Windows 7 Build 6936 Screenshots IS HERE !

[Nomad77]

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.

[Kirkburn]

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.

[Denis W. Veteran]

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 November 22, 2008 by rm20010

[DigitalE]

"Screenshots is here"?

:pinch:

[George P Global Moderator]

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.

[Rigby]

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.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[Imran Hussain]

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.

[jjrambo]

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.

[Kirkburn]

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 )

[Rigby]

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.

[Quillz]

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?

[jjrambo]

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.

[profets]

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.

[Quillz]

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

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

[dimithrak]

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..

[jjrambo]

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.

[NoneAvail]

betta fish vs beta windows 7 ;)

[jjrambo]

betta fish vs beta windows 7 ;)

Are you doing gaming on your laptop or desktop? Your laptop is more powerful :)

[y_notm]

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 (!?).

[Rigby]

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.

[dimithrak]

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

[profets]

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?

[Ci7]

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

[y_notm]

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