So, has anyone got it yet? Beta has been out for ages, and the retail version is also available at all the right places.

I've used both, and I don't really see a difference. But so far I love it. It feels and looks a lot like an upgraded version of Vista, even though it isn't. It has a lot of new, mostly hidden features. A lot of things you just randomly find out, and you go, hey, that's kinda neat. For example, when you move a program to the top of your screen it will maximize, but when you move it to the left or right edge, it will change the format to use exactly half of the screen. That's pretty cool, right?

Soooo, discuss.

Everyone's saying it's like Vista 2.0 or a fixed version. Apparently it runs faster than XP and free upgrades for everyone with vista (), but like, what new stuff have they included D:?

Well for one, the taskbar at the bottom of the screen is now bigger (touchscreen friendly) and has multiple user-friendly features, and is accused of plagiarising the Mac dock. The whole thing is slicker, and nicer-looking, and layed out in a more user-friendly way - I think.
Did you say free upgrades for everyone with Vista? First I've heard of this.

Just to be clear, I don't have it.

It is bigger indeed. But you can make it smaller if you want to. Icons on the taskbar are also bigger by default, which actually looks pretty cool. No free upgrades for everyone with Vista. It's like when Vista came out, if you bought a Vista license in June or later, no idea what month exactly, you can upgrade to Windows 7 very cheaply. I believe it's 20 euros here, and they send you the Windows 7 package, including dvd instruction booklet etc.

It's not Vista 2.0 anyhow, I believe just about every piece of coding has been rewritten. Of course not everything. We need barak here.

Unlike the common notion goes in other aspects of the world: If it looks like a vista, tastes like a vista and smells like a vista. It doesn't have to be vista...

Bottom line the kernel and base instruction set footprint is much smaller. It's a different OS almost from scratch. the Graphics may look similar but the scalability of windows 7 will play out in the future and only then you will start to see differences.

Remember the old Runescape engine update they did like 2 years ago before HD and full screen was even heard of? They said exactly the same: Changes won't be apparent, but this will allow us to expand the game.

Same thing goes here. Back end.

I've used it before. I like it alot more than Vista just due to the new taskbar. It's got great look and feel to it.

It's what vista should have been originally. It doesn't whore your RAM, it's fast, user friendly and generally badass. And thanks to proper testing this time, a lot of bugs will have been ironed out.

My XP used to be identical to vista in exactly every way possible, except for true transparencies/driver issues/core system.

Is there a way to disable this? Sometimes when I have a lot of screens running I just want to put it to the side for a sec, not expand it...

I had a bunch of driver problems. My biggest concern was it not being able to connect to the internet. Played around with it for a long time until I got pissed off enough to call Microsoft. After troubleshooting they said to contact my ISP. Then my ISP told me to contact Microsoft because there was nothing wrong with my connection. Long story short I formatted and went back to Linux. Looked cool but never had it for more then a day.

No idea actually. Try googling it..



Really? I've had no problems at all so far. I have it installed on my laptop, and I know about 10 other people in my class have it as well. So far no one has had any problems at all, in fact, my wireless worked right away after installation, without any drivers at all. Other then the drivers that came standard with W7 of course. But then again, I have a fairly recent laptop. Also, for most of the stuff that came with my laptop, like webcam, touchpad, audio etc, there were no drivers available yet for W7. But I got everything to work perfectly fine with Vista drivers, luckily they all had 64-bit versions. If you install 32 bit you probably wont have any problems at all, and even if you do, installing programs in compatibility mode also works great. So far I've had to do that once with the PC studio for my Samsung phone.

My home pc doesn't have any problems with it either, basically same story, only it doesn't have wireless.

I think it has something to do with the fact that it's drivers for gaming hardware on a desktop that I built myself.

all I have to add is:
http://www.burgerkingjapan.co.jp/news/win7.php

That would be worth every one of those 4000 calories.

Lmfao.

OHGOD. I want one.

Available in JP only >:(

WHY DEAR GOD? THAT BURGER WOULD TAKE 30 ANOREXIC JAPANESE SCHOOLGIRLS TO EAT. EACH AMERICAN OR BRITISH PERSON COULD BUY ONE. IT MAKES FINANCIAL SENSE.

Fix't

I want to dual-boot Windows on my Mac. Is Windows 7 really that much better than Vista? Because everyone knows that Vista is a bug-ridden shitstorm failed "upgrade" from XP, but I don't know if I should just get XP cheap or fork over some extra dough for W7. If anyone could give me some pros/cons that would be great.

Windows 7 was originally going to be Vista Service pack 3, but they decided to make it a complete OS. A shame really.

Pro:
- No more whiners like you, judging something they obviously haven't tried.

I've had 7 for about two months, and it's definitely worth getting, especially compared to vista.

My laptop only has 1gb ram and most of the time there aren't problems. Even with the vista graphics, it runs smoothly. The only problems I get are blue screens a couple times a week, but i'm 99% sure it's a hardware issue.

But... I do have this one problem where my computer likes to decide when to turn the aero skin off (and in the process shut off wi-fi) and then 5-10 min later, turns it back on (and wi-fi)... anyone know why?

It's because you stopped posting here, Arrowz.

Just because I have a Macintosh and I say Vista is bad, doesn't mean I deserve to be slandered. I used Vista for six months. There weren't many crashes, but god damn, was it buggy. Virus tests were a pain, applications would start to do random things (such as open nearly fifty other windows of the same link I clicked), and there were a lot of Macintosh-esque features which were done, in my opinion, poorer than the original source. Vista was a bad, bad operating system. However, I have heard that Windows 7 is a lot, lot better. I used XP for not as long as Vista, but it was basically just a different operating system. No bugs, an occasional crash/freeze, but nothing to complain about.

Forget that I ever asked.

I never said anything about mac's, did I? People who bash Vista really piss me off, because it's really not that bad. As a start, I don't know if you tried it on your mac, but if you did, then that's most likely the source of your issue, because it simply wasn't built to run on one. Other then that, I know a lot of people who use/used Vista, and I never heard them complaining about it. It's a great OS which started off on the wrong foot because of driver issues, but that always happens when a new OS comes out.

Just because a few people have issues, doesn't mean the whole OS is a failure. Actually, it's a lot more user friendly than XP ever has been.

Sorry, I thought you were inferring.

To go further into my story, I was actually living at my grandparents house for a time and they used... uh... PCs. I forget the brand. On another note, it's apparently proven that Vista runs better on Macs. I've only heard this my word of mouth, but I honestly think it's bullshit. I really don't see how.

Also, my bad. I think I misread part of your post which made me think you were being more hostile than you actually were.

It's okay, I was out of line too.

To be honest, I wouldn't really know why it's better than XP. It's been too long.

But just some advantages:
- Easier to use
- Looks much better
- Better support for future hardware
- Better 64-bit support. (Products which want the "Certified for Windows 7" label, now need to have 64-bit support)
- Awesome search function

For some reason everything feels like it really belongs there, and the overall feel is just great. Speed and elegance.

Here's a nice list of features:
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/ff.asp

haha row i see how it is

vista wasn't awful; it could (and did) run on my computer, until i started having issues with my wifi, which somehow led to other problems and eventually led to installing xp.

but yep, 7 is good

^It was probably compatibility problems. I heard that a lot of programs were not compatible with Vista at the beginning and people were too frustrated with redoing everything so they switched back.


Maybe something you are/were running isn't compatible with Aero. I know that when I run Icy Tower (the real one, not the Facebook crap) its turns Aero off while the game is open.


I've used Vista for over a year and I have never, ever, had a problem with it. And I'm not the only one as such. I did, however, buy my computer with Vista, which probably makes a difference because I've therefore never had any compatibility issues (except once with a game that I'd being running fine for ages before it decided to crap up).

I've never really used 7, and from what I've seen it doesn't look that much different on the outside. Outside meaning to exclude running smoother and bug-free.

Sometimes people will get a bad copy of the OS that doesn't run well. I had an extremely copy of 98 but seeing it on other peoples computer is wasn't so bad. The copy I had though would go to the blue screen of death for everything. Even when just first booting up.

I'm considering upgrading to 7 to try it again though I had some bad experiences with the Beta version of it. I'm just hoping it's because it was just beta that it had the problems with my computer. That would be a shame to spend that money and have the same problems that I had before though.

You could always download it off *somewhere* and try it out for 30 days.

Maybe. I've done stuff like that before only to get a poor product. Then again I've had nice copies of different OS's before. Sometimes it's a toss up imo.

I just installed windows seven a few days back. No complaints thus far, and it is a good step up from windows vista that i used for a year and a half(and loved) +1 microsoft

sidenote: go check out the ubuntu 9.10 boot disk, it is BLAZING fast and supported everything of mine right off the bat(needless to say i was awestruck)

When I do upgrade, how big is the gap (feature wise) between home basic and ultimate?

I'm getting a new system in a couple of weeks, will most likely be putting Windows 7 on it.

I am, do you mean premium(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/default.aspx) basic is not listed there. I would go with premium because ultimate just comes with crap for businesses and some other things that you all can get open source(free as in beer and liberty) and you can buy versions that work better.

Windows 7 is superior to vista, though vista is superior to XP for sure.

My only complaint about windows 7 is its memory handling. Since Microsoft got so much bad PR about the system requirements for vista (IE: If you have less then 3gb ram, its not going to run very pretty for an avarage user). They decided to address the issue with 7 and allow it to run with less ram.

One of the main reasons why 7 runs so much better on lower end machines is because of the way it handles items loaded into memory. Basicially - unless the program is ACTIVLY running, its stored in the page file - Even if you have enough ram to keep it loaded in memory.

That definantly makes it use much less memory - and makes the people with lower end machines super happy. However, it actually has a somewhat negitive effect on higher end systems. For instance, since minimized or idle processes are always stored in the page file - If I'm playing a game, then alt tab back to a webpage - it will take longer to alt-tab because FireFox is at that point stored in the page file rather then Ram.

Besides that little issue, 7 runs brilliantly with everything I've done. I do not have it myself, but I've messed with every model currently available for retail sale at bestbuy since its came out, (And i have to say, the HP Envy is NOT worth it). and really haven't run into any significiant problems. We've seen very few user generated issues, which is a testimate to how well designed the OS is. Unlike Vista, and very unlike XP, its fairly difficult for the user to easily change something that ends up bricking their computer.

@IAMAOM: Go with premium unless you want the xp virtual machine (Which also works pretty well) - other then that most of the features do not apply to a none-business consumer.

@Jerome: I havn't encountered a problem like that before - but nice to see your still around

XP VS 7
Why was windows XP better then 98?

Insert exactly the same things into "Why is 7 better then XP".

Especially in the realm of 64bit support, Networking, Security, and Multi core/Multi processor support, the difference between what windows 7 is able to do versus what xp is able to do is nearly as incomparable as windows 98 vs windows XP.

Also: I believe that the issue that's plagued gamers since XP (and most people don't actually know about) Is the limit on the OS's Virtual machine for games (Games run in a virtual machine - hence why a game can have a different resolution then the rest of the OS etc) has been corrected.

Previously it was impossible to assign more then 2gb of ram to any one game. This is evident when playing a game like supreme commander where the memory usage increases as more unites are created. You can put the game in window mode, open a memory usage analyzer (Or just task manager) And watch the games process slowly creep towards ~2048mb. As soon as it gets right around that number, it -will- crash, at least in XP and Vista.

Since game developers are aware of this issue - they have had to tailor their games to not utilize more then 2gb of ram at any one time, which hinders performance and I'm sure in some way or another limits what the developers can actually do.

Wrong.

Explain how I'm wrong? ^^

I agree Matt, XP was glitchtastic (not that Vista isn't) and now if you compare them side by side the look and feel of Vista is much better.

EDIT: Matt vs Matthew. Ooh.

The only reason XP felt better then vista Glitch wise was because people were so used to xp's glitches that they became 'normal' were as when vista did the same thing it became a problem.

(Thats also because Vista is better about telling you when a problem exists, were as xp people just assumed it was normal to have to close a window via task manager) In XP if a window freezes, you have to close it in task manager/hit the X and wait etc, then reopening it. In Vista you get a error prompt asking you how you would like to proceed since the application froze. It would even attempt to recover it for you while saving the current state of saved data (IE what website you were on, what part of a video you were at, etc)

Vista also had full support for duel core processors, were as XP had none.

Vista's 64 bit support, the method in which drivers are installed and utilized on the system, and security are VASTLY improved.

The ability to detect networks that were not broadcasting SSID's makes it much, much easier to connect to business networks which often do have broadcasting SSID's. Networking as a whole was made much easier with vista - but in doing so it was not backwards compatible with XP without patching XP.

Have to stop there ^^ Running late for class and honestly, the vista vs XP debate is over since 7 is out - and most people in my field (IT) pretty much agree that Vista was a step in the right direction, and an improvement. You could say that Vista was simply marketed poorly - and that created most of the issues. (Advertising vista as being able to run on 512mb ram early on, not making users aware of the likely hood of compatibility issues with legacy software/drivers since most people did not, and still do not, consider XP to be "Legacy".

When I think of an updated version of a preexisting piece of software I expect the glitches and bugs that were in the older version to be fixed as well with new features. Also, the fact that XP requires a lot less memory and requirements than Vista is a huge factor in my opinion. That is all.

I actually agree with you, well the bit about the updated version being free from glitches at least.

Although that only holds true with upgrades such as going from Windows 2000 to windows XP, or as in the most recent case, Windows Vista to Windows 7.

Vista was not actually an Upgrade to XP because Vista was not based on XP at all, other then the interface. One of the reasons so many compatibility issues existed is because microsoft built vista from the ground up - the only things that I could find that seemed to be "Upgraded versions" of something in XP is the .mmc items (Start > run > mmc).

As far as it requiring less memory - XP definitely had a smaller footprint, but thats like saying the spit fighters of WWII are superior to the modern day Fighter jets because they needed a less powerful engine. Microsoft failed miserably when it came to marketing it - they should have been more truthful about how powerful of a system was needed to run vista properly. But when running on a machine that has the right hardware, Vista does perform faster then XP. (Keep in mind that I'm comparing Vista SP2 with XP SP3 - When vista was released it was bringing back very bad memories of the windows ME failure. If i were to compaire the operating systems at the time of release, then I would have to compare Windows XP 2001 to Vista 2006 - in which case I'd say XP had a much better release version.