mac sucks balls

Linux works.

And as I have mentioned before, some of the flashy bits in Vista  (in one form or another) were stolen from Ubuntu. 

Now, I installed Windows 7 last night just before going to bed.  Looks pretty much the same as Vista and the taskbar is bollocks.  It couldn't find drivers for my onboard LAN card, which is strange as it has installed drivers for everything else.  (Note, Ubuntu gets everything working just fine, even with the Live *CD*... Windows really are being retarded on that front...)  The big major issue I have is that the Windows Boot Loader that got installed has screwed around with everything.  I did a fresh install of Ubuntu earlier on this evening (to upgrade to the latest Ubuntu) but GRUB couldn't install because M$hit really are being annoyingly dictatorial retarded.  I had heard of some issues with Vista, but looks like they've not changed anything (perhaps even taken a step backwards).  Fortunately, due to the way I set up the hardware I can still access XP, but it does mean I have to change the BIOS everytime I want to load up the other OS.  That is, until I annihilate the Win7 boot loader and install a decent boot loader, i.e. one that works properly, for instance GRUB. 

So far, I'm not seeing any differences with Vista - either cosmetically or under the hood.  This is going to be another major disappointment and could get messy.

BTW:

Up until recently my secondary computer had Ubuntu installed. Before that it had around _10_ different OSes installed.
Ubuntu, through my experience, crashes more then Windows 7.

I have used FreeBSD for years, and am not against using Linux if the situation is right.

Linux has so many problems, its just a shame it was adopted. If something more suitable had been adopted instead, then Windows 7 (and Mac OS X 10.5) would be magnitudes greater then they are...

I prefer Fanatic . But otherwise i agree with you.

"So far i've installed it on 3 computers. My primary and secondary PCs, and my fathers PC. All 3 detected everything, including full 3D support at the highest resolution, with multi-monitors, and excellent performance. Whats that, Linux can't compete? Dang."

Ubuntu detects everything for me.  Its Windows 7 which didn't detect the onboard LAN.  Ubuntu 1, Windows 7 0.

"GRUB is shit."

GRUB works.  Unfortunately, people complained about the Vista bootloader and MS hasn't been listening.  There's still issues with it. 

"You obviously don't know how to use a computer then :S."

I do know how to work a computer.  Windows 7 beta, apparently, doesn't. 

"Your 100% anti-microsoft. You had made up your mind before you even tried the beta..."

I'm partially anti-microsoft, mainly because of the way they go about their business.  But I was hoping for a decent turn out on this operating system and I was willing to believe that Win7 would be different.  Its why I chose to test out the beta.  But I'm more anti-stupidity and anti-rubbish.  Vista was rubbish and poor.  In important ways, Ubuntu is light years ahead of Windows, but I do accept that Ubuntu is not a perfect operating system - no operating system is.  But by means of comparison, Ubuntu is much better at operating my systems which, afterall, is the *primary* concern of an operating system. 

Oh, and if Ubuntu crashed more times than Windows 7 did, then I'd argue that you can't operate a computer properly.  I've never had any issues with either XUbuntu (running XFCE desktop environment on an old work PC) or Ubuntu (using the Gnome desktop environment) on both my home and newer work PCs.

For me, Win2k was the best windows. After that, microsoft started to overprotect users and it went downhill..
Vista's a great example for that. In a poor attempt to deal with the malware and other crap, they got into the most annoying feature ever implemented that we know so far, the uac. Of course, it could be turned off, but it can't be uninstalled.
For me, Windows has been nibbling away all your options. You used to be able to install whatever features you want, Vista offers none (apart from some irrelevant ones)..
Also, they started to change the control panel and control menus so much it has become all cluttery and dissentered, like the handy "properties" box when you right clicked your desktop. I never understood that... People were used to it for ages, it worked perfectly, why would you try and change that? As Skoe said it: if it isn't borked, don't touch it. However, MS decided it needed to change, to be more in line with their new look..

As I see it, I'm a man without a platform. I loved OS/2, but it didn't make it into the 21st century (eComStation's nowhere near OS/2's quality). Win2k was a great alternative, but windows has went downhill (I think we can agree on that). Even though Windows 7 is better than Vista, it's still too big, unmodifiable and overprotective (you can't manually edit certain files!!). I'm no fan of the linux alternative either. Linux has its issues, and although it's a wonderful project I admire, it doesn't cut it for me. BeOS is dead, although Haiku exists, but that project's not finished either...

As long as I can, I'll be working with XP, as it does work with my current hardware.. But I can't stay there forever, and I'll need a new platform in the future.. I do hope ReactOS will be ready-ish by that time

It doesn't need to be 20GB. I'm using examples there Schniepel. I think it should be possible to remove features you don't want, rather than to leave them taking in unneeded space on the harddisk. I'm talking about features like paint, IE, wingames, external desktop, filelocker, media player and so on.. They should all be removable. And yes the AUC can be turned off, but only to a certain extend. It still protects you from editing boot.ini for example and it still hides "superhidden" files..

You claim it was a demanded security feature, I doubt it. I think what the people were really waiting for was a more secure windows, wich the UAC didn't really bring. Te most attacked feature of windows is IE, if they wanted to do something about that, they could have modified the way windows handles IE, or at least allow you to completely remove it..
Altough, the main problem is that most computer users are complete noobs that click yes on any window they see to get rid of it. I don't think Windows is horribly unsafe, I think most users are just rather dumb. Microsoft should realise that and perhaps configure their windows accordingly. A professional edition where you can configure and alter a lot more then in a regular edition.

"In benchmarks Win 7 outperformed both.. win vista and win xp."

I think it's still too soon to conclude that. And it doesn't say all. A few weeks ago I read that win2k was the fastest in accessing data, and all that. Performance is a total package, not just some random set of better benchmarks.

"when i rightclic on my desktop now.. i see its called customize instead of properties now.. but the things u can change are still the same."

it's not the same. It used to be a handy tabbed window, while it's an obnoxious large window now, wich split the tabs up in different windows. It's unpractical, it's unneeded.. It's just implemented to fit their new graphical style.

"I am very sure i read some interview with some developer who said that so far Windows allways came in with all "doors open" which ment some extra administrational work"

If you mean ports, they still are

"About the software like IE and such.. ok .. it for sure would be no big deal for the developers to implement an option where u can choose which programs to install and whcih not... i remember that was possible with win 95,98,me i think."

It isn't possible in Vista, so I doubt it'll be in 7, although, the EU might help that.

Anyway, my point is that Microsoft slowly takes away our modification options. Seven needs 16 GB to install, makes a sort of backup system on your disk (ready to be attacked by crackers, I'm sure) while we have nothing to say about anything anymore. Sure, it makes installing a bit easier (although it was never hard), but it makes windows fat. Half the things, I don't even want on my computer, and I really hate that...

You can't remove components by going to add/remove programs and then choosing "add/remove windows components" in Vista? I haven't even looked at that in Vista yet.

You can do it in XP i know for sure (since im there right now )

Okay, now for the real replies...

> For me, Win2k was the best windows.

Thats a good point, because i used Windows 2000 quite a bit long, long ago. Windows 2003 though was just as stable, and even more feature packed.

> After that, microsoft started to overprotect users and it went downhill..

Agreed.

> As I see it, I'm a man without a platform.

Ignoring Windows 7, i agree.

FreeBSD just doesn't cut it anymore, Linux isn't for me, Solaris is worse off then Linux, Mac OS X wont work on my hardware (legally), BeOS is dead, Syllable is icky, etc. etc. etc.

That leaves Haiku and (maybe) ReactOS. Neither will be real competitors within the next 2-3 years. At least.

> In benchmarks Win 7 outperformed both.. win vista and win xp.

Benchmarks are hard to justify, but heres one:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

There are more useful just to look at and talk about, then actual raw numbers of provability!

> IE

IE is shit. They keep adding features, and dont allow you to uninstall it...I never said Windows 7 was perfect .
Microsoft has along way to go.

The first way would be to create a kind of package system. I could go into more detail, but i'm afraid it'd be a waste of time.

No you cant really, but AFAIK the EULA for the first beta prohibits benchmarks.