So, who has downloaded build 7000 (or previous versions) of Win7?

I tried and it is so much better than Vista. The UI is a lot better than Vista (The Taskbar rocks, but it reminds me of Mac OS X's Dock) and some of the old programs are a lot better too. I am really certain that they will include some sort of integration with Games For Windows - LIVE because of their new store that will eventually come up. It is stable for a beta build and I would use it as the main OS, but new revisions are always coming up, so no.

Oh c'mon - "it's so much better than Vista" - did you fall for Microsoft's trick? It is Vista! It has some visual tweaks and minor feature changes that all fit into like one paragraph but deep inside it's just the same OS as Vista as evidenced by the 100% compatibility MS is talking about, so if you liked it (and managed to trawl through all the misinformed Vista-hate) you will still like it and if you didn't like Vista you won't like Windows 7 either... Well - some people may claim that Windows 7 is better than its predecessor because they bitched about Vista without having tried it out properly in the first place and they would be just as surprised by Vista in its current state. =)

When I look at an OS I don't look at all the visual gimmicks or even default programs which I seldom use - these are things you can change anyway - but at the inner workings you don't have access to. The truth is that Vista was first and foremost a marketing failure, not an OS design failure, so MS are trying to sell the same thing again, now that Vista has matured and the most important issues have long been fixed, but implying that it is a completely new OS to distance themselves from Vista in the public's eye - it's all a marketing stunt. The relationship between Vista and Windows 7 is similar to the relationship between Windows 98 and Windows ME - only in reverse, because Vista, the preceding OS, is the problem child in this case. All the "new features" in Windows 7 could just as well be introduced in a Service Pack but why do that if you can charge people money for that and in doing so assure everybody even more that you're releasing something completely new...

P.S. The new taskbar layout is taken straight from KDE... MacOS'es dock is available in other Linux distros as well but I'm not sure what came first... MacOS X is based on Unix after all...

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

Or install a bunch of useless free software, and you'll get Windows 7 in no time, FOR FREE! : D

you better click here

_________________
^.-
motherfuckin rabbits ejaculating sunshine

Im really looking forward to Win7. Im still sticking to WinXP because of the big compability issues with Vista. And Microsoft has stated over and over again that these issues will be fixed in Win7. So I think the performance will see a nice improvement (as test already shows).

I would not say Win7 IS Vista.
When Microsoft planned the successor for WinXP in 2000 they named it Blackcomb. A few years later Blackcomb was delayed, and a new version "popped out" of the ground, called Longhorn (minor release). Longhorn was later renamed what we now know as Vista.
Blackcomb on the other hand was renamed Vienna and then renamed Windows 7.

So Vista and Windows 7 split in the middle of the process, and I believe they went partly seperate ways, so they're not the same then =)
Windows 7 is also built on a newer NT kernel than Vista.

And there was a big design flaw with Vista, the compability.

You can't compare 98 -> ME to this release, cause ME was CRAP! Vista is not crap.

But if Windows 7 becomes crappy ill just stay with XP =)

Nope - no compatibility issues will be fixed for Windows 7 that won't be fixed for Vista at the same time. Microsoft announced that Vista and Windows 7 will be 100% between each other (same drivers and so forth) and that shows that they are built on top of the same system. Also, I don't think that Vista has too many compatibility problems nowadays. It had some initially but this was the fault of lazy software developers/hardware manufacturers not updating their products even though they knew a new OS was coming and having access to alpha and beta version for a long time before Vista's release.

If you look at the "new features" of Windows 7 you will admit that they're quite laughable compared to the major overhaul we had in Vista (which resulted in the aforementioned compatibility issues - it was a completely new OS)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
Well, true - technically it isn't. But it is a commercial failure... I mean - the system still only has ~20% market penetration two years after its release!

I wouldn't remain too fixated on WinXP since at some point in time MS will cease providing support for it. AFAIK MS already announced plans like this and the date has only been pushed forward a bit... MS can afford tactics like these with its market share... It's a bit like the old joke "How does Bill Gates change a light bulb? He doesn't he just declares darkness as the new standard." ;-)

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx -> Only SB versions of XP available till the end of the month. Then - in theory - MS will not give new licenses out.

Exception:
"As of April 2008, Microsoft is extending availability of Windows XP Home Edition for OEMs to install on Ultra Low-Cost PCs. The new OEM end date will be the later of either June 30, 2010, or one year after the general availability of the next version of Windows." -> lol @ Vista compatibility logo

_________________
SaintK: I'm completely lost

They are all built on the same system, Windows NT,which I feel always has been the most promising system for development, so of course there will be similarities.

The list of new features will probably increase since it's just on the beta stage yet. But at least I think performance and kernel improvements are really big improvements since this is where Vista is failing. And there are features in Vista that's not so bad, the memory handling f.ex. , so why change something that already looks promising?

The Windows series is improving gradually. Some things flop and some things improve. I am confident Win7 will be a big step forward from Vista.
And since also Microsoft need to make money I can see why they want to release a new product instead of giving it free as a Service Pack.
Theoretically if they wanted, they could just have made a bunch of Service Packs for Windows NT and ended up at exactly at the same point as they are today.
If we wanted a completely different OS, Microsoft should have started from scratch again (but there are features worth keeping).

I can't say I'm always impressed by the major Linux releases, but Linux is free, so the expectations are not that high.
Every Linux distro are also quite similar because of the base system, even visually there not much to differ, maybe a nice background picture.
There are aspects of Linux where companies are charging the user, so you could say that Linux has been sold over and over and over again, without any big improvements.

I'm going to stick with WinXP as long as I need to, since the support part isn't anything I'm really using very active. If you know how to use it, you won't encounter problems. And those few errors I experience is mostly hardware related.

Oh, don't try to out-argument me with WinNT - I've been using it since version 3.5. :-P
Windows 2000/WinXP = WinNT 5.X
Vista/Server 2008/Windows 7 = WinNT 6.X (in fact Windows 7 is announced as WindowsNT 6.1 compared to Vistas 6.0) = same system.
If you delve deeper into the WinNT versions you'll notice that even WinXP had its NT version numbering increased to 5.2 (from 5.1) for the X64 release - you don't claim that's a different system, do you? =)
These aren't planned if you look at the new core features. Vista isn't failing performance-wise - if you compare it running on the same (modern) hardware Vista is meanwhile faster than WinXP.
Wrong again. Big version numbers usually meant a complete kernel rewrites and that's what happened with Vista and thus its lack of compatibility. Completely new system, designed to be backwards compatible of course (still it had problems) and hence we still call it Windows. "Gradual" improvements were most prominently featured in the Win2K/WinXP series and hence I stuck to Win2K up until I started using Vista because my initial impressions of WinXP were that it's the same OS, only less stable, because of all the crap I considered unimportant (UI changes etc.) that has been shoved on top of a healthy kernel. I never bothered to return to WinXP after the initial failures - ironically this is pretty much the same thing we are experiencing now with people sticking to XP after bad initial impressions with Vista.
Nuh-nuh. Nothing Linux-based is ever being charged for - that would be a major breach of the license. Unix, yes, Linux, no. IF you are paying for something then it's either premium support, shipping and packaging of CDs/DVDs or simply the fact that there are distros that run a Linux kernel but use lots of proprietary software to run on the OS - which doesn't mean that you can't get the very same OS without proprietary software for free (simply choose another distro).
I thought so with Win2K as well but the problem here is that cutting support and new OS sales are also symbolic gestures by MS. They usually end up with the situation that less and less software and components released by MS themselves are compatible with your system and that starts to get annoying. Remember that Win2K vs WinXP was a far smaller issue since they were basically the same OS (like Vista and Windows 7 :-P) but the problem will be far greater for WinXP vs Vista since they are are very different inside.

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

I hear the kernel is different?

Explain?

I or kaikai? =)

The kernel isn't different - that's the point. It's patched up (so yes, it will show a different minor version number) but that's what happened meanwhile to the kernel e.g. in Vista SP1 as well and we're back to my initial claim that Windows 7 is a patched up Vista and nothing that couldn't have been done via SPs. (Unlike major NT versions that indeed couldn't have been achieved using just SPs.) Now, while this might give people who never switched to Vista in the first place after being horrified by its initial state the illusion that Windows 7 is/will be a much more stable OS but for people who'd like to switch from Vista to Win7 the change won't be so noticeable because Vista has been patched vigorously ever since it came out and is not quite the same system it was in the beginning... Thus we come to my second claim that Win7 isn't "awesome" - it's just MS charging you for patches that both should and could have been in Vista in the first place.

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

MS has learned from the game industry.

_________________
SaintK: I'm completely lost

bill stop puching your own products on this forum !

_________________
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...

Let's all celebrate the millennium and install win me again and we could have a party!

_________________
M.A.S.K. , is the mighty power that can save the day

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png ^^

mwahahahaha

_________________
M.A.S.K. , is the mighty power that can save the day

lol

_________________
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...

In my opinion Windows 7 WILL be an improvement over Vista and Windows 7 IS NOT in any way Vista, apart from the fact that it is build on the same core and the UI(Aero) is there.
People complained about several things, like the UAC which kept bugging, many of these things have been improved in the new layout. I also like the fact that they dumped the sidebar and you can actually place widgets on your desktop.
I have not yet tested the new Desktop UI with all the additional features but I already love them.

And yes I am aware of the fact that 7 is based on the same core as Vista was, Vista introduced a new core build which made compatibility issues, but now that they have settled down Microsoft has a nice new core to go and use further.

And I have not seen any words regarding the new features of windows 7 for People who work at homes or 'mobile' and need to connect to their companies network. There are some big improvements overthere when the company also uses the Win7 server addition. However how these new features will perform can only be known once these are actually used.

As for people here argumenting about windows7 not being good... why don't you switch to linux then.

_________________
"Why do it simple, when there is a hard way..."

I'm dual-booting with Linux - Linux is HORRIBLE as an every-day multimedia system.

As to the UAC - you can disable it easily in Vista - people who complained didn't know how to turn it off, apparently. Widgets, sorry, Gadgets (LOL) can be placed on the desktop in Vista as well (shall I post a screenshot?) - in Windows 7 they're just removing the Sidebar in general.

You can't say that something is a different OS because it has some UI tweaks. 0_o
These weren't the main complaints about Vista in the first place anyway, unlike the performance, compatibility, stability, resource usage etc.

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

So, the beta is now public and I am going to install the 64-Bit version and use Aero (since I tested first on a shitty laptop). I was able to snag a handfull of keys for it (Each key can be used 10 times I guess) so here they are if you are lazy to go to their web site:

TQ32R-WFBDM-GFHD2-QGVMH-3P9GC

482XP-6J9WR-4JXT3-VBPP6-FQF4M

6JKV2-QPB8H-RQ893-FW7TM-PBJ73

QXV7B-K78W2-QGPR6-9FWH9-KGMM7

6JKV2-QPB8H-RQ893-FW7TM-PBJ73

They work on both the 32 and 64 bit version I think.

GUI tweek or not it has so far managed to not bugg the hell out of me, something that Vista managed in short order, and I think it will get BillyCo back on track.

'98 going strong here.

Someone who really uses a system below windows 2000 (NOT WindowsME!) is either crazy or dumb.

_________________

I really like Vista - Never really had any problems with it... Windows 7 looks an improvement to Vista.

Vista hating is absurd if you like XP (it's a progressive step up the way from XP and do we ALWAYS forget that XP was MUCH slower than 98se for games at the time?). It's just so popular and cool to bash Vista...

7 Has some work ahead of it still; unlike in Vista, I've already had a couple blue screens (haven't had a BSOD in Vista since it was in beta and I tried setting up my X-Fi with home made drivers) and it's only fully Vista compatible if you specifically enable Vista compatability on a per file/program setting.

Still, it's slim and fast, very promising for games and intuitive to use!!!

_________________
Six weeks -by- Third Rail ...Please share...

I like Vista to.

I've got all the visuals running, including Aero and Dreamscape. Don't really have any problems.

Not sure I will move to Windows 7 for a while as I only changed to Vista last year. Personally I think they should give Vista owners a hugh discount to move onto 7.

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

Did I ever tell you guys my Grandad is called Hugh?

He is. True story.

Absolutely! I reckon between 50% and 75% off... I don't use Dreamscape but I have Aero running across 2 monitors and some fancy taskbar nonsense; all very sweet.

**** LMAO McMoist

_________________
Six weeks -by- Third Rail ...Please share...

Yes you did.
On several occasions already.

LoL

Yeap old one but good one.

http://forum.specialattack.net/viewtopi ... hilit=hugh

_________________
The stats below lie. I'm actually much much worse.

Personally, i hope win 7 will be alright. Purely cos im gettin bored with XP. And for those who say it's not the next logical step of vista...jeeez....get with the program...literally...it's a blatently obvious attempt to do a windows ME>98 job. To fix everything they fucked the first time round.

They've done it with every single version of windows ever released. Back in the 98 days, i went thru phases of using 98, ME and win 2000. Each had it's own benefits and none of them were truly great with Win 98 definitely being the worst build of windows ever. So full of bugs, lack of drivers that worked for anything half decent. ME was the logical step up from that, 98 with the holes fixed and built in driver support. Still didn't work that great tho, but i stuck with it until they sorted out XP. 2000 i thought was the most stable version around that time, great for networking, absolutely rubbish for everything else. Much like vista, which i think microsoft released before it was anywhere near finished just so they cud make a quick buck. Tho vista to me is more akin to 98, just pathetic, useless waste of time and money. And people might not have had problems getting their favorite mouse and digicam working on it, but if you use your pc to write music....don't get me started....

When 7 comes out, i'll be leaving it at least a year until i find out what peoples reactions to it are..and as long as XP has continuing support and does the things that i need it to do, which is pretty much everything now, i see no reason to upgrade to anything thats gonna cause more problems than solve them.

_________________
Yes i'm from cheshire...Like Cheese and Cats..

You're quite clearly insane. Being quite literally the ONLY person I've EVER spoken to that thought ME was an improvement... :S I'm sorry, but I've been working in IT for well over a decade now, and apart from ME having a larger driver database, there was not one REAL improvement over 98:SE (which by the time ME came out, was a very stable OS (comparitively)). Driver support does not equal good operating system... I'm also a bit confused by the fact that you seem to rate 2000 REALLY highly purely because you liked it's networking? Surely there's more to a good OS than that, and oh yeah, a driver database :S

Vista has been a stable OS since, ehm, well since about 6 months before SP1 (which was basically a roll-up of the updates which (if you had half a brain) you installed already...

As for writing music, I'm sorry to contradict you again, but I've been writing music on various computers since around 1991 on Atari ST's, then on Amiga's and then in 96' on PC's. I play guitar, a bit of keyboard, drums, bass and most instruments with strings or keys. I've been writing music using Vista since it was a beta OS. I've had 1 problem in all that time, and it was ENTIRELY because of Creative supplying a really crap driver for the X-Fi. I've been using an X-Fi Platinum to record open air and direct line recordings through many MANY different music programs and even Creatives own wavestudio...

Exactly what problems have you had that you can say are because of the OS ?

If 98 was the worst, what does that mean for 95 and for 3.11 or 3.... :S

_________________
Six weeks -by- Third Rail ...Please share...