Windows 7: First impressions

[Wogan]

Funny how everyone's going on about Win7 like it's the next big thing, but the same people sh4t all over Vista when it was released. And apart from a few speed improvements and GUI tweaks, it's mostly the same OS.

No, really, even MS said so. Win7 is what Vista was supposed to be. Practically Vista SP2.

If I can upgrade from Vista to the comparable edition of Win7 at low (or no) cost, I'd go for it. I think there was some discussion around an upgrade system as opposed to running out and buying a whole new license. I guess we'll see.

 

[Wogan]

Noting that Win7 allows programs ... to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder if MS has a valid reason for security measures like this. And I think I have it - Idiot users.

What costs MS more? The apparent "loss" from pirated music/movies/games/OSes, or the tens of thousands of manhours in customer support because some dimwit deleted his Windows folder to "free up more space"?

Given that the average Windows user (in the States) probably can't tell the difference between CRITICAL SYSTEM PROCESS and Solitaire, I reckon those security protocols are there for good reason.

 

[craig_fza]

Well after reading all the responses here, let me add my 2 cents worth.

I love the new OS - so far. I installed it on my laptop over Vista Ultimate (yes I did an upgrade installation). The only problems I have encountered are:

1) Mobile Device Centre doesn't work so I can't sync with my phone. It worked with Vista. Not a train smash for me yet as I rarely sync anyway.

2) IE8 has a problem in opening new tabs from a link on the existing page. New tabs open blank. Can't seem to fix it either without a re-install of IE8 and that I cam't do as the IE8 you download from MS says it doesn't work with my OS - go figure!!

Otherwise, I have noticed improved response times myself as well as my CPU (AMD Sempron 1.8 GHz) doesn't seem to be as busy all the time.

 

[PeterCH]

Won't you explain how XP does multi-core management?

Also, I need your help to get my XP Pro installation to see all my RAM.

I posted a write up here where the performance of XP, Vista and 7 were measured and XP was the fastest - including multi-core, multiprocessor performance. They said you needed 32 cores or more before 7 overtook XP. The write up is on this sub-forum, it links to Slashdot which links to the actual write up with lots of commentary on Slashdot.
I'm sure you read it the time it was posted - it resulted in a heated debate.



So yeah, unless the parent has 32 cores in his system, he can stick with XP.

As for the RAM you're not confusing 32 bit Windows and 64? Win XP 64bit sees all the RAM the most modern mobos can throw at it, what 64GB? 128? I think the artificial limit is 2TB.

 

[I am Penguin]

I posted a write up here where the performance of XP, Vista and 7 were measured and XP was the fastest - including multi-core, multiprocessor performance. They said you needed 32 cores or more before 7 overtook XP. The write up is on this sub-forum, it links to Slashdot which links to the actual write up with lots of commentary on Slashdot.
I'm sure you read it the time it was posted - it resulted in a heated debate.



So yeah, unless the parent has 32 cores in his system, he can stick with XP.

As for the RAM you're not confusing 32 bit Windows and 64? Win XP 64bit sees all the RAM the most modern mobos can throw at it, what 64GB? 128? I think the artificial limit is 2TB.

I can tell you this much, this Q9950 under win7 is definately VERY much faster and a better experience than XP ever was.

Questions to you again!
Did you, or did you not, install and run windows7 32 and 64 bit? Just a simple yes or no will do!

Did you do benchmarks and scientific testing and as such became an expert authority to slam Windows7 with proven facts or is it stil just only the Mac/OSX fanboi emotions bubbling over, so much so that you with all your might and so much vigour (M$ hate) try to turn us against Windows7.

Are you just having a one man stand, waging an anti Microsoft crusade/campaign while Astoturfing information posted on AppleSlashGod.com?

We miss you at your anti Sony and DRM crusade too.

I hope you are not still on the world economic crissis syndrome.


C'mon Peter everyone can see what you are trying to do. Just look at all the comments and positive feedback all over the world. Your anti M$ Win7 crusade is like f@rting in a hurricane.

 

[Browser]

...For a long time just installing a copy of Windows was resulted in a good couple of hours of clicking...

That is quite a feet getting it to take that long, no version of Windows I've tried (95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, 2003, and .net variants, XP, Vista and other older versions) take anywhere near that long.

 

[snobee]

Yeah, I thought that was an unprofessional exaggeration to make in the article. The writer should be shot for that.

 

[Net Performance]

Using it for a month and half now... No problem so far... Impressed by the low usage of memory (footprint of Win7). Hard drive is no more busy as in Vista.

This is what vista was supposed to be. So for me its not a revolution, just a catch up. Which is good for a company, to learn from their mistake.

 

[PeterCH]

I don't want to derail this thread. Someone asked a question and I answered. Let's keep this thread on topic please.
To reply to I am Penguin:

I can tell you this much, this Q9950 under win7 is definately VERY much faster and a better experience than XP ever was.

Hmmm when last did you use XP then?

Questions to you again!
Did you, or did you not, install and run windows7 32 and 64 bit? Just a simple yes or no will do!

I posted a write-up comparing Win XP, Vista and 7. I did not do the testing myself. Search this sub-forum for it. It was concluded that to take advantage of the improved multi-core performance you needed 32 cores or even more, otherwise XP still outclassed 7 which beat Vista. I did not do this myself. Not sure how you drew that conclusion.

Did you do benchmarks and scientific testing and as such became an expert authority to slam Windows7 with proven facts or is it stil just only the Mac/OSX fanboi emotions bubbling over, so much so that you with all your might and so much vigour (M$ hate) try to turn us against Windows7.

I'm not a Mac OSX fanboi. I recognise superiority when I see it and I recognise that XP is superior to Vista and probably 7. I recognise that
Mac OSX isn't always the best system to use but out of Windows XP, Vista, 7 and Mac OSX, Mac OSX Tiger - which came out in 2005 is the newest and fastest and most powerful system to use - also the most stable and most safe.

I don't own an iPhone.
I don't own a new iPod - my 3rd Gen iPod sits in a cupboard and is a 3rd backup after my Creative Zen Vision and the my Cowon A3. For audio I listen to music on my Sharp mobile with it's Yamaha DSP which produces excellent music for the road. I'm not an Apple fanboi.

Are you just having a one man stand, waging an anti Microsoft crusade/campaign while Astoturfing information posted on AppleSlashGod.com?

Haha. That is just so twisted I won't even answer. How do you come up with that, do you double as a Jerry Seinfeld type comedian in your spare time?

We miss you at your anti Sony and DRM crusade too.

There are 1000,000s of sites which are anti-SONY and even more against DRM. Most people are against DRM, and those who aren't haven't experienced it yet - for example when the song they bought on their Nokia won't play on their new Sony-Ericsson.

I hope you are not still on the world economic crissis syndrome.

You don't watch the news much do you?

C'mon Peter everyone can see what you are trying to do. Just look at all the comments and positive feedback all over the world. Your anti M$ Win7 crusade is like f@rting in a hurricane.

LOL, what positive feedback? Like Mojave? LOL. I haven't seen any real benchmarks which say 7 is faster than XP. Also it's not really that safer is it?
The technology MS wants to emulate is already in Mac OSX Tiger - in 2005.

What everyone is experiencing is the relief after the dud Vista. It's super cool, because it's better than Vista. You know Stalin was super cool too when the Red Army liberated Eastern Europe because ANYTHING was better than Hitler. But don't let me stop your M$ Love. Do check out those video links in the other thread.

 

[I am Penguin]

God try!

Nice side stepping. You already derailed the thread, the same as the Blu Ray thread. The OP started with the topic "Windows 7: First impressions:". The pseudo requirement are for everyone here to
post/discuss their own "First impressions" and experiences. Clearly as we see you do not have the experience as you did not install Windows7 due to your mind clouded by your prejudice of anything M$, You do not have any "FIRST IMPRESSIONS" or experience, only second hand/second grade information of others, selectively read and then posted here. So in my view you are not qualified to even discuss this topic. But feel free, carry on derailing this thread with your personal vendetta against Microsoft et al and references back to history and the economical nonsense you carry over from other threads.

So all the waffle you post here about windows 7 is what you dug up, very selectively, and posted it here on this forum to show how informed you are, you do not have the experience yourself. As you stated many bashed you in that other "heated" thread. Now you try and do the same with this one just to promote your agenda.


I am posting here fom a XP SP3 system right next to a Windows 7 installed system (No three HDTV big screens) So I am sure I have the better experience here ATM.

So AGAIN! you have not even yet tried Windows7, I deduce!

So beat it kiddo. Call daddy to post here please. Just ask him to first install windows7 and come back with an real informed opinion about his experience as the OP requested.

Pfft, NOT a MAC Fanboy? PLLLLEase! who are you trying to BS?

 

[Tns]

so why shouldn't one just skip vista then?

 

[SirFooK'nG]

Funny how everyone's going on about Win7 like it's the next big thing, but the same people sh4t all over Vista when it was released. And apart from a few speed improvements and GUI tweaks, it's mostly the same OS.

No, really, even MS said so. Win7 is what Vista was supposed to be. Practically Vista SP2.

I Agree with Wogan. Win7 is really Vista "2" (after microsoft has listened to all the gripes). They have resolved everything negative when it comes to installing, has all the drivers, no searching for them. Just install and go - and lets face it, that is the only reason in essence people hated Vista. There were so many drivers not yet developed for Vista at its release. Personally, I kept my Vista installation, and have been running it from day one. Its seriously a fantastic system, and way more reliable than XP. So naturally I will love Win7, already tried it, and it felt almost identical to Vista but easier for the user to install.

So for those who are familiar with Vista and like it, Win7 will be a breeze to familiarise with. For those who have not run Vista and never plan to, I dont see the problem. But it will take a bit of getting used to. I still do not like the Explorer, prefer classic style, but not a train smash. I will wait a few months for Win7 to "settle in" the market before switching over. Only for proper development on firewall and AV's to be in place. Basically wait for Checkpoint to release a Win7 ver of ZoneAlarm!

That said, nice to know that Microsoft has learned from rushing a new OS into the market. This time they have made a decent effort in providing an operating system that will work 99% from day one. I just wish that there was proper 64bit support from peripheral developers with 100% digitally signed drivers.

 

[Wogan]

That said, nice to know that Microsoft has learned from rushing a new OS into the market. This time they have made a decent effort in providing an operating system that will work 99% from day one.

If you consider Vista as a sort of proving ground, they've basically got 2 years of experience and information behind them, and even though they haven't set a release date yet, they're pushing really hard to get Win7 out the door. When it finally becomes available, I reckon it'll be pretty ultimate

 

[Tns]

loaded win7 yesterday and off hand it looks like vista looking carefully you might see some differences. i think i'll stick to xp for now

 

[RoosTa]

Funny how everyone's going on about Win7 like it's the next big thing, but the same people sh4t all over Vista when it was released. And apart from a few speed improvements and GUI tweaks, it's mostly the same OS.

No, really, even MS said so. Win7 is what Vista was supposed to be. Practically Vista SP2.

If I can upgrade from Vista to the comparable edition of Win7 at low (or no) cost, I'd go for it. I think there was some discussion around an upgrade system as opposed to running out and buying a whole new license. I guess we'll see.

In a sense I agree with you, but I am one of those who disliked Vista. Just like XP was an improved Windows 2000, Win 7 is an improved Vista.

Windows Vista was rushed, felt sluggish on my 'decent' PC, wasted resources (bad implementation of superfetch), network was slow with bugs and UAC was a nightmare. These are some of the many reasons why people in general disliked Vista. Vista had a bad reputation from release and in order to break this trend, MS had to go back to the drawing board, re-brand it to shake Vista's bad publicity and release a 'new' product.

MS listened to the problems, fixed many of the issues people had with Vista, added more "bells and whistles" and called it Win 7. IMO The only people who are getting "shafted" are the people who initially bought Vista. I almost ignored Vista's flaws, because of the new look, but over time I realised my stupidity and requested my company to put me back on to XP.

Lets face it; Windows Vista is a failure and Windows 7's aim is to fix that failure.

loaded win7 yesterday and off hand it looks like vista looking carefully you might see some differences. i think i'll stick to xp for now

Seems like you're judging a book by its cover?

 

[snobee]

Well, I know this is a long way down the line from the original OP, but I thought before I would respond to this thread I would really give Windows 7 a try for over a month first. I must admit, I see the point that PeterCH was making about Xp versus W7. Why bother with Windows 7 if it is as fast as Xp?
After moving back to Xp from using Vista for over a year on my laptop, work pc and home pc, I thought I would stick to Xp a looooong time. Well screw that. I really can't express how much better W7 is to Xp for me on my computers. Even if you may say Xp and W7 are the same speed, I find that W7 is much more responsive and smoother than Xp... any time! My wife is a photographer and she runs Photoshop CS3, Lightroom, Bridge and Photodex Producer 4 at the same time. Even with a high end Core2Duo (with an Asus9800GT), and Xp (and certainly Vista) would stick and crash at times. W7 now is considerably better and she is very glad I installed it as she feels her time is more efficient now.

 

[killadoob]

That is quite a feet getting it to take that long, no version of Windows I've tried (95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, 2003, and .net variants, XP, Vista and other older versions) take anywhere near that long.

Wow hours to install windows? damn what windows did he use hahah. snobee peter does not use windows 7 nor do i think he has even tried it so listening to someone tell you its not better is pointless without them having used it i think.

windows 7 compared to xp is the same as comparing xp to 98 i think. When i first used xp i swore never to go back to 98 even though my pc was slower, i will never go back to xp or vista.

 

[ajax]

Impressed by the low usage of memory (footprint of Win7).

How much memory is being used just after booting up?
My Vista uses almost 1 GB