Windows 7

Formely known as Windows Blackcomb/Vienna, Windows 7 will be the next OS. Hopefully better than Vista. Hopefully much much better... It is planed for 2010 and the thing that scares me is that my mouse and keyboard should be replaced by a touch screen. Also items in the task-bar will be swapable, which is cool :)
However M$ said that they gonna work on the kernel instead of the visual (if that's really true...)

Just use Ubuntu, Compiz with its numerous plugins is already more advanced than Vista (which you can disable if you don't need fancy graphics like me). Windows 7 will of course support mouse and keyboard like usual, so touch screen is not required. It will just have better support for it.

aye mandatory touchscreen would be the death of that version

imagin being an office typist working on some document all the time
the screen would get covered in so much gunk as to be unreal

whatever youve been eating transfered from your finger tips to your touch screen
you clean the screen and what happens?
you find youve moved 5 files deleted 3 and accidentally sent that snide comment about your boss to your boss

working with long fingernails?

...

touch screens have their uses
a graphics tablet replacement where you draw on the screen 1:1 (last i looked these were very expencive)

the 2010ish release date one laptop per child looks to be ace in the touchscreen keyboard layout
its a hinged screen or two close together ... one can be the keyboard the other the screen ... or flipped out like a book

...

but asking people to give up mice and keyboards to use the new os?

Support is not exclusive support.

It is wise to support touch/multitouch screens in this day and age, while I don't expect Microsoft to see their employees do jogging in order to work. However, it could actually be very interesting in conjunction with mouse and keyboard.

i know that it does still support keyboard and mouse. it will released in 2010 and until then we are stuck to windows xp, which has been released 2001 (9 years!!) oh and i forgot to mention vista, which is ...............

I also think mandatory touch screen will be the death of that version. I'd rather use my mouse and only move it 6 or 7 inches instead of moving my hand all over a 19 inch monitor.

But, the interface looks awesome, even better than Vista does. I think I'll look forward to that.

Its just a (slightly) refaced Vista.

I'll stick to Windows XP and Ubuntu tyvm.

Working fine?

Where does it say it won't have support for mouse and keyboard?

OMG, every windows version there is a made up 'scare feature'. In vista it was 'all your opengl applications will diiiiiiieeeeeee', which as far as I saw was windows not shipping them as standerd, and instead they were supported via the GPU driver install (like normal).

Windows 7 will not 'ban you from using a keyboard/mouse'. Its just a set of preinstalled drivers and a few api extentions that will enable multitouch monitors out of the box, if you want to.

bloody hell people.

Why do people get so worked up about operating systems? If your actually using your computer for anything other than moving files around, then your goal is to spend as little time interacting with the frontend of the OS and 95% of your time inside an application.

People say/think the strangest things.

Lucky for us, there isn't any visual features to steal so they are forced to work on the kernel! Yay! :D

Trolling aside, I haven't used vista much so I don't know much about it. I will eagerly await any news about what these kernel changes might be.

I've heard Windows 8 (code name "Cyborg") will have a completely new API, which will require mandatory use of a direct cranial interface. Now, I am afraid I'll be too old to be able to install one such device when Windows 8 appear. What am I to do? Alas....

Barney

Hope there'll be enough changes under the hood to warrent a new version, rather than just improving upon Vista itself.

The kernel already has undergoing changes.
For example, Service Pack 1 aligned the kernel to Windows Server 2008, and the new Windows will be based upon the Windows Server 2008 foundation.
Microsoft officially stated that there will not be a new kernel for Windows 7, though of course it doesn't mean it isn't going to be updated.
As for now one of the goals is to keep the exact same requirements of Windows Vista while maintining backward compatibility with it.
By the way, everyone who thinks that Vista is XP with a new skin is badly mistaken.

Agreed. I have Vista, and it is 100 times better than XP, both in looks and funtionality. For what I use it for, it's also better than mac, and I have not ever met a truly computer literate person who has thought otherwise.

Unless you've tried it yourself, don't tell me Vista stinks.

I strongly doubt they will drop keyboard/mouse support.

As for vista bieng better than XP, it depends what for;

-Basic home and single PC use - YES (it is more 'plesant' for the usual home use, mainly down to there being less malware)
-security - YES (but in the complete police/nanny state lockdown sense of the word 'security'),
-Looks - YES (It certainly looks better)
-Intuitiveness - NO (why they had to move things into LESS efficient places and re-jargonize ill never know)
-File Processing NO (Zip files are still grind to open/compress and network file access is laggy with SMB)
-Compatability - NO (The are still major problems with vista compatability esp. with corporate network stuff. Also many programs have issues with UAC)
-Resources VS improvement - NO (the enourmous resource use in vista seems a bit heavy for some security features and a pretty desktop considering compiz looks better & can run on archaic HW)

And yes I do use it. I dual boot it with Ubunutu (which i use the most because it is simply nicer/faster and more comfortable to use)

haha, awsome.


From that screenshot it looks even more noob-friendly than vista. Personally I find that kind of user interface a HUGE pain to use for browsing...the colors or the soft baby look just doesn't do it for me. Simple never meant efficient, especially to people who know windows in and out. It just makes it more complicated to do anything.

"Are you sure you want to create a folder?"
...No I was just kidding, you caught me.

agreed! vista is just xp with a new skins and new bugs, which M$ calls features. some even say that vista is just macosx+bugs...
true. the look is awesome and the new functions are not bad. but somehow the whole system is not working. i get the BSOD even during installing the SP1 and a couple of more bugs (or features) which makes it useless...
i know some guys who are working for some sort of programming companies. they all tried vista and moved back to XP within a day...


however there is one more fact: windows 7 is going to eat even less resources than vista! (true...)

:D

Never had a problem with the pc's I assembled. You chould check your rig, or find the conflict which is causing the BSOD: these problems are usually due to driver conflicts, incorrect CMOS configuration, DDR not working properly (misconfigured or damaged), or hard disk failures. Your problem has a lot more to do with drivers and hardware than the OS.


I suggest you to use another file explorer: Vista's one has indeed a slow response, even though indexing is useful. I already used another one with XP in order to have advanced search options, so I didn't use Vista's standard one in the first place: with other explorers file processing is as fast as in XP, it's the standard interface which is slow. There are plenty of better choices than Windows Explorer anyway.

the whole OS is not working. it's not so much blue screens, it's more the bugs of the all-days-work... eg: the explorer - it shows the items in list mode, in thumbnail mode, detailed mode or whatever it's like random... it's horrible... i get the pain when i'm even thinking of this. tho it's great looking, which made me stick to it for 2 months...

Open "Windows Explorer" and choose the layout you prefer, then go to the "Tools" menu and select "Folder Options". Now click on the "view" tab and choose "Apply to Folders".
Or take a look at my precedent post.

I still have an XP as well as a Vista, and my XP has always done the same thing. After a while I figured out it was based on the types of files in the folder, which I'm sure it's the same with Vista...I just haven't figured out the pattern yet.

I don't really mind, anyway, because once I change the view mode once, the computer remembers it, and that folder will always have the same view mode.

@Yippee: the solution in the precedent post applies to XP as well: just choose the layout for one folder and then proceed as described.

This episode also demonstrates that bashing is often based on lack of experience. And even if Devils Child had a point, in my opinion a file explorer is no reason to change the OS: just choose a better file manager as you would do with any other app (which anyway is advisable if you look for advanced features).

Edit: sorry, double post

I'm struggling to think what a major version change will actually bring to the OS. Vista was quite clearly a big break from XP in terms of its internals. New driver model, audio system, GUI methodology etc.

What can Microsoft really bring, in terms of valuable feautres, to a new version of Windows?

The one universal feature-set missing from Windows, for the likes of us (who are unstoppable tinkerers) is customisation. We can't replace the GUI (not really, Stardock and pals do not count), we can't replace the file manager (we can add one, but not replace Windows own), we can't drop in a new audio system.

Modularity was touted as a feature of Windows 7, according to the early rumours.

Personally, I doubt this. Windows is a supported OS (unlike, say, AmigaOS) and thus there needs to be a standard set of features, a standard was for drivers to interface to the OS, for audio to work, for input methods.... etc etc.

Support becomes impossible if users could use hundreds of different modules for major subsystems.

So... what could be improved on, beyond Vista?

you see the red circeled check box?
i always disable this checkbox...
it worked under XP but will be totally ignored by vista. that's actually what makes the system garbage.
when using vista, it doesnt matter whether the checkbox is checked or not. it will always remember the folder's view settings because vista knows better what's right for me :/

First, i will say that i hate Vista. On my laptop ( Celeron 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM ) Vista Basic was pre-installed. Almost every game had some kind of graphical bug and ran VERY slow. Then i installed XP, and my computer ran minimum twice as fast than Vista, and my games ran perfectly. And on my desktop computer, an engine demo ran with about 50FPS. But with the same settings for that demo, just on XP, it ran with about 80FPS. Thats a huge increase!

And second, Microsoft is working on a new kernel! Thats the foundament of Windows 7. Haven't you read about MinWin?

I would really like to customize the whole working environment without using 3rd party apps - not much the skin, but icon positions, grouping, shortcuts and the such - but it has always been against the tendency of all OS manufacturers. I did it with some apps like Opera (which I use intensively, where I personalized the appearence to suit my needs) or Miranda (which is amazing too in that respect).


Still about customization, they should consider some fresh ideas for organizing the apps: we used the same interface albeit revamped since windows 95.

For example, a good idea would be to be able to set standard folders for any kind of app, so that the OS could organize everything without putting all inside programs (or break security by having to specify different folders of my own in order to have some kind of ordering). For example, there could be standard categories and if you want you could add your own. Then, the installer would simply install the app into the given category name (and it's official folder) if it exists or let you choose another one/a new one if doesn't. No more start menu grouping fuss (which often end pointing to dead links), much simplified installation procedures with almost no user input (newbies find very confusing the difference between start menu groups and folders) and all your apps would be neatly organized and indexed. Maybe I should send this suggestion... what do you think?

well, windows vista was designed for the stupid users. you don't even have to install gfx drivers and you can do office work!
since the stupid users are in superior, we intelligent users have no right to complain. stupid users dont want to change the gui. they want to call google and search something once in a month.
what have we learned? - the world is owned by stupid people only.

They're reckless if they certified such a system for Vista. Expecially because of the 512mb of ram: on your laptop the video chipset shares the memory with your ram, leaving you almost with the paging file only. The processor doesn't help either, and I bet the video chipset is a barely sufficient intel 915G or similar. Blame the ones who certified such a system for Vista: the OS is not intended to run decently in these conditions. MacOs X too would have had its fair share of troubles if Apple had to support it. :)


No it's not, or at least it's not for Windows 7. As I said before it will be based on Windows Server 2008. That's the official word.

Chris Flores said:

So MS are going the microkernel route with future windows eh?
(Its not often they admit that the linux way of doing things is better ;P )

Linux kernel is not a microkernel, though.

More than a while ago I read they were experiment with a modular design, but it wasn't directly related to future windows versions (so nothing imminent).


Linux actually uses a monolithic kernel, and Linus Torvalds was actively against the microkernel concept. :)
Instead, from XP Windows uses a hybrid kernel so it tends more towards microkernels than Linux.
Monolithic kernels are usually more efficient, so in the past there weren't many complex microkernel based OS's (which is not much of a problem with modern languages and computers).

Tired of the moronic "use ubuntu" stuff people say. SURE! I WILL USE UBUNTU when I can play and use all my software.

Sounds like Singularity

http://research.microsoft.com/os/Singularity/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9886184-7.html

Hmm, I thought it was, Mabe my understanding of a microkernel is off. (gonna wiki it)
I know Unix was a micro (or at least it used to be)
(been years since my computer science days at uni :)

Edit:

according to mighty wiki:
Linux is 'monolith', windows NT/XP/Vista are 'hybrids', unix was a microkernel.
'twas an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29

I'm sorry to be a moron but... this is the kind of attitude I hate from Linux enthusiasts: very sure of their ideas to prove that they are right, even when they don't know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.

Consider that this debate was what convinced Linus Torvalds to make Linux.

Ubuntu isn't quite to my level of everyday use, sure I can program in BlitzMax and all, thats great.. But until Mono becomes standard and upto full .NET 2.0 support for C#/VB I'll be using Windows XP.

I can play most windows games on Ubuntu, but none that use punkbuster or gameguard (which changes things on the kernel-level and installs drivers), until wine can emulate windows fully to allow those sorts of "game protection" I'll be using Windows XP.

Me too on the linux front. Maybe its just "Me too, I'm a geek and proud of it" syndrome. The software you need to run on your system is in most cases far more important than the OS you want to use.

It's like wanting and needing things, Linux has a few advantages and is better for tweakers I guess. But most people don't want to tweak and base thir OS on the software they need to run not on the OS they want to use. Want and need are very different things, most of us have to settle with what we need to get by and Linux isn't it.

Max OS would be my second choice after windows because it still offers far better applications than windows. If it wasn't for crappy hardware specs it might even be first since it dual boots windows now so you could have your cake and eat it if they let you build to your own specs with quality PC components.

My opinion is that if they let build your pc with the components you want, they couldn't make it to work, at least not with their current investment. In that respect their philosophy is similar to the dashboard of a console: betatesting is based solely on their hardware, and that simplifies things a whole lot while reducing costs even more.

Yeah, the lack of hardware choice is probably the only reason I don't have a mac. Since you can run Win and Mac OS without bios hacks etc there wouldn't be any other reason not to, unless you simply don't like Apple.

But surely the vast range of PC hardware is precisely what's making it such a ballache of a platform to develop for?

The problem is mostly the price of their options, and desktops not being very configurable (looks like quad core Xeon processors only) and a poor selection of mostly middle of the road video cards.

Intel Core 2 Quad Quad Core Processor Q9300 with mobo can be picked up in local stores for $330. so you can build a decent 8800GT system for under $1000 which is about 1/3 the price of a comparable minimaly speced Mac pro with 8800GT. Which comes in at $3000 with free shipping.

If you don't buy a mac pro your stuck with some pretty limited hardware that isn't very upgradeable.

Biggest stumbling block with the mac is poor graphics at premium prices.

Evak: Granted, Mac's seem to represent poor value for money with regard to CPU and graphical performance. What seems to be a balancing factor, though, is a seemingly higher quality of available software and support.

Have you seen the latest edition of Microsoft Office for Mac, for instance? It is a much better offering than the PC version (leaving aside the lack of VBA).

eh? I was admitting i was wrong, i wasnt trying to prove anything. Point remains, whatever it uses, its superior to the windows kernel.

Really? I read the Mac version had all sorts of issues. I haven't run into anything with 2k7 on the PC.

You guys should consider that Apple is not targeting the geek and gaming world with the Macintosh platform. Somebody once wrote in the German c't magazine that 'the PC is more of a computer and the Mac is more of a tool'. Bingo!

Microsoft Office:Mac is the worst example to make a point for Apple software. I haven't seen Office 2008 yet, but Office 2004 felt completely out of place on a Mac; not even drag & drop worked as it does in other Mac applications.

Kernels: Windows NT originally used a clean Mach kernel design, as does Mac OS X. However, Microsoft ran into performance issues with the graphics subsystem, so they successively gave up on the 'clean' Mach design.

There was a not very friendly discussion between Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds about Linux' kernel design back in the early days of Linux when it was not even under the GPL yet, and Professor Tanenbaum made it very clear that he though that 'Linux was obsolete' and that it used a very poor and out-dated design approach. Back in that time, Mach kernels were -THE- big thing, at least in research, on paper and in marketing.

The first release of any version of Windows was buggy in the past and had compatibility issues with hardware, and in most cases you needed more CPU, memmory and so on.

As soon as they created a second edition or service pack 1 most stuff worked fine. So learning from the past I will wait until Windows 7 SP1 before I touch it.

And Vista isn't that bad, unless you bought one of those cheap Vista Ready computers that can't even run Aero.
If you have a decent GFX card and CPU and 2Gig's of mem, Vista SP1 will be very stable and there is not much difference in gaming speed. I also could run every single game I played on XP before except 1 game that was using X-trap, I blame X-trap on not updating their software for that.

Dude, get more RAM! Same with everyone else who says Vista is slower than XP. Vista is not worse than XP in any way, shape, or form, as long as you have the RAM to fit it. Except the compatibility thing...some of your games and stuff may not work. I liked XP's compatibility wizard that I had.



I agree, I think Windows needs something new. All the operating systems since Win 95 seem to just be improved versions of the thing before it. Nothing completely new. But if they did change it, there would be a huge amount of complaining. People just don't like learning new things. They need to keep the old system, but add the option for a different one. Customization.



Hey, we're all stupid people in some way or another. If you define stupidity as being computer illiterate, then you need to broaden your horizons. I know some extremely smart people that can't even use Paint. I also know some people who can do anything with a computer, but have the athleticism of a walrus.

Install Ubuntu. It rans fast and has the optional fancy graphics. It's more secure, faster and free.

*sigh*
Sorry, the forum appears to have been taken over by operating system advertisements in every other post. I hope I didn't have a hand in this.

Here is my poorly summarized, hopefully partially accurate explanation for the Microkernel vs. Monolithic kernel thing:
It's kind of counter-intuitive when we look at it from the perspective of Windows and Linux. With a microkernel, everything is split into small modules, whereas a monolithic kernel is one single big chunk. (Not quite as bad as it sounds; Linux does separately compiled kernel modules for drivers and does not completely die when a single module crashes). The difference in the case of Linux is that big chunk is a lot smaller than the name would apply. The Linux kernel deals with very little and stays very much in scope of what a kernel needs to do; everything that makes the operating system goes to userspace.

why install ubuntu??
all software and games i have are made for _windows_ and they won't run on linux or mac...
switching to linux would mean to re-buy/download all software and games AGAIN. some of the software even don't exist for linux.
and what's about BB programming?

Wine.

Photoshop CS3 which I use about 40% of my work time on doesn't run in wine. Never tried 3ds max so I can't comment there. But looking at the Wine compatibility list it really isn't all that good on the reliability stakes.

I just don't think Linux is very dependable as anything other than a tweakers paradise, networking or basic desktop machine.

women

song

;)

Most high-end software doesn't work because of them using alot of stuff wine simply doesn't have support for yet.

Not to mention the protection they put in..

I have Vista Home Basic, but I have never installed it because I only have an Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 with 2GB RAM and a 256 MB GeForce graphics card. I doubt it is powerful enough for Vista Home Basic.

I would be careful with the word "dependable" there, if I were you! Either you're forgetting what runs on everything from cell phones to the world's biggest supercomputers, or (more likely) I am missing the particular context for "dependable". The zealots could be here any minute now.

Anyway, these are different platforms. They run different things. Unlike most game consoles, though, the difference is entirely justifiable; these platforms are very different in implementation and in philosophy.
Nice quote from someone on Slashdot: "It is not a feature that the software will only run on a specific version of Windows OS. That's a liability, and you are feeling the pinch now." I don't like it when someone tries to tell other people that they should use Linux when it is clear they rely on particular indispensable expensive high end software, but at the same time I think it is important to keep in mind what is wrong here. Because the software relies on a closed platform, Microsoft acts as a gatekeeper for the entire software ecosystem. We are seeing more and more that they lack the competence to keep this gate properly even if they want to, and they have it entirely in their power to perform startlingly significant acts. It's a bit scary, and I think a situation we should try to avoid in such an important field.

Good point, Symbian OS (mobile) is used in 60% of the cell phones out there, and its just recently been opensourced - Linux.

Android? Linux too.
PalmOS? Supposed to be going Linux soon.

IBM's Roadrunner? Windows? rofl.

I guess Linux is going to be a lot more popular with programmers on a programming forum. Probably one of the few places where people will have a interest in OS's and platforms for more than just running software.

I'm not a programmer, Mostly use graphics software with some basic scripting maybe 5% of the time and play the occasional game, bit of web browsing and email. So probably closer to your average Joe computer user that never actually does much with an OS but run programs and organize data on their hard drive.

For most people here Linux probably isn't such a bad idea though :).

I run Vista Ultimate on less than that. No problems at all.

With Vista I think Ram is the biggest factor. Even XP suffers with less than 1gb. Running Vista with less than 1GB is like XP with 256mb. Pretty much a waste of time.

Vista runs well on my PC and I don't even have dual core. 6600GT 128mb I used to have was fine with aero, and upgrading from 1gb to 2gb brought all the slow running games up to speed. My newer vid card is a 7800GS AGP and a little better still. But I never found the UI clunky, it was some of the utils that were auto starting by default that slowed Vista for me.

The new search service for MS office, and windows searching for network peripherals like printers automatically in the background when running programs was where I got the biggest hit.

2gb of ram can be bought for $20 to $40 here depending on whether you want PC4200 or PC6400.

Previous versions of photoshop and PSP work under wine (I use PSP 9 on mine ok combined with gimp ive got the power i need). 3D studio max is apparently a dead loss in wine but there are other industry standard 3D programs that actually have a native version (Softimage XSI, Maya etc.)

Its very dependable, i have a small micro-atx based fileserver thats always on running XUbuntu. That I use quite often as a remote PC via ssh/vnc from anywhere i need to when out and about.

Its been on 24/7 for almost 2 years with perhaps 2 or 3 reboots in that whole time (for updates etc)

No speed issues with 2d games or anything? I am not doubting you, but when I tried one of those online evaluators for VIsta, I only scored a "2" for graphics cards. I thought I would probably need a more powerful video card or more system ram?

My GeForce 7600GT only scores a 5. I wouldn't pay too much heed to the Windows Rating. Also, I only have an Athlon XP3000+ @ 2.2GHz, and 1.5GB RAM (PC2700 DDR). Note its not even DDR2 RAM.

I use it for developing and testing primarily and I couldn't do that if it wasn't up to the task.

A lot of the stuff you hear about Vista being crap stems from the Anti Microsoft/Pro-Linux Club. Most of the people who bitch about it probably haven't even used it (or at least, not a legal copy). Monkey see, monkey do.

i get ratings between 5.0 and 5.5, so my total rating is 5.0. but 5 is prefect for vista.

actually i really liked vista until i had the chance to test it a few weeks in a row. in total, i installed it about 4 times and another ~2 times because of failed installations...

See, that must be something wrong with your PC. I've installed Vista about a dozen times on various PCs and never had a single problem.

Oh wait, I know. I've got a magical PC. That's what it is.

GfK: My complete system specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo 6400 - 2.13GHz
2GB RAM DDR2 4200
GeForce 7300 LE 256MB
SB Audigy

Double checking, this should run Vista Home Basic, okay?

I see no reason why it shouldn't (assuming the HD can accommodate a Vista install at around 12-15GB).

15gb ?!?
jeeze i remember installing 3.11 from floppies (5+ i forget)

Thank you, GFK. I don't have one of those newfangled "magical PCs" but, I will give it a go this weekend.

I doubt the fancy graphics run fast on that setup (expecially if its chipset is not supported). Anyway, I find most effects such as fusion's graphically excessive instead of being elegant... I wonder who in the right mind would keep them on. I turned off even Vista's transitions even though these are not as distractive.


Only? as GFK said, it works perfectly on that setup. The video card only needs hardware acceleration: with a few exceptions even integrated chipsets work fine with Aero. The new graphical features hinders the overall performance so little to be unnoticeable. About the memory, for office use 1gb is even enough (not on laptops, where video memory is almost always shared), while for graphics, video, audio editing and modern games you are better off with 2gb. In the past some older games (like Fear) were showing a decrease in performance more due to inaccurate reports than anything else, but that's it (the problem was related only to the drivers on some nvidia cards which showed a decrease in performance in the magnitude of 5% / 15%).

@Devils child: by attributing such problems to the OS you're not giving a good image of yourself as a technician.

Hey everybody, i wrote that Vista vas slower than XP on my dekstop PC too! And that is an AMD 64 3200+, 1GB ram, GeForce 8600GT.! And my laptop graphics adapter is no intel gxxx, it's is an ATI Radeon Xpress 200M and it runs WoW smooth on XP, but on Vista, full of texture cracks, lag and it loads SLOOW. And this is compared with both operative systems with no visual effects like skin and Aero.

And have you heard about ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/) ?

It is an open source OS, which have got almost a copy of the windows kernel. SAme drivers and executables and such. Read more! The only disadvantage is, that it's still in alpha stage. But very interesting!

This is very interesting. I going to test it on one of my older computers to see how this goes, I hope Mame will run fine on this. If so I don't need to think about Windows licenses for my future Arcade projects. Even tho it's alpha it's worth a try.

Thanks for that link.

Read this! :-)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/letter.html

It seems Windows 7 will be more Vista then you imagined...

Part of text from link :

:)

Perhaps we will just to all have to wait and see. Too much speculation at the moment.

My Personal prediction:
-windows 7 will come out two or three years after the intended date,
-by then Vista will be the standard and will have been hacked, pactched and 'service pack'ed into a much better system.
-Windows 7 will be released and will be the usual rushed-out bombshell with the usual bugs, problems. groans and diehardism from (by then) vista users.
-Meanwhile OSX, BSD and Ubuntu will have poached some new blood, as web apps will be more common and there will be more choice of SW on the other platforms.

This has been the pattern of every other release since 3.1 so i dont expect to see any change.

Agreed. XP will become what Win98 is now - a sinking ship with all but the hard core escaped into 'Lifeboat Vista', with some silly bint stood at the front wailing "my heart will go on". No it won't - your boat is sinking. So stop clinging onto floating bits of wood and move on.

Lol

i better hope this is damn true. because i don't want to stick another five years to an already 7 years old and non-aero OS (XP)!

Like I said, what made me hesitate was the rating of "2" for the video card.

Isn't Windows 7 what Vista *should have been in the first place* ???
My question then to the current mob who are using Vista (i.e, Windows 7 Alpha edition) is, "Are you willing to pay AGAIN for Windows 7?"

Money for old rope comes to mind

The choice is freedom or monopoly..
http://badvista.fsf.org/

@nawi: it is propaganda at its worst, which I always deprecate, expecially when tied to such practical fields as science and technology. Ideological beliefs pushed to this extent often become a substitute for experience and critical thinking.

I agree. You can't even get blitz3D or blitzplus for linux. So why are so many people on this forum saying to get it? Although there is an addon thing that can run some exe files...maybe it works with these. But really, ubuntu is worthless, unless you really like messing with your computer, or put a lot of stock into looks.



Agreed, completely. It seems like people never learn. The same things happen with a lot of other things. I play RuneScape, and almost EVERY SINGLE UPDATE has tons of people saying, "Jagex messed up again! I hate the updates in this stupid game. This will totally ruin RuneScape!" But instead, there is little to no bad side to the updates.

The same thing happens with updates to computers. They aren't going to make it worse! Get it through your heads! If it's not enough better to spend the money for it, they probably wouldn't even make the stupid computer! If, in the extremely unlikely case they did make a computer that wasn't worth the money, few people would buy the computer, and all new software would still be supported by the older computers.

Correct B3D doesnt work on it, not sure about B+.

Prehaps because Blitzmax can compile as a compiled linux binary (of course it can, theres a linux version) but interestingly wine seems to run max generated WINDOWS exes quite well too. Ive played a lot of windows only blitzmax games on it using wine. Plus the new engine is aparently going to be cross platform which may have something to do with it too.

Why is it worthless? It installs and can be set up with apps in half the time it takes me on windows, its faster, smoother and allround nicer to use than both XP and vista. I know this because I use all 3 daily on similar spec machines.

For me it is reversed. Windows vista is redundant to me for everything other than B3D and any game i cant run in wine. I end up having to mess around more installing XP/vista than i do with ubuntu these days (activation, antivirus, drivers, software... next-next-next-next-next-next-next-next-next-next)

In ubuntu etc., you simply tick what you want from repository lists, click install, at the same time, start it copying in your data and go down the pub!! job done. I would rather be drinking a beer than endlessly clicking 'next', 'ok' and 'yes im sure' for an hour.

Ok, if any hardware is not on the official Ubuntu "out of the box" list then some fiddling *may* be required, but its only a 1 time process, once youve done it once so you know what to do for the next time. Anyway, why should they support everything? does OSX? Does vista for that matter?

Lots of people prefer Vista over XP, and there are shops that advertise XP computers, and people often return their computer to get XP installed. The reason many people use Vista is that they got it bundled with their computer.

By the way, B3D games, B3D compiling etc work pretty well on wine.

Ooh! please tell how. What dlls have you changed? Which version of B3D? Wine version etc.
I can get stuff to run but the graphics are all corrupted, almost as if the pageflipping and Z buffers are all out of whack.
If i could get B3D going in wine i can pretty much drop windows except for 'release' compiling and testing :D

well well... and after i compiled and released my projects - who is going to execute them? the 95% of the ones who use windows or the 2% who use linux???

Eh? Just because somethings developed in a linux/unix based environment doesnt mean it cannot be re-compiled & released on windows and osx. In fact its probably more compatable that way round than the other as theres no proprietry single-platform obsticles clogging compatability (like directX). Im aiming to eventually release on all 3.

And talking about markets, windows is saturated like a lard-fried french toast. OSX, BSD and Linux, are gaping voids begging to be filled (5% of worlds PCs= LOADS).
I would wager that the majority of your 95% of users dont even like computers and just use them at work, let alone those who actually play games
..and dont forget, the larger the market the smaller the pebble in the pond, massively decreasing your chances of being 'seen' anyway.

You can compile windows binaries in Blitz3D using wine.

i heard that "Avalon" is the replacement of the GDI window draw engine. it is used in vista and the upcoming windows 7. i also heard that it can be used in windows xp using .NET framework 3.0
that would mean that i could have XP running with the pretty vista look. if anyone knows more about this, please tell me!!

oh and take a look at this, of course: Windows 7 feature request list :)

Jim Brown, that company caters to the most computer illiterate people in at least it's general area. Unless you only have 256 or 512 mb of RAM, there is not one thing I have found yet in Vista that is worse than XP. If some stupid person installs Vista on a computer that can't handle it, or buys a real cheap computer, that's their illiteracy coming out, not Vista being bad.

To be honest i would not be attracted to a bad g-dubya-bush characature in a shops window, regardless of what it was advertising :D

I have (Versus XP as it is now):

-Really slow for file ops both in zip archives and over SMB/NFS. This is a huge pain in my butt because i do a lot of image archiving
-By default the security setting is a joke. Almost everything needs to be turned off (as theres aparently no intermediate options, for example UAC is either ON or OFF, theres no other settings) Problem is their new security model is built on the fact that everyone should switch this crap on (that alone could be a potential security problem; assumption)
-Lan gaming with older games is problematic sometimes.
-Loads of previously supported hardware is now legacy (which is a shame as it still works perfectly well - save the planet and all that) they should have included an XP driver wrapper for things like printers, scanners etc.
-The new gui is awful, the borders/titlebars of the windows take up way too much room (although this can be altered to some extent)
-There are many things in less efficient and 'non-intuitive' places I found Gnome & OSX far more intuitive comming from XP than Vistas new one.
-Classic jargon seems to have been re-written, which is supposed to be easier for the inexperienced. Problem is the inexperienced are still confused and the windows experts are left scratching their heads saying "wtf does THAT mean?"
-Its bloated and slow when you consider the amount of HW power needed to make it run as smooth and quick as a less powerful PC with XP.
-The fact that installed programs cannot write to their own filespace is a bit of a radical change. Sensible - yes (and how it should have been done from the start) but it now presents a real problem for compatibility of some programs.
-Had a a couple of bluescreens and kernel crashes but no more than the usual amount. Although this is on the list as i though they should by now be able to write a more solid kernel.
-Wireless stability with a common intel pro wireless is REALLY unstable although could be the drivers fault. However, friends have reported odd dropouts with other cards too.
-The network repair function leaves me swearing. What happened to the nice quick "righclick->repair" that reboots the card and flushes the DNS etc?. I dont need vista to "think" for 2 minutes and then blame my router (which is talking to my other laptop fine!)

Other than that it seems quite good and has a good chess program.

What I'd rather see is a "List of features that are actually going to be in it". I didn't bother going through the list but all of the ones I did bother reading were supposed to be in Vista. One (ISO Image Support) was supposed to be in XP. And not to be pedantic, but the lions share of those features aren't even measurable.

So what you're saying is that if you see a Computer advertised as being "Vista Capable" and assume that meant it could actually run Vista (and preferably at least one other program without grinding to a halt), then you're stupid?

Here's another idea I think is more reasonable. Microsoft should stop lying to their customers.

What decent things does Vista bring to the table?

I've always thought XP was a great OS, even decent without any service packs. Never suffered from slow file copying etc etc, out of the box. Decent firewall and antivirus and it's great. Very stable as well.

What does Vista bring? That's a serious question, not a XP it's the best thing ever and i'm too ignorant to change my opinion.

XP runs perfectly fine on 512 MB too. Unless your doing Photoshop type work with apps needing alot of their own RAM.

Vista has a much more snappy and responsive UI here. Even with Aero on my computer made of 2-4 year old components. Need to turn off a few things and disable the automatic network scanning where it looks for new hardware and computers on your network so it doesn't pause looking for stuff I don't care about. I already have the network printer as a default and won't be adding any more soon same goes with my wifes desktop and notebook.

Other than that running applications is pretty much the extent to which I use the OS though.

There are lots of unofficial "vista ready" logos which are created by manufacturers without the supervision of Microsoft, made with the sole purpose of bypassing official tables while still letting the user think the rig is 'vista ready'. Take a look at Kimo's laptop for example: the manufacturer clearly put his head in the sand before shipping such a laptop with Vista.

But either way and regardless of official specs, I perfectly know how a PC will work with the chosen hardware, and you can bet the same about the manufacturers. These manufacturers simply don't care about the end users as long as they can ship low cost laptops with Vista (thus making more sales) and then blame Microsoft when their customers complain.

He was referring to the official "Windows Vista Capable" stickers approved by MS. If you remember, the internal MS documents that have been released during the class action suit showed that MS were well aware of the issue and openly participated in the fraudulent labeling. FlameDuck was not stating an opinion, he was stating a documented fact.

I don't know if that got addressed in SP1, but I can say first-hand that that was a huge issue with pre-SP1 Vista.

It appeared to be mostly apparent when dealing with small changes (e.g. adding some files, extracting some files, or extracting just some subfolders). If you do a right-click -> extract all then it's OK. However, the insane slowness when dealing with incremental changes it maddening.

(And when I say slow, I mean ssslllllooooooooooowwwwwwww. as in "It took 30 seconds under XP, and 48 minutes under vista"-slow.)



While I like the Aero look overall, I really do miss the ability to get a "dark text on light background" in the windows taskbar. The white-on-black may look slightly prettier, but it's a lot harder on the eyes...

But it's either that or Windows Classic look, I really can't stand the fallback Windows XP Fisher Price GUI either...

> The new gui is awful, the borders/titlebars of the windows take up way too much room


Not the mention all that crappy fading in/out
I still prefer "fast" o/s functionality any day rather than waiting for fancy-pants-effects to finish

MICROSOFT - It's an operating system - NOT a game

One of the most time-consuming things I seem to do is moving/resizing windows to get at other windows already open
Everytime I plug a USB flash card in, the window opening up consumes about 70% of the screen. Bloody annoying
I cannot see this getting any better with fat-bordered windows
Looking at the original image posted at the top shows how little room you have on the desktop to do anything due to the wasted space in the each window design

Oh, and as for the fancy effects .. Not for me thanks:

Luddites.

love struck

Youve got to be joking right?!? XP is a good os -NOW- 6 or 7 years LATEr, after many many updates and fixes.
I recently did a recovery on a PC with no internet connection and SP0. It was horrid, very, very unstable with vertually no native HW support whatsoever and vunerable to almost every webnasty since 2k. I think its difficult for many to remember quite how bad XP was when it was first released. (as most people update & activate before doing anything else - and sensiby so)

Jim Brown: you can use the default 2k look in vista, too! tho, it doesn't look as good as in the real win2k... i really like the looks of vista and i think many others like it, too. windows 7 is going to look about familiar. same border width, window caption same height etc...

BTW: the window minimize&restore animation is faster in vista than in XP.

It costs much more power cpu and gpu wise as well in Vista than XP so I guess it has to be faster, especially as its 3D accelerated.
Above that the Window Manager of Vista takes 4-8 times as much RAM as the whole XP explorer took ( commonly 100MB here in Vista64 Business, explorer and other things are always distinct processes and take another 50-100MB)

so what? today's PCs are all powerful enough for vista's aero system... and if you install vista on a 3 years old PC, then i guess it's your own fault...

I want a new PC with more power to do what i do, not for the OS to eat up loads of that extra power to do the same things as it did before, in more of less the same amount of time. (one on a list of reasons why i mostly use a linux based os)

64bit is quite likely to use double the ram compared to the same app in 32bit, Ram is dirt cheap though, often about $10 per GB, and doesn't really interfere with performance much so long as you have enough your Vista apps will usually run faster.

RAM isn't expensive, but I don't know where you are getting it for $10 per GB. More like $20 to $30. And if you get newer technology, it can cost $60 or $70 per GB or more...

Frys Electronics chain usualy has weekly specials. This week the local store has a couple of good deals, the catch being that your limited to 1 of each special ram offer per household. So if you want more than 2gb of matching Crucial PC8400 ram you have to pay the full $65 for the second 2GB instead of $25 in the special.

Lots of nice deals this week because of the 4th July weekend.

My two cents:

I have not used Vista extensively. However, while using it on a modern laptop, I found it to be slower than XP on a much less powerful computer (something like 2GHz, 2GB vs. 1.2GHz, 512MB). XP even runs my old 833MHz Celeron laptop very well (until you open several apps). (The only Linux to compete in speed is DSL.)

I don't see anything that great about Vista that I should use it instead of XP. It may be more secure (I don't know), but then again I don't use an anti-virus on my XP computer except for scanning downloads. It may be pretty, but then again I use the Win9x look on XP. XP works quite well for me and I don't see Vista making up for what XP lacks (stability, computer restarts, program management). If I changed OS for security, the choice would probably be a Linux distro.

If I'm going to buy a new computer, I'll want as much of the CPU and GPU power to be available for apps and games, not to be thrown away by the OS to make the desktop pretty. When I will buy my next computer, I sure hope they'll still have an XP laptop that can run Linux to sell me.

Memory management in Vista is handled differently from XP, so that dedicated memory does not always reflect the amount of memory actually used by the applications and the OS. You still need at least 1gb of RAM to run it properly though.


I guess that's why Compix Fusion, which adopted this concept to the extreme and beyond, is so hyped then...

Anyway, all of you are overestimating CPU and GPU usage with aero, probably because of wild guessing instead of first hand use. And of course you can disable in detail each and every effect to suit your needs (for example I kept aero but eliminated transparency and maximize/minimize effects), so I don't see the problem. I could agree if it was forced or needed hacking for removal, but that's not the case at all.

It's the same propaganda approach as always: if you want aero the answer is that if you use Ubuntu and Fusion you can have way more (excessive) bells and whistle; if you want a simple OS, instead of disabling aero you tell the user to install Ubuntu without Fusion. Personally I preferred the old Gnome approach to this Vista/Mac OS catch up run, but either way this trolling sounds like a lose-lose situation for Vista while both OS's in that respect are offering the same thing really albeit with a slightly different style. At least Mac OS, while not always as intuitive as it is marketed, is offering a different approach which stands out as an original product.

Instead of trying a new (better?) approach, to attract new users at the moment Ubuntu is striving to demonstrate that it can be Vista and Mac OS alike, which is a paradox since the community at the same moment is trying to demostrate the superiority of the OS.

:)

You mean compiz fusion/beryl which was around before vista and runs on an old ati radeon mobility X300 with 256 megs of ram? (ok, not that smooth, but it -does- run)

The great thing is you can turn it on and off with an icon, (click click on, click click off), sometimes the 3D tools are useful, othertimes not.
TBH, i dont really use it that much and yes you can have excessive bells and whistles -IF- you want to, although i cant imagine anyone does, i just find the zoom, window selector and cube handy sometimes.

..and im not talking about aero, im talking about the basic requirements of the whole thing.

I dont know why you say i speak in propaganda, that confuses me as i am a windows user as well and have been for almost 20 years. so i think ive earned my right to an opinion when i say vista is 'sameold sameold' from MS. Its not propaganda at all, and everything ive written above is an honest critique from an experienced user/technician whose been with MS since DOS v3

Well, that was a sad example, since ATI support was so bad back then that a flaming window (one of the annyoing and excessive effects I was referring before among with wobblying windows) could take half a second to render, differently from other desktop OS's... I would call that unusable instead of 'not smooth'.


And so you can with Vista! the only OS which doesn't permit turning off the eye candy is Mac OS (mac users, please correct me if I'm wrong! I've (still) got limited experience with Leopard :) ).


Sorry, I was talking about this particular issue and not directly to you when I expressed my opinion on the subject, since it is a very common attitude. However, my point remains (for example, you point out that you can easily disable bells and whistles on Ubuntu as to imply that it isn't the same on Vista, which I find deliberately misleading).

why because it runs? Im sure vista would run lovely on that machine aero or not. Aside from the flames, (agreed, horrible effect and intensive) The zoom and fade (useful) functions work fine though and Ubuntu & Fedora run pretty smoothly on that machine with compiz turned off and its only 800Mhz P3 256Meg.

Yes of course you can, but tell me how to change the window renderer on the fly with one double click of the mouse, and with a <2 second switch time, say between the 2K look and aero.

Could you possibly be any more arbitrary in your criteria? If you've decided you don't like or want it, and you want to disable it, are you really likely to be turning it on and off thirty or forty times a day? Or is that extra five seconds ( or whatever it might, because I've never needed to turn it off ) of your life really going to tip the balance between which OS you want to use? Sorry, but you're just proving Doiron's point that you're unable to view the subject without grinding an axe.

Harry up and submit it to the Guinness World Records before anyone else does!
Category: Amazing Feats -> Unusual Skills

If you're lucky it could end between Fastest Time to Pluck a Turkey and Fastest run 100 metres barefoot on ice.

Just answering his post and im not grinding any axes at all, it wasnt supposed to sound contrarious or anything. I was just pointing out that its a really useful feature. If im doing 3d rendering or playing games, its nice to be able to just click it off, instantly freeing resources & speeding things up a little bit.
When working with text & 2D graphics in multiple windows compiz has some VERY useful features (its not just eye candy you know) and can be started with a click(click) of the mouse. Anyway, Dorion mentioned compiz, not me. I was not even originally talking about aero vs compiz anyway, rather that vista in general requires a lot more PC power to do the same jobs as well as XP, Ubuntu etc. (enhanced desktops or not).
So if anyone's grinding axes its you, i was merely discussing (which is the whole point in a 'discussive' thread).

Well, thats just weird and who is harry anyway? :P)

Sorry for being unnessacarily offended :)

Actually it is the other way around... it shows about knowing what you're talking about. Rendering at the moment is done with the CPU only (things could change in the future with programmable GPUs but not as of now), so that leaving the desktop to the GPU actually frees CPU load. Also, you have a higher CPU and GPU load *only* when you move the desktop around, which is unlikely if you're playing a windowed game (and if the game is fullscreen it isn't even an issue) or if you left the pc working on audio or video processing.

Yes, but games & 3D stuff DOES run slightly slower with compiz and aero desktop enabled, and faster without (even fullscreen). With it enabled it becomes a more comfortable and smooth environment for browsing, image editing etc. with no noticable speed difference.
Fullscreen doesnt run that well with compiz enabled though anyway (but thats possibly down to my graphics card?)
(which is why its great to be able to kill/start it on the fly)

Although, i did say i wasn't talking about 3D based desktops.

I wonder what kind of hardware are you using, but the desktop being jerky? I don't know about Fusion, but it isn't the case with aero even with integrated chipsets, no doubts about it.


Well, if that's the case, in the end it sounds like it is great to disable it in two seconds because it isn't actually working as expected. That's an interesting turn of events. :)

However, trying to be as clueless as possible about your issue, it is due to bad coding of the component, instability of the OS, or driver implementation? I would say that such a problem is actually an issue while a heavier but stable desktop OS could be considered otherwise, yet you voluntarily overlook the problem when discussing this aspect. That's another example of the subjective attitude I mentioned. However, I would still consider silly to bash the OS instead of simply reporting the problem, expecially if we keep the premise of being totally clueless about the causes, and that's what differentiates trolls/fanatics from the others (keep in mind that I don't put you in this category, though I would say that your views are not entirely based on knowledge... I'm even starting to wonder whether you tried Vista extensively or not).

Unfortuantely i have, ive been using it for quite a while for b3d development and compatability testing at home (and experiments at work with it since the beta). I have also been on a number of (very tedious) implementation IT-training courses by the company i work for, as we eventually have to implement and support it.
(They are panicking that nothing is working quite the way it should, and its been nicknamed 'doomsday' by all IT staff involved, both here and in the US.)

No the desktop is not jerky, i didnt say that. Without it its like XP. With it its really smooth like aero. Its just the FPS is lower for 3D apps and this is the same on either OS. On my two newer machines i dont -have- to turn off compiz or aero, it still runs quite useable either way, but i DO get faster 3D without so i like to be able to turn it off when not using it. The feature is there so i use it, if it wasnt i wouldnt use compiz (although i would miss the scaling window selector, that IS handy).

Hows it any more irritating than a fullscreen app crashing out when say an update message appears in windows? (It happens a lot, and likewise its probably down to programming/drivers/HW) ... but still i ask, whats aero/compiz got to do with my original point anyway? Youre the one who keeps going on about 3D desktops which i wasnt talking about in the first place :/

Anyway, Here is the hardware on all my machines and how they comapre for 3D apps :

Main Desktop:
GF6800 3Ghz 4GB, Ubuntu / Vista / XP. - I get significantly higher FPS on Ubuntu & XP than vista (both using DX9 driver and OGL -which is slower on vista, which i understand is the ati drivers fault).
(@dorion, there is little difference on this one although i still get higher 3D FPS without aero on win and compiz on ubu .)

Main Laptop:
ATI HD2400 Laptop 2GB 2Ghz Centrino Duo, Fedora / Vista / XP - Some minor difference but is more or less true to the above too.
(@dorion, its on this pc i get a slight flickering in fullscreen when using compiz)

Highly Portable Laptop (12"):
ATI radeon X300 800Mhz PIII - Ubuntu / XP (Cannot run vista obviously). Ubuntu runs better than XP on this machine but both are fully useable for common computing stuff / coding. However, the 3D is an absolute dog all round. I tend minimum desktop environments here on both XP and Ubuntu for obvious reasons.

Doorstop Laptop:
Intel 82815, 800Mhz - Ubuntu / XP. (Cannot run vista either) Both OS run normally for all non 2D stuff. 3D is impossible on Ubuntu because intel suck for openGL. Some lo-end 16bit 3D stuff is possible on XP in DX. (This is the machine i use for extreme bottom end testing for B3D)


Back to the topic, here is my hopes for windows 7:

-Re-think security model, totalitarianism and simply an on/off switch is a recipe for disaster as many people will be turning it all off to get stuff to work. -Or at least provide more customisable options.
-Less bloat (more float) so a ridiculous jump in hardware requirements are not required.
-And fix the problems i listed somewhere way up there.^ before this thread went sideways.