OSDev.org

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/window ... nload.aspx

I still have the beta installed in VirtualBox and I don't exactly plan on downloading another few GB of stuff I'll delete in six or seven months (says the guy who downloaded Windows Server 2008's 180-day trial a month ago and hasn't used it for anything...)

Comments?

XP is the quintessence of microsoft. I think they actually don't know what are trying to do. They program something... to win more money... but do they have any better idea than including alpha channel in windows graphic, or redesign MS Office? I think they are out of ideas.

I've been using Windows 7 since Beta 1 and have to say that it is very good. Far better than XP, and infinitely more so than Vista. I haven't had any problems with compatibility, it is quite fast, and it's new features and generally improved interface make XP look like the crusty old OS that it is.

Masterkiller wrote:XP is the quintessence of microsoft. I think they actually don't know what are trying to do. They program something... to win more money... but do they have any better idea than including alpha channel in windows graphic, or redesign MS Office? I think they are out of ideas.

Back in the 80s, after the first spreadsheet, database and wordprocessor programs had appeared for the PC, people were asking what the next big idea would be in application software. It took a few years before PCs became powerful enough for the first graphics and DTP programs put in a tentative appearance, but since then there hasn't really been another "big thing". Software companies generally are confining themselves to building better mouse traps.

Of course, mega-bucks await the person who comes up with some really new thing.

I have an idea: change the new Windows Virtual XP mode in W7 to not require VX-T or whatever the freaking hell it's called.

I now installing it on a new virtual machine with MS Virtual PC. OK, requirements is 512 MB of memory (against 32MB for winXP). Setup has nice fancy GUI. I do not understand them. OS is the thing that should be transparent or invisible on the computer and run programs reliable. Instead to make it invisible and try something really useful (like manage drivers without restarting the PC, try to take over some hardware technologies like machine-check and try to make OS does not just stops or resets when a kernel panic occcurs) they try to make a fancy GUI that requires so much memory. It seems to me that windows is never operate transparently. Anyway XP was MS best Operating system. Since NT they used paging mechanism (yeah, they start using new hardware technology) and process crushing was finally isolated. And with every windows they upgrade a technology they use. And now they a BIG BAD GUYS, so instead they follow hardware innovations, they expect hardware innovations to follow them (an example was Vista, that they "forget" to consult with OEMs about writing drivers for their new driver model).

Masterkiller wrote:I now installing it on a new virtual machine with MS Virtual PC. OK, requirements is 512 MB of memory (against 32MB for winXP). Setup has nice fancy GUI. I do not understand them. OS is the thing that should be transparent or invisible on the computer and run programs reliable. Instead to make it invisible and try something really useful (like manage drivers without restarting the PC, try to take over some hardware technologies like machine-check and try to make OS does not just stops or resets when a kernel panic occcurs) they try to make a fancy GUI that requires so much memory. It seems to me that windows is never operate transparently. Anyway XP was MS best Operating system. Since NT they used paging mechanism (yeah, they start using new hardware technology) and process crushing was finally isolated. And with every windows they upgrade a technology they use. And now they a BIG BAD GUYS, so instead they follow hardware innovations, they expect hardware innovations to follow them (an example was Vista, that they "forget" to consult with OEMs about writing drivers for their new driver model).

Invisible is one thing you could never accuse Linux of. When it decides to oblige you by booting, that is.

mathematician wrote: Invisible is one thing you could never accuse Linux of. When it decides to oblige you by booting, that is.

We've already had one linux flamefest split and locked; let's not start another.

I really like the new Windows, that being said I really don't think Microsoft should charge anything at all to upgrade Vista to 7.

I don't know how I feel about the new taskbar but I do like the merging of the quick launch bar, those buttons were always so hard to hit. Windows 7 doesn't seem to be any faster than Vista for me. I have only used it for around an hour, I don't plan on switching to the RC but will more than likely switch to 7 when it comes out.

WARNING: Just want to let everyone know that the default UAC controls in 7 are insecure. Either put the slider all the way up or you will be unprotected.

I would personally say Windows 2000 was the best, even over XP because 2000 even had certain server features that not even XP Pro had..

idk about windows 7, but IMO a GUI should not be classified as an OS, or even part of it. I'm pretty sure 512M is too much RAM for any OS to consider it as the minimum... what's next for windows? must have a directx 18 compatible video card to use their crappy OS because they decided to have transparent windows a default constant that can not be turned off because some programmer decided everyone likes transparency?

I really think windows is in some conspiracy with OEMs to try to make the most bloated OS they can so that people are forced to upgrade their computers(which for most people, means buy a new one)

[/rant]

(please, use anything but windows, even bloatware linux, nothing is as bad as windows, I mean, you seriously pay for that!?)

Yes, I own 3 legal copies of Vista. I did "seriously pay" for it.

You did not consider that Microsoft make their software the way they do because people continue to buy it? If nobody bought their "DirectX 18" operating system, I'm sure they would go back to the drawing board and have a long hard think. I mean, look at what General Motors is doing right now. Nobody has being buying their cars, they are now in a world of poo, and so they are going back and starting from scratch.

The carrot: Please people, don't turn this into Windows vs. Linux. We've had enough of those flamewars in the past. No matter where you stand on the Windows vs. Linux debate, Windows 7 is a new OS, and it does have new features. As a OSDev community, I'm sure we can rattle up enough maturity to talk about these new features, this new operating system, and what it means for MS and the computing world.

The stick: Don't make me get it out.

I run Windows 7 64-bit RC on my new lappy (HP G60-324CA), it replaced the Vista Home Basic that was on it. And I like it so much that I will be shelling out the cash for two copies of 7 Ultimate (One for the lappy and one for my main PC). It's quick, almost no configuration changes (except for a couple tweaks here and there) and all my hardware (including the card reader) just worked.

As for features that I have used so far that are unique to Windows 7, here is my run down of thoughts on them:

• The new taskbar is great, I like the interaction with the thumbnails and the full window preview that makes every other window a clear frame without having to bring it to the front
• Ability to pin and unpin any running application to the task bar for later use if I find it being used quite a bit or I need to restart it (I don't have to quit and then go through the start menu again to launch it if it isn't on my desktop)
• Visual progress bar for action windows (copying files for example) while it is minimized to the taskbar, the button will fill up until completed so I can get a general idea where a large copy is at
• Driver support is good as usual, but that is a moot point since most manufacturers are Windows driver centric

Memory usuage is still higher than I'd like, runs around 800MB after boot with keepass, avg, dexpot, pidgin and rocketdock running. Ubuntu 9.04 was running around 400 with keepass, pidgin, cairo dock on my old lappy (HP NC6000) with 1.5GB of RAM. This lappy has 3GB (will be max'ed to 4), so I'm not too worried. The UI is very responsive and it boots a lot quicker than my main PC running Vista Ultimate.

Lappy specs for reference:
AMD Athlon X2 QL-64 2.1GHz
3GB PC2-6400
NVIDIA GeForce 8200M

Windows 7 is the right step in fixing the snafu that was the Vista launch and marketing (There have been both good and bad experiences with running it, I'm on the good side thankfully). I do agree that anyone that purchased Vista should have a significant discount on 7, not this buy after July 2009 crap and get a discount; it should be everyone. Windows 7 should make netbook owners happy too since most of the reviews I have seen have been positive on the performance, unlike Vista.

I really think Windows 7 should've been Windows Vista SP2. Although there are considerable changes and new features, they are all things that should've been in Windows Vista to begin with. It doesn't seem different enough to justify a new version. At least the RC will run until next year (IIRC next June or July it craps out).

well just for clearty:
windows 7 use some (much) memory as a temp Cache, so to see how much win 7 realy use, use the resouce monitor, and switch to the "memory".
for my own laptop, it uses 330 mb just for cache, and 67 for hardware, leaving 600 mb left, and at least 320 is used by programms. So windows 7 at this computer only takes 67+380 = 447 mb aprox.

KMT dk

earlz wrote: IMO a GUI should not be classified as an OS, or even part of it.

That might be true for an OS developer, but for most mere mortals the GUI is the operating system.