BF2S Forums Windows 7 "almost finished Beta" released and shown

max wrote:

YAY! Let's bash win7 before it's even near completion

Exactly ... I though I was on Slashdot for a moment

Here's the thing, though, it's a Vista core essentially - just fixed.

Mac OS X has just as many GUI frills as Vista. Just people bash on Vista more because it's always in the limelight compared to OSX. OS X has that giant thing where you can scatter all the windows into separate thumbnails. Vista doesn't do that. It's pointless and sucks up memory for no reason other than to look cool.

ghettoperson wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I wish they'd focus more on streamlining an OS than adding excessive GUI frills.

Word. I want something that uses the system resources of Win2000.

XP tbh. 2000 has some quite poor disk performance at times.

I don't think i'm going to beta test this OS.  I am looking forward to it though and what many of you will say about it.  Please take screen shots people!  I host them for you too!

The Device Stage feature looks very promising. If they keep it DRM-free, and publish broad APIs to do things like texting from your computer via bluetooth, I'll probably pick up an Android phone and write the features I've always wanted.

Wallpaper wrote:

Sweet! I just hope the performance will be like they say it will be, and that taskbar transparency will be toggleable. With certain backgrounds I can see it being very ugly

But then you just play with the background and the Windows theme.

Buy a Mac

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

max wrote:

Shadow893 wrote:

At the other end of the scale, Windows 7 supports machines with up to 256 CPUs.

lol

16p server + nehalem octo-core with HT = 256CPUs

Granted, you wouldn't run Win7 on that.

I would!

even that PC couldn't run crysis on very-high ...

Stimey wrote:

Buy a Mac

www.psystar.com --- Get a Mac, avoid Apple Tax

konfusion wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

A new system like that means new incompability. Like Vista wasn't enough already.

If it really is a "real" new system, which I somewhat doubt. MS should move on from the NT kernel, it may be nice, but it's still nothing but a pimped piece of 90's tech. We don't want any more "If the Vista drivers won't run, try the XP ones. If they won't run, try the 2000 ones, if they don't work, try the NT4 ones."

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Yes, I actually had an NT4 driver run in Vista a little while ago, for an old parallel SCSI extension card.

I really hope the driver and hardware management will improve over Vista. The driver reset function is still far from good, and the hardware limitations are just retarded.

And Link, it looks bulky because that shot is from something like a 640x480 screen

@bad-man: Vista is the new XP, which is the new 2000, which was the new NT4 (or Win9k/ME, you can say, 2k was the first user-oriented NT OS).

Oh.My.God.
You know, it's people like you that ruin progress for MS. Tech junkies are always complaining about how MS has cluttered code, but it's because they try really hard to make everything 100% backwards compatible. The drivers are all isolated. The hardware limitations aren't that bad. Vista doesn't have problems with normal computers - it hasn't had ANY major issues since SP1.

Microsoft needs to move forward, and they can't do that when everyone is constantly complaining when they do.

-kon

MS coding is ok ever since the introduction of NT. All the way up to XP everything was really nice, compatibility was great, allowing users to accurately emulate any OS back to the NT days. Drivers were easy and open, and the system was light yet effective.

Vista brought some changes to that. First off, very limited hardware management. Not letting even signed drivers access hardware fully, what's up with that? No real DirectSound support, driver signature enforcing for some (ironically, the most expensive and "pro" ones), compatibility is nothing but horrible, due to those same limitations, not allowing direct hardware access to programs that rely on it, and there's nothing that can be done against it without breaking the EULA and spending a lot of time re-building the ground of the OS.

What MS have done, is to provide a very limited OS for the home user. Vista is almost rediculously easy to use compared to XP and it's predecessors. What they forgot to do, was to add the tools for those who like tweaking their OS to it's full potential. Changing things in Vista often requires some quite hard-core cracking, often involving booting to another OS just to get access to a file.

When program makers are proud to put stickers with "Certified for <insert OS here>", something is wrong. Did you see that on any other Windows version?

Oh, and I'm not just your averege Vista ranter, I run Vista, and I think it's a nice OS, it's just a bit limited.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2008-10-31 00:04:22)

Freezer7Pro wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

A new system like that means new incompability. Like Vista wasn't enough already.

If it really is a "real" new system, which I somewhat doubt. MS should move on from the NT kernel, it may be nice, but it's still nothing but a pimped piece of 90's tech. We don't want any more "If the Vista drivers won't run, try the XP ones. If they won't run, try the 2000 ones, if they don't work, try the NT4 ones."

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Yes, I actually had an NT4 driver run in Vista a little while ago, for an old parallel SCSI extension card.

I really hope the driver and hardware management will improve over Vista. The driver reset function is still far from good, and the hardware limitations are just retarded.

And Link, it looks bulky because that shot is from something like a 640x480 screen

@bad-man: Vista is the new XP, which is the new 2000, which was the new NT4 (or Win9k/ME, you can say, 2k was the first user-oriented NT OS).

Oh.My.God.
You know, it's people like you that ruin progress for MS. Tech junkies are always complaining about how MS has cluttered code, but it's because they try really hard to make everything 100% backwards compatible. The drivers are all isolated. The hardware limitations aren't that bad. Vista doesn't have problems with normal computers - it hasn't had ANY major issues since SP1.

Microsoft needs to move forward, and they can't do that when everyone is constantly complaining when they do.

-kon

MS coding is ok ever since the introduction of NT. All the way up to XP everything was really nice, compatibility was great, allowing users to accurately emulate any OS back to the NT days. Drivers were easy and open, and the system was light yet effective.

Vista brought some changes to that. First off, very limited hardware management. Not letting even signed drivers access hardware fully, what's up with that? No real DirectSound support, driver signature enforcing for some (ironically, the most expensive and "pro" ones), compatibility is nothing but horrible, due to those same limitations, not allowing direct hardware access to programs that rely on it, and there's nothing that can be done against it without breaking the EULA and spending a lot of time re-building the ground of the OS.

What MS have done, is to provide a very limited OS for the home user. Vista is almost rediculously easy to use compared to XP and it's predecessors. What they forgot to do, was to add the tools for those who like tweaking their OS to it's full potential. Changing things in Vista often requires some quite hard-core cracking, often involving booting to another OS just to get access to a file.

When program makers are proud to put stickers with "Certified for <insert OS here>", something is wrong. Did you see that on any other Windows version?

Oh, and I'm not just your averege Vista ranter, I run Vista, and I think it's a nice OS, it's just a bit limited.

Word.

Freezer7Pro wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

A new system like that means new incompability. Like Vista wasn't enough already.

If it really is a "real" new system, which I somewhat doubt. MS should move on from the NT kernel, it may be nice, but it's still nothing but a pimped piece of 90's tech. We don't want any more "If the Vista drivers won't run, try the XP ones. If they won't run, try the 2000 ones, if they don't work, try the NT4 ones."

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Yes, I actually had an NT4 driver run in Vista a little while ago, for an old parallel SCSI extension card.

I really hope the driver and hardware management will improve over Vista. The driver reset function is still far from good, and the hardware limitations are just retarded.

And Link, it looks bulky because that shot is from something like a 640x480 screen

@bad-man: Vista is the new XP, which is the new 2000, which was the new NT4 (or Win9k/ME, you can say, 2k was the first user-oriented NT OS).

Oh.My.God.
You know, it's people like you that ruin progress for MS. Tech junkies are always complaining about how MS has cluttered code, but it's because they try really hard to make everything 100% backwards compatible. The drivers are all isolated. The hardware limitations aren't that bad. Vista doesn't have problems with normal computers - it hasn't had ANY major issues since SP1.

Microsoft needs to move forward, and they can't do that when everyone is constantly complaining when they do.

-kon

MS coding is ok ever since the introduction of NT. All the way up to XP everything was really nice, compatibility was great, allowing users to accurately emulate any OS back to the NT days. Drivers were easy and open, and the system was light yet effective.

Vista brought some changes to that. First off, very limited hardware management. Not letting even signed drivers access hardware fully, what's up with that? No real DirectSound support, driver signature enforcing for some (ironically, the most expensive and "pro" ones), compatibility is nothing but horrible, due to those same limitations, not allowing direct hardware access to programs that rely on it, and there's nothing that can be done against it without breaking the EULA and spending a lot of time re-building the ground of the OS.

What MS have done, is to provide a very limited OS for the home user. Vista is almost rediculously easy to use compared to XP and it's predecessors. What they forgot to do, was to add the tools for those who like tweaking their OS to it's full potential. Changing things in Vista often requires some quite hard-core cracking, often involving booting to another OS just to get access to a file.

When program makers are proud to put stickers with "Certified for <insert OS here>", something is wrong. Did you see that on any other Windows version?

Oh, and I'm not just your averege Vista ranter, I run Vista, and I think it's a nice OS, it's just a bit limited.

Freezer, the idea that Vista is any different from any previous Microsoft OS is rubbish - they've always reworked things in new windows releases - anyone remember ME? And driver support has always been problematic.

The idea that NT driver were "easy and open" is, from personal experience, utter bullshit - I wrote a printer driver once for Win98 - I was then tasked to write an NT4 version - the 98 version was a walk in the park - trying to write the NT version was like a trip round hell.

I've seen every version of Windows come and go since 1.0 and they've all had teething problems - it just takes the rest of us software engineers and hardware engineers a little while to catch up with Microsoft - that's all.

Also, have I seen "Certified for <insert OS here>" any other windows version? Yes. EVERY SINGLE ONE! It's nothing new.

And from what I've seen of Vista, apart from the driver changes (which again are nothing new, MS changes the driver model with every other version), Vista is just XP with a different front end - I've yet to find one thing that is possible in XP that isn't also possible in Vista or vice versa (admittedly, I don't yet use Vista as my main OS, so there may be things).