Windows 7

Tony Williams said:
Yeah - exactly, that's what it boils down to, money. This is much worse than before, we had a huge line of Vistas, now we are getting 7's, have they released the list of different versions yet? most people I know only recently got VISTA so it's a ***** to be outdated already. I don't see why they should release an entire new OS but no one has a gun to my head so I can choose not to buy it.
Click to expand...

They're a business it has to come down to money otherwise they wouldn't be able to release any updates or service packs. Nevermind new operating systems.

And if they've only just got Vista now, they've got over a year with Vista and then they can decide if they want to upgrade to Windows 7. And most people will wait for Service Pack 1 so that will be 2 years with the OS.
 
I'm not stupid and I'm not just looking for GUI changes. But going from the pre-beta and from what they plan to do I fail to see how Windows 7 is anything more than Vista SE. They have tweaked a few things to improve performance to a level it should already have been at anyway and moved a few things around while they were at it. Microsoft have pretty much confirmed that. Why is everyone getting on their high horse over it? :p
 
Skeeter said:
See my images in this thread. 'near as dam it' actually means 'badly organised and messy looking'
Click to expand...
And it most probably wasn't actually enabled in this build for that reason. It's not even beta code yet - it's hardly 'finished'. I have it enabled on a one line view (rather than *** two in the picture). It's pretty much the same as the old taskbar. Nothing particularly messy about it.
 
Last edited:
You know Vista has sidebar as Windows 7 wont have one -- so boot up and shutdown time run still depend on your hardwares so find out when it come up in 2009 or 2010 -- Im still look at between Vista and W7 so there are some few changes and redesigned in W7 but dont think there are lots of changes as W7 using some of Vista core kernel so just find out when Microsoft release into market then it up to you if you want buy one to replace Vista or not - Im still not sure which one so I leave it until later.

Remember Windows 95>W98>W98SE that look same OS but some change/redesigned that why we spend too much money so have to be careful with Vista or Windows 7 which is share same core kernel. I would say Windows 7 as "Windows Vista 2nd Edition" like Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE (2nd Edition) so Win 7 still called as "Vista R2"
 
Last edited:
braveheart said:
You know Vista has sidebar as Windows 7 wont have one -- so boot up and shutdown time run still depend on your hardwares so find out when it come up in 2009 or 2010 -- Im still look at between Vista and W7 so there are some few changes and redesigned in W7 but dont think there are lots of changes as W7 using some of Vista core kernel so just find out when Microsoft release into market then it up to you if you want buy one to replace Vista or not - Im still not sure which one so I leave it until later.

Remember Windows 95>W98>W98SE that look same OS but some change/redesigned that why we spend too much money so have to be careful with Vista or Windows 7 which is share same core kernel. I would say Windows 7 as "Windows Vista 2nd Edition" like Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE (2nd Edition) so Win 7 still called as "Vista R2"
Click to expand...

Im going to disagree, and suggest that Windows 7 is to Vista what XP was to 2000, and ME was to 98. Its taken the prevous, and built on it. 98 to ME was a flop, 2000 to XP was win, so W7 will most likely be somewhere in the middle.
 
Microsoft needs to bring out another Operating System as they are a very poor company and need to keep the money coming in!!! :rolleyes:

Also, why not just make one version of windows, compatible and suited to everyone's needs and thats that?

Windows 7. Blimey, is Vista that outdated etc etc!!
 
ticktock said:
Microsoft needs to bring out another Operating System as they are a very poor company and need to keep the money coming in!!! :rolleyes:

Also, why not just make one version of windows, compatible and suited to everyone's needs and thats that?

Windows 7. Blimey, is Vista that outdated etc etc!!
Click to expand...

Oh shush.
 
ticktock said:
Microsoft needs to bring out another Operating System as they are a very poor company and need to keep the money coming in!!! :rolleyes:

Also, why not just make one version of windows, compatible and suited to everyone's needs and thats that?

Windows 7. Blimey, is Vista that outdated etc etc!!
Click to expand...

Lol! fool!
 
dbmzk1 said:
They have tweaked a few things to improve performance to a level it should already have been at anyway and moved a few things around while they were at it. Microsoft have pretty much confirmed that. Why is everyone getting on their high horse over it? :p
Click to expand...
Sounds like the posts about Vista in the early days claiming it was just "XP with some new graphics and a bunch of changes i can't see or care about".

So far we've seen 7 is based on Vista but is quicker, fixes assorted "problems", changed menus to be more intuative, boots quicker, has changed how UAC works to be more user friendly but keep security, adds Windows Media player 12 along with native support for DIVX, XVID, x264, adds bluetooth 2.1 support, updates all the "freebie" apps like paint with Office 07 type ribbon interface, removes the extra apps like photo gallery by default to reduce bloat (allowing you to download and install free live versions instead if you want them), adds jump lists, changes the way the files system works to be much more SSD friendly, Bitlocker for mobile (USB) storage, adds multi touch support, task bar app grouping, updated icons and graphical touches, optimisation for battery life on laptops already at ~10% better than Vista SP1, natively supports and will mount .VHD files, and a whole bunch of other stuff... Not forgetting 7's not even in beta yet and the PDC build proved there was stuff MS was disabling/not showing yet...

MS have said 7 is an update release building on the architectural changes made in Vista.

The problem is, it's an OS and really only serves to be an interface between hardware/resources and your apps it's going to be tough to change much without breaking stuff.

Given your disappointment, what else would you have wanted to see changed?


In terms of previous comsumer desktop OS comparissons I would group them as:

Windows 3.0 major change, 3.11 update to 3.0 platform
95 major change, 98 update to 95 platform

(There's a bunch of stuff in here at this point for non consumer desktop OS like 3.5(1) to NT4, to 2000 which doesn't really map for consumer desktop OS)

2000 major change, XP update to 2000 platform
Vista major change, Win7 update to Vista platform

OK, so I know it's not exactly the way things works but it's about right to set expectations.
 
Last edited:
I've been trying out Windows 7 6801 and have been impressed so far. I've found it to be stable and faster than Vista.

Would anyone even consider using Windows 7 as their main OS now? Or would you wait for the 2009 beta?
 
Tony Williams said:
I think it's stupid when you consider VISTA isn't that old and there where LOADS of different versions (home basic, home prem, bussiness, ultimate) now they are bringing out 7, probably with loads of other versions. I miss the Home, Pro, MCE and server days when it was simple.

I feel sorry for the people who pay for this for it to be outdated in a few years.

I think 7 is just going to rehash everything, 7-capable stickers, buggy as hell for a while.

Gah!! Why couldn't they just add extra cool features to VISTA in the next service pack, like being able to change the taskbar and giving better options to customize stuff. Perhaps more MS software like an anti-virus, ISO support, sometthing to replace paint and wordpad (if they are on VISTA), etc that way you have a more complete OS that doesn't need filling with 3rd party apps and you have better security by having an inbuilt, enabled AV.

And that's not to forget the learning curve, I mean if you work at tech. or support then you have a new OS everyone is going to start using, it just becomes a pain. I'd rather MS stick at a good OS like 2000 and XP.
Click to expand...


The reason this is out so soon after vista is vista was massively delayed while development on 7 was progressing normally. Vista should have been out around late 2004/ early2005'ish. Remember the ati x1800xt? A few months after that was released the x1900 came out because x1900 was progressing normally while the x1800 was having problems that delayed it by around 6-8 months. Similar situation.
 
Over Clocker said:
I've been trying out Windows 7 6801 and have been impressed so far. I've found it to be stable and faster than Vista.

Would anyone even consider using Windows 7 as their main OS now? Or would you wait for the 2009 beta?
Click to expand...

Are all drivers working fine on Windows 7? All apps? No stability issues? If the answer is yes to all those then its as good as a main OS already.


The requirements for a successful installation include a 1 GHz Intel Pentium III or compatible processor or better, 1 GB or more RAM, 10 GBs free disk space, an SVGA Plug and Play monitor, keyboard, mouse, a DVD Drive, network adapter. My setup includes a Desktop machine Dell Dimension 8300 (March 2004), 3.2 GHz Intel Pentium 4, 2.6 GBs of RAM and an nVidia Geforce 6200 512 MBs of vRAM AGP. My next system, an ACER notebook (late 2006) includes a 2.0 GHz AMD Turion x2, 2 GBs of RAM and an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256 MBs of vRAM.
Click to expand...

http://activewin.com/reviews/previews/windows7/
 
Last edited:
willhub said:
Are all drivers working fine on Windows 7? All apps? No stability issues? If the answer is yes to all those then its as good as a main OS already.
Click to expand...
Drivers will work fine if they work on Vista. It's just Vista tweaked a bit - nothing as revolutionary as Vista was in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom