19 replies to this topic

[EnnonFenom]

Has any one here heard about The new Windows OS? "Windows 7"

It seems to be pretty good, at least better than Vista was/is. So since I have to 500 gb hard drives I am downloading the beta as I post this. And will create a duel boot. One hd with xp, and the other with Win.7 on it. And I will update this thread when I get to test it out.



Check Out the video on this page

[Ben]

I've set up Windows 7 in a VMWare machine. It is definitely quicker to install and boot, and the overall system is definitely an improvement over Vista. It actually feels as if I'm running a *nix system with GNOME and some Compiz effects enabled (such as live window previews in the taskbar (which don't always work), and some of the effects.) The ability to "dock" (ha) frequently-used items on the taskbar is not really new (as it used to be in the Quick Launch bar) but it's been implemented a little better in 7. It also seems to be a little friendlier with older applications, or applications based on older code (mIRC for example has refused to run reliably on a Vista virtual machine, and even natively, it has problems with running at all.) The security model is improved, though still annoying. The system still has many nasty default settings that you need to go through and change right after installation. Explorer crashes fairly often, but at least the system detects that the process died and relaunches it. Cosmetically, Aero has been polished a little bit more and it's decent, but still pretty slow. Stability is an issue as even Minesweeper had a tendency to exit for no obvious reason (a box does not pop up informing you that it crashed; it merely gets written to the Windows event log and sends a meaningless report to Microsoft that they will never read.) I have heard that on 64-bit systems, stability is a lot better than on 32-bit machines, but I don't have a 64-bit processor. I'm not really expecting to get another computer anytime soon on a college budget, either. There are actually several improvements over Vista; UAC is less obnoxious, compatibility is a little better with older applications, there are fewer cosmetic issues, and while it's not as fast as XP, it is definitely faster than Vista.

However, I'd still never want to use 7 as my main do-everything operating system as it's just not secure (i.e. Windows should never go on the internet due to the following) because it still uses the same tired process management system that doesn't separate kernel and user-level code very well. I couldn't get Sandboxie to work (don't browse without Sandboxie,) so I didn't go online other than to test some apps like Firefox (which had some issues.) In addition, I am not thrilled with the fact that many of Vista's DRM "features" still exist. I realize that Windows 7 is heavily based upon Vista right now, but that was not the right foundation on which to base the new system at all. In addition, the registry is still a crucial component of the OS when it doesn't need to be. The system still relies on the DLL subsystem that doesn't allow for metadata to actually identify what each DLL file does securely. Plus, the new "Ribbon" toolbars are obnoxious and counterintuitive. They are a marvel of misdesign; even after two hours of trying to do various things that I would ordinarily do during a day, I was still not used to it. Plus, most things have still remained in odd places in the control panel and start menu (why exactly is there a control panel category called "Hardware and Sound?" Those two things don't really have much to do with each other!) I would much prefer the old layouts and toolbars to needlessly shiny glowing panels of very loosely related items. The OS still takes up a hefty chunk of a hard disk and still requires a huge pile of hardware (though a bit less than Vista) to run at tolerable speeds even for basic computing (single-core machines with less than 2GB RAM need not apply.) The worthless Sidebar is gone, and replaced with just ... more worthless desktop gadgets (it's not even pretending it didn't steal from Konfabulator/Apple anymore.) Overall, it's an improvement, but it's still Windows, and many of the major design flaws that have existed since Windows 95 are still in there.

To summarize: It is, as someone else put it, what Vista was supposed to be, but I can still barely stand it. It's still overall a downgrade from XP. You still need to relearn the interface, and it's not as fast.

I'll stick with OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard DP3, the current version of OS X 10.5.6 Leopard, or Kubuntu 8.10 for now. If I need Windows at all (which is rare,) it won't be for anything heavy, and I have a VirtualBox machine set up to boot XP in those cases.

[Koopa]

Any hot topic is bound to turn up here a few days later. I'll copy my reply too.

I'll most likely get it when it comes out, though I don't plan on using the beta.

I agree that it's what Vista really should have been. There's a lot of evidence that MS has really learnt a few lessons and taken care this time - the name, as mentioned, is only one example.

Fun fact: For all Windows versions up until now, the resource (HD/RAM/Processor) requirements steadily went up and were higher than the last one. Windows 7, however, has lower requirements than Vista. So even MS found out that Vista is a resource hog.

I think this is the start of an age of more consumer power. The industries have noticed that if they bring out something inadequate, people won't buy it. As another example, Apple is to drop DRM on all songs bought in the itunes store - they're not the first, but surely won't be the last either.

[Theryan]

Yeah, they kinda need a new OS after Vista happened. I hear they're just going to stop making Vista when Windows 7 comes out almost immediately. I'm gonna need to hear some feedback after its released before I trust it.

[EnnonFenom]

@Bengal: Well That is one confusing post, But I did get the gist of it. So basically it is Vista improved but Xp down Graded. So it is better on a 64 bit cpu? Because I have a 64 bit intel duel core quad. and I pretty much don't need to worry about ram or Hard drive space. Because I got 8 gb of ram and a terabite of hard drive space.

I have yet to install it, for I got to go out and buy some blank dvds

[Mr. Pimpy]

Resource usage is about the same, actually, regardless of hardware configuration.

[Wild Bill]

I'm pretty impressed with 7. It runs really fast and is much less of a headache to get going than XP is. I'd like to see them replace the ugly Aero theme with something a little better, though.

[Soarin]

Are installing the os on top of your regular os?

[EnnonFenom]

Do you mean and "Updated install" which is were you install over your old os, to keep old setting you want? You can install it that way, But I would do it on a clean install... Which means formating the hard drive, after backing it up, of course..

Edited by EnnonFenom, 01 February 2009 - 06:58 PM.

[Soarin]

I am using what is called a virtual pc.

[EnnonFenom]

Oh, well I am not sure then. But when downloading it, there is a section there that tells you all of the different install directions.

[Soarin]

I think so.

[Nicholas Steel]

1 massive improvement over Vista is that you can disable the UAC control AND not have it alert you constantly that it is disabled

[Mr. Pimpy]

1 massive improvement over Vista is that you can disable the UAC control AND not have it alert you constantly that it is disabled

Vista doesn't alert you when UAC is disabled. Keep in mind that thos "Get a Mac" ads are biased.

The improvement in 7's UAC is that you can set it to different levels. I'm not sure why anyone would disable it as it is now.

Edited by Mr. Pimpy, 06 February 2009 - 11:27 PM.

[Nicholas Steel]

you ALWAYS got a red warning icon in the system tray (bottom right of the taskbar) when UAC was disabled in Vista and there was no way to stop it without disabling ALL warnings from appearing in your taskbar.

In Windows 7, you can disable the UAC specific warning icon.

http://i63.photobuck...Untitled-40.png