Next Windows coming out next year

[Picolini]

 

I despise Microsoft. OS X just works...  and you don't need to worry (much) about viruses.

Totally false.

If you actually look around and don't believe everything you hear, you'll see it's no safer than Windows.

 

Why are we even talking about this sh*t? This thread is about Windows 7, not about how other OS's are better than any Windows, or how much Windows sucks.

 

Sorry to keep off topic after asking why, but @ the Linux guys, sure it's nice to have so much control over your OS, and the fact that it's free is awesome. But I'd rather double click an exe to install my program, have drivers for everything, and be able to play games. Linux is fun for what it is, but I feel it just limits a PC in that it makes it harder to run/utilize software.

 

@ the Windows 7 topic, at least it'll look as nice as Vista. Hopefully they'll make it more customizable (more color options etc). What are the improvements and difference supposed to be for W7? I read something about it using MinWin or something, what exactly is that?

[lesfleanut]

 

I despise Microsoft. OS X just works...  and you don't need to worry (much) about viruses.

Totally false.

If you actually look around and don't believe everything you hear, you'll see it's no safer than Windows.

 

That's bullsh*t, of course it's safer. It's not safer because of the reasons that steve jobs wants you to believe, but it's safer nonetheless. Security by obscurity, nobody's coding viruses for macs because it's not a big enough user base.

 

On topic:

This is laughable. I'm willing to bet money on OS 10.6 coming out before windows. Unless of course MS rolls something like "HEY HERE'S A NEW OS, IT'S TOTALLY NOT VISTA SP2, IT'S BRAND NEW THAT'S WHY IT COSTS 250 BUCKS!!!" which, sadly, I can see happening at this point. I really think OS X and linux are going to market share in a big way in the next 10 years.

[Tornado Rex]

Sorry to keep off topic after asking why, but @ the Linux guys, sure it's nice to have so much control over your OS, and the fact that it's free is awesome. But I'd rather double click an exe to install my program, have drivers for everything, and be able to play games. Linux is fun for what it is, but I feel it just limits a PC in that it makes it harder to run/utilize software.

This is a common misconception with Linux still. The truth is most modern distributions come with some sort of package manager that makes it that easy. You pop open the package manager, type in what program you want and click "Install". The bottom line is the only reason people find Windows "easier" anymore is that they're used to it.

 

@topic: Yay, woo-hoo, etc. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Democrab]

I heard this on the tech forum I go to (OCN) and I think it was proved as fake, I'll check tomorrow as I'm half asleep here..

 

 

@Grand Theft Auto Dude: I know for a fact that people have problems with Macs, and its usually the same amount as they'd get with Windows, Its just the fact that there isn't as many macs around to make those problems as well published as Windows problems.

 

 

One thing I hate when arguing with a Mac fanboy (Not saying anyone here is one, but anyway) is when you bring up the issue of games, they point to boot camp, Thats kind of defeating the point of getting a mac, since its just a overpriced PC (like Alienware, but at least Mac comes with more custom stuff..) and the OS X sexiness makes it worth it, but I'd rather just get a PC for games...

 

Hell, I know that if I can get more cash, I'll be getting a Mac for my main Internet/General Use PC and keeping my gaming one for Gaming.

[Saggy]

Sorry to keep off topic after asking why, but @ the Linux guys, sure it's nice to have so much control over your OS, and the fact that it's free is awesome. But I'd rather double click an exe to install my program, have drivers for everything, and be able to play games. Linux is fun for what it is, but I feel it just limits a PC in that it makes it harder to run/utilize software.

This is a common misconception with Linux still. The truth is most modern distributions come with some sort of package manager that makes it that easy. You pop open the package manager, type in what program you want and click "Install". The bottom line is the only reason people find Windows "easier" anymore is that they're used to it.

 

@topic: Yay, woo-hoo, etc. I'll believe it when I see it.

Not to mention that most if it not all software for it comes with a wealth of documentation. This may be true for Windows with programs that were released under GNU or programs with decent developers, but the idea that it makes it harder to run/utilize software might just stem from the fact that a lot of people don't like the command line.

 

To be honest, after spending a year on Linux, I hate going to Windows and not being able to find a specific type of program like I could with a package manager like apt, or just write up my own bash script to solve the problem. Perhaps I've just finally lost my mind or something, but getting and installing software for Windows has become more of a chore for me, but maybe it's just because I've gotten use to doing it with a package manager.

 

Some people might consider using the command line to run programs a deal breaker, and I suppose I could understand their position if they don't have a whole lot of time to study and apply those programs, but if you have 15 minutes to spare, you can learn how to run programs in incredibly unobtrusive and sleek ways. With command line movie and mp3 players, and after putting two and two together to realize that I could then use scripts to automate them, using a GUI feels extremely cumbersome. I think the one thing that keeps me off of Windows is the lack of a bash shell.

 

Hell, if I sounded like a Linux zealot, I'll just correct you: I'm a bash zealot.

 

 

SagaciousKJB goes to nerd out

[Saget]

@ sag, and yet you didn't critisize Windows vista did you, same for Svip 

Well, let's put it this way: If everyone I knew said that a movie was crap, I wouldn't go pay to see it. However, if anyone was to bring the movie up, I would probably reflect on what I've heard. Just put Vista in place of that movie, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

 

Reflecting on the likely success of an operating system isn't really being that critical, I think it's just being realistic. The general consensus, or at least the one I can see, is that Vista is a total flop. Microsoft have now made the choice to continue work on XP at the behest of most of its users I believe, so I think that's a pretty good reflection on just how well Vista has been received. In a financial context, I doubt Vista will be much of a flop, but later on down the road, I'm pretty sure Vista will be looked upon as the second Me. Some people will choose to use XP instead, some people will be using Vista and just waiting for the new version, and others will be perfectly happy with Vista.

 

The only thing I can't really remember is whether or not they ended support for 98 when Me was out. I think they waited until XP to stop support for 9x, but I'm not sure about that.

My opinion is: I need to check things myself no matter what people say about it.

If I tell you I don't like something and you know I never tried it, then you can say I'm talking bullsh*t.

 

That's how it was with Vista. I seriously liked what I saw, no matter how much people said it sucked. Then I bought the thing, and I'm loving it. I am one of the few people that actually does like Vista =P

 

But then, I still need to try Linux AND Macs. Macs are rare around here since they're not sold officially and they cost a fortune, and I might install Linux on an old machine as soon as I build it.

That means I don't know what they are like, therefore I cannot say "Oh, I hate Linux" or "Windows is better than Mac!". I seriously think that Mac OSes are awesome, and Linux just looks like something... that works different.

 

About this new Windows, I'll see how it goes. I think they are only releasing it, IF they release it that soon, to get the people that still use XP, because as said there, they will abandon it after they release this new version. Still, I don't regret wasting money on Vista, and I don't think it sucks that much.

[Saggy]

If I tell you I don't like something and you know I never tried it, then you can say I'm talking bullsh*t.

Of course, but I never offered my opinion on Vista, I just speculated on its success. There's a difference.

 

I've also never used a Mac, but I've heard good things about OS X, so I apply the same principle. I have the same problem as you do, though, there's really not any around here, mostly because there's no demand--not because they're a bad product, but because they're so expensive, and my city isn't really technologically savvy.

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

There are a lot of people here bashing Vista saying "it has many problems" without saying what those are.

 

There are no reasons not to use Vista on a modern desktop machine. When it first came out there was issues with hardware manufacturers not providing drivers but this was the fault of the hardware manufacturers not Microsoft, and this is no longer a problem and has not been for well over 6 months. Any new hardware will have Vista drivers.

 

I think the main problem with Vista is that when it came out people tried to run it on 3 year old PCs and expected it to perform like XP. Obviously this was not going to happen. However, if you're buying a new PC now there is no reason to choose XP over Vista.

 

Saying that, Vista isn't a great step up from XP for most end users. I find it is more stable day to day and the interface is quite nice but I wouldn't be using it if I didn't get my copy free via my universities MSDNAA programme.

 

If I were building a new PC now, and had to choose an OS it would be Vista. Simply for longevity and stability. DX10 is nice in theory but we're yet to see anything really making use of it (though we can blame the fact that games are still being developed for last generation hardware in the current consoles for that one).

 

[Democrab]

Nah, The main reason that DX10 isn't used heaps isn't consoles, I'm pretty sure its cuz the only DX10 cards that can actually do DX10 stuff at a high framerate is expensive, so most people still have DX9 stuff, and that makes the Developers want to support them, and only do a Half assed DX10 mode because they have to do DX10 and DX9, Pretty stupid on MS's part IMO to make DX10 incompatible with DX9.

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

it's a catch 22. nvidia and ATI aren't developing faster cards, which bring down prices of decent affordable cards too, not that there are a shortage at the moment.

 

As an example, look at the 9800GTX which was recently released it's marginally better than the 1.5 year old 8800GTX. The 8800GTX actually outperforms the 9800GTX in quite a few circumstances. There's no reason the faster cards because the games aren't there. The games aren't there pushing the hardware because they're still being developed for old hardware in the current consoles.

 

[SyphonPayne]

Cool, I can't wait.

 

I s'pose I'll just upgrade this computer from Vista to Windows 7 when it's released.

[Picolini]

I despise Microsoft. OS X just works...  and you don't need to worry (much) about viruses.

Totally false.

If you actually look around and don't believe everything you hear, you'll see it's no safer than Windows.

 

That's bullsh*t, of course it's safer. It's not safer because of the reasons that steve jobs wants you to believe, but it's safer nonetheless. Security by obscurity, nobody's coding viruses for macs because it's not a big enough user base.

Well they may be safer in the fact that you're less likely to get a virus, but as you said it's only because no one wastes their tme on creating the virus for Macs. It's not because it's harder to infect a Mac OS which is what I meant.

[Saget]

If I tell you I don't like something and you know I never tried it, then you can say I'm talking bullsh*t.

Of course, but I never offered my opinion on Vista, I just speculated on its success. There's a difference.

 

I've also never used a Mac, but I've heard good things about OS X, so I apply the same principle. I have the same problem as you do, though, there's really not any around here, mostly because there's no demand--not because they're a bad product, but because they're so expensive, and my city isn't really technologically savvy.

Hmm yeah, I noticed. I was just adding my view to what you said

 

On my last trip there was a guy at the airport with a Mac notebook, couldn't tell which one. He was sitting right next to me at the waiting lobby, and I was peeking at what he was doing all the time xD

I was too shy to ask him things, like which model was that, where he got it and other stuff. Still, it looked good =o

Meanwhile I was there with my Acer notebook (with Windows Vista) (which, mind you, is the computer I'm using right now) trying to hack into the Wi-Fi airport network. I was unsuccessfull, but at least I found out that my ISP gave two hours per month free at any hotspot =o

 

Ok, enough with off-topicness.

[jelly]

In other news, this was BS.

[Svip]

In other news, this was BS.

Why am I not in the least surprised? Let's face it, Bill Gates knows jack sh*t about the Windows development. All he does is slack around and earning tonnes of cash and travelling around the world telling people about his employees' "great" work.

[Saget]

The question is: why did they give up on the cute nicknames for their OSes? Why Windows 7? I would've waited until the 10th Windows to start using numbers ¬¬

[Cursed]

I suppose I should be upgrading from 3.11 soon?

[SyphonPayne]

 

In other news, this was BS.

Why am I not in the least surprised? Let's face it, Bill Gates knows jack sh*t about the Windows development. All he does is slack around and earning tonnes of cash and travelling around the world telling people about his employees' "great" work.

Jealous much? hahaha

 

@Cursed: Don't do it! Windows 95 requires too much RAM! It's a bloated OS!

[Crokey]

The question is: why did they give up on the cute nicknames for their OSes? Why Windows 7? I would've waited until the 10th Windows to start using numbers ¬¬

Yeah, but then they'd have to follow the Lemmings and Call it Windows X, then everyone will know that Microsoft have always copied Apple like Mac OSX

[Cursed]

@Cursed: Don't do it! Windows 95 requires too much RAM! It's a bloated OS!

I don't think my graphics card can handle that interface, 16 colours and 640* resolution is a bit over the top in my opinion. Plus, Windows 95 needs a full 8MB RAM, with is 4 times what I have, and I can't afford, or fit another 6MB into my new case (Its beige, and even has a Floppy, which is better than my old cartridge holder).

[Saget]

The question is: why did they give up on the cute nicknames for their OSes? Why Windows 7? I would've waited until the 10th Windows to start using numbers ¬¬

Yeah, but then they'd have to follow the Lemmings and Call it Windows X, then everyone will know that Microsoft have always copied Apple like Mac OSX

Call it Windows 10. Supah cool x)

Windows XI would be really hardcore...

[lt_yao]

Will this new version of Windows have DX10, like Vista?

 

Computers are like mobile phones now, can't keep up.

Exactly, I stopped updating my computer ages ago because it's too expensive...

[BuffaloSoldier]

Extremely hyped. I f*cking love Windows. I don't care about the artsyyyyyy Mac users or the like that bash Windows all the time.

 

Much love .

[Picolini]

@Cursed: Don't do it! Windows 95 requires too much RAM! It's a bloated OS!

I don't think my graphics card can handle that interface, 16 colours and 640* resolution is a bit over the top in my opinion. Plus, Windows 95 needs a full 8MB RAM, with is 4 times what I have, and I can't afford, or fit another 6MB into my new case (Its beige, and even has a Floppy, which is better than my old cartridge holder).

I hope that was a lame attempt at a joke.

[Cursed]

^ It was taking someone elses joke too far. Anyway, I don't mind Windows Vista, and will always be quite excited (or at least want to try) the new Windows.

[K^2]

Yeah, gaming on Linux kind of sucks. I suppose it just comes down to how much effort you want to exert and whether or not you want to play the latest and greatest. If developers started programming with cross-platform functionality in mind, and graphics card makers stepped up their driver support for Linux, I think bleeding-edge gaming could work out, but there's still the matter of too much effort needing to be exerted for most to adopt it, and the fact that if there's no demand from that segment, developers aren't going to follow suit. You know, that whole spiel was a lot longer than I intended. Now I sound like a Linux fanboy.

Keep in mind that games on Windows developed because that's what people had. And people had Windows on their home machines because that's what they used at work. Many businesses and even governments, fed up with all of the MS problems, are switching over to Linux now. There is some time lag, of course, but we are going to see a huge rise in Linux users over the next few years. Games and graphics drivers will follow.

[SyphonPayne]

@Cursed: Don't do it! Windows 95 requires too much RAM! It's a bloated OS!

I don't think my graphics card can handle that interface, 16 colours and 640* resolution is a bit over the top in my opinion. Plus, Windows 95 needs a full 8MB RAM, with is 4 times what I have, and I can't afford, or fit another 6MB into my new case (Its beige, and even has a Floppy, which is better than my old cartridge holder).

I hope that was a lame attempt at a joke.

Haha, I thought it was pretty funny in a really geeky way .

[derty]

I posted about this in another topic like 3, maybe 4 months ago (the topic with the vista/xp poll); was a rumor then, is it a rumor still? /me goes to read

 

ME2

 

 

The mass market thinks Microsoft sucks. Their doomed in the OS market. lol

 

I have never read anything further from fact in my entire life

 

 

and @ everyone bashing MS and windows in general,

 

My own two cents is that anyone who bashes windows either A) sucks because they can't use it without breaking it, or B) is a poser punk bitch riding on pop nerd/hacker culture. Windows is 96 percent of the market for good reason.

 

It's not "M$ making some stupid ass monopoly". Schools were mentioned; schools use it not for contracts and sh*t, but for the fact that business uses it. They'll need to know Windows. The business class uses windows because it's the best offering for that world. Apple has come a long way, and so has linux, but windows sh*ts on them in market saturation, usability, compatibility, and stability.

 

You may like one OS for the things you do, but there is only one OS that does Everything Everyone does, and that os is windows.

 

If it wasn't for 3ds max being windows only, I'd be all exclusive Linux (ubuntou is my current favortie flavor), but that's ME and what I need a computer for. And even then, it fails ME with buggy blender builds that work better on windows anyway as the best offering in 3D. And so on for others I'm sure.

 

Windows is the Best All Around OS of all time, and even vista is more accessible than anything else besides XP, which is God of OS's and those with errors are Noobs to Personal Computing or just accidentally did the wrong thing without realising.

Edited April 10, 2008 by derty

[poopskin]

Wow...That is...The truth.

 

I would say i love you, but you could be another guy.

[Saggy]

 

It's not "M$ making some stupid ass monopoly". Schools were mentioned; schools use it not for contracts and sh*t, but for the fact that business uses it. They'll need to know Windows. The business class uses windows because it's the best offering for that world. Apple has come a long way, and so has linux, but windows sh*ts on them in market saturation, usability, compatibility, and stability.

Businesses all over the world, in fact many foreign government and schools alike, are in fact switching to Linux. Most schools aren't motivated by what is ideal to teach, but by what is cheapest. Even if in the world of business more American companies switched to Linux, schools would still be offered grants and contracts from Microsoft and use that instead. How do I know this? Because the Yakima Public School district is generally being bought out by both Microsoft and Apple frequently. It has nothing to do with what the business class is doing. Seriously, if schools were interested in what is most ideal to teach, they wouldn't be using books from the 70s.

 

 

You may like one OS for the things you do, but there is only one OS that does Everything Everyone does, and that os is windows

 

The only thing that Windows can really do that other OSs can't is play a lot of games, and even that is highly debatable with things like Wine and Cedega, but we'll ignore that since most games are developed for Windows. Everything else, including 3d graphic design, can be accomplished on another OS.

 

 

My own two cents is that anyone who bashes windows either A) sucks because they can't use it without breaking it, or B) is a poser punk bitch riding on pop nerd/hacker culture. Windows is 96 percent of the market for good reason.

 

Well, if I wanted to offer an equally biased and ignorant opinion, I would say that anyone who holds Windows as the holy grail of OSs like you is probably too stupid and/or ignorant, or probably just too lazy to realize the full potential of others to realize that all OSs have their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

Though I'm sure you're not one of those people, considering you realized what I already pointed out

 

 

If it wasn't for 3ds max being windows only, I'd be all exclusive Linux (ubuntou is my current favortie flavor), but that's ME and what I need a computer for. And even then, it fails ME with buggy blender builds that work better on windows anyway as the best offering in 3D. And so on for others I'm sure.

 

If you were a programmer, server-administrator or web-designer, you probably wouldn't be using Windows.

 

 

Seriously though, Microsoft's huge market share ( which is really only grasped onto the Desktop market anyway ) really does not have much to do with the quality of the operating system, especially when you consider that a huge portion of the people using computers aren't even concerned about their OS--I'd be willing to bet that half of them aren't even aware of it. I really doubt they're saying, "I'm sticking with Windows because it's the best thing around and others can't do this specific thing," they'd probably be saying something as stupid as, "Oh, I like Dell, because their email checking is really fast." ( That's a real quote, by the way.) It just goes back to the fact that most people's introduction to computers will be on Windows because A) That's what's mostly used in schools due to various grants and contracts and B) That's what is mostly installed by default on consumer grade computers. Now, to deny that, is just to deny the plain and obvious facts.

 

However, you know why I like Linux? It's not because of one program or the other, or one thing I can't do on the other. It's because it's free and open. Now there are many people who would pay that premium to use Windows, to do things on it in a seemingly simpler way, generally because they're already use to doing it that way on Windows. However, there's really not all that much that's really complex about Linux unless you're lazy or incapable of reading, and the fact that it's free makes that slight learning curve worthwhile. In this case, it's not about the OS itself, but the limitations surrounding using it and obtaining it. I mean, OSX is a Unix derivitive, and pretty close to having everything Windows and Linux has, but I wouldn't use it because of the fact that it is not free. Seriously, once that slight learning curve is over-come, the fact that Linux is free is probably a much higher motivation for its adoption than some type of hacker/nerd culture, because really, the people interested in that type of culture or image probably won't put the effort into switching, they would rather just tell everyone they use Linux and act as if that means something.

 

Exactly how accessible is Windows Vista if you have to either break the law for spend at least $200 to get it? Why would I be motivated to purchase it when I can do the same things, with the same efficiency ( or more ) on a free OS with a minimal amount of effort?

 

In a world where each OS has become pretty accomplished at doing the exact same thing as the other ( though with considerably different amounts of effort put in on the end-users part ), quality isn't really the keen motivator as much as cost and time come into play. Consumers are known for paying high price for high convenience, and business and professionals are known for low-cost high-maintenance systems. It should come as no surprise then that A) Windows and Apple dominates the desktop market and B) *nix dominates the server market, but when people say that, it really shouldn't be interpreted that one OS is incapable of the other. Sure, I could setup a MySQL, PHP, and Apache server on Windows, but it would be a pain in the ass to do, compared with installing one package on Linux and it wouldn't run as well. On the same principle, I could run a game in Wine, but it would be a pain in the ass to do, compared with just installing it on Windows and it wouldn't run as well.

 

Now, I would have to agree with you that Windows is probably the best all around operating system for convenience, and it's usually on enough computers that the price isn't really too much of a hurdle most of the time. However, if you're like me and spend way too much time on your computer, you might just find yourself wanting a more customized way of doing things, and will probably be willing to put in the effort and time to do it. Now days when I get on Windows, I feel like I've lost two legs and an arm. I can still do most of the things I did on Linux, but it's a lot tougher to figure out how. The difference is that the average person is trying to play a game or check their email, and I'm trying to write a function in C or some script.

 

Also, Jesus H. Christ, can't I ever write a post that's not huge? I must be the most redundant person on these forums.