Posted on 02/02/2008 5:03:38 AM PST by martin_fierro
Ha! No Windows 7 in 2009
Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:25AM EST
Sorry folks, but the news seemed a little too good to be true and the celebrations were a bit premature: Windows 7, Microsoft's follow-up to the overwhelmingly hated Windows Vista, probably won't arrive in 2009 as was previously rumored.
Says Microsoft: Windows 7 has not even begun development, and when it does, it will take three years to finish. The Inquirer is pegging a real release date at 2011... at the earliest. (Which is especially sad, since 2010 was the formerly rumored release date.)
Of course, that would be more in line with Microsoft's more recent, glacial development cycles (remember, it took six years to ship Vista after XP came out).
So what might Microsoft do for the rest of the decade? Some are guessing that 2009 might indeed bring a major OS update, but in the form of a biggish update to Vista. Ed Bott predicts a new IE, a toned-down User Account Control, and more media features for the OS. In other words: Windows Vista Service Pack 2.
As a side note, there's also the possiblity that neither scenario is true: All of these rumors are based on leaked roadmaps and at least one "official statement" about Windows 7, but in my years of dealing with the company, it has categorically chosen to refuse comment on future products, especially on something as distant and critical as a new operating system. The latest news is all based on this blog post at WinVistaClub, and you'll have to judge its veracity for yourself. That said, can I believe it will take five or six years to ship a new version of Windows? You bet.
Just plug “compare prices mac vs pc” into Google and see for yourself.
I’m not going to do your homework for you.
Okay, I'll follow your instructions. First hit, About.com article. First article, "Common Myths About the Mac." Fourth item, "Myth: Macs are expensive. Fact: Apple hardware and software offer tremendous value." Then we have several old comparisons (not a good idea to compare over a year ago in the computer business).
Your Google idea wasn't too useful. So show me, similar form factor, speed, features and software load.
I recently built a “frankenstein” with the following components for under $500.
. ASUS M2N-MV/DVI Motherboard
. AMD 4800+ X2 Dual Core CPU
. 2GB DDR-533 Memory
. 256 MB NVidia Graphics 16-lane PCI express graphics
. Sony Dual-Layer 18x DVD-RW
. Front-Panel Multi Flash Card Reader
. Seagate 500 GB SATA-2 (3Gb/s) Hard Drive
. Two NIC ports (one built-in, one PCI)
. 6 USB 2.0 ports
. Case with 300W PS and quiet fans
Now tell me what a similarly endowed Mac would cost.
You know, dual-core, high-speed CPU, 2 GB memory, 500 GB SATA drive, high-speed PCI express graphics, etc.
I venture it would be at least $1000.
We have 11 children, 9 still at home.
We have 5 PCs in this house, all of them “frankensteins”.
No way I could afford that many Macs.
“Vista seems slower than XP to me.
So to you Vista it is as fast and reliable as XP?
What kind of computer do you have , RAM, processors etc?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have three computers; two Dell 531 Inspiron desktops with AMD Athion 64 5000 processors and I have a Toshiba A215 laptop with the AMD Turion 64 processor. Previously I had to Dells with Intel processors running XP Pro. The start-up time is about the same; certainly not a problem.
As I have said I have yet to have any of the computers freeze up on me requiring a reboot in the three months I have owned them. The ONLY bug I know of is the hybernate feature which causes the scroll wheel of the mouse to operate erratically. The only fix is to reboot the computer although the computer is still otherwise usable. It makes no difference with a wired or wireless mouse. It is my understanding that the upcoming service pack will address this and other issues. The automatic upgrades keep it secure and are for all intents and purposes transparent.
One thing which I personally regard is file handling which provides a large screen to move files about. XP continuously drove me “nuts” when I tried to find files because of the tiny screen. Vista is much better.
I did have to do a reinstall about a week ago which went very well on the Toshiba laptop. But it wss not Vista’s fault and had to do with getting on the internet. I had installed an after market spy program which corrupted some program (who can tell where these files are anyway?) Subsequently I put Norton on the machine and all problems dissappeared. Other than this one instance, Vista has worked as good as one could expect.
This Linux business is far too difficult for the average user and XP is yesterday’s news. And it makes no sense to try to upgrade an XP machine.
You do need two gb of memory and a fairly large hard drive but they are cheap as dirt so it matters not. I see no reason to live in the past and inequivocally endorse Vista.
that is not true it should be said, you can’t legally run it on affordable hardware. hehe
“Too bad you can’t run it on affordable hardware.”
Swordmaker will be here shortly to debunk that statement. Be prepared to defend your assertion.
> Swordmaker will be here shortly to debunk that statement.
> Be prepared to defend your assertion.
I already have.
See post 23.
And with all due respect to Mac OS, and especially Leopard, and how beautifully it all works together, for those of us with a lot of responsibilities, and not a lot of resources, looking to wring the greatest bang-for-the-buck, Mac is simply out of reach.
But a powerhouse “frankenstein” running a flavor of Linux, or even XP, is the next best thing.
Those $500 Linux boxes would be great to use as low-cost servers.
> For $100 more, I’d rather have Mac minis for desktop use.
> It’s worth it.
Not to me.
Nowhere near the speed, power and storage capabilities, which are things that I very much need, and not much room for expansion, not a lot of versatility.
And virtually zero tinker appeal.
:)
You aren't running proprietary corporate software developed prior to Vista.
You aren't attempting to use hardware developed prior to Vista.
And you aren't doing anything processor-intensive-enough to notice the Vista speed slowdown.
(nor would I believe you if you tried to claim otherwise)
I have been using it for a year, and it's great and getting better. Any and all problems that came up were third party apps. They either refused to write new language in their progs, or were late.
All these apps seem to have relationships with Apple or are in their pocket.
The one remaining app that I have is Adobe.
Vista will take the PC into the future. It will soon leave XP behind. There is no need for 7. IMO.
I love the freedom from virusphobia I have enjoyed for the past five or six years since I went Mac. Linux is apparently similar in that regard, and I make no doubt that it suffices for those who are up for it. And I am glad to have the understanding that it is becoming acceptable to a wider audience.But I am not prepared to declare the "end of history" and assume that Linux has or soon will overtake OSX in functionality and usability. Nor that the last application has been invented and perfected.
Short of telling everyone they needed a new machine, they tried to separate the pigs from the poke.
In trying to do people a favor, they may have erred. They perhaps took people at their word or did not see all the potential problems, but there is nothing wrong with putting a innovative OS on a new machine that can handle it. Perhaps what they should do, is not allow people to turn off the security features that warn you if you are opening a non compatible program or hooking up a obsolete device that it cannot interface with for one reason or another. This is probably being done by all who complain the loudest.
My Vista machine is a laptop.
It has a 1.6ghz dual core with 2038mb ram. It is a 32bit. MFG by ACER. I've had four laps, and it is one of the best, but the keys are set to a different pressure and I sometimes lose letters when switching from the desktop. Other that that, it runs everything like a charm, except for those progs that it tells me it cannot support until the provider does some changes. It keeps track of this, and a lot more, so it does boot slower, but it runs fast. Real fast, and I have nearly a terrabyte of external drives hooked up to it. It runs 24/7 for nearly a year now except for a occasional reboot due to power failure or major update.
At the iMac level, where Apple does compete, it's a different ball game. Dell's all in one is almost exactly the same price, and there's no quality comparison at all. For example the Dell uses integrated graphics that run off the main CPU, while the Apple uses a separate video card with a 128 meg cache.
In the areas where Macs compete, I think the Mac is dollar for dollar equivalent and the quality is much better, but I just don't think they make a computer in the category where Westbrook is shopping.
Westbrook, if I misread your comments, apologies.
> Westbrook, if I misread your comments, apologies
No offense taken at all.
I wish I could afford the high-end Macs, I really do. They can NOT be outclassed.
But I can get similar power at almost half the cost, though without the classy and seamless interface at the level of Leopard.
Linux is catching up, though.
:)
And I do enjoy the “tinker appeal” of my home-grown “frankensteins”.
NT was probably the best core OS MS ever did. However, the original version was released in 1993 or so.
Windows 7 sounds like they've pulled out the copiers at Redmond again. A couple of the supposed leaked features are hypervisors (the ability to run multiple operating systems in virtual machines), and "Touch" features, which are basically the iPhone features, but they're going to do it on a PC. Gates is also talking about being able to store your documents and preferences online and pull them up on another computer. This part sounds kind of goofy to me. I already do all that stuff with my .Mac account, and PC users can do it with Google calendar and apps.
First, for an apples-to-apples (no pun) comparison, you don't compare DIY to OEM. But for the Mac Pro even DIY can't beat Apple's price, not even counting software.
For what you built, Apple doesn't play in that ballpark unless you count the Mac Mini. OTOH, with the mini you pay extra for the small size (stack 8 CD cases and you get the idea).
I paid $1,800 for my iMac plus another $100 to take it to 3 GB RAM. First of all, for that I get a small form factor that fits on my desk and an extremely quiet computer (the only thing I ever hear is the DVD drive, never a fan noise). The CPU is about 50% faster, I get a very nice 24" monitor, lots of ports, software, etc. And a warranty on the whole thing. It was definitely worth it. I lost patience with DIY years ago, having had a frankenputer that lasted over 10 years of swapping parts. Now I just want to use a computer.
I remember when tinkering with hardware meant designing your own processing logic, and etching and wirewrapping and soldering your own circuit boards. That would be pretty boring by modern standards, but it was actually more educational that buying a board and plugging in some cables like it's done nowadays.
The amount of tinkering that can be done in software on a Mac is almost limitless - especially if you can write software. Software is where the real tinkering is done today.
It's great that you have these resources for your family, and apparently it works out in your situation. But it's unusual and not the ideal situation for typical users and families.
Still, if you added some Macs to your network, they would work well with those Linux systems. They're highly compatible in several protocols and share a lot of the same system software.
And Mac OS X has some things that could be useful, like parental controls. Not saying you need them, but it's good that the technology is available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.