Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 Beta Released To Public After Delay

Z80xxc! writes "The Windows 7 Beta release is now available for download by the general public, in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Microsoft had previously announced availability around 3 PM PST on Friday, but after unexpected numbers of people proved to be interested in the download, had to postpone it to add more servers."

13 of 848 comments (clear)

  1. Re:All that trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course we do. If you work in a corporation or industry that runs windows then you know that everyone skipped Vista...so we're pretty much guarenteed that windows 7 WILL be adopted come hell or high water...

    Download it now because you'll be dealing with in another year or two anyway.

  2. Re:Why 32-bit? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't understand the Slashdot posters who say 'I cant believe there will be a 32bit version'...

    I will tell you why theres a 32bit version - because theres already a huge 32bit install base that may wish to upgrade, and by and large, the vast majority of your end user base doesnt need the benefits 64bit brings to the table!

    If MS went 64bit only, they would be slated for it - they would be requiring an upgrade far in excess of any that previous Windows versions have required. Thats why there is a 32bit version - because this isnt about pushing the 64bit agenda.

  3. Still no virtual desktop by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Windows 7 still doesn't have virtual desktops. OSX has had them for a few releases and every major desktop environment for Linux has had them since the beginning.

    1. Re:Still no virtual desktop by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because nobody's asked for them. It's not some grand conspiracy against you, and its not as if Microsoft doesn't have the technical resources to provide it, it's just not a very popular feature. Sorry.

      Or are you just cherry-picking one of the (extremely few) GUI features Linux has that Windows doesn't have as some way of boosting your Linux-using cred? I guess that's more likely.

  4. Re:Why 32-bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are you against 32-bit desktops, but ok with 32-bit netbooks? Only if *everyone* runs 64-bit windows will application development become simpler.

  5. Re:Why 32-bit? by Espectr0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better yet, i can't believe people install the 64 bit version, only to get the same performance and software incompatibilities.
    Unless you have over 4 gigs in ram it isn't worth it. It won't go faster if the software is not optimized to use the additional memory or cpu registers.

  6. Here is my take on it.. by Anachragnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it remove, or add, more control of my machine?

    If it adds to my current XP2 configuration, fine, I'll CONSIDER it as a replacement on this machine when XP finally goes belly up.

    If it REMOVES any control of my machine, in any way, then it is just another Vista, in my mind.

    I keep seeing benchmarking, eye-candy comparisons, etc, etc, but no real discussion of embedded DRM schemes, hidden processes, etc.

    It is the stuff that I cannot see on my monitor that concerns me the most when considering a OS.

    1. Re:Here is my take on it.. by maugle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      DRM gives you control? Bullshit.

      Yeah, having DRM on your system allows you to play DRM'd media, but only if the providers of that media think you paid for it. And you're trying to play it with approved software. And you don't try making a backup. And you don't have any programs installed that they don't like. And their DRM code isn't buggy.
      That's control, all right, but the one in control sure ain't you.

  7. Re:Why 32-bit? by ascendant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How hard it it to guess?
    Approximately 1 fuckton (1.21 metric fucktonnes) of people still only have 32-bit processors at their disposal.
    That is all.

    --
    Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
  8. Re:Why 32-bit? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Precisely. Very few people currently use or need to use 64 bit computing. Outside of servers, I cannot even think of any systems I have come across with more than 4GB of physical memory.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  9. Re:Released to public after delay? by Necroman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish I had mod points for you. People on here and digg seem to think the solution to the problem yesterday would have been to release it on BitTorrent, when the bottleneck was the registration servers, not the download servers.

    BitTorrent is a cool technology and everything, but people need to stop being so blind as to think it will solve all problems.

    --
    Its not what it is, its something else.
  10. Re:All that trouble... by Garridan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GP: "Party X shot themselves in the foot by performing action Y. That was stupid!"

    P: "You're smoking crack! Action Y would be stupid! Party X would never do that!"

    huh?

  11. Re:All that trouble... by C_L_Lk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In these cases isn't it reasonable to run a virtual machine on the computer with an instance of DOS X.XX installed on it? I had a small company I was helping out a while ago that wanted their staff to be able to have email and web browsing at their workstations, but their point of sale and contact management software were "Uber-Old" DOS apps that acted like your example. I installed the free version of VMWare Server on all their PC's and installed DOS in the virtual environment. Their "over-powered" computers that had just been running DOS and nothing else, now had full Win XP environments with Email, Web, etc. - as well as their proprietary DOS apps in the virtual machine.