1. Yes, it's a whole new look! Have questions or need help? Please post your question in the New Forum Questions thread Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Seeing tons of unread posts after the upgrade? See this thread for help. Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice

Windows 7 Upgrade - Pre-Order Sale Begins

Discussion in 'Community Broadband & Computers' started by Mr. Linux, Jun 26, 2009.

  1. Tech Head

    Tech Head New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    0
    How did you get it for $10?
     
  2. Villager

    Villager Ashburn Village Resident

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,512
    Likes Received:
    19
    Heh. I think he meant it was $10 shipping. But when I checked this morning the shipping was free from Newegg. I ordered one - even if I don't install it right away I'm guessing the price is not going to be as good if I wait until they start releasing service packs.
     
  3. GeauxTigers

    GeauxTigers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually I think he meant $10 as in the difference in cost between the $39 Micro Center (in store only) price and the $49 newegg price and hence the cost associated with not having to drive somewhere to get it. Given that Micro Center will charge tax though and Newegg is free tax and shipping, that $10 seems to be shrinking.

    I doubt you'll see this price again once the pre-order sale expires (July 11 I think). It will go to the roughly $100 cost at that point.
     
  4. flynnibus

    flynnibus Well-Known Member Forum Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    242
    I think MS is trying to experiment with OS pricing and seeing if the discount is steep enough to discourage piracy.

    Everyone complains about how expensive OSs are to buy off the shelf.. yet overlook its one of the most complex pieces of software you'll ever buy.
     
  5. merky1

    merky1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    8
    Especially considering the heavy delays it takes to check out of that place. I don't think I've ever been able to leave that place in under 20 minutes.

    As for Windows 7, I'm going to run the RC until the timer runs out, and then either fall back to XP or buy the GA product. If it wasn't for games, I'd keep my machine booted to Linux and dump winders all together. So my swing point will be the minimum requirements for stuff like Starcraft 2.
     
  6. Baywatch68

    Baywatch68 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    2
    or for those of us with Macs who don't have these issues, OS X Snow Leopard is only $29 :)
     
  7. flynnibus

    flynnibus Well-Known Member Forum Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    242
    yeah, and snow leopard is more like a SP release then a full release.. which you had to pay alot more for to get Leopard.. and Tiger before it. Oh, that and the massive Apple Tax to get your computer in the first place :)
     
  8. Ozgood

    Ozgood Not a space alien

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    What is the difference between that and Leopard? I have not heard of the OS Snow Leopard.
     
  9. Kaosdad

    Kaosdad Will work for Rum

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    4
    $29 and a cooler name. :happygrin:
     
  10. Ozgood

    Ozgood Not a space alien

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1

    A cooler name than Leopard?

    (reaching for my credit card now) :happygrin:
     
  11. Baywatch68

    Baywatch68 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is that the tax that prevents viruses, my computer crashing and having to use Vista? :happygrin:
     
  12. Ozgood

    Ozgood Not a space alien

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's harsh. Funny but harsh. :happygrin:
     
  13. flynnibus

    flynnibus Well-Known Member Forum Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    242
    Apple doesn't do anything more to prevent viruses - it's purely an issue of the market. You don't build worms and viruses that are only going to work on a small percentage of the population when you are aiming for the biggest effect. The most significant difference to OSX is that the default user is not an administrator. But that is an area covered by Windows now anyways.

    The Apple platform has been shown time and time again that it can be exploited when someone takes the time and effort to do so.

    But the guys trying to build massive zombie networks are going to put their effort into projects that will gain them the biggest gain.

    This is like saying Winchester, VA does a better job at Anti-Terrorism then NYC because there are no attacks there.

    The recycled garbage gets old. When Apple's market share gets significant enough that it becomes a worthwhile target, what is Apple going to do when they eat their words and release a security software functionality into the OS?
     
  14. BigDog

    BigDog Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    9
    Amazon has it for $49 with FREE Shipping also. With release-date delivery.

    Windows 7 Product Page
    http://tinyurl.com/nzenck
     
  15. Twriter

    Twriter Get a Mac!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    6
    That's semi-correct. There are three main reasons why OS X is less vulnerable than Windows:
    1) The "Security through Obscurity" argument you brought up (that is Macs are not not targeted due to their small marketshare compared to Windows).
    2) Windows has a lot of design flaws that hackers can take advantage of. To quote one wag "Windows' minor design flaws obfuscate its major design flaws."
    3) OS X's design for security. Yes, Apple did indeed do something to protect against viruses (and other malware).

    Specifically, what Apple has done is:
    * Use BSD UNIX as its core. The BSD nature of Mac OS X offers several security advantages: securelevels, a multiuser access control model, and the ability to limit the access that applications have to the kernel and other core operating components.

    * No remote access services are started by default. A user must actively enable each file sharing or other remote access service or launch an application. This contrasts to most Windows releases, which have a much higher degree of risk when first installed.

    * The root user is disabled by default.

    * Built-in firewall

    Yes there are vulnerabilities for OS X, but nowhere near the quantity of vulnerabilities there are for Windows.

    Setting the record straight!
    --- John B.
     
  16. Baywatch68

    Baywatch68 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    2
    You know I was just playing, right?
     
  17. flynnibus

    flynnibus Well-Known Member Forum Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    242
    The vast majority of flaws are in applications - not the OS. The difference the platform makes is once you have gotten to a privileged mode - what can you do? The reality is most users on earlier Windows versions run as the Administrator user, so once they run arbitrary code, they are doing so with full privileges and the architecture is well known to be able to do what you want.

    On earlier versions of desktop Windows, it was too much of a PITA to run as a normal user vs an administrator so most people run as the admin. This is the gasoline waiting for the spark. This behavior was changed back with Vista years ago.

    all things the windows kernel has had for ages as well.

    Again.. something addressed years ago since Windows 2003 was released.

    The root user isn't as important as the concept of who has root privileges. A change made again.. years ago with Vista.

    Something Windows has had since 2004.

    Again... it's about scrutiny. OSX has had plenty of updates with hundreds of security fixes too. The strength of security in opensource is not that so many people write the code, it's that you are standing there naked, exposed for all to see. That lack of secrecy forces you to be tighter. It doesn't take much work to exploit you vs. a platform where one has to experiment and probe to find the weaknesses. Windows by far has way more people trying to beat on it. If there is an issue that will only be found by 0.001% of attempts, its going to be found on Windows in 1/50th the time that it would take on OSX simply by the sheer number of people looking for it.

    The vast majority of Windows patches these last few years have been to cover scenarios that just aren't likely. I know - I have to review every single one of them as we provide patches for our products in my day job. The days of simple remote exploitation of the OS's services itself are mostly gone. Most exploits are tight windows of opportunity under certain circumstances. You are far more at risk browsing the web then you are about your computer sitting on the wire.

    The #1 difference is simply what privilege level the user is running as and #2 is what components are installed by default. And these are things that were addressed years ago.

    The shift in Microsoft's direction back 2002 has really paid off.

    The reality this stigma is more hype and hypocritical fanboi stuff then it is reality anymore. Plus the notion that anything with the word 'Microsoft' in it all of a sudden means it's a Windows issue. When the vast majority are Application or specific services that have nothing to do with the OS or kernel.

    Viruses, etc are still a major issue. But they feed on user action and application exploits.
     
  18. Mr. Linux

    Mr. Linux Senior Member & Moderator Forum Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes Received:
    48
    Can we not turn this thread into yet another Windows vs. Macs thread?

    Thanks!
     
  19. Baywatch68

    Baywatch68 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sorry. That was my fault, but not my intention
     
  20. GeauxTigers

    GeauxTigers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    10
    As the July 10 Win7 deadline is approaching, I am starting to get the itch to order a couple of copies. My logic here is I expect I'll go to Win7 at some point. Maybe not right away but certainly by the time a SP1 is released and would be dropping almost certainly $90 or more at the time. So why not grab it at $50 now while I can and just sit on it until I am ready? There is one question that I can't seem to find an answer to through the many forums or Microsoft site. When using an upgrade disc, can you install to a formatted hard drive or must you install Vista first? In the past I seem to remember this type of thing was possible by just inserting the older OS disc when prompted to prove you had an existing copy but I can't see anywhere saying this is still the case. I really don't care to install over an old install, even if it's a "clean" install. If I go through the effort of a new OS, I want a fresh drive. The likely $40-50 more later for an OEM copy that isn't an upgrade in that case may be preferable.

    Anyone happen know the answer to the upgrade question?
     

Share This Page