[BGG001]

Run OS X on that old of a machine and see what happens...ignore the fact of intel vs. powerpc hypothetically...no way it could pull it off.

[JakeB]

So, you're the gatekeeper, WT? Any opinions that you don't agree with are BS and FUD, anyone who's drunk the Microsoft Koolaid is kosher?

Real different from an Apple fanboy.

Peace.

[JakeB]

Hey, BG, we meet again.

You never did tell me your machine specs; the one you claimed was TWICE as powerful as a Mac, yet sold for under $1,000.

But you're right; Apple DOES cut off older users. Snow Leopard won't run on ANY PowerPC Mac. The trade-off is that newer users save GBs (or, to be fair, so Apple claims) in disk space (around 6GB is the claim) over the Leopard install. We'll see.

The negative is that people with five-year old machines can't run it. The positive is that you produce a streamlined, ultra-modern OS with minimum code bloat.

Different philosophies, I guess, though I suspect Microsoft programmers would KILL to be optimizing a stable OS rather than patching a flawed one.

Peace.

Jake

[BGG001]

My PC's specs are in my signature and, in today's market, cost far less than $1,000, and when I built it, it cost about $1,200 including my mouse/keyboard set and 24" monitor. (Keyboard set is the Microsoft Entertainment Desktop 7000, got OEM one for $90).

[ClaudeD]

I think we heard XP would run on old pc's. It did but, it took up to 15 minutes just to get a desktop and another 15-20 minutes to get an icon to click on. Then wait for the program to start. Boy I can't wait for the release version to put it on a 800 mhz Intel or AMD. Microsoft shoud be tard and feathered for this fib.

[rasmasyean]

The strategy of making Win 7 scale-downable was based on the idea that there is a substantial netbook/ultra-mobile market to capture.
A fully functional Win 7 OS will still be a "bigger pig" and would require scale-up hardware to match. You will not be able to have a good multi-point graphical interaction with those cheesey low-end computers. If you look at a lot of these multi-touch videos on youtube or whatever, many of them operate pretty choppy with just 2 or so points of interaction flipping things about. When you start doing 4 and more you will see that more resources are required for smooth gesture interaction with many components simultaneously...unlike having a single mouse coordinate.
People who are jumping with joy that Win 7 will work on their 5 year old computers are just falling into the marketing hype that goes with pre-launch hysteria. What's the point? Pretty interface? Unless you're into the ultra-mobile life-style, you're better off sticking with XP or just buying a new computer for Win 7, imho.

[charles849]

I have a dream that one day I well have a authentic Win 7 OS on a new PC and it will be just as good as my XP.

[Anono]

Sorry, but not quite, 17 Minutes to boot on a Pentium III? Linux can run usable on these systems, as in usable as secondary systems, not just science experiments. PuppyLinux has been run (again fully usable) on a 233MHz machine with 32MB of RAM and it even managed to run firefox and openoffice. Seriously think sub 2 minute boot times for Linux on these systems and fully responsive once booted.

[ClaudeD]

Yo. Tard you should read Microsofts information on the Windows 7, see what they say about the operating system kernel and Vista. Then install the RC1 version on your pc and see if you can figure out what it looks exactly like... Vista, Mojave. Win 98 looked like 95, Millennium looked like pretty 98, XP looks like pretty MillenniumWin98. Vista looks like Windows 7, Windows 7, looks like a poorly thought out and executed unfriendly menu version of .... go ahead, give it a guess. Bottom line is it makes no difference how good or how bad Windows 7 in its release version turns out. Computer users are going to use it. And if it functions as poorly as Vista(resource hog) it will be labeled Vista 2. I removed Vista Home from a Compaq laptop and installed XP Pro, the computer was easily twice as fast as originally configured(the laptops owner was sure I changed the processor it was so much faster). I do get a chuckle reading your rant's about Windows 7, the performance you get and wish you the best of luck with your career in Microsoft's Public Relations area. The best of luck to the rest of us because we are going to use Windows 7 regardless of its version, price or performance. I recall seeing this same type of speculation about Windows 3.1 and up. Who cares,its a computer, use Win 7 or not, it's your computer.

[rasmasyean]

Sorry, but that's still a science experiment.
If you have an iPhone are you going to surf the web on it and play with it at home seriously? Or are you going to buy a new computer.
If you have an ancient desktop, you should either throw it away...or turn it into a science experiment. Maybe you put it in the bathroom if you can't stand not being digital for a few moments. But other than that, it becomes an "application specific computerized device"...like a jukebox, web kiosk, etc... i.e. a science experiment. ;)

[charles849]

I believe you. what do we do as customers to show our disatisfaction ?

[rasmasyean]

The leap from XP to Vista is a lot more drastic than Vista to Seven. So people aren't going to feel that "resource hog" effect you are referring to.
I would rather think that Vista is a resource utilizer. Because I look for a system that can handle it and therefore bring out a good experience. Sorry you didn't understand that when you upgraded your Compaq (wow, people still have those?). But if you have a win 3.1 computer, you can easily say that XP is a super-duper resource hog.
If you don't upgrade your hardware to match the software when required, then you are either cheap or foolish. Don't blame the equipment when it's user error. Lots of people use Vista (around 400 million). You can't say that they are all doing something wrong and you are the only smart one keeping your XP and your Compaq.

[rgreen4]

Wow! By cutting off all the older users of machines manufactured before 2006 (I think thats 3 years ago not 5), they save a whole 6GB!!! Lets see, if you had a 1TB drive that is 6/10 of a percent of the capacity. Oh, wait, Macs do have 1TB drives don't they?

[HERBERT22]

world of warcraft is fun, yehforgames

[Anono]

"I installed PuppyLinux] on an old IBM
Thinkpad 770Z laptop, a 366MHz Pentium II. I had hauled this machine
directly out of the trash bin. I upgraded system memory from 128MB to
256MB by buying a used memory stick for $20. Even this old laptop is
responsive with Puppy in memory when word processing, creating web
pages, and delivering presentations. I use this old PC as my
disposable backup laptop when traveling through foreign airports or
working in the outback. I don't have to worry if its gets lost or
damaged like I do with my primary $1,700 laptop. (I use encryption to
protect my data)." ie, full featured computer, fully functional, not oh my god it turned on, YES!!!!, [Quote Source

[charles849]

Thanks Claude for cutting thru the bull . I came online back when win 98 was the ultimate and then all that other stuff anyway I get a feeling there will be a windows 8 , 9 , and 10 + if the world last that long . I'm just holding out till the bugs are a bare minumum.

[bbvammy]

For Windows, thats very impressive.

But, for the whole computer industries. Thats nothing.

So what if Windows 7 is less resources hog then Vista or XP.

Do they need a pat on the back? No.

Let me know if they can be even smaller then DSL ( Damn Small Linux )

[chevrolet1994]

17 minutes to boot up,oh really? How about installing Win 7 on an old IBM 360 Mainframe,I wonder how long it would take to boot up?

Of course, there wouldn't be any Aero interface. Oh well!

[phucphan117]

Wow, unbelievable. But one thing i can be certain about is that with this Windows 7 installed in Hacker1's out-of-dated system, the system will definitely work really slow or it might have problems occur to the system if he tries other applications or software.

[aim2free]

We anti-Microsoft bashers never go to bed, except for love making. We take every opportunity to say the truth. Not running *ix sucks!
I had some students in a programming course, someone said they had downloaded Windows-7. Don't, by doing that you support Microsoft's policies, I said. Instead I gave them some Linux distro which they successfully installed, and were happy with.
The truth is that Microsoft can not and should not make operative systems. The NT kernel, to a large extent being the same since IBM helped them write it (OS2 and NT is the same kernel) is certainly quite advanced and can be used in several ways, also less resource intense, but the main problem with Win is that it's not ix.

Give me one PROS win argument and I will give you ten CONS win back. Give me one good CONS *ix argument and I will kiss your feet.

Microsoft did a few good things earlier: They sold Xenix-systems that supported plenty of hardware architectures. They invested in SCO to develop unix to the "Microcomputer Operating System of the Future", but then they failed, they got the inferior DOS bundled with PC, they started develop their own Win system and forgot about ix (apart from the pipe "|" in DOS commands). Microsoft is nothing but a living dinosaur, a genetical impasse. Hints for reading: "After the Software Wars" http://www.lulu.com/content/4964815 by former Windows and Office developer Keith Curtis. On my blog http://csblogg.idg.s...coreopensource/ (in Swedish but google trans works quite well) I don't do Microsoft bashing per se, it is better to tell why open source software is good.
Spelling corrected by aim2free