Author Topic: Win7: Anyone else getting excited? (Read 70,924 times)

Lashiec · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2009, 02:43 PM »

Quote from: Innuendo on September 29, 2009, 05:14 PM

If you use a WDM 1.1-capable video card you are going to see even more of the graphics load put upon the GPU which means you are going to have a faster Windows experience for one thing.

Quote from: f0dder on September 29, 2009, 08:39 PM

Part of what reduces memory footprint a fair amount compared to Vista is WDDM 1.1 drivers. If you only get WDDM 1.0 for your hardware (which might be the case with some slightly older), Win7 will work just like Vista, which means very little GUI acceleration, and all bitmap surfaces present both on GPU and in system RAM.

There, now I can upgrade the GPU with a clean conscience. "Are you wasting 200 € to play games?" "No, I swear Windows requires it!"

Quote from: Innuendo on September 29, 2009, 05:14 PM

Windows Explorer has been optimized and streamlined. Managing your files is easier as the more common file management functions are close at hand. My Documents has been put on steroids with the Library feature. Configure multiple directories for each category and all those files in multiple directories appear in one Explorer window.

I hope software starts to support Libraries, since Windows 7 changed quite a bit the "My Documents" paradigm for what I saw in the Win7 beta. All the folders contained under it are now located in what is the new "Documents and Settings" folder, and I didn't see any way to move them elsewhere, just like you could with "My Documents". Since my data is located in a secondary drive, Libraries would help a lot here.

BTW, one question. I noticed that unlike older versions, file managers have their access to "Program Files" and similar folders restricted, and the only way to see them is either running the file manager with higher privileges, or to grant permanent access using Windows Explorer. What is this restriction all about? Is it just a new way to do the old "Don't show hidden folders"? Is there some security risk by granting permanent access to them? Note that back then both xplorer² and XYplorer (the two apps I used) didn't officially support Win7.

tranglos · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2009, 04:36 PM »

Quote from: Curt on September 29, 2009, 06:10 PM

I don't know what kind of job you have, Innuendo, but you should be working in the sales department :-)

What Curt said. That was a really inspired write-up, informative too. Thanks a bunch, Innuendo!

40hz · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2009, 05:40 PM »

Quote from: Innuendo on September 30, 2009, 02:14 PM

Quote from: Carol Haynes on September 30, 2009, 08:13 AM
All of these of 32 bit editions of the OS, granted they have 2Gb of memory to play with but I have been pleased with the way Win 7 has pumped a bit more life into this system. With Vista I was thinking of looking for a new mobo to use a multicore processor but now I am not going to bother.

I'm glad your experience mirrors my own, Carol. I think a lot of people are going to be happy with this release. Little Kylie didn't lie to us. More happy *really* is coming.

Mirrors mine as well. So far, the overall experience has been positive.

I have the 32-bit version of Win7 Pro running quite happily on 'Modest Mouse' which is my low-end test box. 'Mouse' has a 2.2Ghz Athlon 64 mobo with onboard GeForce 6100 graphics + 1.5 Gb RAM. Vista never did run well on this box. Win7, however, seems to be quite happy with it. Overall performance is good.

I sill think the icons could be a little less cartoony. And all those pastel shades remind me of the decor you'd find in a baby's room. But that's just me.

Win7 integrates very nicely into a network running Windows Server 2003. Far less hassles on that score than was the case with Vista. Haven't tested it with Server 2008 yet, but I'm sure it will work just as well (or better) in that environment. I'm very curious to see how well it behaves in a non-Windows network, but that will have to wait for a slow rainy day.

Overall, I'm quite impressed. And since I'm bored to tears with WinXP, this new release is a very welcome change. I don't know if I would say I'm excited. But I'm definitely interested...

Either way - it's here to stay.

y0himba · « **Reply #28 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:30 AM »

I just finished installing my free, completely legal copy of Windows 7 Ultimate. I am running the RTM right now, and it is NICE. I have been running the RC 7100 for a while but this is lighter, with subtle changes all around. It is also a buttload lighter than Vista was, although I cannot complain about Vista, I honestly had no issues with it after a few well placed tweaks. I recieved it for attending the New Efficiency launch event in PGH, PA.

Here are some photos: http://www.y0himba.net/images/win7event ; (It's ugly, but works. I am tired and made this quickly)

I will put a few videos up tomorrow on my Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/y0himba (There is one there now, streamed from my Smartphone)

Deozaan · « **Reply #29 on:** October 01, 2009, 05:55 AM »

I was kind of indifferent about Windows 7; I planned on getting it eventually but wasn't in any rush to get it.

But now because of this thread I'm excited to get it.

paarkhi · « **Reply #30 on:** October 01, 2009, 10:13 AM »

Friends,
Late on the wagon here but using windows 7 since october 2008 as the Main OS (I know it sounds crazy), In the beginning it used to crash, as with any other Pre-Beta (Alpha) releases, but now it is rock solid and no regrets.
Using it on 2 years old Laptop and on quadcore where drivers are not available for XP.
Quadcore is of very high config and new so it runs easily but Laptop has
Intel Celeron 1.8 Ghz with on board graphics, 1.5 GB DDR2 RAM, 250GB SATA2 HDD, Intel 965 Series MoBo
and I never regret using it, it detects all my drivers automatically after installation, I've really tried badly to install XP and I was able to install it but Drivers were never available, 1 or other always missing...
Previous to this I had Vista X86
Now Im on windows 7 X86 RTM and am happy with it.
Thank you for reading this...

Innuendo · « **Reply #31 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:45 PM »

Quote from: Lashiec on September 30, 2009, 02:43 PM

BTW, one question. I noticed that unlike older versions, file managers have their access to "Program Files" and similar folders restricted, and the only way to see them is either running the file manager with higher privileges, or to grant permanent access using Windows Explorer. What is this restriction all about? Is it just a new way to do the old "Don't show hidden folders"? Is there some security risk by granting permanent access to them? Note that back then both xplorer² and XYplorer (the two apps I used) didn't officially support Win7.

I use Total Commander & I used it with Windows 7 before Total Commander officially supported it & I haven't had to run TC with higher privileges to see any directory on any of my hard drives. Now if you are wanting to delete or edit any files in a protected directory or copy or move any files into a protected directory you will have to elevate the file manager's privileges, but read-only access doesn't require such. At least that's been my experience with TC.

Maybe you need to give your file managers of choice another go once they fully support Windows 7, but things really should work the same way they did with Vista in regards to how protected system directories work.

Innuendo · « **Reply #32 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:48 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on September 30, 2009, 05:40 PM

I sill think the icons could be a little less cartoony. And all those pastel shades remind me of the decor you'd find in a baby's room. But that's just me.

I found out early on in the beta process that going into the settings and changing the pre-dominant window color from Sky to Slate 'mans' up Windows 7 quite a bit. It'll tide things over till the after-market programs come out that support Windows 7 that will allow us to change the color schemes more to our liking & use alternate icon sets.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #33 on:** October 01, 2009, 10:56 PM »

Hmmmmmm, I'd be way more impressed if they could get rid of drive letters altogether! I just wasted an hour with my network shares because my USB dock decided to come up in Windows7 as drives F: and G: instead of H: and I:. Couldn't use Computer Management to shift 'em back because removable drives shifted over to take the letters I want. That and spaces in file paths have to be the biggest time wasters in all of computing!! Sheesh!!

The more it changes the more it remains the same.

Darwin · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2009, 12:50 AM »

Quote from: Innuendo on September 28, 2009, 07:20 PM

The new task bar unfortunately makes True Launch Bar near inoperable.

Crap! Hopefully it serves as a nice replacement for True Launch Bar?

redstarnyc · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:54 AM »

I have been running Windows 7 on my laptop for a few weeks and I really like it a lot. I didn't have to install a single driver and it boots up super fast on my ssd. I've been fortunate and haven't bumped into any compatibility issues as of yet. I will definitely buy it when it comes out.

Innuendo · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2009, 03:33 AM »

Quote from: Darwin on October 02, 2009, 12:50 AM

Crap! Hopefully it serves as a nice replacement for True Launch Bar?

It's a nice replacement if your idea of what a taskbar should be matches Microsoft's idea. However, most TLB fans are going to miss the customizability and the plugins. Here's hoping Yuri can figure out how to work it back into Windows.

Darwin · « **Reply #37 on:** October 02, 2009, 04:25 AM »

Quote from: Innuendo on October 02, 2009, 03:33 AM

Quote from: Darwin on October 02, 2009, 12:50 AM
Crap! Hopefully it serves as a nice replacement for True Launch Bar?

It's a nice replacement if your idea of what a taskbar should be matches Microsoft's idea. However, most TLB fans are going to miss the customizability and the plugins. Here's hoping Yuri can figure out how to work it back into Windows.

Hmm... most disturbing! I'll join you in hoping Yuri can get TLB sorted - I LOVE TLB

Innuendo · « **Reply #38 on:** October 02, 2009, 05:37 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on October 02, 2009, 04:25 AM

Hmm... most disturbing! I'll join you in hoping Yuri can get TLB sorted - I LOVE TLB

So far he's got it working if you use TLB in stand-alone mode and don't mind another toolbar on your screen, but it's just not the same to me.

Deozaan · « **Reply #39 on:** October 04, 2009, 08:00 PM »

Does anyone know how to change the default Users directory? I can't stand the idea of storing "My Documents" and other personal files on the system partition.

I followed the instructions listed here, but it didn't seem to work.

Downloads still default to C:\Users\[username]\Downloads. And DropBox install defaults to c:\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Dropbox\bin.

I vaguely remember changing it three years ago when I had Vista on my PC for a few months, but it's been so long I can't remember how and I'm still getting used to the new interface.

Thanks in advance!

Innuendo · « **Reply #40 on:** October 05, 2009, 12:17 AM »

Quote from: Deozaan on October 04, 2009, 08:00 PM

Does anyone know how to change the default Users directory? I can't stand the idea of storing "My Documents" and other personal files on the system partition.

Can't speak for Dropbox, but with most Windows directories like "My Documents" and "Downloads" you can just right-click on the folder, select Properties, and then go to the Location tab to choose where you want the directory to be stored.

Other directories Windows 7 is smart enough if you try to move the folder somewhere to ask if you want to make the destination the new default location.

Deozaan · « **Reply #41 on:** October 05, 2009, 12:40 AM »

Thanks for that info Innuendo. I was looking for something like that but for some reason I didn't see the Location tab on my first perusal.

I suppose leaving AppData on the system drive isn't that big of a deal to me.

J-Mac · « **Reply #42 on:** October 05, 2009, 05:35 AM »

I'm looking forward to it but I'm still ticked about their treatment of the Ultimate version. Both Vista and the Vista to Win7 upgrade path. Unbelievably poor behavior.

Jim

f0dder · « **Reply #43 on:** October 05, 2009, 06:52 AM »

Quote from: J-Mac on October 05, 2009, 05:35 AM

Both Vista and the Vista to Win7 upgrade path.

Upgrades suck, anyway - clean reinstalls ftw

40hz · « **Reply #44 on:** October 05, 2009, 03:13 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 05, 2009, 06:52 AM

Quote from: J-Mac on October 05, 2009, 05:35 AM
Both Vista and the Vista to Win7 upgrade path.
Upgrades suck, anyway - clean reinstalls ftw

+1 w/f0dder on that. (Except I'd say: "Are not a good idea."

) Save yourself a lot of grief. Do a clean reinstall.

Deozaan · « **Reply #45 on:** October 05, 2009, 07:02 PM »

I heard that an upgrade to Win7 from Vista takes about 3.5 hours, but a clean install takes only about 20 minutes.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #46 on:** October 05, 2009, 08:25 PM »

It doesn't take that long.

I did a sequential upgrade from XP to Win 7 Pro via the following route:

Win XP - > Vista HP -> Win 7 HP -> Win 7 Pro

I can't remember how long that all took but it was under 2 hours for the lot.

I don't have a license for Win 7 HP and so I upgraded without a key and then upgraded to the Pro version with the key.

Darwin · « **Reply #47 on:** October 10, 2009, 02:44 AM »

I just received my signature copy of Windows 7 Ultimate and did an in-place upgrade from Vista 64 bit to 7 64 bit and so far everything is very stable and nothing seems to be broken. In fact, two apps that had mysteriously ceased working under Vista are fine under 7 with no tweaking on my part.

EDIT: PS TrueLaunchBar 64 works fine on my installation. Not sure if that would've been true on a clean install or not...

Innuendo · « **Reply #48 on:** October 10, 2009, 03:39 PM »

Quote from: Deozaan on October 05, 2009, 07:02 PM

I heard that an upgrade to Win7 from Vista takes about 3.5 hours, but a clean install takes only about 20 minutes.

How long an upgrade takes is totally dependent on how much stuff you have installed on the OS you are upgrading. The Windows 7 upgrade installer examines the registry, backs up everything that isn't in a stock install, examines your installed apps, backs up everything that isn't in a stock install, installs a fresh copy of Windows 7, and then finally restores everything that it backed up from the registry & apps.

It can be a very time-consuming process, but I have performed a lot of upgrade installs during the beta cycle and so long as you uninstall first anything the Windows upgrade installer tells you to, chances are you're almost always going to have a 100% working system. I'd do an upgrade install, test things, and then wipe the drive and install everything fresh just to compare & I never once saw a difference in how anything behaved. MS finally got it right.

Old upgrade installers from MS just laid the new OS blindly over the top of the old one without much regard for the repurcussions. Windows 7's upgrade installer takes the time to analyze things and make things work the way they should, i.e. the upgrade installer finally after 20+ years works the way it should have in the first place.

Darwin · « **Reply #49 on:** October 10, 2009, 03:45 PM »

The upgrade took about 4 hours on my setup (Vista Ultimate 64 to Win 7 Ultimate 64). I pared things down enough to satisfy the installer's free space requirements but didn't uninstall anything (though I should have, given that I have a lot of software that I never use installed). It took a long time but was completely automatic - I didn't have to do a thing.

As Innuendo says, the upgrade is flawless - I still haven't found anything broken but am enjoying a number of features and programs that the installer fixed but that were broken under Vista (I realize now that I should have tried repairing my Vista installation to correct these issues. Live and learn)