(no subject)

[bzarcher]

I'm honestly surprised to be saying this, but the first looks under the hood of Windows 7?

It's kinda hot.

It's, like, daaaamn, girl.

Launch is probably going to be...what, something like 6 months to a year?

If it isn't a total pooch screw, I'll probably be starting to seriously think about a new PC at that point...hmm...

Comments

[spoonybardol.livejournal.com]

Didn't we JUST get Vista? Geez, Microsoft is cranking out new OS's faster than we get new videogame consoles.

Granted I haven't been paying a bit of attention so this is the first I've heard of it.

What's the skinny? Any particular reason it's called '7'?

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Sort of, but OTOH look at Mac, where you can pretty consistently bet on a new OS about every 1.5 years since the move to OS X. :)

This may be significant just because they're making a bit effort to fix a lot of the vista headaches. Think of it as a bit like when XP came out after ME/2000 - a lot of people (unless you were already running 2000 server) upgraded and said "Oh! That's much better now, thanks." I am wondering if this might just be what the Vista launch really should have been in terms of what they're trying to do.

It's (at least for home users) the 7th major revision of the Windows operating system. :)

Windows 3.1, 95, 98, Me, XP, Vista, and now 7.

OTOH, you go to the business side and it's like, Windows for Workgroups, NT, NT4, 2000, XP Pro, Server 2003, Server 2008, yadda yadda yadda....

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

Ooo, that is shiny.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

I knoooow. :)

And I was starting to really think about saving up for a Macbook Pro, but...man, I dunno now.

[snowspinner.livejournal.com]

Well, to say nothing of the fact that Windows 3.1 is now, apparently, Windows 1. :)

[snowspinner.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I'm not seeing anything, interface-wise, that seems better than what Apple has been doing for years. I mean, credit due - it took Microsoft 7 years to basically fully ape the UI of OS X, which is four faster than it took from Mac OS to Windows 95.

But given that, at this point, with good WINE versions for OS X, Parallels, and Boot Camp, a Mac can run Windows applications pretty effortlessly, the lower malware rates for the Mac, the sexy factor of the hardware, and the general even keel Apple has kept on since OS X released (while Microsoft has, in the same period, run through Me, XP, and Vista) makes me pretty happy with my Mac switch, and disinclined to bail.

Yeah, there are a few sexy interface features there - I like window peeking (though a similar feature exists for OS X, which has fantastic window management), "jump view" is a bit better than the equivalent for OS X, the desktop-based widgets are nice (though seem to me to lose the benefits of the actual desktop, cluttered nightmare that it is for me half the time), and I do really like the "maximize window by dragging it to the top of the screen" trick.

But on the whole, the degree to which a Mac can seamlessly run Windows software is still pretty killer for me.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Well, it was basically the first version sold as a full OS, as opposed to a GUI wrapper over DOS. Even if 3.1 was still mostly a GUI wrapper over DOS.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

True. But on the other hand, if I decided to transition at some point to Windows 7, the hardware upgrade would also be much cheaper. :)

[tigerfox.livejournal.com]

I may be the one person on your list to say it, but I'm NOT looking forward to Windows7 from a pretties point of view. It's like Vista.

Forget Vista and give me back XP's functionality. I don't want window previews. Ditch that RAM-sucking Aero look. That sidebar can go too. I seriously dislike the way the folder tree works in Vista versus XP (using a workmate's computer versus mine). Why do you need to change the icons to something that looks assinine AND totally unrecognizable? I don't need little cute icons showing me that there are pictures in this file, documents in this one, and oh a mix of the two in this one.

Don't even get me started on Office 2007. There went productivity out the door.

Now if they had an option to disable all that (IMO) crap, then I might consider Windows7.

Vista is the only reason I'm seriously waffling on getting a custom built computer versus a new HP computer.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

See, if they can give me pretty -and- stable? That's my ideal world. I am one of those suckers who loves the idea of a computer UI that looks like something out of a scifi movie.

This is another reason Phil is going to tell me to buy a Mac.

Unless the HP is a notebook or you're getting big discounts, why -not- go custom? Build what you want, get it cheaper, and no worries about a bunch of crapware loaded at the factory.

[tigerfox.livejournal.com]

Definitely not a notebook. I dislike laptops quite a bit due to the keyboards. Then if you add an external keyboard and mount the sucker on that rack, what's the point of even having one? Get a desktop at that point.

Terry gets an HP discount. Plus I'm not comfortable building my own rig and if something goes wrong? I'd be SOL. But it's tempting just to be able to still run XP. At least I already know how to turn off the excess crap as it is. :P

No Mac 'cause I have a few MMOs I like to play.


...wow, I sound a bit jaded. o.o;

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Discount can make a difference. :)

Macs being able to run windows or emulation at this point is actually quite doable for CoH, and obviously WOW has a mac native client. *shrug* I dunno. :) I'm addicted to shiny things I cannot afford at this time.

(you? Jaded? Naaaaaah....)

[tigerfox.livejournal.com]

Less WoW, more WAR. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

And yes, still City of. :)

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

I still have a sneaking suspicion that Parallels or a dual boot would take care of it, but that's another show. :)

[mg4h.livejournal.com]

[snark]It looks a lot like OS X ;) [/snark]

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, but that's not so terrible... :)