Anyone feel that "Windows 7" is just a way for MS to make us pay for Vista SP2?

[Blayze]

I'm happy with Vista 64 bit, but I will check out Windows 7 eventually. I never used Vista until 2008, so I'm not sure about the problems before SP1. However I haven't had any major problems with it at all. I know I'm in the minority, but I actually like it better than XP so far.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
When xp came out it was bloated. But now that hardware has advanced xp is reasonable. Same with vista. Give it a few more years when tri channel, 12 gigs of ram is in a typical low/mid end store bought PC, and vista will be ok.

Microsoft is too ahead of themselves when it comes to system requirements for a typical installation (Ex: OS + lot of other apps being used at same time). When XP came out I don't even think there was dual core processors yet, and 1 gig of ram was considered enough. Well xp on 1 gig of ram is kinda pushing it. Sure it will run but not very well once you install and use all your apps.

When XP came out I told myself I'd never touch it but I ended up switching to it when stuff started not running well in win2k.

I still think win2k was the best OS ever made by MS.

Take win2k, add support for today's hardware technology (ex: make a 64-bit one, add better usb support, sata support, directx 10 etc) and it would be one hell of an awesome OS.

Dude, XP runs fine on 1 GB of RAM. Just fine. It ran fine with 512MB as well, although you probably wouldn't be running more than one or two apps. You could run it on 256, and 128 was possible but a stretch.

Back in the day, Compaq would actually sell you a computer with 64MB of SDRAM and windows XP. Now THAT'S pushing it.

Windows 98 will run on a 386. Does not mean it's usable. Realistically, you don't have xp on a pc with under a gig of ram, unless you're just using it to play solitaire. And yeah vendors were really pushing it by selling xp machines with like 256 or even 64 megs. A very streamlined xp install could perhaps work out on 1 gig if the application requirements are very low.

But when you're adding a firewall, antivirus, always on email, an office suite, some multimedia applications like cd burning, those anoying "always on" print drivers that have a daemon that run, anything under a gig and you'll get slowdowns, lag, and choppyness. Recently I had to upgrade all the pcs at a travel agency. They were using xp on P3's that had 1 gig of ram. BRUTAL slow. You click the start menu, and literally minutes before anything happens. Mind you, some of these did have spyware and crap.

Uh... no, companies that sold XP systems with 256 MB of RAM were not "pushing it." 64 MB was the minimum requirement and 128 MB was recommended, and XP ran fine with 128 MB. 1 GB was unheard of back then. The only reason you need more than that now is because of all of the other software that now uses more memory than it did back then - like Firefox using 100 MB of RAM. Who the hell knows what it's doing with all that memory. Web browsers didn't use 100 MB of RAM in 2001.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
As long as the cheapest version of Win7 supports over 4gb of ram in 32bit then its better than vista. I cant believe that when vista 32bit came out it still had a memory limitation.

Oh my.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Have you used Windows 7? It's quite different to me.

No I haven't. If it is actually a fairly big upgrade I won't mind paying for it. Just doesn't seem like it from the feature specs I've looked at. Where did you get it, bittorrent?

If you are a MSDN member, you get prerelease versions.

Oh right forgot about that.

Last I looked it isn't on MSDN yet. 😉

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Take win2k, add support for today's hardware technology (ex: make a 64-bit one, add better usb support, sata support, directx 10 etc) and it would be one hell of an awesome OS.

Err... Except for DX10, you just described XP 64.😀

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Windows 7 sucks big fat donkey balls. It's worse than Vista, imo. In Vista, I can at least figure out how to do what I want to do. In Windows 7, they changed everything around - for the hell of changing it around.

People got upset with Vista because they added all sorts of extra menus in between what you're trying to get to.. ie.. change resolution..

Windows 7 seems like it won't even let you do things like put the start menu back to normal style.

I will say that Windows 7 seems fast.. But still.. who cares how fast the menus are when it takes extra clicking to get to where you want to go?

And people had to learn how to operate differently when they went from Windows 3.x to 95. It's a new OS. Why is everyone so keen on holding new versions to the same exact features and layout of XP?

Yes, XP fits like a glove for most people, but Microsoft can remain stagnant and release SPs for the same OS or they can move things along.

There is A LOT more to an OS than what most users even understand. Vista has features of significant importance to a lot of industries, especially software. Users that are working with Office all day, people playing games, etc. want to be able to do simple things that completely overlook what investment Microsoft puts into their OS.

So, at some point there has to be more of a revolution. Vista was that break, though again most people only see the interface. And to suggest that they just change things around because it's fun/convenient is to forget that they likely spend millions on usability theory, design, user-acceptance tests, etc. etc. It's not like there are a few developers sitting in a cube somewhere just deciding they want to change things around.

Completely disagree. Windows 7 is NOT revolutionary.. It only adds a layer of annoyance to doing what you normally did in XP.

Here are the things we were promised originally for Vista:

1. Vector-based gui.. A gui that would allow you to run in any resolution with any font-size that would always look crisp.

2. Meta-based file system using keywords along with folders and categories.. another revolutionary idea.. postponed forever

3. Instant boot.

4. Software bios.

And those are the same things that won't be introduced in Windows 7.

Face it.. Microsoft dropped the ball.. and they're going to drop the ball again. Rather than develop something revolutionary, they are changing things a lot to make people think they did something revolutionary.

Tell me.. What the fuck can I do in Windows Vista or Windows 7 that I cannot do in Windows XP?

We will get all 4 of those! It might be 20 years down the road but it will happen. I want #2 that's the WIN-FS or whatever they were calling it? That was the MAIN FUCKING thing they were hyping about Vista when it was in early beta. The ONE fucking feature I want wasn't included.

Win 7 will be Vista 1.5. A worthless piece of shit that offers nothing new and nothing important.

woopdee fucking doo

To me it's a febreezed piece of shit. Doesn't stink as bad.

 

[Verse914]

I thought the same thing as the OP. Looks like Vista with some enhancements...Vista SP2. thanks microsoft!

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Have you used Windows 7? It's quite different to me.

No I haven't. If it is actually a fairly big upgrade I won't mind paying for it. Just doesn't seem like it from the feature specs I've looked at. Where did you get it, bittorrent?

If you are a MSDN member, you get prerelease versions.

Oh right forgot about that.

Last I looked it isn't on MSDN yet. 😉

Because of the "availability" of Win7 build 7000 on certain sites, Microsoft won't be releasing the beta on MSDN or TechNet (out of spite) any time soon. It was on there (prerelease info), and now it's gone.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: TehMac
I think we're kinda passing judgement on it a bit soon. The thing is probably not even going to come out in 2009.

Yes it is.. And it is basically going to be Windows Vista ME.

I am running it in a virtual machine.. I am trying to figure out what's new and great.. There's nothing.

It's a beta, though, amirite?

 

[EKKC]

Originally posted by: mugs



Uh... no, companies that sold XP systems with 256 MB of RAM were not "pushing it." 64 MB was the minimum requirement and 128 MB was recommended, and XP ran fine with 128 MB. 1 GB was unheard of back then. The only reason you need more than that now is because of all of the other software that now uses more memory than it did back then - like Firefox using 100 MB of RAM. Who the hell knows what it's doing with all that memory. Web browsers didn't use 100 MB of RAM in 2001.

correct me if im wrong, if firefox was using 100mb of ram, does it include all the extensions (flash animation, google toolbar, custom browser extensions, etc)

mine is 133mb at the moment with 2 tabs on, god knows what that 133mb contains... hidden porn?

 

[MrX8503]

Honestly I would prefer an OS that is superfast than being all glitzed up visually. Hopefully Windows 7 isn't all just about the looks and that it runs pretty lean.

 

[OCGuy]

Bring on Windows 7 + DX11.


Thank you for beta-testing W7 for us, Vista-users!

 

[dud]

You are not the only one that thinks that W7 is just a gussied up Vista:

Windows 7: Oops! Microsoft did it again!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dud
You are not the only one that thinks that W7 is just a gussied up Vista:

Windows 7: Oops! Microsoft did it again!

Still a little early to say that.


I hear this is going to be pretty good.

 

[Steve]

Version 6.1

Oh BTW, for all of you wrapped up in the 32-bit argument, just a friendly reminder that PAE = 36-bit OS.

 

[NoShangriLa]

I have played around with it on my brother dev machine, and it is just another iteration of windows since W2K, just like Mac OSes, and Linuxes.

I have finally gone with out MS for my home systems (I never gone beyond W2k, except for work) but still help out family & friends on their Windows boxes.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: MrX8503
Honestly I would prefer an OS that is superfast than being all glitzed up visually. Hopefully Windows 7 isn't all just about the looks and that it runs pretty lean.

What stoping you?

Roll your own Linux kernel, or try Damned Small Linux & the alike.

<-- Said the same thing in the past I use to roll my own Linux more than 10 years ago, and it was a pain in the arse when I have to do it for work. Debian, Gentoo, Damned Small, and the like flavors make life easy.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Topic Title: Anyone feel that "Windows 7" is just a way for MS to make us pay for Vista SP2?

In truth I'm quite happy with Vista. Unlike some I'm not a windows basher and have quite enjoyed using every release of windows since about Win2000 onwards. Even earlier releases were rated a bit to harshly if you ask me. Still looking at the "features" of Windows 7 I can't help but feel that it's just Vista SP2 packaged as a retail product.

Is your real name Jason Perlow by chance Locut0s? 😛

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Originally posted by: dud
You are not the only one that thinks that W7 is just a gussied up Vista:

Windows 7: Oops! Microsoft did it again!

Just by looking at the link, I knew immediately it was none other than Randall C. Kennedy. If you go back to the entire Windows 7 development, Randall never had a single good comment on Windows 7. To him, it has always been (and will always be) Windows 7 = Windows Vista.

He even claimed Windows 7 is delayed because of his article (his editor later said it was meant to be a joke :roll: ). I think he's nothing more than a sensationalist writing for web hits. And I think the strategy works wonderfully considering how many comments every time he writes an article about Windows 7.

From Zdnet: Windows 7 beta 1 performance - How does the OS compare to Vista and XP?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: dud
Windows 7: Oops! Microsoft did it again!

100% subjective impressions without a stitch of objective support for it. He even makes an objectively idiotic claim that Windows 7 is not BETA. Besides, that is from October 2008.

What do you wanna bet this guy is a habitual critic of anything Microsoft's name appears on? They're so easy to spot these days. If you customized Windows 7 to look like OS X, tell him its an RC of Snow Leopard ala Mohave, this is the type who would leave thinking "OS X is going to be f'ing SICK! Microsoft's days are numbered."

Oh BTW, for all of you wrapped up in the 32-bit argument, just a friendly reminder that PAE = 36-bit OS.

In response to someone asking why Microsoft neutered PAE to limit 4GB of physical address space on 32-bit desktop SKUs, Linus Torvalds had this to say:

PAE really really sucks.

 

[scott916]

Anyone know what build number the beta 1 preview being released today is?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: EKKC

Originally posted by: mugs



Uh... no, companies that sold XP systems with 256 MB of RAM were not "pushing it." 64 MB was the minimum requirement and 128 MB was recommended, and XP ran fine with 128 MB. 1 GB was unheard of back then. The only reason you need more than that now is because of all of the other software that now uses more memory than it did back then - like Firefox using 100 MB of RAM. Who the hell knows what it's doing with all that memory. Web browsers didn't use 100 MB of RAM in 2001.

correct me if im wrong, if firefox was using 100mb of ram, does it include all the extensions (flash animation, google toolbar, custom browser extensions, etc)

mine is 133mb at the moment with 2 tabs on, god knows what that 133mb contains... hidden porn?

Back then programs (browsers included) probably didn't use nearly as much RAM. Try loading up the latest version iTunes or something like that on an XP system w/128MB, though, and it will choke.

BTW, I won't be paying for Win7 anytime soon. Well at least not directly, I will probably pick up a license through my school's MSDN AA program so I can upgrade eventually, but for now XP works fine for me.

 

[Cheesetogo]

From what I've heard, it's actually faster than XP in some situations and is generally much snappier than Vista. I'm planning on installing the beta build soon.

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I have both vista ultimate and XP at home, and I still prefer XP sp3. Machines running xp sp3 simply seem "peppier" and much quicker overall. All in all, I found no compelling reason to want to switch to vista, and from what I've seen from win 7, there are no real compelling reasons to go to it either. More "features" designed to thwart hackers and otherwise restrict functionality are not a benefit to the consumer, so I won't spend any money on vista or (it appears) win 7.

Originally posted by: albatross

my point, which flew at supersonic speed over your head is that microsoft doesn`t "make" anyone buy anything, use Linux instead.

Uh yeah, when I bought a laptop recently I didn't have any choice -- every major vendor made me purchase vista along with the laptop and did not provide any savings / option to remove vista and replace it with some flavor of linux. So yes, basically you don't really have a choice in the matter.

Same boat. Laptop was forced to get vista. I don't like it over my XP machines for the same reasons stated above. Honestly, for many people "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't mind that they release new versions. I mind when they force it on us and you dont agree they are forcing then please tell me why most new systems on come with Vista and XP support was given a very finite timeline. It's to be expected, I know this. Doesn't mean we all have to jump on the wagon and say we like it or want it.