Windows 7 Shipping Holiday 2009

[Marcus Yam]

While some of us here don’t feel Windows Vista to be the atrocity that many others make it out to be, there’s no denying that it was a stumble for Microsoft.

Windows 7 Shipping Holiday 2009 : Read more

 

[peteroy]

3 years after vista is not soon enough

 

[DFGum]

Vista works pretty good now (still not the most novice friendly OS tho)
Too bad it couldnt get over being bad for so long.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Vista really is a nice enthusiast OS now, especially after you disable about a 100 services and keep your install tidy and free of crap programs. If you want to go the full distance you can disable aero and caching and end up with comparable ram usage too, but some users are smart enough to realize that's pointless. Vista drops the cache when it's not needed and shuts off aero for games and somewhat when you full screen normal programs.

 

[jhansonxi]

"For this reason, Microsoft is likely putting a rush order to get Windows 7 out the door as soon as possible."

Like that always results in a quality product.

 

[lukeiamyourfather]

Is it just me or does Windows 7 have a user interface that looks a lot like KDE 4? I don't understand the Vista hate, its a lot better OS than any previous Windows version. Progress is good though, especially for those unwilling to upgrade to Vista (what is that, 7 years on one OS).

 

[Guest]

although vista isn't bad... what reason/incentive is there for me to get it? when a "better" system is just around the corner right when i'll be building next...

 

[malveaux]

Shame on Microsoft. Seriously. Shame on them.

If they're going to FORCE Vista onto people the way they did and EARN the Windows XP backlash that they felt the sting of, going and dropping it and pushing Windows Azure (7) is also a nice big SLAP in the face to the people who actually have Vista. Whether it came OEM on a computer you purchased, or if you *gasp* actually went and bought Vista (like all the Ultimate users), your expensive frigg'n OS that you bought just got officially time stamped as Azure (7) is replacing it basically immediately. One year away, we're Windows Azure. If they're rushing it, it may end up a turd at release--just like Vista was when it was released. The problem is, Azure is just Vista, minus a lot of bloat. It's not even that much different from Vista the way Vista was actually quite different from XP.

Microsoft is really pulling a damned if you do, damned if you don't here. Damn you people from DirectX10 if you don't buy into Vista. Damn you people who do have Vista, because now Azure is coming in a year. You just wasted a lot of money on Vista.

Frankly, Microsoft should offer FREE Azure to ALL Vista users.

Very best,

 

[marcellis22]

Extended attery life... A GREAT feature for another Microsnot OS... What happened to the new file system, Bill? Let's make changes so we can sell more training to do the same jobs we did in the past, only Microsnot can do NOTHING and still try to make money.

 

[Guest]

Vista SP1 is running a LOT faster, stable, and better than XP SP3 as I have found. People complain about Vista because you need a good computer to run it, same was with XP when it came out. In one year of Vista sales compared to XP sales, Vista has sold about three times the copies that XP has in its 1st year. I do not like how MS is rushing Windows at all. MS needs to take a look, get Vista SP2 out to fix more bugs, then eventually SP3. THEN work on 7 ^_^

 

[NuclearShadow]

Its already known that Windows 7 will be basically Vista with minor differences. Whether you love or hate Vista you have to admit Microsoft failed epically when it comes to convincing people to switch.

Now this means that Windows 7 is really just Vista with a new marketing plan starting with a new name. Can they really win over consumers by doing this is the question. I say no if people are educated that its a Vista clone even more so if Apple uses its TV ads to attack this fact. If it becomes a large failure then expect a real new OS next time.

 

[hotroderx]

[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]Is it just me or does Windows 7 have a user interface that looks a lot like KDE 4? I don't understand the Vista hate, its a lot better OS than any previous Windows version. Progress is good though, especially for those unwilling to upgrade to Vista (what is that, 7 years on one OS).[/citation]

I was thinking the same thing... its really sad how windows 7 really is gonna be Vista Second Edition....

 

[cielmerlion]

[citation][nom]Ag3nt Smith[/nom]Vista SP1 is running a LOT faster, stable, and better than XP SP3 as I have found. People complain about Vista because you need a good computer to run it, same was with XP when it came out. [/citation]

People always tend to forget that the old generation was the same way. A Win 98 Computer could barely run XP, so people complained about the same things, but as time went on and computers got better XP finally showed itself to be good. Vista in my opinion is being avoided now because of the bad publicity it got in the beginning and because alot of people are tools who repeat things said without trying it themselves and pretending they know so much, anytime that vista comes up it turns into "*gasp!* Vista sucks! It has drm and gaming is slow and it is buggy and it raped my little sister! Dont try it because i say it sucks and youre a commie/MS fanboi if you do!" People need to stop filling their heads with complaints, since if they try Vista and want it to fail they will nitpick it until it seems like the antichrist.

 

[GameSinewpcs]

Vista was/is an excellent operating system with very few quarks. A large majority of the negative hype is mis-guided and ill-informed. Also, a majority of the few issues that did arise on Vista related mostly to vendor hardware/software support and unwarranted upgrades. Honestly, there is no reason for individuals and business ill-equipped hardware-wise to be upgrading to a new OS.

The primary advantage of any new OS is usually oriented around taking advantage of new technology, therefore individuals who upgrade with older systems or systems not intended for the new OS are at fault for a large portion of the issues they encounter. The expectations of many individuals and businesses were based around the ideology that their outdated systems will be faster/more efficient by purchasing a $100-$200 software suite designed for modern hardware. Not that Vista didn't have issues (as absolutely any software does), but the few issues they did have were blown out of proportion and improper reasoning was applied to problems that were irrelevant to Vista.

Yes, Microsoft has always emphasized their backwards compatibility. However, devices are growing to be less standardized and more unique therefore requiring proprietary drivers and specialized circumstances in order to run properly. Also, people complained about how 'bloated' Vista was/is, and I do agree that MS defaulted a lot of unnecessary services in vista to 'On,' that users could otherwise do without and would save running memory and processes. And for the average user, tweaking those settings requires too much knowledge or time. However, again it is a vendor issue when the machines that were sold with vista had only 512mb of memory and the remainder of the single core processors that they could sell. Scalability is a big issue with any software or hardware, because every OS is for the most part more demanding than the last because hardware can handle it and new features and technology are supported that now demand better hardware. Otherwise many individuals would be more inclined to keep using their Windows 95, Linux, Unix or other 'less demanding' OS's (not saying that any of them are better or worse).

As for MS pushing vista on individuals, I've closely monitored the limited advertising that they do and Vista hasn't been "pushed" on anyone. MS may have stopped supporting XP officially (about time), but that doesn't stop the OS from working properly with the hardware that you currently own. It simply stops XP production and OS mending. Vendors are free to continue supporting XP products for the duration that their resources allow.

Regarding windows 7, it's MS back on track as far as release periods are concerned (most major OS manufacturers release in much closer intervals than MS). Before XP, MS had an average release period of roughly 2 years (3.1-95 3 years, 95-98 3 years,98-me 2years ,me-2000

 

[thepinkpanther]

Every time i switch to vista i see something good that xp doesnt have. Then i see something that works on xp and doesnt work on vista. I rather have things work then new features, but still the new features are nice. And i honestly think xp is faster than vista, vista just boots up and shutdowns faster. Has any one tried to move a window but accidentally resized the window in vista? happens alot to me.

 

[afrobacon]

so basically their renaming vista sp2 to windows 7? but you can't say something is a new version without a new skin and slightly different features...
personally i think its a good classical marketing ploy to wash off some of the bad reputation vista received immediately after its initial launch.

 

[GameSinewpcs]

[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]so basically their renaming vista sp2 to windows 7? but you can't say something is a new version without a new skin and slightly different features...personally i think its a good classical marketing ploy to wash off some of the bad reputation vista received immediately after its initial launch.[/citation]

Probably for the most part, but I bet you'll see more of a change than there was between 98 and me or tiger and leopard...

 

[Guest]

I began playing with K/X/Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago. It's slow going and far from easy (took that long to get drivers and dual boot worked out) but by the time XP dies I don't think I'll cry. 25 GB install and 2 gig mem required, goodbye Microsoft and hello Penguin. I'll decide when it's time to "upgrade" not you. Same goes for most of my family who just enjoy browsing the net and reading email etc. I hope whatever kick back they're getting from hardware manufactures is worth it.

 

[Maxor127]

I predict once Windows 7 comes out, everyone will complain about how horrible it is and how much they love Vista now. It's how it is with every new OS. Personally, I think everyone exaggerates about how bad Vista is. It's not as optimal for gaming as XP, but other than that, it's fine.

 

[GoldenEye4ever]

Many people are just totally uneducated when it comes to VISTA and now Windows 7.

There are many reasons to switch from XP to VISTA. (just to name a few)
- Greatly improved "Start Menu"
- Improved aesthetic appeal. (aero)
- Improved graphics engine, DirectX10 (granted there was no technological reason to omit it from XP )
- Security in general is tighter (not perfect)
- Built-in speech recognition (actually works well)
- Windows Flip 3D
- Windows Indexing & Search
- Sidebar (baby steps...it was new and has been improved in Windows 7)
- Better Power Management (longer battery life for laptops)
- ReadyBoost (allows USB flash sticks to be used as system memory - RAM)
- SuperFetch (pre-loads your most-used applications onto system memory thus speeding-up application load-times)
- Backward Compatibility (I have yet to have a piece of software not work on VISTA)
- x86 emulation on a x64 installation (I have run into very few applications there could not be emulated properly on my x64 instance of VISTA).
- amazing backup feature (Home Premium and Ultimate only)

As for switching from VISTA to Windows 7
- Multi-touch, provided you have hardware to support this (similar to MS Surface project)
- Native support for many media formats (H.264, DivX, etc...), this is nice since you won't have to install 3rd party apps to play your videos (HD/SD alike).
- GPU Acceleration (modern graphic cards can crunch numbers at a ridiculous rate).
- More convenient taskbar (basically quick-launch but much more attractive and useful)
- handwriting recognition (works with the touch screen capability)
- finally, a new version of paint (I think I'll still stick with GIMP )
- improved widgets (incorporated into desktop, behind your work).
- improved startup/shutdown times.
- improved memory management.
- improved organization (keeps track of your music/movies/docs/etc..., regardless of where they are on your hard drive(s) ).
- ability to install 3rd party themes without modifying (hacking) system files.
- pretty much all of VISTA's features, including UI design.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a MS fanboy, it pisses me off that:
- they release 4 different versions of VISTA and will likely do the same for Windows 7 (annoying ).
- they still haven't implemented that new filing system (Win FS).
- Windows 7 is coming-out too soon after VISTA.
- VISTA has major issues when transferring files over a network (XP is way faster), I hope Windows 7 does not have this.
- VISTA has no native support for different wallpapers on multiple monitor setup (currently have to either install 3rd party app, or create a large image and tile it ), I hope Windows 7 supports this natively.
- MS released VISTA pre-maturely (it needed more QA testing )

After all is said and done, I really like the new UI, I find it intuitive, and much more convenient for everyday use.
Every person that I've introduced to VISTA, after seeing how it actually runs, love it. The majority of these people were among the many who'd say "VISTA is a waste of time...it doesn't work."


While VISTA and Windows 7 will run more slowly on an older PC, that is to be expected.
VISTA and Windows 7 can run with many of their features disables (such as aero) to accommodate lower-end PC's, but it's not fair to expect all of the eye-candy to work on a 5+ year old PC.

As consumers, we expect pretty substantial advances in the hardware that is available to us on a regular basis. As a result of the newer & more powerful hardware, it is only natural for the software to be designed to take full advantage of it, thus lesser/older PC's will struggle if all of those new features are enabled. If the software doesn't advance, what's the point of the advances in the hardware?

 

[malveaux]

Heya,

This is confusing. How can one claim that Vista wasn't pushed? When you are the monopoly of gaming OS's, as in, the ONLY one. You have zero choice here. Vista ships on all PC's except the few that make you pay more to get XP instead. It has done this for a very long time now. If you're playing anything DX10 related, you're using Vista as you have zero choice in that matter. Which platform other than console are all games geared towards? On the PC, Microsoft is the only choice for gaming. So you are stuck with it, like it or not, unless Wine in Linux gives you enough performance to play a new game, you simply have no choice. You have to pay up and let your machine be completely taken over by Vista. If you don't like it, tough. You can just NOT play games on the PC and sit on XP and never see DX10 or it's features and wait out until something else happens.

The OS is forced on you. How many of you are 100% MAC/Linux? I seriously doubt very many. These people have next to no reason to read this site. This site mainly fronts PC hardware and gaming and overclocking. This is something absent in the MAC/Linux world. And don't give me that "but but but..." about it. It's not even close to 1% of the amount of windows/pc gaming. So if you play games that require directx, you are using windows most likely. And basically all games require it now. No longer are there games that say "opengl" or "directx" you don't even get the option.

YOU. DON'T. EVEN. GET. THE. OPTION.

You are using directx.
If you want DX10 games/features, you are using Vista.

That is pushed down your throat.

Alternative is: use an OS that doesn't support the latest and greatest games.

If all you do is browse the net, email, etc, you should be using something else for free. Ubuntu is easy to use and nice for that. The only reason to use Windows what so ever is for gaming and/or very specific software for a company. The only reason the amount of people use Windows exists is because it comes OEM on a PC they bought. Give people the choice of "Vista" for $firstborn, or Ubuntu of $freedownload and most people after getting to use both are not going to cry hard and buy Vista.

Since I love PC gaming, I'm going to be forced into DX10 very soon. I'm holding onto XP for dear life. I'll end up buying Windows Azure. Knowing it's just Vista. But oh well. XP has lasted a nice long time for my purchase price. Azure better do the same. I'm very satisfied I didn't waste my money on Vista so that I could get screwed buying it twice when I buy Azure.

... And as for people talking about Vista being a step up from XP, please, the Start Menu and all that pre-fetching is garbage. When you have to preload stuff because your OS is so damned hard on your hardware, it's pathetic. And the startmenu is the same. I can edit mine to do the same damn thing in XP. Vista just looks pretty. And as for the security. Puh-lease. Joe Shmoe doesn't need the kind of hyper lock down that is featured in Vista--which is still wide open essentially. They made it safer by keeping YOU out of it. Complete B.S..

Cheers,

 

[malveaux]

Heya,

And you get Vista on PC's because MS paid to have that huge marketing arena. They know they make money buy spending mnoey. Doesn't mean it's right. It jsut works. And most people have it because that's how they shopped and got their OS anyways--OEM on a pc they bought. That is pushed on you. Where's your choice? You had none.

Very best,

 

[falchard]

Vista is not that bad, I am pretty sure Vista won't be going anywhere anytime around the release of Windows 7. So it should be fine for users who already went vista and don't want to get a new OS.

Windows 7 will most certainly have issues for its first 6 months as every windows OS since Windows 98. Also since its merely and upgraded version of Windows Vista, things like new DX versions and programs should be able to work on Vista.

 

[lopopo]

I would like a windows xp plain looking OS with lots of functionality...That said some people prefer their OS to have a more extravagant look; in that case upon OS install let people alter the look to just about anything they like. Its more programing work but it's what every OS should do. This way a person like me who wants a bland desktop can have a simple arrangement, no Aero glass no bull. I cant stand to waste ram or even one clock cycle on childish animations. But if you do ..then the OS should accommodate you. There is third party software out there for this sort of thing and windows has been getting better at it but it's not enough I need total control, detailed and streamlined.

 

[Guest]

My girlfriend bought her laptop 2 years after mine, and needless to say it is a slightly more powerful laptop then mine,(faster FSB, faster processor (1,6Ghz core2Duo vs 1,8Ghz Core2Duo), faster RAM (400Mhz DDR2 vs 533Mhz DDR2)
However hers is loaded with Vista, and hangs and slows down all the time, despite it being updated to the latest, and being more powerful.
My older laptop runs longer on battery and just runs better on XP than hers on Vista!
Even the newest SP of vista can not compare at all to the responsiveness of XP and SP3. Just wanted to make that a CLEAR statement, against the comment up saying vista is better...

Windows 7 is indeed becoming a Vista, and tests have shown it does not boot faster than XP, and at shutdown it is really the slowest OS so far!

I doubt it being a better OS than XP,
I'll probably stay with XP for another 3 to 4 years, and still have the world's best OS!
Comments saying that Vista has caught up with XP are plain bull shit.
Maybe on an 8core machine with 8GB of ram it does, but certainly not on the average laptop or budget notebook sold today!

Like one comment I read the other day, by the absolute end of Windows 98 Se, the OS was rocksolid, but most people had made the switch already. So far the first beta tests of Windows 7 have not really excited me at all!(sorry to say).

I'm disappointed I ever bought Vista. However if a cheap (sub $50) upgrade is available to Windows 7 I might reconsider.
VISTA = CRAP!!!