unsider Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Windows 7 (formerly known as Blackcomb and Vienna) is the working name for the next major version of Microsoft Windows as the successor of Windows Vista. http://www.news.com/Next-version-of-Windows-Call-it-7/2100-1016_3-6197943.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7 Hmm..haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hmm..haha The funny part is...? The name? It makes perfectly sense seeing as Windows Vista is using the NT 6.0 kernel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsider Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hmm..haha The funny part is...? The name? It makes perfectly sense seeing as Windows Vista is using the NT 6.0 kernel. I agree, it makes sense, but.. I'd rather not fully express myself, for fear of... 1. being wrong on some things, allowing you guys to have a feild day with me 2. everyone is entitled to their opinion But, regardless. I recently discovered this. When Vista production was announced I immediately heard of it, within days of the announcement. Was everyone else aware of this? Maybe I was just slow. And for mentioning anything, I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of opposition. So, please don't hurt me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hmm... I don't know. I've known about this for several months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neylitalo Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hmm... I don't know. I've known about this for several months. As have I - I think you're just a bit behind the times, unsider. Subscribe to slashdot, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsider Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hmm... I don't know. I've known about this for several months. As have I - I think you're just a bit behind the times, unsider. Subscribe to slashdot, I guess. Oo, slashdot is a nice site. Thanks for recommending. And as I was posting this I had a feeling it'd be old news to guys, now I see it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerRobot Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Well it was news to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I think they are making another big mistake with what I've heard about making it modular. I can understand making in modular in a sense that you don't install what you don't need, but they are trying to sell different parts of the OS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I find it funny how a lot of people praise *nix by being extremely modular, but as soon as Microsoft does it with Windows modularity is suddenly regarded as something bad (not specifically directed towards you, Jeff). Same goes for the "high" number of versions for Vista. People complaining about too many choices, but try to count how many different GNU/Linux distributions there are out there. You are already able to select which features you would like from Windows. This currently works by purchasing different versions (XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center; Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, etc.). This new modularization just makes the choices somewhat more fine-grained than purchasing packages of features in form of different versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I find it funny how a lot of people praise *nix by being extremely modular When people talk about *nix being modular they are typically refering to the underlying kernel, not the user space packages that run upon it. They may also be talking about the fact that you can, if you wish install a base system and build from there. This is particularely good for servers. The less software installed on a server the less software there is to be exploited. You can install Linux as a command line only system. This can't be done with windows. I have some vps's at home with minimal debian installs and the amp stack coming in at less the 100Mg. You won't see any versions of windows that small. Same goes for the "high" number of versions for Vista. People complaining about too many choices, but try to count how many different GNU/Linux distributions there are out there. Some Linux users including myself would also rant about the amount of Linux distros available. Sure its good to have choice, but it would also make alot more sense to have many developers working on just a few well thought out distros. Of course because there is no centralized control this won't happen. Still, even with the massive amount of choices around most users only really stick with the top 10 more popular distos. Alot of the other are just too specialized or unstable. Given that though, the choice is there. hell, even I'm devloping my own distro as a learning experience, so I guess its people like me who add to the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I find it funny how a lot of people praise *nix by being extremely modular When people talk about *nix being modular they are typically refering to the underlying kernel, not the user space packages that run upon it. They may also be talking about the fact that you can, if you wish install a base system and build from there. This is particularely good for servers. The less software installed on a server the less software there is to be exploited. You can install Linux as a command line only system. This can't be done with windows. I have some vps's at home with minimal debian installs and the amp stack coming in at less the 100Mg. You won't see any versions of windows that small. I agree with that, but I still don't get why people are bashing Microsoft for making Windows 7 more modular even though it still won't be to a such degree as *nix based systems. Modularity == good, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I find it funny how a lot of people praise *nix by being extremely modular When people talk about *nix being modular they are typically refering to the underlying kernel, not the user space packages that run upon it. They may also be talking about the fact that you can, if you wish install a base system and build from there. This is particularely good for servers. The less software installed on a server the less software there is to be exploited. You can install Linux as a command line only system. This can't be done with windows. I have some vps's at home with minimal debian installs and the amp stack coming in at less the 100Mg. You won't see any versions of windows that small. I agree with that, but I still don't get why people are bashing Microsoft for making Windows 7 more modular even though it still won't be to a such degree as *nix based systems. Modularity == good, IMO. Sorry, just ahd a quick browse through the articles and I don't see any 'modular bashing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Not here, nor in any the articles unsider posted, but I've read some articles and comments on articles which are stating that it's a bad move from Microsoft and that it'll be the end of Windows and such things. I know it's crap usage of sources, but I cannot provide you with any links right now as I cannot remember where I read some of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 so I guess its people like me who add to the problem. Just don't make it public and you're fine! You can install Linux as a command line only system. This can't be done with windows. I have some vps's at home with minimal debian installs and the amp stack coming in at less the 100Mg. You won't see any versions of windows that small. This IMO is what MS really needs to focus on. In the beginning of computing hardware was expensive so the typical setup was large servers surrounded by dumb terminals. As hardware went down software on the "dumb" terminals began to improve but now we have a maintenance nightmare for IT guys. With the current progression of web services and web applications large corporations are moving back to the "dumb" terminal system and virtualization. From the stand-point of big business it's better if I can run a handful of minimal and fine-tuned installations off a single piece of hardware rather than having one set of hardware per installation or the current situation. As far as the end-user goes, if Linux could just jump over the gaming hurdle millions of low budget individuals would drop windows in a heart beat. IMO this is what the large companies involved in Linux should be after if they really want it to be the most popular desktop OS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 As far as the end-user goes, if Linux could just jump over the gaming hurdle millions of low budget individuals would drop windows in a heart beat. That's up to the game developers. All other types of software developers should support Linux systems as well. Software incompatibility is what's holding me back from using Linux full-time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerRobot Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 As far as the end-user goes, if Linux could just jump over the gaming hurdle millions of low budget individuals would drop windows in a heart beat. That's up to the game developers. All other types of software developers should support Linux systems as well. Software incompatibility is what's holding me back from using Linux full-time. It's like the chicken and the egg though isn't it. Game developpers wont bother to produce games for linux 'till there's a solid userbase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 That's up to the game developers. All other types of software developers should support Linux systems as well. Software incompatibility is what's holding me back from using Linux full-time. Not as much as you think. DirectX is the multimedia platform for Windows, even OpenGL is emulated by DirectX at this point AFAIK. Just like the monkey is on Microsoft's back to get their browser up to speed in term of standards, the monkey is on the backs of the major supporters of Linux to get it up to speed in the gaming arena. I've been out of the 3D graphics loop for a while, but it used to be the case that OpenGL outperformed DirectX in every department. I don't think that is the case any longer. (Edit) Not to mention that OpenGL is purely for rendering. DirectX provides access to all functions including sound, networking, input, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neylitalo Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 iD and Epic have always been pretty good about publishing Linux clients for their games. Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament are some of the most popular FPS's, and the only commercial games that I know of that run under Linux. I frankly don't understand why more companies don't follow their lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordanwb Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 When I read Windows 7 I though, "Windows 3.1". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardyandkari Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 They may also be talking about the fact that you can, if you wish install a base system and build from there. This is particularely good for servers. The less software installed on a server the less software there is to be exploited. You can install Linux as a command line only system. This can't be done with windows. I have some vps's at home with minimal debian installs and the amp stack coming in at less the 100Mg. You won't see any versions of windows that small. taken from the wikipedia page linked to at the beginning of the thread: MinWin A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7. The MinWin development efforts are aimed towards componentizing the Windows kernel and reducing the dependencies with a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory usage.[19] MinWin takes up about 25 MB on disk and has a working set (memory usage) of 40 MB.[20] It lacks a graphical user interface and is interfaced using a full-screen command line interface.[21][20] It includes the I/O and networking subsystems.[19][21] MinWin was first publicly demonstrated on October 13, 2007 by Eric Traut. The demo system included an OS image, made up of about 100 files, on which a basic HTTP server was running.[20][22] Incidentally, the name MinWin was also used earlier to refer to what is currently known as Server Core in Windows Server 2008.[19][21] However, the two are quite different. While both efforts are to consolidate and componentize the core of Windows, with server core, the functionality of the OS is constrained according to server roles, and unneeded components (which will never be used as the role isn't supported) are removed from the binary image. However, the dependencies still exist in code, and the code cannot compile without the components. In contrast, with MinWin, the dependencies are consolidated into MinWin and what is not needed is removed at the code level itself. As a result, the code compiles even without any extraneous components and builds a stripped-down self-contained OS kernel image.[21][19] sounds like dos with a html server attached! oohhhh, i'm getting all excited.....command line again! come to papa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeB Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I love my linux desktops. There isn't a commercial game that I want to play that I cannot play in Linux. As for Windows, I am not a fan but goddamn is it convenient. I think MS is off base, once again. I like that they're headed in the direction of embracing choice, but I don't think it will change anyone's mind if you're going to add a price tag to this choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.