Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Beta Released To Public After Delay

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the join-the-queue-or-ubuntu dept.

Windows 848

Z80xxc! writes "The Windows 7 Beta release is now available for download by the general public, in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Microsoft had previously announced availability around 3 PM PST on Friday, but after unexpected numbers of people proved to be interested in the download, had to postpone it to add more servers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All that trouble... (2, Funny)

numbski (515011) | about 6 years ago | (#26401091)

...and we still don't care. :P

Re:All that trouble... (0, Flamebait)

BSAtHome (455370) | about 6 years ago | (#26401105)

Indeed, this should probably be in idle.

Well, you SHOULD care... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401511)

I'm glad I don't have a whole country full of deceitful, greedy kikes stealing all my water and land anywhere near me. Fucking Jews can't just live in peace. They have to steal other people's land. Our national economy is collapsing from the Jewbanks doing their usual Jewthing. You see, with Jews, you lose. That's how THEY win. They WIN by making YOU lose. So let's lose the Jews.

Global warming could be swiftly solved if we incinerated all of the Jews. Their ashes would be ejected into the upper atmosphere, where they would block some sunlight from hitting the earth. The economy would improve thanks to the absence of Jewish predatory lending, and it would buy us time to deal with climate change. Two birds, one stone.

Fun with Facts:

  • Isreal has a Jewish population of 5,309,000.
  • America has a Jewish population of 5,275,000.

Guess who really owns America? Hint hint, it isn't the Americans.

Re:Well, you SHOULD care... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401639)

Here's another fun fact: the US has an illegal mexican population of 20 million. The US has a nigger population of 40 million. I'll take some greedy jews over lazy niggers and spics who sit around collecting welfare (paid for by hard working white americans!), popping out babies and raping white women.

Or are you a nigger lover? Spic lover? White hater?

Re:All that trouble... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401137)

Of course we do. If you work in a corporation or industry that runs windows then you know that everyone skipped Vista...so we're pretty much guarenteed that windows 7 WILL be adopted come hell or high water...

Download it now because you'll be dealing with in another year or two anyway.

Re:All that trouble... (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 6 years ago | (#26401465)

If you work in a corporation or industry that skipped Vista then you're also going to skip 7 and cling to XP for dear life and/or migrate to *NIX.

The ones who are informed enough to steer clear of Vista are informed enough to know that 7 == Vista.

Re:All that trouble... (2, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 6 years ago | (#26401521)

Not necessarily. It really depends on whether or not Windows 7 is going to run legacy applications that, at this point, have been in use for a decade or more. There are still places that are running DOS because of legacy apps that need to take control of hardware in a way that Windows will not allow...

Re:All that trouble... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | about 6 years ago | (#26401339)

Speak for yourself. I'm quite interested in seeing if I should upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7.

Re:All that trouble... (5, Informative)

halivar (535827) | about 6 years ago | (#26401451)

I'm firmly in favor of the upgrade. iTunes won't work right in Windows XP x64, while it works great in Windows 7. There are a still a few hiccups (it's beta), but it definitely feels like an upgrade.

So far, I've tested the following apps to work perfectly in Windows 7:
- Mozilla Firefox 3.0 (with AdBlock, Flash, and Acrobat Reader)
- Acrobat Reader 9
- GIMP 2.6
- OpenOffice 3
- iTunes (Vista x64)

I can't yet get the drivers for my HP Color LaserJet 2600n working (they're installed, but all tasks are stuck in "pending").

Next up I'm going to install VisualStudio 2K8 and see how that works.

Re:All that trouble... (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 years ago | (#26401545)

Visual Studio 2008 seems to work perfectly - everyone of my projects (C#, .net 3.5) compile and run fine.

Re:All that trouble... (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | about 6 years ago | (#26401475)

Well I do.

Its just a service pack for Vista (0, Troll)

mobynewt (1448447) | about 6 years ago | (#26401115)

Microsoft exec Bill Veghte confirms here that Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10112149-56.html [cnet.com]

Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (5, Funny)

brainiac ghost1991 (853936) | about 6 years ago | (#26401129)

the title of that article is: Microsoft exec: Windows 7 is no service pack

Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (3, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#26401175)

Yes it's a service pack and a theme pack all in one.

Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (1, Informative)

mobynewt (1448447) | about 6 years ago | (#26401203)

Yes, but did you read the article? Everything he said confirms that Windows 7 is nothing but a service pack.

Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (4, Interesting)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#26401343)

I think this part in particular says it all.

One indication of just how neatly Microsoft is trying to thread this needle is the fact that the server unit is saying its version of Windows 7 will be a minor release. The product that had been code-named "Windows 7 Server" is getting the designation Windows Server 2008 R2. The "R2" designation has in the past been used for very minor updates to Microsoft products.

Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (5, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | about 6 years ago | (#26401389)

But what about Mojave? Mojave's AWESOME!

Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (2, Funny)

harry666t (1062422) | about 6 years ago | (#26401583)

No, it's awesome that is AWESOME!


Re:Its just a service pack for Vista (2, Funny)

whitehatlurker (867714) | about 6 years ago | (#26401601)

Do you mean that it is a disservice pack?

Downloading now (1, Flamebait)

SailorSpork (1080153) | about 6 years ago | (#26401127)

By the way, for some reason the user information page (right before the download page) has trouble loading when using Chrome, but works fine in IE. I don't know why this comes as a shock to me...

Why 32-bit? (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#26401141)

I still can't believe there will be a 32-bit version.

No doubt it'll be cheaper and attract more people and companies will cater towards that version more than the 64-bit version.

Re:Why 32-bit? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401163)

Because Intel's Atom CPU is 32-bit, and Microsoft wants 7 to be on netbooks too.

Re:Why 32-bit? (2, Interesting)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 6 years ago | (#26401187)

Then they should call it netbook edition or something like that to steer people away from continuing to use 32-bit desktops.

Re:Why 32-bit? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401443)

Why are you against 32-bit desktops, but ok with 32-bit netbooks? Only if *everyone* runs 64-bit windows will application development become simpler.

Re:Why 32-bit? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401519)

Probably another "more bits is better" specs fanboy.

Re:Why 32-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401595)

Yeah and 640k should be enough for anyone. The "more memory is better" specs fanboys are the only ones who believes otherwise.

Re:Why 32-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401183)

In what way will it be cheaper? And why would Microsoft leave behind the 32 bit market? I don't know about what goes on under your roof but there are tons of 32 bit machines out there. Microsoft makes a killing off the business place and 32 bit is the dominant in that arena.

Re:Why 32-bit? (2, Informative)

ionix5891 (1228718) | about 6 years ago | (#26401213)

answer this and you will answer your own question

why do they still make 32bit versions of linux?

Re:Why 32-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401333)

answer this and you will answer your own question

why do they still make 32bit versions of linux?

Linux runs on a whole lot more computers than Windows 7 ever will. I have the latest version of debian running on a celeron coppermine (~= pentium 3) 500MHz with 32MB of RAM. Plenty of other people also use older hardware.
  Who will install Windows Vista/7 on a pre-64bit computer? The only ones around that might matter are netbooks like the EeePC, and there are 64 bit versions of the atom (and VIA's is also 64 bit), so even there 32 bit won't hold much longer.
  Keep in mind a 64 bit OS can run 32 bit apps without a problem, so that's not an issue save a few exceptions.
  The only issue is drivers, but driver certification for Windows Vista (and I assume 7) makes it mandatory to have both 32 and 64 bit drivers.

Re:Why 32-bit? (1)

HiVizDiver (640486) | about 6 years ago | (#26401491)

Linux can run on a whole lot more computers than Windows 7 ever will.

Fixed that for you. Let's note that important difference, whether we like the reality or not. (source) [wikipedia.org]

And I can tell you that yes, drivers are an issue, even today, hence why a 32-bit version. Besides, do you really think that MS is going to miss an opportunity to get it onto even ONE more computer?

Re:Why 32-bit? (4, Insightful)

ascendant (1116807) | about 6 years ago | (#26401591)

How hard it it to guess?
Approximately 1 fuckton (1.21 metric fucktonnes) of people still only have 32-bit processors at their disposal.
That is all.

Re:Why 32-bit? (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#26401625)

Approximately 1 fuckton (1.21 metric fucktonnes) of people still only have 32-bit processors at their disposal.

You geeks and your fancy kitchens. My disposal is just a simple on/off switch hooked up to a motor. No 32-bit logic in there...

Re:Why 32-bit? (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 years ago | (#26401227)

I really don't understand the Slashdot posters who say 'I cant believe there will be a 32bit version'...

I will tell you why theres a 32bit version - because theres already a huge 32bit install base that may wish to upgrade, and by and large, the vast majority of your end user base doesnt need the benefits 64bit brings to the table!

If MS went 64bit only, they would be slated for it - they would be requiring an upgrade far in excess of any that previous Windows versions have required. Thats why there is a 32bit version - because this isnt about pushing the 64bit agenda.

Re:Why 32-bit? (1)

zxnos (813588) | about 6 years ago | (#26401435)

what was that quote about ram/memory?

Re:Why 32-bit? (5, Insightful)

Espectr0 (577637) | about 6 years ago | (#26401455)

Better yet, i can't believe people install the 64 bit version, only to get the same performance and software incompatibilities.
Unless you have over 4 gigs in ram it isn't worth it. It won't go faster if the software is not optimized to use the additional memory or cpu registers.

Re:Why 32-bit? (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 6 years ago | (#26401637)

Precisely. Very few people currently use or need to use 64 bit computing. Outside of servers, I cannot even think of any systems I have come across with more than 4GB of physical memory.

Re:Why 32-bit? (1)

T5 (308759) | about 6 years ago | (#26401259)

Microsoft doesn't support 32 64-bit upgrades, only fresh installs. There will be those folks (I suspect a few million) on 32-bit Vista that would be forced into reinstalling without a 32-bit Windows 7.

Re:Why 32-bit? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | about 6 years ago | (#26401391)

I think Microsoft would have less people complaining about speed if they required fresh installs for upgrades.

Re:Why 32-bit? (3, Interesting)

TuaAmin13 (1359435) | about 6 years ago | (#26401401)

I hope at least OEM will produce ONLY 64 bit machines, except in the special cases of netbooks and the like. I'd like to see a push for all new machines to be 64bit, with 64bit OS. Microsoft could still sell 32 bit, but leave that for the upgraders.

If I were them I'd market it as Windows 7, and then you'd have Windows 7 32-bit as a special edition (like XP Pro and XP Pro x64, but in the reverse).

Re:Why 32-bit? (4, Interesting)

Aggrajag (716041) | about 6 years ago | (#26401535)

32-bit version is for the people with machines that cannot handle Vista. I think
that Vista was the perfect advertisement for Windows 7 (better than Seinfeld...)
as a shitload people and companies with XP *will* upgrade to Windows 7. Not OSX
and not Linux. Sad but that's the future. I hate the fact but Microsoft wins again.

* After booting Windows 7 takes around 330 megabytes of memory
* I still haven't disabled UAC (after a week) it is actually quite non-intrusive
* it is pretty goddamn fast (still a subjective view, but that's what counts)
* file copying is fast, usually 30 Mb/s
* haven't crashed once after a week :)

I have a side-by-side installation of Vista, Win7 and XP on the PC just so I
can compare them.

giving it a shot (2, Interesting)

chuckfucter (703084) | about 6 years ago | (#26401151)

trying it out now on my media center pc. media center seems pretty cool so far, but im having trouble with the tv tuner. had to find the real link to install their drm infested playready service. so far my findings are: it's not a major release, its vista sp2 basically I dont think its going to fare any better than vista did

Released to public after delay? (5, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about 6 years ago | (#26401157)

They finally released it after a delay.

The delay?

They couldn't figure out how to upload the torrent to PirateBay.....

Re:Released to public after delay? (5, Funny)

jc42 (318812) | about 6 years ago | (#26401365)

The delay?
They couldn't figure out how to upload the torrent to PirateBay.....

Not to worry; someone has already taken care of it [thepiratebay.org] .

Re:Released to public after delay? (5, Informative)

AsmordeanX (615669) | about 6 years ago | (#26401609)


Bandwidth wasn't an issue at all for the downloads. The product key and website side of it was. I downloaded the 64bit client from Microsoft at noon yesterday in the middle of the feeding frenzy and still pulled it down at 1200KB/s which is the cap on my connection.

A torrent would not have solved it yesterday.

As usual (0, Flamebait)

no-body (127863) | about 6 years ago | (#26401181)

seems they want to own your computer outright - no multiboot (MS world foreign concept) visible on first glance...

Re:As usual (1)

no-body (127863) | about 6 years ago | (#26401283)

goofed - could be done it seems....

Re:As usual (1)

aussie_a (778472) | about 6 years ago | (#26401377)

I was afraid of that. Although given that the internet in Linux is unusable on my computer, nothing of value will be lost.

Re:As usual (2, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#26401449)

And they're abit pretentious on their download form: "*Whatâ(TM)s the primary client operating system that you use today?"

*Early Version of Windows

Sheesh, If I was in marketing I'd want to at least differentiate between Linux and Mac users wanting to try out Windows 7.

Re:As usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401501)

Why? If you're not their customer, you're not their customer. Does it really matter if they're a Linux, Mac, BSD, Plan 9 or ReactOS user? They're not customers (yet).

Re:As usual (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#26401541)

And then you have to run some stupid java downloader on OS X. I just want a fucking link to the ISO. Way to go Microsoft, once again make it easier for me to just 'pirate' it.

Re:As usual (4, Informative)

cowbutt (21077) | about 6 years ago | (#26401589)

The URI for the ISO is in the page source.

Re:As usual (1)

powerslave12r (1389937) | about 6 years ago | (#26401575)

I wasn't able to make the download when I selected Vista (which I have on dual boot) probably because I'm on ubuntu right now. What a joke.

two license keys (2, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#26401191)

I happened to pull up the webpage a few minutes after I got back home and saw that it was live. So I signed into my Live account and grabbed the 32-bit version (gonna slap it onto my Mini 9--it's nice having a small expendable machine around--though OS X is running really smoothly on it at the moment). Anyhow, their buggy sign-in system ended up giving me two license keys. So I went back to the download page and opted for the 64-bit version, too. Again, it gave me 2 license keys. Anyone else getting this?

Re:two license keys (3, Interesting)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | about 6 years ago | (#26401277)

I noticed this as well. I refreshed a few times, and got a total of 5 product keys, and after those 5 it would just repeat the same ones in random order each time I refreshed. I talked to some other people I know who have gotten the beta, and they noticed the same thing. We compared the first 5 and last 5 characters of the product keys and they were all the same, so we're assuming that there are 5 generic keys out there. This would mean that MS is no longer limiting it to 2.5 million keys, as they were going to. I do not know this for sure, but it seems to be what people are noticing...

Re:two license keys (5, Informative)

mobby_6kl (668092) | about 6 years ago | (#26401503)

It looks like they're assigning keys from a small pool so they're not unique for each person/installation. Both the 32 and 64 bit ISOs are also everywhere, so you can grab any torrent (the hashes match) and then try to register with one of the following keys:



Of course, the public beta won't get you any free stuff from MS for bug reports so you might as well just rearm it a couple of times and then get the RTM version or install GNU/Linux in disgust.

Re:two license keys (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 6 years ago | (#26401547)

Do you have any tips on installing to a DVD-less netbook? I have a USB CD-RW, but I don't have a USB DVD drive, but I'm wondering if I could share the drive from my desktop PC over the network and use that to install. Any tips?

Re:two license keys (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | about 6 years ago | (#26401631)

Create a boot USB thumb drive and copy the files there. I had to do this to install openSuSE 11.1 on one of my machines.

Or copy the files to an SD card, boot from a bootable CD in your USB CD drive and then install the OS from the files on the SD card.

Re:two license keys (1)

garry_g (106621) | about 6 years ago | (#26401611)

Of course, they need to make sure they can put out decent number of registrations, and handing out two licenses per registration doubles the number ...

After all, "100 users" sounds better than "50 users", don't you think? :)

One of the coolest features... (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 years ago | (#26401197)

Boot from a virtual disk (VHD) without virtualising -

http://it-experts.dk/blogs/rsj/archive/2009/01/01/booting-windows-7-from-a-vhd-file.aspx [it-experts.dk]

After playing with it for a day or so, I think Libraries are interesting but I need to play with them some more before committing. The taskbar is nice, and works well - several of the 'cute' features are well thought out, such as the 'Show Desktop' functionality now being a small sliver of the taskbar on the right hand side, which if you hover over makes all windows 100% translucent, and if you click it minimises everything. Each 'window preview' on an application instance icon in the task bar does something similar if you hover on it - only keeps that apps windows opaque. Nice.

It seems very stable - the installer was the Windows 2008 one, it literally asks what language you want, where you want it installed and do you want to upgrade or fresh install. Then its away and installing - everything else is done afterward.

IE8 has issues on this website - lots of refreshing to a blank page for seemingly no reason. Not ready for the prime time - Chrome and Firefox work fine though.

One thing that struck me, and other people I have talked about, is that due to the focus on icons for the task bar now (instead of the label, as Win95 to Vista uses), some people are really going to have to polish their icons (Putty - the icon is nice when its small, but it sucks at larger sizes - at the moment Im using the Kterm icon for Putty!).

While I cant say Ive heavily stress tested it, theres been no show stoppers for me as of yet. I'm currently using it as my main desktop (aside from my OSX systems), so we shall see how we get on in the coming months.

Re:One of the coolest features... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401485)

Nice post and tidbits there, just one tiny nitpick.

which if you hover over makes all windows 100% translucent

At what point is something considered 100% translucent? 99.90% transparent? 99.99999999%? =)

Having Dumped OS X, The Win 7 Beta Is Excellent (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401585)

Dumped OS X earlier this year and switched to Vista once SP1 came out and absolutely love it. The new features in Win 7 will be a nice upgrade in a year or so. But nothing must have to want to run a beta OS.

What I find amazing about Vista/Win 7 is that unless I'm simply the luckiest Windows user in the world every single virus and spyware problem have gone away. Even with massive and constant and out right bat shit insane Net behavior I haven't had a single virus or spyware/malware incident.

It will be nice to have the few places UAC still needs to be tweaked fixed in Win 7, but whatever they did over the past few years to fix the security nightmare Windows use to be worked. Amazingly well.

I still remember the days of 'owned in X minutes or seconds' years ago for Windows. No more.

why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401235)

oh why oh why?

what exactly is the point?

Re:why (1)

nomessages (1160509) | about 6 years ago | (#26401599)

MSFT is (apparently) showing signs of wanting to genuinely wanting to improve their OS (Windows 7 seems to be going in the right direction) and make amends for the mess Vista has caused with everyone, regardless of what is was *exactly*. The point is, they're asking for another chance, and it'd only be fair if we gave them that chance. (obviously it's no good if it ends up like abused-spouse syndrome, but I can swear some of us like the abuse :P).

What web browsers support the Windows 7 Beta downl (1)

arabagast (462679) | about 6 years ago | (#26401271)

"Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2 support the Windows 7 Beta download experience. "

It's even an experience just to download it, one that my Firefox seems not to enjoy.

I really hope this is better than vista. With XP gone from retail, this will probably be the OS installed and upgraded to on the few windows computers I manage.

Re:What web browsers support the Windows 7 Beta do (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 years ago | (#26401319)

I had zero issues downloading the beta with Firefox - both from the public beta site and their MSDN subscription sites. Worked 100% fine for me in Firefox.

And from my experiences over the past 24 hours - it is better than Vista.

Re:What web browsers support the Windows 7 Beta do (1)

arabagast (462679) | about 6 years ago | (#26401363)

strange. This is on an almost clean windows XP install. Pushing the "Download now" button produces some loading and activity on the status bar, then stops and nothing happens.

It would be ironic if it was because of load problems on the servers, but i doubt it on a saturday night (and everything else is snappy on the site)

Re:What web browsers support the Windows 7 Beta do (1)

arabagast (462679) | about 6 years ago | (#26401423)

tried with IE now, it installs some kind of activex download manager. That was probably the reason Firefox couldn't handle it.

Re:What web browsers support the Windows 7 Beta do (1)

Drahgkar (945536) | about 6 years ago | (#26401433)

This is interesting since I had to finally use IE to download it because the website wants to install some silly activex for a download manager.

Re:What web browsers support the Windows 7 Beta do (1)

brendank310 (915634) | about 6 years ago | (#26401479)

I've been periodically checking my MSDN AA site, but it hasn't been put up yet. I was considering using it as the OS on the machine I just rebuilt for my non-technical brother, but I ended up using Vista. I hope the UAC things annoy the shit out of him, as he does me ;).

Unsupported browser? (2, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 years ago | (#26401273)

I tried to download the beta, and ended up with a sign in page that offers no ability to sign in anywhere. Perhaps they don't like my browser?

I am running Konqueror on KDE (in FreeBSD). I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to test that combination for their web site.

Still no virtual desktop (4, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | about 6 years ago | (#26401279)

Windows 7 still doesn't have virtual desktops. OSX has had them for a few releases and every major desktop environment for Linux has had them since the beginning.

Re:Still no virtual desktop (2, Informative)

Paladin_Krone (635912) | about 6 years ago | (#26401375)

Well, I dont know about you, but I have been using multiple virtual desktops since 2kpro. Heck, MS even put them in the xp power toys package. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx [microsoft.com] I'm sorry, but as someone who mentions Linux, you should be more than capable of locating one of the many programs that add this functionality to windows.

Re:Still no virtual desktop (2, Informative)

vally_manea (911530) | about 6 years ago | (#26401615)

Actually the MS Power Toy really sucks, I've been using VirtuaWin for a long time at work but I have to say nothing comes close to the functionality Kwin provides.

Re:Still no virtual desktop (5, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 6 years ago | (#26401593)

That's because nobody's asked for them. It's not some grand conspiracy against you, and its not as if Microsoft doesn't have the technical resources to provide it, it's just not a very popular feature. Sorry.

Or are you just cherry-picking one of the (extremely few) GUI features Linux has that Windows doesn't have as some way of boosting your Linux-using cred? I guess that's more likely.

Ob. (0, Troll)

eclectro (227083) | about 6 years ago | (#26401317)

Here is a link to the download [ubuntu.com] of the much improved operating system.

Can anyone enlighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401347)

How would I go about trying this? I am mostly interested in trying the 64 bit version, having had 64 bit processor for over 4 years yet still using 32 bit windows. Would I need some sort of special partition to get it working? Unless someone can tell me that I am not missing much using 32 bit windows.

Re:Can anyone enlighten me (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#26401415)

I'd say your best bet is just throwing 30 or 40 bucks at a 160 or 250GB hard drive.

Quote of the day (1)

Maljin Jolt (746064) | about 6 years ago | (#26401361)

Slashdot's current quote of the day, "No one gets too old to learn a new way of being stupid." shown in context of very this article appears to be most relevant quote of the day today.

Site seems to break (5, Interesting)

ya really (1257084) | about 6 years ago | (#26401441)

Is it just me or does this download break on every browser but IE?

I tried:

  • Opera 9.63
  • Firefox 3
  • Safari
  • Konqueror

Anyone else get similar results?

Re:Site seems to break (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#26401539)

Same here, I attempted using Firefox 3

Re:Site seems to break (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 years ago | (#26401645)

It works fine on Firefox if you have the Microsoft Download Manager installed - which you have to install via IE. I do a lot of downloading from MSDN, so I have it installed already.

My experience with Windows Hitler. (5, Funny)

JimXugle (921609) | about 6 years ago | (#26401461)

I've installed Windows 7 32-bit Pre-Pre-Release (build 7000 for inquiring minds) on my gaming machine and it works surprisingly well. Ventrilo took a bit of fiddling to work right, but other than that it worked better out of the box than XP Service Pack 3 does. It didn't need any extra drivers, although it did prompt me to update the Graphics card driver, which it happily did automatically.

Then the trouble started.

Since I had several firefox tabs open, I opted to put the computer into Hibernation for the night so I could continue with them this morning. It obliged surprisingly quickly and shut off the system power. Fans went off, case lights went off, and the USB devices lost power. The system was off. Off I Tell you!

I went to bed. While reading Paris in the 20th Century [amazon.com] by Jules Verne, almost an hour after I had shut off the machine, quietly returned to life! I thought that some bump or vibration or some minuscule cosmic ray had activated the case button and quickly dismissed it as some one-off odd event. I went back to reading about Le Grande Entrepôt.

About a chapter later, I don't know how much time had passed, the beast roared back to life with the ferocity of all fans at one hundred percent and the squeal of the system speaker! Twice in one night was too much for coincidence. I put the machine into hibernation once again, unplugged the power supply and resigned myself that if it came back to life once more, I would call a priest for an exorcism. (which would be quite a phone call, considering that I do not frequent churches)

Tonight, I will be sleeping with a copy of dBaN [dban.org] by my side.

Here is my take on it.. (4, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 6 years ago | (#26401467)

Does it remove, or add, more control of my machine?

If it adds to my current XP2 configuration, fine, I'll CONSIDER it as a replacement on this machine when XP finally goes belly up.

If it REMOVES any control of my machine, in any way, then it is just another Vista, in my mind.

I keep seeing benchmarking, eye-candy comparisons, etc, etc, but no real discussion of embedded DRM schemes, hidden processes, etc.

It is the stuff that I cannot see on my monitor that concerns me the most when considering a OS.

What's the strategy ? (1)

roscocoltran (1014187) | about 6 years ago | (#26401473)

They were fast in developping a new product. But how are they gonna sell Vista when the customers knows that a new product in coming to the market ? I mean windows Vista is great, but windows 7 is even greater than windows Vista... which is already a great product.

Re:What's the strategy ? (1)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#26401557)

Same way they did back in the days where a new version of Windows came out every 2-3 years.

Though the market changed a bit since then... so maybe they'll lower the upgrade price, and give vouchers like they did for XP -> Vista.

What's wrong with bit torrent? (1)

onetwofour (977057) | about 6 years ago | (#26401493)

I applaud Microsoft for this fairly open beta which could really help Windows 7 take off, however why are they sticking to a very traditional download route? I'm aware that you'll be able to download the beta from many unofficial sources but Microsoft should be looking to utilize bit torrent. Any problems regarding agreeing to a license could easily be done on installation.

Re:What's wrong with bit torrent? (1)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#26401515)

Well, you can still download from them directly at like 2mb/s (thats as far as my connection will go, dunno if it can be done faster) even with the rush (it was a little slower last night on MSDN, but...). Maybe they don't want to get complains from ISPs? Vista's beta had caused issues back then...imagine if you add Bittorent to that...

Needs IE to download (1)

PixelSmack (837457) | about 6 years ago | (#26401509)

Windows 7 beta needs IE (and therefore windows) to download, so looks like no virtual machine for me.

direct download links (5, Informative)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about 6 years ago | (#26401517)

Re:direct download links (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | about 6 years ago | (#26401565)

-- note that you'll need product keys to install, and probably some crack to authorize it.

Re:direct download links (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 6 years ago | (#26401577)

do they have this in multi-cd iso's?

might make for easier down loads.

also i was wondering if this download/beta has a time limit.
if i installed it over an exiting windows install, will it be a brick in 6 months?

Re:direct download links (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 6 years ago | (#26401621)

Thank you, their download page just displays a "rotating waiting wheel" in the middle of the page.

I don't get it (4, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 6 years ago | (#26401525)

Why is this story tagged "hitler"?

xkcd WHAT?

Use Internet Explorer (1)

Dalroth (85450) | about 6 years ago | (#26401527)

FYI, I had no luck trying to download this using Firefox on my Mac. I had to boot up my VMWare Windows instance and start the download using IE 7.0. The download forces you to install a new download manager ActiveX control.

I would've preferred a torrent...

Re:Use Internet Explorer (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | about 6 years ago | (#26401569)

Same problem here, but I cut the download page from I.E. (Didn't works, since I don't have activex or Java installed) and pasted it to I.E. and the Java applet was able to download it. Haven't they heard of bittorrent? Oh, right. If they used that they'd be admitting that open source software works. Still, I'm going to be nice and beta their software for them even thought Microsoft has often proven quite reluctant to provide anything (useful) to me for free.

Re:Use Internet Explorer (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | about 6 years ago | (#26401619)

sorry, meant to say I pasted the URL into firefox. Or some other browser. Wee!

Re:Use Internet Explorer (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 6 years ago | (#26401641)

Doesn't have anything to do with bittorrent or OSS.

How about a simple, works-everywhere-in-every-browser-and-every-OS link to the ISO file?

What really matters (1, Offtopic)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 years ago | (#26401605)

For getting work done, I need and want to use Linux. But since I only use Windows for playing the occasional game, I just can't get excited about XP vs. Vista vs. 7.

All I really care is that I have some environment capable of running Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and maybe some old Might and Magic games. I'm happy regardless of whether it's Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7, Linux+wine, Cedega, etc.

(Actually, I'm happiest if it's wine or Cedega, because they're way easier to install than Windows and way cheaper. Unfortunately wine / Cedega are a bit of a crapshoot for an arbitrarily-specified game.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?