Windows 7 RC

C

Caliante

Haha, I just enter the prefix 'solved' to the title of the thread to be funny :e

I just installed Windows 7 the other day on an old machine (you can down it from MS now and get a key that's valid for 13 months). I was impressed: install went smooth except for the fact that it didn't recognize my network adapter (simple 3Com 9Cx, nothing not known to around a zillion of computers :stud) and consequently asked me if I wanted to go online to look for a driver (duh. How difficult is it to have an exception in that 'wanna go online driver program' to distinguish between network adapter drivers and other drivers?).

Anyway, I have to admit: it is fast, way faster than XP is. In this new Windows they have managed to hide all the functions even better, so you are really looking and looking and looking to find stuff that had a normal place in XP.

Of course, for me it is a road without and end; MS is exit for me, and XP is the last Windows I will have used. But just thought I'd share my experience with you all.
 
Caliante said:
it didn't recognize my network adapter [...] and consequently asked me if I wanted to go online to look for a driver
Click to expand...

Hahaha, Windows never ceases to amuse me.
Code: 
System failure: unable to detect the keyboard.
Please, press F1 for help.
 
My laptop came with Vista, and I tried W7 on it; the upgrade went great but it's not really compelling enough to be worth having to wipe everything off of it when it bricks next year -and the FAQ says that you'll have to do a clean install even if you want to upgrade from the RC to the full version.

In the end, I simply put Vista back on it.
 
I have a few peers that have installed Windows 7, and it seems pretty solid. I've never had any problems with Vista, so if W7 is any better, then it's going to be good.

Recent Windows with Cygwin = the best desktop OS at the moment. That's my opinion (and probably no one else's).
 
Pushrod said:
I have a few peers that have installed Windows 7, and it seems pretty solid. I've never had any problems with Vista, so if W7 is any better, then it's going to be good.

Recent Windows with Cygwin = the best desktop OS at the moment. That's my opinion (and probably no one else's).
Click to expand...
Honestly, I haven't yet tried Windows 7, but Vista was in general significantly better than any previous Windows version.

It's kind of a shame that MS finally *beep**beep**beep**beep*ed with me to the point that I won't have any business relations with them in the future. (Entendre not particularly intended, but too good to edit out)

One of these days I want to try portable Ubuntu. Basically a version which is sort of similar to Cygwin, but without requiring an installation. Last time I tried Cygwin it was a pretty big pain, although that was years ago.

EDIT: Makes me wonder how people named *beep**beep**beep**beep* ever manage to post their real name here.
 
hedwards said:
One of these days I want to try portable Ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Try UWin, from Korn at Bell Labs. It has worked well for me.

I've tried W7, and actually rather like it. It is the first Windows product that I've really liked since W2K (though they have all worked fine for me, including Vista).
 
Beastie said:
Hahaha, Windows never ceases to amuse me.
Code: 
System failure: unable to detect the keyboard.
Please, press F1 for help.
Click to expand...
That's a BIOS message and has nothing to do with Windows :stud
 
I mean, you'd have to call it Windows2001 first, but who cares?

DrJ said:
It is the first Windows product that I've really liked since W2K (though they have all worked fine for me, including Vista).
Click to expand...
NT4 was okay, but 5 (I guess I can accept "2k" if you look like Angela Bassett) was naggy and service-rich in a way that rubbed wrong on me. Long I for the days of yore and simple, simplistic interfaces? Aye, 3.1 was the best.

I anticipate the day when the pointless incrementing of version numbers makes the "Windows2000"* nonsense look foolishly shortsighted.

But, really, I just surf a bit of some tubes and play a couple of text games. I don't think windows can do that anymore, unless you install the double-silverlightdotnet4.0ie8wmp13.9# plugin.



*It occurs to me that if you could get HAL working under cygwin on windows 2000 you would probably end up accidently killing Doctor Bowman.
 
fronclynne said:
Long I for the days of yore and simple, simplistic interfaces? Aye, 3.1 was the best.
Click to expand...

I do hope you are not being serious. I booted my old 3.1 box a week ago (from circa 1992), and the UI is clunky and very, very dated.

For a simple but effective window manager, SunView (that ran on SunOS before the switch to SPARC and SysVR4) was pretty good.
 
I had ``Windows 7 readiness training'' at work last week, the feature most praised by our Microsoft representative was the fact that Windows 7 can now automatically change backgrounds, I think he spent about 6 or 7 minutes ``explaining'' this feature.

Just an example to show that Microsoft seems to have slightly different priorities than FreeBSD ;) They are still using NTFS for example with all it's shortcomings and design flaws ... But you can change your background automatically now !! wheee!!!!
 
Carpetsmoker said:
... Windows 7 can now automatically change backgrounds.

Just an example to show that Microsoft seems to have slightly different priorities than FreeBSD ;)
Click to expand...

Ya think? Did you get "sensitivity training" too, so that any background displayed should at least have clothes on?

I never think Windows is as great as its proponents claim, nor as bad as its detractors would like you to believe.
 
DrJ said:
I never think Windows is as great as its proponents claim, nor as bad as its detractors would like you to believe.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for all proprietary operating systems. The other day I fired old SGI and I was must reminded that you can telent to SGI to a root account without a password. Old good times;)
 
Carpetsmoker said:
I had ``Windows 7 readiness training'' at work last week, the feature most praised by our Microsoft representative was the fact that Windows 7 can now automatically change backgrounds, I think he spent about 6 or 7 minutes ``explaining'' this feature.

Just an example to show that Microsoft seems to have slightly different priorities than FreeBSD ;) They are still using NTFS for example with all it's shortcomings and design flaws ... But you can change your background automatically now !! wheee!!!!
Click to expand...

now that was funny
 
excuse me but windows 7 gone suck more!!! Why virus spyware zombie bug and all shit like and we have to pay for that crap!!!
I don't Wont try this shit!!! I stay with my open source.
 
hi all im new here, thought i would throw in a post here...my girlfriend has Vista Home/Basic..We put 7 on it, and I have to admit, its rock stable. I really enjoy using her computer when she isnt glued to facebook. Alot faster then Vista, and seems more modular.

Speaking of old OSes, I remembered my mind was blown like a kid with a sack of good weed when Win95 came out. But does everyone remember OS/2? What about BeBox(?)? Or the NeXT cubes?
 
Oh come on now...

Carpetsmoker said:
...the feature most praised by our Microsoft representative was the fact that Windows 7 can now automatically change backgrounds...

Just an example to show that Microsoft seems to have slightly different priorities than FreeBSD ;)
Click to expand...

Obviously that little feature is not "a priority". The people giving you the training and spending several minutes on something like that are not those charged with setting design priorities.

How much time was spent on the multi-touch features? The Libraries feature? The improvements in boot and shutdown time?

They are still using NTFS for example with all it's shortcomings and design flaws
Click to expand...

NTFS is a very robust file system. Can you give an example of some "design flaws" it has?
 
Caliante said:
I was impressed: install went smooth except for the fact that it didn't recognize my network adapter (simple 3Com 9Cx, nothing not known to around a zillion of computers :stud) and consequently asked me if I wanted to go online to look for a driver (duh. How difficult is it to have an exception in that 'wanna go online driver program' to distinguish between network adapter drivers and other drivers?).
Click to expand...

Well, in my Windows laptop, there are several network adapters; WiFi, GigE, Bluetooth, Firewire, and anything I connect via PC-Card or USB. I *would* like it to hunt online for those drivers.

I get what you mean, but you should think through the implications of your desire.

Anyway, I have to admit: it is fast, way faster than XP is. In this new Windows they have managed to hide all the functions even better, so you are really looking and looking and looking to find stuff that had a normal place in XP.
Click to expand...

Example please? I'm sincerely curious.
 
ChuckOp said:
I'm sincerely curious.
Click to expand...

Hi there.

You look like somebody who works for Microsoft. I was
always wondering do you guys have a copy of pristine Windows without legacy support and all unnecessary PR crap. I would really like to see how that works since I can not imagine such big bunch of very smart people putting out half backed OS with gazillion wholes.

Best,
OKO
 
ChuckOp said:
How much time was spent on the multi-touch features? The Libraries feature? The improvements in boot and shutdown time?
Click to expand...

None.

NTFS is a very robust file system. Can you give an example of some "design flaws" it has?
Click to expand...

The first three that spring to mind:

o The ACl implementation is just stupid.
o Fragmentation (And thus performance) is *horrible*.
o Lack of symbolic links (Vista does NOT have proper support for symbolic links)
 
I never think Windows is as great as its proponents claim, nor as bad as its detractors would like you to believe.
Click to expand...

True, I have worked with it every day for the last 10 months orso, and for all it's problems, it does work. Which is more than can be said of some Xorg ``releases'' for example (...But this is a different topic...).
 
Carpetsmoker said:
...for all it's problems, it does work. Which is more than can be said of some Xorg ``releases'' for example (...But this is a different topic...).
Click to expand...

Windows makes a huge effort in backwards compatibility. That has its own issues, but it does mean that usually things work. MS still issues security patches for Windows 2000! On OSS, you are out of luck after a couple of years, usually. And I've never seen anything like what has been happening recently with xorg in the Windows world.
 
I kick puppies.

Eugene McCarthy liked pizza and Mountain Dew during long nights of coding device drivers.

Bok Choy is better than arugula(r).

Hedy Lamarr's contribution to mobile phone technology is more important that yours.

Oswald and Ruby sank the Titanic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top