Still in beta. *future

Adding video to channels (Future) - requested by nibiyabi.

There's a RTM version out already, so we're beyond beta.
I've been using the Windows 7 RC as my work machine for a few months now, and I've had no complaints about it whatsoever. I did skip Vista, however, so I can't really compare the two very well.

The taskbar is excellent now, and is very easy to manage. Window previews are an excellent feature, that also appears when you alt-tab.
Device installation, simple networking, basic configurations and many other tasks are very simplified now, and the entire OS looks great (granted, better than XP, would be about the same as Vista).

I work as a network administrator, and there are several enterprise features I'm looking forward to implementing, like Bitlocker encryption on laptops and USB drives, BranchCache, Applocker and the whole Server 2008 network installation environment (granted, that has been around for a while, but since we never upgraded to Vista, we've had little use for it).

Is it a clear and useful upgrade to Win XP? Not really. The moments where I say "damn, I couldn't do that with XP" are very few, and are generally tied to the start menu search bar, which existed in Vista. But remember, Windows XP only got good after it's second service pack.

What about general file management demon_ix? It would be nice to know that ALL user data is in one place and that it's easier to find the files you want. I've never found an indexer that worked for me so the promise of WinFS was alluring. Wikipedia suggests it's not quite dead yet and that one day certain apps will use it.

Regardless I think a Microsoft operating system should be dealing with this sort of task.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Looks garish and inelegant to me, but you know where I'm coming from.

What I hear:

blah blah..shiny/tacky..blah blah..minor UI candy..blah blah..well known REMOVE EXPLOIT unresolved!

Sorry kids that's not acceptable, this is software people pay for, it had better have all known remote exploits patched.

^Deano - File system is still NTFS, but the search works well enough for me whenever I use it. User data is still in the documents\music\pictures\videos folder format, with a downloads one added.
I come from XP, so I love how all the names are shorter and space-free now (c:\users\username\documents instead of "c:\documents and settings\username\my documents", but that's true in Vista as well, I hear), although it mostly affects scripting and command line stuff, and the goal of windows is that the end user doesn't have to do that, as I see it.

Another feature I love, is the ability to mount VHD files as local drives, and the fact that windows backup uses .vhd format now. What this means, basically, is that instead of the crummy old ntbackup utility, and the .bkf files you could only open with ntbackup, you can now open backup files as though they were folders and browse for the file you need. Seems minor and a "why wasn't this the way it worked until now?!?" thing, but I can see myself working with backups and virtual machines heavily in the near future, and having the ability to manage them without 3rd party tools makes a world of difference.

Windows is also making strides in the management direction, with Powershell, making V2 work with network machines, and making scripting so much simpler than the current VBScript environment. But that's a story Linux fanboys would appreciate more (and yell that no matter what, bash > that).

^dgandhi, the version the CNET guy reviewed is the Release Candidate, which came a while after the vulnerability was discovered, I know, but is still not the actual retail version, so it might be fixed there, as far as he knows. We'll have to wait and see.
I can always cite the Apple SMS vulnerability patch as being their standard for moving fixes up the priority ladder (ie. Keep it in the to-do list until it either becomes public knowledge or gets exploited too often to ignore).

I talk too much. Or type. w/e.

I'm sure there are actual benefits for someone as yourself who works as a network administrator, but when it comes down to it, the average user's only enticement is the slightly improved UI, 'it looks pretty', and the fact that's it's the new thing out there. In other words, Vista without the teething issues.

I say good for Microsoft for finally coming out with something that people seem to be excited about. It's never going to make me switch back from Linux (and there have been Windows 7 look-alike themes available for Linux for several months already) but for the majority who use Windows this is a nice step forward.

You're absolutely right RedSky. Other than easier home networking, the search bar and various UI / prettiness changes, the home user won't see very much that makes this an improvement to XP.
Add to that no actual upgrade path from XP (There's a hardlink-migration feature with the USMT, but that's hardly at an average user level) and the same absurd product levels as in vista (who the hell needs ultimate?), and there's very little incentive to actually upgrade or buy a fresh license.

There are several bad aspects as well... When buying an upgrade to an existing Vista license, you get a reduced price, but you MUST upgrade to the same version you have of Vista, meaning if you have Vista home, you can only buy a 7 home upgrade, etc. From the comparison chart you can see that there's no reason for any home user to use anything above Home Premium, which screws current Vista Ultimate owners.

Also, the upgrade process requires an installation of the previous OS to operate, so if you ever have to re-install, you have to dig up your Vista DVD, install Vista, and only then upgrade it to 7.

Windows 7 is a vast improvement on XP.

Macs suck.

That is all.

downvote for the virus i got this morning, feels good voting down microsoft.

I am sticking with XP since everything still works and supported on it.

One reason to upgrade, if you're on Vista, is performance. Vista file searching among other things IIRC, was crap.

But if I upgrade from Windows 2000 I hope I'll see sufficient new features plus the eye-candy to make it worth the time.

I've been using 7 as my main OS since the beta and have to say that it's a real improvement over XP and Vista in so many ways.

I love how he presents it as an exciting new feature that you don't have to reboot your system to change the appearance.

>> ^Ornthoron:
I love how he presents it as an exciting new feature that you don't have to reboot your system to change the appearance.

I was thinking the same thing. When was it ever necessary to reboot following a theme change?

That said, UI changes don't impress me much, but this is coming from someone whose first act with WinXP and Vista was to reach for the built-in "Windows Classic" theme, which I think mimics Win98. (It just looks so clean and utilitarian to me.)

I'm looking forward to it. I have a copy waiting as I recently got a new laptop and it came with the 'free upgrade to Windows 7' offer... so yeay!

I like Vista (It's on my main home pc), but it does have a few bugs that irk the crap out of me.

But it's networking discovery etc. is better than XP, it's search in the start menu thing is awesome and I DO miss that on my XP box at work. The Gallery is way better than XP, the live preview of your apps on the taskbar is nice too.

But, hey, I like new things and everyone raves about Windows 7, so I'm looking forward to having it on my laptop soon.

Oh, and I find it really amusing that a selling point is themes... hah, they were all the rage in windows 98 world, and then MS decided to get rid of them for some odd reason. I used to love downloading themes and making my own, it was great.

Now, I have very little time for phaffing about with 10 second long sound samples whenever I do anything, but I like to see it make a return.

i'll upgrade if i can turn off all the features he mentioned, and it runs smooth and fast on less than cutting edge hardware.

screw it, i'm sticking with win2k.

>> ^dag:
Looks garish and inelegant to me, but you know where I'm coming from.


In your FACE : http://www.burninginfo.com/story/apple-tries-to-silence-the-owner-of-an-exploding-ipod-

Why do some pc users crap all over macs and then get super excited when microsoft copies features that have existed on macs for quite some time?

>> ^ElJardinero:
Why do some pc users crap all over macs and then get super excited when microsoft copies features that have existed on macs for quite some time?


Macs and Desktops using Windows are both PCs. MacOS is oversimplified (meaning it restricts user control far too much), but its UI is overcomplicated (meaning things that should be accomplished easier are made more complicated). Things are a lot easier on Windows such as being able to click a drop down, and then move thru it via the arrow keys, which is very nice for Photoshop users in particular (arrowing through typefaces, layer blend modes, etc). So many things are made quicker via the keyboard, which Apple refuses to allow in its OS. Everything must be done with the mouse. Why? Okay, Windows has Windows+D, and MacOS has F11, but that's the extent of it pretty much. I can't tab through window elements on a Mac, I can't easily get to a console on a mac (Windows+R->cmd<enter>), I can't select a shortcut and then alt+enter it to get to its properties window on a Mac, etc. And games? Fuggeddaboudit.

Ubuntu is a far superior OS to both Windows and MacOS. This is fact, not opinion.

Even though MacOS is based on Unix, just like Ubuntu (Linux was derived from Unix), somehow Ubuntu does it much better.

The only reason I run Windows is because I can actually run my games on it. The SECOND Linux gets better support and can run games as well as XP, or at least approachably well, Ubuntu will become my main OS.

^ Have you tried VirtualBox?  It's pretty amazing.  My father uses WordPerfect, so the only way he would let me set him up on Ubuntu was with WP running on XP under VirtualBox, and it works perfectly.

Having run Linux or MacOS only at home for quite a while, I support all 3 at work. Underneath, 7 is really just Vista SP2 or Vista done right. Still, it is a needed upgrade from XP. The 3 largest downsides are XP mode (which just means you have to patch and maintain 2 OSes at the same time), the UAC bug that Microsoft refuses to patch (but you're fine if you put the UAC slider all the way to the top), and the fact that there is no new file system (still using NTFS, which is not aging gracefully).

Windows 7 has been my primary OS for more than half a year, and I'm very happy with it. It's not revolutionary, but I prefer it over XP.

>> ^ElJardinero:
Why do some pc users crap all over macs and then get super excited when microsoft copies features that have existed on macs for quite some time?


The same reason Mac users get all holier-than-thou on Windows users when Apple reimplements a feature that debuted in UNIX 30 years ago: They don't know what the hell they're talking about.

>> ^arvana:
^ Have you tried VirtualBox?  It's pretty amazing.  My father uses WordPerfect, so the only way he would let me set him up on Ubuntu was with WP running on XP under VirtualBox, and it works perfectly.

Virtualbox is excellent! If you really want to get into it, you can run the VMs as a Windows service, have them start up when the computer boots and so on. Performance is better than either VirtualPC or VMWare, and it's free Also, running x64 guests on x32 hosts is amusing.

>> ^Xax:
Windows 7 has been my primary OS for more than half a year, and I'm very happy with it. It's not revolutionary, but I prefer it over XP.

Question is, will you pay for a license when you already have XP? Is it that big an upgrade to justify $200?

>> ^dag:
Looks garish and inelegant to me, but you know where I'm coming from.

Oh sorry...was there no "app for that"?

>> ^ForgedReality:

Macs and Desktops using Windows are both PCs. MacOS is oversimplified (meaning it restricts user control far too much), but its UI is overcomplicated (meaning things that should be accomplished easier are made more complicated).


Say what? I generally use 4 different OSes daily, and have lots of experience with many of them (Daily: Mac OS X, Windows XP/Vista, BackTrack, and CentOS. Experience: Too many to name all, but basically all the BSDs, most of the Linuxes, Minix, AIX, basically every Mac and Windows OS version, you name it - just no OS/2.)

Mac OS pre-10 didn't give you enough control (unless you knew the tricks), but in Mac OS X, you have WAY more control than Windows. Too much if you ask me. But the Mac has ALWAYS had a very simple UI, that was the beauty of it. You could do just as much with less effort. A true productivity OS.


Things are a lot easier on Windows such as being able to click a drop down, and then move thru it via the arrow keys, which is very nice for Photoshop users in particular (arrowing through typefaces, layer blend modes, etc). So many things are made quicker via the keyboard, which Apple refuses to allow in its OS. Everything must be done with the mouse. Why? Okay, Windows has Windows+D, and MacOS has F11, but that's the extent of it pretty much. I can't tab through window elements on a Mac, I can't easily get to a console on a mac (Windows+R->cmd<enter>), I can't select a shortcut and then alt+enter it to get to its properties window on a Mac, etc.


I'll bet it's all down to experience. I've always complained to my Windows friends that I can't navigate Windows with the keyboard like I can on the Mac. I'm lightning fast navigating through Mac OS with the keyboard, but I can't do jack on Windows. Chalk it up to knowledge is my guess. As for Photoshop, I would guess that's Adobe's fault.

BTW, one click on a Mac to get console access, or >console in the login. CMD-I will get you to the properties window for any file. Any others you need help with?


And games? Fuggeddaboudit.


And here is my only reason for still having Windows machines AT ALL. If it weren't for the games, I wouldn't touch the OS with a 10 meter cattle prod.


Ubuntu is a far superior OS to both Windows and MacOS. This is fact, not opinion.
Even though MacOS is based on Unix, just like Ubuntu (Linux was derived from Unix), somehow Ubuntu does it much better.
The only reason I run Windows is because I can actually run my games on it. The SECOND Linux gets better support and can run games as well as XP, or at least approachably well, Ubuntu will become my main OS.


Any time someone tells you that something is a fact and not an opinion... well, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. I have used Ubuntu quite a bit, especially for my Netbooks. One I moved to Mac OS X, one runs various OSes installed to SD cards, such as BackTrack, and one went to Windows to support a crappy piece of hardware I have that is ONLY supported in Windows (don't get me started on hardware support). Ubuntu is okay for a consumer OS, but not great. Linux suffers from the 'too many cooks' issue, and Ubuntu does a pretty good job at mitigating that, but it's no Mac OS, where everything "just works".