Vista and Windows 7 - reactions

**kalniel** · 20-01-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Deadlight

I installed the Win7 beta on my lappy last night, and I was surprised to see that this is all but Vista with a lick of paint.

How come it works so much better on netbooks than Vista?

**j.o.s.h.1408** · 20-01-2009, 11:33 AM

could the fact that win 7 has many features disabled due to it being a BETA version being the reason why it runs soo well on people's pc's?

i mean most BETA products out there are more or less cut down versions of the real thing right? granted that some BETA'S are not optimized and full of bugs but could it be that because win 7 at it state doesnt have all the bells and whistles on it, be the reason why it runs so great on people's machines?

i wouldnt buy a product based on a beta, i would wait until the retail version comes out and see people's reaction to that

**dangel** · 20-01-2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408

could the fact that win 7 has many features disabled due to it being a BETA version being the reason why it runs soo well on people's pc's?

i mean most BETA products out there are more or less cut down versions of the real thing right? granted that some BETA'S are not optimized and full of bugs but could it be that because win 7 at it state doesnt have all the bells and whistles on it, be the reason why it runs so great on people's machines?

In a word - No.

The Beta is feature complete - the reason it's faster is because a shedload of work has gone into making it as efficient and tight as possible - the W7 team stated this was a goal some time back. And that's why it runs so well on netbooks compared to Vista. I'd expect the release version to be faster still (if we assume that the beta contains debugging code) - betas are usually slower, not faster than the release version.

Some good reading:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/200...fficiency.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/200...rformance.aspx

And Deadlight - try it for more than 15 minutes! lol

**Deadlight** · 20-01-2009, 11:40 AM

Yes, alright matey. I'll play with it some more today. (oo-err)

**aidanjt** · 20-01-2009, 05:01 PM

It's been over a week since Win7 Beta has been released, and it's too unusable, half the built-in programmes crash on launch, and the amount of software and installers it has broken is just silly. WMP12 and the new taskbar is the only thing I liked about it.

I'll give it another pop when the RC is out, or maybe the trial version of the full thing. As it stands, I wouldn't give Microsoft €0.50 for it.

I find it incredibly ironic that a fluid platform like Linux is able to keep nearly all it's software working just fine, but every Microsoft OS release brings more brokeness. Especially when they have API and ABI compatibility layers piling up like it's going out of style.

**dangel** · 20-01-2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

It's been over a week since Win7 Beta has been released, and it's too unusable, half the built-in programmes crash on launch, and the amount of software and installers it has broken is just silly. WMP12 and the new taskbar is the only thing I liked about it.

Interesting, as I haven't seen any of that - there is one known bug that causes installers to crash but all you need do is delete the following registry key:

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\SQMClient\Windows\DisabledSessions

That said, the action center will tell you to do this if you have the problem anyway.

What's crashing for you? Everything I've tried works - even (blueegh) Lotus Notes.

**aidanjt** · 20-01-2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by dangel

Interesting, as I haven't seen any of that - there is one known bug that causes installers to crash but all you need do is delete the following registry key:

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\SQMClient\Windows\DisabledSessions

That said, the action center will tell you to do this if you have the problem anyway.

What's crashing for you? Everything I've tried works - even (blueegh) Lotus Notes.

Windows Update, Windows Installer, Windows Explorer, etc, etc..

The action center hasn't shown a peep since installation.

**dangel** · 20-01-2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Windows Update, Windows Installer, Windows Explorer, etc, etc..

The action center hasn't shown a peep since installation.

Not even about virus checker not being installed? Hum. Well delete that key/reboot and see if things improve - everything you mention there is related to that bug.

It's rock solid for me otherwise, and that seems to be the common opinion (not bad for an early beta - remember Vista's first outing?)

**floppybootstomp** · 20-01-2009, 05:25 PM

Microsoft should be bloody ashamed of themselves. They won't admit that with Vista they foisted a crap OS onto the public and charged them full price for it and that Seven is their knee jerk reaction to owning up that they produced a turkey.

I find it ironic that Seven should be set for release just as Vista has more or less sorted itself out and runs very stable indeed. It has finally been accepted by the computer using public at large and also all the drivers are available. MS say that Vista drivers will work with Seven, well, they won't.

I tried 64 Bit Seven and my Linksys WMP54G Wireless NIC wouldn't work and neither would a Creative X-Fi Audio soundcard. I haven't tried Seven 32 Bit yet but I will do shortly.

Yes, Seven did run a lot quicker than Vista but this is a Beta, expect the August release of Seven to be a completely different animal to what you're trying now. It was the same with both XP & Vista Betas, finished product differed greatly. Seven has been released to possibly lull you into a false sense of security.

Microsoft are attempting to lose all the ill will that Vista created and are almost claiming to have produced the perfect OS. But, as with Vista, it will catch the hardware manufacturers off guard and it will probably be some time before stable drivers are produced. I wonder if MS will repeat there Vista trick of not co-operating with the hardware manufacturers before official release and just throwing the OS out there to everybody to work out?

To those currently impressed by Seven don't forget that with Vista MS sold you the biggest pile of crap since ME and at the same time told you it was absolutely wonderful. If MS had any integrity they would give Seven away to all Vista licence holders with their compliments and an apology. But they won't do that will they?

How much will Seven Ultimate cost I wonder?

I think XP has been MS's best OS so far but it is now terribly outdated and MS users do need something newer. I paid £100.00 for a copy of Vista Home Premium, more out of curiosity than anything else. I've actually come to quite like it, and the only bugbear I can honestly criticise is it's slowness in some areas, especially browsing and opening HDD's and Folders.

Other than that, once tweaked, I think it's actually quite good and since I installed it twelve months ago I haven't had one BSOD or had to do a reinstall.

So, to sum up, I do hope that Seven fulfills it's promises but I'm skeptical and will remain so until at least three months after it's final release. But most of all I feel cheated. Cheated that I paid full price for a flawed operating system with Vista that Microsoft told me was perfect.

**TheAnimus** · 20-01-2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

It's been over a week since Win7 Beta has been released, and it's too unusable, half the built-in programmes crash on launch, and the amount of software and installers it has broken is just silly. WMP12 and the new taskbar is the only thing I liked about it.

I'll give it another pop when the RC is out, or maybe the trial version of the full thing. As it stands, I wouldn't give Microsoft €0.50 for it.

I find it incredibly ironic that a fluid platform like Linux is able to keep nearly all it's software working just fine, but every Microsoft OS release brings more brokeness. Especially when they have API and ABI compatibility layers piling up like it's going out of style.

Waaht?

Thats just utter bollocks about the linux API consistancy. One of the reasons Id not take a job developing on a POSIX platform is because there are so damn many APIs to choose from, or libraries if you will. Plenty of which apps require specific versions, nastily linked.

The advantage is, when i change linux version its normally because the nice people at Debian have done all the work for me, and all the packages i want will work, without <that> much effort.

Windows on the other hand everything usermode just works, even things that broke the rules often get fixes in for them.

I've been playing Theme Hospital to appease my tube hatread, on windows 7 beta, with 0 issues. Which for a beta is frankley amazing. I'd go as far to say as this is more of a "google beta". I remeber the pain i had with the beta's of Cider the last MS technology i really played with in beta, and i'd have to say this is really just a tweaking, almost a service pack.

I'm on a beta for something (don't think i can say what) thats to do with win 7, problem is i've not found anything to report as a proper bug. Looks like i might have to actually buy it when it comes out

**aidanjt** · 20-01-2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by dangel

Not even about virus checker not being installed? Hum. Well delete that key/reboot and see if things improve - everything you mention there is related to that bug.

Oh it did whine about lack of virus scanner, I slapped on AVG Free to shut it up. But for me, various installers failed to work, Daemon Tools, and Steam, to name but a few.

Originally Posted by dangel

It's rock solid for me otherwise, and that seems to be the common opinion (not bad for an early beta - remember Vista's first outing?)

I wish I had a stable experience too, but it wasn't to be, I guess. But it certainly is a better Beta effort than Longhorn was, those Betas were awful.

Perhaps I'll have better luck with the RC/RTM.

**aidanjt** · 20-01-2009, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Thats just utter bollocks about the linux API consistancy. One of the reasons Id not take a job developing on a POSIX platform is because there are so damn many APIs to choose from, or libraries if you will. Plenty of which apps require specific versions, nastily linked.

The advantage is, when i change linux version its normally because the nice people at Debian have done all the work for me, and all the packages i want will work, without <that> much effort.

Actually, POSIX is a fixed target, from an API PoV. On occasion, during major toolchain changes, there's some ABI breakage, that only requires a recompile to fix.

**TheAnimus** · 20-01-2009, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Actually, POSIX is a fixed target, from an API PoV. On occasion, during major toolchain changes, there's some ABI breakage, that only requires a recompile to fix.

Pull the other one.

Show me a system that uses a database, WIMP GUI, prints reports, has a event driven message system.

Now look me in the equivalent of the virtual eye and tell me you believe that.

Yes a POSIX environment in the definition neglects to include any code for all those things, and its entirely up to you to choose which libraries to use. But i can still rember the 4 days spent with only internet on one PC whilst moving from 2.4 to 2.6.....

**dangel** · 20-01-2009, 05:45 PM