-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
Some Windows 7 Screenshots
- Thread starter Lino
- Start date
Lino
I am back
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 13,785
- Reaction score
- 56
Got that right
rwenzori
Honorary Master
Looks like they are keeping all the fugly bits from Vista bleh!
Abe
Expert Member
Here are some screenshots from Windows 7.
Note is basically looks exactly same as Vista except for a few applications.
Wordpad
This is interesting because presently MS requires that people sign a non-compete to use the Office 2007 look and feel (Ribbons). Having ribbons in the base OS would, IMO, result in the look and feel being placed in the public domain as it now becomes a standard on the OS.
kronoSX
Honorary Master
Why did they not make vista better 2 years ago,i mean the tech changed but the human mind dont.Think about it for a minute.
Lino
I am back
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 13,785
- Reaction score
- 56
I agree with you, I think Microsoft did not have enough time with Vista. Considering the fact the project was restarted, they probably just rushed it to finish the product.
Agreed, I think a lot of MS's thinking about marketing. A lot of people feel Vista's image is damaged beyond repair, instead of MS trying to fix it with SP's etc. It is probably better for them to improve Vista but release it with a entirely new name.
Starting off on a clean slate, marketing can be a powerful tool. Especially with consumers.
Not my favorite but I do think it will become Microsoft's standard. At least if every application has the ribbon interface. Parts of the OS should not feel out of place.
MielieSpoor
Expert Member
Why so? The ribbon makes everything actually easier as relevant stuff is grouped together! There has gone a lot of research into the development of the ribbon control.
killadoob
Honorary Master
The main problem with Vista would be the Linux people and people who have hardly used vista who put it down all over forums.
Then people who have never it used get put off along with all the other people they have told it sux without even trying it.
Vista did not fail as an OS, it has failed because of word of mouth can be the best advertising but also the worst.
Then people who have never it used get put off along with all the other people they have told it sux without even trying it.
Vista did not fail as an OS, it has failed because of word of mouth can be the best advertising but also the worst.
Abe
Expert Member
I beg to differ. I know of a lot of people who have tried Vista (some for quite a few months) and have moved back to XP. Most of them have never used Linux. Hell, my mom has both Vista (Notebook) and XP (PC) and has had both of them for the better part of a year and hates Vista.
It's slower then XP on equivilent hardware and still has some serious problems like the file copy issue. To make matters worse, it caused a number of old applications (poorly written) to fail.
Yes and no. It failed because it did not offer enough in the way of new benefits to XP users. That translated into word of mouth, which as you said, can be the worst advertising.
Linux users are in the minority on most forums such as this one. Therefore if Vista/Windows 7 is any good, then the truth will come up. Don't blame an OS's poor performance on Linux fanboys. If someone can't come up with their own opinion about something after considering both sides of the arguement and reading up about it/using it. Then they really shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Hawker believe this or not dude but some people do listen to other people and will make decisions based on what other people say, now i'm not saying the linux guys are the reason for vista failing, i am saying that guys who run linux, guys who load vista and the first problem they run into call it crap.
They then run it down on any forum they can, take this forum for instance, how many times have people come in and given their opinions on vista? Alot of the time very biased opinions. While vista has its problems the way people talk about vista sometimes you just the feeling they know nothing about it or how it operates.
Word of mouth made vista fail, the OS itself is solid and one of the best OS's i have ever used and most people who are running vista and took the time to get to know it will tell you exactly the same thing.
Abe vista fixed that copying thing along ago dude. Also abe when windows xp came out how did it run off windows 98 hardware? not very well infact running xp on 64mb or 128mb was a horrible experience. Nobody went on about new hardware then.
Funny thing is people expect new OS's to run perfect on their old slower pc's which makes no sense to me. Surely the more OS's come out the more hardware intensive they become, much like gaming.
They then run it down on any forum they can, take this forum for instance, how many times have people come in and given their opinions on vista? Alot of the time very biased opinions. While vista has its problems the way people talk about vista sometimes you just the feeling they know nothing about it or how it operates.
Word of mouth made vista fail, the OS itself is solid and one of the best OS's i have ever used and most people who are running vista and took the time to get to know it will tell you exactly the same thing.
Abe vista fixed that copying thing along ago dude. Also abe when windows xp came out how did it run off windows 98 hardware? not very well infact running xp on 64mb or 128mb was a horrible experience. Nobody went on about new hardware then.
Funny thing is people expect new OS's to run perfect on their old slower pc's which makes no sense to me. Surely the more OS's come out the more hardware intensive they become, much like gaming.
Operating systems shouldn't require you to get faster hardware. Windows Vista uses +-750mb of RAM idling, what on earth is it doing?
(linuxfanboi now)
New Linux OS's run the same speed/if not faster on the same hardware. Thus it is not unreasonable to expect OS's to perform the same on similiar hardware. For example my latest Ubuntu box (not customized with other window managers etc (e.g fluxbox) still using plain old gnome, uses about 250mb of RAM at startup. If Linux can get it right in the desktop enviroment why can't Windows? Why does it have to be such a resource hog?
(linuxfanboi off)
killadoob
Honorary Master
Operating systems shouldn't require you to get faster hardware. Windows Vista uses +-750mb of RAM idling, what on earth is it doing?
Well i'm not entirely sure but that is an interesting comment
Why is linux getting it right though? memory is so cheap that you cannot even buy 256 meg sticks of ram anymore.
Sure windows vista likes 2 gb of ram, your looking at what 500 bucks for 2 gb of memory these days? when xp came out 64 meg of ram cost your more than 2 gb of memory does these days.
Xp needs i would say a minimum of 256 meg ram to run nicely, now when it first came out that would have cost 2-3k, these days you can run 4gb of memory for 1.2k, so i don;t see what the problem is
I suppose both OS's have their reasons as to why they use x amount of memory.
Well i'm not entirely sure but that is an interesting comment
Why is linux getting it right though? memory is so cheap that you cannot even buy 256 meg sticks of ram anymore
.Sure windows vista likes 2 gb of ram, your looking at what 500 bucks for 2 gb of memory these days? when xp came out 64 meg of ram cost your more than 2 gb of memory does these days.
Xp needs i would say a minimum of 256 meg ram to run nicely, now when it first came out that would have cost 2-3k, these days you can run 4gb of memory for 1.2k, so i don;t see what the problem is
I suppose both OS's have their reasons as to why they use x amount of memory.
Last edited:
d0b33
Honorary Master
I'm a Linux user and have defended Vista since SP1, many times I have said that I prefer it to XP. You are clutching to straws trying to put some of the blame on Linux users.
Ou grote
Honorary Master
Don't forget the Apple fanboys.
It looks like MS are doing something similer to what Apple is with Snow Leopard.
Probably a good thing.
I'm one of those people who like XP way more than Vista.
Spent only a few hours on Vista though...
Abe
Expert Member
The file copying is still slower in some situations. For the record, XP replaced Windows 2000 and not 98. XP performed similarly when compared to Windows 2000 on the same hardware. Even if you want to compare it to 98, the benefits of XP over 98 were substantial: True Multithreading, access to 4GB of RAM, multi-core and multi-processor support. At the end of the day, it comes down to benefits of upgrading. Why must people upgrade?
If you are not adding any benefits, then yes, people do expect it to perform the same. There is no sound reason why the core of an OS should be slower then a previous generation. Just because PC's are faster, does not mean that the OS should perform worse.
Abe
Expert Member
Why is linux getting it right though? memory is so cheap that you cannot even buy 256 meg sticks of ram anymore
Vista's use of RAM is not a problem unless it impacts applications, which I understand it does not.
On the price side, though. I don't get the argument. It's like saying, just because water is cheap, it does not matter if your washing machine makes inefficient use of it.
I wonder if it will have MiniWin and WinFS? Most importantly.. what kinda hardware will it be able to run on? Im getting tired of downgrading hundreds of machines every month from Vista to XP...
Last edited: