I'm gonna throw this out cause it makes sense to me.

The reason why win 7 is speeding along so fast is that it is easier to take the codebase from vista, update it and put on some new paint, than fix vista's image problem. It is very much a psychological reason as it is technological.

I will test Windows 7 beta on my computer. Am sure it's gonna be much bigger and will kill crap OS X though it's already dead ;)

wot?

/facepalm

And why the hell did the ram requirements go from 64 MB in xp to 512 in vista?? WTF??? For windows seven M$ definantly needs to lower that since most people are still running XP with about 256 to 512 MB of ram.

So, let me get this straight, they should push down the mem requirements because some people refuse to upgrade? Hell, why don't they just continue to support Windows 98 since people refuse to upgrade from that. I know people still running Windows 95 because it JUST WORKS. If you have a system with 256 or 512, stop being cheap and fork out the 30 dollars to get a 1GB chip. If your system can't handle it, buy a new one. Don't hold up progress because you refuse to upgrade.

People like you are what is wrong with the technology industry.

Insistent on bigger/faster being better. Most people only need an internet browser and an email client.

Unfortunately Microsoft with Vista fell in to the trap of bigger = better. We've seen the same with Nero and multiple other applications. The O/S is no different.

People haven't taken up on it because there is no point when XP works just the same (in the situation I set above).
Unless you incrementally increase the requirements (don't just jump massively like Vista did over XP) people won't feel the need to update as it's seen as not worth the money.

They'll upgrade once support has gone away for the old system that would still work for them fine if it hadn't.

Progress for progress sake is worthless.

I get what you are saying but let's face it, as OS's get more complex they will need more memory(hopefully no because of bloat). The spike in min requirements isn't that big a deal if you factor in time. When xp came out in 01 it needed 64 megs and like 7 years later vista needed 512 megs min. Also most users have way more than that these days it would seem.

http://www.pcpitstop.com/research/Memory.asp

Progress for progress sake is like the cornerstone of science and technology dude. U don't like it go live in a cave and rub sticks together for warmth. Wait that was a technological advancement give me back the sticks....

MS has said they heard the cry to make their OS and its hosted apps run faster lets hope this comes to fruition.

I agree. Also, when you think about it, all these people who are getting Apples and raving about it have just gotten a new computer! Every time I get a new computer, I'm in love with the new faster box. BTW, I bought my wife a MacBook Pro about a year ago and she hates it (too used to windows) and I just use it for surfing since it doesn't run any software I need. I'm probably going to reload it with a small OSX partition just in case but primarily run Vista on it. Oh, it also crashes more often than my Vista machine at work.

I think you'll find most people are running XP with about 256 to 512 MB of ram free from the 2gb they have installed.

Running XP on a box with just 64mb is just plain stupid even if it was the original minimum requirement.

If you have a machine that is old enough to have been shipped with just 64mb of ram and you've upgraded to 512mb you could spent next to no money on getting it up to 2gb (dependent on motherboard capabilities) for next to nothing.

i've crashed my work mac 1 time over the past year and i cant even remember how or why. i think you got a dud. apple care would sort that out for you in no time or you could do an archive and install from the recovery disk and you'd be on a fresh os to undo whatever has been done to the os to make it unstable.

i cant wait for someone to say something stupid in reply to this like "well i thought osx was suppose to be flawless and unbreakable." ehem. i can haz rewt? i can installz bad progz? i can drop laptops? sh1t happens.

Just thought I ought to let you know that 1 GB of DDR is $70 not $30 and if your pc takes SDRAM then its even more, if you can find a 1 GB SD stick. Now DDR2 might be $30 for 1 GB but as new ram is developed old ram goes UP in price not down or all my pcs would have 2 GB of ram.

Just a FYI: I got 2 2GB sticks of Kingston DDR2-5300 RAM from Newegg for $84 with free S/H. That would be $21/GB.

YES THATS DDR2!!! AS I SAID DDR2 IS CHEAP!! DDR and SDRAM are much much more.

Yep, I know. I wasn't contradicting you, just providing more information.

Funny that - they're all program that I've never used in Vista Ultimate yet - and don't plan to since I either don't need them or have alternate software. If Windows 7 is cheaper in price due to these cutbacks - then that would be great. Chances are that anyone's who serious about video editing has other software besides WMM. Just don't cut out too much more otherwise I won't want to upgrade.

I guess since MS took so long to make Vista, lots of people had lots of time to get used to XP and decide that they didn't want to change.

"I guess since MS took so long to make Vista, lots of people had lots of time to get used to XP and decide that they didn't want to change."

Yup, sometimes people complain about stuff that actually benefits them.

Vista gets more flack then it deserves, but it most certainly does not benefit me in any way. I tried to like it, used it for a month. For what I need and want it was a huge downgrade from XP. That doesn't mean Vista is bad, just that I don't need it personally. As in my opinion, not necessarily yours.

I'll only believe it when I see it with my own eyes. Microsoft doesn't slim anything at all, they always do just the opposite.

A step in the right direction, albeit a very small one. Hopefully they will trim more.

Yeah, but if it's trimmed down, it would be worth it to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, but if I have Vista Buisines already. I don't see a reason to upgrade. Kinda comes down to price though. If the only useful Vista was Biz or Ultimate. and those were expensive.. I can't imagine Windows 7 being succesful if they put out 4-5 different versions again.

I think, there are going to be a few editions of Win7, like Home and Business. This would solve many arguments people are having about "users not being able to figure out what they want". Home edition will have tools (guides, wizards, etc) that will let user choose what they actually want on their PERSONAL computer. But, the most benefit I see for business computers, where administrators are (and should be) in control!

"Business computers"!? Oh no!

Don't you know, you are not allowed to mention the enterprise!

Unless you have a narrow-minded view point and are unable to differentiate between the needs / wants of enterprise and home consumer markets, and accept that they are different. Then it's okay, right?

I think this is a good idea but its nowhere near good enought to speed up install or actual system speed. They need to remove resources (bitmaps, icons etc.) that are in xp and vista that are NEVER USED. Then remove all the backwards compatibility with all past OSes except XP and Vista. Then if they could make it modular similar to linux, there would of course be the core files you had to have but then allow you to select to add other items that not everyone wants or needs.

Good idea. The Live apps are better than the bundled apps and you have to download them anyway.

Plus, this puts the apps on a different dev cycle than the OS. And by "different" I mean more frequent. I would like to see the Live team step up the frequency of updates to about every 6 months or so.

Though I applaud Microsoft's decision to trim the fat and speed up the OS, can you imagine how many Windows users have come to rely on those very same applications (some more than others)?

They'll freak out, naturally... "What happened to {insert app here)?"

They're (probably) promptly notified where to download additional Windows components, where the typical user says "Ah hah! There they are! I want this... that... oh, and this too..."

Before long, it's right back to the way it was (in other words, "bloated", as some prefer to call it). Yeah... bloated, unlike other "enterprise ready" OSes that include apps like GarageBand.

Then again, I've had users tell me "Oh, I use Firefox all the time since you told me about it", only to find that it's a 3 year old version with zero extensions installed. So much for choice and the ability for customization...

Though I applaud Microsoft's decision to trim the fat and speed up the OS, can you imagine how many Windows users have come to rely on those very same applications (some more than others)?

They'll freak out, naturally... "What happened to {insert app here)?"

Depends on how it is done. The icons for the apps will likely be there and the app itself would be "installed" on first-run.

Before long, it's right back to the way it was (in other words, "bloated", as some prefer to call it). Yeah... bloated, unlike other "enterprise ready" OSes that include apps like GarageBand.

If they installed the apps because they *want* them, it's functionality, not bloat. Bloat is unused, or useless code.

No wonder Windows is a joke in the 'not small' AV processing world.

Suits me. I use Live! Apps in preference to the bundled ones anyway. Keeping Wordpad, Paint and Calc is a good move though - gives the basics.

Sadly, it looks like Windows is taking a leaf from Linux Distro books from about 5 years ago - basic install and let em choose what they want - whereas Linux Distros seem to be going the way of Vista.

I think it's a good idea, don't bundle certain applications that can easily be downloaded.

Personally I think they should have only considered doing windows 7 in 64 bit only.

Hopefully not bundling certain bits should keep the blood sucking anti trust suits at bay.

"Personally I think they should have only considered doing windows 7 in 64 bit only."

Agreed.

Bulls***.

Give me one good reason why the majority of users would need 64 bit. Because it all works so smoothly and all the 3rd party drivers are working so nicely in 64? Because it's cool? How very mature...

Arguably it's what the future of computing is going to (64bit and higher). Keep up with the freaking Jones' and if you don't have a freaking 64 bit processor, maybe it's time to upgrade?

Because the "vast majority" of users are running on 64-bit processors and until the "vast majority" of users is on a 64-bit OS, things like app support and driver support will be secondary concerns for devs instead of primary concerns?

Come on, man...think! Win32 extensions for Win3.1 existed for *years* before a consumer 32-bit OS was released by MS...and in that time effectively *zero* progress was made on the consumer front for 32-bit. When Win95 came out? Suddenly 32-bit was everyone's priority...

64 bit would be nice if only for the fact that all drivers for new hardware would have to be for 64 bit also. With todays cheap memory prices, having 4GB memory and being able to use it in a 32 environment is impossible. You need 64 bit.

Why not simply issue the entire OS on a disk and make it modular with clearly identified and described functionality so that the average Windows user (arrggh!) can easily understand it- and they can then decide what modules they wish to load! Duh.

Again, I realize that MS sets the standard for so many here, but the modular approach is common in Enterprise level environments...

The solution already exists if only MS would use it.

Have you ever ran a well equipped multi-core 64 bit box on *both* Vista x86 and X64? If you had, the reason would be academic. I have no driver issues. Wake up man - it's 2008.

Yay!

More consumer market/enterprise market BS.

The modular approach won't work in the consumer market. I'll leave it to you to figure out why (yeah...right).

Yes, it would be great for the enterprise market, and yes, I wish MSFT would allow for that in their "business" edition OSes, and to some degree (not nearly enough yet) they are starting down that path.

But stating the average windows user wants more choices at install...when the limited OOBE they get *now* frustrates them? Yeah... That's funny s*** right there.

"Because it all works so smoothly and all the 3rd party drivers are working so nicely in 64?"

On my PCs? Yes.

Everyone else summed up the rest quite nicely.

Sorry, I forget (but as you so astutely reminded us) that the average Windows user is too f#$%@ stupid to figure out the concept of functional add-on modules...!

The fact is, the average Windows user already has the OS they deserve. In fact, for most here, it is more than they can use - despite its fundamental lack of features.

But I guess that is yet another distinguishing characteristic between the Windows market and the other more robust OSes.

Gee Tool, since Windows users would too easily become konfusd by choices, why not employ Seinfeld to simply market Windows as "The OS for Complete Dummies". And if they could only read, you could franchise the book as well!

And Tool, its not the choices that frustrate them, its the fact that too many lose their data and have to make those same choices over and over again as they reinstall their system to fix fundamental problems.

I know, but not YOU! You sound like the typical effete liberal who speaks for, but is not of, the 'little' people. How altruistic you are.

Celebrate.

LOL!

I simply don't believe a 'normal' user (should) require(s) more than 4GB RAM for quite some time to come.

My concern on the other hand when the OS goes 64bit is just sloppier applications wasting more memory left and right. Just because you have 8GB+ and 64bit doesn't mean it is quicker to process all the junk apps spew into their allocated space. Regardless if it's affordable or not.

Today's development environments and languages increase productivity but doing so moves physical resources so far out of sight that most kids out of IT school have no idea about the consequences of their code. We need more intelligent compilers that produce proper multi-core applications and optimize the hell out of the high level garbage. We need Operating systems and virtual machines (talking NET and Java) have the hell tweaked out of them and being able to address more memory is the least of my concerns. The other advantages of 64bit processors I don't consider relevant for the average consumer.

I also know it's not a realistic expectation.

Actually I haven't. MSFT provided a 64bit upgrade DVD but it seems too much hassle to redo all systems simply based on opinions that frankly just sound subjective without giving a compelling reason. Are there any published facts anywhere comparing a 4GB 32/64bit Vista system?

Don't worry about my hardware. The expense is negligible. Give me a good factual reason instead why I should run on 64bit...

I simply don't believe a 'normal' user (should) require(s) more than 4GB RAM for quite some time to come.

Where did I say they did?

The other advantages of 64bit processors I don't consider relevant for the average consumer.

The limits of your imagination, thankfully, are not the limits of other's. ;)

After all, 32-bit should be enough for everyone, right? (Where have I heard some similar statement before...some joke about RAM requirements...)

Your above disconnect from reality does indeed explain a lot of the more amusing BS you post here. :)

(BTW: Desire to not have to muck around with decision after decision!=redneck....just an FYI)

"Where did I say they did?"

Nowhere. Why do you ask?
Regarding your RAM-comment: See above, size is not everything.
...and pray to God the limits my imagination are WAY above others ;-)

Regarding the rest, alright: Besides you ignoring the finer points I am honestly (for once... or twice...) not trying to pick another fight. I really would like to hear (a) good arguments for making 64bit a top priority for the desktop - compared to more transparent usage of multi-processing for example (in the context that I can't even think of using anything less than 64bit in the enterprise) and (b) what compelling argument there is to run Vista 64 (and for sure deal with issues of a less mature platform). What's your D630 running?

"Where did I say they did?"

Nowhere. Why do you ask?

Ohh...I don't know. Maybe because it was your first argument in a reply to me that would otherwise seem incredibly random?

good arguments for making 64bit a top priority for the desktop

Progress. Sure, it's wide open, but there are benefits to expanding the data-path allowing programs to push data through the CPU, not necessarily faster, but in larger chunks. As OSes and apps become more database dependent, and they seem to be headed in that direction (even filesystems), this would benefit performance greatly.

what compelling argument there is to run Vista 64 (and for sure deal with issues of a less mature platform).

For me? I *do* need more than 4GB of RAM. I run VMs and database software, even on my home PC. My D630? It's running 32-bit XP. Why? because we haven't migrated yet...(I did have Vista on there for a short time to do some testing)

Whats the point - if you try to make a comment about the market, Tool reduces the market to HIMSELF.

If you make a comment about what Tool uses, he excuses it by references to such things as a userbase too konfuzd and stupid to make decisions regarding additional functional modules.

You see, Tool has all the bases covered. He assumes an oh so erudite position when it benefits him, and then descends to play the "I/They are so ignort" rube when you assert something that extends the concept.

What a show!

LOL!

But I will agree with him in one regard, we DO need laptops with a MUCH greater RAM capacity exactly for the ability to run multiple VM environments concurrently! Especially on the multicore processors. In fact, I could easily make a case for 12GB of RAM right now! And like it or not (since I really don't have a viable choice currently), it would be a MacBook Pro 'Pro' as I need 64bit UNIX capabilities as well. And ironically, I think the gamers in the Windows world could easily make a case for 64 bit capability with the memory intensive apps they run.

I should have paid more attention in English back at high-school. Apparently it is out of order to make a simple statement setting the context where one is coming from without being able to reference one of toolies utterings...

As usual we are arguing about nothing. I don't deny whatever you list has benefits. My point is that there are (a) more important things to focus on such as multi-core and (b) most calls for 64bit on the desktop are objective for the coolness factor without facts to substantiate and (c) 64bit is opening the doors to be even more wasteful.

Then again I usually don't have the need to run more than one VM on my laptop/workstation. But running any VM (except you are a Mac user and have no choice to run anything) is not your typical user scenario.

I keep editing this damn post *sigh*
And - you visionary - what about modern processors. Instead of pumping out more processing power there is a phase of reconciliation and conservation of resources. The same should happen in OS and Software. Hell, the future is going towards mobile devices running all day. You need to trim your fat and optimize instead of running 32GB of RAM. At least until you have the technology that can process such a data volume with adequate response times without requiring a portable nuclear reactor.

Yes, but I love you both ;-)

"How very mature..", he said, right after he said "Bulls***". Thanks, preinterpost, for the 'Laffaday'!

Published facts? Sure there are plenty of benchmarks posted from reputable organizations that you'd instantly recognize. I don't have any of them readily available, but I can summarize the numerous articles I've read: Overall, Vista x64 is 12-15% faster than Vista x86 on the same hardware. That figure seems to be all but a universal consensus. IMHO, it's an improvement that is pleasantly apparent.

The most striking difference is to use Internet Explorer 7 x64 for the first time. From the very instant that you click the shortcut, the app is up and ready. It also seems dramatically faster at rendering pages. In contrast, I can count to two while Firefox loads, and the x64 version of Minefield doesn't seem significantly faster.

For 90% of Windows users, 4GB is probably overkill. I have 2GB, but I could easily use 4GB for video editing. There is only a very slight edge in system performance for 4GB versus 2GB, until you get into memory intensive work like graphics rendering and video production.

As far as x64 drivers are concerned, I can tell you this: When Vista debuted, I had many driver related BSODs with x86. Debugging the .dmp file always led to a wonky driver. Since converting to x64 early this year, I've not had one BSOD...the Vista reliability index stays at 10 24-7, unless the power company craps out.

Does it make sense for an individual to migrate? My experience says yes. For an organization? My feeling is nyet.

Maybe you should get out of those hills where your church community is shacked up more often.

http://www.military-quotes.com/Patton.htm

Hmmmmnnnrggg... Interesting. Maybe I should give it a try some time. Need to do some research which of my apps are supported. Last I checked there were caveats and I just spent too much time in my life tinkering with systems already.

Thanks for the summary!

What does that even mean? Anyway he's right, you made a very immature post and then accused others of not being mature. Seems I recall some story about a pot and a kettle...

There should be a unified 64/32bit version.

So many choices scares my precious.

And yet this entire thread is spawned by the problems with Windows.

Of course, no one read the "but only with regards to the poor konfuzd desktop users" addendum to the thread title...

i agree with that

Oh, I am so ashamed now! At my age it's actually accomplishment to be immature.

Nevertheless, I did not expect the general readership to understand the response given the alarming levels degeneration is spreading.

But never one to give up so easily I will guide you step by step:

(1) General Patton is considered one of the greatest war leaders of 'modern' times. (2) Read up on him. (3) Follow my link above to a collection of his quotes. (4) Find the word 'Bulls***'. (5) Transfer the attempt at ridiculing a person for using the word 'Bulls***' to Patton. (6) Realize how pathetic you are.

Working the way up to my statement: It refers to people who apply their own cultural sentiments and standards to an international community without realizing their short-sightedness and thus missing the actual point that was made.

I could of course summarize all the crap (oh lord! another evil word!) above with something more appropriate for your intellectual level: "Duh!"

Alright, looks like I contributed enough to this pointless article. Welcome Angela Gunn! And my condolence. Sounds like professional suicide coming to BN...

Sure thing. If you are mulling it over, http://www.start64.com/ always has a few articles on the front page about folks who've made the leap. It's not always roses either...if individuals have had issues jumping to x64, it is noted objectively. They also have reviews on the latest x64 software.

Thus far, only Remote Wonder and it's associated software refused to work out of the box for me. For that matter, there aren't even VISTA drivers for the hardware. A simple workaround was to install generic x64 x10 remote drivers....then the native software works as ATI intended.

Tinkering is my hobby! ;) I should probably get a life.

Jeez toolie, do you EVER shutup? You're like obama -- you LOVE the sound and sight of your own words, no matter how stupid or vapid you consistently are.

Well, typically its about the same 10-15 people not really a majority, the people that like their OS, don't come onto a message board to talk about how much they like it.

Complaints are always louder then praise.

Well done. :)

As far as getting the Maximum performance out of IE7 it's been my experience to utilize this third party ADD-ON http://www.ie7pro.com/

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just snap their ADD-ON up, and integrate it into Internet Explorer and be done with it.

When you load the Utility a little "e" will reside on the bottom of your browser window. Click on the little "e" and then click on the "preferences" menu once that's open find "IE Setting" in the Menu on the left, click on that and on the right off center will be a box with the number "8" in the window (IE's default shipping browser connections limit) Move that number up till "12-14" and I think you'll be shocked at just how fast IE7 becomes after you Close out the browser and Restart it.

It gives Firefox a serious run for the money after doing the above. Who needs silly Firefox. "Safer browsing experience my tush."

Mind you this is on a 32bit system, give it a Whirl folks.

Very good points.

(a) Yes, I agree with that, but I don't see a reason why both cannot be accomplished simultaneously. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with improving multi-core performance (or capability, for that matter) in a 64-bit environment.

(b) I'm sure that has some merit, as that's the reason I've been given a couple of times from others who have chosen it over its 32-bit counterpart.

For myself (initially), it was simply of matter of feeling as though my hardware was being underutilized, and that bothered me. I've had 64-bit processors in my desktops for quite some time... why not take advantage of them? After installing XP Pro x64, the difference in performance and reliability was immediate. It just... felt different... better. Perhaps that could be attributed to the Server 2003 code under the hood, though. I didn't care, as I never had one single issue with that OS... no stability, performance, application compatibility, driver issues... nothing.

64-bit Vista Ultimate mirrors that previous experience. Not only does it handle more memory, it handles it better.

There have only been two gripes (no fault of Microsoft) during the 32- to 64-bit transition that I have had. One was trying to install some 3rd-party drivers that were not digitally-signed (yet) by Microsoft, which is not allowed in 64-bit Vista. But, it's been a minor inconvenience, and one I can easily look past in favor of 64-bit Vista's reliability and performance improvements. The other was the complete lack of support for 64-bit Windows with Cisco's VPN client (which I use heavily for remote support for a lot of our customers). A 32-bit XP Pro VM solves that problem for the time being.

I do not have concrete benchmarks readily available, as I was never interested in them. I didn't care how it ran on other systems... just my own. My copy of Vista Ultimate retail came with both versions, so I figured what the hell. :)

(c) Now this... this is something that worries me as well. It's easy to think of 'bloat' as additional applications that nobody wants or needs, but it's the sloppy, lazy coding practices over the years that gets on my nerves. There's simply no reason sometimes for applications to take up the amount of space they do these days, and it seems like all too often larger capacity hard drives and greater amounts of RAM are used as a crutch to avoid taking the extra time to trim the code down.

Sometimes, I honestly feel that choice can be a bad thing, with regards to the availability of OSes and applications on different architectures. I'd personally love to see a return to the performance that efficient asm yields. Hell, MenuetOS is an OS (complete with GUI, TCP/IP, USB 2.0, web browser, etc.) written completely in highly efficient x86 assembly, with 32- and 64-bit support... and it fits on a 1.44 MB floppy disk.

Ehh... it's late, and I'm tired.

I'm a big fan of IE7Pro as well.

"I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just snap their ADD-ON up, and integrate it into Internet Explorer and be done with it."

I used to feel the same way, and I would love to see it happen, but I can also imagine the inevitable s#!tstorm that would ensue should Microsoft include a web browser that had built-in advertisement blocking out of the box.

Mind you, I still prefer Firefox, but I never use Internet Explorer anymore without that add-on.

Thanks, I'll check out the link.

My main concerns are the fingerprint reader on my Thinkpad (which is a gimmick, causing enough problems anyway but just cool so I suffer it anyway) and a bunch of A/V programs/hardwares.

Well winter is around the corner. Should be possible to squeeze in some tinkering :)

Nevertheless, I did not expect the general readership to understand the response given the alarming levels degeneration is spreading.

Wow, it must be boring in the retirement home for you to sit and type all that crap. Now tell us about how Patton wore an onion on his belt, and how much smarter you are than all the whippersnappers on this board. Be sure to yell at us to stay off your lawn too.

Give me one good reason why the majority of users would need 64 bit. Because it all works so smoothly and all the 3rd party drivers are working so nicely in 64? Because it's cool? How very mature...

Wow, you were saying something about intellect? I know though, at your age technology must be scary and confusing.

See, I can act like a condescending jerk too.

Requiring the drivers to be signed helps do away with a large amount of problems caused by poorly written third party drivers, which is probably the number one issue with Windows stability. It can be an issue with older hardware but all in all it's a great move I think.

Can't you look up anything for yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32_vs_64_bit

Maybe you don't need 64-bit personally. Maybe you could get along fine with an 80386 and 8MB of RAM but what does that have to do with the rest of the world? Microsoft shouldn't switch to x64 because you don't need it? I assure you technology will happily move along with or without you.

Virtually all new PCs sold are 64-bit, and by the time Windows 7 comes out I doubt they'll even be making 32-bit systems anymore. So what logical sense does it make to run a 32-bit OS that doesn't take advantage of your hardware? But hey, by all means lets go back to using slide rules and typewriters.

"...get a room"

Ahh, and yet more evidence of the BetaNews forum slowly turning into a Beginner's Guide to /. ;)

I agree completely with requiring signed drivers, and understand why it was implemented. It's been a long time coming, that's for sure. The only drawback is when some open source drivers offer greater flexibility and configuration options than the device manufacturer's own drivers. Very few independent authors can afford those fees.

Like I said though, minor annoyance.

You seemed to be falling over yourself to praise all of his posts, so that was my lame attempt at a joke. So much so that I decided to remove it, darn you and your refresh button! :P

Yes, I would like to see the fees reduced so that everyone would be able to submit drivers. What I would also like though is for manufacturers to stop being lazy and/or cheap and put out decent drivers to begin with. I'm looking at you Creative...

Hardly praising, but whatever. I respect everyone's opinion, regardless of how some choose to present it. For those select few that choose to constantly respond with insults and cynicism, I understand... it's simply their "thing".

The funny thing was, I went home for lunch, fired up the laptop, and saw your original post. I decided to reply, but when I did, you apparently already changed it (for a moment, I thought I was responding to another comment of yours). I couldn't remember the full comment... that's why I quoted a only a portion of it. LOL

Completely by accident that I saw it, but big deal. ;)

Gee another bloated version of Windows,
I ask why do I need a super computer to basic tasks?

How many versions of Win 7 are there going to be this time, 9? 10 ?

Windows 7 = Windows Vista 6.0.1
where Vista should have been, just like Xp is where 95/98 should have been.

plus why do we need to spend $300+ jut to make the system work (btw, this is for the BASIC version)

The softwares cost a lot more than that considering you "run" your OS as long as your PC is turned on, but those softwares aren't really used 24/7.

I'd say it's reasonable price.
Unless you're talking about Free applications or pirated softwares.

Adobe suites cost like $1000+

Although It's good to clean it up, I definitely prefer an option to be able to get ALL features without having to spend time downloading on a DVD.
Probably there will be, just saying though.

Totally agree

Are you crazy or do you just rant on nothing in particular? Cos you're sure not talking about the subject in the newspiece.

If you had bothered to read past "Is Windows 7", you'd see the words "slimming down". The whole point was removing the "bloat".

plus why do we need to spend $300+ jut to make the system work (btw, this is for the BASIC version)

Idiot.

A quick Google pegs Vista Home premium topping out @ $144. (Certainly *not* the "BASIC" Version)

If you have to lie to support your angst, your angst may be misplaced...

Its going to take a heck of alot more stuff to bring its bloated self down. Ain't no one better at mastering the art of bloat like Microsoft!

Thanks Tool.

When did that occur? 1-2 years after release? And after MS discovered that the world was not simply waiting with baited breath to jump on it?

Quoting current firesale pricing does not exactly address the valid point they make!

He is right, the initial retail price tags were absurd.

Deal with it. But revisionism is so easy, isn't it!

You are better than this!

Good lord...

Let us all know when you can comment on what was really said and not some made up BS in your incredibly f'ed up imagination. Mmmkay?

He was *not* commenting on initial pricing.

plus why do we need to spend $300+ jut to make the system work (btw, this is for the BASIC version)

I know you can read, so why do you constantly manipulate what people say? Why must *you* depend on revising what was said?

Deal with it, indeed.

I know I am better than this...and it is that very fact that leaves me wondering why I even bother responding you your ludicrous, purposeful misrepresentations.

Yup, we just re-manufacture history as we see fit.

Let's see, we can't assume folks here have a clue about the business aspects of IT.

We can't discuss the enterprise.

You have cited games as being a major strategic advantage of Windows over those 'other' more robust enterprise OSes...

So, since games on the desktop seems to be the allowable focus, why are you guys here instead of fragging each other on a gamer forum?

Keep on twisting, genius.

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't have to twist people's statements to make a point, would you?

...while you continue to twist the statements of other to support your own special brand of absurdity.

You argue based on some imaginary implication on the OP's post (that was clearly not implied), get called on it, and then whine about how no-one "gets" you (and throwing in a nice misrepresentation of my own statements to boot).

How cute...

Don't have to when I have you explaining why Windows lacks the robust error handling and basic functionality of so many other OSes who don't market their tools to the gameboy trade.

And the dominant theme in the trades - is where is the market going with Vista doing so poorly. You might want to start sending letters to the editor.

So a modular Windows install is too kompleks for you Windows Neanderthals, huh? LOL!

Keep ignoring history with your selective attention.

But I'm not surprised, as what would one expect from someone who stands amongst a group for whom a modular installation is too kompleks too imagine.

*laughing*

You are the one who brought up history, out of context. Why should I acknowledge it in the least?

Yeah...that's me. This Winders thang is just too "kompleks" for me.

You assumptions of where I stand are quite amusing. Thanks!

...and he moves even farther into left-field.

Thanks for playing. I'm going back to the actual, relevant discussion in this topic.

The joke is that this entire thread is based upon user dissatisfaction with Windows.

I have other alternatives and use them.

My only real issue has been finding a laptop robust enough in resources - noticeably RAM - to accommodate the various tools. And to that end, I would like to see a 'larger' MacBook Pro, simply as it affords me a larger choice of installed tools - assuming OSX only runs on the Mac (something else of which I am not a fan).

I really don't care about eh state of Windows, except that I use it out of simple convenience as it is installed on many machines I encounter - just like I don't bother to debate which brand of gasoline pump I use to fill up my vehicle.

Its just a tool.

And if Windows were indeed he be all and end all that you and the fanboys assert, I wouldn't have a need for the other tools that achieve what Windows cannot.

And unfortunately for you, the relevant discussion to which you need to return is in regards to the PROBLEMS and SHORTCOMINGS with Windows.

...And a userbase too stupid and konfusd by the choice of a base install with modules adding additional functionality is simply too konfusing! LOL!!!!!!!

Keep wiggling...

I won't even bother to quote your observation about Windows users too konfusd to select additional functional modules! Thank goodness they make tennis shoes with Velcro straps instead of laces for you Windows users.

What a joke.

Those shoes go much better with black turtlenecks and Starbucks coffee.

*laughing my @ss off*

"Mac Geniuses"...

Nope, that outfit goes best with Nike Cortez

(That's stolen from someone else on BN but forgot the ref)

"Gee another bloated version of Windows..."

My, that's Pavlovian of you. Apparently, you failed to *read* (or comprehend) the article.

Hmmmm.

So where does MS think they need to go?

More monolithic bloat in order to dominate the standalone desktop? Is that where the market is heading? Hardly...

Maybe one needs to step back and determine where and what the goal is before so much nonsensical speculation! After all, if you don't know where you're going, any direction will get you there...just like how we got to where we are..and why Vista's adoption rate, ESPECIALLY among the enterprise environment is so dismal.

Unfortunately the enterprise is quickly moving to virtualized environments run on centrally managed thin client desktops such as the Panos 3" square thin client - where admin, security, cost, TCO, etc. cease to be a major issue.

And where does that leave the monolithic desktop? Oh yeah, as Tool keeps telling me, on the gamer's desk - after all, you can't play games on the other more capable OSes.

And tell me, does the gamer need all of the (may or may not function) bells and whistles that Vista currently has? And what does that say about all of the desktop local software package cash cows MS depends upon for their cashflow?

Looks like they need to start moving to Midora. (Midora? What's Midora?)
And the desktop would stand to benefit most from MS FINALLY be3ginning to actually fix and refine the many kludgy and buggy tools that have been piled on in the past and finally get them to work - rather than add its more new toys designed to distract one from the fact that so many existing toys don't work as intended.

You will havce to pardon me, as I can't stop laughing at the comment a few post ago by an "OS theorist" about other OSes being stuck with the UNIX model as opposed to Windows. Yup, but then Tool will complain that I can list an arm's length of much more powerful, robust and elegant systems that are all based on the 'poor' UNIX model. Yup. The poor UNIX folks. Now, if MS would just stop sourcing all of the developmental code coming from IBM (for the past 10+ years) who is busy porting over those 'poor' UNIX tools to Windows...

Talk about clueless.

But not to worry, Windows is still working on developing a scripting environment! Heck, we're still waiting for Cairo. Oops! So much for adopting an architecture amazingly similar to the UNIX model...couldn't quite pull that off... Bad subject! LOL!

panos has no dual monitor support. We can't even begin to consider it without this basic feature that has been around for a decade or more now. And yeah I need it on the same OS, not two different VM'd hosts.

In fact, a lot of desktop roles can't be met by this device, the speed of the network doesn't scale. ever try and watch a H.264 video on a VM'd guest? How about across the wire?

A cute device that I will check out in 10 years to see if it has matured and is still around.

Do you ever take your enterprise blinders off to see what the home consumer market is doing from time to time?

Perhaps you know of some "one thin client per household" initiative the rest of us aren't aware of?

lmao...

In his mind, there is no difference between the consumer OS and enterprise Os markets (or shouldn't be).

LOL!
Gee, and I thought according to you fanboys that Vista was perfect!. I mean what else could a gamer or MP3 jock dream of?????

An integrated backup function that actually worked and was reliable?

A way to install apps that were independent of the OS so that an OS image could be maintained and reloaded if necessary (I know - that is NEVER needed in Windows!)

OS (SW level) mirroring of folders or partitions...'control panel' functions providing more granular control of resources (no! you mean there are other things that a user might want to have control over?!)

Functionality to determine what is REALLY going on under the covers in Windows - for instance, the means to determine - without analyzing a core dump! - to figure out what what resource request is driving a machine to run at 100% CPU - and no, the process table does not tell you -

The fact is, you remedy the needs of the enterprise for a more robust environment, the ability to effectively repair the ills under the cover without having to completely reinstall a machine!, make a bootable backup image of your OS partition with a single command to a specified location/resource (yes it COULD be done as it exists in other systems!!); as opposed to making more generic MY-folders for automatically placing your photos...would be great start!

But MS has gone to such great lengths to abstract the functional aspects of the environment from the GUI user environment as to make the overly simplified control elements almost worthless. And no, the users are not that stupid and do not have to be protected from themselves in a properly defined multilevel configuration environment.

But unfortunately, as mentioned before, addressing issues of use for the enterprise would go a long way in making the environment more robust and easier to manage in real functional ways that allow folks to recover from the seemingly inevitable corruption and necessary reinstall solution that affects the 'little people' at home most substantially - and usually at the cost of their precious pictures and MP3 files!

And why do you fanboys lament the fact that there is active development for a stripped down XP to run on smaller footprint devices? What? You can't load Vista on your handheld? Gee! But I thought terabyte drives were getting smaller and cheaper!

But you worry about why Vista is such a commercial bomb - and like it or not, it has been - as has been the topic of almost every trade mag and editorial in the industry! - has not been the household market where they get it whether they want it or not on a new computer to the chagrin of their legacy applications! It has been the enterprise that has largely ignored it...to the point where MS is hoping Server2008 will help with its more integrated functions.

So,as I suggested in the first post, you might want to define what your target market is! Home or SMB or Enterprise! Its pointless to debate the issue if when one person points out weaknesses and flaws in one respect, that geniuses like you say - yeah, but what about them!? - only to liste3n to you flip and play the same game when one focuses on the other aspect of the market!

But then, that is what makes you so special and able to claim that Windows is everything for everyone - despite the fact that all of the market segments have substantial gripes with its basic robustness and long term stability/functionality!

Of course, if we enlarge this to include the browser - the list gets dramatically larger! But we could simply start with the Bookmarks/favorites! Why not a full sized printable window (more like Firefox/Netscape/Mozilla) that displays not only the user config logical name with the URL and a description field that is EASILY configurable simply by dragging and dropping, rather than the insufferable 10 line view where we can individually copy/move/delete each line without even seeing the entire listing! ut then, except for compatibility issues and MS employing their own special twists to 'industry standard' issues, we wouldn't have this issue and I could simply be happy dealing with Firefox3 and its CONTINUING memory leak issue - contrary to their claiming it to be solved.

Hows that for a 3 minute off the top of my head list?

And you know, genius, most households now have multiple computers - be they for the kids, the media center, home business, personal use - desktop/laptop functionality, multi-person households - each with their own computer...you don't think a thin client solution would be an ideal cost effective robust solution for the household? If not, you still think today's thin clients are vt100 terminals (when in fact you would be hard pressed to identify many distinctions in terms of functionality from a full desktop). But then, you still think Windows is, if not perfect, near perfect. Which explains more than I should have to point out...

Functional features such as error/exception handling, backup and mirroring should not be treated differently.

The fact that MS - a party who claims to be a major enterprise player - can't design a system to do effectively do this that is easily portable from enterprise version to personal version is an exception in the industry.

You can take many other enterprise OSes, slap on support for your low level games and USB/IEEE1394 support, and other whiz bang toys, and have a perfectly good personal OS that FAR exceeds the deliverables of Windows.

You are a fool!

Pano is but ONE of a myriad number of thin clients! Such a display of abject ignorance of product on your part doesn't make the industry stupid!

Chip PC, Computer Lab International (CLI), Devon IT, Fujitsu Siemens Computers, HP, IGEL, NEC, Pano Logic, Praim by CompuMaster, Sun Microsystems, and Wyse are just the tip of the iceberg of companies who have submitted their clients for VMWare certification - some supporting up to as many as 12 monitors!

And since they are remotely connected and managed, they can be configured for viewing across the network for collaborative processing!

And since you are so ignorant of what is available and make your decisions accordingly, one can only imagine what toys you are playing with.

Its always nice to hear from desktop Windows users who are so ignorant of what is routinely being done in the larger world of IT. Yeah, come back in 10 years. You are already 10 years behind now.

You can take many other enterprise OSes, slap on support for your low level games and USB/IEEE1394 support, and other whiz bang toys, and have a perfectly good personal OS that FAR exceeds the deliverables of Windows.

You'd think, if it were as simple as that, it'd have been done by now.

Do you honestly think these companies with these "perfect" OSes are sitting there in their dark rooms giggling about how they could blow windows out of the water but choosing not to do so so they can laugh at everyone else?

Oh, wait...that's what *you* do...

Until it's done, you can comment on how easy it would be all you want. At the end of the day, it's still totally irrelevant to any discussion concerning that thing we like to call practical reality.

Such a fool.

There is a difference between what is possible and the market investment required to achieve market penetration.

You know this as well as I do.

But instead you glibbly ignore that in your selective attention and attempt to draw the conclusion that the capabilities do not readily exist in other platforms.

No WONDER you are a Windows fanboy. And no wonder it confuses you to no end why others choose to use other environments. And to think that others actually have cause to work in such environments!

Yup, Windows is just dominating the backend systems! NOT!

Oh, and DON'T bother to do a cost analysis of consumer versus enterprise development and recouped costs. Why should many care about the general consumer market? Yup, IBM is hurting...and one wonders why they dumped their PC division in a commodity market? Duh!

There is a difference between what is possible and the market investment required to achieve market penetration.

You know this as well as I do.

Of course I do. That in no way means it can't be done, or couldn't have been done 20 years ago...if it was such an obvious and simple thing...

But instead you glibbly ignore that in your selective attention and attempt to draw the conclusion that the capabilities do not readily exist in other platforms.

They don't. The presumption of capabilities exists, but they have in now way been achieved to date.

it confuses you to no end why others choose to use other environments. And to think that others actually have cause to work in such environments!

What kind of crack are you on? I have never said or even implied that other environments are not useful.

Yup, Windows is just dominating the backend systems! NOT!

Huh...and here again you imply that I said something I never have. How cute...

To use a simple example, AIX could easily be used as a desktop system - and the capabilities to which I have alluded have existed in mature form for almost 15 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In production!

Does IBM have an interest in marketing a personal OS? Hell, they dumped the commodity PC line!

The fact is, the capabilities exist - they have even been open sourced! That is exactly how HP-UX got their LVM environment!

You are completely WRONG. THEY DO EXIST. There is NO presumption of capability! They have existed in mature form for 15 years!

The fact that others have not implemented the capabilities speaks more to the marketing arm of the companies than to the technical capabilities! In fact, much need not be reinvented, simply ported. Of course, if the fundamental OS cannot support such capabilities...

You know, everyone is not limited to commenting upon only your selective atention! We are completely able to introduce any fact or observation we like - based upon your egocentric view of the world that all must respond ONLY to you, or to the larger omments in the forum - or to any aspect or idea one chooses.

Everything isn't about you. Just like there is more to the world of IT then simply your beloved, yet rather puny and kludgy, Windows.

You know, everyone is not limited to commenting upon only your selective atention! We are completely able to introduce any fact or observation we like - based upon your egocentric view of the world that all must respond ONLY to you, or to the larger omments in the forum - or to any aspect or idea one chooses.

lmao!

"I wasn't talking about you!"

That would be all well and good if you didn't start those supposedly not meant for me comments with words like "You", eh? In a reply to my comment...no less?

One would think you might understand the basics of grammar?

Just like there is more to the world of IT then simply your beloved, yet rather puny and kludgy, Windows.

....and again you imply I have ever implied such a suggestion. You really need to start passing around whatever it is you're smoking...

Nice ad hom to start the day, eh?

You got it, bub. I just pulled the information from the freaking product page, which was a joke for actually telling me information I would need to know as an IT Manager. Consider this one happily ignorant noncustomer.

There is no guarantee most of these companies (or their respective products) will be around in 10 years to support me. That is the very first thing I look at before migrating off a freaking platform: will they be around. Because I have experience of abandoned tech in the past, and thin clients are easily dropped and supported crappy products.

Our "toys" keep us in business, and have for 25 years. I like how you denounce everything I use without any knowledge thereto. Ignorance indeed.

And then there is an editorial use of the word "you" which responds to the extended audience.

Yeah, that grammar stuff can be confusing. Almost like those komplekated Windows choices...

;-)

So you are the guy still driving around with the "I love VMS" bumpersticker.

"So,as I suggested in the first post, you might want to define what your target market is! Home or SMB or Enterprise!"

Granted, they still have a long way to go in all three, but they are making progress. Who says they have to pick just one? I would think Microsoft is large enough to focus on all three... the Justice Department certainly thought so at one time.

Sorry but this alone is not going to speed up Vista 2nd edition. Since M$ loves ripping Apple, they might as well follow Apple's lead with OS X and get rid of unnecessary backwards compatibility that just produces a ton of bloated code.

M$ needs to rewrite Vista 2nd edition a.k.a. Windows 7 from the ground up. But alas, Ballmer is still at the helm so this will never happen...

Silly/paranoid comments aside, the reason that Microsoft can't really write any version of Windows from the ground up at this point is that it would break far too much existing software. If the backwards compatibility is gone, then current users have one less reason to stick with the next version of Windows, and instead might switch to OS X or some form of Linux/Unix, or even move away from OS applications and use web-based apps instead.

It is comments like this that make people like myself smack my head.

You have NO idea what you are talking, and no concept of what Windows is.

Microsoft did write Windows from the ground up, it is called WindowsNT. MS s***ed the consumer Win32 x86 optimized Win9x code to the NT OS with WindowsXP.

Sure XP looks and acts a lot like Windows 95,98,etc, but it is as different from them as OS X is from System 9 on Macs. Only MS didn't 'HAVE' to break application, as NT allowed them to use the client/server nature of the NT kernel to use subsystems to ensure they could keep compatibility. (Example Win64 runs as the main subsystem on XP & Vista x64, and Win32 is a SEPARATE subsystem for compatibility only, and could in theory be deleted from the OS.)

People that keep calling for the OS to be rewritten don't get Windows, or the NT architecture it sits on.

Win32 is what you should be asking MS to deprecate, and they can do that at anytime, as Win32 is just an API OS Subsystem running on the NT architecture. (Just like you can run a BSD subsystem on NT, freely downloadable and distributed with Vista.)

NT is solid, it is an OS designed to replace the UNIX trends of OSes, that Linux and Apple are still stuck with.

UNIX for example sees every I/O as a device with 'textual' piping. NT on the other had is an Object Oriented operating system, that sees things as 'objects' instead of generic textual I/O constructs like UNIX does. This is what you can see through using Windows PowerShell, as it is the first CLI that deals with ‘objects’, and not just text, because it can on NT.

Go read Inside WindowsNT, or the whitepapers on NT, and see why the designers of NT at Microsoft chose specifically NOT to use a UNIX model for NT and the advantages that gave them with the OS and features of the OS like NTFS.

(NTFS is still a FS that everyone else has been trying to catch up to in terms of features, speed, and reliability, and ZFS is the only one that comes close so far, and it still isn't even released.)

OS X was re-written from System 9, but Apple took the standard 'OLD' BSD/Mach model, slapped on some tape because of the monolithic nature of the kernel and put the Mac GUI on it.

It is NOT cool, new, revolutionary, or even done very well. (If you look at the 64bit support, you see how ‘not done well’ really plays out on OS X, as it is little more than an application layer hack – OS X is not 64bit itself.)

In terms of technology, if you go talk to OS engineers or theorists like myself, NT out classes OS X on so many levels it is disturbing that Apple tries to put lipstick on the *nix pig successfully. And people like yourself see OS X as newer or modern or better than the WindowsNT technology.

UNIX sees EVERYTHING as a file.

Are you kidding? With MS's dilemma of having such a fractured market base extending all the way back to Windows 3.1!!!!!, how could they dare do such a thing! What would happen to those folks still running unsupported 3.1 apps? LOL!

Of course they could, but then the fanboys would feel betrayed, as if being able to run Win 3.1 and Win95 apps and, most importantly, GAMES might be compromised - despite that no one likes to talk about that already being the case - along with the support for the game port orphaning so many with the almost $200 MS state of the art Force joystick! Oh, sorry, didn't mean to open a wound there kids...

The notion that MS even has a 32 AND 64 bit version version a 32/64 bit version is telling in itself! And just look at the chaos they face achieving that!

But remember, as Tool keeps telling us, its the games! No wonder the enterprise is starting to look at thin clients!

Well said. A clear voice of reason prevails against a bushel of rotten apples.

NT is just a licensed version of OS/2+posix. It definitely wasn't written from the ground up by MS. It has a ton of licensed code from many other vendors.

Exactly. The entire reason for Microsoft's continued success is backwards compatibility, ESPECIALLY in the corporate world. If they ever dropped that, why would people remain on that platform?

Which is partially why vista almost failed in the business world, Vista broke a lot more than going from Windows 2000-> Windows XP did.

What chaos?

You mean the chaos of Windows developers having a solid 64-bit platform for the past 5 years with which to build 64-bit applications?

Of course... completely unlike the chaos that didn't ensue at Apple.

No one there had their heads up their @sses trying to decide how to get a 64-bit version of OS X out the door!

Zero OS X developers got the shaft during that transition. Zero OS X applications require being rewritten from scratch. Right! LOL

Ahh... Apple's perfect journey to OS X.

Xerox put together the first windows based GUI and sold the first practical mouse. There's nothing original under the sun.

I still remember the days where none of my programs work when Jaguar first came out! That's how "nice" OSX were. Yah Vista is bloat and much slower than XP and hey, we're just seeing history over and over again. Ever remember everyone was saying how Win2k was good enough and how "bloat" XP was back then? Everyone was whinning about how much RAM XP was sucking (when 128MB was still the golden standard).

Vista, just like any other new OS back in the days, is not meant to be run in old machines like the one you bought 5 years ago. I rather surprised I could still run programs that were written 10 years ago though. Win7 is better if MS manages to trim it down to just-for-enterprize and only include basic tools such as calculator, notepad/wordpad, explorer, ie, snipping tools and a few others... wmp could well be unbundled as well (who would want employees to play videos in office place? I rather surprised seeing wmp being installed in win2k3...). So I guess they're heading to a good direction at the very least~

What ? Are you kidding or what? NT is derived from VMS, it was written by VMS programmers that Microsoft hired

Nonsense.

The idea (rumor, rather) started out as a project to port VMS to IA-32 at DEC.

Their decision to support RISC-based processors forced them to kill the Prism and Emerald projects.

Simply because Dave Cutler headed that project doesn't mean he brought VMS to Microsoft instead...

EDIT: I owe you a sincere apology, aredo. You are indeed correct.

You slay me sometimes....acting as though GAMES on a CONSUMER OS is a BAD thing...

Why must you constantly mix the enterprise and consumer markets in your diatribes? You do realize the two are completely separate don't you?

Don't get me wrong, I do fervently wish MSFT would further separate it's consumer OS from it's "business" OS, cutting out all of the things a "business" SO wouldn't need and hardening it further because right now, their "business" editions are nothing more than "slightly" slimmed down consumer OSes.

Yeah, the Business Editions shouldn't support Games. But there is *nothing* wrong with the consumer OS doing so, as you seem to imply in nearly every post you've made in the last month.

Apple is for losers.

"Why must you constantly mix the enterprise and consumer markets in your diatribes?"

I shouldn't insert myself but wth... To bolster the ego and self-affirm his imaginary superiority? My advise is to run Windows and play a couple of FPS to deal with that red fog that keeps creeping into his vision.

*laughing*

Poor Tool, YOU are the one who made stated that the strategic advantage of Windows in the market was their support for games - after all, why wouldn't some bozo at the desktop run another of the more robust OSes!

And now that we cite it, games becomes a derisive issue as well.

Make up your mind Scarecrow! So which way to Oz? You cite games when its convenient, so we are entitled to use YOUR example of strategic advantage in disregard jut as you use it as a measure of superiority.

OK fanboy, I apologize for addressing the larger world of enterprise computing.

I was chastised by Tool earlier for thinking that the technoids here might be expected to understand the business of IT, and now I am informed here that the readers of this site don't even know the enterprise aspect of IT.

So, how are all you gamers doing?

Shouldn't you all find a good game forum and whine there?

the strategic advantage of Windows in the market was their support for games

*laughing*

You try to imply I argued for that support in business OSes. Which I have never done. Does it help your ego if you make things up to be right about?

No dimwit.

You made that claim as to why more robust enterprise OSes are unsuitable for your minions of desktop users too confused by IT industry standard modular installation CDs as well.

Such an ignorant statement...
But hey, at least you don't disappoint.

David Cutler, the project leader instrumental in designing the fundamentals of NT was similarly responsible for VMS. And he and a few chosen colleagues from DEC were indeed largely responsible for NT!

And he initially named the project "WNT" as a play on VMS as it was the 'next generation' VMS (which the MS marketing folks tried to leverage as Windows New Technology - And Cutler himself presented that in a talk back in about 1995 that I attended!

Similarly, it was just like HAL was a play on IBM, after IBM refused to allow the use of their trademark be used in Space Odyssey 2001!

Brought VMS to MS? What???

Yeah you show the mark of an Enterprise God browsing a forum on beta software to find your enterprise roots.

LMAO!

Neither do you, Captain of the Enterprise. A very typical response.

Oh my! Did I utter an unkind word about the mighty Apple? Hopefully that wasn't too traumatic of an experience for you. I wonder who will play the part of you on the made-for-TV movie that is sure to follow?

That shouldn't bother you though, because I forgot... you're not an Apple fanboy. You just pretend not to be one on a forum that is beneath you, yet can't stay away from. The term 'fanboy' apparently doesn't apply at the enterprise level.

Whew... and to think I was almost worried about upsetting you! LOL

I don't suppose you'd care to explain how you believe my statement was ignorant (ie. untrue), would you?

Yep, there we go... I was wrong. I remember reading about the "clever" marketing decision to s*** the letters by 1 to WNT back in the mid-90s. As soon as you mentioned it, I actually said "Duh!". ;)

The 'HAL' / 'IBM' thing I actually did not know, though. Interesting... Thanks!

Oh, that hurt. I feel degraded now.

This is a step in the right direction. They need to give the customers choices, not be forcefed "free" programs in the OS. I would much rather when it installed to suggest some alternatives if you wish to install (maybe companies could pay for rights) rather than MS providing everything by default with the OS that anyone might need, and of course rather than it always being MS software.
I would gladly by a very slim OS if given the choice of what programs to integrate as far as browser, media player, mail, etc.

I get less and less excited about new Operating system releases from Microsoft as time goes on. Is this the PV (Post-vista) effect?

It might speed up the dev but im pretty sure the primary reason on "unbundle" these programs is to avoid EU lawsuits.

Certainly *a* reason, though avoiding lawsuits is not necessarily, um, core MS functionality. (Heaven knows.) Personally I hope that unbundling becomes the order of the day; I'd sure like not to have to mess with iTunes on my Mac if I don't wish to...

Mac is starting to become another bloated Windows with all the programs that it includes as well.

I honestly think that MS removing those programs and allowing users to download the programs we wish to use for our email is a great start. Granted they have a ways to go, but I think it is a positive move.

I've seen Outlook's web interface, and honestly I think I like it better than the desktop program. I don't see any real drawbacks to web mail at this point unless you're stuck with a sub-56K modem connection. As long as I can make a local archive of my PST or equivalent, I'm happy. I also have zero use for Media Player or IE, so I totally applaud any efforts to make Windows a modular OS once again. Linux and the iPhone have shown that a user-friendly app catalog is the way to go. Your OS should be like a ship with bulkheads and cargo holds into which you load whatever seems useful. If one compartment floods it doesn't sink the whole boat, and you can always dump bad cargo overboard.

BTW, welcome to BN, Ms./Mrs. Gunn :)

totally agree. I've never used Windows Mail (that bundled with Vista), not even during beta/ctp releases cuz it's purely a duplicated of outlook. I will be more happy to see wmp out of Windows. Simply including IE (the power to surf and download other stuffs) is more than enough for an average user, since these average users are always backed with power users like us and they never, ever get those dirty works done without us.

Of cos, core mini applications such as Paint Brush, Notepad/Wordpad, Calculator, and Snipping Tool should have their places to stay.

yup, think of all those programs that many vendors would include nowadays - an evaluation version of MS Office, an evaluation version of Norton Security Suite, all other mini programs from vendors like HP/Dell that controls this and that....

Having less pre-installed software is the way to go, and glad that MS is heading there now. I rather be the "I install what I need" rather than "I uninstall what I don't need", since I'll have to install what I need after these uninstallations!

leojei - FYI

Dell Australia has stopped loading eval copies of stuff unless you explicitly tick the boxes on your order. But you can't get XP except on a very low end system built from obsolete components.

"WM a duplicated version of outlook", what utter nonsense!!

Windows Mail(WM) meets a similar need in Vista as does Outlook EXPRESS(OE) on XP, but it is in no way a duplicate. But by your implied definition all mail clients would be a "duplicate of outlook", Thunderbird, Eudora, Pegasus etc

WM is way less functional than OE, no HTML support, no stationery support, no offline help, the list goes on and on. Worst of all is that migration from OE to Windows Mail is a nightmare.

If WM were a "duplicate" in the sense that I think you mean it, then surely it would be easy to migrate from OE to WM, I can assure you its not, for most users its their worse fears come true, yes I know I already said that!!

The exact same deficiencies are found when comparing OE with Windows Live Mail (WLM), and it has exactly the same migration issues. I conclude that WM and WLM are branches from the same trunk, but that trunk could not have been Outlook EXPRESS, the differences are too stark. I suspect the trunk may have been conceived in MS's skunkworks as a Thunderbird knockoff.

Real Outlook is a totally different product, it's part of the Office group of products - it does mail + calendar + task management + hooks into Word, OneNote etc.

There's an awful lot of OE users out there, and unlike WMP and Messenger it manages key parts of personal and small business records. The Live crew must make migration from OE to WLM a lot easier than it is today - they could do worse than to talk with the Office Crew, migrating from OE to Outlook 2007 is a walk in the park.

The only thing I know about Movie Maker is that not even Bill G could figure out how to use it - there's a great email from Bill to the product manager chronicling his woes.

I know quite a lot of people who use WMP for watching DVD's. Is there a Live Media Player - I don't think so.

I'd also jettison Games, HyperTerminal, Paint Brush, WordPad, Calculator, Snipper, Contacts, the resurrected Schedule++ that's in some Vista's and maybe even Notepad.

On the other hand I'd bundle the Office spell checker and open it up for all and sundry to use.

By the way, welcome aboard Angela.

They can't take WMP out of windows. There are things that people expect it to do out of the box. One of those is be able to surf the web, and watch videos on the web, and play DVDs, all of which you can't do natively without a media player (or flash plug-in for most internet video). It's a lot safer to take out mail, calendar, IM, or photo gallery programs. Most people use web-based mail & calendars (google, windows live, or yahoo). People that wanna do photo stuff already know about sites like flickr or programs like picasa or windows live photo gallery already available for XP. Video editing is probably only big among teens puting videos up on youtube, or for people that really want to. The majority of the people that I know don't do it, don't know how to do it, or have no desire to do it anyway. If they wanted to they'll find a solution. And you never know, OEMs may bundle the latest version of Windows Live Apps with the comps anyway. Just like Apple bundles the latest version of iLife with macs.

Fine by me since I don't use most of that stuff or the Live counterparts. Why on Earth MS was duplicating development efforts between Windows and its Live platform is beyond me. However, there are quite a large number of users who want and expect all of their basic applications to be ready to go from the very first boot. This concept is what Apple took advantage of and what MS attempted with Vista.

I must admit that Outlook 2007 has made it more complex to get the same tasks done that Outlook 2003 did. For instance, When I come across an e-mail in plain text in '07, and I want to reply or forward in html, the process in '07 baffles me. I have to go to the options "menu", then look below all my options at the various subtabs for "formatting," and then recognize that html is chosen within that subcontext. I guess I just liked the old menu style where everything was tree-hierarchical like and consistently available. There are also a myriad ways of configuring the ribbon bar, so if a user has played around with this interface, you really are in a s***storm support wise.

Oh well.