PDA

View Full Version : is it just me, or does windows 7 look EXACTLY like vista



biggunsar
01-12-2009, 15:01
i havnet' made any decisions if it's "Good" or "bad" yet. but christ all mighty. If your putting out a new product. DO NOT make it look like the old product.

IT just gives me the vista creeps.

plain and simple, vista sucks about 80%. Some of that OS was really good. Problem is with vista. They shoudl have asked you "what type of install do you want, high security, medium security and low security". But they didn't.

I sure hope this new windows 7 is better.

I am not liking the new "formatting option" and how you have to reserve 200 meg for swap file. Unless they are not doing virtual mem anymore. I see that as a stupid move.

And 7.5 gigs for a default install ...WTF.

no os should be over 4.5 gig for the simple fact...BACKUPS you microsoft farking Rtards.

Now to do an acronis backup of windows 7 is gonna take 2 dvd's. I sure hope blue ray comes down in price fast. As thier cd's are 20 bucks a pop. WOuld hate to coaster a blue ray cd right now. Otherwise, its' a 2 dvd install.

Indah
01-12-2009, 15:08
It is vista, just steamlines and light weight. I heard you can get an install onto 46mb.

JunkFood
01-12-2009, 15:10
It is vista, just steamlines and light weight. I heard you can get an install onto 46mb.

for most part yes it is vista codebase...

but that is like saying windows 95 is windows 98...

Badem
01-12-2009, 15:16
I agree Windows 7 looks like Vista

but its nowhere near as intensive on memory and assets to run

so this makes it better than Vista

Basically Windows 7 = Vista 2

biggunsar
01-12-2009, 15:17
It is vista, just steamlines and light weight. I heard you can get an install onto 46mb.

I am going by default install. As in, the general user isn't going to know more than this.

And out of the box it is going to take 7.5gig hdd space to install vista 2.

So if you create an acronis backend on your hdd. That's 15 gig of space wasted. For one OS!

sorry, but that doesn't sound like a good thing to me. So far, it looks as if vista 2 is not as "great" as I was expecting.

Brezick
01-12-2009, 15:26
The default look is like vista, but a couple clicks and I have it looking nothing like vista.

If all you are complaining about is the "look" and size of the OS, then MS will rejoice over it.

And its the first build of the beta release. They might totally scrap or add features by the RC build. You should probably try out some more of the features that Windows 7 has to offer that Vista does not, report some bugs and then judge.

I found a few bugs so far, but my only wonder is the claim of a smaller footprint. I have yet to tweak and optimize my setup but my tweaked vista x64 build only uses slightly more memory than the default install of 7. I am hoping to reduce that to XP levels though.

samuraibane
01-12-2009, 15:27
for most part yes it is vista codebase...

but that is like saying windows 95 is windows 98...

And unfortunately, for all practical matters and intent.... Windows 98 WAS just a slightly streamlined and updated Windows 95.

Windows 7 is Windows Vista part 2.
Microsoft refuses to admit Vista was an honest failure in terms of sales and popular opinion. They went so far as to run those retarded "Mohave" ads, where they found people that knew less about computers than monkeys know about cooked food (Monkeys will EAT it, and know what they like the taste of, but have no foggy idea how the hell to COOK it) and have them try Vista with the "Mohave" name on it instead. They claim it proves Vista's sales were bad because of "non-factual rumor that snowballed into a stigma about the OS". The fact the OS sucked donkey balls on launch day, and is still so bloated and sluggish it's retarded simply does not register with Microsoft.

And all the stigma of Vista? They are hoping the generic namechange to "Windows 7" washes the crud off.

Regardless of what anyone will try to say, argue or prove... your initial reaction is 100% accurate. Windows 7 *IS* Windows Vista. If you liked Vista, you will love Vista Part 2: Windows 7.
If you really hated Vista, Windows 7 is slightly less boated, slow and horrid, therefore you will hate it slightly less.

I just wish to god Microsoft (and everyone else) would get over themselves and let us choose item by item what parts of software we want to install, and what parts we do not want. In this respect Windows 98 OWNED THE FUCK out of XP and Vista, because it worked exactly that way. You prefer Nero? Then why have Roxio at all? You do not use MSN Messenger/Live messenger? Why the hell do you have to install it? All the bullcrap windows games? Why install the shit in the first place unless you really WANT to have them?

People can hate on 98 all they like. If my PCs did not require 64bit OS, I would actually consider using it still to this day. Just because there is so much shit that comes with the newer OS that you have to go back and surgically remove, and even more shit that simply cannot BE safely removed.

Shit. It's your PC. You should have the final say on what takes up space/resources on it. Not Microsoft. But, Windows 7 is coming, and it is more of exactly the same.

LiqwidTrix
01-12-2009, 15:30
And it comes with DirectX 11.

I would've grabbed that Windows 7.1 Beta myself, if it weren't for the fact it ends in August. There's no guarantee I'll be prepared to upgrade to it by then. I actually hope I'll be ready to just order a whole new PC soon. If it's an available OS by then, I'll get it, if not, Vista Ultimate then upgrade to 7.1 Ultimate.


While we're on the subject. I've heard that Vista 64-bit has issues running older applications that Vista 32-bit might be ok with. How extensive is this? And what are the pros to having 64-bit? It's listed as "Enthusiast" so I'm assuming it's faster (as in utilizes more RAM, faster memory bandwidth, etc?) I've not looked into this much at all. I was helping my cousin build a computer and it's the one thing I didn't bother researching.

samuraibane
01-12-2009, 15:48
Short answer on 64 versus 32 bit:

When software is designed to run on 64 bit hardware, it screams.
So if you have a game that is DESIGNED to run on 64 or 32, you will see superior performance on the 64 bit system 10/10 tests. And 64 is rapidly becoming the accepted standard.

As for me, I have to run 64 bit OS for one of my work programs. So it is not an option for me either way.

About 18 months ago put together 2 identical hardware PCs, I built them side by side with the same parts. One I put Vista64 and the other XP64. The XP machine typically ran 8-10 FPS faster on the 4 games I tested, and multitasked every bit as well as the Vista machine. I tried swapping the hard drives to see if it was a bad component, same results. Basically I concluded all the extra junk in Vista bogged it down. After reading about 5 metric TONS of other people's findings, I felt most agreed on this element.

In terms of compatibility, the Vista machine had a shitload of issues with alot of older software. The service pack helped, sure, but the XP64 machine still outperforms it. Over on the XP64 machine, I had exactly ONE bit of software that caused me fits: Ventrilo. Until they released a 64 bit compliant Ventrilo (I think Spring of last year?) it could not be run on either Vista 64 OR XP64.
HOWEVER... outside of Ventilo... I never had any other software act at all odd in XP64 at all. Ever. Vista 64 it was very VERY hit or miss until the service pack, and even today MAME runs CONSIDERABLY slower on the Vista machine.

Easy answer?
Vista 64 may run slower than XP64 for my applications, but even for gaming Vista 64 is faster than the 32 bit variations I have seen on a friend's machine. So if you want the HIGHEST performance, you will want 64 bit, as the new software all seems to be moving to that as standard. If all you want are older/not cutting edge software, you may not see ANY real improvement for the move to 64 bit, but you should consider it anyway. You might find something tomorrow that you simply HAVE to have that is optimized for a 64 bit environment.

Morthor
01-12-2009, 16:02
The reason 7 looks like Vista at the moment is because it is not finished. I'm pretty certain (I read it somewhere) that 7 will have a flashy new interface if that's what your'e interested in, but that they have not yet put it in to any of the current releases. Try wikipedia.

I use Vista home premium and it I have not had a single problem with it. The only crashes/freezes I've had were my own fault i.e. overclocking/fooling around. Once you strip away Aero, all the security features and most of the rest of the useless crap that comes with a new PC for some reason, it's much better than XP. Granted, you shouldn't have to strip it down though.

And about the swap file; there is no way they can NOT use one... surely? Its a pretty fundamental part of the system I thought?

Indah
01-12-2009, 16:09
Win 7 is going to be where I move to from xp pro. Also if hd space is your concern, spend 100$ and get a 1TB drive, then 15gigs is nothing.

Adi
01-12-2009, 16:11
I was under the impression they weren't going to mess with the GUI much. I figured they was just taking Vista and fixing what was under the hood and slapping a new name on it.

Brezick
01-12-2009, 16:14
If anyone beta tested Vista, there was a huge promise in new technology with the OS. Unfortunately, it was not realizable in the time fram they had for the OS. So many features were scrapped form the OS.

Windows 7 is what MS wanted Vista to be in the beginning. On top of that, a major bonus is that the OS will run off the technology that runs the server 2008 kernel. This makes me thrilled because that is exactly what they did with XP's kernel.

I don't care too much for the vista feel UI, but it is easily customizable anyway.

As for why they would even bother creating a 32-bit version is beyond me. MS needs to get everyone to hop on to the 64-bit platform.

Broockle
01-12-2009, 16:17
is vista 2 out already? the only bad things i noticed from vista is that it's a real pain in the ass to get patches for some of my games. And that it makes that ear hurting noise if i skype, xfire, ventrilo, or msn voice chat with people. Any one else have that?
i hope vista 2 won't have that retardness.

Milo Hobgoblin
01-12-2009, 16:29
I just wish to god Microsoft (and everyone else) would get over themselves and let us choose item by item what parts of software we want to install, and what parts we do not want..

exactly .. good post.

Brezick
01-12-2009, 16:29
The initial beta build has been released for all who would like to try it out.

This is the general consumer link to download.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx

I used the developers download, but I assume they give you a product key with this one as well.

However, if you have never beta tested an OS, you must know that its bets to create a VM of the OS or install it on a secondary machine. Most likely you will find a bug or two down the line that will wipe out your system, so you do not want to use this as a primary OS.

Initial Hardware tests are positive for me however.

JunkFood
01-12-2009, 16:32
I just wish to god Microsoft (and everyone else) would get over themselves and let us choose item by item what parts of software we want to install, and what parts we do not want.
They did but no one wanted it because it was too complicated for them...

http://www.slackware.com/

samuraibane
01-12-2009, 16:36
They did but no one wanted it because it was too complicated for them...

http://www.slackware.com/

...

...

...

um...

...

No.
I could take the next 20 minutes to tell you in graphic detail exactly how unrelated to anything useful to this discussion that website really is... but instead, I will do something that is more likely to remain in your apparently empty head for 15 seconds.

I will RIVERDANCE!!!

Because after seeing this one post, and recalling some of your other posts, it is obvious you have issues understanding some basic fundamentals, so I will save myself the effort.

*riverdances!!!!! ... because it is more related to an actual Microsoft release than anything in the above*

LiqwidTrix
01-12-2009, 19:28
Nice post on the 64 vs 32 bit issues samuraibane. I had originally suggested he use 32-bit since I was had read the statement of issues running older software. When he's not playing something like Guild Wars he's usually playing Ultima Online and I'd hate to be responsible for setting him up to not be able to play it anymore. I will change my suggestion to 64-bit; For whatever reasons the cost of either is the same.

Viranth
01-12-2009, 19:33
Edit.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/05/08/gates-happy-with-rapid-sales-as-vista-hits-140-million-mark

140 million in may last year...

LiqwidTrix
01-12-2009, 20:04
Vista is an upgrade. It's just overly resource intensive. Windows 7, or at least the beta, is, in my opinion, Microsoft's way to "make good" on what Windows Vista should've been at release. A non-resource intensive, sincere upgrade to Windows XP OS. I see this "make good" attempt in the same vain as I see the X-Box 360 RRoD issue. I wish the problem had never existed, but I'm glad Microsoft resolved it in an acceptable way. The only thing I don't like is that the Windows 7 Beta is not only not available to XP users as an upgrade, it will run out in August, in which case they are simply selling you what Vista was supposed to be in the first place.

At least, that's how I feel about it.

Brezick
01-12-2009, 20:09
Vista with SP1 is a rather stable OS really. without SP1 it is not so.

Vista x64 handles even better than x86 as well. As for the resource hog, the default install is a hog on memory, but physical memory is so dirt cheap anymore, its really a non issue.

Second, after tweaking my system, which all tweaks are easily found using google, I have my idle memory usage down to about 750MB which is not too bad.

Windows 7, after the initial install with default settings is holding about 800MB idle, but that is also on a Virtual Machine, so it may be less on a traditional machine.

samuraibane
01-12-2009, 20:29
"Vista is an upgrade. It's just overly resource intensive."

For the most part, it *is* an upgrade. But, we are all gamers here, yes?

From a pure gaming standpoint, 90% of the crap they shovel into Vista (and XP to a lesser degree) is completely USELESS dead weight.
Does having Roxio integrated into the system make burning backups easy? Sure. But it is also more dead weight. Does having Internet Explorer integrated make internet surfing available out of the box? Yes, it certainly does. Does having all the internet security stuff preloaded make you safer when you surf the internet? Undoubtedly.

However, here is where the shoe drops. I have 2 IDENTICAL PCs on my desk. The one on the left is 100% for work use only. It has all the rubbish I could need, and 5 metric TONS of shit I don't want, need, and will never ever use. I use Firefox, no need for IE (yes, I know it is ALSO the file browser, but don't nitpick, OLD IE was a fine file browser). It has Nero AND Alcohol, no need for Roxio. We all use Trillian, nobody in their right mind wants the security hole that *IS* MSN Live in any kind of business environment. That said, the inpact on performance from all this dead weight is hardly noticeable, even when I am rendering monstrous textures.
The machine in the RIGHT, though, is another story. *ALL* it is there for is to run games. NOTHING else. I don't need anything to be there except core OS and drivers, with the game software. No browser, no text readers, no media player, no burning software, everything that is not PURE function is dead weight dragging the performance down. And I resent the living FUCK out of that.

How much of Microsoft's userbase is currently considered "Hardcore Gamer"? I'd think a fairly LARGE chunk. But there is no OS designed exclusively for gaming. So we have to constantly eat performance dings for shit we don't use. Is Ram cheap? Sure it is, but every motherboard has a limit to how much it can take. When you are at the hardware limit, you either have to scrap your ENTIRE machine from the mainboard out, or figure out where else the horsepower is going. And when your OS is eating a LARGE chunk of your resources, it just pushes you to that limit so much earlier in your machine's lifespan.

The word "Upgrade" can be taken many ways. More stable, more secure, all the things Vista offers that are "Pros" can be considered upgrades. But when you actually get better performance out of an earlier OS in terms of raw framerate, it is not a unilateral upgrade. From a perspective of a gamer currently running XP64 that says to himself, "All I care about is performance. I overclock and reduce stability slightly already. I WANT MORE FRAMERATE!" dropping XP64 for Vista 64 will *NOT* garner more framerate. It will actually cost you a little. That is a DOWNGRADE.

I am not telling people to buy XP64. Don't misunderstand. I am saying that Microsoft is screwing us. An actual UPGRADE for gamers should be available that makes alot of this dumb shit optional at the install, that actually is designed to run like an angry pimp after non paying John on Saturday night.

There is nothing in the world more depressing than having a PC with the last OS on it, upgrading to a machine with 25% more of EVERYTHING, and then installing an OS that uses 20% more of everything, to have a net gain of 5%. And yes, I *HAVE* handbuilt a PC for $1000 that only outbenched a 3 year old $800 machine by about 5%. The OS that was that much dead weight? Vista.



TLDR:
Every additional iota of horsepower your OS uses is one less you have for gaming. When I design a system I get excited about all the new power I am building into it. With the new OS trying to steal some of that, I get annoyed. Buying a gallon of milk so the carton can use 1 cup before you even get it home? RIPOFF.

Ultor83
01-12-2009, 20:40
Rather than quote your above post Samuraibane (since its extensive), I will just say I can't help agree with your assessment and you've said far better than I could.

As far as I'm aware both Vista and Windows 7 are using the same internal Kernal, not sure if anyone can refute this, as I would be very keen to know for certain either way. For me Windows 7 looks like a repackage and relaunch of what's basically Vista to try and get give it a kick start in the market.

I was leaning with going with XP64bit OS for my new system but I may hold off and see what happens with Windows7 and how much its been streamlined (if any).

Should be interesting.

LiqwidTrix
01-12-2009, 20:44
The Windows 7 Beta was supposed to be at the 500mb usage mark, according to some of the first impressions I read. The point of view I was speaking of, wasn't the additional fluff not attractive to gamers, but the DirectX 10 that would have been. Unfortunately, DX10 is already being overshadowed by DX11. I have no idea if Vista can utilize DX11, but I do know that it's packaged in Windows 7 Beta. I have no idea if DX10 graphics cards can utilize DX11. This shit is coming out way too fast for me to keep tabs on anymore.

What bugs me the most is very few games came out utilizing DX10 at all. If DX10 cards and Vista can't utilize DX11, (and I'm not saying they can't, I really don't know about this either way) then DX10 was largely a wasted effort. I know I've read that the new pixel shaders coming out are going to require new cards. I can't imagine how anyone ever keeps up with this crap anymore. I can't even be bothered to research the current generation of technology properly, because it's looking like a good two-three months before I can buy the rig I want to buy and by then it'll be all new tech.

Ultor83
01-12-2009, 20:55
The Windows 7 Beta was supposed to be at the 500mb usage mark, according to some of the first impressions I read. The point of view I was speaking of, wasn't the additional fluff not attractive to gamers, but the DirectX 10 that would have been. Unfortunately, DX10 is already being overshadowed by DX11. I have no idea if Vista can utilize DX11, but I do know that it's packaged in Windows 7 Beta. I have no idea if DX10 graphics cards can utilize DX11. This shit is coming out way too fast for me to keep tabs on anymore.

What bugs me the most is very few games came out utilizing DX10 at all. If DX10 cards and Vista can't utilize DX11, (and I'm not saying they can't, I really don't know about this either way) then DX10 was largely a wasted effort. I know I've read that the new pixel shaders coming out are going to require new cards. I can't imagine how anyone ever keeps up with this crap anymore. I can't even be bothered to research the current generation of technology properly, because it's looking like a good two-three months before I can buy the rig I want to buy and by then it'll be all new tech.

As far as I'm aware from everything I've read is that Vista will be Direct X11 compatible. Its been suggests that X11 will be have better compatibility with X10 hardware when it does come.

As to Gfx cards I'm not sure but I'm curious to see what ATI have on the Horizon especially with Nvidia releasing the GTX 295. Couple that with Intel looking to release the Core I5 later this year and rumours that its performance figures are actually gonna surpass that off the I7 despite being a supposed downgrade (potentially cheaper too), makes me think about waiting before building my next beast off a machine.

Brezick
01-12-2009, 22:14
As far as I'm aware from everything I've read is that Vista will be Direct X11 compatible. Its been suggests that X11 will be have better compatibility with X10 hardware when it does come.

As to Gfx cards I'm not sure but I'm curious to see what ATI have on the Horizon especially with Nvidia releasing the GTX 295. Couple that with Intel looking to release the Core I5 later this year and rumours that its performance figures are actually gonna surpass that off the I7 despite being a supposed downgrade (potentially cheaper too), makes me think about waiting before building my next beast off a machine.

The Radeon HD5800 Series will be DX11 compatible and should be out before Q4.

As for the i5, they will not be better than the i7 in sheer performance, but fall along the same patterns/strengths. The tow big features is that it will only support dual channel memory, but it will have an integrated PCI-E controller which is awesome.

It's funny how they used the QPI on the i7 and now already seemed to scrap it and move back to the DMI(Direct media Interface) for the i5. TO put it in perspective, DMI offers about a 10GB transfer rate and the QPI low end offers a 12 GB transfer rate.

I am sure it will be a very nice CPU to accompany the I7's and being sub $200 will make AMD struggle even more. I want to see how much of an effect the integrated PCI-E controller will really be.

Marec
01-12-2009, 22:18
Hush! You're not supposed to use the v-word since "Vista" has been made out to be a "damaged brand" :)

Jangang
01-12-2009, 22:59
I am going by default install. As in, the general user isn't going to know more than this.

And out of the box it is going to take 7.5gig hdd space to install vista 2.

So if you create an acronis backend on your hdd. That's 15 gig of space wasted. For one OS!

sorry, but that doesn't sound like a good thing to me. So far, it looks as if vista 2 is not as "great" as I was expecting.

Whaaa?

Seriously, cry me a frick'n river why don't you... 7.5, and even 15 Gigs is precisely jack shit. If you can't spare it you probably shouldn't be running a brand new OS to begin with. This isn't 1980 where every byte counts.


Vista Ultimate says it requires 20 Gigs. I didn't check after my install but that's less than 7.5.