Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Operating Systems Windows

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Look At Windows 7 Beta 1

Comments Filter:
  • by sexybomber ( 740588 ) <> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:14PM (#26249665)

    The sound of ZDNet's Hardware 2.0 writers blowing their loads over this is deafening.

    • by irtza ( 893217 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:25PM (#26249741) Homepage

      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).

      • by gbarules2999 ( 1440265 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:38PM (#26249841)
        All I learned from their screenshots is that it looks like KDE and that there's a picture of a fish in the wallpaper. Wow. Revelation of the day.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:03PM (#26250025)

        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

        • by irtza ( 893217 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:06PM (#26250045) Homepage
          so here is then the next question, are the added features of Vista/win 7 worth it? What do you have available that you did not previously and does this make life more efficient?
          • by yoyhed ( 651244 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @02:32PM (#26250755)
            The best new feature of Vista, and it really, really is a nice one, is the instant Start Menu search. You can be SO fast at starting programs or finding files by just hitting the Windows key and typing the first few letters. Also, breadcrumb navigation in Windows Explorer is nice. However, these are things that can be added to XP - I just wish the authors of such addons would refrain from making them look exactly like Vista, because that doesn't look good with my XP classic theme.
        • by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:19PM (#26250167)

          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.

          Not true... It just won't come from Microsoft. Linux, Solaris, *BSD, and Apple all have that snappy feel. Maybe Microsoft should look at the code in Linux. It is open... ;)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          I'll tell you right now. the speedy feel of the XP days will never EVER come back

          They never left. I use Vista, and it's as snappy as XP ever was.

        • by coryking ( 104614 ) * on Sunday December 28, 2008 @02:17PM (#26250657) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • by John Betonschaar ( 178617 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @02:24PM (#26250697)

            Non-aero window drawing is also hardware-accelerated, just not 3D hardware accelerated. And it has been like that since Windows 9x or something.

            Your computer isn't going to be more responsive by adding extra load on the GPU, only (possibly) prettier. Which is kind of subjective, I for one think Vista looks like multi-colored poo that gets in the way of working with the computer.

          • by beav007 ( 746004 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @10:13PM (#26254001) Journal
            I have customers who have bought laptops with Vista, and regretted it. Going back to the Windows Classic theme has increased GUI responsiveness on every single one, no exceptions.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Z34107 ( 925136 )

          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.

      • by capnkr ( 1153623 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:09PM (#26250073)

        I'd guess that 'black hats' are glowing because this gives them a good jump on:

        1) finding out which security holes still exist from prior MS work, and

        2) a good look at the "new" OS structure to find out what other holes might be there, well before final release...

  • Waporware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr Europe ( 657225 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:26PM (#26249747)

    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?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:55PM (#26249967)

      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?

      Well, whatever one might think about windows 95, "virus-tolerant" is certainly an apt description!

  • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:26PM (#26249759) Journal

    I don't see why this is surprising. This is just Windows Vista service pack 3 after all. Naturally the beta is going to be more stable than the initial Vista beta.

    • by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <[enderandrew] [at] []> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:33PM (#26249803) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:03PM (#26250019) Journal

        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?

        • by bhpaddock ( 830350 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @03:49PM (#26251343) Homepage

          Windows Vista's performance "problems" have nothing to do with DRM. If you aren't playing back a DRM'd file, then there is no DRM-specific code running, and no penalty of any kind. The idea that Vista had any more DRM code running than Windows XP was a myth propogated mostly buy people who knew it wasn't true, and others who were gullible and believed anything that sounded bad about Vista.

          If you don't want DRM, don't buy any DRM'd media. Having support for DRM'd media in the OS (like BluRay / HDCP / etc) has absolutely ZERO impact on people who don't use DRM'd media.

          Vista had its issues and they are well understood, there is no reason to make up myths to blame them on.

      • by lorenlal ( 164133 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:08PM (#26250069)

        1) It won't be named Vista.
        2) Supposedly, UAC is much more configurable, especially from the group policy angle.
        3) Not as much bloat is supposed to be bundled. If you want all the default MS software, you'll go to Windows Live to grab it. Bloat being: Media Player, the Movie Maker, Picture Gallery, etc. You'll get IE (cause you'll need something provided to go grab the stuff) and you'll get a pretty plain OS otherwise. I'm a huge fan of that.
        Other than that, I'm not sure if anything else has changed... But I expect that they've also worked on handling "very large files" and other stability stuff.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elashish14 ( 1302231 )

      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.

  • by plover ( 150551 ) * on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:29PM (#26249773) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:53PM (#26249953)

      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!

      • by lorenlal ( 164133 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:17PM (#26250157)

        Well done.

        But - You could see Vista as MS finally paying the piper for the insecurity that was MS-DOS, Windows 3, 95, 98, ME... And then still not enforcing any sort of security in 2000 and XP.

        It all depends on what your angle is I guess. Vista finally made people annoyed enough that software writers had to actually think about running software in a moderately secure context... In that regard, it was a good thing. I might not particularly love the way MS handled it (say, compared to Mac OS), but it was still a step in the right direction.

        If the Windows user base can finally be trained to run in a standard user mode, with proper mechanisms to perform administrative tasks, we'll all be better for it... and I'll give a lot of credit to the *nix communities for really pushing this need for all those years. A lot of us might hate MS for various reasons, but if they really can put out a better product, good for them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Vista is a lot like ME - a transitional stage where you have both the old and new stuff side by side, with just enough of each to make it crap.

          Take how they changed the filesystem layout and had shortcuts for all the old XP directories, or introduced annoying UAC messages when programs tried to do nasty things like adding start-up items that was common in XP, for example.

          Hopefully there will be none of this in Windows 7. Anything that hasn't learnt to do things the right way in Vista by now will just stop w

      • by Sparky McGruff ( 747313 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:21PM (#26250193)
        Sure, MS may be right about driver and application incompatibilities. But, when I bought a brand new laptop, pre-loaded with Vista, that has the Vista logo on the box, I don't want to hear that it's the fault of the network chipset provider that the wireless network works marginally at best. MS and the hardware vendors need to get their shit together, so that they don't tell me that a computer is "Win 7 Compatible" or comes pre-loaded with Win 7 when it really isn't.

        If you're trying to install a new OS on an old machine, that's one thing. You definitely need to do your homework to make sure that the off-brand network card you bought will work with the new OS. However, a new machine pre-loaded with the OS should run. If MS can't make sure that the OEMs have working machines before they slap a "Vista" or "Win 7" sticker on the damn thing, they should stop making software, period.
    • by Farmer Pete ( 1350093 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:07PM (#26250055)
      Most of the problems of Vista wasn't with Vista itself, it was with applications that were written poorly. I work for a company with ~2500 computers. We have over 10,000 unique pieces of software installed company wide. Many of those pieces of software were designed for Win95/98 and were only tweaked to work with XP. For example, they insist on installing to the root of C:\, the don't play well with multi-user installs, or they write data to their program files folder. I personally believe that Microsoft should get a medal for what they did with Vista, it's still a bitch to deal with, but they went out on a limb and tried to make programs behave properly. It's funny, if they hadn't done anything, people would have complained about the lack of security. They try to make apps behave like they do in other OS versions, and they get chastised endlessly. Hopefully you are correct and most widely used apps will be compatible with Windows 7. I didn't have any big issues with Vista, but many of utilities (A lot of it FOSS) I need to do my job didn't work under Vista.
  • by mcnazar ( 1231382 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:31PM (#26249785)

    Are Magazines/Tech review sites/Editorials real anymore or are they just industry backed reviews (aka advertisements)? Is advertisement driven content real journalism?

    I remember almost every tech journal I picked up a couple years ago reviewed Vista as the "New Coming". Yet, a year later these journals are bemoaning how Vista "sucks" (which it does btw).

    Excuse me for being cynical but I will take this review with a pinch of salt as other reports show that, at least benchmark wise, there is absolutely no difference between Vista and Windows 7.

    As for Windows 7 feeling "so much more responsive".. well, depends who is paying you to write that review innit?

  • by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:32PM (#26249799)

    "This beta exceeds the quality of any other Microsoft OS beta that I've handled."

    Is this person a politician because that is saying nothing.

    Too bad 2009 is going to be another year of hearing Microsoft lies and exaggerations regarding yet another Microsoft OS release. BFD, is what I say after 20 something years of the same junk year after year after year. I gave up when Windows 2000 came out and they started shoveling more user level stuff into the kernel and they never fixed the security system. That was in 1999, over 8 years ago and they still are trying to build an operating system worth a hill of beans. Well, it's all about marketing at MS so what you see in print is not what you get and never has.

    in 2009, I'll be wading through the MS marketing drivel for what's going on in the embedded, netbook, and MID areas with regards to the ARM Cortex chips and especially the A9 dual core versions. A8 is amazing on the performance front and power front. This should prove very interesting along with what Android, Ubuntu, and others do on these platforms.

    So long MSFT, 2009 is probably going to be another tough year of marketing against real solutions. And though you may have smashed the OLPC and dashed their plans of helping millions of children, they kicked off a resurrection of the light weight small form-factor device you just can't compete on. IMO.


  • by sleeponthemic ( 1253494 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:36PM (#26249823) Homepage
    Rather than wasting our time with a new GUI, I'd like to see Microsoft get the ball rolling on full, proper migration to 64 bit. Perhaps I'm a "power user" but for a sound designer, this 2 gig limit per app/~3.5 max feels more and more like 640 kb all over again.

    (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).
    • by talz13 ( 884474 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:47PM (#26249909)
      Yes, I was disappointed when I heard that vista was going to have a 32 bit version. If microsoft wants to push the transition to 64 bit, they really need to make a 64 bit only version.

      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.
      • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:10PM (#26250091) Homepage

        There is simply no way for them to do that without alienating TONS of business customers.

        Look at it this way, I work at a college, we have thousands of computers. Only maybe 100 of which replaced in the last year are able to support 64bit operating systems and those still only have 1 -2 gigs of ram. If they released 64bit only the chance that we would switch anytime in the next 7 years (which would be how long it is going to take on our 5 year amortization cycle) is zero. We would be forced to continue to use XP, or migrate to linux.

        I suppose vista could be an option in that case. However, our plan was to skip vista in the hopes that by the time Win7 was released many of our software vendors would have upgraded their applications to run properly on vista and windows 7. If microsoft released a 64bit only win7 then many of those vendors would probably skip fixing their 32bit apps to run on vista and thus require us to move to 64bit windows 7. Faced with such a huge cost in hardware to do that, I'm not sure what we would do.

    • Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      I'm no fan of MS, but what exactly do you propose they do? They offer 64-bit variants that can run 64-bit applications of their supported platforms. They provide the platform to allow this specific thing. They provide the tools to develop for this.

      What you have is commercial application providers flat-out ignoring 64-bit capability, as it is easier to target the 32-bit subset that works both on Pentium 4 and such and new. You have to make the vendors release 64-bit enabled builds. Linux suffers from thi

  • Compare with XP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:39PM (#26249855)

    Comparing Windows 7 to Vista is useless, at least to someone like me. I love XP, having never had any serious problems with it whatsoever. It's by far the most stable OS I have ever used. Tell (and prove to) me that Windows 7 is better than XP, and I will show great interest in switching. Tell me 7 is better than Vista, and you don't have a chance.

  • by DanWS6 ( 1248650 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:44PM (#26249887)
    What are the improvements? Have they added in WinFS yet?
  • by igb ( 28052 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:46PM (#26249901)
    1. Consumers don't put a new OS on Wintel platforms, they buy a new system.
    2. Businesses don't spend money without some sort of justification.
    3. Moore's Law is now adding more cores and threads, not more mippage on a single task.
    4. Disks, RAM and other drivers of new equipment purchase are pretty much ``as much as you want for as little as you want''.
    5. Netbooks and small laptops are the current hot items.
    6. XBoxes and the like are providing gamers with an alternative to PCs
    7. The economy has tanked since Vista shipped.

    All that being the case, why on earth do we care about Windows 7? If Microsoft couldn't get people to migrate off XP with benign economic circumstance and ready availability of credit, why do we think it's going to happen this time?


    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by buddyglass ( 925859 )

      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:

      1. I've updated my desktop from Win2k to XP, my dad's desktop from Win98 to XP, and a friend's laptop from Win2k to XP. So it happens.
      2. Agreed. However, "XP
  • by Doug52392 ( 1094585 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @12:55PM (#26249969)
    File name: Windows.7.Beta.1.Build_7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULFRE_EN_DVD.iso [MSDN iSO]
    Size: 2,618,793,984 bytes (2.44 GB) []
  • by shatfield ( 199969 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:01PM (#26250011)

    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.

  • by aGF2c2hleA ( 1370123 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:10PM (#26250087)
    I think their plan is to mimic the look and feel of Gnome or KDE, you know, to ease the transition for mom and pop when they switch to linux
  • by Lord Byron II ( 671689 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:27PM (#26250221)
    I can understand somebody wanting the pirated version of a video game, or even a release-version of an OS, but who in their right mind would tie up their Internet connection for a day and risk the legal trouble and possibility of a virus/worm/backdoor to download a beta copy of an operating system that's built on the most reviled version of Windows since WinMe?
  • Let's Reiterate... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by His Shadow ( 689816 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:31PM (#26250249) Homepage Journal
    For those incapable of following the train of thought, here it is...

    There is no such thing as Windows 7. This is not a new code base, it is not an overhaul of Windows framework. Windows 7 is Vista Service Pack 2. The Windows 7 bullshit coming out of Microsoft's propaganda machine is a concerted and direct effort to bury the name Vista and all the bad press associated with it. That anyone has bought into this crap is astounding. Vista was several years delayed. Now we have hordes of people believing that MS got a new OS out the door in 18 months? Wake up already.

  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:49PM (#26250433) Homepage

    It's apparent that Windows 7 represents a radical name change from Vista. A bold new direction in OS branding.

    And people say innovation is dead in Redmond.

  • Features? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @01:59PM (#26250519) Homepage

    Over 100 comments and we still don't have a concise list of substantial features Windows 7 offers over Vista? As someone else pointed out, a name and theme change does not really qualify as substantial change. Ok, so WinFS was never promised for this version. What exactly are they offering this time besides a fix to the taskbar? I have yet to see an article that outlines changes outside the UI. Is this an elaborate prank?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28, 2008 @04:34PM (#26251699)

    IMHO MS just "doesn't get it" and is doing stupid things by design, maybe the problem is too much "design by committee" or something.

    The problem with Vista / Win7 / etc. wasn't that they tried to do TOO MUCH, it's that they tried to to TOO LITTLE. They're about 10 years BEHIND the current hardware (the mainstream CPU has been '64 bit' for YEARS even on low end parts). Given Moore's law it'll be even more pathetically inadequate in 2009/2010 when we're supposedly to be using Win7. By then we'll have at least cheap 16GB RAM, 64GB SSDs, 2TB HDDs for a song, 8 core 64 GFLOP CPUs, 2 TFLOP GPUs, better HD screens, 4Mbit/s+ broadband into more and more houses, and still we'll be stuck with .... notepad .... and corrupted registries and driver cleaner / crap cleaner / applications that won't install / uninstall / backup / transfer properly most of which being 32 bit.

    Now for netbooks / mobile internet devices, OK, yes, for those, design a lean efficient low bloat OS. That is not the same product as your desktop / laptop offering.

    I have relatively little problem with 'bloat' if it gets me major new generations of CAPABILITIES. Wake up, the HARDWARE we use today is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the SOFTWARE's capabilities to even USE it in 99% of the cases. Lack of 64 bit applications and applications that intelligently use RAM is one example -- 8GB of RAM costs as little as $40 today. Every one of my family's desktops has 8GB installed now, and if it wasn't for the stupid limitations of the motherboard / chipset, I'd have put 16GB or 32GB into the heavily used machines for these kinds of (commodity) RAM prices.

    My quad core CPU is still something like 90% idle doing most OS / web / desktop stuff even under Vista with all the eye candy on. If I complain about it being *slow* it is probably because it is ALGORITHMICALLY broken in some buggy brain damaged way (like the horrible network throughput when you're playing audio or something) not because it is inherently trying to do something that exceeds the capabilities of my actual hardware given well designed software.

    The main problem is that we can't even take good advantage of the multi-gigabytes of RAM, multi-terabytes of disc, multi-cores of CPUs, multi-teraflops of GPUs we have. A typical 'power user' desktop today exceeds the compute / RAM / storage capabilities of a 'supercomputer' in the 1990s, yet we're using a OS design / implementation that is BARELY any better than what we had then -- e.g. NTFS, FAT32, 32 bit OS being the most common, et. al.

    I wouldn't care too much if they wrote vast portions of the whole OS in something uber bloated / slow like VB or JAVA as long as the performance critical bits were fast and the overall thing was well designed for reliability, stability, and easy extensibility to take full advantage of the system.

    There needs to be a REVOLUTIONARY improvement in things like filesystems (say start with ZFS then migrate MOST EVERYTHING to use a full featured relational database model on top of that with MAJOR emphasis on metadata, schema use, RDF, et. al.). There needs to be a REVOLUTIONARY improvement in things like BACKUP. Ever had a 1.44 MB floppy or CD go bad on you and lose valuable data? Didn't that suck? The average joe in 2009 will be having 1TB drives! Can you imagine losing a LIFETIME of data in one catastrophic event -- ALL your family pictures / movies from maybe 3 generations of family, ALL your documents, ALL your personal files, et. al.? That's going to be a common occurrence due to viruses, hardware failure, or whatever, and the OSs like VISTA are just PATHETICALLY mis-designed to help people manage their storage / data / metadata, do backups, do searches, synchronize, transfer, etc. -- basically they're beyond uselessly bad at giving storage management resources. Heck not a day goes by that I am not even limited by the silly 128 character 'path length' 'limits' even in the latest VISTA 64.
    No, Windows Home Server is not a solution. Forget backwa

  • by Simulant ( 528590 ) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @05:31PM (#26252117) Journal

    Can it copy files from one place to another in a reasonable amount of time now? Without tweaking?

    Does the interface still hang for no apparent reason when browsing for files?

    Are they still using hard links for the user profile directories?

    I've tried Vista several times and as of a few weeks ago, with the latest beta SP, it's still crap at some of most basic things an operating should be good at.... navigation and pushing data around.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith