Windows 7 Release Candidate launch leaked

It's gonna be solid and convenient to work with. But not innovative (touch screen doesn't count, my old PDA has it too). In other words, it's the next Windows 2000. Good but not "impressive"

But since I 've already been scammed into upgrading to Vista in February 2007 (you know, when all major magazines and sites where hyping and praising the product they later bashed because they decided it was not all that good eventually), I will NOT upgrade until I see the compatibility list and PRICE

I won't be touching Windows 7 until there is a service pack one and it is confirmed that all of my hardware, software, and games with work with it. Vista is working fine for me on a desktop and laptop. No rush to upgrade beyond that.

I downgraded two systems to XP because Vista was poor. I do have hopes for 7 if all the speed-tests we're seeing is true. Because DX10 is only in this, it'll be a necessary evil on the gaming system. I don't think I'll ever put it on my laptop or HTPC however.

Well DX10 was in Vista, and even that wasn't enough to convince everyone to move to it.
My big home machine is 3 way boot, XP, Vista and Debian Lenny. I still use XP for the games, and Vista is purely there for compatibility testing when I'm developing software.
At the end of the day it's the business community they have to convince, and with the min RAM requirements of 7 being twice that of Vista, it looks like it's still going to be a resource monster.

I have tested the W7 32bit & 64bit versions and I reckon you might have too anyways I would say W7 is just another eye kindy version of VISTA. Really there's no change infact I know where a few things in VISTA are now but in W7 I was lost for ages trying to find stuff.

I dont mind VISTA with 4GB DDR2 or more a dual/quad CPU and a decent graphics card and a nice big HDD maybe RAID 0 and you'll have no worries. Thats if you want to game and still have decent framerates for high end games.

Good for over year, must be out to selected few. Often design continues to improve even after R/C. Noticed on 7Beta here, that ATTACH function on msn email now does both file & photo properly, isn't THAT Great! You can hit check box on photo, takes few trys to get update in, yet once running all photos you checkbox go in at one time, real handy for large attachment grouping. Next Guessing Game, Will Windows 7 be called 7? Maybe Windows SteWie. HEY_ Instead of this Bot, Urge theMikeBot to start Writins' again.On 7, of course SSD, Dunington & Nehalem would be tremendous areas for both Mike & MikePaul.Maybe Deep review of Known Probs or Shortfalls.AMD When Will You ReBlossom?&How. etc. TS drashek

Dave if you honestly think theres no change from Vista to Win7 then you're the biggest idiot.
And ever tried using the search button in Win7 to find stuff? thats what it's there for. Surprised you managed to even work this site to post a comment on here with that many brain cells.

all like thinking a service pack will help, naive as before, but this time ill make sure they fix windows 7 with a service pack.

a lot said to wait for vista sp1 etc but maybe xp is ok?

hands up if your computer was pre installed with the vista crap?

I don't fall for marketing or hype especially from marketing companies like Microsoft that rarely live up to their own claims so I won't even consider it an option until I'm able to compare the value proposition of the final release.

One thing is for sure though, I don't currently see any justification or benefit to "upgrading" from XP to ANY of their recent OS releases unless I had a need or desire to transition to 64bit computing. Until then, XP and Linux continue to serve me economically, with compatibility and without extra hassle.

Give me a reason to change instead of a change to reason why anyone would pay to "upgrade".

You also probably also thought NT 4 was just a mock up of Windows 95 when it came out. Just because the interface is the same doesn't mean it is the same at the OS level. Your just as bad as those whom believe Vista/Win7 is a RAM monster as there is not a lot of free RAM available most of the time. Get a hint, the OS is using it as a cache and is predicting what you shall load from prior use. When you need the RAM back for what ever reason, it shall give it back to you. God some people are idiots, they make all sorts of guesses as to how something works from what they 'see' or 'feel'. I guess you have never really done any programming. Because if you did you would know where to find the answer, as they say RTFM before making wild guesses as to how something actually works.

I think the RAM usage in Windows 7 is actually about the same or less than in Vista, but it's just that Microsoft are listing it differently on the Min/Rec System Requirements section of the box to try and avoid part of the issues they had with "Vista Ready" which was not only Microsoft's fault, but also the manufacturer's of the pre-built systems.

With the price of RAM for the last few years, there has really been no excuse to sell machines with anything less than 1GB of RAM, even with XP installed. I personally won't build an XP or Vista machine with less than 2GB. My main system at home has 8GB in it running Vista 64 and normally doesn't ever go over 20% usage unless playing a game or encoding movie files and stuff like that.

Ok, I've installed Windows 7 7068 64bit and seems to run smoother using both cores of the CPU efficiently. However, RAM seems to be the same. It may be less in 32bit but 1.2 to 1.6 GB is the normal usage. All my programs work with the new OS so that's a plus. All drivers seem to be working correctly. Since I've used it for more than a day, Windows 7 is obviously Windows Vista with little tweaks here and there. My wife mentioned the absence of the start menu in 'all programs'. This is a huge downside of Windows 7 but I may get used to it. The whole idea of creating a user operating system is to have a general interface to work from. The user experience is the key ingredient that needs to be in each release of the software. How can we make the user experience better? In my opinion, Windows 7 is better than Vista but still lacks the qualities of Windows XP. What are those qualities? User experience, easy to manage for the administrator, general user mobility, and contains 20 years of windows designs that is the staple of windows. Vista strayed away from this concept and took away the user experience of loyal Windows users. For this, Microsoft has paid the price. However, will Windows 7 immerge as a successful windows generation? Yes, Windows 7 will be successful but not because it has an innovative approach while keeping the fundamentals of Windows. No, it's because XP is getting too old and losing support from Microsoft. The question remains, is this the start of Windows becoming less important for users? If Google or Linux was to make a move, this would be the time. Windows 7 is nothing more than a big service pack to Vista. I prefer Windows 7 over Vista but not overly excited about it.