i am stillon XP and will not go near this win7 until at least the time of the 1st service pack.i am already reading of folks who have issues and i have a rock solid box here that i am truly happy with and it does all the things i need a machine for.
how is it that different from vista? why can't we just consider it 'vista sp4'?
I've been using the RC for a few months and its great, but I am struggling to see how it is so fundamentally different from vista to call it a new OS, like I know the UI has changed, but as I'm not a mac users, thats not enough for me to consider it a new OS. directX 11 and native gpgpu sounds cool, but i'm sure its nothing they couldn't add to vista - I know its getting DX11. so how is it soo different? initial performance tests at this very site show that there is no real performance difference. I know there is a lot of awesome stuff, but I don't know of any fundamental changes that vista won't also be getting. just seems like vista with extra garnish. so why are we all so eager to distance 7 from vista? I know 7 vs vista at launch, or early on when everyone tried it and gave up is probably a big difference, but current vista vs 7? what is the big difference?
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]If you mean the big button with no text, you can, right-click taskbar, goto properties, check use small icons and put taskbar buttons to never combine. Now you have text and normal icons like in XP. I'm pretty sure you can turn off any Aero feature in Windows 7, just need to look around to find out how.[/citation]
You, and whoever gave me the ol' thumbs-down, are clearly retarded. I'm talking about the THUMBNAILS when you HOVER OVER the ITEMS ON THE TASKBAR, not the TASKBAR ICONS.
The thumbnails ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE DISABLED. Search the internet -- you'll find hundreds of people trying to disable these damned things; in fact, they WERE capable of being disabled in previous revisions of Windows 7, but not the later versions, such as RTM and the final copy.
I bet this will be rated down, too, though, because comprehension of a nominally simple concept is beyond the vast majority of human beings.
[citation][nom]gorehound[/nom]i am stillon XP and will not go near this win7 until at least the time of the 1st service pack.i am already reading of folks who have issues and i have a rock solid box here that i am truly happy with and it does all the things i need a machine for.[/citation]
Are you saying you have never had to overcome a single issue with XP to get your rock solid box?
I installed win7 RC - not even the final build - on my old PC, then I ripped the guts out of it and replaced it with a completely different generation PC (different ram, cpu, cpu VENDOR, and mobo) plugged in my current system drive with my inital win 7 install on it, expecting that when i booted up, it would do what XP does and bluscreen booting up cause i changed the mobo, and i'd have to clean install. but no! without even a net connection, it booted up fine and automatically installed all the new drivers for everything! and has been working fine ever since!
Fairly good article. However it should not be titled "REPORT" but more like "SPECULATION". I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Signature Edition and have had ZERO issues - and ZERO issues installing any update thus far.
The timing will be right for new user still reluctant, I think economy wise the recession is almost over and by next summer and fall technology esp with GPUs, Hexacore CPUs, Blu-rays and SSDs being cheaper, the time for a SP1 will be exact..... I will buy Windows 7 by then and have a crazy new monster system when USB3.0 comes out as well
I just hope that companies finally upgrade to to Win 7. I understand why they skipped Vista. Anyone who has ever put Vista on a crap box like most companies have know it bogs the hell out of it. IT at my company is just now fooling with Vista on the upper end boxes. We have a lot of boxes running 2000 because of old crappy software they refuse to upgrage to isn't compatible with XP or Vista
I just hope that companies finally upgrade to to Win 7. I understand why they skipped Vista. Anyone who has ever put Vista on a crap box like most companies have know it bogs the hell out of it. IT at my company is just now fooling with Vista on the upper end boxes. We have a lot of boxes running 2000 because of old crappy software they refuse to upgrage isn't compatible with XP or Vista. I'm running Win 7. Don't understand the hoopla. It is Vista with tweaked visuals. I haven't tried it on a crappy machine (lower clocked P4 with 512MB-1GB of ram). If it'll run on Netbooks, then it will be a good business candidate.
[citation][nom]agentjon[/nom]All I want is a Windows Classic theme.[/citation]
Microsoft removed this because it is the most useless feature in Windows. Nobody needs a classic theme. An operating system's interface should be able to take full advantage of the latest and greatest graphics card technology and tax a graphics card to its max. The more eye candy the better an operating system is. Apple has proven this.
[citation][nom]cyberkuberiah[/nom]@zingam : one more thing , this use of open libraries like u mentioned in larrabee , would mean gaming coming to linux and osx . one would need just the drivers , and thats it ![/citation]
Yeah maybe for linux but mac is a whole differant monster.. Mac would have to open up thier OS alot more to new hardware. Not to mention programers. Linux basicly is gaming ready aside not having direct x.
If you have the mentality that Windows 7 is Vista SP4 then you are a moron. There are plenty of differences between the two. Sure they sort of the same look but that's about it. The kernel is better, the overall handling of 3rd party program errors is done very well.
That being said I have had only a few issues with the OS and they already fixed that with the patches that were released before the OS was released to the public.
The main reason Vista sucked was not that it was a bad OS. It was stupid OEMs were putting it on systems that could barely handle it then bloating it with crapware and a bunch of trial version software that half the people don't even use.
why break something that's working? Windows 7, 8, 9 10, vista, etc will just create problems in a system that hardly has any. This isn't a car, you dont upgrade for the sake of getting bored with the old. Windows 2003, still has the best performance and cost efficient numbers. Windows 7 requires more resources and more money... WHY UPGRADE?!