Vista>Windows 7

[iGrooCk]

Not here for flames or anything of that sort, just giving my view on the subject.

I have been using windows 7 since it got released to the public. Was excited when i downloaded it and etc, once it was installed the excitement went away. Some things i didnt like about it: Hibernation doesnt work at all, computer wakes up constantly without touching the pc, much more complicated to find options, such as screen resolution, and other components than vista.

I just built an i7 rig and back to vista i go. Vista to me is much more refined and finished. Yes i realize that the 7 version is a beta but what i am trying to say is, vista is pretty much what windows 7 is.

There are many reviews out there on gaming performance between the 2, same exact results with maybe 1fps difference. whatever happened to amazing results and etc?

Besides, i spent 100$ on vista, and seeing how 7 is exactly the same with some more skins there is absolutely no point in getting 7 because there will be no difference.

I am still amazed at how some people hate vista, and rave about 7, its the same goddamn thing lol. Only this time microsoft wanted to make itself look like the good guy next door and let users test it and etc, most of those users are probably the people that hated vista without trying it.

again i am not flaming it for what is it, just comparing it. after uninstalling 7 and going back to vista, its not so frustrating anymore to deal with software incompatibility with 7 over vista (remember how everything was supposed to work with 7 if it worked on vista? not the case)

In the end windows 7 is just there to cover up the early issues with vista that everyone had trouble with, including me. After SP1+2 Vista is the best thing microsoft made.
The way i think of 7 is a large patch with added content that was made slightly better from vista, which will cost you additional 150+

[ryan_975]

While 7 pretty much is Vista with a makeover, there still are many things that are different and better, such as the taskbar for starters. If you were expecting the a massive difference that Vista was to XP, then you read way to much into the infromation that was out there.


Oh, and Vista went through the same extensive public testing as 7 will.

[iGrooCk]

Taskbar is useless, its the same as any other taskbar with a shortcut...how is it different? if it acted like objectdock or apple counterpart then i can understand what you are saying, but it doesnt...

I was not expecting anything more than what i got, which is why i am going back to vista since there is nothing i will lose sleep over with 7. in the end i will not use most of the features anyway. as with vista, i never use aero interface but had it on, that sort of thing

[lathode]

I'm typing from build 7068 right now. I like how transparent the taskbar and window borders are now, look much nicer. I also like the album view in the music folder, less crap installed in the start menu, gadgets w/o sidebar, etc. I don't know how it's hard to change the screen resolution.. you just right click on the desktop and select screen resolution... And complaining about features not working in a beta OS is pretty dumb. And if you like Vista then stay with it, no one is forcing you to change... Oh, and where did you hear it was going to cost $150+ I'm guessing it's going to cost pretty much the same as Vista and XP does. ~$100.

edit: I forgot to mention libraries, that's a pretty nice feature. The dragging a window to the side of the screen for it to take up that half of the screen is sweet as well.


So even in beta form, Windows 7>Vista

[iGrooCk]

you obviously didnt read what i wrote, i am pointing out small issues that i had problems with. read over my first post again, everything is explained there, no complaining, just comparisons, you have your own views.

when i first started using 7 i couldn't find a lot options that were in a convenient place, vista has it sorted out. i didnt mean to say resolution and etc, i forget what i was looking for, but it was related to the system and some major option.

how i know what its going to cost? take a look at vista launch, cheapest model was basic at 180$ something. 350+ for ultimate. the price you see now on vista is NOW!!! not then, and you are buying OEM system builder, they dont sell that at stores. that is what the majority of people are going to buy.

[ScYcS]

I actually agree with you to an extent iGrooCk. Basically, if MS really WANTED, they could most likely easily patch Vista to look and behave EXACTLY like Windows 7. As a matter of fact, i almost bet that is what they did internally.

Running Windows 7 7057 here and i like it but really......i'd be just as happy with my Vista x64 install as well.

[Ur_Mom]

Hibernation works fine for me, for some reason. Doesn't make up out of nowhere. Things are easier to find than with Vista, just some of them are different. People complained that they didn't want to go through 5 different windows to change a setting, so they fix it, and people still complain.

I think it all depends on your setup and knowledge level. I have it on my laptop and my main PC and both work FLAWLESSLY. Absolutely ZERO problems or complaints so far. I've submitted a few bugs, but they were just easy bugs that got fixed in later builds.

But, to each their own. Some love Linux and can't use a Windows machine. Same with Mac. Once you get used to 7, you'll probably have a hard time doing things in Vista...

[iGrooCk]

i am the opposite, i find vista easier to use than 7, and there is no way i can agree with you with once you use 7 you wont go back to vista, i did that just last night and have no complaints. it all depends what you are using you know, each their own

[demingo]

Some of the easy of use stuff in 7 alone makes it awesome. The ability to drag windows to the sides and top to maximize and so forth is extremely useful I thought it would be a gimmick but I find myself using it everyday. Also, I love how windows 7 gives you more options to customize the start menu. For example in Vista you couldnt add your downloads folder as a quicklink in the startmenu, 7 lets you. I wont argue that 7 is just a tweaked vista, cause it is. But damn there are so many little improvements in it. I love the new mediaplayer as well.

Performance wise 7 seems snapper overall in the os. I also get less slowdown in games. Boots quicker too. I'm one of those people who cant see going back to Vista or XP after running 7.

[othellomcbane]

Most of the changes to Windows 7 are "useful" little tricks like the window snapping and taskbar and aero peek. But, to be honest, I think the real difference between the two isn't as noticeable on overpowered computers. Throw 7 on a skimpy laptop and you'll see why people are impressed--it runs extremely well on hardware that most people would have never considered putting Vista on. A lot of that was people just holding on to XP for no reason when Vista came out, but it is the main reason so many Vista haters are raving about 7. And honestly, with 7 on my Dell laptop with a 5400 rpm drive, and Vista on my main rig, things seem just about as "snappy."

Coincidentally, I'll be installing 7 64 bit on my main rig in about half an hour.

[MrWizard6600]

I am still amazed at how some people hate vista, and rave about 7, its the same goddamn thing lol. Only this time microsoft wanted to make itself look like the good guy next door and let users test it and etc, most of those users are probably the people that hated vista without trying it.

I agree with this 100%. Windows 7 really is vista under a new banner, which is exactly what it needs for public face.

The single biggest complaint I hear about Vista is that its a monster, which is true, but when you can get 4GB of ram for less than $50, and 2+GHz dual cores for (well) under $100, I really think that statement is moot, as your hardware will out monster the monster that is the software its running.

[MrWizard6600]

how i know what its going to cost? take a look at vista launch, cheapest model was basic at 180$ something. 350+ for ultimate. the price you see now on vista is NOW!!! not then, and you are buying OEM system builder, they dont sell that at stores. that is what the majority of people are going to buy.

you can't talk about a majority of 5%. The vast majority of people will buy a PC that has Windows 7 pre-installed.

[spacetrader]

most people don't even know what windows is. most parents are fine with win98. it's enthusiasts that drive this market... that, and businesses.

[iGrooCk]

or that yes, didnt think of that. come to think of it most people buying software such as windows wont know what to do with it. but i was giving the overall picture of the products cost. when you buy OEM systems like HP and Dell software cost is the last thing you think about since majority of the cost is the actual hardware. but didnt Dell and few other makers said will skip 7 for a while and see it how it pans out? i think only HP welcomed the "new" OS

[Joe Average]

Blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda... so we go from bashing Vista to now bashing Windows 7? WTF people... geezus. Can't you all find anything better to do? :)

Windows 7 isn't Vista, it's that simple. It really isn't. But if you're stuck in that frame of mind, well, nothing and no one is going to change it.

At least the OP is willing to admit it's a YMMV situation, but even so... this thread is just begging for trouble, seriously.

[noobman]

Not here for flames or anything of that sort, just giving my view on the subject.

I have been using windows 7 since it got released to the public. Was excited when i downloaded it and etc, once it was installed the excitement went away. Some things i didnt like about it: Hibernation doesnt work at all, computer wakes up constantly without touching the pc, much more complicated to find options, such as screen resolution, and other components than vista.

I just built an i7 rig and back to vista i go. Vista to me is much more refined and finished. Yes i realize that the 7 version is a beta but what i am trying to say is, vista is pretty much what windows 7 is.

There are many reviews out there on gaming performance between the 2, same exact results with maybe 1fps difference. whatever happened to amazing results and etc?

Besides, i spent 100$ on vista, and seeing how 7 is exactly the same with some more skins there is absolutely no point in getting 7 because there will be no difference.

I am still amazed at how some people hate vista, and rave about 7, its the same goddamn thing lol. Only this time microsoft wanted to make itself look like the good guy next door and let users test it and etc, most of those users are probably the people that hated vista without trying it.

again i am not flaming it for what is it, just comparing it. after uninstalling 7 and going back to vista, its not so frustrating anymore to deal with software incompatibility with 7 over vista (remember how everything was supposed to work with 7 if it worked on vista? not the case)

In the end windows 7 is just there to cover up the early issues with vista that everyone had trouble with, including me. After SP1+2 Vista is the best thing microsoft made.
The way i think of 7 is a large patch with added content that was made slightly better from vista, which will cost you additional 150+
Withhold your judgment until Windows 7 is officially released. The biggest appeal Windows 7 has to me is that it's quite a bit faster than Windows Vista.

IMO Vista isn't too bad. It's just a pain in the butt to do anything, even with UAC disabled. The new menus are designed to explain power-user settings to average users. The end result is that average users still don't care/don't know how to do anything, and power-users have to go though more menus to get to the settings they want.

As long as you can learn to use the MMC for everything and deal with the fact that you'll have to log in as Administrator a lot more often you'll be fine.



Speaking of which... does anybody know how to edit Vista's hosts file?

[jterp7]

Withhold your judgment until Windows 7 is officially released. The biggest appeal Windows 7 has to me is that it's quite a bit faster than Windows Vista.

IMO Vista isn't too bad. It's just a pain in the butt to do anything, even with UAC disabled. The new menus are designed to explain power-user settings to average users. The end result is that average users still don't care/don't know how to do anything, and power-users have to go though more menus to get to the settings they want.

As long as you can learn to use the MMC for everything and deal with the fact that you'll have to log in as Administrator a lot more often you'll be fine.



Speaking of which... does anybody know how to edit Vista's hosts file?

AFAIK the speed advantages are mostly for users of low end machines. Most of us here on [H] with our i7's or OCed 3.6Hz dual or quads won't see much of a difference. I just got on the vista wagon with my new build and it looks like to me at least that most of the problems everyone complained about were mostly fixed.

[mrmylanman]

I liked Vista and tried out 7. Even with some of the compatibility problems I like 7 a lot more.

[lathode]

you obviously didnt read what i wrote, i am pointing out small issues that i had problems with. read over my first post again, everything is explained there, no complaining, just comparisons, you have your own views.

when i first started using 7 i couldn't find a lot options that were in a convenient place, vista has it sorted out. i didnt mean to say resolution and etc, i forget what i was looking for, but it was related to the system and some major option.

how i know what its going to cost? take a look at vista launch, cheapest model was basic at 180$ something. 350+ for ultimate. the price you see now on vista is NOW!!! not then, and you are buying OEM system builder, they dont sell that at stores. that is what the majority of people are going to buy.

You were obviously looking to start something here, otherwise you wouldn't have started a new thread with a title of Windows Vista is better than Windows 7. :rolleyes: I'm sure there's other threads where you could have voiced your opinion. Also the majority of people are going to get it with their new PC's or an OEM copy, not retail. And the price I see on Vista NOW is at best $20 cheaper than when it was 1st released. Also, just because you are used to where options are in Vista doesn't mean they're better than Windows 7, just means you've grown use to Vista. Tell me 1 thing that is easier to find in Vista than 7. It's good to hear you only had issues with small problems with a beta and not issues with big problems. Sounds like a good experience for a beta OS. And yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but don't make a stupid statement such as "Vista is better than 7" perhaps you should say "I prefer Vista over 7".

edit: I've been using Vista since release, people complained about Vista and think XP is better, I don't agree with that opinion myself but could understand their reasoning. I had a few issues with Vista myself but got through them. However I do not see ANYONE being able to make the argument that Vista is better than 7. Saying 7 is a polished Vista does not make Vista better, it makes 7 better.

[iroc409]

Wait, I thought we were still arguing about Vista versus XP?

:)

[iGrooCk]

Withhold your judgment until Windows 7 is officially released. The biggest appeal Windows 7 has to me is that it's quite a bit faster than Windows Vista.

IMO Vista isn't too bad. It's just a pain in the butt to do anything, even with UAC disabled. The new menus are designed to explain power-user settings to average users. The end result is that average users still don't care/don't know how to do anything, and power-users have to go though more menus to get to the settings they want.

As long as you can learn to use the MMC for everything and deal with the fact that you'll have to log in as Administrator a lot more often you'll be fine.



Speaking of which... does anybody know how to edit Vista's hosts file?

True, but again at least to me those little features like the UAC and transparency, power usages and etc dont matter at the end of the day. i dont have time to really get into a lot of those things, hell the aero which was the main showcase of vista, i never use. it all comes down to the core basics i guess.

To a vista user the features in 7 are very minimal, and as i mentioned to me wont do me any good. If i were to get a free copy of windows 7 i would not complain at all.

People going from xp i would say its a worthwhile upgrade, but how many on this board still run xp as an everyday OS for all their needs? XP doesnt take advantage of a lot of hardware which makes it pointless with todays hardware, not to mention its ugly as sin and slow.

To the person thats screaming this is a windows 7 bashing thread, its not, simply discussing the features, if you like one more than the other well you are welcome to post, no bashing or flaming needed

[iGrooCk]

You were obviously looking to start something here, otherwise you wouldn't have started a new thread with a title of Windows Vista is better than Windows 7. :rolleyes: I'm sure there's other threads where you could have voiced your opinion. Also the majority of people are going to get it with their new PC's or an OEM copy, not retail. And the price I see on Vista NOW is at best $20 cheaper than when it was 1st released. Also, just because you are used to where options are in Vista doesn't mean they're better than Windows 7, just means you've grown use to Vista. Tell me 1 thing that is easier to find in Vista than 7. It's good to hear you only had issues with small problems with a beta and not issues with big problems. Sounds like a good experience for a beta OS. And yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but don't make a stupid statement such as "Vista is better than 7" perhaps you should say "I prefer Vista over 7".

edit: I've been using Vista since release, people complained about Vista and think XP is better, I don't agree with that opinion myself but could understand their reasoning. I had a few issues with Vista myself but got through them. However I do not see ANYONE being able to make the argument that Vista is better than 7. Saying 7 is a polished Vista does not make Vista better, it makes 7 better.
yes vista IS better than 7 to me, i started this thread to point out issues i have with 7, i dont speak for general public and people on this forum, get that straight.
vista>window 7 , or i like vista better than 7 is the same thing. the way you interpret things is your own problem. move on

[Joe Average]

Then you should change the title of the thread to "I think Vista>Windows7 and here's why" because when people see "Vista>Windows 7" the first impression is more than likely going to be "ok, what is this fool getting himself into by making such a silly claim..."

As has been noted here many times, best and better cannot be quantified in terms of an OS when personal opinion is the deciding factor. By definition considering the sheer amount of "new" stuff, the tuning, the performance, the smaller footprint, pretty much every single thing you can quantifiably measure, Windows 7 is better than Vista, it just is, that can't be argued.

But when you're looking at this sort of crap from the "Oh I LIKE Vista better" or "I THINK Vista is better" that means Jack Fucking Shit to most everyone reading the opinions being offered up. I mean, you just said it yourself:

yes vista IS better than 7 to me...

Looks like one big personal opinion to me.

Move on, indeed.

[Krycek1]

Vista to me is much more refined and finished. Yes i realize that the 7 version is a beta...

Epic Fail comment of the year right there.

Also, they let people test Vista too. That's the whole point of a beta.

[sdotbrucato]

Windows 95 > Windows 7.

It runs on older hardware, and requires less horsepower, plus I know where Everything is!


This thread is full of win.

[brucedeluxe169]

FWIW, I agree with the OP (for the most part), and just dont get all of the nerd lust over Win 7.... really, aside from a few UI changes, there isn't really anything under the hood that it improves on Vista other than the less aggressive initial indexing and superfetching.....

for anyone with 1gb of RAM and more, that let their vista installation settle down and optimize itself correctly, Win 7 really is looking like the 2000 to XP transition, where XP really didn't offer much over 2000 other than the fact that it was the current OS, and thus, had longer, and more current support....

[Hypernova]

Speaking of which... does anybody know how to edit Vista's hosts file?

Edit it as admin? How else?

[lathode]

Obviously you don't know what you wrote, so I'll make things easier to understand this time.

Not here for flames or anything of that sort, just giving my view on the subject.

I have been using windows 7 since it got released to the public. Was excited when i downloaded it and etc, once it was installed the excitement went away. Some things i didnt like about it: Hibernation doesnt work at all, computer wakes up constantly without touching the pc, much more complicated to find options, such as screen resolution, and other components than vista.

Something doesn't work right in a beta OS:rolleyes: Complicated to find what options?As I pointed out screen resolution is easier to find, so what options are you talking about?

I just built an i7 rig and back to vista i go. Vista to me is much more refined and finished. Yes i realize that the 7 version is a beta but what i am trying to say is, vista is pretty much what windows 7 is.

An OS that has been out for almost 3 years is more refined and finished than a beta OS, you don't say? :rolleyes:

There are many reviews out there on gaming performance between the 2, same exact results with maybe 1fps difference. whatever happened to amazing results and etc?

If there is no difference than wouldn't that make it a tie, not that Vista is better? and the amazing results ar from people with lower hardware specs than you.

Besides, i spent 100$ on vista, and seeing how 7 is exactly the same with some more skins there is absolutely no point in getting 7 because there will be no difference.

All that says is you don't think it's worth rebuying an OS, how does that make Vista better? And there's a lot more to it than some skins. Obviously you didn't actualy USE 7.

I am still amazed at how some people hate vista, and rave about 7, its the same goddamn thing lol. Only this time microsoft wanted to make itself look like the good guy next door and let users test it and etc, most of those users are probably the people that hated vista without trying it.

People are easily persueded into thinking what they're told and not because of personal experience. The Mac Ads are a good example. How are they looking like a nice guy next door? Vista was publicly beta tested as well.

again i am not flaming it for what is it, just comparing it. after uninstalling 7 and going back to vista, its not so frustrating anymore to deal with software incompatibility with 7 over vista (remember how everything was supposed to work with 7 if it worked on vista? not the case)

What have you actually compared? Hard to find "those" options? Software incompatibility? What software didn't work for you? Again BETA, also there were a lot more incompatibilites than with WinXP which is why a lot of people still use XP. So I guess you're saying XP is better than Vista in that way?

In the end windows 7 is just there to cover up the early issues with vista that everyone had trouble with, including me. After SP1+2 Vista is the best thing microsoft made.
The way i think of 7 is a large patch with added content that was made slightly better from vista, which will cost you additional 150

So 7 fixed or covered up issues with Vista and added features that made it slightly BETTER than Vista. (you just said 7 is better than Vista if you didn't catch that) Seriously the price? that's not even a point. We don't know how much 7 is going to cost at release, Vista Prem was about $130 from what I remember but is down to about $100, so if anything you can assume maybe 7 will cost about $130. So $30 more for 7 over Vista at release. Maybe it'll cost the same after a few months.

Now you say I interperted your title wrong. "Vista is better than Windows 7" there's really no way to misinterpt that. But title aside, your post has no valid argument as to why Vista is better than 7. If that is your personal opinion that is just dandy, making a thread about opinions and asking people not to question your opinion is stupid. Why bother making the post? So others can come in and agree with you so you can feel better about your decision?

[dnottis]

Well here's another big reason that Windows 7 is better than Vista.

I have a netbook. I dont like Linux but it runs ok on the netbook. I dont want to run XP on it - obvious reasons. Windows Vista won't run on it. Windows 7 runs fantastic on a netbook.

Another score for Windows 7 are netbook users.

[delvryboy]

IMO, 7>Vista. I have been using Vista(and I love it) since launch, and I just can't go back. New taskbar, new aero features, and libraries are enough to push me off Vista. As soon as 7 goes RTM I'm buying a TechNet sub so I can upgrade 3 machines I have here.

[Cov]

I have installed Windows 7 x64 Build 7048 the other day.

Wow, I'm so happy with it that I don't wanna lose it anymore.
Have applied one of the keys (supplied with the download) and it says now: Windows is activated.

I guess it will stop working after 31st July 2009.


For those who have tried Vista and Windows 7 .... why does Windows 7 feel so different I wonder ?

It seems snappier, things work with so little delay. Some facelift looks pretty good too, for example the WMP ... just awesome imho.
Or the preview when you have several windows open ... I can't imagine any better than that.

So, if Vista really was so resource hungry, what have they done to speed up Windows 7 by so much without losing any features ?
Imagine this: Windows 7 runs on low spec computers while Vista won't even bother to install at all.

Or was it all a marketing trick from Microsoft ? With the intention to make people buy the follow up product in the first place ? Hmmm, we may never find out though.

Has anyone measured the difference in boot up times ?
What about SSDs ? Has anyone installed Windows 7 on a SSD drive ? What's the boot up speed like ?

What about he space Vista & Windows 7 take of the HDD once installed ?
When I check properties of the Windows Vista folder, it says 12.8 GB atm.
Checking properties of my Windows 7 folder, actually there are two ...

1) Windows = 10.7GB
2) Windows.old.000 = 11.5GB


Well, I thought an update in form of SP2 or SP3 could have transformed Vista into Windows 7 as well, but ... what if Windows 7 is really totally different UNDER THE HOOD ?
Then it would justify a new release I think, but ...

... why hasn't Windows 7 got a proper name ? hmm ? Come on, Windows 7 ! How does that sound ?
Following that trail, Vista should have been named Windows 6 then, right ?

[Tylerdurdened]

You need to understand 7 is a refined Vista.

Microsoft uses tick/tock method. They make one new OS, and the next they improve on it. Rinse and repeat.

For example: DOS and 3.1

95 and 98.

Me (and somewhat 2000) and XP

Vista and 7

Currently 7 is being dubbed as already better and faster than Vista, even for a main OS. I haven't read your whole OP but the hibernation problem was a bug in one of the released and from what I have heard they fixed it somewhere down the line. Everything else should just be Vista with a few touches to it.

[lathode]

I have installed Windows 7 x64 Build 7048 the other day.

Wow, I'm so happy with it that I don't wanna lose it anymore.
Have applied one of the keys (supplied with the download) and it says now: Windows is activated.

I guess it will stop working after 31st July 2009.


For those who have tried Vista and Windows 7 .... why does Windows 7 feel so different I wonder ?

It seems snappier, things work with so little delay. Some facelift looks pretty good too, for example the WMP ... just awesome imho.
Or the preview when you have several windows open ... I can't imagine any better than that.

So, if Vista really was so resource hungry, what have they done to speed up Windows 7 by so much without losing any features ?
Imagine this: Windows 7 runs on low spec computers while Vista won't even bother to install at all.

Or was it all a marketing trick from Microsoft ? With the intention to make people buy the follow up product in the first place ? Hmmm, we may never find out though.

Has anyone measured the difference in boot up times ?
What about SSDs ? Has anyone installed Windows 7 on a SSD drive ? What's the boot up speed like ?

What about he space Vista & Windows 7 take of the HDD once installed ?
When I check properties of the Windows Vista folder, it says 12.8 GB atm.
Checking properties of my Windows 7 folder, actually there are two ...

1) Windows = 10.7GB
2) Windows.old.000 = 11.5GB


Well, I thought an update in form of SP2 or SP3 could have transformed Vista into Windows 7 as well, but ... what if Windows 7 is really totally different UNDER THE HOOD ?
Then it would justify a new release I think, but ...

... why hasn't Windows 7 got a proper name ? hmm ? Come on, Windows 7 ! How does that sound ?
Following that trail, Vista should have been named Windows 6 then, right ?

Windows 3.1 :p

[ryan_975]

I have installed Windows 7 x64 Build 7048 the other day.

Wow, I'm so happy with it that I don't wanna lose it anymore.
Have applied one of the keys (supplied with the download) and it says now: Windows is activated.

I guess it will stop working after 31st July 2009.


For those who have tried Vista and Windows 7 .... why does Windows 7 feel so different I wonder ?

It seems snappier, things work with so little delay. Some facelift looks pretty good too, for example the WMP ... just awesome imho.
Or the preview when you have several windows open ... I can't imagine any better than that.

So, if Vista really was so resource hungry, what have they done to speed up Windows 7 by so much without losing any features ?
Imagine this: Windows 7 runs on low spec computers while Vista won't even bother to install at all.

Or was it all a marketing trick from Microsoft ? With the intention to make people buy the follow up product in the first place ? Hmmm, we may never find out though.

Has anyone measured the difference in boot up times ?
What about SSDs ? Has anyone installed Windows 7 on a SSD drive ? What's the boot up speed like ?

What about he space Vista & Windows 7 take of the HDD once installed ?
When I check properties of the Windows Vista folder, it says 12.8 GB atm.
Checking properties of my Windows 7 folder, actually there are two ...

1) Windows = 10.7GB
2) Windows.old.000 = 11.5GB


Well, I thought an update in form of SP2 or SP3 could have transformed Vista into Windows 7 as well, but ... what if Windows 7 is really totally different UNDER THE HOOD ?
Then it would justify a new release I think, but ...

... why hasn't Windows 7 got a proper name ? hmm ? Come on, Windows 7 ! How does that sound ?
Following that trail, Vista should have been named Windows 6 then, right ?

C:\Windows only contains \Windows it's sub-items. C:\Windows.old contains the old C:\Windows and it's sub-items, the old C:\Program Files and it's sub-items and the old C:\Users and it's sub-items. That's why there's a difference.

Also, Windows 7 is the official name and Vista was Windows 6 as XP was Windows 5.1. They sort of just went back to the original naming of NT (e.g. 4.0, 3.51, etc).

[ryan_975]

You need to understand 7 is a refined Vista.

Microsoft uses tick/tock method. They make one new OS, and the next they improve on it. Rinse and repeat.

For example: DOS and 3.1

95 and 98.

Me (and somewhat 2000) and XP

Vista and 7

Currently 7 is being dubbed as already better and faster than Vista, even for a main OS. I haven't read your whole OP but the hibernation problem was a bug in one of the released and from what I have heard they fixed it somewhere down the line. Everything else should just be Vista with a few touches to it.

DOS and 3.1 were two totally different beasts. ME was a refined (hah!) 98SE, which was refined from 98, which was refined from 95. XP is not related to any of the 9x/ME line. It's a direct succesor to Win2k.

[Tylerdurdened]

I have installed Windows 7 x64 Build 7048 the other day.

Wow, I'm so happy with it that I don't wanna lose it anymore.
Have applied one of the keys (supplied with the download) and it says now: Windows is activated.

I guess it will stop working after 31st July 2009.


For those who have tried Vista and Windows 7 .... why does Windows 7 feel so different I wonder ?

It seems snappier, things work with so little delay. Some facelift looks pretty good too, for example the WMP ... just awesome imho.
Or the preview when you have several windows open ... I can't imagine any better than that.

So, if Vista really was so resource hungry, what have they done to speed up Windows 7 by so much without losing any features ?
Imagine this: Windows 7 runs on low spec computers while Vista won't even bother to install at all.

Or was it all a marketing trick from Microsoft ? With the intention to make people buy the follow up product in the first place ? Hmmm, we may never find out though.

Has anyone measured the difference in boot up times ?
What about SSDs ? Has anyone installed Windows 7 on a SSD drive ? What's the boot up speed like ?

What about he space Vista & Windows 7 take of the HDD once installed ?
When I check properties of the Windows Vista folder, it says 12.8 GB atm.
Checking properties of my Windows 7 folder, actually there are two ...

1) Windows = 10.7GB
2) Windows.old.000 = 11.5GB


Well, I thought an update in form of SP2 or SP3 could have transformed Vista into Windows 7 as well, but ... what if Windows 7 is really totally different UNDER THE HOOD ?
Then it would justify a new release I think, but ...

... why hasn't Windows 7 got a proper name ? hmm ? Come on, Windows 7 ! How does that sound ?
Following that trail, Vista should have been named Windows 6 then, right ?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10064971-56.html
Nash said the decision to stick with the Windows 7 name is "about simplicity."

Windows 7 was actually first codenamed Blackcomb, then later renamed to Vienna, and now it is official 7 and ill remain 7.

[Impulse]

Getting suspend/hibernation working always seems like an issue with a new OS or new tech (see all the X58 mobos that won't go to sleep and resume at all)... As for finding stuff, well, whenever it's moved around it's gonna bother anyone that's used to knowing where to find it... I thought Vista moved a lot of stuff around from XP and some of it made very little sense (network settings got thrown about into a buncha different pages/tabs for one),

I still think both 7 and Vista have been an improvement on XP though... Maybe not colossal improvements, surely not must-have upgrades, but they improved on XP in several ways w/o really taking back a step in any major way... Except maybe performance on less powerful devices like netbooks, but if you know how to configure your OS even Vista will run surprisingly snappy on the Atom... It's the default out-of-the box config that's messed up, not the OS itself.

You're right though, Windows 7 is pretty much MS's take two on Vista, it's a massive PR move as far as I'm concerned... With good reason, Vista's biggest hurdle at this point isn't remotely technical, it's all the bad PR it accumulated early on due to driver issues (and aggressive ad campaigns from Apple, etc). There's a reason they're nuking the name Vista itself (it barely even shows up on their current Vista ads!).

There's still some nice usability tweaks in 7 though (some of the window manipulation stuff should've been added years ago), whether they're worth the upgrade to you is more of a personal matter. Vista had a lot of very useful technical upgrrades, such as the way it handles memory, improved 64-bit driver support, etc.; and for a lot of people it still wasn't worth the upgrade.

[Archer75]

Op, I know you say you realize that Windows 7 is in beta but after reading your posts I really don't think you understand that at all.

The taskbar has the same functionality as the OSX dock but it takes it to the next level with live previews, aero peek, etc. I have OSX on this computer and like it but the windows 7 taskbar and built in features put the OSX dock and expose to shame.

I was using Vista back in beta. It's always worked well for me. It's always been stable on my computer and performed well. So I have no complaints about Vista.

But windows 7 is just nicer to use. I really can't place all of it but I just feel more productive using it.
People say that 7 is just Vista. Well yeah, it's built right on Vista. An evolution of the product. Do you really want Microsoft to start all over AGAIN?!
It has a ton of changes under the hood. Tons of improvements in every aspect of the OS. I'm using various builds of it on 3 different computers here and love it. It's faster than XP or Vista. Benchmarks all agree on that.

[Tylerdurdened]

DOS and 3.1 were two totally different beasts. ME was a refined (hah!) 98SE, which was refined from 98, which was refined from 95. XP is not related to any of the 9x/ME line. It's a direct succesor to Win2k.

I only read about DOS and 3.1 (I was 5 years old when 95 came out so I wasn't around in those days), but I read that 3.1 was more or less DOS with a GUI, with some other improvements.

[ryan_975]

I only read about DOS and 3.1 (I was 5 years old when 95 came out so I wasn't around in those days), but I read that 3.1 was more or less DOS with a GUI, with some other improvements.

3.1 ran on top of DOS, but it offered it's own features that DOS was not nor ever would have been capable of. Even Win9x/ME were more or less Windows on top of DOS, MS just tried to hide the DOS layer from the end user.

[Joe Average]

The issues that people have with suspend and hibernation are a direct result of shitty non-ACPI compliant hardware drivers, period. It's not the OS, it's the drivers. You have to have 100% support for ACPI across the board, no exceptions, or the power management functionality that ACPI is capable of (suspend states, hibernation, even shutdown and restart) will not work as they are designed to work.

As Microsoft doesn't write drivers, the fault lies primarily on the hardware manufacturers... this has been a known issue for over 10 years now, but it rears up with a "new" OS especially in beta testing.

Beta OS = beta drivers = shit fucking doesn't work.

As time goes by, as the OS hits RTM status, more solid and stable and fully 100% compliant ACPI ready drivers will appear and that's that.

[fromeo85]

Most of the changes to Windows 7 are "useful" little tricks like the window snapping and taskbar and aero peek. But, to be honest, I think the real difference between the two isn't as noticeable on overpowered computers. Throw 7 on a skimpy laptop and you'll see why people are impressed--it runs extremely well on hardware that most people would have never considered putting Vista on. A lot of that was people just holding on to XP for no reason when Vista came out, but it is the main reason so many Vista haters are raving about 7. And honestly, with 7 on my Dell laptop with a 5400 rpm drive, and Vista on my main rig, things seem just about as "snappy."

Coincidentally, I'll be installing 7 64 bit on my main rig in about half an hour.

you are absolutely right, i have the 7057 build on my Dell Mini 9 with a 16GB SSD and 2GB of ram, runs great.

[Joe Average]

You could install Windows 3.1x on a machine that didn't have DOS on it at all, yanno... :)

[ryan_975]

You could install Windows 3.1x on a machine that didn't have DOS on it at all, yanno... :)

How so?

[Cov]

C:\Windows only contains \Windows it's sub-items. C:\Windows.old contains the old C:\Windows and it's sub-items, the old C:\Program Files and it's sub-items and the old C:\Users and it's sub-items. That's why there's a difference.

Gosh, I feel dizzy now. Why is that so complicated ?
My Windows 7 installation does show that as default:

http://www.abload.de/img/windows7zjkc.png


... Also, Windows 7 is the official name and Vista was Windows 6 as XP was Windows 5.1. They sort of just went back to the original naming of NT (e.g. 4.0, 3.51, etc).

So, the version after 7 will be Windows 8 then ?
Hmm, don't know about you, but to call their OS Windows 7 leaves a bad aftertase for me.
WIndows with a version number, that's what we had in the early days.
I would rather chose a different hobby then going back to Windows 3.11 tbh.
So it wasn't a bad idea to call Vista, Windows Vista.

[Impulse]

Well here's another big reason that Windows 7 is better than Vista. I have a netbook. I dont like Linux but it runs ok on the netbook. I dont want to run XP on it - obvious reasons. Windows Vista won't run on it. Windows 7 runs fantastic on a netbook. Another score for Windows 7 are netbook users.

There's a ton of people that have managed to install Vista and have it run perfectly fine on their netbooks (www.aspireoneuser.com), you can't just do a stock install and expect it to work well though... 7 is just configured to behave itself better out of the box and they trimmed the install size and cut out all the fat, something you could easily do for Vista yourself if you put in a couple hours.

Memory usage is not that much lower either, they're both (7 and Vista) still using more memory than XP, and the gap between them and XP is larger than the gap between each other... As far as I've seen anyway... I don't think it's a huge issue regardless, most netbooks can easily be upgraded to 1.5-2GB of memory if you really need it for multi-tasking.

[SonataSys]

For those who think Windows 7 is not Vista Reclamation, especially for those who actually think Microsoft started from scratch with Windows 7, I have a great swamp reclamation deal in Florida I'd like to pitch to you!

Microsoft has never started anything from scratch...

[Impulse]

So, if Vista really was so resource hungry, what have they done to speed up Windows 7 by so much without losing any features ?
Imagine this: Windows 7 runs on low spec computers while Vista won't even bother to install at all.

Or was it all a marketing trick from Microsoft ? With the intention to make people buy the follow up product in the first place ? Hmmm, we may never find out though.
...
Well, I thought an update in form of SP2 or SP3 could have transformed Vista into Windows 7 as well, but ... what if Windows 7 is really totally different UNDER THE HOOD ?
Then it would justify a new release I think, but ...

Umm, it was neither a marketing trick nor was it some miraculous efficiency improvement in Windows 7... Do you realize when Vista came out? Late '06. The first ASUS EEE PC netbooks didn't come out 'till the following year, and nobody, absolutely nobody, not even ASUS, expected the category to be such a big hit... Thus there was really no reason to trim down the install size or worry too much about memory usage in Vista when 500GB drives were becoming commonplace and RAM prices were plummeting. You can't even blame MS of not looking towards the future given the surprise hit netbooks were...

As I said, you can get Vista working wonderfuly on a netbook if you put some work into it, doesn't require a massive amount of tinkering... Just install it w/vLite to trim some of the crap and nuke some of the extraneous processes and it'll run just fine.

[Joe Average]

Boot off the MS-DOS boot floppy, but don't run the installer. Fdisk and format a partition, then sys c: to transfer the system over (it's just the io.sys, msdos.sys, and command.com obviously but I don't consider that to be the entire damned Disk-Operating-System). Once that's done, boot off the Win 3.1x first floppy and run with it...

Semantics aside, this process doesn't install DOS, but it does install enough to get the machine bootable - just not with all that "bloat" on the 3 discs... ;)

[ryan_975]

Gosh, I feel dizzy now. Why is that so complicated ?
My Windows 7 installation does show that as default:

http://www.abload.de/img/windows7zjkc.png




So, the version after 7 will be Windows 8 then ?
Hmm, don't know about you, but to call their OS Windows 7 leaves a bad aftertase for me.
WIndows with a version number, that's what we had in the early days.
I would rather chose a different hobby then going back to Windows 3.11 tbh.
So it wasn't a bad idea to call Vista, Windows Vista.

Depends on what they decide to call Windows 8. But it'll be the 8.0 version of Windows NT regardless of what they call it, just as 2000 was 5.0, XP was 5.1, Vista was 6.0.

[ryan_975]

Boot off the MS-DOS boot floppy, but don't run the installer. Fdisk and format a partition, then sys c: to transfer the system over (it's just the io.sys, msdos.sys, and command.com obviously but I don't consider that to be the entire damned Disk-Operating-System). Once that's done, boot off the Win 3.1x first floppy and run with it...

Semantics aside, this process doesn't install DOS, but it does install enough to get the machine bootable - just not with all that "bloat" on the 3 discs... ;)

Well, to be fair, io.sys and msdos.sys contained the entirety of MS-DOS's operating system functions. The C:\DOS files were just tools and utilities that made things more useful. So you still have to have the MS-DOS system installed to run Windows versions prior to 95

[Impulse]

Why is XP considered 5.1 anyway? It was at 'least as much of an improvement on 2K as Vista was on XP, I mean, it was their first major consumer release since 98 (some would argue 95) and it unified their separate OS (or rather, shifted everyone away from the DOS/95/98 core for good and unto XP along with all the businesses using NT/2K).

[Cov]

By the way guys, do we still have the 640kB barrier ?
I mean, excuse me for being a supernoob now, but I was around since the 486 machines and all the horror stories were the naked truth at that time.
Never looked deeper into it, it's just such a damn dry subject and not many seem to know anyway.
But have we overcome all the stupid burdens of the past yet ? Just in case anyone knows though ... otherwise please ignore me.

[Impulse]

Umm, yes, it's a thing of the past, long long ago. Gonna ask about Y2K as well while we're at it? :p

[ryan_975]

Why is XP considered 5.1 anyway? It was at 'least as much of an improvement on 2K as Vista was on XP, I mean, it was their first major consumer release since 98 (some would argue 95) and it unified their separate OS (or rather, shifted everyone away from the DOS/95/98 core for good and unto XP along with all the businesses using NT/2K).

There's not a whole lot of difference between XP and 2000. Luna was the biggest noticeable difference, and application compatibility with non NT programs. Even then, there were quite a few 9x applications that wouldn't work right with XP, because it's still NT.

By the way guys, do we still have the 640kB barrier ?
I mean, excuse me for being a supernoob now, but I was around since the 486 machines and all the horror stories were the naked truth at that time.
Never looked deeper into it, it's just such a damn dry subject and not many seem to know anyway.
But have we overcome all the stupid burdens of the past yet ? Just in case anyone knows though ... otherwise please ignore me.

The 640kb limit was a DOS limitation. It does not exist on any Windows NT based OS.

[dnottis]

There's a ton of people that have managed to install Vista and have it run perfectly fine on their netbooks (www.aspireoneuser.com), you can't just do a stock install and expect it to work well though... 7 is just configured to behave itself better out of the box and they trimmed the install size and cut out all the fat, something you could easily do for Vista yourself if you put in a couple hours.

Memory usage is not that much lower either, they're both (7 and Vista) still using more memory than XP, and the gap between them and XP is larger than the gap between each other... As far as I've seen anyway... I don't think it's a huge issue regardless, most netbooks can easily be upgraded to 1.5-2GB of memory if you really need it for multi-tasking.


Vista runs like shit on my laptop, but it runs Windows 7 great. Memory usage on Windows 7 is alot lower for a machine using 1GB or 2GB ram - since my laptop only holds 1 GB ram and the netbook max is 2GB I cant upgrade either any further. Windows 7 on a clean boot is at about 450MB ram usage, whereas Vista SP2 on my desktops is already at 1.2GB memory usage. I can have multiple apps running on my netbook and still be under 1GB memory usage. Memory usage on windows 7 IS that much lower, your facts are just wrong. Do you even have a netbook that you've test this on, like I have... cause it sounds like you dont actually have any first hand experience with this.

[Impulse]

As far as gaming goes, XP worked tremendously better than 2K did... I dunno if that was due to the drivers more so than newer versions of DirectX or what have you, but there were issues w/2K and gaming right up 'till the end. Just saying, even if technically it wasn't the biggest improvement (again, neither was Vista), as far as mainstream consumer adoption it was.

[XOR != OR]

Not here for flames or anything of that sort, just giving my view on the subject.


Looks like one big personal opinion to me.

Move on, indeed.Figure that out all by yourself, did you?

[Impulse]

Do you even have a netbook that you've test this on, like I have... cause it sounds like you dont actually have any first hand experience with this.

I have an Acer Aspire One, 160GB/6-cell version... Never bothered to bump up it's ram from 1GB either.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7159/dsc00053rns.jpg

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3980/dsc00062y.jpg

[Joe Average]

Nah, but we get this all the time... the thread title is simply wrong for the comments, that's it. Should be a bit more specific instead of just creating threads to spew personal opinions... it's a discussion forum, so... we're discussing it, what's the big issue?

[brucedeluxe169]

Depends on what they decide to call Windows 8. But it'll be the 8.0 version of Windows NT regardless of what they call it, just as 2000 was 5.0, XP was 5.1, Vista was 6.0.

and 7 is 6.1

....... which is y i hate the name of windows 7.....

hell... even calling it 6.1 is good enough... even for marketing purposes

[ryan_975]

and 7 is 6.1

....... which is y i hate the name of windows 7.....

hell... even calling it 6.1 is good enough... even for marketing purposes

Right now it's 6.1 because it's based off of Server 2008 code. which is also v6.1. If I remember right, Vista didn't get it's version bumped up to 6.0 until the Beta2 or RC1 phase. When Windows 7 is sitting on the shelf at the store, it'll be version 7.0.

[Cov]

I have two HDDs in my system.
Windows Vista x86 on one and Windows 7 x64 on the other.
Received recently a DVB-S card and the first things I did was ...

installed drivers, then installed DVB-S player ... on both OS.

Funny things happened:

1. on Windows 7 - driver installation did not work but the player installed fine.
2. on Windows Vista - driver installation worked fine, but the player didn't install.

Anyway, I then started the player within Vista by navigating to the folder on the second HDD, where 7 is installed on.

http://www.abload.de/img/windows7situation-nosozmpg.jpg

Funny problem ?

[Impulse]

Looks like it's just missing codecs no? Or should they part of the driver/program install? Still funny nonetheless.

[brucedeluxe169]

Right now it's 6.1 because it's based off of Server 2008 code. which is also v6.1. If I remember right, Vista didn't get it's version bumped up to 6.0 until the Beta2 or RC1 phase. When Windows 7 is sitting on the shelf at the store, it'll be version 7.0.

i have zero evidence at all, but i'm pretty sure win7 will stay with a version 6.1-2 kernel....

just a hunch :)

[Cov]

Another question regarding installing an OS in general ...

My plan is to get a small SSD drive, maybe 64 / 80 or even 120GB - just for the OS and leave the 1 TB HDDs just for main data storage.
Have read recently an article about how SSDs really work and was rather puzzled I have to say.

Did you know that writing once works pretty fast and if you use SSDs for reading only (like an ODD) then you wouldn't have any issues at all.
But once cells then have to be deleted BEFORE you can overwrite, then SSDs seem to have a MASSIVE HUGE handicap cause deleting and writing over SSD cells takes multiple times longer than on any HDD.

I was pretty disappointed when I read it, uhm ... should i look for the link ?

[ryan_975]

i have zero evidence at all, but i'm pretty sure win7 will stay with a version 6.1-2 kernel....

just a hunch :)

Perhaps you're right. Going back through pre-release Vista screenshots, it was v6.0 when it got it's official name at Beta1

Also a quick search reveals this dated article supporting you. :) http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/why_does_window.html

[Impulse]

You're probably referring to Anandtech's article, it's a pretty in-depth look at the status quo of current SSD models in the market...

If you read it carefully you also might've noticed that even after that performance hit thru frequent use, the SSD still comes far ahead of any conventional HD, and that it's pretty much an unavoidable fact of SSDs, though there's a lot of ways to mitigate it. Some SSDs with poor controllers take a much bigger hit and do end up slower than regular HDs, right now you get what you pay for w/SSDs, and you pay a pretty large premium for one that's worth it ($300+ for reduced capacities, etc.).

Windows 7 will contain some improvements in this regard, supposedly.

[fromeo85]

XP was good, Vista IS good as long as you have the system to run it, and 7 WILL be good end o story.

[Cov]

You're probably referring to Anandtech's article, it's a pretty in-depth look ...
Yeah, that's the one.
Had emailed the author of that article: Anand Shimpi

Hi Anand

I have read your article from 18th March 2009 about how "SSDs work".

It was very interesting and disappointing at the same time.

Interesting, because now I have an idea how it all works and diappointing, because the writing handicap sounds really bad to me.

How could they mess up this I wonder ?

The new generation of SSds gave me so much hope and I was even willing to spend an unreasonable amount for my first SSD.
Have read good things about the SanDisk G25 3G ones which have been said to become available this year.

Have read good things about the Intel X25-M (80GB) one too, and after reading your report I googled for prices again.

I really do hope that the manufacturer will come up with a better solution then that.

When using the Intel as a boot drive for the OS, aren't the frequent writing actions, which a OS does non stop, like contra productive suddenly ?
I mean, I can hear my normal HDD grinding CONSTANTLY, so why should a MLC SSD be left with less writing operations ?
Sure without noise, but the (SSD) LED does flash all the time to indicate being busy, doesn't it ? Same like my HDD now.

Let's hope for the best in regards of SSD development, and please keep us informed of this issue.
Everything related to it is highly interesting, and I dare to say, it's the most exciting hardware to discuss about at the moment ... for me at least.

Thank you very much for the very good article again.

With kind regards


He replied:

Thank you for your email. Do keep in mind that the best MLC SSDs have controllers that are intelligent enough to work around the constant writing to your drive by your OS, it's the more unusual access patterns that will cause them to slow down unreasonably.

[Impulse]

Going forward, the best approach for years to come is still gonna be a mix of regular HDs and SSDs, hopefully the OS and other apps become intelligent enough to know which they should use for certain tasks so it's not up to the user to micro-manage it...

[spacetrader]

i have zero evidence at all, but i'm pretty sure win7 will stay with a version 6.1-2 kernel....

just a hunch :)

i remember reading they were going to keep the '6.1' or whatever label for win7, even if it is a 'new' kernel, to keep compatibility seamless. this is part of the reason vista drivers work in win7 so well.

[ryan_975]

i remember reading they were going to keep the '6.1' or whatever label for win7, even if it is a 'new' kernel, to keep compatibility seamless. this is part of the reason vista drivers work in win7 so well.

yep, http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

[Mithent]

I'm skeptical of this "keeping version 6.x for compatibility" thing. What, Microsoft are never going to change the major version number of Windows again now? There is already a compatibility system which can lie about the version number in order to keep fickle programs happy, and Vista drivers work fine with it because there are few low-level changes from Vista.

NT 6.1 makes sense because that is exactly what it is - it's a modification of Windows Vista, NT 6.0, on the same basic platform, in just the same way that Windows XP was NT 5.1 and based on the Windows 2000 platform. NT 4.0, NT 5.0 (2000) and NT 6.0 (Vista) all have major changes to the system architecture, whereas NT 5.1 (XP) and NT 6.1 (7) do not. "Windows 7" is a marketing name, but it doesn't make sense from the point of view of the system.

[ryan_975]

I'm skeptical of this "keeping version 6.x for compatibility" thing. What, Microsoft are never going to change the major version number of Windows again now? There is already a compatibility system which can lie about the version number in order to keep fickle programs happy, and Vista drivers work fine with it because there are few low-level changes from Vista.

NT 6.1 makes sense because that is exactly what it is - it's a modification of Windows Vista, NT 6.0, on the same basic platform, in just the same way that Windows XP was NT 5.1 and based on the Windows 2000 platform. NT 4.0, NT 5.0 (2000) and NT 6.0 (Vista) all have major changes to the system architecture, whereas NT 5.1 (XP) and NT 6.1 (7) do not. "Windows 7" is a marketing name, but it doesn't make sense from the point of view of the system.

application compatibility isn't perfect. I've had a few installers,*particularly those that just decompress and run another installer) choke on the 6.1 version even with Vista or XP compatibility mode enabled.

[Impulse]

Maybe there's a very clever 7 of 9 marketing campaign in the works that we're not aware of? :p

[Cov]

Thought this might qualify as on topic ?

Sure you notice that when posting pictures / links, you first have to allow scripts to run temporarily.
That's quite annoying and I never sorted it until I found a solution only the other day:

1. From the menu select Tools / Internet Options
2. select the security tab and clicl on custom level
3. in the scripting section (almost on the bottom of the window) enable "allow websites to prompt for information using scripted windows"

There's no security risk and should actually be enabled by default, like in Firefox etc


PS: don't tell me everyone on hardforum knew this already anyway ?

[MittWaffen]

Yeah good job OP.

I don't understand all this buzz, ive installed Beta on top of beta for windows 7 and I keep coming back to my matured vista OS. Maybe it runs better on low end system, but my mid and high end rigs seem the same..other than the reduced start up time. But hibernate completely voids this.

Is it just a marketing victory for Microsoft with Win7

[spacetrader]

I'm skeptical of this "keeping version 6.x for compatibility" thing. What, Microsoft are never going to change the major version number of Windows again now? There is already a compatibility system which can lie about the version number in order to keep fickle programs happy, and Vista drivers work fine with it because there are few low-level changes from Vista.

NT 6.1 makes sense because that is exactly what it is - it's a modification of Windows Vista, NT 6.0, on the same basic platform, in just the same way that Windows XP was NT 5.1 and based on the Windows 2000 platform. NT 4.0, NT 5.0 (2000) and NT 6.0 (Vista) all have major changes to the system architecture, whereas NT 5.1 (XP) and NT 6.1 (7) do not. "Windows 7" is a marketing name, but it doesn't make sense from the point of view of the system.


its because win7 is basically vista, period. in the past, when they had such similar kernels, they changed the basic label number and it was a pita for regular folk to get things to work. this time, they are just doing the opposite in hopes of keeping more people off the customer support lines. of course they will change the number in future windows releases- they will be much different from win7 and vista eventually. but, for now, this next os release is just a refresh of the last one, like it or not.

[GushpinBob]

You need to understand 7 is a refined Vista.

Microsoft uses tick/tock method. They make one new OS, and the next they improve on it. Rinse and repeat.

For example: DOS and 3.1

95 and 98.

Me (and somewhat 2000) and XP

Vista and 7


hmm, more like

Windows 1.xx (new shit) and Windows 2.xx (revised shit)
Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1x
Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0 and WIndows 2000
Windows 95 and Windows 98


Speaking of which... does anybody know how to edit Vista's hosts file?

system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Vista and 7 are both different to earlier Windows OSes at how they handle security and permissions on system files so you'll need to edit them before you can modify the file ;)

You could install Windows 3.1x on a machine that didn't have DOS on it at all, yanno... :)

Other than your method, you could also install it on non-MS DOS systems like DR-DOS, FreeDOS, even inside DOSBox.


... why hasn't Windows 7 got a proper name ? hmm ? Come on, Windows 7 ! How does that sound ?
Following that trail, Vista should have been named Windows 6 then, right ?

Think of it this way. Windows 7 is still based off of Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 didn't really have a proper name either as it was the first Windows NT release. If Microsoft released every NT workstation version using natural numbers instead of x.y or silly names it would go:

Windows NT 3.1 --> "Windows 1"
Windows NT 3.5x --> "Windows 2"
Windows NT 4.0 --> "Windows 3"
Windows NT 5.0 or 2000 --> "Windows 4"
Windows NT 5.1 or XP --> "Windows 5"
Windows NT 6.0 or Vista --> "Windows 6"
Windows NT 6.1 --> "Windows 7" ;)

So Windows 7 is the 7th workstation release of Windows NT.

[ryan_975]

hmm, more like

Windows 1.xx (new shit) and Windows 2.xx (revised shit)
Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1x
Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0 and WIndows 2000
Windows 95 and Windows 98



system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Vista and 7 are both different to earlier Windows OSes at how they handle security and permissions on system files so you'll need to edit them before you can modify the file ;)


Other than your method, you could also install it on non-MS DOS systems like DR-DOS, FreeDOS, even inside DOSBox.



Think of it this way. Windows 7 is still based off of Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 didn't really have a proper name either as it was the first Windows NT release. If Microsoft released every NT workstation version using natural numbers instead of x.y or silly names it would go:

Windows NT 3.1 --> "Windows 1"
Windows NT 3.5x --> "Windows 2"
Windows NT 4.0 --> "Windows 3"
Windows NT 5.0 or 2000 --> "Windows 4"
Windows NT 5.1 or XP --> "Windows 5"
Windows NT 6.0 or Vista --> "Windows 6"
Windows NT 6.1 --> "Windows 7" ;)

So Windows 7 is the 7th workstation release of Windows NT.

The way it was explained in the Windows 7 blog, They consider it

Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x (3.1, 3.11, NT 3.x)
Windows 4.x (95, 98, ME, NT4)
Windows 5.x (2000, XP)
Windows 6.0 (VIsta)
Windows 6.1 (Windows 7)

[lathode]

Obviously the reason they chose to call it Windows 7 is because 7 is a lucky number. duh

[Bipolarbear]

Just thought I'd give my 2c on this one...

Wouldn't have bother with Win7 but for a catastrophic virus attack on my Vista installation (AVG problems+temporarily disabled firewall=monumental stupidity). Anyway, I tracked down the recently released 7057 x64 beta and installed it on a fresh partition. I've got to say that, so far at least, I'm terribly impressed.

In a couple of weeks of solid, everyday use I'm yet to have a single system crash, or even a mere hint of instability. I've only had two issues, and I'll go through those first:

1. I use Daemon tools to mount disc images on a fairly regular basis. Unfortunately, most programs which rely on this type of disc-emulation driver currently do not work under Win7, x86 or x64. I've been using PowerISO though and it has been working fine for me, with the exception that it does not allow the use of the same emulation (Starforce, etc) as Daemontools; it will do for now.
2. Win7 seems far, far more susceptible to overclocking of my radeon 4850. In Vista I have it set up running at 700mhz core and 1100mhz on the RAM. Using CCC I had it automatically clocking down in 2d mode for power/heat reasons. For some reason using these settings in Win7 I'll have a 'display driver recovered' screen-flash and warning message every 10 minutes or so. No crashes in 3d games. I'm guessing it has something to do with how CCC and Catalyst 9.3 for Win7 handles downclocking, and I assume I could fix it by using Rivatuner or a similar app. For the meantime though I just clock down while in windows then overclock again when I'm about to play a game.

With the exception of these minor niggles it's been an impressive experience. I'm loving the introduction of keyboard shortcuts for minimise/maximise etc, I like the new way taskbar tiles are managed and the interface updates (logon screen etc) are nice, though this might just be because they are a change from Vista.

More importantly, memory usage on this build is very acceptable and performance is easily on par with vista. My own benchmarks have put it either on par with, or in some cases ~5% faster than vista in the games I play most (GRID, Crysis, GTA IV etc).

So, all in all, very pleased. Glad I took the plunge with the beta.

As a final note, does anyone know how to find out the expiry date of each build? I've heard rumours that 7057 has quite a long trial period. Cheers.

[lathode]

As a final note, does anyone know how to find out the expiry date of each build? I've heard rumours that 7057 has quite a long trial period. Cheers.

When I run winver I see expiration of 3/1/2010

[Griff805]

I'm on build 7068 and I have to say, I'm not going back to Vista. Things are dang responsive on my X25-M setup in Vista, but Windows 7 is noticeably snappier. I didn't think it could get much more responsive, but I guess I was wrong.

I typically wouldn't jump on a Beta OS for my work comp, as obviously it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I was having some driver trouble in Vista, and figured- what the heck, let's see what everyone is talking about. Working great so far, yeah there's a few glitches here and there, but the overall system feel is much more responsive, which makes it worth it to me.

The window management features are awesome. Features that should have been around since probably before XP..

[Joe Average]

It's funny how much people are harping on the "7" in Windows 7 nowadays but not much is ever said about Apple's "cool" decision to choose an X for their 10th revision... it's that "X-factor" they banked on and it's paid off so far. As I've noted in the past in many threads, I simply won't call it "OS Ten" because that's not what the name is. They never chose a Roman numeral to identify previous versions of their OS, but apparently someone in marketing thought "Ok, how cool would be it be to just refer to our next OS as... X... yanno, X, the Roman numeral for 10... get it? Get it?"


Bleh.

If we broke down the actual versions and steppings of all the OSes out there, I'd have to say Windows has the least amount of revisions since its inception. I mean really, how long will Apple milk the X-factor? They're at 10.5.7 now, that leaves 10.5.8, 10.5.9, then the 10.6 branch, through 10.7, 10.8, 10.9... that's a helluvalot of revisions to go, easily another 8-10 years of code without breaking a sweat.

I seriously doubt the next full blown OS from Apple will be OS XI... but we just never know... ;)

[Cov]

Going forward, the best approach for years to come is still gonna be a mix of regular HDs and SSDs, hopefully the OS and other apps become intelligent enough to know which they should use for certain tasks so it's not up to the user to micro-manage it...

Yea, I second that. Using conventional HDDs for data storage will stay for the next 2 years. But an SSD for the OS should be one of the MUST DO upgrades of the near future.

... There's no security risk and should actually be enabled by default, like in Firefox etc

PS: don't tell me everyone on hardforum knew this already anyway ?

Oh, come on dude. EVERYONE on hardforum knew that already.

... I don't understand all this buzz ... I keep coming back to my matured vista OS. Maybe it runs better on low end system, but my mid and high end rigs seem the same..other than the reduced start up time. But hibernate completely voids this ...

So ? Windows 7 having a reduced start up time, using less memory, feeling snappier to use, adding some essentials - these're far enough reasons to me, that's a no-brainer really.

Obviously the reason they chose to call it Windows 7 is because 7 is a lucky number, duh.

Since I use Windows 7, I never have had an accident on the streets ... duh.

When I run winver I see expiration of 3/1/2010

Where the hell do you see that ? Anyway, until then I will have Windows X ... haha.

I'm on build 7068 and I have to say, I'm not going back to Vista ...

I'n on build 7048 but otherwise ... same here.

[lathode]

Where the hell do you see that ? Anyway, until then I will have Windows X ... haha.


Start>type in 'winver' in search

[Cov]

Damn !!

http://www.abload.de/img/windows7version3tfh.png

[GushpinBob]

^^^

wat

[alkaline]

I'm using build 7057 on my side partition for kicks. Frankly I'm too tied up with school and work to worry about re-doing my OS and all that goes with it. So, for the mean time, I'll be using vista business and loving every moment of it. My opinions:

Windows 7 got rid of a lot of little issues that made vista a test to get working. I had to provide chipset drivers on install for vista, but 7 did not require that. I have also been able to use all my tried and true vista drivers under windows 7 and they're working very well for me.

Programs seems to work fine for me thus far. Frankly, I mostly use MS office 07 for my coursework, but I run a little steam on the side and its been going well thus far.

Overall, I really like windows 7. It's stable for me, has a better visual layout, and seems to be a bit more logical to get around. For me, it's everything vista should have been. Too bad it took them this long.

[Bipolarbear]

Running 'winver' on x64 build 7057 tells me mine's due to expire 02/03/2010. Pretty nifty.

[KaizerDan]

Damn !!

http://www.abload.de/img/windows7version3tfh.png

Gotta love that snipping tool!

[caniba]

I first was using version 7000 and now 7068. I did the update 2 days ago. I really don't notice too much difference yet but I do have to say it has been the quickest and easiest reinstall I have ever done with any version of windows. No tweaking at all necessary.

[Joe Average]

Gotta love that snipping tool!

Yeah, but... Alt+PrintScreen - Paste into Paint is far more efficient and gets you the exact window without all the extraneous crap. :)

Still amazing that a lot of folks don't realize Paint has a crop feature now, comes in quite handy sometimes...

[caniba]

Yeah, but... Alt+PrintScreen - Paste into Paint is far more efficient and gets you the exact window without all the extraneous crap. :)

Still amazing that a lot of folks don't realize Paint has a crop feature now, comes in quite handy sometimes...

Thanks, Joe

I didn't know. It does come in handy.