Windows 7 Beta Download Limit Removed

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
'however others simply despise it, saying that Windows 7 is nothing more than a glorified version of Vista.'

It is in fact. I'm pretty sure this could have been distributed via a Windows Vista Service Pack 2. So Microsoft releasing that as an enterely new OS so soon after Vista's release, I mean, this gotta be a punch in the face for all Vista consumers who paid hard money for an half-good OS and hardware upgrades in order to be able to run it decently. I mean, 4gigs minimum to run it as it should with all the 'super duper' Aero effect, when you can get a real 3D accelerated desktop interface on Linux platforms with Beryl with only a basic 3D acceleration option and 512mb of Ram, give me a break. And no, Linux is now not harder to use than any Windows platform as a user only perspective. Only OS deep configuration and customization require some research.
 
Isn't a glorified version of Vista what everyone wants? I mean as of now there isn't much wrong with Vista, except that it's bloated. 7 is supposed to address that, i.e. make things faster, snappier, add more support, a few more features, and be a bit more stable. I use Vista x64 now and it's fine. If people are waiting for a version to upgrade to from XP, and they think that Vista is bad for some reason, then it seems the glorified version (Windows 7) will be the way to go.
 
It is a service pack.

"Yes, the just-released Microsoft Windows 7 Beta 1 retains much of Vista's kernel architecture, as will the final version. That's prompted some pundits to quip that the new OS will just be a Vista service pack. Not so. The new OS is more compact than Vista, has an updated interface, and builds in better networking capability. It also includes some cool advances, such as multi-touch support and a redesigned taskbar with movable buttons. In addition, we're not likely to see the abundance of incompatibilities that caused such pain during the early phase of the Vista launch. That improvement is a direct result of the now-tuned Vista code in the kernel. In all, it's an impressive, though not revolutionary, release."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2338317,00.asp

LMAO! Does a new user interface constitute a new operating system? What about MOVEABLE buttons? Updated networking capabilities???

It's called marketing. Vista was so terrible that they can't shake the negative associations most people have with it no matter what they do. So repackage it under a new name. 8 years and counting.
 
I still think that only mistake with Vista was same as MS doing with Win7, they should bite the bullet and stop 32bit version. Its obsolate. If there would be 64bit Vista only at launch, there would be no compatibility isues, you needed new drivers for Vista anyway, almost any PC that could run reasonably Vista was 64bit capable anyway. The Vista would be a big succes in industry. There would be no still used older 32bit progragrams uncompatible with Vista (hell, yed there would be tons of them, but Vista would be 64bit), and all 32bit apps could run under emulation. It has been done before, remember apple and OSX. I hope that you got my point.
 
It has been done before, remember apple and OSX
Click to expand...

Yup. Unfortunately we also remember XP (32bit) and DOS/Win3.1 (16bit).
Still think you are right though - MS should have ditched 32 bit computing with Vista, if they don't do it with Windows 7 when are they going to?
 
I also agree that 32 bit OSes should be eliminated from the line up - if only to force manufacturers to start supporting 64 bit. (For example, my university builds their VPN on the cisco VPN and they still don't have a vista 64 bit client. *sigh*)

At this point I think Microsoft should at least offer a free upgrade to their Vista Ultimate users for failing to live up to their promise of regularly released premium features (when Windows 7 goes retail). Will they? Of course not - when a Service Pack can be turned into a new software upgrade, it helps corporate profits.

However, Microsoft has been alienating me. I've slowly been converting my spare parts into Ubuntu computers - and once they get caught up on fully on multimedia apps (such as DVD/Blu-ray disk playback with full menu support) I'll completely ditch Microsoft.
 
Get USED to paying for a new OS more often if you want the latest stuff. I can't believe ppl STILL don't get it.

Even if Win7 blows everyone's mind and is absolutely amazing...it won't be around many more years than vista.

Others have said and I agree; Microsoft learned their lesson from letting people get so used to XP. The SECOND successor to XP is in beta already and yet they STILL can't manage to stop selling XP to Dell and others.

you do the math
 
to Nekatreven: someone has been reading some marketing and economy! You are right ofcource. The XP was not good for MS economy... It has been good for customers ofcource, but that is not what MS or any other commercial company is after.
 
This is old news. As in, every single other tech site was reporting this almost 2 days before.
Seems everyone has the right idea about 7 though. This OS will be a savior for MS and OEMs. Both have seen sales drop because of Vista, and it's bad rep dished out by very stupid comercials by mac.
 
I don't see why anybody who reads this site wants to download Windows 7. Just read a review and realize that it is just Vista with some makeup on. That seems to be what everybody is saying so why bother? Also realize that Vista is great for home use.

I like the quote from above about:
"In addition, we're not likely to see the abundance of incompatibilities that caused such pain during the early phase of the Vista launch."

Maybe because Windows 7 has already been out for years under the name Vista?
 
OK, you take Vista, a "meh" looking chick, that's a little overweight, nothing special in the face.... have that bitch lose 30 pounds, tone up, and do her make-up right, and BAM!, you got Windows 7. Who would you rather date?
 
"...saying that Windows 7 is nothing more than a glorified version of Vista."

What does that even mean? Vista is a glorified version of Windows Server 2003, which is a glorified version of Windows XP, which is a glorified version of Windows 2000, which is a glorified version of Windows NT 4.0, no? Its just the next version of Windows like all of the rest have been, which is based on the previous version. The shotgunning of unspecific negativity about Vista is getting old.

There's nothing wrong with it, it uses more resources but provides more features to the user. Winamp used to use a few MB of memory, but now media players often use over 100MB of memory. Nobody endlessly complains about that because there are plenty of features that Winamp didn't have back in the day in current generation media players. Internet browsers have gone through the same pattern. The same goes for operating systems.
 
'At this point I think Microsoft should at least offer a free upgrade to their Vista Ultimate users for failing to live up to their promise of regularly released premium features (when Windows 7 goes retail). Will they? Of course not - when a Service Pack can be turned into a new software upgrade, it helps corporate profits.'

Aleluia!

'What does that even mean? Vista is a glorified version of Windows Server 2003, which is a glorified version of Windows XP, which is a glorified version of Windows 2000, which is a glorified version of Windows NT 4.0, no? Its just the next version of Windows like all of the rest have been, which is based on the previous version. The shotgunning of unspecific negativity about Vista is getting old.'

Winamp does'nt cost 200$ and does'nt force you to upgrade hardware dramaticly in order to make in run properly. Windows 2003 is the server side version of Windows XP, saying it is a glorified version of Windows XP is a bit off topic, but yeah, that's suposed to be built on the same kernel infrastructure since NT 4. But from what Microsoft tells us, Vista is suposed to be a completly new kernel, which we all know is not true. But that does'nt mean people who paid alot of money for a 'trial' OS have to pay full price for the 'final' product. I know this is'nt the first time they done it, they done it with ME too. But they never forced every computer manufacturers to adopt it, removing every other OEM products with XP on it from market, neither. And ME was built on the obselete kernel of Win98. So there really was an upgrade going from ME to Win2k or XP. Windows 7 really seems like a service pack. You probably can compare the differance you will get from Vista to 7 with what you got from Win95 to 98 back then. But there was 3 years between them. How many time there is between Vista and 7 to justifiy a complete license upgrade fee of say another 200$. I say if Microsoft got some moral left within the compagny, they should at least offer an upgrade from Vista (any versions) users to 7 (equivalent version, if there is) for a very affortable price, say 40-50$.

 
[citation][nom]NeoDude007[/nom]I don't see why anybody who reads this site wants to download Windows 7. Just read a review and realize that it is just Vista with some makeup on. That seems to be what everybody is saying so why bother? Also realize that Vista is great for home use.I like the quote from above about:"In addition, we're not likely to see the abundance of incompatibilities that caused such pain during the early phase of the Vista launch."Maybe because Windows 7 has already been out for years under the name Vista?[/citation]

Lmao, yeah. That's exactly what I was thinking.
 
[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]to Nekatreven: someone has been reading some marketing and economy! You are right ofcource. The XP was not good for MS economy... It has been good for customers ofcource, but that is not what MS or any other commercial company is after.[/citation]

What kind of an economist are you? If XP is still selling well as you say, even if for cheap concidaring it's age, they are still making money off of it. It is bad in the way the cheap price does'nt cover up for the Vista-7 developpement cost. But if they did a superior OS, as what an evolution should be, in the first place, that economic problem as you say, would not have happened. They don't have to release an OS every 1 year to make money, developpement have a cost, they just have to do one that keeps dominating the PC market for the years to come. It is'nt a cell phone, or any other gadget for that matter, we are talking about.
 
Dude, Kevin Parrish Shut up! You are such a loser! It's obvious you would say bad things about Microsoft even if they did something good. Get a life and test the OS yourself. Or maybe you will just keep flaming like a 12 year old who just found his first chat room.
 
[citation][nom]Kingpin2k[/nom]Dude, Kevin Parrish Shut up! You are such a loser! It's obvious you would say bad things about Microsoft even if they did something good.[/citation]
He didn't really bash M$.
 
I actually am going to have to agree with KingPin on this one. The author apparently has something out for Microsoft if you've read either of his Windows 7 articles. He's been attacking Microsoft and totally ignoring Windows 7. I want to know how the OS works, I want to see benchmarks. Is this Toms Hardware or just a random rave and rant site?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom