Windows 7 is the new Messiah. (Sorry Obama!)

[dtmt]

Originally Posted by vitaminc

XP is the first consumer OS that merged the Windows 3.0 path and Windows NT path. Win2K was a professional (Win NT) OS.
I remember seeing laptops with 2k at electronics stores, so I never thought of it as being any less of a "consumer" OS than XP. I think it's just that XP got so much more marketing hype that it's seen this way.

 

[javyn]

Originally Posted by Hennessy

I am still happy with XP, but if W7 becomes a success our vendors would probably stop supporting XP and we would be forced to go for W7. It's actually a bit scary how dependent we have become of Microsoft. Eager to see if the release of the Google OS will change things. We are moving in the direction of having all our applications online and interact with them through a browser anyway. Quick access is the keyword here, and even though W7 looks good in that regard I can't justify the hardware spec. needed for it to run smoothly.
I'm eager to see anything substantive on Chrome OS, anything. So far all we know is that it's another GUI thrown on top a Linux kernel. I hope it fares well though, just so it will bring more attention to alternative operating systems more suited to older hardware than whatever MS has out at the time. Also, more people using Linux means more demand for more apps.

I remember seeing laptops with 2k at electronics stores, so I never thought of it as being any less of a "consumer" OS than XP. I think it's just that XP got so much more marketing hype that it's seen this way.

The price tag compared to Win 95/98/Me was what kept it from being a consumer OS I think. edit: Then again, by that rationale, I guess I can't consider anything running OSX as meant for the consumer either then haaha

 

[BrettChaotix]

Win2k was never intended to be a "home user" OS, they released it for business use primarily and they priced it for companies (big cost for individual license, major discounts if you buy in bulk). They were still pushing the 98/ME OS to home users at the time.

I think the biggest difference between Chrome OS and MOST OF the other alternative OS options with a linux base is that Chrome's goal is "keep it on the cloud". Don't expect to be able to install heavy apps.

 

[javyn]

I know they are going to focus on Cloud computing, but without support for heavy apps they might as well not even bother. I'm sure since it's open source though, there will be apps ported to and made for it.


Anyway, I hope it Chrome OS does relatively well against Windows, but I really hope Windows lures some Mac fanboys away. God, I hate Apple.

 

[BrettChaotix]

Originally Posted by javyn

I know they are going to focus on Cloud computing, but without support for heavy apps they might as well not even bother. I'm sure since it's open source though, there will be apps ported to and made for it.


Anyway, I hope it Chrome OS does relatively well against Windows, but I really hope Windows lures some Mac fanboys away. God, I hate Apple.

I doubt there will be much porting. It's a matter of recompiling for linux packages and you can run any Win32 app you want within Linux via WINE... which means priority1 should be preparing a build of WINE for ChromeOS.

(I'm guessing) They will eventually push towards the business market as we've gone back to "thin-client" style computing in the workplace thanks to advancements in Citrix, TermServ, virtual machines and above all, SaS/SOA evolution.

If you are going to focus on cloud computing, part of the appeal is minimal hardware. That's why they are pushing for a "netbook" release first.

Regardless of the OS, I don't think anyone would really expect "heavy" apps to run well on a netbook. Since netbooks are a market that Apple can't touch right now, I'd expect them to do well against Windows, just as the various netbook-adapted versions of Ubuntu are doing well.

 

[javyn]

Yeah, honestly I could care less about netbooks, I was speaking of if and when it ever makes it to a desktop or laptop computer. I think I misspoke too, wasn't concerned about porting win apps over to Chrome, but recompiling other Linux apps to work on it, which shouldn't be a problem.

I'll give the OS a shot, but if I can't load up Openoffice, K3b, or the required dependencies for either, forget it.

Kinda ambivalent on Win7 though, to get back on topic. Although I don't want it to fail (and of course it won't), I'd love to see them to continue to slip and lose market share, which I think will happen.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Regardless of the OS, I don't think anyone would really expect "heavy" apps to run well on a netbook. Since netbooks are a market that Apple can't touch right now, I'd expect them to do well against Windows, just as the various netbook-adapted versions of Ubuntu are doing well.

Until 7 comes out later this year anyways...

 

[javyn]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Until 7 comes out later this year anyways...

If Windows 7 can actually run faster than Ubuntu, I'll kiss my own ass.

 

[BrettChaotix]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Until 7 comes out later this year anyways...

I'm afraid not....

http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33
http://www.workswithu.com/2009/02/05...-vs-windows-7/

 

[javyn]

Originally Posted by BrettChaotix

I'm afraid not.... http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33 http://www.workswithu.com/2009/02/05...-vs-windows-7/
Thanks. I wanted to post that benchmark, but was hesitant because of my Linux fanboy status posting **** from tuxradar.com. Also to be fair to 7, the final version isn't out yet. So maybe they are doing something to double the speed before the official is released (hah). Also, I have a few minor issues with the benchmark that just bug me anyway, like why bother to benchmark ext4 when it's not nearly ready for primetime in Ubuntu 9.04? ext4 is a disaster in Ubuntu as of right now.

 

[BrettChaotix]

Agreed, it's not fair to lock in W7 benchmarks at the RC1 level. They made major improvements in file copying speeds from Beta.7100 to the RC1, only more to come.

I think the improvements in ext4 are inevitably going to be an argument against W7 so you might as well show them what's coming. Plus the DIY spirit of the Linux community encourages people to start monkeying around with ext4 as soon as they can get their hands on a nightly build!

 

[javyn]

I'd actually be open to trying 7 if it was at least as fast as XP. But likely I'll wait until the far future, when 8 is on the verge of coming out heh.

ext4 is going to be default in 9.10, curious to see if it lives up to the hype re speed. If it was faster for me in Jaunty, it was not noticeable, and definitely crashy. Things are solid as hell in ext3 though.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Some of those arguments are BS.

Just so you know.

OMG! It takes 11GB to install Ultimate, so it won't work on netbooks! (most netbooks have way more than 11GB, they make it sound like its going to be an issue... and it's not.) Not many people are buying a netbook with a 4GB SSD in it. In fact, in the top 10 selling netbooks on the market, only three of them have less than 160GB (160 is standard) - the Sylvania GNET28001SO Meso Netbook with 80GB, the HP mini 1000 with 80GB/32GB SSD, and the Dell Inspiron Mini 9 with a 16GB SSD. All of which are fully capable of installing Windows 7 - and with the possible exception of the Sylvania (which I am not familiar enough with to be sure) WILL be coming pre-loaded with Win7 by the end of the year. I believe I've heard that Win 7 Home Premium has an 8GB install footprint. But don't hold me to that.

Yeah, you won't be able to install Ultimate on a Dell Mini 4GB SSD. It is one of the only netbooks you can't install it on. I am going to tell you right now that installing Ultimate is going to be a waste of time for 99.99% of most people. And Netbooks will not be using it. It would be a waste of money.

Not so secret: Ultimate is already on the Install disk for Home Premium. If you REALLY want it, it's probably going to be about 3 weeks after retail release that it gets cracked.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Windows-...view-1164.html

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by BrettChaotix

I'm afraid not.... http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33 http://www.workswithu.com/2009/02/05...-vs-windows-7/
I'm afraid that is inconclusive at best, and actually favorable to Windows at worst. How is the install time in mouse clicks going to be the main issue for users? Where's the Ubuntu v Win 7 USABILITY benchmarks? As in, how long does it take for someone unfamiliar with either Win7 or Ubuntu to accomplish common tasks, and how much can it do out of the box without all kinds of additional installing of third party software and stuff?