Windows 7 Beta

Marty_J

anewhope wrote: »

For what exactly?

What do Microsoft normally get taken to court over?

In this case, it'll probably be because Windows 7 users will have to sign up for a Windows Live account in order to download Photo Gallery and Movie Maker. Google aren't going to take that lying down.

I guess this is all part of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's plan to "f**king kill Google" (which he announced after hurling a chair at someone).

aerostar wrote: »

Windows 7 is based on the Vista kernal, so really it is the fixed version of Vista.

Well it took them 6 or 7 years to bang XP into half decent shape, so Vista should be fixed around 2012.

That they dropped the Vista branding like a hot potato shows how much Microsoft want to forget about Vista as quickly as possible.

It amazes me how many people are impressed that Windows 7 "works OK"; Microsoft really do set the bar pretty low.

DatabaseError

Marty...I don't use any google apps, or photo gallery/movie maker, but...(and a genuine question)
...in order to use the google apps, do you need a gmail account, or can you just download them? Do they have any advertising embedded?
Surely companies can't complain about less OS integration, the issue has always been that Microsoft provide it free (ie etc..) pricing other companies out of the market unfairly.

---

As to Balmer's wish to .....er...you know, so what, it's big business, and unlikely to happen (anyone ever use live search? My browser searchbar has both google (as default) and Yahoo (as backup) alongside another half dozen specialist searches, none of the microsoft live)).
As to Microsoft being Satan, the great destroyer (as implied by many Mac users), memories are short, without the $150M investment from microsoft in the late 90s Apple may not even be here toady (unless they'd won the suggested anti-trust cases -quite possible)

PROLIANT

anewhope wrote: »

For what exactly?

I think his statement reflects his "anti-microsoft" attitude.

fermi

I'm more concerned about how well the OS works on my machine.

Booting up from scratch, Vista used about 60% RAM for me before I started anything else. Windows 7 is about 40%. That is an upgrade, so the same startups on both.

Only one measure, but...............

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

In this case, it'll probably be because Windows 7 users will have to sign up for a Windows Live account in order to download Photo Gallery and Movie Maker. Google aren't going to take that lying down.

Seems reasonable to me. A Live account gets you a whole lot of benefits over all of Microsoft's services. The choice to install what I want on install, and to be the latest version is a great move for the OOBE.

PROLIANT

aerostar wrote: »

Windows 7 is based on the Vista kernal, so really it is the fixed version of Vista.

Like every other successor bar 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98.
NT was the fore-runner for all of the 2000, XP, VISTA kernels.
Why re-invent the wheel by designing a new kernel, just use a continuous improvement development cycle to build on the already robust and successful architecture that has had billions of dollars invested in to it through R&D.

Marty_J

PROLIANT wrote: »

I think his statement reflects his "anti-microsoft" attitude.

lol....anti-Microsoft? Moi?

Seriously though, I wouldn't consider myself anti-Microsoft. I even have an XBox 360 (but don't tell anyone!). I just think Windows, in general, sucks. It reminds me of the car Homer Simpson designed; feature bolted onto feature in a really cack-handed and inelegant way.

anewhope wrote: »

Seems reasonable to me. A Live account gets you a whole lot of benefits over all of Microsoft's services. The choice to install what I want on install, and to be the latest version is a great move for the OOBE.

Well, I'm sure Microsoft hope the courts feel the same way you do if it comes to that. Though I'm sure Google (or whoever happens to be after Microsoft that day) will say that they're abusing their monopoly. It's not as though Google can make PC users sign up for their services in order to download applications they expect to already be on their computer. Imagine you had to sign up for a Gmail account to use Google search. Microsoft would go nuts, and rightly so.

As for the OOBE, sure, if downloading updates is your thing, it'll be great. I prefer to plug my new computer in and be using it 60 seconds later.

Adebisi

Marty_J wrote: »

With that logic, McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world.

If you want to know how Microsoft managed to monopolise the PC market, I suggest you pick up a book on the subject.

Riiiiiight, the Mac can't do video editing or music production. I don't think I've ever been in a professional recording studio that didn't use Macs. And as for video editing, even the company that made the latest Microsoft commercials used Macs to do it. They've been using Macs in film production since they made Star Wars. And do you know who founded Pixar and now sits on the board of directors for Disney? Sure, no Macs there then.

http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/

Better than Windows does some might say.

They haven't made G5 PowerMacs in two and a half years, so I don't know how you use "new" ones. And if all of the 250 Macs you look after keep crashing, I can't but wonder what the link between them is (hint: he's sitting in your chair).

Sure, it's all jealousy. Because Apple are so poor.

I have no interest in Apple taking over the world, and neither do they. They just want to make money. Which is handy, as they're very good at doing so.

I see what you did there. Very clever!

Sorry man I did not mean to offend you after you spent so much on a computer; you must feel the need to justify your decision and I respect that.

Marty_J

Adebisi wrote: »

Sorry man I did not mean to offend you after you spent so much on a computer; you must feel the need to justify your decision and I respect that.

Well quite; I spent £700 three years ago, and the Mac I had before this cost the same amount in 1999. Clearly I need to justify my mad spending spree over the past decade.

I'm thinking of getting another in a few years: I'm out of control! :eek:

Adebisi

Marty_J wrote: »

Well quite; I spent £700 three years ago, and the Mac I had before this cost the same amount in 1999. Clearly I need to justify my mad spending spree over the past decade.

I'm thinking of getting another in a few years: I'm out of control! :eek:

crikey that is a lot, you are out of control! I take it that was second hand or bottom of the line?