windows 7 what do you think? [Archive]

Zaps

16-05-2009, 09:14 AM

My existing computers run my applications just fine. Driver support for Linux and Windows XP is excellent. Performance and stability are very good.

To run either Vista or Windows 7, I would have to completely upgrade/replace my current hardware. That's just to run the operating system, not the applications!

Since my existing setup does everything I need it to do and does it well, why bother?

If I had a limitless budget I may be more inclined to accept the completely artificial "upgrade cycle" outfits such as Microsoft try to force upon us, but I don't. The Windows OS is expensive, so if the time ever came that I *had* to buy a new version, along with all new hardware just to run it, then I would ditch Windows completely and stick with Linux.

And if greedy and/or inconsiderate commercial astronomy software vendors stopped supporting (or failed to support) Linux and/or older versions of Windows, I'd be forced to go without computers, which I believe has been done before. :)

Ric

16-05-2009, 09:39 AM

I didn't think it was being released until later in the year.

Glenhuon

16-05-2009, 10:17 AM

Have'nt had a look at it yet, but I believe it's out in Beta for evaluation.
If it's anything like Vista, I'll stick with XP for as long as possible then move to Mac or Linux.

Bill

Tandum

16-05-2009, 12:02 PM

I've had an early beta running here for about 3 months without incident. The release canidate is up for download but it's about 3 gig.

rustem

16-05-2009, 12:55 PM

have xp, vista, and win 7 and have to say i use xp the most only cos everthing works well with it,
but thats only cos its been around for so long...remember when it first came out?
vista...well its vista nothing really wrong with it if you ask me everything works well with it, lots of crap in it but nothing that cant be disabled/removed buy end user eg indexing, pagefiling and registry tweaks all which are easy to to and improve performance and stability
no different to xp at first
windows 7 though looking like vista and basiclly the same platform really out performs it by a long shot performance and stabilty are improved same tweaks still need to be performed as vista to achive better results

dont forget i have all this on an eee pc 900 and win 7 performs really well

on my hp dv 9007 its xp and win7 and have to say win7 performs just as well minus a few drivers and program compatibility but they were easy fixes. mind you i wouldnt pay for it, thats why we have the internet

dpastern

16-05-2009, 03:11 PM

I have a copy of RC1 Windows 7, haven't installed it yet, will grab a copy of vmware workstation in the next 4 or so weeks prolly, and make a vm out of it (I currently download my vms from vmplanet and use the free vmplayer). By all accounts it's pretty damn good.

As to Vista, there's nothing wrong with it. So many people bashing it because they read or heard that it wasn't any good, or are pro Linux, pro Mac or simply don't know what they're talking about.

Vista will run on an older PC, maybe not with all the bells & whistles enabled, but do *you* really need them? Try running the latest versions of most Linux distros and you'll end up with similar resource hogs imho.

Linux upgrades more often than a baby ****s it's pants. True, you're not usually paying for said upgrades, but it still upgrades...as a long term user of Linux that has moved back to the "dark side", I don't miss the hours you know whatting around fixing things and trying to make things work - things that work out of the box on Windows, with little or no effort from the user.

Dave

Zaps

16-05-2009, 04:00 PM

So why not just stick with XP? On identical spec hardware, XP craps all over Vista, and if you upgrade the hardware so that Vista (or Windows 7) can run "as designed", you may as well just chuck XP on instead and watch that REALLY fly, plus avoiding all the hell associated with new drivers. And your existing applications will be happier too.

Recent Linux distros usually install with as few problems - or fewer - than the average Windows (re)install. But many of the problems which can occur with Linux installs, if not all of the problems, are a result of distros being infected with the Windows uberbloated kitchen sink philosophy. Dump all the ridiculous and worthless eye candy cruft and both Linux distros and any variant of Windows perform much better.

When I'm out under the stars running telescopes and imaging and guiding applications, what the hell do I want drivel like Aero and other useless junk running? Keep it lean and mean! That's the ticket! :D

AdrianF

16-05-2009, 06:33 PM

I run a laptop with XP and a desktop with vista had no problems with either. Installed win7 beta used it for about 2 hours and then reinstalled vista. In that 2 hours I had many crashes and lockups. I will look at it again when I can get RC1

Adrian

dpastern

16-05-2009, 06:43 PM

mmm well, since I'm running a triple boot system here (xp 32 bit [rarely used], Debian AMD64 "etch" [been too lazy to upgrade it, rarely used], Vista x64), I think I'm quite able to make valid comments on "usability". Vista is no worse (nor much better I admit) performance wise than XP or Debian.

I don't really use the eye candy, aero's on by default, but I don't notice it being really obtrusive to be honest. What other eye candy are you talking about? The only thing I've seen doing useless eye candy is compiz. Just because you can, doesn't mean you *should*. Someone should teach that to some of the Linux developers out there, gees.

Anyways, this was about Windows 7, I get that you don't like Windows or Microsoft, that's cool. Been there, done that. It seems to be fashionable to bash Microsoft just for the fun of it these days.

Dave

marki

16-05-2009, 07:08 PM

Gee, I used to get heaps of lockups with XP especially if I was using all the usb ports. I changed to vista about two years ago and have had no problems since. I turned off all of the annoying user account controls and stuff and only really notice aero when I run a program that won't support it (i.e. a little bubble pops up and tells me so :shrug:). My memories of linux still make me curl up into the feotal position and cry like a baby :D. Can't say I will be in any great hurry to get a copy of windows 7 though.

Mark

Zaps

16-05-2009, 09:21 PM

I don't use Debian on the desktop, but I have used XP and Vista extensively as desktop OS. On similar spec hardware, XP will always best Vista, even once you've spent several hours culling the cruft and parasitic processes of both. In order to make an optimised install of Vista run at anything like the same way as XP, you need much higher hardware specs. So why bother with Vista or Windows 7, unless you're looking for a justification to buy newer toys? :D

ICAM about Compiz. Someone somewhere must have thought it was a good idea at the time. They were wrong. But it's no worse than pretty much everything about the Vista and Vista SP3 (aka Windows 7) OS UI. Win XP's excesses are at least quick and easy to kill. (The Fisher-Price default theme, the "everything on by default" Visual effects, etc)

You asked, I answered...

And yet I've just said that I still use Windows XP Pro on my desktop, even with servers full of Debian, and that crappy interfaces aside I like XP very much. It's easily the best desktop OS Microsoft have ever released. I even administer serveral Windows Server 200x domain controllers and the like, and even those are surprisingly unsucky for Microsoft. (I can make that remark justifiably because MS have a history of releasing sucky OS.)

But each iteration of OS has demanded major hardware upgrades simply to run the OS alone, and it has very seldom been justified. At least XP can be excused for being relatively reliable and robust (for an MS OS), but that's about the only time it can be said the upgrade is worthwhile. And Windows is a costly proprietary OS, unlike, say, most Linux distros. ;)

So long as my present hardware lasts, and my current OS and software fulfils my needs, I cannot see even a single reason for spending more money for the new OS, and the hardware required to make it run as designed. That's my answer. :)

dpastern

17-05-2009, 12:19 AM

I'm not sure what ICAM means, but I suspect it means "I couldn't agree more"?

As to Vista, I simply haven't noticed the slow down that others have reported. It works, it works well, very few problems, and the very few problems that do occur are driver/software related due to poor programming by 3rd parties. I seem to remember no one liking Windows XP when it came out, with people swearing by Windows 98SE and Windows 2000. I guess you can't make people happy.

Debian is fine for the desktop, you just need to know how to apply it. I cannot stand Ubuntu for a variety of reasons that are best not left said on a family orientated forum ;-)

As for me, I've got 2 win2k3 web servers, a win2000 web server, win nt 4 web server, 2 linux web server boxes, several PDCs, an Exchange server, SQL 2005 server and lots of other stuff that I'm at least partly, if not mostly, responsible for ;-) fun isn't it lol! Thankfully I'm not the only one responsible, although for the web stuff, I'm mostly the "man". Oh I hate IT...long hours, poor pay, crappy job. I just wanted a simply office job, but no, Centrelink made me apply for IT roles...now I'm too lazy to go job hunting...

Dave

Karls48

17-05-2009, 11:01 PM

I have purchased and used every Microsoft operating system from DOS 3.2 to Windows X.P Plus CP/M and the Basic for MicroBee before the Microsoft come along . Enough is enough. Unless I really have to, I’m not going to upgrade. I fail to see logic in constantly changing locations where you can find applications to use and to customise the operating system. Why to change appearance of the icons? Operating system should be learn once and then any upgrades should follow to same path as far the locations of the utilities that configure it are concerned. It reminds me very much of supermarkets ploy of placing milk as far away from entrance as possible in hope that customer will pick up something on impulse while walking thru aisles to get his desired milk. Well keep hoping, supermarkets and Microsoft.
Mind you, I’m not knocking the Microsoft as such. Without them we would not have a computing as we know it today. But somewhere along the way they (same as most of big companies) they lost the plot.

AstroJunk

17-05-2009, 11:14 PM

I love it. I call it MacWindows - all the cutesy features of those expensive white boxes with the added bonus of being able to run software:rofl:

Starkler

18-05-2009, 01:14 AM

I rebuilt an old machine i had yesterday and loaded win2kpro on it ;)
No activation rubbish and serves as my emergency back up machine.

Barrykgerdes

18-05-2009, 08:35 AM

When I get a copy of Windows 7 I will give it a good run through as a secondary system like I have done with Vista but these days I still return to XP for normal use because I am used to it and know where everthing is, although XP was around for three years before it became my main operating system.

My computers always have Windows 98 2e as the principal operating system and then a large HDD or two partitioned into 30 GB sections to use as a multiboot system. I also don't use NTFS if I can avoid it. If I need to use NTFS (vista and probably Windows 7) I will use the minimum size partition and put everything else I need on another FAT32 partition.

Windows 98 2e gives the facility of a DOS (which does not recognise NTFS) mode of operation which coupled with the old menu system I like "1DIRPLUS" allows inspection of the HDD at byte level. DOS is great for removing all sorts of things that do not show in Windows.

As with many oldies like me I started out on computers that booted straight into some form of BASIC (after trying programming with dip switches at bit level) then when the IBM PC and its clones came along I graduated to DOS 2.11 and all subsequent versions of DOS as well as Windows. Somewhere in my old archives I have a copy of the original pilot copy of Windows that worked (awfully cumbersome) on a 8088 1Mhz processor under DOS 2.11. I think it was meant as a challenge to the Mac that had a graphics based operating system.

I still have an old Multitek (1983 vintage) computer that I have upgraded to DOS 6.22, a VGA card, 640 MB memory and a 20 MB MFM HDD. It sits up in the ceiling above the manhole, Hooked up to a power point and everytime I climb into the roof I turn it on to check it out. It Still works. Programs installed are Wordstar, Multimate, DataFlex, Symphony, LOTUS 123 and a few of the old favourites that used a total of 5 MB leaving 15 MB for other stuff.

Barry

dpastern

18-05-2009, 11:47 AM

fat 32 Barry? Limited to 4GB partitions, no file system permissions (bad for security imho). Win 98SE was an OK system, but had many issues, my main gripe that it's not a multi user operating system. Of course, if you're the only user, so be it. Nice 'n' easy to crack. Oh, and it's no longer supported by Microsoft, so there's lots of nice juicy bugs for crackers to take advantage of.

Vista has DOS - good enough for me to drop to a command line when and if needed. And DOS, as an operating system blows. Horrid operating system. But then, I'm a UNIX guy so...make of that what you want.

As to DOS finding lots of hidden things, you can still find them, you just have to know what you're doing [with DOS]. But then, it's easy just to boot off a Linux live DVD/CD and mount the drive and get to work.

If you need a copy of Windows 7, I'm sure Warren will already have one floating around, if not let me know and I'll burn a copy for you and post it down.

Dave (used to live with Warren & Angie)

Barrykgerdes

18-05-2009, 01:18 PM

Hi Dave

FAT 32 does 30 GB partitions I don't need any larger partitions, OK It will only handle 4 GB files but I don't need files that size. I am not a security fanatic. I don't look at internet sites without a specific reason. I don't store anything on a computer that would worry me if it was accessed by the wrong people. Windows 98 2e is the last of the DOS based sytems and has a DOS 7 operating system which allows me to get right into the computer works and run some of the old DOS base programs that use the upper memory handlers. The command line input available in the later versions of windows is not a true DOS substitute although it will work on the NTFS. It won't run the DOS programs I need to run.

I also have a separate Linux installation and can live boot but I am not as familiar with Linux as I am with DOS.

I can get Windows 7 but with a distribution size around 3GB it must have a lot of stuff that is of no use to me. At the moment there is nothing I need to run that won't run on XP and most of it will still work on Windows 98.

Baz

dpastern

18-05-2009, 01:47 PM

My bad, 4GB files, 32GB partitions. As to Internet security, you don't necessarily need to visit a website. There are crackers out there that have a habit of scanning IP addresses to determine operating system, and from there, they work on intrusion via known exploits.

True, some of the *very* old legacy DOS applications won't run in a modern Windows environment, but we are probably talking applications nearing 20 years of age that have long been superceded by other applications.

Most modern operating systems are quite large in size, especially taking advantage of DVD media's increased storage size. Mind you, it wasn't until Vista that any of Microsoft's operating systems can on a DVD.

If we wanted to avoid bloat, then installing a Linux distro without X11 would suit most people's needs. hehehe. I wonder if Microsoft will even make Windows more modular, it'd be a pretty cool feature.

Dave

Zaps

18-05-2009, 06:32 PM

My question: what justifies "upgrading" to the latest OS?

If you have a computer which runs well under your existing OS, and your applications all work well with both the existing hardware and OS, why go to the trouble and expense of buying the latest (expensive) OS, and the expensive new hardware required to run it?

Seriously, it means forking out for hardware that exceeds the "minimum specs" stipulated by Microsoft because 1) those specs are always hopelessly optimistic and 2) the best you'll get is a PC which runs the expensive new OS sluggishly, but won't usefully function when you try to run your applications.

Not to mention the all new suite of driver and patch issues you will inevitably run into: "This software is not supported by Windows Version Whatever."

You are trading up/down from an already paid for system which works well, to one which costs you a lot more cash and won't run as well as your older system unless you pay a LOT more cash...

Microsoft's revenue stream depends upon the gullible and the asinine (corporate IT management), and those who like to tell everybody that they "had it first".

Dunno about the rest of you guys, but my current system ain't broke in any way, and don't need a-fixin'! ;) :D

dpastern

18-05-2009, 07:03 PM

mmm you sure you work in the IT industry? Most corporate environments are the worst when it comes to upgrading their operating system and office suite software. Many are still running Server 2000 and XP (or Windows 2000). Most IT managers cannot, and will not, justify upgrading to the latest and greatest.

Where does Microsoft make most of its money? The OEM market. That's where the vast majority of people will come from who've upgraded to the "latest and greatest". And given that, the hardware actually is generally well geared to run the latest Windows operating system too. There were a few anomalies with Windows Vista, and the US court system is dealing with that. Every business in existence will try and cut corners, it's the nature of being in business. Hoping not to get caught is something every business person has in common.

Microsoft does not target the Windows operating system at the average person who buys it off the shelf without a new computer. Sure, you can buy OEm disks, or retail packages, but they do not comprise the majority of Microsoft's sales.

I'll tell you a little story. Back in the days, I bought a copy of Windows 95B OEM on CD (I had purchased the full install version of Windows 95A on 13 floppy disks and it was a pain). I purchased it from a local computer fair. I didn't open it for a 3 and a bit weeks, and then I noticed that it had 2 "how and why" disks (basically info disks on what was new in Windows 95). I took it back at the next computer fair, with my receipt. Said vendor accused me of stealing and trying to pull a swifty and wouldn't listen. No refund, no swap, my problem. Now, I was in a pickle, since it was an OEM version, Microsoft wouldn't support it. Well, that was the technical problem After six weeks of arguing with the vendor, who got quite rude I might add, I took it up with Microsoft. Said vendor had sold the OEM package without hardware, which is breaking their OEM contract. Microsoft decided to become involved and I had to meet up with some of their lawyers. Said Vendor had his OEM contract torn up. I got compensated, even though Microsoft wasn't obliged to do so. I ended up getting a full retail version of Windows NT 4 workstation - triple the cost of what I'd bought! Nice customer support Microsoft.

Now...after dinner, I'll reveal my Linux retail support nightmare...

Dave

dinner is in the oven and will get burnt if I don't go up now...

dpastern

18-05-2009, 07:47 PM

I bought a retail version of Suse Linux 8 - worst mistake ever! After attempting a test install on my laptop (Compaq Armada 1750) and not being able to get sound working, and not having any relevant information on their website...I contacted the support team, only to be rudely told that audio is not part of the normal "support", and that I'd need to pay another price premium of AU $150 for assistance! Now, given that Redhat 6.2, 7, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 had all installed on this system, without issue, with sound working OUT OF THE BOX, Suse was a major disappoint to say the least.

So yes, you might pay a bit more for Windows, but the support is undoubtedly better in my mind. Let's just say that Suse got uninstalled real quick, Redhat went back on the laptop and the Suse disks have *never* been used since. Yeah, sure, Linux is "free", but the support is usually torrid imho. I certainly wouldn't recommend a newbie in its direction, Ubuntu be damnéd. Since I'm good with computers, it's not much of an issue for me, but for the average person, I certainly wouldn't recommend Linux under any circumstances. The majority of rabid Linux users have left a rancid taste in my mouth I'm afraid.

I might have stayed with Linux if Photoshop CS2 had ran under WINE, but alas, it didn't, and by then, after Six years of tinkering with Linux as my sole operating system on both desktop and laptop, I said enough is enough. These days, I spent less time fixing my system, and more time using it. Which reminds, me LESS is MORE. :-)

XP is a fine operating system, post SP2, but it was also an extreme hardware hog when it was first released, with a swag of issues to boot. It's amazing that those who bashed XP when it was released now love it. Those very same bashers are the ones usually bashing Vista. I wonder if history will prove me right and show that they end up liking Vista in a few years from now ;-)

Of course, Windows 7 is really Vista SP2, so Microsoft has been quite clever in offering it as a stand alone operating system, than an upgrade, at least money wise ;-)

Now of course, if you don't mind paying the AHT (Apple Hardware Tax), then OS X beats both operating systems hands down. Well, at least if it's not in a server environment. The mach kernel doesn't handle server side requests very well imho, but then I've never really been a fan of the mach kernel design, or a micro kernel for that matter (sorry Andrew T, but Linus has it right imho).

Dave

Zaps

18-05-2009, 08:08 PM

Been in this game for more than 40 years. Academic side over here and at two US varsities. (I began at OSU then wound up at Stanford eventually, passing through local unis on the way.) Worked for Intel (processor design), Motorola (more processor design), IBM (processor destroyer), others. If it were up to me, we'd all be running VMS on Vaxen. Then MS took VMS and twisted it into a hellish nightmare called NT which did absolutely nothing right, and that dream was finally shattered forever. :mad2:

There are a lot of my fingerprints all over much of the early UNIX code, and if you look long and hard enough you may still just find some in dusty corners of modern *NIX.

My point being I have some small idea of what I'm talking about, although the Alzheimer's has a habit of getting in the way now. :zzz:

Yeah, tinkering and testing can still be a whole lot of fun, but for production systems I stick with the tried-and-true. On the desktop, when I have commercial applications to run, that means Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Why? Because right now it works with the applications I'm running with the least amount of tinkering and testing. My hardware is up to it.

Is there even a single compelling reason to throw that baby out with the bathwater by purchasing a complete new rig just so I can get the latest OS to run well enough to stay out of the way of the applications I use right now? Nyuh-uh. No time, I have too much work to do. :)

dpastern

18-05-2009, 09:50 PM

Funny though, I'm running an x64 bit of Vista, and have had bugger all problems software wise. I'm yet to find a program that I'm not able to run. Tell you the truth, I'd read about compatibility issues with Vista x64 and that's why I have a copy of XP 32 bit. I simply haven't needed it.

I am glad to have had a copy of Debian 64 bit though - saved my bacon when the drive that Vista was sitting on went corrupt - long story short, I have a 36gb raptor boot drive (XP and Debian), 500gb drive Vista, and 2 x 500gb drives in RAID 1. One of the raid drives went bust, and being new to RAID, I did something bad in the BIOS. After booting back into Vista, it did some things that it probably shouldn't have, a reboot later and no Vista system - HAL was stuffed. Due to the changes made, XP also had the same problem (HAL). HAL is a pretty damn stupid thing imho - Linux is far better in this respect, it simply *works*. So, a quick trip into Debian, run testdisk, rebuilt the partition etc, and voila. All fixed. RAID reset in the BIOS and I've left it broken. One day I'll pull the faulty drive out and send it back for a warranty repair lol. One day when I'm not feeling to lazy. Hell, I'll probably just buy a drive and swap it and then send the unit back. Serves me right for play with software RAID.

Dave

tornado33

18-05-2009, 11:01 PM

Ive downloaded the latest release candidate Win 7 64 bit. It uses less resources then Vista, and the entire install from booting from the DVD I burnt, till at the win7 desktop was 20 mins. I downloaded Win 7 from MS and used the key they provided when I got an earlier version from them.

It runs fine, and for once is a step fowards in that it is a less resource hog then the previous OS. What that means that current systems wont need to be upgraded provided they have 1 gb ram