neskimos.com
http://www.neskimoforums.com/phpbb3/

So. Windows 7.
http://www.neskimoforums.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7507
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Sanctusorium [ Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  So. Windows 7.

Its free for you to beta. I'm checking it out right now.

Visually, its a Vista clone. They've redone the task bar to make it a lot like the Mac Dock. You can pin a program to it, and it stays there. Also, it combinds all the windows from one program into a single bar. You know how Firefox will have a separate download box? Now windows clumps that into one little space with the FF icon on it. Click it and you get a list of open windows. Downloads, websites, etc.

For anyone that has had to fight the wireless connection icon in the tray, its been reworked. Thank God. You also have a good bit of control over the tray for once in Windows history. WoW seems to run better in it too.

Well, if anyone else is trying it out, talk here. =)

Author:  Fallout [ Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

The engineers here at work are impressed, say it's much less shitty than Vista and faster. And we're all Linux nerds. So... give it a holla, I guess?

Author:  Sanctusorium [ Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

So far, the beta of this new OS has been more stable than Vista ever was xD

Author:  TheGuyFromAustria [ Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Sanctusorium wrote:
So far, the beta of this new OS has been more stable than Vista ever was xD


Lets just call Vista a (very expensive) beta for 7.

Author:  illblamesum1else [ Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Am I the only one who hasnt had any problems with Vista yet?

Author:  TheBatman [ Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

illblamesum1else wrote:
Am I the only one who hasnt had any problems with Vista yet?


nope

Author:  Morte_The_Skull [ Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

TheBatman wrote:
illblamesum1else wrote:
Am I the only one who hasnt had any problems with Vista yet?


nope

worked fine for me so far.

Author:  Snifit [ Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

I'm still good too

Author:  Sir Stank a Lot [ Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

It's passable.

Author:  Napalm Man [ Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.

Author:  Soruja [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

I has a Mac. :P

Author:  TheGuyFromAustria [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Only had one problem with Vista and my WiFi card. But aside of that its been gentle to me. Might have to do with my generous 4 gigs of ram (glee)

Author:  BlackHeart [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Napalm Man wrote:
I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.


second.

Author:  Sanctusorium [ Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

TheGuyFromAustria wrote:
Only had one problem with Vista and my WiFi card. But aside of that its been gentle to me. Might have to do with my generous 4 gigs of ram (glee)


Over all, Vista is decently STABLE for me. But its a sllluuuuuuggg. and yeah, my WiFi card is the main problem with me too. D:

Author:  S1eepy [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Sanctusorium wrote:
TheGuyFromAustria wrote:
Only had one problem with Vista and my WiFi card. But aside of that its been gentle to me. Might have to do with my generous 4 gigs of ram (glee)


Over all, Vista is decently STABLE for me. But its a sllluuuuuuggg. and yeah, my WiFi card is the main problem with me too. D:


exactly. its stable, but the number of background applications running at any given point is absurd. it munches up memory much like a crack whore does crack.

Author:  BTB [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

http://xkcd.com/528/

Author:  Necrosaro [ Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

BlackHeart wrote:
Napalm Man wrote:
I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.


second.


I really NEVER though i would prefer XP to anything, but yeah, +1. Though i still long for the days of 95/98. XD

Author:  S1eepy [ Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Necrosaro wrote:
BlackHeart wrote:
Napalm Man wrote:
I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.


second.


I really NEVER though i would prefer XP to anything, but yeah, +1. Though i still long for the days of 95/98. XD


pfft. . . 95/98 he says. everyone knows 2000 was the best. it was the most stable windows os, and was the last one they made that wasn't filled with excess crap. you could get that bitch running at under 20 processes easily.

Author:  Napalm Man [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

S1eepy wrote:
Necrosaro wrote:
BlackHeart wrote:
Napalm Man wrote:
I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.


second.


I really NEVER though i would prefer XP to anything, but yeah, +1. Though i still long for the days of 95/98. XD


pfft. . . 95/98 he says. everyone knows 2000 was the best. it was the most stable windows os, and was the last one they made that wasn't filled with excess crap. you could get that bitch running at under 20 processes easily.


Nigga please - all the Windows Server OS's are actually rock-solid stable.

Windows Server 2008 is like Vista without all the crap. and it actually works.
http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

Plus, low process count isn't a very good indicator of OS performance. My Linux server at home lists 84 processes, but it's fast and responsive.

Author:  S1eepy [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

Napalm Man wrote:
S1eepy wrote:
Necrosaro wrote:
BlackHeart wrote:
Napalm Man wrote:
I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.


second.


I really NEVER though i would prefer XP to anything, but yeah, +1. Though i still long for the days of 95/98. XD


pfft. . . 95/98 he says. everyone knows 2000 was the best. it was the most stable windows os, and was the last one they made that wasn't filled with excess crap. you could get that bitch running at under 20 processes easily.


Nigga please - all the Windows Server OS's are actually rock-solid stable.

Windows Server 2008 is like Vista without all the crap. and it actually works.
http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

Plus, low process count isn't a very good indicator of OS performance. My Linux server at home lists 84 processes, but it's fast and responsive.


but everyone knows linux is far more efficient with memory management than windows ever will be. 84 processes would give most windows os' a heart attack.

Author:  Napalm Man [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

S1eepy wrote:
Napalm Man wrote:
S1eepy wrote:
Necrosaro wrote:
BlackHeart wrote:
Napalm Man wrote:
I'll stick with XP and Linux, thank you.


second.


I really NEVER though i would prefer XP to anything, but yeah, +1. Though i still long for the days of 95/98. XD


pfft. . . 95/98 he says. everyone knows 2000 was the best. it was the most stable windows os, and was the last one they made that wasn't filled with excess crap. you could get that bitch running at under 20 processes easily.


Nigga please - all the Windows Server OS's are actually rock-solid stable.

Windows Server 2008 is like Vista without all the crap. and it actually works.
http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

Plus, low process count isn't a very good indicator of OS performance. My Linux server at home lists 84 processes, but it's fast and responsive.


but everyone knows linux is far more efficient with memory management than windows ever will be. 84 processes would give most windows os' a heart attack.


True, Linux is generally more efficient in practically every way possible - but if you want a good, solid, reliable version of Windows, Server Edition *does* do a pretty good job - though it's also a lot more expensive than the consumer-level windows, and it's not new-user friendly at all.

Author:  Fallout [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So. Windows 7.

The only problem I've had with XP is when Firefox noms on my memory for a few days.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/