yeah they're really all over the place...

Win7 each version is a superset of the one before so the FTP client is the FTP client and so on.

Oh and hey theres a home SERVER edition you know for if you want a home server...

30%-50% ? Are you doing a tech demo? If having DX9 too cost THAT much more and is THAT different that DX11, well, there is a big problem with MS APIs.

So the choices are between a DirectX11 for Window Seven/8/next XBox release only, and a OpenGL release for anything but the XBox?

2 different API branches is a BIG drain on cashflow just ask CCP

You won't have to do that, since 7 comes with .NET 3.5, 8 comes with .NET 4.5, and so on.

Crysis is a pure example of great DirectX 10 use. But sadly, Crytek pulled away from DX9+ due to pressure from EA.

1) How to say it simply... from Network and Sharing Center:

- Advanced Sharing Settings behaves like a web page
- Network Connections behaves like a folder
- Windows Firewall -> Advanced Settings behaves like an application
- Internet Options behaves like an application settings (of course: it's IE settings)

- HomeGroup is a top-level control panel wizard who removes the left pane
- Set up a new connexion or network is a wizard in a new window
- Troubleshoot problems is a local control panel wizard who removes the left pane

- Clicking on the network allows to changes the visibility of shares (with no visual feedback on Network and Sharing Center page)
- Clicking on the connexion opens the connexion status window

In summary, Network and Sharing Center is a "patchwork window" showing controls who are located all over the place (different executables in different paths). It's useful, but clicking anywhere changes the interface behavior and context.

---

2) Buying a second OS to put on another computer just to shares some files between computers with different systems seems a little overkill. I was just thinking of the basic FTP server functions, those you use to upload movies on a PS3, share files between Mac/PC, etc. Any *nix/BSD can do it, but on Win you have to use freewares servers daemons to do the job (the functions are already in the OS but crippled and not really usable).

for 99.99999999% of home use you don't need the server OS just normal windows sharing (which is compatible with SAMBA etc) it takes a LOT of connections before that stops working nicely I share files to 8 computers 2 xboxs and a ps3 from this computer and still have yet to hit the connection limit... but hey you might not know about turning on media sharing on 7 it only comes up with the option when it detects anything that can share media on the network... or if you have an xbox you can even use it as a media centre extender with built in transcoding etc... but yeah those things don't exist...

(Most) Everything that works in XP is forward compatable with 7.

When you target XP, you target about 80% of the market.

When you target just 7 you're only targeting about 45%.

About the networking; what exactly do you want to do? If I want to change the ip address for example all I have to do is type ip in the start menu and hit enter and it takes me to the network connections folder from where I can chose the connection I want to edit.

Or if I want to manage my folder sharing settings all I have to do is type share and go to manage advanced sharing settings.

I can't remember the last time I had to actively browse through to control panel, or any other part of the OS to get something done.

You forgot to put "at this time" those 3 words are important in the next year or so that number will drop more and once your targeting the next xbox for API's...

Just Yesterday I did configure a machine (Win7, i3, ASUS GFX card with two simultaneous outputs) for a company. Nothing really fancy: setting a fixed IP, opening some specifics incoming ports in the Firewall and allowing an app to communicate outside. It didn't took too long, but I did found the navigation less that optimal: the Windows Firewall -> Allowed Programs (part of control panel) isn't the same app at all that Windows Firewall with Advanced Security (part of administrative tools). The same app with an advanced view, ok, but having two different apps changing the same security settings (adding an allowed programs creates a new rule)... Also, turning firewall on/off (for testing purpose) is by type of network rather that by connexion.

...when did I said I have 7 installed? I did hit the connexion limit with one (1) Windows (can't remember which version) computer accessing one (1) Windows XP on the bundled ftp server. FTP (one the most badly implemented protocol across OSes) was a last solution because windows sharing don't always works (WIFI + NAT router + ethernet). I had some network problems with Vista computers too.

If Home 7 can communicate without problem in a mixed PS3/XBox360/MacOSX/XP network, good. I still find it too expensive for now, but it is more affordable that Pro.

I have to disagree with the firewall part; it's a connection thing as you can have firewall rules per connection using the Windows firewall.
There is no connection limit in Windows Vista or Windows 7, and the connection limit in Windows XP applied only to inbound connections.

This is not so, and it is by design not so, specifically in the case of HTTP and HTTPS.

WinInet enforces a maximum number of connections per server that your client connects to. By default, that limit is 4 for HTTP/1.0 connections and 2 for HTTP/1.1 connections. Some applications adjust that upward, and you can make registry changes to adjust the limits upward, but you cannot direct a Windows HTTP client to make unlimited outgoing connections unless you run a client that does not use WinInet at all.

He's not talking about WinInet, because those don't apply in his case, but the half-open connections on the networking stack, a limit which has been removed in Vista SP2 and onwards.

As for the WinInet connection limit, it's based on the HTTP1.1 spec, and doesn't affect what he's trying to do, because the connections are queued, so once one of the first two finished the other is opened and so forth; in short, the connection wouldn't have to fail unless the server on the other end times out, which it shouldn't do because it already has active connections in progress.

Apparently Xen supports this on hardware with Intel VT-d / IOMMU support.

"Ubisoft Is Playing With Linux & Xen Virtualization"
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTY2NA