Windows 7 - Page 3

**scruie** · 4th November 2009, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by wcbrilman

Hm, some people that are taking classes at the same courses as I also have those netbooks. But I just prefer my regular 17" laptop. It seems all about mobility, while I consider performance way more important. But that's just a personal thing I guess.

If I was in some form of education or still doing computer repairs I would gladly carry a 1kg netbook over the 4kg desktop replacement laptop I own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4g3r0rer

I think that Windows 7 , And Vista are both good . Windows 7 is only faster when u boot up your computer and both W7 and Vista's themes look same so....If id have2 choose from them id take W7 or Vista couse both are good.

Vista was flawed from the beginning. There are too many faults with Vista that M$ either seem incapable of fixing via Service Packs and/or patches; network performance is slower, USB transfers still take an age and it still seems incapable of remembering Window positions and settings (shell fault?).

To compare just the load times is not enough; Windows 7 uses far less resources than Vista. For example, I've got an old AMD X2 machine with a gig of RAM, with just Vista SP2 installed it uses nearly 800Mb of RAM. Now that same machine with Windows 7 on it and the RAM usage is about 450Mb. Nearly half the amount of RAM is wasted under Windows 7 than Vista.

Regardless, of all that I still feel M$ need to change their business model (and practices) over OSes. One akin to Apples might be a better approach - maybe even cheaper too! plus, we might actually move away from 32bit to 64 bit quicker too.

***gil*** · 4th November 2009, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by scruie

Windows 7 suffers the same problem: Starter, Home, Business, and Ultimate. .

You forgot Professional

I agree it's a bit stupid. maybe they thought they will have much more potential costumers with different price tags.
I think that Business\Professional\Ultimate are pretty much the same for the regular end-user and in the bottom line an excellent OS.

**JAvEX** · 5th November 2009, 07:00

Yeah, I've never understood their reasoning for multiple versions of the operating system. I find it just complicates things for regular people.

They have Starter, Home, Professional, Business, and Ultimate. Then you also have to choose between x64 and x86.

That's really too many options for the average user. Personally I don't even know all the differences between the different versions, I just got Ultimate (x64) because I could.

***luck777jojo*** · 5th November 2009, 10:19

I liked it the way it was before when they had Win98 for home users and NT for servers, then when *nix completely whooped MS in the server side of things they went with XP Home and Pro which was also possible to deal with, but what they have now is ridiculous.

Sago Mage · 6th November 2009, 02:05

I've had it for about a week now, and i gotta say, it's very nice

, ive noticed it freezes less. I also love the new taskbar/dock; when i first got it, i didnt think i would be using it that much, but i dont have any icons on my docks(only folders)... it's great

menc9re · 6th November 2009, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAvEX

Yeah, I've never understood their reasoning for multiple versions of the operating system.

Money?

**scruie** · 7th November 2009, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by gil

You forgot Professional

I agree it's a bit stupid. maybe they thought they will have much more potential costumers with different price tags.
I think that Business\Professional\Ultimate are pretty much the same for the regular end-user and in the bottom line an excellent OS.

So much confusion Business is no more and it's gone back to Professional. Corporate users will get an Enterprise version or VLK (Volume Licensing Key).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAvEX

Yeah, I've never understood their reasoning for multiple versions of the operating system. I find it just complicates things for regular people.

They have Starter, Home, Professional, Business, and Ultimate. Then you also have to choose between x64 and x86.

That's really too many options for the average user. Personally I don't even know all the differences between the different versions, I just got Ultimate (x64) because I could.

Hence, my comments that M$ need to change it's OS modelling and simplify it. Plus, it might actually help bring in the 64bit revolution, not just the mild-mannered plodding we currently have.

On a side-note, this Thursday, I went and purchased an off the shelf Acer desktop for an old client, who insisted no getting it from a major high street shop - Currys for my fellow Brits.
Whilst in the shop I played dumb and listened to the salesman's patter: HDMI isn't important, free anti-virus will never protect you, linux is made by 'some kids in their bedroom' and you have to buy extended warranties as CPUs are designed to explode after a year!
Actually, the last one was made up but if he could have gotten away with it he would have done.

Anyhow, I digress; we got this ACER desktop and off I went to the geek cave to set it up. What shocked me was it had 4gig of RAM and actually had Windows 7 64bit on it. No mention of this in the shop or anything. Returned back to the shop to make sure I hadn't missed it off the labelling or anything else. No mention of it anywhere. Spoke to the chap who had less clue as to what 64bit does than he did over Linux.

***Virtuosofriend*** · 7th November 2009, 22:25

64bit protects your CPU in *nix systems from exploding. Hurray to the geek cave.

Those of you who use Vista, get Seven as soon as possible. I switched to Seven since the last RTM version last August and the windows installation at least got some stability (nothing compared to ubuntu tho).
Those of you who stick with XP and have an old machine, stick with XP.

***luck777jojo*** · 8th November 2009, 02:19

I'm pretty happy with my Ubuntu but I will be giving win7 another shot at the end of next week when I put together a new system to replace my dying 7 years old one
Granted it will be in a dual-boot configuration but I will honestly give it a fair attempt and even maybe try to like it. After all there are some good games that are supposed to come out next year and when I get around to building my i7 monster I'll need to dual boot it with SOME version of windows in order to play games, so I'm really hoping to like win7 because that will give me a supposed option over XP and a good option over vista

***Virtuosofriend*** · 8th November 2009, 11:45

There is no comparison between Vista and 7. Last ones are miles better than the previous M$'s OS.
Since you will be building an i7 system, XP would be quite obsolete, considering no support for DX10 or DX11. And since you need M$'s OS for gaming purposes, you should really try hard to like Win7 ;x

***luck777jojo*** · 9th November 2009, 09:36

well like I said I will try, for now it's still not the i7 system that I'm putting together, it's just an upgrade for one of my secondary systems, but it still is going to be all new so it should be able to handle win7 without any problems, at least for testing purposes.

**scruie** · 9th November 2009, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by luck777jojo

well like I said I will try, for now it's still not the i7 system that I'm putting together, it's just an upgrade for one of my secondary systems, but it still is going to be all new so it should be able to handle win7 without any problems, at least for testing purposes.

The requirements for Win7 are far lower than Vista. For example, I inherited an old Gateway laptop with an AMD Sempron 3400+ (1.80Ghz) with 1.5 gig of RAM; originally came with Vista Home Premium and ran like a snail in treacle.

After upgrading it to Win7 Home, it's a different beast altogether. Just 500+MB RAM used instead of 800+Mb RAM under Vista, 40+ services not 60+ under a clean Vista install, and numerous other benefits.

Give it a test and I'm certain you'll be pleasantly surprised.

VF DX10 and 11 are hardly reasons to upgrade, better multi-CPU support would win me over more than anything. But, still if after a games rig then it might.

**JAvEX** · 9th November 2009, 16:56

That's true, with some minor Googling you can even install DirectX 10 on XP (and I'm sure DirectX 11 as well soon enough).

***Virtuosofriend*** · 9th November 2009, 17:16

Talking about gaming-rig here only. OF course DX10 or DX11 are both ridiculous reasons to upgrade, unless you wish to play the newest games.

BTW good to see you again old man

***luck777jojo*** · 10th November 2009, 10:05

Yeah only talking about a gaming rig here.... I have become way too much of a stuck up linux snob to consider windows for anything other than gaming now

5th November 2009, 07:00	#33
JAvEX ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Evil Elite Tournaments Won: 3 Join Date: 12th Mar 2005 Posts: 5,056	Yeah, I've never understood their reasoning for multiple versions of the operating system. I find it just complicates things for regular people. They have Starter, Home, Professional, Business, and Ultimate. Then you also have to choose between x64 and x86. That's really too many options for the average user. Personally I don't even know all the differences between the different versions, I just got Ultimate (x64) because I could. __________________

5th November 2009, 10:19	#34
*luck777jojo* Power Overwhelming Join Date: 24th Jan 2002 Posts: 14,747	I liked it the way it was before when they had Win98 for home users and NT for servers, then when *nix completely whooped MS in the server side of things they went with XP Home and Pro which was also possible to deal with, but what they have now is ridiculous. __________________ .

6th November 2009, 02:05	#35
Sago Mage MPC Helper Silver Dragon Join Date: 9th Oct 2006 Location: NC Posts: 977	I've had it for about a week now, and i gotta say, it's very nice , ive noticed it freezes less. I also love the new taskbar/dock; when i first got it, i didnt think i would be using it that much, but i dont have any icons on my docks(only folders)... it's great __________________ did we enjoy ourselves, when we destroyed ourselves?

8th November 2009, 02:19	#39
*luck777jojo* Power Overwhelming Join Date: 24th Jan 2002 Posts: 14,747	I'm pretty happy with my Ubuntu but I will be giving win7 another shot at the end of next week when I put together a new system to replace my dying 7 years old one Granted it will be in a dual-boot configuration but I will honestly give it a fair attempt and even maybe try to like it. After all there are some good games that are supposed to come out next year and when I get around to building my i7 monster I'll need to dual boot it with SOME version of windows in order to play games, so I'm really hoping to like win7 because that will give me a supposed option over XP and a good option over vista __________________ .

9th November 2009, 09:36	#41
*luck777jojo* Power Overwhelming Join Date: 24th Jan 2002 Posts: 14,747	well like I said I will try, for now it's still not the i7 system that I'm putting together, it's just an upgrade for one of my secondary systems, but it still is going to be all new so it should be able to handle win7 without any problems, at least for testing purposes. __________________ .

9th November 2009, 16:56	#43
JAvEX ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Evil Elite Tournaments Won: 3 Join Date: 12th Mar 2005 Posts: 5,056	That's true, with some minor Googling you can even install DirectX 10 on XP (and I'm sure DirectX 11 as well soon enough). __________________

10th November 2009, 10:05	#45
*luck777jojo* Power Overwhelming Join Date: 24th Jan 2002 Posts: 14,747	Yeah only talking about a gaming rig here.... I have become way too much of a stuck up linux snob to consider windows for anything other than gaming now __________________ .