windows 7 what do you think?

[Zaps]

My question: what justifies "upgrading" to the latest OS?

If you have a computer which runs well under your existing OS, and your applications all work well with both the existing hardware and OS, why go to the trouble and expense of buying the latest (expensive) OS, and the expensive new hardware required to run it?

Seriously, it means forking out for hardware that exceeds the "minimum specs" stipulated by Microsoft because 1) those specs are always hopelessly optimistic and 2) the best you'll get is a PC which runs the expensive new OS sluggishly, but won't usefully function when you try to run your applications.

Not to mention the all new suite of driver and patch issues you will inevitably run into: "This software is not supported by Windows Version Whatever."

You are trading up/down from an already paid for system which works well, to one which costs you a lot more cash and won't run as well as your older system unless you pay a LOT more cash...

Microsoft's revenue stream depends upon the gullible and the asinine (corporate IT management), and those who like to tell everybody that they "had it first".

Dunno about the rest of you guys, but my current system ain't broke in any way, and don't need a-fixin'!

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

mmm you sure you work in the IT industry? Most corporate environments are the worst when it comes to upgrading their operating system and office suite software. Many are still running Server 2000 and XP (or Windows 2000). Most IT managers cannot, and will not, justify upgrading to the latest and greatest.

Where does Microsoft make most of its money? The OEM market. That's where the vast majority of people will come from who've upgraded to the "latest and greatest". And given that, the hardware actually is generally well geared to run the latest Windows operating system too. There were a few anomalies with Windows Vista, and the US court system is dealing with that. Every business in existence will try and cut corners, it's the nature of being in business. Hoping not to get caught is something every business person has in common.

Microsoft does not target the Windows operating system at the average person who buys it off the shelf without a new computer. Sure, you can buy OEm disks, or retail packages, but they do not comprise the majority of Microsoft's sales.

I'll tell you a little story. Back in the days, I bought a copy of Windows 95B OEM on CD (I had purchased the full install version of Windows 95A on 13 floppy disks and it was a pain). I purchased it from a local computer fair. I didn't open it for a 3 and a bit weeks, and then I noticed that it had 2 "how and why" disks (basically info disks on what was new in Windows 95). I took it back at the next computer fair, with my receipt. Said vendor accused me of stealing and trying to pull a swifty and wouldn't listen. No refund, no swap, my problem. Now, I was in a pickle, since it was an OEM version, Microsoft wouldn't support it. Well, that was the technical problem After six weeks of arguing with the vendor, who got quite rude I might add, I took it up with Microsoft. Said vendor had sold the OEM package without hardware, which is breaking their OEM contract. Microsoft decided to become involved and I had to meet up with some of their lawyers. Said Vendor had his OEM contract torn up. I got compensated, even though Microsoft wasn't obliged to do so. I ended up getting a full retail version of Windows NT 4 workstation - triple the cost of what I'd bought! Nice customer support Microsoft.

Now...after dinner, I'll reveal my Linux retail support nightmare...

Dave

dinner is in the oven and will get burnt if I don't go up now...

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

I bought a retail version of Suse Linux 8 - worst mistake ever! After attempting a test install on my laptop (Compaq Armada 1750) and not being able to get sound working, and not having any relevant information on their website...I contacted the support team, only to be rudely told that audio is not part of the normal "support", and that I'd need to pay another price premium of AU $150 for assistance! Now, given that Redhat 6.2, 7, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 had all installed on this system, without issue, with sound working OUT OF THE BOX, Suse was a major disappoint to say the least.

So yes, you might pay a bit more for Windows, but the support is undoubtedly better in my mind. Let's just say that Suse got uninstalled real quick, Redhat went back on the laptop and the Suse disks have *never* been used since. Yeah, sure, Linux is "free", but the support is usually torrid imho. I certainly wouldn't recommend a newbie in its direction, Ubuntu be damnéd. Since I'm good with computers, it's not much of an issue for me, but for the average person, I certainly wouldn't recommend Linux under any circumstances. The majority of rabid Linux users have left a rancid taste in my mouth I'm afraid.

I might have stayed with Linux if Photoshop CS2 had ran under WINE, but alas, it didn't, and by then, after Six years of tinkering with Linux as my sole operating system on both desktop and laptop, I said enough is enough. These days, I spent less time fixing my system, and more time using it. Which reminds, me LESS is MORE. :-)

XP is a fine operating system, post SP2, but it was also an extreme hardware hog when it was first released, with a swag of issues to boot. It's amazing that those who bashed XP when it was released now love it. Those very same bashers are the ones usually bashing Vista. I wonder if history will prove me right and show that they end up liking Vista in a few years from now ;-)

Of course, Windows 7 is really Vista SP2, so Microsoft has been quite clever in offering it as a stand alone operating system, than an upgrade, at least money wise ;-)

Now of course, if you don't mind paying the AHT (Apple Hardware Tax), then OS X beats both operating systems hands down. Well, at least if it's not in a server environment. The mach kernel doesn't handle server side requests very well imho, but then I've never really been a fan of the mach kernel design, or a micro kernel for that matter (sorry Andrew T, but Linus has it right imho).

Dave

[Zaps]

Been in this game for more than 40 years. Academic side over here and at two US varsities. (I began at OSU then wound up at Stanford eventually, passing through local unis on the way.) Worked for Intel (processor design), Motorola (more processor design), IBM (processor destroyer), others. If it were up to me, we'd all be running VMS on Vaxen. Then MS took VMS and twisted it into a hellish nightmare called NT which did absolutely nothing right, and that dream was finally shattered forever.

There are a lot of my fingerprints all over much of the early UNIX code, and if you look long and hard enough you may still just find some in dusty corners of modern *NIX.

My point being I have some small idea of what I'm talking about, although the Alzheimer's has a habit of getting in the way now.

Yeah, tinkering and testing can still be a whole lot of fun, but for production systems I stick with the tried-and-true. On the desktop, when I have commercial applications to run, that means Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Why? Because right now it works with the applications I'm running with the least amount of tinkering and testing. My hardware is up to it.

Is there even a single compelling reason to throw that baby out with the bathwater by purchasing a complete new rig just so I can get the latest OS to run well enough to stay out of the way of the applications I use right now? Nyuh-uh. No time, I have too much work to do.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Funny though, I'm running an x64 bit of Vista, and have had bugger all problems software wise. I'm yet to find a program that I'm not able to run. Tell you the truth, I'd read about compatibility issues with Vista x64 and that's why I have a copy of XP 32 bit. I simply haven't needed it.

I am glad to have had a copy of Debian 64 bit though - saved my bacon when the drive that Vista was sitting on went corrupt - long story short, I have a 36gb raptor boot drive (XP and Debian), 500gb drive Vista, and 2 x 500gb drives in RAID 1. One of the raid drives went bust, and being new to RAID, I did something bad in the BIOS. After booting back into Vista, it did some things that it probably shouldn't have, a reboot later and no Vista system - HAL was stuffed. Due to the changes made, XP also had the same problem (HAL). HAL is a pretty damn stupid thing imho - Linux is far better in this respect, it simply *works*. So, a quick trip into Debian, run testdisk, rebuilt the partition etc, and voila. All fixed. RAID reset in the BIOS and I've left it broken. One day I'll pull the faulty drive out and send it back for a warranty repair lol. One day when I'm not feeling to lazy. Hell, I'll probably just buy a drive and swap it and then send the unit back. Serves me right for play with software RAID.

Dave

[tornado33]

Ive downloaded the latest release candidate Win 7 64 bit. It uses less resources then Vista, and the entire install from booting from the DVD I burnt, till at the win7 desktop was 20 mins. I downloaded Win 7 from MS and used the key they provided when I got an earlier version from them.

It runs fine, and for once is a step fowards in that it is a less resource hog then the previous OS. What that means that current systems wont need to be upgraded provided they have 1 gb ram

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Funny though, I'm running an x64 bit of Vista, and have had bugger all problems software wise. I'm yet to find a program that I'm not able to run. Tell you the truth, I'd read about compatibility issues with Vista x64 and that's why I have a copy of XP 32 bit. I simply haven't needed it.

Yep - same here. V-64 Ultimate is rock-solid on my Q9550 QuadCore. Never missed a beat - not even once. Runs fast-as too. Simply stunning application startup times and unbelievably quick on image-intensive processing tasks (I'm in advertising). I'm seriously considering using them on some of our artists desktops - although as IT director I'll be shot by them for attempting to displace their Macs.

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

Slightly OT, but I just received a warning from PC Tools this morning regarding a Trojan in copies of Win 7 downloaded from P2P or Torrent sites. If you get yours by that method, they advise running a thorough scan before installing it.

Bill

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Glenhuon

Slightly OT, but I just received a warning from PC Tools this morning regarding a Trojan in copies of Win 7 downloaded from P2P or Torrent sites. If you get yours by that method, they advise running a thorough scan before installing it.

Bill

Do NOT trust any copy of Windows 7 from p2p. Under any circumstances. Guaranteed to have nasties in it. Get it from Microsoft - it doesn't cost anything, is easy and you know it's safe.

Chris - I'm on a similar, but slightly slower setup (Q6600 at stock speeds) with 8GB RAM (stock speeds).

Dave

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

"Do NOT trust any copy of Windows 7 from p2p. Under any circumstances. Guaranteed to have nasties in it. Get it from Microsoft - it doesn't cost anything, is easy and you know it's safe."

Yep, should have added that. Actually, its a good idea to not trust anything from P2P or Torrent. Seen too many nasties copped that way.

Bill

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Oh yeah...