Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
smithers! (Score:5, Funny)
unleash the nerds!!
Re:smithers! (Score:5, Funny)
Your family videos won't play because of DRM - who are you, Brad Pitt?
Parent
Re:smithers! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:smithers! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:smithers! (Score:5, Interesting)
Recent versions of VLC have left me very disappointed. Video quality is just bad; VLC isn't even doing decent upsampling (I just get nearest neighbor!). Plus performance is abysmal on Linux. Hence, I have switched allegiances and now use SMPlayer [sourceforge.net]* on both my Linux and Windows machines. SMPlayer has better video quality, a nicer GUI, and proper subtitle support. There is a codec pack to download, but installation is trivial.
(* It's really just a nice frontend for MPlayer.)
It's a pity, because VLC can do a bunch of awesome network streaming stuff. Sometimes I get the feeling that VLC's mission isn't very clear. There was a time when it set out to be something more interesting than just another movie player.
Parent
Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be usable on netbooks? If it's got the same requirements as Vista, then how the hell is that going to work exactly?
Sounds like I'll not be changing my habits much: Windows for Games, Linux for everything else.
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Funny)
MS will hold off on release until netbook manufacturers have high enough specs to run 7.. Duh!
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Funny)
So they're planning a release around 2045? Right about when pocket calculators can play Crysis.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:4, Interesting)
The current beta seems to Windows 7 Ultimate... Good grief they have learned nothing... My guess is we will be seeing at least 5 or 6 version of Windows 7
Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Enterprise come right to mind. I just hope they don't offer 32 and 64 bit versions of each...
I just found out one of my programs that I tested under W2k,XP, and Vista doesn't work right under Vista 64!!!! And what is worse I can not figure out what is causing it!
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Informative)
The base install (32-bit) is 4.9G... you'd have very little space left for other apps without stripping it down.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Informative)
I just mounted the 32-bit install disk, let it do it's thing and the only thing I've done since then is to change the themes and try to strip out some of the fluff window features. I haven't deleted anything, nor added anything (besides a network and video driver.) I used a dynamic disk file in VirtualBox and it's sitting at 4.9G right now.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:4, Informative)
I reckon the biggest bit of it resides here [technet.com]
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Informative)
My experience doesn't match their assessment. I'm running Windows 7 on my Dell Mini and it runs faster than Windows XP Home ran on this exact same machine.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Informative)
On the contrary. Feelings matter a LOT when measuring speed. They matter more in the majority of cases, excepting things like dedicated batch processing.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem is that "runs faster" and "feels faster" can be viewed as a subjective situation. If the UI is responding more quickly to my actions ("feels faster"), one could easily argue that whether it's actually running faster is less important. If I get X*3 units of work done with Windows 7, versus X*2 units of work done with Windows XP, then you could say my computer runs faster because it helps me do more work faster. If that increase in productivity is only because it "feels faster" then "feels" and "runs" subjectively become the same thing.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:4, Informative)
I have it running in vBox as well, and I noticed the same as you. That's why I was curious. It seems to require more resources (bigger drive partition 4.7 XP with some smaller apps installed - 4.9 Win7 bare install) and requires 1.5G more RAM.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't WoW the flagship app of Wine these days?
Well...I think your larger problem is that the Intel 950 sucks, as do most integrated GPUs. Per Wikipedia, it doesn't even support OpenGL 2.0.
There you go. Personally, I've always had good experiences with NVIDIA cards on Linux. Lenovo builds good, reasonably-priced laptops with NVIDIA or ATI cards these days.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, your Intel 950 sucks, Linux can't fix that for you no matter how hard they try.
Parent
Re:Hardware demands match? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
What's the point?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what Win7 is supposed to fix. I'm probably in the minority, but I actually like the Vista GUI. It's cleaner, a little "Tonka Toy" in areas, but seems more polished than XP. What I don't like about Vista are the problems with wireless, power, CPU utilization, random disk storms, and some strange memory issues when running large JVMs. If Win7 fixes the non-gui related issues then I won't mind using it.
Strangely enough, on my Linux desktops I prefer a very minimal GUI such as fluxbox or xfce4. I turn off almost everything except for a gkrellm monitor. I did play with compiz and beryl for a while, and it was interesting at first, but quickly became annoying.
Re:What's the point?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's supposed to fix anything fundamental. The article makes it clear that Windows 7 seems to focus on all-around issues of polish and usability. There are a few significant under-the-hood changes, but this remains a minor point-release based on the major changes that Vista made. Pushing this out as Windows 7 instead of Vista SP2 probably has to do with the widespread negative association people have with the "Vista" name itself. Vista got so much bad press, even if SP2 introduced all these fixes and made Vista usable and polished, people still wouldn't adopt it. Releasing it as Windows 7 solves that problem.
I'm an Apple user, but it seems to me that Microsoft is focusing on the same things that Apple usually gets right: polish and user experience. As long as Windows 7 doesn't run like a dog, I think it will be a competitive release, and not one that Apple will be able to mock with the same ease as Vista in their Mac-vs-PC commercials. Meanwhile, Apple seems to be doing the opposite--taking time off from features and user experience to work on the under-the-hood changes. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard will be an interesting match-up.
Parent
Re:What's the point?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What's the point?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What's the point?? (Score:5, Insightful)
They've definitely improve the basic disk footprint. Vista-64 defaulted to nearly 14GB on my notebook (including swap and hibernation files). Windows 7 came in at a little over 7GB.
It is, as timmarhy points out, akin to Win98 compared to Win95. But Win98 is the part of Win9x that everyone remembers most pleasantly (or for some least painfully). There are still some things that I don't like about Windows 7, but as I just installed it over the weekend, I haven't had much chance to beat up on it yet. I do seem to recall that there were fewer UAC prompts installing software, though.
Parent
Re:What's the point?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Polish and User Experience in my view IS the operating system.
What the OS does for me is hide all of the ugliness of computers.
I just want to run a bunch of applications. Be able to switch between apps quickly. Setup a network to media with my XBox. Find files I'm looking for and boot quickly. It's all "Surface" stuff. But for me Vista has been incredibly stable so I haven't seen any need for improvement.
Windows 7 has added a lot of really nice things on top of Vista. People buy new operating systems because they increase their efficiency. That's why people love a mac. Those are the important new features. Being able to drag a window to the side of the screen in a big new feature. It might not take as many dev hours but it's a huge time saver for the user.
Service Packs fix bugs. New versions add features. Windows 7 is as much about adding features as it is bug fixing. And so far I've really liked a lot of the new features. I like that I don't have to manage my music and video sharing with my Xbox independently of my Zune independently of my WMP and I look forward to Winamp taking advantage of it as well.
I like the new taskbar even if I had to enable labels and disable application grouping. I don't like that it mixes running apps and icons but at the same time I do kind of have to remind myself "Why do I care?" At most I usually only have 2 icons mixed in that aren't running. And since figuring that out I've reorganized my pinned icons so that I rarely have an 'orphaned' icon.
I don't notice any performance bump. Then again I don't own a computer with less than 3GB of RAM and really... what excuse is there for only having 1GB of RAM? You can buy 1GB of RAM for $15.
I like the new wifi widget.
I like the new driver search feature (it found new updated drivers automatically and installed them. Handy!)
I like the new taskbar look and I like that I can change the taskbar's color. Seriously. I have to look at it all day. I didn't want black on my black background.
I can't stand that MSN now won't go to the notifications are and instead goes to my taskbar leaving TWO!! TWO!!!! STUPID #$*)@# taskbar entries for the same application.
I don't like that I can't have something pinned to the taskbar and start menu.
I like being able to drag an application up to the top of my screen to maximize it.
I like the updates to touch for my tablet PC.
I like the jump menus. Handy for Microsoft Word.
I look forward to Device Stage or whatever it is they call their USB connected device system.
And I look forward to being able to tell media to 'play on' my xbox from my PC.
And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head from 2 days of use.
As far as performance and bugs are concerned perhaps you could call this SP2. But everything beyond that are the kinds of enhancements and improvements that I expect from an OS upgrade.
What did I get out of XP? An improved Start Menu? Easier Networking? More stability? Was XP just Windows 98 SP3?
Parent
Re:What's the point?? (Score:5, Insightful)
People buy new operating systems because they increase their efficiency
No. People buy new computers that have new operating systems on them because they don't have any choice when they buy a new computer. That's the way Microsoft sells software: to distributors, not to end-users.
How many copies of Vista do you think would have sold if users had been told, "Well, you can have an XP system that is exactly like what you've been used to running problem free for the past few years, or you can have Vista, which won't work with some of your hardware and be slow and unresponsive unless you pay more for the machine it's on"?
My guess is: not very many. XP is a pretty good system. And by the way, XP had an NT kernel, so no, it was nothing like Win98 SP3.
Parent
Feh to the new UI (Score:5, Insightful)
I (foolishly, naively, but showing mostly uncrushable optimism) downloaded the beta and installed it only to be confronted what looked like Server 2008 minus the "classic" theme, perhaps "diet Vista".
Am I the only one that's more turned off by the Vista UI than the shitload of crap under the hood? I find tasks I can do simply and quickly, and with a fair amount of transparency with the "classic" UI, to be made highly opaque by the Vista (for lack of a better word) UI and involving much more effort, often MORE clicking, MORE bullshitting around. I did a Server 2008 server setup the other day (could have done 2003, but it was a small client doing filesharing only, so it was a good way to get my feet wet) and I was astonished that they had managed to make NTFS permissions editing and sharing setup involve more work with less control of the outcome than Server 2003.
Maybe I'm just getting Old And In The Way, but I'm missing the reason why they have to change the way some tasks are performed and the structure of the GUI. It seems like they're just making it different to be different and dumbing it down even dumber than it already was. Is there some sensible reason why the GUI needs to be so substantially changed?
Re:Feh to the new UI (Score:5, Insightful)
I can vouch for that sentiment. My personal experience is that for several years I was on solely linux (w/ kde or e17 WM) and os x literally didn't touch a windows machine. Then, a year or two ago I got a new job and I've been going back to a lot of windows quite a lot. I still find myself cursing at the ui after about ten minutes or so, but I think that people who have been using windows consistently get inured to it or something.
It's not necessarily that it's bad design, but for someone who is used to the way everything is done in linux or in os x, going over to the windows gui always makes me feel like Microsoft thinks I'm an idiot, which is ironic, because I have about the same opinion about them after ten minutes of heavy use. Things like trying to hide the program and system files from me, or the incessant reminders of things I already know about. God-fucking-forbid there ever be an unused icon on my desktop!!! I'm so glad that MS put all these resources into telling me this, again, and again, and again, and again.
Vista seems to take that philosphy to the extreme with the UAC and the seriously messed up control panel. My first impression of the new office with the ribbons is a pain in the neck too but I haven't used that for any significant amount of time yet.
Parent
I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about? Windows 7 beta seems to have had favorable reviews, so I wonder what people are basing that on, after reading this summary. (though, I note that Vista had favorable reviews on its launch too. It was just when reality bit that the knives came out. Shillery will only get you so far).
Not that I really care, since I've never used Vista and I won't be using Windows 7. XP still works fine for the one Windows box I have, and after any SP3 a Microsoft product is as good as it gets.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about?
Windows 7 Beta: Now with more hookers.*
*Hookers available for tech journalists and reviewers only.
Parent
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Informative)
I've run Vista from beta 2 through the RCs. When the final version was released I got the free upgrade for the "Vista Capable" sub-$500 laptop I'd bought in November.
While Vista was in beta, it was dismal. There were major issues, and minor issues. Through the beta process, the quality improved - all the minor issues were resolved (things like the taskbar corrupting the desktop when it was moved to the top of the screen instead of the bottom). On the other hand, all the major issues - Aero performance, network performance, gaming performance, hyperactive UAC, and so on - didn't improve at all.
I know I bought a laptop that compromised a lot for the cost, but I still expected a brand new computer to at least be able to let me double-click a folder in explorer without stalling and spinning for tens of seconds. After suffering for a while, dealing with the issues so that I could stay up with the "cutting edge" and so I'd be familiar when friends asked me to help them with their own new computers, I ended up rolling back to XP.
I grabbed the 7 beta around midnight Friday, and put it on the same laptop (it's the only system my family won't kill me for messing with). While it isn't as fast as XP, it's really quite useable even with all the Aero features on. I haven't loaded up any games yet, still tinkering around with apps. The performance was the biggest problem for me, and with 7 it's a non-issue completely. The interface is more consistent (a lot of the standard tools and control panels in Vista were untouched from 2k/XP, more of them follow the new UI now). Desktop gadgets work like I expect them to. Lots of things are just "better."
Regarding hardware requirements... I think what's happened is that MS has learned from the "Vista Capable" fiasco and that even though 7 could run and perform on lighter hardware than Vista, they're keeping the higher standard so that you can actually expect such a "minimum" system to be used on a daily basis.
Parent
Ob XKCD (Score:4, Funny)
xkcd 528 [xkcd.com]:
"What are you doing?"
"Trying the Windows 7 Beta"
"Why is it showing a picture of Hitler?"
"I don't know. I can't get it to do anything else."
"There's no UI?"
"No, just Hitler."
"Did you try Control-Alt-Delete?"
"It just makes Hitler's eyes flash."
"Huh... well, it's better than Vista."
"True."
Disclaimer (Score:4, Informative)
I have not actually tried the beta yet. I hear it's quite pleasant and hardly Hitler-y at all.
(For those that don't read it regularly, you should really read the alt text as well.)
Parent
Re:Disclaimer (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is, this poop gets modded up.
Parent
Windows7 Rebranded Vista SP2 w/ New Taskbar (Score:5, Insightful)
So in a nutshell, Windows7 is rebranded Vista SP2. That in itself is fine with me, since SP2 is about when Microsoft O/Ses get stable enough for production use. And the taskbar and other UI changes generally look to be an improvement.
However, the big concern many, including myself, have with Windows7, is DRM ... is it overloaded with DRM that limits software usefulness / degrades performance?
Ron
FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
For goodness sake, the majority of comments I read about Win 7 are almost overwhelmingly positive. Why must Slashdot continue to moan when Microsoft appear to have learnt from their mistakes with Vista? It's fucking annoying.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell, I got karma out the ass, so I'll answer your question.
Slashdot continues to moan because the average commenter has neither ran the beta or used Vista for longer than 5 minutes. Its more fun to bitch about Microsoft than to actually use the product.
Its also fun to sit and read some of the bitch comments and see how many Slashdotters overlooked the "beta" part, bitch about missing features, and apparently thought they were downloading the final RTM code.
I've never had a lick of trouble running Vista. Nor have I had a lick of trouble in the two weeks I've been running this beta. But then I made sure to put it on a modern PC built with Vista in mind, not my grandfather's Packard-Bell 486 with 4 meg of ram.
Parent
Re:FFS (Score:4, Interesting)
I still see the odd Windows 98/95 installations. I'm certain XP will outlast Windows 8.
People get stupid ideas in their heads like "Windows 98 is TEH FASTEST!!!" and they never switch. Such is life. The rest of us actually evaluate it. Make an informed rational decision and move on with our lives.
Parent
Re:FFS (Score:5, Informative)
The only example you gave of "DRM getting in the way" was with audio.
(1) It's true that DirectSound no longer offers hardware hardware audio acceleration. That's because the audio drivers run in kernel mode, badly written drivers were one of the major causes of blue-screens, and Vista in any case had a (frankly) awesome new audio stack. (e.g. support for microphone arrays, and automatic balancing for any speaker response curves, e.g. per-application volume setting, e.g. lower latency). If you the programmer don't specifically chose a DRM-protected audio path, then the system won't give you one, simple as that. DRM doesn't get in the way. You have to specifically opt into it if you want it.
(2) DRM doesn't get in the way of programmers at all. If you want to use a different audio stack with direct hardware access, e.g. OpenAL, you're welcome to it.
Parent
Re:FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget that those shills were given Acer Ferrari laptops with Vista and a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "Don't bother sending them back after you finish reviewing" [apcmag.com]
Hand-picked hardware - and not some el-cheapo base model netbook. Bought-and-paid-for reviews.
Parent
Biggest improvement (Score:4, Funny)
Windows 7 != Vista (Score:4, Informative)
I know I'm going to be down-modded for this, but it must be said.
Let me start off by saying that Windows Vista is no longer the piece of shit that it once was. Ever since SP1, the many problems that Vista used to have have been gone. I was using Vista Ultimate since July and had absolutely no issues with anything, and it actually runs faster (gasp!) than XP on my machine. (Let me point out that my machine has a Q6600, 4GB of RAM, and an 8800GT)
Now that that's out of the way, allow me to tell about how much better Windows 7 is. I've been using 7even for three weeks. I installed the leaked build 6959, and besides a few major problems with Firefox's rendering, I had no issues with it. I then installed 7000 a couple days before its official release because I couldn't stand how horrible Firefox was acting up. And finally, I downloaded and installed Windows 7 x64 from the public beta site and got a legitimate key. With each new installation brought new improvements to speed and functionality.
7even is not Vista with an updated UI. Besides the obvious UI improvements (which took some time to get used to, but I find them more useful than before), just using 7even, you will notice that Microsoft must have put a lot of time and money into rewriting and optimizing code. An argument could be made to call 7even "Vista SP2", but I am convinced that there are enough updates and improvements that separate 7even from Vista that it deserves its own name. Microsoft removed so much bloat, improved UAC, added a couple necessary features, and added much-needed improvement to features present in Vista (for example, an AWESOME improvement to the defragmenter that makes me actually want to use it rather than a third-party program). And the taskbar, while some accuse it of copying the Mac, is actually an improvement of Mac's dock... You can't switch between individual windows in Mac, which is something that pisses me off being an employee of a TV station who uses Macs with Final Cut Studio.
Re:Windows 7 != Vista (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, if 7even is that much better than 6ix was, I can't wait until 8ight comes out.
I only have 2wo questions for you: since you installed 3hree different versions (one even be4our it was officially released), did you find that 9ine times out of 10en, the 60ixty-4our bit version lacked driver support four your devices?
And also, are you aware that the number "seven" does not, in fact, begin with a "7"?
Parent
Six Pages of Praise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA has six pages, almost all of which were praise for Windows 7, and yet the "summary" picks out three choice sentences that were negative.
Nevermind the new features (both under the hood and with the UI), nevermind all the annoyances of Vista that this undoes, nevermind the ZDNet tests that show 7 to be faster than XP and Vista.
No, let's scan the entire article and post the most damning phrases we can find and call that a summary.
And no I'm not new here.
Re:Problems with Chrom in the x64 version (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
bling sells (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry to have to break it to you. But much of the flash in Vista and Windows 7 is borrowed from Mac OS X, which is currently eating away at Windows market share.
Customers seem to like bling. So of course MS is going to offer it.
Parent
Re:Can anyone explain why UAC doesn't... (Score:4, Informative)
It does if you aren't using an administrator account. If you are using an administrator account, why does Vista need your password a second time? You've already entered your password, and the UAC dialog is isolated to prevent other programs hijacking the allow button.
Parent