iccaros Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I am installing it in Virtual Box for testing.. I have a new laptop coming in for work so it will probably go on it.. I am disappointed they removed Hyper-V from the beta build. I have been going to demos at MS headquarters in Redmond on windows 7 and Hyper-V was sits best feature. they showed using the Hyper-V to natively boot virtual drives as if they were the primary install. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rhema7 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 My experience with vista is neither good or bad. The system ran find but my reflex memory wanted XP Vista was just different enough to slow me down. I have no doubt in time I could learn to be as efficient.I just intalled Win7 beta today and My conclusion the same given I could use it with no remorse.I have yet to crunch a spread sheet or Use Adobe CS3. I will let you know how it handles this. So far the cool stuff is just astetic, Since I have no Vista to compare. It is almost as fast as My XP install but I have had years to get it tuned. I save judgement for later.Preston Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sceeter32 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Hello all The more I play with Windows 7 the more I like it. I just hope that when it come out to buy that Microsoft doesn't bloat it like they did Vista. Vista for me works great, but has its temperaments at times but hey no operating systems are perfect after all! Can we actually believe Microsoft actually got it right for once and have the best selling OS? I am so curious if theres gonna be many versions on Window 7 like vista, but I have a feeling that I already answered my own question lol as this betas called Windows 7 ultimate. The price is what I'm after and I bet it's gonna be high in numbers. I guess I'll have some more fun with this beta and post back if I find something new.Thanks for reading!Sceeter32 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 The sad part is that its not the ultimate version..That is a marketing trick.. its missing the best parts.. no hyper-V (a built at the Kernel level Hyper-V is the part that MS was bragging about, at there side conferences they have every month in Redmond. oh it has media center.. media center, its the same as the Vista version. what is so ultimate about this version?? maybe home ultimate?? Plus Too many versions confuse people.. Look at Linux for an example of that. They should have a home and a Professional version.. That is it.. and I Think that is too much. This is my thought..this is Vista with all the service packs already in it.. Call it beta and everyone goes, well this is better than vista and its just beta.. Guess what it is Vista.. They just changed the name and changed a few graphics.. added fixes But in the end its still Vista.. but MS knows Vista is a dammaged Name. That is why they are rebranding.. so when Windows 7 (back to numbers ?? in what universe is this the 7th os they have released.. ) is released and all the people go buy it, Microsoft marketing will be laughing. because they made you pay for the fixes they would have rolled into Vista. Man I wish I had their marketing people.. to get people to pay for what they all ready paid for, and like it... Brilliant.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sceeter32 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) The sad part is that its not the ultimate version..That is a marketing trick.. its missing the best parts.. no hyper-V (a built at the Kernel level Hyper-V is the part that MS was bragging about, at there side conferences they have every month in Redmond. oh it has media center.. media center, its the same as the Vista version. what is so ultimate about this version?? maybe home ultimate?? Plus Too many versions confuse people.. Look at Linux for an example of that. They should have a home and a Professional version.. That is it.. and I Think that is too much. This is my thought..this is Vista with all the service packs already in it.. Call it beta and everyone goes, well this is better than vista and its just beta.. Guess what it is Vista.. They just changed the name and changed a few graphics.. added fixes But in the end its still Vista.. but MS knows Vista is a dammaged Name. That is why they are rebranding.. so when Windows 7 (back to numbers ?? in what universe is this the 7th os they have released.. ) is released and all the people go buy it, Microsoft marketing will be laughing. because they made you pay for the fixes they would have rolled into Vista. Man I wish I had their marketing people.. to get people to pay for what they all ready paid for, and like it... Brilliant..I hear ya! kind of a way thats why I bought my self a mac. Apple doesn't charge heavy prices to buy the next version of OSX as I see it paying around $129.99 for an os is a fair price to pay. Like you said window 7 is vista I agree with that, and Microsoft is gonna make there users pay out more money for there mistakes. Once Windows 7 is released to the public, vista will be left behind only being a year old and I see thats a waste of money. It's Microsoft's fault for making vista so crappy for some of there users. Consumers has to fork out more of there hard earned dollars to buy the OS that Microsoft should have released in the first place. I think that Microsoft should give Window 7 for free since there the ones that screwed up vista cause they were to much in a hurry and careless to do the job right.Sceeter32 Edited January 19, 2009 by sceeter32 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 this is Vista with all the service packs already in it.. Call it beta and everyone goes, well this is better than vista and its just beta.. Guess what it is Vista..But, but, taskbar.(back to numbers ?? in what universe is this the 7th os they have released.. )The least stupid explanation I can think of is that by coincidence Windows 7 is the 7th major mass-market system under the Windows brand, the 7th major release of NT and, if you pretended that Windows 7 was a completely new system, it would be Microsoft's 7th operating system. That fact that at most 1.5 of those statements is correct in no way makes that more stupid than the other explanations I've heard.Also, seven is magic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 But, but, taskbar. Sorry missed oneThe least stupid explanation I can think of is that by coincidence Windows 7 is the 7th major mass-market system under the Windows brand, the 7th major release of NT and, if you pretended that Windows 7 was a completely new system, it would be Microsoft's 7th operating system. That fact that at most 1.5 of those statements is correct in no way makes that more stupid than the other explanations I've heard.Also, seven is magic.that is lmao funny.. windows versions that I have used and remember1.02.03.03.13.119598 98SEwindows ME windows XPvistaWindows 7(now if we count only the majors (hint leave out 98se and all but 3.0 I count windows 7 as #8 unless we don't count ME)NT 3.0NT 3.5NT 4.0 Server 2000Server 2003Server 2008(in This case if you add windows 7 its the 7th os)Oh and 7 is Magic... 6 is evil Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think the 'seventh version' almost works a few ways: There have been eight distinct consumer releases of Windows: Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows XP, and Windows Vista. An argument could be made that Windows ME doesn't count because it was a stop-gap until XP was ready. That leaves seven. You could then argue that Windows 95 and 98 should be considered one system (not completely implausible) or that Windows 1 shouldn't count because it wasn't really Windows (a bit dubious, I think) or that Windows Vista and 7 should count as one system because 7 is what Vista was supposed to be (less plausible than the first option, more than the second). There have been eight major version numbers in Windows history: Windows 1, 2, 3, 4, NT 3, 4, 5, 6. This gives you the first and third arguments above for free but the second no longer works and the addition of NT 3 and 4 brings us back to eight. So, no go. There have been eight major releases of NT: 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0. You could probably argue that 3.5 and 3.51 should be considered a single system. That leaves you with one extra. Here I think you have two options: ignore NT 3.1 or ignore NT 6.0. The former isn't completely unreasonable but it's awfully close. The latter seems to be consistent with how people view the relationship between Vista and 7, but, unfortunately, you have to deal with Server 2008. (NT 5.2 has the opposite problem: if it wasn't for XP x64 it would have been possible to dismiss 5.2 as a server release.)I figured the first explanation is close enough to be worth at least half a correctness point. Possibly the third as well. There are probably a few variations on those two that aren't completely ludicrous.I will refrain from commenting on the fact that all three of the above explanations begin with the words "there have been eight". Amusingly, I think the most correct of the three explanations in my previous post was the last: if Windows 7 was a new system it would be Microsoft's seventh, after MS-DOS, Xenix, Windows, OS/2, NT, and CE. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Besttechie Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well, yeah, 7 is actually 6.1 (Vista was 6.0). However, XP was 5.1 so technically I guess you could say it's a full version up. I guess since Vista was 6.0 - they wanted to move away from anything resembling 6 and 7 is the next number? (supposedly lucky too) I also agree that 7 is what Vista should have been originally. I think MS has so far created enough good hype and have fixed a lot of the initial Vista issues (a lot were fixed with SP1 though) with 7. Side note: I'm not a Vista hater - it worked for me when I used it. B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well, yeah, 7 is actually 6.1 (Vista was 6.0). However, XP was 5.1 so technically I guess you could say it's a full version up.I consider XP a minor releases. It was essentially Windows 2000 with a slightly revised user-interface and new branding. Hey, wait a minute....Side note: I'm not a Vista hater - it worked for me when I used it.Vista was fine for the five minutes I used it. I quite like 7. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I have no issue really with either. I use Vista a lot, since XP has been invaded with work security impediments. But I do believe that Microsoft should give everyone who bought Vista Windows 7 as a trade. not charge them another $150 to $250 for it.. btw I get them all Free under my Companies MSDN so I don't pay for the upgrades I know in the numbering from the Kernel the numbers work out (Just Like Windows mobile 6.1 when you do a version check says it was WM 5.2.19199) .. the problem is that Windows 7 is not the 7th OS they have released and Charged for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I ran Windows on my computer that I got for Christmas as it came pre-loaded with XP. I had no beefs with the OS, it ran well, albeit a bit slower than Linux. After 1-2 days I loaded Slackware on the unit. I don't hate Windows, I just prefer *nix.To me it looks like Windows 7 will be a success for MS. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.