Windows 7 How would you rate Win7.

Skipped the whole Vista thing, and went right to Win 7 from XP. Running the 64 bit version, and except for a few networking headaches, am very impressed.
 
Rating Excellent leaves no room for improvement, so I vote Best...for now. The success of Windows 7 is soley in the hands of vendors and getting drivers out there quickly. Granted most Vista drivers will work, but they are not guaranteed; I think we as users need to "see" that this driver is compatiable with Win7.

And just my opinion, we need to be given the option to remove libraries and homegroup completely, out of the explorer Nav pane.

Classic start menu return would be nice

True administrative rights for a user in the administrator group (has anyone else experienced this issue? kinda rare, but still)

I never used Vista; XP to Win7 but I expect this to be the next M$ OS that hangs around for a long time and I am only forcing myself to use it because I know it will become the norm for the next several years. Really need to know how to navigate around to be able to do my job
 
Man the problem of ports is that you are using Mainboard 4 ports , while the rest is provided by you as an expansion.
 
I love it. I switched both of my computers to Win 7 once the beta was released. I've gotten 4 engineers here at work switched over to it and they all love it.

It's not perfect, but it's much better than Vista. They've definitely taken things in the right direction.
 
Why are you waiting for Core i7 as 920 is quite affordable.
While I wouldn't call $700 (CPU/MB/RAM/Heatsink) a ton of money, I wouldn't really call it affordable either. I could buy it right now but I'm waiting til a friend of mine buys my current system. Once he does I'll order it all and get it together. In the meantime I'm hoping prices will drop a little. I'm not in a huge hurry, so if I can get better deal on it I'll wait a month. Plus my wife and I are about to buy our first house, so I want to make sure I don't put us $700 in the hole without getting at least half that back selling my old system.
 
I installed today and the only issue I had was getting a memory dump Blue Screen. I installed all available updates and that so far has taken care of the problem. My biggest issue with the older RC was that I use my PC for digital recording and when I would record something, it would play back at half speed. I never could figure out the problem. So I installed the new RC and I have had not issues recording. The jury is still out, but I'm impressed so far.
 
Awesome so far

I wasn't quite sure what to expect at first. Had the problem with the need to load the cdrom driver stuff but after i got by that this os is impressing me so far. It installed all my board drivers except for one and the windows update had the other one so all worked out great. Vista software seems to work good on it also. Im still in the process of installing all the programs that i use but i haven't hit a wall yet. {crosses fingers}:)
 
I'd rate it Poor

3 reasons:

The System Requirements are prohibitive. I never been really sure what people in Redmond consider the primary duties of an OS, but for me it is managing system resources and making them available. Managing RAM, the CPU, the GPU and the Harddisk. However, the System Requirements would have you believe the primary duty of an OS is to consume system resources? 1GB of RAM totals half the RAM of your average Netbook. The equivalent of a 1GHz Pentium Processor means I doubt the Netbook will do even so much as finish the installation before giving up (1.6Ghz Atom is too slow for Vista which requires less than Win7 already).

But no having a Netbook nor planning to buy one, and least of all installing Win7 on it... I suppose: who cares?

The second reason why I voted Poor is that the Installer is dreadful. It is slow. True the Vista one is slow too, perhaps even worse. But the Vista one isn't something that should be taken as yardstick except for how not to do it.
Also, it is fundamentally crippled: it won't install to external harddisks connected via USB or Firewire. Uhmm? What kind of OS installer is that? It is after all not like the OS cannot run off an USB drive: for laughs try preparing one with a bootable primary partition and copy over your existing (preferably activated, altogether more ironic) Vista or 7 (on the lower level they are nearly identical anyways) installation... Then thinker with your BIOS so it tries booting off the external harddisk: lo and behold: it boots. It runs. It works. (Been there done that.)

The third is another Installer issue: it is plain braindead.
It is fundamentally broken (but this has been the case with Vista too) it will not install to anything but the first SATA harddisk in a given array. No: you don't have to give it IHCx drivers. You didn't have to with Vista either. Of course it may help; it may not. Putting on different trousers has about as much effect because the OS comes with these drivers by default (the chipset is so commonplace as a southbridge; otherwise you'd often wonder why your harddrives weren't detected since the chipset can not be communicated with without drivers).

What does fix that particular issue though is to open your case, disconnect all SATA cables except those required for your CD/DVD drives and the *one* (this is the crucial bit) SATA disk you want to use for installing the OS. Then the installer *will* work as if by magic (not really: because the only SATA disk left is now the first one in the configuration). Then when you are done you plug everything back in, and suddenly... all the hardware just works (upon reboot) ? To me that sounds like a braindead installer refusing to install to anything but the first harddisk.

Since I can't be bothered to turn of the PC and do cable magic, I shall now further test it from a Virtual Box drive. But my initial experience thus lead me to label it a Poor as in Abysmal Already.
 
3 reasons:

The System Requirements are prohibitive. I never been really sure what people in Redmond consider the primary duties of an OS, but for me it is managing system resources and making them available. Managing RAM, the CPU, the GPU and the Harddisk. However, the System Requirements would have you believe the primary duty of an OS is to consume system resources? 1GB of RAM totals half the RAM of your average Netbook. The equivalent of a 1GHz Pentium Processor means I doubt the Netbook will do even so much as finish the installation before giving up (1.6Ghz Atom is too slow for Vista which requires less than Win7 already).

But no having a Netbook nor planning to buy one, and least of all installing Win7 on it... I suppose: who cares?

The second reason why I voted Poor is that the Installer is dreadful. It is slow. True the Vista one is slow too, perhaps even worse. But the Vista one isn't something that should be taken as yardstick except for how not to do it.
Also, it is fundamentally crippled: it won't install to external harddisks connected via USB or Firewire. Uhmm? What kind of OS installer is that? It is after all not like the OS cannot run off an USB drive: for laughs try preparing one with a bootable primary partition and copy over your existing (preferably activated, altogether more ironic) Vista or 7 (on the lower level they are nearly identical anyways) installation... Then thinker with your BIOS so it tries booting off the external harddisk: lo and behold: it boots. It runs. It works. (Been there done that.)

The third is another Installer issue: it is plain braindead.
It is fundamentally broken (but this has been the case with Vista too) it will not install to anything but the first SATA harddisk in a given array. No: you don't have to give it IHCx drivers. You didn't have to with Vista either. Of course it may help; it may not. Putting on different trousers has about as much effect because the OS comes with these drivers by default (the chipset is so commonplace as a southbridge; otherwise you'd often wonder why your harddrives weren't detected since the chipset can not be communicated with without drivers).

What does fix that particular issue though is to open your case, disconnect all SATA cables except those required for your CD/DVD drives and the *one* (this is the crucial bit) SATA disk you want to use for installing the OS. Then the installer *will* work as if by magic (not really: because the only SATA disk left is now the first one in the configuration). Then when you are done you plug everything back in, and suddenly... all the hardware just works (upon reboot) ? To me that sounds like a braindead installer refusing to install to anything but the first harddisk.

Since I can't be bothered to turn of the PC and do cable magic, I shall now further test it from a Virtual Box drive. But my initial experience thus lead me to label it a Poor as in Abysmal Already.
Fellow you are just joking. Why you tend to use 7 for Netbooks for which it hasn't so tuned but will in final version as MS says.
 
I like some of the new keyboard shortcuts for quick window management between dual monitors. Pinning things to the start menu and taskbar comes in pretty handy too. Overall it's been a nice experience.

My dislikes include not being able to set the action for "When I close the lid of my laptop" to "Turn off my monitor". Unlike XP, the only options are Sleep, Hibernate, and Shut down. I sometimes have to leave applications running when I'm away from my computer, and having the monitor on during this time can cause my laptop to overheat slightly, not to mention the extra power being used.

Edit: I also had issues with some of my icons, which I mention here.
 
I want to DOWN convert thewindoz7 laptop to Windows XP. (The Only Excellent OS MS ever had/has.)
That is why I am here.
 
Back
Top