Windows 7 Build 6936 Screenshots IS HERE !


Recommended Posts

Since I much don't care or use addons any plus to using FF over IE8 is lost on me. I've been running IE8 since beta 1 and it's been doing good for something that's not finished. I also run IEPro for Ad block, and I'm set. My pages render and work fine, so I don't see the need to change. Before this I used Opera, and still have it installed for the heck of it.

But I don't know why browsers came into this anyways, we're talking about Win7.

Any plus is lost on you? How about FF is way faster for everything. Sounds like a plus to me.

Enough browser chatter, go to another thread if you want to do that.

A couple of thoughts:

- The taskbar has a smaller mode. For god's sake, stop asking.

- You can't keep asking MS for new themes to suit your every desire. They code for the majority, and the majority need only one (fairly customizable) theme.

- Fine, you love Win2K, lovely for you. If you're happy with a 10 year old OS, so be it - but you have little basis for asking MS to wind back the clock ten years as a result.

As far as I can tell nearly everyone who is "not impressed" by Win7 either hasn't read about anything other than the superbar (and some misunderstand even that), or just expects it to be like their preconceptions of Vista. Harsh, but from what I've seen, I stand by it.

Okay last browser-related post:

IE8 is rubbish. Call me when it can render a full page of google results.

I get that too; you have to turn on Compatibility mode.

I've never used Windows 2000, but from what I've read, a lot of popular consumer software didn't always run on Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 also lacked a lot of media software that was on the 9x releases like 98 and ME. XP was the first consumer-oriented NT release, which supposedly added a lot of compatibility that the NT line was missing.

Again, I could be totally wrong here, especially seeing as I do know many people who used Windows 2000 with little issue.

It was mainly the lack of drivers that hindered Win2000 when it was released. I could be wrong on this, but a lot of companies didn't have WDM drivers at the time; most were still writing VxD drivers. Otherwise, if Windows 2000 was made a consumer OS as Vista was, it would've had a rep far worse than what Vista's getting today.

Edited by rm20010
Any plus is lost on you? How about FF is way faster for everything. Sounds like a plus to me.

I'm on an old PC, FF doesn't run, load, or work any faster than IE8 has for me.

I've never used Windows 2000, but from what I've read, a lot of popular consumer software didn't always run on Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 also lacked a lot of media software that was on the 9x releases like 98 and ME. XP was the first consumer-oriented NT release, which supposedly added a lot of compatibility that the NT line was missing.

Again, I could be totally wrong here,

You are. Windows 2000 has the same compatibility as XP, uses the exact same drivers, runs all the same programs. There were issues when it first came out but that was a long time ago.

You are. Windows 2000 has the same compatibility as XP, uses the exact same drivers, runs all the same programs. There were issues when it first came out but that was a long time ago.

Well that isn't true. One of the main reasons XP even exists is that it has added compatibility features, especially for older Win9X / DOS apps - when compared with Win2k.

I'm on an old PC, FF doesn't run, load, or work any faster than IE8 has for me.

That should actually be noted down for a world record. Because from mine and a huge number of other people's experience, IE 8 is pathetically slow. New tabs open slowly, seems ages, when compared to Chrome. And it's a memory hog. Tab switching is also way slower than Firefox and Chrome. Unless these things are fixed in the final version of IE 8, I can very safely predict 50% market to Firefox in around 2 years.

Well that isn't true. One of the main reasons XP even exists is that it has added compatibility features, especially for older Win9X / DOS apps - when compared with Win2k.

Windows 2000 was right direction for Microsoft, but that's typical for MS -> to go wrong direction.

Windows 2000 was right direction for Microsoft, but that's typical for MS -> to go wrong direction.

What was the right direction?

I truly don't get what you're talking about.

(PS. shouldn't we be talking about and looking at screenshots of Win7? :p )

Well that isn't true. One of the main reasons XP even exists is that it has added compatibility features, especially for older Win9X / DOS apps - when compared with Win2k.

Which were added to Windows 2000 in one of it's service packs, so you're mistaken.

You are. Windows 2000 has the same compatibility as XP, uses the exact same drivers, runs all the same programs. There were issues when it first came out but that was a long time ago.

But if this is true, why did Microsoft then expend time and energy on Windows XP, which you claim is the exact same product?

But if this is true, why did Microsoft then expend time and energy on Windows XP, which you claim is the exact same product?

I was very suprised by XP release. I still don't understand why did they release XP when Windows 2000 Professional was fantastic.

I was very suprised by XP release. I still don't understand why did they release XP when Windows 2000 Professional was fantastic.

i guess the great thing there was bringing an NT version of windows to the public/home users.

Im sure a couple year down the line from the launch of Windows 7.. im sure some website will host a topic such as "The Tech Industry's most disastrous OS releases" and along that line.. Windows ME and Vista will be amongst that list.

Come to think about it.. other than Microsoft and BeOS...no one else has released a bad OS..

Please correct me if im wrong..

Im sure a couple year down the line from the launch of Windows 7.. im sure some website will host a topic such as "The Tech Industry's most disastrous OS releases" and along that line.. Windows ME and Vista will be amongst that list.

Come to think about it.. other than Microsoft and BeOS...no one else has released a bad OS..

Please correct me if im wrong..

It's not that Vista is bad, but Microsoft didn't advertised it well and let Intel crappy video chip to pass Vista Logo, among other software crap installed by 3rd party companies and OEM.

Microsoft needs to be really strict on requirements.

Im sure a couple year down the line from the launch of Windows 7.. im sure some website will host a topic such as "The Tech Industry's most disastrous OS releases" and along that line.. Windows ME and Vista will be amongst that list.

Come to think about it.. other than Microsoft and BeOS...no one else has released a bad OS..

Please correct me if im wrong..

OS X 10.0 was a disaster, you couldn't even play a DVD on it. Leopard had a nasty bug that caused users to begin receiving blue screens (!?).

But Windows 2000 already did this, if it was identical to XP as it is being claimed.

It's not identical, nobody said it was so stop with the strawman arguments. XP has a lot of new features that weren't in 2000 and more importantly 2000 was never a consumer OS. What I said was that 2000 uses the same drivers and has the same compatibilty for games and programs as XP. Going by your logic Vista is identical to XP because it can also run all the same games and programs.

It's not that Vista is bad, but Microsoft didn't advertised it well and let Intel crappy video chip to pass Vista Logo, among other software crap installed by 3rd party companies and OEM.

Microsoft needs to be really strict on requirements.

Have to agree with you there.. I blame the OEMS.. man.. take sony for example.. they load their pc's with so much crap.. its hilarious.. thats where i really like what apple does with their machines, problem is microsofts success is based on the OEMS

Have to agree with you there.. I blame the OEMS.. man.. take sony for example.. they load their pc's with so much crap.. its hilarious.. thats where i really like what apple does with their machines, problem is microsofts success is based on the OEMS

that what really sucks.. you get a new computer from dell/hp/gateway/sony/etc and its always loaded with crap.. a good dozen icons in the systray, apps starting up all over the place asking for details, trialware.. just brutal. of course us who know usually do a quick install of xp or vista or whatever.. but for the average user they take it home and kinda suffer with it from day 1. it would be a much different user experience if they were to get a new computer with just a clean install of vista on it.

But Windows 2000 already did this, if it was identical to XP as it is being claimed.

windows 2000 was not brought to the public as a consumer os. maybe at the time they were working on a 'home' version of 2000 that was eventually dropped and they quickly pushed winMe out the door later that year?

i heard XP was supposed to be NT6.0 ver

but that will break everything left and right so the named it NT5.1 ver

OS X 10.0 was a disaster, you couldn't even play a DVD on it. Leopard had a nasty bug that caused users to begin receiving blue screens (!?).

it is kernel panic btw

i heard XP was supposed to be NT6.0 ver

but that will break everything left and right so the named it NT5.1 ver

it is kernel panic btw

I know the equivalent to a BSoD in OSX is a kernel panic but Leopard was literally giving some Mac Users blue screens: http://digg.com/apple/Some_Leopard_upgrade...screen_of_death

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!