I just installed the beta . So far seems to be good . Isnt as heavy on the ram as vista and IE 8 is fast ..

Is this essentially a service pack upgrade for Vista?  Would like to find out if there any improvements on dx10 game performance/game performance in general.

Havent played a game on it yet . For some reason I am not able to access my vista partition from windows 7 . 

Havent played a game on it yet . For some reason I am not able to access my vista partition from windows 7 . 

You shouldn't be able to either.  A partition is completely seperate, windows 7 is not in Vista, it's beside it.  Imagine if you installed Linux in your partition, you wouldn't expect to be able to run Windows programs in Linux.  That would be like trying to sit on your neighbors couch without leaving your house.

To answer Choupolo.  I don't think DX10 will run better, DX10 is DX10 regardless of the OS.  What makes the difference is the drivers that the hardware manufacturers write (Nvidia and ATI).  But really there's nothing wrong with DX10 in the first place.  Videocard hardware is complicated as is the code that it's serving.  Videocard drivers these days have 20 million lines of code.

The problem we experienced when Vista launched is that they didn't have sufficient time to prepare.  On top of Vista and DX10, ATI and Nvidia also had to write new drivers for their new architecture (unified shaders) and they still have to support the old shit.

So you have everything that's bolded is relatively new for these hardware guys:

A---XP 32bit DX9 traditional shaders
B---XP 32bit DX9 unified shaders
C---XP 64bit DX9 traditional shaders
D---XP 64bit DX9 unified shaders

E---Vista 32bit DX9 traditiona shaders
F---Vista 32bit DX9 unified shaders
G---Vista 64bit DX10 traditional shaders
H---Vista 64bit DX10 unified shaders

Add to all this SLI support and not to mention Linux.  Granted many of this overlaps.  A and B for example are not seperate drivers, as is C,D  E,F and G,H.  The point is to put emphasis on the extra work Nvidia and ATI have to do in order to have working drivers. 

The good news is that everything seems to be working pretty good now.  Furthermore it seems like MS will base Windows 7 on a refined Kernel from Vista.  So anything that is compatible with Vista will likely be compatible with Windows 7.  We won't see a hit going from Vista to W7 simply because all th ground work is already done.  DX11 shouldn't be too difficult either.

The OS itself will be faster and more efficient.  Even faster than XP.  This will be most important for laptops, longer battery life and faster operation... Laptops are now outselling desktops so it's not surprising to see MS cater to this croud.  W7 will also include a bunch of nifty features but as far as gaming is concerned same as Vista.

If you have performance problems it's your hardware.  Check out the new performance King:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-295-preview/

It fucking runs doughnuts around games.      

I dont see a reason why i shouldnt be able to access the partition since windows 7 does support the NTFS file system . I can access the windows partition from linux with the proper drivers so i dont see a reason why i shouldnt be able to access the partition from windows 7 .

Yeah you should be able to.  I think he thought you meant access and run a game from isntalled on it, because you put those sentences right next to each other.

Right, well I haven't had much personal experience of Vista, since I heard all the horror stories when it first came out.  I'm still on XP.

Next question is would it be worth waiting for the release of Windows 7 for my new gaming rig, or go for Vista since its fairly established now?  Will you need W7 for dx11 like you need Vista for dx10?

PLEASE Windows 7, HURRY up and get here because Windows Vista is battling Windows Millenium for the title of *biggest piece of trash operating system I have ever dealt with.*

I enjoy Vista.  It's much better than it was at launch.  I only wish I installed the 64bit version though.  In your next OS, make sure you do that guys.  It still has a few minor quirks and i wish i could play some of the older games like KOTOR II.  But the fucking thing is far more secure than XP.  I've never had a virus on Vista or serious spyware/malware problem with Vista.  Vista also looks better, I'm used to the asthetic differences, I wouldn't want to go back to XP.  Sure it's a bit more demanding but using but for modern hardware you won't feel the difference.  And games run fine under Vista now, in some cases faster.  DX10 is starting to show it's merit in a few titles.

I would compare Vista and Xp to prostitutes.  Vista is like an attractive 20 year old.  She's not quite as experienced as some of the older ones but she's smart and takes precautions.  Even if you neglect using protection you don't have to worry about your dick falling off in the morning.

Xp is like a 40 year old vet.  You can tell she was very attractive in her day but she's starting to show her age.  But that's forgivable because she's cheaper knows a few tricks that maybe you're accostomed to.  What bothers me is that she's a cespit for viruses.  You better double up on those rubbers before you tap that ass, and don't kiss her either unless you have a full body suit crafted by NASA.  Even if you do everything right you should still see a doctor in a few months to get tested.

And yeah it looks like I misunderstood what you meant 2Pac...

Unfortunately for me, my experience with Windows Vista has been nothing short of awful. I have a couple Dell laptops and the one with the fastest cpu (Duo core) and 2 gigs of ram has Windows Vista while the older machines with less ram have XP.

On the Vista machine it takes Windows Media player 60-90 seconds to launch whereas on my XP machines it launches in less than 5 seconds.. I always dread viewing/listening to any kind of media on my Vista machine, lol.

Windows start up on the XP machines takes a couple seconds, on the Vista machine it completes itself in a couple minutes.

Audio recording using sound recorder is friggin AWFUL on Windows Vista. They should have never changed Sound Recorder, it was great just the way it was from Windows 95 up until Windows XP. It's nowhere near as functional on Windows Vista as they have removed 80% of its features.

The web browsers take a while to launch. Firefox used to run just OK, not great before I 'upgraded' to Firefox 3, now I LOATHE the combination of Firefox 3 and Vista. Upgrading to Firefox 3 was a huge mistake for me.

Believe it or not even my Acer Aspire One netbook gives me better performance in all of the above listed areas.

So, when it comes down to it, I'm excited about Windows 7 for the simple reason of finally upgrading my Vista machine.

You must need more RAM. WMP and Firefox both open pretty much instantly. The only program that Ive even noticed a stall of a few seconds on is Zune, and thats understandable considering how much music and how many vids I have.

I've already maxed out the ram on the Vista machine. For whatever reason Windows Media player takes forever to launch whereas it opens instantly on my XP machines. And Firefox 3 not only takes a while to open but it freezes occasionally too. Not a problem with Internet Explorer on the Vista machine.
I'm just hoping for a much, much better experience on Windows 7.

Im not really sure then. Perhaps its your processor? Right now with kikizo, bitcoment with several files, and Nero burning a DVD open Im using 8-12% CPU and 21% RAM according to my keyboard display panel (Logitech G5), and everything is opening fast. Either way, I wont dispute that when I first got Vista it was slow, but after vista updates and program updates it was fast again.

Also another trick you could try is if you have a large-ish USB drive you can use it as another 4GB of 'ReadyBoost' RAM. I havent used it, so I cant attest to how it works.

Tery stop using computers from 1996, and no you haven't maxed out vista with your 256mb of ram.

emofag


Tery stop using computers from 1996, and no you haven't maxed out vista with your 256mb of ram.

I WISH I still had my old Digital Starion PC from 1995

My current problem laptop is a Dell Inspiron 6400, 1.73 ghz Intel Core Duo with
2 GB of RAM and Windows Vista. Nothing but problems with that machine. After this machine I think I'm completely done with Dell laptops. I've had nothing but problems with them.

I have an Acer Aspire One netbook with only 1 GB of RAM and 1.60 ghz Intel Atom CPU with Windows XP and believe it or not, that badboy seems to outperform the above in a couple areas.

Vista and laptops worst idea any manufacturer ever came up with, unless it is a machine with at least 3Gb onboard Vista runs like a dog.

I like vista although I have to admit that I do have a bootable XP partition for the likes of Medal of Honor and Battlefield, basically the stuff that doesn't work in Vista. The thing that worries me about W7 is again legacy software Vista was pretty harsh even with some Microsoft stuff forcing you to buy the latest incarnation of SQL or Orrifice, hell even keyboard and mouse software....

Anyone post some pics of the Beta just to see how pretty it is?

They underestimated Vista's graphical requirements.  All these laptops with Intel's earlier integrated garbage are useless.  Vista also has more shit running by default but much of it can be turned off. 

-turn off Aero glass
-turn off Windows indexing
-remove useless startup programs (everyone should do this)
-turn off windows defender
-turn off UAC

Your PC should run much faster after doing that.  Also don't try to open anything right away.  One of the shittier things about Vista is that it takes much longer than XP to startup.  Even when everything looks loaded Vista is still dumping more shit on the ram.  Because of this I avoid turning off my computer, I put in in sleep mode instead if I'm at home.  This is something that Windows 7 will fix.

A laptop without intel graphics doesn't have a very long battery life, which defeats the purpose of having a laptop.

I agree with the design philosophy of Intel.  Although the new hybrid graphics is a nice feature giving the user the best of both worlds.  Able to use a discrete gpu if you need the power and the ablility to switch to integrated for longer battery life.  Of course the downside is the cost, you pay for the GPU. These days a gpu isn't very expensive though.  I'm looking foward to seeing CELL in laptops as a co-processor.  Creative's Zii is also very interesting.

I think it was the G915 Intel chipset that can't really handle Aero glass.  Initially it was rejected for approval but given it's popularity MS and Intel both wanted to push it anyways.  I place the blame on MS more than Intel though, it's their stamp.

lol, CELL isn't going to be in any other consumer electronics it was a failure.