DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at pcworld.com —

Under the Hood, Windows 7 Is Vista's Twin

pcworld.com — Bottom line: So far, Windows 7 looks, behaves, and performs almost exactly like Windows Vista.

made popular 57 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Windows 7 Beta: First Impressions

  • 1710 diggs
  • Made popular 2 days ago
  • 491
  • blogs.chron.com

Breaking News From CES: Windows 7 Public Beta Released

  • 599 diggs
  • Made popular 5 hr 9 min ago
  • 165
  • www.maximumpc.com

Microsoft Gets Deals with Dell and Verizon for Live Search

  • 285 diggs
  • Made popular 7 hr 29 min ago
  • 69
  • ces.cnet.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MeatPlow, on 11/12/2008, -19/+235No *****...
    • FutureGuy, on 11/12/2008, -30/+104Which is a good thing. Anyone who has used Vista on decent hardware would agree. Those who have only seen those Apple Ads obviously wouldn't. Vista is an incredibly stable OS and much more easy on the eye then XP. I hate it that I still have to use XP at work. This author is blatantly biased or doesn't have a clue. Now hold on a second, let me run for cover....
      • rolf, on 11/12/2008, -3/+14I can agree with you but still say that Vista is just too heavy for those without "decent hardware" which includes all netbooks, and lower.

        It's not even the kernel, but the eyecandy (too often turned on by default by the OEMs even though the hardware obviously can't take it) and a few other things.
      • drex8, on 11/12/2008, -21/+5You can Run, You can Hide, but you can't escape your love for Windows Vista.


        Sorry...meh..lame
      • BabyWookie, on 11/12/2008, -21/+11I used it on an Opteron 185 dual core OC'ed to 2.8 GHz, with 4 GB of RAM and a 8800GTX video card. Vista Experience score 5.3. Is that decent enough for you? I thought that it was a PoS and went back to using XP. Everything I did took longer, ***** crashed, ***** wouldn't run because it needed admin rights, everything took more clicks, the whole interface was just as unintuitive as ever, the GUI was flashy but tacky, etc. Then again, the only reason that I use an MS operating system at home at all, is because of games. You sound like a bitter MS fanboy, who can't afford a Mac.
      • KloroFormd, on 11/12/2008, -9/+25"You sound like a bitter MS fanboy, who can't afford a Mac."

        Or maybe he's simply an MS fanboy who refuses to pay $1300 for $500 worth of hardware.

        That said, I still prefer XP. Since installing Vista (with SP1 streamlined), I've had more blue screens than XP ever gave me. 7, in one month, and yes I'm counting. Note that this count does not include pre-SP1 Vista, as I've never used anything but SP1.
      • mrsteveman1, on 11/12/2008, -2/+8The eye candy doesn't make it slower, as long as the graphics hardware can handle the compositing it is actually faster and lighter on the CPU. There are in fact things in the kernel that make it slower, and standard system libraries and win32 libraries can slow everything down, which is what they were supposed to be working on, and in fact kernel optimizations are what was claimed to make 7 faster.
      • piesforyou, on 11/12/2008, -2/+9Vista is alright. On modern hardware it runs pretty well.

        Of course Windows 7 is going to be the same as vista. Do you really think MS would be able to knock out a new operating system that quickly? Windows 7 = vista + new gui.
    • epyon180, on 11/12/2008, -4/+19I have to admit that windows 7 sounds interesting and I will probably switch my home machine to it when it is released but I am wondering why Microsoft is going to charge full price for this since it is the next major release of windows. This just seems like an optimized version of windows vista with a better UI (not that there is anything wrong with that). Say what you will about apples OS releases but there have been at least 2 or 3 tangible features that I use everyday with the each OSX release. It will hurt to pay $200 plus dollars for this when it is released.
      • jakem1, on 11/12/2008, -2/+8It's not even feature complete yet and all you've seen are a few screenshots. I presume you didn't judge Leopard by the transparency of its menubar so perhaps you should wait for the RTM version of Windows 7 before deciding whether it's worth whatever they decide to charge for it.
      • Kazbaeden, on 11/12/2008, -6/+1I'd definitely pay $200. The new taskbar and multitouch support alone is enough for me, but with all the improvements in performance and usability I think it's well worth it.
      • daza, on 11/12/2008, -2/+8I guarantee you it won't be $200, given that Vista isn't even that much. OEM Vista is just over $100 and retail editions are about $149 (for Home Premium). With that said, I still wouldn't mind seeing OEM fall a bit more and even retail editions come down a bit more too. The price of Windows OS has been steadily falling over the years so I hope Windows 7 follows this trend too (I have 4 Vista machines at the moment, I'll go broke trying to license them all).
      • drewbeta, on 11/12/2008, -3/+3"optimized version of windows vista" - did you read the article. It's not optimized at all from what this guy says.
      • Gizza, on 11/13/2008, -0/+5People have been spoilt by the fact that it was 5-6 years between XP and Vista. Take a look back a bit. 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP, thats 5 OSs in about 7 years. Also during that time there were the NTs and 2000.

        All of those were sold and priced as full OSs. So there is not reason 7 won't be.
    • MasterQ, on 11/12/2008, -13/+27did windows 98 not look like windows 95? and did windows 2000 not look like windows 95 and 98? and did windows XP not (besides for the new colors and stuff) look like windows 95, 98, and 2000?

      it's windows... of course it's gonna look like other versions of windows
      • gllopc, on 11/12/2008, -2/+20This article wasn't about how it 'looked', but how it behaved.

        The digg submission title was correct: "Under the Hood ..."
      • SteveMax, on 11/13/2008, -2/+3Windows 95 == Windows 98 == Windows Me.
        Windows NT4 == Windows 2000 == Windows XP == Vista == Windows 7.

        The last big kernel change in Windows was the development of NT4, over a decade ago. Microsoft doesn't do big jumps, they only make small tweaks. However, TFA says the tweaks from Vista to the copy of Windows 7 he used were very minor, much smaller than those between, say, 2000 and XP. That's his point, and that's the reason why the upgrade price is being questioned.
    • MacintoshMan, on 11/12/2008, -19/+10400mb RAM just to display the desktop. /thread
      • Tishiablo, on 11/12/2008, -10/+12Lol? On average, a computer desktop has at LEAST two gigs of ram these days. You're gonna bitch about a measly 20% of your memory being used on necessary processes? Oh, wait. Your name is MacontoshMan. Figures.
      • RoxorsPH, on 11/12/2008, -11/+8Windows is a RAM hog. No story here, move along...
      • sirbeta, on 11/12/2008, -6/+9I don't understand people who want all their memory free at all times for no reason other than have it rot there. The only time this is even an issue if if you're loading a program that's going to be eating up all your memory, and even then it's just a little extra load time.
      • PinkyTheWinky, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3Programs are loaded into memory, buffers are loaded into memory. When it runs out the page file slows everything down. People who edit multimedia feel the difference when the memory runs out. Programs are constantly using memory, not just when they start.
      • Elranzer, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2Don't bother arguing. It seems they've all bought the "Vista uses RAM more efficiently" kool-aid a long time ago. Try not to get bitten.
    • Shaggy3, on 11/12/2008, -3/+25I love the decline of moral with these Windows stories.

      1. "OMG about time Windows turns around and puts out a good product"
      2. "Ahh another Vista, saw that one coming" (This story)
      3. "Microsoft is ***** ***** *****. They need to stop making operating systems."

      • RoxorsPH, on 11/12/2008, -2/+1better than the lessal with these stories...which is to say, completely immorale.
      • PabloMac, on 11/12/2008, -0/+9And the decline of morale, too.
      • Shaggy3, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2Bah, thanks. :(
    • wheresaldo, on 11/12/2008, -14/+28Totally irresponsible article... how you can judge a software based on pre-beta... the authors just want attention... and Digg users dumb enough to give it to him

      The article feeds on Microsoft haters....

      Digg is losing it value when articles like this get on the home page... sad
      • am0363, on 11/12/2008, -4/+7Hmm.. you came to Digg and read enough to comment, so i'm going to assume you are a digg user.. dumb as the rest of us
      • gllopc, on 11/12/2008, -0/+7Every article that hits front page has some fanboi somewhere arguing about it. It's inevitable.

        I agree that the author shouldn't be so harsh on pre-beta software; but his points, such as the fact that the Windows 7 kernel has the exact same number of threads as its predecessor, where every other version had more, is a warning that this is just Vista with more window dressing (sorry about the pun).
      • PabloMac, on 11/12/2008, -5/+4"…dumb as the rest of us"

        Not all Digg users run Windoze.
    • freesf, on 11/12/2008, -4/+8The author has been trying to get this bad article in the Digg home page for a few days now...
    • drex8, on 11/12/2008, -2/+1@epyon180: So you're saying that they should release this as the next major Service Pack for Vista?

      Actually, not a bad idea. But they'd be losing a lot of revenue in the process. Or, they can change how they release Service Packs for free, and instead charge a nominal, decent amount for it. Or slap a license with the Service Pack, and charge not a ridiculous amount Microsoft charges with the release of new OS, but like a decent amount - like an upgrade from XP and Vista. People might go for it, because they just paid a lot for Vista, and probably not willing to another princely sum for a supposed new OS, which it is actually not.

      Because by the looks of it, Windows 7 will comfortably run on machines being sold right now, and if Microsoft allows a clean Install of Windows 7 as a Service Pack for Vista (with a fee), with the added advantage of saving the data already residing on the customer's machine, it might be something a lot of customers willing to go with that idea.

      Sorry for the Wall of China text. I usually don't type out so much crap in comments.
    • Seidoger, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2It will most likely also cost the same!
    • pauled, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Couldn't have said it better myself.
    • turtleaja, on 11/13/2008, -4/+2I love Vista

      Who needs a new OS

      I think Vista is fine
      • Elranzer, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3I love XP.

        Who needs Vista?

        I think XP is fine.
    • themastersb, on 11/13/2008, -2/+2I think Windows 7 is just another stepping stone to looking more like Mac OS.
    • lycao25, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1Exactly what I was thinking.
  • seltaeb4, on 11/12/2008, -39/+117Of course it is. It's just "Vista" renamed "Windows 7" for public relations purposes.

    If they wanted to be honest, they'd call it "Windows Edsel."
    • seltaeb4, on 11/12/2008, -4/+14Then again, "Windows Edsel" is kind of redundant...
    • 4321234, on 11/12/2008, -7/+15Windows 666
    • jabberwolff, on 11/12/2008, -23/+9Yeah too bad that Edsel still can do everything Apple has failed at:
      Like run most advanced 3D apps in 64 bit.
      Have a real Media center ( Apple TV =comic relief)
      Cost less than Apple ( Apple charges users every 1-2 years for updates)
      Run GPU cards in SLI and Crossover modes.
      Now actually having touch screens ( it did before but just delivering everything in 1 package)

      Yep that IS why Windows is the standard alright.
      • zwaldowski, on 11/12/2008, -5/+15Ha. Nice try (this comes as a Windows, non-Apple user).

        OS X was the first OEM consumer operating system to be fully 64-bit in its main retail edition. Leopard was hybrid 64-bit and Snow Leopard will be fully 64-bit off the shelves.

        OS X comes with Front Row, an Apple TV-like interface that acts almost no different from Windows Media Center.

        Cost might be somewhat true, but that's also not considering the argument that they release a new OS every one to two years. So I call ***** on that one. Their point updates - the equivalent of service packs - are freely distributed.

        Huh?
      • mdoom, on 11/12/2008, -7/+3...really now?
      • jakem1, on 11/12/2008, -7/+5@zwaldowski: I think you're pushing it with your 64-bit distinction. XP, Server 2003 and Vista all came in 64-bit flavours long before Leopard and it doesn't matter how mainstream they were. I'm sure you understand that Microsoft have to support an infinitely wider range of hardware configurations than Apple does.

        FrontRow doesn't compare to Media Center, period. Media Center is in a completely different league to FrontRow and they target different users and needs.

        Despite your initial claim, you sound a hell of a lot more like an Apple fanboy than a Windows user.
      • SteveMax, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1@jakem1
        Tiger had support for 64-bit applications even though the kernel was 32-bits. I believe the point is that Snow Leopard will be 64-bit ONLY, as opposed to Microsoft's migration plan that doesn't define an EOL for 32-bit support. They may have to support more machines, but still they will have to do it at some point.

        //still pissed off for 10.6 not supporting my iBook.
    • Genma, on 11/12/2008, -3/+14same as 2k --> xp. this is how operating systems work, new name can be just a new incremental release, doesn't necessarily mean new version. I don't know why this is news, they get marketed with brand names just like any other product.
      • ijustlost, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1But surely if it was an incremental release it should be an upgrade not a new product right? Why make people pay all over again for a few tweaks to something they own. Microsoft have done incremental releases before without needing to rebrand them - like Win 98SE .

        Or, dare I say it, look at OSX 10.5
    • wheresaldo, on 11/12/2008, -10/+13Totally irresponsible article... how you can judge a software based on pre-beta... the authors just want attention... and Digg user dumb enough to give it to him
      • mizatt, on 11/12/2008, -4/+7He's judging the pre-beta. That's what he's reviewing. He's reviewing the software based on a pre-beta because all that exists is a pre-beta. So uncrumple your panties, put them back on and GTFO
      • RoxorsPH, on 11/12/2008, -2/+2This post has a lot more power the second time. I'm 5% more likely to be swayed having read it again.

        Note: I choose 5% because 5 and % are on the same key.
      • PabloMac, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4"…people who are happy with Vista …"

        Both of them.
    • helenkupo, on 11/13/2008, -0/+8It's just like that stupid commercial. Except for this time they really are pulling that stunt. Surpize! It's actually windows vista!
    • ZenMojo, on 11/13/2008, -3/+6Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, etc....
    • Naieve, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2I love how everyone was expecting something radically different from what everyone should have known is merely a publicity stunt.

      I mean come on, first they did that test where they didn't tell people its Vista, what the hell did you guys expect?

      This is being pushed out way to fast than to be anything other than a slight mod of vista...
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3It will be a greatly improved Vista. Guaranteed.
    • rpgmaker, on 11/13/2008, -1/+5Windows 7 = Windows Mojave. :D

      No, seriously. I don't care as long as it has lower hardware requirements and a better boot time.
    • jasonh1234, on 11/13/2008, -2/+1http://vistasucks.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/vista-e ...
    • lycao25, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1*Claps*
  • badtzmartin, on 11/12/2008, -49/+72Somewhere, Steve Jobs is chuckling...
    • jabberwolff, on 11/12/2008, -21/+21He's jacking off to old pictures of Woz as well.
      • vuke69, on 11/12/2008, -3/+11Who doesn't?

        He's hot, in a Richard Stallman kind of way.
      • ry4nsm1th, on 11/12/2008, -0/+7So Woz is also a 0 on a scale of 1-10?
      • steger, on 11/12/2008, -1/+6@ry4nsm1th
        no he's a 0 on a binary scale.
      • mitchlourens, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4@steger
        So still 0...
    • 4degrees, on 11/12/2008, -4/+10Linus is there chuckling as well... lol
    • veriix, on 11/12/2008, -8/+7Because of the cancer?

      ...oh man, that came out of a dark place, wtf
    • aznhomig, on 11/12/2008, -5/+20Because Apple fanboys keep giving him money for stuff they already have?
    • FutureGuy, on 11/12/2008, -5/+12Yes because he commands an army of half brained journalist who spin our crap like this, for free. I am betting this guy has never used Vista or Windows 7, definitely not with an open mind.
    • theImposs1ble, on 11/13/2008, -2/+11why, i dont get your lame joke.

      do you think that mac OSX is re-written for each incremental upgrade?

      I dont get what the fuss is about vista. I use it and work with .net development every day and I havent even had it crash once. not even once in over a year.
      • PinkyTheWinky, on 11/13/2008, -2/+2Operating systems aren't really supposed to crash.
    • DuMbGuM, on 11/13/2008, -1/+4I use a PC with Vista & Hackintosh, and have a MacBook and iPhone.

      I run Vista as No.1 on the PC and MacBook, and prefer it.

      Leopard comes in No.3 on my PC because I use Windows 7 Build 6801 as No.2, and theres performance increases across the board and new innovative features, so ***** PC World.
  • DotNetWill, on 11/12/2008, -32/+146It was always going to be, despite what alot of people say Vista isn't that bad of an OS so this is tidying up. It's just a shame it's not going to get a fair chance.
    • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -49/+10HEY DOTNETWILL HOW MUCH IS MICROSOFT PAYING YOU? I HOPE IT'S NOT PAYING YOU IN VISTA DVD'S!
      • robotfriendly, on 11/12/2008, -6/+47WHY DON'T YOU YELL AT HIM SOME MORE, THEN YOU'LL GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. ***** FACE.
      • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -36/+7ONCE AN ACTUAL DIGGER ROBOTFRIENDLY IS NOW A FULL TIME WATER CARRIER FOR MICROSOFT!
      • robotfriendly, on 11/12/2008, -3/+11My comment didn't even reference computers, Microsoft, Windows, or anything else related to the article, yet somehow you know me soooo well to know that I'm a "water carrier" for Microsoft? Stop yelling at people. Just stop.
      • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -20/+5Seriously, robotfriendly, why not preserve what tiny scraps of dignity you still have left AND CANCEL YOUR DIGG ACCOUNT?
      • robotfriendly, on 11/12/2008, -4/+12Seriously, why do you care? AND WHY THE ***** IS YOUR CAPS LOCK BROKEN? If you need the money for a new keyboard, I'll spot you...
      • BoonTobias, on 11/12/2008, -1/+19karlitzor, i admire your trolling skills
      • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -18/+3Because it is a fear and a tyranny UP WITH WHICH WE DARE NO LONGER PUT!
      • Cypher19, on 11/12/2008, -0/+6WHY IS EVERYONE YELLING!!!

        /i lol'd at the parent post
      • archiesteel, on 11/12/2008, -1/+8Karlitzor, I've been a Linux user for nearly seven years now, and I'm very wary of Microsoft's constant stream of shenanigans, but for the love of god please stop SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS. It just makes you look like a loony.
      • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -9/+3robotfriendly, Bill Gate's butt boy and today's WORST PERSON IN THE WOOOOOOOOORLD.
    • OUberLord, on 11/12/2008, -10/+42I can safely say that I've used Vista since its first release candidate was released on both my work and home PCs and haven't had a single issue that could be directly attributed to the operating system. I had some hardware issues with really old peripherals, and a couple of really old DOS based programs don't function properly, but I know about and understood the reasons for the lack of some legacy support before I even installed it. For as much as people hate it UAC is easily turned off, and it comparatively isn't much of a system hog when you ignore how superfetch artificially inflates actual memory usage.
      • Kershek, on 11/12/2008, -14/+8I guess you never played games with nVidia drivers blue screening or having consistently poor directx10 benchmarks for over one year past RTM. Or had no problems bringing a machine up from a sleep state. Or worse laptop battery life than XP. Or driver compatibility problems.
      • OUberLord, on 11/12/2008, -3/+18You are correct. I've used both an ATI 4870X2 and an Nvidia Geforce 8800GTS, on both Vista 32bit and 64bit, with no issues. The DirectX10 performance differences are marginal at best, usually running in the 5% to 10% range, so I can't say I've lost any sleep over them and every game I own including preview code runs fine. I don't use hibernate or sleep modes often, but I have used sleep on my home PC every so often and can't say it's ever not came back up. Neither machine is a laptop, and though I haven't seen any battery life benchmarks I would imagine that the significantly higher graphics card draws of Vista would make battery life shorter than XP, not to mention the resource usage increase, but the former is just a matter of turning off Aero and the latter should be expected when you transition from an operating system nearly a decade old. Driver compatibility I have had exactly one issue with, with my Creative Audigy 2 sound card, but I can't blame Microsoft for Creative dropping the ball.

        I didn't say Vista had no issues. My point is that most people who complain about it are just jumping on the bandwagon and have little clue of what they are talking about.
      • twiztidsinz, on 11/12/2008, -1/+19Kershek...
        Please, explain to me how nVidia's ***** drivers are Microsofts fault?
      • jakem1, on 11/12/2008, -1/+16@Kershek: OuberLord clearly said that he hadn't has any problems caused by the OS. All your examples are driver problems.
      • aaron552, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1I've had issues with Vista's sleep mode, which were fixed by disabling some obscure option in the BIOS. The performance hit on games is about 5-30% depending on the game, and I can put up with that (100fps to 70fps, onoes)
        The main problems have been fixed since SP1 (sleep resume problems, glacial network transfers) although the network file transfers are still painfully slow. If you have a reasonably powerful PC bought in the last 2 years, you will have no problems whatsoever with Vista.
        This reminds me of (back in the dark ages) when people doggedly refused to upgrade to XP from 98 because XP was so much slower, not that most current systems at the time couldn't handle XP, XP was just slower than 98.
      • zip000, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1I hate Windows, but in all honesty, I really haven't had that many problems with Vista. My wife got a new laptop that came with Vista on it. I offered to install XP for her (she didn't want Linux), but she decided to stick with Vista.

        Having used it now and then, I can say that there are some frustrations in the way some things work - TV out was a big pain - but overall it really hasn't been as bad as I was expecting it to be.
    • deadbaby, on 11/12/2008, -17/+9You know I was pretty close to accepting "Vista isn't that bad" and then last week...

      Startup my work laptop. No internet. Hmm that's strange. Check Networking & Sharing whatever icon. Won't open. Just hangs with a white screen. Try to click on tray icon to connect to a wifi network. Nope. Hangs. Restart 5 or 6 times and magically it works except now Windows wants to be re-activated. When I try it tells me my product key is invalid.

      It's a ***** joke of an operating system.
      • aaron552, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2Activation is present in XP too and causes just as many problems. I had the exact same issue with XP, don't blame Vista for reactivation problems, blame Microsoft
      • dogstylee, on 11/13/2008, -0/+4Yeah we all hear you, nobody has ever since the dawn of time had any issues with their Mac, ever. Or their Linux.
      • Elranzer, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1^ To be fair, no one has ever had any issues with ACTIVATION in Mac OS or Linux.
    • RoxorsPH, on 11/12/2008, -11/+2If I'm going to use a completely unfamiliar OS, why would I choose an Microsoft OS?
    • seltaeb4, on 11/13/2008, -8/+5@dotnetwill: "...despite what a lot of people say Vista isn't that bad of an OS..."

      I think Microsoft should take your comment and make it the center of their ad campaign:

      "Microsoft Vista: It isn't that bad."

      A ringing endorsement for a product if I've ever heard one...


    • senatorpjt, on 11/13/2008, -1/+8The point isn't that Vista is even "that bad", the point is that it's not any better than XP, and in some ways it's worse. If they want to sell it, it would have to be an improvement.
    • Hunkadoodle, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1"It's just a shame it's not going to get a fair chance."

      It did have a chance. After five years of development, it was barely an incremental upgrade over XP with heavily increased hardware requirements.
  • concretemech, on 11/12/2008, -8/+94Did any one really think they would create an entirely new operating system in a year? I switched to a mac this year, and leopard and snow leopard are still essentially OS X, which is fine. For people that like windows this is a good thing, just like people that like OS X aren't looking for a whole new operating system every year. Just be thankful that they are starting to actually make frequent revisions.
    • mywhitenoise, on 11/12/2008, -2/+6of course the Leopards are OS X...everyone knows that.
    • Shiftgood, on 11/12/2008, -14/+24from 1 mac owner to a new one...

      dont tell people you switched, dont even tell people you like using your computer... They start foaming at the mouth and looking down their nose at you in some kind of defensive ritual.

      just enjoy it quietly.
      • smotpoker, on 11/12/2008, -4/+13Silence only fuels the misconception that everyone uses Windows and has a hard time migrating to any other OS.
      • petard, on 11/12/2008, -6/+6What a stupid comment. You tell people not to say they switched to macs but you start it out by saying to switched to macs.
    • jasonh1234, on 11/12/2008, -9/+8I was half heartedly thinking that "Yes. They did" because they realized the future of Microsoft depends on Windows 7.

      If they release something that sucks as badly as Vista does again. It's over for them. Over half of my customers ( I fix computers) tell me their next computer will be a Mac already.
    • btschul, on 11/12/2008, -3/+5Yeah, but they aren't trying to pass Snow Leopard off as a new operating system.
      • Kazbaeden, on 11/12/2008, -5/+7There's no distinction between what Apple and Microsoft are doing:

        Snow leopard - built on Leopard, includes new features and fixes, costs money

        Windows 7 - built on Vista, includes new features and fixes, costs money

        No where is Microsoft claiming this is a complete rewrite. They've been transparent about the fact that it's built on Vista.
      • btschul, on 11/12/2008, -2/+5I hadn't heard anything about 7 being built on vista until this article.
      • Kazbaeden, on 11/12/2008, -3/+5Then you must not be paying any attention because it was made very public at PDC and WinHEC.
      • btschul, on 11/12/2008, -2/+4Yeah. I don't even know what PDC and WinHEC are, much less what goes on there.
    • rolf, on 11/12/2008, -6/+4There is no reason to keep reinventing the wheel, if it's working well.
      • christinme, on 11/13/2008, -2/+4vista still doesn't work well. They need to reinvent the wheel and make their next big OS all new, and not bloated.
    • Adam420, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1They have been working on this for over 3 years...not just 1 year.
      • seltaeb4, on 11/13/2008, -1/+4Read up on "Longhorn." They've been working on it a lot longer than 3 years, but they can't make it work.

        So, Microsoft struck about 70% of the promised features, cobbled together whatever crap code they had lying around, and called it "Vista." We know now how well that went over.

        So now, still not able to manage the development of their own product, they throw in some more half-baked, not ready for prime-time code on top of their Vista disaster, so they can rush it out and claim it's a new OS, "Windows 7." More than anything, this is a PR move, designed to replace the "Windows Vista" name on the box.

        All of this is understandable from an internal business standpoint. Microsoft's only real goal is to bring the stock price back up and keep Ballmer happy, users be damned; what's bizarre is the number of end-users here on digg who stand up and cheer for Microsoft, while Microsoft is completely screwing them.

        And then they call Mac and Linux users fanboys. :D XD
    • seltaeb4, on 11/13/2008, -2/+6It's got nothing to do with the OS... they just desperately needed to change the name. It's because the stock price has been hammered and the name "Vista" is a joke.

      But they'll happily sell you the exact same thing, having just changed the name. That's even better, as far as they're concerned. Costs them less that way.

      As usual with Microsoft, to hell with the cubicle slaves forced to use their disaster of an OS... is Ballmer pleased with the sales figures? That's all that matters.
  • crazlunatic, on 11/12/2008, -9/+162this should be no surprise, microsoft even told us straight up: this is vista, but better
    don't see what the big fuss is about
    looks like its just biased writers trying to get good publicity with biased articles
    • Aadain, on 11/12/2008, -5/+10The writer made a good point. If this is Vista but better, shouldn't it actually be, you know... better? Maybe a bit faster? Or with a reduction in resources? You know, something besides Vista v1.01? From what I've been hearing, this is not happening so far, just more changes to make third party developers jump through more hoops chasing the a constantly moving target.
      • crazlunatic, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3You've got a paint. It is "better" to a certain extent, and the writer is probably right about the performance benchmarks. But this is only a pre-beta, not even a beta.
      • Aadain, on 11/12/2008, -3/+5But if it is just a turned up Vista, shouldn't there actually be *some* improvements? I'm not talking a 2x speed increase, but some measurable, quantifiable reason to move from Vista (or XP) to Windows 7, even during alpha. Because if there really isn't, doesn't that just make it Vista with a piece of duct tape over the logo? How is that an alpha of anything?
      • Gizza, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3Every other article I've read about 7 says it is faster, boots quicker and uses less RAM.
      • crazlunatic, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2I do agree with you somewhat that the "improvements" and features are kind of shabby. But there are a few things it is faster at:

        - Faster boot time
        - Faster data transfer between hard drives (If I remember correctly)
        - Better utilization of hardware (can now be comfortably functional with 1GB of RAM as opposed to 2GB of RAM on Vista)
      • Viper244, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2As crazlunatic said improvements are:
        - Faster boot time
        - Better used of RAM - Windows 7 runs well on a netbook ( http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archi ... )

        Another is better battery life. 1 extra hour while playing a DVD.

        You said, "just more changes to make third party developers jump through more hoops chasing the a constantly moving target." What in the world are you talking about? Microsoft even said that they are not changing the driver model or the kernel so what hoops and moving target are you talking about? What Microsoft is doing is not much unlike what Apple does with OSX, yet you don't hear people complain about what they do. Some people just want to bash anything that Microsoft does simply because they are Microsoft. It's really quite pathetic if you ask me.
    • gllopc, on 11/12/2008, -1/+7The fuss is that he's saying it's not any easier on the hardware requirements, nor has anything changed significantly enough to state that it is a sleeker OS under the hood. His point is that so far it looks like it's all talk.

      Am I the only one that read the article?
      • solidsnake1298, on 11/12/2008, -5/+3If your computer can't run vista you have a piece of ***** computer.
      • Aadain, on 11/12/2008, -1/+6I've never understood why upgrading to a "better" OS inheriantly means needing more resources. I have a good desktop and a good laptop with Core 2 Due's in each, 2G of RAM, good level Nvidia graphics cards, so I'm not asking for Vista on a 386. But when did we just assume new OS == need better hardware? Wouldn't you want the OS, such as Windows 7, to actually have tighter code, more efficient designs, better resource managing, etc?
      • gllopc, on 11/13/2008, -0/+4@Aadain: You're totally right, I would want that. The point in the article was that this isn't happening with Windows 7. From what he can tell, it's just as "heavy" at Vista, and not the optimized limber OS being touted.
    • AutoTom, on 11/12/2008, -2/+5I'm pissed because MS had plans to replace the old NT kernel with 'minwin' a brand new kernel that would make the system faster, smaller and have less issues.

      It's pretty disappointing to see that MS isn't paying attention to what people are saying and insisting that the customer is wrong.
  • itsbob, on 11/12/2008, -7/+26So which one is the evil one?
    • vuke69, on 11/12/2008, -4/+30Yes
    • 4degrees, on 11/12/2008, -3/+17the one with the goatee.
    • fwertz, on 11/12/2008, -3/+3"What killed this dead mouse?"



      "Witchcraft?"
    • smmakira, on 11/12/2008, -2/+3Razar! No...wait... or is it Toka?
    • r3zonance, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry, but this kind of heavily biased article and so early on in the beta stages is what caused Vista all the problems it has had to try and overcome.

      Give it a bloody chance. I'm a Mac owner myself, but I can easily see how this kind of ***** hurts any product. The same went for Leopard, although with a lesser impact.

      Of course things will be broken, there aren't enough proper vendor drivers. UAC has improved greatly, mostly likely due to big under the hood overhauls of how the system is implemented.

      Wait till the RC builds before you slate/praise it. It'll definitely be way better than Vista.
  • MacintoshMan, on 11/12/2008, -44/+9@concretemech Snow leopard is not the same as leopard. They re-did most of the programs to be much lighter, with less lines of code. I don't know why all the windows fanboi's are getting so excited of Windows 7, its the same *****. Cept this time ya'll get to try your lame ass PR moves with a different name. Peace BITCHES.
    • mtbterain, on 11/12/2008, -14/+14lol @ mac fag
    • RizzoFrank, on 11/12/2008, -4/+21The reply button. Do you use it *****?
    • jabberwolff, on 11/12/2008, -4/+8Much lighter? Less code?
      Really? Wow you sounds like such a programmer... %$#% BUHAHAHAHAA!!!
      Oh gimme a break. OSX Snow leopard is almost the same thing.
    • MacintoshMan, on 11/12/2008, -11/+5***** the reply button. Please lets hear a good rebuttal on why I am wrong. Its not gonna happen because im right. Its to bad that a 5 year old operation system beats out the new one in every aspect (Windows XP x64). Im gunno lul when 7 comes out and its equally as FAIL.
      • jakem1, on 11/12/2008, -1/+5You can't even write properly and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Get back to us when you've finished primary school.
      • MacintoshMan, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Get back to me when you can read. The only sentence that was miswritten is the last one and that is to be excused because I used common day internet colloquialisms which, im sure, you fully understood.
    • Rockkybox, on 11/12/2008, -1/+7'MacintoshMan' clearly has a balanced and fair view of the worlds OSes, quick plunder him for advice!
  • monkeyrun, on 11/12/2008, -5/+48How long did it take for them to develop Vista?
    They are not going to just scrap everything and start over.
    • Aadain, on 11/12/2008, -13/+12They should. They failed.
      • r3zonance, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2They only failed in terms of marketing against the bad perception.

        Vista is way better than XP, especially for newer/less comfortable users (such as grandparents/parents).
    • PabloMac, on 11/12/2008, -12/+9They need to.
    • khyberkitsune, on 11/13/2008, -1/+3Considering A lot of problems that plagued XP and 2K are present in Vista as well, I don't think they spent THAT much time writing new code to begin with.
    • AngelBunny, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2it took them about 1 year to make vista. they gave up on longhorn which they worked on for about 6 years before starting on vista. vista IS NOT longhorn.
      • r3zonance, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1Most of Vista is stuff that was present in the last few betas of longhorn. You're just deluded if you think otherwise.
      • AngelBunny, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1most of vista is in xp but you'd be deluded to add time it took to make vista by adding in all the previous versions of windows.
    • saisumimen, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2Microsoft: WHERE'S MY WINFS, FFS!
  • Quick2822, on 11/12/2008, -7/+40Well if it runs as well as Vista x64 does on my machine than that will be great, though no performance boost is kind of a let down.
    • OUberLord, on 11/12/2008, -3/+10They've said it boots faster, but I haven't heard anything on actual performance.
      • bejayel, on 11/13/2008, -1/+4*Gets to the login screen faster. Then watch your hard drive work like mad as soon as you log in while your mouse jumps from spot to spot on the screen.
    • christinme, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2yeah if it boots faster than the x64 vista then i would be happy. Though there are still games that don't work on my vista x64 which is why i have to duel boot xp/vista. Call of Duty 4 Multiplayer doesn't work on x64 but the single player does. That is how messed up it is.
      • ferrariman60, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1COD4 multi works fine on my install of Vista 64.
    • crpietschmann, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2It's to use less CPU and Ram than Vista. They're targeting it to be able to run on Netbooks. This means greater performance than Vista on the exact same hardware, not to mention how much better it'll run on the new Intel Core i7.
  • johnnynapalm, on 11/12/2008, -32/+53Uninformed, uneducated, inexperienced FUD spreading morons. The lot of you.
    • GrantTLC, on 11/12/2008, -3/+30Armed with his mighty blade, the majestic Scimitar of Sweeping Generalisations (+2), Johnnynapalm ascended to the highest peak of the mountain, and delivered his daming verdict to the huddled thousands gathered below...

      "You ASSHOLES!"

      Suddenly, a rumble sounded in the heavens, dark and malevolent like the growling of a fearsome monster disturbed in his cave. Stormclouds grew thick and black in the sky and without any warning whatsoever a bolt of brilliant lightning crashed down upon the peak, burning to vapour all trace of the mighty warrior from the face of the Earth...and a voice, larger and more terrifying than the chaos at the end of the world, said:

      "*****."
      • farfromhere, on 11/13/2008, -1/+11Best reply I've EVER seen on digg.
      • christinme, on 11/13/2008, -1/+4i agree...tis the best reply ever. And rightly put Johnny in his place. Love it.
      • johnnynapalm, on 11/13/2008, -3/+1@christinme
        nah, not really
      • kitsua, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3That retort is worth an 'add friend' if ever there was one.
    • Elranzer, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1YOU ASSHOLES! YOU'LL ALL USE WINDOWS 7 AND LIKE IT!

      You can't have an opinion that you don't like Vista because it's impossible to have any other opinion than the majority opinion of Microsoft fanboys in a Microsoft DIgg article.

      Digg suggest that opinions can be wrong, and the opinion that you don't like Vista is wrong.
  • canadia70, on 11/12/2008, -46/+196I like Vista.
    • one1plus1one, on 11/12/2008, -6/+33You're putting your entire online-social-network at risk, with those 3 words!

      Thus, I dugg you up for your bravery in making such a comment!
    • veriix, on 11/12/2008, -15/+11I'm not really into pokemon
    • likwidfuzion, on 11/12/2008, -3/+26I like turtles.
    • Aadain, on 11/12/2008, -8/+16Vista isn't horrible. It also isn't great. Linux and OS X can accomplish the same feature sets using less resources and with faster response, so why can't MS? If Vista had launched with comparable specs to Linux or OS X, it would have done MUCH better. As is, it feels bloated when standing next to other major operating systems.
      • bhalo05, on 11/13/2008, -1/+3"It also isn't great. Linux and OS X can accomplish the same feature sets using less resources and with faster response, so why can't MS? "

        Except they can't. Wake me up when any Linux can substitute Windows for real or OS X runs on half the hardware Vista does.
      • Aadain, on 11/14/2008, -2/+1"Linux can substitute Windows for real".

        This is your wake up call. It can. People simply choose not to use it or believe the FUD that gets spread around.

        And the issue about hardware is more of a driver issue than an operating system issue. If the manufacturer wrote the drivers for OS X, it will run under OS X.
      • maz2331, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Huh? My Fedora 9 box with KDE 4.1 rocks. I use it for different tasks than my Windows boxes, but it is by no means inferior.
    • BabyWookie, on 11/12/2008, -11/+5I like turtles.
    • fluffyturtle, on 11/12/2008, -3/+8WITCH!!!
    • specialbuddy1, on 11/13/2008, -4/+3I'm a PC, and I smoke meth.
    • nrox653, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3Seconded.
    • jasonh1234, on 11/13/2008, -2/+1I like being tied up, blindfolded, and whipped.
  • one1plus1one, on 11/12/2008, -8/+28I'm sticking with Windows-XP-Media-Center edition for another few years.

    I like dabbling in Linux, OS-X, and sometimes Vista.

    But XP-Media-Center is where I feel most at home. In a few more years I'll outgrow it, and then I'll be on the hunt for a new OS to call home.
    • abajaj2280, on 11/12/2008, -7/+19you just reminded me of a hermit crab
    • jabberwolff, on 11/12/2008, -6/+12Weirdo, have you tried the Vista Media Center??
    • one1plus1one, on 11/12/2008, -7/+5If I was a hermit crab, and stayed home more often, then I'd have lots (and lots) of free time to learn to "feel at home" in all the operating systems.

      Over the years, I've slowly gotten to know XP backwards and forwards, how to hack the registry, how to tweak media-center, command-line, etc...

      Learning another operating system to that extent (so that I can bend it completely to my will) takes time and committment. I'm not fully ready yet for a new OS comittment.

      But I have begun dabbling. I just haven't found the one yet!
    • farfromhere, on 11/13/2008, -5/+3Exactly. XP works. It's familiar. Vista, and so far Windows 7 show no compelling reasons to switch. If anything, what I've seen makes me want to stay far away.
    • jasonh1234, on 11/13/2008, -2/+1Media Center was the last Windows for me. It didn't do all that I wanted though so I got curious about the AppleTV (1st gen) Then decided it was to limited and then decided to get a Mac Mini for the living room TV.

      Was all over from there.

      Now my PC sits in the back of my closet collecting dust and I replaced it with a MacBook Pro. Never going back.
    • chaosblade77, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2I plan on using XP Media Center until I build a new PC. By then, Windows 7 will be released and I'll more than likely use that unless I switch to some variant of Linux beforehand. That's unlikely though, as I've tried several variants over the last couple of years and they just haven't been as comfortable to use as XP has (if only because I'm used to it), so I haven't felt a need to switch.

      That, and I use Adobe products on a regular basis and don't see a point in emulating Windows when I can just run it.
  • LanceUppercut, on 11/12/2008, -9/+16Modern hardware + Vista is a great experience...I look foward to Windows7. I have an iMac a macbook and an iphone in my house, but it is hard to not go to the quad core dual monitor tower when you really need to get something done. Sorry but I can't justify a powermac or whatever they call mac towers these days, and I am addicted to dual monitors so the mini is out :(
  • robbob, on 11/12/2008, -19/+11I guess its XP4LIFE
    • buckbova1, on 11/12/2008, -5/+3There's always Windows 7 SP3 . . .
      • one1plus1one, on 11/12/2008, -1/+5Don't you mean:

        Windows-7-SP3-Home-Premimium-Upgraded-Media-Domain-Capable-Version-2 Edition?

        But be careful, that's not to be confused with:

        Windows-7-SP3-Home-Premimium-Upgraded-Media--Version-1 Edition,

        (The later will not support joining a domain on your network. But it does offer limited support for some extended protocols. For more information contact your local technical-guru, or genuine-advantaged-windows-certified dealer.)
  • chasemassey, on 11/12/2008, -6/+19I've heard some good things about Win7. Listen to last week's This Week In Tech. One of the guys suggested running it on a netbook. According to them, Microsoft has really tried eliminating unnecessary clock cycles in the OS.
    • miralize, on 11/12/2008, -3/+5then it was Last Week in Tech
    • gllopc, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5Yeah, Paul Thurrott is all about Windows 7 these days. It's as if this article and his comments are about two different OSes.
      • toleshei, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2Well, In a way maybe they are. The build that Randall Kennedy is messing around with is older than the one that they were showing off at PDC. They all got a build that was compiled in August. So maybe Paul is referring to improvements that have been made since then.
      • Elranzer, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1Paul Thurrott all about the latest version of Windows? Say it ain't so...
      • miralize, on 11/14/2008, -2/+1I will not go, turn the lights off, carry me home
        Na, Na Na, Na Na, Na Na, Na Na, Na Na, Na Na, Na
  • malice8691, on 11/12/2008, -6/+60Ok. ive been following some of the reviews for windows 7 and this reviewer's opinion is completely opposite of what everyone else is saying. I'm a little suspicious.
    • archiesteel, on 11/12/2008, -4/+17He probably didn't get a free laptop out of it... :-)

      Seriously, did the other reviewers go to the same lengths to test it? This guy was pretty thorough.
    • BrashesVoucher, on 11/13/2008, -1/+3I'm with you, Malice. I don't get it, I've read a stack of reviews (of the pre-beta) on other sites, and the reviews have all been really positive.

      I've been running the beta on my old laptop (P4 3.6ghz/1mb ram/terrible graphics card) and it seems really responsive, running at close to XP speeds.

      I have a much higher spec'd machine at home which runs Vista, and I think it's brilliant - but I'm very much looking forward to the final release of Win7, so that those without the latest bleeding edge hardware can also enjoy a great user experience.
    • jasonh1234, on 11/13/2008, -1/+3He must not have recieved his free laptop yet.
    • greenvortex, on 11/13/2008, -3/+1That's because this guy actually used benchmark testing, instead of just giving his emotional impression of the cosmetic OS changes. The numbers don't lie: Vista is 40% slower than XP and Windows 7 is the same as Vista.
  • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -36/+21Vista is this decade's Windows ME.
    • m3th0dm4n, on 11/12/2008, -12/+15You've obviously never used either.
      • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -14/+14I have and they're both *****. That's my point.
      • scarz99, on 11/13/2008, -1/+4Wrong, ME was *****. Vista is alright but nothing like ME was...

        *Nightmares*
      • m3th0dm4n, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1What Scarz said.
    • one1plus1one, on 11/12/2008, -0/+6I went from ME to XP-Media-Center, so you can imagine the profound experience I had when using XP for the first time.

      (I felt like I had gone from a Pinto to a Porsche.)

      Interestingly, I actually used ME for 2 years, before it became unstable.

      However, once the instabilities started to arise in ME, it went down really fast -- from the sign of first trouble, it only took a couple of weeks to become completely unbootable and irrivocably de-stabilized.
    • Blackavart, on 11/12/2008, -0/+8He is obviously an idiot... Windows ME stands for Windows Millennium. It shipped in Win2k so it was released in the same Decade as Vista.
    • ligyron, on 11/12/2008, -3/+6As someone that's used Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista, all for at least a year each, I can tell you Vista is nothing like ME. Windows ME was complete garbage. Windows Vista is my favorite operating system thus far, next to Windows 2000
      • Karlitzor, on 11/12/2008, -7/+5Do Microsoft Internet trolls get health coverage? Just askin'...
    • specialbuddy1, on 11/13/2008, -1/+5I don't think any OS can be as bad as ME. I would do a fresh install of ME and get the blue screen all on the same day. It was totally awesome.
  • aserer511, on 11/12/2008, -3/+16the desktop interface and app/instance management are RADICALLY different, though,even if the kernel is similar
  • robotfriendly, on 11/12/2008, -3/+19I find this article a little hard to believe since the Windows 7 demo at PDC was run on a netbook w/ 1gb of ram. Vista on a netbook w/ 1gb? Not going to happen.
    • archiesteel, on 11/12/2008, -5/+11I'll believe Windows 7 can run on a 1GB notebook when I can install it and test it myself. There's no reason to believe Microsoft has become honest all of a sudden - you don't reverse 20 years of underhanded behavior in just a few months.
      • azpat, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3A guy down the hall is running it on an eee pc with 1 GB of ram. It even had the vid drivers in-box he says. I don't know if I would have believed it if I didn't see it myself. He said he didn't try vista, but said it's as snappy as XP on the same machine. Soon we'll get to try it ourselves and we'll see if my co-worker was faking it somehow or if it was real.
    • gazzaDJ, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3Vista ran fine on my 1.6GHz Pentium M notebook with 512MB RAM, som im sure it will work fine on a 1GB netbook.
  • e68895f, on 11/12/2008, -5/+36Windows 7 - same taste, different dressing.
    • antistupid, on 11/12/2008, -16/+20sounds like any of the versions of OSX or Linux
    • one1plus1one, on 11/12/2008, -3/+6This is turning into the 80's again:
      New-Coke or Classic-Coke?
      (Can anyone really tell the difference?)

    • gilbert42989, on 11/12/2008, -2/+2when i eat a salad i would say that the different types of dressings change the taste significantly.
  • BoonTobias, on 11/12/2008, -24/+19rofl, looks like a duck and crashes like a duck...
    • PleaseJustDie, on 11/12/2008, -8/+17If vista is crashing, you're doing it wrong.

      My gaming computer has vista on it, its been close to 4 months since I rebooted, well actually I shut it down to install another hard drive.

      Only time I've ever seen vista crash was a about 6 months ago when one of my ram chips went bad.
      • DJMattB241, on 11/12/2008, -2/+7Agree. My Vista installation has NEVER crashed. I've had programs crash, but the OS? Never.
      • Phocion55, on 11/12/2008, -4/+5"its been close to 4 months since I rebooted"

        Are you sure you're not running Vista: Witchcraft Edition?
      • jimv1983, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3First computer I had ran
        Win98 - Crashed like 10 times a month.
        WinXP - Crashed maybe 5 or 6 times in the 4.5 years I had it.
        Win Vista - 10 months and not one crash. Haven't rebooted in a day.(Windows Update) Before that it was like 2 weeks since a reboot(also windows update).
      • Wartz, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2I routinely leave my vista PC on for weeks at a time. My XP PC on the other hand has to be rebooted every 12-24 hours at least. Also if I leave it doing nothing for a few hours everything slows down drastically when I come back. It takes like 10 mins for things to start responding properly again so its just faster to reboot.
      • jasonh1234, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1>If vista is crashing, you're doing it wrong.

        You have a bright career ahead of you in Tech Support
    • jabberwolff, on 11/12/2008, -3/+2Ducks crash?
      Then I guess leopards lick their butts !
  • tjex, on 11/12/2008, -6/+21Well lets not forget that is in an ALPHA pre-release. Not even a beta. So there are quite a few things that can change from now till launch date. But saying this, I was quite surprised how fast they managed to get Windows 7 up and running and ready for mid 2009. So it only makes sense that it's heavily based on Vista.

    Too bad, I was waiting for Windows 7, I guess I'll have to dive into OS X instead and run XP as a back-up in dual-boot or emulation.
    • DefiniteFail, on 11/12/2008, -2/+1Agreed, they've only invested a few months in the development of new features. Right now, they are pretty focused on fixing all the flaws of Vista. Trust me, they still have another 2 years for there planned release date, alot will be accomplished.
    • omjeremy, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4I liked what you said, then I read the last paragraph. What are you trying to say here?
      • tjex, on 11/12/2008, -3/+2XP is starting to show its age, I was really hoping that Windows 7 might catch-up with OS X. Now down take me wrong, XP is fast and pretty much bug free now. But after using OS X you can't but feel that it's a much easier OS to use.

        Hopefully Windows 7 will exceed our expectations, I'm ready to replace XP. And to add to this, hoping that DirectX 11that is supposed to ship with Windows 7 is a big improvement over DirectX 10.
    • Elizle, on 11/12/2008, -4/+3Remember, idiots use the internet too. Don't believe anything you read. Just quit being a puss and install Vista.
      • saisumimen, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1"...quit being a puss and install Vista."

        Go back to bed, Mr. Ballmer.

        (BTW, imagine your sad comment being the new MS ad slogan... "Windows Vista: Don't be a pussy, install it!")
    • dezman2003, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2I sat down and tried OSX for the first time a couple days ago, played with it for a couple hours and tried to give it a fair shot but frankly it left me unimpressed. I never had much love for macs so I brought the computer to my mothers place and let her try it for a night, also unimpressed. Don't get me wrong if I had to choose between no computer and a mac I'd go with the mac but I'll always choose windows over OSX, hell I'd take windows 2000 over OSX.
    • jasonh1234, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Worked for me. I only load up XP about once or twice a month for 5 minutes or less. I was amazed I didn't need it more.
  • foxhound009, on 11/12/2008, -5/+10LOL... so.. now people will be downgrading to Vista xD hahahahah
    I'll keep my Vista it works just fine (dismissing few minor problems...)
    Besides... sp2 will be soon avaible which means better performance and less
    compatability issues..
  • angelgabe, on 11/12/2008, -6/+31Doesn't anyone remember that most modern operating systems are based off of older ones? Windows Me was a polished 98, which was a polished 95. Windows XP was a consumer friendly 2000 which was based on NT... Windows 7 will be a polished Vista. Nothing wrong with taking a mediocre product and making it better.
    • buckbova1, on 11/12/2008, -0/+19Windows ME was NOT better than 98se. I tried to block it out of my memory but now I remember the horror of late nights in front of friend's/family's broken winme boxes. The horror!
    • PleaseJustDie, on 11/12/2008, -0/+23Windows ME was polished with paint thinner...
    • DteK, on 11/12/2008, -0/+11Win ME == Worst OS ever
      • jimv1983, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2Win ME = Win98 + Win2000 Icons + Media Player 7!!
        I never had ME, went from 98 to XP, but I did know a few people that did have it. It didn't crash anymore than 98.
      • specialbuddy1, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2Jimv1983, All I have to say is BULLONY Sandwiches. ME crashed more then anything I've ever used in my life. I had 98 in High School and ME(only option since it was schools computer) in college and I had to do a fresh install about every 3 months. Yes it was that bad. Never with 98.
      • jimv1983, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1If you didn't have as many problems with 98 consider yourself luck as you are in the minority.
      • prurigro, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1jimv1983- where did you get your statistical data proving 98 crashed as frequently as ME for the majority of the population?
      • jimv1983, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1If your asking if I did a statistically accurate survey than no, but I do know a lot of people that have used both as well as using both myself and from MY OBSERVATIONS ME crashed as much as 98.
    • rolf, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4Windows ME was a polished turd...
    • GrantTLC, on 11/12/2008, -0/+11Windows ME was the bastard love-child of Win98...and a bathtub of Thalidomide. If it had been a human child the nurses would have run screaming from the delivery room while the doctor quietly broke the child's neck to spare the poor parents a lifetime of hardship and heartache.

      You clearly never owned a copy.

    • scarz99, on 11/13/2008, -7/+1Kind of how like Obama's first term will be "ehh" and his second term will be "uhh"
  • archer75, on 11/12/2008, -3/+20Windows 7 is built on Vista. Vista made the architectural changes and Windows 7 makes the other changes. We all knew this years ago.
    • ilikechaitea, on 11/12/2008, -0/+7agreed....and I don't mind that, I like Vista.....but dude, there has to be performance improvements, and if there aren't, then Windows 7 is a waste of time
      • archer75, on 11/12/2008, -1/+7It has enough improvements alone that make it worth it. The new taskbar, mouse gestures, built in codecs, desktop slideshow, etc.

        Besides, Vista x64 on my system is very fast, certainly faster than XP. And windows 7 uses new memory management and less startup services. It is better. I have it installed.
        I also have leopard on the same machine and while I really like it I can honestly say that Vista is snappier than OSX.
      • foxhound009, on 11/12/2008, -1/+6The improvements should be a vista's next patch instead of windows 7 :/
        they want us to pay for patched vista?
      • archer75, on 11/12/2008, -3/+4There is enough new stuff to warrant a new OS, not a service pack.

        Look at OSX. Each release there is really minor upgrades but it's pretty much the same thing as what windows 7 will be.
        And this will be the new model for microsoft, copied from apple, release new OS versions faster but make them smaller updates. Easier for people to adapt.

        No different than Windows 95 to Windows 98
      • ilikechaitea, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5@archer75

        I see what you're saying, and yeah, those new features are very cool and should improve the whole experience.

        But the whole argument (not that you're making this particular argument) about having to have a powerful system I don't think is valid in a time when we're all moving towards mobile computing.

        We need to be able to have a great user experience, as Windows 7 promises, without having to worry about where we're running it.

        I don't use a "netbook", but if I did, I wouldn't want to be forced to use old crappy XP or flaky (there, I said it) linux
      • am0363, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1@archer75 comparing Vista x64 to XP is like comparing apples to oranges in performance. You should be comparing Vista x64 to XP 64-bit
      • archer75, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2@ilikechaitea

        Windows 7 will run with less ram, they say 1gb and it runs very well. So running it on a netbook won't be an issue.
  • ry4nsm1th, on 11/12/2008, -3/+46Nah it is just Mojave under the hood, they got it all wrong.
  • ajcrewmisfit, on 11/12/2008, -17/+11What's Windows?
    • foxhound009, on 11/12/2008, -0/+7Those things with glass in it... in walls, the ones that you can open you know.
    • bobsbones, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1Boil it, mash it, stick it in a stew.
  • craeyon, on 11/12/2008, -9/+38The article sounded a bit biased
  • ROMULAS, on 11/12/2008, -12/+6Wow talk about a Microsoft basher, because something is taking up the same footprint it can not have any improvements in it? That is the first article I have seen online that didnt really seems to be in favor of Windows7. The guy must be writing this from a mac.
  • n7ghthawk, on 11/12/2008, -14/+8windows 7 is like a box of chocolates..
    if all of them were vista flavor!
  • ilikechaitea, on 11/12/2008, -9/+20*****....after the initial Windows 7 hype I was really prepared to give MS another chance. I actually really like Vista, but its performance shortcomings still leave me wanting.

    If this performance profile reflects the final build of Windows 7 then I may have to think about switching :-(

    ....I'm a .NET developer and I genuinely love developing with MS development tools, they're amazing...but I want an OS that leaves resources for my dev environment to eat up.... OSX and XCode it is....*sigh*
    • jakem1, on 11/12/2008, -5/+9You're an idiot. You expect us to believe that you're going to ditch your total investment in Wintel hardware and software plus any programming skills you've developed based on one stranger's (who works for a questionable publication) review of an alpha release of an operating system that you've never even used yourself? Give me a break.
      • ilikechaitea, on 11/13/2008, -2/+3harsh

        umm....programming is programming, is not like I'm going from .NET to Assembly...as long as I keep it relatively high level shouldn't be a biggie
      • raisedinhell, on 11/13/2008, -4/+2i banged your mother in an apartment building skyscraper... at a high level
    • am0363, on 11/12/2008, -4/+1Ew.. I guess you never used Eclipse? Puts Visual Studio to shame.
      • Wartz, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4Sounds like you have used neither, eclipse is a user experience nightmare. Its got a learning curve about as steep as Devils Tower.
      • ilikechaitea, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2@am0363

        become familiar with Visual Studio 2008 and VB.NET 9 or C# 3 and then let me know if you still think that
      • am0363, on 11/14/2008, -1/+1@ilikechaitea ok, well i just got VS 2008 from torrent.. lets see if its worth it..
  • Smeed, on 11/12/2008, -15/+9Vista is like windows 2000, windows 7 is like XP.
  • and303, on 11/12/2008, -8/+17This writer is really stretching in hopes that Mac/Linux fanboys would trophy the article (looks like his plan may have worked).
    Despite the fact that every other reviewer is citing and raving about its core DIFFERENCES from Vista, this guy is complaining about "compatibility woes" on an operating system that is in the alpha stage. Go to church if you want miracles, and good luck there too.
  • Hercules, on 11/12/2008, -2/+12Uhm, didn't Microsoft actually SAY that they are not making any signifigant under-the-hood changes to Windows 7 from Vista?

    File this in the "WGAS" folder.
  • Crowther, on 11/12/2008, -4/+5 What this article doesn't mention is that he was benchmarking it against Vista SP1. Had Microsoft waited until finishing up SP1 before releasing Vista, no one would ever complain about vista, because the performance is quite solid on worthy machines which are properly managed. The performance of SP1 is unassailable, even if some other OS's boot a few seconds faster, few OS's come with all the perks, user-friendly interface, AND easy customization that Vista SP1 does.
    In other words, please take everything this author says with some serious consideration, and maybe two grains of salt.
  • oblique63, on 11/12/2008, -3/+17umm... wasn't that the whole plan to begin with?
    Vista -> backend tweaks
    7 -> interface tweaks ?
    • vinnu, on 11/12/2008, -4/+1Can't MS release SP3 for Vista for interface tweaks? Why do they want people to buy new OS for something that had to be there in the first place. This is what's called making money even out of failure
      • Twinnie, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2Because it's Vista and people still bitch, complain and refuse to upgrade because of problems that were fixed with SP1 and before.
    • saisumimen, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1"Vista -> backend tweaks"

      Is that your subtle way of saying Vista ***** people in the ass?
  • KnightMareInc, on 11/12/2008, -2/+11why is this news now? Microsoft was up front about that when it was revealed.
  • castletech, on 11/12/2008, -10/+11They should just base of it off XP. Better yet scrap the whole thing altogether and make something that doesn't suck from the ground up and use virtualization for legacy support. Really shake things up. Windows is boring and tired and needs more than a Vista or a 7 to make it interesting. Life without walls... who needs Windows?
    • am0363, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4Thats why they are working on Midori, but you can't just build an entirely new OS out of nowhere within two years.
      • greenvortex, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2No, but they could have hired 10 different small development teams 8 years ago to write a new OS that is backwards compatible with XP, while the main team developed Vista. All 10 would have probably come up with something better. When you have the kind of resources that Microsoft does, a result like Vista is just incompetence.
  • 4ndr3wk, on 11/12/2008, -11/+22Another QUALITY biased article by PC World
  • Darkyuubi, on 11/12/2008, -12/+46I don't understand. Who thought Windows 7 was a new operating system from the ground up again? I certainly didn't.

    Lets face it. The failure of Vista falls partly at the feet of Microsoft, but partly also because of its bad publicity. For the last time. Windows Vista is NOT A BAD OPERATING SYSTEM. If you have the correct drivers to run the thing, apart from minor user interface annoyances (UAC anyone?), the operating system works just fine.

    The under-the-hood upgrade was done from XP to Vista. (Much like Leopard to Snow Leopard for all the fan boys who are not in the know). Microsoft doesn't need to improve any of that stuff. To say 7 is lip stick on a pig is quite misinformed. In actuality, its quite the other way around. 7 is Microsoft's attempt at actually making those under-the-hood improvements shine. By taking better advantage of all the technology they've built into Vista (all the new interface we've been seeing takes advantage of Aero), people would actually understand what the big deal is. Vista, in retrospective laid down the internal ground works for Microsoft's future operating system for at least say the next 10 years. (Again, much like what Apple is trying to do with Snow Leopard). There never was any wow in Vista because no average user could actually see any of the massive internal improvements. 7 will change that. That is why yes. Under the hood, Windows 7 IS Vista's twin. Is there a problem?

    So for the last time. Fanboys please stfd.
    • mtyrney, on 11/12/2008, -1/+9THANK YOU!!!
    • am0363, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4amen brotha!
    • MovieBlog, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4Exactly. Microsoft's plan has always been to get to a single code base for their desktop OS and server OS. Vista and Server 2008 are the result. It's only logical that the next incarnation of the desktop (Windows 7) be based on the common core. Paul Thurrott says we should think of Windows 7 as more of a Vista Release 2.

      http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/win7_toosoon. ...
      I also found his comments interesting about how things that were part of the OS (like Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, etc.) are now going to be Windows Live components available for download.
    • AriaGloris, on 11/12/2008, -1/+2pig on a lipstick?
    • astutissimo, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2I have a Vista machine from a major OEM, Lenovo. I have owned Thinkpads since 2000. This is my 4th one. X61 Tablet with 2 Gigs of RAM. It's a piece of *****. I wonder if a major OEM can't get the drivers right, is this really not a Microsoft problem?
    • Stonekeeper, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1So it's ok to bitch about linux drivers (not that i've ever had issues...) but then use the same argument yourself?
  • CGJonny, on 11/12/2008, -9/+11I no longer read PC Worl. They hate microsoft. They really do. There are many improvemenst in Windows 7. Yes its a cleaned up vista but vista really isnt bad. But they have improved memormy handling. 7 uses less. They have debundled many apps (mail, calendar, messenger etc) now on windows live. 7 can utilize a lot more cores than vista can. Short story, PC world has entered my hate list for lying. Lying about who they are.
  • orev, on 11/12/2008, -1/+5Every single "new" OS from Microsoft or anywhere else is for the most part built on top of the previous one. Rarely is anything ever completely new. XP was the same with Windows 2000, which built on top of NT4, which built on top of NT3.1. The only "new" OSes in the Microsoft world were DOS and NT3.1.
    • jimv1983, on 11/12/2008, -4/+1and Window 95. Win 95 was pretty much started from scratch.
  • Br3ach, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4At their cores they will be more or less the same, fixing broken things and improving on others. 7 is probably what Vista was supposed to be. It is well known that Vista was shoved out the door kicking and screaming. It wasnt ready, as their disastrous launch proved. Sp1 fixed a lot of it, but it still felt like XP in too many ways as far as function and didnt feel like much of an "upgrade", despite many improvements under the hood. I think we were expecting innovation, and instead got what felt more like the same thing but a slick interface. It seems 7 makes it seem like Vista was a Beta, 7 is the finished product.

    Plus, dont forget that 7 not long ago had the same interface as Vista at first, any build they have now is strictly testing various pieces of the final build. It will probably be a lot different a year or two from now.
  • TnTBass, on 11/12/2008, -3/+2Were they expecting XP or something?
    By the time Windows 7 is out, developers will be used to developing for that platform (Vista/Windows 7).
    Microsoft made it perfectly clear that what works on Vista, should work on Windows 7. Plus, they are taking out some of the bugs, and annoyances, plus adding a few new features. Sounds like what an OS update should be.
  • THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/12/2008, -6/+2What's wrong with you? These people shouldn't be encouraged, they should be punished! That man has committed murder here this evening.
  • rromansanturio, on 11/12/2008, -4/+14Mojave anyone?
    • modix, on 11/13/2008, -3/+0This has been my thoughts all along. Most of the things added to Windows 7 so far would easily be incorporated into Vista in a service pack. Windows XP SP2 added far more than what they've shown so far. I'm going to crack up when everyone is "shocked" when they pull a fast one and put 90% of these things into a service pack for Vista. After all the time dedicated to bashing Vista and praising Windows 7, they'd have to completely rearrange their brain to discuss Vista. The idea that Microsoft would pull out yet another complete OS in this short of a time frame seems unlikely at best. The odds that these improvements would be completely compatible with Vista OS seems likely due to everyone's testing so far. Why assume it really is a different OS?
  • Treshnell, on 11/12/2008, -4/+5Vista was just the prerelease for for Windows 7. They stuck it out there to give hardware/software makers time to get used to the new OS, that's why you saw/see all the complaints about Vista not working properly. Now that they've got a better handle on how to create their stuff for the OS, Microsoft will put out the 'real' version of it and you'll see a much smoother transition.
  • omjeremy, on 11/12/2008, -4/+9It's also called a BETA (or is it alpha/pre-beta?) product, Sherlock.
    • archer75, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4Pre beta
    • wheresaldo, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5It's PRE-BETA... the author of the article needs some attention I think
      • qwertycopter, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2""Pre-beta" notwithstanding..."

        The author even acknowledges it and still complains that things don't work.
  • Davers, on 11/12/2008, -8/+24It's sad how many people I talk to who gawk at me when I mention that I run Vista on one of my PCs... I ask them why they don't like it, and 95% of the time, it's just because of what they've been told; they've never actually used it. Apple needs to focus on getting a larger marketshare by making their product better, not by making people hate the competition for no good reason.
    • kingatrock, on 11/12/2008, -3/+7well put dude, I get the same ***** from old people who know nothing about windows in general "heard from" whoever that vista is horrible, when its an excellent os actually. The Price of great cpus and ram and vid cards have all gone down so no more bitching about the requirements.
    • Coreal07, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4Thank you sir, It's really getting out of hand. Average people are so scared about nothing at all. The only time you ever run into any problems is if you get towards the more advanced end of OS, which still has some very nice features. The average person will never have any problems... They just do what they're told.
    • jellygraph, on 11/12/2008, -7/+6Actually, in my case, it's quite the opposite. People ask me why I don't use Vista and I tell them it's slower than ever, still has security problems, has not delivered on what was promised and painfully annoying to use - the worse of the three major operating systems out there. They then shrug and roll their eyes, like I'm some anarchist, intent on going against the grain. Then, eventually, they go upgrade their PCs and come back to me moaning about how much they dislike Vista after trying it. I'm getting bored of muttering, "You should have bought a Mac then... like I suggested..."
      • archer75, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4Faster than XP, less security problems and not annoying at all. Remember in the hacking challenge earlier this year it was OSX that was hacked a day before Vista or linux.
        Security is wayyy better than XP. And with a decent system Vista is very fast.

        OSX has it's own annoyances. All kinds of stupid crap that would be easy to add in or fix.
      • jellygraph, on 11/13/2008, -0/+3- Faster than XP
        Nope

        - Less security problems
        Than XP had in the beginning, yep. But with new security problems that XP doesn't have.

        - Remember in the hacking challenge earlier this year...
        Nope, I don't recall one earlier this year. Please provide sources.

        - And with a decent system Vista is very fast.
        Perhaps that's what you mean by "Faster than XP". You should clarify this by saying, "faster than XP, if you compare it to XP running on an older, slower machine" and "Vista runs fast, if its a fast expensive computer" I have had nothing but terrible experiences with Vista, and when i'm reminded of that, it reminds me that i'm more than happy with mac and linux and never going back

        - OSX has it's own annoyances
        Maybe so. I can't think of many, but in my opinion, far less than Windows. And that's coming from someone who used to be a mac-hater.
      • skeptic99, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1>> - Remember in the hacking challenge earlier this year...
        >> Nope, I don't recall one earlier this year. Please provide sources.

        http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200814/57 ...

        "There were two laptops left on the final day of the PWN2OWN contest. The MacBook Air was the first to fall, and the second laptop to be hacked for this years contest was the Fujitsu U810 running Windows Vista Ultimate with Service Pack 1."
      • raisedinhell, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1oh so you're a mac fanboy then
      • anaclagon, on 11/13/2008, -1/+0Does this mean Ubuntu (Linux Kernel) is more secure? No, it does not. Does this mean Vista is more secure than a Mac, or vice versa? Not. Even. Close. What this proves is that money will motivate some people, hardware will motivate others, and some people just like finding the problems, not exploiting them.

        Read your sources before saying one is more secure than the other.
      • jellygraph, on 11/14/2008, -1/+1Interestingly enough, the guy who hacked the Mac was a Mac user. New flash: "Hacker who finds exploit in Mac prefers to use Macs"

        Anyways, the point is that Macs are still generally more secure than Windows machines, even if its due to the simple use of the UNIX philosophy. Does that make it immune? No. Does one single competition demonstrate anything? No.

        Although, cherry