Windows 7 screenshots

maestro_za · Post by **maestro_za** » 28 May 2008, 15:40

Is it real?

http://wepokers.blogspot.com/2008/05/mi ... -2010.html

According to this blog this is a beta version.

Interesting stuff.

Hopefully MS can give up on Vista and build something decent for a change.

Laterz

Richard_ · Post by **Richard_** » 28 May 2008, 15:42

Those aren't real. They're just concept art of what screenshots might look like. Also, there's no beta version of Windows 7 available yet. There's not even an alpha version. The only release thus far is Milestone 1, which is barely anything at all, and reflects next to nothing of the final GUI of the final or even alpha releases.

[edit] Link: http://windows7news.com/

SoulBlade · Post by **SoulBlade** » 28 May 2008, 15:51

XP was decent enough for me.
XP was buildt around the NT core I think. Somehow I feel Vista was totally new.

maestro_za · Post by **maestro_za** » 28 May 2008, 15:53

I'm still using XP, but I think with Quad Cores and the like an upgrade is needed

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 28 May 2008, 18:35

LOL, if they already have a beta of Windows 7 (which they don't) then it's going to be even more of a failure than Vista

DeanMF · Post by **DeanMF** » 28 May 2008, 20:07

Shush u Dae!

*hopes for a better new windows*

Post by **Anakha56** » 29 May 2008, 01:28

http://d6.allthingsd.com/20080527/gates_ballmer/

Windows 7 Preview. Watch the vid

.

edit - moved to windows section...

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 29 May 2008, 08:15

maestro_za wrote:I think with Quad Cores and the like an upgrade is needed

why?... linux produces the very same visual effects right now on 10yr old hardware and in half of the footprint...

i still struggle to understand why windows chugs as much resource as it does...

the minwin blather they introduced as being the design principal behind windows 7 has now officially been debunked as an embellishment... so, it's pretty much going to be another "take your current machine and double it" type 'upgrade'...

why bother refining code when you can simply move the requirements up a notch...

UrBaN · Post by **UrBaN** » 29 May 2008, 08:54

That video of Gates' last day are funnay, I lol'ed.

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 29 May 2008, 10:11

rustypup wrote:
maestro_za wrote:I think with Quad Cores and the like an upgrade is needed

why?... linux produces the very same visual effects right now on 10yr old hardware and in half of the footprint...

i still struggle to understand why windows chugs as much resource as it does...

I couldn't agree with you more. I can run Compiz on my EEE PC (which has a CELERON chip at 630Mhz) with NO lag whatsoever. Cubes, Expo, you name it, my little notebook can do it all. Even the transparent borders that "make Vista look so good".

Why Vista needs those resources i don't know...

UsMarshal · Post by **UsMarshal** » 29 May 2008, 10:15

DAE_JA_VOO wrote:
rustypup wrote:
maestro_za wrote:I think with Quad Cores and the like an upgrade is needed

why?... linux produces the very same visual effects right now on 10yr old hardware and in half of the footprint...

i still struggle to understand why windows chugs as much resource as it does...
I couldn't agree with you more. I can run Compiz on my EEE PC (which has a CELERON chip at 630Mhz) with NO lag whatsoever. Cubes, Expo, you name it, my little notebook can do it all. Even the transparent borders that "make Vista look so good".

Why Vista needs those resources i don't know...

Simple: DirectX 10.x

UrBaN · Post by **UrBaN** » 29 May 2008, 10:25

That reason is about as valid as a Merc needing 285's cos of the powerful speakers!

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 29 May 2008, 10:28

Backwards compatibility is a great feature and gives users one less reason to worry about when updating from an old version of Windows to a newer one.

On the other hand it does have an impact on performance and size of an operating system.

http://windows7news.com/2008/04/09/wind ... atibility/

Interesting.

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 29 May 2008, 10:31

UsMarshal wrote:
DAE_JA_VOO wrote:
rustypup wrote:
maestro_za wrote:I think with Quad Cores and the like an upgrade is needed

why?... linux produces the very same visual effects right now on 10yr old hardware and in half of the footprint...

i still struggle to understand why windows chugs as much resource as it does...
I couldn't agree with you more. I can run Compiz on my EEE PC (which has a CELERON chip at 630Mhz) with NO lag whatsoever. Cubes, Expo, you name it, my little notebook can do it all. Even the transparent borders that "make Vista look so good".

Why Vista needs those resources i don't know...
Simple: DirectX 10.x

Can you HONESTLY tell me that you need DX10 for the effects in Vista?

If Vista needs DX10 for that then there's no hope for MS

Mr_Norris · Post by **Mr_Norris** » 29 May 2008, 11:52

To me those pictures look like snap shots of skins for vista

UsMarshal · Post by **UsMarshal** » 29 May 2008, 12:20

DAE_JA_VOO wrote:
UsMarshal wrote:
DAE_JA_VOO wrote:
rustypup wrote:
maestro_za wrote:I think with Quad Cores and the like an upgrade is needed

why?... linux produces the very same visual effects right now on 10yr old hardware and in half of the footprint...

i still struggle to understand why windows chugs as much resource as it does...
I couldn't agree with you more. I can run Compiz on my EEE PC (which has a CELERON chip at 630Mhz) with NO lag whatsoever. Cubes, Expo, you name it, my little notebook can do it all. Even the transparent borders that "make Vista look so good".

Why Vista needs those resources i don't know...
Simple: DirectX 10.x
Can you HONESTLY tell me that you need DX10 for the effects in Vista?

If Vista needs DX10 for that then there's no hope for MS

Well not really, to be honest I think vista became of product of "lets slap in all the cool features we have come up with over the past two years" without any regard for the core functionality. Have you guys noticed how slow vista is when browsing an folder that contains images?

maestro_za · Post by **maestro_za** » 29 May 2008, 13:54

I didn't start this thread as a Windows vs Linux debate ... or the merits of Vista over XP >> which is mostly a DX10 issue.

I still use XP on my rig. I've grown tired of this constant need of upgrading components and OS. In fact, I merely use my rig to surf the net, download stuff, and burn CDs/DVDs. A couple of games that my setup can handle I still play (COD4, Football Manager,etc).

I game primarily on my 360.

When my finances allow it, I'll be getting a second rig to do the whole overclocking/liquid-cooling stuff and my present one will be running Linux.

I do however look forward to seeing Windows 7 when it sees the light of day, to see if Microsoft can finally swallow their pride and build something worthy of being an operating system.