Windows 7 Beta

[Iron Past]

Anyone download it already or plan on downloading it? I can pick up Vista Ultimate from my school for around $30, but after I heard about the Windows 7 stuff I decided to hold off instead of trying to learn another new OS so soon after I would switch (Win 7 will still be available for cheap at the university when it hits the market).

I'm looking for a download spot right now (I'm not sure it's live yet), but I was curious for any impressions so far.

Edit: Looks like there's a couple more hours (http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/windows-7-publi.html) till it becomes available (12:00 PM PST).

[Bone]

I've been using the leaked beta from around Christmas (which is the same beta they officially released) and I recommend you wait for 7. It's solid, fast, smooth, and full of win. Boots up quick and is very stable.

I'm trying to download the new official beta because they are offering the 64-bit version (only 32 bit was leaked) but the MS servers seem to be taking a beating.

[Zrikz]

Anyone download it already or plan on downloading it? I can pick up Vista Ultimate from my school for around $30, but after I heard about the Windows 7 stuff I decided to hold off instead of trying to learn another new OS so soon after I would switch (Win 7 will still be available for cheap at the university when it hits the market).

I'm looking for a download spot right now (I'm not sure it's live yet), but I was curious for any impressions so far.

Edit: Looks there's a couple more hours (http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/windows-7-publi.html) till it becomes available (12:00 PM PST).
My friend has it, its nearly the exact same interface / stuff from vista. A few minor changes and there would be like a 2 second learning curve from vista to 7.. at least thats what it seems to far.

It does seem a bit speedier.

[biosc1]

Doesn't the official beta require Vista to be installed? It's a beta "upgrade" not a complete standalone OS?

[Bone]

No, it supports standalone install as well, from what I've seen. The difference is that the "upgrade" install works only from Vista, not XP. At least my "unofficial" (they claim) leak was able to install clean alongside my XP Pro and Ubuntu installs.

And actually Zrikz, there are a lot of interface tweaks between Vista and 7- just not at first glance. The Aero peek, shake, preview and other features are pretty useful and just can't be described with screenshots. The skin is pretty similar though.

[Rogue_hunter]

Oh, so that explains why it wouldn't let me download anything when I actually got through to log in to my Windows Live account. It would have been nice to know that it's not actually available until noon PST with a simple line of text.

Anyways, the site's been getting hammered for the past hour or so. And I'm not sure if I'll be home to actually get the download because I'm donating blood platelets today.

[Bone]

Drink a scotch immediately afterward and really embrace the day!

[total]

I've been using it for a couple of weeks now on a netbook (Acer Aspire One) and for a few days on my laptop (Acer Travelmate 8103). It runs great on both systems. On my laptop it performs way better than Vista did and my games run comparable to the speeds I see on XP. The new taskbar is actually useful eye candy, something i haven't seen yet in Windows (Compiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz) still is leaps and bounds better as functional eye candy).

I'm a big Linux fanboy, but Windows 7 is looking to be a very nice OS. If I was in MS shoes I would put out a single version of 7 at $99. All the people that are holding onto XP (quite a few) and those that did upgrade to Vista would pick it up without batting an eye.

[Straximus]

God I love xkcd:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

[Zrikz]

And actually Zrikz, there are a lot of interface tweaks between Vista and 7- just not at first glance. The Aero peek, shake, preview and other features are pretty useful and just can't be described with screenshots. The skin is pretty similar though.

Ahh Gotcha, I pretty did a 5 minute peek at it. I'm too lazy to deal with another partition to work on it right now.. I need to get a different box up and working first.

/edit hehe yeah I saw the xkcd this morning and thought it was pretty funny.

[total]

God I love xkcd:

Bwahahahahahha...yeah that just about hits it on the head in my book.

[NoName]

I've been a fan of Win 7 thus far. I have minimal Vista use because every time I install it something aggravates me and I reformat in a week or so. Windows 7 has been amazing and I'm actually looking forward to replacing XP on many of my computers with it.

It's Vista with enough less suck to not annoy me :).

[Goronmon]

I enjoy using Vista, so I'll be messing with this over the weekend for sure.

[hunterx280]

If you are interested, you can get it here (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dd353205.aspx).

[Tron]

Anyone tried this with VirtualBox?

[bapenguin]

I'm running it on this old POS Dell work PC. 3GB of RAM with a P4 2.8GHZ processor.

Everything seems smooth. I love the new task bar, probably because I've used OSX for the past year.

[carnage11]

I'm glad MS understands that Vista is shit and is moving on so quickly.:cool:

[Tron]

I'm glad MS understands that the ignorant masses think that Vista is shit and is moving on so quickly by reissuing Vista with a slightly tweaked interface.:cool:

Fixed that for you :p

[J3DI]

Looks like we'll have to wait even longer for an official copy, servers went nuts! So, MS is adding more to the mix.

I was thinking about getting ultimate too, but if this already comes in XL, I'm good.

[Nura]

Downloading now.

I hope vista users get this dirt cheap. But we wont. But i still like to hope.

[Iron Past]

So this is done in August, when is the actual product supposed to be released, or do we know yet?

[Wraith]

I'm a big Linux fanboy, but Windows 7 is looking to be a very nice OS. If I was in MS shoes I would put out a single version of 7 at $99. All the people that are holding onto XP (quite a few) and those that did upgrade to Vista would pick it up without batting an eye.As much as I want Windows to be more affordable, I don't think only one version really works. There's really not much use in giving the corporate version all the media center features of the home version, and vice versa. If they want to ditch Home Basic and have a single Home version, and/or get rid of upgrade-only versions, I'd be fine with that, but it's probably not going to happen.

What I do want to see is a full retail version that doesn't cost quite so much. If Apple can charge $130 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB576Z/A?n=osx) for the full version of OS X, why does Vista Home Premium full retail have to be $260 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx)?

Even if Upgrade was $100 and Full was $150, that'd be fine by me.

[Bone]

So this is done in August, when is the actual product supposed to be released, or do we know yet?

Late 2009, early 2010 is the last I heard.

[Bone]

If Apple can charge $130 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB576Z/A?n=osx) for the full version of OS X, why does Vista Home Premium full retail have to be $260 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx)?Because Apple has the balls (and reality-distortion field) to charge per point release. It would be like charging Windows customers for SP1, SP2, SP3...

[Vlad]

It says that we still need to get a product key for this download. If not it's only a 30 day trial. Where do I get that?

[Goronmon]

Woot, Technet Plus subscription for the win.

[Wraith]

All I'm seeing is "Windows® 7 Beta coming soon!".

[Iron Past]

It says that we still need to get a product key for this download. If not it's only a 30 day trial. Where do I get that?


if they're not unlocking without a key, I saw this (http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/06/27/how-to-activate-windows-7-seven-beta-m-1-build-65191071220-1525-with-activation-crack/) earlier that might help. It's for the leaked version, though.

[total]

Fixed that for you :p

I've put 7 on two machines that wouldn't run Vista (in a functional state) for the life of them. From what I can see they put a ton of work into getting 7 to be a much more versatile OS than Vista is. And really if the ignorant masses think that Vista is crap than MS has an issue. The ignorant masses are the ones lining their pockets.

[scythe]

Here are some direct links that are working right now, if anyone is still having trouble downloading and/or finding it (courtesy of HardOCP).

Windows 7 Beta 32-bit (http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.iso)

Windows 7 Beta 64-bit (http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.ISO)

I actually went out on a limb and am now using this as my main OS (with everything backed up of course). It's remarkably stable and I haven't had trouble installing any drivers yet. I have a spare computer in case it crashes and burns, but so far, I'm really impressed.

[Bone]

I've put 7 on two machines that wouldn't run Vista (in a functional state) for the life of them. From what I can see they put a ton of work into getting 7 to be a much more versatile OS than Vista is. And really if the ignorant masses think that Vista is crap than MS has an issue. The ignorant masses are the ones lining their pockets.

You reminded me of those asinine commercials where they are slipping Vista to people like it was Folger's crystals.

"You weren't really using our secret Windows Bogus, that was Windows Vista!"

And the test subjects grinned and whinnied like they had just gotten a reacharound.

[total]

You reminded me of those asinine commercials where they are slipping Vista to people like it was Folger's crystals.

"You weren't really using our secret Windows Bogus, that was Windows Vista!"

And the test subjects grinned and whinnied like they had just gotten a reacharound.

This sounds hysterical. Do you have any links? I rarely watch TV so I miss all the good commercials.

[Spectre-7]

Mojaveeeeeee...

I still think some of us Linux savvy folks should put out a distro called MojaveOS. Otherwise, it's a waste of so much marketing and name recognition.

[Bone]

This sounds hysterical. Do you have any links? I rarely watch TV so I miss all the good commercials.

Yeah, look up the Mojave Experiment (I'd link it but my nightly build Firefox doesn't register as a modern browser on Microsoft's site...) and you'll get some of the commercials I think.

[total]

What you said.

Yeah I know it won't happen, but it would be neat if it did. They could drop support for XP (they are talking of extending it again I guess) and basically just phase out Vista eventually. Corporate editions would be easy enough. A large enough company is going to have an IT department that slips images anyway and a smaller company could just uninstall the unwanted features (or just slip a new image).

I think they fragmented their market too much with Vista. There are just too many versions with slight variations.

[Bone]

You know, you make a good point. For good faith they should call this Vista SP2 and just make the transition seamless.

[total]

Yeah, look up the Mojave Experiment (I'd link it but my nightly build Firefox doesn't register as a modern browser on Microsoft's site...) and you'll get some of the commercials I think.

Heh...I like the music.

[Shadowstorm]

Public download links are up:

32Bit (http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.iso) and 64Bit (http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.ISO).

Public Beta postponed due to heavy traffic:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9125626 (http://anonym.to/?http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9125626)

Links still work, though.

[Tron]

For those whom are interested...

I just installed Windows 7 using Sun's Virtual Box.

It installed without a hitch. Only problem is that it doesn't seem to work with the virtual network adapter. I'll look to see if there is a Virtual Box update addressing this.

Otherwise it seems like Vista with a slight tweak. Granted I've had it installed for only 30 mins but if I hadn't known it was Windows 7 I would have guessed that I had installed Vista.

Hopefully the new name will be enough to change people's perceptions.

[scythe]

Public download links are up:

32Bit (http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.iso) and 64Bit (http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.ISO).

Public Beta postponed due to heavy traffic:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9125626 (http://anonym.to/?http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9125626)

Links still work, though.

Read (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=140285&postcount=30) much? Just kidding... ;)

[scythe]

Also, I just got a legit activation key. It's actually extremely easy, provided you have a LIVE account.

http://blog.hznet.nl/2009/01/10/how-to-receive-a-valid-windows-7-key/ (http://blog.hznet.nl/2009/01/10/how-to-receive-a-valid-windows-7-key/)

[harle]

Also, I just got a legit activation key. It's actually extremely easy, provided you have a LIVE account.

http://blog.hznet.nl/2009/01/10/how-to-receive-a-valid-windows-7-key/ (http://blog.hznet.nl/2009/01/10/how-to-receive-a-valid-windows-7-key/)I am attempting to do this, but the site keeps giving me an error message :( Damn you Microsoft!

[scythe]

I am attempting to do this, but the site keeps giving me an error message :( Damn you Microsoft!

Are you trying to get the 32-bit key? If so, try the 64-bit. I got mine in 2 attempts and it works on the 32-bit version.

[Matthias]

Because Apple has the balls (and reality-distortion field) to charge per point release. It would be like charging Windows customers for SP1, SP2, SP3...

Actually, the mac version of the Service Packs are "double-point releases". We're up to 10.5.6 right now, and I think Tiger made it up to 10.4.11 (at least .10). Those are certainly free. OS X was a complete revamp of Mac OS similar to moving from the Windows 95/98 kernel to Windows NT. Look at the feature changes between the 10.x releases, and tell me it barely changed more than XP SP1 did.

[Bone]

Actually, the mac version of the Service Packs are "double-point releases". We're up to 10.5.6 right now, and I think Tiger made it up to 10.4.11 (at least .10). Those are certainly free.Yeah, I realize that wasn't a perfect analogy. Anyway, I'm not hating on Apple if that's what you're thinking.


OS X was a complete revamp of Mac OS similar to moving from the Windows 95/98 kernel to Windows NT.I know this; I remember the upgrades from 7 to 8 to 9 being pretty big- but OS X is when they actually implemented the BSD kernel, basically starting from scratch.


Look at the feature changes between the 10.x releases, and tell me it barely changed more than XP SP1 did.This is where I thought not much was changing, and correct me if I'm wrong. Were there that many significant changes from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3, etc.?

[Lutheran]

Download keeps stopping at around 9 percent , also keep getting error message when trying to retrieve the beta key. Same happens when I try for the 64bit key.

[boratika]

As much as I want Windows to be more affordable, I don't think only one version really works. There's really not much use in giving the corporate version all the media center features of the home version, and vice versa. If they want to ditch Home Basic and have a single Home version, and/or get rid of upgrade-only versions, I'd be fine with that, but it's probably not going to happen.
Everything is optional this time (as opposed to in Vista where for example you can't uninstall Windows Media Player) so what they could do is just have selectable install themes. So for example, if you select the business install, it just puts on the business dealies and not things like media centre. Okay not a perfect example, since they probably want the business version to cost more. But yeah, going back to just having a standard and a premium version seems like a good idea. Instead of how ever many Vistas there are.

And then everyone I know with Vista ended up with Home Basic, since they bought low end laptops. So it basically has no more noticeable features than XP, but it runs like rubbish (think Celeron with 1GB of RAM) where XP would have run flawlessly (and in many cases replaced the Vista install.)

I think that is in no small part responsible for the poor perception of Vista and I think MS realised this. They really seem to have made sure it will run well on whatever hardware is around. Of course I'm sure this is in no small part also because of the current popularity of netbooks, where Vista just isn't an option (see Total's posts.) Not to mention this was also responsible for getting Linux into the laps of regular peoples.

[Wraith]

Download keeps stopping at around 9 percent , also keep getting error message when trying to retrieve the beta key. Same happens when I try for the 64bit key.I tried just now, after no success last night, and got a 64-bit key right away.

Just started downloading (using the link to the 64-bit ISO with FlashGet), so I'll see how that goes...Everything is optional this time (as opposed to in Vista where for example you can't uninstall Windows Media Player) so what they could do is just have selectable install themes. So for example, if you select the business install, it just puts on the business dealies and not things like media centre. Okay not a perfect example, since they probably want the business version to cost more. But yeah, going back to just having a standard and a premium version seems like a good idea. Instead of how ever many Vistas there are.Well, there's at least:

Home Basic
Home Premium
Business
Ultimate


Four, and for each of those, there's an Upgrade, Full, and OEM "System Builders" version available, so about 8 options at retail, 12 all together.

[Lutheran]

I got a 32 bit key now , and am downloading Windows 7 as I type this. Can I set this up to dual boot along with my Vista install?

[Wraith]

I got a 32 bit key now , and am downloading Windows 7 as I type this. Can I set this up to dual boot along with my Vista install?How to Dual Boot Windows 7 with XP or Vista (http://lifehacker.com/5126781/how-to-dual-boot-windows-7-with-xp-or-vista) (LifeHacker)

Of course, Microsoft says:Don’t install the Beta on your primary home or work computer. Microsoft is not responsible for downtime stemming from the Windows 7 Beta.Please do not use a PC you rely on for your work or daily use:How to install the Windows 7 Beta: (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-installation-instructions.aspx)

I have an old system (S939 Athlon 64 3500+) just sitting around, it just needs RAM. But I could put it on a second drive in my main PC...

[PathMaster]

I'm running it on this old POS Dell work PC. 3GB of RAM with a P4 2.8GHZ processor.

Everything seems smooth. I love the new task bar, probably because I've used OSX for the past year.

Ouch. Some of us are running PCs that make your POS look like solid gold.

Ars has some good coverage (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090110-the-week-in-microsoft-ces-2009-windows-7-windows-live.html), especially this nugget (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2009/01/06/buy-a-vista-pc-as-of-july-1-upgrade-to-windows-7-for-free):

Buy a Vista PC as of July 1, upgrade to Windows 7 for free. Details on the Windows 7 Upgrade Program are starting to trickle in: the program's eligibility looks like it will begin on July 1, 2009.

One can only assume that another beta will be coming along then, maybe a RC?

[Rogue_hunter]

Managed to get my 64-bit beta key this morning. Luckily I have an empty 120 GB partition, so I'll install onto that one and boot into it whenever I want to mess around.

[muddi900]

What is the news on the drivers? The majority of the world is using intel GPUs, so they'd be supported, but what about people with an ATI or Nvidia gpu?

[Tron]

What is the news on the drivers? The majority of the world is using intel GPUs, so they'd be supported, but what about people with an ATI or Nvidia gpu?

Intel makes GPU's? :confused:

[Shadowstorm]

Screen shot time:

Despite (seemingly) popular belief, the classic visual style of Window 95/98 has not been removed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/004.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/007.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/012.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/022.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/009.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/005.jpg

I really like how you can hover over windows from the task bar and it will fade in and out like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/Agentstorm/010.jpg

I really like it. I'll post more information about it later. I just wanted to give you guys some screenshots.

I also cannot get my Linksys wireless USB device working. I installed the driver - OS not supported.

[Spectre-7]

Intel makes GPU's? :confused:

They do, and according to the latest figures I've seen, they own a little more of the GPU market than Nvidia and AMD combined. They're the single largest GPU manufacturer in the world, and have been for a while now.

[Tron]

They do, and according to the latest figures I've seen, they own a little more of the GPU market than Nvidia and AMD combined. They're the single largest GPU manufacturer in the world, and have been for a while now.

You're talking about integrated graphics.

The Larabee represents Intels first entry into the stand alone GPU market.

[Spectre-7]

You're talking about integrated graphics.

The Larabee represents Intels first entry into the stand alone GPU market.

No shit, Sherlock. That does not in any way detract from the fact that Intel owns ~50% of the GPU market. If you're a computer owner, flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you have an Intel GPU.

Edit: Just to clarify, an integrated graphics solution is no less a GPU than a discrete graphics solution. The GPU is defined by hardware acceleration of triangle rasterization, transform and lighting, and to a lesser extent programmable pixel and vertex shader units (not technically part of the definition, but a de facto required feature ever since the Geforce 2). If a piece of silicon supports those features, it's a GPU no matter if its soldered onto the motherboard or an add-in board.

[Tron]

No shit, Sherlock.

I stopped reading after this. Hopefully the rest was more insightful and mature. :confused:

[Spectre-7]

I stopped reading after this. Hopefully the rest was more insightful and mature. :confused:

Nope. It was mostly about your mother.

[scythe]

While Spectre's technically correct (albeit in an asshole-ish way), I think it's safe to say that if you ask a nerd who the major players in the GPU market are, Intel is not going to be one of the answers.

[Tron]

While Spectre's technically correct (albeit in an asshole-ish way), I think it's safe to say that if you ask a nerd who the major players in the GPU market are, Intel is not going to be one of the answers.

I guess it came down to Semantics. I don't usually regard intel as making GPUs but that's just MY definition. I call their offerings Integrated Graphics where as AMD and NVidia make GPU's but perhaps that's not accurate.

[Spectre-7]

While Spectre's technically correct (albeit in an asshole-ish way), I think it's safe to say that if you ask a nerd who the major players in the GPU market are, Intel is not going to be one of the answers.

And a Merry Christmas to you, sir.

[J3DI]

Soooooo........... Back to the Beta...

How long does it take to install? I think mine has stalled out. It's been on the 'upgrading windows' screen for about 20 minutes now.

[Shadowstorm]

Soooooo........... Back to the Beta...

How long does it take to install? I think mine has stalled out. It's been on the 'upgrading windows' screen for about 20 minutes now.

It was fairly quick over here. I didn't choose the upgrade option; I went with custom. Probably less than fifteen minutes tops. Seriously.

[J3DI]

It was fairly quick over here. I didn't choose the upgrade option; I went with custom. Probably less than fifteen minutes tops. Seriously.

I guess I better start over and do it that way... sheesh

[Matthias]

This is where I thought not much was changing, and correct me if I'm wrong. Were there that many significant changes from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3, etc.?

To my understanding, The jump from 10.0 to 10.1 was very much a "rescue" SP-style update, but they also provided it for free. 10.2 boasted over 150 enhancements (according to Apple), and that pattern remained. For instance, 10.5 (Leopard) includes Time Machine, Boot Camp, Spaces, and full support for 64-bit processing.

The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X#Versions) on this provides a synopsis of changes in each version.

[Matthias]

More on topic, have there been any reports on how stable this beta is? Are we pretty close to RC or are we still in the "horrible drive death" territory?

[Shadowstorm]

More on topic, have there been any reports on how stable this beta is? Are we pretty close to RC or are we still in the "horrible drive death" territory?

I'd say we're close to RC. I of course am not the expert on the subject, but I've heard nothing but positive things being said as to the stability of this build.

Edit: I should add that this is nowhere near what you described. It's very stable.

[Goronmon]

Wow, I just downloaded a nvidia driver from microsoft. As I was browsing, the screen went black with some soft sound effect. Of course, I was like "Oh crap, broken already". Then the screen comes back and I get a message telling me the driver has been updated.

That's pretty awesome, haha.

Edit: Maybe Vista did this before too, I just always updated manually in the past.

[StarGypsy]

Wow, I just downloaded a nvidia driver from microsoft. As I was browsing, the screen went black with some soft sound effect. Of course, I was like "Oh crap, broken already". Then the screen comes back and I get a message telling me the driver has been updated.

That's pretty awesome, haha.

Edit: Maybe Vista did this before too, I just always updated manually in the past.

It did the same thing for me. I don't recall vista doing that.
I've been playing around with the beta for a few hours and it seems very stable and quite abit faster than vista. If you get a chance, check the defrag tool. Much better than the previous versions.

[total]

More on topic, have there been any reports on how stable this beta is? Are we pretty close to RC or are we still in the "horrible drive death" territory?

The two PCs I am running it on haven't crashed yet. Both seem as solid or more solid than XP does. The layout of the different power options was a bit odd for me at first but is really quite nice (can't say if this is different than Vistas). It picked up almost everything in my roomies netbook and basically everything but the card reader on my laptop driver wise. I used the Vista drivers for my Mobility x700 but I had to use the mobility modder to get the most modern ones (just like in XP). It picked up my wireless drivers out of the box..which are a bear to get installed in XP. Bluetooth worked out of the box, even tested my headset. All in all a very nice OS.

[bone_matrix]

Just installed it on my laptop.

Core 2 Duo 1.4
2 gigs ram
Nvidia 8400M

Runs better than Vista did, and uses less RAM. While I liked the UI of Vista, the overall experience was a bit annoying. System hog (while, not huge, more than I liked), UAC, didn't seem like a huge upgrade from XP.

Windows 7 on the other hand, feels a lot better. Like the new taskbar, even though I know its a slight ripoff of OS X, and I could have done it in XP, but i like the Vista like GUI. I agree with whomever said it. They should just call this SP2. I would buy Vista than, or use my free Vista Business (thank goodness for school!).

[CES]

I'm really impressed with 7 so far. It's smoother, faster and less resource intensive (mostly, but HDD space is cheap these days) while retaining Vista's shiny UI. For a beta, it also seems to be really stable and much closer to RC status than I expected.

[J3DI]

I'm glad to see everyone enjoying Windows 7 so much. I on the other hand probably won't be able to join in the fray.

My system won't install it.

Running an old Dell:

P4 3Ghz
1GB
Originally XP Pro, upgraded to Vista Business

It gets all the way to the last install part and the status bar stops almost 70% through.

My only other option having tried both upgrade and custom install, seems to be booting the install from startup. Yet, just my luck that the system won't let me do that...

Soooo, anyone feel like being generous and giving me a new pc?

[Rogue_hunter]

Wow, I just downloaded a nvidia driver from microsoft. As I was browsing, the screen went black with some soft sound effect. Of course, I was like "Oh crap, broken already". Then the screen comes back and I get a message telling me the driver has been updated.

That's pretty awesome, haha.

Edit: Maybe Vista did this before too, I just always updated manually in the past.

This was supposed to be in Vista, but Microsoft screwed up the driver situation. Good to see that something that works like it was supposed to. Vista still requires a reboot for some drivers, like for graphics cards.

[muddi900]

The beta is great and all but it fucked up my MBR or something as I can't acces XP. At all!

Can any of guys help???

[Goronmon]

The beta is great and all but it fucked up my MBR or something as I can't acces XP. At all!Do you have them installed on separate hard drives? If so, you might have to set the boot drive to the one with XP installed on it. Otherwise, yes it might have messed up the master boot record.

[Slack3r78]

This is where I thought not much was changing, and correct me if I'm wrong. Were there that many significant changes from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3, etc.?
Yes. OS X point releases are generally bigger than the jump from W2K to XP. There are usually fairly major changes at the API level with some UI tweaks and new high level functionality thrown in along the way.

[scythe]

Here's a cool tweak guide (http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=166532) for Vista (however all the tips are applicable to Win7 as well). I noticed quite a speed boost in startup time and overall performance after going through this. And the Win7 startup is already pretty quick.

[muddi900]

Do you have them installed on separate hard drives? If so, you might have to set the boot drive to the one with XP installed on it. Otherwise, yes it might have mess up the master boot record.

yes seperate HDD. how do set that drive as my boot drive?

[scythe]

yes seperate HDD. how do set that drive as my boot drive?

There's an option in your BIOS.

[muddi900]

There's an option in your BIOS.

Oh, I completely forgot about that. So, I am gonna re install it in a few days on to this HDD.

[Straximus]

This is where I thought not much was changing, and correct me if I'm wrong. Were there that many significant changes from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3, etc.?

Yes. OS X point releases are generally bigger than the jump from W2K to XP. There are usually fairly major changes at the API level with some UI tweaks and new high level functionality thrown in along the way.

Quite true. And even if one were to maintain that Apple charges for point releases based solely on version number, then by that logic so does Microsoft.

Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1
Windows Vista = Windows NT 6.0
Windows 7 = Windows NT 6.1 (Yeah, I know)

[Bone]

I guess that underscores how much the small changes actually stack up. As only a casual user of Mac OS X (I occasionally use the computers of my brother and some friends with Macs) not much seems to change between those releases. On the same token, casual users of Windows could look at Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 and not see the huge jumps in architecture behind the relatively similar UI.

Pardon my ignorance on the matter ;)

[Murtaug]

Just decided to take the plunge and give the beta a go. Colour me impressed.

Let me say that I have not used Vista for more than an hour or so total, and only once or twice. So, I can not really compare it to Windows 7.

The install was painless, and pretty quick too. For general computer tinkering around, I notice no performance difference between XP and W7. Using it pretty much vanilla, even giving IE8 a go instead of Firefox.

Having fun exploring the new interface, and I really like the desktop gadgets.

[Bone]

Finally got my 64-bit copy downloaded after a few false starts and network problems. Just wiped out and replaced my 32-bit leaked beta with this official 64-bit one, and it took about 20 minutes! Things seem just as smooth in 64-bits and I'm going to start installing games again to see how things run.

[torrefaction]

I'm so amused by Windows 7, and people's reactions to it.

A.)People who consider it a big leap forward clearly never gave Vista a chance.
B.)Microsoft Windows Server 2008 runs the same kernel and most of the same code as Vista. The server side of Windows 7? Windows 2008 R2
C.)People who think the performance of the BETA is better than Vista have also clearly never used Vista.

I'm mostly highlighting how ignorant (Note:Not unintelligent or stupid...) people are about Vista based on initial impressions pre-SP, word of mouth, and misconceptions. As much as some people disliked it, I thought the Mojave experiment had a really good point.

[NoName]

I'm mostly highlighting how ignorant (Note:Not unintelligent or stupid...) people are about Vista based on initial impressions pre-SP, word of mouth, and misconceptions. As much as some people disliked it, I thought the Mojave experiment had a really good point.

It's great that you've had Vista working well for you.

I gave Vista a shot after release and then I tried again after SP1. Both times after a couple weeks I got fed up by performance issues and returned to XP.

I've been running Win7 since the leak and it's been wonderful. I've had a much better experience than Vista.

Yay for just assuming people praising Win7 never gave Vista a chance...

[torrefaction]

It's great that you've had Vista working well for you.

I gave Vista a shot after release and then I tried again after SP1. Both times after a couple weeks I got fed up by performance issues and returned to XP.

I've been running Win7 since the leak and it's been wonderful. I've had a much better experience than Vista.

Yay for just assuming people praising Win7 never gave Vista a chance...

You're going to have a really hard time convincing me there's genuine performance problems in Vista.

[Slack3r78]

You're going to have a really hard time convincing me there's genuine performance problems in Vista.
I made it run slow on an Athlon XP 2500+ with 1GB of RAM and a completely slam full HDD once....

[Bone]

You're going to have a really hard time convincing me there's genuine performance problems in Vista.I'll be honest, I didn't give Vista a try. I had a lot of friends who had problems with it after launch. Network problems, driver problems, stability problems. Now I understand this has all been corrected since launch.

Anyway, I have been up front about my experience with Vista (since I had limited interaction with other people's Vista computers) and just happen to like it better than XP.

[DiBiddilyBop]

I think the performance problems with Vista are directly related to the power of your rig. For example, I knew Vista performance was directly related to how much RAM you have, and given the fact that I tend to run tons of applications at once, I overloaded my computer with 8 gigs of RAM. Vista runs like a dream.

From what I understand, systems with 1 gig of RAM run into problems with Vista. 2 gigs mostly puts you in the clear.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what Windows 7 does for me though. I'm hesitant to install the beta since I can't easily shuffle data around, but I'll probably upgrade when the full release is out since there have been so many good thing said about it already.

[total]

You're going to have a really hard time convincing me there's genuine performance problems in Vista.

Using Vista, XP, Ubuntu, and 7 on an Acer Travelmate 8103 I can tell you for a fact that both Windows XP and 7 perform quite a bit better than Vista ever has. Of course that must be my ignorant, never giving Vista a chance blinders. If you run Vista with 2GB of ram (or more) and a more recent CPU I'm sure you'll see relatively close performance between the two. As it stands with a Pentium M 750 and 1GB of ram, Vista is the slowest of all 4 OS on this laptop.

[Tron]

As it stands with a Pentium M 750 and 1GB of ram, Vista is the slowest of all 4 OS on this laptop.

Is the Pentium M 750 a 64 bit processor? If so 1 gig is useless with XP 64 as well. People need to remember that 64 pointers double the memory footprint regardless of the OS you use.

[total]

Is the Pentium M 750 a 64 bit processor? If so 1 gig us useless with XP 64 as well. People need to remember that 64 pointers double the memory footprint regardless of the OS you use.

It is not. I've never used a 64 bit OS. I have no use for it.

[Norse]

I've installed W7 now on my laptop and I like it so far. I really like the new taskbar, even if it takes some time to get used to it. I really like Vista, but 7 still seems like an even better OS. I have one question for you guys: if I decide to use W7 beta as my main OS, will I be able to upgrade to the retail version without having to install and tweak everything again?

[Tron]

I've installed W7 now on my laptop and I like it so far. I really like the new taskbar, even if it takes some time to get used to it. I really like Vista, but 7 still seems like an even better OS. I have one question for you guys: if I decide to use W7 beta as my main OS, will I be able to upgrade to the retail version without having to install and tweak everything again?

Highly doubtfull

[biosc1]

Highly doubtfull

Agreed...By that time it will be worth a clean install anyways. There is a lot of excess debug/etc stuff on these discs that you don't want anyways.

Just finished my own install on a work computer. Nice quick install...very quick actually. No problem with detecting the wireless PCI card already in the machine during install either, which was a bit of a surprise considering it's a cheap crappy one.

Looks nice so far. Considering the less than stellar machine I have it installed on, it's quicker than I thought it would be. Also runs our product without crashing which is always a benefit :)

[torrefaction]

Using Vista, XP, Ubuntu, and 7 on an Acer Travelmate 8103 I can tell you for a fact that both Windows XP and 7 perform quite a bit better than Vista ever has. Of course that must be my ignorant, never giving Vista a chance blinders. If you run Vista with 2GB of ram (or more) and a more recent CPU I'm sure you'll see relatively close performance between the two. As it stands with a Pentium M 750 and 1GB of ram, Vista is the slowest of all 4 OS on this laptop.

Having a higher performance floor on an OS with indexing and significantly more behind the scenes features, you could expect this. Personally, I thought XP was unusable with 512, and just usable with a gig. Vista Basic w/o indexing runs just as well as XP did.

Here's my issue with the majority of people's comments. Requiring recent hardware is NOT a performance issue, and I hear this sort of thing all the time. The single biggest problem Vista had was having it's minimum reqs too low.

My guess is the biggest improvements have been optimizing the indexing service, which is single handedly responsible for most people's problems with memory and slugishness. And it's nearly always due to old hardware (Yes, I view having only 1 Gig as old.)

[torrefaction]

It is not. I've never used a 64 bit OS. I have no use for it.

So you don't game on the PC then?

Little note, for those that are unaware (not saying you are or are not). A 32-bit OS cannot utilize more than 2 gigs for any given process. Any higher, and you'll get cache thrashing, if not straight up traps.

Be like Slack3r, and just use 64-bit.

[biosc1]

So you don't game on the PC then?

Little note, for those that are unaware (not saying you are or are not). A 32-bit OS cannot utilize more than 2 gigs for any given process. Any higher, and you'll get cache thrashing, if not straight up traps.

Be like Slack3r, and just use 64-bit.

My next re-install is definitely going to be 64-bit. I held off before for some unknown reason (okay, laziness)...but I'll definitely be going for 64-bit next time and updated to 8GB's of RAM.

[bapenguin]

Been running this at work now for 2 days.

They might as well of called it Windows OSX. Which isn't a bad thing.

[total]

So you don't game on the PC then?

Little note, for those that are unaware (not saying you are or are not). A 32-bit OS cannot utilize more than 2 gigs for any given process. Any higher, and you'll get cache thrashing, if not straight up traps.

Be like Slack3r, and just use 64-bit.

I don't have any hardware that would take advantage of a 64 bit OS. My gaming rig has 2GB, a P4 3.2ghz and a 6800 Ultra. While I won't be playing Far Cry 2 or Crysis any time soon, it runs all of the Steam games I own just fine and WoW runs great on it. There would be absolutely 0 advantages to using a 64 bit OS on it.

I don't think Vista's minimum requirements are it's biggest downfall at all. Granted there are STILL notebooks out there that come with Vista installed with 512MB of ram (I think we can both agree that simply isn't enough). I think the biggest problem Vista has always had is hardware manufacturers putting out shoddy half baked drivers for it. I have a buddy who still has issues with his 7600GT and Vista...and that to me is just ridiculous. I'm not saying that is MS's problem, it is just one that is constantly attributed to Vista.

Now as far as Vista vs 7 on a lower end machine (my laptop for example). Well I just don't understand the argument. As far as I know both OS are relatively equal in what they can do. Having used both, I don't understand why anyone would run Vista over 7 on a machine like this.

You tell me that Vista and XP run equally on this machine and it simply doesn't. With XP on it, it isn't anywhere near just usable. It runs Portal, Half Life 2 (+Ep1 and 2) and Team Fortress just fine. It runs WoW for hours on end with 0 issues. This does not equate to just usable, this is a very functional PC.

Now with Vista it is barely usable. My framerates are basically halved on all my games (whether this is due to shoddy drivers or not enough oomph I can't tell you). The OS itself is noticeably slower. This is with every tweak I could apply to it (looks just like W2K on my laptop). Pulling Windows 7 basically out of the box and installing it gave me an OS that is just as functional as XP, actually looks like a modern OS and runs my games at relatively the same level as XP. If I was more ambitious I would actually benchmark the bitch to give you some examples.

I'm a lazy fuck though, so you'll just have to believe me in this case. Well, or you can just label me a 7 fanboy and call it a day (for the record I'm a Linux fanboy).

[Primus]

If this thread is any indication it seems the name change was worked.

Well played MS, well played.

[BlackPete]

Nice to see the Vista flamewars are proceeding as usual...

The bottom line is simple: On your desktop or laptop, the only person that matters is you. If Vista runs like shit, then upgrade to XP. Otherwise, stick with it. Nobody else matters.

[torrefaction]

You don't need 64 bits for gaming.

Windows is limted to 2 megs because of it's own memory management system which has nothing to do with 32 bits. There are other 32 bit OS's that do not have that limitation.

LOL...Seriously?

*Edit*

Fine, yes, I misphrased that saying a 32-bit OS could only use 2 Gig's. I should have said 32-bit version of Windows. But that is irrelevant, because:

A.)People game on Windows
B.)The limit is 4 Gig's total, otherwise. Still a limitation, still unnecessary. Cache thrashing is not necessary if you require no paging.

[Matthias]

So I'm thinking of running this on my MBP with Boot Camp (already clarified that it works with just a touch of tweaking to make sure the drivers get installed properly). The main question I have is that I only have 2 GB in my laptop for the forseeable future, and would like to game. I have access to at least a 1 GB USB stick to use as a MemoryBooster (or whatever they call that cache tool). Would the increased memory footprint of 64-bit pointers rip my 2GB to shreds, or is that an acceptable amount (what with USB and some HDD paging)?

[total]

So I'm thinking of running this on my MBP with Boot Camp (already clarified that it works with just a touch of tweaking to make sure the drivers get installed properly). The main question I have is that I only have 2 GB in my laptop for the forseeable future, and would like to game. I have access to at least a 1 GB USB stick to use as a MemoryBooster (or whatever they call that cache tool). Would the increased memory footprint of 64-bit pointers rip my 2GB to shreds, or is that an acceptable amount (what with USB and some HDD paging)?

Unless you are upgrading to 4GB relatively soon there is no benefit to using a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS will only be able to register 4GB of ram total (more like 3.5) and that includes video ram.

Edit: Vista and I'm sure 7 will tell you that you have 4GB total but that extra half a gig or so will never actually be addressed.

[Matthias]

Unless you are upgrading to 4GB relatively soon there is no benefit to using a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS will only be able to register 4GB of ram total (more like 3.5) and that includes video ram.

Edit: Vista and I'm sure 7 will tell you that you have 4GB total but that extra half a gig or so will never actually be addressed.

Well I should be getting a RAM upgrade in Februrary for my birthday, and I figure until then I have access to at least one large USB hard drive and some smaller 1 GB; if you use a USB drive for ReadyBoost, does Windows address this like normal RAM; aka if I install Vista32 with 2GB of RAM and 256MB of video RAM, will I only be able to reserve 1.75G of ReadyBoost? Or is it just normal page filing, and I can reserve as much as I want?

[total]

Well I should be getting a RAM upgrade in Februrary for my birthday, and I figure until then I have access to at least one large USB hard drive and some smaller 1 GB; if you use a USB drive for ReadyBoost, does Windows address this like normal RAM; aka if I install Vista32 with 2GB of RAM and 256MB of video RAM, will I only be able to reserve 1.75G of ReadyBoost? Or is it just normal page filing, and I can reserve as much as I want?

If you are getting more ram in February I would just install the 64-bit version.

[Matthias]

Granted. Out of curiosity though, do you know how ReadyBoost space gets addressed?

[Matthias]

Oh also, what's the install footprint on this? I know an article from a while back said they were down to just over 6GB and working to clear more. Has this worked out?

[BlackPete]

Strange... I just tried to download this, but I kept getting an "Error" in the download manager.

Nice to see the error messages are as helpful as ever. :p

[total]

Oh also, what's the install footprint on this? I know an article from a while back said they were down to just over 6GB and working to clear more. Has this worked out?

I honestly am not sure on how readyboost is addressed.

As far as the footprint goes. I just installed it on another laptop and am looking at about 10GB gone.

[muddi900]

it takes up 16 gb on my PC. Also, I heard some where they are releasing a netbook/top version. I am thinking about converting a laptop with busted screen into a nettop.

[torrefaction]

Unless you are upgrading to 4GB relatively soon there is no benefit to using a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS will only be able to register 4GB of ram total (more like 3.5) and that includes video ram.

Edit: Vista and I'm sure 7 will tell you that you have 4GB total but that extra half a gig or so will never actually be addressed.

In general, I tend to assume people will upgrade. By default I recommend 64-bit now, because there are really very few drawbacks anymore.

[CES]

The beta uses just under 6GB on the drive I installed it on. How the hell did you people manage to bloat it up to 10+ gigs?

[Shadowstorm]

The beta uses just under 6GB on the drive I installed it on. How the hell did you people manage to bloat it up to 10+ gigs?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that either. It's sitting at 6.71 GB right now. I did install some stuff.

[Bone]

Pointless argument is pointless ;)

While Steam and Fallout3 ran great on my 32-bit install, I can't make Fallout work AT ALL in the 64 bit version.

Steam seems to work fine, but when I launch Fallout3, it detects settings "High Quality" but will not do anything when I click "Play". Launcher disappears and it's like I never clicked anything.

Does anyone know of any problems with the "Program Files (x86)" directory structure? In other words, is this folder name acceptable to all programs?

[Goronmon]

Does anyone know of any problems with the "Program Files (x86)" directory structure? In other words, is this folder name acceptable to all programs?It works fine in my 64bit install of Vista. Have you tried having Steam run as an administrator?

[Bone]

Yeah, tried that and also tried compatibility modes (vista and XP) but no love yet. Odd.

Does your Steam run as a 32-bit process? I am assuming so but it wouldn't hurt to check. Mine does say *32 next to it.

[Slack3r78]

Ran Fallout flawless on x64. Steam only ships a 32 bit client AFAIK.

(The vast majority of the problems you'll encounter on x64 are related to copy protection, especially copy protection schemes that rely on system drivers. Those are rare these days, but I've been running x64 OSes since XP x64).

[torrefaction]

B) You have no idea what you're talking about ;)

Paging is a function of the memory management system. Everything is organized into pages and unless your game is 1 meg in size there will always be page replacement regardless of what OS you use. You've taken like 3 different concepts and put them into a blender.

Paging is different from Paged virtual memory. It's funnier to be when you're dick when you're right.

Paging is the process of saving inactive memory to disk and restoring them to real memory when required. Good memory management systems (Linux and now Vista), don't use paging unless absolutely necessary. When you page memory in and out of a swap, you're thrashing.

[Slack3r78]

This sentence, like your other posts, makes zero sense! :p
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before trying to delve into memory management, then, because torre's pretty much correct on what he's talking about.

[torrefaction]

This sentence, like your other posts, makes zero sense! :p

Congratulations on your recent failure!

http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=Clue------

[torrefaction]

This sentence, like your other posts, makes zero sense! :p

Paging and paged virtual memory go hand in hand. Well at least that's what my professor, all of my textbooks and the internet have told me....but I'll go with your notion instead! ;)

Getting back to your original point...thrashing can occur on any OS with any bit size. Your initial point was deeply flawed and represented a muddled view of like 2 or 3 different concepts.

My initial point that 64-bit is better for gaming because it can access more memory?

If your textbooks tell you that I'm wrong, you need to go to a new school. Yes, paging and virtual memory go hand in hand. If you don't run out of physical memory, do you need virtual memory? I mean, really?

[torrefaction]

In regards to thrashing...notice the repeated reference to the application itself and the working set....and not to the bit size of the OS

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The only reason I mentioned bit size is because of memory limitations. Keep up.

[torrefaction]

This coming from the guy who said...



So apparently my textbooks are wrong despite you contradicting yourself.

Let's go real slow here.

Paging can be different from Paged tables, and still go hand in hand with virtual memory? Following me?

[Shadowstorm]

So can we get back to the beta now?

[torrefaction]

Actually he's dead wrong...he even contradicted himself and pretty much any explanation of the concepts out there. But hey if you agree with him all the power to you!

Didn't contradict myself. Learn to read.

[Tron]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The only reason I mentioned bit size is because of memory limitations. Keep up.

FYI...cheap deflections like "reading comprehension" don't negate the fact that your definitions were wrong and that you even contradicted yourself. I know that in your mind that somehow makes you come out looking teh smartly but it doesn't really work.

You've repeatedly demonstrated a poor understanding of how these concepts work and your initial point was just flat out baseless. Then again you're the guy who responded with "LOL SERIOUSLY?!?!?" when someone challanged your assertion that you need 64bits for gaming despite the fact that countless gamers are playing and enjoying today's titles on 32bit XP.

[torrefaction]

You know...here...let's figure out where I'm wrong.

I stated

1.)32-bit OS' have a limitation of 4 gigs of memory.
2.)I corrected myself on my statement that 32-bit OS' IN GENERAL have a 2 gig process limitation, although I was only really referring to Windows, I should have been specific. (As a side note, Windows is not "limted" to 2 megs)
Windows is limted to 2 megs because of it's own memory management system which has nothing to do with 32 bits.
3.)I stated that the paging is not the same as page tables. If you never run out of physical memory, you will rarely need to utilize virtual memory, therefore you will rarely require paging. Separate concepts buddy.

Quick...where was I wrong?

[torrefaction]

FYI...cheap deflections like "reading comprehension" don't negate the fact that your definitions were wrong and that you even contradicted yourself. I know that in your mind that somehow makes you come out looking teh smartly but it doesn't really work.

You've repeatedly demonstrated a poor understanding of how these concepts work and your initial point was just flat out baseless. Then again you're the guy who responded with "LOL SERIOUSLY?!?!?" when someone challanged your assertion that you need 64bits for gaming despite the fact that countless gamers are playing and enjoying today's titles on 32bit XP.

I'm not sure I'm the one demonstrating a poor understanding. I do this every day, and I'm pretty sure I know how memory works. Good luck with your textbooks though. Every college grad that comes in here is just as sure as himself as you.

I don't think I said you NEED 64-bit at any point. I'm highly recommending it to anyone that games because even if they don't have over 2 gigs of RAM, the odds are that they will. You're silly to be fighting me on this concept, as more and more games are moving to 64-bit due to memory limitations on 32-bit operating systems. You are completely misunderstanding just about everything I say, so yeah, I figure reading comprehension comes into play here.

[Slack3r78]

Getting back to your original point...thrashing can occur on any OS with any bit size. Your initial point was deeply flawed and represented a muddled view of like 2 or 3 different concepts.
Uh...

Word length determines the amount of addressable real memory. The less real memory you have, the sooner you have to start paging real memory to virtual memory. Constant paging between real and virtual memory is thrashing. Shorter word length means a lower real memory capacity which means you're going to hit thrashing sooner.

This is basic, basic stuff. Not confusing and torre certainly wasn't going out of his way to make it difficult. If you're missing all that, you really need to spend some more time reading those textbooks and listening to your professors more carefully.

[Tron]

You know...here...let's figure out where I'm wrong.

I stated

1.)32-bit OS' have a limitation of 4 gigs of memory.
2.)I corrected myself on my statement that 32-bit OS' IN GENERAL have a 2 gig process limitation, although I was only really referring to Windows, I should have been specific. (As a side note, Windows is not "limted" to 2 megs)

3.)I stated that the paging is not the same as page tables. If you never run out of physical memory, you will rarely need to utilize virtual memory, therefore you will rarely require paging.

Quick...where was I wrong?

I was the one that corrected you...notice how you responded to me. So wouldn't than imply that you were wrong? Unless you have some strange habit of responding to people's posts with retractions depite being correct in the first place.

I've seen weirder things on the internet!

In your original post you incorrectly attributed CACHE thrashing to paging.

I corrected you by pointing out that SWAPPING in and out of cache is a result of the cache size and the nature and size of the application running.

[Tron]

This is basic, basic stuff. .

Exactly...despite that it seems lost on him.

[Slack3r78]

I was the one that corrected you...notice how you responded to me. So wouldn't than imply that you were wrong? Unless you have some strange habit of responding to people's posts with retractions depite being correct in the first place.
You 'corrected' him on a totally tangential topic. Paged memory != paging.

Exactly...despite that it seems lost on him.
Except he's the one pointing all this out and you're the one insisting he doesn't know what he's talking about while making yourself look completely foolish in the process. You're the one who started all this with silly comments about not needing 64 bit.

[torrefaction]

I was the one that corrected you...notice how you responded to me. So wouldn't than imply that you were wrong? Unless you have some strange habit of responding to people's posts with retractions depite being correct in the first place.

I've seen weirder things on the internet!

In your original post you incorrectly attributed CACHE thrashing to paging.

I corrected you by pointing out that SWAPPING in and out of cache is a result of the cache size and the nature and size of the application running.

Uh, what? I know you were the one I responded to. Hence me calling it out. You had a point, and I was giving it. Want to keep making yourself look foolish, be my guest.

Dude...what's written to disk is a page cache. This is so basic. I hope I never have to interview you, especially with your attitude.

To decrease excessive paging, and thus possibly resolve thrashing problem, a user can do any of the following:

* Increase the amount of RAM in the computer (generally the best long-term solution).
* Decrease the number of programs being concurrently run on the computer.


In a 32-bit operating system, you can only increase the amount of RAM so far. Gaming takes us past the limit where this is feasible especially in Windows..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paging#Thrashing

[torrefaction]

You should spend more time understanding that cache thrashing is different then page thrashing and there are different reasons for the two occuring.

Oh jesus. Ok, yes, maybe I didn't use the term in the classic fashion. Fuck, is this really what you're arguing about, and in the way you're arguing about it? You're DEFINITELY still in school.

Okay, fine. I used slightly inappropriate terminology while being right about the entire subject. I had no idea your argument was this juvenile. Congratulations. Cache thrashing and page thrashing are technically different.

[torrefaction]

Your original post was "cache thrashing" and not "page cache thrashing". Perhaps you've never heard of cache before and didn't realize that 99% of people out there are going to think you're talking about processor cache.

So go ahead and hire people who don't even know what cache is.

Yes, you're right. I've never heard of cache before.

You're a hilarious guy, you know that? Enjoy school. I hope your attitude works well for you when you get out, although I doubt it.

[torrefaction]

I graduated 8 years ago but thanks anyways. :p

Oh, wow. That makes it even worse. You're one of THOSE. May our careers stay far separated.

[torrefaction]

You said a lot of shit that I didn't say, argue with, or make claims about.

[Slack3r78]

If pointing out the correct definitions of these concepts makes me look foolish then I don't mind at all. I still have yet to see anyone counter MY definitions though. Instead I get the usual argument filler like "making yourself look completely foolish in the process". Typical placeholder for a well reasoned argument.
I didn't see well-reasoned argument. I saw nitpicking and pedantry about things that those of us who are actually working in computing for a living consider a waste of fucking time. The point is that anybody that understands the basics of memory management can follow what torre was talking about. People that waste everyone's time with juvenile LOL BUT MY PROFESSOR SAYS bullshit that doesn't have any real impact on the subject at hand are generally viewed as foolish in the circles I run with.

[torrefaction]

People that waste everyone's time with juvenile LOL BUT MY PROFESSOR says bullshit that doesn't have any real impact on the subject at hand are generally viewed as foolish in the circles I run with.

That's funny, because all the developers and testers I know would say the same thing.

[torrefaction]

I'm sure this made sense to you. :confused:

Basically slack3r's point. You bring up BUT MY TEXTBOOKS AND PROFESSORS. You were arguing over a single word being missing. If I had've said "page cache thrashing" it would've been perfectly understandable to you. But when I said cache thrashing WHILE TALKING ABOUT PAGING, there's something called context.

This is, as Slack3r points out, pedantic and useless. I've never heard a tech I respect argue about something so minute before.

It's like...when you first posted about the "2 megs" limit in Windows. I didn't call you out at first (I did in my post after you repeatedly called me dead wrong) BECAUSE I KNEW WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT.

I understood, because it had context.

[torrefaction]

You know...this is so stupid, and I can't believe I let myself get into this.

Shadowstorm is right, talk about the beta.

[Slack3r78]

Other than posting definitions and explaining how cache misses and page thrashing aren't the same (a point that torrefaction went on to concede). Keep trying man...I'm sure if you try this long enough the definitions will all change to match your own.

You're all alone now my friend.
Yes, all alone in the land where people are mostly concerned about getting shit done and where pedantry about terminology is a waste of time.

Find me serious computing professional that would have been unable to understand what torre was talking about and I'll concede that your argument was anything less than juvenile to begin with.

[Tron]

You know...this is so stupid, and I can't believe I let myself get into this.

Shadowstorm is right, talk about the beta.

Agreed....I'm done if you're done

[Grifter]

Circular argument filled with redundant bullshit

Schnoogs is that you!?!

[Goronmon]

From now on Slack3r78 don't even bother with the right terminology in any of your posts...you clearly don't think it's necessary to be understood...we'll figure it out.I feel bad for anyone that has to deal with you on a daily basis. Passive aggressive for the win, I guess?

[Slack3r78]

From now on Slack3r78 don't even bother with the right terminology in any of your posts...you clearly don't think it's necessary to be understood...we'll figure it out.
No, I'm not saying it's worthless. I'm saying that if the general point is understandable within context, getting pissy that a closely related term was used in place of the exact term is generally a waste of time.

I supposed I should still be harping on you referring to 2 megs, though. That'd be sensible.

[roboninja]

Schnoogs is that you!?!

That, sir, is the funniest thing I have read in this thread. Makes all that back-and-forth almost worthwhile. Almost.

[Goronmon]

Awww...now the thread just looks wierd.

[Tron]

Getting things back on track...has anyone else tried this with VirtualBox?

It installed fine and runs but I can't get it to work with the virtual network adapter.


Grrrrrr!!!

[biosc1]

Have you tried looking for a pre-made VB image with W7 installed? Could make your life easier. There are already VMWare and VPC pre-mades floating around.

[torrefaction]

That, sir, is the funniest thing I have read in this thread. Makes all that back-and-forth almost worthwhile. Almost.

Almost...but not quite.

[Tron]

Have you tried looking for a pre-made VB image with W7 installed? Could make your life easier. There are already VMWare and VPC pre-mades floating around.

I actually hadn't thought of that...I'll look into that. Thanks for the suggestion!

[total]

In general, I tend to assume people will upgrade. By default I recommend 64-bit now, because there are really very few drawbacks anymore.

Yeah, I suppose that is a good policy for pretty much any PC gamers these days. Most of my customers are older people and moms, so I typically don't see much over 2GB. :)

Damn you guys went and had a good old flame war before I even woke up. Sad face.

[Voodoo]

What an epic thread. WOW! Tron, if you are going to fight on the grid you gotta get some more practice in. You are throwing that frisbee all retarded...

Also - I am sad that I haven't tried Windows 7 yet. :(

[PathMaster]

Ok, take a quick look at the Ars review basically says its the same as Vista, with a few key changes, but that it runs basically the same on the same hardware. Going by this thread, some of you feel differently.

Who is correct? ;)

[Tron]

Ok, take a quick look at the Ars review basically says its the same as Vista, with a few key changes, but that it runs basically the same on the same hardware. Going by this thread, some of you feel differently.

Who is correct? ;)

Can't answer that...I'm using a virtual machine so my performance is going to be affected heavily by that.

[biosc1]

I am running it on a crappy desktop here at work...even the hard core Linux/XP guy who loves speed grudgingly admitted that it is snappier than Vista. He has refused to move away from XP, but did say that if he had to, he would use Windows 7.

Personally, I don't notice a difference. Vista for me is as fast as I remember XP being, but I have pretty darn good specs.

Windows 7 doesn't seem to freeze up as much on network listings or drive checks.

[torrefaction]

I have legitimate reasons for why I talk about pretty much equivalent performance with Vista. We've had Win 7 here for quite a while.

But here's benchmarks and details that back me up more:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251&from=rss

*Edit*

Heh...and because it's fun...here's benchmarks showing Win 7 as better.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3182&page=1

To be clear:I expect to see Win7 have SOME performance benefits, and I would really hope optimizations to the indexing service are part of that. Boot times are going to be significantly faster, and I would expect some general optimizations. But the talk about how much better W7 is doesn't line up at all with what I've read about the development and features being delivered.

I'd say it's telling that Ars Technica agrees with me.

[Wraith]

Heh...and because it's fun...here's benchmarks showing Win 7 as better.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3182&page=1Here's an article by the same guy running the Beta (rather than a pre-beta): http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

[Slack3r78]

Here's an article by the same guy running the Beta (rather than a pre-beta): http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236
That article is kind of worthless, to be honest. He's only reporting results relatively, from what I can tell. Ars hinted that the places W7 was doing better than Vista and XP, it was in the ~10% range.

[Wraith]

That article is kind of worthless, to be honest. He's only reporting results relatively, from what I can tell. Ars hinted that the places W7 was doing better than Vista and XP, it was in the ~10% range.Yeah, it'd be a lot more informative with numbers. But hey, if it's 10% better than XP/Vista? Sounds like an improvement to me.

[BlackPete]

So........ who here has downloaded the beta recently? As in today?

I just got a generic "Error" message when I tried last night. Yes, that was the entire message: Just "Error".

[total]

But here's benchmarks and details that back me up more:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251&from=rss

Heh. Did you actually read the article this links to? It is worthless. The guy even goes into how much memory is being used by the OS, which is worthless in both Vista and 7 (as they actually use the fucking memory).

Anywho, I've got a Core 2 (2ghz), 3GB and x1700 sitting next to me. I am going to install Vista and 7 on it and see if I can see any difference between the two.

[Slack3r78]

Anywho, I've got a Core 2 (2ghz), 3GB and x1700 sitting next to me. I am going to install Vista and 7 on it and see if I can see any difference between the two.
A64 3200+, 2GB, 8600GT in the box I have it on at work that I was running Vista on and it's basically the same.

[torrefaction]

Here's an article by the same guy running the Beta (rather than a pre-beta): http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

I beat you with that link in my edit. And no, I didn't read thoroughly :P

[Wraith]

I beat you with that link in my edit. And no, I didn't read thoroughly :PWe are linking to two different articles on the same site, by the same guy.

Yours is "Windows 7 build 6956 performance test" from Dec. 11, 2008.
Mine is "Windows 7 beta 1 performance - How does the OS compare to Vista and XP?" from January 1st, 2009.

Unless you're referring to a different post.

[total]

A64 3200+, 2GB, 8600GT in the box I have it on at work that I was running Vista on and it's basically the same.

My Ubuntu PC is a X2 3800+, 2GB and a x850 I think. Seems like it should be enough for Vista/7 right? Fuck no. Fucking nvidia doesn't support the nforce3 chipset outside of XP. So AGP doesn't work if you are using a X2 processor. If you disable one of the cores inside Windows or in the BIOS AGP kicks in and works just fine. Talk about bullshit. This is what actually caused me to start using Ubuntu as my OS of choice. Not really MS fault, but a bitch none the less.

[torrefaction]

We are linking to two different articles on the same site, by the same guy.

Yours is "Windows 7 build 6956 performance test" from Dec. 11, 2008.
Mine is "Windows 7 beta 1 performance - How does the OS compare to Vista and XP?" from January 1st, 2009.

Unless you're referring to a different post.

Man, no. I'm just retarded I guess. The link you posted was the one I *meant* to post. I was looking at quite a few articles, so I guess I grabbed the wrong one.

[total]

I beat you with that link in my edit. And no, I didn't read thoroughly :P

It is pretty shoddy. The guy goes into testing things like encoding performance. As if a CPU bound test is magically going to change between relatively identical kernels.

[total]

Man, no. I'm just retarded I guess.

No way dude. I've found both you and Slackers post to be quite insightful. I remembered having good discussions with Slacker over on EvAv but I honestly can't say I remember many with you. That is mainly due to me having the short term memory of a goldfish (cocaine is a terrible drug). While we may not agree on all points, I'd like to think we both come away from the conversation with something.

[Tron]

So I finally got the networking to work under Virtual Box. I simply updated to the latest copy which happend to be one version ahead. ;)

[torrefaction]

I can't believe I posted that article. I test performance for a living, and that's just shoddy work. My deepest apologies.

*Edit*
I'm referring to the ZDNet article, I'm reading through the first one I posted now.

*Double Edit*

Jesus, does no one know how to test performance anymore?

[tombofsoldier]

Wish I wasn't so cash strapped right now, stupid college, or I'd upgrade my laptop and put it on there. Don't play games on it so I don't care if it doesn't run them well.

[Goronmon]

Alright, here's a question. I have games and other things installed on a separate partition on the same hard drive as my Vista install. Is there anyway to get Windows 7 to recognize the programs as installed without actually doing a full reinstall?

[Tron]

Alright, here's a question. I have games and other things installed on a separate partition on the same hard drive as my Vista install. Is there anyway to get Windows 7 to recognize the programs as installed without actually doing a full reinstall?

Again my answer is highly doubtfull.

Installing an application is more than just copying files. They often write to the registry and register dlls, etc.

[Goronmon]

Installing an application is more than just copying files. They often write to the registry and register dlls, etc.Well, I know for a fact that World of Warcraft is not tied to anything at all. You can move the folder around hard drives and run it from there.

Edit: And WoW is the main reason I ask this due to the time it takes to do a full install and update.

[Tron]

Well, I know for a fact that World of Warcraft is not tied to anything at all. You can move the folder around hard drives and run it from there.

Edit: And WoW is the main reason I ask this due to the time it takes to do a full install and update.

I guess I should have said that some apps are tightly coupled to the OS during installation. I guess it depends on what apps you want to move.

[total]

Well, I know for a fact that World of Warcraft is not tied to anything at all. You can move the folder around hard drives and run it from there.

Edit: And WoW is the main reason I ask this due to the time it takes to do a full install and update.

Yeah you can move WoW around all you want and it won't make a difference. I have a central copy on a Nas box and I copy it all over the place. Steam you can copy all over the place (just install steam and copy the steamapps folder). Ummm, I can't think of anything else I've copied off my network.

[Goronmon]

Problem is that Windows 7 doesn't actually see it as being installed which normally isn't a problem, but when I use stuff like Raptr, it can't detect games that don't have entries in the registry.

[Bone]

So, as much as I like this beta, it's clearly still Windows. For whatever reason, I couldn't get Fallout3 or TeamFortress2 to launch. They would both just do nothing after being clicked (Fallout's launcher would open but clicking Play would just kill the launcher). I tried giving them Administrator privileges, taking ownership of the folders, tried compatibility modes for XP and Vista... nothing.

So I gave up and reinstalled the 64-bit build again (since testing my games was my main priority anyway, I didn't mind starting over). Now, the ease with which this new beta installs indicates how little I changed- literally, I installed Windows and applied the updates waiting for me before installing Steam and downloading my games.

This time the games work fine. So, the old Windows crap-shoot worked in my favor this time. I'll take a restore point and consider it a good day.

[total]

So, as much as I like this beta, it's clearly still Windows. For whatever reason, I couldn't get Fallout3 or TeamFortress2 to launch. They would both just do nothing after being clicked (Fallout's launcher would open but clicking Play would just kill the launcher). I tried giving them Administrator privileges, taking ownership of the folders, tried compatibility modes for XP and Vista... nothing.

So I gave up and reinstalled the 64-bit build again (since testing my games was my main priority anyway, I didn't mind starting over). Now, the ease with which this new beta installs indicates how little I changed- literally, I installed Windows and applied the updates waiting for me before installing Steam and downloading my games.

This time the games work fine. So, the old Windows crap-shoot worked in my favor this time. I'll take a restore point and consider it a good day.

I copied my Steam files over and they all seem to work fine. I installed Steam first though, then just copied over my steamapps folder. I did a fresh install of Shadowrun and it runs great. I've actually been playing it for most of the night.

[muddi900]

I tried POP, because it had no DRM. It installed without a problem but I can't run the Launcher, so I can't adjust the display setting :(

[Matthias]

So for those who want to run the beta on Boot Camp, DO NOT USE the 64-bit version unless you are runing a Mac Pro. MacBOOK Pros DO NOT have 64-bit drivers and the Boot Camp disc will not install properly. I'm sure this will be fixed eventually, but at the moment it's not worth the fuss.

I am now going to wipe and install the 32-bit version. Also, I noticed the ISO for x64 is 3.47GB and the one for x86 is only 2.77GB, so this might be why some installs are under 7GB and others are closer to 10GB. I know when I installed the x64 version last night, it took 9.37GB for just the OS. I'll let you know what the x86 footprint is like when I install it.

[Wraith]

I'm running a dual boot between XP Pro 32-bit and Windows 7 Beta 1 64-bit (on a second hard drive).

Google Chrome doesn't work. It warns you about compatibility problems before installing. You can still install, and run the app, but it just doesn't load pages at all.

Firefox works fine.

Installed Bioshock, it works fine. (Took a few tries to activate, but that was because I wasn't typing the hyphens in the registration code...)

I don't see the partition with my XP OS/apps, when browsing from the Win 7 install. At least it doesn't show up under Computer. I do see it listed when I open the defrag app. But since I've got almost all my data on a different partition, it's not really a problem.

The other odd thing... I had installed the second drive so I could format it in XP before installing the beta. In the BIOS, the first drive (SATA) was drive 0, the second drive (IDE) was drive 1. Both drives split into two partitions. But later, going through the Win 7 install process, the second drive was drive 0, the first drive was drive 1. I could tell which was which from the drive/partition sizes, but that was kind of a surprise. I never checked the jumper on the IDE drive, if that would have made a difference...

[Goronmon]

Google Chrome doesn't work. It warns you about compatibility problems before installing. You can still install, and run the app, but it just doesn't load pages at all.
http://www.blogsdna.com/1900/how-to-run-google-chrome-on-windows-7-64-bit-version.htm

[Wraith]

http://www.blogsdna.com/1900/how-to-run-google-chrome-on-windows-7-64-bit-version.htmThanks, I'll have to give that a try. (Though I'm still using Firefox as my primary browser anyway.)

[Bone]

Picked up some cool shortcuts from Lifehacker and Gizmodo:

Win + Space = Desktop peek
Win + Arrows = Maximize/Minimize/Restore/Dock the current window*
Win + Shift + Arrows = Move the current window to a different screen

*denotes Awesome


Problem Steps Recorder
This tool records you as you perform a task on the computer. It takes screenshots and notates them in detail ("user left-clicks on Start button") and you can add additional comments as you go. The output is a formatted HTML report in a .zip file. I can see me sending these to my dad (or having him send them to me) to make our weekly tech calls less frustrating... and there's also a component of my actual job that this tool would make much easier. It's a rudimentary but automatic process documentation sketchpad.

Click the Start button and type psr.exe in the search field. Then hit Record (or modify the settings to record more screenshots by default).

[diablopath]

I enjoy the beta.
A few things that I don't like:

I miss the bar menu setup.
I always kept my MSN shit on the right in the taskbar, a 'Show Desktop', 'Firefox' and 'iTunes' icons in the Quick Launch. The new setup is kind of confusing at first, and I just wish I had my old bars back.

Everything else seems really solid.
I love how paint automatically saves as PNG. I dunno if that was in Vista or not, but I like it.

Installation was a breeze.
I've never installed Windows so easily.

I'll toy with it some more.

[Wraith]

I miss the bar menu setup.
I always kept my MSN shit on the right in the taskbar, a 'Show Desktop', 'Firefox' and 'iTunes' icons in the Quick Launch. The new setup is kind of confusing at first, and I just wish I had my old bars back."Show desktop" is in the bottom-right corner, to the right of the date/time.

Open Firefox, right-click icon in taskbar, click "Pin this program to taskbar."

[diablopath]

"Show desktop" is in the bottom-right corner, to the right of the date/time.

Open Firefox, right-click icon in taskbar, click "Pin this program to taskbar."

Oh yes, I understand all this.
I just prefer the old methods.

[fitbabits]

I feel all dumber and shit after reading this thread, specifically the debate between Tron and everyone else. I've seen that style of arguing before, cos gosh.

Anyway, I downloaded the beta, but have yet to install it. Currently I'm running Vista Premium 64-bit with an Intel E2180 dual core and 4GB of RAM. No dedicated video card as I have no desire to go back to PC gaming right now.

I swore I'd never switch from XP to Vista, but circumstances (and a hosed computer) forced my hand. Been running my setup for a few weeks now with no problems. Sure, Vista is a little too gimmicky at times, but overall it's been solid so far.

[diablopath]

Is it taking anybody else like 10 seconds to remove shit from the recycle bin?
That's the only slowdown I'm seeing.

[Bone]

More Windows 7 shortcuts (some are the same ones I posted above, some are new).

Windows + ↑ (Up Arrow) - Maximize window

Windows + ← (Left Arrow) - Snap window to left side covering half of desktop space.

Windows + → (Right Arrow) - Snap window to right side covering half of desktop space.

Windows + ↓ (Down Arrow) - Minimize the window. Restore to normal size and position if the window is currently maximized.

Win+Shift+Left - Jump to left monitor.

Win+Shift+Right - Jump to right monitor.

Win+Home - Minimize / Restore all other windows.

Win+T - Focus the first taskbar entry. Pressing again will cycle through them, you can can arrow around.

Win+Shift+T - Cycles backwards.

Win+Space - Peek at the desktop.

Win+M :- Minimize all open windows

Win+Shift+M :- Undo all window minimization

Win+G - Bring gadgets to the top of the Z-order.

Win+P - External display options (mirror, extend desktop, etc).

Win+X - Mobility Center (same as Vista, but still handy!).

Win+# - (# = a number key) - Launches a new instance of the application in the Nth slot on the taskbar. Example: Win+1 launches first pinned app, Win+2 launches second, etc.

Win + + or Win +- Zoom in or out.

Copied from this site (http://www.willineedit.com/2009/01/windows-7-keyboard-shortcut-list/).

[Wraith]

Anyone know where to go in the new Windows Media Player to change what folders specifically are shared/monitored by WMP?

I tried to take My Pictures out of WMP, but I ended up removing the My Pictures folder from the Pictures Library instead. I could re-add the folder to the Library... but I couldn't see how to exclude it from WMP. And I'm sure I'd want to do something similar with Music, Videos, etc., as I'd like to keep these files in the libraries, but don't necessarily want them all in WMP.

[GigaFuzz]

Anyone know where to go in the new Windows Media Player to change what folders specifically are shared/monitored by WMP?

I tried to take My Pictures out of WMP, but I ended up removing the My Pictures folder from the Pictures Library instead. I could re-add the folder to the Library... but I couldn't see how to exclude it from WMP. And I'm sure I'd want to do something similar with Music, Videos, etc., as I'd like to keep these files in the libraries, but don't necessarily want them all in WMP.

Under 'Organise', in the top left somewhere, then Manage Library, or something similar. Can't be exact as I'm not in 7 right now.

[Wraith]

Under 'Organise', in the top left somewhere, then Manage Library, or something similar. Can't be exact as I'm not in 7 right now.I was pretty sure "Manage Library" was what I clicked. :confused:

And yes, it managed the library. But I couldn't tell WMP to use a different folder, or a different library. It's WMP I want to manage, not the Library.

[Wraith]

Oh, and I was glad to see that the new Paint is not a flaming piece of garbage. At least from the few things I tried with it. Heck, I was even able to do a printscreen with a DVD playing in Windows Media Player, paste it into Paint, crop, and save to JPG/PNG. I thought you couldn't do a printscreen from WMP in XP (it would just show black instead of your video content).

And I did a printscreen of my desktop, paste in paint, save as a JPG. The resulting file was ~500KB (reasonable for 1600x1200) and was pretty much indistinguishable from actually looking at the desktop. Not too shabby.

I'll still have to go into Irfanview and Corel for a few things, but at least Paint is useful now.

[Wraith]

Just a heads up. You've got about a week left to download the beta (http://lifehacker.com/5128404/microsoft-extends-windows-7-beta-availability-until-january-24th) from Microsoft (download page (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx)).

[NoName]

Oh, and I was glad to see that the new Paint is not a flaming piece of garbage. At least from the few things I tried with it. Heck, I was even able to do a printscreen with a DVD playing in Windows Media Player, paste it into Paint, crop, and save to JPG/PNG. I thought you couldn't do a printscreen from WMP in XP (it would just show black instead of your video content).

And I did a printscreen of my desktop, paste in paint, save as a JPG. The resulting file was ~500KB (reasonable for 1600x1200) and was pretty much indistinguishable from actually looking at the desktop. Not too shabby.

I'll still have to go into Irfanview and Corel for a few things, but at least Paint is useful now.

That's interesting to hear, I still need to play around with a lot of the standard tools that comes with Windows. The snip tool is sort of interesting... (it combines taking a screen shot and cropping into a single step).

[Wraith]

Here's a bit-tech article (http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/software/2009/01/16/windows-7-beta-performance/1) on Windows 7 changes and performance (benchmarked against Vista 64-bit).

[torrefaction]

Can all those people who insisted I was dead wrong or somehow being mean by saying they were ignorant of W7's architecture read that article? As I suspected, and now is confirmed by numbers, W7 is mostly equivalent with Vista. The beta benchmarks show it slightly slower, but that's expected due to debug code.

Not that I hadn't already seen benchmarks when I was saying this and everyone was insisting I was wrong, but you know....c'est la vie.

[Matthias]

Can all those people who insisted I was dead wrong or somehow being mean by saying they were ignorant of W7's architecture read that article? As I suspected, and now is confirmed by numbers, W7 is mostly equivalent with Vista. The beta benchmarks show it slightly slower, but that's expected due to debug code.

Not that I hadn't already seen benchmarks when I was saying this and everyone was insisting I was wrong, but you know....c'est la vie.

I think when it comes down to it, Vista was highly YMMV. A lot of 3rd parties didn't write proper drivers and it was installed on computers that really had no business running it, so you hear horror stories. Hopefully lessons have been learned by all parties and we can get on with it.

[diablopath]

Quick question.
Anybody having problems with Firefox trying to go into safe mode everytime the browser is closed? I tend to just not close it now, but it's still mildly annoying. I've more or less put it off as FF is designed to run in Vista, and that's just a minor problem when it's carried over to W7, but I guess it couldn't hurt to ask.

[Wraith]

Haven't seen that. Only using AdBlock Plus for plugins, latest version of Firefox. 64-bit version of the W7 Beta.

[torrefaction]

I think when it comes down to it, Vista was highly YMMV. A lot of 3rd parties didn't write proper drivers and it was installed on computers that really had no business running it, so you hear horror stories. Hopefully lessons have been learned by all parties and we can get on with it.

So very true.

[Bingley Joe]

Has anyone had any experience yet with the beta ATI drivers (64-bit) yet? Should I bother installing them, or am I better off with the drivers this thing came with?

[total]

Has anyone had any experience yet with the beta ATI drivers (64-bit) yet? Should I bother installing them, or am I better off with the drivers this thing came with?

I installed the 32-bit Vista drivers (Cat 8.12 I believe?) with the mobility modder and haven't had any issues. This was after 7 had already updated the drivers itself. Testing before and after gave me a slight bump in my system rating (4.4 vs 4.5).

[Bingley Joe]

I installed the 32-bit Vista drivers (Cat 8.12 I believe?) with the mobility modder and haven't had any issues. This was after 7 had already updated the drivers itself. Testing before and after gave me a slight bump in my system rating (4.4 vs 4.5).


Good stuff :) I'll give them a go. Liking the beta so far now that I've figured out how to turn off a bunch of the frillier bits of Aero and the #*@$* hand-holding 'are you sure!?!?' prompts

[DeathtollWRX]

Well I noticed one thing. Web pages tend to load up a bit slower than I am used to but I get the feeling this is what Windows Vista should have been. I installed it on my Macbook Pro and it seems pretty snappy. (Don't worry I have a backup of my OSX install). I do like a few of the themes that change the wallpaper as well as some of the small interface changes. If your an OSX user that moved because Vista was not your cup of tea then Windows 7 will not change your mind, However Windows 7 is a vast improvement over Windows Vista although it has most of the same graphic styles.

[Telefrog]

Can all those people who insisted I was dead wrong or somehow being mean by saying they were ignorant of W7's architecture read that article? As I suspected, and now is confirmed by numbers, W7 is mostly equivalent with Vista. The beta benchmarks show it slightly slower, but that's expected due to debug code.

Not that I hadn't already seen benchmarks when I was saying this and everyone was insisting I was wrong, but you know....c'est la vie.

I said a similar thing before. :p People that expected some kind of sweeping change from Vista were really fooling themselves.

[Bone]

No sweeping change, but clearly an improved boot time is being measured by a lot of people, as well as nice productivity improvements in the GUI, and general stability and driver compatibility. This is something that would make me choose Windows 7 over Vista. In the end I think that's all some of us were saying.

[torrefaction]

No sweeping change, but clearly an improved boot time is being measured by a lot of people, as well as nice productivity improvements in the GUI, and general stability and driver compatibility. This is something that would make me choose Windows 7 over Vista. In the end I think that's all some of us were saying.

Your comments were 100% accurate. I was more talking about total (and other similar comments...not trying to call him out) saying it was a "fact" that Windows 7 is all around better performing. It's just not true.

[Bone]

Right on, I wasn't sure if I was being called to the mat :)

I do like seeing a good analysis of performance, even when I can't understand all of the benchmarks fully- so it's helpful to see dubious benchmarks debunked by people who know more than I do on the subject. In any set of benchmarks, I usually do expect to see the results differ depending on the type of tests- like the old infamous Apple benchmarks showing Photoshop running faster on a Mac when it was really only testing one type of filter or operation. The reality is that Photoshop screams on any similarly configured PC and that certain filters and operations perform slightly better on either platform.

[total]

Your comments were 100% accurate. I was more talking about total (and other similar comments...not trying to call him out) saying it was a "fact" that Windows 7 is all around better performing. It's just not true.

I tried to make it clear that in some situations people will see improvements over Vista. I can say for a fact that on my Acer 8103 7 runs much better than Vista. Again, if you have over 2GB of ram and a more modern processor (read that as dual core) I doubt you will notice the difference between the two. I will maintain that I think Windows 7 is much more versatile than Vista is or ever will be.

[DeathtollWRX]

Let's make it easy.

Windows 7 Beta is better than Vista in just about everywhere. It will not blow you away or suddenly make you love Microsoft but it's an improvement and that's what we all needed.

I actually feel that I can deploy Windows 7 to my company's workstations and still have them useable. We have been sticking to XP until something other than Vista is out since we have not had much success using Vista with our current software usage.

[Narradisall]

Stupid question as I can't seem to find the answer anywhere and nothing seems to be set in stone....

Anyone got an idea when they might be rolling this out? From what I've seen it looks a lot more stable.

[Shadowstorm]

Stupid question as I can't seem to find the answer anywhere and nothing seems to be set in stone....

Anyone got an idea when they might be rolling this out? From what I've seen it looks a lot more stable.

I'm thinking late this year - early 2010.

I still can't get my Linksys wireless USB device to work. Guess I will have to buy a longer ethernet cable.

[muddi900]

It's coming in July'09.

[boratika]

It's coming in July'09.

Nah, that's just when if you buy Vista you get Windows 7 upon release for no extra.

It's almost as if at the end they want to give away Vista just to be like "Check it out there was nothing wrong with Vista after all you god damn jerks!"

[Wraith]

Nah, that's just when if you buy Vista you get Windows 7 upon release for no extra.Well, there have been some comments suggesting that it would be released mid-year 2009, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see it by July.

I guess mid-2009 to early 2010 is as close as anyone outside of Microsoft can say.

[Narradisall]

Hmmmm, think I'll get my new laptop around the summer then, as I'd hate to end up with Vista then having to pay more to upgrade. Thanks

[Wraith]

Engadget has a Windows 7 Install Roundup (http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/20/windows-7-install-roundup/), featuring install experiences and impressions from their staff on a number of different systems.

[roboninja]

Hmmmm, think I'll get my new laptop around the summer then, as I'd hate to end up with Vista then having to pay more to upgrade. Thanks

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that 7 will be a free upgrade for Vista owners. Now, do not take that as fact, do some research, but I could have sworn I heard that.

[Wraith]

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that 7 will be a free upgrade for Vista owners. Now, do not take that as fact, do some research, but I could have sworn I heard that.No. It will apparently be free to people who buy a Vista PC during a certain time period, starting on July 1, 2009.

According to the documents, the eligibility for Windows 7 Upgrade Program will start on July 1st, 2009, and end on yet-to-be-announced date. Microsoft, however, may still announce the program eligibility end date and if the program eligibility start date will be moved to a later date by April 1, 2009.

The conditions to be eligible for free upgrade to Windows 7 from newly purchased Windows Vista systems are:

Windows Vista PCs preinstalled with qualifying software must be purchased by end users between Program Eligibility Period.
The computer must have a genuine Certificate of Authenticity (COA).
Only Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Ultimate editions are eligible for upgrading to Windows 7.
The Windows Vista product can only be upgraded to the associated edition of the upgrade software. For example, Windows Vista Home Premium K edition can only be upgraded to Windows 7 Home Premium K edition, Windows Vista Ultimate can only be upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate. The only exception is Windows Vista Business SKU, which has to be upgrade to Windows 7 Professional SKU.

Eligible Upgrade Path
Qualifying Product Version > Upgrade Software Version
Windows Vista Home Premium > Windows 7 Home Premium
Windows Vista Business > Windows 7 Professional
Windows Vista Ultimate > Windows 7 Ultimate

Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Starter, and Windows XP are excluded from the free Windows 7 upgrade eligibility.

Only language versions released in wave 0 to wave 4 of Windows 7 are eligible for upgrading to Windows 7.
A language version of the qualifying Windows Vista product can only be upgraded to the same language version of the Windows 7 upgrade software.
If an end user attempts to upgrade to an unsupported upgrade path, the end user may have to re-format the PC hard drive and/or may lose applications, files and settings available with the previous installed version of Windows. For example, the following upgrades are not allowed in the program :

Upgrades from Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Starter
Upgrades from Windows Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate
Upgrades from Windows Vista Business to Windows 7 Ultimate

Not eligible for corporations or businesses. Those with multiple PCs who want to upgrade must have volume licensing agreement with Microsoft.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/01/20/free-upgrade-to-windows-7-program-for-windows-vista-pc-from-july-1/Users will be eligible for the Windows 7 Upgrade Program only in the context in which they will purchase an OEM-machine preloaded with Windows Vista during the Program Eligibility Period, which starts July 1, 2009, and will last through TBD (To Be Determined).

Only individual customers and small businesses acquiring Windows Vista-machines after July 1, 2009, will be able to benefit from the program, but not medium, large, and enterprise customers. http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Windows-7-Upgrade-Program-Debuts-July-1-2009-101367.shtml

[roboninja]

Ahh, okay, thanks for the clarification.

[boratika]

Hmmmm, think I'll get my new laptop around the summer then, as I'd hate to end up with Vista then having to pay more to upgrade. Thanks

Just make sure it doesn't have Homme Basic, as many lappies do.

[biosc1]

I'm thinking late this year - early 2010.



I'm hearing the same as well. As early as October 2009, otherwise January 2010.

Remember, they still have to squeeze out SP2 for Vista before dropping Windows 7.

[Narradisall]

Just make sure it doesn't have Homme Basic, as many lappies do.

I'll probably be indecisive and do a 'recommend me a laptop' thread.

Waiting till July 1st with DOW2 and lots of other cool PC games coming out is going to be a bitch though...

[Slack3r78]

I'm hearing the same as well. As early as October 2009, otherwise January 2010.

Remember, they still have to squeeze out SP2 for Vista before dropping Windows 7.
Have they said SP2 would be out before the release of W7? There's no reason W7 couldn't hit the market first. In fact, it'd almost make more sense to get W7 out the door and then backport any changes they want to roll into SP2.

[DeathtollWRX]

I'd like to say that I installed Windows 7 on my MacBook Pro and it ended up working pretty good out of the box. I was really happy with Windows 7 but when I got bored of not having two finger scrolling I nuked it in put in OSX. I'm currently testing out a Windows7 box here at work to see how it functions with our programs. So far our electronic medical records software doesn't like IE8 and TrendMicro cannot be installed through the web based interface or by remote.

[Slack3r78]

In fairness, IE8 is total trash right now.

[Bone]

Huh. From the user perspective, I found IE8 to incorporate most of what I liked about Firefox- fast, configurable and tabbed. What's wrong with it (I'm suspecting more proprietary formatting instead of standards support)?

[Slack3r78]

It's buggy as hell right now.

[Wraith]

Windows 7 Beta in-depth impressions (http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/23/windows-7-beta-in-depth-impressions/) (Engadget)

In Summary:

What we love

Installation
Speed improvements
Stability
New Taskbar
Peek
Windows Explorer
Windows Media Center
Window management
Gadgets run free
Networking
Multiple display support
Play to device
Brand new Paint


What we're looking forward to

Device Stage
Multitouch


What it still needs

Good software
WinFS
A unified vision


What we hope we never see

Three hundred different overpriced versions of Windows 7.

[Slack3r78]

I never thought WinFS was that good of an idea.

[Shadowstorm]

Oh, come on. WinFS. Please. You disappoint me, Engadget.

[Slack3r78]

W7 is also probably the most unified approach to the Windows UI ever.

I don't know what they were smoking.

[Shadowstorm]

W7 is also probably the most unified approach to the Windows UI ever.

I don't know what they were smoking.

I've always gotten the impression that most of the writers were Apple fanboys, but maybe that's just me.

[Slack3r78]

I've always gotten the impression that most of the writers were Apple fanboys, but maybe that's just me.

in fairness, an old friend of mine is an assc ed for gizmodo, and gets accused of app,le fanboyism even when he's being harsh on apple.

[muddi900]

I seem to have run into a problem with WMP. I moved my music folder to another drive after adding it to the library and now it doesn't launch any more

[Bone]

I seem to have run into a problem with WMP. I moved my music folder to another drive after adding it to the library and now it doesn't launch any more

I imagine you'd need to add the new folder location to your WMP library. It's expecting to see it on the old drive.

[torrefaction]

You people are kidding right? WinFS is a fucking amazing idea.

[Slack3r78]

You people are kidding right? WinFS is a fucking amazing idea.
I didn't see the need for a new database layer as part of the filesystem proper, and, in all honesty, wasn't really sure what WinFS was trying to do that hadn't been tried a decade ago with BeFS.

The fatal flaw of WinFS, however, is that for it to be useful would require the generation of a LOT of metadata. While that's easy for something like e-mail or ripping the EXIF data from a JPEG, it's very difficult to do for some of the things that would make such a system interesting -- like tagging the contents of photos. That kind of thing requires a non-insignificant amount of user intervention, which I just don't really see happening.

Something like WinFS just strikes me as gimicky until automated metadata generation is at a level that we just plain aren't at right now.

[torrefaction]

Totally disagree. Look at how willing people are to tag their own content even now. Imagine if you can tag content, upload to flickr, and the metadata takes care of the tagging for you.