@Joe Boomer, DirectX 11? In several years you will want to buy and build a new (gaming) rig, no? At that point you'll have a machine that can play most of the games of that year at pretty much perfect settings. I agree that getting Windows 7 at release might not be the greatest idea, but I never said anything in that regard. Support for Windows XP will run out eventually. And since Windows 7 is going to run lighter than Vista, after all, Microsoft wants to have Windows 7 run on netbooks instead of XP. No reason not to update eventually if you ask me.
@Joe Boomer, DirectX 11? In several years you will want to buy and build a new (gaming) rig, no? At that point you'll have a machine that can play most of the games of that year at pretty much perfect settings. I agree that getting Windows 7 at release might not be the greatest idea, but I never said anything in that regard. Support for Windows XP will run out eventually. And since Windows 7 is going to run lighter than Vista, after all, Microsoft wants to have Windows 7 run on netbooks instead of XP. No reason not to update eventually if you ask me.
It's true that support will fade eventually; I believe support will last for another 2 years (10 years of updates, no?). DirectX has never been a priority of mine in any way, despite being a gamer. I'm fine with my directX 9 and game option tweaks, thank you very much. Although I haven't actually done much research on benefits of each newer version of DirectX, the fact that DirectX 10 was for vista only annoyed me. I'm speaking with no factual evidence to back me up, but why couldn't Microsoft put DirectX 10 in XP? Was there any technical reason not to, or was it a way of getting more sales for vista? Similarily, what about DirectX 11? Will that be Windows 7 only, and why can't it be put on XP (and vista if microsoft decides to go that route)?
Of course, I'm going to upgrade when the time is right. I'm just snuggling comfortably with XP right now, and I was sort of hopeful that Linux would get more support for mainstream games (a foolish dream which fell apart quite quickly). There's just nothing out there that has me jumping for joy, nothing that is enough of an incentive to upgrade currently and in the near future. I'm not going to stick with XP forever though!
I'm speaking with no factual evidence to back me up, but why couldn't Microsoft put DirectX 10 in XP? Was there any technical reason not to, or was it a way of getting more sales for vista?
God, don't quote me on this, but I think there were technical reasons not to port DX10 to XP's code. I think XP would've required an overhaul in some libraries. But again, don't quote me on that.
Similarily, what about DirectX 11? Will that be Windows 7 only, and why can't it be put on XP (and vista if microsoft decides to go that route)?
For XP, most likely the same reason why 'Vista's' DX10 didn't port to XP. I haven't heard, or bothered researching, anything about DX11 not being for Vista.
God, don't quote me on this, but I think there were technical reasons not to port DX10 to XP's code. I think XP would've required an overhaul in some libraries. But again, don't quote me on that.
That's what I heard, but I'm not sure if it's correct. Don't quote me on that.
God, don't quote me on this, but I think there were technical reasons not to port DX10 to XP's code. I think XP would've required an overhaul in some libraries. But again, don't quote me on that.
That's what I heard, but I'm not sure if it's correct. Don't quote me on that.
It seems like everyone says it was just a marketing ploy, which I always take with a grain of salt. It's like no one is ever 100% sure about why it never went on XP, and everyone is telling what they think was the reason as to why it never happened.
Although having been leaked and available for weeks, Windows 7 Beta (build 7000) was made officially available today for download via MSDN, TechNet, and Connect.
I have been wanting a new computer for some time now. I've refused to get a machine with Vista. I suppose I could have bought one with XP, but paying good money for old technology didn't appeal to me, no matter how illogical that thought was.
Now the light is at the end of the tunnel. I hope that Windows 7 is really an improvement. So far so good. If not, I'm jumping ship to Apple.
I have been wanting a new computer for some time now. I've refused to get a machine with Vista. I suppose I could have bought one with XP, but paying good money for old technology didn't appeal to me, no matter how illogical that thought was.
Vista doesn't improve over XP for me. It merely offers eye candy at the expense of system performance. If Windows 7 is less of a resource hog than Vista, I will prefer Windows 7. I wouldn't mind XP either. But those machines are getting harder to find. I'm not a computer geek, so I don't want to fool around with installing my own OS.
Vista doesn't improve over XP for me. It merely offers eye candy at the expense of system performance. If Windows 7 is less of a resource hog than Vista, I will prefer Windows 7.
What performance difference? The eye candy is handled by the GPU, which you aren't using unless you are playing a game. If you want, you can turn the eye candy off. Otherwise, Vista is at the very least, more secure than XP. Vista isn't super better than XP, but what is? The OS barely matters these days as more and more stuff moves to the web and the cloud.
I'm not a computer geek, so I don't want to fool around with installing my own OS.
Installing an OS is stupid easy. Put the CD or DVD in the drive. Turn the computer on. Click next a bunch of times. Tell it which hard drive to install to. Click next a few more times. Enter key if necessary. Done.
Benchmarks != real world. If I setup two computers with identical hardware, one XP and one Vista. Then I changed them to have the same visual theme, so you couldn't tell the difference. Do you really think you could tell which was which? I doubt it. If you've got XP already, there's no reason to pay to upgrade to Vista. If you're getting a new computer, there's no reason to avoid Vista. The only excuse to try to get a computer without one is if you plan to run Linux, and don't want to pay the MIcrosoft tax.
Huh? The second test I listed tested Microsoft Office. That's the exact type of thing I would be using. They even gave Vista twice the RAM over XP and used a 2GHz Core 2 Duo. Why upgrade my machine if Vista negates the faster components? I could understand if Vista gave you something that XP didn't, but the difference is minor.
Huh? The second test I listed tested Microsoft Office. That's the exact type of thing I would be using. They even gave Vista twice the RAM over XP and used a 2GHz Core 2 Duo. Why upgrade my machine if Vista negates the faster components? I could understand if Vista gave you something that XP didn't, but the difference is minor.
I wasn't aware there were issues with performance in an office suite. Seriously? When you type, the letters show up effectively instantly. What possible slowness could there be? Even if when you take out your trusty measuring stick Vista gets a lower score, it doesn't mean jack or shit for the actual user experience.
I could understand if Vista gave you something that XP didn't, but the difference is minor.
This is exactly what I'm saying. The differences between all operating systems, as far as normal users are concerned, are becoming very small. Web browsing, instant messaging, printing, listening to music, watching movies, the experience is pretty much the same no matter what machine you use, or what OS it has. The only people who notice are people who do serious business, like maybe editing videos, 3d work, or software development.
There's no reason to pay money to upgrade to Vista if you've got XP, that's for certain. But if you're getting a new machine, and you're going to have to buy Windows anyway, there's no reason to run away from Vista to XP. Just take whatever. It's all the same shit.
I just installed the beta today, and I'm really happy with it. I never played with Vista much other than on users' computers, but I love what they've done with it. Maybe it's just because of the visual change from XP, but I'm gonna be playing with it as my main OS.
Both Vista and Windows 7 have lots of other changes other than just eyecandy. If you use your computer from something productive (as everyone should) you may not notice the changes but or those that build bigger PC networks the changes are pretty good (like what has been happening around security after XP). So there's lots of things that have happened under the hood. So if you are getting a new machine I would not recommend a downgrade to XP unless you really need it.
Then another note about Windows 7. The MSDN version (with keys :-) arrived after CES as expected and from based on the release document it's still a good idea to use read-only MP3's with the Windows beta version. If MP3 files contain lots of metadata a bug might cause part of file to be wiped out. This has been reported in several Windows 7 related newsposts so this isn't really nothing new. I just hoped they had fixed this but at this point I will not plug in my whole MP3 library into Windows 7 box.
I just downloaded a leaked build 7000 and burned it to a DVD. After the geekchat, I'm gonna backup my personal files and install windows 7 on my main computer. If it's stable enough for Paul Thurrott, it's good enough for me. My only hiccup might be my ram. Its just over 1.25 GB. Other than that my cpu should be fine. If not, big deal, I'll just wipe it out and install Vista.
The RAM usage was a pleasant surprise - "only" 400 megs in use compared to almost the double Vista uses after initial installation. So in fact I was able to install Win7 to my old test laptop with only 512 megs memory and now it's running there pretty happily. I'll have a look at the features and application compatibility on that machine first and then decide where to put it next.
After the announced delay on Friday it looks like anybody can now download the official beta release. Just got my beta key and I'm downloading Windows 7 now.
I already have an email address. I have no need for a crappy hotmail one. Heck, I dropped that horrible service the moment I got my gmail invite, never want to go back to that high school nightmare.
Fine, you guys can stick to your 7 year old XP with its dodgey wireless support and I'll stick with my shiny Vista that just works without a problem.
Excuse me? Sorry, I never heard about a single problem with wireless cards under XP. On the contrary, at first Vista had absolutely no support because of late third-party drivers. Either way, you enjoy your 2 year old sluggy Vista, while I beta Windows 7 alongside my 2 month old Ubuntu.
Actually, he's right about the wireless thing. I wanted to set up a dual boot on my laptop the last time I did a clean install of Ubuntu. My XP disc predates either SP, and on it's own there was absolutely no default wireless support. I tried the manual set up, but it totally sucked. With no way to get internet and update it, I rebooted and installed Ubuntu straight over the partitions. In terms of support of many features that are basic today, XP is horribly outdated.
Comments
Of course, I'm going to upgrade when the time is right. I'm just snuggling comfortably with XP right now, and I was sort of hopeful that Linux would get more support for mainstream games (a foolish dream which fell apart quite quickly). There's just nothing out there that has me jumping for joy, nothing that is enough of an incentive to upgrade currently and in the near future. I'm not going to stick with XP forever though!
Now the light is at the end of the tunnel. I hope that Windows 7 is really an improvement. So far so good. If not, I'm jumping ship to Apple.
There's no reason to pay money to upgrade to Vista if you've got XP, that's for certain. But if you're getting a new machine, and you're going to have to buy Windows anyway, there's no reason to run away from Vista to XP. Just take whatever. It's all the same shit.
Then another note about Windows 7. The MSDN version (with keys :-) arrived after CES as expected and from based on the release document it's still a good idea to use read-only MP3's with the Windows beta version. If MP3 files contain lots of metadata a bug might cause part of file to be wiped out. This has been reported in several Windows 7 related newsposts so this isn't really nothing new. I just hoped they had fixed this but at this point I will not plug in my whole MP3 library into Windows 7 box.
Windows 7 Beta Download
That being said, I only still run XP on this laptop because it's 4 years old. The new lappy will be running shiny Vista Ultimate.