Will You Buy Windows 7???

C64 · 20 Jul 2009 at 01:01

I have gone back to win xp pro 32 bit after my vista ultimate got corrupted after a simple reboot.
Don't care what anyone says xp pro 32 bit is still the optimum OS to use software compatibility wise and if you like gaming.
Had vista ultimate 64 bit running for about a year and it was alright nothing special really and I am worried win7 is just vista with a new shell like vista was to xp.

Mattus · 20 Jul 2009 at 01:08

C64 said:
I am worried win7 is just vista with a new shell like vista was to xp.

There's so much wrong with that comment that I don't care to put it right. If you still think that Vista is XP with a new shell after the best efforts of this forum to inform you over the last two years, you're probably beyond educating. Enjoy XP.

Ross1234 · 20 Jul 2009 at 01:12

C64 said:
I have gone back to win xp pro 32 bit after my vista ultimate got corrupted after a simple reboot.
Don't care what anyone says xp pro 32 bit is still the optimum OS to use software compatibility wise and if you like gaming.
Had vista ultimate 64 bit running for about a year and it was alright nothing special really and I am worried win7 is just vista with a new shell like vista was to xp.

LOL you don't half talk out your bum

Ascendancy · 20 Jul 2009 at 01:32

C64 said:
I have gone back to win xp pro 32 bit after my vista ultimate got corrupted after a simple reboot.
Don't care what anyone says xp pro 32 bit is still the optimum OS to use software compatibility wise and if you like gaming.
Had vista ultimate 64 bit running for about a year and it was alright nothing special really and I am worried win7 is just vista with a new shell like vista was to xp.

Ross1234 said:
LOL you don't half talk out your bum

mrk · 20 Jul 2009 at 01:42

Lmao.

Some people need to format c: their brains

Ninja Please! · 20 Jul 2009 at 01:45

Windows 95 is teh best eva!

dr4g0nf1y · 20 Jul 2009 at 03:39

Mattus said:
32-bit: http://wb.dlservice.microsoft.com/d..._en-us_retail_ultimate-grc1culfrer_en_dvd.iso

64-bit: http://wb.dlservice.microsoft.com/d...en-us_retail_ultimate-grc1culxfrer_en_dvd.iso

Don't click the links - paste the URL into the address bar, or it won't work.

Cheers... although I still don't know if it's safari doing it but it's coming up with file not found

Fire Wizard · 20 Jul 2009 at 03:47

dr4g0nf1y said:
Cheers... although I still don't know if it's safari doing it but it's coming up with file not found

You can get the Windows 7 Release Candidate build 7100 by following this page here. Just scroll to the bottom and you will see "Download 32-bit version" and "Download 64-bit version", click on "Select language" on your desired version and click "Go".

Russu_cs16 · 20 Jul 2009 at 03:57

Where can i pre-order Win7 for that money???

OCuk? no? where???

(anyways i think it will be a big jump for me from XP SP3...looking foward to Win7 and maybe,justmaybe mighttry RC with my laptop...)

OK downloaded and burnt Win7 RC... hmmm dont know to install or no

Faustus · 20 Jul 2009 at 08:12

TheVoice said:
So basically you don't want people to talk about Windows 7? What are we supposed to say then? "I've just moved to Windows 7 and I feel completely indifferent about it, as it is neither better nor worse than Vista."?

Most people here are Vista users, so I think we're all in a pretty good position to judge what's improved in 7 over Vista. Live in denial if you like, but 7 does have improvements over Vista; if it didn't, it'd be a completely pointless release and people here wouldn't be so positive about it. Networking in Vista is easy, but in 7 it's easier. It's like that all across the board, very few things are dramatically different but they've been tweaked and improved to make things cleaner, easier to use and quicker. I'm evidently not the only person who's noticed this otherwise people wouldn't be disagreeing with you to the extent that they are.

Nobody's saying otherwise, but you're on a tech-orientated forum, do you really expect people not to get excited about 7 and discuss it to the extent that we are?

And yet here we are.

Bottom line is W7 should have been nothing more than a Vista Service Pack Release and certainly not a chargeable item on the scale that has been released - outrageuos amount of money. Thankfully I have the good sense to realise that!

Glaucus · 20 Jul 2009 at 08:17

Faustus said:
Bottom line is W7 should have been nothing more than a Vista Service Pack Release and certainly not a chargeable item on the scale that has been released - outrageuos amount of money. Thankfully I have the good sense to realise that!

you have no sense. There are large differences in w7, especially at business level.

mrk · 20 Jul 2009 at 08:48

What's all this shouting? we'll have no trouble here?!

The only thing outrageous about the cost of 7 right now is that the claim of it being outrageous is quite frankly, outrageous .

TheVoice · 20 Jul 2009 at 08:59

Faustus said:
Bottom line is W7 should have been nothing more than a Vista Service Pack Release and certainly not a chargeable item on the scale that has been released - outrageuos amount of money. Thankfully I have the good sense to realise that!

But when has a service pack containing so many new features ever been released? The nearest thing is XP SP2, which improved the firewall and added the security centre. There's more than enough in Windows 7 to warrant it being a paid-for release, and although I would say that it's perhaps not necessarily worth full price, £45 is a bargain. MS can't make these things for free you know.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure what you were expecting. Windows 7 was never going to be a completely new different OS, because Vista's only been around for two and a half years. It also makes no sense for MS to essentially bin Vista after spending so much time and money developing it. It was fairly obvious that 7 was going to be exactly what it is - a much improved derivative of Vista. Quite what it is that you expect for £45, I don't know.

To be honest, it just seems like you're bitter because you don't want to pay for it, in which case perhaps I should go onto the Motors forum and be bitter about Audi RS4s because I can't afford one of those. £45 isn't an outrageous price at all, considering what you're getting. People pay almost that much for a year's worth of Norton.

OspreyO · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:05

In fairness Vista is a bit of a Windows Me situation again. I'd have thought it could be patched to something closer to W7. There's a lot of new machines out there with Vista.

CaptainRAVE · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:09

£45...a bargain imo...pre-ordered from ***** (the last place I could still find the offer!)

PiKe · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:10

Edit the competitor out.

CaptainRAVE · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:11

PiKe said:
Edit the competitor out.

lol, forgot. Not that it even matters since OCUK don't even seem to sell Windows 7?

mrk · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:13

OspreyO said:
In fairness Vista is a bit of a Windows Me situation again. I'd have thought it could be patched to something closer to W7. There's a lot of new machines out there with Vista.

Vista is not a problem with SP2. It just needs higher system reqs to run at a fast enough pace. Windows ME was plagued with BSODs, driver bugs and crashing/freezing issues. None of these issues affect Vista so it has no resemblance to ME at all.

PiKe · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:21

CaptainRAVE said:
lol, forgot. Not that it even matters since OCUK don't even seem to sell Windows 7?

Yeah but they sell other stuff...

Dolph · 20 Jul 2009 at 10:37

Faustus said:
Bottom line is W7 should have been nothing more than a Vista Service Pack Release and certainly not a chargeable item on the scale that has been released - outrageuos amount of money. Thankfully I have the good sense to realise that!

By that logic, XP should have been a service pack to Win 2K. There are more differences between Vista and 7 than there were between XP and 2K...