Windows 7 build 7000 outperforms Vista and XP

[atifsh]

done by ppl at zdnet.... mind u im using this version and it still doesnt give me any reason to go back to my vista..... using this build for 3 days and last build was used for 7 days.. so say 2 weeks with similar windows 7 builds...

now i just hope microsoft doesnt do any bad till it RTMed..

[Chewy]

I don't believe it, they lie about this every time they release an OS

[UncasMS]

Windows 7 build 7000 outperforms Vista and XP

... and ruins mp3 files

[atifsh]

well installation is faster then of XP's on a test xps200 i have here, yet to install windows 7, but vista installation was faster. but vista sp1 was using 800+ of memory compared to 300+ of xp's which has avast aswell. just plain xp withoiut anything no media player 11 no ie7 drivers no antivirus was 260 mb

[atifsh]

I don't believe it, they lie about this every time they release an OS

im not sure bout the results either but bacause im using its sure faster and stable and responsive, atleast better then of vista sp1.

on a other system i told u bout celeron 2.6 with 512 mb ram windows 7 works almost as good as xp, yes it is using more memory round 55% to 60% of 512 but very responsive. that friend is so happy that he wanted to buy another 512 then to go back to xp..

[atifsh]

... and ruins mp3 files

no wonder microsoft got real angry over leak of build 7000 that changed his future plans for the release beta 1 with some subcribtion. beta 1 (probably build 7000) was going tobe released with latest Microsoft Action Pack Subscription on 5th jan.

my mp3's and video's are fine bythe way.

[Chewy]

Version7 is better than Vista? Let's hope so, and that's not saying much!

Microsoft and their cronies have lost all credibility. The proof will be if business accepts windows 7, vista went over like a lead ballon.

[Abuilder]

LOL @ Chewy
I was saying almost the same thing when MS released XP with that damn online activation and all that DRM crap. I never had a problem with them back when I BETA tested ms-dos 5.

[Chewy]

I resisted XP for a couple of years and only upgraded a few newer machines, however when I started tweaking it and ram prices dropped enough where I could run 512 megs, it started to scream. Before sp2 it was an accident waiting to happen, after sp2 and a clean install or a repair disk, it's stability and speed improved, sp3 made it mature and fairly secure.

[MilesAhead]

LOL @ Chewy
I was saying almost the same thing when MS released XP with that damn online activation and all that DRM crap. I never had a problem with them back when I BETA tested ms-dos 5.

Since I don't build my own machines I've become a believer in getting it preinstalled. I made the mistake of trying to run Windows 2003 Server on a Pentium III PC!! Even though the PC specs were well within the "requirements" the thing wouldn't stay booting for more than 2 weeks! That's with domain stuff and Active Directory all stripped off!! I don't believe the specs anymore. I take the machine home with the stuff on it. If it doesn't go good I bring it back same day!!

Plus I remember being outraged that IBM Dos 6.0 came on 4 1.44 MB 3 1/2" floppy disks!! They tried to get you to install that console-based Commander file manager thing!!! Sheesh!! What bloatware!!

[atifsh]

Version7 is better than Vista? Let's hope so, and that's not saying much!

at the moment yes it is, will it be like that when it RTM'ed or RC'ed GOD knows.... remember internal / alpha builds of vista. u still can find youtube videos of that as a proof..........

[atifsh]

... and ruins mp3 files

that was media player 12 bug and is fixed KB961367

[doctorhardware]

I wonder what the street price is going to be for Windows 7.

[dr_ml422]

@ Miles You mean you rather buy a preinstalled computer and tweak it yourself than build one? I know way back you posted you was tired of building them, but it can't be the case that building them is not better? Or is it? If you do buy a preinstall do you tell them what you would like implemented in addition to or in place of what's available from a certain manufacturer?

@ atifsh just plain xp withoiut anything no media player 11 no ie7 drivers no antivirus was 260 mb

I thought that even using the proggie whose name I can't remember right now, can't remove anything completely part of the os like wmp or ie? Is that correct, or did I misunderstand something here, or is there another software that actually strips these puppies down to w/e you want? Thnx.

[atifsh]

dr ml422:

no what i meant was i didnt installed ie7, 6 was there, i didnt install wmp11 9 was there in short plain simple sp3 integrated OS install.

compared to 430 to 450 win7 takes its a big big step after vista which takes 800+ mb on same system.