Same here. It doesn't feel bloated, I've had few serious problems. It feels rather like Server 2008 with the consumer bits added.
Thu Feb 12 2009 02:16:22 AM EST from Ragnar Danneskjold <>fleeb,
I can't say my experience has been bad with Windows 7. It loads quickly, runs quickly, and I've yet to crash it. I can't say those things for Vista, which has been nightmarish to use.
While I wouldn't switch from OSX to Windows 7, it hasn't been anywhere near as bad as I expected it to be.
i'm sure they're going to slow it down till release... but maybe, wait, its 2 years till release, computers are going to get faster till then.
I can't say why my experience was so terrible, then.
Yesterday wasn't a great day for computing. Weird things happened. I might try running it again today, even though I can't imagine there's much of a difference.
Is the "Cairo" promise *finally* dead?
Sad, really, when you consider BeOS managed to accomplish exactly that.
Really though, if ms didn't have a file system with FILES in it, how would you read things of f CD, how would you install things? You'd have to have a way to store binary images of some kind in a blob that would be accessible by a handle of some kind, probably something that looks a lot like a filename. So what's the difference?
You'd still want to send a spreadsheet to somebody via email, so how would you do it? You'd say attach this file-thing and it would be a file anyway...
Hm, the last time i've heard timelines it was 2011? So they're killing Vista this summer already? So Vista was the shortest alive windows version eva? ;-)
Will they be forced to continue to sell XP downgrades? ;-)
Yes, it really is a service pack. Make sure you read the promo materials for Windows Server 2008 R2 (which will be released in 2010) to get the whole picture. Microsoft is adopting a "tick, tock" release cadence for all Server releases, and 2008 R2 will be the "tock." Because Microsoft has gone with a unified code strategy for the client and server editions of Windows, it will be equivalent to Windows 7 SP1.
Server R2 releases "integrate the latest service pack with selected feature packs" and you are supposed to be able to assume that deploying an R2 release is no more invasive than deploying an SP. So, my guess is:
Server 2008 = Vista SP1 (already a known fact)
Windows 7 RTM = Vista SP2 + new taskbar
Server 2008 R2 = Windows 7 SP1 = Vista SP3.
(The real question is whether any of the nifty resource utilization cleanups from Windows 7 will make it into Vista SP2, particularly the memory usage optimizations for the Desktop Window Manager.)
I've been testing Windows 7 in a VirtualBox, and it does seem to use less memory, but the problem is I don't have an apples-to-apples comparison because Vista/W7 seems to increase its memory utilization when you add RAM to your system. So I can't say for sure. It's just kind of a bummer that Vista's VM autotuning is deciding to use memory for the kernel and processes which I'd rather have allocated to my own processes.
Of course, this being Microsoft, it probably does do that, but using sooper-seekrit API's that only work with Hyper-V.
It probably makes sense to disable SuperFetch if you are running in a VM.
But there are other, non-kernel processes that seem to autotune themselves; in particular, the Search Indexer seems to use much more address space if it thinks you have a lot of physical ram to spare. But this is not the end of it. There's a lot of other things that seem to allocate different sizes when running on a 4G physical versus a 1.5G virtual, so I haven't really been able to compare apples and apples. Would need to get a second hard drive just to play around with W7 on my physical host, or attempt to use the VHD boot feature, if it's even supported on the client version; I'm not ready to blow away my boot loader, though.
steve wants to beat apple by "openness"