Microsoft temporarily removes Windows 7 Beta download limit

Good news, Windows 7 fanatics -- Microsoft has decided to nix that 2.5 million download limit in order to a) calm everyone down and b) enable its servers to relax just a wee bit. After the Windows 7 Beta download was launched, it took just hours to bring the servers to a screeching halt as consumers 'round the globe attempted to get in before the 2.5 million mark was hit. Now, however, the team has removed that barrier for the next fortnight (through January 24th, being that it was decided on Saturday) in effort to make the download experience more ideal. Crisis averted. Just in case you've forgotten how good it looks, we're including a gallery, and don't remember how much fun we've all had running it on the MacBook Pro and the VAIO P.

Gallery: Windows 7 Beta

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Via InformationWeek]

[Christian G. @ Jan 12th 2009 10:50AM]

Torrent please? Or is there some license issue to distribute it through torrent?

[Tin @ Jan 12th 2009 11:01AM]

I got mine through a torrent and just used the new key MS provided. Activation worked fine.

[Arkenklo @ Jan 12th 2009 11:06AM]

Don't you know? Any file distributed via P2P is a illegal file.

[zargon @ Jan 12th 2009 11:15AM]

"Don't you know? Any file distributed via P2P is a illegal file."

No it is not!

Linux has been using torrents for a long time now to distribute the distros, this takes some of the burden off their servers and allows them to get it to more people quicker. There are plenty of other companies using torrents to LEGALLY transfer their files as well.

I would do more research before you make any more claims...

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 11:21AM]

There are even ways to setup your repositories to use Bittorrent for patches and upgrades. You pretty much have to dedicate your machine to a nodes for use by others, where in most clients you can shut if off. It's not too bad though. The bandwidth used is minimal.

(BTW, I think he was being sarcastic)

[Pusta @ Jan 12th 2009 11:22AM]

@zargon, To better understand Arkenklo's post, please type the following into Google: define: sarcasm

[Bizam! @ Jan 12th 2009 11:23AM]

@Zargon

I think that Arkenklo was being sarcastic...

[Jon Doe. @ Jan 12th 2009 11:39AM]

Ditto. I installed Win 7 the Monday before they released it from a torrent, and then just added the key Saturday and activated. Notta problem whatsoever.

[zargon @ Jan 12th 2009 11:43AM]

Sarcasm: does not compute...

[Michael C Taylor @ Jan 12th 2009 12:17PM]

Does anyone know what build the "Official Microsoft Download" is? I downloaded Build 7000 off a torrent last week (and used an official Beta Key to activate it).

Is this the same build Microsoft if providing?

[SimbaDogg @ Jan 12th 2009 2:16PM]

@ zargon
you may need to either adjusted your sarcasm meter, or get it refilled or something. cuz right now you're sucking at it.

[Red1337Sox @ Jan 12th 2009 2:25PM]

@Alex

Dammit! I installed the program the site told be I needed and my computer crash. I'm gonna run to best buy and get a new one so I can try again. I've got to see this!

[kal326 @ Jan 12th 2009 3:36PM]

@Micheal Taylor

Yep, its build 7000
x86 build is 2.43GB
x64 build is 3.15GB

Took about 5 hours to pull down both from MS on Friday. Got x86 installed on a Lenovo R61, getting by just fine on a T7100 with 1GB of ram and Vista drivers seem to be working just fine for UltraNav and the Lenovo utilities.

[OneLove @ Jan 12th 2009 3:38PM]

FIX UAC!

[Arkenklo @ Jan 12th 2009 5:51PM]

@zargon:

That was actually the exact thing I was thinking about.

[Patty @ Jan 12th 2009 8:05PM]

What will happen to people who have Vista? I've had it over 2 years with no problems.

[random @ Jan 12th 2009 11:20AM]

thats a life lesson on why you need p2p clients

[nohone @ Jan 12th 2009 11:10AM]

No, you just need a real OS to handle the serving. Remember how people have been laughing at Microsoft because they used Akami to serve their downloads, and Akami uses Linux? Well, guess which OS was being used to serve the Win7 ISO files? Hint: It isn't Windows.

Guess Linux isn't so great afterall.

[zioncat @ Jan 12th 2009 11:12AM]

I was actually trying out Windows 7 x86 last night. And those idiots at microsoft decided to stick with the UAC control so it prompts you before you can install anything...COME ON REALLY

[Angus Hedger @ Jan 12th 2009 11:17AM]

UAC is very customizable now (compared to how it was before), its easy to change it, and it will remember if you allow something.

[Ruben @ Jan 12th 2009 11:18AM]

@zioncat:

But they also allow you to control the level of alerting, so you can change what it alerts you for.

And they added what is alerting you, which is nice and helps you find out if its intended or not.

It doesn't happen often so who gives a shit. Thats like complaining an installer requires you to hit next, when its the only option available. Just deal with it. Its better than having to enter your password for each install, now isn't it?

[makkura @ Jan 12th 2009 11:21AM]

Agreed on the p2p usage.

@nohome, the OS on the server can only do so much in this kind of case.
Having tens of thousands (up to hundreds of thousands considering the image size and bombardment) of active downloads and more incoming requests is going to cause a lot of dropped connections and stalled downloads simply because of the bandwith loads.

[zioncat @ Jan 12th 2009 11:24AM]

@ Ruben clearly you retards are amatuer pc users and builders. Oviously the control can be disabled. The point is why should you have to go into the control panel to do so. See in the real world people like me use various differnet programs for taskings an such. So its annoying, get back to me once understand why its annoying.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 11:25AM]

@nohome: From what I read, it wasn't the download that had problems, it was the web server hosting the keys that had issues.

Also, unless you can provide a proper link to the software Microsoft is using, quit spreading FUD.

[Kris120890 @ Jan 12th 2009 11:36AM]

@zioncat
Turn it off. If you can't do that you're the retard.

[Joseph @ Jan 12th 2009 11:39AM]

@ zion.

To make the operating system fuckwit proof, its not that inconvenient for a casual computer user to click " run program" when UAC pops up, for people who are familiar with computers its also very little effort to turn the UAC off.

Its better the make an operating system idiot proof when you command 90% of the market, because for the most part people are stupid.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 11:55AM]

The problem I have is that they are making it "easier" for the common person and harder for the power users. When developing for the platform for work, I would hate to have to use the new windowing scheme and tree view. It's too large and ungainly with all the added fluff that get in the way. It wouldn't be so bad if you could turn it off, but apparently someone skipped that part in Vista and also Win7. In order to properly use the OS, I'd have to download a new File Explorer without all the "features" that are made for idiots. I'd also have to download a new task manager like the sysinternals (if it still works) because the task monitor just doesn't cut it and the task manager view removed services memory and CPU usage. In other words, I'd have to revert it to Windows 2K or XP to be able to work on it, and that's not an option anymore.

That they need is a button to click if you are an advanced user that strips out all the crap and gives you a nice simple interface that doesn't get in your way.

[kiteless.dragon510 @ Jan 12th 2009 10:51AM]

I downloaded it last night, no problems. Will be installing it on a spare computer. An older AMD 3000+, 2GB RAM, onboard nvidia video card (like a 6100) and 80GB HDD. My hopes are high.

[adam @ Jan 12th 2009 10:59AM]

I hope your hopes are not to high...

It's a new OS and while it is a little faster than Vista don't expect it to work amazing on older systems.

If you upgrade to a new OS you should at least upgrade your computer at least a little bit! General rule.


I have it running on a AMD 3500+ with 2gigs of ram and it works great, but nothing like my Core 2 Duo 2.5gig with 4gigs of ram!

[Hooterman @ Jan 12th 2009 11:06AM]

Right, well, I put it on a old 2.4Ghz Celeron with 1gig of RAM and onboard Intel video, it ran in ways that Vista would only dream. So I predict his 3000+ w/ 2gigs of RAM will run it just fine.

[Kiteless @ Jan 12th 2009 11:08AM]

I may throw it on my faster AMD Dual Core 6000+, 4Gb Ram, ATI Radeon 3850's Crossfire and see how it runs on that.

[TomServo @ Jan 12th 2009 11:27AM]

"I may throw it on my faster AMD Dual Core 6000+, 4Gb Ram, ATI Radeon 3850's Crossfire and see how it runs on that."

Why do people feel the need to boast about the specs of their machines? Like it's going to impress someone.

[Cellien @ Jan 12th 2009 12:00PM]

Your hopes should be high. I have a similar set up (AMD Dual Core 1.9ghz, On-board video 6100, 1 gig of RAM shared for system and video) and it runs Aero perfectly.

[lysernix @ Jan 12th 2009 12:28PM]

I'm running it on:

AMD 3800+ (stock clock)
4GB Ram
ASUS M2N-Sli Deluxe MB
320GB 16MB cache WD Drive
ATI 2600XT

Seems to be running quite speedily so far!

[J-Rad @ Jan 12th 2009 10:27PM]

A] How do you think it would do on my pent 4, 1/2 gig ram, decent nVidia graphics card?

B] Better yet how about on my pent III, 256 meg ram, unknown card?

[Mark @ Jan 13th 2009 12:30AM]

@J: 1) No problems whatsoever 2) Like shit

@People in general: Vista is not as resource intensive as you think. I recently built a $300 dollar computer with an on-board Radeon HD 2100, and guess what? It ran Aero without a hitch. ANYTHING even remotely recent will run Vista without a problem in terms of CPU (X2 5000+, this entire build was dirt cheap) and GPU.

I would recommend using 2GB of RAM with it though. And even then, I'm not sure how it would run on a system with less: it does take 700MB right after booting, but after I closed the Prime95 torture test there was only 300MB of RAM being used and it felt responsive.

[Kiteless @ Jan 12th 2009 10:53AM]

Downloaded it last night from microsoft. No problems. Will be installing it on a spare lower end computer. AMD 3000+, 2GB Ram, onboard GeForce 6100 Video, 80GB IDE HDD.

[LiqwidZero @ Jan 12th 2009 11:01AM]

Why do you have two log-in names?

[Kiteless @ Jan 12th 2009 11:10AM]

I typed in my e-mail address wrong and never confirmed it, but it posted it anyway. I don't know why D:

[sandmanfvrga @ Jan 12th 2009 10:54AM]

Windows 7 so far is ok, but man, at home on my laptop, Nvidia drivers Bue Screened the system and Sprint EVDO won't work. I am going to dual boot it heat at work to test (I am a System Admin) and hopefully it will not be like that. Maybe the laptop (and HP, which if all drivers aren't installed some system hardware never works right) is not a good starting place to test. But one thing that really isn't cool, is no Classic Start menu. Microsoft keeps saying "I am a PC", well then why make your OS like OS X and Linux in look? It did run faster, so that is a REALLY nice plus. Hopefully more customizations come later on.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 11:04AM]

Did you provide feedback on the lack of Classic Start Menu? I'm assuming they are listening to feedback requests, though I'm not keeping my hopes up.

The one thing I notice with Win7 is that it's hard to get it out of your way when you work. You can't minimalize it and remove all the fluff and features that get in your way.

[sandmanfvrga @ Jan 12th 2009 11:29AM]

Not being online with EVDO, I couldn't click the feedback thing! I guess I could have done it in Vista, just got tired of messing with it.

[jakem @ Jan 12th 2009 11:48AM]

Can you give specific examples of "fluff" that gets in your way when you try to work?

[Joe Dombrowski @ Jan 12th 2009 12:04PM]

I don't understand the love of the old start menu. It's basically just the same as the new one, but with all the useful new features removed. I know a few people who complain incessantly that every version of WIndows since 2000 hasn't offered anything new, but the first thing they do when they install an os is go and turn off all the new stuff!

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 12:15PM]

"I know a few people who complain incessantly that every version of WIndows since 2000 hasn't offered anything new, but the first thing they do when they install an os is go and turn off all the new stuff!"
Because the new stuff gets in the way... and if I had my way, there's wouldn't be a new Windows. Just additions to Windows 2000 to make it easier for new computer users. Microsoft hasn't evolve their OS, they up and change it.

"Can you give specific examples of "fluff" that gets in your way when you try to work?"

The back/forward/location/search bar (Why do I need this? If the tree view wasn't gimped...)
The "Organize" bar (it used to be in the properties menu, now the menus are hidden unless you turn them back on)
The lack of lines in tree view and the "disappearing" +/- icons in the tree view (it allows you to see at a glance which folders have children and removing the lines makes it difficult to see folder relationships on deeply nested folder views like source code, assets, media, etc.)
The added (seemingly useless) margin space in the tree view that makes viewing file trees and moving files around more difficult because you can't fit as much information on the screen at once.
The obscuring of File Explorer functionality
The needlessly large Start Menu
Libraries
Loss of the ability to "menu-ize" the quick launch bar. I used this excessively to separate tools into categories using Quick launch... which is why the new Start Menu bugs me so much with it's lack of customization options. I don't want Games, but I'd love to be able to add Utilities\Network Tools or Utilities\Hard Drive Tools ... etc.

[Yulian @ Jan 12th 2009 12:38PM]

if you played around with it a bit you would know that can all be done in the start menu options. Also from what I can remember, you can still menu-ize too.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 1:01PM]

I did play around a little and from what I can tell, the Games, etc. are all predefine menu options. If you go into the advanced preference "checkbox alley" you can choose to turn them on or off, but I didn't see a spot to add any. I also cannot find a way to remove the "search" list from the menu.

[nerdtalker @ Jan 12th 2009 2:23PM]

@Andir

Your tree-view problems I can't help you with. Honestly, I like what they've done.

However, for the start menu:
Right click on the task bar -> Properties -> Start Menu -> Customize (Customize to your heart's delight)

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 3:11PM]

I'm at work right now, but I thought those steps take you to the checklist of items to turn on or off. Does it actually give you the ability to add menus and remove the search?

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 12th 2009 8:23PM]

@nerdtalker: So, I'm wondering if you could point me to the setting to remove the X'd areas in the following picture as well as the option to add folder to the right pane and remove the image...