[quackadilly]

"Come on everybody, let's all get along together. I like what quackadilly has to contribute to these forums. His acumen is spot on!"



I try......thank you.



Really I have no beef with anyone here. I'm not trying to say I know more than anyone or anyone knows any less than anyone else. All I want to see is unbiased, open discussion about relevant benefits of opposing products. Not bashing.



@ kevinlovegrove:

Trash talk will not make me stop. Bad mouthing is a sign of weakness and frustration..... just.......chill.....out.

[kevinlovegrove]

Maybe I'm missing something, but when I read this statement: "All I'm saying is try it
before you voice your opinion. If you start rambling about 7, good or
bad, and have never tried it, your arguments have absolutely no base to
stand on." I have to laugh.


So you make an untrue assertion about my experience of Windows 7 then accuse me of rambling based on that falsehood?



You're wrong, if you can't answer my points regaring Windows 7 performance with anything other than pathetic and snide remarks like this, then you're the one with the problem.



Let me repeat for your benefit: I've installed Windows 7 probably between 20-30 times since the RC, on laptops, desktops and a netbook, and I'm currently downloading build 7260 to see if there are any significant changes since the last build I tried, 7137. My comments about it are based on a career supporting Microsoft products, and many hours evaluating and researching it.



If you don't like what I have to say about it, that's your right.



By all means disagree, but don't use childish slurs to try and undermine my arguments if you have no sensible opinions to offer on the subject.



I'll say it one more time in the hope that it might sink in. Despite Microsoft's claims that Windows 7 will run fine on Netbooks, from my experience it does not. And yes, I know how to tune Windows. And no, RESMON doesn't help. Whether this will improve before RTM I don't know (I would like to think so).



Why is that so hard for you to understand? And more to the point, why do you take offence over it?

Message was edited by: rgreen4 - personal attacks removed

[Grr8008]

I don't know if you forgot, but the RC and Beta are W7 Ultimate. You may have better luck when the real version comes out and you can get a less resource hungry version. Just an idea.

[quackadilly]

"You're either a wrong, if you can't answer my points regaring Windows 7 performance with anything other than pathetic and snide remarks like this, then you're the one with the problem."


And calling me that helps the situation? It looks like you're having issues with W7. There are many people that are having an awesome experience with it. Just because you can't get it to work right doesn't mean its not "decent". I happen to think, along with many many other people, that it works fabulously.


-----
Installing W7 20 or 30 times has absolutely no effect on the performance once it's installed. Your point there is irrelevant. You can install it 100 times and never use it and you will not know anything about it.
What you say about W7 is your own deal. But when you try to force your idea that W7 isn't what it should be, thats when it gets irritating. There's a lot of people here with a lot of different opinions, yours is not the only one that matters. I don't care if you support 2500+ computers, you still don't know everything. You don't have the right to tell everyone that W7 isn't a "decent" OS.


I'm still not sure how I'm using "childish slurs" to undermine your arguments. Calling my opinions not "sensible" is pretty immature. In fact, you're the one that came in here putting down everything MS and passing it off as fact. You started playing your opinions as FACT on your 1st post. Calling MS users "snobs". Preaching about your Ubuntu being the best thing since sliced bread. Everything you have said here has been anti-MS. None of your anti-MS arguments have had any substance. It's all been based on your personal experience which seems to be very negatively biased.


-----
"I'll say it one more time in the hope that it might sink in. Despite Microsoft's claims that Windows 7 will run fine on Netbooks, from my experience it does not."








Thats fine. But there are people that can get it to work on a netbook. Just because you can't does not mean that MS is lying. And it certainly does not mean that it can't be done.


-----
I don't take offense to the fact that you dislike W7 so far. I take offense to your namecalling and dismissal of everything I have to say. You don't know me, what I know or what I do for a living. You don't know my experience level with computers. What gives you the right to insult me?
Message was edited by: rgreen4 - personal insults in quoted material removed

[VHMP01]

I could not have said it better Grr8008. For someone (kevinlovegrove) that has installed W7 20 or 30 times, and works with 2500+ PCs, not knowing that Ultimate is for top line hardware and that Netbooks will use a Lighter, less expensive Version like Home Basic, should be obvious. But seems not to be the case and he could not figure it out, thought this makes him loose credibility and be a bit biased opinionated. Take it easy quackadilly.

[quackadilly]

"Take it easy quackadilly."



Yeah I know. At 4 in the morning I get a bit crabby....having been up for 16 hours and dealing with mentally sub-par people at work....you know.

[rgreen4]

Gentlemen -

TONE IT DOWN. THERE MAY BE EVERY REASON TO DISAGREE, BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO BE DISAGREEABLE. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT I HAVE HAD TO EDIT SEVERAL POSTS TO REMOVE PERSONAL INSULTS IN AN ORIGINAL POST AND THEN IN RESULTING QUOTES. NO MORE.

[kevinlovegrove]

Apologies rgreen I'll try to stick to the subject at hand.

I am aware that that the RCs are the utlimate version, it's not exactly a secret, but it it means sacrificing functionality to make it perform, I consider that not to be an "agreeable user experience" as MS have called it. Bitlocker for example - I would think that's fairly important for mobile users, yet you're saying I'll have to sacrifice it on a netbook to get satisfactory performance?

Its infrastructure is W2K8, its driver model is Vista's. It's release number is still 6.1; that ought to tell you something.

Personally, I think Microsoft are rushing this because plenty of companies are resisting Vista because of the extra cost involved, and Microsoft have tried strongarming them with talk of dropping XP support, but have deservedly received a hostile response.

I would prefer it if Microsoft actually developed a new OS. Most of their work on W7 has involved rewriting the code to separate out the core functions and make them modular, which should reduce development cycles significantly in the future but really offers little new now.

And for the record I use Vista Ultimate on my laptops and it's fine, even if it does take an age to boot up.

Anyway, as I said, I'll try 7260 on the Netbook tomorrow and see what happens.

[kevinlovegrove]

The last build I installed (7137) was under 3Gb. 7260 is over 4Gb.

This build actually contains all the multilanguage stuff, but it will be interesting to see if there are other modifications.

500Mb of it is drivers, apparently.

[rasmasyean]

Not sure is some of you realize, but we're in an era where average systems are shipping with Core i7's, 6-12 GB of RAM, 500-1,000 GB Hard Drives and 512-1GB Video cards as "affordable" computers.
By the time Windows 7 releases, some of these systems will be left-overs and sold as "budget" systems.

[wildman279]

what do you mean by "low"? I see this as pretty incredible that windows can still successfully run on slower machines.

[kevinlovegrove]

Rasmasyean, one of the bigger trends today is portability. When the "affordable" systems you describe can eke out 6-8 hours of battery life and still be portable, even I will not moan about Windows 7 <heh>

[rasmasyean]

If you're thinking that "NetBooks" will suffice as a business on-the-road workhorse, I think you'd be pretty disappointed.
There is a solution for "portability". It's called a battery compartment. Most serious work is done by an outlet of some sort anyway. And even more serious work is done at a station....where they often have a desktop as well.

[kevinlovegrove]

Depends on the airline as to whether or not you have power in the air - which is where I mostly want it. I can get 6-8 hours on a netbook with a 12 cell battery and an SSD.

[rasmasyean]

And we all know how everyone flies everywhere they go on a daily, weekly, monthly basis.
And when you get on the plane the first thing you see is everyone whipping out computers and pound away on keyboards for the entire duration...instead of talking to people, sleeping, reading a book, etc.
Nice idea, but that's at best a niche market. And they let you carry batteries.

[kevinlovegrove]

(a) Yes I fly frequently.

(b) Yes I whip out my laptop, primarily to watch video. Because I've mostly seen the stuff on the IFE system.

© I don't need to whip out a battery because I get 6-8 hours of battery life. And most flights I do are in the 6h30m to 7h30m range. Or 1h domestic flights at the end of that.

Sorry if that offends you. Don't travel much then?

[BGG001]

I think what he was getting at is that Microsoft (or Apple...or any manufacturer) doesn't have this specific use in mind during designing. I'm not saying there aren't others like you who fly all the time; however, you're a part of a minority of users.

Perhaps he used a more volatile tone, but that's what he was getting at in a less volatile tone.

[smax013]

rasmasyean said:

If you're thinking that "NetBooks" will suffice as a business on-the-road workhorse, I think you'd be pretty disappointed.

It would all depend on an individual's definition of an "on-the-road workhorse". For many traveling professionals, that would mean responding to emails, writing word processing documents, messing with spreadsheets, and fiddling with slideshow presentations...all things that a Netbook can do rather well.

Quote

There is a solution for "portability". It's called a battery compartment. Most serious work is done by an outlet of some sort anyway. And even more serious work is done at a station....where they often have a desktop as well.

Again, it all depends on how a particular user defines "serious work". There are lot of people whose "serious works" never needs anything other than the Microsoft Office suite for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook. Not all serious work involves the need for a heavy duty Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad with a huge hard drive and a powerful graphics card.

[smax013]

BGG001 said:

I think what he was getting at is that Microsoft (or Apple...or any manufacturer) doesn't have this specific use in mind during designing. I'm not saying there aren't others like you who fly all the time; however, you're a part of a minority of users.

But that "minority of users" is still a rather large group of users (most market segments are a "minority of users"). There are a LOT of people who travel everyday for business and many of them tend to place more value on small, light computers with LONG battery life that might not be as powerful as other computers.

The real point is the we try not to impose our standards as to what we feel is important in all situations as there are others that will place higher importance on other things.

And that is why there are all kinds of different computers out there. And while manufacturers might not have a specific user in mind, then certain have more than general idea of intended use when designing many computers. Apple clearly was designing the MacBook Air to cater to traveling professionals. That does not mean that other may find it useful. That is just one example. The point is that different computer types and styles and models tend to cater to different market segments.

[Evildave]

If we want to talk about 'tiny minorities', then we should lump people who have more than one battery for their notebook into one. They're super rare.
Extra weight, extra bulk, and one more heavy, fragile thing knocking around in a bag full of other heavy, very fragile things.
Most people who travel a lot want to travel light. A big, grunty notebook with lots of batteries is just stupid to haul around with you on airplanes. It tires you out dragging it around. It consumes tons of carry-on space that could be used by emergency pants after in-flight close-calls, or from consuming foreign drinking water (or ice cubes) that wasn't actually potable. You know, USEFUL things. It's also almost impossible to secure an over-sized notebook computer. It's obvious what's in that case. You have to be attached to it AT ALL TIMES.
Just five or six years ago, the power contained in the most meager of modern netbooks was a phenominal 'dream machine' you'd pay over three thousand dollars for. A top-of-the-line ultra-portable magic machine.
Ten years ago, the specs on these things was the stuff of science fiction. You couldn't get a desktop that could match these.
It never ceases to amaze me how short people's memories are. Or perhaps some weren't even born 20 years ago when 68000 based machines offered full GUIs and instant boots from ROM, and did useful things, while DOS users were still booting off floppies (or 10MB hard drives) and getting excited over text-only 80-column 'GUI' interfaces, which never the less ALSO did useful things. And people played games with sound on PC speakers and oohed and awwed over 16 color graphics.
Modern, lightweight, cheap, simple netbooks: ABSOLUTELY AWESOME!
E-book readers with internet: Pretty damned good, but TONS of room for easy improvement.
Cell Phone+PDA gadgets with storage and with decent interface to email/web: OK, plenty good enough. Play music to nap to, maybe a movie.
Big, heavy, expensive, over-sized clunkers with severely limited battery capacity so you carry lots of 'spares'... 'but it can play games': LAME, LAME, LAME!
Message was edited by: rgreen4 - watch your language