Slashdot Mirror
In-Depth With the Windows 7 Public Beta
Dozer writes "With the Windows 7 public beta out, Ars Technica has an in-depth look at the release. There's praise for Windows 7's UI changes and polish as well much-needed changes to UAC, but also a warning that those who have problems with Vista won't like Windows 7 much better. 'If you couldn't stand Vista's UI (whether it's because you didn't like Explorer, Aero, Control Panel, UAC, or anything else), Windows 7 is unlikely to do much to help, as it builds on the same UI. If Vista's hardware demands were too steep, Windows 7 will likely cause you the same grief, as its hardware demands match. And if Vista didn't work with a program or device you need to use, Windows 7 will offer no salvation, as its compatibility is virtually identical.'"
I am wondering that too. Currently Windows 7 and the few applications I have added take up around 20 gigs. I don't think that is too bad, but no way in hell I can see trimming it down for a 8 gig SSD and have any room for anything meaningful.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
After reading the article, it seems like Windows 7 has changed some things which really did not need changing, not fixed some of the more irritating problems from Vista, like UAC, and has little to offer in the way of performance benefits. According to the article, it's about a 10% increase in performance, which is really negligible at this point.
/rant>
What Microsoft needs to do is reconsider every part of their operating system to see its actual value in the operating system. Keep the things that don't need changing, and don't just change them to have shiny new stuff to demo. The task bar was fine as it is. Get back to the basics and focus on the core of the operating system. Reduce its weight, reduce the fluff. I like the approach Apple is taking with Snow Leopard. Too often do operating system vendors think what users really want are shiny new dongles and gadgets. I, for one, want a usable, stable, and fast Operating System.
This is not just a Microsoft flame, either. I also think this Compiz Fusion business on Linux is quite silly. Adding cheap flashy effects, which offer very little in usability, but add expensive speed requirements should not be the aim of any operating system creator.
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
My experience doesn't match their assessment. I'm running Windows 7 on my Dell Mini and it runs faster than Windows XP Home ran on this exact same machine.
The base install (32-bit) is 4.9G... you'd have very little space left for other apps without stripping it down.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Likewise I'm finding that Windows 7 feels subjectively more responsive than XP on the same hardware. So far I'm really liking the beta, but as a microsoftie friend of mine pointed out, "the vista betas worked really well too...." I'm not going to go off the handle and run this on my laptop or work machines (instead of linux), but I could easily see keeping this as the OS on my one windows desktop machine that I use for gaming...
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
I have not actually tried the beta yet. I hear it's quite pleasant and hardly Hitler-y at all.
(For those that don't read it regularly, you should really read the alt text as well.)
I have it running in vBox as well, and I noticed the same as you. That's why I was curious. It seems to require more resources (bigger drive partition 4.7 XP with some smaller apps installed - 4.9 Win7 bare install) and requires 1.5G more RAM.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I know I'm going to be down-modded for this, but it must be said.
Let me start off by saying that Windows Vista is no longer the piece of shit that it once was. Ever since SP1, the many problems that Vista used to have have been gone. I was using Vista Ultimate since July and had absolutely no issues with anything, and it actually runs faster (gasp!) than XP on my machine. (Let me point out that my machine has a Q6600, 4GB of RAM, and an 8800GT)
Now that that's out of the way, allow me to tell about how much better Windows 7 is. I've been using 7even for three weeks. I installed the leaked build 6959, and besides a few major problems with Firefox's rendering, I had no issues with it. I then installed 7000 a couple days before its official release because I couldn't stand how horrible Firefox was acting up. And finally, I downloaded and installed Windows 7 x64 from the public beta site and got a legitimate key. With each new installation brought new improvements to speed and functionality.
7even is not Vista with an updated UI. Besides the obvious UI improvements (which took some time to get used to, but I find them more useful than before), just using 7even, you will notice that Microsoft must have put a lot of time and money into rewriting and optimizing code. An argument could be made to call 7even "Vista SP2", but I am convinced that there are enough updates and improvements that separate 7even from Vista that it deserves its own name. Microsoft removed so much bloat, improved UAC, added a couple necessary features, and added much-needed improvement to features present in Vista (for example, an AWESOME improvement to the defragmenter that makes me actually want to use it rather than a third-party program). And the taskbar, while some accuse it of copying the Mac, is actually an improvement of Mac's dock... You can't switch between individual windows in Mac, which is something that pisses me off being an employee of a TV station who uses Macs with Final Cut Studio.
Your understanding has no basis in reality. Both traditional DirectShow and new Media Foundation codecs can be--and are--shared.
It does if you aren't using an administrator account. If you are using an administrator account, why does Vista need your password a second time? You've already entered your password, and the UAC dialog is isolated to prevent other programs hijacking the allow button.
I just mounted the 32-bit install disk, let it do it's thing and the only thing I've done since then is to change the themes and try to strip out some of the fluff window features. I haven't deleted anything, nor added anything (besides a network and video driver.) I used a dynamic disk file in VirtualBox and it's sitting at 4.9G right now.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I think that people who have been using windows consistently get inured to it or something.
No, we just know where all the GUI configuration settings are located.
Here are your answers:
Things like trying to hide the program and system files from me
Turn on display of system files.
God-fucking-forbid there ever be an unused icon on my desktop!!!
Turn off desktop cleanup
Vista seems to take that philosphy to the extreme with the UAC
UAC can be shut off completely from the control panel, or selectively disabled.
and the seriously messed up control panel.
Switch to classic view
HTH. HAND.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
I actually installed it on an old P4 machine with a built in graphics card and 512MB of ram. Most of the components of the computer rate about a 3 on the performance scale with the video card and 3D bits coming in at a one. So here's what I found.
1. I was able to work with Excel without a problem. It opened up and ran as fast as a dual core machine running XP. So that's fine.
2. Installation speeds were completely in line with what I'm used to. I installed Firefox, Flash, Adobe Reader and Office 2007. I didn't run into any problems.
3. The OS' installation was seemless. I didn't try to upgrade and just let it go from scratch. Once I finished the basic setup I just let it sit for about an hour and it did it itself. Once it finally booted up I didn't need to install new drivers. I really liked this to be honest given how painful driver installations and downloads can be.
4. The interface is almost the exact same as Vista. Now I have no trouble finding what I need when doing vista tech support. Going to the start menu and typing "event" then hitting enter takes less time for me than going: control panel -> admin tools -> event viewer. It's also easier to describe to new users. Ditto for hitting a command prompt since I get to skip the extra set of going to run. That said, I am in the minority here.
6. I ran the chess game, and that ran really slowly. This looks like it was due to the graphics card issue so it's understandable. I think I may try putting in a better card and giving it another try.
So yeah, that's been my Windows 7 experience so far. It basically feels like an improved slimmed down version of Vista because I know there is no way Vista could run that well at 512MB of RAM.
The only example you gave of "DRM getting in the way" was with audio.
(1) It's true that DirectSound no longer offers hardware hardware audio acceleration. That's because the audio drivers run in kernel mode, badly written drivers were one of the major causes of blue-screens, and Vista in any case had a (frankly) awesome new audio stack. (e.g. support for microphone arrays, and automatic balancing for any speaker response curves, e.g. per-application volume setting, e.g. lower latency). If you the programmer don't specifically chose a DRM-protected audio path, then the system won't give you one, simple as that. DRM doesn't get in the way. You have to specifically opt into it if you want it.
(2) DRM doesn't get in the way of programmers at all. If you want to use a different audio stack with direct hardware access, e.g. OpenAL, you're welcome to it.
I've run Vista from beta 2 through the RCs. When the final version was released I got the free upgrade for the "Vista Capable" sub-$500 laptop I'd bought in November.
While Vista was in beta, it was dismal. There were major issues, and minor issues. Through the beta process, the quality improved - all the minor issues were resolved (things like the taskbar corrupting the desktop when it was moved to the top of the screen instead of the bottom). On the other hand, all the major issues - Aero performance, network performance, gaming performance, hyperactive UAC, and so on - didn't improve at all.
I know I bought a laptop that compromised a lot for the cost, but I still expected a brand new computer to at least be able to let me double-click a folder in explorer without stalling and spinning for tens of seconds. After suffering for a while, dealing with the issues so that I could stay up with the "cutting edge" and so I'd be familiar when friends asked me to help them with their own new computers, I ended up rolling back to XP.
I grabbed the 7 beta around midnight Friday, and put it on the same laptop (it's the only system my family won't kill me for messing with). While it isn't as fast as XP, it's really quite useable even with all the Aero features on. I haven't loaded up any games yet, still tinkering around with apps. The performance was the biggest problem for me, and with 7 it's a non-issue completely. The interface is more consistent (a lot of the standard tools and control panels in Vista were untouched from 2k/XP, more of them follow the new UI now). Desktop gadgets work like I expect them to. Lots of things are just "better."
Regarding hardware requirements... I think what's happened is that MS has learned from the "Vista Capable" fiasco and that even though 7 could run and perform on lighter hardware than Vista, they're keeping the higher standard so that you can actually expect such a "minimum" system to be used on a daily basis.
On the contrary. Feelings matter a LOT when measuring speed. They matter more in the majority of cases, excepting things like dedicated batch processing.
However, the big concern many, including myself, have with Windows7, is DRM ... is it overloaded with DRM that limits software usefulness / degrades performance?
Ron
No.
It only limits software usefulness if the software in question is taking advantage of DRM. If you want to playback DRMed music. Then yes. It will limit usefulness. But you know what limits usefulness of a DRMed file even more than a DRM playback system? A system which has no DRM.
It's like my Zune. Yes. I have DRMed music which can only be played back while I'm a ZunePass subscriber. But I love it! I just subscribed and being able to just easily jump from artist to artist and find new music that I like is a far more enjoyable experience than visiting a CD store and looking at album covers hoping the new album is good for an artist I think stands a reasonable chance of putting out a dollar worthy song. Similarly I'm not limited to 15 second little useless choruses from a handful of CDs. It's way better than piratebay too. I can start listening immediately. Listen to a few songs. If I like it hit download for the entire album and move on to something else Zune says I might like.
All of that is possible thanks to DRM. If the music industry didn't feel confident in the DRM of my computer they wouldn't let me just download all their music willy nilly for free.
On the flip side I run my computer through my TV. I watch DVDs, HD-DVDs and Blurays through it. I also watch Netflix and some HBO xvids. As far as I can tell I'm not being affect in any way by DRM.
AMD64 and EM64T are the same platform. The AMD64 binaries run on both AMD-made processors and Intel-made processors.
I reckon the biggest bit of it resides here
No sig for you!!
Still drinking the Gutmann kool-aid? That myth has been thoroughly debunked. DRM does not come into play unless you play a DRMed media. In which case you would need decryption on *every* platform *including* XP.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*