Windows 7 is realeased to retail.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Has anyone tried it?

Is it as bad as Vista?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8316522.stm

[davidnix71]

The only version worth owning is the "pro" 64 bit version. It comes with a 32 bit virtual machine and XP Pro SP3, so you can wait for the bugs in 7 to be worked out.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Well my Dad wants a new PC because the hard drive is knackered. The trouble with opting for either Vista or Windows 7 is that he won't be able to use old Cannon LBP-660 printer because it doesn't have Vista drivers.

It doesn't bother me either way, as I can carry on using Linux.

My Dad doesn't like changes though so moving to Linux is not an option.

[Lead Head]

I've been using Windows 7 RC1 along side Ubuntu for the past few months, and honestly I boot into Windows 7 more then Ubuntu now. As far as Microsoft Operating systems go, its probably among their best. The system as a whole feels slghtly faster and snappier then XP, and FAR faster/snappier then Vista although Ubuntu still feels even faster yet. Its fairly polished and nothing seems to be horribly wrong with it. I wouldn't be afraid to buy a new PC with it basically.

This is the 32 Bit version by the way, because my SCSI card doesn't have any 64bit drivers.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I've look at the 64-bit professional version and it actually looks reasonable apart from all the DRM and the price of course.

As for the home edition, I don't see the point in upgrading to it because it doesn't look much better than XP.

If you ask me, they should have bundled virtual machine and XP with it to eliminate the compatibility issues people have with old software.

[Lead Head]

To be honest, I haven't had a problem yet, the "compatibility mode" seems to work much better then before.

Although I'm not entirely sure, I think the Windows 7 Ultimate/Enterprise editions do have come with a VM and a copy of XP but I've heard its quite tricky to set up and use.

[_ZeroBeta]

A friend of mine has bought the Home Premium edition for his laptop and judging from how he describes it, he's getting on with it quite well. I've heard that it's meant to be a significantly improved operating system after the disaster and bane of Vista (which I bought a copy of in March). But of course, I have no way of knowing if it's as bad as Vista until I try it for myself.

[Refalm]

Windows 7 has greatly improved from Windows Vista.
However, it's still painfully slow on looking up files when your hard drive is full.
Microsoft tried to solve that with an indexing service, but that takes up a lot of resources, making response slower.

I also get the feeling that most of the improvements that are now in Windows 7, should have been implemented in Windows 98. I feel that a lot of Windows developers where anxious to get some of those improvements into earlier Windows versions, but where stopped due to Microsoft's bureaucracy.

[Lead Head]

Pretty much actually, if you have some spare time, google search the MS preview vids of the "original" Longhorn. It has features in it that Windows 7 still doesn't even have. Apparently Microsoft was pretty far into the original Longhorn development, before they scrapped everything and started over.

I will agree that Windows 7 is a vast improvement over Vista - It is what Vista should have been, but it still lacks in some areas, and can get annoying.

[Calum]

i really don't understand why they don't embrace open standards. they could use an existing journaling file system, they could have their office programs work in open document formats by default. Imagine how much less hassle that would be! The only reason for this is microsoft's 20th century belief that they must forcibly maintain a stranglehold on "de facto standards" by basically breaking every protocol and standard except their own.

I'm astonished that genuine functionality hasn't made more headway against microsoft's mediocrity by now.