›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Windows 7

AndrewAndrew
edited October 2008 in Technology
Ars Technica has the first look at Windows 7

image

Thoughts?
«13456

Comments

  • fluxflux
    They should seriously change that cheap-looking and clicheed aero theme of theirs
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    I'm still waiting for the Windows team to top Win2k. This might be getting there, maybe the version after could do it.
  • AprecheApreche
    Looks like Vista and Gnome have mated.
  • C-o-r-EC-o-r-E
    Article seems to focus on "Look and feel" and gives me an impression that all they changed is explorer (just a program.) I'm more interested to hear about core functionality and performance MS is planning to provide; what did they change to warrant an "upgrade"? My feeling is that its mostly a press stunt and there will be nothing impressive to come out of 7. Perhaps it will be a finely tuned vista but knowing MS, system resource requirements don't go down with time.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    Looks like Vista and Gnome have mated.
    I actually thought KDE4 when I first saw it.
    What features are everyone hoping the keep in before releasing?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • JoeLamerJoeLamer
    Vista sales are doing badly (especially) in corporations and Microsoft needs to do a "new" version quickly for these users. That way IT managers can say that ok we have been saving lots of money by skipping over one version of Windows. And consumers can say to everybody how "Vista was so bad but Windows 7 is something different". This is just the same stuff as Vista but with few years worth of development added here and there.
  • Loganator456Loganator456
    Looks kinda ugly, in my opinion.
  • KieyKiey
    Looks like Vista, which is all well and good since I care more about everything in the new Windows aside from its appearance.
  • JohnUJohnU
    The more versions of Windows I meet the more I like XP, and Ubuntu.
  • TyashkiTyashki
    • Gadgets on the desktop are good, I never used the sidebar but I do like the gadgets.
    • The notification area in the bottom corner is now more customisable!
    • I never had a problem with UAC, but it can now be finetuned and application specific.
    • Less bundles apps is good.
    • They're targeting it towards netbooks, and it has multitouch support, this could mean that the memory footprint is much lower than vista.
    • Microsoft have changed their development paradigm. If a feature is only in a build when it is complete. So hopefully less features disappear this time 'round.
    I hate to buckle the trend here, but I actually like where they are going. I'd put this on my Macbook rather readily.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    • Gadgets on the desktop are good, I never used the sidebar but I do like the gadgets.
    • The notification area in the bottom corner is now more customisable!
    • I never had a problem with UAC, but it can now be finetuned and application specific.
    • Less bundles apps is good.
    • They're targeting it towards netbooks, and it has multitouch support, this could mean that the memory footprint is much lower than vista.
    • Microsoft have changed their development paradigm. If a feature is only in a build when it is complete. So hopefully less features disappear this time 'round.
    I hate to buckle the trend here, but I actually like where they are going. I'd put this on my Macbook rather readily.
    Same here.Once I upgrade the ram on my laptop, I'd be more than willing to put seven on it.
  • konistehradkonistehrad
    I hate to buckle the trend here, but I actually like where they are going.
    Yeah, I have to say I'm excited to see what Microsoft cooks up for 7, and glad I gave Vista the pass. It would appear they're building on their strengths (new display driver model, fancy-pants gadgets) while addressing the concerns people had (memory concerns, laptop support, UAC). Obviously I'll reserve judgement until I get to use it, but I think they're heading in the right direction.
  • TyashkiTyashki
    I like how they're saying that the features that ARE in 7 already are complete. So once I get my hands on a beta it'll be a good yardstick of what the final will perform like.
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    We are not impressed.
  • Josh BytesJosh Bytes
    I like the libraries function. It will be great for users who don't know how or refuse to organize their files in designated folders.
  • NorvuNorvu
    Looks like vista apart from the task-bar and I like the task bar in vista more.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    edited October 2008
    And consumers can say to everybody how "Vista was so bad but Windows 7 is something different".
    How exactly is Vista "so bad?"
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Try using it on any system that can just about run XP.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Try using it on any system that can just about run XP.
    Thats like saying "Windows 98 was bad. Try running it on any system that can just about support Windows 95." What a stupid argument.
  • ......
    Try using it on any system that can just about run XP.
    Thats like saying "Windows 98 was bad. Try running it on any system that can just about support Windows 95." What a stupid argument.
    Try running it on a 'Vista-capable' certified system.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Try running it on a 'Vista-capable' certified system.
    It runs great on my PC. No issues at all.
  • ......
    Try running it on a 'Vista-capable' certified system.
    It runs great on my PC. No issues at all.
    That's not what I meant. What I am talking about are the computers that were being sold when Vista just came out with those fancy Vista-capable sticker on them. They were not Vista-capable.
  • AprecheApreche
    Vista is AOK on my computer. Granted, it's not really all that different from XP for what I use it for, but it is more secure.
  • AndrewAndrew
    That's not what I meant. What I am talking about are the computers that were being sold when Vista just came out with those fancy Vista-capable sticker on them. They were not Vista-capable.
    Let's talk about all the computers that were sold as XP-capable when it first came out, but weren't. You people just have selective memory and don't remember the issues XP had when it first came out.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I like the look of it, but I can do all of what 7 does in Gnome or KDE, and that's what I'm going to do.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    Thats like saying "Windows 98 was bad. Try running it on any system that can just about support Windows 95." What a stupid argument.
    XP runs fine on a system that runs 2k and Ubuntu can get you all Vista's visual effects on the same system. What's so stupid about an operating system not being ass slow.
    I also second Nineless's argument though that may have been something to do with Intel.
    That's not what I meant. What I am talking about are the computers that were being sold when Vista just came out with those fancy Vista-capable sticker on them. They were not Vista-capable.
    Let's talk about all the computers that were sold as XP-capable when it first came out, but weren't. You people just have selective memory and don't remember the issues XP had when it first came out.
    Now here is an example of a stupid argument. Screwing up in the past doesn't make screwing up in the present any better.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited October 2008
    Now here is an example of a stupid argument.Screwing up in the past doesn't make screwing up in the present any better.
    It's not an issue of screwing up. Computers are getting more and more powerful every day. Just because your 486 cannot run a brand new operating system does not mean that the OS is bad.

    Furthermore, the main issue is the development paradigm. Open Source software is developed in a completely different manner than projects like Windows. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but you can't really compare the semi-annual releases of Ubuntu and other Linux distro's to 5-10 year cycles of other operating systems.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    You're going too far back with the 486 thing. I find it hard to see what the immense power consumption increase actually gets you. It has a lot of good features but these are constantly overshadowed by the fact that it is designed for top of the range systems when things like Linux [OSX? probably not] can do the same with much less and leave more for things people want to be doing.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • AndrewAndrew
    You're going to far back with the 486 thing.
    It's called hyperbole.
  • JoeLamerJoeLamer
    And consumers can say to everybody how "Vista was so bad but Windows 7 is something different".
    How exactly is Vista "so bad?"
    The main reasons I've seen so far is that users have been trying to run it in a machine that has not enough horsepower (especially RAM) and the other thing is that Vista just works differently (UAC, network settings and many other new Vista specific features). And once many critics and journalists announced that Vista is not so good the word has spread out. For Microsoft Vista has been a real marketing problem.

    Personally I don't have problems with Vista and it runs happily in some of my computers.
Sign In or Register to comment.