Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In-Depth With the Windows 7 Public Beta

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the ctrl-alt-del-makes-him-blink dept.

Windows 785

Dozer writes "With the Windows 7 public beta out, Ars Technica has an in-depth look at the release. There's praise for Windows 7's UI changes and polish as well much-needed changes to UAC, but also a warning that those who have problems with Vista won't like Windows 7 much better. 'If you couldn't stand Vista's UI (whether it's because you didn't like Explorer, Aero, Control Panel, UAC, or anything else), Windows 7 is unlikely to do much to help, as it builds on the same UI. If Vista's hardware demands were too steep, Windows 7 will likely cause you the same grief, as its hardware demands match. And if Vista didn't work with a program or device you need to use, Windows 7 will offer no salvation, as its compatibility is virtually identical.'"

cancel ×

785 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

smithers! (4, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26425887)

unleash the nerds!!

You. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426139)

Charges: You think it's your patriotic duty to spend money you don't have on crap you don't need. You think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it's actually because she's just a bad liar. You think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, and don't understand why they're so ungrateful. You think Tim Russert was a great journalist. You're hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions, due to a housing crash you somehow have blamed on minorities. It took you six years to figure out what a tool Bush is, but you think Obama will make it all better. You deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from "The View." You think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although your appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. You like watching vicious assholes insult each other on TV. You support gun rights, because firing one gives you a chubby. You cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. You think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. You think progressive taxation is socialism. 1 in 100 of you are in jail, and you think it should be more. You are shallow, inconsiderate, afraid, brand-conscious, sedentary, and totally self-obsessed. You are American.

Re:You. (-1, Offtopic)

htnprm (176191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426389)

Damn. I'd mod him off-topic, but he's right. Oh well.

Re:smithers! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426515)

OK I have not had time to read the link but the big question is if the DRM is still there... That is such a big hog on performance... and it has some major bugs - perfectly legit (family) videos that play in XP will not play in Vista. Why? DRM is the only reason I can come up with. (Codecs are fine).

So if DRM still a problem with Win 7, then I am STUCK with XP.

- SPT

Problems with Chrom in the x64 version (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26425901)

I have just started playing with it, and almost immediately found to run Google Chrome in the 64-bit version you need to add a parameter to the executable. Don't have any ISO's to test right now, anyone know if it lets you mount them, or a 3rd party solution that works?

Re:Problems with Chrom in the x64 version (1)

xlsior (524145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26425953)

Don't have any ISO's to test right now, anyone know if it lets you mount them, or a 3rd party solution that works?

Under Windows Vista 64-bit you can use the 64-bit version of Daemontools that lets you mount ISO's -- I'd assume that would still work under Windows 7 since there are few structural changes between it and Vista.

Re:Problems with Chrom in the x64 version (3, Interesting)

PAPPP (546666) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426061)

I didn't have any luck with daemon tools under Windows 7 (32bit), but SlySoft Virtual Clonedrive (free, http://www.slysoft.com/en/virtual-clonedrive.html [slysoft.com] ) works fine for me. On a more general note, Windows 7 is making it not a chore to leave my usual Linux/XFCE environment, so they must have done something right.

Hardware demands match? (4, Insightful)

aweraw (557447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26425951)

OK, so wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be usable on netbooks? If it's got the same requirements as Vista, then how the hell is that going to work exactly?

Sounds like I'll not be changing my habits much: Windows for Games, Linux for everything else.

Re:Hardware demands match? (5, Funny)

XMode (252740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426005)

MS will hold off on release until netbook manufacturers have high enough specs to run 7.. Duh!

Re:Hardware demands match? (5, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426539)

So they're planning a release around 2045? Right about when pocket calculators can play Crysis.

Re:Hardware demands match? (4, Informative)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426017)

I am wondering that too. Currently Windows 7 and the few applications I have added take up around 20 gigs. I don't think that is too bad, but no way in hell I can see trimming it down for a 8 gig SSD and have any room for anything meaningful.

Re:Hardware demands match? (3, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426321)

The current beta seems to Windows 7 Ultimate... Good grief they have learned nothing... My guess is we will be seeing at least 5 or 6 version of Windows 7
Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Enterprise come right to mind. I just hope they don't offer 32 and 64 bit versions of each...
I just found out one of my programs that I tested under W2k,XP, and Vista doesn't work right under Vista 64!!!! And what is worse I can not figure out what is causing it!

Re:Hardware demands match? (4, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426333)

The base install (32-bit) is 4.9G... you'd have very little space left for other apps without stripping it down.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426051)

By the time windows 7 is released netbooks will be running second gen atom processors

Re:Hardware demands match? (0, Flamebait)

ruewan (952328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426073)

You sound like me. I was forced to use windows to play WOW. The Linux video driver for my Intel 950 sucks. The laptop would freeze a lot after Lich King was released. I started to play in Vista as result but the unresponsiveness in vista of my computer makes me think getting a laptop with a video card that works with WOW in Linux is a better option.

Re:Hardware demands match? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426255)

I was forced to use windows to play WOW.

Isn't WoW the flagship app of Wine these days?

The Linux video driver for my Intel 950 sucks.

Well...I think your larger problem is that the Intel 950 sucks, as do most integrated GPUs. Per Wikipedia, it doesn't even support OpenGL 2.0.

getting a laptop with a video card that works with WOW in Linux is a better option.

There you go. Personally, I've always had good experiences with NVIDIA cards on Linux. Lenovo builds good, reasonably-priced laptops with NVIDIA or ATI cards these days.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426293)

I never played WoW with a gma950, simply because its lack of "complete" support in OpenGL and DirectX; the graphics are pretty much choppy with the lowest settings. Not sure what you are aiming towards with this video card running that game...

Re:Hardware demands match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426303)

I run Slamd64 on both my desktop (Socket 939 x2 3800+, GeForce 6600GT) and my laptop (Core 2 Duo 2.5GHz, Quadro NVS 140). Its the only way I've played WOW. Runs great, except load times are slow on the desktop due to low RAM/swapping.

If you're at the point of buying a new machine, just grab a better video card instead and save some bucks.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426385)

There are a lot of people that use Windows for games only (myself included.) I've luckily been able to keep my XP license viable and avoid Vista. With the current "hype" around Windows 7 though, I have a feeling I'll have to figure out how to make it as much like Win2K as I can just to bear with starting it up and not use a tone of resources with window decoration and needless services.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426549)

The 950 sucks period, though the drivers don't help either.

Pretty much anything pummels the crap out of any Intel video, even the lowest end ATI and NVIDIA chips. the ATI HD3200 in my laptop (an HP tx2500 convertible tablet) more than doubles the performance of Intel's latest and greatest.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426101)

OK, so wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be usable on netbooks? If it's got the same requirements as Vista, then how the hell is that going to work exactly?

Or they could re-define "netbook", "works", or release a special stripped-down version.

Sounds like I'll not be changing my habits much: Windows for Games, Linux for everything else.

Wine...

Re:Hardware demands match? (-1, Redundant)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426173)

Wait six years, and when Windows 7 is actually released, the specs of netbook-class PCs will be high enough to run it:0

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426181)

I run Vista on an older laptop. I disabled all the visual styles and set the theme to "Windows 2000". I also disabled a bunch of stuff like UAC and some of the dumber services.

When you start turning things off in Vista, it seems to run okay on older hardware. The OS does a performance check, but fails to cut back on enough things to keep the OS usable by default.

Re:Hardware demands match? (4, Informative)

MBoffin (259181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426203)

My experience doesn't match their assessment. I'm running Windows 7 on my Dell Mini and it runs faster than Windows XP Home ran on this exact same machine.

Re:Hardware demands match? (3, Informative)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426357)

Likewise I'm finding that Windows 7 feels subjectively more responsive than XP on the same hardware. So far I'm really liking the beta, but as a microsoftie friend of mine pointed out, "the vista betas worked really well too...." I'm not going to go off the handle and run this on my laptop or work machines (instead of linux), but I could easily see keeping this as the OS on my one windows desktop machine that I use for gaming...

Re:Hardware demands match? (1, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426407)

Runs faster, or feels faster?

Re:Hardware demands match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426211)

I actually disagree - my machine (A single core P4 @ 3Ghz, with 1 gig of RAM, and a geforce 7600) ran like sludge under Vista. Under the Windows 7 Beta, it's pretty good - demanding of RAM, but it seems to be using it in the right places.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

lordfoul (108260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426423)

Win 7 Beta works well on my Aspire One. I can say it is better Than XP but it doesn't feel sluggish at all.

Re:Hardware demands match? (1)

lordfoul (108260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426439)

That Should read "Can't say that it is better than XP"

Re:Hardware demands match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426457)

umm...whoever wrote this article needs to check again. i got it running on a test machine at my school that has a celeron d 1.6ish ghz and 1.25 gig ram that is shared with the video card. it has INSANE speed increase over vista. aero and everything worked like a charm. it just requires more hard drive space, but that can be cut down if you remove all the excess printer drivers and such

Re:Hardware demands match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426505)

Uh Windows 7 uses less resources for me than Vista did. I ran Vista 32-bit and it used more resources than my Windows 7 64-bit.

So in my opinion, it may be the same hardware requirements, but Windows 7 runs faster with less resources.

What's the point?? (3, Interesting)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26425987)

I wonder what Win7 is supposed to fix. I'm probably in the minority, but I actually like the Vista GUI. It's cleaner, a little "Tonka Toy" in areas, but seems more polished than XP. What I don't like about Vista are the problems with wireless, power, CPU utilization, random disk storms, and some strange memory issues when running large JVMs. If Win7 fixes the non-gui related issues then I won't mind using it.

Strangely enough, on my Linux desktops I prefer a very minimal GUI such as fluxbox or xfce4. I turn off almost everything except for a gkrellm monitor. I did play with compiz and beryl for a while, and it was interesting at first, but quickly became annoying.

Re:What's the point?? (3, Insightful)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426109)

I don't think it's supposed to fix anything fundamental. The article makes it clear that Windows 7 seems to focus on all-around issues of polish and usability. There are a few significant under-the-hood changes, but this remains a minor point-release based on the major changes that Vista made. Pushing this out as Windows 7 instead of Vista SP2 probably has to do with the widespread negative association people have with the "Vista" name itself. Vista got so much bad press, even if SP2 introduced all these fixes and made Vista usable and polished, people still wouldn't adopt it. Releasing it as Windows 7 solves that problem.

I'm an Apple user, but it seems to me that Microsoft is focusing on the same things that Apple usually gets right: polish and user experience. As long as Windows 7 doesn't run like a dog, I think it will be a competitive release, and not one that Apple will be able to mock with the same ease as Vista in their Mac-vs-PC commercials. Meanwhile, Apple seems to be doing the opposite--taking time off from features and user experience to work on the under-the-hood changes. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard will be an interesting match-up.

Re:What's the point?? (4, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426249)

windows 7 is to vista what win98 was to win95. if people still aren't understanding this, they have problems

Re:What's the point?? (-1, Flamebait)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426459)

Looks like all the stuff I don't like about Vista, mixed with all the stuff I don't like about Mac's.

I'll stick with Ubuntu, thanks. If it doesn't run APT, it's shite.

Re:What's the point?? (4, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426329)

They've definitely improve the basic disk footprint. Vista-64 defaulted to nearly 14GB on my notebook (including swap and hibernation files). Windows 7 came in at a little over 7GB.

It is, as timmarhy points out, akin to Win98 compared to Win95. But Win98 is the part of Win9x that everyone remembers most pleasantly (or for some least painfully). There are still some things that I don't like about Windows 7, but as I just installed it over the weekend, I haven't had much chance to beat up on it yet. I do seem to recall that there were fewer UAC prompts installing software, though.

Re:What's the point?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426361)

Vista had promised a lot of user interface improvements, and in fact re-wrote a lot of underlying code to support it (causing incompatibilities). Then they cut all of the actual UI improvements for time.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but good on Microsoft for focusing on the user experience.

Re:What's the point?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426387)

When i inviage windows i think of the literal meaning. So a good window is clean, clear and able to see everything that's awesome. When vista rolled out the only thing i could see was dirty smudged glass from a decrepid building of fail and i can't stand using it.

Makes me wonder (1)

ruewan (952328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26425991)

If windows has the same problems which kept businesses from replacing XP with Vista. What happens when support for XP runs out?

Re:Makes me wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426037)

To steal from "Snatch":

Turkish: Well then the business gets fucked.
Tommy: [pauses] Proper fucked?

Re:Makes me wonder (1)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426047)

internal tools development

Re:Makes me wonder (1)

shadwstalkr (111149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426313)

They get over it and pay to upgrade equipment and training. If they really cared about how their computers work, they wouldn't have been locked in to a single vendor whose entire business plan is forcing upgrades.

Re:Makes me wonder (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426377)

some will launch a "consolidated" Win XP Sp3 with a shitload of drivers and other stuff (even some backdoors if you don't pay attention), this time you will find it in torrent because is not Microsoft who will launch it. :P

Feh to the new UI (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426013)

I (foolishly, naively, but showing mostly uncrushable optimism) downloaded the beta and installed it only to be confronted what looked like Server 2008 minus the "classic" theme, perhaps "diet Vista".

Am I the only one that's more turned off by the Vista UI than the shitload of crap under the hood? I find tasks I can do simply and quickly, and with a fair amount of transparency with the "classic" UI, to be made highly opaque by the Vista (for lack of a better word) UI and involving much more effort, often MORE clicking, MORE bullshitting around. I did a Server 2008 server setup the other day (could have done 2003, but it was a small client doing filesharing only, so it was a good way to get my feet wet) and I was astonished that they had managed to make NTFS permissions editing and sharing setup involve more work with less control of the outcome than Server 2003.

Maybe I'm just getting Old And In The Way, but I'm missing the reason why they have to change the way some tasks are performed and the structure of the GUI. It seems like they're just making it different to be different and dumbing it down even dumber than it already was. Is there some sensible reason why the GUI needs to be so substantially changed?

Re:Feh to the new UI (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426347)

You're not the only one. Microsoft has been shepherding the UI towards 'desktops for simpletons' since at least 2K. I had to chuckle at mr. fanboy author's mention of second guessing the user. What else is new? I find more time is spent routing around 'choices' Redmond developers make for me than just straight forward getting it done on bog clean UIs like Pekwm.

It's a constant source of amazement so many view the abuse dished out by Microsoft's UI team as usability, arguing small angels-on-pinhead details such as where core functions have been moved/hidden this time instead of grasping it's a poor UI imposed by a corporate monoculture who's only true advantage is crushing market dominance. In Henry Ford's day all cars looked better in black too.

Re:Feh to the new UI (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426373)

Is there some sensible reason why the GUI needs to be so substantially changed?

I think Microsoft has decided to employ a development philosophy where they use the principles of evolution, i.e. make a bunch of random mutations, keep what works, kill what doesn't work. In UI terms, this means shuffling things around with each release.

I'm kind of joking, but I've read that Microsoft's UI design relies heavily on user testing. They apparently spend a lot of time watching what users do, asking users about the experience, shuffling things around, and then testing again how users respond to the UI with the changes.

Re:Feh to the new UI (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426489)

I hope 31 isn't old, because I felt the EXACT same way (except the optimism part.)

I don't understand... (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426015)

So... the summary is basically saying that the problems everyone complained about with Vista, seem to be basically still there with Windows 7?

Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about? Windows 7 beta seems to have had favorable reviews, so I wonder what people are basing that on, after reading this summary. (though, I note that Vista had favorable reviews on its launch too. It was just when reality bit that the knives came out. Shillery will only get you so far).

Not that I really care, since I've never used Vista and I won't be using Windows 7. XP still works fine for the one Windows box I have, and after any SP3 a Microsoft product is as good as it gets.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426187)

Windows 7 beta seems to have had favorable reviews, so I wonder what people are basing that on, after reading this summary. (though, I note that Vista had favorable reviews on its launch too. It was just when reality bit that the knives came out. Shillery will only get you so far)
As you said so did Vista, but as well Windows 3.0, 3.1, NT, 95, NT4, 98, ME, 2000, XP.

Still today a journalist would seem like a wacko left wing radical if they dared not to give Microsoft windows some good reviews.

I feel gone are the days of Windows 95 where people waited in line for days to get the new OS.

Re:I don't understand... (5, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426189)

Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about?

Windows 7 Beta: Now with more hookers.*

*Hookers available for tech journalists and reviewers only.

Re:I don't understand... (2, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426425)

Most of the real-world complaints about Vista upon launch revolved around application and hardware compatibility, with a nice dose of "the system requirements are what!?!" Also, Vista didn't do anything that XP didn't already do, so why bother?

Since launch, Vista has recieved a lot of needed application and hardware compatibility, and a lot of under-the-hood fixes. Additionally, the kinds of hardware requirements that Vista needed became commonplace.

Really, the only substantial launch problem with Vista that hasn't been solved already is its general pointlessness. With Windows 7 you at least have the potential for a better interface.

Full disclosure: I have Vista, XP, Ubuntu, and OSX 10.5 laptops.

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426429)

PR... vista was a PR disaster. Microsoft is spinning Windows 7 as a fixed version, and spending a lot of money on favourable reviews. When in truth, it has all the same faults as Vista -same requirements - the DRM is even more embedded now, it's further along the way of Trusted Computing... it still breaks loads of device drivers with the obnoxious DRM requirements (all those sound APIs that were years in development... all still gone in the name if Digital Restrictions).

It's also true that lots of businesses will not touch a Microsoft product until the next version is out - hence the rush for Windows 7, which will legitimise Vista for the moron corporates.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426445)

"Windows 7 - the polished turd previously known as Vista".

In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426023)

Windows 7 is nothing but a rebranded Vista?

Vista with a new taskbar, and just as annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426029)

There is virtually no difference in windows 7. It is a little faster because the extra crap isnt installed by default, and it has a rip off of gnome for a taskbar, and it has more annoying network features that mean nothing to a power user. Bottom line, Same $#!^ different smell.

Re:Vista with a new taskbar, and just as annoying (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426517)

Oh please don't equate that taskbar to Gnome-like. It's really NOTHING like Gnome's bar except that it's square.

beta of a name change (0, Troll)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426035)

Nothing more. Just viral marketing.

Ob XKCD (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426039)

xkcd 528 [xkcd.com] :

"What are you doing?"
"Trying the Windows 7 Beta"
"Why is it showing a picture of Hitler?"
"I don't know. I can't get it to do anything else."
"There's no UI?"
"No, just Hitler."
"Did you try Control-Alt-Delete?"
"It just makes Hitler's eyes flash."
"Huh... well, it's better than Vista."
"True."

Disclaimer (3, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426481)

I have not actually tried the beta yet. I hear it's quite pleasant and hardly Hitler-y at all.

(For those that don't read it regularly, you should really read the alt text as well.)

Windows7 Rebranded Vista SP2 w/ New Taskbar (4, Insightful)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426063)

So in a nutshell, Windows7 is rebranded Vista SP2. That in itself is fine with me, since SP2 is about when Microsoft O/Ses get stable enough for production use. And the taskbar and other UI changes generally look to be an improvement.

However, the big concern many, including myself, have with Windows7, is DRM ... is it overloaded with DRM that limits software usefulness / degrades performance?

Ron

Re:Windows7 Rebranded Vista SP2 w/ New Taskbar (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426547)

However, the big concern many, including myself, have with Windows7, is DRM ... is it overloaded with DRM that limits software usefulness / degrades performance?

Ron

No (in the same way Vista's DRM didn't limit software usefulness and/or degrade performance).

FFS (5, Insightful)

GFree678 (1363845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426091)

For goodness sake, the majority of comments I read about Win 7 are almost overwhelmingly positive. Why must Slashdot continue to moan when Microsoft appear to have learnt from their mistakes with Vista? It's fucking annoying.

Re:FFS (2, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426207)

For goodness sake, the majority of comments I read about Win 7 are almost overwhelmingly positive. Why must Slashdot continue to moan when Microsoft appear to have learnt from their mistakes with Vista? It's fucking annoying.

It's not Slashdot, it's an article on Ars Technica. Secondly, Vista had overwhelming positive reviews when it was released too. And the only conclusion, in hindsight, that can be drawn from that, is that Microsoft has a lot of shills, and will pay a lot of money to get good publicity -- because those Vista reviews were dead wrong, and we all know it now.

Windows 7 has had many good reviews. Why on Earth should anyone trust any review after the Vista PR experience?

Re:FFS (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426217)

I agree. Use the beta, kids. It's not bad.

Re:FFS (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426561)

I loaded it up and spent 2 days trying to make it as usable as Win2K... It's still not quite there. All the config options are buried further in, the interface has gotten in my way (than out of my way) and I can't seem to figure out how to restore the Classic Start Menu (or make the new one function as well.)

Re:FFS (1, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426301)

For goodness sake, the majority of comments I read about Win 7 are almost overwhelmingly positive. Why must Slashdot continue to moan when Microsoft appear to have learnt from their mistakes with Vista? It's fucking annoying.

Because they haven't?

OK, they did learn that having everything and the kitchen sink load synchronously before letting the user click anything was a bad idea, so now the non-essential crap loads asynchronously after the base/kernel/who knows what they're calling it these days? loads.

They also did not improve the actual plumbing underneath, just lipsticked the pig. (Yes, prefetch is just lipsticking the pig in this case) That's one example, another would be that the DRM is still there, still intertwined with the kernel, still getting in the way of programmers and performance.

It'll be interesting to see whether XP outlasts Windows 7 as well.

Re:FFS (3, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426537)

I still see the odd Windows 98/95 installations. I'm certain XP will outlast Windows 8.

People get stupid ideas in their heads like "Windows 98 is TEH FASTEST!!!" and they never switch. Such is life. The rest of us actually evaluate it. Make an informed rational decision and move on with our lives.

Simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426335)

Because people need Microsoft to be the enemy to feel a part of the Slashdot culture. It transcends logic, because someone can make a completely unfounded statement about how they had a bad experience on Windows with faulty hardware or the like, and wow, the OS sucks! It blue-screened! But then report that Linux failed in similar circumstances and you get 10 posts eager to point the finger at everything (including the user) other than the operating system. Funny how that works.

Most knowledgeable people in the tech industry laugh at Slashdot's comments section. People who know so little feel the need to talk so much.

So that's how the FUD begins... (1)

Ramsees (1007423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426095)

The article say so many good things of Windows 7 regardless vista and the poster just take some words out of context to spread the FUD. Your FUD won't make us use Linux you know. I don't want to be related to those kind of FUD spreaders.

I use both (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426167)

and ignore the frustrated virgins who post such tripe.

An axe to chop down a tree... a nose dropper to clear my sinuses, as my grandpappy used to say.

Note on "hardware demands match"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426097)

While it's true that Microsoft claims the same system requirements for Windows 7 as they do Vista, 7 actually preforms considerably better than Vista on the same hardware.

There's been a couple of benchmarks showing it ahead of XP on the same hardware as well.

Re:Note on "hardware demands match"... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426469)

That's compared to XP SP3, SP2 is still the fastest MS OS currently supported (well possibly 2008 SP1 depending on what you are trying to do).

Win7 is to Vista as Win98 was to Win95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426099)

It's an important step forward, but it's nothing groundbreaking. Still waiting for the next XP.

Re:Win7 is to Vista as Win98 was to Win95 (0, Troll)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426345)

I'm still waiting for the next Win2K....More stable, less bloated, faster. Wait, that's in an alternate reality. I've already found OSX, and the improvements from 10.3 - 10.5 are truly amazing. Pretty much the opposite of MS OSes, which seem to degrade with each release (W7 not withstanding, as it's really just rebranded Vista SP2/3)

Re:Win7 is to Vista as Win98 was to Win95 (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426509)

It's funny how people like Win2K these days. I remember it being very late and a popular target on this website for gaining so much bloat (30 million lines of code, up from NT4's 15 million), and shipping with 65,000 bugs. In a few years, maybe you'll look back at Vista or XP in the same way.

Sounds Familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426103)

After reading the first paragraph, I started thinking he was describing OS X...

So in other words... (-1, Flamebait)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426129)

It's the same crap with even MORE bling bling on top! And MSFT wonders why folks are hanging onto XP like a starving man hanging onto the last box of Fig Newtons. My prediction: Just like before the press will gush on and on about the new "Win7 super bling bling experience" and when it is released it will go down faster than GM stock. Folks hated the Vista look, and now they are going to "fix it" by taking away the quicklaunch and taskbar and replacing it with something that makes it hard to tell if a program is running or not? And can you say "Apple Dock ripoff?".

If I had wanted an Apple I would have got an Apple. This thing is going to bomb SO hard it isn't even funny. The only nice thing is with MSFT committing suicide like this it should open the OS space up to competition once again. The press can gush all they want. Just look at how they tripped over themselves to gush about Vista when it was pre-release. It didn't help. Home users HATE change, Vista(now Win7) brings nothing to business except more costs, since with a locked down XP they didn't have the problems that home users running as admin did, and by release time I'm sure they will have added enough bloated bling bling crap that it makes Vista look skinny.

This is SUCH a bad idea. Mark my words. Six months after it is released the sales figures will suck and OEMs will either be screaming for XP back or will be selling more Linux options just because the home users hate this. Get rid of the bling, get rid of the bloat, quit trying to be Apple, and go back to making boring as hell low resource backwards compatible business OSes again. Because no matter how hard you try with crap like "Mohave" you are NEVER going to get people to like something they HATE. And Vista with a new skin is still Vista.

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426323)

You say people hate change. So what makes you think they will ditch Windows in general and use Linux? People just need something to bitch about.

Re:So in other words... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426557)

Because you can get Linux distros that look EXACTLY like XP? Complete with the blue bar and the start/programs style layout?

MSFT seems to have missed the memo. More and more of the things that folks are using computers for now(email/surfing/document editing,etc) don't HAVE to be done on Windows. And with EA and the other game publishers bending over their customers trying to see who can come up with the nastiest DRM folks are more and more going to the consoles which removes one of the biggest lock ins they had. Finally folks HATE feeling lost and frustrated. It makes them feel stupid and they hate it. I am willing to bet if you set two machines side by side and one of them was the "Win7 bling bling extra goodness!" edition and one was a Linux copying XP, folks would be able to find their way around the Linux machine easier.

Vista has been out, what now? Three years? And I have YET to have a customer come into my shop saying how they love Vista. They are frustrated, they can't find anything, it is slower than their old XP machine, and none of their stuff works. It has gotten to the point that I refuse to work on Vista machines because they get mad because I can't "Make it act like XP!" and that simply isn't possible. They LIKE XP, they know how to get around since it is basically the same interface they have had since Win95. The only nice thing about Vista and soon to be Win7 is I have been making extra by buying up and selling off lease office machine with XP. You know that your customers hate a MSFT OS when they are willing to pay MORE for an off lease XP machine than for a cheap Dell Vista one. You just can't make someone like something they don't. And putting "lipstick on the pig" isn't going to make Win7 a damned bit more popular IMHO than Vista is right now. Mark my words, it WILL bomb.

Re:So in other words... (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426353)

You keep harping on about going back to XP, when you people had the exact same ditribe about XP when it first came out. why don't we see this kind of thing when an open source package breaks backward compatability or copies features?

Re:So in other words... (0, Redundant)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426413)

Windows has been done. Until a genuine need comes along there won't be a real need for a new version.

A rose by any other name... (0, Redundant)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426133)

Windows 7 builds on the same [Vista] UI
Windows 7 hardware demands match [Vista]
Windows 7 compatibility is virtually identical [to Vista]

and I'd bet "Windows 7 contains the same DRM restrictions [as Vista]"

If Microsoft was honest, they'd just call it Vista SP2.

Tried it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426143)

I dl'd it yesterday and have been trying it all day.

My Results? I's ok. Just seems to be on par with Vista or Xp... nothing worth writing home about.

HATRED BOOTLOADER (-1, Flamebait)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426149)

You know after trying "7" i thought is was somewhat okay, until i got to the BOOTLOADER!!!!!!!!!!1

F**K the new bootloader, it is made in MicroSatan's usual contempt for other operating systems like linux, and even sh*ts on XP for loading. I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE THE NEW BOOTLOADER!!!!!!!!!

grrrrrrrrrrr
*more unintelligible sounds*

(also my first post)

Re:HATRED BOOTLOADER (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426409)

Can you elaborate on that? What does it do?

Missing the Important Changes (3, Informative)

zwekiel (1445761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426165)

After reading the article, it seems like Windows 7 has changed some things which really did not need changing, not fixed some of the more irritating problems from Vista, like UAC, and has little to offer in the way of performance benefits. According to the article, it's about a 10% increase in performance, which is really negligible at this point.

What Microsoft needs to do is reconsider every part of their operating system to see its actual value in the operating system. Keep the things that don't need changing, and don't just change them to have shiny new stuff to demo. The task bar was fine as it is. Get back to the basics and focus on the core of the operating system. Reduce its weight, reduce the fluff. I like the approach Apple is taking with Snow Leopard. Too often do operating system vendors think what users really want are shiny new dongles and gadgets. I, for one, want a usable, stable, and fast Operating System.

This is not just a Microsoft flame, either. I also think this Compiz Fusion business on Linux is quite silly. Adding cheap flashy effects, which offer very little in usability, but add expensive speed requirements should not be the aim of any operating system creator. /rant>

Re:Missing the Important Changes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426307)

The new taskbar is actually a drastic improvement - it's the OSX dock, but done right. Unlike the OSX dock, you can easily tell which applications are running, and unlike the OSX dock, applications don't minimise to some weird area over on the right for no apparent reason. The implementation of the window previews is fantastic....when you hover over the preview, it makes every other window transparent, allowing you to be sure that you're grabbing the right window.

To put it another way, if you like the Firefox 3 Awesome Bar, you'll like the new taskbar. If you hated the Awesome bar, then you'll want to stick with something that has the classic UI, although I can't see why you'd want to.

Oh, and UAC actually doesn't suck anymore. Pretty much the only time it comes up is when installing applications, and if that prevents computers becoming infested with adware toolbars, I'm all for that.

I have one gripe - I tried Magicdisc (an ISO loader) and it fucked the whole system up. Had to use System Restore to get rid of it. But I kinda expected that, trying an app that relies on dummy drivers under an unsupported OS.

Re:Missing the Important Changes (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426523)

GUIs were once seen as cheap, flashy effects, too, but evolved. And if the power is there to run it with some flash, why not take advantage of it? I do think that those users who prefer to run without it should be able to do so, but those that want it should still have the option.

Same UI, Same backend, Same Hardware Requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426185)

"More Polish" Sounds like polishing a turd to me.

I HAVE to buy it (0, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426231)

Oh my GOD, it has a NEW TASKBAR!!!

Surely that's worth forking out yet another $200. I HAVE to buy it!!!

As Warren Buffet said: Microsoft is a company without a business model.

Funny, I just swapped motherboards in my dual boot computer. Guess which partition I had to re-format and re-install. Was it linux? NOPE. Linux detected my new board and CPU and booted everything like a charm. Windows, on the other hand... and that's because I run XP. Heavens forbid I ran Vista - I'm sure I'd have to pay the Microsoft tax yet again because I dared to upgrade my PC.

    Oh well. Good luck, Microsoft. Hey is Direct X 11 only going to run on Windows 7?

Re:I HAVE to buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426351)

Why upgrade when you can get a new shiny computer with a new shiny OS?

Comments are FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426317)

Wow, the tags, comments and summary here are more biased and FUD than an MS press release. I'm reserving judgment for the RTM but I'll bet not one of the single negative comments in this discussion are relevant or informed.

Biggest improvement (4, Funny)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426319)

Shutdown button... has the word "shutdown" on it. This is the biggest improvement over vista.

Good analysis (2, Funny)

JSmooth (325583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426331)

As usual and excellent analysis by Ars. Here's my takeway

The taskbar? That's it? That's why I should go to Vista/Windows 7? Ooof! All these wasted years with my inferior taskbar.

It's like lasy year when the new BMW's came out and they had an improved cup-holder. Man I traded in my old one that day!

Welcome to the New (0, Flamebait)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426363)

Welcome to the new, same as the old. Perhaps I'm stoopid and don't understand things but I'd have thought, after the pretty widely agreed upon failure of Vista that Microsoft would have made strong efforts to do things different with 7. I just don't understand why they'd do more of the same, but updated. Failure updated will still probably be a failure. I know I'm I Mac fanboy (at least I can admit it), but I really think Microsoft needs to take a lesson from Apple here - chuck the old system out, wholesale, and start fresh from the ground up with a strong vision in place to make sure the new system does everything the old system never could. Everything I've heard about Windows 7 suggests that Microsoft clearly is not doing this. Again.

Win 7 is THE xp replacement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426405)

This is what I was waiting for. A change from XP. Vista wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Most did not even try using it, or installed it on shitty machines, or just a dumbf*** who can't use a modern OS properly. Of course it will suck. I used it on a pentium 4, 3Ghz and with just 1gb ram and it was just fine. People just whine about newere operating systems needing more hardware resources. They complained about XP needing 128MB of ram? they said Windows 98 was just what the world needed, no need to change. Then came XP and people got used to it. Now comes Vista and people start bitching again. I say to them, STFU!

You can now visit ipv6 enabled sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426411)

Windows 7 comes with Teredo preconfigured, so you can visit ipv6 stuff if your ISP doesn't support ipv6yet.

Other than that, I'm not finding too much to be wow'd by yet.

The Taskbar is The Dock (1)

jamesswift (1184223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426435)

One of the weakest elements of the OSX GUI, in my experience is the dock.
And now we'll be forced to use it in Windows too.

Damn

Re:The Taskbar is The Dock (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26426529)

You can just opt to use the older menu system if you don't like the new taskbar. No idea if it's possible to turn off the dock in OS-X. But I can never understand why slashdotters are so obsessed with claiming they're being forced to do stuff. You don't have to use either OS. Buy something else, use something else. If the alternatives aren't compelling, well, you made your choice either way -- nobody forced your hand.

Why so negative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26426511)

I have downloaded and tested Windows 7 for 1 day, it is really an upgraded version of vista, there aren't too much changes under the hood. But that is what makes it a good OS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>