Windows 7 coming

I find it hilarious that people are claiming it's fake just because it looks like vista.
To those people - go back and look at the early builds on Vista. They look like XP. Do the same for the early XP builds. It looks like 2000. So its common sense to assume that the very early builds of Windows 7 will look like Vista.

 

They dont work on the visual side of things until later in the pre-release schedule, so it would look like vista.

 

Didn't Bill show some things to do with Vista at his keynote just before he had the awkward moment with Slash?

 

Lmao... that was too funny. How about doing some REAL programming before trying to say that it's easy to write an OS, let alone one as complex as a modern OS.

 

dude , Just shutup. what the hell would you consider real programming then?

Doing all this hardware hacks and writing all the firmware onto little leds on a pcb isnt real programming , its noveltly. Coding a kernal , Yeah thats real programming but heck im not that advanced , and i really dont think you could do anything like that either.

Keep your "attempting to be insulting" comments to yourself please.


Ok , its not easy to write an os, Fine. But why are you saying whats already been said?

hollownail whats a modern OS?

 

hey hey, be nice now, both of you.

Personally, I kinda agree that web programming by itself isn't really "real programming".
It's basically just getting data from mysql, and doing some string concatenations to form HTML.
The business logic is pretty much nonexistent. There's no problem-solving involved, which is essentially what programming is.

At least, that's true for 99% of all the so-called web programming. Of course there are exceptions, and there are a few sites that require some far more complex code to do their thing.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not going to comment on whether you have been doing any "real programming" (maybe you've worked on the last 1% of websites that are more complex, or maybe your C/C++ experiments have been more substantial, I don't know)

 

Meh , I wouldnt say web programming is simple as such , (Im not talking about the basic tables and crap in HTML) Like implementing ajax and classes in php, My c++ hasnt gone past a calculator really. eeek. Im to damn lazy to make anything that has a use. Meh , well atleast its a start , which is more than I can say for many irritating unknowing, Forum users ahem, h*****n***.
And javascript gets more complex when your doing more interactive visual things.

 

Chills dudes!

 

They actually confirmed a month ago that Windows 7 is only a text-bas1ced OS running some HTTP servers right now.... MinWin doing 40MB is, unlike what people think, not a good asumption about the final version's RAM/HDD needed. MinWin contains about 10% of what the final kernel will be.

Windows will always be more buggy than the other OS, no matter how much work they put in it for one single reason:

MAC only needs to be made for MAC hardware, everyone has the "same" computer while Windows has to deal with everything you can imagine. They can't make it work on everything that exists in their labs.
Linux is made by many different groups. The UI, drivers, features are all from different group and people aren't expecting it to work 100% problem free

 

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/28/...-2009-says-microsoft-more-like-2011/#comments

 

Can i program an OS? no... But have written a large base of web application code which is in use by several hundred people at my old univ, including a large, complicated Oracle back end. I have a lot of experience doing web app development, and I know not all of it is easy, but compared to say, developing your own language or OS, it is easier.

I'm not trying to say all web programming is easy or worthless, but hearing you attempt to say that programming an OS can't be that bad without having worked in depth with some really difficult problems, is kind of insulting to anyone who works on hard programming problems.

And no, I couldn't single handedly develop something to compete with Vista, Linux, or OS X... But I could probably write something comparable to Basic OS or what not from back in the day.

 

good luck with that basic os , ans what are you on about "real problems" ?
i cant be botherd to write a responce tonight , Its like 11:12 and im tired , long rugby match ( and hard 2 type on ipod touch ) I'll argue , No discuss , this with you tomorrow. Goodnight

 

Very interesting dialog people!

 

lol, this thread has totally gone off topic,

apparently M$ hs gone to say they will release windows 7 "3 years since the release of Vista" (i.e. 2010).

source

 

Lol , Im ending this stupidity now , Cant be botherd to write up a long post. Meh.

 

Please do make this thread last as long as possible.

 

lol only cas u started it !!

 

Windows 7 is one of the worst O.S ever. It uses too much of power and a lot of my previous software does not work . This is a very inferior product compared to the apple counterpart and it looks like it was trying to become more like the apple counterpart but instead it works even worse.I suggest staying with Vista SP2, many manufactures are also doing this sticking with Vista.


Just remember you heard it here first!

 

roflmao xD even before its realeased hahah. il remember i heard it here first

 

More screens: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35814/140/

 

I'm gonna try and jump back on topic here.

It's interesting...I don't see XP being gone by 2009, though I could see Microsoft getting more and more people to switch. They're really going to have to push Vista as just being a "stepping stone" OS and work hard to build consumer confidence in Windows 7. XP will have been out for what? 8 years by then?

Of course, I guess it's not entirely "unpossible" considering the role that ME took in the Windows hierarchy. Windows 7 is really going to have to be something though because people are really going to be entrenched in XP (they are now). I wonder if Windows 7 will even have a 32 bit version or if they'll be going entirely 64 bit. That'd be one way to try and pick up more adopters, convince people they "need" the new OS for better hardware.

 

Only people on the forums and business users will think about XP when buying a new computer or laptop. The rest of the world will just get Vista.

 

not really,

my next laptop which is on its way will have vista, eventhough i know xp has better performance.

Main reason im not paying extra £50 for windows xp pro with my laptop. Plus i like vista, and sp1 one is out for RTM and to public around march.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/06/...like-windows-7-build-finally-solved/#comments

 

2000NT and ME were the same thing, but ME had a lot of issues and features taken out.

Take the extra one out and you will have seven altogether.

 

Partially. But 7 standard for Kernel 7.x

N5.0, 2000 & XP had the kernel 5.x Vista has 6.x

 

I though XP had kernal 6 and same with vista??

 

windows xp used the NT kernal.

according to the inquirer, seems like no DX11 in windows 7

 

Languages such as PHP, Javascript are not programming languages but are scripting languages. When you are coding a PHP site you are not programming, you are scripting.

Back on topic:

How the hell did you get hold of a copy? I am not really taking you seriously. You are allowing yourself to denigrate a software that's barely even reached its first milestone. The damn thing is still in development and far from being ready to be released and you are allowing yourself to say it's the worst OS ever.

 

You guys forgot about windows 3.0...2.0 and what ever is before that.

 

Lol, he's just making a future prediction...

 

MinWin

Looking sharp Microsoft.

 

lol

we'll see

 

Oh Noes! Microsoft already trimming Windows 7 features, DirectX 11 on the outs?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/09/...indows-7-features-directx-11-on-the/#comments

 

It's from the inquirer.....

DX11 might be able to run on Vista though. The problem with DX10 is that people just can't, and still can't accept the fact Windows XP API cannot run DX10.

 

No.... The problem with DX10 is that it's useless at the moment. That even in the few games that support it, it's not actually better than DX9.

That is "the problem with DX10".
(But since you bring it up, DX10 could certainly run on XP if Microsoft wanted it to)

As for the DX11 thing, two comments. First, this is coming from The Inquirer. Take it with a grain of salt.

And second, who cares? It's not like they're never going to make a DX11. *If* the article is true (and ignoring the complete lack of detail in it), it simply means that they aren't going to bundle it with Win7. Which sounds like a good thing to me. Most likely it'll be available on Vista as well anyway.

It's not that simple. Scripting is programming too. It's the same thing you're doing. The only "difference" is that what you write gets interpreted by a separate piece of software, rather than being executed directly. And given that a lot of languages can be *either* interpreted or compiled, this fake boundary vanishes entirely. You can write a Java program and get it interpreted. Does that make Java a scripting language? But I can also get it compiled and generate an executable file from it. So it must be programming.
Or perhaps "programming" is about what you do, what skills you use, rather than "whether or not it can be executed natively on the CPU".

 

I don't know whether there's an official definition, but IMO in addition to being interpreted, a script is also:
- Imperative (procedural and/or object-oriented), rather than functional. (No one talks about "Lisp scripts".)
- In languages using dynamic and weak typing (so you don't usually have to declare the type of every variable and types are converted as needed). (Python may be a partial exception here... but its typing is at least dynamic.)
- Not a server daemon, nor a long-running GUI program using the event/callback model. A script may or may not be interactive (using the keyboard), but it generally does its thing and then exits.

However, I agree with Jalf that scripting is programming, and that the difference between interpreted and compiled is not very significant, and that in many cases the same program can be run via either interpretation or compilation/execution.

 

There isn't an official definition. Because it'd be so damn hard to make one that just "seems" right.
Hell, just try justifying calling Prolog a programming language. True, any programmer who's looked at it can see that "this is programming". But really, you're just defining queries on a database of rules. It's really hard to come up with a formal explanation of *why* it's programming.
And what about SQL? Is that programming? There isn't an official definition. No one have managed to come up with a usable one yet.

 

inquirer is a rumour based site... its all non-fact based... its like eGossip

 

Windows 7 Build Review Click Here

4.2 score with a 3GHz Pentium 4 and 1GB ram?
Wonder what I would get with my 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 and 2GB ram? Wish I could test this too.