http://windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=102231&feed=rss&subj=0
Well.
Now I know I can set my alarm.
Well.
Now I know I can set my alarm.
It's official - Windows 7 to be released October 22nd
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I'm still using XP and will keep it as long as possible.
Not worth upgrading, but I'll probably visit a computer store and play with it or something. Then when I get a new computer in a couple of years, I'll find out it's going obsolete just as I buy it 
Just switched to Ubuntu. No thanks!
Their latest ad-line is "Life Without Walls".
If you are living a "life without walls", then why do you need Windows?
If you are living a "life without walls", then why do you need Windows?
I'd probably wait if I were you (unless you have a pressing reason to get it now). This thing appears to be very stable, so it's worth having the updated Windows.
Rumour has it that they're going to give free upgrades to 7 for anybody who buys a PC with Vista after June 28th, it's similar to what they did in the months before Vista launched. At the very least you should wait until then and see if the offer is available.
A
Amaris
Guest
Dagman makes a great point. 
Anyhoo, I love Windows 7. It is very stable, slick, has some nice features, and I feel is an excellent replacement for Windows XP. I will keep the RC as long as I can (March), and then I will buy the OS to dual boot on my Mac.
J.
Anyhoo, I love Windows 7. It is very stable, slick, has some nice features, and I feel is an excellent replacement for Windows XP. I will keep the RC as long as I can (March), and then I will buy the OS to dual boot on my Mac.
J.
If you have no walls then you got no roof and well really your not living in a house at all but outside so what are you doing wih a PC in the 1st place....BUY A HOUSE PEOPLE
Been using the RC for a couple fo weeks, dual booted with XP). I love it! The new toolbar function took some getting used to. But its great to finally be able to take advantage of my 64 bit processor and all 4 Gb of RAM. Heck the hardest part was reinstalling all my software.
Luckily a best friend works at MS. So I'll get a freebie copy.
Luckily a best friend works at MS. So I'll get a freebie copy.
They are replacing Vista already?
Rii
Rear Admiral
There's no "already" about it, this is Microsoft's standard OS lifecycle. Vista isn't conspicuous in having a shorter lifecycle than most Windows releases, it's about average. It's XP which is conspicuous in having the longest lifecycle of any Windows OS.
Semi-related..
I recently "had" to buy a new Vista and activated it already.. can i sell this activated version including original key if deinstall Vista and use Windows 7? That is can the new owner use "my" Vista with the activated key and re-activate it on his machine?
I recently "had" to buy a new Vista and activated it already.. can i sell this activated version including original key if deinstall Vista and use Windows 7? That is can the new owner use "my" Vista with the activated key and re-activate it on his machine?
Windows 1.0: November 1985
Windows 2.0: November 1987
Windows 2.1: May 1988
Windows 3.0: May 1990
Windows 3.1: March 1992
Windows 95 (4.0): August 1995
Windows 98 (4.1): June 1998
Windows 2000 (5.0): February 2000
Windows ME (4.9): September 2000 (Yes the version number is correct, ME literally was a step backwards.
)Windows XP (5.1): October 2001
Windows Vista (6.0): January 2007
Windows 7: October 2009
I know all this because I've seen this comment against Vista on multiple sites and the claim just is not true; 7 is not being rushed out to replace Vista, two and a half years is a very normal time-frame between Windows releases. The reason for the more than 5 year gap between XP and Vista is that MS were working on a revolutionary new file structure called WinFS which they wanted to build their next OS around but they never managed to finish it adequately and had to give up on it. A lot of time was wasted due to that.
Legally, no.
In reality, yes. But the new owner might need to call an automated system in order to get it to work.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Windows 1.0: November 1985
Windows 2.0: November 1987
Windows 2.1: May 1988
Windows 3.0: May 1990
Windows 3.1: March 1992
Windows 95 (4.0): August 1995
Windows 98 (4.1): June 1998
Windows 2000 (5.0): February 2000
Windows ME (4.9): September 2000 (Yes the version number is correct, ME literally was a step backwards.
Windows XP (5.1): October 2001
Windows Vista (6.0): January 2007
Windows 7: October 2009
Whilst your broader point is well taken, you're conflating two sets of version numbers here. 2000 (NT 5.0) was the successor to NT 4.0, whereas ME was the successor to 98 SE. XP Home and Professional (NT 5.1) succeeded ME and 2000 (Professional) respectively, whilst the Server versions of 2000 were succeeded by Server 2003 (NT 5.2). Ironically, Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1. There's a fair chance it would've been named Windows Vista SE if it weren't for the stigma attached to that operating system.
^ All true, but I felt it was best not to confuse matters by introducing the NT info too, and the NT kernel took over completely from the regular versions with the release of XP. NT is confusing enough considering it started out as version 3.1.
And I think MS said that Windows 7 will be given version number 7.0 in the final product, which it doesn't deserve it because it is just an upgrade to Vista. But I suppose the name Windows 6.1 just isn't as catchy.
And I think MS said that Windows 7 will be given version number 7.0 in the final product, which it doesn't deserve it because it is just an upgrade to Vista. But I suppose the name Windows 6.1 just isn't as catchy.
