Windows 7 Fact Thread

[forrestcupp]

Originally Posted by Mak213

Yes Forrest i am agreeing with you. They are not gonna use MinWin. More and more info about this is hitting the Microsoft sources i have and they have told me such. So i am aorry for disagreeign with you previously on this. You were right i was wrong.

Yeah, baby!

Say it again!

Just joking Mak. No hard feelings.

[Mak213]

Hey at least i am man enough to admit i was wrong and publically apologize.

[alexsabree]

Woah, no wonder Vista is horrible. Why would they do such a thing?

[Mak213]

Vista is not horrible. It can be used. I prove that daily.

They did it cause now everyone loves XP so much they wont leave it. Sound familiar? Even after Windows 7 gets released it will ahve to be compared to XP and if it does not perform at or around the level of XP it will not survive either.

People will not give up XP anymore and the sad fact is that people have forgotten what it used to be like with Windows before XP.

I fell bad for Windows 7 already. Cause it has to reach the Moon and the stars and it just started to get coded. People will be saying the same things they are about Windows 7 that they are about Vista. Microsoft should just stop XP now before they have to support it forever.

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Mak

Microsoft should just stop XP now

No, MS needs to put something out that actually compares to XP. People are not going to pay for an inferior product. Vista works good now, but it doesn't really do anything that much better than XP, and requires a lot more to run it's eye candy.

IF, and I do mean IF, Microsoft does 7 the way it should be done, people will want to use it. What does that entail? Windows 7 will have to be user-friendly without being a pain in the anus like Vista came across as being. It will have to do everything XP does and then some... but it will have to be stuff people want and will use. 7 needs a smaller footprint than Vista and maybe even XP.

MS would do well to study and learn from Linux. Linux can do so much without all the bloat. if that means that some backwards compatibility has to be dropped people ain't gonna cry about it. As long as the backward compatibility reaches back to XP native programs everyone will be cool about it. Even if running the apps requires a bit of virtualization it would be OK.

The problem is that MS knows best what people want... no matter what people tell them. until MS pulls their collective heads out of their rectum they will not get it... and they will fail at yet another potentially great OS.

[Mak213]

Vista does compare to XP. In fact Vista is far superior to XP. Everything about Vista from Security on is better. But yet people pay for the inferior product. Plus that is the major problem. People only see the Aero and think that is all Vista is about. When in fact that is the least.

The network stack has been redone, UAC which has proven to stop drive by downloads and malware downloads. There are far less Vista PC's infected than XP machines. Not to mention the new coding for everything.

The problem is that people will not stop comparing everything to XP. They are not XP. It is like comparing Windows to Linux. They are 2 different things. Vista is not XP. Not at any level at all. So to compared it to XP is the wrong place to start to begin with.

Plus with the hardware that is out there today it is not that hard to have a machine that will run Vista smoothly. I have 5 year old machine that runs it just fine. That is with a old P4. So how people running a Quad can say it is slow is beyond me.

Yes Microsoft is partially to blame cause they do not listen to us. But at the same time we are at the core to be blamed cause we are the ones who will not stop comparing Apples to Potatoes. Or XP to Vista. They are nothing alike on any level. The only thing that is even remotely close is the Kernel which is still not even nearly the same cause XP runs on version 5 of the kernel which Vista is now on Version 6.1 of the Kernel.

[forrestcupp]

Originally Posted by Trotter

It will have to do everything XP does and then some... but it will have to be stuff people want and will use. 7 needs a smaller footprint than Vista and maybe even XP.

You can't have "and then some" with a smaller footprint. Also, there are a lot of different ideas about what is "stuff people want and will use." Everybody wants something different. So to please everybody, there are going to be things included that not everybody wants. For instance, you don't want Aero, but I and a lot of other people do want eye candy.

Originally Posted by Trotter

MS would do well to study and learn from Linux. Linux can do so much without all the bloat.

I agree about this. Linux can do a lot more and has a lot better eye candy and security with way lower hardware requirements. I wish MS would make Windows more modular and customizable and make it's interface more open to 3rd party plug ins.

But one tough thing is how can MS copy Linux after they have threatened Linux for infringing on their IP patents?

[Apokalipse]

Originally Posted by Mak213

Vista does compare to XP. In fact Vista is far superior to XP. Everything about Vista from Security on is better.

XP is as secure as the user makes it.
Vista basically adds features that hedge the users from doing what they shouldn't be doing anyway.

It comes with a newer version of Internet Explorer which is far more secure, though that's something Microsoft should have done a long time ago.

but, I use Firefox + Adblock plus + noscript

You can't have "and then some" with a smaller footprint.

Yes you can, it just depends how you write and implement the code for it.
Linux has been doing that really well.

Also, there are a lot of different ideas about what is "stuff people want and will use.

So make the OS modular.

[Mak213]

Yes Apok you are right. XP is as secure as the user makes it. But by default with no extras Vista is more secure.

But overall any Os is as secure as you make it. If Microsoft decided to use MinWin then they could have more for less as that Kernel is less than 7MB in size...compared to the almost 1GB it s now....

[forrestcupp]

Originally Posted by Apokalipse

Yes you can, it just depends how you write and implement the code for it.
Linux has been doing that really well.

I know what you're saying is basically true, but I have two thoughts. First we're comparing it to XP, not Linux. Secondly, I've had my Linux OS set up with enough features that its footprint was almost as large as Vista. So Linux can be bloated, too.

Originally Posted by Apokalipse

So make the OS modular.

I wish they would all around. One example is the ability to choose from an abundant number of plug ins for Compiz/Fusion vs. just being able to turn Aero on and off. Aero has the potential to be much, much better than it is, but MS doesn't want to share their glory with anyone.

Originally Posted by Mak213

If Microsoft decided to use MinWin then they could have more for less as that Kernel is less than 7MB in size...compared to the almost 1GB it s now....

But I suspect that when you add enough features to make your computer usable and comfortable for a multipurpose user, the footprint would be almost as large as it is now. Isn't that 7MB pretty much just for a command line?