Windows 7 May

[tlarkin]

Who said anything about using it as your main OS? Or tearing down a server
to try it? Ever heard of a partition?

I guess I don't know the particular VM program you have, but does it allow you to use 100% of your CPU and RAM to fully test the OS?

I'm just saying, don't be so quick to bash it before you really try it.

Sounds like your mind was made up before they even announced it.

I have a quad core processor and 4 gigs of RAM. I can dedicate two cores and 2 gigs of RAM to a VM, and then the VM just runs on a virtual layer of hardware, which is your hardware. It is not like it performs worse, except maybe in heavy 3D applications. Plus Virtual Hard disks are small disks that are dynamic (expand when needed to) which are a specified section of your hard disk, making seek time super fast. In fact a virtual hard disk may perform better than a regular disk since the seek time is generally a lot faster.

I am not bashing it, I am simply saying it isn't the best thing since sliced bread, and it still does not give the average user incentive to upgrade their OS.

 

[Bodaggit23]

I have a quad core processor and 4 gigs of RAM. I can dedicate two cores and 2 gigs of RAM to a VM, and then the VM just runs on a virtual layer of hardware, which is your hardware. It is not like it performs worse, except maybe in heavy 3D applications. Plus Virtual Hard disks are small disks that are dynamic (expand when needed to) which are a specified section of your hard disk, making seek time super fast. In fact a virtual hard disk may perform better than a regular disk since the seek time is generally a lot faster.

I am not bashing it, I am simply saying it isn't the best thing since sliced bread, and it still does not give the average user incentive to upgrade their OS.

Point taken. :good:
It's still better than Vista in my opinion. I can't get my Vista install below 45 processes.
Win 7 runs around 30. I have enough hardware to not notice a difference on this system,
but like I said, it was new life for my laptop.

 

[dubesinhower]

I thought end of 2009 is when 7 is going to be released....

Guess they are trying to compete with Snow Leopard? I would rather wait the 7 more months to have it better at release...

Also, I hate the task bar and the start menu. Stacks + dock + keyboard short cuts FTW. Much more efficient.

id rather have compatibility and functionality than a computer that no one cares about/ uses.

plus, its sooooo damn hard to click an icon in a dock in windows.

edit: seriously tlarkin, cut all the vm shit. you totally ruin the entire effect of an operating system by running it in a vm.

 

[Droogie]

Never in my entire life of using MS Operating systems, has one been perfect at release or near perfect after three or four service packs.

I hope they offer a cheap upgrade for those that have Vista because really there is nothing new under the hood in Win 7, it it just an overhaul of the GUI and some minor tweaking to make things more smooth. I have yet to see anything that indicates a major kernel overhaul or anything else that would exponentially increase performance.

I had the beta in a VM and it really just seemed like Vista 2.0 to me. I do think that memory management may be slightly better, but that is subjective.

i think you're the only one on the forum that isn't excited about windows 7

 

[tlarkin]

id rather have compatibility and functionality than a computer that no one cares about/ uses.

plus, its sooooo damn hard to click an icon in a dock in windows.

edit: seriously tlarkin, cut all the vm shit. you totally ruin the entire effect of an operating system by running it in a vm.

Are you kidding me? VMs run great if you run them the right way, great enough that major networks run VM. You obviously don't know what you are talking about....

i think you're the only one on the forum that isn't excited about windows 7

Same level as excited-ness as 95, 95-b, 95-c 98, 98se, millennium, 2000, XP, and Vista..and lets not forget about BOB the 95 companion!

I've been around longer I know what to expect that is the difference. Same thing applies from versions of Ubuntu from version 7 to 9, nothing that made me stay up at night wondering about.

 

[dubesinhower]

Are you kidding me? VMs run great if you run them the right way, great enough that major networks run VM. You obviously don't know what you are talking about....



Same level as excited-ness as 95, 95-b, 95-c 98, 98se, millennium, 2000, XP, and Vista..and lets not forget about BOB the 95 companion!

I've been around longer I know what to expect that is the difference. Same thing applies from versions of Ubuntu from version 7 to 9, nothing that made me stay up at night wondering about.

do you understand why most networking is run through command lines? network managers use linux only in the command line interface. thats completely different then what i use windows for. as an enthusiast, i find that windows 7 is just what im looking for.

you need to realize that mac and pc are both different platforms, and that they can coexist. you dont need to put windows down all the time, especially when you dont know what your talking about. most serious computer enthusiasts that ive come across are all talking about windows. sure, snow leopard is going to be sweet, but im looking at windows 7 as my next permanent platform, not os10.6.

 

[tlarkin]

do you understand why most networking is run through command lines? network managers use linux only in the command line interface. thats completely different then what i use windows for. as an enthusiast, i find that windows 7 is just what im looking for.

you need to realize that mac and pc are both different platforms, and that they can coexist. you dont need to put windows down all the time, especially when you dont know what your talking about. most serious computer enthusiasts that ive come across are all talking about windows. sure, snow leopard is going to be sweet, but im looking at windows 7 as my next permanent platform, not os10.6.

What in god's name are the hell you talking about? I just said I ran win7 in a VM, and you go off on some retarded diatribe.

Most networking is run through command lines huh? Hell you better tell Linux, OS X, Unix, and certainly Microsoft about that, considering all them run from some sort of GUI.

Most computer enthusiasts don't even know how an operating system works, nor do they care. They look at it the same way people look at cars. They want all the features and horse power but have no idea how it works under the hood.

Seriously wtf are you even talking about?

 

[Shane]

Im not sure if i want to get 7 or not,Its basicly what vista should have been in the first place,Its just like M$ are conning us and making us pay for their mistakes.

If its cheap then yes....but if they price it way way over the top like they usualy do then they can stick it.

I agree it performs better,But i dont think it looks all that good with its new bar at the bottom it just doesnt work for me.

 

[tlarkin]

Im not sure if i want to get 7 or not,Its basicly what vista should have been in the first place,Its just like M$ are conning us and making us pay for their mistakes.

If its cheap then yes....but if they price it way way over the top like they usualy do then they can stick it.

I agree it performs better,But i dont think it looks all that good with its new bar at the bottom it just doesnt work for me.

Yeah I am really bummed to pay $150 for a service pack basically from Vista Ultimate. I also really hate how they feature limit their OS. That just drives me bonkers.

 

[Andy-]

Windows's is not on my favorites list, it's a real pain in the ass tbh.

I do use XP now tho, just because my current desktop isn't installing any other OS ( Linux ). Tho I use an Alienware theme, since it's nice and doesn't really use that much CPU.

I will get a new desktop, and will install Linux on it, hopefully around 3-4.

Back to W7;
Windows is getting closer and closer to becoming the exact replica of Mac OS X, seems like Microsoft has found a new source for ideas.
Also have you guys heard that you can't upgrade from XP to W7? Just from Vista to W7? That's really bad considering that Windows Xp has been bought way more than Vista.
And folders like Control Panel are too messy and have too much stuff inside.

 

[tlarkin]

Point taken. :good:
It's still better than Vista in my opinion. I can't get my Vista install below 45 processes.
Win 7 runs around 30. I have enough hardware to not notice a difference on this system,
but like I said, it was new life for my laptop.

Well, processes and system daemons can be active but not in use. Do you mean you can't get it under 45 running processes? All OSes will have more than that, which are considered sleeping or zombie processes and they awaken when in use. For example, you boot up a Linux box and sshd will be running automatically, but it sits idle at 0% resources being used until someone does actually use ssh. Same thing goes for Windows Processes.

 

[dubesinhower]

Windows's is not on my favorites list, it's a real pain in the ass tbh.

I do use XP now tho, just because my current desktop isn't installing any other OS ( Linux ). Tho I use an Alienware theme, since it's nice and doesn't really use that much CPU.

I will get a new desktop, and will install Linux on it, hopefully around 3-4.

Back to W7;
Windows is getting closer and closer to becoming the exact replica of Mac OS X, seems like Microsoft has found a new source for ideas.
Also have you guys heard that you can't upgrade from XP to W7? Just from Vista to W7? That's really bad considering that Windows Xp has been bought way more than Vista.
And folders like Control Panel are too messy and have too much stuff inside.

vista is similar in file structure to 7, whereas xp in an entirely different file structure. your better off reinstalling from xp to vista, as well as vista to 7, so why would that be any different from xp to 7?

 

[Droogie]

installing the windows 7 RC (build 7100) in a second

 

[salman]

installing the windows 7 RC (build 7100) in a second

Just burned mine onto a DVD, will do it later on today!

 

[Bodaggit23]

Well, processes and system daemons can be active but not in use. Do you mean you can't get it under 45 running processes? All OSes will have more than that, which are considered sleeping or zombie processes and they awaken when in use. For example, you boot up a Linux box and sshd will be running automatically, but it sits idle at 0% resources being used until someone does actually use ssh. Same thing goes for Windows Processes.

I'm referring to the processes listed in the Task Manager.

"Sleeping" or not, they still load at startup, which takes time and resources.

When I want to use them, I'll wake them myself.

 

[tlarkin]

I'm referring to the processes listed in the Task Manager.

"Sleeping" or not, they still load at startup, which takes time and resources.

When I want to use them, I'll wake them myself.

0% is 0% they aren't using anything. Windows is a multi tasking OS.

 

[speedyink]

Windows is getting closer and closer to becoming the exact replica of Mac OS X, seems like Microsoft has found a new source for ideas.

That is the day I stop using windows

Seriously, thats the second time you've said something along those lines...and the second time your completely wrong. I've used OSX and Windows 7 and I can vouch for them still being painfully different (in use and in aesthetics...are you blind per chance?)

Sure little things get copied here and there, but everyone does it (yes, even Apple).

 

[tlarkin]

That is the day I stop using windows

Seriously, thats the second time you've said something along those lines...and the second time your completely wrong. I've used OSX and Windows 7 and I can vouch for them still being painfully different (in use and in aesthetics...are you blind per chance?)

Sure little things get copied here and there, but everyone does it.

I think he means feature for feature, which is true MS did adopt lots of features that were already present in 10.4 and 10.5 into Vista and Windows 7.

They may not have the same usage, but they have the same functionality.

 

[speedyink]

I think he means feature for feature, which is true MS did adopt lots of features that were already present in 10.4 and 10.5 into Vista and Windows 7.

They may not have the same usage, but they have the same functionality.

The whole basis of Operating Systems itself is a copy.

Yes, Apple has some good ideas, but don't say that this is a one way street.

 

[tlarkin]

The whole basis of Operating Systems itself is a copy.

If I see someone wearing a cool shirt I'll find and buy it, I'm not gonna copy their entire wardrobe.

Well, in 10.4 Apple implemented:

encrypted home directories
indexed based searching - spotlight
new 3D aqua interace
expose
widgets
folder navigation

Vista took all of those features and repackaged them.

[YT]MDNuq94Zg_8[/YT]

This is from a basic user. Mind you Tiger was out almost a full year before Vista, and Vista got pushed back so many times.