What don't you like about Windows 7?

Here's the one & only thing I don't like about W7.

It wasn't offered to the regular Beta testers (Seven testers in general) for a big discount for all the bug reports & input during testing or offered 1 free copy.

Instead our reward for all that work (not to mention TONS of PR advertising) & testing was a "Thank you" & now go pay FULL price for the OS if you want it...

The whole beta test program was run on more than one level

There was the closed invite only beta and the open public beta but there were also various telemetry level options available to public testers who were willing to run a constant reporting program for Microsoft for a period of time. As far as I am aware the full beta testers and the telemetry providers, who completed the required time, were all offered free copies of windows 7.

This is I think a considerable number of people but I can fully understand the lack of any offer to the "Basic" public testers, as Antt has said this would be an immense number.

isecasa said:

It's too much commercial product

Because it is a commercial product made by a commercial company? And commercial companies are in business for the purpose of making money, are they not? I fail to see a problem with a business out to make money....

logicearth said:

Without the page file or hibernation file, and with temporary files cleaned out, of course restore points deleted...the install is well under 8 to 6 GB. Is that really something to be concerned about? Storage increased in size, not decreases. And there is nothing taking up your precious RAM unless it is running.

There is nothing to gain from having a means to strip components out of the OS. Just more issues to deal with.

And the point of leaving unused apps on the HD taking up space is...? The whole point is to "minimize the bloat", so things I use can return. Perhaps I misunderstand. If it's disabled, not using Ram, and just sitting there taking up space on my hard drive, how can never installing it cause problems?? Thank you for clarifying the Ram question. It is precious.

musiclover7 said:

I am boggled by the notion that 9.1 surround sound is not supported in Windows 7. Having done absolutely no research on the subject what-so-ever, the idea bothers me, and boggles me. I wonder if it is a case of lacking drivers, or lacking code in the OS.. Still, very interesting..

I'm a bit into home theater and I know quite a number of people running 5.1, some at 6.1 and the rest at 7.1....but I'm not aware of most home theater users running a 9.1 setup. I don't find it odd whatsoever that Windows 7 doesn't support 9.1. But hey, to each his own.

andjayik said:

come on 9.1 for a computer?? U want that in a home theatre system in a basment with a big tv and a amp and all the other bells and whistles!!

Evidently sound is not as important to you as it is for some. Some people do watch movies on their PCs, and like to listen to high quality audio. With the newer high def, larger monitors, and killer sound cards, this is not as absurd as it seems. Although the "Majority" might not have or be able to afford higher end systems, this (I feel) is a valid issue considering the point/theme of the thread. It may fall upon the people who make the sound cards to write the drivers for them however.