Windows 7

[provocating]

Well the problem is as a technician I seriously need to know the OS, and know it well.

[GeorgeS]

So far I have been running RC1 64bit for several months and never looked back.
Runs great on the Core I7 quad core and everything seems well polished for a beta.

I'll be buying 2 copies of home. Vista 32 was not worth it, and removed it from the laptop as well.

FYI - comodo (inexpensive) firewall and integrated virus checker has worked flawlessly. This is on a 64bit system.

Took a while to get mysql running on it, as well as PERL

GeorgeS

[vales]

I don't mean to sound crass, but...

You're saying you're a technician and have to "seriously" know Win7, but you never gave Vista a chance? Seriously? You nuked Vista after having it on your drive for 10 minutes? LOL.

Then you should have used Vista since it's using the same kernel. There's nothing you can learn from Windows 7 that you couldn't have learned a few years ago with Vista. If you really need to know Windows 7, and you truly are a "tech" then there's a lot catching up to do since you skipped Vista all-together.

In all honestly, I seriously don't know why people say Vista is the crappiest OS. The ones who did say it is, usually didn't meet the hardware requirements, or their hardware manufacturers didn't fork out the necessary drivers to support it. It's not Microsoft's fault, it's the hardware and software companies. They've had more than enough time (more than 3 years) prior to Vista's release to get off their asses and support it, but they never did.

The Creative Labs company is the prefect example. They purposely crippled their hardware and flat out lied. They said that it didn't support Vista when all along it did, and made people shell out more money for a product that supposedly "supported" Vista. The community found out and were pissed off to say the least. And trust me, no company wants to pay an upwards of up to 400 dollars per WHQL license for drivers.

All Windows 7 is, is Vista 2.5, and it's what SP2 should have been. They didn't spend a whole lot on money in advertising Vista so it's their fault, really. But everyone has learned from Vista's kernel, and since pretty much all companies are using the same kernel to write their software now, they can finally get off their asses and support it, finally. Too bad Vista had to be the red headed step child for Windows 7 to succeed, though.



Anyways, in other news, Google's Chrome OS is coming out as well, and HP and Acer have already singed up to include the OS on their netbooks by the end of the year. The funny thing is that the CEO of Google is confident enough to leave Apple (where he current oversees the company) and return full-time to Google because of the pending OS release. HAHAHAHA.

Oh noes. What will the MAC zealots cry about now?

[provocating]

I am not getting into a pissing contest or explaining why I did not ever bother to learn Vista. I think it is self explanatory why I did not bother with it. There is no market to learn it. I also skipped learning Windows ME. Think I regret that ?

[vales]

Originally Posted by provocating

I am not getting into a pissing contest or explaining why I did not ever bother to learn Vista. I think it is self explanatory why I did not bother with it. There is no market to learn it. I also skipped learning Windows ME. Think I regret that ?

Hey man, that's your perogative. But you're saying that from 10 minutes of having the OS installed? Hehe. It just sounded really funny when you said that. :P

And Windows ME... We've all been there and done that.

By the way, 6.1.7600.16384.win7_rtm.090710-1945 is out and it is final according to a few sources. Microsoft has denied it of course, but I guess we won't know till July 24th.

But damn, that's a huge jump from build 7200.

[provocating]

10 minutes of operation. Too many conversations with fellow technicians under the the same conclusion, it sucked. A year of keeping up with others opinions from forums, saying it sucked. I mean compare the boot time between Vista and Windows 7, it is not even comparable. I do not care if they are aesthetically similar, or they have a comparable kernel. The difference between the two are night and day.

[Shendare]

I used Vista for a month or so after it came out, but I felt that the bugs and driver issues forced me to revert to XP until Vista SP1 came out.

SP1 fixed the majority of the issues I was having, and manufacturers had finally come out with halfway decent drives by then, so I re-upgraded to Vista SP1 and have been using it on 2 of my 3 machines since then.

Vista has its pros and cons (with the pros being mostly aesthetic), but I'll be quite glad to upgrade to 7 once it's released. I'm consistently hearing good things about its performance and stability, Vista's main cons.

I'll almost certainly end up having to upgrade my work to Windows 7 in the next couple of years (70 desktops and 15 laptops), but I'm riding XP for as long as I can, for sanity's sake.