Support Microsoft - Buy Windows 7

ten said:

I agree that only a few care or want that but I don't think it will be that bad.

I think most people here build their own PCs and install their own OSs. The kinda crowd that usually welcomes more options in all aspects of Windows. Wouldn't you?

For mom and pop, you give them the same option that they get installing Office...typical or advanced. You could even make the advanced option less conspicuous. Given that, if they are installing an OS, they cant be that bad. Most folks will order up their computers from Dell with the OS pre-installed.

I think a big part of the problem is also the various interactions of many programs. Perfect example is IE. One can remove IE the program, but the file mshtml.dll needs to remain in the OS for compatability reasons and ties with other software. It is basically the Trident html rendering engine used by other MS programs.

If certain things are not installed early on, components from these programs, that are used by other programs are then missing and unusable. This is a bit of the reason for the MinWin process that Vista, and now Win 7, have been going through. MS is finally taking the time to map out many of these interdependencies and clean up the code. This will probably continue for another release cycle.

You can remove a number of programs after the install, and that seems to work just fine.

Not to say I don't agree with you, I do. As a "power" user, I'd love to be able to stream-line the install. However, this inability to not control the install in no way stops me from installing the far better OS's that are Vista and Win 7.

PhreePhly

ten said:

Don't forget that XP, W2K, 2K3, etc are the same way. That's not the issue for not buying Windows 7. You asked what I would like to see in Windows and I gave you one example.

As far as better, that's opinion. What's better for you may not be necessarily what's better for Joe Shmo. A statement like "Windows 7 is more secure than any previous Windows" is probably fact but lets not go overboard. Over at msfn.org there's a very lively section for the 9X kernel. They are of the opinion that it's the best OS MS ever made. For me, I cant live with the constant slowdowns and crashes in 9x but whatever floats their boat.

No, I mean't technically better. That's not opinion. From the standpoint of an operating system, the 6.0 kernel is a better OS. Now, I will agree that saying the look and feel of the GUI is better is definitely an opinion. I'm not a user interface guru type person, so I'll defer to experts in that realm.

Also, if the hardware you are looking to run the OS on does not meet the minimum requirements of Vista/Win 7, then yes, XP is a better OS. That too is not an opinion, but fact. Kernel 6+ makes better use of memory, has a better scheduler, has better power consumption logic, makes better use of current video hardware, has a better network stack and even the file system NTFS has been upgraded. The only area that my have gone backwards is audio abilities. I'm not a sound guru, so i don't the specifics, but my understaning is that some of the blocks that the new kernel puts on audio hardware access may be exessive.

Also, if you are using a software package that only runs on XP, then XP is by far the best choice for you.

Barring those few examples, I can't see any reason why someone building a new system using current average specs (Core2 Duo/Quad 2+ gHz, 4 GB RAM, DX10 video) would choose to install XP. You are just not getting all you can get out of that hardware.

PhreePhly

never have bought an OS and never will

ten said:

I still say it's opinion. I don't want to keep going round and round but unless it can be reproduced in the laboratory, it's opinion. You can point out some things that have been "improved" but that doesn't make it better when looked at in it's entirety.

You claim "Kernel 6+ makes better use of memory". Probably so but if you take the gauntlet of systems starting at the minimum requirements all the way up to the fastest computers and run benchmarks - will Windows 7 beat every other Windows? I doubt it. Wouldn't faster be better? We will just have to wait for it to go RTM and a few reliable sources to run the tests. Then it can be claimed that Windows 7 is better on X, Y and Z because it's faster.

I may be wrong on this but as far as I know, NTFS is still version 3.1...same as XP. If you have it, please point me to some documentation on the changes.

I guess it comes down to the definition of improved. I consider improved being more about tightened code with less buffer overrun possibilities.

I don't think speed is the only metric for better. Security is just as important for me.

NTFS is still 3.1, but the addition of transactional NTFS is a big plus for me, and is only made availble through Vista (and Server 2008, of course).

PhreePhly