Windows 7..... Interested?

drogulus · April 16, 2009, 01:18:35 PM

Rather than start another thread I'll just cannibalize this miserable failure. So, is anyone interested in buying this new OS now that it looks like you will be able to acquire it before the beta expires? I am, because it's faster and has some nice color adjustments for my monitor that made things look better in both 7 and Vista. I think this will be a winner for Microsoft. Painfully slow startup and shutdown were among the worst things about Vista, along with the horrible UAC and the constant nagging.

Has Vista soured you on the idea of a new OS entirely or are you ready to make the jump?

drogulus · April 25, 2009, 06:52:27 AM

Oh, this is the Dual Boot thread back from the dead (I think). So, if anyone does have a question about running 2 OS'es, creating partitions, how to use programs with both Vista and 7 etc. I'll try to answer, or someone else will....

Gurn Blanston · April 25, 2009, 07:11:23 AM

MY IT guy at work has been running the Beta since it came available. I asked him the other day how it was going, and whether I might be interested in it or not. He said that it is basically a stripped down version of Vista that kept all the good stuff and dumped all the crap. He despised Vista, but he actually liked Win 7 and suggested that if I was going to upgrade my OS, I could probably feel OK with this. I am NOT interrested in upgrading my OS, but at least if I decide to buy a new computer (which is a possibility), I can think about not having to format the hard drive right out of the box and reinstalling XP....

drogulus · April 25, 2009, 07:31:40 AM

Here are the circumstances that might lead you to run a Windows 7 beta now, the release candidate in a couple weeks and then the upgrade in July:

1) You are adventurous and like to experiment with new hardware and software.

2) You have Vista now and hate it, and you want to move to something better.

If OTOH you don't like to mess with things that work fine (like XP with all the updates) or are unsure of how you would get out of trouble if things went wrong then you aren't a candidate for an immediate changeover. You should wait for the final release.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 25, 2009, 07:11:23 AM
MY IT guy at work has been running the Beta since it came available. I asked him the other day how it was going, and whether I might be interested in it or not. He said that it is basically a stripped down version of Vista that kept all the good stuff and dumped all the crap. He despised Vista, but he actually liked Win 7 and suggested that if I was going to upgrade my OS, I could probably feel OK with this. I am NOT interrested in upgrading my OS, but at least if I decide to buy a new computer (which is a possibility), I can think about not having to format the hard drive right out of the box and reinstalling XP....

That sounds just about right. The new OS has been stripped down and sped up, and gives you more control over what components to install or uninstall, or perhaps just makes it easier to access these options. I've heard that this OS is more modular, so that there are more things you can uninstall than with Vista.

One other thing: This OS will be good from Day 1. Vista, for all its problems, has stabilized since SP 1, so while the annoyances remain it works well once it is optimized. Windows 7 is like a Super Vista with Service Pack 99.

drogulus · April 25, 2009, 08:22:33 AM

What if you're like me and you want to be safe but still want to try out this new OS? There is a way, and this is it:

If you have enough free space on an internal HD you can partition the drive and free up enough space to install Windows 7 on the new partition. Then when you boot up you will be presented with a choice between your current OS and your new one, though if you just let the clock run it will always default to the newer one (you might have to reset the boot delay since it will go back to 30 sec. I reset it to 6 sec.). Note that you only need to free up enough space to install an operating system with a margin to play with, somewhere between 6 and 10 GB will be necessary. You can access all your programs and data just like before though some programs will need to be reinstalled.

They don't have to be installed on the new partition, versteh?

You can continue to use all your external drives, flash drives, and other internal drives the same way you do now.

Now, what about the big questions, like drivers and program compatibility and ~~the possibility of zombies~~? The answer is that some drivers will install automatically and in other cases you may have to download and install them manually. IOW, no different than what you'd do now with XP or Vista, though the process seemed to go more smoothly than it ever has in the past. For programs it's a case by case basis. If a program is buggy or won't start reinstall it under 7. In most cases that's all it takes. Will it then be backwards-compatible with XP/Vista? In many cases yes but I would think not all. You may have to run one installation with its shortcut to the 7 desktop, and another install with its shortcut on your other desktop. Or decide which OS to use the program with. All of this is easy to figure out. For browsers you might want to create a new profile so it doesn't use the old one, which has caused some login problems which I remedied fairly quickly.

I can give more detailed instructions on partitioning if anyone is interested. It's surprisingly simple. The first time I tried it the wizard said I didn't have enough space so I moved my iTunes folder over to another drive and that did the trick. You do not need partition software!

drogulus · April 25, 2009, 09:23:28 AM

So launch a preemptive strike, get it working now and then you will be happy and healthy forever. Or am I missing something?

More good news:

Quake 3 Arena runs from a shortcut. No reinstall!

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/11/2/1559968/impressive.mp3[/mp3]

0:)

c#minor · April 26, 2009, 08:05:37 AM

I went Mac, i'm not going back

drogulus · April 27, 2009, 10:33:10 AM

I hear that in the last commercial in the "PC vs. MAC" series the MAC guy is struck by lightning and dies horribly. It will be the most popular one, I'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2B-ekl_cEWk

http://www.youtube.com/v/xZ7xE3PTzaA

Brian · April 27, 2009, 11:27:44 AM

Windows 3.1
Windows 95 (4?)
Windows 98 (5?)
Windows XP (6?)
Windows Vista (7?)
Without counting ME or 2000, I am still confused as to how Windows 7 is really the 7th Windows.

techniquest · April 27, 2009, 02:16:43 PM

3.1
95
98
ME
XP
Vista

The commercially available standard Windows' (I think 2000 was a 'pro / corporate' thing). Thus 7 is 7th.....I think.

greg · April 27, 2009, 02:21:01 PM

Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:10 AM
I hear that in the last commercial in the "PC vs. MAC" series the MAC guy is struck by lightning and dies horribly. It will be the most popular one, I'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2B-ekl_cEWk

Maciek · April 27, 2009, 02:40:23 PM

Actually, since this was originally the codename of the OS, I think it is really more or less random. But you can find several explanations on the internet (e.g. the comments to this blog post are full of them). I find the version argument quite convincing (the VERSION numbering goes: Windows 2000 = 5.0, Windows XP = 5.1 or 5.2 for some 64 bit versions

, Windows Server 2003 = 5.2, Windows Vista / Server 2008 = 6.0) but it doesn't really explain anything, since "7" is supposed to be the "name", not the version number (I understand the version number of Windows 7 was at some point actually 6.1 but perhaps it has been "upgraded" to 7?

). All the other interpretations are about selecting a list of six "major" Windows releases - which is always a bit arbitrary. I find the "major NT line versions" argument marginally more convincing (1 = Windows NT 3.1, 2 = Windows NT 3.5, 3 = Windows NT 4.0, 4 = Windows 2000, 5 = Windows XP, 6 = Windows Vista, 7 = Windows 7).

Cato · April 27, 2009, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: c#minor on April 26, 2009, 08:05:37 AM
I went Mac, i'm not going back

Amen! 0:)

I had an Apple II GS (Graphics and Sound) back in 1984. It never froze or crashed! And it was still working fine in 2006, when my brother forced me into the present century and bought me a Mac Book.

It has never frozen or crashed. (I know: some Mac users say it happens occasionally: it has never happened to me.)

Anybody who buys Bill Gates' junk must be crazy: Macs cost a little more for a reason. Faster, better, much less frustration.

drogulus · April 27, 2009, 03:22:15 PM

I'm DL'ing Build 7100 now, which is the Release Candidate that comes out May 5th. I don't know if I'll bother installing it. The 7048 version I'm using now is working very well.

Quote from: Cato on April 27, 2009, 02:59:09 PM
Amen! 0:)

I had an Apple II GS (Graphics and Sound) back in 1984. It never froze or crashed! And it was still working fine in 2006, when my brother forced me into the present century and bought me a Mac Book.

It has never frozen or crashed. (I know: some Mac users say it happens occasionally: it has never happened to me.)

Anybody who buys Bill Gates' junk must be crazy: Macs cost a little more for a reason. Faster, better, much less frustration.

Bill Gates doesn't make computers, and Windows has to run on a wide variety of machines, the quality of which is largely up to the user, a good thing in my case. Gates has influence over hardware development, but not control. Windows would run much better if he could dictate what a PC is. The comparison is not symmetrical. PCs are not glamorous, or cool. They are functional and far more versatile. The headaches are mostly the price you pay for the virtues.

QuoteMacs cost a little more for a reason.

One company makes them.

Cato · April 27, 2009, 04:39:43 PM

Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 03:22:15 PM
.

Bill Gates doesn't make computers, and Windows has to run on a wide variety of machines, the quality of which is largely up to the user, a good thing in my case. Gates has influence over hardware development, but not control. Windows would run much better if he could dictate what a PC is. The comparison is not symmetrical. PCs are not glamorous, or cool. They are functional and far more versatile. The headaches are mostly the price you pay for the virtues.

Yes, I know! Windows is junk precisely because of your explanation!

"More versatile" than...?

c#minor · April 27, 2009, 05:16:11 PM

Macs are just fine for everything but gaming. If you game, i agree, go PC. But i don't, and i want stability. I was sick of word cutting out and me losing hours of work.

Don't knock macs because of the few "cool" bad apples, we don't all show ours off at starbucks

Brian · April 27, 2009, 06:25:58 PM

Quote from: techniquest on April 27, 2009, 02:16:43 PM
3.1
95
98
ME
XP
Vista

The commercially available standard Windows' (I think 2000 was a 'pro / corporate' thing). Thus 7 is 7th.....I think.

So 3.1 actually = 1?

RussellG · April 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AM

Win7 is great for audio. It sounds much better to me than XP, although I never had a proper ASIO solution to bypass the KMixer in XP. I'm running it on an eee Box which is a dedicated audio machine. I don't know what I'm going to do when the Beta disables itself in August. Buy Vista (same audio architecture)?

techniquest · April 28, 2009, 08:50:25 AM

QuoteSo 3.1 actually = 1?

I dunno - just throwing a suggestion into the pond.

QuoteYes, I know! Windows is junk precisely because of your explanation!

The Mac v PC thing has been going on forever; isn't it about time Mac users stopped rubbishing everything 'Windows'?
I've always run PC - never had a Mac - and have been happy with what I have. I built my last PC from scratch a couple of years back and it's still working fine (on XP). It is perfectly update-able, it doesn't crash, has bags of compatibility and could probably play games if that was my thing as it has plenty of RAM and processor power (though not nearly enough to make techies go 'ooooh').
If MS Word keeps cutting out, don't use it. OpenOffice is fine, or use Lotus Symphony if you want; there are always options.
On the other hand, if you want a Mac, fine - so what? Your car is probably far better than mine, but mine still gets me where I want to go.

Brian · April 28, 2009, 09:02:37 AM

Quote from: RussellG on April 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AM
Win7 is great for audio. It sounds much better to me than XP, although I never had a proper ASIO solution to bypass the KMixer in XP. I'm running it on an eee Box which is a dedicated audio machine. I don't know what I'm going to do when the Beta disables itself in August. Buy Vista (same audio architecture)?

Do you know if Win7 lets you record the line-in audio (ie record what's going out the speakers)? Vista removed that feature and I haven't been able to record any streaming audio or anything that plays on my computer, even in Audacity.

Windows 7..... Interested?

greg