Windows 7 coming in two weeks

[DaBees-Knees]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/23/technology/microsoft_windows_7/index.htm?postversion=2009072313

Microsoft says Windows 7 is ready to go, and the first users will be able to download it on Aug. 6.

The much-anticipated operating system was completed Wednesday, and it is on track to appear on store shelves for the general public on Oct. 22, Microsoft said in a press release. Customers will also be able to download the operating system from Microsoft's Web site.

Third-party hardware and software vendors will get their hands on the new operating system Aug. 6, and businesses that entered agreements with Microsoft to buy software in large quantities will be able to download Windows 7 on Aug. 16.

Don't get killed in the rush. 

[Trestor]

I've had the Release Candidate for a while now and I haven't been able to tweak everything to run the way I want, and I suspect I may never succeed as some features have been removed or made inaccessible.
I've tried hard to like w7, and I do sort of like it, but I still spend most my time using xp because w7 just doesn't run the way I want it to. I guess the overall difference between the two is that I find xp to be more intuitive than w7, even though the 64 bit w7 is faster.
I suspect I will not be buying the final version of w7, especially for the high price they want.

[White Stripes]

and I suspect I may never succeed as some features have been removed or made inaccessible.

...sounds like macos

[Cobra]

The only people with "much-anticipation" for this OS are probably Vista users who want to hurry up and get rid of the OS as fast as possible.

Do they even have an official name for it yet? Or are they just going to call it "Windows 7"?

[Forested665]

windows 7 IS the official name.

windows 7 = NT kernel version 7
vista is 6
xp is nt 5 or 4 i dont remember which though i think xp server 2008 was nt5

but anyways this is no different then mac os name scheme or some of the older versions of DOS

as for the vista/7 thing i would rather keep vista. The day that we can fully replace dwm.exe will be a glorius one indeed.

[Trestor]

skip it.

[Forested665]

tried "windows 7" ?

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Windows 7 is a pretty good os  in my experience. It is what you would imagine the next gen of Microsoft should be in all honesty. The only problem I saw with it when I used it is where Vista tended to run heavier in the processor and relatively light in the memory, Windows 7 seems to be its exact oposite running heavier on the mem and pulling away from using the processor so much. It would be nice to see them balance this out a little better. Windows 7 is NOT Vista fixed. Everything about it behaves differently in my opinion than Vista. As with any "next step" os it does keep some of the features that Vista had but basicly it is definately different. I can also tell you with Vista the base, least amount of memry you were required to have is 512meg or it won't even setup. That number should've been at the least 1gig of mem. I think a lot of people's Vista "experiences" would've been a lot better that way. If you intend to buy and use Windows 7 my suggestion is you go with at least 1.5gig of memory. While I'm not sure of the required minimum amount you're suppose to have to setup Windows 7 I would say anything less than 1.5gig is going to ensure you hate trying to use it. 1.5gig or more should allow you to enjoy it fairly well.

[Cobra]

Your last comment is in part why I don't want to move up to a new OS nor see a reason to just jump in.

I ran Windows XP for at least 4 years on 256 MB of RAM (what came with my computer) without a single reason to complain. Eventually I added another 512, but that has been more than enough for me because I am not continuously using massive amounts of RAM, and XP itself seems as if it barely uses any RAM. My virus scanner uses the most, and it only uses based on what I have available.

I just can't bring myself to upgrade for a new look and a few new toys, losing so many older programs that aren't backwards compatible, and having to buy a whole new computer for it because the OS alone needs a computer more than twice as powerful than what I use now.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Yeah I'm not saying that every user should go out and get Windows 7 because they have to. I liked the look and feel of the beta Win 7 I used but I didn't like the way it worked as far as memory consumption. Hopefully they fixed it to run a little easier in this version they're releasing to the public. I think a lot of what made it so bad is all the running processes at starupand while it's operation. I would also say that likely, as is the case with my machine which is only about 3 years old itself, maybe 4 now I can't remember to be honest, that likely they aren't quite good enough to run it like it's meant to be run. I agree in that I don't want to upgrade atm for those very same reasons. I love my windows xp and how reliable it is and how good it runs.

[Forested665]

hmm... you all seem to act as if the new requirements are a major jump...

windows 95 req a minimum of 5 mb of ram...
windows 98 wanted 16mb (3x as much) and was suggested you use 24mb (~5x)
windows xp needs 64mb of ram (4x as much) recomends 128 (8x)
but as we all know its recomended you have 512 to 1 gig to run modern applications...
thats 64x and 32x the memory as 98....

vista's minmum requirement was 512mb and it runs comfortably with 1 gig which is a consiberally smaller jump in ram requirements than previous releases of windows.