Windows 7 is enough to kill Linux on the desktop

[danrok]

See front page:
AOA - Windows 7 is enough to kill Linux on the desktop

Comments?

[MightyMar22]

I tried WIN 7 64 and really like it, for me, it was much faster than XP. I had no problem with the i.e, pages were loading lightning fast and i didn't experience any issues although i only tried the OS for 2 days.

Unraring files was so much faster than XP, and so was video transcoding.

I had to uninstall WIN 7 because i couldn't find suitable drivers for my printer. the vista 64 drivers did not work for win 7. Also, the VPN program I use for work doesn't work with WIN 7.


If i could have my printer and VPN working i would have kept the WIN 7 beta, i didn't get a chance to explore it more but i can honestly say that i would get this OS version when it is ready.


I know others out there would disagree with me but even Vista 64, which I reframed from using given all the bad reviews, is much much faster than XP was for me and so far I am happy with Vista 64.


I would suggest that anyone thinking of trying WIN 7, try it, you may like it. just make sure you have an image of your current OS in case you don't.

[ccperf721p]

It won't kill Linux for me, but as I do enjoy my games and do have a significant need for Windows only applications I will end up purchasing Win7 probably after SP1.

I skipped Vista, XP still does everything I need it to so I just didn't feel the need to learn another OS.

[MUff1N]

Originally Posted by MightyMar22

I tried WIN 7 64 and really like it, for me, it was much faster than XP. I had no problem with the i.e, pages were loading lightning fast and i didn't experience any issues although i only tried the OS for 2 days.

Unraring files was so much faster than XP, and so was video transcoding.

I had to uninstall WIN 7 because i couldn't find suitable drivers for my printer. the vista 64 drivers did not work for win 7. Also, the VPN program I use for work doesn't work with WIN 7.


If i could have my printer and VPN working i would have kept the WIN 7 beta, i didn't get a chance to explore it more but i can honestly say that i would get this OS version when it is ready.


I know others out there would disagree with me but even Vista 64, which I reframed from using given all the bad reviews, is much much faster than XP was for me and so far I am happy with Vista 64.


I would suggest that anyone thinking of trying WIN 7, try it, you may like it. just make sure you have an image of your current OS in case you don't.

Yea, I'm using W7 right now & it's great!
Very fast too with only a a couple of programs not wanting to install for me.

Hey Mar, did you try to install the drivers by first rightclicking on the installation package & choosing Vista for compatibility?
This worked for a number of packages that otherwise wouldn't install.

Btw, W7 is Great for gaming considering it's a DX11/10 OS & all my games are compatible with it too!
All my DX10 games that were laggy on Vista aren't at all on W7.
Very good performance & FPS with most of your RAM going for the game's textures & such instead of the OS...

[piccoLEW]

don't forget the win 7 beta is as far as i can tell the 'ultimate' version. Who knows what they'll leave out for 'basic' editions.

As far as some people are concerned it is just a re-polished albeit somewhat fixed vista. I think i recall reading somewhere that som vista customers would be able to upgrade to 7 at no cost, i could be wrong.

I've broken it twice so far ^^

[MightyMar22]

muffin,

i did not try to install the drivers like that, i just double clicked on the exe. i will give it a try tomorow, or when i get some free time.

thanks for the info.

[Daniel ~]

Enjoy, it's free...in a manner of speaking...for now...

What Can I say I've taken my fair share of abuse from MS...":O}

[ccperf721p]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

Enjoy, it's free...in a manner of speaking...for now...

What Can I say I've taken my fair share of abuse from MS...":O}

My opinion of MS is not quite as low as yours, I don't mind paying for it, so long as it works the way I need it to. I prefer linux, but there are some things Windows just does better.. Truth be told, I have a lower opinion of RedHat than Microsoft.

My idea of abuse is unleashing a 3.5GB DVD of a free beta OS on the public, recieving multiple bug reports, waiting for the linux community to fix these bugs, package it up, copyright it, and then profit from it. Which is why I don't use Fedora . (Or any other distribution that profits from software covered under the GPL)

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by ccperf721p

My idea of abuse is unleashing a 3.5GB DVD of a free beta OS on the public, recieving multiple bug reports, waiting for the linux community to fix these bugs, package it up, copyright it, and then profit from it. Which is why I don't use Fedora . (Or any other distribution that profits from software covered under the GPL)

I understand what you're saying, although I'm not entirely certain I agree.

1. Redhat provides services and support. THAT is what they sell. The fact that the service and support comes with a disk of Linux software is incidental.
2. Under the terms of the GPL, Redhat HAVE to provide access to the source code for all of the GPL'd software they distribute, and they do.
3. Redhat have programmers who are on the Redhat payroll, who do work on GPL'd code. In other words, they give back to the community.

In short, it's not like Redhat are plundering the work of the FOSS community, claiming it as their own, stripping any evidence that anyone else ever contributed, and then selling it and making a killing off it (unlike what some other companies, e.g. SCO, have done).

Open Source doesn't mean you can't sell it and make money off it. In fact, the GPL was specifically constructed so as to not only allow, but ENCOURAGE such behavior. The primary purpose of the GPL is to protect the rights of the people creating the software, as well as the people using the software. It does this via two mechanisms:

1. It first guarantees that the CREATOR of the code retains OWNERSHIP of the code. If I write something, and I distribute it under the GPL, then you can't take it and use it for your own software application without giving me due credit. If you modify my code, you have to give me due credit as the author of the original code base.
2. It then guarantees that the USER of the code has the right to a COPY of the code, thus ensuring that if I decide to shuffle off this mortal coil, or maybe I just don't want to play with that particular toy any more, or maybe I'm just being a butt-head and don't like you for some reason, you can go find someone else to make changes to the code to implement the functionality you need.

NEITHER of these mechanisms prevent OTHER contracts from being negotiated. I can release my code under the GPL, AND ALSO release it under a proprietary licence if I desire to do so. I can put the code out under GPL and then negotiate a separate agreement that allows you to incorporate my code into your own proprietary product, if that is my desire. Further, if you want to provide a CD compilation and include my GPL'd code on that CD in compiled form, that is absolutely fine, SO LONG AS you don't charge anything beyond a reasonable fee for the distribution of the application AND you provide access to the source code. If you want to sell service and support aggreements on that application, you are quite free to do that, and in fact a great many people in the FOSS movement make good money doing exactly that.

[Daniel ~]

What I can never reconcile from MS or any other top dog is their scorch the Earth policy, based on pure greed...this attitude alone may well be the death of us all... a minor consideration when picking OS I know! ":O}

This (for me) hinges upon that ancient question...How to be of the world and not be a part of it's evil...

Where do we draw the line? How do we give to power what belongs to power without forfeiting what is right?

Can this ever be other than a personal question each must ask for themselves?

[ccperf721p]

We are all flawed, I know I have some evil and some greed that dwells within me, as does everyone else.. Just part of being human.. I am not as quick to cast out the top dog in favor of the number 2 given what I have seen..

I know where MS stands, I know what they want, which gives me a chance to get out of the way. If the top dog becomes open source, we will all be paying subscription fees..

As far as RedHat is concerned, I understand that they do try to give back, and they are not doing anything against the GPL. Microsoft makes and attempt at giving back now and then as well. Maybe a single quarter result as given by RedHat will make my point a little clearer.
redhat.com | The World's Open Source Leader

Personally, I refuse to beta test for a company taking in over 600 million dollars year supporting FOSS.

I also will not be downloading Windows7 based on the same principles.. They have the resources, let them make sure it works properly.. At the very least they could be inclined to give their unpaid employees a free license of the OS they helped build..

[Daniel ~]

Well said, well thought out. Yet there is a hope that comes with Linux that can never be found in MS, the hope that they give a crap about their users well being...that they will make choices that have the user rather than the providers in mind as quite often they are not one and the same.

BTW With MS you have to buy both the OS and the subscription support if you need it...yes? MS free support couldn't support a feather!...The last time I tried MS support was several years past, this may have changed...?

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by ccperf721p

Personally, I refuse to beta test for a company taking in over 600 million dollars year supporting FOSS.

I'm a little confused. If you refuse to beta test for a company taking over 600 million/year supporting FOSS, then why are you using Linux at all? You DO realize that ANY faults you help to identify and fix in Linux is helping Redhat as well?

I understand the basic thrust of your statement; "They are making money off it, let THEM invest the resources to test it". In principle I agree with the sentiment. I'm just confused as to how you separate Redhat from FOSS, given that Redhat's business IS FOSS.

[MUff1N]

With me & being a beta tester with W7 I look at it this way.
If "I" can help to identify a problem or glitch that bugs me in the build & they fix it, then "I'M" the one that will benefit from it in the final build that I buy from them.

This is not about MS at all, it's all about ME & what "I" want in the final release of W7 OS.
Because when I buy it, I want all my games, programs & drivers to install without a hitch & work perfectly!

Besides, I've shut off all the feedback on W7 a couple of weeks ago & now I just use it.
Why? Because it's the best OS MS has put out to date for Games & playing games are the #1 reason I have a computer to begin with!

[PorPorMe]

I got the Beta bug agian and I realy got bit! Installed Win 7 x64 on a seprate HDD. From the gate it gave me problems. Self extracting programs couldn't install because 7 siad it couldn't write temp files.
A lot of my drivers & programs are on the same drive,different partitions. I got one to install and then 7 would say the program was corrupt. I went back to vista to load Winrar on 7, a couple of times I went to the other OS. Each time it ran chkdsk. I got fed up and formated the 7 partition but I couldn't boot into Vista- it was corrupt. I formatted the Vista partition and have spent the last couple of hours testing HDD's with different programs and just now re-installed Vista X64.
Betas, I get bit every time!

[MUff1N]

Originally Posted by PorPorMe

I got the Beta bug agian and I realy got bit! Installed Win 7 x64 on a seprate HDD. From the gate it gave me problems. Self extracting programs couldn't install because 7 siad it couldn't write temp files.
A lot of my drivers & programs are on the same drive,different partitions. I got one to install and then 7 would say the program was corrupt. I went back to vista to load Winrar on 7, a couple of times I went to the other OS. Each time it ran chkdsk. I got fed up and formated the 7 partition but I couldn't boot into Vista- it was corrupt. I formatted the Vista partition and have spent the last couple of hours testing HDD's with different programs and just now re-installed Vista X64.
Betas, I get bit every time!

Hmm, maybe it's just me & my being able to "feel" my way around instinctively to avoid problems when it comes to beta software...
Then again, it maybe a problem with just the 64bit version of W7 as I didn't have ANY of the problems you are describing at all!!!
NOTE: When installing software if it doesn't want to install normally, rightclick the installation package & click the Compatibility tab, then choose Vista.

I had to do this with WinRAR and other software applications so that they installed correctly.

But I think with you PPM, I'd stay away from beta's from now on!!! LOL

[PorPorMe]

I Know I'm an idiot but when you can't go anywhere but the bathroom and the computer-what the heck. I'm downloading the 32 bit version now. I said to TR a while back and, i think he took it wrong, but wipeing a drive clean and starting over realy doesn't bother me. I've got all the important drivers and programs on a different drive and there is a system to the install.
I am going to try a back up this time but it's messing with my install system!

[Necorum]

Muff how is gaming any different than on vista? Im confused considering they both use the same amount of resources (ie 97 instead of 100 threads win7 97 for system). The memory usage and drivers are the same and i notice nothing different? Memory usage is only a 1 mb different between the two and Frame rates = the same


If you check the kernel and everything else there is barely any noticeable difference in the two. Only thing is now that drivers are out for vista "WIN7" has drivers from the start.


The new"er" star menu is a hassle and you can not go back to the old classic which i personally prefer.

Meh imho its a rebadged vista which i like vista and dont see any point in going to win7 unless you didnt get vista.

ON DX11

Microsoft shared the first details of DirectX 11 – the numerically superior successor to DirectX 10.1 – which will feature full support for Windows Vista, as well as future versions of the popular operating system. Worried about hardware? DirectX 11 won't just ignore your fancy DirectX 10 or 10.1 cards – nope, it offers support for both of those standards, as well as for new DirectX 11 hardware.

[MUff1N]

Originally Posted by Necorum

Muff how is gaming any different than on vista? Im confused considering they both use the same amount of resources (ie 97 instead of 100 threads win7 97 for system). The memory usage and drivers are the same and i notice nothing different? Memory usage is only a 1 mb different between the two and Frame rates = the same

I think the difference is the versions of W7.
I "think" what you tried out was an earlier version (before version 7000) of the OS as I see a BIG difference between Vista & W7!!!.
Where Vista (even after Services tweaks) uses 35-40% memory usage for the OS, W7 only uses 22% (on my system) & my FPS on Vista are down by 10-15 FPS from W7.
Where Vista takes a minute or more to bootup, W7 takes 18 seconds!

Whatever the reason, for me on "my" system & HW configuration W7 works much better for gaming as there isn't any of the laggyness I get on Vista using DX10 while gaming & is an overall more responsive OS.

[MUff1N]

Originally Posted by PorPorMe

I Know I'm an idiot but when you can't go anywhere but the bathroom and the computer-what the heck. I'm downloading the 32 bit version now. I said to TR a while back and, i think he took it wrong, but wipeing a drive clean and starting over realy doesn't bother me. I've got all the important drivers and programs on a different drive and there is a system to the install.
I am going to try a back up this time but it's messing with my install system!

As I said PPM, I think this has to do with the 64bit version & the lack of program & driver compatibility support!

I know you're not an idiot PPM, I was just ribbing you! LOL

Make sure that you burn the image file (iso) SLOWLY.
This will insure a good solid burn of the OS.
As I said before I use Nero Burning ROM for all my burning needs (except for games, then I use Alcohol 120%) & I burned it at 8 x 11,080KBs.
But whatever burning software you use, burn it slowly...