Windows 7 Build 7022 Initial Impressions

H

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Just finished installing 7022 on a Toshiba R25 Tablet PC, Core Duo 2050, 1.66 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 100 GB 5400 RPM HD with the Intel 945 chipset. Impressive thus far.

I have Build 7000 on an HP tx2z with a much better CPU and graphics solution, ZM-86 2.4GHz Turion and an HD 3200 IGP and the R25 definitely feels snappier overall than the tx2z out of the box. The tx2z is running the x64 version versus the x86 version on the R25.

A couple of glitches seemed to be fixed. IE8 RC 1 seems to be running better as well.

Just some initial impressions. I don't intend to do any benchmarking or anything but I will be installing apps and if there's something someone would like me to take a look at let me know.
 
Can't find a x64 version of the 7022 build
not even a torrent

ugh :)
 
even if a 32-bit only version of 7 was not produced, x86 would still be around....

x86-64 *is* x86.......

so 32-bit/64-bit, makes no difference, x86 is here to stay until wintel drops it...
 
bigdogchris said:
Hopfully Windows 8 ships as x86 only for special situations or developing nations. I don't want 32 bit around in the US beyond 7's release.
Click to expand...

There must still be tens of millions of x86 machines around, and with netbook now adding to the numbers the numbers are at the least holding steady if not perhaps increasing. I think on the desktop x86 will need to be supported for at least at decade, even is the developed world.
 
netbooks cant really run windows 7 or windows vista, and they arent meant to run anything aside from low resolution videos and mozilla firefox on windows xp, so i dont see how they are significant.
 
grimreeferx09 said:
netbooks cant really run windows 7 or windows vista, and they arent meant to run anything aside from low resolution videos and mozilla firefox on windows xp, so i dont see how they are significant.
Click to expand...

Actually Windows 7 is running well on netbooks, most of the models with hard drives that you can buy today. The MSI Wind, Hp Mini, the new Acers even will run with Aero. Just search around, the results look good.

7 is much lighter than Vista and looks even faster than XP to some.
 
And MSI announced (or leaked the rumor) that it might even sell 3 Netbooks that each has a different version of Windows 7 on it, sooo... yes, Toto, Netbooks run Windows 7 well... :)
 
grimreeferx09 said:
netbooks cant really run windows 7 or windows vista, and they arent meant to run anything aside from low resolution videos and mozilla firefox on windows xp, so i dont see how they are significant.
Click to expand...


This is how FUD gets started.
 
grimreeferx09 said:
netbooks cant really run windows 7 or windows vista, and they arent meant to run anything aside from low resolution videos and mozilla firefox on windows xp, so i dont see how they are significant.
Click to expand...

As a side note, and since the forum crapped out and this was lost in the Front Page news section (that's a shitload of good discussion gone now too... dammit), you might consider reading this:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=672

since it relates directly to Windows 7 performance on low resource machines.

NEXT!!!
 
grimreeferx09 said:
netbooks cant really run windows 7 or windows vista, and they arent meant to run anything aside from low resolution videos and mozilla firefox on windows xp, so i dont see how they are significant.
Click to expand...

You a former CompUSA employee?
 
Since Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta is x64 only, I think that is a strong indication that Windows 7 will be the last 32bit OS from Microsoft. The way technology is moving, the netbooks that will be out when Windows 8 is released might have 4gb ram, 1.8" 64gb solid state drive and 20w 3.0 dual core cpu and cost $399.
 
Could be, but Server 2008 R2 is x64 only since the sheer massive amounts of power and RAM available in today's "Godbox" servers powering things just can't cut it with 32 bit OSes. The move towards virtualization simply can't happen with a ton of 32 bit powered servers floating around; only 64 bit (and soon enough, 128 bit, etc) can handle that stuff to a degree which makes it actually useful.

Consumers will still be using 32 bit OSes for another 5-7 years, so... don't count Windows 7 as the last 32 bit version of Windows just yet... not yet.
 
I don't understand all of the hate towards 32 bits. At some point I would imagine that MS and others would like to run "regular" desktop OS'es on their phones and I don't see the need for put a 64 bit OS on a phone anytime soon. 90%+ of the avergage consumer market simply has no need for a 64 bit OS, and with MS reducing the footprint of Windows 7 considerably, new life has just been bought to x86 I believe.

The 32 bit OS'es will be around for at least a decade and proabably a lot longer.
 
To be honest, I was going to say "10 years" myself but, I figured I'd play it safe and not stir up too much shit and so I said 5-7... ;)

Considering this thread is about 7022 which currently is still only leaked in 32 bit form (and it's ridiculously fast even so), I don't see what the problem is.

The primary benefit of a 64 bit OS is being able to use all the RAM you can throw at it. I've got 8GB in this new "Godbox" of mine, and 7022 sees all of it but only marks 3.25GB as usable, obviously. If RamDisk Plus were Windows 7 compatible I'd be using it to pick up the remaining RAM for a RAMdisk, but it's not.

I spent hours mad-hacking the .msi installer to no avail - even told SuperSpeed I'd made the attempt to crack their licensing encryption to get it to install and they emailed back "We're happy your efforts to crack our encryption have failed" and ended the sentence with :D, seriously).

Sooooo... 4GB of RAM in a box = x86 is still just damned fine, even with the "loss" of a few hundred megs of RAM.
 
Like I said, this R25 is just Core Duo, but its flying under Windows 7, the performance overall is better than with XP and much better than Vista. Plus this machine is the last of the 1440x900 14.1" tablet pc's, this size of machine was not popular with tablet people because of the size but I really like the machine overall. It's my only x86 machine but its still perfectly fine.

People are always debating about Microsoft and forced upgrades, well keeping x86 alive is a case where 7 is going to extend the life of lot of hardware out there buy being able to run the latest and great Windows as fast or faster then 8 year old XP. I think it wonderful and if MS can keep Windows 8 down to size and nimble, then it should have an x86 version as well.

Here's a case where MS is giving people a great product that will probably run just fine on anything in the last 6 years and yet people are complaining about an x86 version of it. Incredible.

Sometime I really feel sorry for Microsoft. Know doubt the minute x86t gets drop the Linux crowed will say "Look, forced upgrades by Microsoft" or some other such stuff.
 
Once upon a time... Vista was going to be the last 32 bit OS from MS... this was a hint, but not explicit.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Last-32-bit-Operating-System-from-Microsoft-54974.shtml

And of course that changed....

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micr...64-bit-Windows-Seven-Windows-2009-55057.shtml

What is interesting is when those announcements were made, as it has been since that netbooks took off which maybe was a big factor in Win7 being 32 bit. It may be that netbooks and other lighter gadgets (media players for example will drive the longevity of 32 bit.
 
Exactly. Plus 7 might actually be the first new Microsoft OS that can rejuvenate hardware. There are a lot of 5+ year old machines out there that will probably run very well under 7, giving that new PC smell to some machines.
 
we were already supposed to have 64bit in every desktop. the reason why that didn't happen? vista... was a failure. who wants to have an 64bit os that isn't stable, on current last generation machines before the i7. vista x64 wouldn't work with my incompatible intel core 2 duo mobo.
 
andrerocha09 said:
we were already supposed to have 64bit in every desktop. the reason why that didn't happen? vista... was a failure. who wants to have an 64bit os that isn't stable, on current last generation machines before the i7. vista x64 wouldn't work with my incompatible intel core 2 duo mobo.
Click to expand...

Well, you seem to be an idiot.
 
andrerocha09 said:
we were already supposed to have 64bit in every desktop. the reason why that didn't happen? vista... was a failure. who wants to have an 64bit os that isn't stable, on current last generation machines before the the i7. vista x64 wouldn't work with my intel mobo and core 2 duo system.
Click to expand...

This is BS.

First a lot of the issues go to third party support. x64 wasn't getting driver support initially, vendors were concentrated on x86. The situation is FAR better now and guess what, x86 is still here.

Secondly, there are just tens of millions of 32 bit machines that are working just fine, like my Toshiba R25 tablet. 7 has rejuvenated it, its running as well or better than a clean install of XP with more features. Why should I not have the latest and greatest OS on this fine piece of hardware?

Last word, netbooks. Nothing else to say.

When is Linux going to drop x86 support BTW?
 
Don't, folks. Just don't, let it go, quick... or else this thread will go the route of so many others. Just don't, for once, please, don't. :)
 
Joe Average said:
Don't, folks. Just don't, let it go, quick... or else this thread will go the route of so many others. Just don't, for once, please, don't. :)
Click to expand...

Considering the only ways to get 7022 are to be an internal microsoft developer... OR illegaly download it from torrents...

This thread is going to die soon enough my friend.


I mean there is a sticky at the top, seriously.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1120001
 
Windows 7 from 64 bit vista...its really not much different than vista today. I think the only reason alot of people are jumping on it is because of the mass beta. But i know i have no need to pay for another tiny upgrade, it isnt much faster overall from my view.
 
andrerocha09 said:
we were already supposed to have 64bit in every desktop. the reason why that didn't happen? vista... was a failure. who wants to have an 64bit os that isn't stable, on current last generation machines before the i7. vista x64 wouldn't work with my incompatible intel core 2 duo mobo.
Click to expand...

Sigh :rolleyes:

Must we always go through this sort of stupidity in every thread that has anything to do with Vista?

Normally I would add my 2 cents and explain how Vista is not what the typical nub says it is, but it isn't even worth it anymore. Ignorance is bliss, is it not?
 
andrerocha09 said:
we were already supposed to have 64bit in every desktop. the reason why that didn't happen? vista... was a failure. who wants to have an 64bit os that isn't stable, on current last generation machines before the i7. vista x64 wouldn't work with my incompatible intel core 2 duo mobo.
Click to expand...

Kill yourself.
 
heatlesssun said:
When is Linux going to drop x86 support BTW?
Click to expand...

When nobody needs it any longer, and not before. As long as there's a company out there with somebody capable of kernel hacking and the need to keep old machines running, development on the IA32 kernel will continue. In fact, as far as I know, no processor architecture has ever been explicitly dropped by the Linux kernel (I could be wrong there, though).
 
andrerocha09 said:
we were already supposed to have 64bit in every desktop. the reason why that didn't happen? vista... was a failure. who wants to have an 64bit os that isn't stable, on current last generation machines before the i7. vista x64 wouldn't work with my incompatible intel core 2 duo mobo.
Click to expand...

PEBCAK error.

Happens quite frequently these days. I suggest you replace the unit. It is usually placed in between the monitor and chair.
 
heatlesssun said:
When is Linux going to drop x86 support BTW?
Click to expand...

never? The linux kernel has a different purpose than the main windows kernel... not to mention an entirely different development process...


i agree with those that say that windows 7 should only come in x86-64 form... current netbooks dont *need* to run it, and future netbooks will support 64bit extensions...
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
i agree with those that say that windows 7 should only come in x86-64 form... current netbooks dont *need* to run it, and future netbooks will support 64bit extensions...
Click to expand...

That's part of Microsoft's point - they want to be able to support netbooks with their current Windows release, rather than supporting XP for the rest of eternity.
 
:LJ: said:
That's part of Microsoft's point - they want to be able to support netbooks with their current Windows release, rather than supporting XP for the rest of eternity.
Click to expand...

ahh, the support angle... hadnt thought of that

i guess it makes sense when you look at it like that....
 
:LJ: said:
When nobody needs it any longer, and not before. As long as there's a company out there with somebody capable of kernel hacking and the need to keep old machines running, development on the IA32 kernel will continue. In fact, as far as I know, no processor architecture has ever been explicitly dropped by the Linux kernel (I could be wrong there, though).
Click to expand...

Because of the open source nature of Linux, I guess nothing really dies and anyone can do anything, but there does come a time when the time probably isn't a good investment as there are always other fish to fry.

x86 still has a huge install base. It's not going away anytime soon. This R25 is running like a new laptop, 7 is smokin on the "old" x86 platform that still very useful. I know plenty of people who would think this x86 machine the next best thing to sliced bread. There are some real clunkers out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top