Windows 7

[DiscipleDOC]

I am really happy with Windows 7. I've never had an O/S that would fully configure all of my hardware right off the bat. Not only that, it is graphically better than anything that I've used in the past.

Good job, MS!

[Tuork]

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

It is definitely a step up from Vista.

[Drolfrawd]

+1 Very smooth for me,and well layed out.

[Yaboze]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDOC

I am really happy with Windows 7. I've never had an O/S that would fully configure all of my hardware right off the bat. Not only that, it is graphically better than anything that I've used in the past.

Good job, MS!

+1

[mullet]

I back to Vista SP2 right now and I must say Win 7 is pretty good.

[mailman2]

+1. Vista's Officially Dead.

[crainger]

Not officially, but close to it. I think MS pulled off one of the best recoveries I've seen in a long time in this business. They took Vista, made minimal changes, trimmed out some bloat, making the biggest change to the name, then releasing it without the huge circus and everyone seems happy. Even mailman.

[seeker]

While I'm happy enough with W7, I'm not going to blow the MS trumpets and praise them much, because it is far past due that we get something after all of the years and money spent, mostly for an OS that should have been around long ago.

The updates that most software developers release are for improvements, not just bug fixes that provide bandages rather than cures. Sometimes I feel that some software companys spend more time and effort on creating exploits to their own software, just so they can make an appearance of properly supporting their product.

With the billions of dollars and expertise that MS has, Windows could have been equal to W7 a long time ago.

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by seeker

While I'm happy enough with W7, I'm not going to blow the MS trumpets and praise them much, because it is far past due that we get something after all of the years and money spent, mostly for an OS that should have been around long ago.

The updates that most software developers release are for improvements, not just bug fixes that provide bandages rather than cures. Sometimes I feel that some software companys spend more time and effort on creating exploits to their own software, just so they can make an appearance of properly supporting their product.

With the billions of dollars and expertise that MS has, Windows could have been equal to W7 a long time ago.

What you fail to realize is the hardware "a long time ago" would not have ran even Windows 7 all that well.

Actually, I'm assuming your idea of "a long time ago" is the same as mine- though I could be wrong.

If you're implying that Windows 7 could have been out, say when XP was released back in 01... even the best of systems back then would be taxed by Windows7 now days. We didn't even have proper 64-bit processors back then. So we'd still be stuck at a max usable amount of RAM being roughly 3.5Gb.

And if you're referring to any particular Linux distro... far smaller user-base, of which the vast majority of said users are rather experienced and know how to properly trouble shoot their own problems. Only recently has Linux been in any way "user friendly" to a very similar degree as Windows (I'm referring to Ubuntu and Kubuntu here). But before both had issues that would send the average computer-user out on a shooting spree at their local tech-shop.

As big as MS is, they do have limitations. Granted, I'm no programmer. That said, MS is still bound by hardware capabilities of that time, and what they foresee being capable in the future. Just like any company.

Now all this said, I will admit that if Microsoft wanted they could do far better than they are. That's the nature of a monopoly. They have no real reason to. But to claim Windows7 could have been out a long time a go, assuming you're idea of a long time and mine are the same, is a bit of a stretch.

[seeker]

I would be far less critical, if Windows had always been better functionally with the hardware available at the time. Obviously, an evolution is required to keep pace in each area of technology, but with the influence that MS could and has exerted on hardware and software manufacturer's...and vice versa, the state of all sectors could have been further along than it is.

No, I'm not comparing to Linux, because while I am a novice in that area, I'm certainly aware of the lack of user friendliness that you mention. Yet, considering the manner of it's origin and lower budget, etc., it makes me wonder what Linux would be now, if it had a level playing field to compete on.

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by seeker

I would be far less critical, if Windows had always been better functionally with the hardware available at the time. Obviously, an evolution is required to keep pace in each area of technology, but with the influence that MS could and has exerted on hardware and software manufacturer's...and vice versa, the state of all sectors could have been further along than it is.

I disagree, for the most part. I know MS could have spent more time and money on their OS's to make them more stream-lined and efficient. But that said they seem to design the OS's with future hardware in mind. Which is wise since the OS is expected to last several years (longer in the case of XP). If they targeted the OS for "today's" hardware only, well, wouldn't be much in the way of growth when future technologies came out.

Thus they have to try and find a balance, a common ground. And for the most part, IMO, they do this rather well.

Originally Posted by seeker

No, I'm not comparing to Linux, because while I am a novice in that area, I'm certainly aware of the lack of user friendliness that you mention. Yet, considering the manner of it's origin and lower budget, etc., it makes me wonder what Linux would be now, if it had a level playing field to compete on.

Linux's lack of popularity is widely that communities own fault. First of all, there's more distros than one could possibly count. Secondly, a lot of time support for new comers isn't much more than "RTFM" which tends to drive people away.

Now, I'm not downing Linux by any stretch. Truth be told, as soon as my desktop is back together I'm taking windows off my laptop and throwing the latest of either Kubuntu or Ubuntu on it- haven't decided which yet. Those two distros have come an incredibly long way and they are far easier to use "out of the box". In fact, I could see, give the distros a few more years to further mature, my parents using either distro with ease- and they are sincere novices even when it comes to windows.

But, that is off topic. I agree with you that if MS were to dump more money and time into each release of Windows, they could be better. That said, "good-coding" can only go so far. Remember, when XP first came out 1.5Ghz pentium 4s were pretty awesome, and an AthlonXP 2000+ was pretty incredible, and having more than 1GB of RAM was... unneeded. I highly doubt MS could have gotten Windows 7 to work on such a platform while maintaining the same level of performance a modern PC of that price range would offer, while not significantly cutting their profit margin. And love it or hate it, profit margins is what drives *all* businesses.