backtop

Software Microsoft's Windows 7 Beta 1 Leaks
Jason Mick (Blog) - December 29, 2008 11:32 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 150 comment(s) - last by Gastrian.. on Jan 3 at 8:35 PM

Windows 7's new taskbar, only enabled in Windows 7 M3 by a special tool, is now see more use. The result is that many reviewers are leveling criticism against the toolbar's cluttered eye-candy design concept.  (Source: Paul Thurrott)

The new jump lists are one of the nicer features of Windows 7, which allows you to launch programs with a specific option, such as going to a specific site or opening a load dialogue.  (Source: Paul Thurrott )
New Windows offers similar experience to milestones with some improvements

With Windows 7 scheduled to hit retailers mid-to-late 2009, Microsoft has been working in a frenzy to prepare for its launch.  It bumped up the development schedule for Windows Vista's second service pack, airing its beta early this month.  Windows 7 itself has been on a tough schedule itself, dropping milestone releases that have been creating a great deal of public buzz. 

Some have questioned whether Microsoft can accomplish the sharp turnaround in several key areas like overhead and compatibility, which it has promised for Windows 7, in the shorter development cycle.  Others have been impressed by the early promising signs of the milestone releases.

Microsoft made news yesterday when the very-significant first beta of Windows 7 leaked to torrents as an ISO file.  The beta won't be released to testers until next month, but those eager to try it out can catch it on torrent for now.

How does it look?  Well, early impressions show some minor differences from previous builds, but an experience remarkably similar to that presented to developers at the PDC conference and critiqued by reviewers in the form of milestone releases. 

Windows 7 beta 1 (specifically, the build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400 which hit torrents) is remarkably similar to Windows 7 M3, discussed here at DailyTech.  One key difference is that in the milestone release special features had to be enabled using Rafael Rivera's "Blue Badge" tool, while they come automatically equipped in the beta. 

Overall, Microsoft has gone the OS X route for its Windows 7 development, thus far, delivering a smoother user interface, prettier graphics, improved security, and a major drive to improve compatibility.  The result is an OS that will please many.

The new beta, like the milestone, offers an improved installation process as one perk.  Gone are the annoying post-install performance tests of Windows Vista.  The install takes around 25 minutes, much faster than the average install for Windows Vista or Windows XP.  As just one example, Windows 7 cuts Windows Vista's eight information screens down to five.

One major point of criticism that is echoed by virtually all reviewers is the new OS X-like taskbar.  Reviewers fault not concept, but the implementation of it, which sees Microsoft allow program shortcuts to lump together with running tasks to create a hard to decipher mess.  Paul Thurrott, a strong Microsoft supporter describes, "For all the niceties of the new taskbar, this comingling of different functions is a whopper of a mistake, and one that will actively harm most Windows users."

One interesting new feature, again not new to the beta is the "Aero Peek" feature, which allows you to see the desktop without minimizing windows, useful when running multiple applications.  Jump lists are another great new feature.  When entering the start menu, you now have the option of launching programs with a specific task, i.e. going to a specific website in internet explorer or opening with a load file dialog in Microsoft Word.  This feature saves users a bit of time.

A few new features and changes do crop up in the beta versus the M3 release.  The beta eliminates the M3 releases' two-button shut-down and replaces it with a single button, with a popout menu for extra options.  The beta also ditches the lighthouse icon for the action center, which contains solutions to the computer's problems.  It replaces it with a flag icon that's easier to see. 

The beta also adds themes, which are decorative skins that allow you to create customized profiles containing desktop backgrounds, window colors, sounds, and a screensaver.  The feature is nice, albeit eye-candy.

Overall, again Windows 7 beta while possibly changing by the time of its official release, remains remarkably similar to the Windows 7 M3 release. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By dubyadubya on 12/29/2008 12:53:46 PM , Rating: 5
Vista has gotten a bad reputation for IMO no good reason. I have been using Vista for several months now and find it is a big improvement over XP. I held off switching to Vista because of all the bad press it was getting. Hell even MS is acting like Vista is turd. I hope MS does not totally fubar Windows 7 trying to fix problems that Vista did not even have. Now I'm all for smaller tighter faster running code but please please MS do not blow everything to hell in Windows 7.

People need to clear their heads of all the BS about Vista and give it a chance. Sure its different than XP. If it was the same why change over to it. It took me about a week to get used to the layout and now feel very at home. I will not be going back to XP that's for sure. Sure Vista had its share of problems when it went gold but so did XP. People did not really fall in love with XP until SP2.




By Motoman on 12/29/2008 12:59:49 PM , Rating: 1
I wholeheartedly disagree. Vista at launch was completely sucktastic, especially with compatibility issues. At this very point in time, my guess is that Vista is probably OK...but I'm still not going to bother. I will wait for Windows 7.

And while I'm trying my best to keep an open mind about W7, I really don't get what the point of a lot of it is. GUI optimizations? Really? That's what we need? I have no idea how it is that people need extra widgets and gadgets and stuff on their desktop...XP's GUI is, well, perfect as far as I can tell. Any other crap just makes it worse.

What I really am hoping for is excellent compatibility and strong 64-bit performance and stability. I don't give a rat's about "Aero" or whatever. The *only* thing that seems to be valuable to me over XP is a widespread adoption of 64-bit to leverage larger amounts of RAM. 64-bit XP was ignored...Vista kind of took off, let's hope W7 gets the job done.


By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 1:26:27 PM , Rating: 3
It depends really. Most of the compatibility issues were from third party developers, most of which failed on the 64-bit side of things. I actually used Vista since well into the betas, probably close to 2 years before its release and never once did it perform badly or have any driver issues.


By StevoLincolnite on 12/29/2008 6:32:41 PM , Rating: 5
Back in our day when we were young whipper snappers, XP had the same compatibility issues that Vista did.

Alcohol 120% - Forget it, took them ages to get a version to work on XP and the same went for Nero.

Had a 3dfx Voodoo 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Banshee, Rush? - Forget it, 3dfx never managed to release an XP driver before being absorbed by nVidia, until the community got to gather and made a working driver!

Allot of older games like Dungeon Keeper 2 refused to work on XP until people made patches and cracks.


By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 9:59:47 PM , Rating: 3
Ha, don't think I don't remember those days. I remember people complaining about how every game wouldn't run and every other day you would see "<Insert game title here> XP compatibility patch"

I'm not sure why people complain, maybe those that never experienced XP when it was new, and now that the internet is more easily accessible, it's easier to spread an opinion about how bad something is.


By therealnickdanger on 12/29/2008 10:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
I remember the HELL that was Windows 95 when it first came out. I was trying to migrate from about 60/40% usage between DOS and W3.1 to 100% W95. It never really happened - some developers of programs I liked to use struggled to let go of DOS. It wasn't until revision C that you could use USB devices IIRC. Then there was W98 (meh), then W98se (excellent). I skipped over ME (like most people) and moved right into W2K. God, I loved me some W2K. I used that OS until right before XP SP2 was released. I had some beef with XP as well, I even stripped it naked so that it would still look like W2K.

Then, for fun, I loaded Vista Beta on my laptop back in 2006. (1.8GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 7800GS) It loaded like a dream and unlike XP SP2, Vista Beta found ALL my drivers, I didn't have to do a damn thing manually. For the first time, I also didn't disable any desktop effects or anything, I liked the polish. I've been using Vista ever since - haven't looked back. I've mastered its quirks, but it really doesn't have many. It just runs smooth and fast all day, every day.


By jkostans on 12/30/2008 10:17:16 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah but if you had hardware and drivers that actually worked for XP, it was a huge step in stability over 98. Even though I switched pre-SP1, I had mostly recent hardware so driver issues were few and far in between. Well except a diamond monster aureal 3D card which was hell getting working. But at least there was something worth switching for.

I'm sure Vista is better than XP, but beyond DX10 I could really care less as a user. Microsoft needs to release a 64-bit only OS. This 32-bit option stuff needs to go because all it does is distract the developers from supporting the future. I would like to use all 4GB of my ram and be able to add more since it's as cheap as dirt. I would like to use the 64-bit functionality I paid for in my CPU. I know vista has 64-bit option, but as long as the 32-bit version exists there will be minimal support for it. It's been 13 years, I think it's time we switched.


By Takemaru on 1/2/2009 11:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, people forget all these Os's start out immature. I remember going back and forth between Xp and 98 twice in the first year. They may run good in beta, but when out in the wild, historically, MS Os's DO NOT immediately surpass their predecessors, and i expect the same with W7. I'll definitely wait at least a year past the release before i even consider moving from vista.

But i can still dual boot to check it out :p


By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 1:29:23 PM , Rating: 5
The Vista launch was not great, but the XP launch was worse.. Perhaps in Vista there were various problems, especially with video and sound drivers, but upon XP release, sound and video barely even worked. You basically had to buy new hardware in order to get suitable drivers.Sound blaster drivers for example were non existent for 6 months into release. Basically an XP install on release meant you were using all base windows drivers, barely anything else worked.

As for your GUI rant, don't knock it until you try it. Obviously you totally missed the part where MS is losing marketshare to a OSX, mainly because of the dated GUI. I find the new GUI to be very intuitive. Although it takes getting used too.

XP 64 was not ignored, it just came out two years before the first full fledged 64bit CPU(A64) was released. Windows XP was never designed to be a 64bit OS, it was basically patchwork to serve as a starting point for the advancement of 64bit.
Although I have yet to try it (as only the 32bit beta has been released) I am looking forward to a 64bit version of Windows 7. With its lowered memory requirements, perhaps you won't need 4GB of ram to run smoothly.


By FITCamaro on 12/29/2008 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 4
Vista Home Premium x64 runs fine on 2GB of RAM. I currently have 4GB but I game. Soon I'll have 8GB but only because tigerdirect had a deal for 4GB OCZ SLI DDR2-800 kits for $10.


By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 2:22:10 PM , Rating: 1
I tested Vista Home Premium x64 vs 32bit on a 2GB system, and it certainly runs faster in 32bit. Many people agree with me, and think that for x64 and Vista, 3GB is the minimum. 64 bit code requires extra overhead, which requires more RAM. This is not really a weakness of Vista, but 64bit in general. Even linux requires at least 2GB of RAM to run smoothly in 64bit.

I am running Windows 7 32 bit right now while only using a little bit over 300megs of RAM with 4 IE windows open. This gives me hope that 64bit less RAM will be a better experience.


By Mitch101 on 12/29/2008 3:17:28 PM , Rating: 4
I went from XP64 to Vista 64. Vista 64 has been excellent to me. I would say its faster than XP64 because it pre-loads a few things I do daily. I have not had any 32bit compatibility problems either and while I expected a performance hit of running 32bit apps on Vista 64 I haven't noticed any. They might be there but I haven't seen it.

For current Vista people who like it I am not sure if I will upgrade to Windows 7. But upgrading from XP to Vista had a little learning curve but I like the improvements now that I can find my way around.

Vista Ultimate people I believe deserve a free upgrade to Windows 7 because Ultimate was supposed to have some exclusive updates but really hasn't delivered on that premium.


By TomZ on 12/29/2008 4:46:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vista Ultimate people I believe deserve a free upgrade to Windows 7 because Ultimate was supposed to have some exclusive updates but really hasn't delivered on that premium.
I agree. Ultimate has delivered a number of additional features, but in my opinion, they're not worth the time to download and install them. Here is the list of Extras that I haven't downloaded:
- BitLocker and EFS enhancements
- Hold Em Poker Game
- Microsoft Tinker
- Ultimate Extras Sounds from Microsoft Tinker
- Windows DreamScene
- Windows Sound Schemes


By MrPerez on 12/29/2008 4:10:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am running Windows 7 32 bit right now while only using a little bit over 300megs of RAM with 4 IE windows open.


Hey just a friendly reminder, Microsoft Added a cool new feature to Internet Explorer 7+ that you might have over looked called tabs, might want to look into those (-:


By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 1
thanks for the tutorial ;) The ui is a bit different in 7, I was trying to get more than one of the same instance open at the same time. Pressing on the IE button in the tasktray again merely minimizes it. So it seems like MS is also trying to promote its tabbing features.


By xRyanCat on 12/30/2008 1:46:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Even linux requires at least 2GB of RAM to run smoothly in 64bit.


You've obviously never actually ran Linux in a 64-bit configuration. It definitely doesn't require 2GB of RAM to run smoothly. Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora, all zip around perfectly with HALF of that. The only thing that regularly sucks up memory is Firefox (3), Nautilus (caching things), and a few other apps. FF3 is better than FF2, but it can still eat up 300MB of your memory in a heartbeat.

The extra overhead of x86-64 VS x86-32 isn't so large as to require a memory increase like you speak of.


By omnicronx on 12/30/2008 9:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
I am sorry, compare a 1GB 32bit machine to a 1GB 64bit machine and there is no comparison. Whats the point of having a 64 bit system if it is slower than a 32bit setup? As you have stated, FF can use a large amount of ram, I especially had problems with lockups and slowdowns when using it. In my experience I have found a 1gig 64 bit machine behaves like a 32bit 512M machine, thus my 2gig minimum recommendation.

I've even compared RAM usage with a the exact same programs open. A Ggnome session, FF, thunderbird and a few desktop applets used around 200-230M of ram in 32 bit mode. The exact same programs open in 64bit used around 350-400M of ram. Thats almost a 100% increase. Perhaps if you were run mainly 32bit apps in compatibility mode it may not take up that extra ram, but in the nix environment where you have true 64bit applications, RAM does matter.


By Bateluer on 12/29/2008 2:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
There were two versions of XP 64. The first was released in 2001 for Intel's Itaniums. Because of the Itanium's target market and cost, nobody using those CPUs was going to run XP or even Windows at all. The second release of XP 64 came several months after the launch of the Athlon 64, and was largely ignored because of the 'impending' release of Longhorn, now known as Vista.

I've been using Vista 64 Business since Oct 2007 myself. I've found it be incredibly stable and perform like a dream, in fact, faster than XP. It has never crashed, not even once in the entire time I've been running it. The only compatibility issues I've ran into are in older applications that are extremely dated, and no longer supported by their developers. Or their developers are no longer in business. Still, I've been able to get all of these applications working through some tweaking.

In all honesty, once W7 is released, people will begin hating it because its new and changes things. And then everyone will be praising Vista, likely in SP2 release. Mark my words.


By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 4
I knew someone would bring up the Itaniums. These were 64bit only processors meant for enterprise use and was one of the biggest flops in Intel's history (only around 200k Itanium systems were sold from 2001-2007).The original release of XP for 64 bit was for I64 and will not work the x64 processors you are used to (whether it be AMD or Intel). This being said, the 2001 64 bit and 2003 releases were two totally different OS's that supported different hardware, along with the addition of a compatibility layer for 32 bit in the 2003 release.


By FuzionMonkey on 12/29/2008 1:35:59 PM , Rating: 4
People complained about XP and said Windows 2000 was perfect. The Vista UI without UAC is a lot better than XP. Windows 7 looks like its becoming even better.


By oralpain on 1/2/2009 7:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
I vastly prefer Windows 2000 to XP, assuming non n-liting involved.

Honestly though, UI is the least of my concerns.


By dubyadubya on 12/29/2008 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 4
You may be right but I have no way to prove it either way. I started using XP when it went Gold. I had to replace my printer, scanner and many of my applications because they just did not work in XP. I only switched to Vista after sp1 came out but guess what 99% of the hardware/software I had runs fine in Vista 64 bit sp1.

Trouble spots are my new HP C6380 and Nero 7.
I had been using a Canon printer but it failed and I made the mistake of buying a HP all in one product. I should have done more research before buying but I did not. Nero 7 has compatibility problems with Vista but Nero 7 was a POS anyway so no big deal. Otherwise every program I have works fine in Vista. I was worried about games as I'm a gamer but I have yet to find a game that does not work in Vista.

There is nothing wrong with waiting for Windows 7 other than the probability that it will have teething problems just like every RTM OS has to date. I guess the main point I'm trying to get across is for the people that need to build or buy a new PC now. You do not have to loose sleep over switching to Vista because it is a step up from XP not a step down as public opinion would suggest.


By FjiTech on 12/29/2008 1:42:00 PM , Rating: 1
Amazing that someone thinks there own, single, experience with Vista should be generalized to everyone else. I continue to experience a lot of problems with Vista installs and see a lot of customers that cannot take any more - they want to switch to XP so they can get their work done. Personally, I use XP, Vista, a Mac, and Ubuntu; "getting used to it" is not the problem I had with Vista or one of the ones I still have.


By Targon on 12/29/2008 4:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
An issue that was mentioned was that driver issues are where the vast majority of Vista issues come from. This means that if you are installing Vista without using up-to-date drivers, you may run into problems caused by old drivers being included on the Vista install CD/DVD you are using.

Complaining about things being broken without trying to use newer/better drivers than those on the original install disc will only reinforce the belief that you have no desire trying to get those systems working properly. Do you only use the drivers that come with the hardware you use, or do you check online for driver updates that MAY solve the issues you have?


By Some1ne on 12/29/2008 5:00:04 PM , Rating: 4
What a foolish post. None of the problems you complain about are Microsoft's fault or responsibility. Microsoft does not produce the drivers used to interface with hardware components, third-party developers do. And Microsoft has little to no power over those third party developers. So if you're going to complain about compatibility issues, at least focus your blame on the correct party, and get on the phone and tell your hardware vendor to get off their ass and provide some Vista drivers that don't suck.

The same goes for 64-bit performance. It's not Microsoft's fault if developers neglect to write 64-bit versions of their software, or if they neglect to optimize their 64-bit code effectively. If what you want is solid, reliable, and fast 64-bit software, then you should be complaining to the software vendors, not the OS vendor.

You seem to have misunderstood exactly what it is an Operating System does, which is simply to provide an environment in which software can execute. An operating system is not some sort of magic abstraction layer than inherently knows how to communicate with every obscure hardware device that might be plugged in to your system. Nor does it provide some sort of fantastical execution engine that allows poorly written and/or poorly optimized code to run efficiently and stably. All the OS does is provide an environment in which external programs can execute, and the behavior of those programs depends far more upon the quality of the program than it does upon the quality of the OS. So there's little sense in faulting the OS manufacturer over the poor quality of programs/drivers authored by third-party vendors. There's nothing they can do to fix that kind of problem.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/29/2008 5:36:41 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, Vista has taken the brunt of the teething pains for 64-bit. Also, Vista introduced a new driver model, which caused some problems. Windows 7 benefits from the fact that vendors are now much more familiar with the new ways of doing things. I doubt we'll see the kind of break-in period we saw with Vista when 7 comes out.

So while I think compatibility won't be a huge problem this time, I'd still consider waiting for W7SP1, just to be sure everything's hunky dory in other fields. Unless you don't have Vista, and are ready to ditch XP.


By 16nm on 12/30/2008 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what we need?


No, but then we'd have been OK if Microsoft stuck with Windows 2000 and kept updating it w/service packs. Of course, MS shareholders want to see earnings growth but I think the general public are happy to see new versions with new names.

quote:
The *only* thing that seems to be valuable to me over XP is a widespread adoption of 64-bit to leverage larger amounts of RAM. 64-bit XP was ignored...Vista kind of took off, let's hope W7 gets the job done.


Vista x64 is good. I've been using it since release and have zero complaints. XP x64 is an awful product. It was not ready for the general public.

My only complaint about Vista is that Media Center lacks support for Bluray and subchannels.


By ccmfreak2 on 12/29/2008 1:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
Although all your points are valid, I disagree with your subject title, and don't believe that any of your points supports the fact that Vista will make or break W7. I have been using Vista 64bit for several months now, and love it. But it doesn't change the fact that Vista is a resource hog. That is what is really getting to people about Vista (that and they originally launched Vista on systems running w/ 512 RAM). Now, it doesn't bother me any - I'm running on 4 gigs. But this - and compatability - were the major issues that have prevented Vista from taking off. The compatability has been fixed, but Vista still has a bad taste in the mouths of the masses - even those who have never touched it.

The promise Windows 7, however has excited every Windows user who didn't like Vista, and most of those who have liked Vista. So, I don't see Vista making or breaking W7 at all. Now, with that said, past W7 articles have stated that w7 still uses a lot of resources. I don't see anything in this article addressing resource usage, but that is what is really going to make or break W7 - how much resources will it use, and how much resources will the machines running it launch with?


By dubyadubya on 12/29/2008 1:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why is MS speeding up the W7 launch? Because the the public thinks Vista is fubar. So MS is going to fix this in W7. What happens when you try to fix a problem that does not exist. You tell me. I say my subject title is right on the money.


By bmheiar on 12/29/2008 2:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
What compatibility issues are you talking about, other than 3rd party software & hardware drivers (early Nvidia drivers for the majority of the issues, Creative, HP, & etc.)? That is not the fault of Vista or Microsoft, but of those 3rd party hardware/software.

I was hesisant too about Vista, with all the bad press and opinions all over the web, forum boards, & etc., But when I decided to build a new system (X38 motherboard, Q6600, Nvidia 8800GT, 4 GB of RAM, 3 500 Gb SATA HDDs & etc.) after X-mas 07, I took the plunge with Vista 64-bit. Mainly to be able to use 4 GB of RAM. Last month I upgraded to 8GB of RAM.

I have been using Vista 64-Bit Ultimate for close to a year now For me, the only issues I have are from 3rd party Hardware/Software compatibility issues, not with Vista itself. Mainly HP not willing to update drivers to 64-bit for printers & scanners that are 5+ years old (closer to 10 years old). I found a work around, by using 64-bit drivers from another "newer" printer and with the scanner I had to reinstall drivers from another "newer" scanner each and every time I wanted to use it. But with the work arounds, I lost features and functions, like the Duplexer (automatic printing on both sides) & etc. I had to manually do it. So I recently got a new printer & scanner, because I got tired of not having full functions, features, and usage out of my old but still good printer & scanner.

For me, the only real 3rd party software issue I had was that Nero 8 did not want to install fully. But I found out why instead of immediately blaming Vista or Microsoft. I went to Nero's website and read about their known issues with Vista. Mainly Nero will not install some features, because Vista has something very similar already installed. I would have preferred to have Nero's full features over using Vista's similar features, but oh well.

But it doesn't change the fact that Vista is a resource hog. That is what is really getting to people about Vista (that and they originally launched Vista on systems running w/ 512 RAM).

That is not Vista's or Microsoft's fault, the blame should be put on the computer/laptop manufacturers (Dell, HP/Compaq, Acer, & etc.). Because they are the ones who chose to install Vista on machines that did not have the correct hardware & amount of memory, to meet the requirements to run Vista fully with Aero ON. Because they wanted to push cheap inexpensive systems, because customers wanted to spend a little as possible on computer systems. But that is just my opinion. For instance, if I had a laptop built by Dell with everything that I wanted that they offered in the system, it would be over $3000. I would rather build my own system, than to buy a pre-built system from them. So I know exactly what is going into the system, to know what or where the limitations are.


By bmheiar on 12/29/2008 3:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention that I have XP Pro on one of the HDDs to make it a dual boot system, just in case I needed to revert back to XP. And I can say I have not needed too, since I installed Vista 64-bit.


By Darkskypoet on 12/29/2008 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is not Vista's or Microsoft's fault, the blame should be put on the computer/laptop manufacturers (Dell, HP/Compaq, Acer, & etc.). Because they are the ones who chose to install Vista on machines that did not have the correct hardware & amount of memory, to meet the requirements to run Vista fully with Aero ON.


Actually, it is Microsoft's fault. Because for those wanting cheap machines, they should have been able to walk into a Best Buy / Future Shop / whatever bulk cheapo computer store, and buy said lower end machine with XP. However, Microsoft made this incredibly difficult for most manufacturers, and as such you had a market that lost the OS that performed admirably on said cheap hardware.

For a week during / slightly after Vista launch, these stores had virtually no systems in stock as the transition was taking place, and then after that, no XP machines period on the shelves. As the transition to Vista was mandated by MS. Had MS allowed these cheaper machines , and the vendors that mfg them, to continue to utilize XP, MS probably would have saved itself the bad rap for Vista, as these vendors would not have had to shoehorn in a less then optimal solution for very popular price points.

This is what has given vista the majority of its bad rap, imo; that to an unknowledgable run of the mill user, Systems purchased only a week previous worked fine with old stuff, ran very quickly on substandard hardware, and were not plagued with issues. vs. Those purchased post-vista launch that were sluggish, and issue prone for the same $$ spent.

We can in fact blame MS for forcing vendors to move away from XP systems for the cheap sub $500 (cdn) range of systems, when it was emphatically not required to do so, nor responsible to do so. If the vendors hands were not forced via licensing arrangements, we would not have seen the flood of ill-equipped machines running a relatively more resource hungry OS.

Also; I ran XP 64 for a year plus, and aside from Adobe Acrobat 8, ran into very few issues... With 8gb of ram and my x2-5000 ~3ghz, I absolutely had no complaints as to stability, speed, reliability, or anything else. Further, I have utilized such a base for clients pre-vista, where the extra ram allowed the use of VMs for uber-legacy apps, that would cost far too much to replace because of their specialized nature. Running a VM or 2, w/o a performance hit is nice when you have the available resources to do it. :) Kudos to 8gb of ram and a 64bit OS.

Also, the only reason I switched from xp-64 to vista 64 involves some longer term testing with specialized hardware / apps. Honestly, in my useage, there is very little noticeable difference between xp64 and vista 64, aside from a few more older apps that have to be replaced.

Essentially, yes I can update software to work with vista, but do I want to spend the money if the old solution is working beautifully as it is? Similar to cases for small business; is there any benefit to upgrading, and laying out the money to upgrade all required HW/SW? If so, is it worth the resources to do so? In most cases, the answer has been a resounding no. There is no pressing need to re buy windows licenses, no reason to re buy newer versions of the same software, no reason to replace expensive legacy printers / scanners / etc. One day perhaps? Sure. This year or the next? No.


By zerocool84 on 12/29/2008 5:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's the thing, people expect to be able to run Vista, a brand new OS which always brings higher system requirements, with all the bells and wistles on their 5yr old machine. It's a new OS that changed many things for the good. UAC is good for the average user to help them not infect their computer with their lack of knowledge. Vista is a resource hog cus it actually uses your RAM. Vista is much faster than XP, much more stable, and is a great step forward. Hopefully W7 will tone down the UAC a lot and improve upon Superfetch. It makes things so much snappier.


By knowyourenemy on 12/29/2008 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
I'm in the same boat. I was "forced" to upgrade to Vista due to reasons with work and the software we have to use, but ya'know what, I am actually really enjoying my experience with Vista so far (PS: I turned off UAC first thing). I didn't even want to touch it with a 10'-foot pool if I could help it, and I didn't. The bad PR really got to me.

But it works great so far. 4GB of RAM, Vista Business x64, Maya, ZBrush, and Photoshop all run much better than it did on XP (to my surprise), all of my games work amazingly (DX10! Holy crap!), zero driver compatibility issues with my 3rd parties, and I got a RAID 1 array keeping everything nice and safe (I love the fact that I was able to use a USB stick to install the drivers). I had some issues setting up my dev platforms, but those were quickly remedied with updating my environmental variables to match what was really an issue with my complex setup of hard drives and not Vista.

Vista has been wonderful, and I'm looking forward to the improvements in Windows 7.


By Belard on 12/30/2008 2:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
But there are times when some programs REQUIRE the UAC to be turned on, in order to function. Man did that create a miss... I forgot what the app/function was and thought it was stupid to even demand the UAC.

I turned on the UAC... removed the software, turned off the UAC. Played with Vista for a few days more before upgrading the computer with the included XP-Disc.

For some of my clients, they'll be using XP for another 3~5 years when their PCs get old. For others, we're planning to phasing into Windows7 in 2010 when pretty much all computers will be 3~5 years old.... *IF* Windows7 isn't the mess like Vista is. I doubt it will be. And in 2010, quad-core CPUs will be LOW-END $50 CPUs, with OCTO-CPUs going for $200 or so. 8GB RAM should be $100, tops.

My take is that Windows7 should ONLY be a 64bit OS. I see 4GB DDR2-800Mhz going for $60~70 (quality RAM) today... they shouldn't even bother with 32bit versions. And 4GB should be the standard low-end model.


By Malhavoc on 12/29/2008 4:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft could probably re-badge Vista with UAC turned off by default and everyone would think it is greatest thing since sliced bread. Majority probably wouldn't know as half of the critics have probably never tried or haven't had experience with a changeover to a new operating system.


By ajfink on 12/29/2008 11:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
Big improvement over XP? No. Good OS? Absolutely.


By kyleb2112 on 12/31/2008 5:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
That's my biggest issue with Vista: no compelling reason for the average user to buy it. People just accept the cost of Vista built into the price of a new system the way they accept taxes being taken out of their paycheck. I'm not even a MS hater, but I find it a little creepy.


By Major HooHaa on 12/30/2008 8:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking at an average user, moving from a machine with Windows ME to a new machine with Windows XP seemed like a big step up. There were some very useful advances in the new XP operating system and a big rise in reliability. With Win XP Service Pack 2 I felt that XP had matured.

Then I moved to Vista 64bit and found that some of the functionality that had been in Windows XP had been removed from Vista. There used to be a slideshow option, built into the folders themselves. The photos or images would show on the screen at a decent size and so all I had to do to edit a photo, was to scroll through them, choose the one I wanted to edit and double click on that photo to open in my art package. This was a great leap over looking at tiny thumbnails of photos using Windows ME.

Now with Vista, the slideshow option has been removed from the folders and is now a separate programme, so I have to open my folder of photos into the new separate slideshow programme, scroll through, choose one and make a note of which photo it is. Then go back to the photo folder and right click on that photo. Then in the drop down box that opens, I have to pick which art package I want to open the photo in. The process is now less elegant and more of a roundabout method of viewing and editing my photos. Also, other things that I knew how to do in XP seem to have been hidden away from the user in Vista.

On the resources uses side of things, Vista seems a bit of a resources hog. I have Vista 64 running and Explorer open, but if I bring up the task manager now and look at how much RAM is free out of 4 Gigabytes of main RAM, it tells me I have 4096 Megabytes, with 2926 MB's cached and only 57 Megabytes free... My previous Windows XP machine ran fine on 1 Gigabyte of RAM.

I read elsewhere that after testing, the results were that Windows 7 uses a similar amount of resources as Windows Vista. To think that programmers could once fit a whole programme or computer game into 64 Kilobytes of RAM or less. Two or three small Word files would struggle to fit into that amount of RAM today.

So I think that Vista is quite stable, but it's not quite as user friendly in some ways as XP was* and it is a bit of a resources hog.

I will follow Windows 7's development with interest, but I don't think it will be a huge leap for operating systems.

*Due to one or two features that I thought were great advances over Windows ME, being removed or being replaced with more cumbersome solutions.


By Byte on 12/30/2008 10:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
I loved Beta longhorn, though it didn't have any driver support, it felt like a shift in the right direction. Vista final, however changed all that, huge and bloated.

Seven prebeta built 68XX was amazing. It ran on one of my slower HP laptops like a champ, at least twice as fast as Vista or Server 08 and at times faster than XP. All drivers even worked. Beta 7000 however, feels like Vista again. Seems they turned on a little too much and moved all the menu settings around too much again. Lets hope they don't pull another Vista and mess up what was good.


UI Improvements
By akugami on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: UI Improvements
By theapparition on 12/29/2008 12:53:50 PM , Rating: 5
There is a setting that allows individual folders to be managed independantly, turn that off.

It was the same under XP. Now, stop you whining.


RE: UI Improvements
By akugami on 1/1/2009 2:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't want to manage folders independently. I don't believe you are talking about the same issue. I have global folder settings but the problem is that under "detail view" which every single folder in my system is set to shows different actual "details" and Vista likes to choose which details are shown depending on what file is in each folder.

I detailed my issue. It's not whining, if there is a darned setting so that Vista doesn't choose what details are shown in the detail folder view then either show the steps (because I sure as hell can't find it) or stop being a jerk.

I paid $400 for Vista Ultimate (stupid of me) and I sure as hell don't want it choosing things for me if I can set it to the way I like it. Now, admittedly I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar but I did look at all the folder options. Maybe the option is there, if so just show me where it is because instead of being an ass (and getting upvoted for it as well).


Personally speaking...
By Amiga500 on 12/29/2008 12:04:47 PM , Rating: 3
I like to have quick links to as many things as I can get on the taskbar - I typically run with 2 screens, and my taskbar able to take 3x6 (or more) application links.

Big spasticated icons do not help me achieve the above one little bit. Hopefully they can be modified in size and reduced to realistic levels.

The separate desktops (which I first stumbled across in linux) are brilliant... its easier to group related applications on individual 'desktop' toolbars then.




RE: Personally speaking...
By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 3:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
The icons in the superbar can be ungrouped as well as use small icons. Both together produce a "classic" look like the normal taskbar.


OS X route?
By Some1ne on 12/29/2008 5:06:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Overall, Microsoft has gone the OS X route for its Windows 7 development, thus far, delivering a smoother user interface, prettier graphics, improved security, and a major drive to improve compatibility.


Hm, so if I understand your point correctly, any operating system that strives to have a smooth interface, pretty graphics, strong security, and good hardware compatibility is essnetially trying to copy OS X? As if OS X somehow owns those traits, and/or was the first OS that attempted to incorporate them?

And the "compatibility" claim is particularly erroneous, considering that OS X cannot even be (legally) run on any hardware that is not officially blessed by Apple. For all the complaints leveled against Vista, it is still compatible with a far, far broader range of hardware than any OS X release has ever been.

Biased much?




I'm excited about 7
By ATC on 12/29/2008 8:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
I actually like Vista a lot and am pretty happy with it ever since launch but I'm already excited about what 7's bringing. I just watched a MSFT demo of 7 and it looks like they've added quite a few usable additions to the UI.

One thing I didn't like about Vista is the 12 flavours it came in. I'm dreaming here but I hope 7 comes in one version that has ALL the features enabled and covers both 32 and 64 bit licences. Make it simple.




RE: I'm excited about 7
By VooDooAddict on 12/31/2008 12:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

The only two versions I see needed are:

Windows 7
Windows 7 Enterprise

The ONLY differance being how they license and activate.


KDE!!!!
By Shida on 12/29/2008 1:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
Aw man! Could not help but notice how similar it looks to KDE. Not saying they ripped the K Desktop people off (att this point in history of the GUI what end-consumer cares?). If I'm going to install that in my next build then I can only say this (mind you I'm building a dual boot-good for me *rolls eyes*): whatever linux distro I pick will have to end up with either GNOME, XFCE, or LXDE.




bit late..
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 1:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was downloading this two days ago.. I think it first leaked on the 25th too..




Hypocrisy is funny
By noirsoft on 12/29/2008 4:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For all the niceties of the new taskbar, this comingling of different functions is a whopper of a mistake, and one that will actively harm most Windows users.


And where were all the comments like this when OSX came out with an even worse comingling of the same functions with its dock? From what I recall, it was heralded as a masterful intuitive leap of simplicity or some other BS like that.

I agree that the comingling is wrong, and hate using the OSX dock (the Apps folder is a poor substitute for the start menu) and hope that there is a better way to configure the Win7 taskbar to separate the quicklaunch from the running apps section.




The problem with Beta1's
By Landiepete on 12/30/2008 7:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Is that they usially run on the basis of the previous technology. Indeed, build 7000 installs perfectly and is already quite stable. The new functionality that's working at this time is fun to use.

What will happen for B2, however, is that Microsoft will start including ALL the features and functionality they are considering for final release, and if the past is anything to go by, this will seriously compromise stability. By the time the RC's turn up it will be decidedly wobbly, and we'll have to see if the final release version cuts it and how much of the stuff we liked in Beta 1 is still there. Also, we'll see if all the window dressing is a millstone around it's neck.

Í like build 7000 very much, but I know it's not a valid benchmark for the final release.

Peter R.




How about a 3-way Performance test
By Belard on 12/30/2008 9:46:15 AM , Rating: 2
That site compared two versions of W7 vs XP-Sp3....

It would have been a lot better for them to include a Vista /sp1 config with the same software.

The details of the site aren't much... but when they do these tests, they should perhaps include a standard install of Vista (out of the box) and a fixed version with the idiot UAC and other useless crap disabled.




Microsoft Refunds us
By Darthm3x on 12/30/2008 10:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of extra parches and service packs for windows vista , microsoft should give us a free license for WIndows 7 when it release for all the people that be force to take vista bcause it comes with our pc, in that moment dell doesnt give the chance of chose what I really need, in my case this is the second time happends to me, it remberms the windows millenium ,at few days it realase, I take the risk to change in XP. I hope Windows 7 really be a great sucesor of XP.




Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Micro$hit
By amanojaku on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Micro$hit
By Spivonious on 12/29/2008 12:32:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is still the first generation of computers


After reading that, I realized that I didn't need to read the rest, as you're obviously a troll.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Micro$hit
By Motoman on 12/29/2008 12:54:31 PM , Rating: 4
...here's your sign.


RE: Micro$hit
By Amiga500 on 12/29/2008 1:17:37 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah... that'll be a Sega Master System then ;-)


RE: Micro$hit
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 1:45:20 PM , Rating: 4
... OSX and Windows are closed operating systems.. They are not open source.. thanks for playing though.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize one of the things that makes windows such a success is that anyone can develop applications for it? This in-turn makes the platform very valuable for the large variety in programs to do almost anything you want.

Also you are completely ignorant for saying Windows is a bad OS. Everybody with a brain knows that different OSs work better/worse for different people. I, for one, LIKE windows a lot, but I'm not going to try and say everyone needs to, which is the logic you're trying to use. If you don't like something, don't use it, but if you're going to try and pretend that your opinion about windows changes what it actually is, i feel sorry for you.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/2008 7:44:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You do realize one of the things that makes windows such a success is that anyone can develop applications for it?


With one catch: Piracy.

Epic, id, and Valve are all focusing on the consoles now (closed systems) because the open system PC can't make as much money because of piracy. When it comes to technology, money is really all that matters. All the disadvantages of closed PCs are irrelevant compared to the amount of money there stands to be gained.


RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 10:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
And there also lies the problem. A vast number of windows users are developers, for windows. If you take away their ability to do so, they move to a new platform, such as linux, and walla! a complete failure. Consoles only do well because they are for gaming and entertainment. Very few developers make games, but a TON make programs for specific tasks.

Making a closed system MAY make the available software seem better in quality, but would offer little alternatives, higher priced software, and in certain cases, reasons NOT to buy something.

That is to say, if we had a closed system for PCs, and my only choice for disc burning software was an ultra bloated copy of nero 20, I would refuse to buy the system. It leaves out room for alternatives such as free software like imgburn. People would have to ask for money for even the smallest applications because of the new cost to develop on a closed system (sorry, its not free). Even the apps you take for granted would need to be purchased if they didn't have some kind of sponsor. Where would things like process explorer be? A nice free utility like that wouldn't exist because the cost to develop would exceed the demand.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/2008 10:56:29 PM , Rating: 1
Small programs would thrive on a closed system without having to beg for donations like they do now. Small developers are making money on XBL, XNA, PSN and the iPhone far more easily than they would on a PC.

Porting software to multiple, closed fixed systems won't be a problem. Writing code for one open system with variable, unknown hardware is still much harder than writing code for multiple, closed systems with fixed hardware.


RE: Micro$hit
By TomZ on 12/30/2008 12:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Porting software to multiple, closed fixed systems won't be a problem. Writing code for one open system with variable, unknown hardware is still much harder than writing code for multiple, closed systems with fixed hardware.
Absolutely incorrect; the opposite is true. When you write software on Windows, you are very effectively insulated from the myriad of hardware combinations that might exist.

On the other hand, trying to port software to small proprietary systems with various different programmming environments, languages, APIs, and functional capabilities is very tedious and time-consuming.


RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/30/2008 1:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
Those small programs that beg for donations are just a way of making a living with as little of a job as possible. Things such as XNA, for example, COST MONEY to develop for. Sure, go ahead and right a pc game, thats open, and free. now try and feature it on the 360. Oh, right, now you have to buy membership licenses, not to mention the quality of the game would not be in the same category as the multi-million dollar projects that are released.

Also, try porting that software on your "fixed hardware" to any other closed system. Maybe you forgot that "closed system A" wont have ANY APIs for hardware on "closed system B", but if I DO remember correctly, windows has support for a multitude of hardware, and it's not inefficient either, it's all done through the driver system which in the end is just as good as anything else. You just need the third party to make proper hardware and drivers.

You apparently have no actual knowledge of what you speak of, or maybe you think you are one of those people that think they know better than everyone else, yet lack the education on the subject. Please, enlighten us on what you ACTUALLY know, versus what you try to say. Explain in detail rather than "This is better and easier"


RE: Micro$hit
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 4:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said they were open systems, meaning anyone can develop software for them.
No.. you said the 'second coming' was 'closed operating systems', which in technical terms means closed source.

You can't just make up definitions and expect us to know what you are talking about. Adding in the 'operating' means something totally different than open system.


RE: Micro$hit
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 1:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is still the first generation of computers. They're complete garbage.
Not only are Mac's also PC's, but they also run on the x86 architecture. Hardware wise, aside from your nice glossy finish, there is no difference between my Windows machine and your Apple machine.

The first Apple GUI also came out before Windows ;)


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/2008 3:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...there is no difference between my Windows machine and your Apple machine.


There's no real difference between computers, because there's no competition. The open system model ensures that. There's no way for open systems to distinguish themselves. People simply get stuck with whoever is lucky enough to monopolize the market.


RE: Micro$hit
By murphyslabrat on 12/29/2008 12:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry to hand it to you, but that can't really exist anymore. The internet adds a huge security factor to the deal, needing constant fixing of issues that the developers couldn't have imagined (though, there is plenty of stuff they downright knew about, or purposefully included). On top of that, with the levels of abstraction in both drivers and OS API's, an update to the OS can improve performance in many different areas, in addition to updates from Hardware developers.

I think the constant updates are far better than the 50-page errata booklet, which we had in "the old days"


RE: Micro$hit
By Ratinator on 12/29/2008 12:10:23 PM , Rating: 5
Spoken like someone who has no clue about how difficult it is to develop a piece of software of this magnitude. Just so you know, that button you so easily click actually has thousands upon thousands of lines of code programmed in behind it.


RE: Micro$hit
By FITCamaro on 12/29/2008 12:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Would rate you up if I could.


RE: Micro$hit
By dubyadubya on 12/29/2008 1:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would also, say a +10


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Micro$hit
By rudolphna on 12/29/2008 1:10:54 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, you write me an operating system, using only 100 lines of code for the whole thing. with a GUI, and everything. Hell, Ill even be nice and give you 1,000. Good luck.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/2008 4:07:37 PM , Rating: 1
100 lines? No. 100MBs? Maybe.

Especially if the PC were a closed system, most of the code would be written by third parties.


RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 4:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Micrososft's "MinWin" uses only 25MB, I'd like to see you program something as feature-complete and as efficient in under 100MB of code. You clearly are not a developer, and if you are by some chance, a pretty poor one to lack the intelligence of how advanced this stuff really is.


RE: Micro$hit
By omnicronx on 12/29/2008 4:30:33 PM , Rating: 3
Go to love hearing from those who have never programmed in their life..

In this day and age, easier does not equal less code, in fact it rarely does anymore. Heck you can have the most efficient code in the world and still end up with a 100 line try catch statement.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Micro$hit
By TomZ on 12/29/2008 9:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Programming and managing Windows earns quite a few people a good living. So whether Windows is "significantly flawed" in your opinion is irrelevant to most of us.


RE: Micro$hit
By reader1 on 12/29/2008 10:07:38 PM , Rating: 1
Let me guess, you work in IT?

I have yet to meet an IT worker who wasn't immensely stressed out. You guys praise Microsoft all day but you don't even realize that most of your stress is caused by Microsoft's poor software designers. Honestly, I kind of feel sorry for you guys. You're basically hi-tech janitors. I can see why a high salary is required. Anything less could be homicidal.


RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 10:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you are referring to things such as management or anything along those lines, sorry to let you know, all those things are standardized by people other than microsoft, so you epic fail.

And if you are referring to some sort of programming for windows, the Win32 API is not only very easy to utilize, but well documented. I've done a lot of work in it and it was a decently pleasureful experience.


RE: Micro$hit
By TomZ on 12/29/2008 11:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have yet to meet an IT worker who wasn't immensely stressed out. You guys praise Microsoft all day but you don't even realize that most of your stress is caused by Microsoft's poor software designers.
What stress do you mean? What design problems do you mean? I develop engineering/scientific software that runs on Windows (what all my customers use), and developing for Windows (and .NET in particular) is fun and interesting.

Please, quit while you're ahead. You are obviously speaking out of your @ss.


RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/30/2008 1:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think "quit while your ahead" is giving him way too much credit. The comments, obviously wrong facts, and total disagreement from everyone else earns him a spot in dead last, lol.


RE: Micro$hit
By inighthawki on 12/29/2008 9:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
Explain how it is significantly flawed. Is it because microsoft allows other people to develop for windows (not a "closed" os as you say)? If anything, I would say one of the biggest flaws an OS could have is to restrict developers.