Best Buy Leaks Windows 7 Upgrade Plans

[Red Squirrel]

Maybe they'll call it longhorn, that's what vista was suppose to be called then they changed it. There is a rumor that win 7 is actually what vista was supose to be but it leaked so they redid vista (which is why it took like 3 years longer then the first projected date). Not sure if that rumor is true or not though.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I don't get why everyone hates Vista so much. I've been running an x64 version for over a year now and I have yet to run into any problems whatsoever...touch wood. It's quick and snappy, has never ever crashed.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
With that said, have they announced a name yet. I am sick of saying Win 7.

Um...Yeah. Windows 7.

 

[magomago]

Yeah I do'nt get it as well. So much hate on vista yet love for 7. I've used them both....I honestly don't feel that its that much different. Note: I think Vista is fine. when it came out...vista imo had issues, but that was largely due to REALLLY bad driver support. But now that has caught up with the community, and vista has been patched for its problems, its a fine OS and I wouldn't take XP over it.

If I go 7...I'll probably want x64. I can't see myself sticking with x86...but what makes me hesitate is still 32 bit support. Does x64 have any extra options for 'super safe compatability mode'? Something similar to compatibility mode for XP for w9x programs

 

[dougp]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Maybe they'll call it longhorn, that's what vista was suppose to be called then they changed it. There is a rumor that win 7 is actually what vista was supose to be but it leaked so they redid vista (which is why it took like 3 years longer then the first projected date). Not sure if that rumor is true or not though.

That's bogus. The original Longhorn included a new file system that was supposed to be leaps and bounds better than anything we've ever seen. It was supposedly like an on the fly file relocations / indexing-centric FS that would decrease the need to defrag and reinstall stuff, reduce corrupted files and also reduce power usage. Granted, we never saw this feature ... it was still really a juicy idea.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: Mr Smiley
Why do you like Windows 7 so much? Why should I spend $150+ for Windows 7 when I can stick with Vista or XP?

Hmmmm rereading OP............................nope nothing about me buying 7. Not with 5 pc's and laptops running XP Pro that Microsoft gave me. I could not afford to upgrade

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: magomago
Yeah I do'nt get it as well. So much hate on vista yet love for 7. I've used them both....I honestly don't feel that its that much different. Note: I think Vista is fine. when it came out...vista imo had issues, but that was largely due to REALLLY bad driver support. But now that has caught up with the community, and vista has been patched for its problems, its a fine OS and I wouldn't take XP over it.

If I go 7...I'll probably want x64. I can't see myself sticking with x86...but what makes me hesitate is still 32 bit support. Does x64 have any extra options for 'super safe compatability mode'? Something similar to compatibility mode for XP for w9x programs

It has a built in XP VM.

Could you really ask for more?

 

[Fritzo]

Yeah, Win7 rocks. They must have fired the workers at Microsoft from the last 10 years and got a new set of talent in. Win 7, Bing, Xbox 360....everything they're doing is right lately.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Mr Smiley
Why do you like Windows 7 so much? Why should I spend $150+ for Windows 7 when I can stick with Vista or XP?

XP? You not feeling that 32bit limitation yet?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: dougp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Maybe they'll call it longhorn, that's what vista was suppose to be called then they changed it. There is a rumor that win 7 is actually what vista was supose to be but it leaked so they redid vista (which is why it took like 3 years longer then the first projected date). Not sure if that rumor is true or not though.

That's bogus. The original Longhorn included a new file system that was supposed to be leaps and bounds better than anything we've ever seen. It was supposedly like an on the fly file relocations / indexing-centric FS that would decrease the need to defrag and reinstall stuff, reduce corrupted files and also reduce power usage. Granted, we never saw this feature ... it was still really a juicy idea.

I remember this as well. Too bad Linux beat them to it YEARS ago lol.

And the reason most people hate vista is due to the retarded resource requirements. XP was the same thing back in the day. Today's hardware is great for XP, but back when single core CPU at 1Ghz with 256MB of ram was standard, XP was too intensive. Microsoft are always too ahead of hardware when it comes to requirements. They expect everyone to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware.

Those who have zero issues with vista are the ones that have a above average PC such as a quad xeon with 12GB of ram and a raid 0 SSD setup. Sure Vista will run great on that, but XP would run even better. On a typical dual core machine with 1-2 GB of ram, Vista will barely run.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: dougp
Wow, it's only going to cost me $50 retail to upgrade? That's nice ... wonder what OEM prices will be.

That is a great price.

Keep in mind that $50 may be for an upgrade CD that may require your original XP install to be complete first. I know there was a great little workaround for Vista for that, but I doubt M$ didn't fix that.

There has been upgrade install work arounds for every Microsoft OS and program I can think of. It wouldn't be very Microsofty of them to actually finally fix it in Windows 7.

There never has been a "work around" for Microsoft OS installs until Vista. Before Vista, when using an upgrade disc, you could start an install on a clean partition, and during the install, it would simply ask you for a reg key to a previous version of Windows that you owned so it could verify you were indeed upgrading. Then you could install a fresh version of your OS.

With Vista, they did away with that and actually made you have a previous Windows installation on the drive that it would check to verify you were upgrading. So if you had a clean partition and wanted to use your upgrade disc to install a fresh copy of Vista, you had to actually install a previous version of Windows so the upgrade disc would see it during setup. Only then it would say, "OK, you have a previous version, now you can wipe the partition and install a fresh copy of Vista". You couldn't simply enter a valid reg key like before for verification.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Those who have zero issues with vista are the ones that have a above average PC such as a quad xeon with 12GB of ram and a raid 0 SSD setup. Sure Vista will run great on that, but XP would run even better. On a typical dual core machine with 1-2 GB of ram, Vista will barely run.

This was the problem with the public's perception of Vista, idiots like you who don't know what they are talking about. "Barely run"? Please.

 

[rh71]

can they make up their mind about naming conventions already?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: peritusONE

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: dougp
Wow, it's only going to cost me $50 retail to upgrade? That's nice ... wonder what OEM prices will be.

That is a great price.

Keep in mind that $50 may be for an upgrade CD that may require your original XP install to be complete first. I know there was a great little workaround for Vista for that, but I doubt M$ didn't fix that.

There has been upgrade install work arounds for every Microsoft OS and program I can think of. It wouldn't be very Microsofty of them to actually finally fix it in Windows 7.

There never has been a "work around" for Microsoft OS installs until Vista. Before Vista, when using an upgrade disc, you could start an install on a clean partition, and during the install, it would simply ask you for a reg key to a previous version of Windows that you owned so it could verify you were indeed upgrading. Then you could install a fresh version of your OS.

With Vista, they did away with that and actually made you have a previous Windows installation on the drive that it would check to verify you were upgrading. So if you had a clean partition and wanted to use your upgrade disc to install a fresh copy of Vista, you had to actually install a previous version of Windows so the upgrade disc would see it during setup. Only then it would say, "OK, you have a previous version, now you can wipe the partition and install a fresh copy of Vista". You couldn't simply enter a valid reg key like before for verification.

I remember in 95 all you had to do was create 3 empty text files and you could install 3.1-95 with no 3.1, same with 95-98, or similar any ways. In XP there was also a work around where you could go from 98 to XP without having 98 installed or true 98 disc handy. It just looked for a few files which you could create using copy con or whatever you wanted and burn it to a disc. It didn't actually verify the files, just the file names. I would call those work arounds. I definitely remember installing the 95 upgrade on a system that had nothing on it. I know it could be done with other MS OS upgrade discs too I just never did it.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: dougp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Maybe they'll call it longhorn, that's what vista was suppose to be called then they changed it. There is a rumor that win 7 is actually what vista was supose to be but it leaked so they redid vista (which is why it took like 3 years longer then the first projected date). Not sure if that rumor is true or not though.

That's bogus. The original Longhorn included a new file system that was supposed to be leaps and bounds better than anything we've ever seen. It was supposedly like an on the fly file relocations / indexing-centric FS that would decrease the need to defrag and reinstall stuff, reduce corrupted files and also reduce power usage. Granted, we never saw this feature ... it was still really a juicy idea.

I remember this as well. Too bad Linux beat them to it YEARS ago lol.

And the reason most people hate vista is due to the retarded resource requirements. XP was the same thing back in the day. Today's hardware is great for XP, but back when single core CPU at 1Ghz with 256MB of ram was standard, XP was too intensive. Microsoft are always too ahead of hardware when it comes to requirements. They expect everyone to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware.

Those who have zero issues with vista are the ones that have a above average PC such as a quad xeon with 12GB of ram and a raid 0 SSD setup. Sure Vista will run great on that, but XP would run even better. On a typical dual core machine with 1-2 GB of ram, Vista will barely run.

Weird, my single core AMD 3700+ with 2G RAM runs vista fine. It even plays COD4 in vista. And this was two years old when vista came out. Almost 4 now.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: peritusONE

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Those who have zero issues with vista are the ones that have a above average PC such as a quad xeon with 12GB of ram and a raid 0 SSD setup. Sure Vista will run great on that, but XP would run even better. On a typical dual core machine with 1-2 GB of ram, Vista will barely run.

This was the problem with the public's perception of Vista, idiots like you who don't know what they are talking about. "Barely run"? Please.

If it's idling and hovering at 70% cpu and using 90% of the ram, I call this barely run. What's the point of having an OS if you can't even startup other applications with it?

An OS should have a minimal footprint to give more room for the front end apps that are actually being used. Installing vista is like taking 2GB of ram out of your XP PC. Why bother?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: rh71
can they make up their mind about naming conventions already?

lol yeah. They should just call it windows 2010 or at least some different name like they did with Vista.

I'm not even sure where the 7 comes from.

1: Win 3.1
2: Win95
3: Win98
4: WinME
5: Win2k
6: Winxp
7: Winvista
8: win 7?

I'm not even counting win 1.0 and windows bob, though was windows bob an actual OS or just an addon? Way before my time of using PCs. Win98 was my first PC OS. Though I had slightly touched 3.1 and 95 before on computers that did not belong to me. (ex: school, my sister's university pc that stayed at our house a few months etc)

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: rh71
can they make up their mind about naming conventions already?

lol yeah. They should just call it windows 2010 or at least some different name like they did with Vista.

I'm not even sure where the 7 comes from.

1: Win 3.1
2: Win95
3: Win98
4: WinME
5: Win2k
6: Winxp
7: Winvista
8: win 7?

I'm not even counting win 1.0 and windows bob, though was windows bob an actual OS or just an addon? Way before my time of using PCs. Win98 was my first PC OS. Though I had slightly touched 3.1 and 95 before on computers that did not belong to me. (ex: school, my sister's university pc that stayed at our house a few months etc)

If i recall correctly:

Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3
Windows 95/98/ME = 4 kernel
Windows NT/XP = 5 kernel
Windows Vista/2008 = 6 kernal
Windows 7

 

[Iron Woode]

Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit RC1 7100 is my OS for my HTPC.

So far its working just fine.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Still have an unopened copy of Vista Ultimate. Need to put that sucker on Craigslist.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Still have an unopened copy of Vista Ultimate. Need to put that sucker on Craigslist.

Me too

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: dougp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Maybe they'll call it longhorn, that's what vista was suppose to be called then they changed it. There is a rumor that win 7 is actually what vista was supose to be but it leaked so they redid vista (which is why it took like 3 years longer then the first projected date). Not sure if that rumor is true or not though.

That's bogus. The original Longhorn included a new file system that was supposed to be leaps and bounds better than anything we've ever seen. It was supposedly like an on the fly file relocations / indexing-centric FS that would decrease the need to defrag and reinstall stuff, reduce corrupted files and also reduce power usage. Granted, we never saw this feature ... it was still really a juicy idea.

I remember this as well. Too bad Linux beat them to it YEARS ago lol.

And the reason most people hate vista is due to the retarded resource requirements. XP was the same thing back in the day. Today's hardware is great for XP, but back when single core CPU at 1Ghz with 256MB of ram was standard, XP was too intensive. Microsoft are always too ahead of hardware when it comes to requirements. They expect everyone to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware.

Those who have zero issues with vista are the ones that have a above average PC such as a quad xeon with 12GB of ram and a raid 0 SSD setup. Sure Vista will run great on that, but XP would run even better. On a typical dual core machine with 1-2 GB of ram, Vista will barely run.

i have a dual core machine with 2 GB of ram and Vista runs just fine. only trouble i ever have is after playing WOW all day.

In fact i know about 5 people wiht pretty much the same system and Vista runs just fine.

i will admit it runs better on my wifes machine wich is the same as mine but she has 4gb of ram.

so yeah. i think your full of shit heh.


oh and both me and my wife are running Vista ultimate.

Originally posted by: RedSquirrelIf it's idling and hovering at 70% cpu and using 90% of the ram, I call this barely run. What's the point of having an OS if you can't even startup other applications with it?

An OS should have a minimal footprint to give more room for the front end apps that are actually being used. Installing vista is like taking 2GB of ram out of your XP PC. Why bother?

yeap..your full of shit. no way is it idling at 70% cpu and useing 90% ram

 

[mcmilljb]

I just hope they phase out 32-bit editions with Windows 7. I have Vista Ultimate 64-bit which works fine, but I don't like having to worry if some 32-bit applications will work with it. Most 32 bit stuff I encounter works with 64-bit, but we need to start moving it over to 64-bit. We have virtual machines and XP mode for backwards compatibility.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: RedSquirrelIf it's idling and hovering at 70% cpu and using 90% of the ram, I call this barely run. What's the point of having an OS if you can't even startup other applications with it?

An OS should have a minimal footprint to give more room for the front end apps that are actually being used. Installing vista is like taking 2GB of ram out of your XP PC. Why bother?

yeap..your full of shit. no way is it idling at 70% cpu and useing 90% ram

Show me a single core 1-2Ghz machine that idles at 0% like xp with vista and i'll be very impressed. Has to be stocked, no liquid nitrogen cooling, no overclocking, just stock.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: RedSquirrelIf it's idling and hovering at 70% cpu and using 90% of the ram, I call this barely run. What's the point of having an OS if you can't even startup other applications with it?

An OS should have a minimal footprint to give more room for the front end apps that are actually being used. Installing vista is like taking 2GB of ram out of your XP PC. Why bother?

yeap..your full of shit. no way is it idling at 70% cpu and useing 90% ram

Show me a single core 1-2Ghz machine that idles at 0% like xp with vista and i'll be very impressed. Has to be stocked, no liquid nitrogen cooling, no overclocking, just stock.

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
On a typical dual core machine with 1-2 GB of ram, Vista will barely run.

Which is it?

Anyway, Vista runs fine on my $400 laptop.