Windows 7 Release Candidate 1 impressions, insights, and expectations
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Apr 30th 2009 9:00AM
posted Apr 30th 2009 9:00AM
Look and feel
When you get RC1 in your hands, it's not going to feel drastically different than the previous beta. There are UI tweaks and tucks, and some functionality added, but mostly it's more of the same -- which is to say a really cleaned up, streamlined, nicer looking version of Vista. One thing we can say for sure is that it felt snappier and less buggy than the earlier versions (duh), and it's clear that Microsoft has taken a lot of the feedback it's gotten to heart. RC1 shows off definite attention to detail; things like the jump lists are now stacked with options, and since new applications won't auto-add to the taskbar, they hang out in the Start menu for a little while. We're talking the kind of little adjustments that don't immediately stand out, but you find yourself turning to all the time.
Strangely, though, the most interesting new component here might just be some of the wallpaper the company is including with this release: colorful, artsy, psychedelic... pretty much like nothing you've ever seen from Microsoft in its flagship software. Combined with the slightly more polished UI, you get the distinct impression that Redmond's gotten a jolt of new blood -- if not in staff, then certainly in mindset.
Remote Media Streaming
Windows XP emulation
Sure, there's a lot of noise about this right now, but as has been previously speculated on, unless you're an enterprise user, Microsoft didn't really intend this feature for you. There are two main things worth noting: firstly, if you happen to have a full release license for XP that you haven't used for some reason, you can hit this up on your rig no matter what level of Windows 7 you've got. Second, again: this isn't at all intended for you. Basically, the XP emulation is really there to help coax businesses over to 7 who've been reluctant to touch Vista -- Microsoft really don't want you trying to recreate your 2002 PC experience on it. We're not going to say we agree with this line of thinking -- if the company really wanted to entice a wider audience with Windows 7, it would not only include XP virtualization with all versions (sans license), but tout the feature heavily, just like Apple did with Classic.
Netbooks
One thing that became clear when we were talking to reps is that the Starter Edition (which we've been hearing will be loaded onto most netbooks) isn't the end of the road for low-end users. Apparently, it's not so much of a power issue as a money issue that cheaper systems will have the 3-apps-at-a-time-only version of the OS. Because Redmond is still doing its "in-place" upgrades, you can boost your crappy, neutered OS to your heart's content... for a price. In fact, Microsoft says that Windows 7 scales lower and higher much better than Vista, and felt confident that if you wanted to load up Ultimate on a netbook, you'd be just fine (to some degree -- the people we talked to did expect that you'd max out the memory pretty quickly). Just in case you're wondering about the base specs, it's a 1GHz x86 CPU, 1GB of RAM, 16GB of available hard drive space, and a DirectX 9 graphics device.
Partners
This is probably mostly pre-launch hyperbole, but the reps we spoke with claim that the big M's partners have never been so excited about a release in all their lives. That's probably due more to the fact that all the hardware and software they've designed to be Vista compatible will get a second chance with the launch of 7, but it's also possible that they're legitimately happy to see Microsoft coming out of the gate with a positively revamped OS. Regardless, a strong showing with its new OS means lots of green for Microsoft and its friends -- so why shouldn't they be happy?
Release date
Microsoft is obviously still tight lipped about an official release for 7, but during our chat with the company, they seemed particularly excited about being "ahead of schedule" on the software, and gave us more than just a small wink that this may slide in under the January 2010 anniversary of Vista.
Wrap up
The mood at Microsoft seems (understandably) high about this release. It's clear that lots of folks see this as the big, shiny band-aid for many of the Vista woes that people have been experiencing -- and in many ways, that's exactly what it is. If you're at all curious about what Microsoft has been up to, you should absolutely grab this install and take it for a spin (when you can); there is a metric ton going on here, and it's certainly worth taking a second look at. Bottom line, though? This is still Windows, and it's still got a lot of Vista in it. If you weren't feeling it the first time around, there may not be enough here to convince you otherwise. However, this is a valiant effort from Microsoft and it shows that the company does understand it's burned some bridges throughout the last three years -- this is a big step for them both in technique and tone, and that's certainly not lost on us.
You don't say?
What exactly are you selling?
???
anyone catch what he said?
looks pretty good so far.... :) Im running the beta in a VM, and its seems just fine :)
Is the MSDN site broken for anyone else? I'm getting a whole slew of errors when I try to log into MSDN to get the RC.
did you pay your MS dues?
Looks good.....works even better
Can't come up with one negative feature/benefit
After one year of continued use, KUDOS
@ChillyCat
Features and benefits are usually positive things. No wonder you can't find anything negative!
"this is a valiant effort from Microsoft and it shows that the company does understand it's burned some bridges throughout the last three years -- this is a big step for them both in technique and tone, and that's certainly not lost on us."
How did it burn bridges?
They say, "don't believe the hype." The same can (and has) been said about the negative hype surrounding vista. I just don't get it.
ive been running build 7077 for a while and love it, runs better than the old 7000 i was running. havnt gotten a single blue screen or even a single lock up.
never got blue screens or lockups in vista either ... but i guess thats because i actually know how to use a computer
d889 hit my comments spot on.
Installed the RC yesterday...it shows 'Evaluation Copy Build 7100'
Its working fine except for some conflicts with Vaio's softwares especially power management drivers. If I install the drivers, it shows battery incompatible if not then it shows 'Install power management drivers' in Action Center.
Overall, I'm loving it. Dual-booted it with Vista, which is great too.
It's damn fast than Vista and the interface is gorgeous. Still learning and getting used to the new features it has over Vista. Will do more when I get back from work. :)
I haven't used Windows in a long time, but am I the only one who thought the opaque Start bar at the bottom looked better?
Microsoft have previously stated that XP Mode is designed for small businesses, not enterprises.
Not true. In fact the WinXP "Mode" is simply a version of their enterprise application virtualization software minus all the enterprise level central administration features. It is pretty slick though, from what I've seen.
Enterprises already have MED-V, which is part of their Optimized Desktop Pack or something. Then there's their Hyper-V technology for the Windows Server line as well.
MED-V is for complete desktop virtualization, this XP virtualization is for software compatibility. However, if this were intended for Enterprise, it would be included with the Enterprise edition software and not the Professional/Ultimate, so you're definitely right that it's aimed at smaller businesses.
Sorry, I'm afraid it is true JoMama.
http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/04/29/microsoft-finally-discusses-xp-mode-in-detail.aspx
If you read this you'll see that XPM is designed for small business and MED-V is designed for enterprise.
"include XP virtualization with all versions" I don't really agree with this. How many people (i.e. the mass tech un-savvy people) are going to use this. For businesses it is a smart feature. I know some business that still have NT because they have some things that will only run on it. Really they could virtualize it, but for whatever reason they haven't (besides the point). Apple was different because they switched architectures, but in windows programs are (for the most part) compatible from version to version. The things that are incompatible are fixed, or is probably not used by the average consumer. I'll probably never use it. If I need to use xp for some reason (testing) I will just make my own VM anyway.
I would think that XP virtualization is for everyone who needs it, but especially businesses of all sizes, since home users usually choose their own software, so they can choose to stop using something that doesn't run on Win7. Corporate users often don't have that much freedom.
Having said that, I think XP virtualization should be available to everybody (maybe not bundled for home users, but an easy download the first time they want to use it), simply because homogenity is a great thing for support people. And it's not like Microsoft would loose money -- people would have to buy Win7 to have access to it anyhow.
Thanks for the preview. The beta's been decent. Can't wait to try out the RC.
I want to know what the hell MS UI designers have been smoking to come up with those wallpapers.
An Herb? You know, like Marijuana? I like the background though.
I am pissed off with the M$ way of things.... CAN'T UPGRADE FROM BETA (7000) TO RC1 !! What the hell M$ ?!!!?
Have to change cversion.inf in /sources/ to 7000 as minClient to get the upgrade working. Spend hours in figuring this out!! I don't understand why did M$ have to do such a stupid thing??
Hmm... Could it possibly be because a Beta and a RC are drastically different things.
Most people would tell you: Even if you COULD upgrade from one to the other, it's wiser to do a clean install
Actually you can upgrade from the RC to the Beta with no problems. Microsoft just doesn't want you to. Using the Beta isn't a free ride for you. Microsoft is letting you use it for testing purposes. Why would they want users testing an upgrade process from the Beta to RC. It is a flow that they have no interest in so it would be a complete waste for them for testing. They did however still release official instructions in how to do the upgrade for users who really wanted to.
Because they don't want you upgrading from the beta. This is an RC, and they want people to test an upgrade from Vista to 7, or a clean install. Beta to 7 could cause problems that are not relevant to the real production environment.
@Jash Sayani - Since you don't understand how really computers work, go get yourself a Mac!
Looking great. I'm pretty excited about Windows 7.
The problem with W7 is that the GUI more or less still looks likes Vista. For an OS they are trying desperately to get away from, why would they still make it more or less look like the OS they are trying to replace? Is the windows GUI team fast asleep? Yeah sure - they seem to have fixed stuff under the hood and hence the rave reviews etc - but it still does look more or less like Vista and because of that I am totally disappointed. Yeah sure the taskbar is bigger etc but other than a few minor details - it looks pretty much the same.
Every major OS release has looked completely different to the previous one - Win98, XP and Vista all look very different. Why has the Microsoft GUI team just done such a minor job with the W7 GUI? For an OS that is gaining so much praise before it has even launched, I would expect the GUI team to work as hard as the team behind the underlining code. It currently looks like a souped up Vista.
Yeah sure, there is nothing wrong with the Vista GUI - it looks pretty slick, but for a new OS - and considering Vista got such a bad rep (arguments aside), I would have thought Microsoft would have made a bigger effort to make this OS look even better than Vista and certainly made it look different. They have always made the latest OS GUI look much better than the previous OS. I guess I am just disappointed.
@Sax25
The GUI is almost nothing like vista in the way you use it, its a lot better, and its hard to tell how much better just by looking at screenshots.
@Sax25
Windows 98 and Windows Me looked the same, but were VERY different.
The GUI is actually noticeably different, much more so than even XP to Vista. However, I guess you need to be reminded that this is Beta/RC1 and that at this point Vista didn't look much different from XP. With each revision, it had new art assets. Also, the way the task bar operates has been changed quite a bit, you can't just "see" that without using it.
Also, I'd argue that no, not every release looks drastically different. Windows 95/NT/98/98se/ME/2000 were all using what we STILL call the "Windows Classic" GUI. A new "My Computer" icon and a lighter blue default background aren't exactly drastic changes.
@Sax25: It seems like your only complaint about this is that they're still using aero. Everything else about the UI has changed significantly so I can't see anything else you would mean. The reason why they didn't change that is pretty obvious: Nobody was complaining about aero in Vista. Aero looked great and there's no reason to change it. Why would they change a great looking segment of the UI just for the point of changing it. In your list of previous Windows versions you skipped a couple rather important ones: Windows 95 and Windows 2000. '95, '95 and 2000 all looked generally the same from a UI standpoint; much more so than Vista and 7. Basically, the point here is: it would be stupid for them to remove aero for no purpose other than making it look different than vista.
It's a concept called "graphic continuity". If you make an OS to be used by millions of people around the world, you don't drastically alter the GUI between releases. Any changes you make should contain elements of previous versions so that those using it can still understand how it works.
Moving away from Vista in a way that's meaningful doesn't necessarily mean it should get a graphic overhaul, but it DOES mean that the OS improves in function and user experience. Microsoft has accomplished this with Windows 7.
Besides, if the graphics bother you so much, just download one of the thousands of 3rd party themes.
I do realise that the way you use it is different. All I am saying is that it still looks like Vista quite a bit. Like this screenshot for example:
http://windowsteamblog.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.50.26.86/userprofile1.jpg
It still has that Vista GUI-ness. Look at the minimise, close buttons in the top right. Those look nothing like what they do on XP but look EXACTLY like they do in Vista. I don't also need to mention the desktop icons and folder icons etc - all still pretty much the same as Vista. This is the only point I am trying to make. Again, I am not saying anything bad about it as Vista is a very slick looking OS. All I am saying is that the way they moved from XP to Vista in terms of GUI - I would expect they did the same moving to 7. Yeah sure - you dont change what works, but going from XP to Vista was a big change. Lots of things were moved around and re-organised and as a result, nobody died. So it is totally possible for them to do the same moving to 7.
Don't get me wrong - I am no Windows hater. I am not typing this from my Mac. I love Windows and I am a staunch user. I'm happy with my current XP Pro SP3 and I am looking forward to 7 when it is released to put on a new system I will build in the new year. I just expected that they would overhaul the look of the GUI a bit more than they did - that's all. Even if it remains the way it looks now, I'm fine with it. No hate implied, so relax boys.
@Sax25: You should also realize that there was a LOT more time in between XP and vista. The time difference from vista to 7 is roughly the same as from '95->'98 and from '98->2000 and you saw little to no UI changes there. There's no better tech for them to go to for the UI, no way to make it really better, so I ask again: why change it just to change it? Especially since it'd take a lot more time. Besides, most of the people who "hate" vista have never seen it and won't know that there is a similarity.(There's no hate here either, just trying to explain the probable reasoning behind the lack of a graphic overhaul)
You realize this is basically true since 98 and even before then?
98 to XP - Tried to remove the squareness from 98 add more color, make taskbar bigger
XP to Vista - Continued with the whole make everything rounder and more colorful, combine menus and features, splice in some transparency, make taskbar bigger
Vista to 7 - More transparency and flashyness, combine more features and menus into one, make taskbar bigger
@Sax25
"Every major OS release has looked completely different to the previous one - Win98, XP and Vista all look very different."
yes, because windows 95, 98, NT4, ME, and 2000 all looked completely different, its hard to tell they are all from the same manufacturer.
/sarcasm
Granted some of those releases would rather be forgotten in the annals of history, but your point is moot none the less.
The problem I see here is XP still works, and Vista's UI is mostly cosmetic. What direct user value does Vista or 7 bring? I'm still not seeing it. What's new to the average shmoe besides the eye candy?
@CHRiS
ME looked very different than 98/98SE. Win98 looked like 95 but better; for me, ME just had a blue screen, and I couldn't do anything.
SAX25,
You have to remember that after the launch of Windows XP, Microsoft began working on Windows Blackcomb (7), slated sometime around 2007/2008. Then, they decided to quickly push a new operating system, Longhorn, in 2003, which eventually got pushed back to 2006. This also pushed Windows 7/Vienna/Blackcomb to where it is now. So, like in Windows ME's case, it (Vista) was just a ploy to introduce "something new" before their next big OS. Since it was Windows 7 that was initially meant to be XP's successor, Microsoft probably just released early stages of Windows 7 as Vista. That's why the UIs are similar. Besides, there are lot of very subtle, but appealing changes in 7's UI.
HAHAHA.. look at you windows fanboys. Even when your own kind just questions something, you down rank him.
Even us Mac fanboys stick together no matter what.
Never thought I would see windows fanboys show that they are worse than us.
OSX4EVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Sax25 "I'm happy with my current XP Pro SP3"
So you're not running Vista or Win7? How would you know the difference dumbass?
@Ken Have you used Vista? There is tons of stuff which makes the user experience not just look better but actually work better.
Press Start. Just type in the name of the program or document you want.
Improved favorite places links on the left.
Bread crumbs.
Just a few off the top of my head.
Sax is correct and the knee jerk reaction to low rank him is pretty sad.
It shares the same UI L&F as Vista and while it might be cleaner and a bit snappier it's still hobbled by poor navigation between folders and far too many dialog boxes, text and windows. Worse than that it's still dragging along the clunkier aspects of XP.
The first and second levels of UI share the updated Vista look but go deeper than that and you are still seeing the exact same tab and text filled windows from XP. Where there is far too much text crammed into too tiny space and clicking on edit and property buttons open further dialog boxes with more edit and property buttons.
If you have to scroll sideways to read information because it won't fit in the panel, it's bad design. If another window opens even when you can't access the previous window anyway, it's bad design. If you are not permitted to interact with the previous window then don't show it. Just change the contents of the window you are already in.
When I was beta testing Vista I noted the exact same thing and in Windows 7 the old design is still there, just below the surface. They should have called Windows 7, Vista 1.5 because until they overhaul every application and the presentation of all the windows it's still just putting new paint on a Windows XP foundation.
If you have Vista there's no reason to upgrade here. Even Vista 64 is stable now and the number of new features found in Windows 7 barely reach double digits.
@josee @sax
Because vista looks awesome, and they shouldn't change it visually. Changing for no reason other than the sake of "being different" is something APPLE does. Microsoft recognized they had something good and they kept it.
Yeah, I'm running the beta as well and have had very little in the way of issues with it. It's simplicity has won me over!
Very nice and snappy, my only annoyance with the RC is it still occasionally boots up and I'm connected to two networks at once, with no internet connection, a public and a private network, if i uninstall the ethernet driver then reinstall it picks everything up ok.
I assume this is a driver issue as it seems connected to the new home groups, hope it get sorted before RTM, The first beta when i hit "troubleshoot" would fix it but troubleshooter doesn't find anything wrong anymore.
Very impressive Microsoft seems my I.T business might actually get some work this time around from people wanting to upgrade to 7, as no-one wanted an upgrade to Vista.
Maybe you shouldn't upgrade people to windows 7 or make certain they meet not just minimum specifications but usable specifications. A huge problem with the adoption of Vista was that it was consistantly installed on sub-par hardware. Nowadays where even Wal-Mart computers come with dual core processors and 3 gigs of ram Vista issues are effectively nill but the damage has already been done. People who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about in reference to computers still make weird faces if you mention 'Vista' .
More than just a band-aid, but what the hell.
It's like plastic surgery and a Liver transplant.
I think the engadget staff has to get rid of the chronic hard-on they have for Steve Jobs and Apple, and judge windows 7 on its merits. I don't understand why they were giving it props and then labeled it a band-aid for vista users. I can't wait to see the post on how great Snow Leopard is, and how much better it is than Windows 7.
EHEHAHAHA. So glad I skipped out on Vista.
i still feel mac os is better~~
Have you even used Windows 7 or are you just saying that because you are a fanboy? Screenshots don't give the new OS justice so you can't judge it without using it.
He's a MAC user. I bet he doesn't even know how to download the RC.
MAC stands for Media Access Control, thanks. As far as Win7, I'll reserve judgement until I can get ahold of a copy and try it. I've been using Vista 64 for about a year, and it hasn't been too bad but it definitely has an issue with slow initial load times, and there is a lot of bloat. I'm hoping Win7 will clear that up.
@Zak
No, you are wrong. I don't have access to my Mac right now, but doesn't Apple call it the AirPort address? They can't even use the standard name for things, they need to bend standards to fit into their little world.
I'm running OS X on a Macbook and Vista x64 on a Desktop. If W7 is better than either of them then it's bye bye time.
I'm pretty happy with Leopard and have zero desire to upgrade from my 2 year old MacBook Pro, but I wouldn't mind comparing to Windows 7 if I get a netbook in the next year or so. %80 of what I do takes place in the web browser and cross-platform software anyway.
My questions as a Mac user are mainly -
Has window management improved? The combination of Spaces (slick multi-desktop management), Expose and Hot Corners (you activate expose shortcuts by putting your cursor in the 4 corners of the screen) makes juggling apps a dream for me in OSX. Alt-Tab and the Menu Bar feel kludgey in comparison.
Has pro audio performance improved (admittedly a personal question as I'm a musician)? There are a handful of driver conflicts that have made buying a PC for recording a shot in the dark. The wrong configuration easily resulted in very glitchy audio. The reason MS has never produced a Garageband competitor is because a significant portion of the PCs out there struggle with low-latency audio recording. I wonder if they've straightened this out.
I tried Win 7 and I must admit it has a great look and is really pretty. However, when you get into the "meat and potatoes" of the system (Windows explorer, control panel, system registry, etc.) it really begins to show itʻs true colors. Iʻll be sticking to the simpler, more robust Mac OS X.
EJ: Asio4all is the key!!
Im doing tons of music on my pc with Cubase, Reason and Audition and all is fine. I use a zoom H4 as an external audio interface, wich is far from desirable but even with that, its a smooth experience.
I was on mac before and I switched to pc because my G4 had not enough RAM... (mac RAM was sooooo expensive at the time) and since then im on PC but I guess music on the mac side is still strong.
The cool point with pc is you can built a powerful audio editing station for 600$ and get a better monitor, chair, speakers...
the only thing i'm missing, but hopefully in development, is a wimo app to stream my media library via wifi while not being near a laptop or a pc. did you ever caught yourself begging silently to listen to eye of the tiger in the gym while being too afraid to actually load it onto your mp3 device or phone? i did ... i did ..
Orb.
UPnP
Heh, just make a copy of it and name it something that no one would suspect.
No thanks!
Yes please!
freakin yes plz MS!
i love vista and i'll definitely love win7!
Well, why?
"Bottom line, though? This is still Windows, and it's still got a lot of Vista in it."
Wow, after a glowing review, positive remarks, and high hopes, you still shoot it in the head for the faults of the last release.
If everyone is saying that this is what Vista should have been, then I think this statement should be rendered invalid.
Actually, for someone likeme, who has Vista and has loved it since day 1, that statement is reassuring that-
A: if I upgrade, i will keep what I love, but get more
or
B: If I choose not to upgrade, I will not be missing a whole lot of main functionality.
I can't even imagine what kind of PC user you are to "have loved Vista since day 1" !
I mean Vista is OK now with the SP and a little tweaking you can make it decent although EXTREMELY heavy...
BUT day 1 Vista ? this was HELL on a pc, and I mean it !
And you first boot, with the pop-up which asked you to confirm everythime you close a window ? OO
Vista's core wasn't bad, and that's what in 7 (with a few tweaks).
I really don't get what some people hate about Vista. There have been problems with Vista in the past, but as long as you have a machine designed to run Vista effectively I honestly haven't noticed any problems with it now. Sure start up and shut down times can always be better and compatibility can always be higher, but Vista has done a pretty good job. 7 should fix at least some of these remaining gripes. From what some people say you would think that it was Windows ME or something! :P
"Bottom line, though? This is still Windows, and it's still got a lot of Vista in it."
I've been telling people to not be fooled by any glowing comments from the gadget blogs when it comes to things like the Pre or Windows7.
They are not going to give a thumbs up to anything in a way that may look like they are forsaking a certain direct competitor of the above.
When both the Pre and Win 7 are officially released, LOOK FOR THE HIT PIECE in the form of a "review".
Go look for the original Zune2 rant from Ryan Block, or almost any review about a smartphone or MP3 player, to see the template. They may not be that blatant, but they WONT let these things go by without a healthy does of iSnark.
Mark my words, and dont be surprised when it happens.
i took it as if you didn't like the actual interface changes from xp to vista, then you may not like the interface changes from xp to 7, lucky for me i liked them
@Félix
"And you first boot, with the pop-up which asked you to confirm everythime you close a window ?"
Another idiot who couldn't
1) figure out how
or
2) Google how
to turn off UAC the moment he saw his first security window.
The internet. Learn how to use it. Same goes for computers.
@disciple83
I do and don't agree with Josh here. I interpret one of those things as my #1 complaint about Win7. It looks too much like Vista. I really thought Vista was awesome once SP1 came out, and I think Aero looks wonderful. But most people still dislike it. And unfortunately, Win7 looks enough like Vista that I feel it risks people saying "Eh, looks like Vista, I'll pass". I think a new skin on Windows 7 would help tremendously, even though I like Aero alot.
Sidebar, let's get some better font rendering on this puppy. GDI++ is WONDERFUL (google it!), and I think if MS hit this team up, lisenced it, threw 20K at them to keep the happy, and worked the very few niggling issues about it, Win7 would look that much better. And well if not, I'll just use the free version anyway :)
AVG
person(?): noun;
One who makes Gentoo Linux users look like the most helpful people on Earth.
@Level5: From what I've seen and heard people say, a massive percentage of people who "hate vista" wouldn't know what it looks like to see the similarity.
@look_around_you
Still at it, huh? There are meds for conditions like yours.
"its still windows" what is that supposed to mean? "valiant effort" (pat on the back for trying)
I swear I had to recheck my URL to make sure I wasn't on macrumors
@AVG
Agreed.
@AVG
;)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=turn+off+UAC
I have also loved vista since I got it when it was officially released. It had less driver issues than XP when that was knew, and had great shutdown/startup times. My current PC, (2gb ram - yeah that's plenty / 3.4ghz c2d / 8800gt) starts up around a minute and shuts down in under 20 seconds. AND its pretty :) (oh and in regard to using it on slow computers, my livingroom/mediacenter/whatever you want to call it pc, has vista, 2gb ram, 1.6ghz cpu and a notebook HDD, and it runs perfectly smoothly (with aero) and gets out of "sleep" pretty quick)
So i agree with fred saying it reassures the current vista users its more of the same, only better.
On another note, I have heard many people say they "hate vista" or have been told that "you shouldn't go near vista". Ive even heard people exclaim "I hate Microsoft", simply because of hearing that vista is bad, of course they don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. It's such a shame that people hate things simply because of ignorance. ALL the people I know with vista, prefer it to XP.
However obviously all this hate got Microsoft off their arse to make something which looks pretty good, maybe we (or possibly just the general uninformed public) should keep up the criticism, maybe it'll drive the price of windows 7 down...
Dammit I sound like a fanboy
whats the zune icon? did they replace windows media player with that?
not windows media player is the blue box with the play button two icons to the left. the zune icon is for the zune software
It would be amazing if they did, but alas, there is a WM icon on the toolbar, too.
The Zune software is so much better than Microsoft's other media stuff... they really need to work on further integration, and pronto.
And what's with the Firefox icon? Did they replace IE with that?
I'd rather have the zune software then itunes any day. I swear, iTunes is the only software that can get away with running like a third grader wrote it, and only because of the iphone/touch.
holy crap, i might actually buy this!
I will buy it the day it comes out even though it is usually a bad idea to adopt things early. After using the beta, I know that 7 is already far more stable than Vista will ever be.
The last time I witnessed any kind of instability in Vista was about 8 months ago. I got several blue screens over the span of a week or so.
Turns out I had a rotten stick of RAM. Yeah, even with the hardware problem Vista was still functional. Once I replaced the RAM Vista ran fine. Every day I put it in hibernate twice, and I might reboot every couple weeks. Right now I'm sitting at 85 hours of up time without a hint of trouble.
If 7 is far more stable than Vista "will ever be" then once I upgrade to 7 I may never reboot my machine again. /gasp
No really, it's ok to step off the hate train.
Is there a link to that background in the screenshots? It's trippy.
Based on what was said in the review I think these backgrounds are included.
http://windows7news.com/windows-7-wallpapers/?album=11&gallery=17&nggpage=4&pid=333
you're welcome
I really dislike the Windows 7 interface, though. It's like the guys in Redmond challenged themselves to make Vista even glassier. Remember people complaining about the MacBook/iMac glossy screens? Well, I think the super-aero of Windows 7 is kind of overly distracting. Vista was nice, but that's about all the UI glass one can take. I believe the touted snow leopard interface is waay cooler:
http://thequantumbyte.com/2009/03/rumor-snow-leopard-to-show-off-new-ui/
I'm a mac guy and that looks kinda crappy. Hopefully it's just a bad mockup.