Kitz Forum

Computer Software => Windows 7 => Topic started by: UncleUB on October 30, 2008, 04:05:54 PM

Title: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on October 30, 2008, 04:05:54 PM
If the new Windows 7 operating system is 'touchscreen',then do you have to buy a special touchscreen monitor to get it to work.What about all the millions of redundant monitors if thats the case,and what about 'the mouse',does that go into hibernation as well.
I can't think of nothing worse than constantly planting finger marks all over the screen.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: roseway on October 30, 2008, 04:27:39 PM
I can't imagine that they would only support touchscreen. But if they really are that daft, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. I hesitate to recommend any particular option.  ::)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on October 30, 2008, 04:30:14 PM
That wouldn't be Linux by any chance would it Eric?
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: roseway on October 30, 2008, 04:46:27 PM
How did you guess?
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on October 30, 2008, 04:52:39 PM
Just a hunch :)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: tuftedduck on October 30, 2008, 05:19:27 PM
Because of the state of TD's eyesight, he has a large screen which is placed about five feet away from his face.

Where is he going to get the arm extenders, or could he  use a broom handle with a rubber finger on the end.  :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on October 30, 2008, 05:21:03 PM
The
(http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/13/13994qpq3m6d0o6.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)
Has spoken.  :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 01, 2008, 12:05:54 AM
>> I can't think of nothing worse than constantly planting finger marks all over the screen.

"Me too".

>> do you have to buy a special touchscreen monitor to get it to work.

I thought surely not - so I just did a quick google.

Theres an interesting article here (http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/microsoft_windows_7_we_already_hate_it) about Windows 7 which discusses just that... but if you notice at the bottom theres now an update which says
Quote
A Microsoft source points out that the touch screen is just one feature of Windows 7 and that, if we don't like getting fingerprints all over our PC screen, we don't have to use it.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 01, 2008, 05:53:03 AM
For the past generation parents have been training their kids not to touch the PC screen... now MS are going to want them to do the opposite. 

It really does surprise me on this occasion that MS reasoning actually goes against what we all perceive as common sense.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: tuftedduck on November 01, 2008, 07:53:34 AM
Touch screens have unexpected catastrophic effect on employment.  :(

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m34/bunessan/defunctmouse.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: roseway on November 01, 2008, 07:59:18 AM
Awww... poor likkle mousey :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 01, 2008, 10:24:01 AM
Well I've read plenty of articles about possible replacements for the mouse and keyboard, but despite the former being 1980's technology and the latter being essentially a Victorian invention, they are here to stay for some years yet.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 01, 2008, 12:31:58 PM
awwww poor mousie



Youre right floydy...  one of the benefits of a wireless keyboard is the ability of not having to have the keyboard right within reaching distance of the screen.   I know I couldnt reach my screen from here where Im typing... well not without having to standup and move.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 01, 2008, 01:08:16 PM
Youre right floydy... 

That makes a change.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: mr_chris on November 01, 2008, 02:02:32 PM
I think the touch screen features are probably aimed at tablet PCs as much as desktops... or do Microsoft envisage us all with embedded monitors in our desks in the future.... all running Windows 7 with multitouch features... all ... playing ... solitaire?? :lol:

The way my PC is set up, similar to most peoples' I would expect... the monitor is a nice easy-on-the-eye distance away... too far to use my fingers on it with any comfort!
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on November 01, 2008, 02:06:57 PM
I suppose the thing with having a touch screen is it won't make much difference when the grandchildren visit   :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on November 05, 2008, 06:04:31 PM
Anyone who  has any thoughts about upgrading(when the time comes) have a read here first.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2910&tag=nl.e589
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: mr_chris on November 05, 2008, 11:11:00 PM
Thanks for the link UB... but I'd like to sit tight and wait til release to see "real world" upgrade issues / successes.

I always clean-install my OS, it gives me a chance to rid my system of too many installed useless programs I amass over the years!

If someone is hell-bent on actually upgrading the PC, my advice would be to back up everything as if they were reformatting the disk, try the upgrade first, and THOROUGHLY test their programs to see if everything still works now!

I actually upgraded someone's limping Windows ME system to XP once (I would have been reinstalling anyway, so wanted to see if it worked!).

To my surprise, it did work, marvellously, and that person is still using the upgraded system today, it's as solid as a rock, and now about 4 years on!! So upgrades CAN work, it's just that the chance of ridding your system of crud is too good an opportunity to miss for most techies :)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 05, 2008, 11:49:34 PM
Much like Chris, Out of curiosity I like to try the upgrade route first, take note of the HDD storage space, before and after, then do a fresh install, it's amazing sometimes the space that is recovered.

A little like my last endeavour, I used the "No reformat Repair" on my XP PC last week (just "before" my last bout of troubles)

Although initially I seemed to have recovered an extra 4GB this was soon eaten-up with all the XP updates.
Not too mention when using one of my cleaning tools afterwards "Tuneup Utilities 2008" it found 9,646 un-needed leftover files.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 08, 2008, 03:59:10 PM
Quote
It's Official: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009

http://gizmodo.com/5079563/its-official-windows-7-shipping-mid+2009
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 04:10:59 PM
Quote
It's Official: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009

http://gizmodo.com/5079563/its-official-windows-7-shipping-mid+2009

Yeah, and wasn't vista originally scheduled for 2005?
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 08, 2008, 04:15:33 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 08, 2008, 05:17:12 PM
>> and wasn't vista originally scheduled for 2005?


Ummm... who remembers Longhorn?   
Im pretty sure that was being tested by the public in 2002... as one of my friends was beta testing it at the time, and showed me a preview of it running on one of his machines.
Some where along the line Longhorn became Vista.  I really cant understand how one of what must be the longest O/S's to produce has been such a flop IMHO. 

From what I can remember (it may have even been 2001 ?) ..  it certainly appeared fine back then..  they've just bulked it out a lot with stuff I dont need or use and renamed it Vista.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 08, 2008, 05:22:26 PM
I wonder if they will/are bringing Windows7 out as early as this because of Vista being such a flop?
Hence all the "I'm a PC" adverts on the TV.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 05:33:48 PM
3 years is quite a short time period between windows versions... surely it won't be another botched version like ME was?

It really does annoy me that XP is probably the most popular (and most solid) version of windows ever, yet MS are determined to kill it off... doesn't make much sense for any company to stop supplying a popular product.  Or maybe I'm just looking at it too simplistically.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on November 08, 2008, 05:48:22 PM
I hope its not too soon,I want to get my moneysworth out of Vista first.  :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 08, 2008, 05:49:14 PM
Quote
3 years is quite a short time period between windows versions.

Conversely Vista was a VERY long time in the making...  a brief history of some windows releases.

1990 Windows 3.0
1992 Windows 3.1
1993 Windows NT 3.1
1995 Windows 95
1996 Windows NT 4
1998 Windows 98
1999 Windows 98 SE
2000 Windows ME
2000 Windows 2000 (NT5)
2001 Windows XP
2007 Windows Vista


Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: HPsauce on November 08, 2008, 05:57:38 PM
As luck would have it I've been looking at a few Windows 2000 systems recently; I'd forgotten:
1. How good it was and how much I liked it at the time
2. How similar XP is in many ways, but generally better. An evolution that has deservedly lasted and will last many more years.

I now consider Vista a dead-end and generally advise people to buy new PC's with the free XP upgrade (if possible).

Many corporates will hang on with XP until W7 is proven, so expect it's life to be extended again and again.  ;)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 08, 2008, 06:25:13 PM
Yes I think Windows 2000 was always highly regarded, and for about the first time was actually serious competitor for Linux. 
IIRC it may have also been the start of the decline of Novell - prior to Windows 2000 look at all the corporates that used Novell.

- XP is actually based on Windows 2000 Kernel.


I think M$ actually forgot with Vista what an operating system is actually meant to be.. and instead started putting too much on software that should sit on top of the O/S - not be part of it.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 06:53:26 PM
Quote
3 years is quite a short time period between windows versions.

Conversely Vista was a VERY long time in the making...  a brief history of some windows releases.

1990 Windows 3.0
1992 Windows 3.1
1993 Windows NT 3.1
1995 Windows 95
1996 Windows NT 4
1998 Windows 98
1999 Windows 98 SE
2000 Windows ME
2000 Windows 2000 (NT5)
2001 Windows XP
2007 Windows Vista

Looking at it another way, i.e. the release of the major series...

1990 Windows 3
1995 Windows 4 (95, 98, 98SE, ME)
2001 Windows 5 (XP + 3 subsequent service packs)
2007 Windows 6 (Vista)

(bearing in mind that NT ran in parallel), it would seem that 5-6 years is the norm between major releases, hence 7 should be expected, around 2012-13.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: mr_chris on November 08, 2008, 07:19:43 PM
Floydy... I can see what you're saying, but the Windows development history can't be really summed up in that way, the NT-based OS series was pretty much a separate product that was developed more in parallel with the home versions of Windows (3.1, 95, 98 etc).

Windows 2000 (released Christmas '99), was MEANT to be Microsoft's grand attempt at converging the NT and consumer versions of Windows together into one operating system that could be used in the home and the corporate environment.

Unfortunately this didn't quite work out as planned, as too many applications were incompatible with the NT kernel and relied on quirks in Windows 98 to allow them to run, so Windows ME was quickly released as a 'stop-gap'. It incorporated some features from Windows 2000 (notably the networking stack, and the new shell/colour scheme), but was still based very much on Windows 98.

Purely speculation here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Windows ME was never really on Microsoft's development roadmap until they realised that Windows 2000 wasn't going to be this "one size fits all" system that it was meant to be. XP finally managed to do this, probably because application vendors had been working hard to get their apps compatible with Windows 2000, so by the time XP came out, the world was a bit more ready for it.

Windows 7 will likely be to Vista what XP was to Windows 2000... another few years and we will all have better PCs that will be capable of running Vista, and application vendors will have sorted out the majority of Vista issues, so Windows 7 won't seem like such a monster and the world will probably embrace it a lot better than they did with Vista!

1990-93: Windows 3 (3.0, 3.1, 3.11)
1995: Windows 95
1998: Windows 98
2000: Windows ME

The NT product line was something like this (ignoring NT 3.1 and 3.5 which were released sometime before Windows 95)
1996: Windows NT 4
1999: Windows 2000 (NT5)
2001: Windows XP (5.1)
2007: Windows Vista (6)

So who knows when Windows 7 will be released. They are currently saying it'll be ready for Christmas 2009... other reports I've heard state mid-2009, and mid-2010. I think they're keeping their options open by confusing everyone on the internet with different release dates!!

I would certainly be expecting a release long before 2012-13 though.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 07:25:49 PM
I understand what you're saying Chris, I was just trying to make the distinction between the major series - it just seemed to me that 95/98/98SE/ME had a messy nomenclature, whereas they were all actually incremental developments of windows 4 (i.e. 95).  I'm glad with windows XP (5) they opted for the release of service packs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_versions

I think I'm waffling.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: roseway on November 08, 2008, 07:26:34 PM
I'm not saying anything :-X
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: mr_chris on November 08, 2008, 07:27:44 PM
They opted for the release of Service Packs because they had been doing this since 1994 with Windows NT, anyway!

NT 3.5 (or 3.51, can't remember)$ had 5 service packs
NT 4 had 6 service packs (plus a service pack 6a and then a post-SP6a rollup of security fixes!)

So it's obvious that 2000, XP etc have rolled off the back of the NT product line, rather than the 95/98 line, I guess that's what I was trying to put across :)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 07:29:30 PM
I'm not saying anything :-X


OK then Eric, can you explain the Linux development timeline (and keep it simple).
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 07:30:59 PM
So it's obvious that 2000, XP etc have rolled off the back of the NT product line, rather than the 95/98 line,

Yeah, to finally get rid of that DOS subsystem I guess they had to model it on the NT chassis.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: roseway on November 08, 2008, 07:36:06 PM
OK then Eric, can you explain the Linux development timeline (and keep it simple).

Of course I can. Three new distros are released every week. :lol:
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 07:45:10 PM
That's not quite what I meant Eric, and you know it.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: HPsauce on November 08, 2008, 08:06:08 PM
I think another key point, that sort of started with Windows 2000, was to properly separate and desynchronise the server products.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 08, 2008, 08:22:14 PM
I thought Linux was the only decent software to run a server on?
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: HPsauce on November 08, 2008, 08:25:20 PM
Linux servers are really not relevant to this thread though. ;)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 08, 2008, 09:23:34 PM

2007 Windows Vista

it would seem that 5-6 years is the norm between major releases, hence 7 should be expected, around 2012-13.

2009 Windows 7

So would this mean Windows is likely to be held back for a further 3/5 years :lol:

Oops just spotted last last half of the sentence. :-[
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on November 09, 2008, 09:22:39 AM
Well I must be the exception to the rule because I used Windows ME for 7 years without any major problems and I am now using Vista without any problems.  :)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: tuftedduck on November 09, 2008, 12:39:06 PM
Being a newby, I started with XP and will probably finish with XP.       
That makes things a lot simpler  :D
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 09, 2008, 02:49:04 PM
I started with MS-DOS 3.3, then windows 3.1, 95, 98SE, XP.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 09, 2008, 04:24:01 PM

 and I am now using Vista without any problems.  :)

I also have Vista and to be honest the only problem is navigating around the system to the type of places that most people would not "or need not" need to go to, or at least not very often.
Otherwise a couple of programs I use are 3/4 faster than XP, "using the same PC on a duel-boot system" so the spec is exactly the same.

I think there are two main problems. One being that we/people are just so used to navigating around XP and turning off things we don't want running in the background, but because Vista is totally different and "everything is or seems hard to get to" we don't take that into consideration.
And secondly, being installed onto a PC that probably only has the minimum spec capable of running Vista.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 09, 2008, 06:01:58 PM
Well I must be the exception to the rule because I used Windows ME for 7 years without any major problems.

I too used ME on several machines without problems..   and actually preferred it on my then main machine over '98.   I even installed ME on a PC that I "built" for my daughter which was odds and sods from old Pcs. 
I'd originally put 98 on it, but I kept getting networking conflicts on the damn thing, and I thought I was being stupid or missing something, but after asking a friend to look at it too, he also had the same issue.. in the end we updated it with a copy of ME and it ran sweet as a nut for several years.

In the pre XP days, I updated several machines with ME for others too.. none of which appeared to have problems.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 09, 2008, 06:05:41 PM
Quote
and I am now using Vista without any problems.

I think my main issue with Vista is
1) How resource hungry it is
2) It annoys the hell out of me with the "are you sure"'s
3) Why I can never seem to find things to do what should be a simple task.

If they got rid of the Are you sures and had an advanced user setting that turned off the basic nags (not them all) and allowed easier access to certain apps that the advanced user is likely to often access then I'd be a lot happier.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: HPsauce on November 09, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
Well said Kitz, I agree with you on both ME and Vista. ;D

I've helped quite a few people move oldish PC's to ME where it's worked remarkably well.

And Vista I just want to chuck through the Window when it nags.
I think the other thing about Vista is that they've tried to overlay some sort of allegedly "automatic easy consumer-oriented" structure over Windows which is why the old "semi-logical" places for things have become totally illogical; not being able to find simple everyday technical things drives me nuts! :'(
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 09, 2008, 06:58:02 PM
All of which leads me to re-post this:

If Operating Systems Ran The Airlines...

UNIX Airways

Everyone brings one piece of the plane along when they come to the airport. They all go out on the runway and put the plane together piece by piece, arguing non-stop about what kind of plane they are supposed to be building.


Air DOS
Everybody pushes the airplane until it glides, then they jump on and let the plane coast until it hits the ground again. Then they push again, jump on again, and so on...


Mac Airlines
All the stewards, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look and act exactly the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are gently but firmly told that you don't need to know, don't want to know, and everything will be done for you without your ever having to know, so just shut up.


Windows Air
The terminal is pretty and colourful, with friendly stewards, easy baggage check and boarding, and a smooth take-off. After about 10 minutes in the air, the plane explodes with no warning whatsoever.


Windows NT Air
Just like Windows Air, but costs more, uses much bigger planes, and takes out all the other aircraft within a 40-mile radius when it explodes.


Windows XP Air
You turn up at the airport, which is under contract to only allow XP Air planes.  All the aircraft are identical, brightly coloured and three times as big as they need to be.  The signs are huge and all point the same way. Whichever way you go, someone pops up dressed in a cloak and pointed hat insisting you follow him. Your luggage and clothes are taken off you and replaced with an XP Air suit and suitcase identical to everyone around you as this is included in the exorbitant ticket cost.  The aircraft will not take off until you have signed a contract.  The inflight entertainment promised turns out to be the same Mickey Mouse cartoon repeated over and over again.  You have to phone your travel agent before you can have a meal or drink.  You are searched regularly throughout the flight.  If you go to the toilet twice or more you get charged for a new ticket.  No matter what destination you booked you will always end up crash landing at Whistler in Canada.


OSX Air
You enter a white terminal, and all you can see is a woman sitting in the corner behind a white desk, you walk up to get your ticket. She smiles and says "Welcome to OS X Air, please allow us to take your picture", at which point a camera in the wall you didn't notice before takes your picture. "Thank you, here is your ticket" You are handed a minimalistic ticket with your picture at the top, it already has all of your information. A door opens to your right and you walk through. You enter a wide open space with one seat in the middle, you sit, listen to music and watch movies until the end of the flight. You never see any of the other passengers. You land, get off, and you say to yourself "wow, that was really nice, but I feel like something was missing"
 
Windows Vista Airlines
You enter a good looking terminal with the largest planes you have ever seen. Every 10 feet a security officer appears and asks you if you are "sure" you want to continue walking to your plane and if you would like to cancel. Not sure what cancel would do, you continue walking and ask the agent at the desk why the planes are so big. After the security officer making sure you want to ask the question and you want to hear the answer, the agent replies that they are bigger because it makes customers feel better, but the planes are designed to fly twice as slow. Adding the size helped achieve the slow fly goal.

Once on the plane, every passenger has to be asked individually by the flight attendants if they are sure they want to take this flight. Then it is company policy that the captain asks the passengers collectively the same thing. After answering yes to so many questions, you are punched in the face by some stranger who when he asked "Are you sure you want me to punch you in the face? Cancel or Allow?" you instinctively say "Allow".

After takeoff, the pilots realize that the landing gear driver wasn't updated to work with the new plane. Therefore it is always stuck in the down position. This forces the plane to fly even slower, but the pilots are used to it and continue to fly the planes, hoping that soon the landing gear manufacturer will give out a landing gear driver update.

You arrive at your destination wishing you had used your reward miles with XP airlines rather than trying out this new carrier. A close friend, after hearing your story, mentions that Linux Air is a much better alternative and helps.


Linux Air
Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself.

When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 09, 2008, 07:17:54 PM

I think my main issue with Vista is
1) How resource hungry it is
2) It annoys the hell out of me with the "are you sure"'s
3) Why I can never seem to find things to do what should be a simple task.

If they got rid of the Are you sures and had an advanced user setting that turned off the basic nags (not them all) and allowed easier access to certain apps that the advanced user is likely to often access then I'd be a lot happier.
1. Definitely, but again is it because we are trying to use it on underpowered PC's?
...(Maybe I'm just fortunate with the last one I purchased as having a good spec, (2.4Ghz Quad with 3GB ram)

2. Over a period of probably a couple of weeks after going into the "various" options and setting the "Permission" to "Everyone" those nag's have now gone away. (but I should not of had to do that)

3. Ditto

My main moan at the moment is that system pages such as Control panel etc do not remember "Full screen" settings and most things always open in a Normal window.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 09, 2008, 07:31:16 PM
I have 2 unused copies of Vista here that Ive paid for and ended up reinstalling XP.

1) Main machine
2.40 gigahertz Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 with 3GB RAM

2) Media centre
Intel Core Duo 2gHz E4400 with 2GB RAM
Main problem on this one was Media Centre didnt work too good and was too jerky - is ok with XP MC.
I think there was also a conflict with the Hauppage Win TV card

Maybe I didnt give it long enough for the Main PC..   the nags were getting to me..
Plus the fact that I had one of those noisy HDDs which everyone was attributing to Vista.
Wont tell you how I fixed that one, other than say the HDD2Go disk was fine ;)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 09, 2008, 07:53:18 PM

2.40 gigahertz Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 with 3GB RAM

..the HDD2Go disk was fine ;)

Same PC I think.
Surprised me how hot the HDD2Go gets.

***************************************
Re Media Centre.
I know I commented on this once before.
My PC has 2 buttons on the front/top of it, one being the On/Off button, so I phoned Medion to ask what the second button did, "He couldn't tell me" so I pressed it whilst on the phone, "Media Centre popped up".  :lol:
Although I have not even tried it yet, but one day I may just transfer it down into the living room.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 09, 2008, 08:44:17 PM
>> Same PC I think.

Yep I think so

>> Re Media Centre.

Nope - that is a "kitz build" - its not used as a PC as such... but pure media centre, hooked up to the TV
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 09, 2008, 08:48:57 PM
Kitz.
When do you get time to watch the TV ?  :lol:
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Floydoid on November 09, 2008, 08:56:50 PM
Kitz, I hate to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but if you're happy with XP then stick with it... you could always flog the copies of vista on ebay.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: kitz on November 09, 2008, 08:59:08 PM
Kitz.
When do you get time to watch the TV ?  :lol:


lol - good point - I seldom do  :-\

>> you could always flog the copies of vista on ebay.

Yeah I should do :/
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: guest on November 10, 2008, 06:20:15 AM
If there was any significant benefit to Vista then companies would use it. They don't - well not the businesses which count anyway. I currently work for a company with 175,000 employees world-wide and every Vista PC is "downgraded" to XP Pro.

You don't need UAC, just stop running the OS with admin privileges :)

If Windows 7 doesn't deliver then MS have serious problems because all that is driving revenue are the office products right now. Win2k8 server is nice but not compelling - the company I currently work for specifies Win2k3 but Linux servers are being seriously evaluated now, as is OpenOffice.

MS have one more chance IMHO....
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: BritBrat on November 27, 2008, 09:15:12 PM
I hate VISTA.

I set up a VISTA computer on my LAN to print through an XP machines attached to printer.

It only took me 4 hours :( first time.

Second time took me 30 mins.

Last time took me 10 mins.

If it had been an XP machine first time would have taken less than 2 mins.

In the end I took the easy way out and gave the OH a printer to attach to the VISTA machine with a cable.

Problem solved. :)
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: HPsauce on November 28, 2008, 12:06:52 AM
If you want a laugh try it the other way.  :lol:
(Vista attached printer accessed from XP)  >:D

PS Please share your tips ....
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: oldfogy on November 28, 2008, 12:10:17 AM
That's probably the main reason why current XP users don't like it, (including myself) because the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc time around of trying to do anything we come across either one problem after another, or it does not seem to do what "we" want it to do (easily).

However, I do use it for converting movie files to DVD format.
Currently the movie I am converting if using XP would take in the region of 45minutes, but using the same PC with Vista installed on a duel-boot system (so the spec is the same) only takes around 15-20minutes for the same movie.

Although I have persevered with Vista for a few months "On & Off", it's not the operating system that will be used on a daily basis. But it does have some beneficial uses, as outlined above.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

edit:
Although I have to admit, I have 2 printers connected to a XP PC and shared through the Vista PC without any setup problems.
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: orainsear on January 09, 2009, 12:48:06 AM
The official legal beta goes live today (Friday 9th).
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: UncleUB on May 03, 2009, 07:56:40 AM
Seems the official release date has been leaked out...........23rd October

http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/news/2009/05/01/Acer-Spills-Windows-7-Release-Date/p1
Title: Re: Windows7
Post by: Pwiggler on May 03, 2009, 08:11:55 AM
I've been running Windows 7 on my media centre for over a week now and I think it's great.

A lot faster than Vista at doing everything with 2GB of RAM in it.

Games run faster and menu navigation is quicker.  The install was virtually the same as Vista.  I did a clean install coz I heard that it doesn't like to do an upgrade.  Tried the upgrade but it crashed.

It found all my hardware and installed it apart from the decoder part of the Hauppauge TV card - installed the Vista driver and it was all good.

Its got a few new features and quirks but i'm getting used to it.