More Guesses of Windows 7 Releasing in October

what's with these hype surrounding Windows 7, it's not like a saviour or something to really hype about. It's really a minor update to Windows Vista.

I hope its the new XP... I am just glad it uses less RAM and looks like vista.

Microsoft needs the image thats all and they are doing very well at it. look what image does for apple. Basically mircosoft wants everyone loving there new creation so the Avg. joe buys because his friend says its great works everytime.

Run, before we burn you on a stake.

I wish that was a joke, but it isn't.

The people that judge 7 as Vista usually have a small usage time or only see video. Yes, most of the menus are the same, and the UI hasn't been changed hugely. The difference between Vista and 7 and similar to the difference between 2k and XP (Vista to 7 is NT 6 to NT 6.1, and 2k to XP is NT 5 to NT 5.1). The UI is extremely similar (Although XP used a new theme), and most of the improvements are in the background and in features average joe may not use or notice (VHD support gave me wet dreams).

Well i have been using vitsa 64 for about 2 years now. And i loaded win 7 up on a new drive.. Honestly i dont really see any real difference. Aside how IMO they raped the taskbar, Made some changes to how a few things work which so far is questionable if its going to work better for me. It runs so far like vista runs for me. Looks pretty much the same in most ways and gives me 0 problems like vista does. It doesnt run any faster for me it doesnt do anything special that i have seen yet. Would i buy it? Sure i paid for vista ultimate 64 ill get windows 7 ultimate. If nothing else so i can use the "new?" fetures of win 7 or to at least be up to date Maybe the RTM will be better who knows but hell i used XP RC 1 and 2 and when the RTM came out the only thing i noticed that changed was there was no RC 4734 whatever the number was at the bottom right.

All in all i would say win7 is a great OS just like vista and xp have been for me. Still no issues.

I can tell boot times are better than vista.. The whole os is better all around.. So far no issues for me with 7.. I am ready for the real release so I can get ride of vista for good...

I hated Vista when it was first released, I had just bought a computer with a 915GM Chip set. It rendered it useless for Vista... But After I got a newer computer with a newer Chip set and ran at around 4gb or ram I had ZERO problems with Vista other then the annoying reluctance of trying to do anything and always having that damn message pop up and say "are you sure you want to do this" I mean shit, I clicked it didn't I !? Thank god that on 7 you can control that annoying useless feature. I will buy it just for that!!!

boot times are better than vista? hell I GOT BETTER BOOT TIMES THAN XP X64!

these Vista vs 7 arguments are getting old...

I can't wait for the offical release... which is why I'm running Build 7100

please be more knowledgeable about the OS before bashing on the it. W7RC is faster, less compatibility issues (in fact the XP mode guarantees 100% compatibility), saves battery life on batteries, renewed task bar (much better IMO), and lets not forget remote media streaming...

remember the days when people go "oh theres no difference between win 98 and xp, since it looks about the same"

I don't know whats with my system or maybe it's something I did, but my experience is pretty bad.

I'm using build 7100 x64, installation was interesting...I had to wait a good couple minutes before the menu even showed up. Installation went fine just had to wait a lot.
Now that it is installed it found most all of the drivers except nvidia, not surprising.
Some problems I've encountered are...
1. I had to underclock to 3.6GHz from 3.7GHz because the cpu became unstable, got the blue screen. In XP the cpu was 100% at 3.7GHz. Tested with both Prime95 and SETI@home for over 12hrs.
2. I've looked it up with no luck, my right click speed on the desktop is incredibly slow!! it's takes over 2 sec to show the right click menu on the desktop.
3. Random occasional freezes, i'd use it for daily use but XP still works better and runs faster. XP idles around 400MB and Win7 idles at 920MB (that's with aero disabled, and windows classic theme)

There's one thing I like better about Windows 7 is games, Crysis runs much better! full 1920x1080 res Very High settings with 4xAA still very playable with nothing that seemed to dip under 30fps too often.

Nope. it looks totaly different. It worked totaly different. It was setup almost totaly different. The only thing i remember people saying about it was how much ram it used.

Its funny if you dont agree win7 is the best OS right now people mark you down. Im sorry if i see pretty much no difference in any area of vista vs win7 other then cosmetics. Its not faster for me and it would be impossible to be more stable for me since my system doesnt crash in XP or Vista.

Im not sure whats going on with your setup volks. My vista and win7 installs run almost identical. Though ill will try some more gaming on win7 but i cant say much there as drivers are all beta and any crash or lockup could be related to that.

I doubt it is that great, its just hype. Even XP sux... but it seems that people compare it to Win98 and Vista and now XP looks brighter than the Sun but it is actually a crap. It might be the best of Microsoft. XP wasn't too bad as before but it was no joyride either. And when you have the system without reinstall for more than an years it becomes a hell. It falls apart by itself without even messed with.
And what does bring Win 7. Perhaps better support for 64-bit but is the rest really that much better? People judge thing by how shiny the package is but what inside they usually overlook.

It wouldn't have been much of a problem if Windows didn't cost that much. Perhaps upto these Windows 7 beta programs the user paid Microsoft to be their beta-tester.

I remember the hype around Win95. It was just like today. And year later everyone cursed MS how much Win95 sucked \and for me it was perhaps the least problematic Windows of all... well maybe because I never had a network back then\.
I hope people can go over that hyping one day. This is not a movie. It's just an OS and an OS is supposed to serve the user and be invisible. The user uses Applications and not OS. An OS should not matter and be intrusive like Windows not now not ever.

Guess where the add money is coming from... then you wouldn't be so surprised...





... and that's the effect, m$ fanboys in action, falling again to m$'s marketing droid propaganda.

Maybe the differences between Vista and Win7 aren't THAT major. But it's still a better incentive than Vista for us XP diehards.

Does anybody know whether Win7 will be available as a downloadable purchase?

You can turn off UAC in Vista. It's useless anyway, for exactly the reason you mention. Nobody reads the millions of pointless warnings. They just click them to get them out of the way.

Volks maybe you're doing something wrong. I'm on a big p.o.s computer and can't tell the difference as far as speed is concerned between xp and win7. Actually win7 seems a tad smoother, but as far as gaming concerned it all seems the same. Just to show you how big of a p.o.s I got.

Amd anthlon 64 3200, 2gb ram *running in single channel mode*, ati 3850. Which is why I don't see how you notice a differnce with the computer you have. So you might want to see if there's something cause that. Of course it is still beta, and that is why they released it so early to not have another vista on their hands.

To some of you others.. You call us fanbois I call you straight up hates. That think microsoft is evil. Their not any more even then any other corporation get over it. They make some crap, they make some good stuff, they try to sell both the same. Their out to make money and that's it. UM duh all corporations are out to make money they don't care about us you're a fool if you think all corporations arn't like this.

In this case it helps us out, because microsoft knows they need to build back up their rep after vista. And this will let them do that.

Where is your sense of humor?

I never really understood why everyone was so down on Vista. Once I tweaked it, it was very responsive and loaded as fast as XP on the two machines on which I ran it. My Windows 7 64 startup and response times are the same as Vista 64, so I'm not really seeing any of the performance gains people are talking about. I'm dismayed that my show desktop button is now in a very inconvenient place and can't be moved. And I am also dismayed that the Ctrl+Up One Level button functionality, which I use constantly in XP, was not restored after disappearing in Vista.

Now, I will also say that I "upgraded" from Vista to XP twice. My reasons for doing so were fairly simple... XP did everything I need it to do while Vista failed to do several things that I required, such as run VMware server. Yeah, I know there is a tweak that you can do every time you boot up that will make it work, but that was too annoying.

I saw Vista as a fairly unnecessary release. Maybe things needed to be upgraded on the backend, and that's all well and good. But I found it bothersome that MS changed so many menus and locations and whatnot that most users were very familiar with. Most users don't want to take the time to learn a new OS--They want something they're familiar with. I don't care that MS says it's more intuitive--What's intuitive for most people is what they already know.

That said, I have mixed feelings about Windows 7. Unless I can get VMware running in it (which I have yet to do), I have a feeling that my upgrade isn't going to be from the RC to retail, but rather back to good ol' XP.

the performance increases aren't that great. When I boot up vista it uses 900 MB of my 4GB and when I boot up 7 it uses 700 MB of my 4GB that's not something i'm going to notice.

For UAC in 7 you can have different degrees of annoyance, I prefer no annoyance.

I was never a fan of Vista but when I built my new machine, OC'ed i7 920 on x58sli mobo and 12GB of RAM I really had no choice but go Vista64 or try XP 64 which I did not want to do. As with any OS, you tweak it and throw tons of horsepower and RAM at it and it runs flawlessly. People who cry foul the most are businesses hanging on to older workstations and regular folks who bought the bargain machine off the shelf.

At sleepychink125
"please be more knowledgeable about the OS before bashing on the it. W7RC is faster, less compatibility issues (in fact the XP mode guarantees 100% compatibility)"

I guess that 100% compatability does not apply to my Netgear WN111v2 wireless adapter. It works-if I want to re-install it in virtual XP everytime I reboot Windows 7, and ignore the message claiming it failed and to please reboot and try again. If Microsoft would release Windows XP with DirectX 10, I would use that forever.

W7 is just for the whiners that still have XP

Indeed. It was a joke.

However Windows 7 IS NOT VISTA. It is far better, if you actually USED the OS you would know this.

I think you quoted the wrong person. lol.. no biggie.. Just so you know had vista x64 on until the day the beta came out. And switched to the RC as soon as MS' Java plugin let me finish my download. SO I know the difference.

My office has 25 machines running Windows XP. Most of my users are not particularly tech-savvy and would have a hard time learning Vista or Windows 7--Most of them are using XP at home.

Now, an upgrade has costs... You have the license fees and you also have the cost to roll out the OS and to train your staff to use it. The license fees are the smallest part of the actual cost for this rollout.

In testing, I have identified numerous application and process compatibility issues that would be caused by Vista. I run 7 RC at home but won't begin testing for my office environment until it's gold but for now we'll give MS the benefit of the doubt and say that some (but not all) of the compatibility issues will be solved by the time 7 is released.

Now we weigh the costs and the complications against what would be gained by upgrading. And herein lies the rub--I have yet to identify a new feature or component of the newer versions of Windows that would actually help my company. If there was a feature set that would improve productivity, efficiency, security, or anything, that would be one thing. But we're talking about a major expense for a company just so they can say they're using a newer OS and I can't justify that.

I'm not a big fan of upgrading just because it's there. Maybe Windows 7 can do more, but in order for me to consider an OS an upgrade, I need one that will do more for me. Features that I actually would use would need to justify the cost, not just provide some eye candy.