Forum Moderators: open
In combination with that SSD drive as a boot partition it searches several PST Outlook files with over 8 Gig in size in no time...
These large marketing PPTs with 300+ slides of our customers open and you can actually USE them now!
All in all: SSD is cool - I guess it is even cooler on Linux!
Windows 7: well done, Micro$oft!
Just 2 pennies...
P!
Most users didn't upgrade to Vista mostly cause they did not believe it would be better (factual or not, the perception of Vista as being bad is what really killed it), will they do now ?
The "now" part is extra tricky: recession: the cost of upgrading from xp to w7, if you want that SSD: it costs a lot; ...
Will they be able to afford it ?
Will they trust it is better this time around ?
Once bitten ...
I'm not a fan of MSFT products by far, but getting these folks onto W7 means we finally get them off of the legacy IE versions and that's something I do have an interest in.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
One thing that was a big problem for me was that Vista did not run (successfully) some of my software and I ended up spending nearly £700 on upgrading software. The BBC article states that Microsoft have not made the same mistake with Windows 7
So is it worth upgrading or sticking with Vista?
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Don't fall for the Wintel upgrade hype.
These are just a few IMOs of mine.
For a work PC I hated vista, which made every conceivable task slower than it ought to be. I've got Windows 7 to try, but I haven't taken the plunge yet. I suspect that XP may remain the business OS of choice ;)
WFWG, Win95, Win98, 98ME, 2000, XP, XP MCE ...
Every new release promised that you could do things better. But when you think about it: browsing, using a spreadsheet, emailing, poking and tweeting it really is just a cosmetic change. In reality Windows upgrades are like boob jobs and bottox.
SSDs being improved with W7 does not mean that W7 is a miracle cure. It just means that previous versions just didn't have the right software and there was no desire to create them.
It's exactly the same with plug and play printers which was the big feature of Win95.
With WFWG / W3.1 you had to plug in a printer and load drivers up else the O/S would not know what to do with it.
With 95 you could plug it in and W95 would say
'Found Epson MX-80 ... insert driver disk'
This was seen as cool and that the O/S was an all seeing, all doing wonder. How did it now what a 10 year old printer was when connected to it's parallel port? Magic!
The truth is that the O/S was doing nothing special. If the coding was there it could have been done with early versions of windows. But then there would have not been another candy treat for upgrading.
I don't mean to go off on one about this; I don't mean to rain on the W7 parade. But this 'way better than Vista' line which is going round is just like a film trilogy.
Make a great film, then a rubbish sequel, follow up with one as good as the first and everyone is happy.
Die Hard, Die Hard 2, Die Hard with a Vengenace
Oceans 11, Oceans 12, Oceans 13
XP, Vista, Windows 7
Every new release promised that you could do things better. But when you think about it: browsing, using a spreadsheet, emailing, poking and tweeting it really is just a cosmetic change. In reality Windows upgrades are like boob jobs and bottox.
there is alot of new tech that goes into each new windows. windows 7 isn't windows 98 with a shiney new screen and special effects. All you do is e-mail and use spreadsheets and surf the web.
you would never notice much on ANY os, linux mac or otherwise.
I think its stilly of microsoft not to publish all the new details and whats new improved added and changed in each new OS release to end all this silly babble.
I think its stilly of microsoft not to publish all the new details and whats new improved added and changed in each new OS release to end all this silly babble.
