Windows 7 thoughts/comments

[northvibe]

So windows 7 beta became public last Friday. I have both x32 bit and x64bit versions, since cisco decided not to make a 64bit VPN.....I may have to stick with 32bit at work... But from the current reviews its almost like they took osX and vista and mashed them together for a better windows experience. If you look back in history its like Microsoft has a every other OS is good fad. 3.1 (gui, good?)95 (crap till r2)98 (pretty good)ME (oh man....not good)XP (pretty darn decent if config'd right)Vista ((removed) didnt you learn from ME?!)Windows 7 - i can only hope.....So boot times under 30seconds, no more annoying confirmation questions (unless config'd), no WinFS , bah I miss longhorn :/ anyway I'm currently trying to install it now...but its kind of slow to get to the install. I also hear the minimum specs arent as rough as vista's either...maybe they did some efficient programming? I have my fingers crossed as EOL for XP is coming and businesses/IT cant use vista realistically.

[bull77]

Quote, originally posted by northvibe »I also hear the minimum specs arent as rough as vista's either...maybe they did some efficient programming? i'm going to take the wait and see approach -- i actually like vista and don't really see what the problem is. 2+ years with no issues...just read an article about eol for xp and what businesses will do --- since it typically takes ~year after an OS is released to implement, I wonder if windows 7 will be rushed through internal testing...

[northvibe]

Quote, originally posted by bull77 »i'm going to take the wait and see approach -- i actually like vista and don't really see what the problem is. 2+ years with no issues...just read an article about eol for xp and what businesses will do --- since it typically takes ~year after an OS is released to implement, I wonder if windows 7 will be rushed through internal testing...It will be rushed, thats how MS sets release dates. They have marketing set the release date and programmers have to try and make a "stable" release by then. Whatever they have is sealed up and shipped. Beta 7 of win7 seems fairly decent. The feel is vista but its like it has a new under pinning. You must be one of the lucky 1% with no issue with vista Well I found a P4 w/ht i think that i have dual booting vista and win7. Both have rated my system as a 1 but win7 is much faster. I think the unit only has 512mb of ram too :s and onboard video so no aero. There are no "classic" settings to switch to in win7 so far...and the control panel "show all options" IS HUGE! Install was easy and quick, that main issue is no partitioning tool though....!!!! ohhh that bugs me. I had to partition the hdd with a XP sp2 disk then reboot and install vista/win7

[bull77]

Quote, originally posted by northvibe »You must be one of the lucky 1% with no issue with vista or i know what i'm doing of course it'll be rushed --- i meant by biz it developers who have to create an image with the os and make sure it runs with all their apps...what are you running 7 on/with?

[northvibe]

Quote, originally posted by bull77 »or i know what i'm doing of course it'll be rushed --- i meant by biz it developers who have to create an image with the os and make sure it runs with all their apps...what are you running 7 on/with?haha well with all the driver/software/hardware issues with vista you must have a "newer" machine and needs that dont require legacy stuff.Um our company will not support vista from my knowledge, healthcare IT, we are no where near ready to move to it. Our EHR system is just becoming stable on XP. I have a 1st gen AMD 64bit athlon 3200+, 1.5gb ram, ati 9600xt, sata hdd's, on some asus k7 board. Oh and installed win7 64bit.

[kostby]

I created a new virtual PC for Windows 7 under Parallels 4.0 on my MacBook (Summer 2007, 2.16Ghz Core2Duo with 2Gb RAM and 120Gb hard disk). The default Parallels environment for Win 7 (labeled 'Experimental' by Parallels) gives it a virtual environment with 1Gb RAM, and a 32Gb virtual hard drive partition.I've skipped the Vista-experience entirely, so my comparison is to XP, and from a user, not a IT, standpoint.The install was surprisingly painless. I can't remember ever having an MS install go that smooth, however...#1: They tried to make it pretty (pulsing color windows logo during bootup) and cute (sounds and icons) first. Not a good sign.#2: Didn't (and doesn't have drivers online at Microsoft) for either of my printers (a Canon Pixma, an HP LaserJet, a USB scanner, and a SanDisk mp3 player - not surprising, since it's beta, but I understood that it should be able to use Vista drivers. Haven't tried the vendor sites yet.#3: It's FAR FAR slower than XP is on the same system in the same (Parallels 4.0) environment, just running simple stuff (Internet Exploder, AVG free, and various Config screens.) I haven't tried installing any 'real' apps yet. To be fair, I'm sure Parallels for XP is pretty optimized by now, and Win7 is NOT.#4 It probably needs at least 16Gb of RAM and a quad-core or dual quad processors, and a dedicated video processor with at least 512Mb to run fast. It seems that every new MS Windows version requires AT LEAST a fourfold or better increase in RAM and processor capacity, and that's apparently also true here.#5 Microsoft is exceedingly BRAVE to put Version 7.0000 (actually probably 6.90000) out there for absolutely anyone to try! They must've signed an exclusive agreement to provide the Trial Lawyers Association with free Microsoft software and tech support for eternity in exchange for not suing MS silly on behalf of every yahoo that loses all his files trying to upgrade to Win 7 Beta!

[ned23]

Quote, originally posted by northvibe » 3.1 (gui, good?)95 (crap till r2)98 (pretty good)ME (oh man....not good)XP (pretty darn decent if config'd right)Vista ((removed) didnt you learn from ME?!)Windows 7 - i can only hope.....What about Windows 2000? IRRC 2000 Pro was the most stable version of Windows ever, until about the third service pack for XP.

[northvibe]

Quote, originally posted by kostby »I created a new virtual PC for Windows 7 under Parallels 4.0 on my MacBook (Summer 2007, 2.16Ghz Core2Duo with 2Gb RAM and 120Gb hard disk). The default Parallels environment for Win 7 (labeled 'Experimental' by Parallels) gives it a virtual environment with 1Gb RAM, and a 32Gb virtual hard drive partition.I've skipped the Vista-experience entirely, so my comparison is to XP, and from a user, not a IT, standpoint.The install was surprisingly painless. I can't remember ever having an MS install go that smooth, however...#1: They tried to make it pretty (pulsing color windows logo during bootup) and cute (sounds and icons) first. Not a good sign.#2: Didn't (and doesn't have drivers online at Microsoft) for either of my printers (a Canon Pixma, an HP LaserJet, a USB scanner, and a SanDisk mp3 player - not surprising, since it's beta, but I understood that it should be able to use Vista drivers. Haven't tried the vendor sites yet.#3: It's FAR FAR slower than XP is on the same system in the same (Parallels 4.0) environment, just running simple stuff (Internet Exploder, AVG free, and various Config screens.) I haven't tried installing any 'real' apps yet. To be fair, I'm sure Parallels for XP is pretty optimized by now, and Win7 is NOT.#4 It probably needs at least 16Gb of RAM and a quad-core or dual quad processors, and a dedicated video processor with at least 512Mb to run fast. It seems that every new MS Windows version requires AT LEAST a fourfold or better increase in RAM and processor capacity, and that's apparently also true here.#5 Microsoft is exceedingly BRAVE to put Version 7.0000 (actually probably 6.90000) out there for absolutely anyone to try! They must've signed an exclusive agreement to provide the Trial Lawyers Association with free Microsoft software and tech support for eternity in exchange for not suing MS silly on behalf of every yahoo that loses all his files trying to upgrade to Win 7 Beta!You should really try it on bootcamp, its much faster. 1: lol yes its all sorts of purdy looking although I do like the windows load screen with those fire fly looking lights2. One thing I didnt try, as I dont have a printer so I cant talk about drivers except whats on my mother board3. Umm it seems slightly slow than xp but xp didnt have the aero running. Mine is pretty darn fast. I really think its that your parallels is emulating it and is not optimized. again try bootcamp for a real test.4. 16gb? nooo way, mine is a single core 1st gen 64bit athlon and runs it fine. It is optimized for dual/quad cores but you dont have to have it. Its requirements are lower than vistas. You again are running it in a emulated window, so its fighting for resources with osx...not a true test. 5. Im glad they have let us try it, maybe they are making a OS that will be up to par with how well XP was liked (after a few years). Man I want a new mac to triple boot...

[northvibe]

Quote, originally posted by ned23 »What about Windows 2000? IRRC 2000 Pro was the most stable version of Windows ever, until about the third service pack for XP. wow how did i forget 2k...That was the pwnage OS. although it was meant for more of a business use, not heavily used in the consumer field unless you knew what you wanted.

[keithvibe]

Quote, originally posted by northvibe »wow how did i forget 2k...That was the pwnage OS. although it was meant for more of a business use, not heavily used in the consumer field unless you knew what you wanted. I am running 2000 on both my work machines now. Never had an issue.I am running xp on my desktop . Never had an issue.I am running vista on my laptop. Never had an issue other than a print driver for my deskjet. But that was an easy fix with a download.It's all in the user! I know people who have daily issues with all three different systems. Where as in all the years I have been PCing. I have only gotten ONE virus.I have to look in to the new system.

[ned23]

Quote, originally posted by keithvibe »I am running 2000 on both my work machines now. Never had an issue.I am running xp on my desktop . Never had an issue.I am running vista on my laptop. Never had an issue other than a print driver for my deskjet. But that was an easy fix with a download.It's all in the user! I know people who have daily issues with all three different systems. Where as in all the years I have been PCing. I have only gotten ONE virus.I have to look in to the new system. the more different types of software you use and the more different drivers the more problems you have.