windows 7

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ]

Previous topic | Next topic

llama123
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 5 Apr 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 29
Location: new zealand

04 May 2009, 12:20 am

do you think windows 7 will be better than xp or vista?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 May 2009, 12:47 am

It is and will be better than Vista. It will probably be better than XP as well- XP is becoming a bit of a dinosaur.

I'm planning on snagging the RC Tuesday.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

WardenWolf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 532
Location: Woodbridge, VA

04 May 2009, 2:26 am

Better than Vista? Doubt it. The absolutely only thing wrong with Vista is driver support, and Windows 7 uses the same drivers as Vista so that won't change. Companies like Nvidia need to support their hardware and produce drivers that don't crash constantly, something they have failed to do for the last 2 1/2 years. Windows 7 is to Vista what Windows XP is to Windows 2000: a reskin and another name. Under the hood, it's the same operating system. At this point, most Vista crashes are due to bad video drivers from either Nvidia or AMD / ATI.

_________________
Heart of the guardian, way of the warden, path of the exile.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 May 2009, 2:45 am

PhoenixWolf wrote:

Better than Vista? Doubt it. The absolutely only thing wrong with Vista is driver support,

There are plenty of other things wrong with Vista. Excessively high resource usage, lack of flexibility and customizability, stupid defaults, horrible menu system with no sense of organization, inefficient user interface, and piss-poor security are some of the biggest problems. A mostly usable system can still be gotten out of it, but in reality there are better options available for the effort. Windows 7 has some noticeable performance boosts, as well as a number of little extra features that make it better than Vista.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

04 May 2009, 3:34 am

Windows Vista is supposed to be easier, faster and more reliable. Why does it take me 10 times longer to do the same thing in XP?
Computers are getting faster and software needs more. We will never see a gain in a computer unless we use an older operating system to show us the true speed. Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft includes limits to it's operating systems so if you want to overcome it (such as the 32GB/64GB boundary in Windows 95/98) you will have to upgrade. Windows 2000 is version 5.0 XP is 5.1 Microsoft HAVE said they will have 2 releases on the same core. Vista and Seven.

Why call it Windows 7 anyway? People will ask why it has a version number of 6.1 if it's supposed to be 7

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

04 May 2009, 8:03 am

Keith wrote:

Keith I dont think 95% of people will ever notice that windows has a version number. Nor are they even aware that versions are numbered. In fact, except for internal reasons, the versioning scheme has little meaning, especially the minor versions.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

z0rp
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 747
Location: New York, USA

04 May 2009, 8:16 am

It's not insanely better but I prefer it.

_________________
Ignorance is surely not bliss, because if you are ignorant, you will ignore the bliss around you.

Unknown_Quantity
Velociraptor

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 483
Location: Australia

04 May 2009, 11:23 am

Keith wrote:

Why call it Windows 7 anyway? People will ask why it has a version number of 6.1 if it's supposed to be 7

I thought it was because 7 was Mickey Mantle's number...

Oh, no, wait. That's why George Costanza was going to call his kid "7".

_________________
IN GIRVM IMVS NOCTE ET CONSVMIMVR IGNI

WardenWolf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 532
Location: Woodbridge, VA

04 May 2009, 1:38 pm

Win2k: NT5
WinXP: NT5.1
Vista: NT6
Windows 7: NT6.1

Honestly, I've been running Vista since 2006. There are 3 machines in this house on Vista Business 64-bit, all of which I built. I have absolutely no complaints about the operating system itself. The primary problem with Vista, other than drivers, is that OEMs always package the 32-bit version with systems, not the 64-bit version. Microsoft should have included in their distributor license a clause that requires they always load 64-bit by default unless customer-requested. The 32-bit Vista is what has performance problems because Vista was always meant to be 64-bit. You're gutting its performance by going 32-bit. The 32-bit version has half the memory and CPU operation performance, and more resource-sharing because it's still limited to 32-bit IRQs. OEM's have also been cheating you on memory for a long time, with memory increases not keeping up with CPU speeds such that they were choking their systems long before Vista came out.

I actually like Vista's layout a lot better than XP. On XP, I always ran it in Classic view; I couldn't stand the cartoony colors or the ugly bloated buttons. Or the clunky Start Menu that seemed to violate natural hand motions by putting All Programs on the bottom right (your hand tends to rise when moving to the right). With Vista, I actually run it the way it installs, with only a few minor changes. I can work a lot faster on Vista for most common tasks. Granted, I am a power user. I do tend to use every bit of a system. I also built these systems to run Vista and be absolutely reliable. My parents' machines are set up as follows:

Athlon 64 X2 4600
2 gigs DDR2 memory
2x mirrored 250-gig hard drives
Windows Vista 64-bit

One of the machines did have a hard drive failure, and the mirrored drives saved it. My machine was originally similar, but it had a multi-component failure around the first of the year and I had to rebuild it. It's now roughly twice what those systems are, with a quad-core Phenom X4 2.6 ghz, 4 gigs of DDR2, and mirrored Western Digital 640-gig drives. Point being, Vista works fine if the machine is built correctly. There's nothing particularly special about my parents' machines. I just put enough memory in them and installed the 64-bit version.

_________________
Heart of the guardian, way of the warden, path of the exile.

GeorgeM
Blue Jay

Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 84
Location: Virginia

06 May 2009, 12:10 pm

I'm using the Windows 7 RC right now. And for the record, it's Build 7100, hence the name Windows 7. So far, I like what I'm seeing. It appears to be using less of my computer's resources to run, specifically only using about 800 MB of RAM as opposed to the 1.1 GB that Vista uses.

_________________
"Sure you won't change your mind?"
"Is there something wrong with the one I have?"
-Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

GustavHolst
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Apr 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 95

06 May 2009, 2:54 pm

Fuzzy wrote:

Keith wrote:

I've never noticed Windows uses versions numbers. I thought they stopped using them after 3.1 lol. But what the hell do I know :lol:

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

06 May 2009, 4:31 pm

If Win 7 is the number, that would make Vista Number Six...which is why people feel like a Prisoner with all the 'nanny' functions...

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

06 May 2009, 5:23 pm

Everything has a version number, it helps identify many things. There is also a service pack for Windows 4.10.1998 and 4.10.2222. Anybody notice how the build number rises until you get to XP? 5.1.2600. Not sure about Windows 2000 though.
Windows 95 has 4 versions
4.0.950
4.0.950 A
4.0.950 B (FAT32)
4.0.950 C (USB support, not as good as 4.10.1998)
Very little people seem to know about 5.2

GeorgeM
Blue Jay

Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 84
Location: Virginia

07 May 2009, 10:22 am

Here's an explanation from a Windows developer:

Microsoft wrote:

Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.

Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.

That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.

We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.

So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.

There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not.

Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.

_________________
"Sure you won't change your mind?"
"Is there something wrong with the one I have?"
-Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

obnoxiously-me
Raven
Raven

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 120
Location: Norway

11 May 2009, 3:05 am

I am considering windows 7, but want to hear a bit more of the experiences people are having.

I was one of the unlucky ones who got to test both the Millennium and Vista os -> they remind me a lot of each other.

BTW: Interesting of ms to use a 7 as the name, esp from a numerological angle.

I long for 2000.

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ]

Jump to:

windows 7 Post Reply New Topic

windows 7