Windows 7 to be nothing more then Vista SP2.

That's my only concern with MAC, the lack of applications indeed.

 

No they didnt. Microsoft has said in countless interviews they screwed up how they handled the Windows compatible/certified stickers not to mention to lowering requirements for Intel. Microsoft has told companies if they dont start testing their products when the 1st beta of Windows 7 comes out, they wont be eligible for Windows certified sticker.

 

That's sounds good, a proactive measure that will pay off, hopefully.

 

I don`t care how they name it. Just make it fast!

 

I don't think it will be faster, more script you put, more time proccessing is required, don't you agree?

 

They've been sending early releases to hardware companies for a long long time. The OEMs are Microsoft's biggest customers. They are the consumers, not us. If they don't want to sell Windows, then Microsoft loses

Are you talking about the "Vista Capable" lawsuit? The Windows certified program is a very different sticker. Microsoft has made it clear that the Vista Capable debacle will not be repeated again. It wasn't even Microsoft's idea to begin with.

 

No Im talking about:
http://www.informationweek.com/news...jhtml?articleID=208401406&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

And Balmer just spoke about it again at All Things D.

 

Yea, yea, Vista is bad, Windows 7 will be too, but where is competition?

Linux with xyz distribution?! No way.
OS X - pfff. Mac platform is more closed from Windows.

 

By the time it gets released, todays high end hardware will be mainstream.
So I`m guessing it should be faster by 2009`s standard.
But you never know.
It was wishfull thinking to start with

 

There's the competition, and you've just chosen Windows.

 

@eleron911: I understand very well, I still remember my first computer, you would open an application and you had the time to make yourself a cup of tea, go to the bathroom and come to work with it. Today we want the application open even before we touch the kB

 

Whose idea was it?

 

Intel pushed it for their integrated cards which weren't good enough for Vista.

 

Oh, I see. Thanks.

 

If they pull of the whole modular thing correctly I think it would solve a load of headaches. If they included it all on one disc but made people pay for extra features, that would certainly save MS money and save the consumer the hassle.

For example, the base package could simply be 'Home'. It could include all the media center features and such. When you buy the software, you get this, no matter what.

Then there could be a 'Business', which has all the business and networking features business people needed, but there would also be the option to leave out the media center features if they weren't needed (at extra/less cost). The business option would cost a little bit more, but not too much.

If they kept it as simple as they did for XP, even the dumbest consumers couldn't mess it up. People would never end up with software that didn't have the features they wanted. This would also save Microsoft money because they wouldn't have to have different packaging for each version; every single disk is simple Windows 7.

 

I'm kind of on the fence with the whole Modular thing. You can already uninstall optional parts of Windows as is. To truly slim down the installation, you have to cut out some core components. I look at the Server 2008 Core installation as a guide. Now THAT is a slim installation. However, it takes some serious balls to use that installation. It was meant to be used with some heavy scripting and remote access. Like an uber headless machine. Seriously though. Speculate how much of Windows can they make optional and is it really worth all that trouble? How much disk space you think you would shave off Vista if you took out your "optional" features.

Take out Contacts, mail and DVD maker, Media player, and calender and it will shave off (adding..) barely 1 GB at best.

Superfetch? Most of the mechanics that make Superfetch possible is built upon the new kernel. So gotta keep the kernel. Readyboot? Kernel. So gotta keep that. UAC? Kernel. So gotta keep that. Strip down it's memory requirements? Possibly. Would that make it any faster? Yes, albeit marginal.

There are smaller, more trimmed OS's out there. No doubt. Heck They can have the title of Smallest OS on the market. Do they provide the same functionality as Windows? That what makes Windows sell. Even in markets where a smaller OS makes more sense, they still use windows. For example, I have a friend that sell tiny instruments that plug into textile machinery. Guess what those device drivers run on? He pronouces it Win-derz.

Another issue I have with makes an OS modular at installation. I don't see the point. I rather have other features, like easier to use powershell or more security.

Case in point, my Windows Directory is 12 GB. And that is with all that extra Admin pack installed and updates. The massive chunk of my harddrive goes to Email (!!!), music, and videos. So what if my OS goes from 12GB to 10Gb. So what if the OS benchmarks a few seconds faster at bootup on an older computer. A single virus, or unintentional user action could put that computer out of commission for who knows how long. I like an OS that is rock solid, self repairing, automatic backups, hardened against misbehaving device drivers.

You gotta hand it to whoever thought up of having 7 SKUs for a single OS. He convinced them all that this is the next best thing since sliced bread. It takes either some incredible talking skills(Thank you for Smoking) or a mass coma(Any movie where everyone is dead or made by Michael Moore) to pull off something that knuckleheaded.

 

wow i never knew that