i love it when people complain about vista when they've never used it. that wasn't directed at anyone here, either. a friend of mine owns a local computer shop and he refuses to sell or install vista. i've heard him numerous times tell people what vista is buggy and unstable. when this happens and i'm in the shop, i interrupt him and explain to the customer that he is wrong. brad, the owner, will readily admit he has never used vista but will criticize it every chance he gets. i'm certain he's afraid if he installs vista on a cumstomer's rig and that customer has issues, brad won't be able to correct them because he knows NOTHING about the os.

and then there's the owner of another shop who installs "devil's own corporate" builds of xp and disables the windows update via policy manager on new rigs he sells.........but that's another story.

I remember when MS came out with the Mojave Project - which was Vista put on a laptop and taken around various locations for people, primarily Vista haters/detractors to try out.  Most respondants were impressed and quite liked the 'new' OS... and then they were told they had just been using Vista.  Funnily enough, but not unexpected, most of those respondants had a low opinion of Vista prior to the 'Mojave' trial, based largely on bad press releases and less than glowing magazine reviews.... word of mouth from other Vista detractors who heard from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who said Vista would mess them around.

I have a friend who owns his own PC store and prefers XP.... he's not overly fond of Vista, either, but he doesn't refuse to sell or install Vista.  Can't get XP here in Oz anymore, so it's either sell Vista or nothing, OS-wise... not that software/OSes make up the bulk of his sales/income.  Great service and more than reasonable prices, backed by a great word-of-mouth network are what keep people going back over and over again.

And a story Microsoft would not be happy with.  In fact, disabling a major component of XP machines he sells could be in violation of his vendors agreement... and given all the nasties out there requiring patches, anyone with half a brain would go elsewhere to get an XP based PC built.

Indeed. I might as well say Windows 7 sucks,since I have no idea what it looks like and have never used it. (jk)

The biggest difference between Win Vista and 7 sofar is the task bar. It takes a little getting used to, but it seems like a nice concept. I can't pass total judgment on it until I've had a good week or so to really use it, but I can say with some certainty that the folks who disliked Vista will probably dislike 7 just as much. Vista users will take to 7 a lot faster than XP users will.

mmmm, tasty...

So far Apart from the task bar which will take a little getting use to I do like windows 7 so far is a very usable beta.

ATM I wiped off the OS on my laptop and using it as a primary for testing windows 7 (Laptop is non critical).

So far I can say I think its better then running vista and I like the changes they made to windows 7. 

Windows 7 if it keeps improving when it gets to RTM I am sure going to buy this OS.

I think so far microsoft have done a good job. Lets hope they keep up the good work.

starkers, you'd think microsoft would be interested in a shop whose owner installs a warez version of xp, wouldn't you? i've let ms know at least 5 times about the shop's owner in the last 12 months but nothing has been done about his use of warez on the new rigs he sells. he tells his customers when they bring the rig back for service due to not being able to run windows update that he intentionally disabled the service because he doesn't want anyone installing service pack 1 because it screws up the os. lol. i've confronted the owner numerous times about this but he doesn't seem to care one iota. he's getting his money from the sales and has no intentions of refunding the cost of the new rigs to unsatisfied customers. it surprises me that he's still in business.

I commented on this in a thread some time in the past month or two, but I'll just say it again.

In the Mojave commercials, none of the "converted" are nerds.  That's as simple as I can state it.  As you say, they're simply going off what they've heard.  But on the other hand, these are people who would not have as high standards for an OS.

Whether Vista has its reputation rightly or wrongly, I wouldn't trust the people in those commercials to tell me how good or bad an OS was.

Not that I'd take a commercial at face value anyway.  But in particular, I wouldn't do so for the Mojave commercials.

Yeah, you'd think that MS in the US would be all over him.  I read in a newspaper article here in Oz that a Sydney PC store was reported to MS Australia for selling warez XP on rigs when XP became unavailable here, and was promptly shut down... the case has yet to go to court, but I'd say the owner is in deep doo-doo.

At least when I purchase something from my local PC store I can be rest assured that it is legit... Pat is as honest as the day is long. He unwittingly overcharged me once for an item by just 2 dollars, but realised his mistake and refunded it the next time I was in the store, some weeks later.  Now THAT is honest.

While some of those Mojave respondants may not have had high standards for an OS, the exercise did prove one thing... that Vista had been given a bad rap by people who hadn't even seen it, much less tried it.  You know, I'm still hearing people saying negative stuff about Vista, and when I ask: "Have you actually tried it?", many of them reply: "Well that's what I've heard!"

So, it just goes to show how many people formulate opinions and base their decisions on what others 'think'... and when it comes to Vista, too many based their decisions on what some 'less than expert' press-desk critic had to say.  Funny thing, that, how some of those critics, upon delving further into Vista, retracted their earlier comments and now say that they quite like and enjoy using Vista.

More importantly, how many of the World's PC users are actual power users, and thus have high standards with regard to high-end usage?  For the most part, the average PC user is just that... average, and therefore isn't requiring an OS that performs above their daily tasks: ie, word processing, simple calculations and surfing the net, etc.  Hence, Vista would be more than adequate for them... but no, too much doubt was placed in their minds by press-desk critics professing to be more knowledgeable than they actually are. 

I've already read some bad reviews of Windows 7, even before it goes to RTM, so the rot starts yet again, and the sheep among us will believe the anti-hype and stay away in droves.... fiecely guarding XP with their very lives and saying: "XP, me upgrade from XP: only if you pry it from my cold dead fingers!!!!"

I had to laugh at this because I have posted that exact thing before. Now though I am using the Win7 beta and liking it quite a bit . After Vista came together with SP1 and got the driver support it was starting to look inviting, but if MS is going to be releasing OSs this quickly it does make sense just to upgrade every other one anyways unless you are a power user that always has to have the latest.

That's an amazingly poor way to run a business. Just because he doesn't like it doesn't mean he shouldn't sell it. That's pretty much shooting yourself in the foot, especially if there's a demand for the product.

I have to break it to you, but Microsoft's target market isn't nerds. As much as we like to beat our own drums sometimes, we're not the audience Microsoft has in mind.

A good example is the Office ribbon: A lot of "nerds" and power users complain about it because it doesn't offer much in the way of customization. However, one of the reasons for this was explained in Microsoft's User Interface blog: It hurt more than it helped. A lot more than it helped. Many of the regular users didn't know (and didn't want to know) all about the customizations. They simply wanted to get things done. A lot of people would, by accident, move a toolbar and not know how to revert it back to its original position, or would be afraid that if they closed something they'd never be able to get it back again. The result is often an interface "customized" by accident and filled with junk.

Those are the people Microsoft designs for, and that aspect of design is showing up a bit in Windows 7, as Microsoft has some of the Office UI people working on Windows 7's interface.

. . . and I'm convinced that the Office Ribbon has totally met its design goals. My mother, who barely knows how to use her computer except for basic tasks, knows how to use it. She even explored the Ribbon's tabs, wondering what each of them revealed. Everything is just there - nothing is hidden in an archaic dialog box, nothing is many layers deep. Nothing tries to hide itself "randomly" if not used. The "adaptive menus" from previous versions of Office were messy, and frankly broke more than they fixed. Everything in the new ribbon is accessible and won't try to change around in some apparently random manner. All changes to the UI are now based on context, not on usage, which makes a lot more sense.

After watching a few ordinary people use the ribbon, I am convinced Microsoft hit their target market squarely on the head for Office. Sure, the power users complain a bit about losing some customization and flexibility, but the ordinary users gains a lot from having a consistent, difficult to break UI.

Microsoft has moved some of the Office UI team to Windows 7, so I expect tht similar changes are happening there as well. In fact, I can already see some of that in how Windows 7 works.

One thing that is interesting is the (apparently intentional) blurring of the line between software that is running and software that is not running. This is something I have seen in many mobile OSes; in particular, Palm OS is well known for not caring about this distinction.

Even in  a modern OS, the distinction is blurred a bit: Many OSes don't clear a program from memory right away, so that if the program is launched again, it's already in memory and can be launched faster. In Vista, it even attempts to pre-load software into memory based on user habits (SuperFetch). So there's less distinction between what's already running and what it not running - it's more a matter of what's in the task list rather than what's in memory and what's not.

Or as highly ridiculous standards. Sometimes we "nerds" don't mind if something's as complex as the controls of a Space Shuttle, but something like that would absolutely confuse the average user. Linux has long had (and arguably still has) a UI that appeals to power users more than anybody else.

. . . and THAT is a store that would've earned my trust and a place I would be glad to return to for future purchases. That amount of honesty is rare, and it's sad to see that most people are not that honest. Honesty is a value that our society and culture all too often chooses to ignore, and sadly even ridicules.

Too true.

I would contend that even though the average user's computer literacy is questionable at best, that it has been and is improving.  So maybe in another ten or fifteen years we nerds will be the target audience.

But it doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to hold them, or in particular the OSes, to higher standards.

Your point about user-friendliness is valid as well, but there's no need to kill functionality to do so.  (Note: Quite different from merely hiding it, which while a nuisance in itself, can be justifiable, particularly so someone doesn't accidentally FUBAR their system.)

I wasn't specifically addressing the ribbon, and in all honesty haven't looked at Office 07 to try it, but my understanding of it as well was that it does more good than harm.

True, but stuff like that is where Microsoft seems to be headed - the person who came up with the Office Ribbon was moved to the shell team for Windows 7, hoping to improve the experience with the Windows shell.

Anyone have any idea why I can't install Stardock on Windows 7? It doesn't give me an error, it just "hangs" when the installer gets to 100%.

I've tried running the installer:

• Normally, with normal UAC.
• As Administrator, with normal UAC.
• Normally, with no UAC.
• As Administrator, with no UAC.
• In Vista compatibility mode.
• In WinXP SP2 compatibility mode.

And for the record, Stardock installs and functions just fine on the same hardware in WinXP SP3. I have Flash 10 installed in Windows 7, if that matters.

By "Stardock," do you mean Stardock Central?

Stardock Central isn't supported in Windows 7, and it's very unlikely that they will add support for Windows 7, as they are replacing SDC with Impulse.

Try Impulse instead.

Doh, dangit, I meant Impulse.

Also, some more information: I've tried both the 6-meg installer and the full installer.

DOS4GW for life.

That won't happen anytime soon... and the EU has rocks in its head, coming up with archaic laws that disadvantage European MS customers who want an OS with media player and the like straight out of the box.

Furthermore, MS' bundling of additional apps does not disadvantage third-party developers as no version of Windows has barred the installation of third-party apps... should a user opt for a third-party media player they can freely do so.  The EU can not prove disadvantage to third party devs, so in effect, the EU anti-bundling laws are a restriction of trade to Microsoft marketing a 'complete' product that's sold elsewhere in the World with little or no fuss.

Glad I don't live under the EU's umbrella... as a customer I'd hate having some fat arsed bureaucrat with half a brain telling me what I can and can not have included in an OS.

That's odd. I installed it in Windows 7 myself, no problems.

What other programs do you have installed in Windows 7? A clean install seems to work.

Also, it this the most recent Beta of Windows 7, with all of the latest updates?