Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release 183

Posted by timothy from the by-dribs-and-drabs dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Someone over at Redmond flipped the wrong switch, it would seem. Ars Technica spotted that the Windows 7 download page on TechNet had switched to say Release Candidate instead of Beta. It's now back to Beta, but not before Ars got all the details off the page: 'The public RC will apparently be coming in May 2009, and not in April as previously rumored. The RC testing program will be available at least through June 2009, and the actual build will expire June 1, 2010. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions will be available in English, German, Japanese, French, and Spanish.' A screenshot and all the text on the RC download page, which was set to be published 'May 2009' is saved over at Ars."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release More

Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release

Comments Filter:

  • Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 ) <slashdot@@@remco...palli...nl> on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:04AM (#27355497)

    I'm looking forward to this, new stuff to play with and if it really is faster than Vista, yay for me :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mc1138 ( 718275 )
      So far the beta while not huge amounts different, is a very nice polished UI update to Vista. It helps to both correct some of the problems Vista had, plus adds some spiffy new features.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 )
        I'm still getting drastic slowdowns while copying files across a network on Windows 7 - transferring a 1GB file over G Wifi from either a Windows 2008 fileserver or a Ubuntu Server Samba fileserver gives me a maximum of 1MB/sec, with a typical transfer rate of just 700K/sec. A Mac on the same wifi network can see upward of 3MB/sec for the same file. Not good, not good at all.

        Other than that, I'm thoroughly enjoying Windows 7 as my main desktop.

    • 32 bit AND 64 bit (Score:2, Interesting)

      by furby076 ( 1461805 )
      So I have 32 bit laptop (vista 32) and 64 bit desktop (vista 64). Do I have to buy two upgrades or will one work?
      Also, why did the parent post get marked redundant when he is first post?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 )
        Since you have to buy two licenses, I'm guessing you are going to have to buy two upgrades...
      • Since it is two different computers and instances that you are installing it on you will need two upgrade licenses.
        However most MS licenses come with the right to install 32 OR 64 bit with the same license; in case you want to switch.

      • Re:32 bit AND 64 bit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 ) <slashdot@@@remco...palli...nl> on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:23AM (#27356167)

        I think I got marked redundant because some people are so overzealous in their damnation of anything MS that somebody with a more open mind who gives them a fair chance is dangerous/annoying in their eyes.

        I got the karma to spare though, don't really care about it.

        Anyway, I have 2 licenses for Vista Ultimate. 32 and 64 bit for my 2 pc's. I did read a while back that people who had Vista Ultimate or Vista (Enterprise I think, I'm not sure) could upgrade to Win7 $Corresponding_edition for free.

        I looked up the link, here's the skinny
        http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-vista-free-upgrade,7018.html [tomshardware.com]

        Too bad I won't be eligible then, but I get the license for next to nothing anyway, so it's all good :)

        P.S. For the mods, if you disagree with me, don't mod me down, mod me sideways :P

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by marcello_dl ( 667940 )

          > Some people are so overzealous in their damnation of anything MS...

          Zeal = avoiding a convicted monopolist's product for fears that it will pull similar stunts at your expense in the future...

          • If you're avoiding the "convicted monopolist" (setting aside the meaninglessness of the term -- you can't be "convicted" of being a monopolist), that's all well and good. If you down-mod somebody else's opinion based on your fear of MS' potential future actions, then that's zeal.

            Essentially, zeal = being offended at any quality or opinion that is opposite to your opinion, however innocuous.

  • The longer the better (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxci ( 3530 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:13AM (#27355559)

    At least it looks like they're happy to delay the 'release candidate' presumably to allow some more time for bugfixes, etc. Although calling it a release candidate is really innacurate. A proper release candidate should be something that could be signed off as the official release if testing goes ok, however, it's widely known that there's going to be multiple release candidates.

    • Re:The longer the better (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:27AM (#27355659) Homepage Journal

      A proper release candidate should be something that could be signed off as the official release if testing goes ok, however, it's widely known that there's going to be multiple release candidates.

      I'm not sure what you mean by that, exactly. Any open source project of reasonable complexity has at least 2-3 release candidates, usually more for really big releases like when they merge a development branch with the main trunk. The difference between a 'beta' and 'release candidate' seems to be that with a release candidate you are saying that the code is more or less frozen; you're not going to change much unless there are serious showstopper bugs. With a beta there's a little more flexibility.

      I would expect that Microsoft's development methods internally aren't all that different.

      • Re:The longer the better (Score:5, Insightful)

        by totally bogus dude ( 1040246 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:33AM (#27356279)

        Any project of sufficient complexity will likely have multiple release candidates, just because once all the release critical bugs are found and fixed... more will be found.

        That doesn't mean a release candidate isn't actually a candidate for release, or at least is supposed to be. An RC is supposed to be, "we think we're done, unless you can show us there's major bugs remaining this is exactly what we're going to release". The final release should be nothing more than the last release candidate with the version strings to say it's a final release rather than an RC.

        Vista had one RC, and when it was made available Microsoft made it absolutely clear that the RC was not actually a candidate for release; it did not include a bunch of changes and fixes that were going to be in the actual release. They abuse the term: Microsoft's "release candidates" are actually more like "late betas".

        The term "release candidate" is actually entirely self-explanatory and leaves less wiggle room for misrepresenting the status of a project than "alpha" or "beta". The final release should be identical to the last RC. In practice there's often some small changes made or diagnostic/debugging code removed; but any actual changes in functionality or any non-trivial fix should cause another RC to be made. It is a bit of a balancing act between cost/time and thoroughness though.

        However, calling something a "release candidate" when you have absolutely no intention that it will actually be the released version is disingenuous. If is not a candidate for release, then it is not a release candidate.

        • Or they're just being realistic. "Look we know you'll find bugs so this won't be the final release."

          For me RC means you have taken everything out of debug mode. You are using the real installer. You send out the ISO so that every aspect of installation and use is tested. It's testing the entire system not just features.

          I would say with Windows 7 Beta 1 would be a passable RC. It seems to be feature complete. It has the full installer. It uses the licensing system and stresses the entire system as a who

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by x2A ( 858210 )

          Yes but less people are willing to properly test something labeled 'beta' than 'RC'... is I believe the mentality behind the increased RC labeling of stuff these days (look at the linux kernel cycle).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Thaelon ( 250687 )

        Any open source project of reasonable complexity has at least 2-3 release candidates,

        A release candidate is exactly that. A candidate for release. That is, to the best of your knowledge it's ready for release, the code is frozen and you're doing a final course of testing on it. If everybody did their job well prior to declaring a build a release candidate, there won't be a second candidate. The candidate becomes the actual release. If you're just making a build you think is ready, then dubbing it relea

    • Re:The longer the better (Score:4, Interesting)

      by xenolion ( 1371363 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:29AM (#27355681)
      I hope Microsoft does do more than one release candidate. I remember 2000 pro and server had two or three Release Candidates, and look how well that one went over. More time into a RC will help crush any other bugs and errors that are there. Vista seemed to be rushed now that we have sp1 for vista which made it usable but still needs a lot of work just dump vista along with its fellow friend ME.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

        If 2000 could still be used with some of my more important programs (like Steam), I'd probably be using that instead of XP right now.

        They were right on the money with Win2K. We'll probably have to wait another thousand years or so to see MS get it right again.

        • Re:The longer the better (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <kaboom108@@@bellsouth...net> on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:33AM (#27356273)

          Lower memory usage, in exchange for a worse ui (unless you like low res icons), no security features (say goodbye to NX bit and other hardening features) and generally at this point worse in every way. Now when XP first came out, it was reasonable to keep using 2k for quite awhile, but now that 4 gb of ram is like $50, saving the 128 mb of ram you get from running 2k over xp definitely isn't worth it. Considering with some tweaking you can make the xp ui look and act almost identical to the 2k ui, the only thing 2k has going for it is nostalgia. If you actually try to use it (I run into machines still running 2k every now and then in my work) you will realize it's a piece of crap.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Endo13 ( 1000782 )

            Nah. Win2K still runs more smoothly and faster than XP... and if you use both a lot, it's noticeable. Yes, that's even with the max of ~3.23GB of RAM they can use, and even with as many things turned off in XP as possible. I do use XP over Win2K though, because it's got a few features that are too convenient for me to give up, such as Wireless Zero config. In fact, for me that's probably the only thing that's a deal-breaker that would keep me from going back to 2K. Extra driver support is basically a non-is

          • Now when XP first came out, it was reasonable to keep using 2k for quite awhile, but now that 4 gb of ram is like $50, saving the 128 mb of ram you get from running 2k over xp definitely isn't worth it.

            Except that no everyone can just pop in large amounts of RAM.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by x2A ( 858210 )

          Have you tried 2003? I dropped XP and went back to 2000 and stuck with 2000 until I tried 2003 and have stuck with that. Disable the 'themes' service and the GUI runs much quicker 'n smoother, and there's much else which brings its performance back towards the 2000, whilst still gaining from additions post 2000, such as asynchronous service start/stopping which really does improve boot (and shutdown) time.

    • Really? I get the distinct feeling it's being rushed (Think Xbox 360 to urgently replace the un-wanted Xbox 1)

      The open beta 7000 came out in January and within only 4 weeks the RC was being discussed.
      This version of Windows is without a doubt better than Vista, no hesitation in saying that but it's still got it's issues.

      See here for example.
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1173797&cid=27320451 [slashdot.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 )
        The problem with the 'issues' quoted in your linked comment is that they are actually personal opinions about changes, and not actual functional issues that need resolving. You are more than welcome to disagree with changes, and they may indeed alter your established personal routines for the worse rather than the better, but that doesn't make them issues that need 'correction'.

        See my post earlier in this thread for an actual issue that requires correction: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11778 [slashdot.org]

        • I won't deny these are my opinion but you have to really question the design team on some of these changes.

          I mean removing the free space from the status bar helps NO ONE, it's a pointless, backwards change.
          I don't even think it's opinion, it's simply not arguable, it's like making the windows no longer function on a car, it's simply flawed

          Now as stated, the problem is small, sure but what ELSE have they got wrong, due to a simple lack of applying logic to the problems?
          I mean jesus, I'm an IT geek and a Win

          • I've been using Windows 7 since the beta was released to MSDN users, and I cannot honestly say that I've actually noticed the missing status bar - its simply been a non-issue for myself, the information is available in several separate locations that are just as accessible. If its not bothered me that much, can it really be the fundamental, serious show stopper that you are making it out to be?

            Yes, the menus and configuration screens are very very similar to Vista, in that they have hidden a few things,

            • Your opening paragraph is precisely the post I'm talking about in my linked larger post, you're claiming a negative change is fine 'just do X instead"

              I don't know how many time I need to state this but I'll try again,...
              The problem isn't the status bar in itself or the lack of the size being included on the status bar, the problem is they went and fiddled with shit that just ain't broke.
              There's simply no reason in ANY WAY.
              We now have an optional status bar (same as before) which now shows less information t

            • I cannot honestly say that I've actually noticed the missing status bar

              You know, I prefer the look of windows without the status bar, but AFAIK it's the only UI item that keeps a running tally of how many items you have selected at a time...

              With respect to the GP though, it takes an open mind to adjust from one interface to another, but I find a lot of his gripes about Vista/7 to be very backward. IMHO, my personal tell-tale of whether or not someone will be able to adapt to a new version of any software is to look at their start menu. If it resembles Windows 95 and doesn't

      • Re:The longer the better (Score:5, Informative)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy&gmail,com> on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:26AM (#27356207)

        See here for example.

        Also, the breadcrumb bar, time and time again I've tried to hassle people for an OPTION to disable the ghastly thing, I don't mind if new users prefer it, good for you! I work on machines to get things done, I need it quick and efficient and the breacrumb bar frankly frustrates me. I don't know about you guys but I 'think in' paths, directories and drives, even if Microsoft doesn't want me to think that way anymore, it's likely how I will ALWAYS think of things on a machine, I translate things back in to paths when using the breadcrumb bar, so it's just slowing me down and... again I'm not 'getting the data' to my brain quick enough.

        In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?

        The control alt delete menu (the grey box under XP with 6 buttons) previously you could just hit space to lock the machine or t for the task manager - now you have to hold down alt. (I admit this is a small problem)

        Win+L will also lock the screen. Much quicker.

        He's absoloutely right, but the problem is WHY, WHY! and WHY did they introduce a 'requirement' to hold down alt before using the shortcut keys on the control alt delete menu? The problem isn't the issue itself the problem is WHY did they do this when it simply changes something which didn't needed to be changed and adds a layer of complexity.

        Because that's how it's _supposed_ to work, as per the Windows UI guidelines (Alt+accelerator key to access UI elements). Quite arguably, they've fixed a long-running UI bug.

        Ctrl+Shift+Esc for Task Manager is quicker and has been around a _lot_ longer (at least NT 4.0, most likely NT 3.1). It was derived from Ctrl+Esc to get the running task list in Windows 3.x and OS/2.

        • "In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?"

          I don't think in breadcrumbs, I think in paths, directories, drives, folders - whatever you like to call them.
          As I tried to unsuccessfully state, give us the damned OPTION to keep the full path in there, how can options be bad for anyone? Both parties are happy then.

          To drill down further, UI design is a fickle thing, Apple seem to understand it, Microsoft don't (I can't believe how much praise I heap on apple lately)
          Microsoft have the close window button X at the top right, don't they?
          It's also 100% top / r

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Endo13 ( 1000782 )

            There's a lot I could reply with, but it would be mostly redundant.

            So let me boil it down to this.

            1. You're over-reacting. Even though I do mostly agree with you about the changes to Vista... they *are* better, just frustrating to get used to.

            2. Your point about OPTIONS is dead on. That's been my biggest gripe about MS and Windows for a quite a while now, going back I don't know how far. It's fine if you want people to be able to do it that way, but FFS, put in OPTIONS to allow people to do and see it a dif

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drsmithy ( 35869 )

            I don't think in breadcrumbs, I think in paths, directories, drives, folders - whatever you like to call them.

            It *is* a path:
            C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
            Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc
            These are the same thing, they just have different delimiters.

            As I tried to unsuccessfully state, give us the damned OPTION to keep the full path in there, how can options be bad for anyone?

            Because then there are two operational modes that have to be debugged, QAed, supported and m

            • We're just going to have to disagree, I'm not 'most users' I'm 'advanced users'
              There should be only 3 things that ever slow me down when using a computer.
              Performance of the machine itself.
              My brain
              The speed my hands move.

              Vista and Windows 7 add unwanted latency to my use of a Windows machine in the long run, you may find things better or smarter or whatever and that's great but I do not, in any way.
              And no, I don't blindly hate Windows 7, they did add one or two minor things superior to Windows XP, I was shoc

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by x2A ( 858210 )

              Nah, other guy's definitely right for advanced users. My brain queues up actions that I'm going to perform next. I'm not thinking one thing at a time, and so a consistent interface really speeds things up, because I can move my hands to where they need to be whilst processing some other information on the screen for example. If I have to stop and process the 'breadcrum' bar to see where to click, I have to wait until I've finished processing whatever I am, before I can instruct my mouse pointer where exactl

          • I'd like to mod you up, but instead I'll add support. the last time I posted my list of complaints about Windows I got 4 "tl;dr" replies. So good to see someone else seeing it my way.

            There are a lot of little things that MS just does not do well, typically the little details. Like when you hit ^H to replace in Excel 2003. The dialog comes up with whatever you already filled in, which is good. Focus is on the SECOND box, the Replace With. If you just did a Replace All, what are the chances you want to

            • I can't believe I'm agreeing but you're right on that space thing, as much as I love my keyboard shortcuts ALL popups from a background task should most definitely have no key highlighted.

              Literally just last night I clicked yes to something (no idea what it was) and never saw it again.
              Also (to my knowledge) Windows logging of what's going on within the system is minimal so it's difficult to go back and check.

              Also yes, far far too many 'tldr' people on forums, look at the fellow above disagreeing with me, he

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by x2A ( 858210 )

                Focus stealing prevention all the way man! Should never have a button popup underneith your downward moving finger, the solid or flashing blue taskbar entry to signify "this app wants focus" works much better.

          • Press Backspace to go back, which is usually up one level. This has the advantage of always being in the same place in real space, irregardless of where on the screen the window is positioned.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by xlsior ( 524145 )
          In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?

          Three problems that I keep running into with the breadcrumbs:
          - The location to click on to to up a level is variable, rather than a single button that's always in the same place regardless of the length of your folder names.
          - I

  • Windows 7 has proven to be the most stable Windows release for a good decade. By combining the visual enhancements of Vista with a focus on performance and stability worthy of hard-iron, this OS proves once more that Microsoft are on top of their game in the desktop environment.

    Although the only realistic competitor, Mac OS X, comes close in the eye-candy department; Windows 7 will have the advantage of supporting countless items of consumer hardware, as well as the tremendous decades-long back-catalog of

    • Re:I for one am excited about this. (Score:5, Funny)

      by AlterRNow ( 1215236 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:41AM (#27355781)

      [quote]Windows 7 will have the advantage of supporting countless items of consumer hardware, as well as the tremendous decades-long back-catalog of games and productivity software.[/quote]
      Don't forget the countless items of hardware, games, and software that won't work :)

      • There might be a couple of small exceptions, but everything that worked on Vista should work just fine on 7.

        Either 7 is exactly like Vista and they're stealing peoples' money or they're changing/improving things and breaking compatibility. Pick one.

        Yes, I know there will be a reply to this that says it's Microsoft and they can do both, but let's cut the crap. They're trying and they're doing better now than they have in quite a while. Give them a tiny bit of credit just once...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Richy_T ( 111409 )

          everything that worked on Vista should work just fine on 7.

          Now, there's damning with faint praise if I've ever seen it.

    • XP has ruled the desktop market for almost a decade now. Windows 7 shall rule the next.

      that's pretty strong!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sporkinum ( 655143 )

      What is so earth-shatteringly better that it would be worth spending $100+ on and a chance of breaking a working system? My Vista system really is not that bad. Sure, 7 may be a bit faster and a bit more stable, but I doubt it is worth the money or the hassle.

      • Most people will be looking to upgrade from XP to 7, not from Vista to 7. Some of us are lucky enough to have MSDN subscriptions, so we won't need to pay for it in any case (or rather, we already have!).

    • I'll agree that these newer OS's from Microsoft have gotten prettier but they have they increased productivity?

      For me, from a management perspective, all of this wonderful "upgrade" in eye candy for the end-user has only increased the amount of time it takes for me to troubleshoot a problem. Here I am attempting to remotely control someone's workstation half a world away and it looks like a slideshow because of all the wonderful gewgaws prettying up the screen.

      Seriously, our end-users are here to perform a

    • I'm sorry, but that sounded like you cut and pasted it from Microsoft.com.

      What if you don't like Vista's "visual enhancements"? There's so much cruft (visually) in Vista/7 that it manages to get in the way of me using my computer and I HATE it. Even if I try to make Win7 look and feel like classic Windows, the interface features they added in still intrude into my usability experience. For instance, I use my Windows box by launching Explorer. I navigate around, feel comfortable, and "use" my PC in this

    • Windows 7 hasn't proved a darn thing, except that lots of people are gullible enough to fall for the hype. You may or may not like the beta, but the beta is not the finished product. Microsoft could certainly slow it down from the beta, or make it more annoying, or raise the hardware requirements, or make it unstable.

      Once we have a released version, or at the very least an honest release candidate (as in "we're releasing the one for real if nobody finds any bad bugs"), it will be time to evaluate it fo

    • "Windows 7 has proven to be the most stable Windows release for a good decade."

      Really? Isn't Windows 7 only in Beta? So, it's not a release yet, is it?

      Isn't your comment, taken as a whole, a rather strong indictment of Microsoft OSs? Why would you consider subjecting yourself to that again and again?

      Just wondering.

  • Grey (Score:1, Insightful)

    by grey-shado ( 1414037 )
    I'm pretty exited for this, It will hopefully be so much better (cleaner and faster) than Vista. It seems Vista was a half made OS to compete with Apple's new OS.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      you got it.

      I run Wu7 and Vista side by side. and W7 is very tolerable. In fact 2 test employees here WE switched from XP to W7 and the training was negligible. Unlike the few we switched from XP to Vista.

      Vista was like a rabid monkey bit all the developers and they were on morphine when they wrote the UI. Windows 7 is after they are all sobered up and looked at vista and said.. OMG! how drunk was I when I wrote this????

       

  • The article is only DATED May 2009, and it does NOT explicitly say when the RC will be out.

  • is available. Does anyone know if I can "upgrade" to the RC, thus extending my beta period? If possible, I'd like to continue running 7 from here on out -- I'd hate to go back to XP for a month simply because of poor timing. FWIW -- I'm really happy with 7. Been running it for about 3 months now.
    • I've been able to upgrade from the beta to straight-from-MSFT interim builds, so I expect the plan is for the beta -> RC -> RTM upgrade path to work.

  • ... over Vista?

    First is speed, I have tried Windows 7 beta and I didn't see any speed improvement over Vista at all. (I have turned off unnecessary services and features that I don't use). Windows 7 is more secure than Vista? Vista can be pretty secure itself if the user doesn't do anything stupid + proper setting + updating regularly.

    So the only thing that Win 7 seems to be better than Vista is eye candy, UI features like 'bat light' or thumbnail on the taskbar. But I think they are overated, I prefer usin

    • Re:Is windows 7 that good? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Colonel Korn ( 1258968 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:49AM (#27356473)

      ... over Vista?

      First is speed, I have tried Windows 7 beta and I didn't see any speed improvement over Vista at all. (I have turned off unnecessary services and features that I don't use). Windows 7 is more secure than Vista? Vista can be pretty secure itself if the user doesn't do anything stupid + proper setting + updating regularly.

      So the only thing that Win 7 seems to be better than Vista is eye candy, UI features like 'bat light' or thumbnail on the taskbar. But I think they are overated, I prefer using multi workspace as in Linux, so I can organize the windows myself, and don't have to worry about cluttering. I even removed the windows list widget on the panel and replaced it with icons box instead (only show the icon of the running programs). I'm even thinking about removing panel completely and switching to tiling WM like Xmonad so I can throw away my mouse, but until I got a 2nd monitor, that doesn't seem like a good idea.

      (Yes, I have a fetish for keyboard, but hey, we have ten fingers, better use all of them)

      7 is drastically faster than Vista for general OS tasks on machines with 1 gig of RAM or less. On a machine with enough RAM, Vista's already plenty fast, certainly faster than XP for these things. Vista and 7 are both slower than XP for transferring large chunks of small files around, though part of the reason for this is that XP says the move is done when the data is read into RAM even though it's still waiting to write to disk, while Vista and 7 tell you the move is done when the data is written to the new location.

      Vista is more secure than 7 if you use UAC, because 7's UAC has been sadly neutered. Sure, MS may claim that UAC isn't a security barrier, but every one of the non-techies who used to get their XP boxes pwned every 3 months have now had no malware issues since switching and using UAC. MS may not want us to look closely at UAC as a security barrier, but in practice it's the most effective one I've seen on any system.

      The "bat light" was from a list of features that never made it into 7. The thumbnail on the taskbar isn't a big deal, but the "peek" functionality that gives you a full size view of a window of interest is actually very useful.

      • Vista is more secure than 7 if you use UAC, because 7's UAC has been sadly neutered.

        It's only out of the box, though (and didn't they say they made some changes to improve it post-beta?). You can still go to Control Panel and pull that UAC slider all the way up, which will give you the same level of security (and the corresponding annoyance) as in Vista.

  • Vista is that bad for general and non gamer users? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:11AM (#27356061) Homepage

    I recently "fixed" a Sony Vaio (from .kr) which has "designed for Windows Vista" mark and serial number of Vista at its bottom. What was its problem? Someone thinking he is making a favour downgraded it to XP guaranteeing endless problems.

    The machine was clearly "designed for Vista" as even the Intel disk controller was nightmare to get supported on XP. Machine's owner is a girl who only cares about office, MSN, Skype and other general stuff, not games.

    When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.

    It seems her mistake was getting help from a Korean die hard gamer. As I had to browse Korean Sony site (don't ask how), I can understand the "XP Downgrade" is still a big deal for them so Sony was forced to pack XP "if it compiles, ship it" type drivers and offer them.

    This is the second time I try to fix a virused XP (as Mac user) on a PC which was "Designed for Vista" and every problem goes away and machine runs really fast right after Vista is restored and updated. Stop this "XP downgrade" madness, at least on non gamer machines. You aren't doing a favour, you are putting the non technical types in huge risk along with the old OS you are installing. Another thing is, they paid for Vista, somehow.

    • When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.

      I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.

      We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it. Now, people are quick to blame that on problems specific to the HP distro and claim that Dell's distros (particularly of the small business variety) are better, but as an end user none of that stuff matters to me. It's clear to me that Windows is not ready for the desktop.

      • Yes. Even in the stores I never saw a "damn fast" vista laptop, compared to the XP ones. And no korean guy involved. The same for my brand new Vostro as just delivered from Dell (now reformated with Ubu... well, that's another story.)

        The "downgrade to XP" motto doesn't come from ./ but from frustrated and standard users that feel a sluggish interactivity.

      • I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.

        We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it.

        So, basically, you have a single anecdote to tell about the slowness of Vista, and from that you conclude that "there is no way" Vista can be fast?

        I have surprising news for you. Vista can run great or it may suck outright depending on the specific hardware it's run on. I've seen it fly on 1Gb as well, and I've seen it lag on 3Gb. The fact that you see a lot of people crying wolf, but quite a few people also shrugging and asking "what's even wrong", should be all the clues you need to figure it out, really.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by digitalhermit ( 113459 )

      Stop this "XP downgrade" madness, at least on non gamer machines. You aren't doing a favour, you are putting the non technical types in huge risk along with the old OS you are installing. Another thing is, they paid for Vista, somehow.

      I downgraded my Dell XPS 1530 from Vista to XP a few months ago because of very, very bad problems with the network card disconnecting. Under XP it runs perfectly, but Vista is plagued with random disconnects that require shutting off then restarting the interface before it r

      • I've had similar problems with my mother's laptop -- it randomly decides if it wants to connect wirelessly to the router or not, it's just a pain in the neck. I tried doing a few tricks I found suggested on the web but nothing really helped. I had suggested to her to buy an Apple this time but she went for the cheaper option, now she's regretting it.

        My own experience with Vista is that I finally have it running acceptably on my brand new, 3.24 GHz core duo with 2 GB of ram by turning off every feature

        • Hehe.. I went throught *EXACTLY* those same problems. Either Superfetch or the virus scanner was causing the machine to become unusable for 20-30 minutes at a time. It was even easy to disable the virus scan at these times because the mouse would become so unresponsive that you had to *slowly* move the mouse, wait until the pointer moved on screen, then pray that it would recognize your clicks.

          I'm lucky in that the laptop is fairly powerful, but Vista made it less responsive than a old Inspiron 600M.

  • Yes, "accidentially flipped the switch" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by not already in use ( 972294 ) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:27AM (#27356209)
    Kinda like they "accidentally" leaked the beta. Looks like Microsoft is finally catching onto this whole marketing thing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Joe U ( 443617 )

      That was before Windows 7 became essentially a point release.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by perryizgr8 ( 1370173 )
      because at that time (may 07), ms thought vista was going to be as long term as xp. so by their reckoning they would have been releasing another verion in 10 years, when the transition from 32bit to 64bit would have been over and we would be talking about our new 128bit cpus. but it failed miserably, so they had to rebrand it in desperation, only that the transition to 64 is not complete yet. so they have to have a 32bit version too.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close