[Andres]

So has anyone downloaded Windows 7 beta? Did you have any compatibility issue? How fast was it to turn on compared to Vista or XP?

[dwix]

Not yet. I will eventually. "Beta" scares me though.

[Zagadka]

It is very nice, much faster, much better memory usage. UI is a little inconvenient to set up, but the features are nice, it is stable, etc. Can't wait for launch.

I did have some probs installing.

[Andres]

Zagadka, did you have any drivers issues? What do you mean by the UI being a little inconvenient to set up. I had no intention of upgrading to Vista, and I'll wait at least until W7 is given a service pack before upgrading, but at some point I will upgrade.

[Oblisk]

W7 is great so far. Hopefully I can skip Vista and get on W7. Although Vista is still good.


That being said, Intel is retarded for saying that W7 Beta is "much more stable than Vista".

[MB.]

The WWIIONLINE beta used to erase your harddrive.

As for windows, I still use XP.

[Zagadka]

did you have any drivers issues?

None.

What do you mean by the UI being a little inconvenient to set up. I had no intention of upgrading to Vista, and I'll wait at least until W7 is given a service pack before upgrading, but at some point I will upgrade.

I had some install issues with corrupt drivers during install. I'm not sure what caused the problem, but on the second try it went perfectly smooth.

Setting up the UI to re-enable the status bar, the folder tree in explorer view, etc takes a bit, like all versions of Windows, but it is easy enough.

The WWIIONLINE beta used to erase your harddrive.

As for windows, I still use XP.

That was completely irrelevant. Thanks.

[Mensdux]

Not yet. I will eventually. "Beta" scares me though.

Are you talking about Windows Vista? Do you know what you're calling "updates" are just bugs fixes?
Ask yourself why Windows XP is still supported more than seven years after...

[Zagadka]

Are you talking about Windows Vista? Do you know what you're calling "updates" are just bugs fixes?

... every program gets bug fixes years after launch... how many updates have there been to the Linux kernel since Vista launched?

How DARE they release bug fixes!

OK, let's compare. FireFox has been around for a while. I started using it at M7 or so. How many patches have there been for FireFox since then? How many thousands of people are looking at the code and submitting bugs? How much more complex is an operating system than a web browser?

Ask yourself why Windows XP is still supported more than seven years after...

... you seem to put MS in a bind here. They can't release any updates at all (as you outlined clearly above), and they also can't support older operating systems? Every OS release has to be solid code that doesn't change for 7 years? The OS runs off a ROM drive?

Maybe they can be like Apple and release tiny OS updates with catchy names and one or two added features every year and call it improvement, then run commercials bragging about how it can run Office.

The main reason there hasn't been widespread adaption of Vista is because it does not add much to a corporate environment (unless you're a system admin), and a bunch of idiots with 1 mb of RAM and not knowing how to configure the security settings complaining about it being slow. Vista really isn't any better or worse than XP, depending on your system specs and knowledge.

[Adrien]

It's not completely related but I feel like complaining so there. I installed the Intrepid Ibex update of Ubuntu rather quickly after it was released, and though it runs way more smoothly now than then, after a crapload of updates some things are still iffy. Next time I'll wait a bit longer.

[Mensdux]

... every program gets bug fixes years after launch...

Vista have a lot of security failures. As exemple, it's possible for me or all others "programs" to move/delete/rename/switch an important system file. Ok it's fine it had fixe under Seven but it's not the one. This thing just not exist on others OS. Let's have a look after ZFS (SunOS files manager). Ok it's need a time to be ported under Gnu/Linux, but it exist under Machintosh and (x)BSD. So, Microsoft have a lot of engineers, a lot of money, why are them still running a 64bits files manager?

and a bunch of idiots with 1 mb of RAM and not knowing how to configure the security settings complaining about it being slow

The FNAC stores sells computers with Vista and with 512Mo of RAM... And I'm not sure that the evolution is too slow to heavy, but much too fast too tiny, like hum... All others operating systems? Gentoo Gnu/Linux with Enlightenment 17 needs only 64Mo to run, and it's more beautifull than Aero.
But you are right on this point, morons who are saying Vista is too slow have (much people) no anti-virus and their firewall desactivated. It's a bad thing because for people who dosen't know nothing it's very simple to use Vista (even if I can't understand why Microsoft haven't adopt the repositories system).


Personnaly, I am runnig Jacklab Gnu/Linux and Windows Vista.

[Oblisk]

You can disable the automatic restarts but still enable automatic updates.