Windows 7 Beta Available January 9th, 2009

[rpgsearcherz 5]

You will need a new touch screen monitor to take advantage of the touch screen features. They aren't even THAT expensive. They still cost a fair amount, but they aren't ridiculous. You can convert a monitor into a touch screen, but you need to add hardware on to it, which can cost a lot and be ugly and not as a responsive.
If you were to buy a new PC for Windows 7 with a touch screen, it may come with those abilities, but it is limited. Windows 7 is designed to be able to use touch screen technology efficiently and as a complete replacement for a mouse and such. Most touch screen computers can function fine using the touch screen, but not all features work as they would with a normal mouse and keyboard. Most of that touch screen software is just additional software that works with the touch screen, then if you want to use it when interfacing with Windows, it doesn't work as well.

I didn't even know that you could buy touch-screen monitors.

Do you know about how much they are for various sizes?

And I'm going to assume that if Windows 7 is really as efficient as they say it is regarding touch-screens that the price of the monitors(especially non-touch) will end up going down?

Honestly I may actually consider the jump to Windows 7, assuming that I can afford the upgrade hardware-wise and that it's close to Vista like they claim it is.

But I can't imagine trying to type on it,lol. And I hate speech recognition software. Too many complications.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Source
So who's in on it? It's funny that I just read the article about it and went back to Xisto only to find that Saint Michael mentioned it in the Shoutbox.

For those of you who don't know, Microsoft is officially releasing the beta download of Windows 7 this Friday to the public, and is only releasing 2.5 million keys for the beta. After all those keys have been released, Microsoft will not issue any more. The beta version of Windows 7 will work until August of this year, in which it will not be available for usage and the operating system will just be a 16+ GB "paperweight" on your hard drive.

I for one am not even going to try, considering that I'm already hard-pressed to snag a computer that would run Vista efficiently, and from the sounds of it, Windows 7 is pretty much a "better" Vista. The suspicion almost seems confirmed since you need Windows Vista with SP1 to even install the beta version being released... Windows XP users are out of luck. Sad, really... I thought that Microsoft was actually ditching Vista and actually putting something out worthwhile...

It's funny how Steve Ballmer had to throw out some features of the new Windows OS to show that it was the "best Windows yet," but with some of the most drab and lame features like transparent windows that we've had with Linux's Compiz/Beryl. Right now, I just am very skeptical of how good the latest "best" version of Windows is going to be.

If you miss the 2.5 million keys that will be issued starting Friday, I'm sure you can actually just snag a pirated copy off of a torrent site, just like the thousands of other people that already have Windows 7 prior to this announcement.

Well I was excited until they mention the beta keys would be limited and then you have to burn the ISO on a DVD once you downloaded the 3-4Gb OS and so the excitement pretty much faded from there. As for the features they only talking about the GUI features at best and some of the functions if you want to learn what Windows 7 has to offer you will just have to wait to see what else they will package with this operating system.

I hate saying this but windows-7? They have not really worked out the bugs yet for vista! Why do another OS when they still should fix problems with there other, and xp I might add. I feel as all Microsoft is doing is putting out there what I call worthless Operating systems. Why can't they just leave one alone, fix all the little and big bugs that they knew about in the 1st place before they put out another one? I feel it's all about the Dollor. Bill Gates is so money hungry he is not thinking of his buyers. We the public should have a say in this.
As for windows-7? I will download it only after the movie comes out. Why waist disk space for something that is "beta" also why download something we all know will be loaded with problems and have to delete it when time runs out.

Well the world has pretty much labeled Vista as the ME and so if you want to make a comparrison to that Windows 7 is the new XP and that is how pretty much every who has been keeping tabs on Windows 7 has set this up.

Vista was like those babies you hear people hiding that are very different and people are embarrassed by them. Windows 7 offers drastic improvements in every way. I used the pre-beta builds and, boy, are they promising. I am for sure getting the beta. Windows actually shows promise with this OS. I am sure it will overtake XP and Vista.

Overtake Vista most likely but with everyone supporting XP, Microsoft will have to some huge improvements for people to drop XP for this new operating syste,. However, now that support for XP is going to last a few more years not to many people will be switching over to Windows 7 in the near future.

I heard a lot say that same thing about Vista when it was in beta. so it's gonna be a wait and see type of thing I know. But there will be someone that will once they download it break it apart and find things to fuss about in someway. My point was though Vista just came out. why so soon in bringing out windows 7 why not just work with what they have and not put something out when they have too many bugs on the other. thats like with IE 5 through 7. fix all the bugs before you realese another. it is pointless and a waste of time effort and money.

The moment that Windows 7 was out there everyone assume that Windows 7 was just a SP for Vista to fix all the problem it has had so far. Of course once news started popping up that windows 7 was a whole new operating system then the whole ME and XP connection started to be made, but again so far Windows 7 just looks like a speedier faster version of vista so far.

I'm sure that support for Vista will be continuous, but the focus is moreso on the development of Windows 7. The aim is probably to ditch the reputation of Vista and abandon the name altogether to focus on marketing the next new Windows experience... which really seems to be Vista anyway, renamed to Windows 7.
There wasn't a lot of adaptation to Vista thanks to all of its problems, naysay, and whatnot. If Microsoft is going to make a positive turnaround, it makes sense to market something that actually rivals Apple's Leopard and the more-prominent flavors of Linux like Ubuntu.

I remember when I was wary of moving from Windows 98 SE to XP... and I didn't make the jump until SP1. After SP2, I was convinced that XP Professional was the most stable and usable Windows operating system to date... and I'm still convinced that it is. If Windows 7 is really just a husk over the Vista core, let's hope that they at least work on the core enough to make a viable replacement for XP.

Well put it like this, Windows 7 is Ballmers legacy and if anyone is going to take him serious as the CEO of Microsoft or Microsoft will begin to implode depending on the outcome of Windows 7.

On the touch screen aspect, I have a question...
Is it supposed to convert monitors into touch-screen or are we supposed to go out and buy new $7000 monitors?lol

And yes, I am pretty sure I already know the answer to that.

But if we have to buy new monitors anyways, why worry about an OS that has touch-screen capabilities? Just buy a touch-screen PC that has all the software needed on it already installed.

Or am I missing something here?

Well touch don't cost that much but still expensive depending on how big the monitor you want, and the most expensive on newegg is like $1600 for a 20" screen.

You will need a new touch screen monitor to take advantage of the touch screen features. They aren't even THAT expensive. They still cost a fair amount, but they aren't ridiculous. You can convert a monitor into a touch screen, but you need to add hardware on to it, which can cost a lot and be ugly and not as a responsive.
If you were to buy a new PC for Windows 7 with a touch screen, it may come with those abilities, but it is limited. Windows 7 is designed to be able to use touch screen technology efficiently and as a complete replacement for a mouse and such. Most touch screen computers can function fine using the touch screen, but not all features work as they would with a normal mouse and keyboard. Most of that touch screen software is just additional software that works with the touch screen, then if you want to use it when interfacing with Windows, it doesn't work as well.

If you think about it though not to many home users would need for such monitors though, and personally I would think a keyboard and mouse are a lot faster. Due to the fact I think touch screen monitors only can use one set of fingers and not be able to use both hands at the same time then maybe it would be a lot faster.

I didn't even know that you could buy touch-screen monitors.
Do you know about how much they are for various sizes?

And I'm going to assume that if Windows 7 is really as efficient as they say it is regarding touch-screens that the price of the monitors(especially non-touch) will end up going down?

Honestly I may actually consider the jump to Windows 7, assuming that I can afford the upgrade hardware-wise and that it's close to Vista like they claim it is.

But I can't imagine trying to type on it,lol. And I hate speech recognition software. Too many complications.

Well Newegg pretty much tells you where the price range and screen size ranges are , but even if you can afford one and set your computer up with the necessary hardware I don't see how home users would be able to use or actually need a touch screen monitor for. I was at staples a awhile back and I thought I check one of those touch screens out and I have to say they are not really sensitive when your trying to double click to open something up and on top of that though I don't know to many software programs that use touch screen monitors sufficiently. I know hospitals and manufacturers have been using these monitors for years but again I don't see home use function though.

[Tramposch 1]

I actually think Windows 7 is support multi touch gestures. I THINK. Which would be nice. But most people don't have touch screen monitors, and the only really nice application for the touch screen would be Microsoft's Surface. They are practically made for each other...

[kplow1986 0]

well, i will not use window 7. you know why ?every time microsoft launch new window, sure there will face incompabilties of software and hardwareand for windows 7 must need large of amount of memory.then, i will going for windows xp and vista only until microsoft fix those problem.

[mbafactory 0]

Actually I have been trying Windows XP Vienna concept which is a predecessor to Windows 7. Well my experience is all the wondows are same and why do they keep on experimenting with features which normal users will hardly use ever. Change the look, give it a new name and you are ready to release some new version of OS. Themes are there for such changes... It soothes eyesight and yes a little bit fast as well but you will get fed up of doing things like that...

[Tramposch 1]

Most of the "Change the look, give it a new name and you are ready to release some new version of OS" you are talking about is a tad more involved. Microsoft redesigned many features from the ground up. The 2 most notable ones being Windows Explorer and the taskbar. They are completely redesigned to be more useful and my appealing to the general user.

And keep in mind that they may be experimenting with features normal users may not use, but not everybody who uses Windows is classified as a "normal user." You can't leave out a complete audience because they aren't the majority. In addition to this, most of Microsoft's "experiments" are UI tweaks to make navigation and usage EASIER for the normal user.

well, i will not use window 7. you know why ?
every time microsoft launch new window, sure there will face incompabilties of software and hardware
and for windows 7 must need large of amount of memory.

then, i will going for windows xp and vista only until microsoft fix those problem.

Windows 7 doesn't need any more memory than Vista. It has pretty much the same system requirements. I even had it running better than Vista on one of my old machines just to test it. And if you are going to use Vista over Windows 7, you are crazy. Windows 7 drastically improves on Vista in every way I have found. The launch won't be a flop like Vista, I have a feeling it will take off quite nicely.

Heck, I don't really like Windows but I still feel Windows 7 is a great OS.

[onscreen 0]

well, i will not use window 7. you know why ?
every time microsoft launch new window, sure there will face incompabilties of software and hardware
and for windows 7 must need large of amount of memory.

then, i will going for windows xp and vista only until microsoft fix those problem.

I entirely disagree on what you have just said.

i am now in Windows 7 and memory management, transfer rate between HDD have vastly improved from the previous OS, Vista and XP.

Incompatibility of hardware and software with Win7? Do note that Win7 is developed based on Vista. So anything that runs in Vista works in Win7 flawlessly. I have all my software installed and i have to say, it have 20% increased in performance.

[Tramposch 1]

I entirely disagree on what you have just said.
i am now in Windows 7 and memory management, transfer rate between HDD have vastly improved from the previous OS, Vista and XP.

Incompatibility of hardware and software with Win7? Do note that Win7 is developed based on Vista. So anything that runs in Vista works in Win7 flawlessly. I have all my software installed and i have to say, it have 20% increased in performance.

Great points. In addition to that, almost every piece of hardware is plug n play. And if it does need a driver, Windows Update will get it for you. That completely eliminates the need for driver CDs and such. I had problems with drivers on XP because I forgot to get them beforehand. Windows 7 (and Vista, for that matter) don't have those problems at all.

Like you said, the transfer rates are vastly improved. Even between a USB HDD and my internal I notice a difference (usually 1-2mb/s faster). I also have noticed a difference in my download speeds (sometimes as much as 200kb/s more). That all may not sound like much, but it is less of your life wasted waiting for transfers.

[rayzoredge 2]

Great points. In addition to that, almost every piece of hardware is plug n play. And if it does need a driver, Windows Update will get it for you. That completely eliminates the need for driver CDs and such. I had problems with drivers on XP because I forgot to get them beforehand. Windows 7 (and Vista, for that matter) don't have those problems at all.

Hopefully, more manufacturers will be providing Vista/W7 driver compatibility. That's what's plaguing Vista right now with its supposed incompatibility with a lot of devices... manufacturers are still working to develop drivers for their existing hardware and for some, they are doubling their efforts by making drivers for XP for their new products.

Like you said, the transfer rates are vastly improved. Even between a USB HDD and my internal I notice a difference (usually 1-2mb/s faster). I also have noticed a difference in my download speeds (sometimes as much as 200kb/s more). That all may not sound like much, but it is less of your life wasted waiting for transfers.

I'm actually looking forward to your benchmarking figures between XP, Vista, and W7b. Download speeds from the Internet are going to vary by server load, bandwidth, and whatnot... so I wouldn't be praising W7b on that at all, unless there was proof of efficiency (like network packet management specific to the OS or something to that effect).