The Internet is a great way to get on the net - Bob Dole
MICROSOFT TECHIE Mark Russinovich has dropped the biggest hint yet that Windows 7 will be available at retail by Christmas this year.
As part of a webcast which answered user queries about the technical aspects of the operating system, which many hope will wash the bad taste of Vista out of their mouths forever, Russinovich confirmed that W7 will be sent for manufacture three years after Vista did the same, which was in October 2006.
One Microsoft insider also admitted that the current Microsoft operating system left a lot to be desired. Mark Manesse from MS Research said, "Performance was a huge problem with Vista. But I am pleased, and quite surprised to say, that I was pleasantly surprised at performance. I’ve run it [Windows 7] on bespoke and virtual systems and am very impressed by the way it runs."
Looks like even voles have low expectaions of the company's work. µ
"But I am pleased, and quite surprised to say, that I was pleasantly surprised at performance"
Yes but he would say that wouldn't he? As opposed to "But I am saddened to say that my heart sank at our own performance benchmarks"
If it was as fast as XP they would say so, they would be coming out with statisticsshowing what percentage it is faster than XP, or they'd even massage figures that show it slightly slower than XP to try and make out it was the same.
So with the current wording, I think it means they've just cleaned Vista up a bit but it's still nowhere nearly as fast or RAM efficiant as XP.
Will Windows 7 run very comfortably on a laptop with a 3GHz Pentium 4, an ATI 9200 and 512MB of system RAM?
What a crap, its not seven at all, just 6.1.
who cares if it isnt as ram efficient as xp? 2gb of DDR2 will only set you back around £25 and is enough for most casual users
That's not the point. All operating systems and user software should be RAM and CPU efficient. The attitude that "memory and CPU power is cheap so I dont care if my code is slow/gobbles memory like theres no tomorrow" means that software never gets any better, it just absorbs any advances in hardware.
I'd prefer a rock-solid, fast, memory efficient Windows than a DRM infested sloth full of eye candy and animations (have you seen how many 'services' are running on Vista?). And for that, there's only XP from the windows stable at the moment. For those of us who have to run Windows for all their work stuff, XP is the lesser of all the evils.
it doesnt need to be as "ram efficient" as xp. xp is too afraid of using ram. ram is cheap and nowadays software likes ram. when i upgraded from 1gb to 2gbs of ram in my work computer, xp didnt show much improvements in responsiveness, but when i switched to vista, ram usage increased (payload) and applications started to fly.
So "2Gb of DDR2 will set you back £25"
The snag is 2Gb of USABLE DDR2 will set me back a heck of a lot more! £50 for a mobo to stick it, £50 for a processor to use it. £50 for a new case/power-supply. Etc etc.
My current pc (which is fine for what I want) is currently stuffed with the maximum RAM it can handle - 3x256Mb. And there's still quite a lot of systems like that out there (I maintain a system that's only got 3Gb !DISK! (and can't upgrade because the bios has the 4Gb problem ...))
Cheers,
Wol
For the one mentioning the 3GB HDD limit - chances are, for such a system, that only the first partition must be less than 3GB so the system can boot; I have an ancient Pentium I with an 8gb HDD limit that currently has more than 1,2 TB storage - 4 hard drives of 300 - 500 GB. Create a small partition and try to install the operating system on that. Works both with Windows and Linux.
What first partition? :-)
The "4Gb problem" is that the bios crashes when it asks the disk "how big are you". The size of the first partition is irrelevant as the bios itself falls over when probing the disk.
It (should be) easily fixed by a bios update, but where I'm going to find the update I don't know, and I don't want to risk trashing the system if I get it wrong ...
Cheers,
Wol
He's right. You can stuff your disks full of crappy software eating your resources but at least the OS must be resource efficient. Why the hell the very Operating System would need 2Gb? We that started our careers with OSes that needed no more that 16Kb know that one gigabyte is a lot of memory and you can do many wonderful things with so much spare space. And OSes aren't supposed to do "wonderful things", they should only keep our machine running as good as possible (and not even this they do so far).
"Nobody will ever need more than 640K RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981
Honestly, as technology progresses and becomes more advance I doubt we will see software use less system resources. But with that being said you would think it would still improve overall in terms of speed, functionality and efficiency.
I have no need for "premimum content" playback on my computer. Therefore, I have no need for all of the DRM and protected processes Microsoft's new OS's contain. I have always known whqt is running on my personal computer and I will not run Microsoft's rootkits (protected processes) on my PC. If I want to watch "premimum content" I'll buy a Blu-ray player.
I have put up with Microsoft slowly taking control of my PC, activation, genuine advantage, etc; but Vista/Win7/Server2K8 has gone too far.
If Microsoft would release an OS without protected processes and performed as well as XP, I would buy it. Until then, MS can keep their bloated, DRM/rootkit infested OS to themselves.
I hate vista with a passion so I was very interested in what changes where in win 7. After using the beta for awhile I can say that I love win 7. It's so much faster then vista and far less of a resource hog. People say it's Vista sp2 but it's far more then that. No sp has ever made so much of a difference in an OS's usability and performance.
Just my 2 cents.
1, RAM efficiency of XP was pee poor, vista made much better use of RAM, memory is not Vistas problem having 70% free RAM on XP is nothing to be proud of when you have a HDD thrashing away at its SWAP file, empty RAM is a waste of space.
2, You have taken Bills statment out of context, he didnt mean total system RAM he ment program execution memory which is but a small area of system RAM
3, you basicly saying that all the OS is supposed to do is provide a basic functional platform that runs everything and supports as much as possible, well id like you to find me a "more" functional platform because last time i checked there isnt another OS on the market that does as much as Windows does with the varity of hardware availble to it WHILST maintaining easy useability.
Its not perfect, its not close but its not half bad and after using this Windows 7 for a week im quite pleased with its evolutionary step up from Vista.
Everything is much improved except:
- Searching in this OS is so broken that ancient programs like Agent Ransack make a laughing stock of it.
- The classic start menu was gone as of build 7000. This is retarded. Just as retarded as Office "Ribbons". I still use office 2003 due to this, and I'd pissed having to adapt to the new start menu, its faster to use a cmd prompt and execute files with tab completion, the new start menu is so bad.
- The rest of the OS (under the hood) is faster, righter and overall improved. The UI people at Microsoft are just stupid.
The OS should be something that enables other SW to run. Over the years, this has melded into a "wow that's a cool application, we can bake it into the OS itself" and "How can we make the OS do more" philosophy. While this may be theoretically more efficient at the design level, it is not at the user level if every user doesn't want all the applications (I mean 'OS features'). While in theory you can turn some off, it still takes memory, disk space and extra lines of code to toggle these on/off which leads to inefficiency for those who don't want them.
The problem is if the OS was mainly a layer and interface used to run other programs, MS couldn't justify the high price associated with it as customers would need to buy other SW for screensavers, sidebars, a calculator, defrag, etc... but in many cases people already do this (I've never use the calculator or MS defrag or sidebar). If I'm buying some other SW for some of these things, why am I subsidizing MS for it when I buy the OS?
And put me in the camp that Windows 7 is just Vista SP2 (or SP3) - I'm just glad I skipped Vista (hopefully I can skip Windows 7 too). Atom (good or bad) has really changed the game and if the HW doesn't bloat on netbooks to run bloatware; MS will be forced to either put together a truly efficient, minimalist OS, or cede the market. Unfortunately AMD's seeming vision of the need for netbooks to run Doom and world class graphics may enable MS in this market by forcing all the HW specs "up"
Wol, then Windows 7 is not for you! If your computer is that old, use something else.
It's 2009; I don't need to live like it's 2001 anymore. Some of us DO have the luxury of being able to "throw memory" at problems because it is now cheap(er) as chips. $60 for 4GB? Hell yes. Deck me out with 8GB, 16GB, it's cheap! No longer do I need to close programs to free memory for other programs. This is why we even bother with 64-bit on the desktop.
And you know what? I like Vista/Win7 using a lot of RAM. Why? Because it caches data and code so I don't need to load it from disk at runtime. I certainly don't use all that RAM in my immediate tasks, so I'd rather have it in my *potential* tasks. People whine day in and day out about how Vista uses so much RAM. Well it'll free it for you if you need it, otherwise why not use it to precache your data?
So what if Vista is a little inefficient. So what if it has overheads. I've got better things to do and pay for, than worry about some microscopic bit of performance I won't even take advantage of anyway. How much of your processor do you use on average? About 2%. Memory? Maybe half in active use. So why not dedicate those resources to not having to wait for something later?
For those without such resources at your disposal: TOO BAD. Get over it, and stop whining that Vista/Win7 doesn't accommodate every crappy computer you happen to own. I can't believe someone would pay more for their OS than their machine is worth.
Firstly, Windows 7 is to Vista as Windows 98 is to Windows 95. That is an exact statement, 98 is just the next iteration of 95. Likewise Win 7 is to Vista as XP is to 2000! There would be hundreds of people that disagree with that statement, likewise with the fact that it is 6.1!
I find the argument of 'faster than XP' a false one. Has anyone ran Windows 98SE on their new computer? Even though drivers aren't available it flies! Does that mean we should say that XP still sucks because it isn't as fast?
Has anyone tried Windows 3.11 on a modern computer! It is the fastest thing you have ever seen! Doesn't make it better than XP or Vista though :)
So you say to me, but Windows 3.11 is no where near as complex! Thats true, but XP isn't as complex as Vista, the complex issue comes about because of the larger support for hardware and features! Vista isn't as trim as what it should be, thats where Windows 7 will excel. However, Windows 7 won't be as fast as XP simply due to the complexity required and expected of the operating system. If you run XP on a brand new high end system then you are quite silly, you won't get the full advantage of the OS and some things just won't be available to you. I find it funny people getting a GTX 280 or a 4870/4870X2, then claiming they don't need Directx 10, well why the f*** did you get such a good graphics card if you don't plan to even use half its features or performance!
What it comes down to is people hate change, and they love to stick with what they think is better, regardless of whether it is or isn't. Take for example those that still insist on getting a Q6600 because of its overclocking potential. To me, just because a Q9400 may not be able to overclock quite as high (although thats debateable), the end peformance is still higher than that of the Q6600 anyway! not to mention if the programme can make use of SSE4 instructions :) If you really want a system to have a high MHZ overclock, stick with the last generation P4's! They clock extremely high, doesn't mean they're fast!
What relevance does this have to Windows 7 you say? basically if something is half good, embrace it! Embrace x64, and you'll find Vista's performance (when fully updated) on a truly decent machine - just because its new doesn't mean its good! isn't that bad at all!
If you really want to stick with x86, stick with XP and stop complaining, otherwise embrace x64 on Vista and 7. Its all about being realistic with your choice and stop blaming others for your own poor choice!
"if you can't afford a new PC at current rates then why are you even IN an IT discussion? Fuck off and sell some Big Issues...!"
Absolute classic! I nearly had a coffee through the nose incident, but hey it was worth it. And it's funny cos it's true. Dual core 2GB desktops can be had for £200 if you shop about. If you don't want to get in the game, please stop whining about the same old shit over and Over and OVER again, with nothing constructive to say. We get it OK, you hate MS, you hate Apple, you hate Linux, the authors, Nvidia, AMD, Intel and the way that your wife howls at the moon. ENOUGH ALREADY.
A) It's known as 6.1 so there won't be erroneous compatibility regarding Vista drivers and Windows 7.
B) Windows 7 takes up less resources than Vista, and considering the horsepower of today's PCs have it won't be a question of having to buy a new PC. Except that straight retail Win7 copies will still cost a bit. One will need to fish for a cheaper OEM copy.
C) XP is long in the tooth and going to be retired eventually. It's been around 8 or 9 years, enough already.
I've loaded all my apps used in Vista just to give it a real test. It's so stable I say release it now... It certainly is more stable than Vista was for the first six months....
I really felt cheated..I bought a laptop with Vista Premium... it comes with 250GB hard disk and I can only have less than 50GB real personal data storage space before Vista backup utility says I am running out of hard disk space...
Vole should provide a free upgrade to all Vista users (as a way of proffering their apologies) for taking us through hell and back!
We have maybe one machine that will run w7. In any case, I will not run software that is so crappy that you still need virus, malware, and spyware protection. I tested w7 and saw no big deal. besides it did not even have the drivers for my machine.It wasted 10 gigs on the disk without even loading any software applications. Linux was back on that machine in a matter of minutes. No hardware upgrade, productkey, or phone home validation required for linux.
In 1981 business computers maxed out at 64KB. The x86 series had a memory banking mode that allowed 1mB address space. MS-DOS reserved the top 364KB for system usage and used the 640KB low memory for MS-DOS, I/O buffers, drivers and other miscellaneous OS memory allocation. What was left over after that was available for user applications. For those that hit the wall there was a utility that could move OS RAM usage to "Hi Mem". That is RAM in the reserve 364KB address block.
With a "normal" home/small business computer sporting 32KB-64KB of memory !MB address space seemed limitless. A few like the C-64 (96KB) used memory banking to go above the 8bit limit, but those machines got the work done.
When the IBM PC came out it offered a massive 128KB of user RAM and 364KB of I/O address space. For 1981 this was a massive amount of memory and Bill famously said that 640KB RAM is all you needed.
A few years later there were a variety of memory banking systems that allowed MS-DOS programs to read/write RAM at addresses above 1MB out to a massive 4MB limit.
Then came Win95 which gave seamless access to full 32bit addressing and the race was on to bloat the software to force the market for memory banking systems and expansion RAM that continues to this day.
I will still wait for SP1 before buying it.