Jeph, do you think it's worth jumping on the W7 ship right now? I've been using Vista Ultimate x64 for almost a full year now and have everything customized the way I want it as far as performance and good looks go. Is Windows 7 compatible with current games and will it fill multimedia needs? Just wondering if it's worth getting into since it's unknown how many games or applications will be fully compatible.
The reason my Vista experience hasn't been filled with too many negatives is because I didn't ditch XP until around March 2008 - by that time most software/hardware compatibility and driver issues had been fixed.

Curious about the beta, although I haven't found any real performance or compatibility charts for it yet.

Jeph, do you think it's worth jumping on the W7 ship right now? I've been using Vista Ultimate x64 for almost a full year now and have everything customized the way I want it as far as performance and good looks go. Is Windows 7 compatible with current games and will it fill multimedia needs? Just wondering if it's worth getting into since it's unknown how many games or applications will be fully compatible.
The reason my Vista experience hasn't been filled with too many negatives is because I didn't ditch XP until around March 2008 - by that time most software/hardware compatibility and driver issues had been fixed.

Curious about the beta, although I haven't found any real performance or compatibility charts for it yet.

Not sure what jephree has to say about it but I will say the "right" time to jump from a final product, with nearly two years to mature, to a "Beta" release is pretty much never! Not unless you are prepared to lose everything. So, if your Vista machine is used for work, school, personal affairs/financing or some other "productive" work, then you probably should not install such a major product as a "Beta" operating system.

Of course if you take the necessary precautions to back up your critical data and are the type that likes getting splattered with cutting edge blood - go for it. I just ask that as a "Beta Tester" you keep in mind it is a Beta product, and fulfill your duties as a tester by accurately reporting your findings to MS. Sadly, many Beta testers gripe up a storm in the forums, but never report the problem so it can be fixed.

My impressions so far is Win7 will be worth the upgrade. And if still using XP because you finally got it running right and Vista horror stories scare you, Win7 will be worth investing in current technology hardware, then moving to Win7. If you are currently using Vista AND you are not currently having driver issues or software compatibility issues, Win7 should work fine too.

When trying out the Win7 (or any) Beta, do not be disappointed if performance is not what you expect. For some, Win7 seems faster and more efficient. For others it is not slower, but not faster either. But it is important to remember that final tweaking for performance is usually done at the end of Beta and with the RC (release candidate), when all beta debugging code is removed, and big changes are complete.

To add a couple comments - The changes from XP to Vista were huge. While some of the blame falls on Microsoft, the vast majority of the compatibility issues with Vista were with systems, more than 1 year old when Vista was released, upgraded from XP. New PCs based on new technology HW had very few driver problems - 3rd party software is another issue. The majority of XP to Vista problems can be boiled down to 2 key causes:

1. 3rd party HW and SW makers failed to dedicate necessary resources to develop and deliver quality Vista drivers and SW versions in a timely fashion - instead waiting (some almost a year - ) until Vista caught on or not - a stupid move, IMO, since we knew XP would eventually go away as new PCs with current technology hardware came on line pre-installed with Vista. To be fair (???), from a business perspective, hardware makers would rather you buy new versions instead of them wasting resources for no profit on legacy, out-of-production versions.
2. Upgraders failed to ensure their existing hardware (built to support 1990s technology) was capable of running an operating system designed to support current, more secure, 21st Century hardware before purchasing Vista.

XP was developed almost 10 years ago (with roots a decade before that) when NO ONE was even close at predicting how big, and how fast the Internet would grow, or the extent of the evils that came with it. Let's not forget that bad guys put us here in this security situation we are in today, not Microsoft. XP was created, by user demand, to support legacy (and less secure) hardware and software. Vista was designed for today's hardware, with security weighing more than legacy support. Win7 continues that trend.

Bottom line (for today, anyway) unless you fully understand the concept of Beta, wait for the official release of the retail version of Win7. Then make sure your hardware is built for today and not 10 years ago, and go with Win7.

@Mazda: Wow. Nice avatar you've got there.

@Dig: Your posts are, as usual, always worth the read. I've been holding off Vista due to the horror stories I've been hearing. Not to mention the Vista computers I've touched so far hasn't been as responsive as my XP, even though their specs are much better than mine. Probably a large number of reasons as to why it's slower but the horror stories does get to me.

Not to mention I always see game requirements for Vista builds being higher than XP builds.

I'm assuming you've been testing Win7. I've read people saying that Win7 is what Vista was supposed to be. What's your opinion on that? Is it just "Vista" optimized and painted with another fresh coat of paint?

Windows 95 needed more resources than DOS, 98/ME more than 95, XP more than 98/ME, and Vista more than XP. There should be no surprises there - but there always seems to be, which always surprises me. Hardware makers aren't sitting still, but instead keep advancing technologies - modern graphics processor units (GPUs) pack twice as many transistors as modern CPUs, and users keep load up on more and more security programs, faster network connections, high resolution widescreen monitors (or two! ). Vista was never marketed as speed king, but does perform quite well, if given enough CPU and graphics horsepower, and lots of RAM.

Is it just "Vista" optimized and painted with another fresh coat of paint?

It is not a complete rewrite - but it is not just cosmetic either. This was a good read: Six Vista annoyances fixed in Windows 7 | Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report | ZDNet.com

Microsoft makes Windows 7 beta available

I concur that Beta software is for testing and perhaps the merely curious.

By no means upgrade or overwrite your current OS!

I've loaded 7 on its' own hard drive and at this point have only run Steam games on it and they run very well.

The install is easy and less than 20 minutes. The version I have needed to be installed via my XP as the built-in partition/format stage did not function. However installing through my XP went flawless. It adopted all my current drivers including nVidia. What it did in my case was load a Boot Manager on the XP drive which gives the option on boot of loading either XP or 7.

It loads DirectX 11 and IE 8.

I find it very fast and smooth. There are many reviews out there by professionals so my addition is just as one of the curious hobbyist. I wanted to see how it would run my games and as I say they are beautiful.

I imagine a Release Candidate will be out in July as well as it has been noted that computers sold after July will probably include a free upgrade to the Final 7 towards the end of the year.

Have either one of you compared boot times? I read somewhere (once again, can't remember and am unsure if it's reliable) that the boot time for Win7 is actually faster than both XP and Vista. That comes as quite a surprise for me.

Originally Posted by Kaistar

Have either one of you compared boot times? I read somewhere (once again, can't remember and am unsure if it's reliable) that the boot time for Win7 is actually faster than both XP and Vista. That comes as quite a surprise for me.

In my case it is faster. It is almost instantaneous.

However my XP Pro and XP Pro 64 take but a few (less than 10) seconds.

I never ran Vista post RC2 so I have no experience there other than the RC2 was noticeably slower than XP.

Just another note on 7 (32 bit) is it does recognize all 4GB of my RAM.

It has a neat feature under My Computer/Properties where it ranks your hardware.

My Quad Core CPU and dual 8800GTXs rank top of the chart. My RAM speed and HDD speed are only listed as 'medium'. Anyway an interesting feature.

Download the Windows 7 Beta

Download the Windows 7 Beta
New to beta testing? Here's what you need to know:
You'll need some technical skills, like knowing how to:

Burn an ISO file to make an install DVD (A good example of what we mean by “technical”)

Install Windows (of course)

Backup and restore your PC (There's a chance of losing files, so it's a good idea to do a backup of anything you want to save.)

Set up a network

It can be glitchy—so don't use a PC you need every day.

Minimum recommended specs call for:

1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor

1 GB of system memory

16 GB of available disk space

Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128 MB memory (to enable the Aero theme)

DVD-R/W Drive

Internet access (to download the Beta and get updates)

And yes, like anything tech-related, these specs could change.

Some product features of Windows 7, such as the ability to watch and record live TV or navigation through the use of "touch," may require advanced or additional hardware.

You'll need a system recovery disk (and know how to use it).

You're [almost] flying solo: you'll need to troubleshoot problems yourself and call on other Beta testers for their know-how.

It's a two-way thing—Beta testing is about feedback so our developers can fix bugs and hear what appeals to the people who use our products daily. Please tell us what you think.

Watch the calendar. The Beta expires on August 1, 2009. To continue using your PC, please be prepared to reinstall a prior version of Windows or a subsequent release of Windows 7 before the expiration date. (See installation instructions.)

To learn more about the Windows 7 Beta, see Frequently Asked Questions.

Originally Posted by Kaistar

@Mazda: Wow. Nice avatar you've got there.

@Dig: Your posts are, as usual, always worth the read. I've been holding off Vista due to the horror stories I've been hearing. Not to mention the Vista computers I've touched so far hasn't been as responsive as my XP, even though their specs are much better than mine. Probably a large number of reasons as to why it's slower but the horror stories does get to me.

Not to mention I always see game requirements for Vista builds being higher than XP builds.

I'm assuming you've been testing Win7. I've read people saying that Win7 is what Vista was supposed to be. What's your opinion on that? Is it just "Vista" optimized and painted with another fresh coat of paint?

As far as horror stories go, the majority of them were most likely written up back when many hardware manufacturers had not yet released proper Vista drivers, causing incompatibility and performance issues. Aside from Creative sound card issues I had several months ago (had to conduct tons of independent troubleshooting to get it all fixed), my Vista experience hasn't been rough. You just have to be prepared to work through kinks and and after that it should be smooth sailing. What really sucks about Vista is how Microsoft tries to micromanage the way you use your computer. They proved this by removing many simple and user-friendly options that were present in XP.

But if you're still on XP at this point, I don't think there is a point to switching over to Vista anymore, especially if W7 is really as fast and responsive as testers are saying.

Me? I'll wait for the final build and then some

Yes, Win7 seems to boot up much faster, or at least makes the computer available for use quicker, while still loading up stuff.

As far as "switching over" to Win7 from XP - I would not advise that for most people if the XP system is more than a couple years old, and built for XP.

Minimum recommended specs call for:

1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor

Hmmm, I wonder how easy it would be to find a 32-bit processor these days!