The PC World Challenge: 72 Hours of Windows 7!
Posted 15 January 2009 - 06:49 PM
panty wearing girls, and just like a girl you feel free to have a
thought and write it down and send it to somebody to make yourself feel
something, hope it isn't smart."
Well, the pot calls the kettle black.
Posted 16 January 2009 - 08:27 AM
Posted 16 January 2009 - 08:54 AM
Posted 16 January 2009 - 12:00 PM
Posted 16 January 2009 - 01:28 PM
Install 'WUBI' and play with Linux and free open source software for 72 hours.
Then consider how you can KEEP using Linux and become an expert pretty quickly, for FREE, and never have to pay Microsoft another penny again, EVER.
Or, bend over and 'take' Windows 7 when they dish it out.
At the very least, you'll probably discover a few kids of free open source software that you'll continue to use under Windows, as you keep paying and paying to 'upgrade' broken software that you could as easily be using a selection of free versions of.
Posted 16 January 2009 - 04:38 PM
Posted 16 January 2009 - 05:35 PM
Good question. Software typically goes through several stages of development.
An alpha release is when developers release a product knowing that it is going to have issues, and probably won't be stable. However, they need to test on a variety of real world machines, with a variety of configurations. It is common for some features to not be enabled in alpha releases. Alpha releases are often not available to the general public.
A beta release is done when the software is nearing completion, but developers want rather extensive testing done in the real world to uncover any bugs they missed. Beta versions are typically pretty stable, the overwhelming majority of issues having been corrected during the alpha period. Most, if not all features are usually available in a beta release. Beta releases are often released to the public to ensure adequate testing on a large variety of platforms and configurations.
Following a beta period, there is typically a release candidate version released. This is usually done when developers feel that the software is ready to be released, but want to have one last round of testing before the official release. Sometimes there will be an rc1 version, and rc2 version, etc. Usually, this is an indication that a bug was found and fixed in a previous release candidate version, or a feature was changed/added/removed from a previous release candidate. The final release candidate should be very nearly identical to the final release.
Posted 16 January 2009 - 07:50 PM
If MS can get this one right, I can live with a 2 hour installation, as long as I only ever have to install it one time on each machine, and not have to re-install once every 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years.... cause re-installing all my other programs and stuff is a Real pain in the butt !!
So if Microsoft makes this version a solid one, that can heal itself and all, and we only have to install it once in every machines lifetime, then I won't be concerned with how long it takes to install Win7 initially.
Posted 16 January 2009 - 10:29 PM
Well, that's just great - NOT! You know, some of us just want to get straight to work and get a few things accomplished. Monkeying around, trying to find things all over again is a first class pain in the you-know-what. Allow this analogy, please: Suppose your town's/city's community planners decided they'd like to make your daily driving become a more "exciting" (read "frustrating") experience. Instead of taking all the usual turns at familiar landmarks to reach your regular destinations, the community planners decided to re-arrange everything, thereby requiring that you read every street sign and try to re-calculate whether to turn right, turn left, or keep going straight in order to get to your once-familiar destinations.
No, Microsoft ... I'm not entertained at all! We used to have an expression: "If you can't dazzle your audience with your brilliance, then just baffle them with some B.S.," and that seems to be exactly what Microsoft is doing. Sorry, Microsoft, but I'm not getting Windows 7 if that's what you intend to do to us. Linux is starting to get more attractive all the time.
Posted 17 January 2009 - 07:44 AM
I built ran very well with Vista and the only complaints I had were the same one's you mentioned about layout not performance. I will say this again for the first 2-3 years XP was out people hated it, Microsoft worked on the bugs and 8 years later everyone loves it. If we just give Vista time it also will be considered better then XP and people will complain when it's turn to be retired.
Posted 18 January 2009 - 06:09 AM
Why not use stone tablets instead?
Posted 18 January 2009 - 06:52 AM
I got the idea from a PC Mag article. Perhaps I misunderstood it? The article ("Microsoft Windows 7 Beta 1," Jan 7, 2009, by Michael Muchmore) said, "Though the interface has its own new look, Vista users won't have much to learn. Even upgrading XP users will have little trouble, but neither will they be able to cling to the past. There's no XP emulation Theme in Windows 7, as there is in Vista."
Did I misunderstand what an "emulation theme is"?