Well Rob you have a pretty nice rig anyway so it won't show the stress hardware wise as much as someone who has 2gig of ram and a slower dual core CPU.
2009, atm, but remember Vista (released in 2007) was originally meant to be launched in 2003.
Either way while I may not like M$ that much, I must say that the £63 I paid for Vista x64 Home Premium was well worth it. If Windows 7 is just little improvements over Vista, then I'll probably try to buy the "ultimate" version this time.
The fact that it's a pre-beta (thanks bbman, thought it was beta)? If it was in perfect condition they'd release it, to try and get over the Vista fiasco as soon as possible. If it was perfectly bug free it wouldn't still be pre-beta...I said could anyway, I don't want to lose my stuff because of a slight bug that could have been avoided by dual-booting/using a VM.
I don't have Windows 7 yet (no point really, Vista suits me fine), but a google images search on "Windows 7" leads to some very Vista-esque screenshots
It's pre-beta, but every blogger and reporter who got his hands on it (supposedly quite some MS-cynics in that group) said that it ran absolutely fine... Apparently, the developers made a 180° turn in the way they program the OS and every feature in the pre-beta is complete and stable...
Yep. And to turn all that on it's head, because it's only a 'minor' update to Vista, they are (or at least, were) planning to internally version it as 6.1.
So Windows 7 would be 6.1, meaning they would get to release Windows v7.0 (presumably with a name rather than a number) again as the next major update? Talk about confusing.