Metropol

I have to say I am impressed with the new build of Windows 7.
Put the new build (5057) x64 on my P.C. as a fresh install.
My big problem with Vista seems to be sorted - copying files across the network.
I have installed all my programs and none are complaining at me so far...

It has taken a while to get used to the new task bar / and the lack of quick launch is a little annoying but I have adapted. ( You can pin programs to the task bar & the start menu so have punned the most used to the task bar and the ones I used every now and again to the start menu) The licence runs to 03/2010 so have plenty of time to use it.

will see how I feel after a few weeks solid usage.

Do we know what kind of money they're going to want for an XP to Windows 7 "upgrade"?

EDIT: Just looked this up.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/0 ... a_upgrade/

The road to Windows 7 for Vista-shy customers who want to jump straight from XP to the upcoming operating system won’t be an easy one.

Microsoft confirmed yesterday that Windows XP fans would be able to purchase a licence and media to “upgrade” to the new OS once it lands.

But this being Redmond there is a caveat: XP customers have to perform a clean install of Windows 7. This means wiping their computer hard drive’s data first, which doesn’t sound much like an upgrade to us.

Unsurprisingly, the transition from Vista to Windows 7 will be much more straightforward because customers will get an “in-place upgrade” of the OS that should mean their data and programs will remain intact.

A clean install is a good thing. But might not be such a happy experience for your less tech-friendly friends.

Oh and no news on pricing.

its not going to be that big an issue - most people only upgrade thier OS once they get a new P.C.
the people that are going to buy it will have a bit more knoweledge.

marksi wrote:Do we know what kind of money they're going to want for an XP to Windows 7 "upgrade"?

EDIT: Just looked this up.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/0 ... a_upgrade/

The road to Windows 7 for Vista-shy customers who want to jump straight from XP to the upcoming operating system won’t be an easy one.

Microsoft confirmed yesterday that Windows XP fans would be able to purchase a licence and media to “upgrade” to the new OS once it lands.

But this being Redmond there is a caveat: XP customers have to perform a clean install of Windows 7. This means wiping their computer hard drive’s data first, which doesn’t sound much like an upgrade to us.

Unsurprisingly, the transition from Vista to Windows 7 will be much more straightforward because customers will get an “in-place upgrade” of the OS that should mean their data and programs will remain intact.

A clean install is a good thing. But might not be such a happy experience for your less tech-friendly friends.

Oh and no news on pricing.

If like the beta the clean install option does still save your old files for later access. As I was upgrading from Windows XP 32bit to Windows 7 64bit I needed to use the clean install option, and during the install process it created a 'Windows.old' folder and moved the old /Windows, /Documents and Settings, and /Program Files folders into. It's quite handy particularly if you've forgotten to backup files such as those Thunderbird uses to store emails.

I can't believe Microsoft are still pressing ahead with their endless "versions" thing. You'd think they'd learnt from that mistake with Vista.

they do however seem to have tidyed the versions and made them more sensible, in that each is actually a superset of the last unlike the bizzare vista home/business split with only ultimate merging them.

You'd think having more than one version just complicates everything futher down the line anyhow.

Hymagumba wrote:they do however seem to have tidyed the versions and made them more sensible, in that each is actually a superset of the last unlike the bizzare vista home/business split with only ultimate merging them.

You'd think having more than one version just complicates everything futher down the line anyhow.

From a development point of view it realy does not make that much of a difference. vistas restritions are the same on each version - the owner, creator & user levels of access to files (one of the big causes of vurtualisation) can have unexpectant results if you do not program in a "vista friendly way"
At work the way we got out works with Vista certification was to make everyone owners of all the files in the restriced areas (which are written to by the software - lieka configuration xml file)

My point is where it matters Vista / 7 is the same.

It's true what they say about first impressions: You never get a chance to make a second one.

The default colour scheme for Windows 7 Beta is the blue scheme with the fish, which is similar to how XP comes out of the box. Many successful Windows builds seem to be based around the colour blue. Windows 95 and 98 had blue start-up screens and the default colour scheme included the colour blue. Windows ME is the obvious exception to the rule, XP is blue out of the box and hopefully Windows 7 will be blue out of the box.

Vista's first impression give you possibly the worst colour scheme ever going - some multi-coloured swirls and a black taskbar. That really did put me off a lot, I know it's changeable but it's not really the point - first impressions and all.

User Account Control was a very well intended feature of Vista, yet badly implemented. It's better under Vista SP1 than it was on the original build but it's still badly implemented. It works much better in Windows 7 as in "don't bug me unless it's really important". Under Vista you needed to authorise every installation, every change, every attempt to scratch your nose, etc.

The new modular approach allowing the "removal" (deliberate quotes) of programs such as Internet Explorer should be good news. Unofficially it's been possible ever since the days of Windows 98 to untie Internet Explorer from the shell, so now it'll become finally official twelve years down the line can only be good news.

The upgrade issue published above isn't surprising - Vista was only upgradable from XP. If you're going from anything else a new installation was necessary anyway.

There's a lot I like in Windows 7. I would take it over Vista any day. Microsoft have clearly learned from the disaster that is Windows Vista - Vista was overdue, very resource-heavy eve on decent hardware, rushed out and subsequently is a failure. Price pending on the final release, I may be an early adopter. Usually I recommend leaving new operating systems until at least Service Pack 1...

To be fair, windows 3.0 was very blue and failed miserably

So having downloaded the release candidate, which the greater world will also be able to test from Tuesday, I must say I am suitably impressed.

The less annoying UAC is a big bonus for a start - it really does only get involved when it needs to now. The whole system feels a bit more responsive which is unusual for an operating system upgrade. There was a lot I like about Vista and I still think it gets some unfair press but Windows 7 is certainly correcting many of the original wrongs that lead people to dismiss upgrading when compared to XP.

The new taskbar does take a bit of getting used to - I'm not sure whether I like it or whether I'm just tolerating it. Either way, the overall system gets my vote.

it is rather snappy isn't it. I can't get the hang of that new taskbar though, I had to set i back to vaugly resemble the vista one in the desktop options panel. I'm very impressed with the explorer speeds, zooming through folders and icons appearing far faster.

Little touches like the snapping to the side of the screen and slamming a window against the top making it maximise are just lovely and so simple you wonder why they didn't put them in years ago.

I intend to try it properly next week. Annoyingly, my monitor is over bright and this is fixable in catalyst control center but ATI in their infinate wisdom won't let me use the vista drivers on 7. Twats.