Windows 7 Milestone 3 Build 6801 Review

[CalcProgrammer1]

Hmm, after playing around with it more on my Thinkpad, I got the sound working (Windows Update has it but I had to uninstall it from device manager, enable Windows Update, and then redetect it). Using Compatibility Mode I got the ATi Rage installer to run (XP driver) and it installed properly. Most things (testing using stock screen savers) say "This screen saver can't run because it requires functionality that is not available on your hardware-accelerated video card", maybe the latest DirectX isn't installed or maybe the Rage doesn't support DX9 (I used to play games that apparently used DX9 fine on it...).

Speaking of the DRM thing I mentioned, it's happening again. Playing an UNPROTECTED .mp3 in Windows Media Player (this happens on Vista or Windows 7 PreBeta), the process "mfpmp.exe" uses a significant amount of CPU (more than wmplayer.exe). Mfpmp.exe is "Media Foundation Protected Pipeline EXE", apparently some RIAA/MPAA backed spy program to "protect the music" or some nonsense like that. Why it is peaking on an MP3 that isn't protected in the first place I have no clue. If you delete mfpmp.exe, it works fine (you can't play DRM'ed files anymore, but 100% of my music [unprotected MP3/AVI/DivX/etc] play perfectly without annihilating my CPU). Why would anyone in their right minds put this dumb DRM overkill in the system?

EDIT AGAIN:
Read that you could delete mfpmp.exe (makes wma/wmv not play) but then use the K-Lite codec pack instead and it will still play protected files. I don't have any protected files, so I can't test, but sounds better than using anything possibly tracking your every move and hogging up resources.

 

[KSoD]

I always install KLite codec pack. So maybe that is why i never have a issue with the DRM.

The first issue is that Vista and most likely Win7 require the video card to be DX9. Not DX9 compatible but be a actual DX9 card to run most of the bells and whistles. So you might have to go with the classic view and some low grade Screen saver on that old system.

I wonder if i have that file on my system...would check. but am in Ubuntu for a change.

 

[CalcProgrammer1]

I know the card is working, as the Really Slick Screensavers work fine (in fact, better than XP, they don't BSOD at 1600x1200 like 2K and XP did). They use OpenGL instead of D3D so maybe that's why. I highly doubt the Rage is full DX9 compatible (it is one of those dinosaur cards from back in 1999-2000).

I think my main problem isn't Windows Vista/Windows 7, it's 64 bit...nobody makes 64 bit drivers for older stuff which is really annoying. Wonder how 64 bit Linux does it, all the stuff that works in 32 works on 64 bit Linux, but hardly anything works on 64 bit Windows.

 

[KSoD]

Well you are right that more of the flashy screen savers use OpenGL over D3D. It could be that they have optimized some things. I dont really know as of now. There is only sparce information out there about Win7 M3 cause of the fact that it is only a temp build.

 

[CalcProgrammer1]

I think Aero required at least a 100% DX9 supported card if I'm not mistaken, the included screensavers probably also require it (most of them seem more like repeating videos, Aurora and Windows Energy at least, Ribbons and Mystivy don't work either though they aren't videos, 3d Text works fine, so does Windows Logo, Bubbles works but not correctly (it has a black screen and each bubble has a black square around it, probably a transparency issue), all the OpenGL ones work fine).

 

[KSoD]

You are right. Aero requires DX9 cards. So i would assume that the screen savers would also since they are part of the glitz of Aero.

Kinda what i was trying to say a couple posts back but didnt spit it out right.

 

[CalcProgrammer1]

Well, back to XP on my desktop. I couldn't stand the hardware not working so I tried Win7 32 bit. I was able to get my TV Wonder VE to work but my Netgear FA311v1 network card didn't work right (wouldn't receive any packets). Right now it's back on XP working fine but I may try to find a Vista 32 bit DVD (have a key but not a disc) and see how that works.

I like the nice looks that Vista gives, but it doesn't support my hardware.
I like the looks that Compiz has, but I couldn't get file sharing to work right.
I like the compatibility of XP, but it is boring and plain.

Someone needs to come out with an OS that does all of these! This is what I'd like Windows 7 to be, but if they can't get the compatibility that people need, I don't see why they'd want it. Microsoft really wants to get people to switch, and the answer is right there in front of them. HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY!. You want people to switch? Make it compatible. If this means coding some kind of driver workaround, so be it. If this means spamming developers to get to work with updated drivers, so be it. If it isn't compatible, it won't sell.

 

[zmatt]

It's not Microsoft's fault. Drivers are written by the OEMs. If they don't write new drivers then there is nothing M$ can do about it.

 

[KSoD]

But Microsoft isnt in charge of the Hardware Compatibility. As i said in the other topic and you made reference to it here. The manufacturer's are responsible for that.

They are just as bad as Microsoft. They want people on the newest OS but they dont want to update the old stuff. That way they can justify their response of update to newer stuff.

Win7 will sell no matter what. Vista proved that already. That has sold almost as much as XP even with the bad rep it has. There will be no stopping Win7 sales if they can make it as good if not better than XP in most people's eyes. It will sell like wild fire. Be if the manufacturer's create drivers for old hardware or not.

 

[carnageX]

Besides, this is still only a pre-beta, Calc . It's going to have issues.