[Compiler]

Here is the news report on Windows7 and IE8:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15786

NOW, if WE can get that IN THE USA! That would be great!

[Gulo Luseus]

The whole issue of IE8 is a bad one. I have followed the debate in the UK, and as far as I can see, its a complete waste of time. Most people use IE. Why? Because they know nothing about computers. They buy one, turn it on, and do what they want to. When Win 7 ships with no browser, every retailer will be looking to install one to forestall the 3 million people returning their shiny new computer complaining about no internet access. It doesnt mean its a good browser, it means its the one people know. Face facts- typical users have no idea what they are doing. ny attempting to open the market, the EU ruling as effectively closed it. If you want a different browser, you already know what you want. MS cannot ship with multiple browsers, as they would not be able to use ALL the available possibilities, and leaving one out causes the same problem that including just IE supposedly does. And what happens if the browser is out of date? Is that another instance of unfair competition?

I also feel that this is just the start. Win comes with media player, wordpad, notepad- all of which have a host of free competitors. Does that mean these will be ditched as well, to prevent unfair competition? The EU jumped in a knee jerk response to a problem that simply wasnt there. They have made a problem from nothing and escalated it to a major problem.

Again, I do not say IE is best, but it is what most people know. If you buy a car, would you want one without paint, stereo, whatever, on the grounds that more than one is available? The ruling is a joke, and the effect will only be negative. I do wonder if the only reason the case was ever raised was for the huge damages that were imposed un MS as a cash raiser. Whatever we think, Win is and will be the major OS in numerical terms for a long time, and regardless of the price, there is a considerable investment from MS. By kneecapping win 7, the nett effect has to be negative for the typical user.

[Compiler]

When Win 7 ships with no browser, every retailer will be looking to install one to forestall the 3 million people returning their shiny new computer complaining about no internet access.

MS will be including at least 5 browsers with Windows7.
IE
FF
Opera
Safari
Chrome

Anything else doesn't have marketshare or support.

[DaveA]

No, they will be providing a "Menu" listing of the browsers, NOT the browsers themself.

One change that lessened the burden on PC manufacturers and Microsoft, which is racing to release its new Windows 7 in October, was to distribute the ballot screen over the Internet as an update to Windows. The EU had originally wanted it shipped on new computers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124845621869379487.html

[Compiler]

Can't read the article. Only shows a paragraph.

Either way, a list of browsers to choose from when you first start is fine. The issue bad part of including it on the media is that the browser is out-dated (then again, so would the IE) - DL Opera (5mb) takes about 30 seconds on typical high-band connection.

How many people in the world actually use dial-up?

[DaveA]

I do NOT know what happen to the link, other than it is now old news.

They will NOT be included on the media, but will be a Update which will display a "Menu List" and the user will then be able to go to the one that they want and download. IE will be installed, and at the time of the update, then the user can select to retain or remove IE..
This all has to be APPROVED by the EU Commission.

[RootbeaR]

Windows would still include Internet Explorer, but users would be able to disable it. Computer manufacturers could also choose to install other browsers, set them as default and disable Internet Explorer.

[Compiler]

Sounds great. Lets do it that way in the USA.

[Ditchster]

Compiler, I admire your wishful way of thinking.

But still the bottom line is, if this sets a legal precedent within the EU - does it mean that a Browser OS (namely Chrome) is doomed before it even gets a start???

[Compiler]

No.

Can't fail any worse than Amiga.

[Ditchster]

Strange statement, and i hope you are being sarcastic Compiler - afterall the leaps that commodore took back in those great days was (for the post-console-generation) the equivalent to go from a PS to a PS3 in one bound - and whilst being nostalgic "bring back Jet Set Willy" (sorry couldn't resist.)

[Compiler]

ChromeOS is not in danger from the EU. Doesn't keep it from being sold anywhere else in the world. Its a non issue.

Amiga is a failure. Easy proof: Go out and buy a new Amiga computer with software at your local store. Commodore was a stupid company operated by morons and greed (There are ways to make money with a company that loses money). Yes Amiga was state of the art, with some flaws. Even when I was in my TEENS in the 80s - I would have DONE a better job with Commodore/Amiga than the idiots who ran the company into the ground. The tech was mostly fine, the OS amazing... it took MS until 2001 with XP to make a mostly modern OS... and it still had MS-DOS for setup.

What I'd have done since 1985 *IF* I was in charge of ChickenLips.
- Never had released the C16/+4
- The C64C (No more classic), The C128/D would have had the graphics palette of the +4 for C128 mode. And then no more development on the 8bit design.
- The Amiga 1000 would have better looking desktop colors, and quick work on its replacement in full force.

- My concepts of the Amigas AFTER the Amiga (And this was from BACK THEN)
1 - I never would have come out with THAT version of the ugly heavy and expensive A2000. More below.

They (C=) wasted resources on the stupid PC-AT slots that were only useful for emulation... I am guessing the number of people who ran PC emulation was 1% at the most. The PSU and mobo size and complexity added to the cost and a whole year of no Amigas to buy. Yep, no Amigas to buy after the initial sales of A1000s. How stupid. And I would have spent $$ (like apple) to get developers to make some PRO software.

Here is "MY" Amigas after the A1000.
- Would have left the C= name off, at least on the USA version.
- Better colors, brown and beige?
- ADOS 2.0. No ugly colors for default
- NO PC Emulation. 3rd party did just fine by themselves for less retail price.
- De-Interlacer developed - so BUSINESS could use the Amigas. Interlace is not acceptable for office use.

The hardware:
- A1200 : 1MB RAM. $1000.
Looks like an A1000, has internal Zorro slot, 1 or 2 Floppy drives (that look nice like the A1000 / A3000) and 1 internal 3.5 HD bay.

- A2000 : 1MB RAM. $2000 (Cheaper than Mac/PC)
Lower than the ugly thing C= made. The PSU on the side, the HD-Bay behind the 2 floppy bays with 2 drives pre-installed (and not looking like PC drives) No 5.25 exposed drive bay. No useless PC emulator/slots means no need for 9 total slots, just 6 (4 Zorro IIs) slots. The PSU would have been smaller & slimer, maybe 150watts instead 205 for that huge thing.

I would not have made the C= version of the A500. Why? Because its a matter of business perception of the product. IE: Many people thought the Amiga was a toy - yet it did things that PCs & Macs couldn't do until 95~2000. The key-board computer was being viewed as "toy" computer my the mid~late 80s.

Now, my concept "A1200" is actually designed to use the same motherboard as my "A700". The difference is that my A1200 looks like a A1200/3000 (lost the keyboard bay - which I actually liked - but the bigger keyboard is more important and saves $$) - the motherboard itself is 99% the same as my A700 below.

My A700/1200 system-board is almost identical to the C=A500, other than De-interlacer chip/socket. It'd have the single Zorro slot and the CPU/Memory slot/bay.

A700: 512K $700 (Single floppy drive)
An even more slim version of my A1200 as well as less deep. A tad taller than the C= A500. It only has room for 2 floppies. The PSU (same as my 1200) is rotated 90degrees to be flatter. The De-interlacer chip is removed (Can be bought later). The Zorro, while same as my A1200 - is for an external expansion (like C=A500) - but its the same as the A1200.

Buy making these 3 base systems this way, they could hit the market faster, look professional and sexy like the Mac II and be more cost effective.

Between the C= A500 & A2000, the keyboards and floppy drives were not compatible. That costs more money in inventory / support. With 3 different models, it hits 3 different markets. A700 for home, A1200 for budget business who only need a CPU with internal HD and the A2000 for the power user. If you were on a budget and wanted a computer - getting one with a detached keyboard was out of the question. You had to pay an extra $1000+ for keyboard and internal expansion!

When I had the choice - for the same price, I choose the A1000 over the A500 in the 80s. And I bought my A3000 (same price as the A1200 with HD) because again, keyboard and better quality de-interlacer. C= did the same stupid thing with the A1200/4000. You either spent $500 or $2000 for two totally different computers.

With my "dream" computers.. the A2500 /1500 would have been 020/030 CPU add-on cards with included HD. And HD models really to go. All in all, 7 models prices from $700~4000. They would have been taken more seriously.

Within a week of my first Amiga, I switched the colors from ugly blue/orange to gray scale... long before I knew anything about 2.0.

I would have marketed directly against the Mac and Clones.

That was my ideas back when I was 17.

So yeah... Amiga was a techno success and a business failure. Even today, those 1985~87 computers can actually run a web-browser and do things they were never built to do.

[Ditchster]

Very interesting reply Compiler and a good read, thanks.

Personally my take on the Amiga was more based on a consumers, who was generally impressed with the computers capabilities given the cost - this was a substantiated view comparing the Amigas capabilities against the CAD station I was using at the time which had, if i recall correctly, 2MB Ram running AutoCAD R10 and cost £20,000. I was 16 at the time and have been qualified in CAD modelling for over 16 years now (now using AutoCAD Architecture 2009).

You are obviously the right age to remember the leaps and bounds in software/computer advancement during the late eighties/early nineties, when computers literally doubled in speed on a yearly basis - a trend which sadly seemed to pitter out when Intel reached the Pentium era. We had already seen the birth of Win 3, which in my opinion was the last big leap in OS design, and was also the era when computer professional users learnt the meaning of "Less is actually More". The Post-Console-Generation (as long as they are not professional users) would struggle with the concept that it is not great having an OS which is "all singing and all dancing" and which looks mighty impressive, as puts a strain on the computer, which if you are using memory hungry apps, isn't good - and before you say it, Yes my OS is literally stripped of all things non-essential and cleaned upon shut down.

This brings me back to the Google OS concept, which if you spent some time checking out the press, is (or maybe was) going to be a simple OS designed around a web browser and is meant for Netbooks (primarilly) - this for me sounds absolutely great as it is a mouth watering concept (for me anyway) to possibly have an OS which is fully supported and frees-up the full potential of my computers hardware. I know you are probably thinking that i have made far too many suppositions - please see this extract from Wikipedia:

Google states that Chrome is being designed in a minimalist way, much like its Chrome web browser. In this way, the company hopes to move much of the user interface from the desktop environment to the World Wide Web. Cloud computing will be a large part of its design. It has stated that, for developers, "the web is the platform".The Chrome OS is being targeted at users who spend most of their time on the Internet, and is designed to run on computers ranging from netbooks to desktop computers.Google has stated that the Chrome OS is separate from its Google Android operating system, which was designed primarily for use on smartphones.
Also, Google announced that the Chrome OS will feature a novel security architecture. According to Google's official announcement, they will be "going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates"

Now the above, for me, is great news as it would mean that a majority of software developers would support the OS with thier own products - ranging from Cameras to Camcorders and hopefully Adobe (creative suite) and then even CAD - happy days. The only tiny downside would probably be switching off the integrated search bar which would probably be located to replace the windows taskbar - but if thats the only downside then great.

However, lets not get too excited about a globally supported Linux based OS platform, because there is the small issue re that integral browser - well there wasn't until Microsoft came along and spoiled the party. Of all of the applications for Microsoft to give up (well seem to anyway), they choose IE.
I don't beleive for one minute that the EEC forced it upon them considering over the years the EEC has been banging on about the Media Player and Pre-installed Office Suite in previous Microsoft OS releases - so why IE?? Well it almost certainly gives Google a right headache!!
Bottom line is that if Google does not get its own OS out before the release of Windows 7 Service Pack 1 - ITS GAME OVER!!.

The significance of sales relative to SP1 distribution is massive - bear in mind that many companies along with the majority of professional computer users will stay clear of Win 7 until the availability of SP1 (for very good historical reasons).

So now it must be a race against time for Google to get round the problems and beat Microsoft to the finish prior to SP1 time!!!!!

[Compiler]

Originally Posted by Ditchster

Very interesting reply Compiler and a good read, thanks.

Personally my take on the Amiga was more based on a consumers, who was generally impressed with the computers capabilities given the cost - this was a substantiated view comparing the Amigas capabilities against the CAD station I was using at the time which had, if i recall correctly, 2MB Ram running AutoCAD R10 and cost £20,000.

No Problem. If you recall my specs if *I* was in charge of the company (at age 17 - even 16) - is that they would have included the de-interlacer like the A3000. I bought one for my A1000 and used a 14" VGA monitor for a rock-steady screen... then of course used the monitor on my A3000. Because of the inability to display a high-res clean image, the Amiga was NOT good enough for the office user. That was the whole stupidity of the management of Commodore and perhaps even some of the engineers. C= had put all their stupid drive into the home market with the thought that some business would spend $2000 for an Amiga2000 and $1500~2000 for their stupid 286 PC Daughterboard + add-on ISA cards to run DOS software. So a PC-Amiga2000 could have a VGA card with a VGA monitor that the Amiga side couldn't use along with a keyboard that didn't have all the PC-AT keys. Had they included the de-interlacer and dumped the ISA/PC slots - the Amigas would have been on the market a full year quicker and business could have bought them as a low-cost computers with a GUI that was thousands cheaper than buying a Mac and IBM. That would have made a difference. Even I knew that as a kid. Even The 1985 Amiga 1000 can support up to 4mb of RAM, I had 2.5.

a trend which sadly seemed to pitter out when Intel reached the Pentium era. We had already seen the birth of Win 3, which in my opinion was the last big leap in OS design

Don't not agree. The PentiumII was easily faster than a Pentium. The rate for performance is still upwards - but with slow HDs and bloated OS - that effects performance. There became power/heat issues as CPUs hit 4Ghz and beyond... so now we moved to multi-core CPUs.

Windows3 was never an OS. It's a GUI Shell that ran on top of MS-DOS. Try to install Windows3 on a computer without MS-DOS on it. Win3 was garbage, day 1. Windows95 was MS first consumer OS and it still had strong ties to MS-DOS, but at least its kind-of hand long-file names (It did conversions). Win95 was the huge steam for MS. XP was their next.

Yes my OS is literally stripped of all things non-essential and cleaned upon shut down.

Win7 on my notebook on default settings (a few things turned off like remote desktop) runs very good out of the box.

This brings me back to the Google OS concept, a simple OS designed around a web browser and is meant for Netbooks (primarilly) -

Bottom line is that if Google does not get its own OS out before the release of Windows 7 Service Pack 1 - ITS GAME OVER!!.

The significance of sales relative to SP1 distribution is massive - bear in mind that many companies along with the majority of professional computer users will stay clear of Win 7 until the availability of SP1 (for very good historical reasons).

As you just stated, ChromeOS is marketed to low-powered computers. It won't compete with full-desktops or game systems or workstations. I don't see a race for release before SP1. Besides, Windows7rc is still BETTER than Vista w/SP2 or SP3. Win7 is an upgraded patched-up, cleaned-up, less-bloated version of Vista.

Windows7 RTM is even better. After screwing up badly with Vista, MS has gone all out to make Win7 a good experience from the start. Installing Vista takes about 1hr, vs 15minutes with Win7. Netbooks will have Win7 on them from the get go... still, many will have WinXP on them... as Win7 battery usage still requires work and perhaps a future patch will help it with power issues.

SP1 idea is generally valid for two OSs... XP & Vista... Think of Win95OSR2 as an SP... or WIn98se as an improved SP... WinNT4 has like 5-6service packs for that mess.

When I get a release version of Win7... SP1 will not be on my mind.

[Ditchster]

Windows95 was MS first consumer OS and it still had strong ties to MS-DOS, but at least its kind-of hand long-file names (It did conversions). Win95 was the huge steam for MS. XP was their next.

I very much disagree, simply on the basis of multi-tasking. The globe saw a large number of established (pre-windows) software developers embrace a multi-tasking visual interface - this is the OS platform which gave birth to AutoCAD R12 (An Autodesk Milestone) which did away with digitisers, pucks and twin screen usage (one screen was Dos commands, the other the model space). Windows 3 was the first widely used multi-tasking OS platform where as its predecessors were considered gimmiks. Win 3 was the first windows platform to be taken seriously and saw the advent of IE2 through to IE5 during its many updates. So on that basis i hope you begin to understand how that OS platform greatly changed the way computer professionals operated and functioned - it pretty much turned computer operating on its head.

..., ChromeOS is marketed to low-powered computers. It won't compete with full-desktops or game systems or workstations. I don't see a race for release before SP1. Besides, Windows7rc is still BETTER than Vista w/SP2 or SP3. Win7 is an upgraded patched-up, cleaned-up, less-bloated version of Vista.

Compiler.... XP Pro is a great deal better than Vista in the hardware utilization stakes. The very big question is if the XP Mode on the Win 7 actually matches up to XP - the reason for asking is that I have Win7 RC as dual boot to Vista Premium, and i do not see a performance gain from Win 7 XP Mode against Vista.... actually quite the opposite especially if stress testied with Autodesk software or Adobe Premier CS2 (more on that in the thread "Sress Testing Windows 7 XP Mode !!").

With regards to Chrome OS, this is a potentially globally supported Linux platform which would, for the very first time, see all the benefits of Linux whilst (Very Importantly) being fully supported generally and thus being commercially viable to the mass market. Now that would be monumental in the OS market as a whole. The biggest problem for anyone wanting to get into using a Linux based platform at the moment is that there are over 2000 different versions of it available to download globally - so most folk will find that daunting to say the least. This platform available from Google will be the very first Linux based OS for the mass-market.... now that is significant indeed.

Win7 on my notebook on default settings (a few things turned off like remote desktop) runs very good out of the box.

Notebooks today can run any consumer OS available because they generally have a pretty high spec compared to laptops of a few years ago. The acid test is to stress test the OS and hardware with hardware hungry apps/games - and has anyone really done that (see previously mentioned additional thread). So unless you are pushing your hardware - then you will not be pushing the OS.

SP1 idea is generally valid for two OSs... XP & Vista...

No, the SP1 is not an idea, it is a dogma to MS - stemmed from a number of OS first issues which had quite a few bugs - the worst was XP Basic vs XP Pro - here you saw the cheaper OS not being compatible with the majority of CD burners and a host of other hardware/software....and yet the XP Pro release DID - this is one of the main factors behind Anti-MS semantics giving way to a "go-forth-MS" idioligy and in turn one of the big reasons why i see a great number of pc's with a cracked copy of win xp pro installed on it - but there does exist a substantiated consumer view that any new MS OS will still be filled with bugs etc - so they will wait until the SP1 release to get peace of mind before spending a penny....and THAT is the deadline for a viable competitor OS to be release, and not after!!