Ready for Windows 7? [already here]

[KenseidenXL]

I just pre-ordered Windows 7 Professional Upgrade. It only cost $99.99. It's due out around October 22nd.

[Masamune]

Not yet. I like to wait until a program has been out awhile.

[Nakor]

Hell no. Done like dinner with all that. Yes, I've used Windows 7 (beta) some back from work's test machines, and yes, it appears to be a bit better, but I'm personally sticking with Linux.

[Shawn]

I'm waiting for atleast SP1 for Windows 7 to come out before I decide to buy it. There are usually to many bugs and driver support sucks with Microsux products.

[Frong]

If Windows 7 turns out to be significantly better than Vista, then the next time I have to get a new PC for whatever reason, I'll get one with Win7 on it. Otherwise, I'll get a new PC and stick Ubuntu on it. I'm pretty sure I don't do anything that specifically requires Windows, anyway.

[Nakor]

*shrug*

With wine, 90% of stuff that "requires Windows" doesn't. Only things that tie right into the kernel can't be run through wine - and that's stuff like antivirus programs that you won't need any more. Oh, and some hardware, but that just requires a bit of quick checking before purchase. (CUPS handles most printers, monitors and mice are pretty much universal, although gaming mice with more than 5 buttons can be a pain to set up I hear. For graphics cards, NVidia and ATI both have full support - NVidia's a hair better - and Intel has poor support, mostly because nobody cares about their cards anyway.)

winehq.org keeps a very thorough list of programs and how well they work with the current version of Wine. It's constantly in development to improve it. Wine also can use Mono to run apps that require .NET Framework. Ubuntu has Mono preinstalled, but not wine, not that it's difficult:

sudo apt-get install wine

//Edit: Oh, and to avoid scaring anyone I should note that command line stuff like that isn't necessary, it's just how I'm used to doing it. There's a perfectly good Add/Remove Programs dialogue too (and unlike the Windows one, you actually can use it for adding programs).

[Frong]

You do realize that I didn't understand half of what you just said, right? I'm not familiar with Linux terms in the least, and am too lazy to go looking them up. Honestly, I'd really rather stick with Windows, simply because I'm already accustomed to it. I'll only be willing to give Linux a shot if Windows 7 turns out to be total crap, which I doubt it will. Going by Microcrap's previous pattern, they only tend to release one lousy version of Windows at a time. Consider this:

Windows 3.1: Kind of OK. Doesn't qualify as crap.
Windows 95: Insanely buggy and unstable at first, eventually got kind of straightened out... kind of. Initial version qualifies as crap.
Windows NT: Never used it, since it was for networks, but I'm fairly certain it ran at least sort of OK. Probably doesn't qualify as crap.
Windows 98: Less buggy and unstable than 95. Doesn't qualify as crap.
Windows ME: Buggy and unstable to the point of being comical. Total crap.
Windows 2000: Never used this much either, but heard it was more stable than NT. Doesn't qualify as crap.
Windows XP: Generally stable. Doesn't qualify as crap.
Windows Vista: Neurotic, security-obsessed memory whore. Qualifies as crap.

Since two crap versions of Windows were never released in a row and Vista qualifies as crap, Win7 should probably be at least tolerable. It's the version after THAT that I'll probably end up avoiding.

[Nakor]

Half the terms I used weren't linux terms, just general computer ones.

Also, you never saw XP at release...

Everything from Windows 2000 through to Windows 7 are technically versions of Windows NT, however only its earliest versions (~1993 iirc) were branded as NT. There was an early server version branded as NT as well a little later.

Little known detail: Windows 2000 was not meant for general release, it was meant as a business sort of edition. It sold to the general public when it became clear that it was far better than ME, released roughly the same time.

98 wasn't as stable as you give it credit for. Better than 95 or ME, yes, but hardly stable. 3.1, 2000 and XP are the only ones I'd call stable, and 2000 and XP only became so after patching. (XP is nigh unusable without at least SP1... SP2 helps a lot too. SP3 not so vital, though good to install all the same.) Similarly Vista has come a long way (opening IE doesn't require UAC permission any more -- UAC is a little more similar to Linux's version of permissions-granting now, but without requiring a password) but it's still a pain in the arse, and unlike XP, when something inevitably goes wrong, it has a much higher chance of poofing your user account or the whole comp. I know Windows 7 won't suffer the lack-of-compatibility with nearly every device on the market like Vista. It uses the same kernel as Vista, which means all the same drivers that worked on Vista will work on Win7. If it worked on Vista, it'll work on Win7, in short.

Ubuntu's default interface looks almost Mac-like with the smaller task bars on both the top and bottom, menus along the top left. I won't say it doesn't take a little getting used to, but I think it's worth it, personally. It is customizable of course.

[coffeehound]

I'll probably get the full win7 home version in October. Upgrade is a good deal right now, but what if you need to format later?

[KenseidenXL]

I have XP Pro, so it makes little difference. The ones who have Vista only may have some downgrade problems. The 7 Home Upgrade is $80, but 7 Pro has better XP compatibility than Vista or 7 Home. Plus, the 7 Pro Upgrade was only $20 more. At release, Pro Upgrade will probably cost $200, so I got a bargain.

[Corvette Girl]

Nope. Not ready at all!

I am happy with XP.

[Frong]

OK, fine, so I'm not familiar with half the general computing terms you used. More specifically, I don't know what wine, CUPS and Mono are. I am also still far too lazy to look any of them up.

I already knew that Windows 2000 was a business version, btw, which is why I said I barely ever used it. I suppose you're right about 98 and the initial version of XP being pretty unstable; I never had too much experience with 98, either, actually. I just remember it being better than 95, not that that says a lot. I was also thinking more of the fact that at least XP eventually became stable after patching, whereas 95 never really became stable, period. Yay for the internets?

On that note, I wonder if MS releasing a version of Windows that never needs a major patch would be a sign of the apocalypse.

[Nakor]

Well, everything requires some sort of updates and patching. That alone doesn't mean anything terrible. But it's the sheer number, as well as the number of things that go wrong, and the fact that most of their patches reintroduce new security holes in the system... it's a mess. The Windows system -- the backend that is, the stuff that makes the computer work -- is so complex and allows so many things to tie into it, that over time Windows systems just slow down and eventually the only way to get any sort of performance out of your computer again is a total reformat. That's one of the major things they need to fix. They need to learn from the "Keep It Simple Stupid" style of programming.

[Frong]

Well, seeing as everything needs patching, then having a version of Windows be released that never needs a single patch really would qualify as a sign of the apocalypse. And yeah, they could definitely stand to take a page from the way DOS was programmed and keep the backbone of Windows a lot simpler. DOS may not have have a single pixel of user-friendliness in it, but it was also nigh impossible to crash. Its core programming was too solid.

Ah, DOS. I recall with such fondness how you spoke to me, repeating softly upon my screen... "Bad command or file name."

[Diofan]

You do realize that I didn't understand half of what you just said, right? I'm not familiar with Linux terms in the least, and am too lazy to go looking them up. Honestly, I'd really rather stick with Windows, simply because I'm already accustomed to it. I'll only be willing to give Linux a shot if Windows 7 turns out to be total crap, which I doubt it will. Going by Microcrap's previous pattern, they only tend to release one lousy version of Windows at a time. Consider this:

LOL Made perfect sense to me! (My computer is Dual Boot XP Pro/Linux Ubuntu). When Microcrap no longer supports XP I'll be switching to Linux full time!

My big beef on the linux side is Adobe Flash 10 for Linux...total CRAP! Bloatware extreme!!
So a lot of my online games didn't work on linux...well...Solved that problem with Wine.

In laymans terms, Wine is a Windows emulator for linux enabling you to run about 90% of windows Programs on a Linux machine. It is with Wine that I surf the Web. (Using the windows version of Firefox and Flash).

In my opinion, Ubuntu is in many ways Easier to deal with then Windows. And WAY less Buggy!