Bits First Look: Windows 7 Beta Performance

Vista was never Windiws M.E in reality... it was only acting as M.E on these 200$ Dell laptop that can't even run XP properly. And uses inexpensive, badly designed technologies.
If you have the hardware with companies that provides good quality drivers (example: Not Creative Labs), then there is no problem.

You can use Windows 2000 anytime. You can buy Windows Vista or Windows 7 and downgrade or Windows 2000 or even Windows 3.1, it's just a phone call away! . By the way, the updated windows 2000 (NT5.0) is called Windows XP (NT 5.1). Every issue of Windows 2000 was there in Windows XP. XP (ouu bad English) was literary a repackage OS, with just enough to barely call it an new OS to the untrained eye. At least Windows 7 offers useful new features, optimization, lots of bug fixes, improved features, and more...

If you ACTUALLY used Vista or Windows 7 than you would know that your statement is completely wrong. Both of these OS don't crash (BSOD) when a driver crashes (wait for official Windows 7 release version, and official Windows 7 drivers which are optimized (so version 2 or even 3 of the drivers), it just restarts it. The new Core of Windows OS is better build and engineered. As a Windows 2000 "lover" - if you want -, I can say that Windows Vista 64-bit (True Vista as I like to call it) (I can't say for Windows 7 until it's released and been using for several years), that it's more stable than Windows 2000, and more allows you to be more productive. Moreover, you know when was the last time I re-installed Vista? That would be never. That is correct I have been using Vista since January 2007, it never slowed down. How do I know of this fact? Simple... inside my computer I have a second HDD with an unactivated Vista, which is not plug-in and ready to be activated and be used in case of major emergency. And I did compare both OS 3 months ago to see if Vista slows down over time like XP... the truth is: no. In fact my Vista (the one I use daily on my main HDD) is faster, as you have superfetch and prefetch that work on your side.

A computer is a tool... You are listening Vittorio... yea I put your name in bold so that you I make sure you read what I say, as you might be scared of the fact thatI may I say something about you, because I mentioned your name. hehe
An OS is part of the heart of such tool. If it's complicated and makes you feel "smart" but not productive, then that would be a bad tool. A good tool makes you productive, that is all. If you are not productive after really trying hard for several month to adapt yourself, then you are not using the tools provided correctly, OR it doesn't fit your needs and such look for an alternative OS (for example Mac OS or Linux).

 

So you'd take a crap Windows as an apology for an even worse Windows according to what you just wrote? Interesting that...

And sorry, but I don't agree with you. Windows 7 is not just another ME as ME was plain crap and a pain in the arse no matter you did with it. If you don't like the fluffyness go Linux.

 

If you don't like "fluffiness" go back to DOS or run Linux without a GUI - sheesh.

Been running Windows 7 and its really pretty good, loads of great features.

For me though, 7 shouldn't be a new OS - it should really be Vista SP2 because that's what it really is. However I can understand their reasoning - Vista got a lot of bad press (for no real reason) and if they can move on from that then they'll stand to make more money.

 

i have a question: if you do the ctrl+alt+del does it take you to the task manager or to that screen where you select the task manager?

observation: vista runs like a dream on my laptop, i really can not understand why people are calling it another ME, i think people that say this have never used neither OS.

another question: they are making this one a "one size fits all"?

 

Widgets..

Widgets can already be moved in Vista... when hovering over a widget, just grab the small close/option bar that pops up and move the widget off the sidebar.

 

they removed inkball??

it seams that 7 will have several editions... http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49300490,00.htm

 

i'm running Windows 7 right now and i just love despite the fact that it is a beta! alot of great features and ofcurse some that is not that great, for example the fact that you have to set some programs to be activated and showing in tray all the time instead of only notifactions, i.e PowerISO, the good thing about it is that you only have to do it once and you can hide things you don't need or want to see. I have not tried burnign anything just yet but will do so soon, hopefully and mostlikly it wan't be a problem...

 

reviewing something based on a beta, you would not review a game in beta so why must an os be any different?

 

If you don't care, why did you read it in the first place? I definitely see the point and many others do as well as you can see by all the responses so far. This is an enthusiast board after all and Windows 7 Beta is cutting edge which is what a lot of people here are after.
And it's Windows, you know that little program with >90% market share in the OS market? It is a bit more important than CoD23 Beta so I can see why you wouldn't review a beta status game but review a beta status OS.
By the way, there are some 'First look' articles of games before they hit retail every now and then as well on BT, did you see them?

 

Where on earth does it say "Review" it's "First Look" under "Bits". NO review, NO numbers, please RTFA!

 

You can drag Vista widgets anywhere on the desktop for what its worth. I only found out the other day when I tested it, I don't know if it was always that way or whether it was a case of an incremental update to aero being released when the updates took place for Windows 7.

A nice first look though, I'm sure after the beta it will be even better. Don't think I will upgrade my PC to it thou, just wait until my next PC and buy it OEM.

 

No, you could always move them around and place them on your desktop. The only thing new about it is that now they completely took away the side bar.

 

I like that fact that the sidebar is GONE. althou the fact that many gadgets from vista don't work in windows 7 or they look like crap, I don't know if it bad programming or just not yet implemented fully. I only use the clock and 1 other so I can keep track on what's on TV... and the TV one is the only one not included in W 7 i have gotten to work and look like it should

 

I see Vista as ME in one aspect. People couldn't wait to install XP after the debacle of ME (me included). They now can't wait to install 7 after using Vista (me included).

I've got 7 on my lappy and it runs beautifully. Boots quicker than Vista and just feels 'more right'. However, I never had a problem with Vista on it (32-bit, then 64-bit) and wouldn't be unhappy going back to it, knowing that it works 100%. I'd obviously prefer to keep 7 running on it though (fingers crossed for a Beta2!)

 

wonder if it'll be worth it for vista 64 users to move up.. I know that's a dumb question but I own the retail version of 64 ultimate- and I've gotten 2 years out of it =]

 

I agree with all you have said. I went from Win98 to XP (skipped in between) and I have XP running as far as I'm concerned, as a gaming friendly, sleek OS - which at the time I saw as a major jump mostly because it was not based on a DOS kernel. It's still slower than I'd like, but I have more services disabled than I can think, minimal startup progs, and I choose to use the clean looking classic theme. I use objectdock for a bit of snazz and functionality, including a weather icon and nice looking clock. I use a third party software firewall, in addition to the hardware firewall my router provides. My documents I keep awayyyy from the C drive in case of system meltdown and the need to reformat. My start menu is minimalistic and organised the way I like. I have also installed an explorer extension that allows tabbed explorer browsing, and the "breadcrumbs" style navigation - which is one of the few things I found nice in Vista.

Vista currently offers me nothing that I cannot achieve with my current setup, other than directx 10 - but that I honestly think is deliberately kept from XP users, and not enough for an upgrade.

One thing that I find interesting, if not amazing, is that many users say that "if you have the beef in your system, you might as well go for the newer OS." When did the OS get to be the resource eater? I like a fast, sleek OS, so that my expensive hardware can spend most of its time doing what I want it to do - such as manipulating large files and images, playing games, watching high resolution video, listening to crystal clear sound etc etc. If I double my RAM I sure as hell don't want it to go towards making the OS pretty!

However it does sound like Windows 7 will be the one to get when I am forced to upgrade because the software I want to use will not run on XP.

 

Huh???? You can do that on Vista.. just drag the widgets out of the sidebar then close the side bar. I have a few on my desktop, the weather a clock and currency. You never have to see or use the side bar, on boot the widgets just appear on the desktop in their proper locations.

 

Actually no, they shift to the left of few pixels. Vista gadget bug.

 

To everyone who's saying ditch the 32bit version: erm, NO!

We might be computer savvy here, but I know a huge number of people who are looking forward to upgrading to Win 7, but aren't going to update their hardware in the process. A good Pentium 4 can still run 99% of everything without anyone noticing any kind of slow down at all. Hell, my Pentium 4 is still working like a dream, I've never come across anything it can't handle. Why should I have to upgrade to a 64bit Processor just because a bunch of elitist hardware buffs think no-one is still using 32bit? In fact, until I actually start noticing Processor bottle necks (which to be fair is probably going to be years away) I'll upgrade (I will need a new mother board too actually, so YEARS away). But until then, I'm staying 32 bit.

And you'd be surprised how many people are in my boat. Many people have a "if it aint broke, don't fix it" attitude to hardware (me included), but are looking forward to upgrading to Win 7. My 3 year old PC can still run 99% of games like a dream. L4D is maxed out with V-Sync and 4x AA and never drops below a noticeable frame rate. Honestly, PC hardware is far more spread out than you probably realise and there are huge numbers of very enthusiastic PC users that will have quite old machines, because 99% of things still run on them perfectly well! So enough with all this 64bit only stuff.