Windows 7

[Dartz]

Has anybody else tried the beta of this?

I downloaded it yesterday, running it in a virtual machine, just to see what it was like. So far, I'm pretty impressed. Aero doesnt work because I've no hardware graphics acceleration in Virtualbox, (So it doesnt even play the preinstalled games properly) but otherwise it's been no more intransigent than other Beta software I've tried.

Had to install drivers for Virtualbox in Vista compatibility mode, which got sound and networking fine. I can get out to the internet and download, browse and generally muck around.

It won't mount network shares (Which I know works, because I've done it with Windows 2000 VM I have too) It keeps giveing me a "network location not found" error. I know the name is right.

I'm running it using Vt/Vx enabled, with 2Gig of RAM, and it's as fast as the native OEM install of Vista. It's using about 6-700Mb of RAM at idle... which is an improvement. Even with the losses from virtualisation, it responds in a snappy manner, even if it won't boot as fast as native Vista install. But again, that's probably just losses from virtualisation. At most, it can use the one processor core, but it's okay.

Would I replace Vista on my laptop with it? I guess it would depend on the sale price when it comes out...

(Posting from Windows7)

http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m57/Dartz_IRL/?action=view&current=Windows_7-2k.png

[Timesplitter 01]

I think I will wait for the retail version

[majlund]

http://www.xkcd.com/528/

'Nuff said.

Thanks to Enki for pointing out this particular gem to me on IRC

[Annihilationscape]

Huh. Didn't know that was out yet. I'm one of the few who actually likes Vista, so if 7 is an improvement then I'm all for it. I might go and give that a shot.

[Mr. Tines]

Just Google -- there are tons of posts about it on tech-blogs.

[Dartz]

Microsoft are offering the download themselves, since it got pirated to hell about 2 weeks ago. It is better than Vista. Somke stuff that wouldnt work with Vista actually works well with it.

[BEsERk EVA01]

Hmm...might try it out now considering what Microsoft said about improvements...then again only the driver issues and alleged poor performance in games (like not being able to process 16-bit software in x64 versions of Vista) held me back from getting Vista.

[Rommel]

Does it still require a metric fuckton of system resources just to run, and gallilion security flaws?

No thanks. I'll stick with XP. At least it works.

[Deathmask]

It improves upon both XP and Vista. And yeah the memory problems have been fixed for the most part.

[BEsERk EVA01]

Does it still require a metric fuckton of system resources just to run, and gallilion security flaws?

Well, Bill Gates himself did say the overall performance will be improved, and it'll have more emphasis on user-friendliness, less driver problems and performance (better boot-time than XP). If you read Dartz's post, the Beta still uses 600-700MB of RAM, which he considers an improvement. 600-700MB is still a lot I reckon, even with Aero on.

[ZapX]

Hey Tsuruya. What do YOU think of Windows 7?

[Rommel]

Here's my problem with this: what did Vista do that XP didn't do better? By extension, what is Windows 7 going to do that XP doesn't do?

And don't say Aero because that's like adding a new coat of paint to your Ford Pinto. It's still going to blow up.

[drinian]

Here's my problem with this: what did Vista do that XP didn't do better? By extension, what is Windows 7 going to do that XP doesn't do?

As is well-known, I avoid MS products like the plague these days, but I can see compelling reasons to upgrade from XP, which is now about seven years old. Think about how many releases of Ubuntu there have been in that period.

Off the top of my head, there are big deficiencies in XP's network stack, remote filesystem handling, 64-bit capability, and hardware driver model that are being addressed in the more recent versions of Windows. The command-line also got a major upgrade, in the form of PowerShell.

[BEsERk EVA01]

There were also a few major security flaws with Windows XP that some people were complaining about. Though in Windows Vista (Microsoft) overdid it a bit too much with its UAC. And most gamers and enthusiasts would rather enjoy the far more realistic and life-like "eye-candy" effects of DirectX10 than its predecessor. Not to mention some games released recently were almost developed exclusively for Vista architecture.

[Ornette]

Give it some time, the security issues will be found, verified, and published. They've already announced that the old WRITE_ANDX SMB Processing Remote Denial Of Service Vulnerability is still around. And Windows has had this problem (the inadequate handling of special SMB packets) since Windows 2000.

I expect over the next few weeks people are going to be hammering away at all of the old Windows vulnerabilities to see which ones have (not) been fixed and which ones have been fixed incorrectly to introduce new vulnerabilities.

[AchtungAffen]

I don't know how memory problems could be solved when this shit sucks up to 1 gb memory. I dare not to have such an OS that requires so much for so little.

[Dartz]

It's not a problem when most computers made in the last three years have at least a Gig of memory. These days, it's really not a lot. I know of maybe 2 people who have 512Mb. Second, it's a hell of a lot better than the whole 'Vista Capable' debacle when Vista itself was launched.

Microsoft have a histroy of undereporting the memory requirements of their OS (Windows 95 stands out as the non-Vista example. It would work on the minimum requirements, but it wouldn't work well.)

I have heard that it *works* on 512 Mb, well better than Vista does. I've used XP on 256, that computer's still going in fact. It's dog slow, but it's used by someone who doesn't do anything more than email people.

As an example of memory though:
Windows 95 needed 8Mb, but could be run on 4Mb.
Windows 98SE needed 24Mb of RAM, but could work on 16Mb. (I had 128 :) )
Windows Me needed 32Mb.
Windows 2000 needed 128Mb, but could barely run on 32Mb.
Windows XP needed 128Mb of RAM, but could run on 64. (That said, I wouldnt dare try it on less than 256, )

Still doesnt come near the pace of my Linux install mind. If you're bothered about memory use, but want a full featured OS, try http://www.xubuntu.org . It's what I use day-to-day. Recommends you give it 256Mb, but I've used it on less happily

[IrkenEvangelion]

I have 512 Mb... But I can buy 1 Gig of RAM for $20 for this computer.

[BEsERk EVA01]

Microsoft is just trying to make more money, and of course extend its products to a wider range of people. Though I highly doubt I'd get a good experience with 1GB DDR2; I'd be hearing my hard drive spin and whir endlessly.

[NemZ]

I have 4 gigs of ram but none of them are getting anywhere near this mess. xp 4 life, yo.