Windows 7's real killer feature

Is that a serious question? Because the answer is really obvious.

That was a feature but it still has to boot up in 32bit not gaining everything. Snow Leopard still need to get that in order for everything to be able to operate in full 64. Also if OS have found a way to go 128bit it won't be the OS that have to keep up with the hardware.

I agree. Randal said that on an 8 core machine, Windows 7 is only 250% faster than on a 1 core machine. It should have been ~700% faster. Linux, Mac OS, and other Unix-based OSes scale much better than that! :-)

Andy, Have you actually tested Windows 7 in any of its various forms and on various types of systems? I have not deployed Vista for any of my clients for many reasons, all of which relate solely to business considerations. I have never felt that Vista was appropriate for my clients and I have made my feelings well known in the SMB community. I have, however, taken the time to test both the beta version and the release candidate of Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions on desktop and notebook computers of varying hardware strengths from modest to robust. I repeated this process once the release candidate was made available to Microsoft partners ahead of the release to the general public and I added an HP Mini 1101 to the mix for good measure. In each case, the installation time was around eighteen minutes, by far the fastest and easiest base installation of Windows that I have seen through all of its iterations. Furthermore, drivers have not posed an issue for me and I have some hardware that most consumers would never own. I also went to far as to install a Sprint PCMCIA data card on several notebook configurations that Sprint said could not be installed under Windows 7. The bottom line with all of these tests has been exceptionally smooth performance with not a single blue screen. I was really blown away by the robust performance that I have experienced on the HP Mini with an Atom processor and 2 GB of RAM. I am one of Microsoft's biggest critics when it does something wrong, but I have to say that I will not hesitate to install Windows 7 for a client so long as their line-of-business application can function properly under the OS or the Windows XP virtual environment. I have been very pleased with what I have seen in my tests and I am not easy to please by any stretch of the imagination. I can't tell you that you should jump into the fray and install Windows 7. I can only say that I did not let my distaste for Vista close my mind to the possibility that Windows 7 could be a worthy upgrade for my clients. Perhaps this will open your mind a bit. You never know what you might discover when you open yourself to the possibilities that exist out there.

You know, it says quite a bit about a product when its faithful users are not willing to "upgrade" to the new version. best thing Ive ever done computer wise is move to a macbook. at least I can do work with out any problems....

So what it is a learning curve. I have deployed it and it has been very easy people didn't have a choice. They already know how so it is better than you think. Also you must really not understand how to install drivers. I can't stop laughing linksys has drivers just not on there site. Linksys doesn't make the wireless hardware and the company that does will have the drivers for it. Linksys only packages it up for the end use and adds there software for it. Which you won't want because it is extra junk that isn't needed. I hope in future you spend more then 10 seconds looking at an issue and then give up. Drivers are very easy part of setup, it is even hard for me to belive that you have been supporting windows for 20 years if you are having troubles.

You have good points, and I agree that he should have done it on a cheaper machine even on 3 year old machine. I have done test on xp machines came out between 3 and 5 years ago and I have done test on new ones to 3 years ago. Each model I compared xp to vista to 7. I also have ran Linux on them to see how they are also. 7 was faster, and less power usage among other things I was impressed. I do recommend more than a gig of ram. But it performed better there are many reason for this I could go in to the architecture of the OS. Even on a single core AMD Sempron with 2 gigs of ram out performed XP. I would say if you have a machine with 2 gig try it you will be surprised.

Opsys is right: Unless you are a game tester or a media developer, "big hardware" is becoming less and less necessary with an increasing dependence on the Web. All you really need is a thin client with a fast network interface.

I'm with you as well, opsys. For the first time in the history of the microprocessor, user needs have been satiated. The data centers will continue to consume all the resources available, but the desktop computer for the masses is just fine. 64-bit, 2 cores running at 2GHz, with 4GB of memory, will take care of most peoples needs

Servers are another story. It's a good thing that Vista/7 shares a lot with Server 2008, because that's where multi-core and lots of memory will pay off. Any extraordinary needs a user might have, can be performed on a server in the cloud. That is, assuming a decent network connection, right Regaug?

What that sort of comment fails to realize is that more powerful procs/cores and more of them will allow for new apps that are currently not possible now. Its the same thing as Gates saying computers will never need more than 640k. Its ok for what we have now so why would you need anything better?

I don't disagree, but I still remember the joy of not having to find, download, install, and configure a separate Winsock app. It was certainly a game changing event when mom and pop didnt' have to go through a bunch of pain just to connect to the Internet. Randall - your recent posts about Win7 have been interesting and informative, whether people agree with your take on things or not. Thanks.

So as XP's. It fails to work quite often and the only fix is a restart or repairing the network stack. Windows only finally got a decent stack when they tool the BSD network stack.

Thanks for don't your homework. People need to read and understand what you have said.

Moores law has not applied for some time.

DLL Hell? Where? MSFT chose this way for a reason. When doing simple tasks in a OS, a user should NECER have to openin a CLI windo...EVER. The CLI should be for administrative purposes only...thus UNIX in an IT environment...not a desktop one. Apple handle it very well...but if you want to run appz out side of Apple dominion...you yet again need to use Terminal. And what bloatware? MSFT has already removed several programs from Windows. You can restore them either from downloading them or usin ghte Features control panel. Think about what Windows has to tackle...it works with way more things than ANY OS...I don't care about compiling Linux to run on a router. A router isn't a computer. In many cases I hate MSFT is choosing to use Mac-like features or some found in Linux. MSFT should do their own thing. Problem is that is not what users want. Some comments I read above are so crazy they aren't worth commenting on. Your was just exceptionally crazy :-)