Windows 7 May

[Bodaggit23]

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.

You could say the same for Windows 2000 and XP then right? Basically the same OS, just XP looked nicer.
Did people complain when XP came out?

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.

I don't understand this?

Every time I've installed Windows 7 (about 5 times) I've never had to install a driver. It always finds a driver by itself. Granted, it may not be the best or newest one, but it makes the system fully functional at least.

Try uninstalling the drivers and restart your pc. After it restarts, let it find the drivers for you and see what happens.

 

[StrangleHold]

Microsoft loves making money. 7 should have been a Vista Service Pack, but what a better way it fix something then charge you for it. They pulled it off twice before charging people with updated versions, 98 to 98SE to ME. Then from 2000 to XP. If you can blindside people and make money at it, why not?

 

[tlarkin]

You could say the same for Windows 2000 and XP then right? Basically the same OS, just XP looked nicer.
Did people complain when XP came out?

Not quite. Win2k was far different from Win XP. XP was the first MS OS to ever fully incorporate the NT Kernel along with all the multi media extensions and end user ease of use as the 9x Kernel did for the previous version of Windows. Windows 2k was just more of a stepping stone, and there were lots of features merged from the Win 9x era with XP. Which is why I think XP is probably the best OS MS has made to this date.

XP was also the first OS to have a true multi user environment for the end user, where as 2000 was still geared towards NT workstation environments and did not run multi media and games as well.

 

[Bodaggit23]

Win2k was far different from Win XP.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, but it would be nice if you could see someone else's point of view from time to time.

 

[tlarkin]

I'm not trying to change your opinion, but it would be nice if you could see someone else's point of view from time to time.

Well its wrong, plain and simple. This is not a matter of opinion or point of view, these are the facts. Windows XP took all the multi media and all the of the end user features of the 9x Kernel and combined it with the NT Kernel so to say that XP is a clone of 2k is really a false statement.

 

[Bodaggit23]

2000 looked and worked the same for me as XP.

XP just got some fancy buttons and taskbar. That's my point.

Same as you argue for Win 7 and Vista.

 

[Hugh9191]

so did you hear about the really stupid Windows 7 glitch?

The one where you have to sit in front of the PC to do doesn't really bother me.

The one which doesn't let you map network drives from linux servers without syncing them bothers me a lot. If it's the same for the actual release I'm gunna stick with vista.

 

[tlarkin]

2000 looked and worked the same for me as XP.

XP just got some fancy buttons and taskbar. That's my point.

Same as you argue for Win 7 and Vista.

There are still plenty of differences and I am failing to see your point. You are debating that Windows 7 is or is not Vista 2.0 and then you try to parallel justification for that because you think that Win2k and XP are the same but XP is just a rehash?

Try installing 2000 and running msconfig and see what happens.

 

[Bodaggit23]

Nitpick the analogy all you want.

It's obvious you can't have a discussion with someone who thinks they know everything.

 

[tlarkin]

Nitpick the analogy all you want.

It's obvious you can't have a discussion with someone who thinks they know everything.

I am not nitpicking, and your sentence implies I can't have a conversation with you because you think you know everything, grammar for the win! All kidding aside though, I am failing to see your point, and I simply asked for a clarification is all. No need to drive your underpants up your butt man.

You seemed to be arguing the point that it is OK for Windows 7 to be a clone of Vista because every other previous OS is a clone of itself. While I said I agree to some extent but the fact remains that it is not.

There were easily tons and tons of more justifications for MS to charge for XP over win2k and millenium, and well MS millenium was just a joke.

My whole point was and still is, that Win7 for $150 for an upgrade from Vista is not worth it. However, an upgrade from ME, 9x or 2k to XP was way worth it because of all the technology advancements in the OS. Whether you noticed them are not. I also think and clearly point out that XP is not a clone or rehash of 2k. It is way different. XP is way worth the upgrade, win7 not so much IMHO.

I fail to see what you are even saying any more? Are you saying that win7 is worth the $150 to upgrade just because or what?

 

[StrangleHold]

When XP was released it was just a redid 2000, plain and simple. Sure they added 98/ME features and eye candy because 2000 was a business prepared OS. Hell when first released 98% of the drivers were just 2000 drivers.

I mean what where they suppost to do. ME was a total flop, ME II ( I dont think so). By ME they had added so much to 98 it was a junk OS. Everybody I knew ran from it and installed 2000. 2000 was the only stable OS they had to build XP on. And if your trying to say XP wasnt just built on top of 2000 your just wrong! There was no more difference in 2000 and XP SP1/2/3 then there was between 98 98SE and ME. Now Vista/SP7

New times same crap.

 

[tlarkin]

When XP was released it was just a redid 2000, plain and simple. Sure they added 98/ME features and eye candy because 2000 was a business prepared OS. Hell when first released 98% of the drivers were just 2000 drivers.

I mean what where they suppost to do. ME was a total flop, ME II ( I dont think so). By ME they had added so much to 98 it was a junk OS. Everybody I knew ran from it and installed 2000. 2000 was the only stable OS they had to build XP on. And if your trying to say XP wasnt just built on top of 2000 your just wrong! There was no more difference in 2000 and XP SP1/2/3 then there was between 98 98SE and ME. Now Vista/SP7

New times same crap.

If you had used NT3 or NT4 you would know what I am talking about. XP is so much more than a rehash of 2k, which is why it is the best OS they have ever put out.

 

[StrangleHold]

I have used them, but I do agree that XP is by far the best desktop OS Windows has come out with. Think we are having a conflit between the words rehash and built on top of.

I really hated XP the first year it was out. After 98SE I bypassed ME, well I had a few copies but always ended up uninstalling it and put 98SE or 2000 back on them. ME was ok if you stayed on top of it and really watched your drivers and what hardware you used. Still have a few with 2000 on them.

But I felt the same way when XP was released, if you had 2000 what was the point? But after a period of time when Micro started putting files in installers like Media player and IE7 to keep you from installing them on 2000, which could be bypassed and ran fine, if you used them at all. I just got burned out and stopped fooling with it and broke down to XP, then XP grew on me.

 

[Jamin43]

Looks like I ended up with the better O/S.

I went from Win 95 laptop - to a Win 2000 Desktop - to a Win XP desktop. I passed up on the Win 98 and Vista alltogether.

Hopefully the Win 7 will be a keeper - cuz it looks like I'll be and end user for that one.

 

[tlarkin]

I have used them, but I do agree that XP is by far the best desktop OS Windows has come out with. Think we are having a conflit between the words rehash and built on top of.

I really hated XP the first year it was out. After 98SE I bypassed ME, well I had a few copies but always ended up uninstalling it and put 98SE or 2000 back on them. ME was ok if you stayed on top of it and really watched your drivers and what hardware you used. Still have a few with 2000 on them.

But I felt the same way when XP was released, if you had 2000 what was the point? But after a period of time when Micro started putting files in installers like Media player and IE7 to keep you from installing them on 2000, which could be bypassed and ran fine, if you used them at all. I just got burned out and stopped fooling with it and broke down to XP, then XP grew on me.

I would say that XP is an amalgamation of 2000 and the 9x Kernel. Not a rehash or clone of anything, but perhaps a hybrid of the two. So many things were combine that you can't really say it was a rehash.

 

[StrangleHold]

I would say that XP is an amalgamation of 2000 and the 9x Kernel. Not a rehash or clone of anything, but perhaps a hybrid of the two. So many things were combine that you can't really say it was a rehash.

I agree its not a rehash or clone, but yeah Hybird it a good classification for it. Like the better parts of two things.