Aw, seriously? A single file that can get corrupted? ... still?

So you were playing a 10+ year old video game on the newest build of Windows and it crashed? Come on man! Don't even get me started how every major Apple OS update breaks half the software I am using on my Mac.

The single Win 7 thread on my fav Mac Forum, I could not resist :)
Seen this?: http://tinyurl.com/yjfncoq

Hi, I'm about to purchase Windows 7 to install on my Macbook Pro (running Snow Leopard).
Should I choose 32-bit or 64-bit?
I don't need to run anything advanced in Windows mode.
Should I stick to the 32-bit or will I encounter problems in the future?
Or will I encounter hardware problems, if I run 64-bit?

EDIT: I've read that VMWare Fusion 3 will be able to run Windows 7 in 64-bit, so I guess I might as well install the 64-bit version.

You'll know better than anyone. What do you plan to use Windows FOR? If you plan to use 64-bit apps, then you should go 64-bit. If you need compatibility with some older software, then you should use 32-bit.

Me, I haven't used Windows for about 5 years. I have Macs at home, and Macs at work. Frankly, even if Windows 7 had all the features of 10.6, and more, I still wouldn't use it.

The main thing I need to use Windows for is an accounting system. I probably won't be using Windows for a lot of other things, really.
But I thought that if I could run 64-bit, why not do so?
But again, if there might be problems with running the accounting system software in 64-bit, I should probably do the safe thing and run 32-bit (at least for now - does all Windows 7 versions come with both 32-bit and 64-bit? - I could always install 64-bit later then, if I change my mind)

Been thinking about Microsoft's naming conventions.

Why 7? I don't remember any 6, or 5, or 4. Last number I recall was 3.1.

They dream up all sorts of funny names, just putting their heads on the block and saying, "Cooee! You with the chopper!" Thus we had Centennial, Millennium and NT, put the first two letters of each together and they spell "CEMENT". (Not that I had anything against NT2000, that was my poison until I switched.) Then XP, which presumably stands for something, maybe Express. Next Longhorn, which I suspect represented sucking-up to a certain politician from Texas. Apparently no one reflected over what emerges from the back end of a male Longhorn; or maybe they did, since it eventually (and how) saw the light as Vista. Well, I suppose you see a vista through the windows, so for the first time it makes some kind of sense. Follow that logic and the next should maybe have been Garden, or Beach, or Hotel Dustbins. Instead, we get a random number.

Maybe it's for the film with Brad Pitt. Seven deadly sins (let the geeks compete to pick them) and installing Windows is like receiving your wife's head in a box?

I tried to follow the logic… Lessee… 3.x (Actually the first that worked at all), Win95, Win98, Millennium (2000), XP, Vista, Win7. If you ignore the major upgrades disguised as SPs, That would make this number 7.

Apple's "Promise" commercial makes mention of Windows 2, but I don't remember ever seeing that version in the wild.

The 9x kernel died with Windows ME. So, you need to look at it this way.

NT 1, NT 2, NT 3, NT 4, NT 2000, XP, Vista, Win 7. Technically XP was the combination of NT and the 9x to make it both consumer and professional OSes.

I count 8 builds of Windows there. Then again, maybe they are saying 7 is a combination of Vista and 7?

This is reminding me of amateur exegesis of the Book of Daniel in order to make the succession of empires (the horns of the beast) finger the EU as the last one.

Even if 7 is the seventh after some starting-point, I still say there was never anything called "Windows 6". You guys who know your kernels from your shells may follow the logic, but the average user will just think the nomenclature is nuts. Maybe they'll call the next one Bitter Almond.

It's been broken up since at least XP. 6 main files (called hives), with a transaction log for each, and every user has their own registry hive in their profile to store user-specific settings. They've gotten good at backing them up at each boot too.
But yes, still a lot more consolidated than an /etc/ folder with a bunch of config files like most unix-style systems.

Maybe they just needed all the luck they could get?