I like it more and more. I have been using it for a week now. I also took the time to find the 4 drivers it was missing out of box and install them to clean up device manager. Every single thing on my HP DV5T works. I set it up as a dual boot with Vista, but have ran nothing but 7. I like it alot. I will, however, be glad when I can get the 64 bit version.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 7 - The undisputed king... and it ain't even finished yet :)
- Thread starter Joe Average
- Start date
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
And...
Beta 1 could be released later today for registered testers, after the keynote at CES... be on the lookout for it.
Current rumors say the actual publicly accessible beta will be pushed out on Friday (Jan 9th). w00t!!!
Beta 1 could be released later today for registered testers, after the keynote at CES... be on the lookout for it.
Current rumors say the actual publicly accessible beta will be pushed out on Friday (Jan 9th). w00t!!!
Well concidering he is running GNOME/Linux for the host of VMware I wouldn't say he is a XP funboi. - interesting you couldn't tell tho
Yer using a VM todo a "benchmark" isn't really valid but you at least get a feel for it
From what he is just saying is, it feels just like Vista
He said failnux.
He knew he was using Linux.
And your assertion that WinVista is another WinME shows your intelligence, or lack thereof.
Mind you, I don't give 2 shits if you like Vista or not, but to make claims such as the ME comparison is weak.
I have a feeling all the benchmarks are totally sensationalist and therefore biased. They're just telling people what they want to hear, and stretching the truth until it's no longer recognizable.
It will be faster than XP for sure, and it'll probably be faster than Windows Vista too, but I doubt it'll be much faster than Vista, since for the most part it's just Windows Vista with a new user interface and much more attention to detail. From the looks of it, Microsoft left the big parts of the operating system, like the kernel and driver model, alone, and focused on all the small things to make a more complete, enjoyable computing experience.
It will be faster than XP for sure, and it'll probably be faster than Windows Vista too, but I doubt it'll be much faster than Vista, since for the most part it's just Windows Vista with a new user interface and much more attention to detail. From the looks of it, Microsoft left the big parts of the operating system, like the kernel and driver model, alone, and focused on all the small things to make a more complete, enjoyable computing experience.
From what everyone is saying:
Vista = focus on kernel and driver
Win 7 = focus on reliability and speed
Maybe, but the only performance feature I've seen so far is the 'on demand' services. That is, the services start when they're needed, not when Windows starts. Only the services you need will run.
And that aside, for me and most of the people I know and a lot of respectable people I've talked to on other forums, Vista is already faster and more reliable than XP was. If Windows 7 is faster than Vista, it should be great.
Plus, even though it'll be mostly Vista with a few surface changes, it won't have all the driver related issues Vista initially had, since well....It's mostly Vista with a few surface changes.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
How man you make benchmark results biased? Someone wins 1st, someone wins 2nd. Someone gets .79 and someone gets .78, someone won first.
Unless you're suggesting the tests themselves were skewed. If you'd like to do your own testing, feel free.
Well there's certainly a motive, isn't there? If you put out an article saying "Windows 7....It's not any faster than Windows Vista!" nobody is going to read it.
I didn't really mean that all the benchmarks are biased. But if they have no intention of putting out a 100% unbiased article they can simply omit all the tests in which the results don't favor the position they want as their outcome. That's how you make a benchmark biased.
I'm sure Windows 7 is faster than Vista, just not by the margin I'm seeing in some of the benchmarks.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
There were a couple tests in there that had Windows 7 as number two... That's where that biased argument would fall down the toilet
And IMO nobody can criticize and call something WRONG without either alternative proof or evidence. So before anyone else calls the results BS... Please, enlighten us with the benchmarks that you yourself have ran that show these results are BS, or simply stuff it!
There were a couple tests in there that had Windows 7 as number two... That's where that biased argument would fall down the toilet
....Or they could be leaving a few in there because they don't want it to be immensely obvious...
How do you expect me to test it on my own? The beta isn't even out to the general public yet.
therealjustin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 471
Yes, it's Windows 7 Ultimate so everything is there.
I have been using it for the past week on a spare hard drive instead of dual booting. It's fast, leaner than Vista and looks great. It still has it's problems though. WMP12 sucks, too many different windows when one would suffice(as in WMP11) and the new Windows Live Mail sucks.
I have been using it for the past week on a spare hard drive instead of dual booting. It's fast, leaner than Vista and looks great. It still has it's problems though. WMP12 sucks, too many different windows when one would suffice(as in WMP11) and the new Windows Live Mail sucks.
The Beta is available today for TechNet and MSDN subscribers. Tomorrow it'll be available for public download (limited to 2.5 million copies) on the Microsoft site.
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Not all TechNet subscribers, unfortunately.
We'll know soon enough, as everyone will be able to DL the beta soon (friday?) And then there will be lots of benchmarks. Even though it's still Vista at it's core, it's possible to tweak and optimize the code (or any code) enough to make it perform better. I don't think it will 'blow vista away' or anything, but Vista's already pretty good and at the same level of XP, so it's really a non-issue.
So...
What does Win7 provide that XP doesn't, for the average business user? I have yet to see this answered, for win7 OR vista. And it's a legitimate question, because a major move like that would need to be justified and for the life of me the only reason I can come up with is XP's EOL. Which is always a hard sale to the bosses.
Me: We need to move to Vista/Win7
Boss: Why? XP works right?
Me: Well, yes
Boss: Why would we put our staff through that kind of pain, loss of productivity and incompatibility?
Me: Because MS will stop releasing security updates for XP in 2014
Boss: So let's worry about it in 2012.
In all of my research there is no compelling feature, in either Win7 or Vista, for business users. And a new interface, or the ever subjective "it feels faster" doesn't count.
What does Win7 provide that XP doesn't, for the average business user? I have yet to see this answered, for win7 OR vista. And it's a legitimate question, because a major move like that would need to be justified and for the life of me the only reason I can come up with is XP's EOL. Which is always a hard sale to the bosses.
Me: We need to move to Vista/Win7
Boss: Why? XP works right?
Me: Well, yes
Boss: Why would we put our staff through that kind of pain, loss of productivity and incompatibility?
Me: Because MS will stop releasing security updates for XP in 2014
Boss: So let's worry about it in 2012.
In all of my research there is no compelling feature, in either Win7 or Vista, for business users. And a new interface, or the ever subjective "it feels faster" doesn't count.
Then don't change. For business, what you have is doing what you need right? Then no need for a change.
My company hung on to windows 2000 until just a few years ago when they finally went to XP.
The cost to upgrades the thousands of PC's we have with a new OS would be astronomical. And their custom apps would have to be updated too. I really don't see this happening.
Even though I love Vista at home.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
Better security. Little things like the better/faster searching help too.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Then don't change. Nobody is forcing you to. For home users and new implementations, there's no reason NOT to, most of the time.
Business is always an entirely different story. While I love Vista and Windows 7 I still have no plans to roll it out for the company.
And lots of bug fixes, and stability improvements from moving lots of driver code to user mode, and mandatory 64-bit support (some businesses are fine with 32-bit but some have use of more than 4GBs of ram). In another thread, one vista user was saying how the low latency audio stuff in Vista is so great, some businesses could really see benefit there, etc. However, not every Point-Of-Sales station needs Vista, it's true, but so what? Many systems still run on w2k and win98, that's their choice, but Vista is better so it should definitely be on new computer purchases, unless a business runs some crappy old app that isn't compatible.
222 1/3 evil
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Messages
- 5,269
Good call on the list fellas.
It's not just the legacy/proprietary software that's keeping businesses from switching, it's the end users that have to use it. Moving from NT4/98 -> 2k -> XP weren't big jumps as far as end user experience goes, but Vista (and soon windows 7) is a totally different experience. Productivity would go down if we rolled out Vista and the complaints and whines will go up 10 fold. I figure once 7 comes out, there will be a lot more Vista boxes in homes and the end users will be more apt to change.
You also have the hardware component. My company would have to buy 200 new PCs with at least a dual-core processor and 2 gigs of ram in order to roll out Vista as we're still running mostly p4s with 512-1 gig of ram.
It's just not practical at the moment.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
Yeah, the start button doesn't say start anymore. How will they ever be able to cope!
Vista still has the classic UI for older machines/people who really have a hard time adapting.People seem to think that Office 2007 = Vista, and if they don't like the ribbon they think they don't like Vista. In my experience a lot of older/non-tech savvy people don't even notice that they're using Vista.
Meh, I got stuck with a 2.8 GHz P4 machine with 1 GB RAM that runs Vista OK for Office stuff. RAM upgrades can be a problem if you have old machines that use RDRAM, but otherwise its no big deal.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
Most mid to large companies don't even bother upgrading the RAM for the desktop. Do you assume Sysadmins have time to upgrade ram for 500 to 1000 machines? Not to mention, it might even avoid the warranty if official vendors don't install themselves. For corporations, it is more complicated than home users. Also, if you count in hiring a contractor to upgrade few ram might run a company $40/hr. Usually, a recruiting firm will take $25/hr and pay that poor guy $15/hr.
Yeah, the start button doesn't say start anymore. How will they ever be able to cope!
People seem to think that Office 2007 = Vista, and if they don't like the ribbon they think they don't like Vista. In my experience a lot of older/non-tech savvy people don't even notice that they're using Vista.
Meh, I got stuck with a 2.8 GHz P4 machine with 1 GB RAM that runs Vista OK for Office stuff. RAM upgrades can be a problem if you have old machines that use RDRAM, but otherwise its no big deal.
Its not just the GUI, it's what's behind it. But anyway, a p4 1GB machine won't run Vista, Outlook, a 195 page accounting spreadsheet in excel, FAS accounting software, our document imaging software, and a mortgage/loan data entry program (or 2) at the same time adequately..which is a daily thing for a good chunk of our users. XP has a hard enough time as it is. Yeah, at home it's not a big deal, but at work, when you need everything open at once, it's a huge deal. Most businesses don't use just Office.
And yeah upgrades are a big deal, even for 200 sets of $50 1gig ddr...especially for a bank these days. Maybe I can have you go to our President or CFO and get an increase in our budget. Or maybe we should put off that circuit upgrade we're doing to our WAN and not buy those nice new Procurve switches.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Seriously. I haven't seen such a self-righteous prick like that in awhile...
My comment on that... Give it to NEW users. NEW users always have to learn new stuff anyway, and that's how you get it in the door. Slowly phase XP out. That's how it's done (assuming all your software works).
What does that mean?
Vista's GUI may LOOK different but it behaves almost identically, if not better and more logical for your end-users. ("Personalize" versus "Properties". "Screen Saver" versus "Display")
lol
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
It is pointless to explain to few users. This is why it is easy to spot a real sysadmin and fake one here. The real one probably went through pain and agony of system wide migrations in the past. Not to mention, how painful is to write a large budget plan that might not get passed. There are very few companies (real...not fictional) move to Vista.
That's assuming you've got enough yearly employee turnover to do that..but I do see your point. Once we do upgrade (still not for a while), it'll be a staggered rollout by department, and will take some time to do (different departments won't want changes during different times of the year). I know how it's done...
What may seem logical is still change and people who are 45 years old, making 30k a year, have just a high-school diploma, and enter in numbers all day won't see the logic. People cry and bitch over the smallest changes, even if they're in the end, beneficial.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
Hence the gradual rollout.
In your particular case (and many others) I think its completely acceptable to stick with whatever OS came with your machines. Deal with the OS upgrade when you buy new computers.
I'm just saying that if you had the cash and wanted to make the move it wouldn't be that difficult of a change.
requiemnoise
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 726
In case some of you haven't read any financial papers in the last year, the banks are having a serious crisis. Most banking IT projects and budgets have gone to developers in case the banks fail and have to issue the money right away to the customers. Do you assume one of the biggest industry such as finance are eager to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7? They are going to wait till 2012 before migrating. They got until April 8th, 2014 before the security patches are stopped. Only people who will get a Vista or Windows 7 in a company are new employees.
Home users might be little different, since it will end of this month that you can actually order a XP system.
Home users might be little different, since it will end of this month that you can actually order a XP system.
Still a bad idea; now you have two seperate OSes to support. Think about that for a moment; you have two employees sitting next to each other, and they often will consult each other before calling IT. Except now one is on Vista, the other is on XP. What do you think will happen?
The best way to implement a new OS is to do so by geographical area/division ( often one and the same ). Which is a huge pain in the ass, and especially in the current economic climate there is no way that's going to be approved.
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
I can answer this from experience. They'll realize the same steps and options aren't available, and then they'll drop everything to call IT. Supporting two different OSes is hardly a challenge for a competent IT staff, especially if you standardize the images.
Except one or the other will get "jealous" that the other has something they don't, and promptly bitch and whine about it. Normally, this isn't an issue, except when it catches the attention of a higher up.
Technically supporting two different OS images isn't an issue. It's the political aspect of it, and it's the loss productivity of workers who can't cope with multiple ways of doing the same thing.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
They call IT and IT fixes the problem like they're supposed to?
Its how we're doing it at work. When they bring in new computers we get the OS it comes with. Supporting multiple OS's isn't hard at all.
For smaller companies its not.
For large corporations it is. Some of our systems need to be FDA validated so it takes months of approvals to even get permission to use a new OS... Not to mention making sure all lab software works properly etc. Its a massive money sink, one most companies would rather not invest in.
In many years of IT experience I have yet to hear anyone actually complain about different operating systems. Different laptops, maybe, but never operating systems.