[Lil' Knight]

He is just totally 'green' about this.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're completely wrong. There's a mess of under-the-hood optimizations and a pile of new features (Homegroup, Libraries, the new Taskbar, on-the-fly transcoding of media to portable devices and media center extenders, far better tablet features, display calibration tools, etc., etc.

1. The kernel is exactly the same as the vista one
2. Said kernel performs 40% slower than the XP one.
3. In the registry vista identifies itself as 6.0.xxx and 7 identifies itself as 6.1.xxx
4. 7 is more vulnerable than vista (and IMO it has been severely compromised for the average consumer)
5. Minor adjustments to userland have been made (the only + for 7 IMO)

At BEST it is a $20 upgrade or a service pack for vista. Making people pay >150 GBP for this is crap. We've got pcs with XP, streamlined Vista and 7 here.
The order of performacne is XP > streamlined vista = 7.
These are simple facts, if you were to test them out for yourself or even google them you will see that they are accurate.

This is the greatest marketing I have seen in years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Knight /img/forum/go_quote.gif He is just totally 'green' about this.

Nice pun, but it has been made before and is rather cheap. How lil' of you

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

1. The kernel is exactly the same as the vista one

Completely and absolutely wrong. Quote:

2. Said kernel performs 40% slower than the XP one.

Source? Quote:

3. In the registry vista identifies itself as 6.0.xxx and 7 identifies itself as 6.1.xxx

That's because idiots write code like the following: Code:

[left]OSVERSIONINFOEX osvi; osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFOEX); GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &osvi); if (osvi.dwMajorVersion == 6) // BAD! BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!! { // do Vista stuff }[/left]

instead of Code:

[left]OSVERSIONINFOEX osvi; osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFOEX); GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &osvi); if (osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 6) // Good! Well, decent. { // It's better to check for functionality rather than version number anyway // do Vista stuff }[/left]

Teach software writers to use the >= operator, and Microsoft will stop holding their hand. Quote:

4. 7 is more vulnerable than vista (and IMO it has been severely compromised for the average consumer)

Wrong. Don't forget, on any machine, any operating system, if you can get the user to run your code you own their system. This is a basic principle of security. Quote:

5. Minor adjustments to userland have been made (the only + for 7 IMO)

They're far from minor.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGreen /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3. In the registry vista identifies itself as 6.0.xxx and 7 identifies itself as 6.1.xxx

Nothing new, Windows 2000 kernel is 5.0.x and Windows XP is 5.1.x.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGreen /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is the greatest marketing I have seen in years.

Unlikely. Apple has been doing this sort of thing ever since the introduction of OS X. At best, Microsoft merits a tie.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Completely and absolutely wrong.Source?That's because idiots write code like the following: Code: [left]OSVERSIONINFOEX osvi; osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFOEX); GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &osvi); if (osvi.dwMajorVersion == 6) // BAD! BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!! { // do Vista stuff }[/left] instead of Code: [left]OSVERSIONINFOEX osvi; osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFOEX); GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &osvi); if (osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 6) // Good! Well, decent. { // It's better to check for functionality rather than version number anyway // do Vista stuff }[/left] Teach software writers to use the >= operator, and Microsoft will stop holding their hand.Wrong. Don't forget, on any machine, any operating system, if you can get the user to run your code you own their system. This is a basic principle of security.They're far from minor.

No New Kernel, Builds on Vista Kernel

Benchmarks of vista

Naturally, something using the same kernel will benchmark at exactly the same speed because the test is userland free.

Security issues
the security issues are the most concerning for average users.
It's irrelevant for advanced users, but then again advanced users have been using what is essentially windows 7 for years and years.
Nice to see someone got the 6.1 joke

Dont get me wrong, 7 is a nice OS. But so was vista.
People who are eating up the "lets escape the vista voodoo" marketting ploy are falling for it hard

XP is still the best windows, and even then its pretty ordinary

 

[Arainach]

Each version of the NT kernel (3.1, 3.5, NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, 7) has been based on the previous source base. There have still been substantial changes between Vista and 7. To claim it's "exactly the same" illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how software development works. For once example, they removed the schedule dispatch spinlock, a bottleneck for multitasking performance they've been trying to get around for more than a decade. For more, see Mark Russinovich's Interview about kernel changes in 7.

Your link doesn't describe any way in which 7 is less secure, it merely attempts to instill fear.

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGreen /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. The kernel is exactly the same as the vista one 2. Said kernel performs 40% slower than the XP one. 3. In the registry vista identifies itself as 6.0.xxx and 7 identifies itself as 6.1.xxx 4. 7 is more vulnerable than vista (and IMO it has been severely compromised for the average consumer) 5. Minor adjustments to userland have been made (the only + for 7 IMO)

1. Answered, already. It's not, but the Vista kernel wasn't all that bad, and had potential.
2. An op-ed is not a benchmark. He talks about tools used, but never once sets up a benchmark to back up the statement that it is slower. If you say it is 40% slower, you need to show what is running 40% slower, and how you measured that as running slower. It's like the converse of useless Phoronix articles

[size=x-small] (FYI: they have a habit of doing bunches of tests, with clear repeatable setups, but test the wrong thing or test it the wrong way)[/size]. At best, he uses useless things like total used memory and total thread count. To say it is slower, you need something limited by many kernel-space procedures to perform slower in 7, and to show the same kind of slowdown with many applications that can be bottlenecked by these identified kernel features. Your link doesn't come close.
3. And? XP or 2003 -> Vista was a more major change than Vista -> 7. Windows 2000 -> Windows XP did the same thing.
4. Linux, being considered way more secure, will happily let you run: rm -rf ~/. Let stupid users be stupid. It's when the stupid users can make life Hell for the vigilant users on their network that it becomes a problem.
5. Minor adjustments? 90% of Vista's suckage was in userland.

Quote:

At BEST it is a $20 upgrade or a service pack for vista.

You mean free upgrade, right? No one is being made to pay anything, and many recent Vista buyers can get 7 at no added cost. The closest are Windows 2000 business users seeing the security updates stop fairly soon. XP and Vista users can keep what they have for several more years just fine, if they want (2014 for XP). No one is forcing you to move to 7.
Quote:

Making people pay >150 GBP for this is crap.

Most people are looking at 65GBP, at most. Quote:

We've got pcs with XP, streamlined Vista and 7 here.

That's great. Updates will continue for several more years, so you can keep XP and Vista on those that came that way, and save money. You have at least until holiday season 2013 to make upgrade decisions.
Quote:

The order of performacne is XP > streamlined vista = 7. These are simple facts, if you were to test them out for yourself or even google them you will see that they are accurate.

They are not stating facts; they are opinions based on unknown metrics and observations. Here's what I can Google up with ease:
Windows 7: Performance Analysis - TrustedReviews - TrustedReviews
Windows 7 Performance Tests - PC World
Windows 7 vs Vista VGA game performance
Where is that clear XP advantage?

Unless you are trying to run 7 with <=256MB RAM, 7 is good. By that, I mean it runs just fine on a P3 1.13GHz w/ 384MB RAM. Seriously. No barn-burner, but believe me, neither is Win2k. The machine isn't even logo'd for XP[size=x-small] (2k logo and CoA, and I've mostly been running 2k and Arch Linux)[/size], but runs 7 just fine.

 

[MCC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGreen /img/forum/go_quote.gif The order of performacne is XP > streamlined vista = 7. These are simple facts, if you were to test them out for yourself or even google them you will see that they are accurate.

I've tested this one for myself. My old 1.86Ghz single core Thinkpad runs a fresh install of 7 better than a fresh install of XP Pro, yet absolutely CAN NOT run Vista even with all the performance tweaks I can come up with applied. Everything I do on my desktop is fluid and instantaneous. I couldn't ask for any more.

Facts are facts, and Windows 7 is right up there with W2k as being one of Microsoft's best OS's yet. I ran Debian and Ubuntu Linux exclusively until fairly recently- XP slowed down to a crawl every time I settled into an install. It's too antiquated of an OS to be of real use in today's world.

My previous Vista install ran just as well as it did on day one a full year and 150+ installed programs later. 7 looks like it'll do the same. I'm definitely no MS fanboy but I do recognize solid design and engineering when I see it. 7's definitely a keeper.

 

[intoflatlines]

I tried installing Windows 7 x86 on my girlfriend's aging laptop. 1.5 GHz Pentium M processor, 1.25 GB DDR RAM..

It runs fine but there's some issues with her drivers because the components are so old.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your link doesn't describe any way in which 7 is less secure, it merely attempts to instill fear.

UAC, bitdefender, IE for example have been comprimised in 7.

Windows is #1 target for skiddies etc and is used by a mainstream audience. The OS is clearly comprimised for these individuals (especially those who cant even prevent themselves from getting an msn hook virus) and why microsoft would even release such a thing is beyond me.

Free upgrade? In most parts of the world in order to get windows 7 for free you had to buy vista 40 days ago.
You barely have to open your eyes.
regarding the price of windows 7. 7 ultimate in GBP


I will move to windows 7 on all computers during the summer holidays, however this doesnt mean I need to be silent about the bullcrap microsoft pulls. They've done it before and got away with it (windows 98), i'll be damned if I stay silent while they forceupdate people to new things at a high cost because they are greedy bastards.

Ever wonder why it looks, runs and feels like vista? because it is vista.
With a hint of this of course

Look familiar?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

regarding the price of windows 7. 7 ultimate in GBP

No one needs Ultimate. Ultimate is for people who want to feel special and have a nice status symbol to show off that they had a lot of money. Most people can get away with Home Premium, with people who need things like Remote Desktop and Domain access going for Professional. Quote:

UAC, bitdefender, IE for example have been comprimised in 7.

Please tell us how. Also, if you're going to troll, I reccomend actually learning the Vocab of what you're talking about. Bitdefender is a third-party anti-virus suite. You're probably trying to bash Bitlocker. Quote:

i'll be damned if I stay silent while they forceupdate people to new things at a high cost because they are greedy bastards.

Compared to Apple, which ships a new service pack for money every 6 months or so? Also, no one is being forced. It's not like XP and Vista magically stopped running on Oct. 22.

KDE4 looks like a bad copy of XP, not at all like 7.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bitlocker. Also, no one is being forced. It's not like XP and Vista magically stopped running on Oct. 22. KDE4 looks like a bad copy of XP, not at all like 7.

Yes, bitlocker. Simple mistake to make.
Everyone is being forced if they want to use an OS. XP is incapable of DX10 and DX11 last time i checked, and Vista is going to have no more support in a few years.

KDE4 looks exactly like 7.
Windows has always stolen its gui from apple and other sources.

Just because I have an opinion and it disagrees with you doesn't make me a troll. A large number of consumers are not happy with windows 7. You only need to go onto uncensored anonymous boards to see it (other boards that arent anonymous results in pack mentality and flaming verse the person who is not afraid to speak up. And look, it's hapening here).

Theres no point arguing a principle with you since you refuse to see it. Complete windows 7 is expensive, the kernel is vistas kernel. Userland has always been configurable in vista to ~~~windows 7.

Go to work, send your kids to school. Update your windows. Repeat after me "I am free"

MrGreen out.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Just because I have an opinion and it disagrees with you doesn't make me a troll.

Correct. Making negative accusations about something and not backing them up with evidence makes you a troll. Good riddance.

 

[MrGreen]

Flore's statements regarding the goals of 7.
>>>>Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista.
^ this was done. Refining of the kernel was largely not done.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Refining of the kernel was largely not done.

On what do you base this statement?