Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Windows 7

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Windows 7 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: Windows 7

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-09-2009 04:28 PM

Release cycles aren't shrinking though. This is a longer time between Vista and 7 than 2K vs XP and it's roughly equal in time between 98 vs ME.

The only way you'd say this trend is shrinking is by looking at XP vs Vista and ignoring that XP is simply the one that's stayed in market longer than all the others.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 11-09-2009 05:01 PM

Paul J. Neuhaus:

quote:
-next Homegroup: This is WIN 7's answer to workgroups. It only works with win 7 pc's. i.e. all members must have win 7

That's what I thought. Thanks for the informative review. I'll stay with XP.

And by the way Paul, thank you for your service.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-09-2009 05:28 PM

I doubt that you'll find much different about any other future versions of Windows... The main differences by them will be that we will be mainly using Solid State Drives on laptops and many home PCs. W7 is the first OS to integrate in any useful SSD tools.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-09-2009 05:31 PM

Well of course they are working on 8 and 9 already. Don't you think Apple is already working on Snow Leopard 2 and 3 or whatever they're going to call it?

They base new OS features on what most new and many existing computers are capable of doing, not the other way around. If Windows 7 had come out right after 3.1, the entire Windows world would have had to buy new computers to make it work. How do you think that would've gone over?

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-09-2009 05:37 PM

As for useful upgrades, Windows needs a new filesystem. ZFS would be ideal, but I guarantee that it won't happen. WinFS would have been interesting, but probably would have been doomed to diastrous failure, due to being horribly overcomplicated.

The management tools for medium-size networks (under ~500 Windows machines) also suck and need to be improved.

I would love to see the bloat ("themes" and such) go away, but it won't happen.

Regardless of what we want, the thing that will kill WinXP will be the need to use more than 3.5GB of RAM (just as the lack of USB support killed NT4 in the marketplace). We will all need a 64-bit Windows OS soon, and Win7 is the logical choice.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-09-2009 06:10 PM

The 4GB RAM limit is the main issue that makes me want to upgrade to entirely new computer systems. My current notebook is maxed out with 2GB of RAM. My office computer is maxed at 4GB, but WinXP only recognizes 3.25GB of it.

I think 64-bit versions of Windows 7 will become more popular if RAM prices drop another level. It's not too financially painful to stick 8GB of RAM into a new desktop computer. Going above that gets expensive quickly. The notebook computer situation is more difficult. A laptop with 8GB of RAM installed can be pretty expensive.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-09-2009 06:46 PM

Mike - Point taken, but then again they weren't designing Windows 7 right after 3.11, either. About the only thing they can be doing is making OS's which require far more CPU and RAM, like Vista. I can understand designing Windows 8 now. But 9 as well? C'mon.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 11-09-2009 09:44 PM

You don't think MS should be working on successors to Windows 7? So every time a company releases a new product you expect them to immediately cease development on any successor version? How exactly do you think companies work? "We'll hire 10,000 coders to create Windows 7 and then on release day we'll fire 9,750 of them and the ones that are left will take care of the service packs and that will be the end of that forever and we'll never have to worry about a successor product." [Roll Eyes]

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think 64-bit versions of Windows 7 will become more popular if RAM prices drop another level.

In this past weekend's ads for Best Buy, virtually every machine they offered, no matter how cheap, came with Windows 7 Home Premium x64 and plenty of RAM to run it. I'm talking about systems selling for less than $500! I just checked BB's web site and they have an eMachines with Win 7 Home Premium x64 and 3GB of DDR2 RAM for $380! Someone will point out that the eMachines is a piece of crap. We all know that. The point is the current crop of entry-level boxes come with Win 7 Home Premium x64 and lots-o-RAM.

| IP: Logged

Paul J. Neuhaus
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 126
From: Iraq.. Again!
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 11-09-2009 09:46 PM

You will not hear any Microsoft is great shit from me and I'm an MCP(Microsoft Certified Professional). I only have the certifications because there is always support work to do with microsoft applications/operating systems.
What I will say is that Win 7 is what Vista should have been. Whatever made MSFT decide to ship Vista before it was even close to done is hopefully a mistake they will not soon forget or repeat.

Joe is right about one thing the version thing is not right. It is considered the 7th upgrade along the NT path. But it was orignaly slated for 6.1 as it is built on the Vista kernal.

In all honesty 7 is Vista it is just Vista done right and should a hell of a lot cheaper especialy for those of us who got screwed with Vista.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-09-2009 09:51 PM

quote: Paul J. Neuhaus
In all honesty 7 is Vista it is just Vista done right and should a hell of a lot cheaper especialy for those of us who got screwed with Vista.

Yea, Microsoft should have a "cash for clunkers" deal to let those with Vista trade up. You're sure to get better mileage too!

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-09-2009 10:19 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
I can understand designing Windows 8 now. But 9 as well? C'mon.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's more of working simultaneously on one product that's based on win7 (essentially the next one in the NT line) and another that's something entirely new.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-09-2009 11:00 PM

I have no problem with Microsoft or any other software developer having plans for next versions of software when the "current" version was just released. Honestly it would be suicidal for any software developer to not have a long term plan. Obviously, every software developer must come up with new products to sell in order to keep their jobs.

Does anyone really think Apple isn't working on "OSXI" or "OSXII"? Apple isn't just working on updates to iPods and iPhones.

The current "CS4" of Adobe's Creative Suite line is barely a year old, but the company is already testing "CS5" betas. They have a public beta of their next version of Lightroom out there. It's common knowledge Adobe has a roughly 18 month product cycle.

Intel is infamous for its "processor road map" it continually updates. People can whine and cry about it being vaporware, but when a chip fab runs in the billions of dollars the company absolutely needs to have clear, long term strategies. One bad mistake could have the company reeling for years.

I don't like having to buy a new computer every few years or so. But a computer isn't a washing machine that's going to last you 20 years, or even a decent car that will last at least 10-15 years. One of the downsides of personal computing is the only thing that remains constant is change. You'll never be able to buy just one computer or one piece of software and have it be that for the rest of your life. Buy a grand piano, some art or a high quality firearm if you're looking for heirlooms. Computers and the software on them will never be that.

I have a $1300 Ultra-2 SCSI flatbed scanner in my 2nd bedroom that is pretty much useless. I bought it in 1998. The only reason why I haven't thrown it in the dumpster already is I still know I paid $1300 for it. I guess I'm holding out hope I'll run across someone running a "vintage" setup who can take the scanner off my hands and provide it a good, new home.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-09-2009 11:54 PM

Jesus fucking christ raping Mary in the back of a barn while Joseph sticks it up his cornhole, people! Does everyone on this forum lack reading comprehension skills? You disappoint me with your stupidity!

quote: David Stambaugh
You don't think MS should be working on successors to Windows 7?

And just where the fuck did I say that? Is my post above your smarmy reply invisible? It must be because neither you nor Bobby seem to have read it. I was just trying to point how how features are DELIBERATELY being left out of Windows 8 to be included in Windows 9 and everyone spazzes out and goes apeshit. The only good answer so far was from Chris.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-10-2009 12:25 AM

Maybe it's because the current processors and other hardware out there is too shitty to roll out the newest stuff.

Take computer-based playback of video for instance. A decade ago it sucked oily brown shit-smelling ass, even for SD quality video. Jump through hoops doing all sorts of nonsense just to keep a SD quality stream from dropping frames from the camera. Arrgh. Now we're only getting to the level where a 1080p video stream (highly compressed) can be sustained on mainstream consumer computing hardware without hiccuping like a baby who just fed on Dolly Parton.

Computer software/hardware companies are famous for floating concepts that aren't ready for mass adoption. Internet-based video on demand is only now barely becoming feasible in SD-quality. Yet too many fuck-stain businessmen think they have the Blu-ray killer already. Um, no. 30-40 million bit per second sustained Internet bandwidth is not and will not be commonplace in American homes for several more years. That's just one example of business people shooting too far.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-10-2009 01:08 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Maybe it's because the current processors and other hardware out there is too shitty to roll out the newest stuff.

Which is what I said before Joe went apeshit.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.