretty much right on the dot.
I'm half considering really putting it to the test and installing it on my old 256 megs box for shits and giggles...
64bit:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.ISO
32bit:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.ISO
You just need to look for the direct link. The main page uses a download manager like MSDN, but its the only reason, and if you dig a bit you find the direct downloads. It seems to be up and down in getting the initial connection with the site being hammered, but once download starts its really fast.
ugh.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.ISO
There, that works in all browsers. You just had to dig a little bit. (thats the 64 bit version)
Same way they did back in the days where a new version of Windows came out every 2-3 years.
Though the market changed a bit since then... so maybe they'll lower the upgrade price, and give vouchers like they did for XP -> Vista.
Well, you can still download from them directly at like 2mb/s (thats as far as my connection will go, dunno if it can be done faster) even with the rush (it was a little slower last night on MSDN, but...). Maybe they don't want to get complains from ISPs? Vista's beta had caused issues back then...imagine if you add Bittorent to that...
Yeah, soon, soon we'll be able to become splicers!
There's a reason that the profitability of most airlines started being questioned as soon as oil prices went up and that ticket prices are 2-3 times higher than they were 6 years ago... (I fly every couple of weeks to various cities, and while a vacation flight to Orlando will be packed, more casual non-vacation destinations often have as few as 4-5 people in em... sure, the plane is a lot smaller, but that can't be good for the profitability of the airline...)
You got it. Recessions like how mostly (not exclusively...) affects the bottom people. If you're straight out of school you may get hit hard too, depending on where you live. So right now, unemployment for IT is fairly low, at least in metro areas... Then if you look at unemployment for highly skilled IT, it is pretty damn near 0%. Anyone who knows their stuff for -real- (not just a "LOLZ I KNOWS C++ EVERYONE LOOKZ OUT I CAN WRITE A LINKED LIST AND DO BIG OZ NOTATION") can get a job right now within 2 weeks flush unless they live in the middle of nowhere. Even -more- so since companies don't take risk in slower economies, and aim straight for the devs that don't need training.
End result: if you're good (for -real-, not just in your own little head), and you're being abused, just give them your 2 weeks notice and enjoy the raise from your next job.
I actually have better conditions, better benefits (it doesn't get much better than "everything is covered, zero payments, and deductibles are paid by the company at 100%....), more vacations, and a better salary than basically anyone I know that work for the few companies that have unions for IT. So I think I'll pass, thanks.
Unions reflect the majority of people in them. Most IT people are lazy morons who want to be paid to screw up their employers over. A union of them will be the same.
Btw, you've been spitting that same example over and over... I'd drop the "pro athlete" from your list, since those are some of the most ridiculously spoiled clusterfucks there is, pro writers recently went on a strike that screwed over their customers big time, actors...lets not go there... Don't know about directors though. There's a bunch of good examples out there. Those aren't it.
Yes, you're right. I was more thinking in absolute than relative though (basically I was trying to show how much fuel was in a plane, wasn't talking about efficiency, hehe..though keep in mind its not uncommon for a plane to be mostly empty, not just cars). Regardless of how efficient it is, its a LOT of fuels. Just the little bit of bio fuel that is used in consumer grade gazoline right now had a visible impact on food prices, for example. Imagine if you start loading planes with that stuff, ESPECIALLY if its done by law like it is with car fuel in some countries, it would be a disaster.
Considering the insane amount of fuel that goes into a single flight (i think a single transcontinental flight takes more fuel than a car during the lifetime of its owner), this can't be good. As you said, we are displacing food crops, which is part of the reason behind raising food costs. Making humans starve can't be a very good change. Thats how wars start.
Thats exactly what they're saying. "Since most things that happen are independent, and that there's very few "links" at any given time, its very easy to do things in parallel".
So you agree with the article.
Vista is actually better for developers... it upgrades versions of built in services to something that doesn't suck and is more in line with the Windows Server line, it has a lot of new APIs that do a lot of work, .NET is built in so you don't have to expect your users to install it unless you need the very very latest version, stuff like roaming profiles are much easier to manage and access... Service control didn't change as far as I know, unless you're meaning something else than what I'm thinking off... my installers and integration apps that require it didn't need to change at all.
There's a hotfix for it that predates the beta's release, it just wasn't integrated with it, so it will screw over your MP3s before you have time to install it, thus the warning. Obviously the hotfix will be present in a later version. I don't think you can ever put a beta in the hands of people too early, and people are stupid if they give access to their primary files to a beta OS... what if it breaks files on a network share? What if it messes up NTFS (after all, Windows 7 does use a slightly different version...same way as if you let XP play with a Vista partition, shadowcopy can mess up...).
On my current machine? No. I got games that required upgrades (would have had for XP too). I still was on that machine for over a year with Vista though, and my -workstation- was a Pentium D with 1 gigs of RAM. Workstation! For a programmer! It worked fine! Sure, I would have liked an upgrade, but I would have for XP -too-. -AND- it was with all the bells and whistles on, so if I wanted even more performance or if the machine was much weaker, I could have just disabled some stuff. On another machine the videocard couldn't take aero. Big deal, no transparency and 3d flipping. The UI looks the same beyond that.
If your machine cannot run Vista, you better be using Chrome or something, because Firefox is going to make it choke.
Actually, they have a decent bit of profitable divisions... Servers and Tools are also profitable. Not by the same margin, but they are
As a general rule, having a 64 bit native vs a 32 bit native version of programs is just a recompile away in Windows too. The only difference is its a bigger pain for distribution, since you'll need 2 installers or 1 installer that detects Windows' version, and while in the open source world, there seems to be a lot of people who have fun with that stuff, commercial entities seem not to like it too much.
As you mentionned, Windows' 64 bit's backward compatibility is pretty much flawless, and native 64 bit versions are usually just a recompile away. Its only a pain with plugins, and thats true in the other side of the fence too.
You read me wrong. I said that Windows 7 will not be a Win95 success, but will not be a Vista disaster. I didn't say Vista's launch wasn't a disaster, quite the opposite.
as for:
May be able to run on the same box as XP but EVERYONE who ran Vista on those XP boxes had to upgrade their graphics card and their RAM ($300+ the price of Windows)
Everyone? No. I ran Vista on my P4, with a years old non-gaming videocard and 1 gig of RAM just fine, same machine I ran XP on. Yes, the people who bought their computer at XP's launch at to upgrade, I'll admit, but not everyone with XP boxes had to upgrade, heck no. Hell, one of the last companies I worked for upgraded to Vista because all the machines we had could run it fine, and they were years old and far from top of the line... No "grandma checking her emails on a minimalist Linux distro" hardware, sure, but if it can run typical business apps without you falling asleep, its powerful enough.
For older hardware. Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista (it technically runs on much weaker hardware, but for now thats the official requirements anyway), so it is likely to be used on the same machines in some cases. So still need a 32 bit version. Windows 64 bit does 32 bit backward compatibility -really- well, there are extremely few exceptions, but for all practical purpose, the only reason people with Vista don't use 64 bit, is because for whatever reason, many OEMs don't ship it.
Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista, and in the real world, runs on the same boxes as XP easily (it IS being designed for netbooks, after all), so I doubt hardware will be an issue.
Keep in mind that many of Microsoft's customers go through subscription-like volume licensing...so they're paying for it recession or not, too. Considering the enthusiasm I see on various forums and community about it...it will do decent. Not a Win95 launch, but no Vista disaster either.