Lets keep track of the Windows 7 developments here

Neowin - Microsoft Expects to deliver 2 RC builds for Windows 7
Windows 7 Blog - Changes Since Beta for the RC
Windows 7 Blog - More Changes Since Beta for the RC

I'll stick with XP till 7 SP1. 7 is based on Vista is Vista is fail

^Why is Vista fail?

New features for RDP in 7

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/03/16...erformance

Below are the features introduced in Windows 7 Remote Desktop Client
Windows 7 Aero support
Direct 2D & Direct 3D 10.1 application support
True multi-monitor support
RDP Core Performance Improvements
Multimedia enhancements
Media Foundation support
DirectShow support
Low Latency audio playback support
Bi-directional audio support

3D support that includes full Aero, HD movie playback, and possibly games over RDP ?
Also, I believe RDP works with all the processing done on the remote side, so I'm gonna be trying to RDP to my desktop with my laptop and see if I can play games on my laptop that I would normally need my desktop for...

Windows 7 is gonna be great

Judah Wrote:Vista is fail

I feel that half of people who say this sort of stuff just say it because everyone else does.

I actually quite like vista. So do noobs who have no idea what is going on. & there are more noobs then there are power users. << the people who MS should be marketing their stuff towards.

Vista is bloated and offers very little real features over XP in my opinion. Do you remember Windows ME? Same deal, its a flop and even M$ know it. I mean why does it need double the RAM that XP needs to do the same thing? Why are M$ cutting all XP sales when there is still a big demand for it? Why are they rushing the release of 7 so there isn't much time between XP's unavailablity and 7s release?

Don't really see how Vista is bloated.. consider that many linux distros have mass more 'bloat' available to install on them.

Vista has quite a few real valuable features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_ne...dows_Vista). I know

Vista runs fine on about 1GB of ram the same as XP with all its updates installed -- high RAM usage is in fact by design (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html).

MS are cutting sales of XP because is an old (8 years) antiquated O/S (doesn't even support more than 4GB or RAM)

It would be more accurate to compare Vista to 2000 [An OS that made significant changes under the hood for stability, security and performance] and Windows 7 to XP [Windows 2000 with minor tweaks to increase performance and usability]

Vista got a lot of bad Hype for some reason (mainly because vendors didnt have drivers ready -- To Microsoft's credit they tried -- co-authoring 19,000 drivers for legacy hardware on the Vista DVD and and by Launch another 15,000 via Windows Update)

With Windows 7 they've worked even more with vendors and customers on drivers (Forcing ISVs to consider Windows 7 drivers by not signing Vista drivers unless they are accompanied by Windows 7 testing results) -- look at the changes made between Beta and RC -- the reasons for most of them are because users complained that certain features were not there or not easy to access.

It's been almost years since Windows Vista was released (SP2 will be coming out in a couple months) so its not unusual for Microsoft to release a new O/S every 3 years (eg: Windows 95 - Windows 98)

Ubuntu being the most bloated, still runs faster than Vista. The majority of the new features are visual changes, and shouldn't really be viewed as improvements as such. But that is largely just my opinion, and I'm sure the average user appreciates a lot of the changes. I read that the drivers issue at launch was largely because of the high fee to get the Vista Compatible" badge slapped on your product. The average user needs to browse the net, watch vids and get their emails, and XP does all of that just fine on quarter of the specs Vista needs, and it doesn't need anything near to it's 4 gig limit. As I understand it, Vista pre-loads apps, to launch them faster. But then it has less to play with when it suddenly needs it. If that memory usage feature were disable-able then there wouldn't be such an issue with lower spec machines. But perhaps this discussion should all be in a separate thread?

Quote:Vista has quite a few real valuable features

And don't forget all the technical changes to the core OS that you don't notice, like:

Transactional NTFS allows multiple file/folder operations to be treated as a single operation, so that a crash or power failure won't result in half-completed file writes.

and

Windows Vista features Prioritized I/O which allows developers to set application I/O priorities for read/write disk operations, similar to how currently application processes/threads can be assigned CPU priorities.[42] I/O has been enhanced with I/O asynchronous cancellation and I/O scheduling based on thread priority. Background applications running in low priority I/O do not disturb foreground applications. Applications like Windows Defender, Automatic Disk Defragmenter and Windows Desktop Search (during indexing) already use this feature. Windows Media Player 11 also supports this technology to offer glitch-free multimedia playback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_f...dows_Vista

Quote:Vista pre-loads apps, to launch them faster. But then it has less to play with when it suddenly needs it

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

This link from dw is a good one, you should read it.

I skimmed through it and I notice that the test is running on 2 gigs of RAM. Vista operates much differently on say, half a gig. That’s why that feature should be configurable, or disable-able. How often do you open all those silly things like Notepad, WordPad, Paint, Calculator, ect. Vista is wasting RAM just like XP, it is just doing it differently