30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
30.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 21:40
30.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 21:40
Nov 9, 2008, 21:40
 
Is the "Up" button back in Windows Explorer?

Doesn't look like it is.

http://www.gottabemobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/windows7explorer.jpg
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
29.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 20:45
29.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 20:45
Nov 9, 2008, 20:45
 
I wish we could go back to the IBM OS/2 vs MS Win95 wars, they were far more entertaining.

And who cares if you're a software developer or not? Do you know how many programmers I've supported that couldn't troubleshoot themselves out of a wet paper bag?

Anyways, I was hoping to jump from W2K and go to Vista, but I had to get XP for DX9 support. Now I'll just leap frog Vista and hit Windows 7. Maybe.

Too bad they didn't decide to completely nix the 32bit versions, maybe W8 will do it.


Avatar 19418
28.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 19:57
nin
28.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 19:57
Nov 9, 2008, 19:57
nin
 
A quick list of known things about Windows 7:

Is the "Up" button back in Windows Explorer?
27.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 15:02
27.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 15:02
Nov 9, 2008, 15:02
 
Well... the last couple of weeks has brought a lot of news of Windows 7, between PDC and WinHEC.

The major question is... is it just "Vista" + Service Pack 3? (Vista SP2 is supposed to be available before Windows 7 is released)

A quick list of known things about Windows 7:
~ Based on Server 2008 kernel (Kernel version will be 6.1, not 7.x)
~ Uses same driver model as Vista to not break compatibility
~ Supports Virtual Machines out of the box (Can mount .VHD files)
~ Uses video card memory to not chew up system RAM for multiple open windows.
~ Has a smaller memory footprint than Vista.
~ Bundled apps have been upgraded to ribbon interface (Paint, Wordpad, etc.)
~ Some apps are no longer bundled, yet will still be available via Windows Live (Movie Maker, etc.)
~ Supposedly a more modular install (Not much detail on this)
~ Performance is better than Vista and Resource usage is low enough to run on a Netbook (Atom processor and 1GB of RAM)
~ The taskbar is gone... it's now a dock with "jump lists" (Way to steal from Apple or KDE4)
~ Sidebar is gone... gadgets appear on desktop more like OSX.
~ New "Peeking at Windows" feature (A poor man's OSX expose)
~ More control over the system tray (Less annoyance, can disable pop-up messages and hide stuff)
~ Libraries - Custom views for the file system / explorer (Win-FS Lite (No database)
~ New Device manager called "Device Stage" that vendor can customize options
~ Touch features for mobile devices and tablet notebooks. Better Speech and Handwriting recognition too.
~ Improved boot performance (Parallel driver loading)
~ Improved multi-core performance (Better threading)
~ Powershell scripting environment
~ Internet Explorer 8 (More standards compliant, private browsing, Web Slices, Smart Screen Filter)
~ Better multi-monitor / screen docking support
~ Windows SafeGuard (Basically only allows changes to be temporary if user is non-admin - sand boxing the OS)
~ Better SSD support (Optimized to turn off defrag, do multiple reads, etc.)
~ Better battery life on Notebooks.
~ Better Wireless Network Manager
~ UAC not as annoying, and can be set via a slider - No warnings through full bore
~ Media Player 12 includes DivX, XVid, H.264, and AAC support.
~ In place imaging (Re-image the computer on the fly keeping user settings intact)
~ Bit Locker for removable devices
~ Problem Recorder - User can demonstrate what is done to cause the error and your help desk get's a video and diagnostic log.
~ Remote Access via HTTPS and RPC, but implemented differently. Can cache as well.
~ Accelerators - Right click (or voice command) options on selected text.
~ Workspaces (virtual desktops like Linux or OSX Spaces)
~ Windows credentials (A keyring for all your passwords)
~ DirectX 11 (whooptiedoo)

While I really don't care about the eye-candy crap, the system resource usage and the troubleshooters for supporting end users has raised my eyebrow. These are the two key areas I will be watching, and will determine whether or not I upgrade to Windows 7 or not. Also, how "modular" the install will be, is also a factor. There's a lot of bundled garbage that I DON'T want to install.

I think one major mistake is that they will offer both a 32-bit and 64-bit version again. While I do realize that 64-bit driver support is "sketchy", and they don't want to go though compatibility issues that they did with Vista... 64-bit support is being held back as "a second class citizen" which slows the development of drivers and apps for the platform. If they only released 64-bit versions (with VM's for backwards compatibility like Apple did with Rosetta and the PowerPC stuff)... 64-bit development would get a much more rapid implementation.

Still a little over a year to go.... we'll see how it pans out.
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
26.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 11:57
26.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 11:57
Nov 9, 2008, 11:57
 
Vista's security has indeed improved and that's something I will give them credit for (with the exception of the botched UAC implementation.) However, one of the main reasons XP got exploited so much is because Microsoft stupidly shipped it with the firewall DISABLED until SP2. Most of the most major XP related viruses like Blaster and Sasser would never have taken off if this one thing was done from the beginning. Obviously Vista has made some other big improvements as well and I will fully give credit where credit's due there. Security is one area where I've always said Vista does it best, though it does get just as many patch Tuesday updates as XP. But it was also through general stupidity on Microsoft's part that XP had so many holes in it to begin with.
Parallax Abstraction
Twitch | YouTube | Podcast
Avatar 13614
25.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 11:08
25.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 11:08
Nov 9, 2008, 11:08
 
XP was incredibly insecure out-of-the-box, as evidenced by the incredible number of exploits... some not even needing any user interaction. Vista has had no such issues and has proved itself to be very secure. It's easy to overlook such things because they happened 5-6yrs ago but that doesn't stop them being true.

Vista is not without its issues but I find it better than XP in most ways and couldn't go back. The breadcrumb bar, search features, improved driver handling (searching online), DX10, backup features, interface, crash handling (applications fade out rather than taking out the system), etc.

you lost me completely when you started quoting Paul Thurrott as any kind of unbiased source of information on Windows or Microsoft
Whoever said Paul Thurrott wasn't biased? The point is that he has a useful preview of the new features in Win7.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
24.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 11:02
24.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 11:02
Nov 9, 2008, 11:02
 
That's pretty much my view on Vista now. I do actually recommend that people purchase it on new PCs that are built for it because with SP1 and some of the updates since, it runs fairly well now and the continuing issues I mentioned earlier only affect a small group of people. I never recommend people buy the lowest end PCs they can find and its only that lower bracket that still doesn't run Vista well. This is something that existed in the XP era as well since obviously, it takes a few years before hardware evolves to the point where even a low end PC is pretty beefy for the current-gen OS.

At any rate, there's no point on my end from arguing it anymore with someone who says I'm using my credentials to beef up my point while doing the same thing in the next paragraph. Obviously, our anecdotal experiences are different and that's fine. While I would argue that the experience of a software developer is different than that of someone who does on-site support in customer's homes with their actual PCs, I don't know what kind of software you develop so you may be more on the front line of the issue than I realize.

My main point isn't that Vista still sucks because I don't believe it does. It is that Microsoft did drop the ball with it at launch and the lousy reputation they are working to shed is one that they earned initially. There's no other reason for them to be pushing Windows 7 out so fast than to try to bandaid Vista's PR image (which I also concede wasn't helped by those snotty Apple attack ads that overblow the problems) and while I get where they're coming from, I think it will frustrate consumers more than satisfy them. But we shall see.
Parallax Abstraction
Twitch | YouTube | Podcast
Avatar 13614
23.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 08:12
DG
23.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 08:12
Nov 9, 2008, 08:12
DG
 
I know it's trendy to bash Vista and everything, but unless you have a need for one of the features cut for Vista, or need direct x 10, there's not that much between them IMO. I prefer Vista, it is noticably better at multitasking and boots faster (on my PC).

I understand there was initially a lot of hardware compatibility issues initially, but having started on Vista SP1 (64 bit) I've had no issues at all. Well OK, UAC was quite a nuisance in the first two weeks.

However, IMO it's not worth upgrading if you already have XP, unless you have some specific need or have so much cash that it's worth spending for the marginal benefit. It's also likely not worth it on the low end PC's still on sale (2gb is fine, 4gb ram is where it flies, but some places still try to sell PC's with 1gb).

If you have a big corporate network there's barely anything to upgrade for and it would only introduce a significant job to be done, hassle learning the new ropes and worst of all, potential additional downtime.

They really need to stop making 32 bit OS's though.
Avatar 14793
22.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 03:36
22.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 03:36
Nov 9, 2008, 03:36
 
I'm not attacking your credentials. I'm attacking your using your credentials as a fallacious appeal to authority to make your arguments seem more substantial than they actually are. Like I said, I don't give a shit about your credentials because:

1) I have friends who work for Microsoft, seeing that I myself am a professional software developer in the industry, and know firsthand that there are numerous, third-party, scientific, unbiased studies that show that the vast majority of people who actually *USE* Vista enjoy it. Rather than your limited supply of anecdotal evidence, I'll continue to happily believe such evidence until another scientific study with as much validity demonstrates anything close to your claim.

And 2), If you do truly believe that the first year and a half of Vista's life was worse than XP's, then yes, I'll happily go back on what I said before and admit that now I'm attacking your credentials. You are blind to history if you believe this. Between the blaster worm and other similar worms, the security vulnerabilities of Windows XP are phenomenally unparalleled. Nothing like them had ever been seen before, nothing like them have ever been seen since. It wasn't until Service Pack 2 in 2004, nearly 3 years after XP's release, that the OS was remotely capable of stable, secure, speedy usage.

That, compounded with compatibility issues and performance problems that were far worse than anything Vista has seen, makes anyone who thinks to the contrary impossibly unqualified to make any statements whatsoever that can be taken seriously on the subject.

This comment was edited on Nov 9, 2008, 03:40.
21.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 9, 2008, 03:13
21.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 9, 2008, 03:13
Nov 9, 2008, 03:13
 
Dude, you lost me most of the way when you started attacking my credentials rather than debating my points and you lost me completely when you started quoting Paul Thurrott as any kind of unbiased source of information on Windows or Microsoft. That man is about as impartial to that company as Fox News is to Republicans. For your information, I used to listen to Windows Weekly which I stopped doing after about the 10th time he was attacking Vista critics as whiners for complaining about problems he didn't want ot believe existed but which I saw with my own eyes. That combined with Leo Laporte backing him up on that podcast while slamming Vista on his other ones sealed that deal for me. I really don't care if you think I'm qualified as the response from my customers and the success of my company proves you wrong. I'm happy to debate Vista with you but learn to argue without going the route of attacking the person rather than the points. It just makes you look like you don't really believe what you're saying.

This comment was edited on Nov 9, 2008, 03:15.
Parallax Abstraction
Twitch | YouTube | Podcast
Avatar 13614
20.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 8, 2008, 19:01
20.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 8, 2008, 19:01
Nov 8, 2008, 19:01
 
I'm glad I didn't pay full price for Vista. I picked up Home Premium for $50 at CompUSA when they closed my local store. I still haven't installed it, or even opened the package. Maybe I should go ahead and sell it on ebay and wait for Win7.
"You can either want something to be true, or you can want the truth. Pick one." - Mr. Diety
Avatar 17277
19.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 8, 2008, 17:54
19.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 8, 2008, 17:54
Nov 8, 2008, 17:54
 
@Parallax Abstraction

Personally, I don't give a crap how long you've been in this field or how many computers you've built. I'm a professional software developer as well, but I'm not throwing my credentials around trying to win by appeal to authority.

You don't need super high-end systems to get benchmarks that show games running faster on Vista than XP. A modest Core 2 Duo and an average 3870 will do exactly that:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

I've never denied UAC's problems, or that Vista at all has problems. In fact, the very Paul Thurrott and Ed Bott you bring up have fully recognized such problems time and time again, and you would have noticed that had you ever read or listened to anything they've done, instead of make baseless assumptions.

Next, you're a fucking moron, completely unworthy of your IT job, if you think that Vista's launch was worse than XP's. You shouldn't even remotely consider yourself qualified. Windows XP had so many absolutely terrible issues, from security, to compatibility, to performance, and more, that Vista didn't even come close to having. Take off the blinders and see for yourself:

http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/06/30/hasta-la-vista-windows-xp.aspx

And that's just the first few months, not even the first year. Until Service Pack 2, XP was an absolute disaster in every way. Vista was a fully capable OS mere months after its release.

To answer the actual question about what's new and appealing in Windows 7, I see plenty - performance improvements, a new taskbar that looks very appealing to use, device stage, and more. Paul Thurrott, that guy you seem to disregard so needlessly and so offhand without being accurate about your criticisms toward him, put together a nice 5-part summary detailing what we know so far:

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_preview.asp

Not a complete list, and sure, it won't appeal to everyone, but the stuff appeals to *ME*, which is why I'm excited for Windows 7. And after downloading the leaked 6801 and using the hack to enable the taskbar, I'm even more excited after using it myself.

And finally, you have your own anecdotal evidence, just as I have mine, but both are meaningless compared to actual, unbiased, third-party research done on the acceptance of Windows Vista. Unsurprisingly, you would find, the vast majority of people who *ACTUALLY USE* Vista happen to enjoy it. Call bullshit all you want on this claim, but plenty of my friends work at Microsoft and have seen the marketing reports that verify exactly this. I personally don't care if you believe me or not, but I have absolutely nothing to gain by lying out of my ass.


But why would I want to pay for stuff I can't see and get no real benefit from? Sure it performs slightly better and has a redesigned taskbar but does that really justify the money. It's of little concern whether OSX users are happy to shell out for an upgrade but I demand more.

That said, we don't yet know if there are to be more major features added or if they can dramatically improve performance on similar spec machines. It's either than or it has to be cheaper. I'm still optimistic because Microsoft isn't simply jumping on the marketing bandwagon but is improving the user experience.
This is a completely fair argument. I fully agree that it needs to prove itself before making anyone think it's worth upgrading to. But based on what I've seen in my own usage, and based on nearly every hands-on report around the web, it'll easily be worth the ~$120 upgrade for me.
18.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 8, 2008, 16:51
18.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 8, 2008, 16:51
Nov 8, 2008, 16:51
 
Again, the exact same thing could be said about every release of OS X - where are the main features? Instead, it's a whole shitload of behind-the-scenes improvements, thousands upon thousands of improved dialogs, systems, and processes, optimized performance, and more. I don't understand what more you could ask out of a new OS release.
But why would I want to pay for stuff I can't see and get no real benefit from? Sure it performs slightly better and has a redesigned taskbar but does that really justify the money. It's of little concern whether OSX users are happy to shell out for an upgrade but I demand more.

That said, we don't yet know if there are to be more major features added or if they can dramatically improve performance on similar spec machines. It's either than or it has to be cheaper. I'm still optimistic because Microsoft isn't simply jumping on the marketing bandwagon but is improving the user experience.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
17.
 
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009
Nov 8, 2008, 15:44
17.
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009 Nov 8, 2008, 15:44
Nov 8, 2008, 15:44
 
If I want a Media library going to a TV...

Then you want a PS3, and no need for Vista or Windows 7. PS3 is kinda shit for games but as a media device, nothings better. One total MPAA BS, PS3 scales video to 1080 unless its a DVD then because of the protection it will not scale, but rip the shit\DRM out of your movies and burn a backup and you can play your DVDs in 1080.


My issue with windows 7 as someone who own Vista. This is really like a big service pack for Vista. Seriously. So people that bought Vista are basically paying for it twice.

Heh so Vista has turned out to be another Windows ME, I'll stick with my XP.


Avatar 21539
16.
 
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009
Nov 8, 2008, 15:38
16.
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009 Nov 8, 2008, 15:38
Nov 8, 2008, 15:38
 
Vista's DRM is solely there for the ability to play protected content. The DRM doesn't run, doesn't use any cycles of the CPU whatsoever if you're not playing protected content. If the implementation wasn't there, you wouldn't have the option of playing protected content.

Please, keep the retarded FUD out of this thread. Benchmarks show that now, with SP1 and the latest drivers, games in Vista perform as good as or better than games on an identical XP system. It's quite obvious to anyone who's used it that your complaints with Vista are essentially all-out false.

You are wrong. Protected pathway chews CPU cycles whether you are playing "premium content" or not. It's part of the kernel and constantly runs checks. This is why your CPU constantly spikes to 10% at desktop idle.

I've V-Lited Vista... stripped out all the garbage... and still with only a 350MB RAM footprint (superfetch off and a ton of services truned off) it was still spiking the CPU, AND it RAN FRICKEN SLOWER, with all the crap stripped out. (As opposed to an n-lited XP with a 60MB RAM footprint (100MB-ish with nVidia Drivers and Audio Drivers) that runs even faster with the crap stipped out.

Read this:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

And yes, I know the MS Shills have tried to discredit Gutmann's white paper... but as for my tests, I've found it mostly to be right on target.

Server 2008 doesn't have that bullshit in it's kernel. (Or it's truly disabled, if premium content isn't running)

Workstation 2008 might be a viable option for a gamer that doesn't want his / her system resources hogged by the OS. (If Windows 7 doesn't fix this)

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

Maybe if you actually tried TESTING, instead of "just running, and believing what MS Shills Publish" you'd know the difference.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2008, 15:45.
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
15.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 8, 2008, 13:37
15.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 8, 2008, 13:37
Nov 8, 2008, 13:37
 
Again, the exact same thing could be said about every release of OS X - where are the main features? Instead, it's a whole shitload of behind-the-scenes improvements, thousands upon thousands of improved dialogs, systems, and processes, optimized performance, and more. I don't understand what more you could ask out of a new OS release.

Are you ever going to actually answer anyone's questions about Windows 7 or are you just going to keep turning the argument around to compare it to a completely different OS on a completely different platform that's irrelevant to PC users? Who cares how Apple does OS updates? We aren't using Macs. I don't really care what benchmarks you cite frankly (all of which are always done on bleeding edge new hardware), I've setup and configured almost 500 Vista based machines of the general consumer level in the last two years and while Vista has come a LONG way from launch, it still has problems.

It does NOT perform as well on XP if you aren't running a high end system, UAC's horrendous implementation is driving people nuts, it churns the hard disk almost constantly, even when it has been idle for many minutes, its DRM is so badly implemented that I've seen is cause constant display driver resets on systems trying to play HD-DVDs that were 100% HDCP compliant and it still has the problem it has had since launch where sometimes when you tell it to shut down, it will say Shutting Down and crank your hard disk endlessly, never actually completing and requiring a power off.

All that said, I am running Vista Ultimate x64 (a free copy I got from Microsoft when I used to work for one of their partners) on a new quad core box and am pretty happy with it. I've had some program compatibility issues (to be expected when going 64-bit) but overall, it has run quite well for me. However, most consumers don't have a box this powerful. Service Pack 1 and some of the updates since it have made leaps and bounds and made Vista much more the OS it should have been when it launched. But it didn't launch that way and most of the stick it has been taken because of that period is well deserved. It was delayed for years and yet still shipped unfinished. I'm not sure why there's so many people who join the ranks of professional Microsoft apologists like Paul Thurrott and Ed Bott who not only continue to insist that Vista is perfect in spite of real world evidence but who seem to be on a mission to attack those who dare to say it didn't work well for them. I've been working in my field for almost 15 years, through the launches of 98, ME, 2000 and XP as well and only ME had the same number of problems at launch as Vista had. Those who say that "every new Windows launch has issues like this" is incorrect. Most others have never been this bad.

If you're having no issues with Vista, I'm happy for you because of many consumers, you're one of the lucky ones. But just because you didn't have any problems with it doesn't mean they don't exist. That Microsoft is releasing Windows 7 (which is at best evolutionary instead of revolutionary) so quickly speaks volumes of how they feel about Vista. I am have worked with a wider variety of Vista systems that anyone here and there's no doubt that it was a mess when it launched and Microsoft is only just now starting to get it to where it should be. Consumers deserved better than that and people like you who dismiss valid concerns as whining are why Microsoft is losing so much good will and why Mac uptake is so strong. They need to keep fixing the problem rather than trying PR bandaids.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2008, 13:42.
Parallax Abstraction
Twitch | YouTube | Podcast
Avatar 13614
14.
 
Microsoft URL for downloading DirectX 9
Nov 8, 2008, 13:32
14.
Microsoft URL for downloading DirectX 9 Nov 8, 2008, 13:32
Nov 8, 2008, 13:32
 
A Microsoft URL for downloading DirectX 9.25.1476

Here

Edited by Frans: properly embedding long links prevents spaced out forum layouts.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2008, 18:46.
13.
 
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009
Nov 8, 2008, 13:18
13.
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009 Nov 8, 2008, 13:18
Nov 8, 2008, 13:18
 
still using xp...and happy with it.
i 'ill upgrade when i need 4GB of RAM to run games.
12.
 
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009
Nov 8, 2008, 12:58
12.
Re: Windows 7 Shipping Mid-2009 Nov 8, 2008, 12:58
Nov 8, 2008, 12:58
 
My issue with windows 7 as someone who own Vista. This is really like a big service pack for Vista. Seriously. So people that bought Vista are basically paying for it twice.

Yup! Aren't you glad you listened to Microsoft and bought Vista? They did tell you to, after all.

Creston
Avatar 15604
11.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Nov 8, 2008, 12:48
11.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Nov 8, 2008, 12:48
Nov 8, 2008, 12:48
 
Service pack or not if ya bought Vista, and are shelling out for another OS a year or 2 later it's quite expensive.

That being said if you purchased Vista, ya get no sympathy from me.
Why the fuck would I want your sympathy? I paid $110 for Vista and have been perfectly happy using it since last summer. It's better than XP in every way - it's faster, more secure, more stable, the instant searching rocks, and more.

For an operating system that I use every single second of every single day on my computer, paying another $100 for Windows 7 2-3 years after the release of Vista is more than worth it.


True, but at this point what does Win7 offer in terms of main features? A redesigned taskbar and trivial features like Aero Shake. I'm running VistaU64 and, as I said earlier, I really like the way Win7 is progressing (focusing on the user experience) but it's going to need some big features to get me to spend more money. I do hope they've saving the best for last or that it will be considerably cheaper, even if only as an upgrade to Vista.
Again, the exact same thing could be said about every release of OS X - where are the main features? Instead, it's a whole shitload of behind-the-scenes improvements, thousands upon thousands of improved dialogs, systems, and processes, optimized performance, and more. I don't understand what more you could ask out of a new OS release.

Paul Thurrott does have a pretty nice 5-part writeup of what's new, but even it doesn't have anything Windows 7 will be offering - http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_preview.asp
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older