Windows 7 Beta

[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.

I didn't have to sign in to Windows Live to download Essentials and install them. The only prompt I had was to consider registering a Live account if I did not already have one, which you would need to use Windows Live Messenger.

Marty_J wrote: »

lol....anti-Microsoft? Moi?
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.

Rightly or wrongly, there's a school of thought that considers unneeded programs installed with an operating system to be bloat. Microsoft bundle everything in and get dragged through the mud, they take it out it's now falling short of expectations. Quite simply, a rock and a hard place.

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.

I prefer to be running a machine with the latest updates for reliability and security, but horses for courses..

Marty_J

Adebisi wrote: »

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

Nope, both brand new from Apple. I think I've spent more on shoes over the past 10 years than on computers, and I don't own a lot of shoes.

In contrast, the people I know who buy bargain basement PCs from Tesco and the like end up having to replace them every 18 months, and in consequence have spent much more than I have. They throw so much money around with gay abandon that I can't help but wonder if they're secret millionaires. Owning a computer that is reliable and I don't have to upgrade constantly helps me save money, not spend it.

My G3 iMac was running OS X 10.4 when I gave it away to someone who needed a computer, as it is to this very day. The only upgrade I performed was to install a larger HDD that I happened to have lying around the place. You'll not find many 10 year old computers that can run Vista.

anewhope wrote: »

I didn't have to sign in to Windows Live to download Essentials and install them. The only prompt I had was to consider registering a Live account if I did not already have one, which you would need to use Windows Live Messenger.

You don't have to sign into your Live account to check the services you have installed? That's certainly how things used to go.

Rightly or wrongly, there's a school of thought that considers unneeded programs installed with an operating system to be bloat. Microsoft bundle everything in and get dragged through the mud, they take it out it's now falling short of expectations. Quite simply, a rock and a hard place.

If they want people to sign up to their services in order to get the software which used to come on their computer, then I think there's a little more than philanthropy going on.

I prefer to be running a machine with the latest updates for reliability and security, but horses for courses..

Well with Windows, you really need to be.

I'm not talking about updates though. It would suck big time if I had to download iPhoto or iTunes from Apple whenever I got a new Mac or reinstalled OS X.

I wouldn't call that an enchanced OOBE.

sturll

Marty_J wrote: »

Nope, both brand new from Apple. I think I've spent more on shoes over the past 10 years than on computers, and I don't own a lot of shoes.

In contrast, the people I know who buy bargain basement PCs from Tesco and the like end up having to replace them every 18 months, and in consequence have spent much more than I have. They throw so much money around with gay abandon that I can't help but wonder if they're secret millionaires. Owning a computer that is reliable and I don't have to upgrade constantly helps me save money, not spend it.

My G3 iMac was running OS X 10.4 when I gave it away to someone who needed a computer, as it is to this very day. The only upgrade I performed was to install a larger HDD that I happened to have lying around the place. You'll not find many 10 year old computers that can run Vista.



You don't have to sign into your Live account to check the services you have installed? That's certainly how things used to go.

If they want people to sign up to their services in order to get the software which used to come on their computer, then I think there's a little more than philanthropy going on.

Well with Windows, you really need to be.

I'm not talking about updates though. It would suck big time if I had to download iPhoto or iTunes from Apple whenever I got a new Mac or reinstalled OS X.

I wouldn't call that an enchanced OOBE.

To be fair though if a person buys a Microsoft OS then surely they can expect Microsoft apps to be bundled? If they decide to use alternate apps then there is the availability to do so. i.e Firefox.

I for one would not be impressed if after installing my OS i then had to start messing about downloading all the separate apps.

I think in reality if Microsoft shat a 5 ton piece of gold and donated it starving Africans someone somewhere would be looking to take them to court over it.

DatabaseError

Marty_J wrote: »

If they want people to sign up to their services in order to get the software which used to come on their computer, then I think there's a little more than philanthropy going on.

Of course there is, Microsoft are a software company...they must make money from the software they provide else they would have no revenue stream.
Apple, on the other hand, provide both the hardware and the software for their machines, making, I imagine, the software much easier to write (limited hardware compatibility/driver issues). I was earlier pleasantly surprised at the price of os-x, though as the realisation that it is only an upgrade for software that apple have already sold to the user, and that can only be run (officially) on hardware sold by apple it seems to lose some of its perceived value. Microsoft's software may be more expensive, but it will run on virtually any combination of hardware, including a mac

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

You don't have to sign into your Live account to check the services you have installed? That's certainly how things used to go.

The only steps I took were to visit download.live.com, download the installer, run the set up which indicated which applications were installed already, selected what I wanted to install and left it to it. No signing into Live necessary.

If they want people to sign up to their services in order to get the software which used to come on their computer, then I think there's a little more than philanthropy going on.

I don't want Movie Maker, Photogallery, Mail, Writer, Family Safety etc so I'm going to prefer just installing WLM and not having to spend time either uninstalling the other redundant programs, or resorting to vlite to get an installation the way I want it. It doesn't make one ioata of difference if these programs are in the start menu on the first boot or if they're selected through a welcome screen, no one is going to miss out on the opportunity to use them.

It's just giving the user choice, which is no bad thing surely?

I'm not talking about updates though. It would suck big time if I had to download iPhoto or iTunes from Apple whenever I got a new Mac or reinstalled OS X.

I wouldn't call that an enchanced OOBE.

I don't find having out of date versions of programs installed that require updates a particulary great way of starting the experience. Once again, different strokes for different folks.

[Deleted User]

DatabaseError wrote: »

Of course there is, Microsoft are a software company...they must make money from the software they provide else they would have no revenue stream.
Apple, on the other hand, provide both the hardware and the software for their machines, making, I imagine, the software much easier to write (limited hardware compatibility/driver issues). I was earlier pleasantly surprised at the price of os-x, though as the realisation that it is only an upgrade for software that apple have already sold to the user, and that can only be run (officially) on hardware sold by apple it seems to lose some of its perceived value. Microsoft's software may be more expensive, but it will run on virtually any combination of hardware, including a mac

Apple can offset the development costs of OS X against Apple hardware that runs it, Microsoft can only off set their costs against the different SKU's Windows comes in.

"In before the unfair comparison of "OS X is only £80, Windows is a rip off"

I'm very interested to see how Microsoft are going to price Home Premium. If Ballmer is the marketing prodigy he'd like to think he is then I'd want to see the full version coming in at sub £100 and let Professional and Ultimate take the price hike. Push it out at that and a lot of people are going to take notice when they see it on the shelves instore.

PROLIANT

Apple are...well Apple, they have their own bespoke hardware and software, Microsoft on the other hand write software that will run on any x86, Alpha, Itanium and ARM based platform - Apple do not.
Use what suits you best for your particular application, this kind of "My woman is better looking than yours" hill-Billy style debate will not amount to any resolve.

DatabaseError

Plenty of rumours around the pricing and packaging of W7, including the suggestion that the bottom end product may only support 3 tasks at a time (apparently already common for emerging markets) , but, the general consensus is that £100 is a good price point for entry. I'm still running the beta exclusively on my machine, and my very expensive vista ultimate is sitting idle on a large partition...I can't even get rid of it because I'll need something for the transition from W7b to gold (unless I 'stretch' the beta, but I won't discuss that here). I also won't be rushing for the 'ultimate' W7, the 'extras' with vista are a waste of space.
[slightly grumpy]Hopefully this thread won't descend any further into a mac vs windows debate...considering it's a subject which has been done to death here and elsewhere, and, more importantly (for me) this is a thread to discuss the benefits/pitfalls of the windows 7 beta, if we're going to include Macs into the discussion we may as well add cheesecake (I like strawberry) [/slightly grumpy]

[Deleted User]

DatabaseError wrote: »

Plenty of rumours around the pricing and packaging of W7, including the suggestion that the bottom end product may only support 3 tasks at a time (apparently already common for emerging markets)

It's aimed at Netbooks. Can't say I've had more than a browser, IM client and email open at any one time on mine. The three application limit is on top of any security software installed, so you don't have to factor that into the three.

I like 7 a lot, does everything I want it to and in the way I want it. It's got some kinks that need ironing out, but MS have definitely got it right from the very start this time.

DatabaseError

2x VM 64bit linux (slamd64) folding machines (currently idle until I cba solving the additional logon problem), 1xgpu folding...
with a 3 app limit I wouldn't be able to run a browser (thinking about it...also running utorrent, skype, tbbmeter, wlmail, fahmon and evga precision (gotta up and down my GPU overclock to keep the squeal within tolerable range as the WU changes)