It might be a bit early for us to be talking
Windows 7 feature cuts, but that said, isn't it a bit early for Microsoft to be talking Windows 7 feature cuts? If The Inquirer's "reliable sources" are to be believed, Microsoft is giving DirectX 11 the boot from its next version of Windows to keep hardware requirements down -- apparently the
DirectX 10 requirements of Vista were enough of that sort of trouble for one decade. Obviously there's no official word on Microsoft at the moment, so we'll reserve judgment for the time being -- and hey, maybe no DirectX 11 wouldn't ruin our year -- but with the endless quantity of features cut from Vista still fresh in our memory, this is certainly not an encouraging sign if true.
[Thanks, Isaac]
posted Feb 9th 2008 4:10PM
Ugh.
M$ has to eventually just STOP allowing single core processors sometime. They are slowing down progress.
Its fir the greater good.
Just because YOU have a mult-core processor doesn't mean EVERYONE does. I have a dual core, but I'd bet that more than half of the world still runs single-core.
@ computer.dude.28
Since operating systems are typically supported into the life of their successors, an individual still running a single-core processor could continue to run with their current OS. XP is still supported and Vista will likely be supported to a point in the life of its successor. If someone wants to continue running their older, single-core processor, they'll still have options for awhile yet.
Now this is a bit extreme but their does come a point when it's time to upgrade - even if you don't care about the latest and greatest OS and hardware. Just because my 12 year old Dell XPS (Pentium I @ 200 MHz; Win95) is still running does not mean I should expect Microsoft to still support the hardware with their new OS.
Guys, guys, there is nothing wrong with 1 CPU. For a lot of applications 1 extremely fast core beats out a multi-core processor any day of the week for things like gaming, video rendering, etc. In fact, I am debating getting rid of my dual core and getting a very fast AMD single core processor (it seems to be the same price as a slower dual core, and I need raw power more than I need multitasking.)
Requiring more than one core just means that MSFT cannot design a good process management system into their system to account for less cores than there are processes. What they should be requiring is a 64 bit chip.
@Nick
I'd double check your sources on that one. While its true that if an application is not written to support multi cores (Which is pretty much nothing in the video editing world, and its its starting to catch on in gaming, the two examples you listed) then a faster single core should beat the slower dual core. But you'll never see this happen, because all the dual/quad cores out right now are so efficient that they still beat the single cores. They have much bigger L2 caches/faster FSB. Not to mention the program could end up with a dedicated core, while the other core(s) keep the rest of the system running, making things even more efficient. I'd double check your sources on any benchmarks you read that told you this information because its plain wrong. If you really want to get rid of your dual core I'll gladly take it. Check the CPU charts over at Toms Hardware for a start. You won't see any single core CPUs till wayyyyyy near the bottom of any of those lists.
Microsoft won't jeopardize all of their big corporate contracts by forcing multi-core. Microsoft cares more about that than it does making your Crysis look pretty.
heh heh, I'm running a celeron single core processor thats equivalent to the P3, that doesn't mean I don't believe in progress.
Bleh, more Microsoft.
I personally think that a DX11 requirement is a good thing to drop for core operating system function. They really need to trim the fat on their OS.
The biggest gripe that I (and most other people I know) have with Vista is that it virtually takes an excellently spec'd machine and turns it into a bottle of molasses.
My company has over 30,000 windows based machines and none of us in the IT department can justify even thinking about 'up'grading to Vista due to its stout minimum requirements.
have you even attempted to run Vista? my freaking desktop from 2 years ago runs it just fine with crappy on-board video and an ancient AMD 3800+ just fine. i also have 3gb of ram, so im sure that makes some difference.
"Just fine" huh? Sounds like a great justification for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in licenses to upgrade their 30,000 corporate systems (not to mention the labor costs involved). Just think how much more awesome those systems will be now that they can run DX 10.
@sjdurfey
Have you ever worked IT? 2 years is a new system in the IT world. I work IT part time at my school, and I can't justify people upgrading to vista. Software compatibility is still a challenge, and the OS is unfamiliar. There are a lot of quirks and because of the lack of users getting solid fixes is very difficult. I can think of four instances in my last 3 hours of shifts at work where we had programs that were written for XP that would not work 100% with vista (Yes even in compatibility mode- many will not even install without compatibility mode) and two Vista compatible programs that did not work 100%. Unless you are very computer savvy, and have the need for the extra memory allocation or a specific feature- its just not a good idea.
That being said vista is getting a lot better very quickly. And Whats the deal with Mac users replacing 1500 computers every 2 years and getting on a high horse about how they always work better? The computer looks exactly the same- and you do the exact same things (word processing email and internet) how does Jobs dupe you into thinking that because he released a new OS you need to buy a new computer to keep up?
To be honest, i spend £300 on upgrades, from a 4 year old pc, and there only game improvement on my vista machine, the actual vista performance is hardly any different, my vista loads quicker than my xp ever did, stays quick booting rather than my xp and looks nicer, so for those who want more security vista is a good move.
@Dan
Leopard works just fine on older macs latter G4 or better. (and is faster in some ways on the older machines due to streamlining). Apple generally requires far less of a hardware upgrade compared to Windows Releases (this is often due to the fact that Apple machines are always speced with med-end to high-end components only).
If you work in IT, then you know that percentage wise, you have less people crying to you over OS X issues.
@YoJIMbo
Apple's machines have higher quality parts in them than most windows machines, because your going to be spending (or at least you were) twice as much on it. The reason the windows machines are less is because they don't lock all the hardware down to begin with. And it requires less upgrade, because it has the more HQ and faster parts.
@Dan
i stand corrected then. ive never worked in IT. the only large scale IT project ive seen is at my current university, and every computer is no more than 2 years old. i was just merely trying to point out this stigma that you need a top of the line computer to run vista properly, which isnt true at all.
I agree. And most corporate computers don`t need and don`t have DX10 capable hardware.
@YoJIMbo
They don't require a big hardware upgrade for every release because they release a new one every year which only would qualify as a Service Pack if the updates were in Windows, yet they charge you for it!
You are paying money for service packs, with Windows, they are free, and you can either keep the money or buy new hardware.
Are you trying run Vista Ultimate on an E-Machine? What are you talking about? My copy of Vista is very snappy and thats with 1.5 GBs of ram, a PCI Express ATI x700, and a 3 Ghz Pentium D. The big issue with Vista is drivers. They are the culprit.
I think the problem is Vista needs high end hardware, but Microsoft acts like it doesnt.
@PeterF
Yeah except these "service packs" you speak of add hundreds of new features and new versions of applications. I wish Windows users would quit trying to make it sound like 10.4 and 10.5 are similar just because they same base number. 10.4 to 10.5 is like going from XP to Vista (without the problems). Apple releases"service packs" OS updates as 10.5.1, 10.5.2 which are obviously free. So in 6 months Apple will have sent out at least 2 service pack updates, it'll be over a year before Microsoft finally get SP1 out the door since Vista's release. Get your facts straight.
Also, by this rationale XP (v5.1) is just a service pack to Windows 2000 (v5.0).
Come to think of it, what feature did XP introduce over 2000? The only feature I can think of that I use on a regular basis is Remote Desktop. I'm sure there are other things, but none seem all that spectacular.
@PeterF
You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$
@PeterF
You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$
@ Peter F
Apple doesn't release every year an upgrade, it might seem like a year to you because it takes MS ages to actually finish an upgrade. Do not call a OSX upgrade a serive pack, because if that's the case Vista is a service pack as well as most of the features intended for vista where left out to actually get Vista to market and provide income for MS. Windowsusers just get fucked by MS who let's them work for years on an Windows version without fixing the bugs or improving the OS.
Leopard runs still fine on Macs that where purchased at the same time when the first version of XP was released. That is something MS can't offer to their userbase. But there is some logic in that as MS has deals with PC manufacturers. They scam windowsusers by forcing them to buy new systems while most of those users could easily be using their old machines if MS did the effort to provide real service to their customers.
@caleb
Windows XP added an integrated firewall for one thing. Also a better GUI. That is just about all I can think of though
A bit early to be talking about feature cuts especially since no features have even been announced so how they can already be cut? If this is true though why not create Directx11 and make it an addon instead of a mandatory feature?
Better to simply have it as an upgrade for PCs that can handle it, then you skip out on all the backlash Vista is getting although it isn't as bad as people suggests - I'm pretty happy with mine.
wtf? already? but DirectX 10 is enough for now, imo.
Good enough? DirectX 10 hasn't even proven to be as good as DirectX 9 yet.
enough hassle for microsoft I meant
This article is complete crap. Microsoft hasn't even finished coming up with all of the new items. How can they cut something out that was never in there to begin with?
What's the matter engadget? Not getting enough page views?
So let me get this straight. One of the biggest criticisms that this site and others have had about Vista is that it runs slow on old hardware, and tried to ram DX10 down everyone's throat, but when Microsoft listens to their customers and starts designing their next OS to be more friendly to older systems, that is a bad thing? Talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I'm pretty sure they could be different people... Or do we all need to agree one way or the other to make their job easier?
Finally a guy who speaks some sense.
Why not just keep directx10 and make 11 an optional upgrade?
The inquirer has reliable sources?
Why would DX11 be like DX10 and require a new OS?
Wasn't the reason DX10 doesn't work because it is built on a whole new framework?
Why would they make another radical remake if almost all other DX versions were just software changes.
Edit: Wasn't the reason DX10 won't work with XP because it's built on a whole new framework?
Possible placement of a Edit link/button:
Edit Reply
or
blarvh - Edit
@Feb 9th 2008 4:27PM
That's what Microsoft would like you to believe. All it requires is the hardware as proven in many a Crysis installation.
It's all about money. If you could run DX10 games on your Windows XP box less people would upgrade to a system with more restrictions and a heavy hand. By teasing you with some magical hoopla that says certain software is needed to run a game better and that previous software is incapable of doing such feats, you abuse your monopoly stranglehold on the software industry and force everyone to fork out more cash.
It's software. For me to tell you that I couldn't patch in a feature in my old software, I'd be completely and utterly lying to you. Plain and simple.
Time to research Ubuntu when this XP support runs out.
Cant do vista in its current state. My computer makes a loud sucking sound.
Research now so you know what you're getting into later. Random stuff like if you have an X-Fi graphics card or DirectX 10 games (WINE doesn't have good directX 10 support yet, but they're working on it), ...the X-Fi is just now getting properly supported...
ethana2@gmail.com
~I'll give you all the help I can. I switched about 7 months ago, never looked back.
I'm pretty sure anyone who can splurge on an X-Fi card and is still using windows should have less problems with Vista than Linux. Most of the unresolvable issues seem to stem from not enough $$ put into the computer. Resolvable issues like shutting off the cancel/allow prompt are just a checkbox away.
So basically, if your computer can't run Vista it should run Linux decently because you're on older hardware that has had more time to be supported. You also probably don't have a DX10 card so the WINE issue is not an issue.
So dumb... Apple introduced Leopard, which required more RAM, a faster processor, a better graphics card, and all around better hardware, and people were like "hey, this is cool, I'll get a new iMac that can handle Core Animation and it'll be neato!" When Microsoft even suggests that they're going to do something like DX11 people who have been using the same machine that they bought new with 98 on it are bitching up a storm. There are those of us who are okay spending $2000 every few years to get a great machine that does all the coolest stuff, and then there are those that don't want to spend the money, but still want to play the game. Replace that Packard Bell with something nice and new or stop bitching, 'cuz I'm getting a headache.
There was no need to reference Apple in your comment, are you trying to start yet another fanboy quarrel?
And no, Leopard doesn't require a "new machine." It'll run on G4, G5, and Intel processors, with just 512 MB ram.
Windows 7 needs to be good, Vista has already damaged Microsoft's reputation enough. I had Vista on a Toshiba laptop it took me twice as long to get something done as it would with XP. Downgraded to XP and I was much more happier... Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples.
@ Fuzzmanmatt: What? Leopard puts very small demands on hardware vs. Tiger compared to Vista vs. XP. My rev. A MacBook with its crappy integrated Intel graphics runs Leopard smoother than Tiger.
"Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples."
Is that because you have no choice with what hardware you use?
Drivers. Heh, I remember those.
This is why we keep it all in the kernel. Of course, there are times when we have to let the restricted driver manager do it's thing, but besides the resent, it's pretty painless.
@Fuzzmanmatt
That's simply just not true. I own a PowerMac G4 1 Ghz Dual Processor with 1.5 GB RAM and a whopping 64 MB video card. Leopard runs fine. And it ran fine before the updates (10.5.1 and 10.5.2) came out. That's a seven year old machine. I'm not arrogant enough to say that no one had any trouble with leopard, but to say that you need a new machine to run it is just a lie.
I did buy a new iMac but not at all because of the OS. My trouble was with the music production program I use. The processor wasn't capable of handling it without crashing. And no, Leopard didn't crash just the music program.
# Fuzzman : Where did you get that information? From someone at MS i guess. Leopard runs fine on machines that where purchased in the days that XM was released so I really wonder how you be so dumb to say you need new hardware for an OSX upgrade!
Engadget, there is a reason why slashdot isn't the top traffic site anymore. Get over your anti-MS bias and try some fair judgements for a change.
I like your good articles, good sense of humor, but at some point, the bad taste this anti MS bias leaves will overcome the sense of humor and good articles.
I agree with you and I also think that their negative attitude to all things Microsoft is spreading to their other posts. Engadget used to be about witty posts and interesting gadgets but these days they just seem to needlessly bash every new product that comes out. Perhaps the old mantra about not saying anything if you haven't got anything nice to say applies here? Of course, that would mean there wouldn't be a lot of content on this site.
i don't detect all these supposed biases... anyway, the main reason i like engadget is that its readers have a sense of humor. slashdot is overflowing with pretension and arrogance. i feel unwelcome, not having the ability to code the linux kernel from memory on a home-built robot.
I think I just had a flashback to WindowsME... And how it sucked soo bad they started work on XP to replace it...
I just had a flashback to Windows... And how they ALWAYS had a new version under development, "sucky" or not.
You have it backwards. IIRC, either Windows 2000 was already supposed to be the first NT-based consumer OS, or XP was and it was taking too long to get out of the door. Either way, ME was created as a stopgap until the NT-based consumer OS was ready.
OpenGL is what I'm interested in, anyway
They're doing it to keep hardware requirements down. This is a bad thing, how?
not a bad thing AT all...meanwhile here's a very good looking Windows XP/Vista shell alternative, coming out to public next week, http://cairoshell.com/ pretty freakin cool, has some features that linux has..haven't tested it myself though but still it looks pimp
I remember some kind of trialware compositing window manager thing for XP too.
..windows users are funny.
What's this? Windows 7 is already being declared the new Vista for 2009. Ewww. I'll still be using Windows XP Pro SP4 by then.
Sorry for the double post, but just wanted to say that I have no idea how my reply to the sub-thread above ended up down here.
Darkest Daze,
Well I have a PowerBook that started with 10.2 Jaguar back in the beginning of 2003 and it's happily running Leopard today. That enough proof for ya?
@"Yours Smugly"
But you have to remember that there was only a year difference from the release of Tiger and Leopard. There were 5-6 between XP and Vista. The difference is that people with 5+ year old machines wanted to run Vista but didn't want to buy a new machine. Anyone who had Tiger and wanted to upgrade to Leopard only had a 1 or so year old machine.
It would be better to compare a computer purchased with OSX 10.1 trying to upgrade to Leopard.
@Darkest Daze: There was a 2,5 year difference between Tiger and Leopard. Tiger was released on April 25. 2005, Leopard on October 29. 2007. But sure, you do have a point. Macs tend to age slower than your average Windows PC.
But IMHO the 6-7 years between XP and Vista don't entirely justify the hyuuuge system requirement bump. I *would* expect Vista to demand more oomph from my PC, just not *that* much.
Man, fricken work on Vista, dumbass Microsoft. I just brought a few licences for my home computers and family - not cheap. It runs fine just as good as XP but in no way should you be working on a new OS already? Ever heard of customer service?
If it's a free upgrade to Vista users then go ahead, but free + M$ doesn't mix to good.
I'm normally a Microsoft fan, but this just pisses me off.
I remember when everyone complained because Vista took 5 years. Now they are working to make that 3 years and peoeple want them to wait...?
Halo 3 took several years to make. They began right after finishing Halo 2. By your argument they should have waited 2 years and then begun.
People confuse me...
Vista is a OS, Halo is a game. Shouldn't compare them. It's different when you spend your money on something and then get no upgrades.
When you say upgrade, do you mean Service Packs? Or features? If they continue to work Vista WHILE working 7, I'm cool with that.
Software, almost more than any other industry is dynamic. You sit on your laurels, you lose. Look what the iPhone did to the smartphone industry. We've seen more activity in the past months than in the past years!
Explanation:
The iPhone expample was to show what happens when you sit on your laurels. It was not referring to any paticular OS.
I guess now would be a good time to point out that Microsoft has more than one employee. So it is possible to have 1 team working on 1 product, while another team supports another product. Also since 1 person doesn't write the entire operating system, just small parts, it is also possible that 1 person can even work on both products.
While I'm pointing things out, operating systems aren't created overnight. Now you know why they've already began work on the next one.
As for the halo thing. Software is software is software. And a game is also pretty hard to make, so yes they can be compared.
Errm, isn't this a good thing? They're not getting rid of DirectX 11, they're just getting rid of the requirement for it on the graphics card to run the OS properly, like DirectX 9 for Vista.
Unless I'm mistaken?
Agreed. Give the gamers for shaders technology if they want it. If they don't need it, they don't have to upgrade.
most likely we'll have a Win7 Basic which will have DX10, and possibly a "Premium" version which will have DX11, Ultimate will probably have DX11 as well, and if this doesn't happen, we'll get it in a service pack, or update, as with Vista and DX10.1.
Thats kinda relief.
Hopefully by then Vista will have fixed itself, so that if Windows 7 sucks like Vista, I can just go Vista for DX10, and hopefully DX11.
Hey Josua. You wouldn't mind elaborating on why Vista sucks would you? Please don't just say that it's slow.
You see, for some of us, we like details on why things suck. We don't just watch Apple ads and say, "Wow. That PC guy is fat. Vista must be slow." :-)
I'll start out with a detailed problem... Microsft decided that they wanted people to have more accurate time frames on how long a file transfer will take. This means that Vista has to continually compute the file size, transfer rate and so forth. This takes processing power which WAY slows down the transfer itself. (Especially USB)
Now it's your turn.
First of all, this is a GOOD thing. It's nice to have choices when dealing with your OS. If DX9 works just fine on Vista (and it does), the feature set and the game/program implementation of special features needs to outweigh the additional costs of those cards (and it doesn't). Regardless, it's still an option. Buy if you think it's a good idea, don't otherwise.
DX 11, unless the Inquirer has additional information (and it doesn't), would only saddle Windows 7 with additional hardware requirements, at a point where it's seeing the difficulty 3rd party vendors are facing in using the capabilities of the DX10 specs. Wouldn't make any sense.
This is not a "lost feature." It's now a non-mandated option which will be implemented by 3rd party hardware and 3rd party software providers. Choice is always a good thing.
"It's nice to have choices when dealing with your OS."
I think I speak for many of us when I say "You have /no/ idea."
I can choose between 3 major desktop environments
7 window managers, two compositing
and any hardware from the PS3 to the N800 to the Blue Gene intel and ppc macs, sparc, itanium, mips...
I think you're just dealing with the wrong OS.
Engadget always does things like this for some reason... They take unreliable info, publish it, and make bad things happen. (remember the AAPL stock problem? I thought you did...)
Engadget, here's a tip: Verify your info BEFORE posting it! Wait until MS weighs in before saying anything! Maybe, just maybe, you'll make more people happy, instead of mad, like you made me mad with this craptastic article.
Engadget, you say that as though they should keep every feature they ever thought of. Come on, do you really expect them to never drop a feature? You think vista is bloated (based on your constant MS bashing which is also ridiculous), yet you bash MS for taking things out of their next system?
>DirectX 10 requirements of Vista were enough of that sort of trouble for one decade.
Um what are those requirements exactly? A DX 10 card isn't required to run vista and many games run faster under DX 9 on Vista than 10. What seems to be starting early is FUD.
yes more vista
They do have a pretty theme.. looks decent with compiz fusion, though there are better.
I have to say that's all the Vista I care for. Next.
First of all I would like to hear a round of applause for Microsoft, not for their ability to make software but for their ability to F it up all the time. It provides IT's with hours upon hours of work!!! There has always been problems with various brands of software, Linux flavors, apple, and windows included. However, Microsoft has taken the largest slice of the pie. This angst that it creates with users eventually takes form and the free source community continues to grow. So again I thank Microsoft for its continuing "contribution." But I sure as hell wont run their software on anything of consequence....
Vista could have had all those features cut with no serious problems if only MS hadn't have built them up as such game changing features.
MS needs to leave more truely beta features in the research department until they are ready to be fully deployed into a new build and THEN talk about them.
Yall that are bashing Vista & OS X how about yall go build an OS and get every single thing right the first time and then bitch all you want about the OS's until then STFU, if you can't do better dont say nothing about how there software is where's yours.
and FYI I have Windows, Mac OSX, Linux and Solaris PC's say something.
forgot the mention Y'all bashing MS would y'all rather have Microsoft make their own computers ? or instead rely on others think about how it would be if Apple and Microsoft both made their own computers ? Imagine if windows ran on Microsoft Computers and then think about now which would you prefer, Windows would probably be very different if that was the case and how many of y'all have ever tried other OS's other than Windows, OSX or a distro of linux there are others you know; until you have tried everything how can anything of you all say what is better or worse.
Microsoft needs to stop trying to sell their OS to every computer owner and list TRUE system requirements. If they raised the minimum required specs for Vista, I'm sure they would've had far fewer complaints.
Yah well I'm still waiting for that instant restart feature to be reenabled in Leopard. For god sake Apple left the damn Server in Bootcamp when you install the drivers for Windows.
Dear Engadget,
Get bent. No OS feature set survives contact with the real world. Considering that Windows 11 is hardly a gleam in MS's eye its hard to start saying they are trimming features when they haven't even announced the damn features that are going to ship with it. Fracking fanboi haters. I'm getting real sick of them. You don't like it go build your own damn OS and stop trash taking MS....what you say you are nothing more then armchair annalists? You say you don't don't have the faintest clue what goes into a development cycle? You say that you trash talk to stir up site hits...
Yah and I say you guys need to stop this shit and just report on stuff....not try and make some glib comment on what it means to life, the universe, and the world at large. You ain't being cute. You aren't being cool. You're just being annoying.
Hey, I'm all for a few added features and lots of fixes for Vista in Windows 7. It has a lot of potential, but I would rather wait another year or two and get another XP then get another ME.
Also, to put this out there: Windows users, get over Apple and Linux. Apple and Linux users, get over each other and Windows. It's all a huge fight about who is right and who is wrong, when I've used all three. If you need an inexpensive OS with maximum customization and you know how to do it, Linux. If you need an OS with a pretty box to put it in, ease of use, and slight customization, go Apple. If you need an OS with a pretty box, hardware customization, and you already know how to use it, Windows. The reason why Apple is getting all this hype is because it has a slightly smaller learning curve for basic to intermediate use than Linux or Windows.
I think that people who haven't tried anything but what they use now shouldn't even open their mouths about this "OS War" because they have no clue what they're talking about.
IMHO, an OS needs to be built around a purpose, not around the highest priced technology. I have a dual xeon 1.7ghz machine and a dual 2.4ghz machine, both will run vista fine, however I have no need for all the eye candy, pixel shading, or a "gadget" bar. SO I still run xp or linux on my machines. People are allowing the industry to tell them what they need instead of the other way around. The bottom line is that most companies that run specialized software sometimes "CAN'T" upgrade. For instance I know of a few companies that use software that only works on windows 2000. So they have to stick with the old OS or find another solution.
Either way, their are usually alternatives that will run on a reasonably quick machine.
Sometimes I just want to scream.
ONE - there hasn't been ANY feature list for Win7. There hasn't been any set release date. All you've seen are a few screen shots of an about box and suddenly we're all experts on what'll be in or out of the release in two or three years.
By the release, the entire hardware world will be different. The things you're arguing about now WON'T MATTER.
TWO - You can't compare MacOS and Windows so easily. Apple only has to support ONE computer - that they themselves make. Microsoft has to support literally tens of thousands of products they have no control over. Yes, you can argue that makes Apples better - but the downside is that you get much less choice.
And sorry Apple fans - get over it - there are tons of devices that don't support Linux OR MacOS. You personally may be ok without them, but that's your choice. We may not agree or we may have different needs.
THREE - Just because you have some other OS that you've managed to rearrange your workflow to fit doesn't mean it's actually a good replacement. It's good to have alternatives - but only if they actually do what you want. A hammer does not make a good screwdriver, even if they're both tools.
FOUR - Apple does NOT use 'better quality parts'. That myth just won't die. They may use better DESIGN - but parts makers do NOT make special 'Apple' components that are better than the ones they sell to PC makers.
Let's not forget that Apple blows it sometimes too. People forget that Apple left off a five cent capacitor on their old ADB design that could fry the ADB controller if you pulled the cable while powered.
FIVE - There isn't ONE PC maker. Whenever we get into this discussion - it always plays as Apple vs PC as if there's just one PC maker. There are over fifty PC makers and over a dozen motherboard makers. Some turn out amazing products easily the equal of Apple, some turn out crap.
Also, some PC makers take the time to build well constructed Windows environments and spend time verifying and preinstalling all drivers for their internal hardware. These PCs are great. Some just throw a bunch of parts in a box and a CD with the drivers right from the parts makers and leaves it up to you to endure it all. You can't assume they're all the same.
SIX - No, Leopard does NOT run on all old Macs. I have an iBook and a G4/AGP - and Leopard's installer CRASHES on these machines. Now, to be honest, these are OLD Macs, so I don't hold it against Apple - but neither do I hold it against Microsoft if my eight year old PC can't run Vista.
On the other hand, I can UPGRADE those PCs easily and cheaply, which is something I can't do with a Mac.
The fact is that Vista as a functioning OS runs on most PCs that are P4 or better. If you want the eyecandy, you might need a better video card - and it's supported on video cards as cheap as $50 - but it's optional and hardly essential for a computer user. You also need more memory - but in case you don't check out the ads, memory is cheap! 1GB is $50. And more memory never hurts.
On the other hand - you can get a completely new PC with the latest video and tons of memory and hard drive (not to mention a faster CPU) for as little as $399, and that's something Apple can't beat.
SEVEN - Linux people. Get over the fact that most PCs come with Windows. Like it or not, that's what most people want and bitching about that is infantile. You want to change it - build an OS people actually want that has a high enough level of compatibility with existing apps.
The so called 'windows tax' is a figment of your imagination - or rather a lack of imagination. There are LOTS of PC makers who offer OS-less systems. If Linux is so easy to use and so much better - then you won't mind installing it on a bare system... right? And a lot of the smaller PC makers will install whatever you want on their systems. They don't care.
EIGHT - Kids - in case you missed it - Engadget gets paid by the hit. So when there's a slow news day (which is fairly often these days, it seems), they post something they KNOW will rile up the fanboys and get a flamewar going. You're playing right into their hands.
Then again, why not? Apple fans act as unpaid walking ads for Apple products. Linux fans do the same for their cause celebre. Windows fans - which, let's face it, was an oxymoron before all the Windows bashing became the game of the day in places like this, just sigh and get tired of all the DRAMA.
Welcome to paradise, children.
DX11? We have not yet even seen the full potential for DX10. I am not too distraught.
Windows7 is vista recycled.