Anyone tried this yet? Looks like a Vista service pack 3 in disguised as the NEW Windows 7.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
WINDOWS 7 ANYONE?
- Thread starter oldiesstation
- Start date
I saw a story about the SuperSession from Microsoft at CES. Apparently, it was all about Windows 7 in 2009 and Vista was not even mentioned or displayed at the convention.
I have a new latop that runs Vista. I love it and have had zero problems with it. Let's here from other Vista users.
I have a new latop that runs Vista. I love it and have had zero problems with it. Let's here from other Vista users.
I downloaded it Friday, we'll pick a machine and partition part of a drive and take it for a test run this week.
As far as I know, one of the leading broadcast automation companies is hotly pursuing a Java solution...so the operating system will matter not. I'll assume, this is to avoid all future iterations of Windows.
As far as I know, one of the leading broadcast automation companies is hotly pursuing a Java solution...so the operating system will matter not. I'll assume, this is to avoid all future iterations of Windows.
Vista has been a joke thus far in my opinion. My grandmother bought a laptop about a year ago, which came preloaded with Vista. The whole nightmare of using it completely scared her away from even wanting to touch it. Microsoft has the audacity to market Windows as the simple, it-just-works operating system (remember those Vista commercials?), yet it even gave me headaches (and I have been using their stuff for going on 20 years now). I suspect that a lot of other computer users will be going for Mac or Linux next time around. I'm already saving for a MacBook myself.
LowPayDJ said:
You don't. In truth, I don't see why Microsoft feels compelled to introduce an entirely-new operating system every few years. Mac OS X has kept the same basic structure since its inception in 2001. In that time frame we've gotten several different versions of Windows, all with their own massive set of problems to be remedied by the end user.
I say keep XP as long as you can.
A friend is running it and he's quite happy. He says it's the most stable beta M$ has produced. It looks to be Vista but heavily optimized, tweaked and with bugs sorted out. What Vista should have been in the first place... But obviously they had to give it a different name.
Regards,
Goran Tomas
Regards,
Goran Tomas
Looks like Vista in a new package (like Jack FM is oldies in a new package)M$ should let all Vista users upgrade for FREE.No, they;ll do it their way under the new Windows 7 so they get to screw us again.I think Windows 2000 was about the most stable OS.Maybe M$ can get IE right.I prefer Firefox.You know the old saying"if Bill Gates has a dollar for every windows that's crashed,oh wait he already has"....
Re: Vista
I haven't played with Windows 7 yet, but my understanding is that it's more modular and scalable than Vista. The idea is to allow users to strip down the OS for those applications that don't need all the bells and whistles.
Vista has gotten hammered by a lot of people, but my experience with it has been quite positive. Yes, it's different from XP. Yes, there were/are driver issues with some hardware, especially from manufacturers that don't support their stuff well in the first place. Yes, are significant differences "under the hood", some of which required software updates so programs would interoperate with Windows correctly. The change in multimedia underpinnings were/are a PITA for audio software. Some of those problems have gone away with the newer service packs. Some have required additional software to resolve the issue.
This may not be popular with people who resist learning new things, but Vista works, and well. A number of "good sense" upgrades come with the operating system - not the least of which is the new backup program that uses .zip files, and the recovery program that doesn't require you to do a full system install in order to get a machine back up and running from that backup.
Some of the new interface is pure glitz, but some is pretty cool and useful. That's an area where Windows 7 allows even more customization and/or control. Even Vista allows you to strip it down and make it look very much like XP if you wish.
Overall, most of the Vista "issues" sound like the same "issues" that people complained about with the upgrade from Win2K to XP. "It's too big. Drivers don't work. It requires too much memory." Anybody who's been around for a while remembers all those questions asked about XP. I still run 2000 on one machine, but find it increasingly difficult to support it. The "simplicity" is sometimes refreshing, sometime limiting. The same is true with the upgrade - and it is an upgrade - from XP to Vista.
Why does Microsoft come out with new operating systems? Why do manufacturers keep coming up with new processors, and software, and capabilities? We expect our computers to do a lot more things than we did with our Commodore 64s, or Windows 3.1, or Windows 95/98. Networking and multimedia expectations and requirements are much different now than they were in 2001 - when XP was born. Those changes require more than OS "tweaks".
All in all, MS operating systems are still backwardly compatible with most correctly-written programs for PCs. I can - and do - still run some ancient DOS aps. Try that with the Mac OS. When Mac creates a new OS, their answer to software or hardware incompatibility is "buy new". You can get away with that when you have 4% of the market. You don't get 90+% of the market with that attitude.
Lastly, would it surprise anyone to see a java version of Scott Studios - which is owned by Google? They've got a TON of money to throw at the problem, and are locked in a battle with Microsoft over the hearts and minds of computer users. I like Google, and I like G-mail, but I'm not ready to turn all my data over to ANYBODY for storage on THEIR systems, not mine.
I haven't played with Windows 7 yet, but my understanding is that it's more modular and scalable than Vista. The idea is to allow users to strip down the OS for those applications that don't need all the bells and whistles.
Vista has gotten hammered by a lot of people, but my experience with it has been quite positive. Yes, it's different from XP. Yes, there were/are driver issues with some hardware, especially from manufacturers that don't support their stuff well in the first place. Yes, are significant differences "under the hood", some of which required software updates so programs would interoperate with Windows correctly. The change in multimedia underpinnings were/are a PITA for audio software. Some of those problems have gone away with the newer service packs. Some have required additional software to resolve the issue.
This may not be popular with people who resist learning new things, but Vista works, and well. A number of "good sense" upgrades come with the operating system - not the least of which is the new backup program that uses .zip files, and the recovery program that doesn't require you to do a full system install in order to get a machine back up and running from that backup.
Some of the new interface is pure glitz, but some is pretty cool and useful. That's an area where Windows 7 allows even more customization and/or control. Even Vista allows you to strip it down and make it look very much like XP if you wish.
Overall, most of the Vista "issues" sound like the same "issues" that people complained about with the upgrade from Win2K to XP. "It's too big. Drivers don't work. It requires too much memory." Anybody who's been around for a while remembers all those questions asked about XP. I still run 2000 on one machine, but find it increasingly difficult to support it. The "simplicity" is sometimes refreshing, sometime limiting. The same is true with the upgrade - and it is an upgrade - from XP to Vista.
Why does Microsoft come out with new operating systems? Why do manufacturers keep coming up with new processors, and software, and capabilities? We expect our computers to do a lot more things than we did with our Commodore 64s, or Windows 3.1, or Windows 95/98. Networking and multimedia expectations and requirements are much different now than they were in 2001 - when XP was born. Those changes require more than OS "tweaks".
All in all, MS operating systems are still backwardly compatible with most correctly-written programs for PCs. I can - and do - still run some ancient DOS aps. Try that with the Mac OS. When Mac creates a new OS, their answer to software or hardware incompatibility is "buy new". You can get away with that when you have 4% of the market. You don't get 90+% of the market with that attitude.
Lastly, would it surprise anyone to see a java version of Scott Studios - which is owned by Google? They've got a TON of money to throw at the problem, and are locked in a battle with Microsoft over the hearts and minds of computer users. I like Google, and I like G-mail, but I'm not ready to turn all my data over to ANYBODY for storage on THEIR systems, not mine.
Not tested yet but it's the same Vista family. Many professionnal softwares we are using are not compatible. I think about some remotes for audio processors. I can't understand Microsoft about this. Since Vista, I have a beautiful iMac running both OSx and XP and my last laptop was sold with an XP DVD "downgrade".
XP was is so good. The small problems Vista fixed created many more problems combined with unremarkable support for users.
Mac has changed OS ! I know of a steadfast Mac user who switched to microsoft as a result of issues with Mac changing versions. Shutting off one OS to reboot in another isn't a fix.
Vista with a fix and a new name is a great idea marketing wise. Remember ME? Why not make it a free upgrade? The beta is out there and many great reprts so far.
Mac has changed OS ! I know of a steadfast Mac user who switched to microsoft as a result of issues with Mac changing versions. Shutting off one OS to reboot in another isn't a fix.
Vista with a fix and a new name is a great idea marketing wise. Remember ME? Why not make it a free upgrade? The beta is out there and many great reprts so far.
I could be wrong, but it just seems as if the new Vista features could have been built on top of the existing XP system, which could have ultimately become more streamlined in the process. Perhaps, at most, a re-release of XP as Windows XP Special Edition or something. Throw in the new Aero themes as a bonus and you're off to the races.
There just isn't a need to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say, every time Microsoft decides to make tweaks to Windows.
Wow...I put a lot of clichés in this post.
There just isn't a need to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say, every time Microsoft decides to make tweaks to Windows.
Wow...I put a lot of clichés in this post.
The hardware drives the software. XP was never designed to support things like multi-quad-core processors, many gigabytes of RAM, HD-quality graphics, or the security issues that have arisen as high-speed Internet access and home networks have grown. There comes a point where you can't reasonably paint lipstick on a pig and expect it to do everything that a hockey mom can do - especially if you're a hockey dad.
Windows 7 is a reaction to those who feel that Vista is too complex, and don't want to buy all the bells and whistles. The underlying technology is supposed to be so modular that it will be able to run on almost anything from simple devices like smart phones to multi-computer systems running high-speed repetitive tasks.
Windows 7 is a reaction to those who feel that Vista is too complex, and don't want to buy all the bells and whistles. The underlying technology is supposed to be so modular that it will be able to run on almost anything from simple devices like smart phones to multi-computer systems running high-speed repetitive tasks.
I say go Linux. New Linux OS's are free. They don't take up near as much memory, they're just as easy to operate, they're virus/spyware proof, plus you don't have to have a zillion things running in the background, eating up precious memory. Plus they don't crash.
Try Ubuntu 8.10. Works like a charm. Even on older PCs
Try Ubuntu 8.10. Works like a charm. Even on older PCs
O
OttoM
Guest
Bongwater said:
Frankly I'm surprised it took this long for a penguin partisan to make an appearance. We all know all about Linux. This thread is about Windows 7.
Penguin Partisan?
Linux is NOT virus proof. Or rootkit proof. Or worm proof. Or trojan proof.
The hardware and software support for Windows 7 - which is in BETA - is vastly greater than the hardware and software support for Linux of any flavor.
Linux has its place. It's very good for some applications, and as a server. As a desktop OS, not so much, unless you need a very limited array of applications or have a specific purpose in mind.
Linux is NOT virus proof. Or rootkit proof. Or worm proof. Or trojan proof.
The hardware and software support for Windows 7 - which is in BETA - is vastly greater than the hardware and software support for Linux of any flavor.
Linux has its place. It's very good for some applications, and as a server. As a desktop OS, not so much, unless you need a very limited array of applications or have a specific purpose in mind.
- Status