Windows 7 RC is awesome!

[the8thstar]

I installed Windows RC 1 on my laptop (see sig) and so far I'm impressed with its capabilities and responsiveness.

The boot time is a little bit longer than Ubuntu Jaunty, the shutdown time is the same (10 sec). My laptop is quiet, the power management is awesome (and better than Ubuntu) and there is no constant writing to pagefile.sys. Office 2007 main applications pop up within 3 seconds, so it's very satisfying for a laptop that's getting on the older side.

I had Vista Home Premium before and I can honestly say that this is much better. I wanted to know what your feedback is about the OS. If you feel like you have to bash it with the usual proprietary, close-sourced, pricey rhetoric, that's just your right so please go ahead. Quite frankly I'm mostly interested in *technical* feedback... And yes, I know, it's only a Release Candidate so the final product may differ.

Anyway, thanks for your comments!

[Pikaflash]

In my opinion, Windows 7 is not a threat to OS X & Linux because of several reasons:

1) Windows 7 is Vista warmed over and we know how well Vista sold
2) Bad marketing by Microsoft: 6 or 7 different Win 7 versions, ala Vista, which confused customers
3) Microsoft has the worst track record of any software company on the planet for attempting to make reliable, secure operating systems and software.
4) DRM

[CJ Master]

Windows 7 IS a much larger improvement from Vista, and anybody sheilding themselves muttering that "it's going to totally fail again" and Microsoft will go backrupt, are quite frankly idiots. Like Mark Shuttleworth said, the fact that this will be a good os, well this is great! Sure, Windows 7 will be a great operating system, and people will probably migrate to it. That's why we have to work even harder to fix Bug #1. This will be very healthy for Linux in a whole, to have to compete with an operating system that's actually a competition.

Only way that Microsoft will flop this is if Manufacturers ship the starting edition by default (Only about 3 windows open at a time.)

[pwnst*r]

1) Windows 7 is Vista warmed over and we know how well Vista sold


fail.

[CJ Master]

In my opinion, Windows 7 is not a threat to OS X & Linux because of several reasons:

1) Windows 7 is Vista warmed over and we know how well Vista sold
2) Bad marketing by Microsoft: 6 or 7 different Win 7 versions, ala Vista, which confused customers
3) Microsoft has the worst track record of any software company on the planet for attempting to make reliable, secure operating systems and software.
4) DRM

1) Windows 7 is a massive improvement over Vista, especially considering UAC.
2) Home users don't even know about the different ediditions. They get what they get when they buy a computer.
3) You just have to be safe and not click on the "OMG you won for being the 1000000000 visitor!!11!!" Links. Almost all of Windows viruses are ABD. All that's pretty much left is the Trojan Horse, and no operating system can protect users from stupidity.
4) Ask any normal home user what DRM is and 95% of the time they will look at you with a blank expression.

[Chilli Bob]

<rant>

BLEH!!! I just wasted 2 hours trying to install Win 7 RC, and it's an EPIC FAIL. Right at the start of the install I get an pop-up telling me that Windows is missing a CD/DVD driver, and to insert a CD or USB with the correct driver. WTF! I have a generic, plain, vanilla DVD rom. Why the hell does windows not have a driver for this? (This despite the fact that it has already loaded a GUI off that same DVD).

Yeah, I know there are many forum threads about this, but nothing seems to fix the problem. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with the CD/DVD drivers, but a continuation of the XP tradition of error messages totally unrelated to the actual error.

I wasted half a month's bandwidth for this c**p? I was really keen to try it out as no doubt I'll be using it at work in a number of matter of months.

</rant>

[sim-value]

<rant>

BLEH!!! I just wasted 2 hours trying to install Win 7 RC, and it's an EPIC FAIL. Right at the start of the install I get an pop-up telling me that Windows is missing a CD/DVD driver, and to insert a CD or USB with the correct driver. WTF! I have a generic, plain, vanilla DVD rom. Why the hell does windows not have a driver for this? (This despite the fact that it has already loaded a GUI off that same DVD).

Yeah, I know there are many forum threads about this, but nothing seems to fix the problem. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with the CD/DVD drivers, but a continuation of the XP tradition of error messages totally unrelated to the actual error.

I wasted half a month's bandwidth for this c**p? I was really keen to try it out as no doubt I'll be using it at work in a number of matter of months.

</rant>
What it actually wants are the SATA drivers ... same story as in Vista BTW ...

Update your Motherboards Bios or put the drivers on a USB stick ...

[TheNosh]

windows 7 is great, vista sucked on my laptop, but 7 seems fast and solid. much as i apreciate wine, i like that i don't have to hassle with it much now that i have a windows version that boots so fast it's not an inconvience. hell, i think i'll even pay for a copy when the RC expires! (when i downloaded it i didn't epect it to be nearly that good, i figured i'd just stop playing a couple games or get them working in wine after the RC was done and call it a day)

[Chilli Bob]

What it actually wants are the SATA drivers ... same story as in Vista BTW ...

Update your Motherboards Bios or put the drivers on a USB stick ...

What drivers? Where do they come from?. There is nothing sata on my motherboard. My motherboard does't even support sata.

EDIT: reading over that it sounds like I'm angry with you. Not the case, just got flu and sick of typing long sentences :)

[Sand & Mercury]

Just switched over to it as my main OS today from Vista. Install was quick & painless (unless you run an upgrade from Vista, in which case it can take several hours) and it's really treating me quite well. Kudos to Microsoft, the pressure was really on them after the Vista debacle and they've (mostly) come up trumps.

[kernelhaxor]

Yep, it is really awesome! Been running Beta and RC since a long time and I haven't had even a single BSOD! no OS crashes either!

[aschwerin.moses]

Its good, much better than Vista and pleasing than XP. Well XP rocks and it did take time for them to make XP almost solid.

I like the touch feature in Windows 7 even though i did not use it. The videos are really cool, the photo gallery using Win 7 touch is really awesome like in Minority Report. With the touch feature, Microsoft has taken OS to the next level...

[billgoldberg]

I installed Windows RC 1 on my laptop (see sig) and so far I'm impressed with its capabilities and responsiveness.

The boot time is a little bit longer than Ubuntu Jaunty, the shutdown time is the same (10 sec). My laptop is quiet, the power management is awesome (and better than Ubuntu) and there is no constant writing to pagefile.sys. Office 2007 main applications pop up within 3 seconds, so it's very satisfying for a laptop that's getting on the older side.

I had Vista Home Premium before and I can honestly say that this is much better. I wanted to know what your feedback is about the OS. If you feel like you have to bash it with the usual proprietary, close-sourced, pricey rhetoric, that's just your right so please go ahead. Quite frankly I'm mostly interested in *technical* feedback... And yes, I know, it's only a Release Candidate so the final product may differ.

Anyway, thanks for your comments!

The beta was a bit faster but this RC seems more stable, but slower.

I have had a few hang-ups but I suspect they were driver related.

[billgoldberg]

Its good, much better than Vista and pleasing than XP. Well XP rocks and it did take time for them to make XP almost solid.

I like the touch feature in Windows 7 even though i did not use it. The videos are really cool, the photo gallery using Win 7 touch is really awesome like in Minority Report. With the touch feature, Microsoft has taken OS to the next level...

Look at this video from years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx9FgLr9oTk&feature=related

[aschwerin.moses]

Look at this video from years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx9FgLr9oTk&feature=related

now this is COOL, linux rocks. I never knew this, okay, ill take my words back :D .... do you know how to get this working (even though i dont have a touch screen monitor)

[fballem]

I tried the Windows 7 RC on my main machine. I re-installed ubuntu for two things - the virtual desktops and the ease with which .iso files can be worked with. There are third-party utilities that provides similar functions, but some cost money and others are cumbersome. As well, I found Windows slower than ubuntu.

That being said, I do have two Windows machines in the house. These both currently run Vista, and I will replace the Vista installations with Windows 7.

[Sewje]

This is what most people don't realise about Linux, it's done everything the other OS's think thats new, and Linux done it ages ago. The only thing left is spreading the word.

[nandemonai]

*yawns*

Still 98 with a fancy theme if you ask me.

It's 2009 and yet there is still no equivalent to 'cp -u' in Windows.. the most basic of computing tasks. This fact alone boggles my mind, let alone everything else it lacks compared to modern Linux / OS X operating systems.

I don't see what all the fuss is about myself.

It will be no more than a gaming OS to me, if I want to get any real work done, I'll use Linux or OS X.

Edit:

Oh yeah.. I realise it's a beta but.. anytime I try sleep, my machine dies. Wont boot. Have to reset CMOS to get it booting again. Not nice.

[bigbrovar]

The biggest deal breaker for me is the lack of a package manager .. lets try to forget that its a closed platform with DRM built into its core, Lets forget that its would require huge resources to run compared to my lxde powered p4 with just 512mb of ram... lets forget that i cant use any desktop environment that i want and i have little space to customize with out breaking the law or doing something criminal. even if all this were available in Windows 7 ... The lack of a package manager is a no no .. am totally over jumping from one website to the other looking for applications to install on my system.. that is soo old school

[bigbrovar]

This is what most people don't realise about Linux, it's done everything the other OS's think thats new, and Linux done it ages ago. The only thing left is spreading the word.
exactly .. most times MS and Apple just rip off a feature from linux, rebrand it, splash their PR $$$$ and then call it innovation .. nothing compelling about WIndows 7 that i dont already have in Linux .. Nothing .. most people are just following the hype ..

[Paqman]

exactly .. most times MS and Apple just rip off a feature from linux, rebrand it, splash their PR $$$$ and then call it innovation .. nothing compelling about WIndows 7 that i dont already have in Linux .. Nothing .. most people are just following the hype ..

All OSes borrow good ideas from each other. Why wouldn't they? Linux has ripped off plenty of good apps and UI features from Mac and Windows, and they've ripped them off from us (and each other).

[bigbrovar]

All OSes borrow good ideas from each other. Why wouldn't they? Linux has ripped off plenty of good apps and UI features from Mac and Windows, and they've ripped them off from us (and each other).
sure .. and samba, mono, and gnome-do easily comes to mind, the difference here is most times The Linux developers behind these project always come out and say where there got the inspiration from. They dont try to pretend like its was something Inspired from a Dream

[Screwdriver0815]

its still just windows:

- no multiple desktops (you have to search for third-party software which does not work very well)

- no software included, beside the Bloat- and Crapware of the computer vendor

- no freedom at all, multiple install of the final release on all machines at home? No!

- no package management


Its not awesome, its Windows! I still don't get the point, why such a lot of people are celebrating such an Hype around this operating system

[graabein]

I'm sticking with open source GNU/Linux.

[pwnst*r]

exactly .. most times MS and Apple just rip off a feature from linux, rebrand it, splash their PR $$$$ and then call it innovation .. nothing compelling about WIndows 7 that i dont already have in Linux .. Nothing .. most people are just following the hype ..

yes, linux came up with everything. you're so right.

you fanboys crack me up.

[Ozor Mox]

the difference here is most times The Linux developers behind these project always come out and say where there got the inspiration from. They dont try to pretend like its was something Inspired from a Dream

Normally I roll my eyes when people say OS X and Windows rip off Linux, but this is actually a good point. I have seen a lot of open source projects essentially "cite their references", but here's the description of OS X's "Spaces":

You do a lot on your Mac. So how do you keep order when projects pile up? Easy. Use Spaces to group your application windows and banish clutter completely. Leopard gives you a space for everything and makes it easy to switch between your spaces.

OMG! Leik, how innovative! :)

[stimpack]

I am liking Windows 7 too, and whilst not being a Linux fanboy or Microsoft hater, I have been hating Windows for a long long time. I think Windows 2000 was the only version I have been fairly happy with.

Easily the best version yet, and I am spending more time in it than I ever expected. The usual annoyances, anti-virus popups, window focus peculiarities, mean KDE is still where I go when I want to get work done. But I now use Windows 7 for WoW instead of linux+wine, I don't mind rebooting any more.

Of course future pricing may shift me back to Linux 100%, but for now they have a chance to grab me.

[maxislinux]

Well, I just logged in from a Fres W7 RC install. THe Aero desktop has a couple of snazzy new features that mitemake working less of a pain in the a**. Well, my opinion is that seven is a LARGE , extremely huge improvement over Vista. It is worth a try, even for all those die hard Ubuntu fans. Even im a die-hard Ubuntu fan, but truth is .... here is something Ubuntu & its gnome desktop have to match up with... :)

[omar8]

Why is it that almost every person claims there is DRM built into the core when there is absolutely none. The only DRM that is built into Windows is the DRM which allows you to watch DRM content (is that possible on Linux yet - I don't know because I never watch any DRM movies or listen to any DRM music).

Personally I don't want a package manager - I like the fact that I just go to the website of person who made that program and atleast this way they don't end up filling their programs with "donate now" links everywhere and they will atleast get some extra money from the Ads on their sites and will be able to advertise other programs they may have released.

Windows NT kernel is just as reliable as the Linux kernel (infact its design is more reliable), chances are if your drivers are installed correctly then you will never get a BSOD until you change the driver to an unstable one or (unless you get a virus, or since only a few viruses are actually created a year for Windows and are usually released after the exploit has been patched, a trojan which would affect Linux just as much as it affects Windows because it is relying on User Error rather than actual code exploit). Infact I remember in 2007 (when Vista had just been released), Micorsoft only contibuted to 18% of all crashes (the rest being mainly intel, nvidia and ati), this was before SP1 and SP2 which has probably resulting in most if not all of those bugs being fixed.

As for Windows not supporting your drivers atleast you know that if you go to the manufacturer's website and the component was created in the last 5 years there is a 99% chance there will be a driver for it that can be downloaded.

Windows Vista was not bloated, infact the entire operating system is only about 50million lines of code (the linux kernel alone is about 10million). Most of Vista's size is due to the more modular approach Microsoft has taken resulting in hundreds of the same file being stored (different versions) to maximise backwards compatibility. Vista is slow because the code wasn't as well written as it could have been and lots of new features were added into the core. Windows 7 corrects these issues resulting in a much better experince (and only slightly slower than XP while improving and providing a much better desktop experience). Somethings such as file copying have been sorted out and other things such as high ram usage is actually caused by superfetching so it was never a problem in the first place.

[monsterstack]

Windows Vista was not bloated, infact the entire operating system is only about 50million lines of code (the linux kernel alone is about 10million). Most of Vista's size is due to the more modular approach Microsoft has taken resulting in hundreds of the same file being stored (different versions) to maximise backwards compatibility. Vista is slow because the code wasn't as well written as it could have been and lots of new features were added into the core. Windows 7 corrects these issues resulting in a much better experince (and only slightly slower than XP while improving and providing a much better desktop experience). Somethings such as file copying have been sorted out and other things such as high ram usage is actually caused by superfetching so it was never a problem in the first place.

What the crap? Do you work for Microsoft? Vista was big, bloated, slow and intrusive. The rest of your arguments are just nonsense. No matter how amazing Windows 7 is or will be, it's just too soon to try and start rewriting history, bud. Try again in five years. Maybe then someone will believe you.

[hal8000]

I installed Windows RC 1 on my laptop (see sig) and so far I'm impressed with its capabilities and responsiveness.

Anyway, thanks for your comments!


Can you give us some facts:
Default install size? This was 2G with XP 6G with Vista

It will probably still be the same monolithic chunk of code with new icons and backgrounds etc. Is there still a windows folder, system32 folder and are users under C:\users like in Vista?

[the8thstar]

I would say from memory that the install size was roughly around 8Gb, but I've added a lot of programs since.

And to answer your other questions : yes, yes and yes.

[Paqman]

sure .. and samba, mono, and gnome-do easily comes to mind, the difference here is most times The Linux developers behind these project always come out and say where there got the inspiration from. They dont try to pretend like its was something Inspired from a Dream

Who cares?

[kc3]

I used 7 for the longest time and I'd say it'd DEFINITELY they're best release even in the Beta stages, honestly it'll be nuts to see it when it is released. Microsoft really had no choice but to deliver an actual GOOD operating system and so soon after Vista because of how much of a disappointment Vista was, hell tons of people out there that hate Vista and decide to stick with XP even though they know nothing about computers, pretty sure it's for a good reason :P I do think Linux is better than Windows 7, but Windows 7 is still their best release yet. It doesn't crash NEARLY as much as Vista and benchmarks faster than both XP or Vista (sorry I don't remember the URLs to where I saw that) and the interface makes it much easier to work on.

And btw, I'd like to know how many people bashing it have actually used it rather than read reviews? Just curious, don't want to start a fight but from how certain questions get asked by some Linux users it sounds like they never bothered to try it. (not that I can't blame them to be honest lol) but I think they'd be surprised by how much progress they made with this version.

[scottuss]

Why do people argue whether Windows 7 will be good or not? Who cares? If you use Windows, good for you, you may like Windows 7. Or you might not. Whatever. I will never install it on any of my machines, so I don't care if it will be awesome or not.

Also, sorry to say Windows 7 is a modified Vista. That's not a bad thing entirely, backwards compatibility is something Microsoft have to conform to at some basic level to maintain their dominance. You can't blame them for that. But on the other hand, don't be naive and believe that Windows 7 isn't just Vista with bells and whistles 'cos guess what kiddies?


It is.

[kc3]

Well, modified Vista or not, kind of irrelevant because they did make some really good changes :P Either way, agree with you though, I never plan on installing it again so I guess it doesn't really matter to me how good it is lol

[SomeGuyDude]

W7 is pretty excellent.

Hell it's even better than XP on a Toshiba I put it on. For some reason this one computer overheated like CRAZY with XP on it. Even a fresh install, CPU usage kept jacking to 100%, so eventually the owner got a new computer. For the hell of it I threw the 7 beta on there and... surprise! It's a new machine now. Works like butter.

What it says to me is that if for some reason in the future I have to use Windows (a game I really really really want, whatever), then I won't dread it.

[exploder]

Windows 7 is a good release for Microsoft. The install was much quicker than an XP install. All of the hardware on my test system was detected and set up perfectly. Windows 7 is what Vista was supposed to be. The installed system took at least 6 GB of space but with hard drives being as large as they are today this really is not an issue. All of Windows 7s features worked as they should, they really did a good job.

The price of the OS is another story, $259.95 for Windows 7 Home Premium. For $50.00 more I could buy a new computer! There is nothing wrong with making money from the the sale of an operating system but the price is above the average persons means to be able to afford.

I run Linux myself but I do not play favorites. If Microsoft made Windows 7 more affordable for the average person I would consider running it. Free is good but Microsoft is a business and does create jobs and there is nothing wrong with selling software. Make the software affordable though! The Mac OS is affordable but not made to run on a regular PC. Microsoft could reduce the cost and a large part of the piracy problem would go away.

[pwnst*r]

Why do people argue whether Windows 7 will be good or not? Who cares? If you use Windows, good for you, you may like Windows 7. Or you might not. Whatever. I will never install it on any of my machines, so I don't care if it will be awesome or not.

Also, sorry to say Windows 7 is a modified Vista. That's not a bad thing entirely, backwards compatibility is something Microsoft have to conform to at some basic level to maintain their dominance. You can't blame them for that. But on the other hand, don't be naive and believe that Windows 7 isn't just Vista with bells and whistles 'cos guess what kiddies?


It is.

negative.

next.

[LoloftheRings]

7 is gonna be a good release, but it gave me a very bad first impression.

- Installation took ages, the installer hang before loading anything.. (took about 1 hour, hanging for 40 minutes)
- Wireless support scared me, Got no working connection and manufacturer's drivers failed.
- Resolution wasn't fixed (maybe it is after updating?)
- Partitioner confused me, couldn't even see which one was my previous Windows XP partition.

I switched right back to Windows XP and my beloved Ubuntu.

Someone mentioned Windows has no package management, this is wrong. The manager has been around for ages and it's called "Windows installer". Probably, this person was talking about a decent package manager.

[nikhilbhardwaj]

yup
me too
i loved it

[omar8]

What the crap? Do you work for Microsoft? Vista was big, bloated, slow and intrusive. The rest of your arguments are just nonsense. No matter how amazing Windows 7 is or will be, it's just too soon to try and start rewriting history, bud. Try again in five years. Maybe then someone will believe you.

I never said it wasn't slow, which is down to the poorly written code in Vista which has obviously not been optimised (to be fair Vista is almost a complete rewrite which was done in 2 years which is one of the reasons they are going to be so heavily fined for integrating IE so deeply into the OS when it was their excuse when XP was released) and I explained why it was big (due to the modularity providing the high level of compatibility). Slow and bloated are completely different things, people use the term bloated to try and suggest that Vista is billions of lines of poor code written in the 80s when really it isn't, Windows 7 shows this, despite having a very similar codebase and pretty much same size install it is much more responsive - this is due to the optimisation of the code. You obviously just like spreading the rubbish you've read, Vista can even outperform XP if your machine is fast enough.
Also, just because I don't mindlessly repeat what I read on the internet I suddenly work for Microsoft? Wow.

[scottuss]

negative.

next.

Is there any chance you could actually backup your rather ridiculous posts with some kind of explanation? I don't expect references or anything but more than two words would be nice.

[Screwdriver0815]

Someone mentioned Windows has no package management, this is wrong. The manager has been around for ages and it's called "Windows installer". Probably, this person was talking about a decent package manager.
could I install a whole office suite, programs for modifying graphics and tons of other apps with it, without going out of the house? No, I can't. So there is NO package manager which allows software installations.

I still wonder:
if an engineer does the things he gets paid for, for example designing a bridge pier. And this bridge pier is strong enough to bear all the loads it is designed for... and it costs 250,000 dollars (per piece)... do all of you Windows-7-praisers stand underneath the bridge and scream out loud and get ecstatic on how awesome this bridge pier is?

[omar8]

I still wonder:
if an engineer does the things he gets paid for, for example designing a bridge pier. And this bridge pier is strong enough to bear all the loads it is designed for... and it costs 250,000 dollars (per piece)... do all of you Windows-7-praisers stand underneath the bridge and scream out loud and get ecstatic on how awesome this bridge pier is?

Where can I find this bridge pier? I NEED TO KNOW!;)

[fatality_uk]

Well those looking to upgrade to Win7 just might want to remember that only Win7 Ultimate will run XP apps in emulation mode and that the home version is still planning to only run 3 apps at once!! A winner :)

I can imagine many, many consumers returning Win7 after the Three app limit pop-ups start appearing

[omar8]

Well those looking to upgrade to Win7 just might want to remember that only Win7 Ultimate will run XP apps in emulation mode and that the home version is still planning to only run 3 apps at once!! A winner :)

I can imagine many, many consumers returning Win7 after the Three app limit pop-ups start appearing

Not true at all, about 99% of XP programs will run in Windows 7 (has the same compatibility as Vista), XPM is for running multiple versions of software side by side (IE6, IE7, Office 03) and to ensure that last 1% will also work.
The 3 program limit is not for the home edition it was intended for the netbook edition but it seems that was removed.

[doorknob60]

Windows 7 is better than both XP and Vista, but it's still not perfect, and it's certainly not gonna switch me back, but I'll use it for dual booting purposes (already am with the RC).

[fatality_uk]

Not true at all, about 99% of XP programs will run in Windows 7 (has the same compatibility as Vista), XPM is for running multiple versions of software side by side (IE6, IE7, Office 03) and to ensure that last 1% will also work.
The 3 program limit is not for the home edition it was intended for the netbook edition but it seems that was removed.

Interesting. where do you get your information from? All the news I have read and the conversation I had on Friday with a mate coding hardware for customer profiles at a printer co tell me that ONLY the top tier Win7 will give full access to apps and that the starter version, which lets face it will be the majority install on most PC's, will severily limit the "user" experience.

[omar8]

Interesting. where do you get your information from? All the news I have read and the conversation I had on Friday with a mate coding hardware for customer profiles at a printer co tell me that ONLY the top tier Win7 will give full access to apps and that the starter version, which lets face it will be the majority install on most PC's, will severily limit the "user" experience.

The starter edition is not for the majority of users - starter is for netbooks, home premium (just like Vista Home Premium) is the one which will be installed on most computers and laptops. Netbooks can be upgraded to Home Premium using the Update anytime feature (i think this is also available in Vista). At the moment it is only rumours that the 3 app limit has been removed but on a Netbook I don't think many people will be using more than 3 programs anyway (doesn't include antivirus and core Windows programs like explorer and control panel).

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/05/22/microsoft-may-adjust-limitations-on-windows-7-starter more details here.

[pbpersson]

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/05/22/microsoft-may-adjust-limitations-on-windows-7-starter more details here.

Quote from that article: "even older systems running with 1.3GHz Celeron processors and 512MB of RAM can easily run Windows 7"

:o

[fatality_uk]

The starter edition is not for the majority of users - starter is for netbooks, home premium (just like Vista Home Premium) is the one which will be installed on most computers and laptops. Netbooks can be upgraded to Home Premium using the Update anytime feature (i think this is also available in Vista). At the moment it is only rumours that the 3 app limit has been removed but on a Netbook I don't think many people will be using more than 3 programs anyway (doesn't include antivirus and core Windows programs like explorer and control panel).

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/05/22/microsoft-may-adjust-limitations-on-windows-7-starter more details here.

So speculation! Ok, that's good.

I know what the starter edition is aimed at, however most OEM's will be forced to deploy a higher spec version of Windows at much greater cost due to the limits which it prescribes not just on numbers of applications running but number of cores, memory, screen size etc.

[SomeGuyDude]

I really do love it when people talk about Vista being "slow, bloated, and buggy" as though that were objective. Please.

It's definitely not the Linux speed that we're all accustomed to, but on newer machines it trucked along juuuust fine. And 7 is even more responsive.

Maybe it's like watching kids on IGN debate video game consoles. Since Linux users are here they don't just want to say Linux is good, but also everything else totally sucks bad.

[xtremo]

I tried it for a few hours......and I wasn't very happy with it.

Felt like a quicker version of Vista to me.....and definitely an improvement.....though they'd have been hard pressed to come up with something worse than Vista. But one thing really niggled me!

And that's the fact that after 14 years there is no longer a classic start menu option. Yes.....people say the newer one is more intuitive etc, and maybe it is. But that's not the point.

The issue as I see it is what's the problem with leaving an option for it in the system.....as with XP and Vista? Why has the choice been taken away from us? Typical MS attitude....it's our way or no way....and that's what I don't like....the dictatorial and autocratic attitude that they're somehow doing it for our own good.

[stephenchant@hotmail.com]

<rant>

BLEH!!! I just wasted 2 hours trying to install Win 7 RC, and it's an EPIC FAIL. Right at the start of the install I get an pop-up telling me that Windows is missing a CD/DVD driver, and to insert a CD or USB with the correct driver. WTF! I have a generic, plain, vanilla DVD rom. Why the hell does windows not have a driver for this? (This despite the fact that it has already loaded a GUI off that same DVD).

Yeah, I know there are many forum threads about this, but nothing seems to fix the problem. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with the CD/DVD drivers, but a continuation of the XP tradition of error messages totally unrelated to the actual error.

I wasted half a month's bandwidth for this c**p? I was really keen to try it out as no doubt I'll be using it at work in a number of matter of months.

</rant>

In the 2 hours I had that b.s intalled on my machine I had nothing but headaches as well for start I was not able to install or uninstall anything but the icing on the cake for me was how it sai my machine was connected to the net but I was not able to surf the net

[Dimitriid]

I will get a new gaming rig within a month and will pretty much bite the bullet and dual boot.

How feasible is this release candidate for gaming right now? I am debating between XP SP3 ( limited to DX9 mode but so far I don't know any games that will not work on DX9 anyway ) Vista ( worst choice but DX10 ) and Windows 7 RC ( although I read some games like Fallout 3 have a ton of issues on windows 7 and I might as well stick with wine ).

What do you all think?

[don_quixote]

I really do love it when people talk about Vista being "slow, bloated, and buggy" as though that were objective. Please.

It's definitely not the Linux speed that we're all accustomed to, but on newer machines it trucked along juuuust fine. And 7 is even more responsive.

It might be anecdotal but that's all I have to go on. My last year's laptop came with Vista on it. It was an awful, slow mess. SLOW. It was painful. I reverted back to XP, but had trouble with the drivers. Win 7 ran like a bullet in comparison. And so does Ubuntu for that matter.

[omar8]

So speculation! Ok, that's good.

I know what the starter edition is aimed at, however most OEM's will be forced to deploy a higher spec version of Windows at much greater cost due to the limits which it prescribes not just on numbers of applications running but number of cores, memory, screen size etc.

erm, thats the point, starter is for netbooks only. Thats what its there for.

[jonian_g]

I really do love it when people talk about Vista being "slow, bloated, and buggy" as though that were objective. Please.

It's definitely not the Linux speed that we're all accustomed to, but on newer machines it trucked along juuuust fine. And 7 is even more responsive.

Maybe it's like watching kids on IGN debate video game consoles. Since Linux users are here they don't just want to say Linux is good, but also everything else totally sucks bad.

Same thing for windows and mac fanboys. But the diference is that most of the linux users have used windows too! Which is not the same for most windows users.

Thats the point, you choose something because you think is better than the other choices available. Do you expect a football fan support 2 different teams or more.

[Skripka]

I'm posting from Win7 right now. It is pretty slick-most of my main complaints are no more...and installing it to a useable space was as easy as throwing the disk in the drive.

Install took 30 minutes, on My box (see sig for specs), I put it on a seperate 5400 speed 160GB drive. Out of the box, correct video drivers were installed, audio works fine. Those Microsoft folks have done some nice work.

Never liked Vista, Win7 is definitely several steps up from XP SP3 from what I have seen, and is more elegant and better thought out than Vista.

UAC still is annoying....I just want to open my XP drive to find my HTML file of bookmarks, and to access it I have to have root privledges--WTF? That is my only gripe thus far.

[.Maleficus.]

tl;dr

Anyways, I just got the RC installed and I'm very impressed. I love the new toolbar (just like everyone else) and I've had no compatibility issues. My Norton 360 3.0 installed almost automatically, Riffworks is cooking and recording my guitar, overall it's quick and looks great. Now all I need to do is get some good VSTs for Riffworks and mabye get a little Reaper action and I should be set.

[Giant Speck]

I like Windows 7, and personally, I don't give a crap if you agree with me or not.

I also like Ubuntu, and personally, I still don't give a crap if you agree with me or not.

[the8thstar]

I like Windows 7, and personally, I don't give a crap if you agree with me or not.

I also like Ubuntu, and personally, I still don't give a crap if you agree with me or not.

I'm with you here. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[NCLI]

*yawns*

Still 98 with a fancy theme if you ask me.

It's 2009 and yet there is still no equivalent to 'cp -u' in Windows.. the most basic of computing tasks. This fact alone boggles my mind, let alone everything else it lacks compared to modern Linux / OS X operating systems.

I don't see what all the fuss is about myself.

It will be no more than a gaming OS to me, if I want to get any real work done, I'll use Linux or OS X.

Edit:

Oh yeah.. I realise it's a beta but.. anytime I try sleep, my machine dies. Wont boot. Have to reset CMOS to get it booting again. Not nice.

Same here, even if I do an ordinary shutdown. Thank god I have a "reset CMOS" button on the back of my computer...

[bruno9779]

Who cares.
I wouldn't install a M$ OS anymore even if it was the most perfect thing there could be: I am not putting my scrotum in bill's hands ever again

[Mr-Biscuit]

If it works, and you want it, then use it.

[bruno9779]

Maybe it's like watching kids on IGN debate video game consoles. Since Linux users are here they don't just want to say Linux is good, but also everything else totally sucks bad.

I think that it is a quite civilized behavior: If you where to enter a church, a mosque, a stadium or any other communitarian place, and make slanderous marketing statements for the competition, YOU'D GET STONED OR LYNCHED.

W7 cannot do anything to Ubuntu's market share, because ubuntu doesn't have one

[LoloftheRings]

If Windows 7 would be free, I'd absolutely use it. But it's not, I'm gonna have to pirate it.

It's just not worth another 100 Euro's..

[Warpnow]

I hope Windows 7 is as good as they say.

I'll still be sticking with Linux.

Free Software, Package Management, Customization, Control and a helpful community are my top reasons.

[pwnst*r]

If Windows 7 would be free, I'd absolutely use it. But it's not, I'm gonna have to pirate it.

It's just not worth another 100 Euro's..

or maybe you don't have a job.

[maflynn]

I tried the win7 beta and it didn't suck but I think its still rather bloated. I was all but set to buy it later this year, but since loading Ubuntu on my laptop, I find little need, or temptation to load windows on it. Ubuntu gives me everything I need w/o any of the issues, bloat of windows.

[Slug71]

Does a fresh install or Windows 7-RC take up less space than Vista on a fresh install?

[geoken]

Who cares.
I wouldn't install a M$ OS anymore even if it was the most perfect thing there could be: I am not putting my scrotum in bill's hands ever again

What does your kinky sex life have to do with Windows?

[omar8]

I tried the win7 beta and it didn't suck but I think its still rather bloated. I was all but set to buy it later this year, but since loading Ubuntu on my laptop, I find little need, or temptation to load windows on it. Ubuntu gives me everything I need w/o any of the issues, bloat of windows.

bloat? what bloat, please give examples of this bloat that you speak of.

[pookiebear]

Does a fresh install or Windows 7-RC take up less space than Vista on a fresh install?


Did fresh installs of vista with sp1 and win 7 in vmware. Both took 10.3 gb in their virtual drives.

I am an MCSE. I still will not sell vista I can still downgrade them to XP. Hell server 08 and exchange 07 both suck too but I am forced to sell/support them. Windows 7 is just another attempt at keeping my new computer to run the same speed as the computer I was using 9 years ago.

Go over and look at slitaz. Slitaz is 30 mb. And is just as good a menu as any windows version. OS is just supposed to lauch my programs and connect me to the network....thats it. I think the OS's for workstations needs to be smaller and faster not bigger/slower/fancy bells. But that is just me. If I could run all the programs I need in windows 3.1 I would still be running it.

[Skripka]

Does a fresh install or Windows 7-RC take up less space than Vista on a fresh install?

A fresh install takes up 19GB of drive space, all totalled. 69,000 files in 13,000 some sub-folders--no 3rd party anythings or documents installed, apart from what the installer put on.

My tower has:

XP SP3-on a 320GB 7200 speed drive
Arch KDEmod-on a 250 7200 speed drive. My Arch is a configed as a do it all media funplace. So it is not light-and could probably use a trim.

and now

Win7 RC on a 160GB 5400 speed drive


Win7 is FAR faster than XP, all around, even though it is on a MUCH slower HDD, and takes up far more space. Niether Win7 nor XP here have antivirus utilities or antimalware utilities unstalled apart from what Microsoft provides. Win7 is also only a bit slower to load/shutdown than my Arch install.

[crl0901]

When I build a new gaming rig in the fall, if Windows 7 is out by then, I'll definitely be using it on that. It's a pretty slick OS and I've enjoyed using it as much as I do Ubuntu.

[Slug71]

Did fresh installs of vista with sp1 and win 7 in vmware. Both took 10.3 gb in their virtual drives.

I am an MCSE. I still will not sell vista I can still downgrade them to XP. Hell server 08 and exchange 07 both suck too but I am forced to sell/support them. Windows 7 is just another attempt at keeping my new computer to run the same speed as the computer I was using 9 years ago.

Go over and look at slitaz. Slitaz is 30 mb. And is just as good a menu as any windows version. OS is just supposed to lauch my programs and connect me to the network....thats it. I think the OS's for workstations needs to be smaller and faster not bigger/slower/fancy bells. But that is just me. If I could run all the programs I need in windows 3.1 I would still be running it.

A fresh install takes up 19GB of drive space, all totalled. 69,000 files in 13,000 some sub-folders--no 3rd party anythings or documents installed, apart from what the installer put on.

My tower has:

XP SP3-on a 320GB 7200 speed drive
Arch KDEmod-on a 250 7200 speed drive. My Arch is a configed as a do it all media funplace. So it is not light-and could probably use a trim.

and now

Win7 RC on a 160GB 5400 speed drive


Win7 is FAR faster than XP, all around, even though it is on a MUCH slower HDD, and takes up far more space. Niether Win7 nor XP here have antivirus utilities or antimalware utilities unstalled apart from what Microsoft provides. Win7 is also only a bit slower to load/shutdown than my Arch install.

I want to try RC-7 but i think not at the size. Thats one of the things that bugs me about Vista. Its a little ridiculous.

[ubuwatson]

Here are a couple honest subjective thoughts of mine.

1) I am downloading Windows 7 RC right now via my TechNet subscription. I tried the beta in the past, but had problems, but then again I did perform an upgrade instead of a fresh install which is something I never do.

2) I am honestly curious about Windows 7, how can you not be. I have been using Windows since it's inception and switched over to Ubuntu not long ago.

3) The devil's temptation is running certain Windows programs natively, such as Adobe Lightroom and VS.NET, that being said I run my Windows applications under Virtualbox (XP) and the performance is excellent. How much better would they run under Windows 7 ? I really don't know. That being said if they run fine now under Virtualbox, do I really need to find out ?

4) I never really have had issues with viruses,trojans, or blue screens of death, something that I think is over-quoted as a switching point on linux forums. The reason I switched to Ubuntu had little to do with OS issues - I switched to Ubuntu because it makes great use of your hardware, is stable, fast, and secure, and is highly customizable not to mention the great software selection.

5) I was never a big fan of Vista. To me Vista was neither excellent or poor, just somewhere in the middle. The eye candy, effects, widgets etc never did anything for me and overall things just felt slower than in XP - i was the first OS from Microsoft to offer little in the way of gains. With the exception of some hiccups and annoyances the OS was reasonably good, but never satisfying.

6) I find more enjoyment in Ubuntu, I can't always place if the effect is related to the "grass is greener on the other side phenomena" or whether Ubuntu just 'fits me better' (the later seems more appropriate). There are many 'little things' that make Ubuntu a great OS, some often overlooked: I love the panels, to me they work, look, and feel better than the windows task bar ever did. The menu system is simple and concise - Windows always felt cluttered. Nautilus is a great disk management tool, I have been a fan of explorer for years, but Nautilus simplifies things, it's cleaner and more organised. The compiz desktop effects are not all about 'showing off', many are extremely helpful in keeping things organised. Virtual Desktops, I love this feature - I work 90% of the time on a laptop and screen real-estate is important to me, combined with compiz, I get a much more functional system that makes the desktop seem larger and seamless. The terminal: yes I am tech person, and yes that helps, but the terminal really isn't that hard to understand - the more I use it, the more I love it and realise just how powerful and flexible it really is.

I could go on and on (honestly), and these 'little things' are just a few things that keep me from going to back to Windows - the temptation, like I said, is native application compatibility, but other than that I just don't know what I gain, but I do know what I loose.

[mips]

I'm getting the 32&64bit RC1 in the next few days and definately will test it.

[.Maleficus.]

Maybe it's just because I use Arch and therefore think everything else is bloated, but I didn't find Windows 7 to be any more bloated than Ubuntu...

[CJ Master]

Maybe it's just because I use Arch and therefore think everything else is bloated, but I didn't find Windows 7 to be any more bloated than Ubuntu...

I like Windows 7, but common. 3 gigs for Ubuntu vs 20 something for 7...?

And Ubuntu actually comes with an office program and the such.

[.Maleficus.]

I like Windows 7, but common. 3 gigs for Ubuntu vs 20 something for 7...?

And Ubuntu actually comes with an office program and the such.
Your install was 20-some gigs? Mine wasn't...

And when I say bloated, I mean it comes packed with crap I don't need. Therefore, Ubuntu = bloated, Windows 7 = bloated.

[cprofitt]

In my opinion, Windows 7 is not a threat to OS X & Linux because of several reasons:

1) Windows 7 is Vista warmed over and we know how well Vista sold
2) Bad marketing by Microsoft: 6 or 7 different Win 7 versions, ala Vista, which confused customers
3) Microsoft has the worst track record of any software company on the planet for attempting to make reliable, secure operating systems and software.
4) DRM

----

1) OS X 10.5 is just OS X 10.4, 10.3, 10.2, 10.1 and 10.0 warmed over. Ubuntu 9.04 is just Ubuntu 8.10, 8.04, etc... warmed over. Not sure I am following you.
2) Granted Microsoft can not advertise well... they stink at marketing.
3) OS X is actually, in its current form, less technically secure than Vista.
4) OS X includes DRM as do many Blue Ray players - at least in the same way I understand Windows to include DRM; is there a difference I have missed?

[aschwerin.moses]

well yes, why does windows take so much of space.. i have windows xp, vista, win 7, ubuntu and mac in my system... Vista (the most idiotic software) takes around 8GB and 20 GB after upgrade :O ... windows 7 take around 8 GB after update...

why why does anyone develop an OS which needs 20GB of space... crap..

[Giant Speck]

I don't understand the very large differences in how much space Windows 7 takes up on their hard drive after installation.

Windows 7 took up 4.8 GB of space after installation on my computer.

[majamba]

i have to agree the interface is better, but it does take long time to boot,
and second i still had turn uac off, most of application are performing well

[Giant Speck]

and second i still had turn uac off

Do you run Linux as root, too?

[pwnst*r]

i have to agree the interface is better, but it does take long time to boot,
and second i still had turn uac off, most of application are performing well

weird. on one of my laptops and on my dekstop it boots quicker than 8.10 and almost as quick as 9.04.

[k2t0f12d]

weird. on one of my laptops and on my dekstop it boots quicker than 8.10 and almost as quick as 9.04.In virtual machines, Win7 weighed in at 5.7GB disk and Vista w'SP1 7.2GB disk.

Speaking for myself, I don't know what's changed.

[ricardofilipemoreira]

wtf??? people this is the UBUNTU forum --->LINUX as in NOT WINDOWS<---
why are you keeping threads like this where you don't even speak about the product this forum is about? yeah windows 7 is nice but this is not the place for that! there are other forums that are ONLY about windows vista & 7!:evil:

the only thing you guys are doing is spam and advertising. please quit it. talk about the product at hand. this is for questions about, feedback on discussions about, and troubleshooting of UBUNTU LINUX!


THINK! talking about stupidity and that's exactly what's going on here. grrrrrrrrr

[nandemonai]

wtf??? people this is the UBUNTU forum --->LINUX as in NOT WINDOWS<---
why are you keeping threads like this where you don't even speak about the product this forum is about? yeah windows 7 is nice but this is not the place for that! there are other forums that are ONLY about windows vista & 7!:evil:

the only thing you guys are doing is spam and advertising. please quit it. talk about the product at hand. this is for questions about, feedback on discussions about, and troubleshooting of UBUNTU LINUX!


THINK! talking about stupidity and that's exactly what's going on here. grrrrrrrrr

"The Community Cafe
The Community Chat area is for lighthearted and enjoyable discussions, like you might find around a water cooler at work.

Almost any non-tech-support topic may be discussed here. Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed, except for politics directly related to free and open source issues. Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed. This area is intended for fun and community building, not arguments. Please take those elsewhere. Thanks!"

[LoloftheRings]

Reviewing Windows 7 is a good way to improve Ubuntu and see what the community thinks of it. Many people still have a dual boot (so do I). Where do they use this dual boot for, and how can we get this feature in Ubuntu? This topic is actually really good for Ubuntu.

And remember: Linux is about choices. So yes, Windows is an option for Linux users too.

[jrusso2]

Windows 7 is fine if that's what you want to use. But most solid Linux users will not be swayed by it. We just prefer to use Linux.

[Fourcultures]

I'd be interested to know what features 7 has that are actually worth getting. So far it seems like the main reason to install it is to fix the problems with Vista. Is there anything actually positive about it, apart from the non-specific 'it's great' response?

I'm asking this because we have two Vista machines in the house and I'm considering whether to change to 7 or to upgrade to Linux. Having dual booted my notebook with Ubuntu 9.04 and XP I haven't used XP once. I'm wondering if there are any features of WIndows 7 that really make it worth paying out for.

[MasterNetra]

I haven't tried Win7 myself yet, any thoughts on how well it would preform on a Dell Latitude D530 with 1GB of Ram and a 256 Graphics Card (Standard Intel Mobile Chipset)? Also I to have a issue with my graphics card overheating (i guess) which results in the video driver failing. On ubuntu & XP the system would simply die, (Well screen would be crap on Ubuntu at least after failing and XP the notorious blue screen of death) while with Vista, the system actually made attempts to recover the driver and continue (only after several rapid failures would it die.) I wonder how Win7 will handle my overheating problem. (I would think it would make the recovery attempts like vista does at the very least.)

[Screwdriver0815]

I would like to ask some hard facts about Windows 7 to all these people who say that it is soo amazingly good. I really prefer some hard fact technical answers and not "its just superior and nice looking" as answers to my questions. So here they are:

1. what in Windows 7 is better than in Xp? With that I do NOT mean the look. Just technical stuff.

2. can I install everything I want on it? Does it run Win 98 applications too?

3. how much does it cost?

4. what are the minimum system requirements?

5. which applications are included?

6. does it support my Brother DCP115 printer out of the box?

7. does it have multiple desktops? Or is there any app which simulates them without crashing the system as soon as you open an excelfile?

okay, now one could say: "go to google for your answers" but I want to know if anyone of you Windows 7 praisers really has digged into the system, or if you just talk about it because "the uncle of your girlfriends mother has had it recently on his computer at work". ;)

I really would appreciate some answers to the questions ;) :popcorn: :D

[ubuwatson]

I have been evaluating Windows 7 and here are my unbiased thoughts....

1) It's faster. Boots faster, feels faster, and uses less resources.

2) To me, it's still 90% Vista, I am not sure why so many reviewers are quick to say it looks better, because it's pretty much the same GUI sans a few wallpapers and minor tweaks.

3) Running applications like Adobe CS3 and Lightroom actually don't feel any faster under Windows 7 as opposed to running them in XP SP3 under VirtualBox inside Ubuntu 9.04. That is good news as I wondered what performance differences there were between running Windows applications natively and running them under Virtualbox.

4) While it's an improved upon product, many of the features still feel outdated compared to the functionality included in Ubuntu (such as compiz, virtual desktops, synaptic, notifications etc). The new task bar doesn't really impress me - if anything it seems annoying more than anything else. From time to time the system still shows the spinning blue circle and my fans and disks are constantly running on my laptop (Ubuntu remains quiet in this regard).

I'd state that the product has been improved upon and is slightly better than Vista, however I wasn't swayed at all to switch back. If I gave Vista an honest 6 out of 10, I'd say that Windows 7 is a 7 out of 10.

[don_quixote]

After 1 month of using Ubuntu, I am not so convinced about Win 7. Nice, yes. Still, I prefer my own customized UI to what Win 7 is offering.

[CJ Master]

1) It's faster. Boots faster, feels faster, and uses less resources.



Faster then what? If you mean Ubuntu 9.04, that's amazing, I've used Win7 and it booted a bit slower then XP for me, but doesn't come close to Arch's or 9.04's bootup.

[LoloftheRings]

Although I'm pretty impressed by it's performance (in Microsoft terms speaking) and it's ease of use, my surround sound won't work. Also, DirectX11 is very slow on my machine. I'm gonna reinstall XP so I have ubuntu/XP again.

[Giant Speck]

Although I'm pretty impressed by it's performance (in Microsoft terms speaking) and it's ease of use, my surround sound won't work. Also, DirectX11 is very slow on my machine. I'm gonna reinstall XP so I have ubuntu/XP again.

Whatever works for you is what's really important. :)

[ubuwatson]

Faster then what? If you mean Ubuntu 9.04, that's amazing, I've used Win7 and it booted a bit slower then XP for me, but doesn't come close to Arch's or 9.04's bootup.

No, I meant Windows 7 boots faster than Vista.

[MellonCollie]

Release date: October 22nd (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10253924-56.html)

[arrk]

What drivers? Where do they come from?. There is nothing sata on my motherboard. My motherboard does't even support sata.

EDIT: reading over that it sounds like I'm angry with you. Not the case, just got flu and sick of typing long sentences :)

Another confused attemptee at installing RC7! I'm getting the same message. I have both SATA & IDE CD-ROMs in my machine. I
get the same message trying either.

I have set up a USB memory stick with all my drivers on it - which does not solve the problem either.

HELP!!!

[CJ Master]

Another confused attemptee at installing RC7! I'm getting the same message. I have both SATA & IDE CD-ROMs in my machine. I
get the same message trying either.

I have set up a USB memory stick with all my drivers on it - which does not solve the problem either.

HELP!!!

You might have a better chance on a Windows forum..

[mips]

Been using 64bit RC full time for a week now and it runs great. It's fast, stable & has low resource usage. It's nothing like that pig Vista.

I think MS has a winner here to be honest.

[rookcifer]

I installed Windoze 7 in Virtualbox the other day. One thing that I LOL'ed about was one of the wallpapers. It was a picture of a bunch of penguins on an iceberg. WTF? :D

[Giant Speck]

I installed Windoze 7 in Virtualbox the other day. One thing that I LOL'ed about was one of the wallpapers. It was a picture of a bunch of penguins on an iceberg. WTF? :D

They've also got a photo of a koala in there, too.

Hmmmm.... coincidence??? :p

[Skripka]

Been using 64bit RC full time for a week now and it runs great. It's fast, stable & has low resource usage. It's nothing like that pig Vista.

I think MS has a winner here to be honest.

I ran x64 Win7 RC for about 5 minutes, before I found that all most of my critical apps don't support 64bit Windows yet. Wiped the x64 drive, and installed 32bit instead over my XP install and it is smooth sailing.


Has anyone else noticed that the AntiVirus slowdown problem is still quite evident? I installed Sophos for kicks (Free courtesy of my Uni), and it quite literally killed the performance until I uninstalled it.

[mips]

I ran x64 Win7 RC for about 5 minutes, before I found that all most of my critical apps don't support 64bit Windows yet. .

Only critical apps i have are Steam & Counter Strike Source and they work fine.

[JessicaD]

Mips,

Its great that you are loving Windows 7 so much! You are correct, aside from advanced security, 7 also offers enhanced performance, low resource consumption, fantastic stability, increased performance and so much more. To get some great tips / tricks for use with Windows 7, head on over Microsoft Springboard.

<snip>

Jessica
Microsoft TechNet / Springboard
v-jedeen@microsoft.com

[rookcifer]

Mips,

Its great that you are loving Windows 7 so much! You are correct, aside from advanced security, 7 also offers enhanced performance, low resource consumption, fantastic stability, increased performance and so much more. To get some great tips / tricks for use with Windows 7, head on over Microsoft Springboard.

http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft TechNet / Springboard
v-jedeen@microsoft.com

My how times have changed. M$ now sends its employees over to the forums of a FLOSS rival OS in order to advertise its latest version of Windoze.

[the8thstar]

Wow, I never thought the thread I started would go this far... and now Microsoft is following the thread too. That's quite amusing.

[the8thstar]

I ran x64 Win7 RC for about 5 minutes, before I found that all most of my critical apps don't support 64bit Windows yet. Wiped the x64 drive, and installed 32bit instead over my XP install and it is smooth sailing.


Has anyone else noticed that the AntiVirus slowdown problem is still quite evident? I installed Sophos for kicks (Free courtesy of my Uni), and it quite literally killed the performance until I uninstalled it.

I installed Avast! and didn't experience any slowdown. Try it and tell us how it went.

[Giant Speck]

My how times have changed. M$ now sends its employees over to the forums of a FLOSS rival OS in order to advertise its latest version of Windoze.

Last time I checked, TechNet users were not Microsoft employees.

[quinnten83]

Well, it's better than Vista and has a nicer interface.
Feels more solid than even Ubuntu. But that is just the feeling of it.
But I still stick to Ubuntu for my daily stuff, since most of the software I use is on this end. Also you can't beat the price and the philosophy and business ethics of the linux community.

[Old Marcus]

I must reconsider my opinion on Microsoft. If Ballmer and Co. came and firebombed every Linux/Mac fanboy's home, I would drink myself paraletic in celebration (inadvertantly most likely causing my death). I respect freedom of speech, but at the same time it irks me that people just hate something for the sake of hating it. Linux is not the new Jesus Christ and it never will be. Nor is Windows, Mac, Solaris, DOS, Unix, Punch Cards, Wax cylinders...

Feel free to carry on posting, I just felt I ought to get my views across on fanboys, if rather crudely. :D

[mips]

I must reconsider my opinion on Microsoft. If Ballmer and Co. came and firebombed every Linux/Mac fanboy's home, I would drink myself paraletic in celebration (inadvertantly most likely causing my death). I respect freedom of speech, but at the same time it irks me that people just hate something for the sake of hating it. Linux is not the new Jesus Christ and it never will be. Nor is Windows, Mac, Solaris, DOS, Unix, Punch Cards, Wax cylinders...

Feel free to carry on posting, I just felt I ought to get my views across on fanboys, if rather crudely. :D

I appreciate what you are saying but I don't think it will go down well with the normal crowd here. But I will have have a cheers to you.

[Old Marcus]

I appreciate what you are saying but I don't think it will go down well with the normal crowd here. But I will have have a cheers to you.
You can inform my friends and relatives of my demise when I am lynched, deal? ;)

[mips]

You can inform my friends and relatives of my demise when I am lynched, deal? ;)

I hate being the bearer of bad news but it is a burden I will carry ;)

[k2t0f12d]

I respect freedom of speech, but at the same time it irks me that people just hate something for the sake of hating it.I have discussed my reasons for hating proprietary software, including Micro$oft Windows, at length on these forums, and not merely for the sake of hating.

[Old Marcus]

I have discussed my reasons for hating proprietary software, including Micro$oft Windows, at length on these forums, and not merely for the sake of hating.
Always stops me from taking anyone seriously when I see that. But anyway.

I understand people's reasons for disliking Microsoft and its practices, I find some of them detestable as well. Perhaps it is because I am on a Linux forum, but I see Windows bashing nearly around every corner, and it is tiresome after a while. I am also aware that my argument has probably been spouted endless times as well.

I will admit, when I shifted to Linux, I was a bit of a fanatic as well, spouting the common views of our 'side' for sake of it, but after having used Linux for nearly a year now, I have a more balanced view. I don't hugely care whether Linux becomes top dog or not, I'm more interested in what it can do for me on a practical level.

I guess the whole point of this post is just to say that rampant fanboy/girlism seriously irks me, and also acceptance that it won't go away, and that I should just live with it.

[tcoffeep]

I look forward to the official release. I just hope it won't have as many issues as Vista did.

[k2t0f12d]

I guess the whole point of this post is just to say that rampant fanboy/girlism seriously irks me, and also acceptance that it won't go away, and that I should just live with it.Its the same for both sides of any issue. You took me seriously enough to give a thoughtful reply. I also do not care which particular operating system is most popular or used the most or whatever the position of "top-dog" entails. But I'd only support those with freedom-respecting licenses. I prefer GNU+Linux and refuse Windows for technical reasons, and speak against Micro$oft for the things they do. If they at least made Windows free software, I would support their enterprise even if I didn't want to use the software. I think they owe a bit more then that to various parties they've wronged, but an offer of a program with an honest, freedom-respecting license would be good enough for me to overlook the company's history.