windows 7

Post Reply New Topic

hmmm, I just see windows 7 as vista with bits taken out and bits added and bits moved

Same here, it feels pretty much the same. I don't think it's any faster.

By the benchmarks, 7 is actually slower than Vista.

I do not like the way Windows seems to need more memory as the versions go on. The way things are, until Windows 7 is in beta, people will be using 32bit operating systems. Windows 7 could very well be 64bit only with 32bit application layer. Just as DOS games do not like Windows XP x64 or Windows Vista.
Reminds me of the Windows 3.x series being only 16 bit. Then Windows 4.x and Windows NT being true 32bit operating systems. I'd like to know what they will call Windows 7. In the current beta, it looks like they are working more on visuals, therefore saving less for applications that need them. I might download the Windows 6.1 RC

Link or it didn't happen.

What's that you say? Windows 7 slower than Vista? I call shenanigans.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

With the upcoming release of Windows "7" or Seven, as I prefer. I think that it's likely Microsoft will come up with a replacement for the Windows name. It's being carried on through to version 6 at the moment and as Microsoft has stated, there will be a major release and an refreshing update on that build, hence Windows Seven.

I was thinking about it recently about what will Windows 7.0.xx be called. I think it's likely that there will be a 64bit only version, why keep doing a 32bit version whereas the 64bit version of Vista is better than the 32bit version, I have tried both. It could be my nice amount of RAM I have, or it could be the way it's set up, I don't know. But to have a 64bit version as the follow up to Seven, it makes sense. The Pentium name didn't last forever, and it seems pointless with numbers, names. Why not take it somewhere new? This is ONLY my theory and I think it's entirely possible. AMD dropped the Kx name in favour of Athlon, then onto Phenom and the updated Phenom 2 (P2).

With my experience of the Windows 6.1.7000 beta, I have noticed that Vista and XP x64 will not do much with my highly defragmented partition, whereas Seven has been working on it for over 24 hours. Because of the way 6.1 doesn't like to give a display/visual representation of what's going on, I will boot into XP x64 Pro or Vista to check up on it.

Much as I hate Vista for it's over complications, I am at least willing to try as I no-doubt will come across a computer where someone has the OS and will ask me how to do it. I want to be prepared for it. I can see that the A+ may very well include Vista in it's next release once Seven has been released to the public.

From Gizmodo. The two are close on benchmarks, but 7 has some changes that make it feel snappier.http://gizmodo.com/5233098/windows-7-release-candidate-1-vs-vista-first-benchmarks?skyline=true&s=x

I'm triple-booting Vista, Ubuntu, and XP right now, but Vista is the primary OS I use on a daily basis. Why? It's Nvidia's fault. A little while back they introduced SLI multi-monitor support, which is a feature I've wanted for a while, but it's ONLY for Vista.

Running XP is going to continue to be viable for a while, just like Windows 98 was for a while when XP came out. But eventually, new products or features are going to come out from third-party manufacturers who didn't/can't invest the time and resources developing for a legacy operating systems. And if you want access to those products or features, it may eventually force you to upgrade.

Personally, I find Vista's user interface to be a step backward for Microsoft, but over time I've adjusted to it and it doesn't much bother me anymore. Yes, it's bloated, but performance issues aren't noticeable on newer machines - as long as you have at least 2GB of ram and a fast enough processor. And games, well, they DO look really nice using DirectX 10.

I'm definitely hoping that Windows 7 will improve on it, and I intend to replace Vista as soon as it is released. I've been reluctant to try the Beta or Release Candidate because I can't afford to have an unstable operating system. Let others work out the bugs, I say!

I don't use the beta very often, although I do use it try out some stuff. I find that a lot of Vista drivers WILL work on Seven. Which is supposed to be a whole new build, but is just a tweak on top of Vista, hence why it will work quite easily.

You want to watch out for the Alpha releases, they are more unstable compared to Beta's and RC's. The only place for support is the forums for it. Sometimes someone has figured a workaround for the issue at hand.
I've used the Mozilla Firefox 3.5b4/b99 beta for a couple weeks now, and it is quite stable. With beta's there are usually ways to give feedback which is what it's always about

4GB of RAM and dual-core 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Vista is still slow enough to instill in me an urge to kill. But then, GNOME on a typical Linux distro is as heavy as I'm willing to use, even on this hardware. KDE and Vista are just too slow, and in some ways even GNOME pushes my patience, especially with the amount of time it takes to start.

Sorry, that last one I put up just went overboard... there was a time when MS's offerings spelled
CEMENT...

I predict that Microsoft will do whatever makes them the most money....as usual..

Who gives a toss? If it feels quicker, it's quicker. Speed isn't everything anyway.

Want to buy my race car? Its not as fast as the champion, but it feels quicker.

Last edited by Fuzzy on 20 Jun 2009, 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Y'know what feels really quick? Debian netinst with OpenBox. You're right, speed's not everything. I also take into account things like stability, security, customizability, and cost.