Windows 7 RC due May 5th

[Glenn]

Microsoft let slip the release date, then withdrew the page, but some enterprising soul got a screen shot http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/04/18/windows-7-rc-coming-to-msdntechnet-soon-public-may-5

[Simon]

I'm interested, but not overly excited by the advent of W7, and probably won't be rushing out to buy a copy.

[Sebby]

Let slip on purpose me thinks.

Personally, I think Windows 7 is going to be good, and will finally be a replacement for XP. But, the thing is, most consumers don't care. They buy a new PC and it comes with an OS, and that's what they use. Vista has been a failure because businesses haven't adopted it. Consumers haven't had much of a choice.

[Rik]

I did, and chose XP.

[Gary]

Let slip on purpose me thinks.

Personally, I think Windows 7 is going to be good, and will finally be a replacement for XP. But, the thing is, most consumers don't care. They buy a new PC and it comes with an OS, and that's what they use. Vista has been a failure because businesses haven't adopted it. Consumers haven't had much of a choice.

I think in the present economic climate Sebby PC sales are down anyway, more people are thinking Mac for when they want to update, with the advent of SP1 and the soon to be released SP2 for Vista its become a fast and safe operating system as all OS's mature they get less buggy, XP was a security nightmare pre SP2, not so many crashes and issues as I had on XP for myself using Vista, and I also cannot see myself rushing out to get Windows 7, what's the point, what I have works and works well. XP is now really showing its age, but why change it if its all you need the only real reason I see is security, but to most home users thats something they think Norton looks after, and as new AV's are released and seem more and more buggy as well (Nod version 4 seems to be hell for some sadly as do a few others) people will stick with what they have, less chance of it going wrong. Business wise there seems no rush for Windows 7 either, releasing a new OS every 2 years is a bad business model, its expensive and takes training and resources how many businesses have only taken up XP in the last 4 years or so from windows 2000? Also less damn variants of the same OS would help, but people are well aware that rushing out to get windows 7 is not going to shatter the world with new features over Vista and those that got used to it and waited for the first service pack have little to moan about, never buy a new OS before its first Service pack, that's well known, being at the bleeding edge of technology is not fun any more for myself, just unwanted cost and hassle. So when people buy a new PC /mac that's when they will get what OS is out there probably, Vista did not stimulate the queues outside shops that XP did and I doubt Windows 7 will,  and to be honest new computers and gadgets are not on the list of must have home essentials in our household at least. If it works wait till it breaks, gadgets are great but buying the latest cellphone or netbook because its the latest and greatest just does not have the lure any more for myself at least, I have seen through the "its better so buy it today" routine and realised upgrading my two year old MP3 player/mobile/pc or any other electronic toy I have for that matter is just a way of getting me to part with cash, and for for very little gain over what I already had, and in fact sometimes the older models were the better ones anyway. People I talk to seem shrewder in their purchases, we all at some stage have been bitten with that upgrade bug and found it an endless money pit.To be honest I would rather spend the money windows 7 will cost on something that will give me genuine satisfaction, like putting the cost towards a holiday. XP/Vista/OS X, they all work just fine for most people.

[Sebby]

XP is showing its age, but it's more than adequate for most. Businesses would rather run a stable and fast OS that doesn't have bells and whistles than the opposite. I'm sorry but SP1 did nothing for the speed of Vista, and I can't imagine SP2 will either. It's an OS with the right idea, but poor implementation, imho. Windows 7 is going to sort that, not SP2.

[zappaDPJ]

I serious think that Microsoft should provide a free upgrade path for those of us that have been blighted with Vista. It was never fit for purpose and I'm simply not prepared to pay again for something I should have had in the first place. Failing that I will probably go back to using XP Pro on all the PCs and laptops here.

[Ted]

I serious think that Microsoft should provide a free upgrade path for those of us that have been blighted with Vista. 

 

[Simon]

Yup, and I'm just as likely to walk on the moon. 

[Rik]

When do you leave?

[Glenn]

Yup, and I'm just as likely to walk on the moon. 

You would have to Police your steps, they could be giant ones 

[Rik]

[Glenn]

 

[Simon]

When do you leave?

You would have to Police your steps, they could be giant ones 

I'll send you a Message in a Bottle when I've packed.

[Rik]

[Simon]

[Gary]

XP is showing its age, but it's more than adequate for most. Businesses would rather run a stable and fast OS that doesn't have bells and whistles than the opposite. I'm sorry but SP1 did nothing for the speed of Vista, and I can't imagine SP2 will either. It's an OS with the right idea, but poor implementation, imho. Windows 7 is going to sort that, not SP2.

I think a lot depends on what hardware you are running Sebby and thats where Microsoft fell down with the specs on what it could run on. SP2 wont make that much difference, but it works just fine for me and that's all I am concerned with. All pc's built since Vista was released, that I have used have used run fine and fast with no slow downs because they had better specs than pre Vista machines I expect. My Laptop gets a score of 5.4 the graphics get 5.9 which is the key along with Memory being 5.9 as well. Graphics cards with the right specs and sufficient ram running at the right speeds really make a difference, which when people  upgraded first off to the vanilla release version they did not have, along with decent drivers at that time, and this probably helped to make the so called Wow factor the exact opposite.

If you turn off things you may not need like Windows cardspace, Windows internet printing, Remote registry and tablet pc input services, after turning off the latter first in the uninstall  programs window where you can turn off parts of vista you do not need, it helps for slower machines, and faster ones as well, just like the tweaks there were for XP that helped it on slower machines, It all helps. I am not a Vista fanboy it just came with my laptop, all I am saying is I don't think its that bad, and I'm happy with how it runs, just like I was with XP, and may be with what ever comes next from the OS I end up using when this machine becomes too old, and by then my interest in so called must have gadgets may have dwindled even more than it has now, who knows. On the grand scale of what's really important in my life lets just say a new operating system is near the bottom, the one I have works just fine, happy times.

Best to agree to disagree here methinks. 

[Rik]

Actually, I think you agree more than you disagree.

[Gary]

Actually, I think you agree more than you disagree.

Actually I probably don't have a clue, Rik. Either way its not going to effect me, or is it?

[Rik]

 

[Sebby]

Best to agree to disagree here methinks. 

Let's do that.

[zappaDPJ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8026736.stm

The Windows 7 Starter Edition will have limitations on how many applications can be used concurrently on a machine in order to preserve performance.

I find that rather concerning as my biggest gripe with Vista is that it can be abysmally slow even on top-end hardware under those circumstances. I thought 7 was designed to address the issue with better coding, not a cheap and cheesy work around.

Mr Curran said that the Microsoft Windows team had been poring over every aspect of the operating system to make improvements.

"We were able to shave 400 milliseconds off the shutdown time by slightly trimming the WAV file shutdown music.

That is indeed attention to detail but I'm more concerned with the 30 seconds plus it takes me to switch between a full screen application and something as simple as Internet Explorer.

I'm going to have to try this out nevertheless as I'm hoping it will address a number of issues but I'm a little less hopeful than before after reading that. I know that I'm not what would be considered a typical PC user but if XP can do what I want in less than a second then I really don't see why Vista or 7 can't do the same.

[Rik]

Which is why, I believe, that many people, myself included, haven't felt the need to move from XP.

[zappaDPJ]

If 7 doesn't address my issues I will almost certainly be upgrading to XP PRO and I do rather sadly consider it an upgrade. Vista/7 is without a doubt potentially a better product but the basic flaws let it down badly which in some cases make it almost unusable.

[Gary]