Ubuntu was mentioned in like the 3rd message in this thread. Advocacy copypasta isn't offering anything new here...

thrash;302616 wrote:
Each processor architecture has its own media (DVD)
Having never purchased my own copy of Windows, I was basing my understanding on the copies shipped with OEM machines.
incidentally, you might have a x64 capable machine with x64 support disabled in the BIOS; many vendor-built machines were shipped that way for a long time
Sadly, I understand what you mean. None of the laptops that I've purchased have been crippled of 64bit functionality, but at least two have the virtualization feature locked.
You would buy windows if it did the things you wanted it to do at a price you found acceptable. Same as any purchasing decision, honestly.
I have no argument here. My argument is that most people don't do anything that is Windows-specific. After getting a few people to use Ubuntu for a few days, they stick with it and my tech support is only needed for crucial things (hardware failures, seeking advice about various upgrades, etc).
I know it's cool to be the token "loonix revolutionary" but it's all water under the bridge for me; you don't have to shit in this thread. When your factual assessment is incorrect or irrelevant, your advocacy rings hollow.
Take a deep breath and try to note who you're attacking here. My position is reasonable and as sound as the facts available to me allow. You are behaving in a way that leads me to believe you're assuming I am just parroting nonsense. I corrected what I saw as inaccurate data... though it appears my information wasn't complete.

As to being a "Linux revolutionary", I never tried claiming anything of the sort. I steer people toward what I see as being the best fit for their situations. If there is need for an OS that is free, works without crashing, programs that are free, support that is free, minimal security threats, and allows customization to exactly what the end-user desires, enter Linux.
If the customer wants to pay high prices for the product, read ambiguous error messages, deal with malware,buy expensive software, buy expensive support, and bend to a fascist regime, enter Windows or OSX. Typically, I only suggest Windows to people that are looking to use things that are Windows-only, the same with OSX. If they are looking to do other things and not play games or use proprietary software, Linux is usually the better choice.

After reading through the article, I can believe that OSX achieved those other statistics, but those aren't enough of a difference to really tout OSX as "so much" better than Windows 7. How many other "quickstart" applications were loaded with Windows? How do they define "boot"?

The huge difference in the mutlitask encoding raises a red flag. The article mentions that a different version of Quicktime was used, so I'm guessing that one of them makes use of SSE2 or SSE3, but the other doesn't. I do love inconsistent testing practices; they make comparing the results much easier.

out there;302606 wrote:
My experience has been the opposite of this. I placed a 64bit Vista disc into a machine with a 32bit CPU, but it was unable to load the data to reach the install screen. Further, I haven't had to choose between 32 or 64 when installing, so it seems clear that you have 32 OR 64, not both.

Each processor architecture has its own media (DVD), and if your machine won't boot 64 bit media, then obviously it won't boot 64 bit media. [incidentally, you might have a x64 capable machine with x64 support disabled in the BIOS; many vendor-built machines were shipped that way for a long time].

However, what your computer supports has nothing whatsoever to do with how product keys may be tied to the target architecture.

A retail ultimate SKU of windows vista or 7 comes with 2 DVDs and 1 product key. One of the DVDs is 32 bit, the other is 64bit. The same key works on both.

The situation with OEM SKUs is different: auto-activation [note this is activation: entering the key and installing the OS will still work] may fail when the key is an OEM key and the user is trying to install an x64 release when the OEM originally sold the machine as x32. Note that i said "may". Some OEMs may allow this on some machines, whereas other OEMs may not.

I am not privy to the OEM key management policies so I cannot say more.

Ubuntu, Knoppix, Sabayon, Suse, Kanotix, Mint, FreeBSD, Linspire, and Mandrake are all free. Why would I buy Windows?

You would buy windows if it did the things you wanted it to do at a price you found acceptable. Same as any purchasing decision, honestly.

Not having any OS at all is also free. Of course, nobody would want to use a computer with no OS at all.

lots and lots of porn, no more computer issues

This thread is aimed at the people who have heard the name, maybe even tried it in the past. This thread is aimed at getting people to try -- and I mean really try -- Windows. I see a lot of people commenting on Windows, saying why they don't use it, and a lot of what is being said is flat out wrong, misguided, or without proof or reason.

So, this is my challenge to you: Try Windows properly (read on for what I mean) -- and then form an opinion. One outcome could be you running Windows, but at the same time the outcome could be you saying "Windows simply isn't practical for me to use daily" or "I tried it, and I don't like it, and here's why." This is not a thread of zealotry telling you that Windows is the best operating system made and everyone should run it right now, no exceptions. That simply isn't true.

Now I've used Windows since version 3.0 and DOS before that and I am telling you that Windows is worth trying -- that you might find it better. There is a reason for this. Windows is an extremely good OS that has a lot of upsides. Windows users tend to be proactive about their OS, partly because of the Microsoft philosophy, and partly because they were in the same place you were before, and 'saw the light,' as it were.

There are a great number of reasons why you might want to run Windows. "Came with my computer," "I was already taxed for it," "everybody understands it" might be arguments you've heard before but I am going to try to give you some real reasons.

1. Games
   Windows is a great OS for playing video games, sometimes even exceeding dedicated game consoles. Microsoft put a lot of work in making sure that Windows is the best gaming OS available and it shows. They even have the best versions of Solitaire and Minesweeper available anywhere for any OS.

2. Openness
   MS has also spent over a decade making Windows the most open platform possible, so that viruses written 5 to 10 years ago will still run on the latest computers with Vista SP1 and Windows 7, and so that new viruses will work even more effectively. Internet Explorer and Windows Mail (formerly Outlook Express) have been specially designed to make sure that you can easily download viruses and spyware, just as soon as you disable the highly obnoxious security features which help prevent it.

With the advent of 64-bit Windows, there are very few viruses and spyware that actually work on the 64-bit platform (since they mostly all assume the platform is 32 bits and act accordingly) but as more and more people make the switch, virus writers will also switch to 64-bit.

3. Choice
   Everybody is different and so some people want to run things other than what Microsoft ships with the OS and the automatically installed viruses and spyware available from the Internet. Windows has available millions of third-party software packages which do everything under the sun, and some of them actually work. A special class of software will uninstall viruses and spyware from your computer, but not all of them, since some are required to keep the IT support industry in business.

4. Reliability
   Over the years Microsoft has made Windows even more reliable, by having the computer automatically restart when a STOP error occurs, and automatically checking the Internet to find a nonexistent solution to the problem. In accordance with choice, you can disable this so that you can stare at the blue screen of death all day if you want. Windows adds hundreds of new APIs for hardware drivers to generate STOP errors with each release.

5. Performance
   Microsoft has a team of highly skilled programmers dedicated to eliminating Windows performance wherever they can find it. And it shows: benchmarks for Vista are consistently lower than those for XP. Unfortunately much of the performance came back with Vista SP1, and Windows 7 gained even more performance. Microsoft is sure to fix this problem in the future.

6. Innovation
   Windows was the first OS to ship a Texas Hold'em game. Though it doesn't come with your computer, you have to pay $319 for Windows 7 Ultimate, and then download it. By using as much bandwidth as possible, Microsoft helps to drive the growth of the Internet and faster download speeds for everyone. In addition, a new major version of Windows comes out about once every five to seven years. With every Microsoft office stocked with standup arcade games and pool tables, their programmers can easily think up new features over a game of 9-ball or Donkey Kong (!).

7. Looks
   Every new release of Windows improves on the look and feel of the operating system. With an upgraded GUI design, new artwork, backgrounds and screen savers, Windows 7 looks better than ever. You can always count on Microsoft to have a visually appealing operating system which requires expensive graphics cards to take full advantage of, just in order to view the upgraded GUI. This helps to keep the video card industry in business.

8. Customization
   Windows has way more internal settings than its control panel exposes, and with third-party software you can enable hidden features, reskin the GUI, destabilize your system, and much more. There are so many options available you can spend years just customizing your system until the next version of Windows comes out.

9. Industry Support
   Microsoft is good for the entire IT industry. Through the reasons shown above, Windows helps to drive a thriving business in PC hardware, software and support services, and this helps keep millions of people in East Asia employed.

These are just some of the reasons you might want to run Windows.

Now you are probably thinking there are some good reasons not to run my challenge, like:

1. I can't be bothered to learn something new.
   This is true, and ignorance is bliss. People don't want to have to set everything up, and I sympathize with this, but it does pay off. In the end, if you can't be bothered, you can't be bothered. I'm just trying to say I think you should be bothered. If you use Windows long enough, you may wind up smashing your PC with a sledgehammer and having to buy a whole new PC. This helps create PC industry jobs, both in Asia and right here in the U.S. where they're desperately needed.

2. I don't want to lose everything!
   You don't have to -- dual booting is there! Installing Windows does not mean removing your normal OS though Windows will helpfully hide it from you. It's easy enough to find again though and go back and forth if you want.

3. I need my command line power!
   Well you're in luck because Windows now comes with PowerShell which is a totally revamped command line environment with the word "power" in its name and where none of the commands make any sense whatsoever. For a more traditional experience you can also install Services for Unix which has a more traditional command line environment that Microsoft purchased in the 1980s and never updated.

4. I tried Windows a while ago and I didn't find it interesting.
   Yeah, 2000 wasn't as interesting as XP, and XP wasn't as interesting as Vista, and Vista isn't as interesting as Windows 7. Remember Windows is a moving operating system -- if you haven't tried Windows in five years or so, I would recommend you try it again -- you might be pleasantly surprised and find a whole new set of problems to resolve.

5. Drivers are a hassle.
   Not any more. Now all you have to do is throw in the CDs that came with your system components and you can get all your drivers installed in just four or five hours. Sometimes you can even find updated drivers on the Internet. And if you're especially lucky, Windows will actually find the drivers for you.

Now, if after reading through, you want to try Windows, that's great. If you are planning to, I recommend you use Windows 7 Home Premium. It only has a retail price of $199 so you'll save a lot of money over Windows 7 Ultimate which only has Texas Hold'em and a bunch of useless screensavers you'll never use anyway. Feel free to try out any version you like, of course.

There are some common pitfalls to avoid:

1. Windows isn't Linux.
   Don't expect everything to be the same. Don't expect to run the exact same software. Don't expect everything to work the same way. Ask around when you need to do something so a more experienced Windows user can tell you how to work around Windows' design flaws, and go with the flow.

2. Installing it and never booting it.
   You won't like Windows if you just go in and "try it out." You'll get bored staring at Defrag, and boot back to Linux. Actually do tasks you want to complete in Windows. It usually takes 3 to 7 days of continuous use for you to get locked in, and 90 to 120 days of use to start suffering permanent brain damage. So you need to actually try to use Windows even if it is frustrating those first few days.

3. Trying it for 10 minutes and deciding it's too much hassle.
   Windows isn't hard to use, but it does take several days to customize your desktop and to install all the little apps and utilities that other OSes already come with but Windows doesn't. The big hurdle to get past is the first week or two of usage where you're still setting everything up.

So that is it. My challenge is given. Run Windows for a few weeks properly, booting into other OSes as little as possible, and see what you think. Please don't respond before doing this -- the point of this thread is not to argue my points. Try it out and you might be pleasantly surprised.

I strongly believe Windows is a great OS, and should have a larger userbase, simply because it is a better and easier to use OS than people seem to think.

thrash;302421 wrote:
What I am telling you is that for retail copies of the OS, both types of install media come in the same box, but you get one install key.
My experience has been the opposite of this. I placed a 64bit Vista disc into a machine with a 32bit CPU, but it was unable to load the data to reach the install screen. Further, I haven't had to choose between 32 or 64 when installing, so it seems clear that you have 32 OR 64, not both.
a retail copy of win 7 is $199. Suppose it lasts you for 2 years [it should go a bit longer than that]. That works out to $100 a year or about 33 cents per day.
Ubuntu, Knoppix, Sabayon, Suse, Kanotix, Mint, FreeBSD, Linspire, and Mandrake are all free. Why would I buy Windows?

My point is that people don't put things in perspective when making value assessments. The cost of windows is something people often complain about.

Compared to eating at taco bell now and then, for most people Windows is a hell of a lot more valuable, and costs less. Windows 1.0 came out at $99 in the mid 80s; inflation adjusted, Windows 7 doesn't cost any more than Windows 1.0 did, but it sure as hell does a lot more.

thrash;302452 wrote:
a retail copy of win 7 is $199. Suppose it lasts you for 2 years [it should go a bit longer than that]. That works out to $100 a year or about 33 cents per day.

That works out to around 2.25 a week or around 8.50 a month.

I think using a modern computer is worth 33 cents a day. It's still worth 2.25 a week, and its worth 8.50 a month.

Would you give up 1 trip to taco bell's super-value menu per week to use windows? I would.

haha I'm not gonna save up for 2years to get it lol

That works out to around 2.25 a week or around 8.50 a month.

I think using a modern computer is worth 33 cents a day. It's still worth 2.25 a week, and its worth 8.50 a month.

Would you give up 1 trip to taco bell's super-value menu per week to use windows? I would.

amicheze;302429 wrote:
7 Pro takes up almost the same resources on my desktop and netbook as XP did. It runs about the same speed of XP, if not a little faster in some aspects. Pick up 7 if you can, otherwise use XP. Don't go near Vistaids.

alright awesome except windows 7 is so damn expensive lol

amicheze;302429 wrote:
7 Pro takes up almost the same resources on my desktop and netbook as XP did. It runs about the same speed of XP, if not a little faster in some aspects. Pick up 7 if you can, otherwise use XP. Don't go near Vistaids.

Damn...really? I may have to try out 7 because I love how fast XP runs. On my XP laptop, while having chat applications open and a browser(Chrome), I'm only using about 275-300mb of my 2gb memory.

bigdogdj;302424 wrote:
Does windows 7 take up less ram than windows vista? Does it run faster than vista and xp? I got 4gigs of ram what should i use for an OS vista, xp, 7? Which would run the fastest? I got a i got a intel dual 2.26 processor

7 Pro takes up almost the same resources on my desktop and netbook as XP did. It runs about the same speed of XP, if not a little faster in some aspects. Pick up 7 if you can, otherwise use XP. Don't go near Vistaids.

TurboGTU;302358 wrote:
Umm, gonna have to disagree. You can not buy a 32 bit version and think the key is going to work with the 64 bit install. What would be the point of selling different versions if it did? Also there is a difference between OEM, Retail, or MAPs keys, the keys would not work with the different disk versions.

Windows SKUs vista and later are not SKU differentiated on bit-size. Nobody buys "32 bit Vista" and then goes and buys "64 bit vista" as a second purchase. Some OEMs may only include one or the other and charge you a media fee to get a second peice of media with the 2nd processor architecture, but in such cases you still only have one windows license and one product key.

What I am telling you is that for retail copies of the OS, both types of install media come in the same box, but you get one install key. For vista and later, you aren't required to choose what "bitness" you want when you buy.

OEM sku's may have a slightly different behavior. The product key will work on either bit-size, but you may have difficulty auto-activating it in a architecture different than what the OEM sold you the machine with. Phone activation should work. This may depend on the OEM who owns the assigned key prefix you're using.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=64677
http://www.vistax64.com/software/198885-32-bit-key-64-bit.html

TurboGTU;302236 wrote:
Did you make sure to download an OEM copy and that is is either 32bit or 64bit(depending on what your key is for). Likely is that one of these is not correct and won't except the product key.

ya your right i figured that out yesterday... it was such a bitch but i got it now lol

thrash;302238 wrote:
The product key and the processor architecture of the media are not related: one key works on either 32 or 64bit SKUs.

Umm, gonna have to disagree. You can not buy a 32 bit version and think the key is going to work with the 64 bit install. What would be the point of selling different versions if it did? Also there is a difference between OEM, Retail, or MAPs keys, the keys would not work with the different disk versions.

You could always call Microsoft - they give a 1-800 number on the activation screen, or your computer's vendor, who should be able to send you a restore disk of some kind.