Printable View
Anyone tried the public beta yet?
It's.....well, a let down
(although I wasn't expecting that much, but still)
aside from the obvious lack of software
(all I've got to play with is media player, paint and IE)
there's just nothing else
there's no driver available for my network card, so no internet or LAN connection
I've run out of things to do with it inside half an hour
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
Mandatory XKCD...
but no, i havnt tried it, but if nothing else, it really does look quite pretty.
i agree, soooooooo muchQuote:
Originally Posted by no-name
I havent tried it either, im just not game enough
I'm reading old xkcd comics right now. :D
oh yea i forgot windows 7 is coming out.
is the user interface any good, that was the only thing good about vista, everything else ssucked, to be honest, i would rather a rubbish UI, and it actually being able to do stuff.
Windows 7 is going to show us the route of Microsoft. If it flops, they are going to pull an IBM and fall from the top, and fall hard. Take your money out of MS stocks if you have it.
They have to pull an incredible release out of their ass. Apple is growing in popularity incredibly fast and OSX is solid as a rock and has a huge selection of software for it. IBM, Dell, and HP are all selling computers with Ubuntu pre-installed and a little advertising is all that is needed to start a huge Linux push as well.
If Windows 7 flops, I can see OSX being the dominate operating system and Linux having a 10% share by 2015.
In a way I want Windows 7 to do well, because I'm one of the lazy consumers that once I learn how to do something I don't care to change over.
It's not that I'm a MSoft fanboy, I just don't care enough to make the effort(of which there really is none) to switch my OS creator since I first started using Win98.
But I also want them to do poorly, which will force them to be twice as good as XP in order to get back in the game next time around.
if 7 tanks there probably won't be a next time
Windows 7 is pretty good, definitely better than Vista. It uses less power, it's faster, the new interface is kinda like OSX (which is cool), and it's got pre-installed drivers for virtually everything.
I like it so far, aside for a few bugs. It's extremely well running and performing for a beta, and I might actually just buy the full version once it's released (atleast for my laptop).
I can definitely recommend it, and I don't know what XKCD is one about. He's just being the stupid asshole that he usually is I suppose.
As a side note, remember to install it as a dual boot. I didn't and now I have to manually delete all of my applications and install them again.
How it runs has little relevance to my hatred of Windows. I hate it from a developer's point of view. The registry makes me want to tear my ear off and eat it. C:\Program Files should burn in hell, and so should the idea of dlls.
I also don't like the fact that they claim to do so much innovation when those of us who are in the industry know that Apple and the Linux community did it first. It being almost everything.
you forget that Vista (Longhorn) beta 1 was praised for it's speed as well, it was only after beta 2 that things nosedivedQuote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
There's an old saying "You can't polish shit." Windows will not be good until they remove the registry, defragment on the fly, remove the dll based support, and beef up the low level security.
Mythbusters proved you actually can shine shit.
Just saying.
You guys are too negative. Windows 7 is a huge OSX rip-off, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it sucks. I'd rather run OSX, but since it doesn't have as much support as Windows, I don't. Until games can run on OSX, I'm staying with Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Most game companies release version for both because of the growing popularity of OSX.
Even if Windows 7 looks exactly like OSX, it's still windows under the hood and that's where most of the problems are. As much as the Explorer interface sucks compared to Aqua, NT vs Darwin isn't even a contest.
I suppose. This is plenty good enough for me though.
I gave Windows 7 a shot in Virtual PC after grabbing the beta. It ran pretty well when I had it set to 512MB RAM, which I was pretty impressed with. Although I couldn't use Aero or anything like that in Virtual PC anyway.
I suppose the new taskbar is something I can get used to, but I still do not like the MSOffice ribbon! What was so wrong with the menu bar in Wordpad and Paint? If they are intent on keeping this thing, at least make it smaller or something, geez.
Anyway, if they can keep the development in the direction it's going, I think I may skip Vista for 7 instead when it comes time for me to ditch XP.
The thing is, the only reason why people refuse to step over to Linux/OSX is that they're too lazy to switch over.
The step is a bit smaller for IE-FireFox, but many people don't do that either. As a web developer I absolutely hate IE :P
But back to windows 7 :)
Is it faster than previous OS's? What about the GFX?
I agree with Ninja that it needs a huge overhaul. Throw out the registry, kill the dlls.
It's annoying how much your computer gets filled up with crap over the time if you're running windows. I usually clean up by hand (as there aren't really any very good cleaning progs), but it takes ages...
They're aiming for a 7 second boot time, but I think that's that something they cannot do. Windows is just to cluttery for that. You get 7 seconds on the very first, clean boot, but once you start installing stuff, you'll get 1 minute boot times, I think.
______________
I also don't like microsoft, because what they really are, is a bunch of rippers and stealers, while presenting it as their own.
The mouse: Apple's Idea! The Zune: Iphone, anyone? IE: What, copied Netscape's source code?
The list goes on and on. All of this combined with sloppy programming and security...
Blegh.
</rant>
I'm downloading it right now, backing up all my stuff also; i want to do a clean intall, computers been running slower lately.
Every company copies, if they dident then software and tech would get nowhere.
7 seconds? Shit, OSX takes a good 15. :shock: There is no way that Microsoft will make a 7 second boot time.
Get all DirectX games to run on OSX/Linux, and I will switch. Also, they need to run as well as on Windows, or better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
Lots of companies are switching to OpenGL because no platforms support DirectX other than windows and XBox, so Direct X games lose a huge part of the market.
That was my point, and that's why I'm not switching. I have a lot of games on Steam, and I'd hate not being able to play them. I know that me staying with Windows instead of rebelling and going OSX/Linux is not helping the situation, but I simply can't live without all my games :P
Marvo, just check appdb.wine.org to see which of your games run on Linux under Wine. I don't play computer games, but I've heard that at least some Steam games like HL2, Counterstrike, etc. work great in Wine.
That wouldn't be all my Steam games, now would it? No, and that's the problem. By switching OS I can no longer play all the games that I paid money for, and I'm not about to run a damn dual boot.
Your old games you can use an old computer for. News games are going to become almost exclusively OpenGL because there is a new OpenGL coming out, DirectX 10 is a flop, and the 3 most popular platforms don't have any DirectX support at all.
I only have one gaming computer. All the games I currently play require a lot of power, and unless they get them to run on OpenCL somehow, I'm not switching.
And that would pretty much kill one of the major features of windows: backwards compatability.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
Well, that says more about those other apps than windows now doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
No it wasn't. Learn your computer history!Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
He's right, Xerox built the first modern mouse, they just never released it. Apple bought it from Xerox, Microsoft pirated it from Apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker
Not really. Xerox didn't invent it (but they did sell systems with them, just not very successful ones) and several companies sold workstations with them before apple picked it up. That microsoft should have stolen any of the design elements in early windows from apple is impossible to say. Both companies were heavily "inspired" by star. (Or go ahead and say that microsoft stole it. In that case so did apple and the point is moot.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I've had it downloaded for a few days, but have not got around to trying it out. I don't know why, I just don't really feel like it. :?
May have something to do with me requiring cleaning out one of my hard drives. Virtual machines are pointless if you want the full OS experience, else I would have installed it on one by now.
I'm not switching simply because I have never had a problem with Windows. I've used 95, 98SE, XP, and now Vista64.Quote:
I'm not switching.
I don't understand what people's issue with installing tons of things and having long boot times are. We are not running Pentium 3s with 64MB of RAM anymore. The only thing that gets effected, from my point of view, is my boot time. My computer maybe takes a minute to boot (the only slow thing). Once it is up an running, it stays up for a very long amount of time. Everything runs quickly, and it never slows down.
There was a time when I tweaked the shit out of Windows so that it would feel very responsive. With Vista, I haven't touched a thing. Hopefully Win7 takes off, but to be honest, I'm not feeling much an urge to upgrade, but then again I have to try it out. I should get around to that sometime soon.