Print
The other major new Explorer feature is Libraries. Libraries are simply data buckets (for lack of a better term) that can store content that’s similar in nature, but located in different places on the same computer, across a network, or in the cloud. Libraries are handy for organizing and collecting files in one place, because they appear to be normal folders to most applications.
For example, suppose your music is stored in the Music folder on your profile, but your wife’s music is stored in the Music folder in her profile. If you want to stream both collections of music using some sort of streaming software, you can either point it to both folder, or you could create a Library that includes both folders and then point your streaming application to that Library. Libraries become especially useful when you integrate them with your commonly used folders, network shares, and cloud services.
The latest version of DirectX is more iterative than revolutionary, at least as far as gaming is concerned. However, it does bring some exciting new technology to Windows in the form of the general-purpose GPU computing API known as DirectX Compute.
There are three important things to know about DirectX 11 if you’re a gamer. First, DirectX 11 is coming to Vista and Windows 7, but not XP. Second, DirectX 11 is backwards-compatible with DirectX 10-capable videocards, so games that require the new API will still run on older GPUs, although those older GPUs aren’t necessarily going to perform well. Third and finally, the feature likely to have the largest impact the soonest in DirectX 11 is hardware tessellation. Tessellation lets the GPU automatically fill in detail on certain types of meshes by procedurally generating more complex (and better looking) triangles to fill in the gaps in the source art. The upshot is simple: Objects that are curved will look better when you render them on a PC equipped with a DirectX 11-capable GPU. There are other DirectX 11 improvements that will enhance performance on DirectX 11 GPUs, but we don’t anticipate a visual leap on par with the jump from DirectX 9 to DirectX 10.
General-purpose GPU computing (GP-GPU) allows developers—specifically, those outside of the gaming arena--to take advantage of the performance potential of today’s modern, massively parallel GPUs. Tasks like rendering frames of animated movies, converting RAW photos to TIFFs, encoding H.264 video, and scrubbing video can all be accelerated using GP-GPU technology.
Until recently, in order to take advantage of the computing power of your videocard, you needed to use apps that were specifically coded for the brand of GPU you owned. DirectX Compute (along with the competing OpenCL) aims to change that by providing a common interface for harnessing the power of whatever processors are in your system, be they from AMD, Intel, or Nvidia.
It remains to be seen which GP-GPU API developers will embrace, but the future for the technology is bright.
Since home networks first became commonplace, we’ve heard promises about Microsoft making the home networking experience better, easier, faster and safer. These are admirable goals, but connecting to a network share has been essentially unchanged since the days of Windows NT 4. Enter Windows 7. Now, instead of haplessly navigating a maze of permissions, share settings, and firewall boondoggles, if you want to share your files or printer with other networked PCs, you simply join a HomeGroup. And it’s as easy as typing in a password. Once you’ve created your HomeGroup, sharing files is as easy as right-clicking on a folder or file, clicking Share With, and selecting the option you want. You can exclude individual files or folders the same way.
The only complaint we have with HomeGroups concerns compatibility: Neither earlier versions of Windows nor Windows Home Server machines can join HomeGroups today.
While Tablet PCs have been around for the better part of a decade now, Windows 7 is the first edition of the mainstream Windows OS to actively support touch. We haven’t had the opportunity to test it, because the hardware support is limited right now, but the OS will work with common touch and multi-touch gestures on machines equipped with the appropriate hardware and software.
For the first time that we can remember, Microsoft has removed functionality from Windows. In Windows 7, previously core applets like Windows Movie Maker, Windows Photo Gallery, and Windows Mail are no longer part of the core OS. Instead, they’re part of a separate, optional download called Windows Live Essentials. We weren’t huge fans of these apps when they were part of the OS, and we don’t miss them now that they’re gone.
Comments are closed on this article
Lhot
February 11, 2010 at 2:00am
I have three comps...one has a pentium proc and 96mb ram (HP Vectra VA), the next has an Athlon X2 2.6Ghz OC'd to 3.2Ghz w/2GB DDR2 1066 RAM, The third, has a Phenom II X4 955 OC'd to 3.7ghz w/4GB 1066 DDR2 RAM...both the 2nd and 3rd comps run an EVGA 280GTX (one each), PC Power & Cooling 750w PSU, and 300GB Velociraptors (not RAID).
Now here are FACTS:
1. I can install and run XP on the HP Vectra...it ain't pretty or fast, but it does run (YES! even with 96MB RAM)
2. I have full retail versions of XP VISTA and WIN7...all three in 32 and 64 bit flavors.
3. I do a little of everything on my comps...aka surfing, gaming, audio / video editing and conversions, etc etc.
4. I own all most every consumer available benchmark and game benchmark available.
5. Win XP 32 bit....will simply smoke any other available OS...in any task.
6. Vista is simply cr*p...nuff said.
7. Win 7 has ABSOLUTELY nothing going for it...EXCEPT a much more up to date set of installed drivers.
8. The ONLY time I ever BSOD....and I do mean EVER....is when I'm trying to get that last 200-300Mhz by tweaking my over clock, badly.
9. Number of viruses and/or trojans in past 8 years on XP 32 bit.........ZERO !!
10. Norton Ghost 2003 is still the best backup software ever made. Incremental backups are foolish for the simple reason that any cooties you have get backed up when you're NOT paying attention to pre cleaning, like a 2AM Sunday night incremental backup.
11. My primary partition has approx. 10gb of data on it, (page file, music, pics and videos are on separate HDD.
12. With my lowly AMD proc, no RAID, and Norton Ghost 2003, I can make a complete (after cleaning) Primary partition IMAGE backup in 3 minutes....I can restore from ANY NG 2003 backup in 2.5 minutes. Try THAT on Win7 with any backup software, including Win 7's.
13. MOST people hailing the wonder that is Windows 7 are comparing it to an XP install thats probably years old.
14. MOST people don't keep their systems (w/e they are, neat, trim and clean)...they think they do...they don't!
Sure in 4-5 years, with a few Service packs, and many more 64bit apps, Win 7 may beat XP...but then MS's new flim-flam, aka Win 8 will be out. Here's the real deal when it comes to computers and the internet......
The more information that any person or company has about your computer, will cause two things:
1. You will get infected soon, and probably already are.
2. They will make wads of money selling that information to the highest bidder!
THIS IS WHY MS releases new OS's...well that and their bottom line. MS is not out to make YOU a better, faster, more secure OS. They are in fact doing the exact opposite, for the sole purpose of making more money and watching what YOU are doing on your computer. To diguise this fact, they flash up the GUI with pretty colors and pics, then get the Billy Mayes of MS (Ballmer) to explain how MS is only looking out for you and the ease of your computing tasks.
No, I'm not going to cite proof, I made my own proof. The big difference here, is that I have NO vested interest in the outcome or benchmarks and such. I am retired and own no stock in ANY software or hardware company. I do NOT receive "freebies" for good reviews. At my age I have no ego to cater to...I just want my OS to work fast and flawlessy, w/e I throw at it.........speed, security, compatability, GUI....thy name is Windows XP Pro 32bit. Heck, it even over clocks easier and faster.
I'm not dissing anyone elses opinion here, the above are simple FACTS that I have spent years (Vista), months (Win 7) testing. If I was NOT retired and was still making money, hand over fist, I too would probably throw it all at the latest and greatest....as reviewed, but since I am on a fixed retirement income, I have to use my brain instead of my wallet. More importantly I have to THINK, test, retest etc., and then go out and buy what WORKS best.....not what someone TELLS me works best.
In short, buy w/e you want, this is a free country...sorta. :) I on the other hand will buy and use what works BEST.
Final Note: You all, of course remember Windows ME....now ask yourself....did MS (with their 20K, 6-7 digit salaried coders, truly THINK that ME was a GOOD thing. The same can be said for Vista....maybe Win 7 will be different, who knows....but until it can out do XP in ANYTHING.....I can wait on MS to go back to the days when they cared about the users, more than they care about their bottonline and watching everything you do on your computer. I think the "honor" left Microsoft when Bill Gates stepped down, so to speak.
P.S. No need to waste time and space refuting what I have proven to myself. I have degrees in electronics and physics and KNOW how to run unbiased tests.
Sorry for the long post and may everyone be happy with whatever OS they choose to run.
Little fact for you to think about: Did you know that when you uninstall Google Earth that it leaves behind, over 50K registry entries, and ONLY JV16 Power Tools seems to be able to remove them and even it can't get them all. That, requires a manual registry search & destroy mission.
Oh, almost forgot....UAC stands for USER account control....I did NOT know that Microsoft was a "user" on my computers.....funny that :)
The "CLOUD" is the biggest mistake this country has made...EVER !
theohai
May 17, 2010 at 11:28am
It's always amusing to read the replies of rabid Windows fans claiming "It's the best because it's new". You did a great job outlining your experiences, hopefully some will actually read and understand what you presented.
I've had similar experiences with Vista and W7 and have gone back to XP in every case. XP works and is stable plus it runs all the SW I use, works with virtually any version of windows, and no problems noted with Linux or Macs (all on a network). With enough service packs and "maintenance releases" W7 may eventually be something useful. The new explorer is terrible and that has been one of the primary reasons I have kept XP, the rest are well noted in your post.
I have been doing IT work from the days of Win 3.0 and seen all the variations and there have been many dead braches on the Windows family tree, Anyone remember Win3.0, ME, NT4 SP5 (tended to kill Exchange servers)? All caused more problems than they fixed, and good to see MS doing beta testing on the users dime, how many of you bought Vista or W7 or got it on a new system (price included in the cost of course)?
W7 should have been a free upgrade to ALL Vista users, and not just a home premium version, but Ultimate. The idea is right for W7, but implementation is still severly lacking.
Jas-pdx
April 30, 2010 at 2:36am
I have many years of QA and software design under my semi-retired belt, and agree with your assessment. The only benefit that I see is with 64 bit processing.
Thanks for posting the details.
CyberHeat
January 21, 2010 at 10:20pm
Windows 7, 64 bit Ultimate ROCKS! As for you die hard dogs stuck on XP.... Keep it, just don't whine about it when others are ready for 64 bit computing. However, if you are ready for a new lively experience with real security, stability, and the added advantage of running 64 bit applications with 64 bit hardware and have more than 3.5 usable gigs of RAM for your OS, then Win7 64 bit is the right stuff. When comparing XP to to Win 7 or Vista you really need to compare the 64 bit OS. It is time to dump the 32 bit OS and move to the more robust 64 bit OS and take advantage of the 64 bit CPUs. If you are using the 64 bit flavor of Vista SP2 or Win7 then run it with 6-8 gigs of RAM. You will see the OS strutt its stuff. 4 gigs of RAM on the 64 bit OS just doesn't take advantage of the 64 Bit memory advantage. Which was overlooked by MaxPC. I realize they are trying to compare objectively.... but Vista64 and Win7-64 are no way an a 32 bit dog it's a 64 bit beast. So don't cripple the OS with 4 gigs of RAM. I am running 12 gigs of RAM and am loving it.
Additionally, you can try Win7 for free and if you dont like it.... then stay with your antique/obsolete 32 bit dog if that makes you happy. Eventually you will come around.
stanley752
January 23, 2010 at 9:18am
I HAVE THREE COMPUTERS
ONE WITH WIN 7 PRO 64BIT: QUAD CORE 64 BIT CPU , 8GB DDR3, 2-VELIO RAPTORS IN RADI-0, 1792MB GTX 295, GIGABYTE MB, CORSAIR 850PS.
TWO WITH XP PRO 32 BIT: BOTH HAVE THE SAME AS THE ONE WITH WIN 7 PRO 64BIT.
I LIKE HOW YOU SAY HARD DOGS WHINE, WHEN YOU ARE INCOMPETENT. YOU SAID HOW MUCH ALL YOUR STUFF HAS BUT THE FUNNY THING IS YOUR VIDEO CARD WITH ALL THAT IS CAPPED, MY MACHINES WITH XP WILL GET BETTER FPS THEN YOU COULD EVER GET ON WIN 7 ULTIMATE. WITH LESS RAM. NOW THATS FUNNY. MY ANTIQUE 32 BIT XP OS ON TWO OF MY PCS I HAVE BET AND WON AND CHALLENGED ANYONE AND WHEN I GOT OVER 30% MORE FPS THIER MOUTH DROPED. AND TWO OF MY PCS WITH XP COSTED LESS. TRIED COMPARSION AND CHALLENGES ON OVER 50 GAMES.
YOU TALK ABOUT WHINEING BUT ONLY PEOPLE I SAW WHINEING WHERE THE ONES WIN VISTA AND WIN 7, THEN AFTER BEATING THEM REPEATLY, I GOT SILENCE. ONLY REASON ONE OF MY PCS HAS WIN 7 PRO IS MY WIFE WANTED THE FLARE, THE SPARKLE. PLUS IF YOU WERE SO SMART DID YOU KNOW 12GIGS OF MEMORY ON WIN 7 ULTIMATE 64 BIT DOES NOT UTILIZE ALL 12 GIGS SHERLOCK. YOU CAN'T USE ALL 12. PLUS WIN 7 64 BIT OS'S DONT UTILIZE ALL THEIR MEMORY. HERE ARE LINKS YOU MIGHT FIND INTERESTING THAT PROVE WHAT I AM SAYING.
MEMORY PROBLEMS WIN 7 64 BIT LINKS BELOW
http://weblogs.asp.net/owscott/archive/2006/11/07/Is-64_2D00_bit-computing-always-better_3F00_.aspx
OTHER LINKS BELOW OF MUTIPLE WINDOWS 7 PROBLEMS
http://www.sevenforums.com/installation-setup/17376-acpi-problem-one-more-time.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/crashes-debugging/57782-bsod-windows-7-ultimate-x64.html
LINKS TO PROBLEMS BELOW WITH GAMING ON WIN 7 32 BIT AND 64 BIT
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/3282-battlefield-2142-doesn-t-work.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/57694-battlefield-2-always-getting-kicked.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/57165-game-need-speed-shift.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/57583-windows-7-not-too-good-gamng.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/5700-oblivion-crash-startup.html
XIII.
February 10, 2010 at 5:15am
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE-CONTROL FOR COOL!
Beside, typing in capital letters doesn't make you right.
There are chords in the heart of the most reckless which cannot be touched without emotions
-Edgar Allan Poe
nekollx
February 10, 2010 at 11:17am
I AM PLAYING CITY OF HEROES AND STAR TREK ONLINE IN WIN 7 PRO 64BIT RIGHT NOW SO CLEARLY I'M RIGHT.
Cause everyone knows if you use caps your never wrong, but I can play both games without a hickup on my win 7 laptop
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
shaneofdevon
January 21, 2010 at 12:37am
Win xp file handling some way faster than 7, new icons in folders are hard to sort visually. Looks like a mac!
Games run 11.5 % slower far cry 2 had to turn resolution down to get back playability. In XP I could find files way faster as I could see the different icons better.
Going back as the system aint ready for serious users yet, I am not the easy to please 'ooo that looks nice' brigade, I use my comp for extensive filing and cataloguing handling and manipulating vide for storage and retreivel... nope it just likes to do what IT wants.
I will try again when they fix the damn thing
Caboose
January 21, 2010 at 12:15pm
I'd like to point out that that file management can still be performed and set to look just like it did back in WinXP/2000. As for your games. I believe that Far Cry 2 is a DX10 capable game. And Win7 supports DX10, DX10 can also be taxing on your GPU if it's a mid to low range card, and if you're running DX10 enabled settings at high on your mid-range GPU, then yes, you will notice a performance decrease!
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
stanley752
January 23, 2010 at 8:26am
ONE COMMENT WAS DX10 IS BETTER ON VISTA, THATS A LAUGH. VISTA TAKES SYSTEM MEMORY TO BUFFER VIDEO SO YOUR VIDEO CARD IS SLOWED BECAUSE IT IS BUFFERED THROUGH SYSTEM MEMORY. WHERE AS DX9 ON XP IS NOT BUFFERED AND IS NOT LAGGED BY VIDEO BUFFERING. EVER NOTICE ON VISTA AND WIN 7 WHEN PLAYING A GAME EXIT TO WINDOWS AND YOUR FREE MEMORYS GONE, WHERE AS XP ITS NOT. EVER HEARD OF BOTTLE NECKS IN SYSTEMS ANY TRUE GAMER WILL TELL YOU USEING MEMORY FROM THE VIDEO CARD IS BETTER THEN HAVEING IT CONNECTED WITH SYSTEM MEMORY. ONLY VISTA AND WIN 7 CONNECT IT WITH SYSTEM MEMORY. IT BOTHERS ME WHEN SOME PEOPLE DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REGARDING DX10 VISTA AND DX11 WIN 7 PRO. AND NOW WITH WIN 7 PRO THEY CAP YOUR GPU(MEANING LIMIT IT) I RUN A GTX 295 ON ONE PC AND 5870 ON MY OTHER. WITH BOTH QUAD CORES AND 4GB MEMORY AND BOTH HAVE 2-VELIO RAPTORS IN RAID-0. SO NO MINE IS NOT SLOW.
SO BEFORE YOU POST COMMENTS GET THE FACTS RIGHT. BECAUSE BY NOT DOING SO YOUR JUST INCOMPETENT. BUT HELL MICROSOFT LIKES THAT YOU KEEP THEM RICH.
stanley752
January 23, 2010 at 8:16am
amount of games out that are DX10 only 40 total
amount of games out that are DX11 only 1, which is dirt 2.
amount of games out that are DX9 hundreds.
to come out in 2010 is only 14 DX10 games and 2 DX11 games.
plus all DX10 and DX11 games will still support DX9.
have you ever seen the benefit in percent from DX9 to DX10 only 12%
DX 11 is 25% better over DX9
but thier is a catch almost all video cards on the market are DX10 at most and the DX11 cards have not matured ati has DX11 cards but they are crap ati's drivers for thier video cards are junk anyone that owns a 5 series card will agree with that. i own ati 5870 video card and nvidia gtx 295 also and graphics on the gtx 295 has better graphics and is alot faster on win 7 pro and xp. plus ati DX11 video cards over 80% have had overheating issues , plus most games run like crap on them. regarding dx10 thier is not much difference verus dx9. now dx 11 is different, but nothing supports it yet. but everyone wants the newest and they are feeling the pain for getting it.
one big thing no one sees WIN 7 VIDEO IS CAPPED AND USES VIDEO CARD GPU TO BOOST SYSTEM, WHICH IN TURN . WHERE AS A GTX 295 OR ATI 5870 GET 25-30% LESS FPS THEN ON XP. AND IF YOUR SO SMART ON THE NEWEST AND SUPPOSEDLY THE BEST SEARCH THE WEB AND MICROSOFT FOR CAPPED GPU AND EVEN TRY YOURSELF, YOU WILL SEE.
Caboose
January 23, 2010 at 12:58pm
Ok, you may have (attempted) to hold a few valid points, but with your poor spelling and grammar, and the fact that 75% of your post are in all caps makes me (and I'm sure everyone else) ignore what you've typed. It's very difficult to read (and take someone seriously) when they use all capital letters. It's like being yelled at. People will see you as a douche and ignore you.
Out of curiosity, why are you running 8GB in a PC with a 32bit OS? The OS can't address the other 4.75 (approx) gigs of RAM, unless you do the workaround/hack/whatever, and even then it's not properly addressing it.
Your = posessive, you're = you are. Use them properly and you'll make much more sense.
Ok, i'm going to attempt to read your comments.
What are HARD DOGS? Are they statues of dogs?
You said that the only reason you have a PC with Windows 7 is because your wife wanted the FLARE. Were those signal flares, road flares, emergency flares? I think the word you wanted to use was FLAIR! For a programmer, your spelling is horrid.
I've got a Quad-Core system w/8GB of RAM, 2 3870's in Crossfire and a 1TB RAID1, and haven't noticed any slowdowns in Windows 7. My G15 Keyboard with SirReal's Panel running doesn't show that my free RAM has dissapeared after I exit a game. I get all my RAM back once I exit a game, or finish my video editing.
That first link you posted was from NOVEMBER 2006. Which would have been Windows XP 64bit, unless the blogger had a VL edition of Windows Vista, or a... wait for it... BETA version. And as we all know, that was a failure. Driver support was very limited compared to now, and yes, there were issues. So your first link is moot as it is for a decade old OS. 64bit computing has come leaps and bounds for the end user market since then. Plus, when Vista came out, the amount of drivers released for it were very vew and far between as it was a brand new OS. Windows XP drivers didn't work. You know what, when Windows XP was released, it had a lot of driver issues. Users were forced to either wait, use beta versions of drivers, or make Windows 2000 drivers work. Lack of drivers, is the fault of the driver manufacturer. NOT the fault of Microsoft.
That second link, appears to be specific to a motherboard/video card combination, along with an RTM edition of Windows 7. Your 2nd link also fails to make your point.
Let's keep going shall we?
3rd link is with the ACPI power settings on a Dell PC after a BIOS update. How's that the fault of Windows 7? In addition with the user usin Build 7100 of Windows 7 which is the RC build, Build 7600 is the RTM build. So he was STILL using a beta OS. And that's 3 failures in a row.
The 4th link, was dealing with a driver. User updated to the latest driver from the MANUFACTURER's website and the problem was resolved. Again, how is that a problem with Windows 7 64bit? That could EASILY have happened with Windows Vista, or Windows XP. And there's failure #4
5th link is dealing with a 4 year old game. Battlefield 2142 has it's fair share of issues in XP as well as Vista. Now couple that with attempting to get widescreen to work properly, and you've got a recipie for disaster! Plus the user is also running the RC build of the OS. I run Battlefield 2142 in Win7 Ultimate 64bit retail build, and haven't had any problems. Heck, some of my games built for Windows 95 and Windows 98 in Win7 Ultimate 64bit JUST fine.
You do realize that when you're running a beta, even an RC build of an OS, you are bound to have a lot of issues as they're still being worked out and the bugs being squished. But I degress. Let's continue on your walk of failure!
Ok, do you actually read the links you post or do you just do a generic search for "Windows 7+can't game" and take all the results as problems WITH the OS? The 6th link is an issue with PunkBuster and Battlefield 2. The user most likely was running the version of PB that comes on the BF2 disc. Updating PB fixed the issue. Sooo care to explain how that's a problem with the OS and not a problem with Punkbuster and servers rejecting old versions of the app?
In the 7th link, the thread hasn't been updated and there's no additional information. For all we know, it's either a pirated version of the game, the guy's using a NoCD crack, or hasn't even updated the game. You've heard of game updates before right? You know, the ones that at times can add compatibility or fix issies that the game has when running on certain OS'? Wow, you're batting 0 right now!
8th link. Ok, you're not trying at all are you?
And we'll finish this tour of your failure at Link number 9. Oblivion crashing in Windows 7. Where to begin with this one? First off, that thread is ALMOST a year old. At that time, Windows 7 was, I believe, still in the early beta stages. Plus with the fact that the poster didn't provide any additional information, OR post anything after the inital post, makes this your last and final failure for this little adventure.
If you are a programmer, as you so say you are, you'd realize that research is pretty important. Unless you have all of the information you require, you are unable to build the application properly. The same goes with troubleshooting. All of the links you posted either pointed to issues with the app in question, or the fact that the user is using a beta version of the OS. And as a programmer, you should know that Alpha, Beta and RC builds of an app are never the same as the final build. They have bugs, issues, etc that need to be resolved.
I did a search for Windows 7 capped gpu, and you know what I found? I found a link pointing to this article of your incoherient rantings, and... nothing else that even comes close to what you're blathering on about. There was a link about nVidia drivers capping the refresh rate to 87Hz, but that's it. I don't know what you're talking about, a capped GPU.
You mentioned that almost all the GPU's on the market are DX10. My last count was ALL GPU's on the market today are DX10 cards. All. Even the onboard ones (unless you consider Intel's pathetic attempt at graphics). As of late, ATi is ahead in the GPU market in terms of price, performance, and power. Plus their drivers are much nicer than nVidia's drivers. Mind you, both are using a unified driver so you're not hunting through a million and one drivres for your card. If you want to talk about too much heat, let's talk about nVidia. They seem to be getting a rep for building very small, and expensive space heaters. Normal temps for video card using the stock air cooling is in the 70-80C range. There are some that experience lower, and some higher. Which can be attributed to how good the airflow is in your case, how packed it is, air or water cooling, etc. The only point I'll give to you, is that DX11 isn't widly used right now, and that is because... it just came out! Be patient. You'll see more and more DX11 games. Why is it when something is JUST released, people bitch and complain and whine that there are no games that will use it... when it just came out, or a month later, etc. How long does it take to develop a game? And if a game is on it's way to release, and a new DX version comes out, a developer isn't going to hault production to make it a DX11 game. It'll be released as a patch later. Just like what happened with Company of Heroes!
As it's been said by myself, and many others before me, across many other threads to the many conspiracy theorists, and the people that just don't have a clue, site your sources! Properly. Randomly googling stuff and posting the links without actually READING what the post is about, isn't siting your sources.
So to you, I provide you with this:
www.ratemyeverything.net/ImageDatabase/PostImages/7739/Large/Star_Wars_FAIL.jpg
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
common
August 01, 2010 at 2:12am
Actor Gary Sinise and his Lt. Dan Band will perform a free public concert Friday at Fort Leavenworth as part of its Military Spouses’ Appreciation Day.
Custom Logo
stanley752
May 02, 2010 at 10:58pm
For one in my article, I was describing major differences between xp, vista, and windows 7. Where you seemed more intent on worrying more about my spelling. I stated that 8gb can be ran on 32bit os effectively. But really unless you are running windows 7. 8gb is not really necessary. You stated Battlefield 2142 had its fair amount of problems in xp. I personally find that amuseing. never once had a problem in xp. As a lot of people never had porblems with it on xp either. Just google it, thats the proof thier. A lot of games have many issues on vista and windows 7. Even the new ones. Just google it or talk to your local gamestop worker. Plus Still as of this time more businesses prefer xp, because of cost and still windows 7 does not support most software. Plus you stated you have a Quad-Core system w/8GB of RAM, 2 3870's in Crossfire and a 1TB RAID1. Know why is it in benchmarks, file sharing, gaming, overall system performance of my computer with xp 32bit wins hands down. now why is that. Simple have you ever noticed windows 7 uses twice the processes then xp, and even with windos 7 64 bit operating system uses more. I could go on and on how a computer transfers data and the inner parts of xp and vista and win 7. But why? you apparently dont know what you are talking about. I spent less then half on my pc with xp 32 bit then you did on yours, for one. and also its faster and 100% compatible with anything. Where as windows 7 still has many issues which by the time and release of service packs to get to be faster then xp. Windows 8 will be released. Plus one last thing to ponder over you metioned almost all video cards are dx 10 yes and thier is dx 11 video cards. But go to gpureview.com and compare nvidia gtx 295 video card to the new fermi gtx 470 video card. 470 is slower. now why is that? plus you metioned you use 2 3870's in crossfire with windows 7. then why with the links below 2 3870's in crossfire, for one get low performance, and for second have many issue. "HAVE YOU EVER CHECKED OUT AMD'S FORUM" regarding problems with thier drivers with windows 7? and why is it on every release notes with amd many issues metioned with windows 7 not xp?
http://forums.amd.com/game/categories.cfm?catid=262&forumid=11
http://www2.ati.com/relnotes/Catalyst_104_release_notes.pdf
http://forums.amd.com/game/searchresults.cfm
Caboose
May 03, 2010 at 3:24pm
Stop ok, just stop. You started off alright, but with your run on
sentences, and lack of grammatical and spelling abilities made your post
unreadable. I didn’t even finish it because my head began to hurt. Just because
this is the internet, doesn’t mean you can just mash the keyboard, hit submit
and call it a day with a “successful post”.You want to explain to me the inner workings of a PC and Windows? Be my
guest. But, do us all a favour and put it through Word or something to clean up
your spelling. Paragraphs and proper punctuation help a lot too!As for your forum posts, do you actually read anything? You can't post a
link to an entire forum and say "SEE! HEAR IS TEH PRUF! REED IT FOUR
URSELF!" and expect us to believe you. If you want to be taken seriously,
please post actual links to real issues with the OS. Not a link to a blog post
4-5 years old, a random Google search results page, or a generic search for
CrossfireX. The first number of posts in the AMD forums were issues not with
the OS, but with hardware. The first was a motherboard issue. The second was
due to the ATi drivers and the hardware. Not the OS. The third post was asking
if the guy could crossfire a 5870 and a 4870. Shall I go on?How can you tell me that I’m an idiot and don’t know what I’m talking about,
when you yourself can’t even make a proper response? Let alone one that makes
any sense.
And again, I ask, why are you running a 32bit OS with 8GB of RAM, when the
OS is unable to properly address it? XP 64bit, Vista 64bit, Win7 64bit (64bit
Desktop Linux) all run fine, and can benefit from 8GB of RAM. Your PC may have
cost a lot less than mine, however my PC is a high-end machine intended for
extensive gaming sessions, and video editing. If I was really concerned with
building a low cost machine, I’d have gone with lower powered parts, less RAM,
fewer video cards, fewer HDD’s, etc.You can believe what you want, but the fact of the matter is that XP is not
faster than Windows 7 when using the same hardware. More and more businesses
are switching to Windows 7. XP is also a decade (or thereabouts) OS. You can’t
just pop the install disc in, install the OS and leave it as is anymore. Heck,
if you want to use AHCI with your HDD’s you need chipset drivers. And that’s if
the install doesn’t blue screen on you. XP is based on old, expired hardware.
AGP and SDRAM were mainstream. SATA was only on high-end components. And DVD+RW drives were entering the wild at a shit load of money.It is time for XP to enter the retirement home, and relax. It deserves a
rest. XP was a good OS, but it’s time to pass the torch on to Windows 7. The longer
you deny that, the more you’ll be left in the past, only to fight with new
hardware and software.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
theqman
January 28, 2010 at 6:47pm
Stanley, your posts are difficult to read.
Punctuation and space between paragraphs would be a help.
==============================
Never send a man to do a grenade's job"
==============================
Caboose
January 24, 2010 at 2:49pm
*Bows* Thank you.
And I apologise to everyone for the long post, however, I was unable to properly debunk what he was saying with a short post.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
nekollx
January 25, 2010 at 11:05am
*snap, snap* you go girlfriend!
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
nekollx
January 21, 2010 at 12:23pm
And XP can only run at DX9. So it's not a simple comparison.
the XP box that "looks better" is stuck at dx9 so it is less taxing on the dx10 gpu, no matter the setting.
on vista/7 your running in dx10 by default so it's pushing the card to it's limits.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
stanley752
May 02, 2010 at 11:36pm
For one if you knew what your talking about it would be amazing. Dx 10 takes more memory from the system, your main memory. Then dx 9 does to achieve better graphics.and in turn its takeing slower memory then is on a average video card. But in reality the performance you gain from dx10 verus dx 9 is really not noticed by most because, it also depends on your monitor you have, plus also the performance of the rest of your system. And with updated video card drivers the difference between dx9 and dx10 is nothing. I use a samsung P2370 Hd lcd monitor and difference between dx 9 and dx 10 is 99% of the time not noticeble. But yes i would agree dx11 is a step up from dx9. And again dx11 takes more system memory to make dx 11 look better, ever wonder why when you put a bigger video card in your computer in windows 7 why you would have less system memory then before. Windows 7 unlike xp uses that memory as a buffer to make dx11 and aero look better. Where with dx 9 did not buffer the system memory like vista, windows 7 does(change your video card with one with more memory and look in hardware reserved in task manager in windows 7 before and after and you will notice more system memory gone.) but to compare dx10 to dx 9 is waste of time. Not really a difference at all. I am not stuck on dx 9. I just think microsoft did it right with xp. And made a hugh mistake when they based windows 7 off of vista.
Caboose
January 21, 2010 at 12:57pm
Exactly!
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
stanley752
January 17, 2010 at 12:02pm
I personally have had all microsoft operating systems over the years. i work as a computer programmer. and me and my two teenage boys love to game. I do say win xp pro was the best os ever for microsoft. i have three computers at home two with win 7 pro 32 bit and one with xp pro 32 bit. all three have amd phenom II x4 955 black edition quad cor cpus and all three have 4gb performance memory in each one and each one of the three have two wd 300gb velico raptor hard drives in raid-0 and each has gtx 295 video cards. I have tried 64 bit version of windows 7 pro and ultimate and home edition and the 32 bit versions of them also just to find out that on the 64 bit versions of windows 7 the extra memory 8gb total, only 4gb of memory on 64bit versions is used for 32 bit apps nothing more then 4gb, only time 8gb can be used in a 64 bit version of windows 7 is on 64 bit apps. so if you use mainly 32 bit apps getting a 64 bit version of windows 7 is useless. if you dont believe me try for your self, you will see i am right. plus the 64bit versions have many bugs they apperntly have not fixed like they have in the 32 bit versions. first ie8 in 64 bit version is buggy, where as in 32 bit its not. second win 7 32 bit boots faster then 64 bit. try it you see. i timed it. antivirus software it works good on 32 bit, buggy on 64 bit. i have tried norton, bitdefender, trend micro, nod 32, etc and so on. i work with visual studio 2008 a lot and found out the hard way, that on windows 7 you need to have sp1 for it to work well and sp3 for sql server 2005 for it to work well on win 7, where as on xp i did not need that. plus some things i had to do a work around for visual studio 08 on win 7 where as on xp i dont. now if you think i am full of it. just simply try visual studio 08 on win 7 and you will see. when it comes to gameing as the one review said your gpu is capped on win 7, he was right i tried gameing and video encodeing and yes he was 100% right. example on every game me and my one son have played my pc win 7 pro 32 bit and his xp pro 32 bit he gets a average 25 to 35% more fps. we compared onthe following games crysis, fallout 3, company of heros, gta 4, call of duty 4 and call of duty 5(modern warfare2) , grid , sim3 and sim3 world adventures, and other games. on company of heros for example hes waiting on player(me) when lan(pc to pc). when it comes to doing work i do it on my sons which has xp pro. at work everyone has talked about win7 but only me and one other made the plung to it, and the other guy that did go to win 7 went back to xp pro. which i am thinking about. not one pc at work uses win 7 all of them use xp pro. i asked if they will make the change. i was told they will go to win 7 when they no longer have the choice. and regarding all of the games yes i have every avaible patch for them, and both computers as i said early in this review have same hardware. my wife likes win 7 but thats only because its flashy and new. but what women dont like flashy and new. win 7 is a lot better then vista, which vista proberly will go down as the worst operating system ever. but win 7 code is based off vista and the gpu is capped. if they would of maybe based win 7 off of win xp's code. the world would of got a operating system that would be the best. win 7 as i said is a improvement over vista, but when it comes to gameing and programming and gpu intensive apps xp is king. i think microsoft made a mistake when they made xp to good. then came out with vista and now win 7. because honestly what does not work on xp? where as with vista and win 7, well the list is long on that. plus also if win 7 or vista are so much better then xp. then answer this why is workpalces and my sons school and my wifes work and my wifes sisters childrens school all use XP PRO none of them use vista or win 7. answer that. plus why is it every game i try on win 7 gets a lot lower framerate then on xp. to be honest if you made xp pro look same as win 7, then why change. stardock has windows blinds program if you ever want to make xp look like win 7. ever thought of that. it just seems to me microsoft keeps getting greedy and consumer has to be the one to suffer. because if you have to upgrade pc parts to get win 7 like xp then why? its your money they get for same result. now you can say i am full of it. but honestly think should you keep spending money upgradeing your computer every so often for the same result.
DigitalMenace
January 17, 2010 at 7:03am
As soon as I was able to get my hands on a copy of Windows 7 beta, RC and now retail, I have never been more pleased with a MS OS. I've used countless interations of Linux, have several Macs running OS X 10.6, and all my PC's are now Windows 7.
Windows 7 is better for me for a few reasons:
1.) It just works. I've yet to have it crash or act unexpectedly
2.) It looks good. Yea, I can make every other os look like it too...
3.) It performs! This is the most important. I have a few older first generation dual core computers with AMD chips that run like crap with Vista and just ok with XP. I get a better OS for roughly the same performance
I've read many of the posts here and ExiledOne's probably hits the hardest with simple misunderstanding of how the OS works. You see, I've run many CUDA applications and GPU based programs too. I see, at minimum, a 5-10% increase in performace in Windows 7 as compared to Vista and XP. I also do a ton of transcoding and other CPU and even GPU intensive tasks and have yet to have Windows 7 let me down in performance or stability.
Sure the OS is larger than previous OS's. There's more to it than simply more files taking up space. Microsoft has taken a lot of the legacy code out and provided a ton of compatability support for older programs. I've got Windows 95 applications (games) that crashed left and right in XP, wouldn't run in Vista, but runs beautifully in Windows7.
The XP fan club can stay with XP. It doesn't bother me in the least. I find those that bash people use Macs are probably the most ignorant out there and have probably never even used OS X. I use them all. I like them all because I have a need for them. I game in both Windows 7 and OS X and find the games I have for both platforms perform just as well on the Mac as the PC and the Mac is an older machine. I use the Linux box for servers, programming and more. Everything has a purpose except fanboys and bashers
stanley752
January 17, 2010 at 12:29pm
i have win 7 pro 32 bit on two pcs which both i am proberly going to reinstall with xp pro.
when you uninstall power archiever 2010 you can no longer burn iso images to dvd with windows 7, thats one bug, also many antivirus are buggy. plus in gameing you apperntly are full of it. compare two identical pc's one with xp pro and one with win 7 pro. and compare the framerate. you will see the difference. just give it a try. and overall performance thats funny. google search online you will see xp pro is faster in data moving and etc then win 7 pro. also compare two identical pc's. you will see. now i am not saying win 7 is junk, vista holds that title. all i am saying is for someone to say win 7 is far better then xp then they are just ignorant. plus i have got windows 95 applications (games) to work great in xp. ever thought of xp compatibilty mode? in win xp. plus as i said in my review if win 7 is so great then why not one school, and work place i know are switching and also everyone i know went back to xp. plus the increase of 5-10% in performance in windows 7 in cuda and gpu applications, i find funny. my results the opposite. plus the review on the gpu being capped it was right.
Exiled One
January 13, 2010 at 5:39am
The Only reason Windows7 feels
snappier and more responsive is because of direct compute. Microsoft
has now borg'ed my GPU to make the O/S feel faster. Windows XP 285+
million keys per second ( 2x 8800 GT's stock ) Windows 7 209 million
keys per second ( 2x 8800 GT's stock or over clocked ) ( distributed
net client ). I run XP and 7 side by side and do a ton of video
editing I can tell you first hand how all 3 perform. You are going to
tell me how fast 7 is. (ROFL). Yes is does feel better than Vista, (
trust me I have beta tested all MS O/S's from windows 95 with the
exception of XP ) but here is the million dollar question: How
do you get a code base that is 3 times the size to feel like it is
half the size. HMMMM .... that's like putting a 429 boss in a 69
Mustang then pitting it against an Escalade with the same engine
which one hits the lights first in the 1/4 ? I can tell you it's not
the Escalade. I've been working in this field a long time and yes
Vista/7 has some nice features but at the same time ( as a admin )
they are a major hangover with a migraine to boot. I have been around
long before there was a windows 3.11 wfw, I have seen MS kill the
best browser at the time, and now I see the credibility of a trusted
Magazine go to the highest bidder. I have seen much in this
industry. But now to support the same speed with direct compute I
have to get a second gtx 260 just to be able to trans-code the kid's
video's in the same amount of time in 7. None of the big reviewers
tested 7 in trans-coding video or any cuda app for that matter (CS4
don't count as it really does,'t need a lot it's already tight )Yes
the task scheduler is windows/vista/7 is tight now even single
threaded apps run real good but in 7 there is a expense for cuda apps
that I as a real user and I do all the video and photo touch up for
the family don't like, that is MS has capped my GPU for use to
accelerate it's meager attempt to say 7 is faster but really they
just tried to move the problem out of view . The only 3 things I like
about 7 is as follows 1: task scheduler 2: SSD support 3: My
wife think's it's flyto have the latest and greatest. I lose
atleast 25-30% in GPU apps that ain't cool. MS found there turbo to
get past the reviewers because you only test with the best high end
gear, they fooled you and with it, all your trusted readers. Do real
time tests with the hardware I have to deal with everyday, In fact it
was how I got my boss to get off my my back about upgrading was to
load his meager machine with Windows 7 ( his asked to have it removed
a week after I told him I couldn't do it without format now he
suffers )For GPU apps XP is king for the end user depends if you game you will lose 15 to 20 % frame rate and that may not matter for a lot of games but it depends on what you are playing and what you have already, myself I have to upgrade and spend another 360 to 380 dollars to get the same performance I had before, on top of what I had to pay for the O/S ( mine was free but had to buy the wife one also ) Oh buy the way what resolution did you run on that crysis test I'd really like to know because it's fishy.
stanley752
January 17, 2010 at 12:32pm
yes you were right about the gpu being capped. and you were right xp is king in gpu applications. plus xp out performs win 7 in data moving and gameing. maybe with a service pack win 7 can catch up with xp.
dracx619
January 14, 2010 at 5:07am
interestingly enough, im also a video editor, photo retoucher, video transcoder...etc...etc. but have the opposite experience. my transcodes do take less time than with xp (identical machine and apps of course, except i was capped at 3gb of ram then even though i had 4gb) it wasn't a huge difference but anywhere from like 30 sec to a couple of minutes depending on the size of the movie. my photos exported from lightroom a bit faster, couple more frames per sec. not to also mention that ive been running the rtm release since launch and i havn't had the system slow down like xp did in a relatively same timeframe. so im happy. i guess its just different for a lot of people...
Caboose
January 14, 2010 at 8:33am
Just a note about your RAM. If you're using 32bit Win7, it may say 4GB of RAM, but in brackets will be 3.xx as the actual amount of RAM avail. Unless you're running 64bit windows than this post don't apply!
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
dracx619
January 14, 2010 at 11:47am
thanks, i was implying that my old xp install was 32 bit and my win 7 is 64 bit and is why i can now see all of my ram. its kinda of a known windows video editor thing that you dont edit or work on xp pro 64 bit cause of some pretty crazy limitations and incompatabilities. so one of my advantages of editing with windows 7 is beaing able to use 64 bit and more ram because editing ist gimped like xp 64-bit. thats why i didint bother to elaborate since im sure the previous poster is aware of it
DallasBladeYSL
January 07, 2010 at 10:00pm
I hear and read a lot of complaints about Windows 7 primarily dealing with it's usability. Unfortunately, the comments aren't about whether or not it is in fact user friendly (which it is if you have half the brain of a monkey) but about people not wanting to learn an all new operating system (which when considering its user interface it is identical to Vista and merely grown from XP). So the popular solution I've read is to use Linux or something from Apple... meaning if you grew up using Windows since it's 3.1 stage you'll have to re-learn an entirely new way to do things in the Apple world, or teach yourself how to manage your own OS in Linux... someone explain to me how that makes any sense or solves problems. Ok, so you don't want to teach anyone how to use a new OS? Fine, let them stay in the dark ages and wonder why everyone else gets their work done much faster, with better presentation, while enjoying more entertainment.
Not to mention we haven't even discussed the availability of all the new hardware that these new operating systems are built to support. I'm not talking about a $20 HP printer. I'm talking about the advancements in cpu, gpu, ram, and motherboard technology. Technology that XP and earlier OS's have no concept of let alone the ability to efficiently and effectively utilize. The hardware is faster now, the programs are bigger and take more horsepower to run, so if you plan on using either combination you will need the proper OS to handle it. Case in point, XP 32-bit won't register more than 3.0 Gigs of ram. I bought a brand new Dell XPS quad core pc with all the goodies, big graphics card, lots of memory, etc. Low and behold I only had Vista 32-bit installed and couldn't register half the memory I paid for, nor was I utilizing a quarter of the potential my processor had to offer.
The world of computers is simple, buy the tools you need to get the job done. In order to do so you need to identify the tasks in that job appropriately, research what tool completes that task most efficiently and most cost effectively, then buy it. Microsoft is doing everything they should be doing as far as making new OS's to help us get our jobs done easier. My point being, if you don't like Win 7, great... there's no need for you to post your uneducated subjective negative opinions about it on a site meant to educate potential users about its functionality. If you don't want it, don't buy it, I don't understand why this is so hard for people in general to swallow. I personally adore XP but it no longer suits my needs and I've been waiting for a better version of Vista to hit the floors. It's here, I'm happy, my needs are meant, done.
Kendogsbarn
December 22, 2009 at 7:42am
This whole exresize is pointless to me, because except to Microsoft's profit, there is no real benefit to me for "upgrading" from XP to 7. It is disguised as a Vista redux in my book.
The "modified" UAC seems to be the key element that Microsoft is hurling at consumers now.
We are told we must give up some real O.S. "ownership" priveleges for glitz and whistles. Pfff.
I feel more compelled than ever to try free O.S.'s.
nekollx
December 22, 2009 at 11:41am
7 is heads and shounders above xp, oh and XP is at it's End of Life. Excuse me if i don't feel compeled to support a inferior, dead, product.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
X2brute
December 17, 2009 at 10:07am
In my opinion xp was great! I never had any issues with it! Vista looked nice but was slower, but I still used it cause it came free on my Past 3 laptops, and 7 is good too! I like many of its features better than vista, but not all, and as far as those of you who have old pcs and can't upgrade that's fine! OSs are like any component, some people like amd, some like intel, some want a i7, others have an atom, I hate when people call netbooks too weak to be used as a main computer, cause I did for 2 years till mine got fried accidentally, and I'm still using it for parts! My new laptop has a 2.1 ghz athelon X2 and 4gs of ram on win 7 but I still miss my first one with a 1.3 ghz celeron and 1g of ram on vista! It worked, use what works, use what you like, but don't complain about what others like
(and to tell you the truth my old desktop with windows 3.1 and *gasp!* color graphics! Was an awesome computer as long as you don't want to do anything more intense than play sim city)If a bear tries to dump in the woods but a tree falls on him with no one around, is the pope's hat still funny?
X2brute
December 17, 2009 at 10:06am
In my opinion xp was great! I never had any issues with it! Vista looked nice but was slower, but I still used it cause it came free on my Past 3 laptops, and 7 is good too! I like many of its features better than vista, but not all, and as far as those of you who have old pcs and can't upgrade that's fine! OSs are like any component, some people like amd, some like intel, some want a i7, others have an atom, I hate when people call netbooks too weak to be used as a main computer, cause I did for 2 years till mine got fried accidentally, and I'm still using it for parts! My new laptop has a 2.1 ghz athelon X2 and 4gs of ram on win 7 but I still miss my first one with a 1.3 ghz celeron and 1g of ram on vista! It worked, use what works, use what you like, but don't complain about what others like
(and to tell you the truth my old desktop with windows 3.1 and *gasp!* color graphics! Was an awesome computer as long as you don't want to do anything more intense than play sim city)If a bear tries to dump in the woods but a tree falls on him with no one around, is the pope's hat still funny?
X2brute
December 17, 2009 at 10:05am
In my opinion xp was great! I never had any issues with it! Vista looked nice but was slower, but I still used it cause it came free on my Past 3 laptops, and 7 is good too! I like many of its features better than vista, but not all, and as far as those of you who have old pcs and can't upgrade that's fine! OSs are like any component, some people like amd, some like intel, some want a i7, others have an atom, I hate when people call netbooks too weak to be used as a main computer, cause I did for 2 years till mine got fried accidentally, and I'm still using it for parts! My new laptop has a 2.1 ghz athelon X2 and 4gs of ram on win 7 but I still miss my first one with a 1.3 ghz celeron and 1g of ram on vista! It worked, use what works, use what you like, but don't complain about what others like
(and to tell you the truth my old desktop with windows 3.1 and *gasp!* color graphics! Was an awesome computer as long as you don't want to do anything more intense than play sim city)If a bear tries to dump in the woods but a tree falls on him with no one around, is the pope's hat still funny?
X2brute
December 17, 2009 at 10:01am
In my opinion xp was great! I never had any issues with it! Vista looked nice but was slower, but I still used it cause it came free on my Past 3 laptops, and 7 is good too! I like many of its features better than vista, but not all, and as far as those of you who have old pcs and can't upgrade that's fine! OSs are like any component, some people like amd, some like intel, some want a i7, others have an atom, I hate when people call netbooks too weak to be used as a main computer, cause I did for 2 years till mine got fried accidentally, and I'm still using it for parts! My new laptop has a 2.1 ghz athelon X2 and 4gs of ram on win 7 but I still miss my first one with a 1.3 ghz celeron and 1g of ram on vista! It worked, use what works, use what you like, but don't complain about what others like
If a bear tries to dump in the woods but a tree falls on him with no one around, is the pope's hat still funny?
Roost
December 10, 2009 at 12:31pm
Nice review of Win 7. What is clear to me is that Win 7 is essentially a consumer oriented OS. I want to get work done and in my field, most offices arely on legacy apps that may not even load in 7.
Rather than gripe, I suggest that Microsoft would be very smart to buildand sustain a long term version of XP primarily for businesses. They could call it Windows Legacy Edition, charge $300 bucks retail, assign a small crew to keep tweaking it and have a healthy income stream. All the MIS people I've talked with are not thrilled about having to run SP inside Windows 7.
One admin I know runs a 14,000 workstation network and is looking at millions of dollars in training costs, breakdowns, trouble shooting costs, plus having to replace inexpensive PCs with higher power versions, dump several million bucks worth of peripherals and printers. She is not a happy camper.
A legacy version of XP might create a problem for Redmond, but it would avoid billions of dollars of problems for users. But then, from my perspective, Microsoft always seems to care much more about forcing sales of new software than it does about users.
nekollx
December 10, 2009 at 12:53pm
The thing is the Exact same thing can be say abou win 98. Redmond has to say at some point "ok we're not supporting this any more" or we would all still be bou windows 2. They choose 2014 as the absolute End of life for xp, that nearly 14 years...and hell 7 can run on a Netbook...Your telling me these "legacy computers" are less powerful then a Netbook?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Caboose
December 10, 2009 at 2:08pm
Exactly! All of these people that say that Win7 can't run on older machines, to them I say, prove it! I've got Windows 7 running very smoothly and nicely on an Asus EeePC 1002HA netbook, and it runs better than in my VM which has 2 dedicated cores, 3GB of RAM, and an entire 80GB 7200rpm desktop HDD to use.
Legacy hardware (printers, scanners) should work fine on Windows 7, and if they're legacy or have been long since discontinued (I'm looking at you parallel printers and scanners) then it's time to replace them anyway with devices that are smaller, faster, and perform better!
Running apps within a Virtual XP mode that comes with Win7 is not a big deal or difficult to do as the apps may be running within a specalized VM, but to the end user they will almost appear to be running nativly on the primary OS. And I can guarentee you that 99.9% of users won't know the difference!
There comes a time when a product needs to be phased out. XP has served it's debt to society. It's time to let it rest and not be bothered by anyone, OR bother anyone anymore.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
nekollx
December 10, 2009 at 2:41pm
see also
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_enthusiast_runs_windows_7_pentium_ii_system
And really if your system is lower then a Pentium 2 you really should upgrade, the warentee alone on a $300 Dell would offset the maintaince cost on a P1 or lower system
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Roost
December 10, 2009 at 12:31pm
Nice review of Win 7. What is clear to me is that Win 7 is essentially a consumer oriented OS. I want to get work done and in my field, most offices arely on legacy apps that may not even load in 7.
Rather than gripe, I suggest that Microsoft would be very smart to buildand sustain a long term version of XP primarily for businesses. They could call it Windows Legacy Edition, charge $300 bucks retail, assign a small crew to keep tweaking it and have a healthy income stream. All the MIS people I've talked with are not thrilled about having to run SP inside Windows 7.
One admin I know runs a 14,000 workstation network and is looking at millions of dollars in training costs, breakdowns, trouble shooting costs, plus having to replace inexpensive PCs with higher power versions, dump several million bucks worth of peripherals and printers. She is not a happy camper.
A legacy version of XP might create a problem for Redmond, but it would avoid billions of dollars of problems for users. But then, from my perspective, Microsoft always seems to care much more about forcing sales of new software than it does about users.
pismire
December 09, 2009 at 1:57pm
Look. I've read way too many of these comments. Let me summarize:
1. The article itself isn't going to be convincing enough to the average PC user. As one reader suggested, maybe a compare against Linux and Mac would be better than simply comparing load times of previous windows versions (which weren't very impressive).
2. The average PC user will upgrade because they've been doing so for years, and the average pc user is your mom and dad. They surf the web, send emails, transfer photos from their digital cameras, and maybe upload them to their facebook accounts. They shop on ebay and amazon, and maybe manage some bank accounts, etc.
Seems so me, the average user requires in all honesty, roughly a Pnetium III 900mhz with 64-128mb of ram to accomplish that.
Guess what?
Like most minimalist linux distributions, Windows XP will actually work on said P3 w/64mb and it wiill run just fine. (I know, I have a p3 laptop and an old duron 700 in the garage acting as a firewall and webcam server and they hum along nicely with xp).
So my question is, will the other 15 laptops and pc's i have with older hardware, like say GOD FORBID a 1.6ghz Atom processor and only (dear me) 1GB ram still run well under windows 7?
What about my 128mb duron 700mhz w/4gb hard drive?
Oh yeah, I can't even INSTALL win 7 in 4b of drive space, can i?
The point I am trying to make here is some of us do not NEED even what XP offers us. I don't feel as a consumer, the netbook or notebook I bought 2 years ago should be rendered uselss because I only have 512mb of ram and a 30 gb hard drive, when under XP, it is still a viable workstation.
Regarding Win7 "improvements"...
Memory and disk management improvements are one thing.
Writing an "app" into the code of the "os" to manage folders for people who can not manage folders on their own hardly quantifies the statement that it's all new from the ground up.
Give me visual studio and 20 minutes and I'll write you a a windows service to do the same thing.
It's nice. But it doesn't translate to better for many people who will NEVER use features like that. Those features will get in the way for some.
And, as the person tasked in my family with figuring out "where did all my pictures go?" "how come when I click PRINT" there's always a header at the top of my documents suddenly? "I didn't do anything. I just opened MY PICTURES and now I can't find them" "My internet is broken", I've seen enough to know that my mom and dad are going to have a hard time with their new Acer Aspire 1 w/Windows 7 because of all of these keyboard shortcuts, gesture controls, etc.
I can see it now. "I moved my mouse and all my windows just disappeared. How do I get them back".... I don't have time to re-train family members and explain what was and what now is.
The tru measure of a good OS is my mom. If she can figure it out on her own, it's intuitive. If she has to call me then it's too difficult.
PS- Why on earth would any system need 4gb of ram? It's an os. OS's are so bloated now it's laughable.
The aforementioned Acer my father has consumes 611mb of the 1gb of ram. Why?
Before you start with the trial ware and acer crap, that's all gone. He only has NOD32 and Malwayrebytes running at the moment. the rest are standard running windows 7 processes. 611mb. Why? 57% of his memory?
My acer with (same model) with XP and the same two malware/antvirus programs sits at about 18-25% ram in use. 0 cpu.
Same model.
Same apps.
Only diff: Windows 7.
So to justify a bloated os everyone has to go buy faster processors and more ram in order to do the same web surfing, same digital picture transferring, same facebook updating, same bank account mgmt, and use the same tired office applications... That is not the sign of progress or innovation.
I will end up switching to windows 7 when I have to. For now, XP is just too reliable. And for those of you who get BSOD's... I think that may have happened to me 1 time in since 2001.... And the rememedy was install fresh XP. You know whenyou buy a pc from the store, you're getting a frankenstein installation of windows... get the disk, put XP on it, and BSOD's go away...
Regarding drivers. Jesus it's not that bad. XP has never been that bad with drivers. Most of the time you connect to the internet and can locate a driver in minutes. Christ people need to quit complaining about drivers so much. Like I said I have about 15 pc's, laptops handhelds, etc. with zillions of gadgets and I'm CONSTANTLY fixing family and friends's pc's. They drop off the tower / laptop and I do the rest. I never ask if they have their original disks because honestly, who needs them?
So I'll stick with XP and Ubuntu for now, as they seem to be the best overall choices in their respected environments for everyday regular user desktop work.
XP is strong but old. I want SO badly to like windows 7 but right now, after playing with it and playing with the rc, it's not impressive to me. I can see how it could appeal to a mac user or teenager, however, where substance is not as important as flash. And for gamers... which I am not. I respect those who choose it for specific reasons. I respect those who stay with XP for the same specific reasons.
sorry for the ramble.
And I know the comments are going to come about my use of old pc's with low ram, etc. My response in advance is, respect. My needs are met. I am no lesser a pc user, in fact, I'm probably better off as I've managed without needing to spend... Who's the stupid one?
curlybrian
December 08, 2009 at 9:28am
I just don't see the justification for the summary: massive leap forward in usability, security, and support for new hardware and technology.
Usability: Now I can store anything, anywhere, with any name and I can still find it? Bet half of it never gets backed up and a quarter of it will be lost in the move to a new PC in 5 years. So long cherished photos! Great usability! If it enforced storage organization consistency instead of just compensating for sloppiness, through use of AI, a new OS would be an improvement. Pretty picture don't improve usability.
Security: What security problems are there now in XP/Vista? Haven't seen a virus in years, no spywhere either. Where do people get these from? Use free software that automatically updates for scanning. The inevitable subscription renewal payment problems causing all infections?
Support for New Hardware: Will be in an issue in 5 years, but not because of any advantage of Windows 7.
The prettiness of a new OS, like buying the same car in a different color every year, wears off quite quickly. Saving 10 clicks a day is not a reason to change. Great comprehensive article, just don't agree with summary. Still unimpressed.
dracx619
December 09, 2009 at 5:20am
to add to nekolix' comment
while in a sense yes, 7 is catering to the lazy (i myself organize my stuff pretty dam good) it does have a simple built in back up option that backs up everything one chooses from their libraries and stores them in one place be it an external drive or some spot on a hard drive. aside from that, there are built in transfer files and settings options that make it easy and im sure microsoft is aware of the potential problems and will figure out a way in windows 8 to make the transitions seamless and painless, if they dont well too bad for all those lazies out there, i, and many others from our community will be just fine.
to me, 64 bit 7 is a lifesaver since i work with media. myproductivity has increaed significantly becasue of the ui features and overal responsiveness of my system. but if 2gb of ram and simple computing is all you need, then really, i guess xp is fine and all youll need
nekollx
December 08, 2009 at 10:54am
I've worked in all 3 so i'll feild some of your thoughts.
Security (well stability really): I've lost count how how many BSoD/Crasshes i've had with XP.
Vista: 1 Crash in 3 years, with it being used every single day virtually 24 hours a day between 2 people.
Seven: I have yet to need to find a driver, seven does it all, and has all of Vista's stability.
Support: You are aware XP x64 is a POS, and has trouble with terabyte drives and SSDs right?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
