The Revisionists Are Out In Force...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 22, 2009.

  1. Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of an
    improvement Seven is.

    Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of Vista.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of an
    > improvement Seven is.
    >
    > Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    > Vista.


    Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or that 7
    is built on Vista
    Gordon, Oct 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    >> an improvement Seven is.
    >>
    >> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    >> Vista.

    >
    > Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    > that 7 is built on Vista


    No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    and streamlined Vista.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Oct 22, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > > On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > > wrote:
    > >> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >> an improvement Seven is.
    > >>
    > >> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    > >> Vista.

    > >
    > > Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    > > that 7 is built on Vista

    >
    > No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    > and streamlined Vista.


    No. They've done a lot more than that.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 22, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    >>>> an improvement Seven is.
    >>>>
    >>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    >>>> of Vista.
    >>>
    >>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    >>> Or that 7 is built on Vista

    >>
    >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    >> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    >
    > No. They've done a lot more than that.


    OK. I've been following all the tech groups and reading as much as I can on
    the subject and most disagree with you. The general consensus is that it's
    an uber-patch for Vista that cleans a few things up, removes annoying
    prompts and overheads etc... However, MS don't want to just call it what it
    is, They can't sell a service pack.

    Hence Windows 7. Coming to a wallet near you soon.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Oct 22, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Geopelia Guest

    "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    news:-september.org...
    > In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >> > On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    >> >> an improvement Seven is.
    >> >>
    >> >> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    >> >> Vista.
    >> >
    >> > Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    >> > that 7 is built on Vista

    >>
    >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    >> and streamlined Vista.

    >
    > No. They've done a lot more than that.
    >


    Is it really worth changing from XP?
    I would wait until all the problems and updates are done, of course.
    Geopelia, Oct 22, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbphks$4b9$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > > In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > > says...
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >>>> an improvement Seven is.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    > >>>> of Vista.
    > >>>
    > >>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    > >>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    > >>
    > >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    > >> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    > >
    > > No. They've done a lot more than that.

    >
    > OK. I've been following all the tech groups and reading as much as I can on
    > the subject and most disagree with you. The general consensus is that it's
    > an uber-patch for Vista that cleans a few things up, removes annoying
    > prompts and overheads etc... However, MS don't want to just call it what it
    > is, They can't sell a service pack.


    Nope, no way.

    Didn't you look at this?

    http://www.msteched.com/online/view.aspx?tid=8b2b7ae6-32be-42b9-8623-
    4a373b9e5295

    TinyURL:
    http://tinyurl.com/oyurg2

    Don't know if the tinyURL will still be active.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 22, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbphr0$664$-september.org>,
    says...
    >
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    > news:-september.org...
    > > In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > > says...
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >> > On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >> >> an improvement Seven is.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    > >> >> Vista.
    > >> >
    > >> > Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    > >> > that 7 is built on Vista
    > >>
    > >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    > >> and streamlined Vista.

    > >
    > > No. They've done a lot more than that.
    > >

    >
    > Is it really worth changing from XP?
    > I would wait until all the problems and updates are done, of course.


    If you have a new PC, then probably. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

    There is no (direct) upgrade path from XP anyway - ie it's a clean
    install. Then install all your apps again. Then put all your data back
    on. etc etc.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 22, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > > On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > > wrote:
    > >> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >> an improvement Seven is.
    > >>
    > >> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    > >> Vista.

    > >
    > > Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    > > that 7 is built on Vista

    >
    > No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    > and streamlined Vista.


    Go check that vid out - that I posted in my other reply - and find out
    what version/revision numbers *really* mean.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 22, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    >> wrote:
    >>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    >>> an improvement Seven is. Forgetting, of course, that Seven is
    >>> really just a minor revision of Vista.

    >>
    >> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    >> that 7 is built on Vista

    >
    > No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    > and streamlined Vista.


    This OS certainly seems to identify as version 6.1.
    http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/why_does_window.html

    But if it was called Windows 6.1, it certainly wouldn't market as well.
    Vista got so much bad press, calling the new OS a minor upgrade would really
    hurt sales.
    Peter, Oct 22, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    On Oct 22, 8:52 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Everybody


    In your mind....

    > is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of an
    > improvement Seven is.
    >
    > Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of Vista.


    Its a bit more than minor....its certianly very stable, but
    faster..the silly cost of an upgrade from XP to Vista probably wasnt
    worth it, but to 7 is probably worth considering...$249 I think it
    is...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Oct 22, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    On Oct 23, 1:05 am, "Geopelia" <> wrote:
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:-september.org...
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <hbpbkp$-september.org>,
    > > says...
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >> > On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >> >> an improvement Seven is.

    >
    > >> >> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision of
    > >> >> Vista.

    >
    > >> > Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista. Or
    > >> > that 7 is built on Vista

    >
    > >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a re-worked
    > >> and streamlined Vista.

    >
    > > No.  They've done a lot more than that.

    >
    > Is it really worth changing from XP?
    >  I would wait until all the problems and updates are done, of course.


    Depends....lots of stuff especially older games and hardware that work
    on XP dont/didnt on Vista...or you have/had to buy expensive upgrades
    for "real" applications...

    Unless you have a real specific need, probably not. XP is quite good
    and now very stable, Im still running a second machine on it without
    any issues...You also need a dual core 2.0ghz cpu and at least 2gb of
    ram....but DDR2 is very cheap....I just got 2 x 2 gb 1066Mhz lifetime
    W for $120....that was a good deal...

    regards

    thing
    thingy, Oct 22, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <hbphks$4b9$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    >>> In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    >>> says...
    >>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >>>>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>>>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much
    >>>>>> of an improvement Seven is.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    >>>>>> of Vista.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    >>>>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    >>>>
    >>>> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself
    >>>> as Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    >>>> re-worked and streamlined Vista.
    >>>
    >>> No. They've done a lot more than that.

    >>
    >> OK. I've been following all the tech groups and reading as much as I
    >> can on the subject and most disagree with you. The general consensus
    >> is that it's an uber-patch for Vista that cleans a few things up,
    >> removes annoying prompts and overheads etc... However, MS don't want
    >> to just call it what it is, They can't sell a service pack.

    >
    > Nope, no way.
    >
    > Didn't you look at this?
    >
    > http://www.msteched.com/online/view.aspx?tid=8b2b7ae6-32be-42b9-8623-
    > 4a373b9e5295
    >
    > TinyURL:
    > http://tinyurl.com/oyurg2
    >
    > Don't know if the tinyURL will still be active.


    It is.

    Sorry, I'll take what the independant folks say over a microsoft site any
    day of the week. Didn't read it all, does that site say that Windows 7 in
    fact IDs itself as ver 6.1?
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Oct 22, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Geopelia wrote:
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    > news:-september.org...
    >> In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    >> says...
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >>>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much
    >>>>> of an improvement Seven is.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    >>>>> of Vista.
    >>>>
    >>>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    >>>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    >>>
    >>> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself
    >>> as Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    >>> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    >>
    >> No. They've done a lot more than that.
    >>

    >
    > Is it really worth changing from XP?
    > I would wait until all the problems and updates are done, of course.


    No, not worth it for your uses Geo. Or mine for that matter.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Oct 22, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    >>>> an improvement Seven is.
    >>>>
    >>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    >>>> of Vista.
    >>>
    >>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    >>> Or that 7 is built on Vista

    >>
    >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    >> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    >
    > Go check that vid out - that I posted in my other reply - and find out
    > what version/revision numbers *really* mean.


    My bandwidth is preciousss, don't you have a text explantion you can link
    to, preferably by a neutral reviewer? I *can* read and I find it better to
    read an unbiased explaination at my own pace than to hear a 'presentation'
    by the manufacturer/seller.

    So, any articles on what version numbers mean that aren't written by a
    Microsoft employee?
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Oct 22, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Peter wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    >>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    >>>> an improvement Seven is. Forgetting, of course, that Seven is
    >>>> really just a minor revision of Vista.
    >>>
    >>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    >>> Or that 7 is built on Vista

    >>
    >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    >> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    >
    > This OS certainly seems to identify as version 6.1.
    > http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/why_does_window.html
    >
    > But if it was called Windows 6.1, it certainly wouldn't market as
    > well. Vista got so much bad press, calling the new OS a minor upgrade
    > would really hurt sales.


    You got it in one!
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Oct 22, 2009
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbqm5k$j37$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > > In article <hbphks$4b9$-september.org>,
    > > says...
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > >>> In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > >>> says...
    > >>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >>>>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > >>>>> <_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much
    > >>>>>> of an improvement Seven is.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    > >>>>>> of Vista.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    > >>>>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    > >>>>
    > >>>> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself
    > >>>> as Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    > >>>> re-worked and streamlined Vista.
    > >>>
    > >>> No. They've done a lot more than that.
    > >>
    > >> OK. I've been following all the tech groups and reading as much as I
    > >> can on the subject and most disagree with you. The general consensus
    > >> is that it's an uber-patch for Vista that cleans a few things up,
    > >> removes annoying prompts and overheads etc... However, MS don't want
    > >> to just call it what it is, They can't sell a service pack.

    > >
    > > Nope, no way.
    > >
    > > Didn't you look at this?
    > >
    > > http://www.msteched.com/online/view.aspx?tid=8b2b7ae6-32be-42b9-8623-
    > > 4a373b9e5295
    > >
    > > TinyURL:
    > > http://tinyurl.com/oyurg2
    > >
    > > Don't know if the tinyURL will still be active.

    >
    > It is.
    >
    > Sorry, I'll take what the independant folks say over a microsoft site any
    > day of the week. Didn't read it all, does that site say that Windows 7 in
    > fact IDs itself as ver 6.1?


    Oh FFS Shaun. Start the video, click the wee fullscreen button - within
    5 minutes you will find out about version numbers, what they mean, and
    that a 'minor' revision number (increase) - has no bearing on the
    changes made. (It's about program compatability).

    It's Mark Russinovich - he didn't used to work for MS - they headhunted
    him. He may well work for MS now, but he pulls no punches (check his
    Vista comments out during the vid - and his "dll hell" comments).

    Get back to me then.

    Are you using Windows 7? - it's pretty damn snappy - as fast as XP in
    most ways - faster in others - you'll of course, want to be running it
    on appropriate hardware.

    If you can't be bothered with the vid - google or bing "MinWin".

    MinWin is not in XP (or Vista AFAIK) - it's applied in Windows 7 and
    Server 2008 R2.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 23, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbqmhm$lsq$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > > In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > > says...
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >>>> an improvement Seven is.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    > >>>> of Vista.
    > >>>
    > >>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    > >>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    > >>
    > >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    > >> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    > >
    > > Go check that vid out - that I posted in my other reply - and find out
    > > what version/revision numbers *really* mean.

    >
    > My bandwidth is preciousss, don't you have a text explantion you can link
    > to, preferably by a neutral reviewer? I *can* read and I find it better to
    > read an unbiased explaination at my own pace than to hear a 'presentation'
    > by the manufacturer/seller.
    >
    > So, any articles on what version numbers mean that aren't written by a
    > Microsoft employee?


    See other reply.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 23, 2009
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbqmj4$m6b$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Peter wrote:
    > > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much of
    > >>>> an improvement Seven is. Forgetting, of course, that Seven is
    > >>>> really just a minor revision of Vista.
    > >>>
    > >>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    > >>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    > >>
    > >> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself as
    > >> Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    > >> re-worked and streamlined Vista.

    > >
    > > This OS certainly seems to identify as version 6.1.
    > > http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/why_does_window.html
    > >
    > > But if it was called Windows 6.1, it certainly wouldn't market as
    > > well. Vista got so much bad press, calling the new OS a minor upgrade
    > > would really hurt sales.

    >
    > You got it in one!


    Have you worked out why they can't call it version 7 yet?

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 23, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <hbqm5k$j37$-september.org>,
    says...
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > > In article <hbphks$4b9$-september.org>,
    > > says...
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Doe wrote:
    > >>> In article <hbpbkp$kfg$-september.org>,
    > >>> says...
    > >>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Gordon wrote:
    > >>>>> On 2009-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > >>>>> <_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>>>> Everybody is saying how horrible Dimdows Vista was, and how much
    > >>>>>> of an improvement Seven is.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Forgetting, of course, that Seven is really just a minor revision
    > >>>>>> of Vista.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Define minor. I would argue that 7 of Windows is a modified Vista.
    > >>>>> Or that 7 is built on Vista
    > >>>>
    > >>>> No argument. Although it's called 'Windows 7' it identifies itself
    > >>>> as Windows 6.1. (Vista was 6.) There's no doubt that it's merely a
    > >>>> re-worked and streamlined Vista.
    > >>>
    > >>> No. They've done a lot more than that.
    > >>
    > >> OK. I've been following all the tech groups and reading as much as I
    > >> can on the subject and most disagree with you. The general consensus
    > >> is that it's an uber-patch for Vista that cleans a few things up,
    > >> removes annoying prompts and overheads etc... However, MS don't want
    > >> to just call it what it is, They can't sell a service pack.

    > >
    > > Nope, no way.
    > >
    > > Didn't you look at this?
    > >
    > > http://www.msteched.com/online/view.aspx?tid=8b2b7ae6-32be-42b9-8623-
    > > 4a373b9e5295
    > >
    > > TinyURL:
    > > http://tinyurl.com/oyurg2
    > >
    > > Don't know if the tinyURL will still be active.

    >
    > It is.
    >
    > Sorry, I'll take what the independant folks say over a microsoft site any
    > day of the week. Didn't read it all, does that site say that Windows 7 in
    > fact IDs itself as ver 6.1?


    Independent folk can NOT tell you what MS have done, under the hood.
    They are not privvy to the proprietory code.

    Please do check the vid out - you will here from Mark about what MS have
    done "under the hood" - in terms (this vid) of the kernel only.

    --
    Duncan.
    Dave Doe, Oct 23, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob J. Epping
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    780
    Rob J. Epping
    Oct 26, 2003
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,145
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,373
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,741
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    881
    Bert Hyman
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page