Windows 7 May

bomberboysk

Active Member
You are confusing hardware and OS, which are two separate entities. You can say PC versus Mac or OS X versus Windows. We are comparing OSes to OSes, not hardware to hardware.

What is the difference between home vista and business vista? the ability to connect to a domain and receive group policy, and what is the price difference?

What is the cost of any other pay for OS? What do you get when you buy those OSes? Oh yeah you get everything.

It is a marketing scheme.

Who cares? You can build a computer with vista ultimate(as pricey as it may be), and for the price of components still build a superior system to anything that costs similar price with apple. For example, what it costs for a 24" totally decked out imac, you could have an i7 rig running windows or linux. Apple is too closed for me to take it seriously, as i cannot even put it on my rig legally. Maybe when apple takes their head out of the sand and realizes it would be profitable for them to license the os for use on pc's and not much macs, then osx would be a viable option for many users. But getting back on subject.... windows 7 release candidate should be out soon for public download from microsoft!
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
Who cares? You can build a computer with vista ultimate(as pricey as it may be), and for the price of components still build a superior system to anything that costs similar price with apple. For example, what it costs for a 24" totally decked out imac, you could have an i7 rig running windows or linux. Apple is too closed for me to take it seriously, as i cannot even put it on my rig legally. Maybe when apple takes their head out of the sand and realizes it would be profitable for them to license the os for use on pc's and not much macs, then osx would be a viable option for many users. But getting back on subject.... windows 7 release candidate should be out soon for public download from microsoft!

Again, you are comparing hardware to an OS, you don't get it. MS charges for crap that everyone else includes for free. Is win7 going to be worth $150 to upgrade from ultimate, and then another $10 for 64 bit and then another few dollars here and there.

MS wants to start doing subscription licenses, and they are slowly testing the waters here by doing crap like this.
 

Bodaggit23

Active Member
Again, you are comparing hardware to an OS, you don't get it.

You're trying to compare an OS that I can't even try, because I don't own the specific hardware it takes to run it.

Speaking of cost, how much would it cost me to have OSX? I'd have to buy an Apple computer. That alone makes it more expensive than Windows...
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
You're trying to compare an OS that I can't even try, because I don't own the specific hardware it takes to run it.

Speaking of cost, how much would it cost me to have OSX? I'd have to buy an Apple computer. That alone makes it more expensive than Windows...

OS X every major release is $99 to $129 depending if you can get the coupon or not, and if you buy a Mac with in 3 months of the next release you generally get a free upgarde. It has every feature Vista has and more if you count the Unix.

The hardware is not over priced either, it just has every feature. You can't build a comparable machine spec for spec and have it be cheaper. It will be around the same price.

Earlier some kid was trying to compare an iMac to a core i7 build. An iMac is an all-in-one machine and if you built a PC part for part it would cost around the same. 24" LED backlit monitors are not that cheap.
 

Bodaggit23

Active Member
I understand all that, and I never said they were overpriced. You get what you pay for, and most Apple systems contain more hardware than necessary.

Anyway, back to OS's.

My point is...I can't try OSX unless I buy an Apple computer.

If it's such a great OS then why can't I buy it and put it on a pc?
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
I understand all that, and I never said they were overpriced. You get what you pay for, and most Apple systems contain more hardware than necessary.

Anyway, back to OS's.

My point is...I can't try OSX unless I buy an Apple computer.

If it's such a great OS then why can't I buy it and put it on a pc?

That is their business model, if you scroll back several posts ago you will see I pointed out there was a time where you could build your own Mac clone back in the day, but it bankrupted Apple so they had to go back to being all in house. Remember Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is not, Apple relies on the sales of their machines more than they do on the sales of their OS.
 

Droogie

New Member
Who cares? You can build a computer with vista ultimate(as pricey as it may be), and for the price of components still build a superior system to anything that costs similar price with apple. For example, what it costs for a 24" totally decked out imac, you could have an i7 rig running windows or linux. Apple is too closed for me to take it seriously, as i cannot even put it on my rig legally. Maybe when apple takes their head out of the sand and realizes it would be profitable for them to license the os for use on pc's and not much macs, then osx would be a viable option for many users. But getting back on subject.... windows 7 release candidate should be out soon for public download from microsoft!

you're right, no matter what you do the price gap between a custom PC and a Mac is not justifiable. (in my opinion)

and oh, i already have the release candidate :D
 

Bodaggit23

Active Member
That is their business model, if you scroll back several posts ago you will see I pointed out there was a time where you could build your own Mac clone back in the day, but it bankrupted Apple so they had to go back to being all in house. Remember Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is not, Apple relies on the sales of their machines more than they do on the sales of their OS.

Well, it may be a fine OS, but I guess I'll never know, because I'll always chose
a PC, because for much less money than a Mac, I can build a decent system that will do everything I need it to.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
Well, it may be a fine OS, but I guess I'll never know, because I'll always chose
a PC, because for much less money than a Mac, I can build a decent system that will do everything I need it to.

That is totally your choice but hardware is not the end all be all answer to how efficient a system runs. It is more of how the OS utilizes the hardware over the actual hardware specs.

The new ubuntu does a full cold boot in like 12 seconds, pretty damn amazing and I am sure it will run everything faster than windows spec for spec but you would never run it because you like windows.
 

speedyink

VIP Member
I've been hearing a lot of good stuff about the new Ubuntu, I think I'm going to have to try it.

And yes, I'm quietly leaving the which OS is better argument..as it all boils down to personal needs and preferences, and thats an endless argument.
 

Bodaggit23

Active Member
And yes, I'm quietly leaving the which OS is better argument..as it all boils down to personal needs and preferences, and thats an endless argument.

I'm with you.

And about the "glitch", as we've heard of it, I'm sure Bill has too, so you can
bet it'll be fixed before release. :)
 

WeatherMan

Active Member
For that 'Glitch' to be exposed a hacker needs physical access to your computer...


Researchers Vipin Kumar and Nitin Kumar used proof-of-concept code they developed, called VBootkit 2.0, to take control of a Windows 7 virtual machine while it was booting up. They demonstrated how the software works at the conference.

[ Learn how to secure your systems with Roger Grimes' Security Adviser blog and Security Central newsletter, both from InfoWorld. ]

"There's no fix for this. It cannot be fixed. It's a design problem," Vipin Kumar said, explaining the software exploits the Windows 7 assumption that the boot process is safe from attack.

While VBootkit 2.0 shows how an attacker can take control of a Windows 7 computer, it's not necessarily a serious threat. For the attack to work, an attacker must have physical access to the victim's computer. The attack can not be done remotely.

No more 'unsafe' any any Windows version :)
 

tbird412

New Member
Why does windows keep spitting out new versions so quickly. Seems everyone is still trying to avoid Vista, why pump out yet another one?
 

Bodaggit23

Active Member
Why does windows keep spitting out new versions so quickly. Seems everyone is still trying to avoid Vista, why pump out yet another one?

Because alot of people were unhappy with the Vista release so I think they want to redeem themselves.

I don't know what the issue is with Vista because I have no problems with it.

I think it was just when it first came out that it had a lot of issues.
It's reputation never rebounded. I love it.
 

Droogie

New Member
Because alot of people were unhappy with the Vista release so I think they want to redeem themselves.

I don't know what the issue is with Vista because I have no problems with it.

I think it was just when it first came out that it had a lot of issues.
It's reputation never rebounded. I love it.

i agree, i think some of the initial releases left a bad impression. i definitely found it easier to use than xp, and i never really had any problems with it.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
Why does windows keep spitting out new versions so quickly. Seems everyone is still trying to avoid Vista, why pump out yet another one?

Win7 is Vista 2.0 man. Vista was suppose to be what win7 is and for whatever reason ( I am guess poor project management, its not like MS can't afford to payroll super smart developers) they dropped so many features and scaled it back. They then used Vista to test it in the market, fix all the bugs and what not and polishing it up with Windows 7.

Why are they charging for it then you may wonder? Simply because they can and they market it that way.
 

JlCollins005

New Member
That is totally your choice but hardware is not the end all be all answer to how efficient a system runs. It is more of how the OS utilizes the hardware over the actual hardware specs.

The new ubuntu does a full cold boot in like 12 seconds, pretty damn amazing and I am sure it will run everything faster than windows spec for spec but you would never run it because you like windows.


again u can say he wont try it because he likes windows, well i personally agree ubuntu is fast but program compatibility is a pain, in order to run alot of things u need to use Wine, well which is still kinda buggy and isnt compatible with a lot of things, i run ubuntu as a secondary os, just in case something happens to my vista partition, which btw just switched from xp, still have mixed feelings.. xp to me ran a little smoother, and had better program compatibility ive come across a bunch of programs that i cant use cuz they dont run properly.

Tnick i also have the windows 7 release, did u have a problem with realtek ethernet drivers, i cant get them to work for the life of me.
 
Top