Windows 7 Beta 1 (build 7000) screenshots

Ghostman 1 said:
What about activation ? How long is it good for ? and do you need a time bomb ?
Click to expand...
It lasts for 30 days without activation. And I expect the next build within 30 days. But when MS realeases an open beta, you should be able to get a serial number to activate it with.
 
Thanks man i appreciat your good job. I think MS renamed the Vista everything is the same :) . I hope that it should be bugs free. Coz Vista really sucks! I still recommond ppl XP it can do everything you need :)
 
Even though XP has ten times as many error's and incompatabilities as Vista.

I, personally, like Vista. Because I know how to use it. But thanks for those screenshots! I'm eagerly awaiting it's release! :)
 
The only thing that i really hate about Win7 is the new taskbar. You can choose a few different appearances, but the 'classic' version that was used in previous versions of Windows is not available.
 
Even though XP has ten times as many error's and incompatabilities as Vista.
Click to expand...

I would have to say you have it backwards my friend.. Xp is a way better OS then Vista..
After working on both for years, and having most people that bring me a new pc to remove vista and install XP, I must disagree....
 
Ghostman 1 said:
I would have to say you have it backwards my friend.. Xp is a way better OS then Vista..
After working on both for years, and having most people that bring me a new pc to remove vista and install XP, I must disagree....
Click to expand...
Vista is indeed really terrible, compared to XP. MS has built an OS that uses technology that is way too advanced for them.

And then the system requirements of Vista, these are insane. You need a game PC to get Vista working, at least at a functional level. Just look at the RAM usage. When I just use Firefox and MSN Messenger on Windows XP, it uses an estimated RAM amount of 256 MB. When I load these same programs on Vista, I get an estimated RAM usage of 1200 MB! That is caused by all that eye-candy like transparent windows, and not by any so-called 'added features'. The only 'real' added feature of Vista is that it runs slower than XP. Much slower.

That is also the reason why Vista is not popular at companies. Just look at the costs when a company has to upgrade or replace hundreds of computers. Most of them use special licensing arrangements with MS to cut the licensing costs, but the costs for the hardware do need to get paid.

Microsoft should synchronize the requirements of their products with the hardware market. By the time that Windows 7 is released, the price of hardware should be much lower, and then it's possible to release an OS with such requirements. But now customers have to pay way too much on hardware. And to make things even worse, you need to pay an additional fee to get XP installed by the manufacturer, because MS is dropping support for XP. So you pay for Vista, and you also need to pay even more to get XP installed.
 
Well I've just installed Windows 7 (public BETA build 7000). It seems better than Vista did (during the brief period which I tried it). My only gripes are:

1) I don't like the stupid start menu. I'm used to the old one!
2) The quicklaunch bar should be able to be kept seperate from open windows.

Bascially, it should act and look like XP :D

Now to test some games out and see how they run!
 
It's open right now, and I'm posting from the 64-bit version. I just installed it, and it's at least as fast, if not a slight bit faster than XP in that regard. I don't have anything installed on it yet, but it's seems to be just as snappy as XP SP3.

I'm not thrilled about some of the stuff MS has done with it, but I will say this: it feels a lot snappier than what I've seen from Vista. Now, I don't use Vista at all, but I've not been that impressed with it's performance. If Windows 7's keeps this type of performance, then I think Microsoft will see a lot better acceptance of this one.
 
Big B said:
It's at least as fast, if not a slight bit faster than XP in that regard. I don't have anything installed on it yet, but it's seems to be just as snappy as XP SP3.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm I'm not sure whether it was as fast as XP as not. It booted up about the same speed as my 1 year old XP SP3 install does.

I tried NFS Undercover just after I'd installed, and it seemed just a bit slower than on XP. But then I realised I've not installed any drivers yet - it might perform better with the Vista nVidia drivers.

Installation was very quick and easy, and like I said, I didn't have to install any drivers, although I probably could to improve graphic performance.
 
I'm just running W7 on my ancient laptop now!
Specs:

AMD Turion 2.0GHz MK-36 (Single core)
2GB (2 x 1gb) RAM
60 GB HDD (XP on 30gb partition and W7 on remainder)
ATi Radeon Xpress 1100 (same as X200 I believe)
802.11g WiFi

Everything works, with no need for any driver installation.

Initially, Aero was disabled, but after I did a Windows Experience Index, it gave it a rating of 2.0 (lowered by HDD and graphics performance), and it automatically enabled Aero!!! :eek: Vista always decided that Aero wouldn't run, and it never did nicely on Vista. But on W7 it does!

Boot up slower than XP, maybe about 1.5 times longer. Suppose it's to be expected on such old hardware! On the other hand, WMP loads songs quicker over the network, and once booted nothing seems to lag.
 
sabashuali said:
[ot]
Ancient? Man, I'd love to have your cast offs... :chk:
[/ot]
Click to expand...

[ot] Ok good point... It feels ancient because 2 of my best friends have just got new laptops, the best with a 2.26Ghz Dual core Intel processor, 4gb of RAM and an nVidia 9600M graphics chip. When you sit the laptops side by side, mine looks and feels ancient. ;) Oh and my brother has just ordered a laptop with similar specs to the one above! So he's winding me up about how slow mine is in comparison.[/ot]
 
Been playing with W7 more, and except for my Quicken stuff, I've been using it a lot. It's still a beta, but the OS is growing on me and with a little polish, I'd definitely upgrade to it from XP. W7 is what Vista should've been...

Quake 4 (and they know it's an issue) is buggy.
Java stuff under Firefox 3 doesn't seem to totally work.
.MSI files can be a problem (as I found out trying to install Office 2000) in some cases (known issue).

They've changed some stuff, and having avoided Vista, I don't know how much is a polished update of that. However, I really do like this so far and am looking forward to the next update.
I'm actually starting to dislike having to go over to XP right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top