To Windows 7 or not to Windows 7

fwor

pcombo wrote: »

Well i say windows 7 is just an expansion of windows vista its not like they developed a whole new OS, instead of releasing services packs for vista microsoft thought lets make some more money since vista has failed *o i know lets release windows 7 but really its vista *

Perhaps MS did a very carefully calculated double-take with Vista.

They know that they have to satisfy two very different types of cash-generating customer - the box-shifter and the end-user.

Vista was released to please the box-shifter. The result was that in most cases you had to throw away your existing PC and buy a new one. The box-shifters loved that (but it was environmental terrorism in reality).

To follow that up they release Win7 which suddenly (inexplicably) relaxes the system pre-requisites of Vista and (MS hope) makes all of us end-users happy again.

Inactive

I am still not convinced that I should get rid of XP and spend money on 7, there doesn't seem to be much to get excited about.

[Deleted User]

fwor wrote: »

To follow that up they release Win7 which suddenly (inexplicably) relaxes the system pre-requisites of Vista and (MS hope) makes all of us end-users happy again.

It's not inexplicable at all. If you go and read the Engineering Windows 7 blog in it's entirety then at the end of it you'll a fairly sound grasp of some of the priorities (including performance) during the development of Windows 7, especially those issues that surfaced from the wider feedback of Vista.

fwor

anewhope wrote: »

It's not inexplicable at all.

Exactly. That was my point.

If you believe the conspiracy theory, it would have been deliberate and pre-planned.

[Deleted User]

fwor wrote: »

Exactly. That was my point.

If you believe the conspiracy theory, it would have been deliberate and pre-planned.

It's a pretty ridiculous theory though. Vista took a bad wrap even though it was a very good product mainly due to the massive changes in the architecture and ISV/IHVs not releasing drivers of a suitable level of quality. 7 is better than Vista, but that's an advantage to already starting with a good product, you can spend more time streamlining and making it more efficient all whilst reacting to feedback from a variety of sources.

BillScarab

One of the problems with Vista was that Microsoft set the minimum hardware requirements unrealistically low. People were running it on systems that could just about manage to run the OS but not much else.

I needed a new PC around the time Vista wass released so got a nice new machine with a Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM and a decent graphics card and Vista ran fine. Try to run on older machines or low spec ones and it wass horible.

[Deleted User]

fwor wrote: »

Exactly. That was my point.

If you believe the conspiracy theory, it would have been deliberate and pre-planned.

It's a pretty ridiculous theory though. Vista took a bad wrap even though it was a very good product mainly due to the massive changes in the architecture and ISV/IHVs not releasing drivers of a suitable level of quality. 7 is better than Vista, but that's an advantage to already starting with a good product, you can spend more time streamlining and making it more efficient all whilst reacting to feedback from a variety of sources.

pcombo

"due to the massive changes in the architecture"

Didn't stop it being cracked within 1 day, which leaves me to believe they hardly changed much from xp architecture.

[Deleted User]

pcombo wrote: »

"due to the massive changes in the architecture"

Didn't stop it being cracked within 1 day, which leaves me to believe they hardly changed much from xp architecture.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say?

BabyFranny

Stay with what you're confident with