Windows 7 - The undisputed king... and it ain't even finished yet :)

First time im hearing about windows 7.............didnt vista just come out? did i miss something?
 
First time im hearing about windows 7.............didnt vista just come out? did i miss something?

Vista is over 2 years old, it was released to manufacturing in November 2006 and Windows 7 won't be final until Q4 2009/Q1 2010 so that's not really a short period of time in the software world.
 
this proves my prediction, that vista is just a bridging product
That was pretty much EVERYONE'S opinion. Nothing new here.


It's $1,100 where I work for a new machine. OS, Office, Oracle, etc and all the good stuff that goes along with getting a PC ordered. Not much labor to it with active directory... just log in on the new machine and let some scripts do the work.

Monitor not included.
Holy cow, You may have some sort of software package or hardware/image configuration that costs more, but for $1100 I get the complete package with a monitor and everything...

Luckily for them, they were able to buy XP machines during a 7 year span.
This is key. Usually a company would support 2-3 versions of Windows.
When you have such a long span, it enabled companies to phase out basically all of their old stuff and move XP to their machines. It's called being spoiled, and now that Microsoft is getting back into their old cycle, people don't like it.

Most folks are willing to learn and are really nice about it when they ask for help. I enjoy helping them. Then there are those that always ask or actually demand for help with a fricking attitude. I can't stand those.
Same here. The users with attitudes generally put me in defensive mode immediately, and I rarely change my stance. If a user asks nicely and rationalizes their question, I'll tend to see what I can do to come up with a compromise.
But always... My standing policy will never be overturned. I might make it easier on a user but as long as it doesn't change my policies I'm fine.
 
That was pretty much EVERYONE'S opinion. Nothing new here.



Holy cow, You may have some sort of software package or hardware/image configuration that costs more, but for $1100 I get the complete package with a monitor and everything...

They are pretty nice HP workstations, Some of the expense is with the work the depot does on them before they are shipped. And they ship them either over night or 2 day FedEx and that adds ~$100 if it's here in the states.

Monitors aren't included because that would be local purchase and it deals with ergonomics. Some people have room for 22" monitors, some don't, some want 4:3, some want 16:10, some people like myself prefer two 19" widescreen ones instead of one big one. Hell, I have even seen people with old sorry 17" CRT's because that is what they like.
 
Vista is over 2 years old, it was released to manufacturing in November 2006 and Windows 7 won't be final until Q4 2009/Q1 2010 so that's not really a short period of time in the software world.

4Q 2009/1Q 2010 release? Are you crazy? :D

I stand by an earlier post I made a few days/weeks ago where I said it'll be RTM by summer, maybe sooner... we'll see what happens.
 
These were requirements announced by Microsoft. We all know we need to least double or triple their requirements.

XP pro box says,
1.PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
2.128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
3.1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
4. Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
5. CD-ROM or DVD drive

Difference of 2000 and XP memory requirement was less than 32megs

MS announced for Windows 7
* 1GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
* 1GB of main memory
* 16GB of available disk space
* Support for DX9 graphics with 128MB of memory (for the Aero interface)
* A DVD-R/W drive

Difference of XP and Windows 7 memory requirement is 872 megs.

For home users, who cares...

Upgrade if you like if the new user interface justify a buying a new PC. People got money. PC is cheaper than ever. For corporations that have to buy 500 to 10,000 PCs, not including army of consultants of various billable hours from $40/hr to $150/hr, it is a no brainier decision to wait and upgrade later.

This isn't a bitching contest. This is about spending close to $3000 dollars per person (hardware, labor, contracts, extra apps). Something to think about. You will no longer able to purchase a XP machine at your local store starting 02/2009. Vista will be only choice for a while.


so we are doing 8 year differences now?

in that case Windows 3.1 only requires 2MB OF RAM!!! and windows 2000 used a whole 256MB OF RAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


holy shit dude windows 2000 sucks ass, it used 64 times the amount of ram that something that came out 8 years before it. OBVIOUSLY it is a piece of shit.


also, windows 2000 required 256mb and was 4 times more than XP. sorry you are wrong.

P.s. 4 gigs of ram is 36 bucks.. how bout you dont go out to eat tomorrow night and buy some ram instead.
 
Shorter period of time compared to the 5 years of XP... 2001-2006

The time between the Windows XP and Windows Vista releases was actually very unusual for Microsoft - about 3 years is much more normal. XP's lifespan was increased by SP2, which was at one time planned to be a new OS release, which also took developers away from Vista. The Vista project also had a false start and was restarted.

Once again, it's just Windows 2000 and Windows XP repeated. 2000 had an extended development cycle (starting as Windows NT 5.0 before it was renamed), and was a major update to the NT platform. Windows XP came along rapidly, and was largely a more polished version of 2000 with relatively minor architectural changes. Vista had an extended development cycle and was a significant refresh of the platform, and now Windows 7 is Vista refined and benefits from the now-mature Vista codebase.

(I wonder if the largest improvement in the perception of Windows 7 is coming/going to come from the drivers, actually - Windows 7 uses the Vista driver model, so all the drivers already exist and are mature. Many of the early Vista problems were driver-related.)
 
Shorter period of time compared to the 5 years of XP... 2001-2006

True, but also no shorter than 3.1 to 95, or 95 to 98, or 98 to Me, or 2000 to XP.

Much longer time between when compared to Ubuntu releases. Apple went 6 months before upgrading OSX to Puma, 11 months to Jaguar, 14 months to Panther, 19 months to Tiger, two and a half years to leopard. AIX Unix goes between 1 and 3 years between new versions.

XP's longevity spoiled a lot of users but it's anything but typical for operating systems
 
Yup, Thats what happens when you try to build an OS on VB (as MS originally did with Vista :eek:) Pretty quick they found out just how bad their feature set was broken, started re-writing everything aside from the kernel.
 
So would it be stupid of me to get Vista at this point? Putting together a new comp, and I have XP pro that I can use, but I actually like Vista more than XP. If 7 will be coming out shortly, maybe I should just stick with XP until then...
 
So would it be stupid of me to get Vista at this point? Putting together a new comp, and I have XP pro that I can use, but I actually like Vista more than XP. If 7 will be coming out shortly, maybe I should just stick with XP until then...

I'd say that it'd be a wise thing to wait for Win7 to be released at this point. Win7 should be a lot more mature and use fewer resources than Vista from the looks of it. I'm sure you can wait a few months, right? :)
 
So would it be stupid of me to get Vista at this point? Putting together a new comp, and I have XP pro that I can use, but I actually like Vista more than XP. If 7 will be coming out shortly, maybe I should just stick with XP until then...

Only you can answer that. Vista SP1 is perfect for me and many others right now. Win7 may or may not be perfect at launch and if you wait until SP1, who knows, Win8 might be on the horizon and you'll be asking the same question all over again lol

If I were in your shoes, however, and not gotten Vista yet, I'd at the very least try the beta today before I make my decision.
 
Well, the thread title was flame bait for sure but the article that was linked in the first post clearly states that the numbers can't be revealed so all that should be taken from the article is that there are improvements in Windows 7.

I have it installed on a Dell 755 at work with 3GB of ram, 150GB 7200rpm Samsung drive and ATI 2400 card with 128MB of ram. It installed quickly and runs pretty smoothly. I would say that that OS runs smoother than XP and Vista on that very same machine but it's not anything earth shattering as far as speed goes. One of the things that stood out were the lack of UI pauses while the hard drive churned away at whatever background task it was busy performing. Vista's UI was smooth but it could get choppy once in a while, even on a clean install. I can't say that I get that with Win7.

I think people who don't have the beta yet need to stop trying to predict how this version of Windows will perform on computers and in the marketplace. Get a copy and really evaluate it, try to do all of your daily tasks on that computer. And please, contribute bug reports to Microsoft instead of bitching on forums attempting to convince people that the OS is somehow a dud because you managed to trigger a bug.

I have this installed on the rig in my signature as well and so far it's great. I like what they did with the task bar even though it still feels like they could do a little more with it's appearance. Using the screen edges for sizing windows and the right corner area for showing the desktop are cool changes. Pinning applications to the task bar and also having the ability to see a most recently used list in the app button's context menu is a nice addition. I'm seeing more logical menu labels and arrangements in this version and overall things look cleaner and feel a bit easier to use. Hopefully they continue to make positive refinements to the interface. Task Manager needs a face lift and they should make a gadget for it. The choice to always show all processes would be nice as well.

Finally, you can burn ISO images without using a 3rd party application! Too bad they didn't give the ability to mount the images.

For those of you who have similar hardware:
Component - Driver used.
Motherboard - In the box
Video Card - 181.20 WHQL which installs as a Windows 7 Driver as per the splash screen
Sound Card - In the box + SB control panel application which gives the ability to perform bass management
MSI Bluetooth dongle - In the box
XBOX controller - In the box
Monitor - EZTune software installed but the options don't work since DDI seems to be broken in every nVidia driver release since last years WHQL release.

I need to install Logitech setpoint software and see if everything is fine with that (no time last night). Daemon Tools will not install on this version of Windows. I installed MagicISO (Or was it MaigcDisc?). iTunes x64 installed without a problem. I just need to try syncing.

I was actually able to play Crysis Warhead on Enthusiast and not be annoyed by the performance @ 2560x1600. The game never stuttered or hitched. The game played pretty smoothly and in a consistent manner. I only played for about 15 minutes so I'm not making any major performance claims yet but it was never this smooth on Vista using the same hardware and settings.

I think people will be looking for drastic changes and it seems that this release is about making the OS run better and improving all the little things that nagged us in Vista. It's beta but damn, it's a really good one.
 
so we are doing 8 year differences now?

in that case Windows 3.1 only requires 2MB OF RAM!!! and windows 2000 used a whole 256MB OF RAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


holy shit dude windows 2000 sucks ass, it used 64 times the amount of ram that something that came out 8 years before it. OBVIOUSLY it is a piece of shit.


also, windows 2000 required 256mb and was 4 times more than XP. sorry you are wrong.

P.s. 4 gigs of ram is 36 bucks.. how bout you dont go out to eat tomorrow night and buy some ram instead.

Holy cow. You are like the rest of people on forums. Only read what is relevant to your argument. LOL. Read the entire post.

By the way, according to 2000pro box, it says
Microsoft suggested system requirements:
* 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.
* 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness.
* 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space
 
XP's longevity spoiled a lot of users but it's anything but typical for operating systems
Exactly. We caught a break when Microsoft had to scrap Longhorn development and start over again, along with the multiple delays thereafter.
 
Awhile back I read that 7 will be free to people with Vista premium and Ultimate, is this true?

Not exactly. It will be free Windows 7 upgrades to users who buy Vista systems from July 1 until Windows 7 comes out. So, if you have to get Vista, buy it after JUly 1.
 
Holy crap, people... Look at it in percentages.

Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000:
40Mhz to 233Mhz CPU 582% Increase
640K to 64MB RAM 10000% Increase
10MB to 2GB Disk 20000% Increase

Windows XP to Windows Vista:
300Mhz to 1Ghz 333% Increase
128MB to 1GB RAM 800% Increase
1.5GB to 40GB Disk 2667% Increase


NOTHING NEW PEOPLE. XP to Vista is not near a big of jump as what all the Vista bashers make it out to be.

Heck, and for grins, here's Vista to Windows 7.
Windows Vista to Windows 7:
1Ghz to 1Ghz 0% Increase
1GB to 1GB RAM 0% Increase
40GB to 40GB Disk 0% Increase

Yea, it's so clear. Microsoft keeps adding bloatware and upping the system requirements :rolleyes:
 
Oh lordie lordie...
hmm...

The real (not fictional) IT managers and consultants think and view new products in a different way. New is very exciting, but new things always has tons of initial costs. In the business environment, we must fulfill the obligations of all expenses. Fulfilling our requirement of support for the business functionality. IT department was never designed as the Santa's little helper department. It wasn't designed to bring joy of new toys to staff members. Many cost analysis requirements require justifications. It is a simple and most basic business term, which is ROI (Return On Investment). We view products in a very different way. We don't buy things, because it is DAMN bitching COOL.

For home users, it might get people very excited like here. It may be very exciting for some people.
 
Holy crap, people... Look at it in percentages.

Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000:
40Mhz to 233Mhz CPU 582% Increase
640K to 64MB RAM 10000% Increase
10MB to 2GB Disk 20000% Increase

Windows XP to Windows Vista:
300Mhz to 1Ghz 333% Increase
128MB to 1GB RAM 800% Increase
1.5GB to 40GB Disk 2667% Increase


NOTHING NEW PEOPLE. XP to Vista is not near a big of jump as what all the Vista bashers make it out to be.


Heck, and for grins, here's Vista to Windows 7.
Windows Vista to Windows 7:
1Ghz to 1Ghz 0% Increase
1GB to 1GB RAM 0% Increase
40GB to 40GB Disk 0% Increase

Yea, it's so clear. Microsoft keeps adding bloatware and upping the system requirements :rolleyes:

Are you running Vista with 1gb ram? Running it with anything under 2gb ram is a b1tch! That min. spec crap from MS is nothing but bull and we all know that by now. So doing that % thing is a bit misleading. Heck, I need 4gb ram on Vista just to be comfortable.
 
anyone try running some games with windows 7?? im trying to keep up with all the windows 7 posts but alot of pages to skim through. wonder if there is a slight increase in performance of vista . yes i know this is a beta build so things can change i was just curious how windows 7 games as of right now.
 
Are you running Vista with 1gb ram? Running it with anything under 2gb ram is a b1tch!
I'd agree, but it doesn't matter.
It'll still run with 1GB of RAM. We all know the minimum recommendations are crap, but that's what I'm judging it on. The point is it CAN run on 1GB, and the point is that the requirements are doing the opposite of what everybody claims: decreasing, not increasing.
 
I think we are talking about something different. My bad.
The training was all done by in house employees that were designated trainers that traveled from location to location.

Having a staff member to train isn't a good idea. I'm glad your company pulled it off. If the developers and system architects’ notes haven’t included into the lecture notes by a mistake from the last minute changes, someone is getting their ass ripped for the future loss productivity for the company. It is best to blame it on the 3rd party in case of a failure. There is a reason why experience PM would probably use a 3rd party firm. Usually during the largest project such as PC and server migrations, something will go wrong, such as under budgeting and the time line. The original budget usually never covers the initial deployment costs. Usually, if the numbers are too high, PM will be told to rework the spreadsheet. The number will be purposely set to very low, so the migration can proceed. There will crisis management and blame game to proceed. The political blame will take place. There is a good chance to fire one of the company during the process, so the IT director who hired the PM doesn’t look bad. There is also a reason outsourced company will bring in scape goat contractors, who make over $75/hr and work 40hrs a week for the company. Probably only going to work 4months and probably cleared the middle class salary. This process will help them protect the outsourced firm from getting rid of the entire company during the migration. The negotiations for staying need to take place. PM’s job will be make sure IT directors hands are clean. He hired him/her to manage consulting firms. You know the deal; don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Migration is one of most difficult projects to manage for the larger corporations. It isn’t a simple bait and switch. You also have to maintain the loss of productivity calculator, because someone will bring that up in the meeting. Different department leaders will yell, “this is how you manage our funds. I thought you supposed to support us!” Yea, that is why most PMs smoke and drink. You have to be smart enough to do head to head combat with a sysadmin and deal with nightmares from the department heads who are totally jealous you are billing certain amount of dollars. While they don’t understand you are probably spending all those money on therapy. LOL. Migration for big companies are super bitching to the highway of HELL.
 
Having a staff member to train isn't a good idea. I'm glad your company pulled it off. If the developers and system architects’ notes haven’t included into the lecture notes by a mistake from the last minute changes, someone is getting their ass ripped for the future loss productivity for the company. It is best to blame it on the 3rd party in case of a failure. There is a reason why experience PM would probably use a 3rd party firm. Usually during the largest project such as PC and server migrations, something will go wrong, such as under budgeting and the time line. The original budget usually never covers the initial deployment costs. Usually, if the numbers are too high, PM will be told to rework the spreadsheet. The number will be purposely set to very low, so the migration can proceed. There will crisis management and blame game to proceed. The political blame will take place. There is a good chance to fire one of the company during the process, so the IT director who hired the PM doesn’t look bad. There is also a reason outsourced company will bring in scape goat contractors, who make over $75/hr and work 40hrs a week for the company. Probably only going to work 4months and probably cleared the middle class salary. This process will help them protect the outsourced firm from getting rid of the entire company during the migration. The negotiations for staying need to take place. PM’s job will be make sure IT directors hands are clean. He hired him/her to manage consulting firms. You know the deal; don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Migration is one of most difficult projects to manage for the larger corporations. It isn’t a simple bait and switch. You also have to maintain the loss of productivity calculator, because someone will bring that up in the meeting. Different department leaders will yell, “this is how you manage our funds. I thought you supposed to support us!” Yea, that is why most PMs smoke and drink. You have to be smart enough to do head to head combat with a sysadmin and deal with nightmares from the department heads who are totally jealous you are billing certain amount of dollars. While they don’t understand you are probably spending all those money on therapy. LOL. Migration for big companies are super bitching to the highway of HELL.

/me hands requiemnoise an Enter key.

"Here, I've heard these things come in handy for reading..." :D
 
Are you running Vista with 1gb ram? Running it with anything under 2gb ram is a b1tch! That min. spec crap from MS is nothing but bull and we all know that by now. So doing that % thing is a bit misleading. Heck, I need 4gb ram on Vista just to be comfortable.

Vista ran perfectly fine on my laptop for over a year with only 1GB of RAM. Although I was using a clean retail install, not the butchered and bloated OEM install that came with my laptop (now that WAS slow as hell).
 
anyone try running some games with windows 7?? im trying to keep up with all the windows 7 posts but alot of pages to skim through. wonder if there is a slight increase in performance of vista . yes i know this is a beta build so things can change i was just curious how windows 7 games as of right now.

i ran crysis warhead and left 4 dead in the 3 or so hours i had win7 on my system... both ran silky smooth, and as well as Vista as far as I could tell........

i downloaded ATI drivers from ATI's website though (even though windows update had a driver for my card)
 
If it's not seeing the disk, it's not a chipset thing, it's more likely a need to get the appropriate hard drive controller drivers. I had that issue myself once: the drive was "seen" just long enough to format it, but as soon as it did so, then it "disappeared" and wasn't there anymore. Talk about frustrating... and it was an Nvidia chipset/VIA hard drive controller too, so I learned the hard way...
 
I already did a while ago...
windows7.screen.shot.png

You dolt.
You are running a beta OS in a VM and you have the audacity to complain about performance?

Where do you people come from? Cupertino? :rolleyes:


On-Topic.
I "unoficially" downloaded the Beta via a direct link from MS's servers, but Microsoft's Windows 7 webpage still lacks the "official" download link.

I wonder when it will be up as I would prefer to have a serial number ready in hand to register it with, rather than have to go through the 30 day trial and then worry about rearming it once a month until that too is no longer an option.
 
You dolt.
You are running a beta OS in a VM and you have the audacity to complain about performance?
Where do you people come from? Cupertino? :rolleyes:

If I'm dolt. You are a typical gamer here who pretends to someone else. It is OK. It is internet.
I hope you heard something called, drivers.
good and bad drivers change the result of the benchmark. Ask any hardware guys. Do you assume people should benchmark with incomplete drivers on beta 1? When people benchmark, they use a GUIDE and use something called, math to add the guess difference.
It is something called variables. I guess you failed, math?
hardware performance for vista on the barebone (a)
hardware performance in VM for vista on the barebone (B)
GET THE DIFFERENCE.
than do the percentage of difference and add the difference for Windows 7.
 
You dolt.
You are running a beta OS in a VM and you have the audacity to complain about performance?

Where do you people come from? Cupertino? :rolleyes:
Dude, don't feed the troll. Just add to iggy list like many have done around here.



On-Topic.
I "unoficially" downloaded the Beta via a direct link from MS's servers, but Microsoft's Windows 7 webpage still lacks the "official" download link.

Not for me...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx
 
Coming from Vista x64..what are some things I should be noticing with 7? What new features should I try out?

Also, am dual booting and have all programs and games on a different partition. When I load into 7, can I use all the games installed on that partition?
 
Coming from Vista x64..what are some things I should be noticing with 7? What new features should I try out?
Just play around with it. Most of it is just performance enhancements, but the toolbar is a great new tool IMO.


Also, am dual booting and have all programs and games on a different partition. When I load into 7, can I use all the games installed on that partition?

Umm, doesn't work that way... Your games installed registry keys into Vista x64, which don't exist in your Windows 7 installation...
 
Holy crap, people... Look at it in percentages.

Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000:
40Mhz to 233Mhz CPU 582% Increase
640K to 64MB RAM 10000% Increase
10MB to 2GB Disk 20000% Increase

Windows XP to Windows Vista:
300Mhz to 1Ghz 333% Increase
128MB to 1GB RAM 800% Increase
1.5GB to 40GB Disk 2667% Increase


NOTHING NEW PEOPLE. XP to Vista is not near a big of jump as what all the Vista bashers make it out to be.

Heck, and for grins, here's Vista to Windows 7.
Windows Vista to Windows 7:
1Ghz to 1Ghz 0% Increase
1GB to 1GB RAM 0% Increase
40GB to 40GB Disk 0% Increase

Yea, it's so clear. Microsoft keeps adding bloatware and upping the system requirements :rolleyes:

Who went from 3.1 to 2000?

Win 95- 486.. 8mb RAM.. 55MB HD
 
Back
Top