Reviewing the first beta of an important release like Windows 7 is never an easy job to do. A confouding factor is that many people have already made up their mind about Windows 7; not because they have tried it, but because it's a Microsoft product, and therefore it sucks. At OSNews we try to judge products by their own merits, not by the parent company that created it. Read on for a set of impressions regarding the Windows 7 beta.

Hardware

• Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz with HyperThreading
• 2GB DDR RAM
• NVIDIA GeForce 6200 128MB RAM
• IDE 125GB HDD
• CMI-8738 sound chip

Introduction

Two years ago, Microsoft released Windows Vista, as the successor to Windows XP, the much-maligned, but in the end quite popular operating system. Windows Vista wasn't a very pleasant operating system to use early on its lifetime. It was slow, full of bugs, and had various software and hardware compatibility issues. To make matters worse, Microsoft decided to offer 239472398 different versions, with ever such descriptive names. The cheaper versions had features removed on a seemingly arbitrary basis, and the full monty version was far too expensive for most people.

Under the landslide of problems, it was easy to miss the immense changes Microsoft had made to Windows' inner workings. Vista delivered a completely new network stack, a shiny new audio stack, a new graphics subsystem, system-wide search, a vast list of security features, and many, many other improvements. So many, in fact, that it became painfully obvious that Microsoft had bitten off more than it could chew.

However, as time went on, Microsoft worked hard to improve Vista. The Redmond software giant delivered performance improvements, bug fixes, and fixed all sorts of little niggles. In addition, they tweaked the hated (but very successful) User Account Control to show less prompts, which made the first few days after a new Vista installation a little less clickety-clickety. Many people concluded that Vista was an infrastructure release, on which Microsoft would build future versions of Windows. Vista was the cut-off point, the sour apple they had to bite through in order to modernise the Windows platform.

Details regarding Vista's successor soon emerged, but they were few and far in between. The new Windows chief, Sinofsky, kept a very tight lid on what information came out of Redmond regarding the next Windows release, having learned from the Vista debacle where the company promised more than it could deliver. No more promises, no more disappointments. The few details that did make it out made it clear that Microsoft wasn't planning yet another massive restructuring of Windows: Windows 7, as it would be called, would build on top of Vista, and offer various refinements all across the board.

Since then, the Engineering 7 weblog has kept us up to date on Windows 7's development, and offered various insights into why certain decisions were made during its development. The first public demonstrations of Windows 7 were met with fairly positive reviews all over the technology media, and the enthusiast crowd was eager to get their hands on the first Windows beta.

Setup

Installing the Windows 7 beta isn't exactly very spectacular. If it weren't for the new fancy boot screen, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were installing Windows Vista. This isn't a bad thing; the Windows Vista installation routine is efficient, easy, yet still powerful enough to allow for partition editing and the likes. Obviously, various repair and recovery tools are also available from the disc, much like Windows Vista. Basically the only difference is the inclusion of the HomeGroup setup dialog - more on that later.

It's probably pointless to note, but I will continue to mention it in Windows reviews until someone in Redmond takes notice: Windows 7 still acts like a big bully when it comes to the master boot record, the hopelessly outdated and incomprehensibly vulnerable section of your hard drive where the boot loader (or at least, part of it) is stored. Windows 7 continues the behaviour of the releases that came before it by bluntly, without asking, overwriting your MBR and destroying everything in it. Most OS enthusiasts will curse Microsoft along with me for this.

Microsoft, fix this. This is a bug. Bugs need to be fixed.

One of the most pleasant surprises with modern Windows releases is how good the system has become at finding the right drivers. Windows Vista already fully supported my computer, using Windows Update to install the two drivers that weren't included on the disk. Windows 7 continues this trend, and my machine was again fully supported. This is a joy compared to Windows XP, where you have to spend quite some time and clicks looking for and installing drivers.

Microsoft has taken this a step further by including a new tool called Devices & Printers. This is a central location to manage all your devices and drivers, similar to the Device Manager, but much easier to use and more pleasant to look at. If a device isn't working, there's a new troubleshooting framework in place that can fix many common issues with devices, such as reinstalling drivers, finding new ones, and so on. You can still use the device manager if you wish, but Devices & Printers is a lot less intimidating to use, and according to Paul Thurrot, more advanced as well; apparently, Devices & Printers can fix issues device manager cannot.

As always, this is a mileage-may-vary case, but on my hardware, looking for and installing drivers is a thing of the past when it comes to Windows (welcome to the Modern World, Windows, I hope you enjoy your stay). It will be interesting to see if my slightly more exotic Aspire One is supported in a similar manner.

Enter code here   Nickname:  Email:  Message:

cranze

Re:Review: Windows 7 Beta Nov 19 2009 13:03:28 Heh, I think we have all experienced the Windows slow-down problem. For me, Vista does it more than XP, but I like Aero ( though it ain't no Compiz ). Maybe I'll just buy WindowBlinds and go back to XP, who knows. In any event, I'm preparing to install MacOS X 10.5.1 (Kalyway) in place of my no-longer-compatible OS X 10.4.6 ( jasper ) [ yeah, I *DO* own a MacOS X license - for 10.4, anyway ]. If 10.5.1 works well enough, I'll see if I should buy a new license... I support the software I *WANT* to use Seriously though, I have only met one OS which seems to get faster with time, and that is BeOS. Though I'm sure that is merely delusional - everything else is just sooo slow... ( everything else, of course, can do much more as well ). Of course, I'm probably one of the few people who can say that BeOS has been their primary OS since the day the demo CD came out And most likely the only one to honestly state that it supports my configuration better than any other OS out there. Seriously! BeOS is the ONLY OS which can access every partition's data. Can't always write though . It also is the only OS which uses my 9600 Pro AnW without issue. No other OS can use the video in - at all. Not XP, Vista, MacOS, Linux - nothing. Just BeOS. I'd understand that if I had flashed the card's BIOS, but I never have ( though I may for MacOS X, if needed ). Oh well, I'm rambling....

#28