Windows 7 — Page 3

The fact that Microsoft keeps changing the basic support of their OSs each year is dirty. If they had any competition with OSs that were capable of running programs with the same source code, the situation would be very different. Instead we'd get an OS that was updated each year but didn't lose support so quickly, and was given more interface improvements over the course of it's life.

Instead, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, are all very similar in their source codes. The major differences are external and shouldn't require us to upgrade or risk "support" and availability of the versions we like.

i'm not sure any of you have worked in the software industry,

i did for several years..

there is NO WAY that changing an OS, is a simple matter of using

the same codebase, there's millions of lines of code, debugging,

and new hardware to worry about..

it's simple, you want to keep up, upgrade..

if you don't, skip it, or try osx or linux..

later

-1

negative1 said:

there is NO WAY that changing an OS, is a simple matter of using

the same codebase, there's millions of lines of code, debugging,

and new hardware to worry about..

OSs are changed all the time in big ways. Comparing the differences between 2000, Vista, and XP, Microsoft could still have supported all versions. For instance, there was absolutely no damn reason why XP could not have had the same 3D hardware support that Vista got. That was shameless.

Above I'm whining about laws that I think give Microsoft more of a hold over the market than they should have. It's not as if humanity is inherently incapable of having other companies making other operating systems that can run our hardware and software as well. I get a very strong feeling that there's some way in which their patent protections go too far somehow. Imagine if AMD's technique for reverse engineering an Intel processor had been declared illegal, the market for computer processors would not be as good. From what I can tell, I think the free market would welcome a company doing something similar with Windows, but maybe I'm worng about that and just whining . . . I don't think so. :)

Hmm, also, whining is often a good thing for customers to do if they want a better product. Producers are out to make things that customers want after all and should be concerned with pleasing them somewhere. Therefore, I don't think whining is totally out of place, with respect to Windows, so long as it is not unreasonable and has some redeeming value (entertainment at the very least).

there's nothing wrong about asking for improvements (which is why windows 7 is a response

to issues with vista)...

but the problem is some people keep asking for it to be free....????????????????????????????????

that's why its unreasonable.

later

-1

What Jay said about Macs seeming over priced if very true. Often you an amazingly sleek and powerful little machine for a very comparable price to its PC counterparts. The Mac Mini is actually a very good machine for the price, sure they are quite under powered, and you need to find a monitor to go with them, but if you are just looking for a system for casual computer use such as email, word processing, music, pictures, buring CD/DVD etc., it is an ideal system. At $599 it is really is not that expensive. OSX is way better than anything MS has to offer, not to mention the fact that through bootcamp you can install XP or Vista, assuming you have them lying around somewhere.

Tiptup said:

The fact that Microsoft keeps changing the basic support of their OSs each year is dirty. If they had any competition with OSs that were capable of running programs with the same source code, the situation would be very different. Instead we'd get an OS that was updated each year but didn't lose support so quickly, and was given more interface improvements over the course of it's life.

Instead, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, are all very similar in their source codes. The major differences are external and shouldn't require us to upgrade or risk "support" and availability of the versions we like.

Well, this is capitalism, the big company creating a product people have to keep buying. Microsoft has a monopoly position and it is using it. This is how the rich get filthy rich, by playing it dirty.

Whoops, double post.

Arnie.d said:

Well, this is capitalism, the big company creating a product people have to keep buying. Microsoft has a monopoly position and it is using it. This is how the rich get filthy rich, by playing it dirty.

Capitalism simply means that the means of production and wealth in society are controlled and owned by private individuals. Nowhere does it require anyone playing dirty. In fact, it would be impossible to have any kind of "market" under capitalism without at least some kind of honesty and fairness.

That said, I don't think that what Microsoft does is terribly dirty or anything, I just think there might be a better way for the government to define what is protected under patents. (And even that assumes that the main reason for a lack of any competing OS is due to our patent system [which seems correct to me but I'm no expert].)

Actually a Monopoly is bad for free economics because they can charge more money and have less or zero Competition  When the companies compete it is better for the consumer.

That is why the government has anti trust laws in place forbidding monopolies yet Billy Gates has so much money Microsoft does not have to play by the rules.  They can buy up all their competitors legally.  Bad for everyone except Bill Gates wallet and his shareholders wallet and the wallets of the lobbyists and politicians in Washington who grease the wheels and allow illegal monopolies to continue.

Where i live Verizon has the monopoly on fiber optic lines so they can charge whatever they please when if there was competition the costs would be less.

Monopolies are almost always bad for the consumer and i don't know of a single one in history that has been beneficial.   

Now Microsoft OS is under a patent does not prevent other companies from creating their own operating systems, but the little startups being bought up by gates does.   Bad for Us the consumer bad for free thinking and development of competing technology. 

I find it funny that the Pirates of Silicon Valley as that movie pretty Much states we will always only have Apple and Microsoft competing.

I cannot stand Jobs or Gates.

I like the PC better than the Mac.  The mac is designed for ease of use and to be retard proof.  PC has better games.  Better Software.  Better customization.  More overall processing power, can build better gaming rigs.   Mac Good for editing video, or for rendering that's it as far as i know.   Well the new ones supposed to be an entertainment machine playing Video and audio from the itunes store.   Shitty quality movies and audio i call a de-evolution not a revolution.  Not when i can have DVD quality movies and CD quality music why get mp3 at 320 kbps garbage.  Worse quality than a casette tape, lower quality than even broadcast radio.

skyjedi2005 said:

Bad for everyone except Bill Gates wallet and his shareholders wallet and the wallets of the lobbyists and politicians in Washington who grease the wheels and allow illegal monopolies to continue.

 gates doesn't even run microsoft anymore, where have you been?

 http://www.gatesfoundation.org

 

I cannot stand Jobs or Gates.

i guess you have a problem with a person giving billions of dollars

away for charity..

As of 2007 Bill and Melinda Gates were the second most generous philanthropist in America, having given over $28 billion to charity

------------------------------------------

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual/

shows what kind of a person you are.. more than it shows what he did..

later

-1

So he gives his money to Africa what does that have to do with the illegality of monopolies?  What does that have to do with Microsoft subverting free market economics and a fair competitive capitalist system for consumers?

Just because he is no longer chairman or ceo does not mean he does not get rich off of microsoft, he invented the company and is still the top dog whether or not he shows up and runs things or not.

Gates should be taken that money and reinvesting it in American industry and American jobs.  We should not be helping other countries first what about the poor people who live right in the usa?

You do realize gates gets most of the money back in Taxes.

You claim your donations on tax forms. 

If somebody told me tomorrow the guy has a foreign bank account to avoid hidden income being taxed i would not be surprised.

The rich who already dodge their taxes will dodge even more under obama.  Obama wants to tax all the people who make more than two hundred thousand dollars a year.  So unless he goes after the loopholes like philantropy, swiss bank accounts the rich will get away with what they have been doing all along.

Gates is no saint and furthermore he began his business on government grants which our taxdollars pay for.

Mid 2009 release date? Guess I will hold off on building a new PC after all . . . though my current machine really needs to be reworked (I think the video card is buggy).

Tiptup said:

The fact that Microsoft keeps changing the basic support of their OSs each year is dirty. If they had any competition with OSs that were capable of running programs with the same source code, the situation would be very different. Instead we'd get an OS that was updated each year but didn't lose support so quickly, and was given more interface improvements over the course of it's life.

Instead, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, are all very similar in their source codes. The major differences are external and shouldn't require us to upgrade or risk "support" and availability of the versions we like.

First, those timelines aren't changed each year.  MS releases an OS and each OS gets the exact same type of support.  Vista's support will probably end sometime in 2012, but I haven't looked at the timeline for it, so don't quote me on that.

Second, Windows 2000, XP, and Vista are not very similar in their source codes.  Windows 2000 is close to XP, but neither are close to Vista.  Vista isn't even close to Windows 2003.  The biggest change in Vista was with the driver model.  The video drivers were completely rewritten.  Those changes could not be backported without completely rewriting the driver model in XP.  That would end up making XP just like Vista, which would be pointless from Microsoft's perspective (it was nearing it's end of life as it was).

skyjedi2005 said:

Actually a Monopoly is bad for free economics because they can charge more money and have less or zero Competition  When the companies compete it is better for the consumer.

That is why the government has anti trust laws in place forbidding monopolies yet Billy Gates has so much money Microsoft does not have to play by the rules.  They can buy up all their competitors legally.  Bad for everyone except Bill Gates wallet and his shareholders wallet and the wallets of the lobbyists and politicians in Washington who grease the wheels and allow illegal monopolies to continue.

You should study anti trust laws more closely.  It's not completely illegal to be a monopoly.  It is illegal to abuse that monopoly position by either preventing other companies from entering the market or by overcharging for your product.  Of course, the FTC doesn't usually approve mergers of two competing companies (see DirecTV and Dish Network) with the XM and Sirius mergers being a recent exception.

Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic practices, but the "remedy" was next to worthless.  And you're right, when companies compete, it is better.

Where i live Verizon has the monopoly on fiber optic lines so they can charge whatever they please when if there was competition the costs would be less.

If Verizon laid the lines, then they should absolutely have the monopoly on them and be able to charge whatever the market will bear.  People don't have to sign up for FiOS.  FiOS, from what I've seen, is very reasonably priced for the speed it offers.

Now Microsoft OS is under a patent does not prevent other companies from creating their own operating systems, but the little startups being bought up by gates does.   Bad for Us the consumer bad for free thinking and development of competing technology. 

What startups?  Apple and Linux haven't been bought up by Microsoft.  And none of those "startups" had to sell.

I find it funny that the Pirates of Silicon Valley as that movie pretty Much states we will always only have Apple and Microsoft competing.

Please don't base your opinion on what is obviously a "docudrama".  The things that took place in that movie happened during the infancy of the PC industry.  The one thing that separated Gates and Jobs at the time is that Gates knew all he had to do was get to market first.  Jobs finally learned that lesson years later with the iMac and then even moreso with OS X.  Everything ever since has put Apple back on the map.

I like the PC better than the Mac.  The mac is designed for ease of use and to be retard proof.  PC has better games.  Better Software.  Better customization.  More overall processing power, can build better gaming rigs.   Mac Good for editing video, or for rendering that's it as far as i know.   Well the new ones supposed to be an entertainment machine playing Video and audio from the itunes store.   Shitty quality movies and audio i call a de-evolution not a revolution.  Not when i can have DVD quality movies and CD quality music why get mp3 at 320 kbps garbage.  Worse quality than a casette tape, lower quality than even broadcast radio.

 

The new ones can play video and audio off CDs and DVDs, just like a PC.  Hook it up to your TV and it's just like a HTPC, so that argument is pretty much baseless.  If anything, the Mac is even better for it than the PC since it was designed to do those things flawlessly.

skyjedi2005 said:

Gates should be taken that money and reinvesting it in American industry and American jobs.  We should not be helping other countries first what about the poor people who live right in the usa?

Who are you to be telling people how they should be spending their money?  Maybe you should get off your horse for once and stop moaning about how other people spend the money that they earned.

No one forced anyone to buy DOS or Windows.  There are alternatives out there.  The alternatives may not be easy to use, but they are out there.  If you don't like Microsoft or anything else about them, stop buying their products.

Tiptup said:

Mid 2009 release date? Guess I will hold off on building a new PC after all . . . though my current machine really needs to be reworked (I think the video card is buggy).

They're shooting for the holiday season of 2009, so Christmas.  It's usually the best time to release a new OS (or a new anything for that matter).  I get the feeling they might actually hit their release schedule this time, especially since they don't plan on releasing another beta and they only plan to release one release candidate, probably in the first or second quarter of next year.  If they manage to get all the features they want into it and it's relatively stable, I can easily see them hitting a christmas '09 release.