Microsoft Reveals New Windows 7 Changes

[ohim]

I`m curently running Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 with all updates , 8 GB ram machine and i must say it works perfect on my machine , not even a single system crash during an 7 month period, and i don`t have to know command lines to install something into my PC like linux. It is much faster than XP on several aplications i run due to the memory manager i find very usefull the option to make big tumbnails preview in explorer. For now people that goes buhu Vista needs resources etc ... remember the pass between 98 SE and XP it was the same thing. Only down side that i found till now in Vista is the Windows Photo galery wich i prefere the XP View instead. Looking forward for windows 7.

 

[ohim]

And to the ones who complain about how much memory Vista "eats" first document yourselves about how Vista manages memory and swap file before talking bullshit. (this board needs a modify button )

 

[The_Blood_Raven]

As a Vista "fanboy" I must say that Win7 is looking interesting. I loved Vista for many reasons, though I found it to be ridiculously bloated when you first loaded it on the PC, but a few quick tweaks and it is as fast and possibly faster than XP was. Not only that but the menu system, search function, and the general appearance are so much better than what I was used to. Out of ALL the PCs I have built for people (around 50) I always put Vista on the PCs first and only 2 people have ever demanded XP and one never turned the PC on. Most people prefer Vista after they use it on a fast and cheap computer. Win7 should be a lot better! That said I'm charging for upgrading the OS, god damn disks are expensive, $300-$350 is ridiculous.

 

[matt2k]

I've recently upgraded to Vista Ultimate (dual booting with XP) and i have to say im impressed. or maybe its just that after all the negative reviews i was expecting something far worse. anyhow, it works beautifully, havent had any problems with compatibility (probably cos i waited so long...)
That i got it free was a bonus, of course, so i dont mind shelling out a bit for Windows 7, with student discount hopefully.

A friend of mine just bought a macbook pro for £2000+, even though he just uses it to surf the internet and chat (on msn)
nuff said...

 

[Tedders]

[citation][nom]echdskech[/nom]alternately, you can do 'apt-get update' on console...[/citation]

That right there is the thorn in the side of Linux I think. Until the distros AND the software companies allow you to install, update, remove and configure their products WITHOUT using the damn console, Linux will never hit mainstream. Personally, I like Apple's method of installing applications. Click and drag. Pretty simple.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]Tedders[/nom]That right there is the thorn in the side of Linux I think. Until the distros AND the software companies allow you to install, update, remove and configure their products WITHOUT using the damn console, Linux will never hit mainstream. Personally, I like Apple's method of installing applications. Click and drag. Pretty simple.[/citation]


Does it take a "super nerd" to figure out that the flashing red arrow on the screen that pops up an "updates available" message on your desktop is the secret button that lets you carry out upgrades without using the console? Or that maybe the menu item titled "package manager" is the console-free way to install, update, or remove any packages from the system?

The problem with Linux is no longer that it's hard to use, it's that it is different. Mac OS faces the same uphill battle. Windows has critical mass, 90%+ of computer users ONLY associate Windows with computing. It doesn't matter how nice Linux or OS X are or will ever be, because you can't change critical mass in one feature release.

These systems have a place, even though they are not mainstream, and you toolbags have a place too, I guess. Who else would stir up debate over trivial garbage in order to air out the real problems? I am too busy actually USING my operating system, kthx.

 

[sublifer]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Ubuntu is more intuitive than Windows? Wow. That is a first. Less viruses, sure. Less footprint, sure. Easier to learn? Hell freaking no. Try walking someone who isn't computer literate into updating drivers in Ubuntu.[/citation]

By default Ubuntu updates itself, the drivers, the OS and the applications, so in that regard it is easier than Windows.

I don't know whats with all the Linux haters here today. I haven't had time or opportunity to use it fully and make it my primary OS but I've dabbled with several distributions and aside from some video issues a few years back I haven't had any trouble getting it to work or finding my way around the OS. It really is easier to navigate than Windows, the "start" menu is organized into web, apps, games and a few others instead of pinned apps and "all programs" Once you learn about the package management which really doesn't take much fiddling you find out how you could get all the programs to try that you could ever want. It really is a "dig as deep as you want" type of OS.

 

[crom]

I've got to agree too that even Ubuntu doesn't have the UI that Windows or MacOS does. Maybe it would take a focused effort by KDE or Gnome to really refine it's interface. As it stands now linux lags behind the other two major operating systems in that department.

 

[sublifer]

[citation][nom]smlong[/nom]There really is a lot of misinformation about Linux here.Although, I completely disagree with anyone saying that Linux is easier or more intuitive to navigate than Windows. First, what windows manager are you talking about? Gnome? KDE? As an avid KDE fan and Gnome user, I do not find them more intuitive or more ANYthing than Windows. They are all pretty close to being on a level field.As for updating the system, that really depends on the distro. SuSE uses YAST ... Ubuntu uses whatever... some other distro would use something else. Windows can update its driver via its System Update just as Ubuntu/SUSE/whatever does. You can also install drivers via some installer. The problem with Linux though is what do you do when its a driver/package that is not covered by the network-based update tool? What do I do if I go to the store and buy a newly released printer, scanner, graphics card, etc? With Linux, I would have to keep my fingers crossed that the System Updater detects the hardware and has a driver, use (if I can find) a generic driver, or just return the hardware to the store due to lack of drivers. If I do find drivers for Linux on my own (outside of the system update), then it is not intuitive to install. Drivers can be packaged as an RPM, tarball, etc. The average user may or may not (especially in the case of tarballs) know how to install the driver... especially if there are build scripts/etc involved. With Windows, I can guarantee the hardware will come with drivers for Windows that require little more than clicking through a few prompts.I am not speaking negatively of Linux. I am not praising Windows. These are simply realities. For general usage, none of these things are even a concern.[/citation]

You do have some good points, and no, Linux is not always easier or more intuitive, there can be some challenges however I do want to point out that Windows has the same issues right now. You have to do your research or you might get a device that won't work on Vista or, and I was surprised when I first found this, a device that works for Vista but no drivers to be found for XP. So device support is starting to become a cloudy issue for Windows as well.

As for supported devices and software though, Linux does do it better, at least the distro's I've worked with. It is all automatic. Updates are downloaded for me, pick a software package and click install, as someone else pointed out, have fun updating Windows drivers if you don't know what you're doing. I certainly do, but have fun directing someone to device manager to remove or update device drivers, video drivers that have to be removed before installing the new ones, some drivers you work on from device manager, some in add/remove programs, some packages do the work themselves once you download them, it just isn't organized.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]smlong[/nom]The problem with Linux though is what do you do when its a driver/package that is not covered by the network-based update tool? What do I do if I go to the store and buy a newly released printer, scanner, graphics card, etc? With Linux, I would have to keep my fingers crossed that the System Updater detects the hardware and has a driver, use (if I can find) a generic driver, or just return the hardware to the store due to lack of drivers. If I do find drivers for Linux on my own (outside of the system update), then it is not intuitive to install. Drivers can be packaged as an RPM, tarball, etc. The average user may or may not (especially in the case of tarballs) know how to install the driver... especially if there are build scripts/etc involved. With Windows, I can guarantee the hardware will come with drivers for Windows that require little more than clicking through a few prompts.I am not speaking negatively of Linux. I am not praising Windows. These are simply realities. For general usage, none of these things are even a concern.[/citation]

Not to be apologist (or turn this into a Linux discussion) but hardware support is largely dependent on the manufacturer to be friendly toward the target OS. There is no reason why a new whizbang widget 2009 that you brought home couldn't have a set of drivers in the form of Linux packages, that would be installed every bit as easily as in Windows (with a double click and an "are you sure?" box.) The critical mass question comes up here, since the manufacturer needs to justify the cost of tasking a developer with making a working driver for something with a tiny marketshare (if it's a flashing USB powered coffee warmer.) For items of importance to the Linux community (raid drivers for a SATA adapter, perhaps) these decisions are easier to make.

The bottom line that people seem to be in denial about is that Linux (and OS X) really only lacks marketshare, the features in the OS are there to make it every bit as [insert your measure of quality here] compared to windows. The only real problem, is that its *not* windows so by definition it will not be as appealing if computing, to you (if you are like 90% of PC users), is *windows*.

 

[ossie]

vi$hta fanboys dreaming about how great $even will be...
When (and if) they'll wake up they'll notice it's just vi$hta sp2 with some eye candy, aka vi$hta se, with even more CPU cycles an RAM wasted with DRM and "effects" BS.

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]as for the comment that it looks like Linux then you anal linux people always find something to bash windows for. get over it linux will never replace windows and will always be for the nerds of the world[/citation]
At least (most) linux users have (some) knowledge of computers, and not just the impression of it, like m$ fanboy morons.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge. -Stephen Hawking

 

[quovatis]

W7 is not much different from Vista. I've tried the beta and while many things run faster on W7 than Vista, it's still slower than XP. The ONLY reason I would consider moving from XP to W7 is to use more than the 3.5 GB of RAM, and it's just a matter of time before >4GB of RAM is a requirement to do almost anything.

 

[physx7]

All I can say is: That I love my Red Hat and I use Windoze for gaming. And Vista isn't as bad as most make it out to be.

 

[bustapr]

Im kinda feeling sorry for those millions of people that downloaded the W7 beta. They still dont know that they are falling for the pretty mojave joke again.

 

[_horse]

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]That's why we have OS X - it gets the job done, doesn't prompt you every other seconds.Why is it the same dorks chirp in on how great Vista is and how great Windows 7 is?? Why do you freaks do that? If Vista is so great, why was it a complete sales disaster?Vista is worse than ME and it's slower than ME. Man you bone heads would vote for the return of Microsoft BOB.Anyone read this article? I mean seriously, what's in Windows 7 that you gotta have that you don't have now in WinXP? Let alone Vista.Do you Vista fan boys and girls work for Microsoft, are you being paid by them? What's the real deal -- nobody in their right mind would pay yet again another $200+ to upgrade and get nothing new out of it.This if f'in retarded.[/citation]
Who let you out of your cage?

Vista Ultimate 64 is screaming fast with my E8400 Wolfdale, and Im leaving it at stock.

And yes, Vista chirps at you for approval every couple seconds for approval for SECURITY reasons. If you say yes and you contract something, its your own fault.

Vista has been nothing but great for me in the past 2 months now, and I cant help it if other end user's dont know what they are doing.

 

[grieve]

I am willing to bet win2000 is faster then winXP, Vista, win7 if run on the same machine also.

My point is that a new OS, 7-10 years later is a different beast. The footprint is no longer under two gigs and the requirements are far greater... 7-10 years have passed; of course base system requirements are higher.

My home machine rates 5.9 in Vista (I know it’s a BS benchmark) but I tell yah what… Vista is great. I was pleased with Vista 64 Ultimate from day 1, pre sp1. I will say I have had a few issues along the road, namely drivers and a minimal learning curve, but nothing that was unacceptable.

I fully believe the Vista haters were those with “low-end” machines.

I am excited for Win 7, I may wait for SP1 this time around.

 

[jerreece]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]Also, native .mov support.I guess there is no longer a need for QuickAlternative[/citation]

Thank Goodness. I hate Quicktime.

 

[AngryClown]

I've used every OS released since 1998. Haven't met one I didn't like, except for winME.

Currently, I use XP Home(32)on my gaming rig, and Ubuntu 8.10 on the 'net. I test every RC and Beta available, just to be current. Vista Ultimate64 RC1 is (so far) my favourite OS (I never purchased the retail version).

I say all this to clarify my personal feelings: Every OS has a place in the scheme of things. Loving it or hating it depends entirely on what you want to do with it, and what hardware you are running it on.

As for the Linux users being "anal", as one poster so eloquently put it, most of them (myself included) do not suffer fools well. I'd wager that the Linux nay-sayers haven't tried a newer distro (ie: 8.04), which, in my experience of switching frustrated Win users, is very simple to use. A 20 minute download, 5 minutes to burn an ISO, 20 minutes to install, 5 minutes to update. Bam! all hardware detected, all drivers updated, desktop is easy to navigate.

And it's about $300 cheaper than Vista.

 

[aracheb]

[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]I am willing to bet win2000 is faster then winXP, Vista, win7 if run on the same machine also.My point is that a new OS, 7-10 years later is a different beast. The footprint is no longer under two gigs and the requirements are far greater... 7-10 years have passed; of course base system requirements are higher.My home machine rates 5.9 in Vista (I know it’s a BS benchmark) but I tell yah what… Vista is great. I was pleased with Vista 64 Ultimate from day 1, pre sp1. I will say I have had a few issues along the road, namely drivers and a minimal learning curve, but nothing that was unacceptable.I fully believe the Vista haters were those with “low-end” machines.I am excited for Win 7, I may wait for SP1 this time around.[/citation]

you are very wrong, actually windows xp runs better than windows 2000 in a machine with the same spec. and of course, runs better than vista..

 

[ohim]

[citation][nom]Quovatis[/nom]W7 is not much different from Vista. I've tried the beta and while many things run faster on W7 than Vista, it's still slower than XP. The ONLY reason I would consider moving from XP to W7 is to use more than the 3.5 GB of RAM, and it's just a matter of time before >4GB of RAM is a requirement to do almost anything.[/citation] Then change your old shitty computer ... i belive Windows 95 runs faster than vista on a 486 with 8 MB ram too. It`s been 7 years since XP i guess you can aford a new PC now to "unlock" Vista`s potentia.

 

[ricardok]

`I don't have problems with Vista at all.
At home we have 2 notebooks with Vista. One with 1gb memory and the other with 3gb. Both are working fine.. BUT!!
I also have a HP TX1000 running Windows 7, 2gb. Damn, it's faster than vista, 10x..
AND ALSO an Athlon XP2600+ with 512mb of ram (old hardware mostly for testing).
My main PC (2gb, C2D8400) is also on 7! I won't be trading 7 for vista anytime soon. XP is on the 2600+ also (not dual, 2 80gb hdds) that I use mainly for older software or some softwares that have issues with 7 (like Nokia PC Suite/iTunes 8.0.4 - 1st won't install properly and it's a bit slower detecting the phone when loading new maps and the 2nd doesn't work at all when trying to update the iPod software) and to some programs that require direct hardware access.

Apart from that, it works wonders on the older machine, as well on the Tablet and on my main PC.

So, is 7 a great OS? Well, yes and no. I missed a lot the old taskbar (I did change it using some windows 7 tricks) and it still needs improvement on some compatibility problems. Other than that, yes, it is a great OS when compared to Vista.

 

[runt23]

To be honest, I really wish I could have an os that just performs well. From what I am reading MS doesnt get it. How hard is it to make an OS that is safe fast and compatable? I can really care less about the Aero crap. It isnt a selling point. I play games, do video editing and surf the web. I want performance in games, compatability with software and less problems with cookies spyware and malware with out all the extra bloat to make it shiny...

 

[christop]

Vista is ok.. I want something better.. MAYBE 7 IS THE ANSWER...

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]runt23[/nom]To be honest, I really wish I could have an os that just performs well. From what I am reading MS doesnt get it. How hard is it to make an OS that is safe fast and compatable? I can really care less about the Aero crap. It isnt a selling point. I play games, do video editing and surf the web. I want performance in games, compatability with software and less problems with cookies spyware and malware with out all the extra bloat to make it shiny...[/citation]
You're an idiot. The only reason OSX is 'safe' is because it's marketshare is not only small (~8%), but the majority of Macs are used for personal use. Windows runs on most of the business computers of the world, along with it's large market share. So there are much larger incentives to attack it, and much larger payoffs.

Windows is the only OS with actual safety concerns.

 

[johnyjiang]

Another problem: When I point the mouse to the open programs on the taskbar, it does not show what it is! Showing a preview window seems shiny, but what if I open a forum and trying to read many articles in many windows? Their preview window will be almost identical.