Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Any XP users switching to Windows 7 yet?
nosh:
[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.com/2009/08/17/windows-xp-users-on-windows-7/
f0dder:
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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:
I tried Win7 (x64) for a day.-nosh (November 07, 2009, 12:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
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),...
--- End quote ---
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,...
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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...
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
@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:
>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? :-)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version