Windows 7 = Windows Vista ?

[windywoo]

I installed Ubuntu on a Toshiba Equium 210 and it was very nearly a painless process. The only problem was a big one, slow wireless internet. It turns out IPv6 is enabled by default in the latest Linux kernel, but if your router doesn't support it you can get horrible DNS lookup times (20-30 seconds if it didn't timeout altogether). Luckily I could enable IPV6 on my router, and luckily I even knew what it was. I doubt most users would, or if their router supported it, or how to change the settings on their router.

That laptop I think is one or two years old, so the hardware is pretty common and drivers are easy to come by. I don't know if Linux would have installed straight away on newer devices.

But there was one miraculous thing. In OSX to install my phone as a modem I had to go into network settings and tell it the mobile broadband settings of my ISP, and the special number to dial out. Not everybody knows where to discover such settings. In Linux it detected that I was installing mobile broadband, asked me which region and then asked me which network. Super smooth. IIRC Windows 7 was somewhere between the two.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

My PC is running Windows 7 right now. The PC cost me $350, plus shipping costs. Windows 7 runs flawlessly, and isn't slow at all.

I've run Ubuntu on it, and it works great. For once, all of my hardware was generic enough that Linux had drivers for it (Ever try installing Linux on a macintosh? It's a horrid experience!), but I couldn't do certain things like play WoW or Roller Coaster Tycoon on it, so I went back to Windows.

Yes, I know there are ways of making it work, but I wanted something that just works - Windows 7 does that, linux doesn't.

Having played with Vista, and now using 7 on my primary desktop, I gotta say that it's more then a service pack, and very well done.

P.S. I'd say windows 7 is built off of Windows Vista just as much as Snow Leopard is built off of Leopard

 

[dsnort]

Have you even used a recent Linux (I guess I mean Ubuntu really), or are you just repeating typical Windows user nonsense?

I have, much better than I thought it would be. For 95% of the things I wanted to do, Ubuntu was great. The other 5% was a deal breaker though. Has come a long way, needs to go a bit further.

Windows trounced it because people got their cheap Linux netbooks home and didn't know how the hell to use them.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with MS dumping XP on the manufacturers at fire sale pricing and reminding them what kind of butter was on most of the bread!

 

[splidge]

I must admit it's been 1-2 years. Maybe things have changed beyond recognition in that time, I doubt it though, since Linux is still in the realm of the nerds and pretty much no one else. They thought they were on to something with the popularity of cheap netbooks....but wait, fail. Windows trounced it because people got their cheap Linux netbooks home and didn't know how the hell to use them.

Things have moved on a fair bit in the last 1-2 years, I'd say. Ubuntu have been putting some serious effort into tidying things up and it shows. I'll admit I've been using Linux for about 13 years or so and I won't deny being firmly entrenched in the "nerd" camp. But installing the latest Ubuntu on my old laptop (Dell X1, they could probably start selling it again as a 12" netbook..), everything just worked out of the box (including wireless, function keys on the keyboard to adjust screen brightness and volume which flash up a cute transparent overlay etc.) It even supports two finger scrolling which the same machine doesn't under Windows. I'd describe it as easier than installing Windows on the same machine (I've only installed XP on it though, which obviously has the disadvantage when it comes to driver support because it's so old, the machine is from 2005).

There is surely a perception problem in that people in general are used to Windows, think all computers should run Windows and are not prepared to put in the effort to learn anything even slightly different. Windows also has a considerable marketing budget and media presence which is used to make sure people to keep thinking this way. I won't pretend that this isn't a serious "problem" for mass Linux adoption (it's a problem if you think that mass Linux adoption is important for some reason), but this is not the same as being "a long long way from being remotely useful for the vast majority of computer users", and this should be a well understood fact on a Mac oriented forum. I'd characterize the vast majority of computer users these days as being happy with a working web browser, music/movie player, email client and office suite, and (assuming a portable) decent wireless and suspend/resume/hibernation support - these are boxes which all of Windows, OS X and Linux tick which makes them all useful.

And sure, if you want to run "serious" games then doing it on Linux is an uphill struggle (I've never particularly bothered myself so maybe it's not as hard as I imagine). The same is largely true for OS X, except there are a select few games with Mac versions available. But again the "vast majority" are going to be happy with browser flash games and simple games like Solitaire which Linux has in abundance.

And yes, Windows 7 does seem pretty nice on my gaming desktop (it is used for games and things that simply need more horsepower than my Mac Mini can muster), and it does have some very cute touches (the pop-up thumbnails from the taskbar and auto-sizing to half the screen spring immediately to mind here), but overall I don't find it as nice to use as OS X or Ubuntu (and personally I think the control panel is a twisted confusing nightmare compared to the equivalents in the other OSes).

Put it this way, the last notebook I purchased in early 2008 was a Mac because I couldn't face having to deal with Vista, the hassle of trying to dig up XP drivers for everything (not to mention the indignity of having to pay extra for "Ultimate" Vista just to get the XP license) or the faff of getting and keeping basic things working in Linux. For my next one (probably a 32nm Nehalem thing when they become available) the non-Macs are back on the table because I think Ubuntu is up to the job (and Windows 7 is a better fall-back option than Vista).

Apologies for rant and thread hijack..

 

[Eidorian]

Pika what's with all the Windows 7 threads?

And the strange need to post several times in it before someone else does. Still the same doom and gloom?

"It's over OS X is finished?"

 

[FX120]

thing is that MS originally said that it was a totally different operating system, then they said it is a built and improved off of Vista.

Please find a source for when *anyone* from Microsoft said that 7 was going to be a totally new OS not based on previous NT OS's.

It means everything!
going from Windows 6.0 to 7.0 would have been a big enough change in the old days meaning that there was enough changes to say it was a new version.
Going from 6.0 to 6.1 says that it is a minor change or minor changes that werent big enough to warrant a totally new number. That there was probably only a few codes changed/repaired/fixed says everything to me. It says Microsoft itself is saying it is just another version of Windows Vista. Like I said in another thread this is just Vista Service Pack 3 (or 4 i honestly don't know)

No, it wouldn't have mattered if they had called the version number 114.89.12, it's just a version number that is used for application compatability.

Windows XP had tons of changes and was vastly different than Windows 2000, and yet they shared the same version number (5), the reason XP was labled by Microsoft as 5.1, is so that applications built for 2000 looking for a specific version number will function correctly under the new OS (XP/ 5.1).

You're ignoring the thousands of changes all across the OS and just looking at the version number, which is a downright stupid way to judge an OS.

 

[opinioncircle]

Have you even used a recent Linux (I guess I mean Ubuntu really), or are you just repeating typical Windows user nonsense?

I think Linux has made tremendous improvements, but it's miles away from Windows and OSX IMHO. Sure it looks and feels great, but when you need some work done, well you go back to Windows or OSX...

And Windows Seven may be based on Vista, but boy it flies like XP...

 

[britboyj]

And Windows Seven may be based on Vista, but boy it flies like XP...

Sorry, I would expect a newer operating system to be FASTER than all previous versions, not the same speed as one a decade old.

I'll be getting W7 for gaming purposes and bootcamp, but even I'm not that blinded by it.

 

[dsnort]

And Windows Seven may be based on Vista, but boy it flies like XP...

Seems quick to me too, but bench testing shows it to be only marginally faster than Vista. Certainly not any faster than Leopard on my UMBP.

 

[prostuff1]

I have been messing around with Windows 7 in a VM on my MBP and I have to say that I am impressed. I did not use Vista by choice and the department I work for has skipped over it completely.

 

[Pnut13]

Please find a source for when *anyone* from Microsoft said that 7 was going to be a totally new OS not based on previous NT OS's.


No, it wouldn't have mattered if they had called the version number 114.89.12, it's just a version number that is used for application compatability.

Windows XP had tons of changes and was vastly different than Windows 2000, and yet they shared the same version number (5), the reason XP was labled by Microsoft as 5.1, is so that applications built for 2000 looking for a specific version number will function correctly under the new OS (XP/ 5.1).

You're ignoring the thousands of changes all across the OS and just looking at the version number, which is a downright stupid way to judge an OS.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/118240-is-windows-7-just-a-vista-service-pack
no they did not but everything "leaked" from MS said otherwise....in fact if you look at the comments below this article a guy actually says it is Windows 7.0 not 6.1 which it actually is.
http://www.whibb.com/win-7-windows-vista-difference.html
in this article says the "big" and "many" differences (you MS fanboys imply and say) between Vista and 7
1-Touch screen, wow so inovative i have only seen those in teh movies
3-New task bar, not really a great thing, more of an overdue update
4-Online chess and card games! oh boy, and people make fun of Apple for being not a gaming machine. lol j/k
6-Media Center, which has been on Windows since before the first service pack on XP!
7-Performance and user friendlyness-They had to do this. They are still the dominate OS (only because many PC's cant come with Mac OS x or have Linux) They would loss alot more people to mac if the whole economy wasnt in the toliet paying for teh Mac premium.

I have used Windows 7, ity froze up 4 times, a program made for it (roxio Creator 09) didnt work after using it once. It still had no drivers for my HP 3 in one that worked perfectly fine on XP

and basing it on a version number, well it is to prove that Windows 7 is not a big difference, it didnt go from 6.0 to 7.0, it went from 6.0 to 6.1, and if you dont understand that then there is something wrong with you and not with my argument. It has everything to do with it. MS is admiting it is just a slighty upgrade from Vista. (again they dont come out and say that then people wourl notice,,,,,i never said they were dumb)

I think that people that call people on a MAc board "fanboys" are either MS employess or trolls from one of the chan boards that just like to make trouble.

 

[AppleMatt]

In what way was the MacOS 9 to MacOS X 10.0 transition a trainwreck?

Loads of ways. It couldn't even burn CD's for example.

MS is admiting it is just a slighty upgrade from Vista. (again they dont come out and say that then people wourl notice,,,,,i never said they were dumb)

I seem to remember Ballmer saying 7 was more of a 'fixing Vista's issues' release, so that’s not really up for debate - you're looking for scandal where there is none.

It means everything!
going from Windows 6.0 to 7.0 would have been a big enough change in the old days meaning that there was enough changes to say it was a new version.
Going from 6.0 to 6.1 says that it is a minor change or minor changes that werent big enough to warrant a totally new number. That there was probably only a few codes changed/repaired/fixed says everything to me. It says Microsoft itself is saying it is just another version of Windows Vista. Like I said in another thread this is just Vista Service Pack 3 (or 4 i honestly don't know)

and basing it on a version number, well it is to prove that Windows 7 is not a big difference, it didnt go from 6.0 to 7.0, it went from 6.0 to 6.1, and if you dont understand that then there is something wrong with you and not with my argument. It has everything to do with it.

Whilst I agree Vista -> 7 is more of a minor update than XP -> Vista, this explanation is utter rubbish. Many programs on Windows check the major version number (i.e. 6.x) before starting up. Changing it to 7 would have caused massive, totally unnecessary, compatibility problems and led people to believe problems existed in Windows 7 that weren't really there.

It's an issue of convenience, and most certainly doesn't 'say' anything. God knows how you managed to work out 'there was probably only a few codes changed/repaired/fixed' - top programmer with enterprise experience are you?

Before you have a go at me about this post, I'm not sorry. You can't go around telling people completely incorrect 'information' when it's actually just your own thoughts and speculation, and then having a go at them when they question you. Someone was going to call you out for it. Hi, my name's Matt.


edit: I've just noticed the version number explanation had already been told to you. Care to address it? Or just ignore it again?

You're ignoring the thousands of changes all across the OS and just looking at the version number, which is a downright stupid way to judge an OS.

^I agree with this guy, not you.

AppleMatt

 

[Pika]

MS claims the reason Windows 7 is NT 6.1 is for driver compatibility purposes. (Probably because drivers are hard-versioned for the OS major version number.) That, and Windows version numbers are completely arbitrary. Note how the Windows 7 Beta 1 release was Build 7000, and the RC was Build 7100. There weren't exactly 100 builds in-between these versions; the build number was arbitrarily set to "look good". (They apparently started doing this with Windows XP, which was build "2600".)

 

[Eidorian]

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

 

[Pika]

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

I don't trust Microsoft websites.

 

[Eidorian]

I don't trust Microsoft websites.

Please do tell.

http://technet.microsoft.com/

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

wow "stacking", wonder where they got that name from???lol

Apple invented the word "stack"?

Well, I suppose i do learn something new every day.

 

[FX120]

MS claims the reason Windows 7 is NT 6.1 is for driver compatibility purposes. (Probably because drivers are hard-versioned for the OS major version number.) That, and Windows version numbers are completely arbitrary. Note how the Windows 7 Beta 1 release was Build 7000, and the RC was Build 7100. There weren't exactly 100 builds in-between these versions; the build number was arbitrarily set to "look good". (They apparently started doing this with Windows XP, which was build "2600".)

You're unbelievably dense.

I don't trust Microsoft websites.

Seriously, come back with a serious argument with a few technical reasons on why Windows 7 is just a "minor improvment over Vista", or GTFO and quit with your useless trolling.

 

[Pika]

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

MS can't even seem to get their own product history right. Windows 3.1 was released in 1992, while Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993. They're completely different. (Windows 3.1 was another DOS-based Windows, while Windows NT 3.1 was a new operating system.)

 

[Full of Win]

In what way was the MacOS 9 to MacOS X 10.0 transition a trainwreck?

Did you ever use 10.0/Cheetah ?

 

[Gbak]

So the thread covers all Operating Systems, both Apples and Microsofts as well as Linux.

I am a typical teenagers by no means a nerd just like to experiment with computers. I have worked for over a year in Linux and as long as I remember with windows. I have a little experience with Mac but that will change this summer as my main pc goes mac.


Linux: The setup of any Linux Distro is easier than both Windows and Apple IF you have set up your internet connection properly. I have worked in Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and ,my favorite flavour, Arch Linux. Even Arch after a day was fully working. If I didnt like gaming I would have stayed on Linux on my PC, no problems if you learn to work from terminal you actually can work faster.


Windows : Windows is a OS that many like to bash for no reason, I mean yeah it has its flaws like using a registry (which has both advantages and disadvantages...). The setup is straight forward, some times you find problems with drivers and such but after a couple of months everything is fixed by the company MAKING THE PRODUCT NOT MICROSOFT. The productivity levels are the same with Linux, I would love to have the option to use the terminal. Also the reason I like this OS its support from both the public and the companies in software.

Mac OS X: I find Mac OS X my favorite OS for the reason that has all the advantages of UNIX (like linux) but is more friendly. The only problem is I cant play games, that it. An elegant OS.

This are my opinions on the matter, stop bashing windows 7 or Vista both of them served well the reason that created them. I have no problems with vista and I hope the same will apply to windows 7. I also find vista an improvement from XP. Windows 7 is an improvement of Vista, the same improvement from 2000 to XP.

Cheers