Windows 7
- foldingstock
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm
Windows 7
The official beta of Windows 7 is out now. Has anyone here used it? What are your thoughts?
I don't have much time as I am in between work and school, but I was able to play with the beta release of Windows 7 earlier this week and I must say I am a bit impressed. I've used Vista and I do not like it. From first glance, Windows 7 takes the positive aspects of Vista (security being the main thing) and reduces the negative aspects (UAC is less annoying, system is more responsive).
On my test laptop (AMD Athlon 2.4Ghz 512MB) Windows 7 is roughly as fast as Windows XP. On modern hardware, Windows 7 takes advantage of advanced threading and multi-core technology and should be faster than Windows XP, which wasn't designed to take advantage of newer hardware. Either way you look at it, I would say the performance of Windows 7 over Vista is quite refreshing.
That being said, I don't care much for the new taskbar. It is an interesting concept, to be sure, but it strikes me the same way as Office 2007's new UI does: you either love or hate it, there is no middle ground. Before anyone jumps the gun and calls me a MS basher, I would like to point out that I do not like the new KDE4 taskbar setup either. Windows 7's new taskbar and KDE4's new taskbar are almost identical in style.
That's all I have time for now. I plan on taking some screen shots this weekend and possibly run through a few benchmark tests. I'll post more later.
I don't have much time as I am in between work and school, but I was able to play with the beta release of Windows 7 earlier this week and I must say I am a bit impressed. I've used Vista and I do not like it. From first glance, Windows 7 takes the positive aspects of Vista (security being the main thing) and reduces the negative aspects (UAC is less annoying, system is more responsive).
On my test laptop (AMD Athlon 2.4Ghz 512MB) Windows 7 is roughly as fast as Windows XP. On modern hardware, Windows 7 takes advantage of advanced threading and multi-core technology and should be faster than Windows XP, which wasn't designed to take advantage of newer hardware. Either way you look at it, I would say the performance of Windows 7 over Vista is quite refreshing.
That being said, I don't care much for the new taskbar. It is an interesting concept, to be sure, but it strikes me the same way as Office 2007's new UI does: you either love or hate it, there is no middle ground. Before anyone jumps the gun and calls me a MS basher, I would like to point out that I do not like the new KDE4 taskbar setup either. Windows 7's new taskbar and KDE4's new taskbar are almost identical in style.
That's all I have time for now. I plan on taking some screen shots this weekend and possibly run through a few benchmark tests. I'll post more later.
- X-Intruder
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:51 am
- Contact:
Re: Windows 7
One improvement is that they.. made a partnership.. with facebook... to keep ur pictures synchronised with your public share.. folder.. uhuum..
- NoUse
- time traveller
- Posts: 2624
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:46 pm
- Location: /pr0n/fat
Re: Windows 7
Nope, haven't tried it. But I believe the rumors that MS didn't give two shits about Vista and only cared about 7. So I'm sure 7 is going to be good.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord
when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord
when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
- foldingstock
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm
Re: Windows 7
Personally I think they ignored Vista on purpose. When they released it, hardware manufacturers were abysmally slow at getting proper drivers written for it, which is one of the major reasons everyone thinks Vista sucks so bad.
Possible MS plan:
- Release a half-assed OS
- Let said OS sit around for a year+
- While stagnating, stop selling XP to force people to move to new OS
- Hardware manufacturers take note and eventually release decent drivers
- All the while, gradually improve Vista and call it Windows 7
Next phase:
- Release Windows 7 with only a minor kernel version change from Vista (6.1 from 6.0)
- Because of this^ Windows 7 is 100% compatible with Windows Vista drivers
- Windows 7 "appears" to work much, much better then Vista since proper drivers exist
- People hail MS for their great work with 7
- PROFIT$$$
Possible MS plan:
- Release a half-assed OS
- Let said OS sit around for a year+
- While stagnating, stop selling XP to force people to move to new OS
- Hardware manufacturers take note and eventually release decent drivers
- All the while, gradually improve Vista and call it Windows 7
Next phase:
- Release Windows 7 with only a minor kernel version change from Vista (6.1 from 6.0)
- Because of this^ Windows 7 is 100% compatible with Windows Vista drivers
- Windows 7 "appears" to work much, much better then Vista since proper drivers exist
- People hail MS for their great work with 7
- PROFIT$$$
- X-Intruder
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:51 am
- Contact:
Re: Windows 7
Was vista an improvement of XP, or was it programmed from scratch?
- foldingstock
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm
Re: Windows 7
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_1.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_2.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_3.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_4.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_5.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_6.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_7.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_8.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_9.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_10.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_11.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_12.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_13.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_2.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_3.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_4.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_5.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_6.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_7.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_8.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_9.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_10.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_11.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_12.PNG
http://theowned.org/W7/W7_13.PNG
- stasik
- Guru
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:38 am
- Location: dublin
Re: Windows 7
looks nice and neat... maybe it worth a try :?
- foldingstock
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm
Re: Windows 7
The first couple of pics show what the new "classic" theme looks like. The rest show the default theme with various windows/system settings.
As you can see, the new classic theme uses the new W7 taskbar. Unfortunately I have not found a way to disable the new taskbar yet.
As you can see, the new classic theme uses the new W7 taskbar. Unfortunately I have not found a way to disable the new taskbar yet.
Afaik, Windows Vista uses some XP code, but a lot of the underlying system was heavily re-written. Windows 7 is basically Vista SP2, but with a shiny new price tag.Was vista an improvement of XP, or was it programmed from scratch?
- White Tig3r
- n00b
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:31 pm
Re: Windows 7
I tried WIndows 7 on desktop.. It was prbly the best Windows ever.
Yes .. it requires soem serious hardware upgrades.. RAM/ GFX etc but it is well worth..
We did the same thing wayyy back for XP...
Its SUPRISINGLY beats my xp @ bootup ( New OS prbly)
I like the balance between usability and eye candy.
Its like the official Vista XP.
It shure roxs.
When it turns out, I'm gonna use it mainstream.
Yes .. it requires soem serious hardware upgrades.. RAM/ GFX etc but it is well worth..
We did the same thing wayyy back for XP...
Its SUPRISINGLY beats my xp @ bootup ( New OS prbly)
I like the balance between usability and eye candy.
Its like the official Vista XP.
It shure roxs.
When it turns out, I'm gonna use it mainstream.
- infinite_
- Bat Country
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:19 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Windows 7
Windows 7 is really good. I run it on a couple of older laptops (between 3.5 and 6 years old) between work and home. I was initially impressed with the installation speed on said older laptops, with the longest time being ~11 minutes, and only taking a few minutes in VMWare.
MS plan may be similar to what foldingstock said, and if it wasn't then they've been holding the lucky card because Win7 will be their redemption.
I might also note a clean install of Win7 is not much larger than XP, but much less than Vista.
MS plan may be similar to what foldingstock said, and if it wasn't then they've been holding the lucky card because Win7 will be their redemption.
I might also note a clean install of Win7 is not much larger than XP, but much less than Vista.
My effort to help you will never exceed your effort to explain the problem.
-
- n00b
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:51 pm
Re: Windows 7
Windows 7 will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 minutes
Windows XP will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 seconds
Windows 7 will boot to desktop on a 105MB/sec Seagate with a 3.2Ghz CPU in 28 seconds
Windows XP will boot to desktop on a 330 Atom using a 300X Compact Flash Boot Disk in 12 seconds
Windows 7 requires at least 2.5 Gigabytes for installation
Windows XP requires about 600 Megabytes for installation
Windows 7 lets you use any backdoor enabled, NSA approved encryption
Bad old XP only lets you use any secure encryption you choose
If you think I'm joking, you deserve Windows 7
Hell, you've earned it
Windows XP will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 seconds
Windows 7 will boot to desktop on a 105MB/sec Seagate with a 3.2Ghz CPU in 28 seconds
Windows XP will boot to desktop on a 330 Atom using a 300X Compact Flash Boot Disk in 12 seconds
Windows 7 requires at least 2.5 Gigabytes for installation
Windows XP requires about 600 Megabytes for installation
Windows 7 lets you use any backdoor enabled, NSA approved encryption
Bad old XP only lets you use any secure encryption you choose
If you think I'm joking, you deserve Windows 7
Hell, you've earned it
- foldingstock
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm
Re: Windows 7
50-Calibre Asshole!: Judging from the content of your post, I would like to dub you "Hackerthreads Idiot of the Day." You're a first-rate moron, congratulations.
Windows 7 will require more disk space than XP. XP required more disk space than Windows 2000, Win98, Win95, and DOS. As proprietary operating systems become more complicated, they get bigger.
Windows 7 requires very little additional disk space than XP does, unlike Vista which uses 5GB and requires 15GB free space for indexing/caching.
2.5GB of disk space costs about $2.00USD, assuming the average price per GB is $0.80 (which is a bit high).
So on completely different drives (a hard drive and a CF card? come on) with different speeds, two different operating systems have different boot-up times? No shit sherlock.50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:Windows 7 will boot to desktop on a 105MB/sec Seagate with a 3.2Ghz CPU in 28 seconds
Windows XP will boot to desktop on a 330 Atom using a 300X Compact Flash Boot Disk in 12 seconds
This -may- be due to XP defaulting to "quick-format" and Windows 7 beta defaulting to "full-format." ;)50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:Windows 7 will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 minutes
Windows XP will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 seconds
Windows XP requires 1.5GB for installation, not 600MB. A trimmed down version of XP can be installed on less than 600MB, but you can trim W7 down just as well.50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:Windows 7 requires at least 2.5 Gigabytes for installation
Windows XP requires about 600 Megabytes for installation
Windows 7 will require more disk space than XP. XP required more disk space than Windows 2000, Win98, Win95, and DOS. As proprietary operating systems become more complicated, they get bigger.
Windows 7 requires very little additional disk space than XP does, unlike Vista which uses 5GB and requires 15GB free space for indexing/caching.
2.5GB of disk space costs about $2.00USD, assuming the average price per GB is $0.80 (which is a bit high).
Windows 7 has Microsoft's Bitlocker installed by default, but you can install any third-party encryption tool you desire (truecrypt? check. gpg? check.). There is nothing in Windows 7 that prevents you from using encryption tools.50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:Windows 7 lets you use any backdoor enabled, NSA approved encryption
Bad old XP only lets you use any secure encryption you choose
-
- n00b
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:51 pm
Re: Windows 7
Get a clue Folderpup,
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 will boot to desktop on a 105MB/sec Seagate with a 3.2Ghz CPU in 28 seconds
Windows XP will boot to desktop on a 330 Atom using a 300X Compact Flash Boot Disk in 12 seconds
FoldingMoron Wrote:
So on completely different drives (a hard drive and a CF card? come on) with different speeds, two different operating systems have different boot-up times? No shit sherlock.
Yes, it shows that a mere Atom computer can boot to XP more than twice as fast as Windows 7 can boot and XP can do so on a much slower Boot device! VERY IMPRESSIVE
-------------------------------------------------------------
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 minutes
Windows XP will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 seconds
FoldingWacko Wrote:
This -may- be due to XP defaulting to "quick-format" and Windows 7 beta defaulting to "full-format." ;)
You are incorrect FoldingDude! It was a Full Format on both machines using the same Thumbdrive for each test!
--------------------------------------------
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 requires at least 2.5 Gigabytes for installation
Windows XP requires about 600 Megabytes for installation
FoldingIncompetence Wrote:
Windows XP requires 1.5GB for installation, not 600MB. A trimmed down version of XP can be installed on less than 600MB, but you can trim W7 down just as well.
Wrong again Folderpuppy
A full installation of XP SP2 requires around 600MB after all drivers are installed, the swapfile is turned off and dustbuster and crapcleaner are run
Any copy of XP that requires 1.5GB of space for installation is most likely due to the following;
1. MS critical updates which this machine does not need as it is never connected to the internet
2. Swapfile which this machine does not need as it has plenty of RAM
3. Garbage files which you never deleted and that Windows doesn't need
Even my full backup of XP SP2 with all Drivers and antivirus using minimal compression is only 534MB and can be restored to a seagate hard drive in 58 seconds (6-minutes to compact flash)
--------------------------------------------
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 lets you use any backdoor enabled, NSA approved encryption
Bad old XP only lets you use any secure encryption you choose
FoldingPunk Wrote:
Windows 7 has Microsoft's Bitlocker installed by default, but you can install any third-party encryption tool you desire (truecrypt? check. gpg? check.). There is nothing in Windows 7 that prevents you from using encryption tools.
Wrong again FoldingBraincells!
Windows & prevents me from installing the Encryption Software that I trust
XP does not!
Next time do some research instead of Spouting all kinks of Bullshit to stroke your ego!
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 will boot to desktop on a 105MB/sec Seagate with a 3.2Ghz CPU in 28 seconds
Windows XP will boot to desktop on a 330 Atom using a 300X Compact Flash Boot Disk in 12 seconds
FoldingMoron Wrote:
So on completely different drives (a hard drive and a CF card? come on) with different speeds, two different operating systems have different boot-up times? No shit sherlock.
Yes, it shows that a mere Atom computer can boot to XP more than twice as fast as Windows 7 can boot and XP can do so on a much slower Boot device! VERY IMPRESSIVE
-------------------------------------------------------------
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 minutes
Windows XP will format a 8Gb - 180X thumbdrive in 8 seconds
FoldingWacko Wrote:
This -may- be due to XP defaulting to "quick-format" and Windows 7 beta defaulting to "full-format." ;)
You are incorrect FoldingDude! It was a Full Format on both machines using the same Thumbdrive for each test!
--------------------------------------------
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 requires at least 2.5 Gigabytes for installation
Windows XP requires about 600 Megabytes for installation
FoldingIncompetence Wrote:
Windows XP requires 1.5GB for installation, not 600MB. A trimmed down version of XP can be installed on less than 600MB, but you can trim W7 down just as well.
Wrong again Folderpuppy
A full installation of XP SP2 requires around 600MB after all drivers are installed, the swapfile is turned off and dustbuster and crapcleaner are run
Any copy of XP that requires 1.5GB of space for installation is most likely due to the following;
1. MS critical updates which this machine does not need as it is never connected to the internet
2. Swapfile which this machine does not need as it has plenty of RAM
3. Garbage files which you never deleted and that Windows doesn't need
Even my full backup of XP SP2 with all Drivers and antivirus using minimal compression is only 534MB and can be restored to a seagate hard drive in 58 seconds (6-minutes to compact flash)
--------------------------------------------
50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:
Windows 7 lets you use any backdoor enabled, NSA approved encryption
Bad old XP only lets you use any secure encryption you choose
FoldingPunk Wrote:
Windows 7 has Microsoft's Bitlocker installed by default, but you can install any third-party encryption tool you desire (truecrypt? check. gpg? check.). There is nothing in Windows 7 that prevents you from using encryption tools.
Wrong again FoldingBraincells!
Windows & prevents me from installing the Encryption Software that I trust
XP does not!
Next time do some research instead of Spouting all kinks of Bullshit to stroke your ego!
- foldingstock
- htd0rg lieutenant
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm
Re: Windows 7
I'm not going to waste time dissecting your reply to prove you're wrong, its just too easy. I'll just say this: You're a moron.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:03 pm
Re: Windows 7
When I started reading 50-Calibre AssHole!'s posts, I was actually going to reply and show how wrong he is. However, once I finished reading... he is either retarded or a lame troll. Or both. Probably both.
- NoUse
- time traveller
- Posts: 2624
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:46 pm
- Location: /pr0n/fat
Re: Windows 7
I enjoyed 50-Calibre's response to FoldingCOCK.. Quite entertaining although his facts are a bit skewed.. welcome to the forums 50-CalibreDouche..
Changing names is fun.
Changing names is fun.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord
when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord
when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:23 pm
- Location: Sampo 69
Re: Windows 7
i used 7 rtm version well i like it better than vista imo, but im not planning on switching os anytime soon
-
- n00b
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:12 pm
Re: Windows 7
Well, I'm testing Windows 7 (build 7600) RC and I can't say a bad word about this OS (excepting no classic start menu option, but it's not so bad as it's still not a final release, isn't it?).
Personally I hate Vista (performance matters), but after long years with XP I can tell you now - I'm switching to Windows 7.
This OS just rocks, it's so incredibly fast and stable (at least my build). I can't believe it looks like it looks (pretty a lot of animated stuff etc.) and works so smooth. Unbelievable!
Installation time: about 20 minutes.
Boot time: even faster than XP SP3
Power off time: a lot faster
System performance: better
And almost everything works out of the box including latest WiFi cards etc.
And my favorite - nmap and all network stuff works much, much, much better on Vista 7. Scanning stupid 255 machines in my neighborhood takes less than scanning my LAN (5 PCs) on XP... Atm nmap works even faster here than on some other OS-es like Ubuntu or Slack...
Cheers.
Personally I hate Vista (performance matters), but after long years with XP I can tell you now - I'm switching to Windows 7.
This OS just rocks, it's so incredibly fast and stable (at least my build). I can't believe it looks like it looks (pretty a lot of animated stuff etc.) and works so smooth. Unbelievable!
Installation time: about 20 minutes.
Boot time: even faster than XP SP3
Power off time: a lot faster
System performance: better
And almost everything works out of the box including latest WiFi cards etc.
And my favorite - nmap and all network stuff works much, much, much better on Vista 7. Scanning stupid 255 machines in my neighborhood takes less than scanning my LAN (5 PCs) on XP... Atm nmap works even faster here than on some other OS-es like Ubuntu or Slack...
Cheers.
- infinite_
- Bat Country
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:19 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Windows 7
I can't imagine much has changed between RC and RTM, so it's pretty much WYSIWYG.archive.db wrote:Well, I'm testing Windows 7 (build 7600) RC and I can't say a bad word about this OS (excepting no classic start menu option, but it's not so bad as it's still not a final release, isn't it?).
Believable. Honestly, Linux has had fancy GUI for a long time (transparency, blah blah) and doesn't need as much grunt as Windows with the same features.archive.db wrote:I can't believe it looks like it looks (pretty a lot of animated stuff etc.) and works so smooth. Unbelievable!
There would be serious issues if the latest OS had driver problems...!archive.db wrote:And almost everything works out of the box including latest WiFi cards etc.
Despite how hard MS haters try to convince themselves, Windows 7 is definitely a good thing and a huge improvement over Vista. I've been using Windows 7 since 2009 New Year (what an unexciting New Year's Eve :P) and hopefully it will see a long life as XP did.
My effort to help you will never exceed your effort to explain the problem.
- SLaX
- Apprentice
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:13 pm
- Location: Somewhere
- Contact:
Re: Windows 7
I attended a MS conference in Tampa FL after I got my MCDST that was for the release of Vista and Office 2007. In one of the workshops they said that Vista was supposed to introduce a new filesystem but that they ran out of time. They promised Vista to be out and decided to put it out still running NTFS. They also said they were going to finally include (sneak) the new filesystem in a service pack update.
foldingstock: I don't much care for the new KDE desktop either. You can configure the Kickoff button to use the old menu style though.
foldingstock: I don't much care for the new KDE desktop either. You can configure the Kickoff button to use the old menu style though.