Comments on: How many Versions of Windows 7 will be fine?

By: bluefish

bluefish — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:03:26 +0000

@Zach, @ufhek

How can you trust a patched copy of software (eg. windows 7) hacked by by god knows and with what intentions, downloaded from torrent sites.. especially since they could contain trojans, viruses, backdoor exploits..

By: ufhek

ufhek — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:24:39 +0000

Vista ( http://file.sh/windows+vista+torrent.html ) for the rough edges it has compared to 7, is every bit as good in the security field. Technically, out of the box, it's more secure. So that won't be the case this time around. And for the record, it was the truth between XP and Vista. Vista x64 is substantially more secure through OS protections than XP is. Vista still won't be as fast as 7. Won't have the superbar. But under the hood, for the most part, they're pretty much the same.

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:32:44 +0000

This might be late, but Vista (NT 6.0) was derived from XP (NT 5.1) which was derived from 2000 (5.0) which was derived from NT 4 and so on… To ensure app compatibility, Windows 7 is actually kernel 6.1. What was wrong with Vista's kernel? It was more of the outer components as the problem. Driver compatibility, simply giving the kernel version 6.0 which broke silly apps which checked that number, etc. Vista actually worked well for me, just its feature set sucked. XP was great, but after using Vista it was horrifying. Faster, but more unstable and feature-less even with the latest updates. By the way I'm using Windows 7 as my main OS now as it's very stable. You can get it anywhere on torrent sites, and legally obtain a key from MS. So, "crazyboy" you should really try it out. BTW the versions are Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate. (Kinda like XP). Enterprise and Starter can't really be counted as they're only for Enterprises with Licenses and emerging markets respectively.

By: crazyboy13

crazyboy13 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:22:22 +0000

No they made ME using 9x the same time 2000 came out. XP was when they decided to stop going down the 9x path. They just made theNT kernel the only one they used. And decided to no longer make a business os and a home os using different kernels. They just made different flavors of XP Home and PRO

By: Mayank

Mayank — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:06:32 +0000

Well, the point is same! They killed win 9x and came up with 2000 and now they are killing this kernel and trying to make a better kernel. Sounds good?

By: crazyboy13

crazyboy13 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:40:28 +0000

Ok maybe to make a better kernel. But thats not the case, Vista was the biggest flop MS has had. So one would think they would kill that kernel immediately and go back to building off XP's kernel. Nope instead they are releasing Vista kernel 2.0 and calling it 7. ok so nt 4.0 = windows 2000. XP was nt 5.0. Vista is not nt 6.0 it is a brand new kernel. Vista garbage kernel 1.0 and windows 7 is Vista garbage kernel 2.0. It took MS 4 kernel revisions to come up with a good os. So how many os's will they need to release now to get this garbage kernel right?

By: crazyboy13

crazyboy13 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:40:14 +0000

I couldn't agree more with anyone. Here I thought I was the only one thinking that MS came out with it's first good os with windows 2000 and made it better by adding to that kernel with xp. Now before Vista the biggest flop was ME a glorified win98 kernel. So Microsoft did the right thing killed that kernel and built off the better one 2000's kernel. So now tell me why would they kill off the XP kernel to make Vista?

By: Mayank

Mayank — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:40:05 +0000

You are right.. it's not NT 6.0 and that its new kernel. They made some mistakes with vista..however, I've following the development of Windows 7 pretty closely and I can say that this time, they are working closely with the customers and are listening to them. So probably, they'll avoid the mistakes that caused frustration for the users in the case of vista.

We can just hope for the best, isn't it?

By: Mayank

Mayank — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:27:07 +0000

Well, I think it's still to early to say that if Windows 7 will be able to come to the same standard as Windows XP or 2000. As a matter of fact, both those OSes were not good until XP's SP2 came out or 2000's SP4. I think they were most stable with those releases.

Lets hope that Windows 7 looks good from the very start, although Microsoft has always made people sad on this point at least.

By: thunderror

thunderror — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:17:34 +0000

along with the lame interface http://thunderror.com/windows-7-first-look-at-the...going to hate it..xp and 2000 are only good os which they've ever managed to make