Windows 7 Ultimate M3 Pre-beta Build 6801 SCREENSHOTS :)

If there's a cheap upgrade I'll be getting it. Currently running Vista on 3 computers so it would be nice if 7 had better performance on the same hardware. As long as it works with a 1 GHz Pentium III and 1 GB RAM I'll be happy.

It's like saying you are hoping windows XP works on a Pentium 486...
 
well vista doesn't have to work with computers that are 5-9years old.
Its not a mac!
 
Looking good. I'll have to try this out myself. Keep meaning to and never get around to it.

Although seriously, I know people rag on vista but I like it. It's pretty stable (can't remember the last time it blue screened) but I'd agree it does need a decent amount of hardware to run well.

I hope in 7 they fix the way that browsing the network to something slow kills every explorer window dead for ages though...
 
^ Only thing that sucks about Vista is that it doesn't ever freaking remember my folder view settings. It doesn't matter what I do, it always resets itself to the useless default views.

I have never once had a blue screen since I moved to Vista 64-bit edition. It's restarted on me a few times, but I'm pretty sure that's just due to inadequate airflow and my video card.
 
Last edited:
^ I've yet to have a bluescreen on my current version of XP.
I dunno why, I'm not doing anything different than I was before, but after XP2 I've never had a blue screen, or have it lock up completely.
 
^

you are not trying hard enough :lol:
 
well vista doesn't have to work with computers that are 5-9years old.
Its not a mac!

Yea but im running vista on a 2.8ghz dual core with 3 gigs of ram, and its STILL SLOW!!!!!! you can get better performance on xp with a P4 easy.


Vista was a cosmetic and minor feature upgrade, but a performace downgrade. honestly, how did bill gates manage to bring himself to releasing this buggy piece of trash
 
Yea but im running vista on a 2.8ghz dual core with 3 gigs of ram, and its STILL SLOW!!!!!! you can get better performance on xp with a P4 easy.

Sorry, but there has to be something wrong with your setup.

I have a 3GHz C2D and 4GB of RAM and my machine is very fast if I do say so myself. I can't imagine a 200MHz slower clock speed would make it much slower.

Now, I agree that Vista hasn't brought much to the table performance wise, but cosmetics go a long, long way as demonstrated by Apple. But it has DX10, and I got my copy for free, so it's still a worthwhile upgrade.
 
I never understood why anyone would want Vista either, it's just the same, a tad prettier to look at but SLOWER.

Plus it steals all your memory which I don't like.
 
So you'd rather have an OS that does not use all the 4GB of ram in your PC that you paid for in favour of one that actually uses all that memory to make it faster?

I've chosen this path on my laptop. It came with Vista 64 and 4 gigs of ram, but I couldn't stand it after forcing myself to use it for 3 weeks. Went back to xp (and I've heard not to many good things about xp 64bit).

I may throw vista back on if I can pull off my tablet mod.
 
^ What couldn't you stand about it? Vista x64 should run so well with those specs... would be nice to have a laptop like that, I'm stuck with an Atom. :lol:

And yeah, XP x64 blows. No drivers, no programs... it's a huge hassle to actually use it.
 
So you'd rather have an OS that does not use all the 4GB of ram in your PC that you paid for in favour of one that actually uses all that memory to make it faster?

I'd prefer an OS that uses all the 4GB available when it needs it and not all the fucking time.
 
it's a matter of principle dammit!
 
Yea but im running vista on a 2.8ghz dual core with 3 gigs of ram, and its STILL SLOW!!!!!! you can get better performance on xp with a P4 easy.


Vista was a cosmetic and minor feature upgrade, but a performace downgrade. honestly, how did bill gates manage to bring himself to releasing this buggy piece of trash

^

Bad workers always blame their tools.... It sounds like you don't know much about both XP and Vista. Performance downgrade from XP to Vista?? Please..... get your facts straight.

If you are running Vista on a 2.8 C2D + 3gb ram machine and it's performing slowly then I believe it's probably the user rather than the OS.


Sorry, but there has to be something wrong with your setup............................I can't imagine a 200MHz slower clock speed would make it much slower.
 
Or maybe he has a poor video card and is running Windows Aero... or maybe he's not on SP1 yet.

But the bottom line is Vista can be speedy. They never claimed it to have low system requirements, that's why they did all the crap with the upgrade adviser or whatever it was called.
 
It's like saying you are hoping windows XP works on a Pentium 486...
Well, if this computer runs Vista and 7 has similar requirements it is certainly possible. Vista runs just as well as XP did on a Pentium 4 2.2 GHz but it's pretty painful on this thing... I really only did it to see if it would work and it does well enough that it's not worth wiping it again.

Also, I'm pretty sure Windows XP supports the 220-ish MHz Pentium Extreme, and I know I had it running fine on a 366 MHz Pentium II.
 
I've had XP on an old compaq with 133mhz P1 with 80mb of ram, but it was worse than dieing.
 
I'm not sure of the stats of my friend's computer (running XP), but about a month ago, we got bored and created a virtual machine on it (10GB of space available, I believe), and we installed Vista on the virtual machine. Yes, it was slow, but we managed to go to a couple web pages, download Roller Coaster Tycoon 2, and play it with hardly any lag in the game. Overall, we were impressed that the emulated copy of Vista was able to preform as well as it did.
 
Top