Author Topic: Any XP users switching to Windows 7 yet? (Read 93141 times)

superboyac · « **on:** November 06, 2009, 03:11 PM »

I know there has been talk about Windows 7 being pretty good. I also know there are a lot of us that have been happy just sticking with XP throughout the whole Vista era. So, the question is, are any of you XP users switching to Windows 7 now? And I don't mean just installing it on another partition or virtualization or something. I'm talking about the real deal. Like, you will be using Windows 7 to do all your normal, daily computer activities. Basically, forget about XP and move on. Anyone making that jump yet? Discuss...

scancode · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2009, 03:33 PM »

Not me! Tried it for about two hours, the audio API was the dealbreaker for me...
I'll give it another shot when I can get a proper soundcard, but for the time being I'll stick with my copy of XP.

40hz · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2009, 03:47 PM »

I've pretty much switched over.

There's nothing I really need in the Windows environment that doesn't run on Win7 so I've decided to not put it off any longer. Your mileage may vary.

(Fingers crossed.

)

superboyac · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2009, 03:51 PM »

I've pretty much switched over.

There's nothing I really need in the Windows environment that doesn't run on Win7 so I've decided to not put it off any longer. Your mileage may vary.

(Fingers crossed. )
-40hz (November 06, 2009, 03:47 PM)

Very cool! I've been thinking about it. Especially since I have a nice, new rig, I figured I might as well put the latest OS on it, but XP has been running well for me. I remember that I didn't make the switch to XP way back when for two years after it came out. I was using ME, which ran really well for me and I've never understood all the flak it got. Maybe I was the exception. I did give Windows 7 a test run and it was pretty nice I suppose. But Vista was pretty nice as a test run also. I don't know. Keep us informed, 40!

Darwin · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2009, 03:56 PM »

I was using ME, which ran really well for me and I've never understood all the flak it got. Maybe I was the exception.
-superboyac (November 06, 2009, 03:51 PM)

No - app loved it, too. I had a friend that ran it without trouble as well. I actually envied him the eye candy compared to Win98SE, but upgraded to Win2k instead.

After 18 months with Vista/Win7, I find my Win2k and WinXP machines counter-intuitive and limiting to use.

Innuendo · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2009, 05:34 PM »

Not me! Tried it for about two hours, the audio API was the dealbreaker for me...
-scancode (November 06, 2009, 03:33 PM)

What's wrong with the audio API?

4wd · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2009, 05:38 PM »

I'll be sticking with XP because it just works for what I want to do. Plus, I don't know if they've improved it yet but when I tried W7, trying to get it to accept that my XP machine was on the local network was an absolute PITA if it decided it wasn't a 'HomeGroup'.

Right now, about the only thing that would make me consider upgrading is an absolute ripper of a game that required DX10+ and I don't see that happening anytime in the next year or two.

And I'd really like to know that why, (with 4GB+ PCs becoming more prevalent), the dimwits at MS don't remove the arbitrary 3.xGB limit in the 32bit versions.

Josh · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2009, 05:42 PM »

Arbitrary 3.xGB limit? It's a limit of 32 bit processors, not windows....

4wd · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2009, 05:43 PM »

Arbitrary 3.xGB limit? It's a limit of 32 bit processors, not windows....
-Josh (November 06, 2009, 05:42 PM)

Is that why the 32bit versions of Win2003 and Win2008 server can use the full 4GB?

And since when has a Phenom II, Athlon 64, etc, etc been a 32bit processor.

Memory Limits for Windows releases:

Win 2003
Win 2008

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2009, 06:31 PM »

Processor doesn't matter, if the OS is 32bit then you're dealing with the x86 archetecture...which can only address 3.25Gb of RAM.

The server OS's don't count they're leveraging PAE and require special software coded specifically to use the "additional" memory above 3.25Gb.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2009, 07:17 PM »

A 32-bit operating system can address 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes of memory natively.

The 32-bit versions of Windows use PAE to extend the addressable memory on 32 bit systems.

Standard consumer 32-bit windows can therefore address the full 4Gb of installed memory BUT memory mapped devices (such as graphics cards) have to be included in the physical 4Gb limit so if you have a 512Mb graphics card you will lose 512Mb from your physical memory because the graphic card memory is mapped to take the place of the missing memory.

There are a number of memory mapped devices and so commonly Windows can only actually see up to 3.25Gb of installed memory - the other 0.75Gb being used for device mapped memory.

In consumer Windows products PAE is available as an option but MS disables it so that it doesn't actually do anything.

f0dder · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2009, 07:39 PM »

Carol hits pretty close, but is still not 100% spot on the sugar.

32bit OSes can address 4GB of memory just perfectly, and with PAE that 32bit address space can be mapped to a "oh, I can't remember the bit amount, but it's more than you'll see in a single supercomupter node in your lifetime". Before SP1 of XP, you could get the full 4GB physical memory, too. After SP1, an arbitrary limit was introduced: Windows would no longer let you access more than the first 4GB physical address space, even if this limit is insanely arbitrary. The official reason is that "drivers were too flakey, and too many 3rd party vendors ignored the HighPart of PHYSICALADDRESS structures"... which sounds a bit hollow to me, and most likely an excuse to get people to not run servers on non-server Windows versions.

But sure, morons like Creative have never been good at writing proper drivers, and there's been plenty of samples of people not supporting multi-CPU systems etc. So there definitely ARE 32bit drivers that won't work on systems with >32bit physical addresses. But PAE itself isn't a problem, it's enabled by default to take advantage of per-page no-execute

Anyway, if it hadn't been for my Vista Immersion experiment, I would have been a clean XP->Win7 user, and would have... mostly... loved it

40hz · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2009, 07:40 PM »

Keep us informed, 40!
-superboyac (November 06, 2009, 03:51 PM)

Actually, I'm doing something very different (for me) this time out.

For several years now, Microsoft has maintained that their products work best when used as a complete system. So this time I'm giving that suggestion a go. My current Windows 7 software setup is:

Windows 7 Ultimate Edition
note: The only reason I own a copy of Ultimate was because I didn't have to pay for it.
Microsoft Office 2007 (Word, Excel, Outlook, OneNote, Access, Publisher)*
Microsoft Project 2007
Microsoft Visio 2007
Internet Explorer 8
Microsoft security Essentials
Visual C++ Express 2008 and 2010 Beta

* No, I did not install PowerPoint. I have a real deep dislike for PowerPoint and everything related to it.

Add to that some of Microsoft's Web 2.0 offerings:

Live Writer
Live Mail
Live MovieMaker
Office Live
SkyDrive

And that's pretty much it.

The only non-Microsoft products I've got installed (so far) are the following:

Amaya
CodeBlocks
eNoteFile
Filezilla
Firefox
Kompozer
MyDefrag
Notepad++
PaintNET
PaintShop Pro
Storybook
WriteMonkey
yWriter

About the only thing I'm really missing (and debating about) is Revo Uninstaller. I'm going to make an effort to keep the number of installed 3rd-party products down and try to stick with Microsoft as much as possible.* That being said, I'm sure FARR is going to show up on that machine sooner or later.

(*Note: This may be a research project of sorts, but I don't intend to be a total masochist about it. Maybe I'll "wear the t-shit" - but I have no intentions of "drinking the KoolAid" if push comes to shove.

)

This above setup is wedded to a domain running on Windows Server 2003 Standard. I'd eventually like to go over to the new 2008-R2 server - but that will have to wait since I seriously doubt I'll have the money to build a 64-bit server any time soon.

A Windows Home Server is also something I'd like to add to the mix in the not too distant future.

So there you have it - 40Hz's "House that Mr. Bill Built."

Let's see if doing it (almost exclusively) Microsoft's way yields as much synergy as they'd lead us to believe.

And if it blows up - or gets nuked by some piece of malware...well...I'll still have my NIX/FLOSS setup (

), so it's not like it will be that big a deal for me if (when?) it does happen.

Gonna be an interesting year coming up.

4wd · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2009, 07:51 PM »

MS disables it in desktop editions because of any possible driver compatibility problems, (and you have to admit there are a lot of drivers that really shouldn't have seen the light of day).

Taken from Wikipedia^w and paraphrased on MSDN:

Very basically, each process is still limited to 4GB because of the 32bit addresses, but the OS can use a processor control register to map that 4GB space above the 4GB. So process "A" might have it's 4GB virtual address space start in physical ram at 8GB, process "B" at 12GB, etc.

That implies that software doesn't specifically have to be written to use memory above 4GB, just be coded to be PAE friendly, (eg. various ramdisk drivers - this is probably a bad example but I'm sure f0dder will tell me if it is

), because the CPU will take care of where that process will run.

The point was: A 32bit OS can address more than the physical limitation of 2^32 if the OS chooses to, (barring hardware limitations). Thus it's an arbitrary limit imposed by the designer of the OS, eg. MS.

EDIT: Dang it! f0dder beat me again!

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2009, 08:04 PM »

The point was: A 32bit OS can address more than the physical limitation of 2^32 if the OS chooses to, (barring hardware limitations). Thus it's an arbitrary limit imposed by the designer of the OS, eg. MS.
-4wd (November 06, 2009, 07:51 PM)

Not really accurate - a 32-bit CPU and OS can only address 4Gb at any one time. You can use an offset to point to that 4Gb if you want to but, for example, when you are looking at the 4Gb starting at 64Gb you can't see the 4Gb at 16Gb.

The 32-bit OS isn't really addressing more than 4Gb it is just using some trickery to make it appear that way and the software has to collude in the trickery to make it all work.

Working on that principle you could go back to 16 (or even 8 bit) computers and get them to address terrabytes of RAM. Some did - in the early 80s I had an 8-bit BBC Micro extension running CP/M that had 128Kb of memory (when 64Kb was the maximum addressable space). In fact it was an early dual processor system - each running with its own RAM but distributing I/O and display functions between the CPUs.

nosh · « **Reply #15 on:** November 07, 2009, 12:53 AM »

[Core2Duo - 4GB RAM - 512 MB video.]

I tried Win7 (x64) for a day. Installing my main programs went much quicker than anticipated, the Internet connection worked out of the box, almost everything else (including networking with an XP machine - the old way) did too. I loved the way Windows Update worked.

The system mostly felt light but there were a few random delays when I least expected them. I also encountered a BSOD (don't remember the details), I don't care for the Superbar or the new start menu, the only thing I really needed was the run command sitting at the bottom, which I couldn't drag there.

By nightfall I was questioning why it would be worth my while to choose Win7 over XP32, which works brilliantly. When I tried to play a particular 720p HD movie file (latest 64 bit drivers installed, all eyecandy disabled) the video was quite choppy. Other video files with even higher resolutions played just fine, though. Perhaps a video driver issue, but it was all the reason I needed to go back to XP. To be fair, the processor idled between 95-99% and the shutdown + startup times were WAY better than those on XP, some of it obviously on account of it being a clean install.

Bottomline: there was no wow factor to motivate me to break something that works so well and start from scratch.

Edit: http://technologizer...-users-on-windows-7/

f0dder · « **Reply #16 on:** November 07, 2009, 07:17 AM »

The point was: A 32bit OS can address more than the physical limitation of 2^32 if the OS chooses to, (barring hardware limitations). Thus it's an arbitrary limit imposed by the designer of the OS, eg. MS.
-4wd (November 06, 2009, 07:51 PM)

Not really accurate - a 32-bit CPU and OS can only address 4Gb at any one time. You can use an offset to point to that 4Gb if you want to but, for example, when you are looking at the 4Gb starting at 64Gb you can't see the 4Gb at 16Gb.

The 32-bit OS isn't really addressing more than 4Gb it is just using some trickery to make it appear that way and the software has to collude in the trickery to make it all work.
-Carol Haynes (November 06, 2009, 08:04 PM)

Application software doesn't need to be PAE aware to get advantage of PAE mode, though - with PAE, each app could (theoretically, with a lot of RAM

) have it's address space backed by physical memory.

EMS memory in DOS worked from kinda the same principle as PAE (though using a very different implementation): mapping a "window" of address space to physical memory. XMS did it differently: copying memory between 16bit-adressable buffers and 32bit addressable memory.

Innuendo · « **Reply #17 on:** November 07, 2009, 10:36 AM »

I tried Win7 (x64) for a day.
-nosh (November 07, 2009, 12:53 AM)

With all due respect, trying out Win7 for a day isn't a long enough trial. It sometimes takes longer than that for the new way to 'click' and get used to The New Way of doing things.

The system mostly felt light but there were a few random delays when I least expected them. I also encountered a BSOD (don't remember the details),...

The random delays and the BSOD points to a driver problem. Driver problems always taint the outcome when trying a new OS.

...I don't care for the Superbar or the new start menu,...

You can go back to a more conventional way of behavior for the Superbar if you wish. Most people who have taken the time to get used to the way it works, though, usually prefer the new way even if they initially disliked it.

By nightfall I was questioning why it would be worth my while to choose Win7 over XP32, which works brilliantly.

Again, with all due respect, I question why you would try out a new OS for only a day. There's a reason why MS gives a 30-day trial with a documented way to extend that trial up to 120 days. It takes time to adapt to new ways of doing things.

When I tried to play a particular 720p HD movie file (latest 64 bit drivers installed, all eyecandy disabled) the video was quite choppy. Other video files with even higher resolutions played just fine, though. Perhaps a video driver issue...

Since you were quick to run back to XP we may never know, but I suspect it's related to your random delays and your BSOD....and definitely do NOT disable the eyecandy or Aero if you have a decent video card. Your video will perform vastly better with Aero on than with Aero off....if you have a decent video card.

Bottomline: there was no wow factor to motivate me to break something that works so well and start from scratch.

My bottomline reaction is you didn't give Win7 a fair chance. You had problems (and with computers sometimes that happens), but you really didn't indicate that you put forth much effort to solve those problems.

Shades · « **Reply #18 on:** November 07, 2009, 01:28 PM »

@Innuendo:
Just a question regarding the Aero interface (definitely no trolling intended). Why would performance degrade when it is disabled? In my brain the idea of 'less is more' sounds very logically. However, you claim that is not true with Win7.

Now I can imagine that new hardware will work best with software that is designed for it. However, in my mind when I would choose not to go for eye-candy that would leave more (reserve) horsepower for the video card, in case one has a serious use for it like playing games, watching compressed video and what not. Would you be so kind to explain why my idea is based on a false assumption?

Maybe I should explain a bit more about my previous experiences. Sorry if sounds like a rant.
Coming from a test drive of Vista (home premium and pre-SP1) on a laptop that came with it I could not say that I was positively impressed with the Aero interface. Again, because of my idea I think that any general functionality in a piece of software (and O.S. for that matter) should be accessible in 5 mouse-clicks or less. Anything more demands a rethink of the workflow/design.

Vista fails in this regard. The laptop I mentioned was intended to be used in the WiFi LAN from my girlfriend and wireless networking was not too stable in that version of Vista. I was seriously underwhelmed in possibilities to try to fix that in the amount of mouse-clicks I suggested. Likely this has improved with SP1 and in Win7.

Now if Win7 is similar to that Vista behavior of hiding options 'too deep' without an option to disable all the eye-candy...where would be my reason to get into a new Windows, besides XP (which is very tweaked to my preferences)?

The comment I hear is that Windows 7 is 'snappy'. No contest from me there, it is very possible that all the windows to get to wherever you want to go in the O.S. open very quickly. My problem is that there will too many windows opening to get where you want to go in the O.S. making me (and you) in effect less productive.

An option to disable eye-candy to get more productivity back is 'stolen' from me in Win7 by Microsoft because they were too lazy/programmatically challenged to design Aero as a sub-system to be enabled/disabled at the whim of the user instead of a requirement from the O.S.

That is what keeping me with XP. I certainly see flaws in the workflow from XP and definitely wouldn't mind a change, but my previous experiences lead me to believe that Vista/Win7 are not that much of improvement. Certainly not at the current prices in this economy. Honestly, my personal (and old) laptop still runs on Win2000 and I'm still not bored with that interface.

Ah well, thanks for reading if you got this far.

wr975 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2009, 03:49 PM »

>Now if Win7 is similar to that Vista behavior of hiding options 'too deep' without an option to disable all the eye-candy...

Right click desktop, select properties or customize (using a German version here)
Scroll down to "Windows - classic", click on it
Close window

Easy enough? :-)

nosh · « **Reply #20 on:** November 07, 2009, 04:20 PM »

With due respect Innuendo, you have no idea about how much time and effort has gone into my current xp setup.

There's no great "new way" of doing things for me, I use 3rd party apps for doing most of my work anyway. With XP, I barely notice the OS - that's just how I like it. I tried Win7 for a short time to see if there was any significant advantage involved in jumping ship and in my opinion, there wasn't - neither in features nor in performance. I don't care about under the hood stuff if it doesn't translate into something real. Even if I hadn't had the small annoyances (and that's just what they were, small annoyances - things mostly ran fast, just like they do on my current setup) there wasn't anything that made it worth my while to go through the whole rigmarole of setting up a new OS. If I was the sort of person who did a clean install of my OS every x months, I would have switched in a heartbeat.

It's not my intention to trash Win7. And I'm not against learning new stuff and adapting, I just need a really good reason to do so.

PS: I disabled the visual effects because the video was playing choppy with the default settings.

Innuendo · « **Reply #21 on:** November 07, 2009, 08:09 PM »

Just a question regarding the Aero interface (definitely no trolling intended). Why would performance degrade when it is disabled? In my brain the idea of 'less is more' sounds very logically. However, you claim that is not true with Win7.
-Shades (November 07, 2009, 01:28 PM)

I'd never think you were trolling. I've seen enough of your posts to know you don't engage in that sort of behavior. Performance degrades if you have a decent video card because Windows 7 offloads a lot more of the UI workload onto the GPU than Vista did. Turning off Aero in Windows 7 is akin to turning off hardware graphics acceleration & reverting to software acceleration. Much like when playing a game, hardware acceleration is always better.

Innuendo · « **Reply #22 on:** November 07, 2009, 08:11 PM »

With due respect Innuendo, you have no idea about how much time and effort has gone into my current xp setup.
-nosh (November 07, 2009, 04:20 PM)

This is true. I don't.

It's not my intention to trash Win7. And I'm not against learning new stuff and adapting, I just need a really good reason to do so.

Well, Windows 7 isn't a perfect fit for everyone. Nothing is. If you are happier with Win XP, that's fine, but eventually there is going to come a time when you will have to move on & leave XP behind.

nosh · « **Reply #23 on:** November 08, 2009, 12:07 AM »

If you are happier with Win XP, that's fine, but eventually there is going to come a time when you will have to move on & leave XP behind.

Agreed.

superboyac · « **Reply #24 on:** November 08, 2009, 12:46 AM »

OK, I've tried out Win7 on my laptop...it's pretty nice. Yes, it's very true that all the options to configure things are all over the place deep in submenus. But like someone earlier said, I tend to go with third party software usually in the long run for most things. Overall, it's a fast OS, even considering the fact that the laptop is pretty old. I don't have much more to say at this point.

As a vote for XP, remember how I built my new rig this year? Well, I took my old computer (~2002) and hooked it up to my very old curvy screen TV to be used as a "media PC". It's running XP. I removed all the things that I wouldn't really need and just kept the basics like multimedia programs and file managers. It's runs very fast, I am really impressed. The resolution is something crazy like 800x600 because of the TV, but it's great to use as your media center. I even took care of some fan issues just now so it's pretty quiet also. This is great! I have some new things to play with: my new rig for most of my work, my laptop with Win7 to get used to it dual-booted with XP so I can use with my piano for live gigs (musician software wasn't running well on Win7), and I have a new media PC for my old ass TV. Good stuff!