Windows 7

Post Reply New Topic

I am taking part in the Windows 7 beta testing, and so far I really really like what I see. From a tech standpoint, it takes all the good aspects of vista, and gets rid of alll of the bad I can currently think of. Plus installing it took under and hour for a fresh installation, non-upgrade. I am really impressed so far, and if all goes well, I will definitly be putting it on all my machines when its final version is released. Anyone else beta testing here?

Just downloading it now! Does it still have annoying UAC?

I'm not trying to be a twit or anything, but there is a computers, math and science board for this type of thread. Just for your information.

Wait... so... um... what's left?

Why can't those guys make up their minds? FIRST M/S figures they will number. They went to 3.3(as I recall). THEN they forked and the other started with NT, which went to 4.51, IIRC, THEN they decided YEARS were better and they went to 2000, with the 2000 version being the NT product. 95 and 98 were NON NT products. THEN they started the old line again, and made ME(Which confused it with the version for the millenium 2000!)! THEN they forked AGAIN with the other called server which had a 2008! They Also changed the old NT version to XP and then vista, and NOW they are at seven? WOW! If you count the NT line, the next version should be like version 8! NT 4.51, 2000 was pretty different, XP was pretty different, and then vista.

And all this was done to PREVENT confusion? The old numerical system dating back several millenia and used in most countries made FAR more sense.

NICE ONE! Let's see what is bad with vista....

1. "VM". Microsoft does NOT understand VM AT ALL! Their "VM" isn't really VM.
2. The AERO interface. It is cute and MIGHT be OK if it weren't so process intensive but FORGET IT!
3. The new IPSEC API.
4. The way the "firewall" works.
5. The messages and, indeed, the whole idea of the confirm. Make it like OTHER systems where you can deny access to all and provisionally grant. It is more reliable, less trouble, etc...
6. The ENTIRE new program structure. WHY do they keep changing it?
7. The destructive TAPI API.
8. The lousy "compatibility settings".
9. The lack of compatibility with windows.
10. Probably lots of other things.
11. A GRACEFULLY degrading memory system, like the standard K&R type programming

Anyway, I guess what I am asking for is XP with REAL VM, better allocation, and better security.

I remember DOS getting up to about 6.2...but that was a while back.. The original Windows was a Graphic Interface program that ran on top of DOS...the horror...

The way things go, I'll be seeing Windows 7 in...oh, sometime after '10...

I remember those days... I wish they would have made command line compatable with dos based programs, simply because I have a lot of dos based games from when I was a kid.

I hope that the man / machine interface of the new version of windows is improved. In 95, 98, NT and XP the search for a file utility was very easy to find and use. I think along with 32 bit disk access it was one of the biggest steps forward from 3.1 to 95, but in vista this feature seems to have become less usable.

Windows 9x was never really a 32bit operating system. Windows 1 - 4 were DOS based. NT 3.51 was of course NT. Windows 2000/XP/Vista/Seven are NT based.

In reality, Windows 7 is in fact 6.1... But I'm going to try it out anyway. Microsoft say they want to build a main operating system, then build a newer one using the same core. Windows 2000 = 5.0 XP = 5.1.
Windows Vista = 6.0 and Seven is 6.1. Like I say, I'm going to trial the OS anyway. Hopefully it is better. My friend tells me the build number is 7000. I'm downloading now

This IS the Computers, Math, Science, and Technology board!

I am beta testing with Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit build 7000 running it as a secondary OS on my laptop. My other OS on my laptop is Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit. I really like Windows 7 so far.

Only problem I have with the 64 bit is daemon tools won't run on it, and flash is not compatible with 64 bit browsers. So I am stuck using 32 bit Firefox. Overall, a big step from Vista.

Flash is indeed compatible with 64-bit systems, where did you get the idea that it was not? Mac OS X is 64-bit and runs Flash perfectly out of the box, and I know that in 64-bit Ubuntu it only take a couple minutes to get Flash up and running properly.

I just downloaded the beta, now I need a machine to install it on. I found an article on how to dual boot between Vista and 7, so I'll see if I can do that.