Do we really need Windows 7

By jjrambo
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Xerxes

Posted
Posted
We need windows 7 since there are many features that Windows lacks at this moment,howvere Windows Vista is very good in my opinion.

For example:

- Virtual Workspaces

XP had that (not by default though, MS PowerToy). It was kinda odd it wasn't added into Vista though, considering there seem to be a demand for it...

Mentor

ScottKin

Posted
Posted
Seeing how Windows 7 is about multi-touch, I don't see why not. It's good that technology of personal computing is moving forward, even if "Windows" is not as good as we hope.

Windows 7 is much more than just their implementation of multi-touch - or did you just get that from the videos of it? Try going to Microsoft's Channel9 pages and look for either "Windows 7" or "MinWin".

--ScottKin

P:S. I just hit the "1,234 Posts" Prize!!! :jump: :rofl:

Grand Master

AltecXP

Posted
Posted

MinWIn isnt part of Windows 7.

Win7 is stated to be:

UI tweaks in terms of performance

minor kernel tweaking/improvements

improvements to the UI in terms of speed and appearance/continuity

taking tools that are already there and improving them in speed or functionality

introducing new features(multi-touch)

All while while staying with the same recommended hardware as Vista.

Which oddly enough almost agrees with my thread of Win7 = Longhorn concept. Windows 7 is just another step towards making all the power/flexibility of the Longhorn concept a reality.

Enthusiast

asoldier

Posted
Posted

To be honest, now that XP is considered to be a fairly stable operating system, honestly, windows 7 isn't necessary for the common computing community. But, like everything else in the realm of technology, it never stops growing. I didn't say getting better. That has yet to be determined with Vista and the still-arising issues with it.

There will always be a next step with technology. Especially with software. And here's one good reason that's come to my attention.

When a software/hardware developer makes a product, they initially charge much more than the previous version or model on the shelf. Why? Well they give reasons like, it's got more features, economy has changed, blah blah blah. Fact of the matter is, back in the day win Win98 came out, it cost 90+ off of the shelf. When windows XP was thrown on the shelves, it started out around 200, in some places 150. Now you can find a copy for 100 bucks or less at wal-mart. When Windows 7 comes out, Vista will be downsized as well.

Yes, improving technology is a major factor, making things better; but these are companies, and they do need to make a profit. That's the design of capitalism, to make something bigger and better so you can charge more than before, or more than the other guy and get away with it.

Proficient

jjrambo

Posted
  • Author
Posted
WHAT STANDARD? There are 5 different icon styles for these 6 interfaces. 6 different layouts, and 2 completely different skins. And these are all standard MS applications!

post-162840-1212103453_thumb.jpg

That is the main problem with Windows Vista. GUI is totally inconsistent. Office 2007 is great except for Outlook 2007 which is totally unconsistent with the rest. Go figure...

Grand Master

Linkinfamous

Posted
Posted
What standard would that be exactly? There isn't even a unified look among Microsoft's own applications and the OS' default theme.

The Vista UX guidelines? Microsoft bends their own rules a fair bit, but I'm reasonably certain Apple has a guy studying them just so they can figure out newer and more annoying ways to break them.

IMO, everything should try to follow Explorer/WMP11/IE7's example when it makes sense to: A little extended glass....some nice looking buttons on it, that gradient bar thing (All three have the same bar, with different colors), 'Vistay' icons, etc.

Grand Master

Emn1ty

Posted
Posted
The Vista UX guidelines? Microsoft bends their own rules a fair bit, but I'm reasonably certain Apple has a guy studying them just so they can figure out newer and more annoying ways to break them.

IMO, everything should try to follow Explorer/WMP11/IE7's example when it makes sense to: A little extended glass....some nice looking buttons on it, that gradient bar thing (All three have the same bar, with different colors), 'Vistay' icons, etc.

You don't need to "study" anything windows to break conformity. Just make anything that looks half way decent and you probably will break their UI design. You are complaining that Apple doesn't conform to Microsoft's guidelines and in the same post say they don't have any to begin with. What point are you trying to prove? At least Apple sticks to their own UI standards as well as most the people who develop interfaces for OSX.

And just so you know, Web 2.0 gloss isn't the answer for everything. It is an easy way to make things look "cool". What they need to do is start making their UI layouts and navigation hierarchies the same. Each part of windows has its own navigation structure, making every moment of Windows a learning experience. I still don't know everything about Windows after using it for most my life, but I learned OSX pretty thoroughly in about a month.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted
The Vista UX guidelines? Microsoft bends their own rules a fair bit, but I'm reasonably certain Apple has a guy studying them just so they can figure out newer and more annoying ways to break them.

I've heard it's the same guy that worked with the Microsoft Office 2007 UI, Windows Live Messenger UI and Windows-Vista-Should-Still-Have-Windows-3.1-styled-icons teams. Such a small world. ;)

Grand Master

Andrew Lyle Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted
Do we really need Windows 7 now? I think it would be better to release one big SP2 with new features, changes, fixes and patches.

I don't see why Vista should be replaced since UAC behavior, new features, patches and fixes can be pushed through SP2.

Windows 7 will be like what Windows XP was compared to Windows 2000. The other reason is probably to get rid of Vista just because of the bad image it has right now. Having new OS every 3 years is too much. I think that should be moved to every 5-7 years.

but then we have other people complain "where is my new windows :cry: "

so it is better just to have more windows versions sooner, so people have the option to SKIP an upgrade... or purchase it. Making both sides happy...

I don't see where you failed to see that

Grand Master

Mr. Gibs

Posted
Posted (edited)
Vista was more than $200, at least the version that mattered. OSX is $200 for a 5 computer liscence, basically $40 per computer where Vista Ultimate is $400 for one PC. Paying $400 every two years is quite a bit for a mere OS.

Vista Ultimate OEM is 160usd. And OSX is 40usd? http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB427Z/A?mco=MTE3Mzg <- I guess apple must lie. If you have no idea how volume licensing works, please don't talk about it. Volume licensing means that you can buy 10 copies, with each copy being cheaper than buying 1 single copy.

Most people don't even need all the features in Ultimate so it is not the version that matters.. unless of course the home user will need bitlocker, and all the business/enterprise tools in Ultimate...

Home premium OEM is 100usd....sure if you want to buy the retail one go ahead and pay extra...I'm not stopping you, and nor is Microsoft.

You don't need to "study" anything windows to break conformity. Just make anything that looks half way decent and you probably will break their UI design. You are complaining that Apple doesn't conform to Microsoft's guidelines and in the same post say they don't have any to begin with. What point are you trying to prove? At least Apple sticks to their own UI standards as well as most the people who develop interfaces for OSX.

Vista looks pretty dam decent by itself. And so does office 2007 and IE7. Just because every programmer seems to think they need to make their own UI for windows [but apple developers don't seem to think that] doesn't make it Microsoft's fault, and nor is there a way to prevent it either.

Sure office 2007 has a different design, but it fits into Vista VERY NICELY and doesn't lag your computer to hell and act like a memory hog. Ie Itunes and Safari for windows. WMP decides that 40-100mb is like all it needs to play my music. Itunes decides that 250mb-400mb is what it needs...Safari compared to Opera/Firefox/Ie7 is the same.

If you realized with Vista your entire system doesn't go down when your graphics card driver stops working, it just recycles the process.
If only that were true, which (often), it isn't.

Really? It isn't true? How come I seem to have like a billion driver crashes thanks to nVidia's ****ty drivers and yet no bsods? The driver reloads fine, and the OS continues running?

You will not get a BSOD from a driver crash in Vista. End of story.

Edited by / -Razorfold
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Vista Ultimate OEM is 160usd. And OSX is 40usd? http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB427Z/A?mco=MTE3Mzg <- I guess apple must lie. If you have no idea how volume licensing works, please don't talk about it. Volume licensing means that you can buy 10 copies, with each copy being cheaper than buying 1 single copy.

...

Apple OSX cost per computer (from the page you posted):

$129 - one PC

$99.50 - two PCs (use "family pack", sum cost of "family pack" is $199)

$66.33 - three PCs (again, use "family pack" )

$49.75 - four PCs ("family pack" )

$39.80 - five PCs (maximum that a "family pack" allows)

The poster you quoted should have stated "as low as $40 per PC". Instead you use the opportunity to feign ignorance on what he meant and bash him to shut up about "volume licensing". :no:

Grand Master

Mr. Gibs

Posted
Posted (edited)
Apple OSX cost per computer (from the page you posted):

$129 - one PC

$99.50 - two PCs (use "family pack", sum cost of "family pack" is $199)

$66.33 - three PCs (again, use "family pack" )

$49.75 - four PCs ("family pack" )

$39.80 - five PCs (maximum that a "family pack" allows)

The poster you quoted should have stated "as low as $40 per PC". Instead you use the opportunity to feign ignorance on what he meant and bash him to shut up about "volume licensing". :no:

He compared a single license to a volume license.

So i compared a single license to a single license. Because if you want to compare two totally different pricing schemes it obviously shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure the way I worded it came out wrong...but according to his logic I can get Vista Ultimate for 50usd each, and now I can complain that Mac OS X costs 129usd. Doesn't really make sense does it?

Edited by / -Razorfold
Proficient

deactivated01032015

Posted
Posted

No, we don't need this thread. The old one has all the features that some users want and need so obviously this is just a waste of free time and imagination.

But wait, newer version will attract even more people whit features such are stupid poll, Vista vs. Linux discussion and much more. Stay tunned.

Whatever.

Grand Master

Windam

Posted
Posted
No, we don't need this thread. The old one has all the features that some users want and need so obviously this is just a waste of free time and imagination.

But wait, newer version will attract even more people whit features such are stupid poll, Vista vs. Linux discussion and much more. Stay tunned.

Whatever.

It's hard to cure a person's stupidity nowadays.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.