What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
205 Comments
- StanleyKoolPrik, on 01/16/2009, -6/+112Windows 7 will cure male pattern baldness and erectile dysfunction, forever.
- SpectralSounds, on 01/15/2009, -4/+66I've been using the beta since it was released and I like it quite a bit. I was running XP on this laptop for a long while before switching over to the beta and the beta seems faster. It isn't night and day faster, but it is faster. I have however run into quite a few interesting bugs, but I assume they will be fixed before final is released.
I'm sure I'll end up switching to 7. - battletops, on 01/16/2009, -3/+48I'm waiting for Mojave.
- Hortnon, on 01/15/2009, -3/+331 GHZ is a supercomputer now?
Oh and read the article - Shidell, on 01/16/2009, -3/+33Long story short: Yes.
I installed Windows 7 Beta (build 7000) today on a Dell D600. Centrino 1.6 Ghz with 512 Mb. of RAM and a Radeon 9000. It was remarkably faster than Vista--arguably just as fast as XP.
Completely expecting it to run like a dog, I was blown away by how well it ran. - inactive, on 01/16/2009, -5/+33I'm primarily a Mac/Linux user and I have to say, Windows 7 is nice. I may actually buy it. I feel weird saying it, but - good job Microsoft.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -8/+26Short answer: Yes
Long answer:Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss - chthonical, on 01/16/2009, -1/+18*eyes Steve Ballmer* ...*****.
- mickstephenson, on 01/16/2009, -1/+16As a linux user, who used Vista a little when I bought my laptop I found Vista to be an improvement over XP, and don't understand the hate, but I was pining for the fjords pretty quickly and had Ubuntu back on there probably before I found the hatred. Either way, I think the design goals of Vista whether or not they were achieved are one hell of an improvement over xp
- whiteguysamurai, on 01/16/2009, -4/+17No, it's a nicer version of vista, and a few of it's features are welcome.
But using this beta, i can't help but think they haven't done enough. - Lockhart1, on 01/16/2009, -0/+13Thank you for classifying my 2 year old Dell Inspiron 9400 2GHz (which runs Vista speedily) as a supercomputer. I feel like a tech superstar now.
- GregorCZ, on 01/16/2009, -2/+14No.
- m0tbaillie, on 01/16/2009, -4/+15Although I'm a full-time Linux user, I still use XP on a regular basis at work or for various school projects.
XP users are excited to transition to Windows 7 because they're/we're using an operating system that was released 2001. - craterburnsu, on 01/16/2009, -10/+21I'm running Win7 in VMWare fusion on my MacBook Pro with 512mb RAM allocated and it runs AMAZING. Vista wont start up with 512mb of RAM. That should be a very solid evidence of the progress Msoft has made.
- Murdats, on 01/16/2009, -2/+12I keep seeing this, why do do people expect a revolutionary release from microsoft? they have never released one before except maybe windows 3.1 to windows 95.
but the changes between windows 95 and 98 were small (I read a review not long ago of the 98 beta (ooold review) and they said it was nice but basically 95 + service packs +ie by default), the differences between 2k and XP were not too massive either, significant but nothing groundbreaking. the differences between xp and vista was probably the biggest leap they have made, and thats why so much broke. - doctordbx, on 01/16/2009, -0/+10It's a free beta tard, no need to test 'illegally'.
- specialK16, on 01/16/2009, -1/+11But dogs are fast ?
- Retnuh730, on 01/16/2009, -0/+10PROTIP: it's not MS' job to make drivers for your hardware. Its the manufacturers'. Maybe you should take it up with them instead of blaming a beta of an operating system.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -0/+9Get a video card that doesn't suck.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -1/+10I'm primarily a OSX user, and even I can recognize that 7 is really nice; I doubt you've even tried it.
- jggube, on 01/16/2009, -4/+13Yeah skip Vista directly to 7. Vista's great, but if you can hold off a bit longer, go to 7. I have XP on a desktop and Vista on a laptop, so I get the best of both worlds.
- MikeWanDo, on 01/16/2009, -1/+10Was going to digg you up until that last sentence. I'm sure that Linux will *eventually* get to the level of Windows 7 in terms of features/functionality. In some ways Linux is already ahead of it. The only way Linux might not "come to the same level" as Windows 7 is if you mean in terms of market share, but who knows what will happen.
- CrazySpaniard, on 01/16/2009, -0/+8so what you're saying is
"not saying that windows 7 sucks, but windows 7 sucks." - Dragular, on 01/16/2009, -1/+9Gee, thanks, now every time I use that phrase I'm going to catch myself staring blankly into space at the realization of the false statement I have just made. You bastard.
- Spartycus, on 01/16/2009, -0/+8... Its a beta, not the final released product. The whole purpose of a beta is to test a product and give developers time to create new drivers. MS cannot and should not be expected to write every driver for every conceivable product that might be used with their OS.
- GawtMilk, on 01/16/2009, -0/+8I have 4GB of RAM and it is idles around 1.5GB. When I open Firefox, though, it remains at 1.5GB - the RAM that was being used for cache was dropped and used to load Firefox. Using a program like Photoshop CS4 that requires all the RAM means that 7 will drop any RAM for cache and give it all to CS4. Considering this, I wish 7 would always use 4GB of RAM, even at idle. Why put RAM in your computer for it to remain unused?
I use Adobe Creative Suite a lot and I want 7 to be using as little RAM as possible when that is open, but I wish I could set it so that it always kept the Firefox, CS4 and MS Word apps loaded in RAM at all times, unless another program needed the RAM to run / function. That way, double clicking the icon of the application would not need it to be loaded off the HD, as it is already "loaded", just not running. This would make it seem like these programs loaded instantly, simply because they were already open. It would be an amazing features to have "instant-on" applications, especially for the smaller 4MB programs which still take a few seconds to load. Why not load these applications into memory when the computer is idle?
This would also save battery life on laptops, right? Since RAM in use isn't any more battery intensive than RAM in "idle", your RAM should always be used to its fullest - the programs that are loaded could always be dropped instantly to allow other programs to use it. This would lower the amount of time the hard drive had to be running... - inactive, on 01/16/2009, -1/+9It's what you do when someone produces a resonable product.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -0/+7I've breathed new life into my 4-year-old box. Windows 7 is day and night faster. I did an XP reinstall a few months ago, and still found it a bit sluggish. Windows 7 zips along. Have to give Microsoft credit.
- Murdats, on 01/16/2009, -0/+7I couldn't, I was on AGP, so I got a computer that didn't suck.
- newdigger, on 01/16/2009, -1/+8I find it quite hilarious that people get so hot and bothered over boot times. My Acer Aspire One (yes, the netbook) with a 4200RPM HDD, boots Vista Ultimate x86 from the power button to the desktop in 28 seconds.
- doctordbx, on 01/16/2009, -0/+7You have to use business networking option, not homegroup.
- subxero37, on 01/16/2009, -2/+9Starting up != usable.
- digitalpencil, on 01/16/2009, -0/+7i've liked it so far, but i think my own speed increases were more down to a fresh installation rather than under-the-hood improvements.. still, it's snappy and i like it.
- newdigger, on 01/16/2009, -0/+6All the Leopard machines in my house see my Windows 7 box perfectly fine, and vise versa. You're doing it wrong.
- doctordbx, on 01/16/2009, -0/+6Dude, it's 2009... 2010 is just around the corner.
1.5 gig of RAM is nothing. - Jhiaxuz, on 01/16/2009, -5/+10It'll interest people until someone tells them not to be. Afterwords, it'll turn into a Vista-flavored heresay hatred where most of the people who complain about it are the ones who never actually used it.
Or it'll be a wild success... - scy1192, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5that would be neither up nor down.
So don't click any buttons. - Sepiid, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5Except for gaming.
once linux can run games bought off the store shelves nativly and with easy installers, linux will be left behind.
i want to be able to go to fry's and pick any game off the shelves, everquest 2, farcry2, civ4, titan quest, doom3, etc... and plop the disc in and have an installer option. once that is there, i will imediately drop windows for linux.
and dont come back at me with well "WINE" will run it etc... i dont want a complicated install.
now i am fully capable of getting a fair amount of games running in WINE and i have a few linux boxes as well. hell both of my PS3's have linux on them, i have hacked who knows howmany links routers for friends etc... but i want a simple OS that will run all my crap when i want it to. - Philbert, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5When it comes to something as important as an OS that manages all of my important files and other programs, there's no way I'm pirating it.
- megagram, on 01/16/2009, -1/+6I'm gonna take a guess that you're gonna get dugg down.
- scarabic, on 01/16/2009, -1/+6Why did I bother to read this? He installed it in virtualization on 2 macs, and on 1 badass homebrew PC. How does that tell me anything about Windows 7 performance on older hardware?
>>What I haven't yet tried is a something like an older, cheaper processor - say, a 2-3-year old Celeron - with only a gigabyte of RAM. If anyone out there is using Win7 in that kind of configuration, I'd love to hear what you think of it.
Uh, yeah. So would I. - specialK16, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5*****, or you just some some rather obscure hardware or there is a bigger issue going on. My PC is 4 or 5 years old. Ran Vista a bit slow especially if Aero was enabled. It runs 7 as fast or, I even dare to say, faster than XP WITH Aero enabled. Every piece of hardware was recognized, thing that didn't happen in Vista.
- doctordbx, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5Also the longest day of your life, as you spend late hours trying to get your wireless network card to work.
- newdigger, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5I paid the very LOW price of $70 for my DDR2-800 6 months ago. You have no excuse.
- freesf, on 01/16/2009, -0/+5You sound very bitter and sad... poor person
- GMH24, on 01/16/2009, -3/+8Win 7 beta is a great replacement for XP. I put it on my laptop last night, and though it uses more memory, it's actually snappier than XP, and boots quicker on my machine.
- Reddog_x2000, on 01/16/2009, -0/+4Yeah. But, for the average user, Linux is irrelevant.
- roxgod666, on 01/16/2009, -0/+4In that case, you're like Microsoft because you need to put more time, thought and effort into your comment. First, what does the success of another operating system have to do with Vista failing? It did not fail because of os x, it failed because it got horrifying reviews in the beginning, had bad driver support, and requires higher system specs. And how exactly will Snow Leopard cause MS to fail? Vista to Windows 7 will be a much larger transaction than Leopard to Snow leopard. Windows 7 will most likely gain market share because of this, people who started to use Linux because of vista's performance might come back and gamers who didn't use Vista will definitely be pleased with Windows 7. This is what i think of when i read your comment, a kid gets a 93% on a test and another kid gets a 98%. So because they 98 is higher, the kid with the lower grade failed? I'm sorry but something tells me that doesn't come close to making sense.
- CarzorStelatis, on 01/16/2009, -0/+4So your argument is that, because the _read_ speed in Windows 7 was higher than the _write_ speed in Vista, Windows 7 is better?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 210 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is