Not bad at all, but I wish not too many SP update and security alert release for Win7 from MicroSoft.
Just to begin, I am just the average consumer, but I do know enough about computers to get by. I have used Win95, Win98, Win2k (for a short time), experienced WinME (the pain, the pain of it all!), and now run XP. Now the control panel from memory in all of the previous versions has never has so many freakin' icons! It's like the icons and system settings are trying to take over the world (not just the computer). I did however notice in the "address bar" it stated "All Control Panel Items". One could say that all of these icons could and should be condensed into simple icons but still with the customisation, whereas someone with more xperience could see this and shout "OMG CUSTOMISATION HEAVEN!". Just to wrap up (and moving off topic), I have seen Vista, and yes I think Win7 and Vista look similar (or the same), but when did MS get rid of the classic grey windows with the sharp corners? I do believe I still use the "classic" theme in XP because I have a very slow computer with poor graphics. One could say its just evolution. If only MS could evolve an operating system that isn't bloated, and runs on more common hardware, as opposed to massively oversized and requires top-of-the-line gear just to get it started!
Understand that an OS manufcturer has to keep up with hardware advances. What most people don't realize is that hardware manufacturers go to the Microsoft's of the world and give them their design plans for the next five years and most of the time the hardware is getting faster and more powerful so Microsoft must make provisions for what is on the drawing boards of all these hardware companies. Microsoft being the leading manufacturer of an OS that can support all these many manufacturers is not fully to blame for the need for "extreme" hardware to run the OS. By the way have you tried to buy any common hardware from a retail outlet recently. Almost impossible tyo find it here in the States. Most retailers only stock what is currently the latest and greatest. Most common hardware offerings are on line and th eequipment is usually used.
Well it sounds to me like they just try to improve Vista and maybe it is better don't know until i try it but no it doesn't look good i see somebody suggested Ubuntu the Linux i have try on version it ran very fast ;) Thank we need some out of the box thinking signed Just an opinion
And how being such a simple Os it is so fast and how the learnign curve is reduces etc. I used to run a SuSE Linux desktop in early 2000, nothing wrong with it back then execept compatibility with other offices. When in IT it was fine, workign in other areas of an office, it is a hideous though to roll otu Linux, people want production tools, not simple systems. If its slow they just call IT and it is YOUR problem to deal with while they go for a coffee or a second lunch. When making iT decisions, most IT staff seem to consider what THEY think is best for power computing and running network apps, but you need to realize, offic estaff couldn't give a damn about that stuff, they just want what they have at home, what they are used to because THEIR job is not all about computing, they couldn't care less if Ubuntu was more stable and secure than Windows. Windows does what they need it to, if not they call IT and take a break. Oh and the reason everyone is talking about Windows and not Linux flavours is because this post was in the Windows section and titled FIRST LOOK AT WINDOWS, nothing to do with whether people prefer Linux or if it is better or not.
I have Used all flavours of Windows. And Linux it is just the fact that the latest Ubuntu version and Open Office meets all my requirements for useability. Even the DVD side and Networking, I am currently using XP,Vista,Ubuntu.And they all network as they should. And no Glitches YET.Further regarding Windows 7. It is very unlikely to become the new system in Business, It has allready been proven with Vista and this is only a follow on from that with very little to incourage any one to spend the money on it.
Was I talking to you, my mistake. I am chilled, dude in fact I am like uberchilled, man. Its just so stupid that Linux fanboys are always so desperate for a converstaion with like minds that they dig for Windows discussions simply to say how they are so clever to be using Linux. Who gives a rats arse? I certainly don't especially when discussing something completely different. Its like you talking witha friend abotu cars and how you like teh new Camaro. So you begin discussing which Camari year was the fastest and most reliable, meanwhile some other kid wanders up and says, Ferrari makes REALLYfast cars! So fkin what, we were talkign about Camaros and who's talking to you anyway?
Nice blanket asertions there! I suppose ou don't remember how useless and avoided XP was when it was released, huh? It was a darn sight worse than the Vista release that's for sure. It wasn't until long after SP2 that people stopped downgrading new boxes to Win2K, about the same time MS decided to stop extending 2K support indeifinitely. So, did you forget how BAD XP was when it came out or were you just a bit young to realize it at the time or see the past patterns? Didn't work on anything, no drivers available, the greatest number of security holes and exploits of ALL MS products thus far, bloated, unresourceful, required lots of ram, new processors, if not entirely new hardware. No, you mustn;t remember that, it would show too much of a pattern with MS products. Teh same pattern that has repeated itself wince Windows 3.11 for workgroups was upgraded with Win95, (horrible) then Win98 (Horrible), then Win2K9 Horrible), then WinME (okay that one's STILL horrible) then WinXP (Horrible) then Vista (horrible) then Windows 7 (Horrible) get the picture yet? XP was garbage when released and it will be antiquated garbage again in no time too. Why people even bother ranting about XP and downing the latest flavour is beyond me, hasn't anyone figured it out yet? Vista is WAY better than XP was when it came out, we'll just have to see how much better its gets by the time Win7 is thrust upon unsuspecting consumers.
I have had all the os's and as you mention i have had no problem with any except winme. Love xp and vista, the reason most people do not like vista is the rolling menus, its easy to change to make it look like xp use classic menus. I work on a lot of trouble calls for older clients and they fuss about the new vista machine till i config it for classic menus and they are like wy didn't ms do that? i guess people were not happy with the hroseless carrage at first either or the cell phones. But change is good. may the force be with you always
People that don't purchase new computers typically don't run out to buy the latest Upgraded OS. End users typically get it when they buy a new PC. XP wasn't quite as heavy as Vista and you didn't see people buying new machines and loading Win 98 on them like they are doing with machines with Vista. Vista has exended the life of XP and this has never happened before. Wanna rethink your statement about comparing the switch over from Win ME or 98 to XP Vs XP to Vista?
i totaaly agree here. use what is tried and true and it'll never fail you.. I still prefer XP because when it all comes down it works smoother and way better.
For me, I still XP because like I have always said, use what works. In other words, I'm not going to let myself be swayed by public opinion. It's similar to the whole Mac's Vs PC garbabge. If you are able to do all the tasks you need with what you have, who cares if Joe blow say such and such is better. Heck, if you can get the same performance from a VIC 20 that you do from today's computers, what's the problem?
You have to step outside the box here just a little bit though and look at not just business type of networks but the general consumer, the home user as well. There's been some problems with every OS that Microsoft has put out. Who can forget DOS6 and it's add-in features. Wiped out peoples hard drives. Or the first release of windows 95. 98 was shit until their service pack 2 and ME wasn't stable by any sense of the word. I think Vista is stable, just bloated and requirements to use it effectively jumped, almost exponentially. Business like HP were hoping to sell more new machines and Microsoft seemed to get into bed with them and it all backfired. Y'all present great arguments, hard to really pinpoint what went wrong. A combination of things?
Whe Xp was released I saw alot of clients downgrading new machines to 2000. Xp had the same issues with drivers not playing nicely with the weird new os. Alot of major corporations that were under IT support contracts by the company I worked for never switched to Xp fully untill Service Pack 2. Countless people I knew were asking for w2k cd's after buying laptops with xp. I've ran Vista Business x64 since it was available through MSDN with little to no trouble. Any troubles I did have were 3rd party driver apps, which is not the OS's fault. Cisco refuses to make a vp client for Vista x64, but with their new ASA's you have a Vista x64 solution through Anyconnect. It's way past time to pony up and buy an ASA if you're runing a cisco shop anyway. I can't say my experience with Xp was as pleasant as Vista at the time of it's release, it was horrible up until sp2. And Xp x64 is still a horrible piece of software. Vista x64 offers far superior driver support than xp x64. Myself, I've never bought an os since dos. I've been fortunate enough to have employers provide me with msdn subscriptions so I always at least have access to the latest and greatest releases.
As an IT person (retired now) and a died-in-the-wool geek, I did go out and buy the newest releases shortly after they came out so I'd have some insight whenever the company decided to get new PC's or just upgrade the current ones. Personally, I found ME to be one of the most stable and solid versions since 3.1. After trying XP a few times, I kept going back to ME because I missed that stability. After a few patches and a service pack, I finally left XPsp1 on, and have had XP since. I have bought 2 notbooks with Vista on them, and if it wasn't such a PITA trying to get old OS drivers for new PC's, I would have wiped Vista and put XP on them. On the one notebook that I still have (Gateway M-6850fx) with Vista, it's stable enough, and runs quickly enough. The other (an HP Pavillion) I gave to someone else to fight with. So I guess it is all relative to your personal pain threshold.
So by these pictures it still looks the same, Looks like they are finally focusing on the software, aspect more than just the looks... I guess we will just have to wait and see, how it runs....
I had id for a weekend 6801 and 6936 and it runs very fast on a 2core 4gb desktop a single core 1gb and my hp 9700 2core 3gb looks very clean as well
I still keep to my view that this uses great resources and is a perfect software engineering crisis.. The software that we build will never be able to capture the full use of the minimal hardware resources but continues to use more and more hardware which results in over compensation for the sake of progression at high costs.. Typical, there is no silver bullet for this matter.. I think what needs to be looked at and may prove profitable is the new and upcoming google OS.
I had it twice (6801 and with the Bluecross patch) on a near new notbook with dual core 2gb. It was about 3/4 of the speed of Vista on the same machine. Just goes to show how important user opinions are, huh.
With only a couple of slight changes, looks exactly like Vista to me,.......... and that ain't good!!!
I found vista a lot faster, even when MS offered the Bluecross Patch, it still lags something nasty. I don't see the people who avoided Vista, with no knoweledge of why other than it was trendy to say no to Vista, jumping on this Win7 bandwagon as they have been stating all year. I ditched build 6801 it after a few hours, tried again when they released the new patch and ditched that too. I assume you're aware of the torrent download links already, right?
Except for some reason that silly ribbons screensaver likes to hang with aero enabled and an ati card. Whatever... I'm curious to see how 7 feels. At the risk of getting publicly stoned or flogged...I really like Vista (on newer hardware at least). The look and feel seem nice to me. And I'm more than pleased with it's performance on newer machines. By newer machines I mean Athlon X2 or C2D with at least 2 gigs of ddr2800 or above memory, plus a decent gfx card. Can't wait to try out one of these new x58/Core i7 combos. Indeed, Vista bashing is all the rage...