I think Microsoft did it on purpose so that when it arrives, lots of people, who would otherwise be talking about how much like Vista it is, will instead be arguing about what version it is.
bnemias wrote:I think Microsoft did it on purpose so that when it arrives, lots of people, who would otherwise be talking about how much like Vista it is, will instead be arguing about what version it is.
Ok, so will it eat half the resources of my system at all times?
It is my understanding that the number 7 refers to the amount of RAM in gigs required to run Windows 7 "properly".
On a side note, Vista doesn't run well on my 4 year old machine. So does anybody know where I can get a "Vista Capable" sticker I can slap on it as I'm planning on selling it.
Good Morning Silicon Valley
Article Launched: 11/11/2008 03:39:00 PM PST
What better way to mark a Windows anniversary than a big bash
By JOHN MURRELL
Twenty-five years ago yesterday, Bill Gates unveiled Windows 1.0, which means it was probably 25 years ago today that the first critical assaults on the operating system were launched. A quarter century later, both Windows and its legions of detractors are bigger than ever, as evidenced not only by the pummeling taken by Windows Vista, but by some recent rips on Windows 7, barely in its alpha stage and apparently targeted to ship by this time next year. (Note, though, that Windows 1.0 didn't actually get to market for two years after the unveiling, establishing another ongoing tradition, delivery slippage.)
In conjunction with its Professional Developers Conference late last month, Microsoft let a few dozen reviewers and analysts play around with an early version of Windows 7, preinstalled on spiffy Dell laptops that the recipients were free to keep on "indefinite loan," and the result was some pretty complimentary coverage indicating this version "seems to have ditched or fixed many of the more annoying aspects of Vista."
Now, per tradition, the doubters and detractors are weighing in. At InfoWorld's Test Center, Randall Kennedy did some under-the-hood exploring and benchmarking of the early Windows 7 and concluded: "Bottom line: So far, Windows 7 looks and behaves almost exactly like Windows Vista. It performs almost exactly like Vista. And it breaks all sorts of things that used to work just fine under Vista. In other words, Microsoft's follow-up to its most unpopular OS release since Windows Me threatens to deliver zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues. ... IT organizations rejected Windows Vista en masse, and Windows 7 is Microsoft's response. Simply put, it's not enough. Slapping an upgraded UI onto an already discredited OS platform fools nobody and serves only to further alienate the very enterprise customers whom Microsoft claims to be wooing." And at Computerworld, Steven Vaughan-Nichols chimed in: "What's really going on here is Microsoft's same old, same old. Microsoft is trying to pull the wool over our eyes by making Windows 7 look great in staged events and by bribing reviewers with expensive laptops. They're also trying to freeze everyone's purchase plans by making Windows 7 sound like the next great thing, so why would you want to consider say Ubuntu 8.10 or a new Mac? ... Of course, you can keep hoping that Windows 7 will be the next great thing, but, based on what those of us who are taking a real look at what's coming (have seen), you're going to be sorely disappointed."
