[IamAwindowsGamr]

I have recently seen the Beta of Windows Seven. Sure there are new features such as the transparent taskbar and a lot of touchscreen support, but most of what I have seen is vista. The only thing considerably different would be the speed by what I have seen. In my opinion I think it should be Vista Service Pack 3. I mean, that's what vista was most likely supposed to be. Or did Windows just do that to make more money from the upgrades? Again, I havent seen the whole thing, but from what I know, it's just a fast vista with a few differences and eye candy.

What's your take on it?

[StumpedTechy]

Thats pretty much what most everyone has said. Windows 7 is built off the Windows Vista platform so there isn't much left to be said other than there are just some tweaks and improvements from what they learnd with Vista. Windows 7 still uses all the same drivers as Vista and so on down the line.

As far as a vehicle to make more money I honestly have a thought its more to get people off the Vista hating train and try and win them over with Windows 7. There are alot of people who are mad at Windows Vista and hate its inception without really giving it a chance as an OS. I will have to laugh at any of those posts that say I hated Vista but I love Windows 7. I don't think Windows 7 vrs Vista will be a big upgrade path and I would not spend the money for such minor "enhancements".

[IamAwindowsGamr]

Same here, the only way I'm going to have 7 is when I have to buy a new PC and it comes Pre-packed. I'm fine with my good-ol windows XP

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by IamAwindowsGamr

Same here, the only way I'm going to have 7 is when I have to buy a new PC and it comes Pre-packed. I'm fine with my good-ol windows XP

That's pretty much my situation.
I haven't tried out Vista or beta7 ........currently ...winXP on my Acer does everything I need to do and does it well.

[Jones]

I just recently tried out Vista Home Basic 32bit on my gaming system (dual-booting with XP). From my experiences so far, it's essentially just a re-packaged version of XP with prettier interface design and DX10 capability.

I like it, but only because I wanted to use DX10 for swankier graphics. My framerates are almost identical to what they were in XP, mainly because Home Basic doesn't have the Aero interface stuff or Media Center junk installed in it taking up the system resources.

Otherwise, not much difference. I expect Windows 7 to simply be a more refined version of Vista.

[LANMaster]

Since this isn't really a debate, I'd like to move this to Random Discussion.

But, I will wait a while to see if there are any objections.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Since this isn't really a debate, I'd like to move this to Random Discussion.

But, I will wait a while to see if there are any objections.

Would it help if one of us got really angry?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Jones

Would it help if one of us got really angry?

Well ...... that'd be a start.

[Wino]

I'm not real sure why anyone would care what Windows 7 is or isn't. Unless it's going to serve me breakfast in bed and satisfy many other personal needs, I'm not interested.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by Wino

Unless it's going to serve me breakfast in bed and satisfy many other personal needs, I'm not interested.

You're talking about the 'Love Slave' edition. That's not due out until the last half of 2011. Most people aren't willing to wait that long.

[LANMaster]

Moving to Random.

[StumpedTechy]

You're talking about the 'Love Slave' edition.

Wasn't that the working title of ME before it came out?

[Snagglegaster]

Well, Windows 7 (at least the Beta) is nice enough. It has some nice windows management features, lets you fine tune ClearType, faster performance, etc. The most significant changes are likely to be its reduced memory usage and some fairly subtle changes like the new Library metaphor for file management.

Bear with me a minute. Like Vista, 7 uses memory very aggressively to cache files and code, so on a system with a reasonable 2-3 GB of RAM, memory usage isn't much lower than Vista. But, it runs much better than Vista on systems with limited memory, so it represents an effort by Microsoft to be more competitive in the netbook/cheapskate PC market.

The Library lets users group any folders they want to use for data storage into an easily viewed and managed location regardless of actual location. Why this matters is that we are going to be seeing SSDs offered as high end options on computers sold to fairly unsophisticated users real soon now. Almost certainly, these will be fairly small drives running the OS and software, while most of the data storage is done on a hard drive. For the typical user, I think the Library will make file management easier on a multi-drive system. Overall, I think it's fair to say that many of the changes from Vista to 7 are targeted at new users and first time computer buyers. For those of you who've been around a while you might remember that the XP interface was designed with the same goal in mind. And you might even remember how much long-time Windows users bitched about it.

[StumpedTechy]

And you might even remember how much long-time Windows users bitched about it.

TBH this same bitching I remember occuring whenever there was a new release since Windows 3.1... people at that time didn't want to upgrade then then either.

The Library lets users group any folders they want to use for data storage into an easily viewed and managed location regardless of actual location.

Sounds alot like DFS for networks. I am still fighting tooth and nail to get this used more often in our environment at work I really want to cut down on time taken for server migrations in the future.

[anand1]

According to me its not so. Yes Microsoft has done big mistakes with Vista which is nothing good than eating lot of Memory of one system. But i have been using Windows 7 Beta since its release and have found many new applications and features which was even not introduced in Vista. This time i think Microsoft is a bit more serious than making money.