backtop


Print 136 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Oct 30 at 5:50 PM

Little is known about most features on pre-beta Windows 7 version to be shown at PDC

Window's Vista hasn’t proven to be the wildly popular operating system that Microsoft had originally hoped. The early angst against the OS was so strong that Windows XP still hangs around and can be had on many new computer systems.

Microsoft is already getting Windows 7 ready to pick up where Vista floundered. DailyTech reported on October 14 that Microsoft had chosen to stick with Windows 7 as the official name for the coming operating system. Microsoft also said that it would show the OS to developers in pre-beta form at the Professional Developers Conference this week.

Ahead of the conference, some details are coming out that give an idea of some of the early features of Windows 7. According to ZDNet, the features being offered in the pre-beta version at the show include Action Center, StreamOn, a new animation framework, new task bar and shell, multi-touch and gesture recognition, ribbons, and improved Bluetooth support.

Many of the details of the features won’t be known until they are announced officially at the conference. Action Center is known to be a self-diagnosis tool to help repair problems with Windows 7. Hopefully, rather than Vista's tendency to simply tell users who have problems to get drivers from the hardware makers website or the error can’t be fixed, Action Center will actually offer a fix for errors.

The DeviceStage feature is one of the unknowns, though ZDNet speculates that it may be a sort of souped up Plug and Play since the feature will only work with Device Stage enabled peripherals. StreamOn is a way to control multimedia content on the PC, but how it works is unknown. The new animation framework is a question mark as well. Perhaps it's a built-in animation creator sort of like the built-in movie editing features.

Multi-touch and gesture recognition are features that have been associated and known for Windows 7 for a while. Improved Bluetooth support is self-explanatory, though the level of "improved support" is unknown.

The ribbon interface was seen in leaks from September of the M3 build of Windows 7. I haven’t personally seen the ribbons, but if they draw half the ire in Windows 7 as the ribbons did in Office 2007, I hope there is a way to go back to a more traditional Windows layout.

ZDNet reports that Microsoft is on track to deliver a public beta of Windows 7 by mid-December 2008 and the final version in 2009. That time frame would jibe with Asus CEO Jerry Chen's statement that Eee PC netbooks would ship with Windows 7 by mid-2009.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Polished Vista
By segerstein on 10/27/2008 5:56:54 PM , Rating: 5
Win 7.0 is to be polished Vista akin to XP vs 2000. 2000 and Vista were the groundbreaking x.0 vestions, while XP and Win7.0 are the polished .1 versions of the kernel.

We all got really spoiled in the new millennium. Just compare it to the nineties, when we had transition from MS-DOS 5.0 to Windows 2000... The it was obvious that old machines cannot run new software well. This wisdom has been forgotten.

It's a mature industry now and the rules are changed. It's fine, I just hate ribbons...




RE: Polished Vista
By 9nails on 10/27/2008 10:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
True, and XP ran really well on a Pentium III. We got a boost out of the Pentium 4 when AMD vs. Intel was really heating up the battle. Microsoft skipped a beat. And the integrated GPU's lack of performance was really a shocker when they couldn't run Aero at full speed. Now that the hardware markets are slowing down with multi-processors the norm and the software has caught up, we're ready to make Seven the lucky number.


RE: Polished Vista
By Miggle on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Polished Vista
By Flunk on 10/27/2008 11:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 2008 Server and Vista share the same codebase. The server version just has more features and is configured with most of the desktop services disabled by default.


RE: Polished Vista
By quiksilvr on 10/28/2008 3:11:32 PM , Rating: 4
Why do people hate ribbons?
http://rcd.typepad.com/rcd/FluentUI.png

IT MAKES SENSE! What, just because it's different doesn't mean its bad. Instead of guessing what each toolbar icon says and clicking in the menu to find settings, everything is here. On Word, I want to insert something, CLICK THE INSERT TAB. On Excel, I need to do something with the data, CLICK THE DATA TAB. On Powerpoint, I want to put in an animation, CLICK...you get the idea.

Yeah it takes time getting used to but the more you use it the more you realize how much more it makes sense and how much easier it is to use.


RE: Polished Vista
By icanhascpu on 10/30/2008 4:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
"We all got really spoiled in the new millennium. Just compare it to the nineties, when we had transition from MS-DOS 5.0 to Windows 2000... The it was obvious that old machines cannot run new software well. This wisdom has been forgotten."

What a bunch of bs. The people that rated you up fell for a half truth that anyone that pays attention can see. It is true that newer software will not run as well on older machines. What you forget to mention in your self-proclaimed wisdom, is that software bloat is outpacing hardware advances. That is one of the few big reasons why Vista was not accepted as well as XP. It was about 18 months too soon hardware-wise, where Core and X2 were just starting to spread out in numbers akin to systems that ran XP well back in the day.


Multi-Touch without a laptop?
By 9nails on 10/27/2008 10:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
I do hope that they plan to release a keyboard with a haptics touch surface replacing the 10-key pad for desktop computers.




RE: Multi-Touch without a laptop?
By Clauzii on 10/28/2008 1:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
Seems You are looking for something like this:

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-tactu...

Allthough still a concept, I'm pretty confident they are working to get it in production.


RE: Multi-Touch without a laptop?
By KeithTalent on 10/28/2008 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is fantastic! What a beautiful looking piece of hardware!

KT


RE: Multi-Touch without a laptop?
By Clauzii on 10/30/2008 5:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yes indeed! They got the 'normal' keyboard out, so I'll guess they get this too. Only drawback is going to be the price, I think.


By SavagePotato on 10/30/2008 11:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
And it even shows videos of kissing lesbians by default in video mode. How quaint.


Animation Framework
By zaxxon on 10/27/2008 5:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
> The new animation framework is a question mark as well.

I bet you, this means Microsoft will implement Animation at the Core of their new OS....




RE: Animation Framework
By v1001 on 10/27/2008 6:10:01 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe it will be like this cool looking paperclip that jumps out and offers to help you....oh wait.


REAL new features ? I hope...
By Oralen on 10/27/2008 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I haven’t personally seen the ribbons, but if they draw half the ire in Windows 7 as the ribbons did in Office 2007, I hope there is a way to go back to a more traditional Windows layout.


I have already commented about Office 2007's ribbons, and how much I despise them.

I really hope Windows 7 will be more than just a facelift.

And I hope that it will not remove from Windows the possibility to be in control. The user, good or bad, must be obeyed by his computer, and not the other way around.

(UAC mark II is my worst fear.

By the way, did any of you saw that when you search for some files in Vista with UAC activated, even with an admin account, sometimes the search will NOT give you any results?

Even when you know for a fact the file is there, and even when you are actually staring at the system folder containing that file?

What a great Instant Search feature. Telling me what I can and cannot see. For my own good, of course. Yuk.)

Whenever we can test Windows 7, we will see if there are real changes, and not just the marketing division shouting: "Quick, they are not buying Vista! Slap a new name on it, change the look of the damn thing, and release it!"

Besides, when you compare the miserable battery life of Vista versus Mac Os X on the same laptop, like many sites did when the new MacBook where released*, you realise Windows still has a lot to improve under the hood.

(* See: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p... )




RE: REAL new features ? I hope...
By Dean364 on 10/27/2008 6:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, and I thought the sucky battery performance in Vista vs. Mac OS on my Macbook Pro was just me. Good to know my battery is still going strong after a couple of years.


RE: REAL new features ? I hope...
By Flunk on 10/27/2008 11:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way Microsoft will risk upgrading the underlying system again. Look at all the problems they had with broken old applications with Vista.

Supporting all of those legacy applications is a huge problem.


Windows7 - Laugh Uncomfortably
By Maruta731 on 10/27/2008 6:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
did you say SHELL?
By alpensiedler on 10/27/2008 7:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
please god give me a native linux style shell without using cygwin. also please give me linux style workspaces. seriously, i'm cool with blatantly stealing ideas from other operating systems (as long as they are good ideas).




Another bloated operating system
By ajvitaly on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another bloated operating system
By lotharamious on 10/27/2008 6:11:25 PM , Rating: 5
Let me guess... you've never used Vista either.

Try getting a new rig first.

Remember when people were trying to run XP on 1GHz processors with 64MB of RAM? They all cried foul because 2000 ran faster.

Welcome to 2008 people.

You guys don't think they're learning from their issues with vista? Go here. http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

Some people at MS actually do care about the product they make.

Windows 7 is not going to be revolutionary, but it will be what Vista should have been.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By mmo70 on 10/27/2008 7:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just as Sony got rich off you for buying the "playstation three" ?


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Pirks on 10/27/2008 7:50:08 PM , Rating: 1
And you get owned by Sony because when you pay less for a console you'll recoup initial Sony's losses by paying more for PS3 games compared to PC games. Sony gets rich on you, "muahhahaha"


RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By Pirks on 10/27/2008 8:11:25 PM , Rating: 4
Put a decent GPU in that PC and it totally owns PS3 performance wise. Maybe if you slap several PS3s together you can come close to the power of one mainstream $200 nVidia or AMD GPU. Maybe.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
By V3ctorPT on 10/28/2008 8:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
Dude... Go watch some PS3 trailers...

HD4870 = 1.2Teraflops...
HD4870x2 = 2.4teraflops...

Ups... I guess I just ruined your day...


RE: Another bloated operating system
By omnicronx on 10/28/2008 11:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
The Ps3 does not have two tera flops of power. Both Microsoft and Sony over inflated their numbers by adding up a bunch of meaningless stats, not to mention that adding GPU power and CPU is even more meaningless, as they both do different things.

Not only are the numbers inflated, but they are a test based on only one aspect at 100% efficiency (which is impossible). Real life numbers for both consoles are probably in the 70-80FLOPS range, (at 65-75% efficiency and even these numbers are probably over the top) keeping in mind all the different types of processing that must be done, textures, physics, ai, lighting.. etc etc..

So in reality neither console is even close to performing what they say, with the 360 being off by around 1400% and the PS3 by 2500%.

P.S Programming Cell has always been a challenge. The Cell programmer must first divide the program into a set of tasks for the CPU and another set of tasks for the SPEs. The programmer must then distribute the SPE tasks among the eight units such that all stay busy. Lets just say it is a lot harder than it sounds, which is the main reason that developers like coding for the 360, its far easier and scales much better than the cell, even though theoretically the cell is much more powerful.


By BansheeX on 10/28/2008 9:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, this is a charade account, why are you responding seriously to it? It would be like if a PS3 fanboy registered as "XBOX THREE SIXTY" and started posting every arrogant, inflammatory nonsensical thing they could think of. The idea being that people will develop a negative stereotype so that no one will want to buy a 360 for fear of associating with that person and will do the opposite in spite of them.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Pirks on 10/29/2008 11:05:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
PC gaming is dead
[dismembering another necromorph on my new gaming notebook] It's undead, idiot


RE: Another bloated operating system
By inighthawki on 10/27/2008 9:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if you learned a thing or two about how stuff works you'd know that the PS3's "OMG AWESOME SUPER EXTREME PROCESSOR" is only slightly better than what a pc now has, if even that. The technology is already somewhat old. And sorry, we aren't going to all wait while you catch up with us. A pc is completely outdated in a matter of 2-3 years, not 10. If you want to wait that long then complain about your relic not being able to keep up, do it on ur own time and with people of your intelligence.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By StevoLincolnite on 10/27/2008 10:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
7 Simple cores and 1 Decent "Flexible Core"... Hmm.

Also they are running at 3.2ghz and NOT 4.2ghz, one is core is "Disabled" - in order to increase yields, and another is reserved for the PlayStation 3's Operating System.

For someone who knows process node manufacturing you sure are stupid when it comes to technology.

And... We do not "Know" how much faster a PS3 is over a PC or an Xbox 360 or Vice Versa, Unless of course you have 3D mark 2006 or Vantage - PS3 Edition?


By piroroadkill on 10/28/2008 5:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
Stop biting, it's only PLAYSTATION THREE


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Clauzii on 10/28/2008 9:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
Raw numbers is like 100-120 GFlops single precision for the CELL SPEs which is pretty good, if You ask me, compared to most avaiable CPUs. BUT it's also true that today the GPUs are WAY faster than what can be found in any of the consoles.

The biggest advantage of a XBox360 over a PS3, I think, is the 360s embedded 10 MB embeded memory, that makes antialiasing possible without any significant drawback. THAT is a thing I really wish the PS3 had done better.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Desslok on 10/27/2008 8:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
You don't own one yet you use it as your screen name?? Fanboi alert!!!

Ok, let me see you play a current gen game on a 486. You sir are a complete idiot.

Oh yea. OWNED!


RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By Denithor on 10/28/2008 8:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Fanboi alert? Idiot alert is more like it.

600-900fps? On a monitor that will only display 60fps? Ok...

Don't bother arguing with him, he's obviously too firmly entrenched in his delusional state to comprehend anything we say.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By kensiko on 10/28/2008 8:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't seem to understand that everybody here is against him.


By BansheeX on 10/28/2008 9:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Of course he understands, why do you think he keeps doing it? It's is a charade account. It would be like if a PS3 fanboy registered as "XBOX THREE SIXTY" and started posting every arrogant, inflammatory nonsensical thing they could think of. The idea being that people will develop a negative stereotype so that no one will want to buy a 360 for fear of associating with that person and will do the opposite in spite of them. If the admins were competent, they'd notice right away and ban the guy. Even if it wasn't, his responses are nothing but banworthy taunts that make no attempt to rebut his responders.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By omnicronx on 10/28/2008 11:27:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The most games, office programs, application run at lightning fast speed on Linux even on 486 machine from 90's.
Then whats the need for the super amazing haxor cell processor. If that number crunching 33-66mhz processor is so amazing, why buy a PS3? I know you have to press the turbo button when you want to play Crysis, but its worth not being manipulated by those damn developers right?

Or Perhaps you have Crysis ASCII edition? That would explain the amazing performance of your great 486 processor.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By on 10/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another bloated operating system
By ajvitaly on 10/27/2008 7:13:15 PM , Rating: 1
I have Vista on my laptop, and it's horrible. Incompatibility issues continue to plague programs on it vs. my desktop XP system. It's slow and bloated and does not improve my experience one bit.

Explain to me how I'm better off with Vista when the same applications require faster processors and more memory than if they were to be ran on XP?


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Pirks on 10/27/2008 7:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
You better expalin to me why hardware manufacturers continue putting faster processors and more memory in new PCs, and why should application developers ignore all that new hardware and continue hand-coding applications in assembly language like they did in 1950s.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By PhoenixKnight on 10/27/2008 8:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Vista also doesn't play very well with linux. I installed Vista Business on my desktop last week, but I didn't have the drive I was installing vista to set as the main drive in the BIOS, so it decided to overwrite one of my linux ext3 partitions with the windows boot manager, without ever asking or informing me.

After repairing the damage done to my ext3 partition and reinstalling Vista properly, it worked fine...until I had to abruptly turn off the computer as Vista attempted to run checkdisk on the ext3 partition and 'repair the ntfs filesystem'. Pressing a key to skip the check didn't work like it was supposed to. This sudden shutdown screwed up Vista, making it freeze during boot and required a repair installation, and once again forced me to repair the linux partition.

So, now I finally have Vista up and running, until it decides to stop working yet again. Unfortunately, I need Vista since I run very large (over 1GB) files in Photoshop and Vista allows Photoshop to use 3GB of RAM, and up to 6GB of RAM for the scratch disk.

I haven't run into any compatibility issues yet, but then I use linux for most of my stuff, anyway. The Vista interface looks better than XP and it's nice not having to worry about using floppies for drivers during install, but by trying to be intuitive and make things "simple", Vista takes away way too much power from the user and incorrectly assumes what you want it to do. This is the same reason I abandoned MS Office in favor of OpenOffice after I kept spending 2 to 3 times as long fighting against MS Office's autoformatting than I did actually typing out the documents.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By RubberJohnny on 10/28/2008 12:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's nice not having to worry about using floppies for drivers during install

What OS requires the use of floppies? XP?


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Clauzii on 10/28/2008 2:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
For some RAID controllers, yes.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Azzr34l on 10/28/2008 11:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to poo poo your notion that everyone that knocks Vista has never used it, but you need to stop drinking the MS advertising Koolaid.

I bought the retail box mostly for its Media Center capabilities, which are fantastic, but the rest of the OS sucks. I've tinkered with it for 10 months and hate it with a passion. The Media Center interface is pure genius IMO, but the rest of the OS is bloatware and buggy. I keep telling myself I should reinstall XP, which worked great, but whose native Media Center functionality isn't up to Vista's, but I hate the idea on conceding that I threw $230 into the toilet.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Screwballl on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another bloated operating system
By Spivonious on 10/28/2008 10:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
Please do the world a favor and cut off your fingers.

Where do I start...I'll just go in order.

1) Yes W7 is Vista "version 2", that's why it's 6.1 and not 7.0. Remember, XP was W2000 "version 2". And anyway, since when did screenshots tell us what the OS would be like?

2) Do you read the E7 blog? While it's obviously at too late of a stage to add features, it is very nice to have Microsoft be so open with how they made the design decisions that will be in W7. Mojave and I'm a PC are TV commercials, and therefore, of course they are advertising.

3) Oh no, a company is spending money on advertising? I found it ironic that Apple made this comment IN AN AD. Linux will forever be the 15 year-old geek OS.

Vista is not ME version 2. ME was based on the Windows 95 code. Vista is based on Windows 2000 code, much of which was rewritten for Vista (video driver model, sound driver model, network stack, etc.)

XP SP3 was simply a roll-up of hotfixes that already existed. Why would it make XP "much better"? If you think Vista is crap, you haven't used it for any period of time.


RE: Another bloated operating system
By Clauzii on 10/30/2008 5:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
XP SP3 actually improved some stuff here too:

Before, my machine was >1min to shot down. Now: 8sec straight. Snappier in some places etc.

Even if I count the >100 fixes for XP, I don't get a total of ~540MB, so SP3 must contain other stuff too ;)


How many gigs?
By blowfish on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: How many gigs?
By CottonRabbit on 10/27/2008 5:34:58 PM , Rating: 5
Considering that 1 TB hdd's can be had for around $100, I'm not too worried about a couple more GB of space for the OS.


RE: How many gigs?
By BladeVenom on 10/27/2008 6:59:29 PM , Rating: 3
Try fitting that into a netbook.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/27/2008 7:22:51 PM , Rating: 5
Netbooks are used by people who are worried not about latest coolest OS features but about portability first and foremost. Hence your argument makes no sense. People will continue using XP on netbooks for a foreseeable future.


RE: How many gigs?
By 67STANG on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/28/2008 2:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aren't they discontinuing XP? Or haven't they already?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...


RE: How many gigs?
By thartist on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: How many gigs?
By awer26 on 10/27/2008 11:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? Larger HDD = higher density per platter (all other things equal) = higher transfer speed.


RE: How many gigs?
By Arribajuan on 10/27/2008 10:18:07 PM , Rating: 4
Great!!

I was waiting for prices to drop that much to get 1 TB into my notebook.

The netbook can get 500 GB for $50.

Really, even if disk space is cheap, MS should make efficient use of resources. That includes the hard drive.


RE: How many gigs?
By Desslok on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many gigs?
By zaxxon on 10/27/2008 5:50:06 PM , Rating: 4
and perhaps you might point out the errors he made....??


RE: How many gigs?
By zaxxon on 10/27/2008 6:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Or did you call the spelling nazis just because of his superfluous '?


RE: How many gigs?
By Alexvrb on 10/27/2008 8:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm far from perfect, and rarely tell people to fix their grammar or spelling, but I find your post comical, in an ironic sort of way.


RE: How many gigs?
By spagnitz on 10/27/2008 7:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
The english language is not static you know, try reading Shakespeare some day.


RE: How many gigs?
By ajfink on 10/27/2008 8:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting you say that. The English language wasn't truly standardized in terms of grammar until the mid 19th century. Academics and intellectuals wanted to give English more credence as a language of learning, and thus adopted many grammatical elements of Latin. This is why people get bitched at for ending sentences in prepositions, not because it's in any way that illogical. Many of the choices made were arbitrary. Having taken Latin, however, English is an order of magnitude more simple in terms of sentence structure, so be somewhat thankful they didn't get too heavy-handed.

That being said, don't go ending sentences in prepositions and splitting infinitives, because it's just trashy. Right?


RE: How many gigs?
By Screwballl on 10/28/2008 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
Some further reading would help you discover that the language we call English today was actually called "American" by the colonists right up until the early 1900s.
No other language has taken cues from so many other languages, become its own language AND influenced so many other languages in such a short timeframe.
Because of the speed at which our language is evolving, it is becoming easier to notice that many asian-based (and other languages) are having to start mixing the newer americanized words with their ancient writing and speaking structures. Take a look through many of the pages and see how many American english words are starting to be mixed in with non-US non-english based websites...


RE: How many gigs?
By Desslok on 10/27/2008 8:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Wat dis readin you talkin abut?


RE: How many gigs?
By poundsmack on 10/27/2008 6:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
windows 7 will have a smaller foot print than vista for the default install due to the removal of programs that will be optional downloads from the Windows Live software repository.


RE: How many gigs?
By thartist on 10/27/2008 7:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
barely anything to do with the operating footprint.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/27/2008 7:36:51 PM , Rating: 1
That's just a rumor unfortunately, no official word yet


RE: How many gigs?
By marsbound2024 on 10/27/2008 6:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe the more important question is how much RAM does the core OS utilize when "unconstrained" (i.e.: several gigs of RAM installed)?


RE: How many gigs?
By Obujuwami on 10/27/2008 6:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
As someone pointed our earlier, storage devices (which does include RAM) are becoming much cheaper. RAM has really exploded in terms of capacity over the last 2 years so I highly doubt that any well built computer won't be able to run it.

I do think that systems upgrading from Vista or XP might have issues if they were built for Vista-grade stuff.


RE: How many gigs?
By Spivonious on 10/27/2008 7:05:28 PM , Rating: 5
Why not use the RAM if it's there? I never understood this complaint. Windows gives up the RAM as soon as its needed by an application. Might as well load in some commonly used apps before they're actually loaded.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: How many gigs?
By rtk on 10/27/2008 8:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem with your theory is, 4GB of RAM uses a specific amount of power, whether it's storing a 1 or a 0.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many gigs?
By omnicronx on 10/27/2008 11:29:12 PM , Rating: 5
It does not continually prefetch, and you are just plain wrong about the cpu cycles. CPU cycles on a Vista vs XP machine while idle basically identical. Even with both superfetch and indexing enabled, your cpu load will not go above 3% while completely idle (and it rarely goes up that far). Not that this should matter, even if it did peak to 10% at idle, you are talking about fractions of percentage difference in power consumption.

Best of all, if you don't like these features, turn them off. They only help to make things run faster, not slower, but at the expensive of a few cpu cycles.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: How many gigs?
By CrazyBernie on 10/28/2008 3:47:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So now we have to slow down Windows in order to make it as efficient as OS X while OS X stays efficient and blazingly fast at the same time? Great. Just great. I wonder what other nasty surprises Microsoft is cooking for us.

You enjoy repeating yourself. Within 10 minutes on the same thread, no less. Those are signs of fanboi'ism... 0_o


RE: How many gigs?
By theapparition on 10/28/2008 8:02:57 AM , Rating: 5
Correction........why should you slow Vista down to OSX speed.

Your post tries to spin it that OSX is faster without any sort of prefetching and indexing than Vista. Simply not true. Night and day comparison on a personally owned MBPro. Vista is simply much faster.

However, the sacrifice is battery life, as you mentioned, and turning off some features both increases battery life, and makes the system about as responsive as OSX. It does not make Vista slower than OSX. It does make Vista slower, but not slower than OSX (<- repeated for the more stubborn readers).

I will still admit, by turning off all the prefetching features and indexing in Vista had a signifigant increase in battery life, but OSX still had a slight advantage.

Quit trying to spin things in your favor.......but I do see a political or advertising career in your future.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/28/2008 2:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is simply much faster.
I wish I had the same experience as you. Unfortunately my experience contradicts yours. Try to compare pressing F11 twice in OS X with pressing Win-D twice in Vista. While OS X shows desktop is a smooth way with nice animation - Vista shows ugly flickering (which proves that "GPU-based" Aero is just a marketing gimmick) which slows down windows' redrawing and also sometimes messes up the windows' Z order. Vista is anything but faster than OS X on a same hardware. You can see it for yourself by experimenting with F11 and Win-D (see above).


RE: How many gigs?
By theapparition on 10/29/2008 8:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not to really continue this, but I don't have the same issues that you seem to be having.

I also think that one of the issues with reduced battery life is Aero itself. I'd like to see some comparison with Aero turned off. Let's face it, running 3D hardware constantly has to suck power from somewhere.

quote:
Vista shows ugly flickering (which proves that "GPU-based" Aero is just a marketing gimmick)

I'll disagree here. GPU based desktops actually free up CPU cycles and make your system slightly more "speedy". However, the graphics need to be able to handle the load, and unfortunately they leave much to be desired in the MBPro. That's the sole component to blame. One of the main reasons Fruit decided to go nVidia this time around.

Still, don't have the same issue you seem to be having.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/29/2008 11:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
one of the issues with reduced battery life is Aero itself
MS just can't code, that's all. OS X had their own Aero with GPU 3D acceleration for ages and never had any issues with battery life.
quote:
running 3D hardware constantly has to suck power from somewhere
Tell that to OS X designers who apparently are highly trained magicians who can do impossible - have 3D accelerated GUI and NOT suck power from battery at the same time.
quote:
they leave much to be desired in the MBPro. That's the sole component to blame. One of the main reasons Fruit decided to go nVidia this time around.
Apparently you never knew that MB Pro always used pretty powerful nVidia 8600 and 9600 GPUs. It's boring to talk to uneducated person who doesn't know elementary facts about PC and Mac hardware, so bye bye.


RE: How many gigs?
By omnicronx on 10/28/2008 9:30:34 AM , Rating: 3
I laugh at the statement that OSX can even be considered 'the most' efficient. Until recently the gaps between linux and OSX were as much as 50% in certain applications, using the same hardware of course. As OS X is based off unix, what does that say about the efficiency of OSX?

And now lets compare Vista vs OSX, it has been shown time, and time again that their memory usage is pretty much on par.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=573

Even when only testing with a 1GB machine, memory usage is basically identical. Not to mention this is with indexing and prefetching enabled, although with 1GB of ram, prefetching becomes much less effective.

Both OS's have their place, I have recommended Mac's to many users, and Vista to many users, both have their uses, and both are good OS's, but I have had quite enough about the 'super efficient OSX', as many tests have shown this is just plain untrue. Linux trumps both, yet as their marketshare shows, apparently efficiency is not everything.

PS.. a little unknown fact about OSX, it makes more memory calls than both Linux and any version of Windows.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/28/2008 2:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
their memory usage is pretty much on par
How is the memory usage related to the fact that Vista has much worse battery life than OS X on the same hardware?


RE: How many gigs?
By trevelyan15 on 10/27/2008 8:56:26 PM , Rating: 3
Nice to see you're reading Anand's recent articles but try reading some of the older Mac articles. You'll find that he mentions many times that OS X is in fact excellent at using extra RAM to cache and pre-fetch apps, which is something that Windows was behind in.

I wish you could try turning it off. I'm sure you'd enjoy your battery that lasted twice as long while you waited four times as long for stuff to load.

In all seriousness though, if OS X can do this and maintain good battery life, then MS really needs to go back and try again.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: How many gigs?
By omnicronx on 10/28/2008 9:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that Vista does it in a dumb way that does not allow CPU and HDD go idle/sleep.
Superfetch is only activated by either 1# when you start your PC and for the first 5 minutes or so while your most common preferences and apps are loaded into memory, and #2 right after you used something that was memory intensive and as such windows needed to use some of the memory that was being used for superfetch, which results in the same process as when you turned on your PC. Neither case causes your PC to constantly access the HD.

It is the indexing, (which is also does not constantly running) that spins the HD a little more than normal, although you are greatly over-exaggerating how much it actually happens. (I would also like to note that both OSX and many flavors of linux also do this)

While I have always had the stance that yes Vista does require a bit more horsepower, I find it great for desktop use, and on my laptop I just turn off indexing. Superfetch is your friend, it definitely makes your daily programs load faster, and I think it is a great trade off for the minuscule amount of CPU cycles it requires.


RE: How many gigs?
By Pirks on 10/28/2008 2:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is the indexing, (which is also does not constantly running) that spins the HD a little more than normal, although you are greatly over-exaggerating how much it actually happens. (I would also like to note that both OSX and many flavors of linux also do this)
Spin it any way you want, I can't care less. I just noticed that on my Vista notebooks the HDD _NEVER_ turns off, even if notebook is sitting idle for hours and even if I explicitly set up the sleep timer for the hard drive in Vista power settings. In OS X hard drive does turn off after a while. I don't care why Vista behaves in such a dumb way, call it indexing shmindexing prefetching fuketching - facts are facts, and my experience is my experience. I'll see if Win 7 becomes less dumb on notebooks, maybe MS will teach Windows to turn off the hard drive again. Here's to hope :)


RE: How many gigs?
By marsbound2024 on 10/28/2008 1:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes, but just because the hardware is becoming cheaper and more capable, doesn't mean we should forget about software optimization. I don't really think an OS needs a couple of gigabytes of memory to run all of its background processes. Leaner can sometimes be better, as long as we aren't sacrificing needed features. Of course prefetching is all fine, but I am curious how much the core OS uses without considering prefetching.


RE: How many gigs?
By PrezWeezy on 10/27/2008 9:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
I just bought 2 gig sticks of DDR2 800 from Kingston for less thank 30 bucks. I really don't care if I have to install 4 or 8 gigs. It's still cheap compared to where we were a year ago and it's only going to get cheaper. Who cares how much you need when 7 launches?


RE: How many gigs?
By aapocketz on 10/28/2008 11:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 is the best OS I have ever used, and it made me love my children again.


RE: How many gigs?
By marsbound2024 on 10/28/2008 6:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
You say that with DDR2, but not with DDR3.


RE: How many gigs?
By PrezWeezy on 10/28/2008 8:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
DDR3 is only about 60 bucks for 2 gigs on newegg at the moment. And it's only going to go down. If it follows it's current trend it will also be around 15 a gig a year from now.


RE: How many gigs?
By drzoo2 on 10/28/2008 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think the important question is how many Gigs of RAM will the core use to employ that great DRM layer?


Vista runs fine on my system
By TonyB on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Vista runs fine on my system
By 9nails on 10/27/2008 10:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Upgrade? But I put the Vista DVD in the drive clicked upgrade. Why didn't my computer go faster? Drivers? I thought Vista shipped with every hardware driver ever made, and all of it was optimized?

You know, Microsoft does this to me each time they come out with a new version of their OS! I wanted all the extra features, but they wouldn't let me keep my 486 to use Windows 95. And then I had to buy a Pentium II when they released Windows 98... Microsoft should just make Vista rewire my motherboard, CPU and RAM if it needs more hardware to run better. Those guys have billions of dollars, I don't understand why they can't figure out how to write software that does even more stuff than before on my same antique PC!

BTW - Vista on my E6850 w/ 2 GB scores a 5.7! (And you detected my sarcasm, yes?)


Damn, that was fast.
By Darkefire on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By The0ne on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Jovec on 10/27/2008 8:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
If that is the reason, it's easy enough for MS to create a Laptop power scheme that disables all that


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By PhoenixKnight on 10/27/2008 8:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably easy, but all their programmers are just too busy rushing out Windows 7 to get around to doing it.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Flunk on 10/27/2008 11:08:13 PM , Rating: 3
If you really don't like that feature just disable the Superfetch service. Although doing so will slow down application launches to XP speed.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By V3ctorPT on 10/28/2008 4:51:40 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah well... Vista is for a BIG universe of computers... lots of different configurations... OSX only has some small configurations... It's a totally different "habitat"... OSX is designed and perfected to suit that specific hardware... Don't compare everything else with apples...


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/28/2008 2:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not comparing anything. It's Anand and Jarred who compared Vista with OS X on THE SAME HARDWARE. You saw the piss poor Vista performance in those Anand's and Jarred's battery life tests, on THE SAME HARDWARE, didn't you?


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Screwballl on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Spivonious on 10/28/2008 11:03:21 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know what kind of things you do to your computer, but once Superfetch learned my normal usage patterns, Vista launches apps at least twice as fast as XP ever did on the same machine.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Darkefire on 10/27/2008 9:17:15 PM , Rating: 1
Not really. I use a desktop.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Darkefire on 10/27/2008 9:51:33 PM , Rating: 1
So my choice is between less battery life or more battery life and less fun? That's a toughie. Seriously, Pirks, just because the thread says 'Windows' does not mean you need to post in it. Your thoughts on the features of a Windows OS are not only completely irrelevant, but completely off-topic since you obviously haven't owned or used a Windows computer in quite some time.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By murphyslabrat on 10/28/2008 12:18:34 AM , Rating: 1
I love you, Pirks; you're always good for a quick laugh.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Flunk on 10/27/2008 11:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's an apples to oranges comparison. Shouldn't you be comparing a MacBook running OS X vs one running Vista?


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Damn, that was fast.
By SkeptiCoder on 10/28/2008 9:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why the hell should we be scared of Microsoft using "unused" GPU time? Do you enjoy your little slippery slope argument? There's a frappin good reason for using extra memory - speed. Caching things in the memory makes for faster load times. What would they be doing with the GPU, caching game frames?


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/28/2008 2:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
If MS is so dumb that they find excuses to bring the battery life down by constantly filling up "unused" memory - then why whouldn't they go further and start filling up the "unused" GPU memory for example? I won't be surprised at all if they do this in Win 7. It's so MS-like


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By SkeptiCoder on 10/29/2008 8:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that makes no sense, right? Using up unused memory is a GOOD thing for performance. I realize I'm just feeding the troll, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Then you move the goalpost from using the "unused" GPU to saying just the GPU memory. And so what if it does, honestly? If it is something that improves performance and adds a feature, so be it!

And as has been said before, memory will take up the same amount of power whether or not it is being used. Period. End of story.

To add to that fact, DDR2 memory uses between .5 and 2W per stick, depending on size and speed. This isn't even close to the biggest power consumer in a desktop OR notebook.

You have no argument here.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By Pirks on 10/29/2008 3:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it is something that improves performance and adds a feature, so be it
Or how MS likes to put it: if it is something that takes away battery life - so be it!
quote:
memory will take up the same amount of power whether or not it is being used
You can't say the same about HDD that's ALWAYS spinning under Vista because of its stupid "performance" features
quote:
You have no argument here
Learn to read first, understand my arguments second, then we'll talk. Bye bye for now.


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By atlmann10 on 10/28/2008 1:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
If you want Vista to play nice go to this link. It will teach you how to tweak vista. Mind you it's not some speed up my pc software download. This a true break down top to bottom vista software tweak. So pay close attention to the level of usage the specific tweak is for. Either way Vista 64 bit ultimate runs flawless on my laptop (mind you I get 2 1/2 to 3 hours usage on everything except gaming or video editing), even when gaming. As I said read the whole article once, and know what usage level you want to implement. Don't go over the top and do a lot of registry work not paying attention to what it will do. Oh and run a full backup (not restore point BACKUP) at least on your op sys partition b4 u start. Here are the links

(Tweaking walk through (http://www.tweakhound.com/vista/tweakguide/index.h... )

(explanation of Vista and everything under the wrapper (http://www.tweakhound.com/vista/index.htm)


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By VaultDweller on 10/28/2008 8:33:27 AM , Rating: 4
People keep talking about the "short" duration between the launch of Vista and the planned launch of Windows 7, as if Vista is some kind of prematurely aborted fetus.

Vista's time on the market will not be abnormally short. It's returning to the status quo. Microsoft has released a new desktop version of Windows every 2-3 years throughout their entire history up until XP (even more frequently if you include both the NT and 9x product lines, back when both were actively developed). XP's long market life is a deviation from the norm.

Just look at the timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Windows#Ti...


RE: Damn, that was fast.
By killerb255 on 10/29/2008 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much.

The short version: Vista's market time is not short. XP's market time was INSANELY long.


Great, ribbons of feces
By ggordonliddy on 10/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Great, ribbons of feces
By alpensiedler on 10/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great, ribbons of feces
By Pirks on 10/27/2008 8:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's a video driver bug, not a Windows bug. Doesn't show up on any of my PCs. I hope your video card manufacturer fixes it in time for Win 7 release ;-)


RE: Great, ribbons of feces
By piroroadkill on 10/28/2008 5:12:48 AM , Rating: 1
You know you can access all the functions in the ribbon with keyboard shortcuts, right?

Try pressing alt once in a while


RE: Great, ribbons of feces
By ggordonliddy on 10/28/2008 1:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know you can access all the functions in the ribbon with keyboard shortcuts, right? Try pressing alt once in a while


Of course I know that. How else do you think I access a standard menubar other than the Alt key?

Regardless, the ribbon is much less efficient, and more annoying, than a standard menubar. If you don't understand why that is, it's pointless trying to explain to you. Go back to your mouse.


RE: Great, ribbons of feces
By TomZ on 10/28/2008 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to point out to you that ribbon bars, like those implemented in Office, still allow for keyboard shortcuts. For example, in Word 2007, you can type Alt, N, I to insert a page break. How is that any less efficient than using similar keystrokes in older versions of Word?

In my opinion, the only people that believe that ribbon bars are less efficient than legacy menus are those that haven't tried to use and become proficient with them. Once you understand the organization of the ribbon, I think they are faster, much more visual/discoverable, and easier/faster to find things.


RE: Great, ribbons of feces
By kelmon on 10/28/2008 1:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
I still think that the Ribbon had laudable goals but it was such a departure from previous interfaces in Office that even after 2-years of using it I am still slower using it than I was Office 2003 and have to hunt for options. If Microsoft offers a Classic mode in Windows 7 then that will be great for old timers like myself. Either that or a more gradual transition to a full Ribbon interface would be appreciated.

What I find interesting about the Ribbon is that it was supposed to be implemented in Office:mac 2008 but the overwhelming feedback was that users didn't want it. In the end the Mac Business Unit provided users with a bit of the old and bit of the new. Certainly the current version of Office for the Mac doesn't have a groundbreaking interface like the Windows version but I suspect it is the better because of it. When you have been used to an interface for many years for productivity, having it completely change is always going to be a problem.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki