Windows 7 on the HP Mini 2140 netbook- success!
It made it on safely! More to come later…
http://www.youtube.com/v/gyO7NNvKHeM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
Hey James welcome to the netbook Windows7. :)
YoudaMan !
is it me or does this feel like some kinda weird tech porn?
short shoddy nighttime video with James creepy voice in the background.
is that how the HP likes it? oh oh, she’s a dirty girl…
Nice work! Wanna share with us what you did?
Now you’ll keep in mind to remember how well your prototype 2140 beta Win 7 compares to the Pineview models HP will release in a few months time.
seriously – what’s the big deal?
win7 is not hard to install.. so you had trouble figuring out how to boot off the sd? all these machines use similar bioses – surely it’s possible.. and if not, surely you could boot off an external usb hdd?
it’s prolly just me but i don’t think these things are post-worthy..
i’ve got an eee 901 quad-booting ubuntu, leopard, xp and win 7.. but who really cares? :)
Microsoft, after the technical and media debacle of Vista, should have learned its lesson: bite the bullet and do ‘An Apple’. That is, scrap entirely their legacy OS – so bloated with lines of patch code after decades of programmers have had their go – and start afresh based on a stable core OS. Apple did that with OSX (using UNIX) and so should Microsoft.
For all the gushing about Win7, it is still, as confirmed by Microsoft, a patched and re-worked Vista – which is a patched and reworked Windows 2000, which is a …well, you get the idea. Win7 is the SP Vista never got. But you can’t – as they’ve shown time and time again – make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Especially if its Frankenpatch OS.
Simply thinning out the current OS so it’ll also fit on a netbook hardly qualifies it as a new product.
Win7′s GUI might look pretty, but its the same grim WinOS under all that. XP is currently popular on netbooks because a) it’s an OS many are familiar with – including its many ‘challenges’, and b) its had some 8 years for Microsoft to issue enough patches to make it stable (‘ish). But those are hardly good reasons to find it acceptable. Remember when we all whined about XP? Clearly, Microsoft hasn’t, at it since produced Vista and now Win7 – perhaps better called Windows 3.0 Max.
Microsoft must have done great work in their backward compatability support if their brand new code is regarded as “old code Max”.
Baz: at the time when Apple switched to OSX, they were going through a massive crisis in which its OS was becoming outdated, two projects to replace it had failed, and thirdparty support for their products was dwindling. It’s much easier, in that environment, to start anew. You’re competing with your old self, but your old self is a pretty shitty product.
At this stage, if MS were to start completely afresh:
a) They’d have to convince their customers to buy into an OS which renders their software and possibly hardware useless.
b) They’d have to convince all their software developers to rewrite and somehow get customers to upgrade.
c) They’d have to convince all their hardware developers to rewrite their drivers, or get the customers to upgrade.
Now, we’ve been through this scenario with Windows XP to Windows Vista, which is a much bigger change in the underlying OS than you make out, but which retained a lot of legacy code for compatability and therefore fairly recent software and hardware usually worked. Even so, hardware manufacturers largely didn’t bother supporting it, customers didn’t see the point in upgrading, and software developers didn’t want to be dedicated to it. Microsoft were competing with their old self, and their old self was an insanely popular product with huge support.
Baz, the kernel has been completely re-written.. To me, that’s much more than just “a patched and re-worked Vista”.. One question – have you actually used 7?
Alex –
You don’t think that Microsoft is “going through a massive crisis in which its OS was becoming outdated, two projects to replace it had failed, and thirdparty support for their products was dwindling”?
Let’s see – outdated OS? Check. Two projects to replace it failed? WinMe and Vista. Check. Third Party support dwindling? How many programs / hardware drivers out there are written only for Vista? Check.
And no – sorry, but the fear of legacy programs rendered unusable can no longer be seen as a valid excuse for producing a new OS – there’s now far too many excellent virtualization programs out there (why, even Microsoft has one) – and Apple was able to jump that shark when OSX first came out (and that with fussy, anal, easily antagonized Macoyltes) without people throwing themselves off of their buildings.
Meanwhile, create some easily understood standards and warn software or hardware company enough in advance so that they can be ready for the change (something Microsoft has some difficulty with) and there would be even less fear of losing functionality in the change.
whatever92 –
As for what Win7 actually is – well, if as you say the kernel has been completely re-written, the fact remains that Microsoft has said that Win7 is a reworked Vista – with all the challenges that infers.
As for the question, have I tried Win7 – what are you nuts?
;-)
Its a BETA. From Microsoft. I’ve only just barely got Vista to behave (mostly) – without tossing a portion of my computer to the boffins in Redmond to play with – so they can see, by living vicariously thru my experiences – how badly they’ve screwed up.
Now granted, I have seen some very positive comments and video reviews of the Win7 Beta and undoubtably, there are elements of Win7 that are an improvement over Vista (not that would be hard). But calling what should be a SP a new OS is disingenuous, at best.
And its the Legacy of old OSs and the patches that fixed them that will continue to haunt Win7.