First Look At Windows 7 Beta 1 898
The other A. N. Other writes "It seems that Microsoft couldn't keep the lid on Windows 7 beta 1 until the new year. By now, several news outlets have their hands on the beta 1 code and have posted screenshots and information about this build. ZDNet's Hardware 2.0 column says: 'This beta is of excellent quality. This is the kind of code that you could roll out and live with. Even the pre-betas were solid, but finally this beta feels like it's "done." This beta exceeds the quality of any other Microsoft OS beta that I've handled.' ITWire points out that this copy has landed on various torrent sites, and while it appears to be genuine, there are no guarantees. Neowin has a post confirming that it's the real thing, and saying Microsoft will be announcing the build's official availability at CES in January."
World domination 201 (Score:5, Interesting)
why aRe:They're glowing! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are no new features in this build. If Microsoft has any new stuff lined up for the RTM then we're going to have to wait to find out.
All this talk about stable beta's seems a bit pointless. If you change the name and theme on the product, you can't real muck it up too bad. What's the point of this other than to try to put the name "Vista" in the grave?
Anyone know what these people are so excited about? Couldn't get much real info from the article. They comment that its snappier than other betas. How about compared to XP? That would be the real comparison I would like to see.
I am a linux person myself - Ubuntu on the computer I am posting from, but I did use Windows on my laptop before wiping it. I am also not opposed to having windows installed if I gain any benefit. That is what I want to hear from people, what are its compelling features (I don't play games).
Waporware (Score:5, Interesting)
And we can start quessing which of the mentioned fine features will actually be in the release version of Win7. This has happened so many times before.
Remember when during waiting of win95 many magazines were worried what will happen to McAfee and other virus-scanner companies when the new windows is fully virustolerant?
ZDNet Is Full Of Pro-MS (Score:1, Interesting)
Do these get better just because of time? (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone seems to have the opinion that Vista was a failure. My wife (a non-techie) hates Vista because her ancient accounting app periodically crashes ever since switching to Vista. I assume many other people had the same sorts of issues with many other apps.
But now three years have gone by, and many of those apps have been patched, become obsolete, or replaced with working alternatives. That means the remaining apps are now in an ideal position to work correctly in Windows 7. Is it possible that Windows 7 could be exactly the same crap as Vista, but because so much time has gone by it doesn't matter as much?
I think we saw the same thing with the transitions from Windows 98 to Windows ME to Windows XP.
Re:why is this surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm hearing claims that it will run well on a netbook with 512MB on ram and an Atom processor, which is a huge improvement over Vista. However, despite the supposed lower requirements and multi-touch gestures, I'm not sure what the benefits of Windows 7 are.
No Idea what the techspecs are on this but (Score:5, Interesting)
(Unfortunately, the existence/popularity of 32 bit windows precludes the vendors of software such as Cubase and the likes from actually doing a proper job of putting out 64 bit software).
List of changes between it and Vista plz. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No Idea what the techspecs are on this but (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, please drop the 6 editions and go back to home and pro. If you want windows in a developing country, either pay for it, download it, or make microsoft price it at what the local market will bear.
Re:Do these get better just because of time? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is one other possibility, of course - that Vista never was crap, and the MS excuses about driver and application incompatibilities (such as your wife's accounting app) unfairly being blamed on Vista were actually true. And, if anyone were to give Vista a fair fresh look (Mojave? Win7?) they might conclude it's actually a really solid OS.
Nah, on second thought, that doesn't fit well with my world view. MS Sucks! Linux roxors!
Looks promising (Score:2, Interesting)
Viruses and Trojans Still a Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I just had to repair a friend's Vista PC which had 3 Trojan programs running that had taken control of her internet even though Kaspersky antivirus was installed. The Trojan had worked its way onto her computer via a P2P program that her daughter was using to get music, and that stopped Kaspersky from being able to update its definitions, which it was set to do every day. I couldn't even go out to Microsoft's Windows Update site to get Windows updates, and Windows Defender (which was also installed and running) was disabled by one of the Trojan programs. It took me over an hour to clean it all up and get her machine running properly again.
Not even 2 antivirus programs could stop this from happening on the latest Windows PC.
This is what is stopping me from being even the slightest bit excited about Windows 7.
Re:why is this surprising? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, but, well, lower requirements is a big one. I remember an article in /. that pontificated that "Vista runs fine on any processor 3 Ghz and above" which is a bar that none of my computers can reach. Some are limited by architecture to 2 Gbytes ram, another buzzkill. (And why should I buy bleeding edge hardware -- in this economy -- to run Vista when XP runs fine?) If Windows 7 (any version) can run on netbook-level hardware, it actually has a chance in hell of replacing some of my XP installations. [1]
And yet... and yet, when Vista was still in beta, we heard reports that it was faster than XP, and look how that turned out. So we really can't go by the beta, we have to wait for reports about the finished product. And then we find out if Microsoft really has made an effort to make the codebase more efficient, or if their real plan was to wait two more years for the hardware to catch up with Windows' gargantuan requirements.
Before someone brings it up, I'm aware that much of Vista's performance issue was the way DRM was implemented. But since DRM is part and parcel with the operating system, it counts. It's the total end to end performance that makes the user experience, so it's not legitimate to say "the new OS really is much faster than the previous release, all those pauses and long execution times you're seeing is because the OS has to check every bit to make sure you haven't stolen something".
Assuming, of course, there is some new feature I absolutely have to have. I didn't see any in Vista. Yes, it had a snazzy new interface. But since I turned off XP's snazzy new interface and all the irritating special effects when I installed it, why would I base a buying decision on yet another snazzy new interface I have to turn off?
Re:why is this surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see why this is surprising. This is just Windows Vista service pack 3 after all.
Not really, the idea of a service pack is to add new features and plug a bunch of holes, like when XP SP2 added the security center. My hope is that Win7 guts most of the 'features' that were in Vista.
Re:why aRe:They're glowing! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's slow as hell. as one of those that have ran it, I'll tell you right now. the speedy feel of the XP days will never EVER come back, until your computer has way more processing speed and data channel speeds that exceed what the newer Microsoft OS's will use.
I have Vista and Windows 7 running nicely. sata 15,000 rpm drives and hardware that is fricking insane fast makes it feel like XP on modern hardware.
posting anon to avoid being kicked by the MSFT NDA
Re:why aRe:They're glowing! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All the fun of a recession (Score:3, Interesting)
With Vista as my only option, my plan was to stick with XP as long as humanly possible. I have my own volume-licensed copy of XP Pro, so it's a somewhat realistic plan. If Windows 7 proves to be as high-quality as the pundits claim, that might just be enough to make me leave XP.
As for the axioms, while they may be generally true, they're not universal:
To answer your final question, because:
Really, though, I don't care what everybody else does. I'm "mildly" looking forward to Windows 7 for the simple fact that it gives me a viable upgrade path from XP.
Same Desktop UI model we've had for the last 15yrs (Score:2, Interesting)
Even with amazing projects coming out of the Microsoft labs like SeaDragon and Photosynth, we're offered up the latest generation of Windows with the same, exact model of desktop, start menu, icons, folders, etc. It just looks like next genetic descendent in the Windows line to me -- the only difference is smoother palettes and corners to mimic 'whats hot' in computer UI design these days.
One could say that the 'future' of desktop UIs was paved by Enlightenment which truely started branching away from the Windows and Macintosh genetic lines, but we need something more.
We need the equivalent of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Remote [wikipedia.org] Apple remote for desktop management, not the shape, size or number of buttons -- but the idea that less is more, context is key and that it's about providing the user with enough to get their work done, not providing so much that they get lost.
I don't want eye candy. I want functionality that makes sense because it couldn't be any easier.
No, Compare with 2K (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:World domination 201 (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the fate of 64bit future is being determined... [catb.org]
Not really off topic. XP can not really do 64 bit. Vista is a resounding failure. 3.2-3.5 gig is not enough memory. If Win7 is not a solid product, Microsoft will loose the workstation and power user market.
Re:Note to self (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't look finished to me (Score:5, Interesting)
The task bar needs quite a bit of work. I bet that is one part of the OS that will change quite a bit from Vista. Looks like it is still a work in progress because right now it looks boxy and ugly.
It also looks suspiciously like Mac OS X's Dock. Hmm, single icon per application, where I have I seen that before?...
For further confirmation that this is Window's take on the Dock, take a peek at this screenshot [zdnet.com]. Hmm, "Unpin this program from the taskbar"... Seems a bit like dragging the application onto the Dock, thereby "pinning" it. (Although at least Window 7's little "launched border" is easier to see than the glowing dot on the Dock.)
Of course, I'd have to use it to see if it actually works. Mac OS X's Dock works the way it does due to the way Mac handles applications - each application gets a single instance and has a single menu bar but can have multiple windows. Windows does it differently - each window is essentially its own application. So directly ripping off the Dock probably won't work.
Still, it's nice to see that Microsoft's stance on innovation hasn't changed. :)
Look, I know why the ZDnet guys are doing this, but we live in Web version 2.0 these days and they could easily have made it so their gallery didn't require a complete page-load between images.
I don't - Slashdot seems to have found a way to load ads via Web 2.0 in the new discussion view; I'm sure ZDnet and their advertisers can come up with a way to rotate ads using Web 2.0 techniques...
Re:Let's Reiterate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right. This is Windows 98 compared to Windows 95. No major change in theme or interface, but more stable and with a few of the sharper corners rounded off. See also windows 3.0 and windows 3.1. :)
Re:Let's Reiterate... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone who's actually been following Microsoft's rather frank information on Windows 7 understands that Vista was the code-base overhaul and that Windows 7 is not and was never advertised as repeating this exercise. Neither OS X nor Linux variants revamp their entire kernel architecture at each new release. However, Windows 7 does update their kernel with a new modular structure(min-win) that allows it to be more resource efficient and for unneeded portions not to load. Other aspects of performance have been gone over with a fine-toothed comb, such as windows not currently visible not consuming machine resources. The GUI has also been overhauled for usability, including fine tuning of user access control. There are at least as many updates and improvements in this OS as users are accustomed to with major releases of the other two major competitors.
It wasn't user training (Score:4, Interesting)
What failed was developer training, not user training. Developers could basically assume a user was running root. That let them take shortcuts like writing shit to "Program Files" or messing around with system files.
You have to understand the history as well. Microsoft grew up as a single-user OS and slowly morphed into a multi-user OS. They didn't grow up with the culture that unix-like systems have where the system was assumed to be multi-user.
Bottom line is we will always need some variant of sudo (aka UAC). UAC is actually the best sudo implementation there is so far, at least in my opinion. Granted, there is still room for improvement, but that mainly lies in "integration". For example, the common dialogs need a way for me to load notepad.exe, edit "C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\Etc\Hosts", and give me a UAC prompt when I save the file. That way I don't have to remember to load notepad.exe with elevated privileges. Let me write a new file to a protected directory and UAC me then instead loading the app with elevated privileges. That kind of integration will make the new world of "dont run as root" more enjoyable. The goal is to make it so there is no excuse for nerds to disable UAC (thus running as root 24/7).
Did you turn off Aero? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most nerds seem to turn it off assuming it is "flasy useless eye candy". Little do they know they basically turned off hardware accelleration. You do know that Vista, with Aero enabled, will delegate most of the window drawing to the video card. In fact, the more ram on your video card, the better, Vista stores all the window data on that instead of your system RAM.
If you've got a card that does DirectX10 it will even hand the fonts to the video card and let the video card deal with font rendering and caching. Once you turn off Aero, the video card is just an old-school video card. Since a certain set of nerds seem to hate nice looking things, I bet most of them turn off the one thing that makes Vista way more snappy than XP--Aero.
Re:why aRe:They're glowing! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Task Bar?! (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to share the parents opinion of eye candy, until I tried out Mac OS. The shadows on the windows really make them look like they are layer on top of each other in a way that Vista doesn't. It actually makes the system that little bit more intuitive, that little bit easier to interpret the information on the screen and work with it. It's subtle but an improvement none-the-less.
Considering how well Mac OS runs on even old Radeon 9200 hardware I don't think it's much of a resource drain or bloated either.
Re:Compare with XP (Score:3, Interesting)
I was of the same mind, till I tried OSX. Maybe you should try more OS's?
Re:why aRe:They're glowing! (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what you broke, then. My friend has it running on a Macbook Pro (which I can guarantee you doesn't have a 15,000 rpm drive!) and it's pretty damn snappy.
Re:I think modern window systems (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you need to read those links again.
Read the description of Redering Tier 2, the highest level of acceleration. The TTF fonts are NOT rendered on the card. Instead, in ClearType mode, the raw pixels are sent to the graphics card in a format representing 3x normal horizontal resolution, and are then edge blended with the existing pixels for a convincing anti-aliased look on LCD displays.
Also note, they're talking only about DX9 there with no mention of DX10, and note the restrictions about what *isn't* accelerated.
Did you perhaps mean to give us a different link with relevant information?
Vista's failure tied to grassroots. (Score:1, Interesting)
I build my own machines. Dealing with the Vista WGA was too much of a pain in the ass for me to ever want to switch to XP. For this reason, I tell people if they do get a machine with Vista, not to call me with their problems.
Of the 50 to 60 people to whom I make recommendations, with how many do those share the advice to steer away from Vista? How many other resident PC guru's are making the same recommendations to their circle of friends?
Forget about in the office. Recommending a switch to Vista tends to be a career killer... There is a reason MS hasn't been too forceful in stuffing Vista down the throat of businesses.
Re:why aRe:They're glowing! (Score:4, Interesting)
KDE 4 has had that since the 4.0 betas
Re:Features New to Windows 7 (Score:3, Interesting)
Insightful? It's ignorant and dishonest. (Score:3, Interesting)
"It is called "sudo" and if your theoretical linux games would need root access to install mods as well. Or do you run your linux box as root all the time?"
No, no it's not. It's nothing at all like sudo.
Sure, it pops up a box once in a while asking for extra permissions. That bit is like sudo, or graphical sudo, but that's not all that UAC does, nor is it the annoying bit.
UAC blocks you from running programs at system startup on your own computer. It helpfully says that your administrator has set up a system policy to disallow it (lies). And I'm buggered if I can find a way to allow things to run that windows hasn't decided *on its own* that I'm not supposed to.
Add to that the pissing annoying virtual store technology that silently redirects activity aimed at files under Program Files to a directory under the user's private data area, without telling/warning/stopping anyone and screwing up multi-user uses of the machine (other users see a different version of the file). It doesn't ask for root, it just makes a total fucking mess. If they wanted to have restricted areas maybe they should investigate some goddamn file permissions. There is no dialog. It's a SILENT process that screws a lot of stuff up.
UAC sucks balls and is NOT like sudo.
As for the rest, if you couldn't function as a normal user in linux until graphical sudo came along, well, you were doing it wrong. Consider it a test, if you can't figure out how to go to a prompt and type sudo then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed near a computer.
Re:All I want to know is .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow. Right on!
This is exactly my experience with Vista 64bit. I like Vista, there is a lot going for it, its very stable and the new ui workflow, search, and little things here and there make it worth running.
However you nailed my experience perfectly. These are the exact issues i have with Vista.
Re:World domination 201 (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow, what a load of crap that article is..
The transition to 64 bit code is not nearly what the transition from 16-bit x86 to 32-bit was. 16-bit x86 applications were much different from what we run today. The programming model didn't have a flat address space. Programmers had to think about "near" vs "far" pointers. Writing assembly code was much more common, and protected mode much less. On the other hand the x86-64 model as seen by user space is largely identical to 32-bit, and in most cases is just as simple as a recompile.
I don't know where he gets his information about 64-bit Windows, and the idea that amd64 versions of XP, Server, and Vista "don't work". 64-bit windows ships with 64 bit binaries and my experience is that WOW64 does work pretty well. But then he faults MS for the fact that some of their other stuff, like Visual Studio, run under WOW64... But Visual Studio is not Windows, the fact that some apps run in compatibility mode doesn't mean the OS isn't there, working, and ready.
And this bit about Win32 being obsoleted by 64-bit CPUs... Well... Say what you want about Win32, but this is a non sequitur. I mean, 64-bit Linux's libc and system call interfaces, from a C programmer's point of view, are the same as the 32-bit ones. The same is true of 64-bit Windows APIs being the same as the 32-bit ones. This is an instance where ESR is faulting Windows in an area where it does the exact same thing Linux does. It sounds like he's just totally unaware of this fact.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:World domination 201 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did you turn off Aero? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They're glowing! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not the original poster, but I really wish Apple would let me. But they insist on selling OS X only with their own hardware, and then don't make hardware I both want and can afford. To my eyes, iMacs are stupid because it doesn't make sense to throw away a hundred or two hundred dollar monitor when you get a new computer. Hell, the bulk of my current system is about a year old, but I have components in there from 2004, and that's just what's in the main case. The Mac mini is probably even less upgradable than the iMac, and has for a moderately powerful system today is an underpowered processor and small amount of RAM. (For about $200 less what I paid for my current over a year ago, you get (1) dual core processor instead of quad core, (2) the same amount of RAM, (3) basically integrated graphics shared with main RAM instead of an 8800GTS. Wow, great deal.) Now at the other end is the Mac Pro. Beautiful systems, but start at twice the cost of my current system (this time I think about comparable in power), which is well out of my price range. Then you add on top of that the fact that I like to build my own system, and Apple has put itself out of my market. But I very well might actually get one if it weren't for those other problems.
On the laptop side, last I checked they're in the same ballpark as a Thinkpad, so that's not so bad. But if I were to buy a laptop now, I'd probably get either like a netbook or a tablet... again, neither of which Apple sells.
So from my standpoint, I'd love to run OS X... but I'm not going to pirate it, I'm not going to give Apple if they are going to call me a criminal for hacking it to run, I'm not going to buy Apple hardware, and Apple won't let me run it otherwise, so I'm out of luck on that point.
Re:I don't want excuses... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just to make sure that you know, MS is currently being sued [pcworld.com] for reducing its "Vista Ready" requirements so that hardware which wasn't capable (mostly Intel graphics chips) was labeled as being so.