Thoughts on Windows 7...
commiebastard
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):
> ...Anyone?
It's Vista.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Andy Hewitt
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:20:10 -0400, commiebastard wrote
> (in article
> <416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > ...Anyone?
>
> It's Vista.
I tried the Beta release, but yes, it's just a service pack of Vista. It
looks and feels the same, I think it's just that they fixed the things
they broke in Vista.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
Mr. Strat
<416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
commiebastard <oracl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Anyone?
I've been using it at work for several weeks. It's definitely faster,
and I've had no problems with it. But it's really Vista II. As nice as
Windows 7 is, I'm not going back to the dark side personally.
Meanwhile at work, I'm in the process of figuring out imaging and
deployment of Win7 for the campus as well as trying to determine any
potential problems with the wide variety of software that's used on
campus.
Davoud
> ...Anyone?
I wonder if the other respondents--the ones who slammed W7--have used
it.
I have not, so I'll go with what people I trust have said, particularly
David Pogue, NYT tech columnist and true-blue Machead. He said W7 is
_not_ Vista, and that it is greatly improved.
One could make a case that W7 is Vista in the same way that one could
make a case that Snow Leopard is Mac OS 10.0.
Unless MS does something radically different and original I will
continue to think of Windows as an imitation of the Real Thing. But XP
Pro works very well now. So well, in fact, that some critics are saying
that persuading gun-shy users of XP to upgrade to W7 will be difficult.
More than 2/3 of the enterprise are still using XP; they declined to
switch to Vista even before it was known that Vista was a disaster.
My concern is compatibility with the astronomy apps that I use. I have
XP Pro SP3 installed on two MB Pro's and it works very well for me.
I'll let others blaze the way and I'll upgrade when I have heard that
my apps will run without problem.
Davoud
--
I agree with everything that you have said and everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Nick Naym
commiebastard at oracl...@gmail.com wrote on 10/22/09 5:20 AM:
> ...Anyone?
>
Does a Windows thread _really_ belong in a Mac NG?
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <221020091002023888%st...@sky.net>):
> commiebastard wrote:
>> ...Anyone?
>
> I wonder if the other respondents--the ones who slammed W7--have used
> it.
I have.
TaliesinSoft
(in article <C705E8C6.4963F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>):
> Does a Windows thread _really_ belong in a Mac NG?
In this particular instance I would say "yes" in that the intent of the
opening posting, as I interpreted it, was to solicit opinions on Windows 7
from those who usually use a Macintosh.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
Jolly Roger
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article 416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com,
> commiebastard at oracl...@gmail.com wrote on 10/22/09 5:20 AM:
>
> > ...Anyone?
>
> Does a Windows thread _really_ belong in a Mac NG?
You realize you are responding to a troll, right? And if it isn't a
troll, it's definitely a yet another clueless Google Groups user. Either
way - why reply at all?
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Nick Naym
at jolly...@pobox.com wrote on 10/22/09 11:17 AM:
> In article <C705E8C6.4963F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article 416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com,
>> commiebastard at oracl...@gmail.com wrote on 10/22/09 5:20 AM:
>>
>>> ...Anyone?
>>
>> Does a Windows thread _really_ belong in a Mac NG?
>
> You realize you are responding to a troll, right? And if it isn't a
> troll, it's definitely a yet another clueless Google Groups user. Either
> way - why reply at all?
I didn't notice him/her on the list; the name is familiar, but I don't
recall him/her being previously ID'd as a troll.
It does appear that others either also missed it, or simply don't care:
There've been over a half-dozen quick responses.
commiebastard
> In article <C705E8C6.4963F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > commiebastard at oraclmas...@gmail.com wrote on 10/22/09 5:20 AM:
>
> > > ...Anyone?
>
> > Does a Windows thread _really_ belong in a Mac NG?
>
> You realize you are responding to a troll, right? And if it isn't a
> troll, it's definitely a yet another clueless Google Groups user. Either
> way - why reply at all?
It's that sort of attitude that limits free exchange of ideas. And,
no, I am reading this through an RSS feed. Why don't you address your
problems at me instead of others if you want to know whether or not I
am in fact a troll?
Warren Oates
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> In this particular instance I would say "yes" in that the intent of the
> opening posting, as I interpreted it, was to solicit opinions on Windows 7
> from those who usually use a Macintosh.
I agree. Most of us have some sort of Winders available; mine is XP
running in Virtual Box.
--
Suddenly he realized that he was alone
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
-- Chester Himes
John Doe
> ...Anyone?
I have been thoroughly using Windows since 3.1. Unfortunately,
since after Windows XP, Microsoft appears to be moving away from
technically savvy users. The included file manager Windows
Explorer has been made less functional, without even providing
options for advanced users.
Fred Moore
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C705E0C2...@News.Individual.NET>,
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > In this particular instance I would say "yes" in that the intent of the
> > opening posting, as I interpreted it, was to solicit opinions on Windows 7
> > from those who usually use a Macintosh.
>
> I agree. Most of us have some sort of Winders available; mine is XP
> running in Virtual Box.
And for those Macophiles who really do need to know about Doze, here is
a review I would trust (David Pogue):
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/technology/personaltech/22pogue.html>
Tim McNamara
<416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
commiebastard <oracl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Anyone?
Haven't seen it yet, am waiting for reports from the real Microsoft beta
testers once they get their hands on it by the end of the week.
Robert Haar
Mr. Strat
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> I have been thoroughly using Windows since 3.1. Unfortunately,
> since after Windows XP, Microsoft appears to be moving away from
> technically savvy users. The included file manager Windows
> Explorer has been made less functional, without even providing
> options for advanced users.
Microsoft continues to assume the end user is a retard. Each successive
version gets worse.
Warren Oates
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> Microsoft continues to assume the end user is a retard. Each successive
> version gets worse.
I like the new line of "I'm a Mac" commercials. Especially the one where
they go back in time through all the iterations of Winders and it's
always been crap. "Cut to commercial." "We are a commercial."
Dick Sidbury
<416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
commiebastard <oracl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Anyone?
I've been using win 7 x64 enterprise edition for about a month on my
"home" desktop system ( 2.5gh core 2 duo, 8 gigs ram) and it seems
peppier than Vista. In general I'm pleased with it. It has a way of
creating a home network environment that I haven't quite figured out yet
as far as putting my MBP on its network and sharing files and the
printer. Some of my hardware does not have drivers for it, particularly
old printers. Since it's a 64 bit system there are some 32 bit apps
that will not install. If you have any specific questions, I might be
able to answer them.
dick
P. Sture
Robert Haar <bob...@me.com> wrote:
> No more than necessary, which so far, is zero.
My initial thoughts were "Ah good, Windows finally catches up with OS X
in providing multilingual capability." I haven't seen it in action yet
so cannot compare it with Apple's offering in that area.
Unfortunately it is only available with Windows 7 Ultimate, which
carries the highest price tag. I suppose it's better than the previous
regime where if you bought a PC in Europe it came in the local language
only, and if you wanted something else you had to buy it separately...
I note that Microsoft's Swiss web site is still offering Vista, with no
option to buy Windows 7. I wonder what is behind that?
--
Paul Sture
JF Mezei
Seems that users of Windows XP will not be able to UPGRADE to Windows 7.
They will have to re-install from scratch. Anyone know if this requires
that they re-install all their applications and possibly lose their
documents ?
That would be good news for Apple since many people will choose to NOT
upgrade if it means so much trouble and if they're going to have to a
buy a new computer, they might go for a Mac :-)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <009b1394$0$32356$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>):
> BBC had an interview with Steve Balmer a day or two ago.
>
> Seems that users of Windows XP will not be able to UPGRADE to Windows 7.
Depending on what they have on their systems they may not be able to upgrade
from Vista, either. I, for example, have multiple Vista machines not one of
which can do an upgrade install to my chosen version of Windows 7.
> They will have to re-install from scratch. Anyone know if this requires
> that they re-install all their applications and possibly lose their
> documents ?
Most definitely. There are migration utilities out there, but so far as I can
see all of those currently available are rated for migrating from XP to Vista
and may/may not work migrating from XP to Win7 or Vista to Win7. Pricing
varies between US$50-100.
>
> That would be good news for Apple since many people will choose to NOT
> upgrade if it means so much trouble and if they're going to have to a
> buy a new computer, they might go for a Mac :-)
One of the new "I'm a Mac" ads makes that very point.
nospam
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Seems that users of Windows XP will not be able to UPGRADE to Windows 7.
> They will have to re-install from scratch. Anyone know if this requires
> that they re-install all their applications and possibly lose their
> documents ?
apps need to be reinstalled but the data can be preserved (and it's a
major pain in the butt), unless you buy a third party product.
<http://cnettv.cnet.com/upgrade-windows-xp-windows-7/9742-1_53-50078260.
html>
> That would be good news for Apple since many people will choose to NOT
> upgrade if it means so much trouble and if they're going to have to a
> buy a new computer, they might go for a Mac :-)
it's incredibly stupid to not have a direct migration path from xp.
after all, that's what most windows users are currently using.
John Doe
> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I have been thoroughly using Windows since 3.1. Unfortunately,
>> since after Windows XP, Microsoft appears to be moving away
>> from technically savvy users. The included file manager Windows
>> Explorer has been made less functional, without even providing
>> options for advanced users.
>
> Microsoft continues to assume the end user is a retard. Each
> successive version gets worse.
Windows XP was outstanding. Windows XP could be made to look like
Windows 98, and its memory management was light-years ahead of
Windows 98, making Windows XP extremely functional, great-looking,
and solid. That is assuming the user is reasonably competent to
operate/manage a PC.
John Doe
> "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft continues to assume the end user is a retard. Each
>> successive version gets worse.
>
> I like the new line of "I'm a Mac" commercials. Especially the
> one where they go back in time through all the iterations of
> Winders and it's always been crap. "Cut to commercial." "We are
> a commercial."
I like some of them, like the "I'm a tasty pizza". But I am
not sure what the point is, except maybe just poking fun at
Microsoft. Apple has been under Microsoft's thumb since Windows
95. In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
nospam
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
and where was that documented? apple is not about to go under should
office disappear.
Nick Naym
jd...@usenetlove.invalid wrote on 10/23/09 4:56 PM:
...
...
>... if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
Baloney: Then was then and now is now.
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 10/23/09 5:04 PM:
> In article <005aa818$0$1594$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, John Doe
> <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
>
> and where was that documented?
It's not. MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.
> apple is not about to go under should
> office disappear.
...just as Apple survived the Mac community's loss of IE. If anything,
Office for the Mac may simply disappear out of diminishing demand.
nospam
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> >> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
> >
> > and where was that documented?
>
> It's not.
i know that. it was rhetorical.
> MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
> Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
> predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.
microsoft bought $150 mil in nonvoting apple stock for patent
infringements. it was an out of court settlement, and spun to look like
they were doing apple some sort of favour.
> > apple is not about to go under should
> > office disappear.
>
> ...just as Apple survived the Mac community's loss of IE. If anything,
> Office for the Mac may simply disappear out of diminishing demand.
there's still a demand for it, even if office 2008 is a pile. the fact
that office 2004 running in rosetta is *faster* than office 2008
running native is really sad.
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 10/23/09 9:03 PM:
> In article <C707C926.497A7%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
>>>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
>>>
>>> and where was that documented?
>>
>> It's not.
>
> i know that. it was rhetorical.
How so?
>> MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
>> Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
>> predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.
>
> microsoft bought $150 mil in nonvoting apple stock for patent
> infringements. it was an out of court settlement, and spun to look like
> they were doing apple some sort of favour.
The "spin" indeed was a spin -- a "the market is competitive" spin.
>>> apple is not about to go under should
>>> office disappear.
>>
>> ...just as Apple survived the Mac community's loss of IE. If anything,
>> Office for the Mac may simply disappear out of diminishing demand.
>
> there's still a demand for it, even if office 2008 is a pile. the fact
> that office 2004 running in rosetta is *faster* than office 2008
> running native is really sad.
Yesterday, there were no serious alternatives to Office -- even in the PC
World. Today, there are many. The era of ubiquitous proprietary desktop apps
is pretty much bygone (IMNSHO).
nospam
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> >>>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
> >>>
> >>> and where was that documented?
> >>
> >> It's not.
> >
> > i know that. it was rhetorical.
>
> How so?
because his statement was bullshit.
Nick Naym
nos...@nospam.invalid wrote on 10/23/09 9:27 PM:
You might've said something like "and that's documented _where_?"
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <C707C926.497A7%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
> > Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
> > predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.
>
> microsoft bought $150 mil in nonvoting apple stock for patent
> infringements. it was an out of court settlement, and spun to look like
> they were doing apple some sort of favour.
Apple caught Microsoft red handed stealing QuickTIme code. Apple asked
them to cease and desist. Microsoft refused. Apple sued. Microsoft gave
in and agreed to meet with Apple to settle. Microsoft agreed to make an
investment of $150 million in Apple as a token public announcement
including promised continued support for Office Mac, probably mandated
by Apple as part of the agreement. Microsoft also paid Apple a much
larger undisclosed sum as an out-of-court settlement for stealing
QuickTime code.
Some ignorant people seem to think Microsoft saved Apple from demise
with this payment, but the fact is Apple already had over 4 billion in
assets at the time. They weren't hurting all that much. So Microsoft's
little $150 million public payment didn't help Apple's bank accounts
much at all.
George Kerby
On 10/23/09 3:56 PM, in article 005aa818$0$1594$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft continues to assume the end user is a retard. Each
>>> successive version gets worse.
>>
>> I like the new line of "I'm a Mac" commercials. Especially the
>> one where they go back in time through all the iterations of
>> Winders and it's always been crap. "Cut to commercial." "We are
>> a commercial."
>
> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
Are you a troll? Or, are you really that fuckin' stupid? Both?!?
Steven Fisher
<416e2984-26cc-478f...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
commiebastard <oracl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Anyone?
"No comment." If pressed, I could probably manage a "Actually, I don't
care."
Not that I mind reading what others think. :)
Steve
DanS
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Considering the flop that Vista was and how Windows 7 is supposed to be
such an improvement, it's unimaginable that MS would not have an easy
migration path for XP as well as Vista. Most users are still using XP,
so you are forcing them to do the most work to upgrade. Ridiculous.
I think another problem with Vista was the confusion of all the
products, with Basic, Pro, Ultimate, then all the upgrade versions of
those as well, and different pricing for each possibility. I thought
maybe they would have learned something from that, but here we are with
the same scheme with Windows 7. Compare to Mac OS X - you have client
and server, period.
I have to chuckle at the commercials for Windows 7 as well. They tout
all these new features, which are things the Mac has done for years!
Wow, you can stream music from one computer to another on your home
network - cool, sign me up!
Warren Oates
<djstewart-B52B9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
DanS <djst...@TAKEOUTmac.com> wrote:
> I have to chuckle at the commercials for Windows 7 as well. They tout
> all these new features, which are things the Mac has done for years!
> Wow, you can stream music from one computer to another on your home
> network - cool, sign me up!
Reminds me of the time I first saw a Linux desktop, years ago, it was
Red Hat 5.something, just before 6, and Gnome came up, ugly as sin, and
the manual was all breathless about "if you drop the file's icon on the
application's icon, the file will _open_ in that application," and I was
like "My god, can that be true? Be still my beating heart" 'cause, you
know, the Mac had been doing that for a decade already by then.
Wes Groleau
> I have to chuckle at the commercials for Windows 7 as well. They tout
> all these new features, which are things the Mac has done for years!
Maybe they would be better off touting their (relatively few)
advantages. Like drag-n-drop FTP. Apple had it (sort of)
in OS 9's Network Browser but it crashed a lot and they gave it up.
MicroSuck has had it working well since IE 5.
Of course, I'd love to see some "counterproductive ads," like:
It's got this cool pop-up that tells you several times a day
that you are connected to your WiFi network!
:-)
--
Wes Groleau
JF Mezei
You know how Apple decided to stop development on PowerPC ? It probably
figured that people needed a nudge to help them decide to buy a new Mac.
Perhaps Microsoft, in concert with HP/Dell/Lenovo, decided that anyone
still running XP was running an old hardware and had delayed upgrades
until a half decent version of Windows came around.
Now that a half decent versions of windows is available (haven't heard
that before ? :-), the hopes would be that people would simply buy a new
PC and ditch the old one and thus not need to "upgrade" from XP.
After all, what percentage of PC buyers move their old system disk to a
new machine to conserve tehir environment ?
DanS
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
You may be right. Figure also, the least someone would pay to UPGRADE
Windows would be the Basic Upgrade at $120. A lot of people may figure
if they're going to pay that much to upgrade, may as well buy a new PC
that already comes with Win7 installed, and maybe the Pro or Ultimate
version at that. They'd also then have a disc with the full version on
it rather than the upgrade version.
Marc Heusser
<djstewart-A9C34...@news.eternal-september.org>,
DanS <djst...@TAKEOUTmac.com> wrote:
>
> You may be right. Figure also, the least someone would pay to UPGRADE
> Windows would be the Basic Upgrade at $120. A lot of people may figure
> if they're going to pay that much to upgrade, may as well buy a new PC
> that already comes with Win7 installed, and maybe the Pro or Ultimate
> version at that. They'd also then have a disc with the full version on
> it rather than the upgrade version.
Just wondering: What is the cheapest way (version) to upgrade from XP on
my BootCamp partition? I only need basic services like Internet access,
because I only use it for programs that refuse to run under Parallels.
And: What will I loose or gain, from a Mac user point of view?
Like incompatibilities of learning CD's, current simulators etc.
And what is to gain in stability and such?
Also: Does Windows 7 have a nuisance of a licencse scheme (like calling,
writing etc) if I move the Windows partition to a new computer?
I currently am very happy with my Windows XP corporate license, where
reentering the license key is about the worst that happens.
TIA
Marc
--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>
Jamie Kahn Genet
> ...Anyone?
Best Windows ever assuming updated drivers have been released for your
gear. I'm still sticking with XP which I know works with all my devices
and older software.
But if I were buying a new PC today I'd go Windows 7 over Vista in a
heartbeat. However that's unlikely as I still prefer my Macs and running
Windows as a VM or using Boot Camp.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
VAXman-
>commiebastard <oracl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...Anyone?
>
>Best Windows ever assuming updated drivers have been released for your
>gear. I'm still sticking with XP which I know works with all my devices
>and older software.
>
>But if I were buying a new PC today I'd go Windows 7 over Vista in a
>heartbeat. However that's unlikely as I still prefer my Macs and running
>Windows as a VM or using Boot Camp.
I heard that Weendoze 7 is alsmost as good as Mac OS 7! :P
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
James Sidbury
Marc Heusser <marc.h...@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invalid>
wrote:
> In article
> <djstewart-A9C34...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DanS <djst...@TAKEOUTmac.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You may be right. Figure also, the least someone would pay to UPGRADE
> > Windows would be the Basic Upgrade at $120. A lot of people may figure
> > if they're going to pay that much to upgrade, may as well buy a new PC
> > that already comes with Win7 installed, and maybe the Pro or Ultimate
> > version at that. They'd also then have a disc with the full version on
> > it rather than the upgrade version.
>
> Just wondering: What is the cheapest way (version) to upgrade from XP on
> my BootCamp partition? I only need basic services like Internet access,
> because I only use it for programs that refuse to run under Parallels.
>
www.win741.com is a microsoft site that will sell it to you for 29.95 if
you can prove that you're a student. There are probably other special
deals somewhere as well.
> And: What will I loose or gain, from a Mac user point of view?
> Like incompatibilities of learning CD's, current simulators etc.
> And what is to gain in stability and such?
>
One of my computers is a Win 7 one and I haven't yet solved the connect
my Snow Leopard notebook to my Win 7 workgroup. But I'm sure that it's
only a few more trials away.
> Also: Does Windows 7 have a nuisance of a licencse scheme (like calling,
> writing etc) if I move the Windows partition to a new computer?
> I currently am very happy with my Windows XP corporate license, where
> reentering the license key is about the worst that happens.
>
Probably. My copy is an MSDNAA copy and has given me no problems but I
suspect that Win 7 activates like Vista.
JF Mezei
> www.win741.com is a microsoft site that will sell it to you for 29.95 if
> you can prove that you're a student. There are probably other special
> deals somewhere as well.
Microsoft lives by volume sales. And volume sales rely on advertised
prices, not obscure tricks to get a cheaper version.
Masses will see the regular Microsoft prices. They won't see the hidden
deal for students when they go to some obscure web site. And they will
make their decision based on the advertised price.
Marc Heusser
James Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <marc.heusser-CF53...@news.uzh.ch>,
> Marc Heusser <marc.h...@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invalid>
> wrote:
>
...
> > Just wondering: What is the cheapest way (version) to upgrade from XP on
> > my BootCamp partition? I only need basic services like Internet access,
> > because I only use it for programs that refuse to run under Parallels.
> >
>
> www.win741.com is a microsoft site that will sell it to you for 29.95 if
> you can prove that you're a student. There are probably other special
> deals somewhere as well.
I can prove that but the program seems not to be available for Swiss
students.
...
> > Also: Does Windows 7 have a nuisance of a licencse scheme (like calling,
> > writing etc) if I move the Windows partition to a new computer?
> > I currently am very happy with my Windows XP corporate license, where
> > reentering the license key is about the worst that happens.
> >
>
> Probably. My copy is an MSDNAA copy and has given me no problems but I
> suspect that Win 7 activates like Vista.
Ok, that convinces me to skip Windows 7 until further necessity. I do
hate software that makes it difficult for legal owners.
(Compare that with Mathematica, expensive and well protected software
where moving to a new machine requires a license and machine number
entry on a website, I get a password for a few days immediately and a
permanent one by email within 2 days and that is it.)
If I understood correctyl MS will patch XP until 2014 - enough time to
make up my mind for the next MS operating system, should I still need it
for anything.
Thanks
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j8msyn.1fu63h11s9z43zN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
> >commiebastard <oracl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ...Anyone?
> >
> >Best Windows ever assuming updated drivers have been released for your
> >gear. I'm still sticking with XP which I know works with all my devices
> >and older software.
> >
> >But if I were buying a new PC today I'd go Windows 7 over Vista in a
> >heartbeat. However that's unlikely as I still prefer my Macs and running
> >Windows as a VM or using Boot Camp.
>
> I heard that Weendoze 7 is alsmost as good as Mac OS 7! :P
Quite a bit better than System 7. Still not as friendly, intuitive and
easy to use as System 6 (the high water mark of easy to use and
understand operating systems IMO), but then what is? Maybe the iPhone OS
or MS's half decent Zune OS (anyone played with the latest Zune HD?
Shockingly enough it doesn't suck) come close, but they're hardly
suitable for a full size computer.
P. Sture
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> After all, what percentage of PC buyers move their old system disk to a
> new machine to conserve tehir environment ?
I haven't looked at Windows in detail since NT 4.0 days, but that only
installed components for the hardware it found. In other words, you
needed to install again for new hardware.
--
Paul Sture
James Sidbury
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
and?
Wes Groleau
> I haven't looked at Windows in detail since NT 4.0 days, but that only
> installed components for the hardware it found. In other words, you
> needed to install again for new hardware.
More recent versions attempt to install drivers whenever they detect a
change. They don't always succeed, but they do surprisingly well.
--
Wes Groleau
Unusual ways of learning?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=96