[rasmasyean]

You forgot to mention that open source is so great that barely anyone would buy it so it has to be FREE.
And the biggest commercial effort to date built arround it, RedHat, is in trouble.
rofl! Keep ranting.
And nice work on "education". Instead of teaching students to think for themselves, force upon them them a bit of "political advocacy" toward some business entity, why don't ya!

[afoijwifej]

Yeah... my home server runs on a Pentium I 100MHz with 32 MB of RAM. It supports multiple clients with DNS, CIFS, HTTP, SOCKS, VPN and LDAP. It has over 1000 days of uptime. This is... not impressive.

[BGG001]

@ aim2free

I personally do have Ubuntu installed on my PC alongside Windows 7. Start handing out copies of Linux (of any flavor) to people who do not take any computing courses or have never taken a computing course for programming or of the related sort. Have them install it by themselves and set it up and get to the desktop; no problem. But when it comes to installing devices, these people will become extremely frustrated with it and switch back and never recommend doing it.

That's the problem with publicly appraising Linux, well over 90% of the populous of computer users will not be able to use it. Not to mention, unless they use a virtualizer, which most people probably don't even know what that is, they won't be running their programs they've grown accustom to without Windows anyways, defeating the purpose. If I gave it to my sister, she'd probably have a bitch fit for making her try it. And what makes it so hard for normal people is, ironically, the open source aspect of it.

A specific example I had regarding the bluetooth...I'm unsure if this is all Linux distros right now or just Ubuntu...Anyways, it took me over an hour to get my mouse recognized because it just simply "failed," meanwhile, the keyboard (same company and same set) worked perfect...(Ironically, I had to boot up in Windows, connect it to the dongle, and go back to Linux and then it magically worked). Most people, like my sister and those I mentioned above, would have probably gotten frustrated after 5-10 minutes of dealing with this.

I personally don't mind Linux, but it can't run Adobe or Microsoft Office, which I find to be easier to use and better than GIMP or OpenOffice, and I use those every day. The only time I'll use Linux is to browse the internet, back up my files on my main HDD (My Windows 7 drive) for when I switch to Windows 7 RTM, if my Windows crashes (which, since I've had Vista, has never happened without my overclocking mistakes being the culprit), or finally, if I feel the need to mess around a tad with it.

Am I saying Linux is bad? No, for some people, such as yourself, it's great; but for most, the apparent choice is Windows or OS X.

[das7002]

Guess what Fanboy Linux is still full functional and plenty fast at less then half of both of those configs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnsmalllinux A Prime Example (I have gotten it to work with 32 MB of RAM on a Am486 @ 40 mHz/ i486 @ 33mHz)

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Puppy_Linux or even that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu or even the famous Ubuntu with a little work can run on less then that win7 install (with icewm and about 96mn of ram as well as about 1 GB of HDD and its perfect)



so windows fans eat your heart out

[Grr8008]

das7002 said:

so windows fans eat your heart out

Wow that's a lot of hate. I like windows and that is insulting. There is no reason to say that. You don't even take into account that some Windows fans might like Linux too. Oh and maybe a little Mac sprinkled in. That's how I like my PC. Note that I say PC, as in Personal Computer. We all like PCs here, there is no reason to get hateful.

[bbvammy]

@das7002

>so windows fans eat your heart out<

I would not go that far eventhough I know Windows has major design flaw.

If you put Windows under protective environment, its a very good APPLICATION.

Protective environment = Sandbox, Virtualization or No internet access.

[rasmasyean]

Haven't you been around long enough to figure it out yet?
Linux fanbois have no (non-Web 2.0) applications to keep themselves busy with for long, hence so much time to start flame wars by turning every Windows or Mac (or computing...or weather) thread into an Linux advocacy event and Windows bashing oportunity.

[Grr8008]

Ever tried Linux?

[kevinlovegrove]

As one of those Netbook users, I'm still disappointed in W7. It's performance is how I'd expect Vista to run on a Netbook. So unless they have some magic to unleash before RTM, then I'll stick with eeexubuntu or one of the other builds that come out with monotonous regularity.

I don't expect it to blow my socks off performance wise on my all singing, all dancing company mosnter, but I'll install it as soon as the release is available, as that's the best way to plan for what my users can expect down the line.

But to argue that someone tweaked it to run on an old PC means it will go like Usain Bolt on a modern PC is being optimistic to say the least.

And no, I'm not an MS basher. But that doesn't mean they aren't open to criticism sometimes.

[rasmasyean]

Vista already runs like Usain Bolt on a "modern PC". My Vista computer is 1.5 years old and it already is pretty close to that (if not already there) so I imagine if I was to build one comparable "to the times" in a few months, 7 should run like Usain Bolt too, except maybe if you use multi-touch, maybe it will take a small amount of time before you can have complex interaction smoothly.

EDIT:
And here are my specs.
Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz
4 GB 800MHz RAM
512 MB 128-bit 710 MHz dual-monitor GPU
It's more than common to buy a "modern computer" that is much better than that these days.

[rgreen4]

You need to keep in mind that the RC that has been released is the Ultimate edition which means it has everything. The version for netbooks most likely will not have the Media Center, Shadow Copy and built in encryption that is on the Ultimate version.

[Grouchy]

Uh Duh !! MS owes you a new computer because you were stupid ? Any moron knows that you need a puter with touch capabilities built in ! Sheesh !!

[rgreen4]

I guess Chrysler owes me a new mini-van because the Bluetooth feature was not installed in mine. Sheesh! is right.

[VHMP01]

So we are all talking Pros and Cons for 7 to run on old equipment, most of which not even exists nowhere anymore. But what really bothers me is the total lack of professionalism involved in all the biased articles from PCWorld.

?Windows 7 Hits a New Low? is the title for an article that respects MS for an achievement, which actually is good news.

Can you imagine ?iPhone 3Gs Hits a New Low? because it is faster, or it has new applications?

It keeps getting boring and boring to be so unprofessional at PCWorld.

[Alien2275]

Probably not going to sway your opinion in anyway lol but i have been using xp vista and 7 since they have come out i actually didn't mind, everything worked just fine for me and the ( not that it really matters that much ) visuals were a much welcomed improvement from xp's over enphasis on the color blue, and ever since the first beta of 7 i have never wanted to go back to any of the previous versions of windows, in my opinion it really takes the good and bad from both xp and vista and makes a pretty good hybrid of it, probably the most stable operating system from microsoft that i have used ( 98 gave me horrible problems the entire time i used it xp was just a hair better, vista not so bad, and now 7...just great )

[JessicaD]

Bggg001,

It's great that you have enjoyed the Beta version of Windows 7 and now are loving the RC version of Windows 7. Obviously, much was changed / added from the Beta to the RC and all are able to experience the power, stability and speed Windows 7 can offer. For those who are still unsure about Windows 7, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the "under the hood" features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

[kevinlovegrove]

It's remarkable how many people think Windows 7 is the best thing since sliced bread, but realistically it's just a desperate attempt to repair the damage done by the monster known as Vista.

Yes it's stable. Yes it has drivers. But unless they do something drastic between now and release, it is a DOG on the Atom processor and comparable with XP on most other PCs.

Why do you think no-one is that keen about migrating?

And if you fall for the usual MS tosh about selling millions of copies in the first few days, I've got a bridge for sale.

[rasmasyean]

It's not "MS tosh". It's internet statistics and news from leading market research organizations...
bq. Initially it was thought that the adoption of Vista has been generally low, due to largely poor reviews and harsh criticism, but a later Gartner research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%)^[#citenote-78]^ while [IDC had indicated that the launch of Windows Server 2008 served as a catalyst for the stronger adoption rates.^[#citenote-79]^^[[#citenote-80]^ As of January 2009, Forrester Research had indicated that almost one third of North American and European corporations have started deploying Vista.^[[#citenote-81]^ On a May 2009 conference, the Microsoft Vice President said for big businesses, "Adoption and deployment of Windows Vista has been slightly ahead of where we had been with XP".^[[#citenote-82]^^[[#citenote-83]^ In its first year of availability, [PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007,^[#citenote-84]^ and it was rated by [InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.^[#citenote-85]^ The internet-usage market share for Windows Vista after two years of availability (as of January 2009) was 22.48%.^[[#citenote-86]^ This figure combined with World Internet Users and Population Stats yielded a user base of roughly 350 million^[[#citenote-internet1-10]^, which exceeded Microsoft's two-year post launch expectations by 150 million.^[[#cite_note-windowsitpro2006-8]^ The present user base is roughly 390 million by the same statistical sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista+
The moral of the story is...you can't believe every "commentary" or "user blog" you come across. The internet is full of "free speech" which is not always "correct speech". Some may mean well and others may have some agenda, yet many are outdated and just follow other blogs that are in fad (think AD revenue). However, the numbers speak for themselves and there is little you can argue against that.

[rgreen4]

JessicaD - please pass on to the Win7 team a Bravo Zulu. Bravo Zulu is the Navy's two letter message (BZ) for a "well done" in the message system. I am using Win7 RC on this laptop that came with Vista Home Premium (original Vista drive is sitting on the table), and since it is a C2D processor I am using the 64bit version. This evening as an experiment I installed the 32bit version on an almost 6 year old HP D530 on a spare 40GB IDE HD. Everything went smoothly and it even recognized the on board graphics (I have a new dedicated video card for it), and only occupies 8.5GB of space (no applications loaded yet). The only thing that does not work is the built in Audio, but I have not looked for drivers either.
BTW - I am also a satisfied user of VIsta on three machines, but they will most likely convert to Win7 when the RTM is released. Two of them are running the 64bit version of RC currently. (All three have C2D processors). I had thought to upgrade to 64bit Vista, but will instead wait for Win7.

[quackadilly]

"Guess what Fanboy Linux is still full functional and plenty fast at less then half of both of those configs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn[usmall[/u]linux] A Prime Example (I have gotten it to work with 32 MB of RAM on a Am486 @ 40 mHz/ i486 @ 33mHz)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_Linux] or even that

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu] or even the famous Ubuntu with a little work can run on less then that win7 install (with icewm and about 96mn of ram as well as about 1 GB of HDD and its perfect)"



Thats great and all, but think about all of the things that you can't do on those that you can do on a full-fledged OS. Also, what about all the hardware that is supported by 7 that those do not support.

Sure, it's great that you can run on 96mb of ram, but when do you ever need to? There's not a computer in my house that has less than 2 gigs of ram and at least 1 core at 2.0 GHz. My oldest computer is about 5 years old.



Why would you settle for living in the stone age? Get a decent computer so you can work and play without limitations.....