Windows 7

This is the place to bitch, bash, and get help with all things Windows.

Windows 7

I love it!
16
42%
Its alright
11
29%
I hate it
2
5%
MS is fail
9
24%
 
Total votes: 38

User avatar
foldingstock
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm

Windows 7

Post by foldingstock » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:39 pm

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. :wink:

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.

User avatar
X-Intruder
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Windows 7

Post by X-Intruder » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:41 pm

One improvement is that they.. made a partnership.. with facebook... to keep ur pictures synchronised with your public share.. folder.. uhuum..

User avatar
NoUse
time traveller
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:46 pm
Location: /pr0n/fat

Re: Windows 7

Post by NoUse » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:07 pm

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.

User avatar
foldingstock
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by foldingstock » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:49 am

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$$$

User avatar
X-Intruder
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Windows 7

Post by X-Intruder » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:13 am

Was vista an improvement of XP, or was it programmed from scratch?


User avatar
stasik
Guru
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:38 am
Location: dublin

Re: Windows 7

Post by stasik » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:10 pm

looks nice and neat... maybe it worth a try :?

User avatar
foldingstock
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by foldingstock » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:06 pm

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.
Was vista an improvement of XP, or was it programmed from scratch?
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.

User avatar
White Tig3r
n00b
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:31 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by White Tig3r » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:35 am

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.

User avatar
infinite_
Bat Country
Posts: 1353
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:19 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Windows 7

Post by infinite_ » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:43 am

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.
My effort to help you will never exceed your effort to explain the problem.

50-Calibre AssHole!
n00b
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by 50-Calibre AssHole! » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:54 pm

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

User avatar
foldingstock
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by foldingstock » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:53 am

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.
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
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. :wink:

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
This -may- be due to XP defaulting to "quick-format" and Windows 7 beta defaulting to "full-format." ;)

50-Calibre AssHole! wrote:Windows 7 requires at least 2.5 Gigabytes for installation
Windows XP requires about 600 Megabytes for installation
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.

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).
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
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!
n00b
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by 50-Calibre AssHole! » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:50 am

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. :wink:

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 :wink:
-------------------------------------------------------------
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!

User avatar
foldingstock
htd0rg lieutenant
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:38 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by foldingstock » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:58 am

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. :wink:

Lavr
Banned
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:03 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by Lavr » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:20 pm

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.

User avatar
NoUse
time traveller
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:46 pm
Location: /pr0n/fat

Re: Windows 7

Post by NoUse » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:46 pm

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.
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.

ramiia
Corporal
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Sampo 69

Re: Windows 7

Post by ramiia » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:23 am

i used 7 rtm version well i like it better than vista imo, but im not planning on switching os anytime soon

archive.db
n00b
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:12 pm

Re: Windows 7

Post by archive.db » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:27 pm

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.

User avatar
infinite_
Bat Country
Posts: 1353
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:19 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Windows 7

Post by infinite_ » Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:13 am

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?).
I can't imagine much has changed between RC and RTM, so it's pretty much WYSIWYG.
archive.db wrote:I can't believe it looks like it looks (pretty a lot of animated stuff etc.) and works so smooth. Unbelievable!
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:And almost everything works out of the box including latest WiFi cards etc.
There would be serious issues if the latest OS had driver problems...!

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.

User avatar
SLaX
Apprentice
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:13 pm
Location: Somewhere
Contact:

Re: Windows 7

Post by SLaX » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:33 pm

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.

Post Reply