Author Topic: Windows 7 evaluation (Read 66478 times)

MilesAhead · « **Reply #50 on:** July 08, 2009, 05:14 PM »

I saw that too. But I thought I remembered another answer. You might look on Annoyances.org. Sounds like something that would pop up there.

Hirudin · « **Reply #51 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:13 PM »

Thanks for the tip, unfortuantely it did not help.

Only thing I was able to find quickly and since I didn't know what exactly to searh for was make Win7 x64 use all your mem…. Unfortuantely that did not help me, the option it says to uncheck was already unchecked.

-mrHappy (July 08, 2009, 03:58 PM)

I'll just throw this out there since this is Windows we're talking about: try unchecking it, restarting, then checking it, and restarting again. Of course the restarts may not be necessary, but they'll make sure the settings are saved.

mrHappy · « **Reply #52 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:11 AM »

I've already tried checking/unchecking and unfortuantely that didn't do anything. I had hoped it would.

Also took a look at Annoyances.org, unfortuantely the only thing I could find on that site was an answer to use 64bit to see (use) all memory. Good answer, unfortuantely not for me.

Eóin · « **Reply #53 on:** July 09, 2009, 03:28 AM »

Any chance Win7 might be spotting a fault with one of the ram sticks (assuming there's 4 1gb ones of course) ? Maybe run a ram check.

mrHappy · « **Reply #54 on:** July 09, 2009, 05:53 AM »

After a look through the bios once more I found what I was looking for, one line of text reading Appropriated 640mb lead me to find that my board does not have support for memory remap, asus have never released a bios that supports it.

So it look like I need a new motherboard before I can make use of all my memory.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #55 on:** July 09, 2009, 07:07 AM »

I want to know about the minimum RAM requirements of windows 7 editions. Is it going to be more than 1 GB ?
Official requirements and as per interface it will vary no doubt. but what are the personal observations you got after trying Win 7 beta ?

steeladept · « **Reply #56 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:46 AM »

What little testing I have done & seen, it works okay with 1GB, though I wouldn't want to go any lower. That was with most of the eye candy turned off, but all functions available.

Shades · « **Reply #57 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:54 PM »

If you don't do games and have a decent (256Mb or higher) video card, you can use Windows (and standard Office apps) already at 512Kbyte RAM. It is not nearly as resource hogging as Vista is. Of course, it thrives with 2Gbyte or more.

tslim · « **Reply #58 on:** July 10, 2009, 12:17 PM »

My biggest hatre of Vista is it won't let any 16bits program to go fullscreen be it text mode application or grphical games...
Hope Win7 will lift this restriction... however I don't think MS care about backward compatibility as much as they used to, chances is there will be more restriction

Lashiec · « **Reply #59 on:** July 11, 2009, 10:08 AM »

If you don't do games and have a decent (256Mb or higher) video card, you can use Windows (and standard Office apps) already at 512Kbyte RAM. It is not nearly as resource hogging as Vista is. Of course, it thrives with 2Gbyte or more.
-Shades (July 09, 2009, 08:54 PM)

Impressive optimization work by Microsoft

Shades · « **Reply #60 on:** July 11, 2009, 01:08 PM »

Sorry...big fingers and tiny buttons...

It should have been 512 Megabyte of RAM.

Innuendo · « **Reply #61 on:** July 11, 2009, 04:14 PM »

but what are the personal observations you got after trying Win 7 beta ?
-mahesh2k

My personal observation after having installed Win7 on a few different PCs of varying ages and capabilities is that if your PC ran WinXP well it will run Win7 well. If you have a fast Aero-capable video card like me then you may find, also like me, that Win7 runs faster on your PC than WinXP did.

Innuendo · « **Reply #62 on:** July 11, 2009, 04:17 PM »

My biggest hatre of Vista is it won't let any 16bits program to go fullscreen be it text mode application or grphical games...
Hope Win7 will lift this restriction...
-tslim

I wouldn't hold my breath. 16-bit applications are on the way out. You can't even run 16-bit apps on a 64-bit Win7 I have heard.

Just out of curiosity, what 16-bit app are you holding onto so dearly that makes you want to run a program that's got to be at least 14 years old?

Lashiec · « **Reply #63 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:38 AM »

Drop those apps in a virtual machine, and call it a day

Eóin · « **Reply #64 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:58 AM »

You can't even run 16-bit apps on a 64-bit Win7 I have heard.
-Innuendo (July 11, 2009, 04:17 PM)

No x64 versions of Windows have been able to run 16bit apps I believe, List of limitations in 64-Bit Windows.

Innuendo · « **Reply #65 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:18 PM »

No x64 versions of Windows have been able to run 16bit apps I believe
-Eóin

That's what I thought, but I erred on the side of sticking with what I knew for sure. My PC doesn't have the capability to run a 64-bit OS so I don't know as much as I should about those yet.

I'm waiting to see what i5 brings us...

xtabber · « **Reply #66 on:** July 14, 2009, 03:13 PM »

Randall Kennedy has just posted a 3-way comparison of XP/Vista/7RTM at Infoworld

http://www.infoworld...ge-windows-vista-982

He has good things to say about W7 and sees it as the future of Windows, but the bottom line is that XP still runs faster and uses far less resources on existing systems. If one has a computer that runs XP well today, there is no compelling reason to upgrade to W7. On the other hand, if you are planning to buy a new computer, it makes sense to wait and buy a system with W7 already installed.

Eóin · « **Reply #67 on:** July 14, 2009, 07:22 PM »

Well I've seen a number of comparisons in magazines which say Win 7 out performs XP, even on older hardware.

Honestly here I can't see thread counts being a valid measurement. Yes in theory more threads need more resources, but the assumption that therefore fewer equals better performance isn't backed up at all. The threading model differences between XP and 7 are enormous.

Also memory consumption is very dubious a comparison these days as idle memory means potential resources not being utilised. Memory usage when there is plenty available doesn't necessarily equal memory requirements when it's scant.

I'm not really questioning the benchmark test, rather the interpertation. Also no mention of the test machine(s) specs, or if the Vista and Win7 were 32bit/64bit largely discredits the article in my opinion. Unless I've missed those details somewhere.

f0dder · « **Reply #68 on:** July 15, 2009, 09:41 AM »

Haha, using thread count as a benchmark stat? That's plain old lame. Most of those threads are going to be in idle state, and thus using up no CPU time whatsoever. The amount of memory used per thread is generally so little that it's irrelevant.

You also can't compared used RAM directly, unless you are very++ specific on how you do it. Both Vista and Win7 have the wonderful SuperFetch service which preloads applications before you use them - this gobbles up memory like mad, but it's done using "discardable" memory... so in fact that memory is available to applications, although it shows up as "used" in task manager.

I don't know how Win7 fares on older hardware, and I don't care much about that either - I can always stick XP, win2k or NT4 on old stuff. But on my current machine, Win7 definitely outperforms XP64. Stuff loads faster (thanks to superfetch), graphics are smoother (thanks to Aero and the win7-specific GDI optimizations), and everything is snappy and responsive. The various small GUI enhancements might not seem like that big of a deal, but it makes it overall more enjoyable to use the computer.

Oh, and the video driver architecture introduced with Vista is pretty darn nice - no more BSODs when there's a bug in your video driver, it simply reloads.

If you need to run DOS stuff, grab dosbox.

justice · « **Reply #69 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:13 AM »

It's very refined - great automatic troubleshooters - many productivity improvements in window management etc - overhaul of the notification area. However I think really Windows is now at the end of the line. There's only so much that can be improved about a 15 year old metaphor. Increasingly I think we will need a next generation of desktop OSes if people are to be convinced to upgrade. In the order of what Intel does with Moblin, a conceptual change. People don't like too much change though and it would be very risky for Microsoft.

I mean yes as a technical user I appreciate a lot that the video driver reloads when it crashes but in day to day use we still work almost exactly the same as in windows 95 with our local data (with the addition of search). We're not making the leap from notepad to Evernote in the OS world.

So from one viewpoint you could say that any windows version after XP are refinements of the same concept and never upgrade. On the other hand you can say within the concept this is the best windows yet.

my 2 cents.

Innuendo · « **Reply #70 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:59 AM »

The problem, Justice, is Microsoft cannot implement change too fast or there is going to be a lot of consumer backlash both from individuals and businesses. In order to move to that next generation of desktop OSes things are going to have to be planned carefully or a lot of people are going to be sitting around with $1,500 worth of Adobe software that won't work with their new OS and something like that would make the rally cries against Vista look tame.

Let's look at the last time Microsoft radically changed Windows. That was when Windows 95 was released and there were a LOT of programs that didn't work with the new OS because they either used outdated Windows API calls or were DOS-based. Yeah, a lot of people still used DOS back then because Windows 3.x wasn't a viable solution for a lot of people.

But I digress...back then there was some outcry and gnashing of teeth, but people made the switch with their apps because there was a lot to gain from doing so. Pre-emptive multi-tasking, improved performance due to software being 32-bit, unified GUI interface, Windows finally being a real full-fledged OS instead of sitting on top of DOS, etc.

If Microsoft wants people to move over/up to The Next Great Thing they are going to need a laundry list of advantages like that or people aren't going to make the move.

And to address your last point, yes you could say that any Windows version after XP are refinements of the same concepts, but only if you are talking about the concept of Windows itself. Once you start talking about the code-base, however, you will find that although Vista and Win7 have very similar GUIs to WinXP a lot of the underlying code under the hood has been rewritten and optimized for performance and security.

Warning: personal anecdote ahead! While the GUIs of Vista and Win7 seem to be very similar to XP on first glance there's a LOT more usability stuffed in nooks and crannies that help you get a lot more out of the user interface than one did with XP. I've been running Win7 since pre-beta builds exclusively and just last week I had to work on a WinXP and it was extremely frustrating. Sure, I could get my tasks done, but I kept looking for the new Win7 shortcuts to doing things and not finding them. It seems like Microsoft is back on track again & I'm really looking forward to seeing what Win8 will bring us in 2 or so years.

f0dder · « **Reply #71 on:** July 16, 2009, 11:10 AM »

Windows finally being a real full-fledged OS instead of sitting on top of DOS, etc.
-Innuendo (July 16, 2009, 10:59 AM)

Just to nitpick: win9x still sits ontop of DOS (even though it "sucks out the brains" pretty well, and only calls down to DOS very rarely), and while it does implement pre-emptive multitasking, there's still a few "biglocks" in the kernel code that can get the system locked up totally. Oh, and there's a lot of thunks to old 16bit windows code as well. Win9x is... a mess

As for Win7, I agree fully - the small usability enhancements and polish might not seem like a lot when looked at individually, but it all adds up to a better experience than XP. And there's some pretty cute kernel enhancements as well; those aren't directly visible to the end-users, but it does make for a smoother ride, and scalability that's going to be important as the number of CPU cores go up.

justice · « **Reply #72 on:** July 17, 2009, 03:17 AM »

Yes having tried Windows 7 RC as my main daily OS fo ever since it became available I have no need to install Windows XP or Vista anymore - and it has the polish of a SP1 release imho. I'm just trying to say - if it was going to revolutionize how you work with a pc then you would have read about it.

Innuendo · « **Reply #73 on:** July 18, 2009, 11:43 AM »

Windows finally being a real full-fledged OS instead of sitting on top of DOS, etc.
-f0dder (July 16, 2009, 11:10 AM)

Just to nitpick: win9x still sits ontop of DOS (even though it "sucks out the brains" pretty well, and only calls down to DOS very rarely), and while it does implement pre-emptive multitasking, there's still a few "biglocks" in the kernel code that can get the system locked up totally. Oh, and there's a lot of thunks to old 16bit windows code as well. Win9x is... a mess

[/quote]

I'm glad I have you around f0dder. I don't have as much time to answer things to my full satisfaction these days due to time constraints so I tend to over-simplify a lot of my replies, but I'm confident you will come along and flesh out my general outlines.

I always wanted to have an entourage.

No, just kidding...I'm glad you are here to expound on my vague mumblings. So much to do and so little time to do it in these days. :: sigh ::

Dormouse · « **Reply #74 on:** July 19, 2009, 05:21 AM »

Interesting to see the variety of opinions on this thread and the one about pre-ordering.

Seems to me that W7 is clearly better than Vista and probably better than XP.
But not enough to 'upgrade' a system that is already working and stable. And not enough for me to have faith in the future with MS. Or faith in always having enough money in the future to meet MS's demands.

So my roll out plan is simple. I have pre-ordered one copy of W7 for each member of the family. However, I won't install it on any system until there is a need for me to do some work on it. (That will be at least 2 systems before next June since they are running the RC). And some systems will probably just keep running as they are for another 5 or 10 years. And the systems beyond the one each will only have Ubuntu (or the Windows they come with or old versions of Windows already installed); and I'll only be willing to support W7 and Ubuntu.

When I do install it, I will also install Ubuntu. On some systems it will be dual boot, on some systems it will be through Virtualbox (ie W7 on Ubuntu) and on one at least it will be through andLinux. I have licenses for Crossover so may install that on some primarily Ubuntu systems too.

My experience so far tells me that the people who have been given Ubuntu prefer it to Windows (any version) unless they already have to use Windows a lot in another environment. (And that group hate mixing XP & Vista and presumably will feel the same about W7. They also detest the ribbon and insist on Office 2003.) The only reason the others have for having Windows installed is games, Powerpoint (preferred to the OO equivalent), Naturally Speaking and Wacom tablets (though Linux compatibility is much improved). But none of them want to use the command line and would rather use Windows than have to do that for themselves.