Author Topic: Windows 7 evaluation (Read 66474 times)

DocSavage · « **on:** May 29, 2009, 07:27 AM »

Just for curiosity I loaded Windows 7 evaluation on a machine a few days ago. Since I don't have Vista on any of my machines it has been an interesting learning curve.
So far I don't see compelling reasons to switch from XP. I don't watch TV or movies from any of my PCs.
Anyone else have experience with this? Are there lots and lots of under the hood reasons it is better?

justice · « **Reply #1 on:** May 29, 2009, 07:50 AM »

Doing things like managing and switching between applications is a lot faster in windows 7. Also working with frequent files. less distraction, easy side by side and window management. Keeping the pc running smooth is also a lot better - for example transparency is not showing: type that in search and windows will troubleshoot automatically the whole graphics side of the OS and fix any issues without interaction.

I don't want to sound like a marketing guy but for new systems now I would only consider w7 (between that and xp/vista).

edbro · « **Reply #2 on:** May 29, 2009, 08:21 AM »

I have to say that I do like Win7 but I am still not as comfortable with it as I am with XP. It is fast and stable.

What I don' like about it, is that, like Vista, it redirects files and registry data to all kinds of different locations. I'm used to XP where I could backup just a few key locations and be good. First, it puts programs into 2 different ProgFiles directories if you run 64bit. Then it spreads user data into a myriad of different folders. Finally, if you run 64 bit, it will direct your HKLM entries into a new key called WOW6432Node. This greatly complicates a backup strategy.

mwfuss · « **Reply #3 on:** May 29, 2009, 08:52 AM »

I have been using Windows 7, Build 7100 for two weeks now and I am very impressed and pleased. It feels faster than XP and is much, much more stable than Vista. I found Vista unusable because of constant crashes, but I have not had a single crash with Windows 7. It does have a bit of a learning curve, especially when going from XP, and some of things that have changed since XP are a bit quirky, but all in all, I think it is most definitely a step in the right direction for Microsoft.

My one and only complaint with Windows 7 really has nothing to do with the performance, features, and stability of the OS: UltraRecall is not fully compatible with Win 7 and I have had to go back to using OneNote for the time being while Kinook gets UR in shape to run on the new OS. An e-mail from the developers said that they would have this fixed within the next three months.

In spite of the issue with UR [and the fact that DirectoryOpus cannot yet be used as a replacement for Windows Explorer in Win 7], I do think that Microsoft is getting things right with this OS. I certainly look forward to its final release, although I do not look forward to the high price tag [$$$] that MS is sure to attach to Win 7.

Innuendo · « **Reply #4 on:** May 29, 2009, 09:40 AM »

Windows 7 is not going to beat you over the head with things that scream "OMG! This is so much better!", but there are going to be plenty of times when you will be doing something and little things will pop out at you prompting you to think, "Ooo...nice touch."

Most of your complaints about where the OS stores files were the same with Vista. Some of it has to do with the way 64-bit has been implemented and some has to do with the new UAC security model. However, most of the folders like Documents, Favorites, Desktop, etc. are trivial to move into more backup-friendly locations. There's a Location tab in their folder properties with most of them and even if not Windows 7 is smart enough to see if you drag and drop those folders to a new location it will use the new location moving forward.

Moving from XP to Windows 7 is going to take some getting used to. I'm not going to say there's a learning curve as it's not that difficult of a transition, but before you make any decisions as to how much you like or dislike the new Windows you should use it for a week or two just to get used to The New Way Of Things.

I have been using Windows 7 a long time...even back before it went into beta plus I came to it from Vista so I've got a different type of user experience than you, but there is no way I could go back to Vista now and working on an XP system makes me feel like I'm dealing with something obsolete and archaic.

Oh, and once you get the hang of configuring and tweaking it, the SuperBar rocks.

f0dder · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2009, 04:19 AM »

Wow64node and two program files folders isn't a vista/win7 thing, it's a win64 thing - XP64 uses the same structure. This is a bit quirky, but not that big of a deal imho.

What I don't like is the "shadow stuff" vista (and thus win7) does - instead of making compatibility folders for programs that play dirty and try to write to their program folder, the OS should simply block access. Sure, it'd break a shitload of software, but perhaps that would be wake-up call to developers...

Anyway, Win7 is great. It really flies on my computer, definitely snappier than XP. I really love superfetch vs. XP's limited prefetcher (and yes, I do have the RAM to burn). With proper hardware acceleration the UI also feels smoother than XP, and there's no shearing/tearing when moving things around. And I really like the little UI touches, it's a great idea to merge the process bar and quicklaunch, and the ability to select individual tabs in IE is really nice, hope that firefox will be Win7-enabled soon.

Innuendo · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2009, 06:39 PM »

I have to agree with f0dder in regards to performance. Windows 7 (and Vista for that matter) are definitely snappier than XP on my PC. Everything is very quick to run and screen updates are near-instantaneous and my computer is four years old.

I can only imagine how scorchingly-fast Windows 7 is on an i7, 6GB of RAM, and a video card like an ATI 4870/4890 or an Nvidia GTX 285/295.

f0dder · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2009, 08:03 AM »

I think I've found a Win7 bug: when using the /R parameter to chkdsk (scan for bad sectors), it starts gobbling up all my physical RAM - chkdsk isn't exactly the application I'd expect to use 6+ gigabytes

Also, I can't play World Of Goo in fullscreen mode, it keeps changing resolution like crazy. But that might be a WoG bug or display drivers rather than a Win7 problem.

Innuendo · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2009, 11:00 AM »

I can't help you with the chkdsk /r bug, but with World of Goo make sure you are using the latest version. There was a resolution bug with some of the earlier versions of that game.

Of course, if you are using the latest version then I guess they didn't fully fix the bug.

f0dder · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2009, 11:05 AM »

I can't help you with the chkdsk /r bug, but with World of Goo make sure you are using the latest version. There was a resolution bug with some of the earlier versions of that game.

Of course, if you are using the latest version then I guess they didn't fully fix the bug.
-Innuendo (May 31, 2009, 11:00 AM)

Oh, there have been updates? I remember trying to look for updates some months back, but couldn't find any on their site... guess I'll give it another go, thanks

f0dder · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2009, 06:34 PM »

OK, tried the latest version of WoG (and darn that took a while to hunt down! 2dboy certainly doesn't make it easy to find the update patch, had to detour through their forums). Still freaks out in constant modeswitching, but if I manually hack the config file to my native resolution, it works in fullscreen (and the new version fixes some UI element positioning bugs that made it impossible to "flush the goo" (and thus advance) when you finished a level). When exiting WoG, some user elements in windows apps are corrupted until windows are refreshed... I wager this is a graphics driver bug. Modeswitching bug could be driver, win7, or WoG doing modeswitching in a quirky way.

Innuendo · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2009, 10:17 AM »

Well, thank God we fixed your goo flushing.

I ran WoG on Windows 7 with an ATI card and I didn't notice any corruption of anything on exit on my system.

steeladept · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2009, 10:34 AM »

Just for curiosity I loaded Windows 7 evaluation on a machine a few days ago. Since I don't have Vista on any of my machines it has been an interesting learning curve.
So far I don't see compelling reasons to switch from XP. I don't watch TV or movies from any of my PCs.
Anyone else have experience with this? Are there lots and lots of under the hood reasons it is better?
-DocSavage (May 29, 2009, 07:27 AM)

The biggest reason I see for switching is so you don't fall into the trap of waiting for something significantly better, then complaining the software doesn't work with XP. It is over 10 years old now, and people have been writing for Vista/Win7 for over 3 years now. With XP compatibility and virtualization available, I don't see much reason NOT to move besides cost or hardware that likely needs refreashed anyway (cost again really). That said, other than forward compatibility and some relatively minor enhancements; no, I don't see any other compelling reasons to switch.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2009, 10:42 AM »

I've been using Vista since April 2007. Before SP1 it was a pita. Lots of services to reign in. System hogs the HD something fierce. When I got another machine with Vista64 SP1 the services were tuned, and it feels like W7 without a Superbar. I could not get SP1 to go on my Vista 32 bit no matter what, so I put W7 7077 on as a fix for things like slow shell drag & drop copy. I like W7 but I think a lot of people just gloss over the fact that the beta and eval versions are W7 Ultimate. Most likely if you get your machine at Best Buy it will have the equivalent of Home Premium. So it might not be so dazzling as compared to Vista64 Home Premium SP1.

That said, eventually you won't be able to get XP drivers for hw you want to use. And, memory is going bigtime now. A few hundred bucks in Best Buy and you have a desktop with 6 GB+ ram on the system. Might as well run a 64 bit OS with modern drivers. That means Vista/W7 64.

What I'd like to try is an evaluation copy of W7 Home Premium. That would be a fairer test since I tend to get my PCs out of a box. I don't own a soldering iron.

f0dder · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:03 AM »

I guess I should find a Win7 version matrix (if it's available?) - for Vista, Ultimate didn't really have anything interesting for me, and the Business Premium (which our school offers for free) has everything I need. Expect it's going to be pretty much the same with Win7. I don't need media center, bitlocker, tablet support etc... just give me the basic functionality, Aero, GUI enhancements and don't put any silly limits on me (supported amount of ram, network connections, ...).

Innuendo: does your WoG handle fullscreen non-native resolutions? If so, then I'll write the problem off as a nvidia driver bug (although it's weird that other games in non-native resolution has no trouble going fullscreen).

MilesAhead · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2009, 03:25 PM »

The point is, everyone is raving how W7 runs great even on systems with 1/2 GB ram. I'd be more interested if owners of W7 Home Premium, or equivalent, say the same thing when it comes out.

Everyone is comparing the Mercedes W7 beta with the Chevy Vega release of Vista.

Josh · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM »

W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.

Innuendo · « **Reply #17 on:** June 04, 2009, 04:42 PM »

does your WoG handle fullscreen non-native resolutions? If so, then I'll write the problem off as a nvidia driver bug (although it's weird that other games in non-native resolution has no trouble going fullscreen).
-f0dder

I'm the wrong person to ask about native vs. non-native. I'm one of those mythical curmudgeons you always hear about who refuses to use an LCD monitor. I'm happy over here with my 70 pound 22" NEC Multisync FP2141SB CRT monitor. When those new-fangled LCD monitors can match the visual quality of this Diamondtron tube of mine only then will I make the switch.

Lashiec · « **Reply #18 on:** June 04, 2009, 05:09 PM »

I guess I should find a Win7 version matrix (if it's available?) - for Vista, Ultimate didn't really have anything interesting for me, and the Business Premium (which our school offers for free) has everything I need. Expect it's going to be pretty much the same with Win7.
-f0dder (June 04, 2009, 11:03 AM)

Nope, each Windows 7 version is a superset of the previous one, which means you'll have to vLite Media Center from the Professional edition

f0dder · « **Reply #19 on:** June 04, 2009, 06:25 PM »

does your WoG handle fullscreen non-native resolutions? If so, then I'll write the problem off as a nvidia driver bug (although it's weird that other games in non-native resolution has no trouble going fullscreen).
-f0dder
I'm the wrong person to ask about native vs. non-native. I'm one of those mythical curmudgeons you always hear about who refuses to use an LCD monitor. I'm happy over here with my 70 pound 22" NEC Multisync FP2141SB CRT monitor. When those new-fangled LCD monitors can match the visual quality of this Diamondtron tube of mine only then will I make the switch.
-Innuendo (June 04, 2009, 04:42 PM)

OK, the question for you, then, is probably: do you run WoG at the same resolution as your windows desktop is set to? (I, obviously, run at native resolution

).

Innuendo · « **Reply #20 on:** June 04, 2009, 08:31 PM »

I don't have it installed currently, but I bet I ran it at native resolution as I didn't change any options at all when I did run it. I just installed it and off I went.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #21 on:** June 04, 2009, 10:16 PM »

W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.
-Josh (June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM)

I don't think MS is putting the Ultimate edition out there for people to try because it runs slower and bulkier. Sorry but I'm not that trusting of human nature.

If nothing else, the install is probably smarter. When I bought a PC with XP Home on it, the swap file was set at a minimum of 16 MB and no maximum. When I did a clean install of XP Pro on a PC with 1 GB ram, the minimum swap was set to 1.5 GB and the maximum to 3 GB. I'll leave it to your intuition which system spent more time resizing the swap file.

f0dder · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:16 AM »

I don't have it installed currently, but I bet I ran it at native resolution as I didn't change any options at all when I did run it. I just installed it and off I went.
-Innuendo (June 04, 2009, 08:31 PM)

If you didn't change anything, you ran it at 800x600

W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.
-Josh (June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM)

I don't think MS is putting the Ultimate edition out there for people to try because it runs slower and bulkier. Sorry but I'm not that trusting of human nature. If nothing else, the install is probably smarter. When I bought a PC with XP Home on it, the swap file was set at a minimum of 16 MB and no maximum. When I did a clean install of XP Pro on a PC with 1 GB ram, the minimum swap was set to 1.5 GB and the maximum to 3 GB. I'll leave it to your intuition which system spent more time resizing the swap file.
-MilesAhead (June 04, 2009, 10:16 PM)

Microsoft put the Ultimate version out for testing because they want the entire system tested, not just a subset. And your XP swapfile size was probably set by the OEM that assembled your machine...

Innuendo · « **Reply #23 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:13 AM »

If you didn't change anything, you ran it at 800x600
-f0dder

Then I guess I ran it non-native. It's a very strange little game with a very strange sense of humor about it.

And your XP swapfile size was probably set by the OEM that assembled your machine...

Oh yeah, what f0dder said to the millionth degree. The first thing you do when you buy any pre-built machine is you wipe that sucker and do a clean install of the OS of your choice. The OS install that comes out of the box is just a drive image copied onto the hard drive and usually chock-ful of crapware.

Doing a clean install lets the Windows installer make intelligent decisions about the machine it is being installed on rather than having to rely on what was gained from the installer on who knows what machine the drive image came from. Another added benefit is your machine won't be slowed down by all the crapware, demoware, and near-malware the OEM pre-installed on the machine for you. Some of that stuff embeds itself so deep that the only way to make sure it's totally gone is a re-format anyway.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #24 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:16 AM »

I don't have it installed currently, but I bet I ran it at native resolution as I didn't change any options at all when I did run it. I just installed it and off I went.
-Innuendo (June 04, 2009, 08:31 PM)
If you didn't change anything, you ran it at 800x600

W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.
-Josh (June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM)

I don't think MS is putting the Ultimate edition out there for people to try because it runs slower and bulkier. Sorry but I'm not that trusting of human nature. If nothing else, the install is probably smarter. When I bought a PC with XP Home on it, the swap file was set at a minimum of 16 MB and no maximum. When I did a clean install of XP Pro on a PC with 1 GB ram, the minimum swap was set to 1.5 GB and the maximum to 3 GB. I'll leave it to your intuition which system spent more time resizing the swap file.
-MilesAhead (June 04, 2009, 10:16 PM)
Microsoft put the Ultimate version out for testing because they want the entire system tested, not just a subset. And your XP swapfile size was probably set by the OEM that assembled your machine...
-f0dder (June 05, 2009, 12:16 AM)

It's most interesting you're aware of the corporate motivations. Guess you must be on the BOD?