Support Microsoft - Buy Windows 7

[Bare Foot Kid]

I just purchased a TechNet sub the other day; since they wouldn't give it to me free.





















Later :shock: Ted

 

[Barman58]

Hello Ted,

Did you get a special discount as a founder member of Installers Anonymous

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Hello Ted,

Did you get a special discount as a founder member of Installers Anonymous

Hello, my name is Ted and I'm an installer.


No, they have no pity!









Later Ted

 

[Orbital Shark]

Well, after 10 hours, there's already some good results. The 13.5% Not at all is rather interesting

Does that mean no to Windows 7 at all, or just no to buying it? I've had my fair share of p***ted OS but this is definately 1 for my accounts team

 

[andych]

Well, after 10 hours, there's already some good results. The 13.5% Not at all is rather interesting

Does that mean no to Windows 7 at all, or just no to buying it? I've had my fair share of p***ted OS but this is definately 1 for my accounts team

What I find interesting is the number of responders who say they will use it up to June2nd and then decide...must have forgotten the 2 hr shutdowns for 3 months...or waiting on some nefarious method to get around it....:sarc:

 

[ten]

What is your normal OS? Do you use *nix or OSX (which is officially a *nix, I know)? Are you still running DOS? I would think that at a minimum, increased OS security would impress.

What features in an OS would impress you? Is there an OS out there that impresses you?

I'm asking because I am really curious. I am not trying to mock you in any way. My wife is the same, she went from Win98, to XP to Vista, and could care less. So long as she could run her required apps, that's all that mattered.

PhreePhly

I use XP but prefer W2K over it.

What would impress me? Well for one if MS went back to how they did things in the 9x kernel and let you choose what gets installed during setup.

 

[PhreePhly]

I use XP but prefer W2K over it.

What would impress me? Well for one if MS went back to how they did things in the 9x kernel and let you choose what gets installed during setup.

Unfortunately, you're asking for something that only a minority of end-users want. You could download the WAIK and create an unattended installation script to do what you want, but I don't think you'll see that option on a general retail release. That is typically used for Enterprises and OEMs.

MS has to deal with the lowest common denominator, and the general user base will screw up any option for installed features. And MS will have to support those screwups.

PhreePhly

 

[LoKtO]

I wil not buy it because i am a student and microsoft will offer me the RTM via MSDNAA

 

[NUBEE1]

Definitely Buy it

 

[Burgurne]

I will buy it as soon as there is a danish version

 

[ten]

Unfortunately, you're asking for something that only a minority of end-users want.

MS has to deal with the lowest common denominator, and the general user base will screw up any option for installed features. And MS will have to support those screwups.

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.

 

[PhreePhly]

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]

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.

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.

 

[PhreePhly]

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

 

[ten]

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.

 

[tw33k]

never have bought an OS and never will

 

[PhreePhly]

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

 

[Snufffed]

I have a Pre-order in to China for Win 7 Ultimate. Currently they are in estimate at $69.95, Not sure on the Upgrade disk.

Best Buy will have a SPECIAL shortly also. but the Price for UPGRADE disk was not mentioned.

Most assuradly other RETAIL stores will also have a Pre-order of Win7 for Very special prices.

 

[OEM]

Like some, I'll be buying a Technet subscription when I verify Windows 7 (RTM) is available for download from there.

Sure it will be, but I'll wait to see it there before buying subscription.

 

[ten]

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).

Thanks. Didnt know that.

I wonder if it's the way the system interacts with the file system (ntfs.sys?) and not NTFS itself. What I mean is that for instance you can format a partition with a Partition Magic boot disk as NTFS 3.0 or NTFS 3.1. I've also pre-formatted my Windows 7 partition using XP and also let Windows 7 setup format the partition. I did the only test I could think of...speed...and didnt notice any difference. This would explain why the version hasnt changed...because it's not the ntfs formatting that's changed.

Just thinking out loud here.