Microsoft Apologises; To Fix Win 7 UAC Flaw

[nelson_nel]

This is a public relations spin. Well done, even if technically unneccessary.

 

[V8VENOM]

Only well done if the public buy it. I don't think the public is gonna buy Windows 7 (aka Vista SP2), especially with starter prices at $200. Microsoft haven't been doing so well with their "public relationships spin" lately and they'll find it a hard sell to many with current economy -- who's gonna spend $200 min on an OS that uses the same Vista code base and offers nothing beyond what most can already do in WinXP?

 

[tenor77]

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Only well done if the public buy it. I don't think the public is gonna buy Windows 7 (aka Vista SP2), especially with starter prices at $200. Microsoft haven't been doing so well with their "public relationships spin" lately and they'll find it a hard sell to many with current economy -- who's gonna spend $200 min on an OS that uses the same Vista code base and offers nothing beyond what most can already do in WinXP?[/citation]

Well I don't think people are buying it. I'm not anyway, but anyone that installed a beta and was looking for a perfect product is an idiot.

Why do you freak on the $200 price tag? What did a full version (non update) of Xp home cost? Oh yeah $200. Wow, talk about inflation! It must be the cost of oil that's causing this jack up in prices. No, I'm confusing software with gas again.

They haven't announced any update cost but I'm guessing the update will be $99-150 depending on the version your getting, and we've still to see what OEM will be, but it'll probably be the same. I'm hoping for good things with 7 so I can finally make the jump to DX10 and better 64 bit OS. Enough reason for me.

 

[V8VENOM]

Not freaking, but I believe Microsoft were claiming all their "anti-piracey" work would eventually reduce the cost of the OS. Inflation rate from Vista's intiatal launch is actually down not up, soooo...

I agree you can't really fault Beta bugs -- but MS made it public.

What is better? Windows 7 code base is Vista so I don't see where you're gonna get a better 64bit OS?? DX10 is in current Vista and for the most part no significant visual difference in games from DX9c. New games coming out (the few) are still DX9c as not many developers are embracing DX10.

I'll be installing Windows 7 RCs and Final, I have to in order to make sure the software I develop works on it, but from what I see it's just Vista SP2 only this time the update isn't free.

But of course I just spent the last 30 minutes organizing my IE favorites with endless security prompts (I have UAC enabled on this PC) because the links were imported from another Vista machine - ugh, what a pile of junk Vista is -- Vista can't tell I initiated the import with my local mouse (pointing device physically connected) under my Admin account so it assumes I need to be prompted on every single link imported, yipee, great work Micro-idiots. Oh and guess what, it's the same issue in Windows 7 Beta. Wooohoo, I can't wait to see this OS flop too.

Does Microsoft actually have any plans on doing a real OS from scratch?? I honestly don't think they can.

What I find really funny -- I was at my gym the other day and my favorite bike machine (has a LCD/computer with tracks where I can login and race other bike machines/people across the internet) was black, just needed plugging in -- guess what it booted into, WinXP!! I was cracking up...even new gym equipment is using good old WinXP.

Rob.

 

[tenor77]

DX 10 and 64 bit support comes with the gamers (why release a game half the people can't play- looking at you Crysis). The cards are finally cheap enough that there's no excuse not to have a DX 10 card now (unless you're a victim of this recession, then I understand) so I think we'll be seeing the next round of games being DX10. I agree, right now DX10 is like having a quad core, nice but not enough support most of the time.
Like I said, this'll be changing.

I'm not arguing that Vista is not an upgrade for me. I wouldn't say it's a downgrade either but it has two problems, one is a lack of developer support though the driver support is finally cleared up for the most part. The other is (and I know I'm going to offend some people) but they are trying to make it too much like a Mac. I'm not trying to argue that it's better or worse, but the push to make it more accessible to the everyday person did fail because it treats you like you're an idiot. It feels like wearing a life preserver on a dry day in Arizona.

My hope is that based on experience so far that if they can fix those problems and drag the rest of the world into the 64bit era. The OS isn't the problem for 64bit, it's the support. It's time because the other 4 gig of memory is collecting dust half of the time.

If you really want a new kernal, we're looking at a new file system to go with it (they've been mulling this one for awhile). While that's great we're also looking at a dating a lot of software in the process and emulation only works so well. I am just not sure on that one. The way you present it, it's like you're comparing this to Madden 08 to 09, like it's a roster update. I think there's some good changes here. If it's stable I'll jump over this time.

Yeah you'd be surprised what kernal an Edge 705 uses.

 

[randomizer]

Microsoft have nore reason to build a new OS from scratch, not when most people will buy refreshes just because it comes on their shiny new Dell.

As for the $200 price tag, that simply can't be right. It has been known for some time now that Starter is for OEMs only. There is no way OEMs will pay $200 for a butchered OS that is less functional than Windows 95. That German site probably looked at the original MSRP for Vista on the Microsoft site and applied it to Windows 7 as "fact".