I'm not saying it doesnt work most of the time, I'm sying the documentation stated it is unsupported.
I'm not saying it doesnt work most of the time, I'm sying the documentation stated it is unsupported.
It mostly likely does because it's still beta - they do not want to give any guarantees.
I am merely stating that you can probably ignore that warning. It will still work. Although, it is still done at your own risk, but isn't it always?
Originally Posted by Adak
I think it's great that you think Windows 7 beta works perfectly now, but maybe some people just don't want to give naive advice like, go ahead and put it on a machine you depend on everyday. Calm down.
Well, actually, I'm not saying anyone should. I am giving my take on the whole, and relay what I have learned so that people can actually make a choice for themselves.
Do it or not, it's their choice. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
I'm sharing my experiences, not urging people, okay?
Based on information on some who are working on the kernel at Microsoft I would not recommend using it as a primary OS just yet. I'm not saying the beta kicks the crap out of XP and the other horrible flop of an OS but it is not yet ready to be a primary OS. Wait till it goes gold and then have at it. It is not rocket science to understand that using a beta OS as your primary OS is probably not the smartest choice in the universe.
Be patient. I, for one, am planning on going out and getting Windows 7 the day it releases. Vista (there I said it) sits on my shelf never to be opened again even if they patch it a billion times.
Don't be fooled. Windows 7 is not just Windows Vista 2.0. It may look like Vista but it is not Vista by a long shot.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 04-04-2009 at 03:09 PM.
I agree, I'm switching to 7 as soon as it releases, although I will continue to use XP on my older machiens
I probably won't be buying Windows 7 for a long time.
Vista works just fine on my system. So why change if it's not broken (on my system)?
I'd like to try out Windows 7 though.
"I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008
"the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010
Well, I'd switch to linux if it didn't carry such a huge development cost. I cant just ditch the last 20 years of code because some anti-MS geeks refuse to support any MS API's , GUI and user friendly installation.
If you have insider information, then you should know that Win7 is just an evolution of Vista. Nothing fancy, whatever they call it. It's a minor upgrade.
The truth is that the have made a few improvements, such as built-in Bluetooth and upgraded Sound system, but otherwise, they just took Vista and optimized the code.
Whatever anyone says, it IS Vista 2.0. And to otherwise contrary belief, while Vista was/is a failure, it has become a solid operating system today. It's biggest failure is its resource hunger and (which Win7 also shares) its UAC "security" feature. Which is rather broken, even today in Win7 (in fact, even more so today).
Be that way if you want, but saying that Win7 isn't Vista is just pure bias.
Everyone will have another chance to try Vista once the RC comes out. Until then, I'm going to stick with Win7 as my primary operating system.
I wasn't trying to multiboot. The disk had no partitions - the whole thing was ext3, but the Win7 beta wouldn't recognize it. I had to use Ubuntu to reformat the disk to NTFS before the install would work.I believe the documentation that came with windows7 beta specifically stated that you cant/shouldnt run it on a multiboot system.
It definitely is a better kernel than before, I like it - but Vista gave me the motivation to learn to use Linux as my primary OS, and I don't think I'll go back.
I never had problems with Vista, I ain't having any problems with Win7, Ubuntu was a bit problematic... Windows rules? xP
Currently research OpenGL
Ubuntu is only problematic because of your lack of experience.
You are comparing Windows + your years of experience against Linux + your hours of experience.
Not exactly fair.
I have used both OSes extensively for at least 5 years, and I find Linux more customizable/programmable, reliable, secure, and generally more "fun" to use. Windows "just works" most of the time, and is more compatible with Windows apps (duh... on the other hand, many good Linux/UNIX programs have Windows ports), but it's a lot more restrictive (and then there's the virus issue...).
Nowadays I dualboot Windows for games, and Linux for all serious and not-so-serious work. Each for their strengths.
Contrarily to popular belief, they actually try to support WinAPI (the wine project), much more than how well Microsoft supports POSIX.
MS API is not an open standard last time I checked.
Have you tried Linux within the last 5 years?GUI and user friendly installation
I try it every 6 months. Everyone always assumes its because I just havent tried it lately. The fact remains its a pita to install any meaningful distro.
The Ubuntu Live-CD installer? How much simpler can it get?
Sure, it's not one-click like Vista installer, but I'm sure all of us can handle being exposed to more choices.
Last edited by cyberfish; 04-04-2009 at 08:05 PM.
