as a mather of fact, i am running the latest 64 bits windows 7 beta release. i am very pleased that it got so much faster than vista (more efficient and reliable). i think microsoft shall give a free upgrade to Vista owner, specialy branded pc’s like hp, acer etc that cannot overide vista with xp.

it still lack few things like remote management (using log me in or other.) but it IS a beta release. i encountered few graphical glitches swaping from window to another but nothing major.

ooh yeah most important thing, they puted back some function from control panel back to the place they used to belong!

here would be my personnal score for today’s OS:

1- Windows XP
2- MAC OS X
3- Ubuntu

if windows 7 keep up i might consider put it #3.
..
..
..
vista would be a story all IT shall remember, i only installed win ME once, and i still can remember how bad it was, i got the same feelings on vista.

I tried Vista but didn’t realy like it thought, not on this computer but a friend of mine as vista and he says that some features in vista are of no use to the OS. If Windows 7 is based on the OS of vista, how can u expect it to be much more powerfull than vista?

And the reason why videos on youtube runs better than XP or Vista is that Windows 7 as probably better connectivity over the internet and makes video runs smoother.

Finally, check out RealOS, a freeware XP Pro clone that just may pull the rug from under both Microsoft and Linux distros. Why buy Windows 7 if a free XP clone that IS being updated, is out in the wild?

I must say that video playback has improved on Windows 7 beta from both vista and remarkably XP. For instance, HD playback on youtube was beyond choppy when tried under the 2 latter OSs. But when tried under Windows 7 beta, the playback was flawless and smooth both windowed and full screen. I must say that Windows 7 beta is showing to have better resource management for multimedia based uses; which for all is a plus; a bonus in fact!

Afterall, most consumers want a faster operating system without having to buy a faster computer. And for those who want to buy faster, can; either way, both markets are covered.

This whole “build[ing] on the foundations laid by Windows Vista, Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008″ is nonsense. They made this kernel for NT and they were slated for not building a new one for XP, much less Vista. Seems to me like M$ are just getting rich, fat and lazy…

How much “progress” are we actually making? There is no *need* for any OS to take up that much system resources, regardless of how they may compare to the most powerful systems around at the moment. Our hard drives are now full of slow and bloated VC++ code, hideously inefficiently coded and the admittedly pretty Vista doesn’t justify the need for 512 MB RAM and a 1Ghz proc just to build the OS itself.

Alright, I’m ranting. Live with it, I’m done now. Final point : I tried Vista, and I’ll probably try 7. I was a begrudging XP convert a long while ago and SP2 is working fine for me. Why change it to make my system run slower, and do millions of little visual effects I don’t need?

Curse you, M$, for holding the market so tightly.

Besides, by late next year, Those Minimum Specs will be considered ancient, anyway. They’re hardly demanding…

thats the fight to win.