Top
110°

Windows 7: A better Vista?

Microsoft on Tuesday offered up far more details on Windows 7, successor to the company's oft-maligned Windows Vista.

In particular, Microsoft is focused on improving the time it takes for Windows to start up and shut down. In addition to its own work, Microsoft has been working directly with computer makers to address all of the factors that affect system performance.

Read Full Story >>
news.cnet.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Lord Anubis4740d ago

it's pretty much vista with a few fixes and what they call "user experience" interface. Nothing more and nothing less.

cahill4740d ago

Vista flop
x360 flop
windows 7 flop
Zune flop
NXE flop

what else?

jib4740d ago

"what else?"

your post

cahill4740d ago

more agony incoming for MS this Fall when LBP/Resistance 2 and Motorstorm 2 whips the flop box 360

ALICE_6664740d ago

hmm didnt they say that about XP and vista too back then? lol

Lumbo4740d ago

Hey MS, if you make this one LESS bloated and less of a memory hog than Vista i will buy it. And this time don't try to insult the customers with that ridicules 6 flavor to buy aproach. That was one of the main reasons Vista was shunned. Cause customers came to the conclusion that you cheat them when you offer the complete OS for $450 labled "ultimate" and try to stuff cut down versions that feel like "demo" versions down our throats for the normal price.

The whole 6-7 versions of the same travesty needs to stop. Stick to 3 versions: Normal customer version, Business version, Server version
Normal customer version being the one that includes everything from mediacenter to backup, business version that includes business features like vpn and encryption, and a server version that is optimized for remote access and background services.

Also reduce the freaking memory footprint. Windows is supposed to be an OPERATING SYSTEM, not some bloated crap that eats up 1GB of the main ram to start. An OS is supposed to run in the background enabling you to run your real applications. Not to force its way into the front eating up most of the resources for no reason.

Reasonable price, reasonable memory and resource footprint, and reasonable version policy and i will move from XP-pro to W7. Otherwise i will stay or look to the macside of the lake for better solutions :p

PatchMe3604740d ago

As far the memory footprint.. Well all those REAL applications you talk about, wouldnt it be cool if you could store those is unused memory so the next time you open it, its already loaded into memory and hence it speeds things up?

You clearly dont have Vista or know anything about it. Anyone that still uses 1gb of ram needs to upgrade. I have 8gbs currently and thats on a 6 month old system that costs 750 to build.

SketchCA4740d ago

Why should people have to to upgrade for a system like that? Do you honestly think that the average computer user really cares about ultra-high end graphical performance. Computers have reached a point where 1 gig of RAM is necessary to do anything needed of the average user. Why should they be forced to pay for a new computer every 3 years? And you wonder why PC gaming is not a bread winner for many companies?

If you have 8 gigs of ram in your computer, you are one of the VERY few people who does. You are not the average computer user.

Lumbo4740d ago (Edited 4740d ago )

What are you smoking?

Considering that Vista32 is the MOST sold version, pray tell me how you expect users to use 8GB of RAM as the system only supports up to 4 ... Boy what a failure ...

You obviously have no clue what an OPERATING SYSTEM is supposed to do.
An OS is supposed to offer an API for applications to use the Hardware. The OS is supposed to do this as efficient as possible so that the main potential of the hardware can be used by the application. I want my applications to run stable, fast and with as much hardware resources possible. I DON'T want my applications to only get the leftover RAM and CPU from some bloated buggy OS code that is so inefficient that it runs the SAME applications slower than the predecessor.

The loadtime of applications is a non-issue in the business world. This "feature" is only for fanboy bragging so you can drool over a load-up of PS thats 10 seconds instead of 20. But with a less bloated OS the WHOLE PS application is faster by no less than 10% while doing time consuming filter operations and effects. What do you need more, a 10 seconds faster load-up, or several hours worth of less used time cause the application has more cpu to work with? If the same application, running on the same system, is running faster on the older version of the OS, WHAT incentive do i have to switch to that new OS? NONE. If i know that the older version will also run faster on a new system, what incentive do i have to use the slower version on the new system? NONE.

My main work PC has dualboot OS of XP-Pro and Vista64-business. I have to WORK with the pc daily, and guess what, the first move was to disable all the bloated crap that gets in the way of work, like the pointless soft blends for menus that make the menu display slower, the whole bunch of pointless background gimmicks that offer no productive value but eat up my cpu cycles. My Core-quad is supposed to work on the PS filters and 3DS rendering, not on slow "aqua" design stuff and menu animations no one needs. Even Microsoft agrees that Vista got bloated, hence they promise a LESS BLOATED W7.. why would they promise the business users that, when Vista, as you suggest, was not bloated at all? Yeah right ... dream on ...

The only reason vista64 is still on my system is that i use it for Games that support DX10. If it wasn't for that i would have deleted it already as all my work gets done faster on XP-Pro.

Tony P4739d ago

Thank you, Lumbo, for making sense of that tripe.

I'm all for Vista pride and all that, but god, only the most myopic of users would insist that a 'better' OS logically requires an expensive new rig. Ignorance is astounding.

8gb of ram... That gave me a good laugh.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4739d ago
DJ4739d ago

Otherwise it'll be a nail in the coffin, allowing Mac and Linux to go on a marketshare rampage.