Windows 7

Jaffa.

isofa wrote: »

I really wish MS would drop the stupid varying versions debacle which peaked with Vista. The Starter Edition is a ridiculous concept. There should be one version for PCs and that should be it, regardless of whether you are a professional or home user - it reduces confusion and makes a product more coherant.

I think they should do that too.

[Deleted User]

isofa wrote: »

I really wish MS would drop the stupid varying versions debacle which peaked with Vista. The Starter Edition is a ridiculous concept. There should be one version for PCs and that should be it, regardless of whether you are a professional or home user - it reduces confusion and makes a product more coherant. Sure you can have different server OS options, but it surely would make sense, all the best technology in one system, less issue of marketing and producing different (disabled versions), trying to get the message across to consumers (who were utterly baffled with Vista options) easier to patch and update across the board. If Apple can do it with OS X, MS should be able to with Windows 7.

Doesn't work that way.

Apple can offset the cost of OS-X development against the hardware, Microsoft do not have that option so they have to scale the pricing over the SKUs with the higher ones taking the brunt of the price to keep the lower, consumer aimed editions price lower.

The Home consumer has two options, Home Basic and Home Premium, then 32 bit or 64 bit. Not an amazingly difficult choice, not to mention that the people who go out and buy Operating Systems are more tech savvy, where Joe Public get Windows bundled in with their new computers them installed with a new computer purchase.

The choice for 7 on the shelves is going to be Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate. Seems pretty simple to me.

kwikbreaks

Hmmm... it's lasted 10 minutes on my spare desktop - an Acer with Vista on it. I did a clean install. It keeps hanging with a BSOD related to the video driver. The machine is as basic as hell with an onboard graphics chip. Seems to me calling this RC was very premature if it can't even run on a very basic box that's not even all that old.

[Deleted User]

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Hmmm... it's lasted 10 minutes on my spare desktop - an Acer with Vista on it. I did a clean install. It keeps hanging with a BSOD related to the video driver. The machine is as basic as hell with an onboard graphics chip. Seems to me calling this RC was very premature if it can't even run on a very basic box that's not even all that old.

Did you not even attempt to troubleshoot the driver issue? Of all the issues to have with an unreleased operating system, driver issues are one of the least technical ones to resolve. Please don't take this the wrong way, but using pre release software aimed for for testing and evaluation isn't for you.

gaming_guy

Marty_J wrote: »

You'll be able to run up to 3 applications at once.

but you can have as many windows (not tabs) of internet explorer (or any other app) as you want open.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844

isofa

anewhope wrote: »

Doesn't work that way.

Apple can offset the cost of OS-X development against the hardware, Microsoft do not have that option so they have to scale the pricing over the SKUs with the higher ones taking the brunt of the price to keep the lower, consumer aimed editions price lower.

The Home consumer has two options, Home Basic and Home Premium, then 32 bit or 64 bit. Not an amazingly difficult choice, not to mention that the people who go out and buy Operating Systems are more tech savvy, where Joe Public get Windows bundled in with their new computers them installed with a new computer purchase.

The choice for 7 on the shelves is going to be Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate. Seems pretty simple to me.

Although I understand how it works, I still think it's crazy. MS have revenue streams from many other outlets, just like Apple. So I believe it should work that way, MS make huge profits (although not so huge at the moment) from corporate site licences and server OSes and many other streams.

It's nothing to do with the cost of development or offsetting, surely it will actually cost more to create 4 or 5 different disabled versions and then the disc pressing, branding, marketing, advertising, rather than one single system (or 2 at a push for 32/64). Plus then you've got the channel training (which is best for each user, which brings more profit etc), patching support etc, all far more complex with multi versions than one version.

I believe it's a pointless exercise as has been shown with Vista, showing MS have lost direction just as they are haemorrhaging money. Stats show that XP is still the most widely used OS with Vista take up predictably poor, (many of my business clients are running W2K, and some banks still use NT!), In fact not one of my business customers (and they range from one man bands to corporates run Vista at any level). From the home and small business market still running XP some of that must be down to the confusion users have felt, Basic, Premium, Business, Ultimate, then add the 32/64 bit versions - that is a true farce only Microsoft could come up with.

I'd bet many unsavvy users have ended up with Basic versions to find up they don't have half the functionality they really require, especially initially as Basic was a popular bundle with cheap PCs, it's seems to have quietly died though...

Still 3 choices for Win 7 could easily have been one choice, zero confusion and full functionality at all levels. So as a home user you still have 2 main options Premium and Ultimate (farcical IMO, especially with the choice of titles).

[Deleted User]

isofa wrote: »

Although I understand how it works, I still think it's crazy. MS have revenue streams from many other outlets, just like Apple. So I believe it should work that way, MS make huge profits (although not so huge at the moment) from corporate site licences and server OSes and many other streams.

It's nothing to do with the cost of development or offsetting, surely it will actually cost more to create 4 or 5 different disabled versions and then the disc pressing, branding, marketing, advertising, rather than one single system (or 2 at a push for 32/64). Plus then you've got the channel training (which is best for each user, which brings more profit etc), patching support etc, all far more complex with multi versions than one version.

I can't imagine the MS shareholders would be very keen on taking a direction that would impair the profitability of the brand's flagship product just to keep one product and reduce support for other projects that may well be reliant upon the Windows revenue.

I believe it's a pointless exercise as has been shown with Vista, showing MS have lost direction just as they are haemorrhaging money. Stats show that XP is still the most widely used OS with Vista take up predictably poor, (many of my business clients are running W2K, and some banks still use NT!),

In fact not one of my business customers (and they range from one man bands to corporates run Vista at any level).

From the home and small business market still running XP some of that must be down to the confusion users have felt, Basic, Premium, Business, Ultimate, then add the 32/64 bit versions - that is a true farce only Microsoft could come up with.

Vista has 24% of the market share, I'm not really sure that can be considered up take to be particularly poor. It's no real surprise that the way the economy has worsened over the last two years, especially the additional pressure that has been placed on SME's to keep afloat, that spend on IT has been one of the first areas to see significant reductions in budgeting and spending. I'm no economist, but I'd be fairly certain that has had more of an effect on the uptake of Vista rather than confusion over the choice and feature set of three versions.

Look away from Software, many other business sectors offer their consumers choices at different prices according to their needs. It's hardly a farcical concept.

Still 3 choices for Win 7 could easily have been one choice, zero confusion and full functionality at all levels. So as a home user you still have 2 main options Premium and Ultimate (farcical IMO, especially with the choice of titles).

One product one price. Why force features onto someone that are going to be useless? Do many home users really need to join domains, use bitlocker encryption, run software in XP Mode etc? If Windows was rolled up into one version then the cost to OEM's for Windows would increase, which you can bet would get immediately passed onto consumers. OEM's wouldn't hesitate to come out and point the finger straight at Microsoft for making their products more expensive to the home market, which would just lead to an increased negative perception. I don't think it would be very good marketing at all.

Anyway, I think Windows 7 will change the public perception significantly after the undeserved wrap they've taken for Windows Vista. The hype machine is in overload, everyone can get in on the beta/release candidate and they can see how things have changed and people are excited. It's going to be a roaring success.

Is it what Vista should have been, probably, but then you could apply that logic back through XP, XP-2K, 2K-NT, yadda.

To be honest, I'd probably buy it myself if I didn't already have access to it as part of my subscriptions.

isofa

anewhope wrote: »

I can't imagine the MS shareholders would be very keen on taking a direction that would impair the profitability of the brand's flagship product just to keep one product and reduce support for other projects that may well be reliant upon the Windows revenue.

But that's my whole point, it costs more to market, sell, support different versions than it does one single entity, let alone ruining the brand confidence with user confusion, hence they are essentially taking a direction they increases, not decreases, costs. Mind you I wonder how those directors feel releasing ads telling their users they are too cool to own/use a Mac?!

anewhope wrote: »

Vista has 24% of the market share, I'm not really sure that can be considered up take to be particularly poor. It's no real surprise that the way the economy has worsened over the last two years, especially the additional pressure that has been placed on SME's to keep afloat, that spend on IT has been one of the first areas to see significant reductions in budgeting and spending. I'm no economist, but I'd be fairly certain that has had more of an effect on the uptake of Vista rather than confusion over the choice and feature set of three versions.

From my experience, no businesses have been remotely interested in adopting Vista - and as I said before I have a wide range of clients thousands of desktop users at the end point - but they were keen to move from NT to W2K and then to XP, so I do think it is a poor take up, MS have admitted it themselves.

anewhope wrote: »

Look away from Software, many other business sectors offer their consumers choices at different prices according to their needs. It's hardly a farcical concept.

Totally different IMO. But we can agree to differ The resulting mess of Vista version selling has shown the concept to be flawed. Home Premium has been the choice of most users including many business users with travelling laptops, not the target market surely?
I also know several people (not tech savvy to be fair) who brought new PCs when Vista was just released, all ended up with Basic, and all have poor features as a result - not even any backup built in, shockingly bad.

anewhope wrote: »

One product one price. Why force features onto someone that are going to be useless? Do many home users really need to join domains, use bitlocker encryption, run software in XP Mode etc? If Windows was rolled up into one version then the cost to OEM's for Windows would increase, which you can bet would get immediately passed onto consumers. OEM's wouldn't hesitate to come out and point the finger straight at Microsoft for making their products more expensive to the home market, which would just lead to an increased negative perception. I don't think it would be very good marketing at all.

Because it could be offered at a better price point, and then beat competition. Why write something and purposely disable it just out of greed for multi-sales? Just because features are there, they don't have to be used or could be activated if/when required, if services aren't running, the only impact would be a bit of lost disc space and in this day and age, no one would notice. OEM prices are so dirt cheap it would add just a few pound at a maximum. I do think Apple have got it spot on with OS X and the Server X OSes, good definition, good price point, good sales, massive profitability.

anewhope wrote: »

Anyway, I think Windows 7 will change the public perception significantly after the undeserved wrap they've taken for Windows Vista. The hype machine is in overload, everyone can get in on the beta/release candidate and they can see how things have changed and people are excited. It's going to be a roaring success.

I agree with you, although there is more competition in the OS market now than ever before and MS are doubting they'll be over the worse of the low profits for a while too, and with the next release of Office delayed again, who knows. OS X is a credible mainstream commercial alternative, and Linux is far more widespread now with netbooks and savvy home users giving it a try. Let's face it when XP was released how many new notebooks or desktops could you have/opt to have Linux factory installed on?

anewhope wrote: »

Is it what Vista should have been, probably, but then you could apply that logic back through XP, XP-2K, 2K-NT, yadda.

You can I suppose, but from my perspective Vista was (is?) a mess, UAC which users disable, refusal to adopt strict driver signing, just to keep older potentially incompat. items running with it then bringing it down, bloated footprint and speed (I could go on all day . The idea that Win7 will have an XP compatibility mode in a VM is a very good idea, and that will definitely move people to upgrade, along with XP now in the extended support phase.

Baldur

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Hmmm... it's lasted 10 minutes on my spare desktop - an Acer with Vista on it. I did a clean install. It keeps hanging with a BSOD related to the video driver. The machine is as basic as hell with an onboard graphics chip. Seems to me calling this RC was very premature if it can't even run on a very basic box that's not even all that old.

As per my previous post, my first install was on an Intel 945 chipset Mini ITX motherboard with Intel 950 integrated graphics.

Having read your post, I have just thrown together a box using an old P4 640 CPU that I had lying around on an Asus Intel G31 chipset motherboard with GMA 3100 integrated graphics and installed the RC on an old 80GB PATA HDD, that I again had lying around - it's performing flawlessly (this is being posted from it).

I installed the following updates and programs:

2 x IE 8 updates, 1 x Defender update

1 x Windows 7 update

1 x Intel G33/31 chipset update

Plus PCTools Firewall/Threatfire and Avira Antivir Free.

You can't get much more 'bog standard' than Intel integrated graphics chipsets, so I don't know why yours gave a problem.

jmc160

Millionaire wrote: »

Downloaded "Windows 7 RC 32bit" last night.


Really like how you can hover over a minimized window and it opens up a thumbnail, which lets you preview the window in full, without having to open it up.

Also if you have multiple windows open, I like how if you hoover over one icon>thumbnail, it brings it to the front and makes all the others open windows transparent.

Try clicking and holding on the title bar of one window and shaking it with the mouse