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!

Windows 7 RTM Reviewed & Benchmarked

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the praising-with-faint-damns dept.

Microsoft 792

An anonymous reader writes "The code is final, and CNet has reviewed the final version of Windows 7, with benchmarks to support the case that it's not only the fastest version of Windows to shut down, but also looks like 'the operating system that both Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for.' The review continues: 'By fixing most of the perceived and real problems in Vista, Microsoft has laid the groundwork for the future of where Windows will go. Windows 7 presents a stable platform that can compete comfortably with OS X, while reassuring the world that Microsoft can still turn out a strong, useful operating system.'"

cancel ×

792 comments

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

The competition is OSX (-1, Flamebait)

achten (1032738) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952315)

So, all linux fanboys have nothing to fear of !!!

Re:The competition is OSX (2, Interesting)

carlmenezes (204187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952471)

Linux never had anything from fear from Windows 7. It's well past Windows in terms of usability and elegance. All Linux needs now is more high quality applications.

Re:The competition is OSX (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952661)

Uh huh...and pull this leg, it plays jingle bells! Seriously, how many times have you had to go CLI in the past month? The past week? Hell most Mac and Windows users don't even know there IS a CLI interface, and they sure as hell don't want to be using it!

Look, I'll be the first to admit that Linux rocks on servers. It is rock solid, secure, a real tank of an OS. But we are talking Windows 7 here, which is most definitely NOT targeted at servers. It is targeted at home users. Home users, I might add, who often can't even find their way around control panel without someone holding their hand. Windows is quite good at that BTW. But Linux? You better be bestest friends with Mr. CLI if you want to play in that sandbox. It seems like every time there is an update something breaks and requires CLI. Sound broke? Ooops..CLI. Monitor isn't showing the right resolution? CLI baby. Which you can understand as the big money being spent on Linux is by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and it is all going to server support. And server admins live and die CLI and hate GUIs, as they just suck precious resources.

I know this will get me modded to hell, and I don't care. Being a fanboy is one thing, being delusional is another. I can make an example that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Linux isn't ready for home users. Ready? Remove Bash. That's right, no Bash, no Korn, no Bourne, no shells of ANY kind. Do that with a fresh install and see if it will run six months, with allowing updates, without any access to CLI. But I bet not a single Linux user would dare to do that. Because they know without CLI they are boned. But Windows home users will NEVER use CLI. Let me repeat that: Windows home users will NEVER EVER use CLI. In fact most power users don't care for it either. They don't like it, don't want it, and if you make them use CLI you might as well say "please have someone go install Windows for you" because that is EXACTLY what will happen. I truly hope that a day comes when you can actually remove CLI from Linux and still have a usable machine, but I won't hold my breath.

Re:The competition is OSX (0, Troll)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952701)

Idiot. I haven't had to go to the CLI at ALL in the past month. ONCE in the past year, and that was to do something just as simple in the GUI. It just so happens that sudo apt-get install is faster than opening Synaptic and searching when you want to install something. I'd tell you to stop talking out of your ass, but I'm not certain you even know where it is.

Re:The competition is OSX (5, Insightful)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952705)

"Remove Bash. That's right, no Bash, no Korn, no Bourne, no shells of ANY kind. Do that with a fresh install and see if it will run six months, with allowing updates, without any access to CLI."

That's an absurd thing to say and betrays your ignorance here. The shell is an integral part of a Unix system. If you remove /bin/sh, the system will not even boot. Any Unix system will be this way, including OS X, because this specific interpreted language is part of what makes Unix Unix.

As far as not using the shell for day-to-day tasks, you can do that with Linux now. Ubuntu has all those point-and-click controls you love, and you're free to use them instead of the shell if you like. You'll get things done more slowly, because GUI configs suck, but that's your choice.

What may make you believe it's impossible to go without using a shell in Linux is the fact that Linux people tend to suggest typing shell commands when people ask how to fix problems on a forum. This is because the shell is the best, fastest way to fix problems in Linux, even when other options are available, and we won't suggest an inferior solution unless pressed for it.

Re:The competition is OSX (5, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952789)

I find it's less about superiority of the shell when I suggest a solution. Saying "Open the terminal and type..." is a lot easier than "See that thing there? Click on that, and then in the menu find..."

Re:The competition is OSX (3, Insightful)

killthepoor187 (1600283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952747)

It's no longer 2002. Install Ubuntu and you will NEVER have to use the CLI. That's right. NEVER. I like it because you can do some neat things with it, but then I use CLI in windows too. But is it required for normal operation? No. It's not.

Do I think Linux is retard-friendly on the level of windows? No. But It's come a long way. And the old CLI complaint has officially died. Buried next to driver support qq and native-app woes.

Don't like? Fine. But leave your FUD at the door please.

Re:The competition is OSX (3, Insightful)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952697)

It's well past Windows in terms of usability and elegance

Get off my lawn. You were referring to OSX in that sentence... right? Or was this a joke/troll that was lost on me? Ok I'll bite:

What I have to point here is much to the disdain of a acute microsoftus haterii patient, we all know Linux is not elegant or stunningly usable by any reasonable and pertinent definition. Maybe you were more impressed with wobbly windows than most of us, but while there is an outstanding choice to customize and make it beautiful it just not pretty out of the box. I have yet to see a elegant Linux distribution that doesn't have amateurish desktop and default themes. Don't get me started on the ugly fonts. Multimedia is still broken on Linux. Usability is a very mixed bag, but I will concede that is getting very good.

I'm using Win7 RC to write this, which has been my main desktop OS when I'm not in a bash shell.

Linux is the far superior workhorse, OSX and Windows are better show ponies, don't get the them confused. Mod me down for saying it I don't care.

Re:The competition is OSX (4, Funny)

TheDugong (701481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952519)

They can pry my Ubuntu from my warm sweaty palms!

Re:The competition is OSX (2, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952587)

So, all linux fanboys have nothing to fear of !!!

Excellent.

When Microsoft turn Windows into OSX then all the businesses will run the the next best alternative to avoid it, Linux.

Then they will all pay me licensing fees. (channelling Darl Mcbride)

Re:The competition is OSX (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952629)

These two are dueling now, but some third OS might have the last laugh here still.

Start-bar aka Dock! (1)

SectoidRandom (87023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952669)

I have to say, being one of those closet users who has always admired the OSX Dock (and chosen to emulate it as close as possible whenever using Linux), I have to say after using Win7 for a couple of months I love the new start-bar! Finally almost 15 years (roughly since Win95) of pretty poor UI design when you consider the the Start-Menu and task bar, finally Windows has a task bar that *works*!

All it needs in the next version is to cut off the unused part (up to the sys-tray) then it will truely be a Dock! Seriously for those of you who have tested Win7, how many of you have found that your applications almost never fill up the entire bar? With everything stacked (properly stacked that is not like in previous Windows's) even with my usual 5-10 apps running the icons at most take 2/3 of the task bar, it's great.

Although it has to be said it is a personal thing, some people will of course choose to ungroup their start bar icons, and make it all more like the old versions, those are probably the same people who have 50+ program icons (not documents) on their desktops. :)

Fast way to shut down! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952317)

Pull the plug!

Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.

7 might be better than vista. but i still dont believe it's the fastest ever or any of their other bs.

This isn't news. it's an ad.

Vista was the fastest Windows (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952349)

From installation to wipe in an average of ten days. A pioneering achievement.

As for the rest of this prerelease hype, I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Fast way to shut down! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952395)

Pull the plug!

Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.

7 might be better than vista. but i still dont believe it's the fastest ever or any of their other bs.

This isn't news. it's an ad.

Have you actually tried it or are you just writing this too look cool (in reality totally stupid?)

Re:Fast way to shut down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952453)

Honestly, it's the /. 2 in the morning crowd. You think anyone here is gonna look at this even mildly objectively?

Re:Fast way to shut down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952577)

Dude I know the FAQs say that this is an "American" site and thus can show an "Armerican Bias" but it is not. "2 in the morning" is only true for a subset of its readership.

Re:Fast way to shut down! (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952411)

Pull the plug!

Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.

7 might be better than vista. but i still dont believe it's the fastest ever or any of their other bs.

This isn't news. it's an ad.

You might like to actually test it, people have been telling good things about Windows 7, and the interface and updates do look quite nice. Personally I'm using Vista as I never bothered to replace it with XP, so I should notice it even more.

Judging from the article and what I've read before, they've spend time on making sure interface and the system responsiveness improves a lot. That is what people usually consider as "fast", even if its fake-fast it looks faster. Its pretty much the only thing OS can do to appear faster anyways - You cant magically get more CPU power.

Re:Fast way to shut down! (1)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952469)

Pull the plug!

Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.

I guess it depends on what else, apart from the OS, the machine's running in the background and how nicely that stuff plays with others. Microsoft's marketing department isn't alone in being full of crap - sometimes their customers machines are too.

Re:Fast way to shut down! (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952547)

Yeah. Perhaps 7 is greater than Vista. But, I doubt 7 will be necessarily greater than XP. I wish Microsoft would spend more time perfecting XP, but thankfully you can still get XP via OEM.

Personally, I think speed and performance will be the key to any new OS, not necessarily features.

Re:Fast way to shut down! (3, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952579)

Having not read the article, I do have to say I find it rather humorous that the shutdown benchmark is the one that was cited. To me, that seems like a sort of implicit admission that shutting down is something that will need to be done frequently, though I'm sure that wasn't the intention. Looking at my current uptime, I'm at just under a month up and running right now (on my non-Windows OS), and I haven't been making any special attempt to stay up more than I regularly would...I just haven't had a reason to shut down in that period. Is shutting down quickly something that really matters that much to "normal" people?

Re:Fast way to shut down! (5, Interesting)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952583)

Benchmarks might not indicate it to be fastest, but it sure FEELS fast in general use.

This is one thing benchmarks unfortunately do not show, but is where Windows 7 (and FreeBSD as well) excel - responsiveness.

On a modern multitasking machine, I (for one) don't care so much if a task takes a little longer to complete in the background so long as I can carry on working in the foreground.

7 Multitasks better than any previous Windows OS bar none, and I think this is why it "feels" faster. It responds to user input a lot better.

Re:Fast way to shut down! (-1, Troll)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952623)

Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.

But Microsoft are doing things differently. They used engineers to sell vista on its supposed merits, now they are using Marketers to sell Seven on its supposed merits. Little wonder they consider Apple a competitor, they're following the same over hype and under deliver business model.

Great goals (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952335)

> fastest version of Windows to shut down,

Was that ever a problem? start shut down, and turn out the lights, It will be down when you come back in the morning.

How about boot up time?

Re:Great goals (5, Funny)

Verminator (559609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952357)

As the most useful thing any user can do with Windows is to shut it down, this is a critical benchmark of performance.

Re:Great goals (3, Funny)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952491)

Shutting down is part of the restart process, which I personally do several times a day just to make sure everything is running A-OK!!!

Re:Great goals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952757)

Shutting down is part of the restart process, which I personally do several times a day just to make sure everything is running A-OK!!!

So what you're saying is Windows needs to be restarted every couple hours to run OK? Time to rethink your OS of choice.

Re:Great goals (0, Troll)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952775)

Let me get this straight: you not only reboot several times a day, you think it's normal. Right now, my Fedora 10 box hasn't been rebooted in just over five days, and that was because a circuit breaker popped. Before that, I had just over thirty days of uptime since the last kernel update, and I've had it running longer than that a few times. (Just for the record, it's running BOINC 24/7, so it's not like I'm wasting power keeping it running all the time.)

I can remember back when I ran Windows, I didn't see anything wrong with all those reboots, either. Now that I've gone over to Linux, I'm finding it harder and harder to remember why I put up with it. However, it's your computer, not mine, and you're the one who has to use it. If you're happy with Windows and don't mind all of those (to me, at least) inconveniences, there's no reason to change.

Re:Great goals (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952373)

For their next world record, they'll point out that Windows 7 is now 50% faster to uninstall and go back to XP.

Re:Great goals (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952459)

According to the article, boot time is a little longer than XP and Vista (41.25 seconds vs XP's 40.03 and Vista's 40.16), but it's better than the previous build's boot time of 44.81 seconds.

Re:Great goals (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952601)

I've shut down windows, and come back in an hour only to find it's waiting for me to close an application first.

Re:Great goals (1)

geekprime (969454) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952693)

Ya Darinbob, there's a registry setting for that.

  Last time I set it for a customer (at his request) a week later he made me change it back 'cause he lost a 4 page word document by shutting down without saving it first. (who the heck types 4 pages without hitting save!?!) I turned on autosave in all his office apps too.

Feature or bug? who's to say.

Re:Great goals (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952605)

> fastest version of Windows to shut down,

Was that ever a problem? start shut down, and turn out the lights, It will be down when you come back in the morning.

If only...

Far more likely it will be sitting there saying 'StupidTaskbarApp.exe did not shut down. Press 'OK' to close this application' or some similar shit.

One of the reasons I hate Windows so much is that I can't even rely on the piece of crap OS to shut down if I tell it to shut down and then walk away. It literally expects me to sit there for up to five minutes while it 'saves my settings' and stops all the processes to ensure the bloody thing turns itself off.

yes, isn't it wonderful... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952765)

to come back to your laptop after a few hours, which you thought was off or on standby, only to find it warm and with 8% battery remaining, displaying an unresponsive Windows desktop?

Re:Great goals (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952807)

So, you're saying you want the computer to shut down and kick any running applications out of memory, potentially corrupting any files you may be working on? Ok, you can do that.

Option A:
Hold power button for >3 seconds

Option B:
start
run
shutdown /s /t 1 /f

One of the reasons I hate Windows so much is that I can't even rely on the piece of crap OS to shut down if I tell it to shut down and then walk away. It literally expects me to sit there for up to five minutes while it 'saves my settings' and stops all the processes to ensure the bloody thing turns itself off.

Sounds like you hate computers in general and have likely chosen the wrong profession.

Re:Great goals (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952689)

Was that ever a problem? start shut down, and turn out the lights, It will be down when you come back in the morning.

It is for me sometimes. If I do what you stated above, sometimes I come back the next morning and the computer is still on, stuck at the "Windows is shutting down" screen. So I always make sure the damn thing is shut down and powered off before I leave for the day.

Re:Great goals (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952717)

At least it's quicker to shutdown and reboot into Kubuntu.

Year of the Linux Desktop (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952353)

So I take it 2009 won't be the year of the Linux desktop then?

That means you don't need to throw anymore chairs S.B., everything's going to be alrightâ¦

This is why the tagging system sucks... (3, Insightful)

da_matta (854422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952359)

Hmph.. No comments that even remotely imply having RTFA'd, but sure enough there's an "astroturfing"-tag. Classy..

Re:This is why the tagging system sucks... (1)

achten (1032738) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952581)

Here we are discussing about the new features of a shiny new OS and people complain about others not having read TFA. Talk of priorities. Incidenatally, MS seems to have paid considerable attention to ensuring that it shuts down faster as compared to earlier offerings. Also "Files added to the hard drive were indexed so fast that they were searchable less than 5 seconds later."

Re:This is why the tagging system sucks... (1)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952611)

The irony is that you didn't RTFA either.

~Post from Windows 7 RC Build 7137!

Anonymous Coward (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952377)

FTFA "it's the slowest of the three operating systems"

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952447)

Here's the full quote:

As you can see in the chart, we found that Windows 7 RTM was the fastest to shutdown, and was tied with XP for iTunes encoding. It was slower than XP and Vista, however, for both booting up cold by a little more than 1 second, and slower than either of its predecessors in its Microsoft Office performance. After having used Windows 7 beta, RC and now the RTM for more than six months combined, it still feels faster for us when launching programs, opening the control panel and dragging icons, files and folders around than XP. That's not to denigrate the value of the benchmarks, but keep in mind that the perception and reality might differ based on hardware and usage.

I especially love the remark that "dragging icons" is faster now.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

wickedskaman (1105337) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952495)

Actual context FTFA... Windows 7 feels faster than Windows XP and Vista, but it turns out that's not always the case -- sometimes, it's the slowest of the three operating systems. We tested four 32-bit Windows operating systems: Windows 7 RTM build 7600, Windows 7 Release Candidate build 7100, Windows Vista with Service Pack 2 and Windows XP SP3, all on an Inspiron Desktop 530 mini-tower running an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E4500 at 2.20GHz, with a 128MB Nvidia 8300 GS graphics card, 4GB of RAM and two 320GB SATA 7,200rpm hard drives. Source: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49303203-7,00.htm [cnet.co.uk]

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952515)

FTFA "Windows 7 feels faster than Windows XP and Vista, but it turns out that's not always the case -- sometimes, it's the slowest of the three operating systems."

Good job at taking things out of context. And as any UX designer will tell you, it doesn't matter if it *is* faster if it doesn't *feel* faster.

Re:Anonymous Coward (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952621)

Good job at taking things out of context. And as any UX designer will tell you, it doesn't matter if it *is* faster if it doesn't *feel* faster.

Exactly. And this is where 7 wins. It "FEELS" extremely quick, because it responds to user input better. If you need to take a minor throughput hit for that, so be it. Most people multitask these days anyway - some fractional of a percentage point difference in throughput loss means jack shit if you can actually use the computer while its doing stuff in the background...

I've been running the RC since it came out, no way I'm going back to XP or Vista for Windows stuff.

If only (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952383)

"The code is final, and CNet has reviewed the final version of Windows 7, with benchmarks to support the case that it's not only the fastest version of Windows to shut down,

What, you mean faster than Vista?

Windows runs fast if you aren't doing anything! (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952399)

I have no doubt that it does perform pretty well - afterall my experience with the RC was that it was more responsive than Windows XP.

But of course this is BEFORE it has crapware loaded onto the system and multiple programs splattering their libraries and crap all over the system and a sprinkling of your favourite malware!

I never shut down (1)

t0qer (230538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952407)

I know I'm not the only one. Sometimes when I get up in the morning I'll notice the computer has been rebooted due to some hotfix being applied, but other than that I avoid shutting down.

If I did shut down, wouldn't I just walk away? It's sort of like "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" I can see shutdown times being important on laptops, but I would think hibernate and suspend functions are more important there right?

Re:I never shut down (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952507)

It helps for the mandatory reboot when installing lots of things from updates to applications. Other than that, you're right.

Shut Down? (2)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952409)

Did they run out of thing to be proud of?

I sure wouldn't be someone to boast about how fast my OS can shut itself down i'd find something that people actually cares and wait for: booting

When i shut down my computer, i'm certainly not looking at it and even less timing how long it takes for it to be completely off...

Re:Shut Down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952539)

Did they run out of thing to be proud of?

I'm not even sure they can be proud of this. Windows ME shuts down in five seconds on my old P3 Notebook. And I wonder how fast Windows 3.11 shuts down on recent hardware. If you get it running...

Wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952419)

Taskbar and Aero: blah blah blah asthetics. Also: Launchy, fuck the taskbar.
Stream stuff from your computer!: Ok yea whatever
Fast search: Sweet, only like, years behind google desktop and other various tools.
UAC: Nifty
Can burn ISO's natively: About time.

Office performance: OH LOOK XP IS BETTER.
Itunes encoding: TIED WITH XP
Boot time: One second *longer* than XP
Shutdown: Way faster (how is this useful)
Cinebench: 7 wins by... 2 points.

I'm not seeing what I'm supposed to be excited about. Someone help me out here.

Re:Wait.. (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952637)

The stuff you can't see with the benchmarks, that people actually notice and care about in reality. Like UI responsiveness. Seriously, the RC is still available, go download it and check it out rather than speculating wildly.

problems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952439)

1. does not install with hd4850 card - blank screen
2. bluescreen more than XP
3. copying takes a long time due to calculating before copy
4. cannot go to safe mode if installer craps out.
5. cannot run a few useful XP apps in 64 bit mode (e.g. daemon tools)
6. not fully 64 bit, still has legacy 32 bit version
overall, not bad.

new benchmark (1)

muyla (1429487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952449)

'the operating system that both Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for.'

How did they measure that benchmark? can it be seen in a graph?

But seriously.. windows 7 looks and feels like the "I'm a PC" guy from apple advertisements... even the name sounds boring...

Copying (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952461)

Is the copying issue that Vista had solved now?

Re:Copying (5, Funny)

oever (233119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952597)

No, you still cannot copy it.

Fastest shutdown *and* removal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952463)

After being shut down, Windows 7 will also be the fastest-removed OS of all time.
Congratulations, Microsoft!

So basically... (5, Funny)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952467)

"'the operating system that both Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for.'"
So it's Snow Leopard?

Re:So basically... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952501)

No, it's the look-alike.

Windows 7 RTM Cracked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952473)

With the RTM having been cracked, Windows 7 is available for free to anyone now:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1496144/lenovo-explains-cracked-windows

Re:Windows 7 RTM Cracked (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952675)

That OEM key is blacklisted.

Re:Windows 7 RTM Cracked (1)

geekprime (969454) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952769)

So they invalidated all keys generated by lenovo up to date?

They are going to have to reinstall the preboot image on every machine they have manufactured with W7?

Of course for all I know that could be 4 machines or 400,000.

All I can say is OWWWW!

Does it require insane amounts of extra hardware? (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952475)

The question that I have is this - Does it require insane amounts of extra hardware to be fast and good. One huge honking problem with Vista was its huge memory requirements. I mean I did not think XP needed so much more memory than what I had before. I removed Windows ME and put XP on my desktop and it worked fine then. But Vista was soo slow, it doubled all the hardware requirements. I felt like Microsoft had a deal with RAM manufacturers or something. My question is Windows 7 a good OS only if you throw so much more extra or does it work fine with hardware you would expect on most systems ?

Re:Does it require insane amounts of extra hardwar (1)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952657)

It will run fine with $50 worth of RAM (ie, 2gb or more).

Not faster than XP, not faster than Vista (2, Insightful)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952479)

Just FYI-- the claims of better gaming performance from 7 than Vista or XP have not materialized (not on my machine at least). It's just as slow as Vista.

That said, it's still worth having (like Vista) with UAC turned off, simply because the aggressive prefetching loads frequently used programs into RAM. Stuff opens faster.

Re:Not faster than XP, not faster than Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952533)

Just FYI-- the claims of better gaming performance from 7 than Vista or XP have not materialized (not on my machine at least). It's just as slow as Vista.

That said, it's still worth having (like Vista) with UAC turned off, simply because the aggressive prefetching loads frequently used programs into RAM. Stuff opens faster.

So... it's not faster.. except for the part where you say it's faster?

Re:Not faster than XP, not faster than Vista (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952663)

That said, it's still worth having (like Vista) with UAC turned off, simply because the aggressive prefetching loads frequently used programs into RAM.

Is it only me that finds UAC useful in Windows 7? I like the fact that applications have to pop up a single extra dialog box to ask me if they are allowed to make changes to my computer. Each app only seems to prompt once when it is run and I generally only get asked by applications that I am expecting to modify my PC anyway.

Re:Not faster than XP, not faster than Vista (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952683)

So far, the games I've played on windows 7, has run a bit better than my XP.
I haven't tried a lot of the new generation of games yet though, my Core i7 gaming rig won't come till next week.

granted, I've only played with the RC... (2, Insightful)

StrangeTikiGod (634312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952497)

but it's not bad...It's not great, but it's not bad. It's an improvement over Vista, but it's not as intuitive as XP was. I'm happier with my OS X machine, but that's just my personal preference. I can see where they've tried to reduce some of the more egregious dumbassery that Vista introduced, but in a lot of ways, for the average end user, it really is just a Service Pack for Vista, with some bells and whistles and cleaning up. It's what Vista likely should have been. YMMV.

Re:granted, I've only played with the RC... (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952729)

Yes, its definitely not as annoying as Vista. I still find myself using ipconfig ahead of their networking GUI though.

Hardware (5, Insightful)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952499)

FTFA: "Importantly, it won't require the hardware upgrades that Vista demanded, partially because the hardware has caught up"

Yes, but how does it do on my old hardware that struggled with Vista in the first place? I know Mac OS 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3 > 10.4 gave me better performance on the same hardware. It wasn't until I moved to Leopard that I REALLY noticed my PowerBook 1Ghz PPC chip was at it's limit.

Re:Hardware (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952665)

FWIW and from what I heard they supposedly made is run better with less. I herd better then Vista did because Microsoft was a little miffed at all the new netbooks that had XP installed becuase Vista wasn't usable on them because of lower hardware specs. Considering the benchmarks it sounds plausible since 7 was coming close to XP, but seeing is believing.

16GB? (5, Insightful)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952535)

What in a OS could be taking up 16GB for a minimal install?

Re:16GB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952589)

What in a OS could be taking up 16GB for a minimal install?

Sometimes I think they just keep everything from all previous windows versions:
http://bink.nu/photos/news_article_images/images/13552/original.aspx

But that can't be true, since NT Backup vanished in Vista.

Re:16GB? (2, Funny)

Beriaru (954082) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952643)

Copyright notices, EULAs, DRM engines, w98 & XP for retrocompatibility... and a pr0n video of Ballmer and a chair. 6 hours, HD, Harcore. The mother of the easter eggs.

Re:16GB? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952671)

Libraries and frameworks. You know, bits of software that programmers can use to ensure a consistent feel and program behavior. OS/X has them. Windows has them. Linux is still working on it (KDE/Gnome are getting there, but shit still breaks in a major way from version to version).

Re:16GB? (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952687)

Every tile in every possible size of Minesweeper field has it's own dedicated icon dll.

Re:16GB? (5, Informative)

Tukz (664339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952691)

My fresh install of Windows 7 RC Ultimate on my old rig, didn't take up 16GB of space. Only about half IIRC.

Anticipation, check. (2, Funny)

Cur8or (1220818) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952549)

Disappointment, check. Anticipation for next windows, begin.

(plus one I1nformative) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952565)

you all is to let Are 7000 users aF sad world. At

"the fastest version of Windows to shut down" (1)

kinema (630983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952585)

"the fastest version of Windows to shut down"

I'm pretty sure that Windows 3.x owns that title. If I remember correctly Windows 3 and earlier didn't need to be "shutdown", rather you could just turn off the computer.

Re:"the fastest version of Windows to shut down" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952713)

Nope, you were supposed to exit to DOS before turning off the computer (at least in 3.0).

WHich is it? (1)

Plasmagrid (322106) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952593)

"Touchscreen features worked surprisingly well. The hardware sometimes misread some of the multitouch gestures, occasionally confusing rotating an image, for example, with zooming in or out of the image. Overall, though, there were few difficulties in performing the basic series of gestures that Microsoft promotes, and this places Windows 7 in an excellent position for the future, as more and more computers are released with multitouch abilities."

We have "Surprisingly well" then in the same breath "sometime misread" to Occasionally confusing" then Few difficulties". Sounds like it was Surprisingly made up.

Free ugrade for Vista sufferers? (3, Interesting)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952599)

Microsoft should give Vista users a free upgrade to Windows 7. Unfortunately, my laptop doesn't work well with XP, because the drivers are unstable. So I'm stuck using Vista, which is a huge beast, slow, and shitty. Now that Windows 7 is coming out, I would love to use that instead, but I get stomach pains when I think about handing my hard earned money to get what Vista SHOULD have been. Now I wait for the /. crowd to flame me to death me for using windows.

Re:Free ugrade for Vista sufferers? (2, Interesting)

Tukz (664339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952715)

OMG YOU USE WIN.. wait, that wasn't why I replied....

Anyway, with that out of the way, I kinda agree. Vista was such a failure at release, and for such a long time, that Vista owners should indeed get a free Windows 7.
At least a home edition.

But from what I've been told, since the latest service pack to vista, it's actually quite ok, and not that far from Windows 7 in terms of driver compatibility and stability.
Not that I know it for sure, haven't touched Vista for more than "install.. omg craponastick...format".

D&D de-maximization? Metacity has it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952617)

"Dragging a program away from the top or sides will return it to its original size. This is an entirely new feature in Windows 7"

Well, it's been included in Metacity (Gnome window manager) for as long as I can remember. The only difference is that Windows 7 also allows to maximize a window by dragging; this has not been inclueded in Metacity due to usability reasons.

The Mantra stays the same (1)

get quad (917331) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952631)

Mantra: always wait for SP2!

In Depth? (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952633)

The title of the article is deceiving, they claimed to have tested in depth, but there are only 5 benchmark scores, and only tested in 32-bit. WTF

OSX? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952653)

Forget that. How does it compare to XP? That's the most important question.

My impression from various benchmarks is that it's much closer to XP's speed than Vista was. That's a big relief. I'm not going to upgrade anytime soon, but it's nice to know there's at least a path ahead. Now: Does it still allow for a Windows Classic theme?

Re:OSX? (1)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952735)

There still is a classic mode [bokeboke.co.uk] in 7, but due to the interface changes in Vista and 7, it won't look exactly like XP/2K. Also, the Start menu can no longer revert to classic mode.

The fastest version of Windows to shut down? (0, Redundant)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952667)

the fastest version of Windows to shut down

How is this even a bullet point. Who stands (or sits there) thinking "Damn, I wish this machine would shut down faster"?

No seriously... I own desktop and laptop computers. None of them are shut down on anything like a regular basis. They both are put to sleep quite frequently, the desktop with a keystroke command (that could also be a menu-driven command) and the laptop by just shutting the lid.

I seriously can't remember the last time I actually shut my computer down. Put it to sleep yes, even rebooted it every now and then, but actually shut down? I dunno!

Typo in article? (1)

OverZealous.com (721745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952677)

First, they list the 6 (6? Still? Sigh...) versions of Windows 7 as:

Microsoft is offering six versions of Windows 7: Starter, Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, OEM and Enterprise.

Then they immediately say:

The three versions that Redmond will be promoting most heavily are Home Premium, Professional and Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor

(Emphasis mine)

I assume they meant "Ultimate", but it is still a pretty silly mistake.

Another question I have (as a Mac user who is excited for the industry competition, if not the OS): is the new Windows 7 Taskbar resizable the way the OS X Dock is? With the dock, I have the option of instantly gaining more room (both on-screen and within the dock itself) by scaling it down, or back up when preferred. The magnification feature ensures that I can easily tell which icon I am hovering over. I haven't spent much time with Windows 7 because almost all of the new visual features are disabled in a VM, making the new taskbar significantly less useful than the old one. :-(

UAC still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952721)

This is based on using the RC. I have a game that is made before Windows 7 and does not have its executable signed. UAC keep asking for confirmation every time I launch it, and there's no way that I know of to, say, sign it myself or add it to a list of trusted programs so that I'm not asked every time.

If it were malware, running it once should have already caused enough damage anyway so I don't see the point of UAC asking again and again.

Of course, adding a way for the user to make UAC not ask is probably equal to adding a loophole that can be exploited (e.g. software that adds itself to Window firewall exceptions), but this is annoying enough to make me turn off UAC so I'd say the cure (asking every time) is worse than the disease (potentially untrusted applications) in this case.

Wondering.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952743)

If they implemented working virtual desktops yet?

Progress ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952753)

From TFA: "and slower than either of its predecessors in its Microsoft Office performance"

... so that companies have to license a few more copies in order to get the work done.

CC.

If Operating Systems Were Guns (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952759)

Linux is anything from a little single shot Derringer to a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun at 4200 rounds per minute.

OSX is clearly stamped down the side "Desert Eagle point five oh"

And Windows has "'Replica' written down the side"

--
BMO

Shutdown sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28952785)

I vaguely remember an article where a Microsoft engineer talked about speeding up the shutdown process. I thought this was for Vista, though...

Supposedly they were trying to improve the user experience and began performance testing many legacy areas of the operating system. For shutdown, which was introduced on slow machines to acknolowdge the process, the sound being played took up the majority of the time. They shrank it and saw a massive performance gain. It was one of those amusing stories that performance engineers are full of. I'm wondering if that little fix went into Windows 7, not Vista.

Hey guys! (1, Flamebait)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28952793)

We know our operating system sucks so we've decided to help our customers by making it even easier to shut it down!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?