Windows 7 beta

[Pent uP Rage]

...is now on Fileplanet. Check it out if you're brave enough.

Just a heads up!

Windows 7 is the next Microsoft operating system that replaces predecessor, Windows Vista. Win 7 has some big improvements and introduces DirectX 11.

- To get a Windows 7 Beta Key that last to August 09, go to the Windows 7 Beta Page, click on the correct download version, and signup for a key.
- The page includes installation instructions for upgrading from Vista or a clean install dual boot for WinXP and Vista users.
- The file is in ISO format and needs software to extract into a DVD or hard drive. Use ImgBurn Software.
- This is the Windows 7 64 Bit Beta. Click here for the Windows 7 Beta (32 Bit).

[Thanatos]

Using a Microsoft OS is risky enough, let alone a beta.

[Panzerbear]

very true. I will not even go there, until I see full release of Windows 7 and hear from others that it is at least as stable as XP.

[Wheelchair]

very true. I will not even go there, until I see full release of Windows 7 and hear from others that it is at least as stable as XP.

It's very stable, More stable then XP dare I say...but I guess that's not very hard

[Jopel]

Thank God someone else has got to the point written way above in the discussion...

Exact same point I discussed earlier with Simetrical in some topic I forgot... and I still disagree with you on that and agree with tw3kr-PC...

No hard feelings of course

[Zuwxiv]

It's not quite as stable, but I am very impressed by it. It certainly runs much faster than Vista, and I'm surprised that it supports more of my favorite older games.

I'm very impressed... But I also want to see OSX 10.6, Snow Leopard from Apple, which is supposed to similarly be streamlined and much faster.

[Thanatos]

More stable than XP? Compared to Vista, everything is a godsend.

[Strelok]

More stable than XP? Compared to Vista, everything is a godsend.

Why do people state an opinion like it is objectivity?\
Clearly any stability/performance issues is 99% of the time, user error, software configuration and hardware configuration wise.

[Wheelchair]

I guess my experience with Vista has been different then your own Thana, I have had no problems.

I actually just Tried getting a Printer working on XP(Moms PC), I plugged it in and it said new hardware detected but you need the CD, so I had to search for the drivers online (I know I lost the CD) and I found it, took a few minutes.

Plugged it into my PC and in 2 seconds the drivers were installed, and I printed my essay.

<3 Vista.

[Admiral Nelson]

Yeah, I agree Wheelchair. I think that it's a small but vocal minority that's actually having problems with Vista. I've used it since its release and haven't encountered any.

[Simetrical]

Why do people state an opinion like it is objectivity?\
Clearly any stability/performance issues is 99% of the time, user error, software configuration and hardware configuration wise.

That's just not true at all. In Windows 9x, for instance, the problems with stability were due to fundamental flaws in the operating system, not user or software error. In Vista, increased memory usage compared to XP is again unambiguously a difference in the operating systems. Yes, you might be able to mitigate the difference by laborious adjustments, but most people aren't in any position to do that correctly, including most of the people who try.

Stability and performance are two of the most important user-visible aspects of an operating system kernel. They are absolutely tied to the kernel and are not just a matter of configuration. You cannot configure Windows Vista so that it can run on very old hardware as well as, say, Windows 3.1 or stripped-down Linux. It's partly just a kernel-level issue.

That said, stability in Microsoft's own operating system code has not been a major problem since NT was introduced. A large majority of system crashes can be blamed on third-party drivers. If Windows is subject to more of those than other OSes, it's probably because it suffers from more third-party drivers than other OSes. If Vista is or was subject to more than XP, it's probably because driver authors weren't used to writing drivers for Vista.

As for performance, that's a more arguable issue. Newer versions of Windows are certainly more bloated than older ones, but you can disable the bloat to a certain point if you feel like it and know how. Still, it's fairly clear that at least Vista performs worse out of the box than XP in some fairly important respects (e.g., memory usage), and it's not fair to call leaving things in the default configuration "user error".

[Strelok]

That's just not true at all. In Windows 9x, for instance, the problems with stability were due to fundamental flaws in the operating system, not user or software error.

I did not say back in that day in age. However, back then many tips and tweaks were availible for Win98 & Win98SE, and many registry tweaks and cleaners worked very well to increase system stability.

In Vista, increased memory usage compared to XP is again unambiguously a difference in the operating systems.

Barely. On idle I have around 360-500MB of RAM usage. Open up Task Manager, go to the "Performance" tab, and look at Cached:, that is the amount of RAM SuperFetch caches, look at Free: and that is the amount of RAM you have free.
Now run a program like Memtest(the one that runs in Windows not on boot), and you will instantly see Cached goes way down, into the 0-100 margin. This should prove SuperFetch DOES use RAM, and Vista frees up RAM when needed.
Now, I have some non critical services disabled, and I rarely have any unneeded 3rd party services and processes running, so I have done my part, and Vista hardly hogs my RAM.
It should be said more often, of the need of 2GB and over of RAM for smooth experience on Windows Vista.

NOTE: I have seen as much as 600-1GB of RAM being used on Windows XP. I can't even get to 1GB on Vista, even with many applications open!

Yes, you might be able to mitigate the difference by laborious adjustments, but most people aren't in any position to do that correctly, including most of the people who try.

Updating your drivers for each hardware component, and visiting Windows Update regularly is action enough. Why is it that I have no problems with Windows Vista, at all? No driver, performance or stability issues? Because I have the latest drivers, updates, and do well to keep my system "oiled and greased". That is why 99% is user error. The rest of the 1% is faulty drivers provided, and Microsoft & application faults.

You cannot configure Windows Vista so that it can run on very old hardware as well as, say, Windows 3.1 or stripped-down Linux. It's partly just a kernel-level issue.

Or maybe times just change. Windows XP uses more than Windows 98, and there was freak out there, too. Windows Vista has many new features that requires more to be running, the most you can do is reduce any potential problems by doing the steps I said above. That is why I say user error.

That said, stability in Microsoft's own operating system code has not been a major problem since NT was introduced. A large majority of system crashes can be blamed on third-party drivers. If Windows is subject to more of those than other OSes, it's probably because it suffers from more third-party drivers than other OSes. If Vista is or was subject to more than XP, it's probably because driver authors weren't used to writing drivers for Vista.

Of course they werent, and then it is again user error for not checking for driver updates.

As for performance, that's a more arguable issue. Newer versions of Windows are certainly more bloated than older ones, but you can disable the bloat to a certain point if you feel like it and know how.

Certain point, while maintaining stability is a very easy achievement.

till, it's fairly clear that at least Vista performs worse out of the box than XP in some fairly important respects (e.g., memory usage), and it's not fair to call leaving things in the default configuration "user error".

It is fair. PC usage is not, and should not be or the faint hearted and the unknowledgeable.
I am not saying a few registry tweaks and some basic cleaning and defragmenting and diagnostic checks will make your system fly and be problem free, the main part is keeping applications, drivers, and windows itself updated.

[GrnEyedDvl]

That's just not true at all. In Windows 9x, for instance, the problems with stability were due to fundamental flaws in the operating system, not user or software error. In Vista, increased memory usage compared to XP is again unambiguously a difference in the operating systems. Yes, you might be able to mitigate the difference by laborious adjustments, but most people aren't in any position to do that correctly, including most of the people who try.

Stability and performance are two of the most important user-visible aspects of an operating system kernel. They are absolutely tied to the kernel and are not just a matter of configuration. You cannot configure Windows Vista so that it can run on very old hardware as well as, say, Windows 3.1 or stripped-down Linux. It's partly just a kernel-level issue.

That said, stability in Microsoft's own operating system code has not been a major problem since NT was introduced. A large majority of system crashes can be blamed on third-party drivers. If Windows is subject to more of those than other OSes, it's probably because it suffers from more third-party drivers than other OSes. If Vista is or was subject to more than XP, it's probably because driver authors weren't used to writing drivers for Vista.

As for performance, that's a more arguable issue. Newer versions of Windows are certainly more bloated than older ones, but you can disable the bloat to a certain point if you feel like it and know how. Still, it's fairly clear that at least Vista performs worse out of the box than XP in some fairly important respects (e.g., memory usage), and it's not fair to call leaving things in the default configuration "user error".

I would agree with most of that. When XP was released the biggest problem was getting drivers, I dont think Microsoft had a very good plan in place for third party driver develpment. Things have changed quite a bit since then.

I have Windows 7 installed on this machine and I boot to it occasionally. Most of my drivers are labeled "Pre-release" and I have no issues with them. The biggest problem I have right now is that the Gadgets all move back to my center monitor on reboot instead of staying on the left one, and you canot assign different images, all 3 monitors must have the same image.

Networking is fine, Group Policy is fine. The 3 or 4 games I have installed run just fine, and I havent had a crash yet.

However I do NOT like several things. IE8 forces you to use tabbed browsing, which means I cannot place one site on the left monitor, one site on the right, and type in a third one in the center. I do this quite often normally.

The new Start menu blows, there is no Classic Windows option though you can move some (but not all) icons to the desktop. I like to have My Computer and Network on the desktop, but currently Network cannot be moved there, even via shortcut. And the Show Desktop button is now on the right side and cannot be moved to the Quicklaunch section.

Probably a lot of other things I am forgetting, but some of the new options are cool. I like the themes that can swap desktop images after a certain interval, and some other stuff. I will boot it and make a detailed list later tonight.

[Cyrus the Virus]

It has been proved that it takes a few Service Pack's to get a good, stable experience from Windows.
Let's just see if it will be the same with W7.

[Wheelchair]

It has been proved that it takes a few Service Pack's to get a good, stable experience from Windows.
Let's just if it will be the same with W7.

Well... I think they've really learned their mistake from Windows Vista, when it was released it was garbage, forever tainting it, even if its good now people still think its bad.

I'm sure Windows 7 will be great.

[Cyrus the Virus]

Well... I think they've really learned their mistake from Windows Vista, when it was released it was garbage, forever tainting it, even if its good now people still think its bad.

I'm sure Windows 7 will be great.

XP also had its flaws before SP2, M$ needs to make a helluva OS this time. Basically from the start because they must attract people to it.

And I want them to succeed. I want to switch to a new OS from XP, and Linux, Mac and Vista aren't any options.

[REQUIEM]

i run vista the moment how would i install the windows 7 beta without it affecting my current OS?

[Admiral Nelson]

i run vista the moment how would i install the windows 7 beta without it affecting my current OS?

1. Burn Windows 7 beta to a DVD.
   
2. Make a new partition (assuming you have extra hard drive space) by clicking windows button, right clicking "Computer", clicking "Manage", clicking "Disk Management", shrinking your existing volume and creating new one.
   
3. Restart your computer with the Windows 7 DVD in your DVD drive.
   
4. Confirm when your computer asks if you want to boot from the disk.
   
5. Install Windows 7 into the empty partition.

[Strelok]

Not even close to the level of NT, Linux, etc. If you used Windows 98, it's pretty much guaranteed that you rebooted at least once a week and (if you were smart) reinstalled the whole OS annually. XP was a godsend.

I reboot more than once daily, and reinstall whenever I feel bored (instead of dual booting, I will just erase my current OS completely, and backup things onto my USB flash drive)

Most of the tweaks I have done for a Linux based OS made absolutely no difference, and the ones that do, usually involve disabling and removing core parts of the OS

The recommended amount of RAM for XP was 128 MB, and that's counting all RAM used on the system, including the RAM needed for applications! The OS itself could get by easily on 64 MB, which was the minimum requirement. You're calling five to eight times that level of RAM usage "barely" more?

On a fresh Windows XP SP3 install, I have around 130MB physical used.
On a fresh Windows Vista SP1 install, I have around 500MB physical used.
On a tweaked Windows XP Sp3 install, I have around 100MB physical used
On a tweaked Windows Vista Sp1 install, I have around 380mb physical RAM

You need more RAM when an OS(mainly Microsoft) has more features and memory mangement improvements. Simple as that.
From 100-380MB is barely any to me, because I have adequate RAM for windows Vista, an amount of 2048MB. User action was taken by preparing properly for Windows Vista.

I don't see how Windows 7 is so cut down when it uses the same as Windows Vista for me, same CPU time, same hard drive activity, same RAM, around the same processes, etc. I have not tested it on legacy hardware though.

If you feel so inclined, you can disable many Windows Vista services, including Superfetch, and use the "vLite" tool to strip everything out of it, and it should run pretty good on 512-1GB of RAM then, you sacrifice functionality that way, however.

Again, substitute "the page cache" for "SuperFetch". SuperFetch is irrelevant here. If you turn off SuperFetch, you'll still have a lot of RAM going to your page cache. It will take up all of your spare RAM, but you might have to do something like copy some big files around, since it doesn't pre-fetch as much.

Cached is at 0 with SuperFetch off for me
I need some sources and maybe a longer more complex explanation as proof. When do you say "page cache" do you mean it is cached in the swap file? Or is the page cache something completely different?
Because Cached is clearly under the PHYSICAL RAM section, and it caches 1700MB of my physical RAM.

A fresh install of XP does not use 600 MB of RAM when no programs are running. More like ten times less.

I did not say fresh install, or even my install.
This is exactly my point, user error. I have seen 600MB on Windows XP *BOOT* because it is filled with excess 3rd party processes and services on bootup.

But the point is that to claim that performance issues are almost never caused by the OS is completely wrong

It is right.

Part of user error is not making smart hardware choices. I have 2GB of RAM and Windows Vista tweaked and it runs flawlessly. Even better than Windows XP because of Superfetch and I/O improvements.

If one OS would perform well on a given setup out of the box with no problems, and another will perform poorly, that's a difference between the OSes causing the issue, not "user error" for not paying more money for hardware. It's a problem that's caused by the OS and could be fixed by the OS's developers if they wanted.

If the first sentence is Windows XP and Windows Vista comparision, I disagree.
It "is" user error for not paying for extra RAM, that shows a lack of research. It "is" Microsoft error for not cutting down Windows Vista as much as they could of. It would bring no performance gain for me, though.

I had Windows Vista on a 1GB DDR1 system with an AMD 64 2.6GHZ processor and a standard 5400RPM hard drive running pretty snappy anyways.

That a user might be able to work around a problem somehow doesn't mean it's not a problem. If Firefox crashes whenever you click a certain menu option, you can't say "Well, it's your fault for clicking the menu option, Firefox is fine". The behavior is not the user's fault. User error is when the user does something that should reasonably be expected to bring about the erroneous result. If the software could reasonably be improved so that the error would not come about ― even if that improvement would be impractical or unreasonable on its merits ― it's not a case of user error.

That is user error. Good user action would be to uninstall Firefox, clear out any left over folders and registry keys that Firefox left behind, and then do a complete fresh install.

"User error" just shoves responsibility off programmers and onto everybody else, and I say that as a programmer.

Not exactly. I never have any problems with any applications, the average user might, due to poor configuration.
For an average Windows Vista user, it could be as simple as compatibility mode or running as Administrator that they do not know about.

's the fault of the application's author for not doing the right thing automatically

Even if they do do the "right thing" automatically, user error can still take place by faulty hardware and poor software configuration that is caushing the application to crash or behave irradically.

Good applications will Just Work, regardless of what the user does

Firefox is a very good application, and I have a few friends who have it crash constantly and they refuse to reinstall it.

On NT-based OSes, yes, if your drivers happen to be good. If they're not, the average user couldn't possibly figure out which driver is causing the problem and remove it.

Proving my point below that PC usage is not for the unknowledgeable. Some google searches can help the average user, too.
I've had bad NVIDIA drivers with Ubuntu before, preventing Doom3 from launching. (I installed a previous version and Doom3 launched). User action was taken by recognizing that.

That's ridiculous. Almost nobody who uses a PC has any idea how it works, and nor should they have to. PCs are useful to everyone, and not everyone should need to be an expert in computers.

Which is why the average user will still have their OS behave abnormally and buy a whole new pre-built P.O.S thinking that will fix the problem.

requiring everyone to know about a particular topic is a monumental waste of resources unless it's really, truly necessary

Take 30 minutes out of your time a day to do some research, within a little while you will be able to understand your PC

You also have to realize that probably over half the users using any Unix based OS will know what they are doing. The average user would not know how to install anything unless the program they find is so kindly enough to be a double-click package installer.

[Wheelchair]

I don't even read quote wars, Waste of everybodies time