Windows 7 RC is the real deal

#21
Hi all. I'm new here, but not new to windows of any versions. I started using dos and windows 3.0 (A long time ago)

This RC 7 is to me no different to Vista at all. Yes, there is a few added features. I like the way they have changed paint, and a couple of the little programs.

The fact that to get it to work the way you want it too, you have to tweak this and that to just to get it there.

I tried the 32 bit version and the 64. I could not get over the fact that there is no email program, unless the have completely renamed it, or have it hidden amoungst the very complex start bar. At least on Vista's first run, windows mail was on the list.

Sticky notes is another one of the many programs that have been around for a while, and one of the many that have been added to this release as something new.

To me it is a revamped version of Vista and certainly not worth the 2.39GB of download.
I cannot get it to install on my semi-decent computer unless I disable/disconnect the 3d PCI Express Video card.

I certainly won't be wasting my money buying it when it eventually comes out. And I won't be recommending it as an upgrade to the 200 or more computers that are used for the company that I work for.

I think I'll stick to the stability of XP.

Geoff
The "problems" you describe are very marginal reasons not to purchase Win 7 when it's finished.. ;) Yes it may be a revamped version of Vista but none the less it is a VERY stable, solid, compatible release.. :) And it's only going to get better from here on out.. ;) Windows XP (though still very stable as well) is old, plain and simple.. Support WILL run out for it sooner than later.. ;) The thing that gets me is how some people (I'm NOT saying your one of them) expect Windows 7 to work just as good as Windows XP on ancient hardware.. That's just NOT going to happen folks..
 


#22
I agree with you entirely Geoff. I bought my first PC in 1984 and have used most versions of DOS and Windows. XP is the best version of Windows I have used. Both Vista and 7 I find offer no real advantages and have many irritations of totally unnecessary changes causing users to waste time searching for what were familiar features in XP. Mostly they're still around but why the treasure hunt.

I did a defrag with W7 RC and there is no graphical display either for analyse or for defrag, this is progress?
I still say if Windows XP didn't have the nearly 8 year lifespan before Vista was released it wouldn't be near as popular.. ;) And I still say the same damn thing would happen with Vista (Or Win 7 for that matter) if they had an almost 8 year lifespan before the next version of Windows was released..

I admit at first it was a bit hard to move from XP to either Vista or Win 7 but that's what happens when developers and manufactures have so long to get drivers/software 100% rock solid.. ;) It's going to make it hard.. But for me, that difficulty was quickly shattered once I saw how good Windows 7 is..

You say the changes they made to Windows 7 are unnecessary, well they may be unecessary to you but they might be just what 1000 others users wanted.. ;)

As for the defrag, I agree the GUI was nice in XP but Windows 7's defrag tool is ALOT better than Vista's.. Vista's had no gui, no progress bar, nothing, you were forced to sit there and wait (for hours I might add) not knowing at all when it was going to be done.. In Windows 7 you a percentage displayed.. a huge advantage over Vista.. And not to mention it takes a fraction of the time that both XP and Vista take to defrag.. even on large drives (500GB - 1TB).. To me, that is definitely progress..

I'm in no way saying that you are wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinions.. I'm simply saying that the time has come to move from Windows XP.. It had its day and now it's time for it to R.I.P in my opinion.. :) Long live Windows 7!
 


#23
Radenight can you please tell us what your "non-ancient" hardware comprises? My ancient kit, previously described, is faster than most of the PCs being sold currently.

If the prime purpose of a new version of an operating system is to render existing hardware obsolete then you are just the kind of customer Wintel are looking for. However, I take the view that a new version of any piece of software should perform better than the previous version or offer worthwhile additional features without any performance penalty.

Microsoft could improve Windows enormously, getting rid of the Registry for starters and I could go on. Their interest is almost entirely directed to maintaining their revenue stream and they have realised that Vista was a mistake. Primary objective of 7 is to correct that mistake and to release a version of Windows such that purchasers of laptops will not opt to "downgrade" to XP and corporate customers will see enough value in upgrading to justify the cost. Corporate customers are not going to upgrade to an OS that compels them to ditch all their ancient hardware.
 


dam89

Honorable Member
#24
bryan - i actually agree with you, even though my experience with 7 is slightly better than with vista mainly for drivers and application support.
 


#25
To clarify, I never said your hardware specifically...

My hardware is listed in System Specs.. ;) When I said ancient I ment the rig's people bought when XP started to get good (remember, XP was complete sh!t for about the first 2 years of it's life.. ) ;) Those rig's can't be expected to run a next-gen OS as good as a now 10 yeard old OS without a few upgrades.. If those people don't want to spend the money to upgrade their rigs a bit that's not reason enough to bash a new OS in my opinion.. simply don't use the new OS in that case.. ;)

What's the proof that Windows 7 is so bad compared to XP? In my opinion Windows 7 dances circles around XP and I'm sticking to it.. :) There are benchmarks out there to validate this as well..
 


#26
Just to let you all know, Windows 3.1 was 1992 and XP was 2001. So that's a 9 year difference. When Window 7 comes out, it will be late 2009 so basically an 8 year difference from XP. Therefore:

Using Windows XP when Windows 7 comes out is like using Windows 3.1 when XP came out. Food for thought :)
 


whoosh

Cooler King
Staff member
Premium Supporter
#27
Just to let you all know, Windows 3.1 was 1992 and XP was 2001. So that's a 9 year difference. When Window 7 comes out, it will be late 2009 so basically an 8 year difference from XP. Therefore:

Using Windows XP when Windows 7 comes out is like using Windows 3.1 when XP came out. Food for thought :)
So you want to play around get winXP bit old in the tooth but still got some petrol in the tank :rolleyes:
 


#28
To clarify, I never said your hardware specifically...

My hardware is listed in System Specs.. ;) When I said ancient I ment the rig's people bought when XP started to get good (remember, XP was complete sh!t for about the first 2 years of it's life.. ) ;) Those rig's can't be expected to run a next-gen OS as good as a now 10 yeard old OS without a few upgrades.. If those people don't want to spend the money to upgrade their rigs a bit that's not reason enough to bash a new OS in my opinion.. simply don't use the new OS in that case.. ;)

What's the proof that Windows 7 is so bad compared to XP? In my opinion Windows 7 dances circles around XP and I'm sticking to it.. :) There are benchmarks out there to validate this as well..
Hi,

I have a Dell Precision M6300 Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz with 4GB RAM + Quadro FX1600M dual-booting XP SP3 alongside Win 7 Build 7000 (both 32-bit).

My experience is that Win 7 boots much faster (~30 sec) than XP, and my Win 7 3DMark06 score is about 10% higher (~5900 marks) than on XP. Also, Win 7 operation has been VERY stable. However I will probably continue dual-booting with XP through 2009 for compatibility reasons. For example, my company has released a VPN beta (Juniper NetConnect) for Win 7. It's 3x slower than Nortel IPSec VPN client for XP. I hope my company will someday offer IPSec for Win 7 --- or at least make Juniper run faster.

Also, I hear that XP Virtual Mode is not full-featured. Would anyone like to share their experiences running XP under Win 7 / VMWare?

Thanks
Bob
 


#29
I've ran XP mode, and I find it's really nice. Having applications integrated into the Windows 7 Start Menu is very nice. But I heard it has worse support for 3D compared to Microsoft Virtual PC, VMWare, or Virtualbox but for basic applications such as Office '07, Notepad, IE6, etc. it seems to work very well. You can also launch the VM itself just like any other VM program. I've personally only ran XP in Windows 7 within Virtualbox and Windows Virtual PC and couldn't really tell a difference, other than VirtualBox has better Linux support and Windows Virtual PC has better integration.
 


#30
Very happy with Windows 7 RC. Microsoft have hit this one on the head and the customers can kiss Vista goodbye now forever. Runs pretty quick and is snappy too. This will probably be the best operating system that Microsoft have ever released. Goodbye XP and Goodbye Vista. I can see why Vista had bad publicity. Is quick but can be slow sometimes. Horrid.
I'm loving Windows 7 RC too. :razz: I have got Windows 7 RC installed on a test hard drive along with Linux.
On my regular Hard Dive I have Windows Vista home premium and Linux. I may install Windows 7 soon on my
main hard drive and get rid of Vista. Want to wait a little while.
 


#31
Windows 7 is NOT faster than Vista. There are bugs (as usual). AND....Superfetch does not improve performance in Windows 7 as it did with Vista.
 


#32
@Above Post

You must be kidding. Oh wait, April 1st was a month and a half ago. Windows 7 IS MUCH FASTER than Vista.
-Windows 7 boots in 35 seconds on my system
-Copying files over the network is %20 faster
-Opening folders is faster than even XP (re-built explorer shell)
-Games preform with 30+ higher frames (using beta drivers on a beta OS)
-Shutdown time 6-10 seconds

Dual-boot Vista/7 on a machine and try it for yourself, make sure they are both a fresh install. Come back and tell me which is faster.

EDIT: Check out what the internet has to say: http://www.google.ca/search?q=windo...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
 


#33
@Above Post

You must be kidding. Oh wait, April 1st was a month and a half ago. Windows 7 IS MUCH FASTER than Vista.
-Windows 7 boots in 35 seconds on my system
-Copying files over the network is %20 faster
-Opening folders is faster than even XP (re-built explorer shell)
-Games preform with 30+ higher frames (using beta drivers on a beta OS)
-Shutdown time 6-10 seconds

Dual-boot Vista/7 on a machine and try it for yourself, make sure they are both a fresh install. Come back and tell me which is faster.

EDIT: Check out what the internet has to say: windows 7 speed - Google Search
I have to agree.. Windows 7 is definitely faster than Windows Vista, for the reasons the above post suggests and more.. (Very noticeable on older systems, which is good too.. ;) )
 


#34
Yeah, on older machines I forgot is probably the biggest increase. My laptop when I got it came with Vista Basic w/ 512MB. Of course after a month I slapped XP on because it was impossible to do 2 things at once. I upgraded to 1.5GB RAM and tried Vista again, way faster than Vista with 512 but at the same time I could only have 2-3 applications running without slowness. I slapped Windows 7 on that machine and bam. It's identical to XP, and might I add the laptop is a single core AMD 3500+ @ 1.8GHz.
 


#35
Since vahnx is a Microsoft programmer/designer, I suppose none of us can argue with his abundant wealth of vast knowledge.
 


dam89

Honorable Member
#36
Yeah, on older machines I forgot is probably the biggest increase. My laptop when I got it came with Vista Basic w/ 512MB. Of course after a month I slapped XP on because it was impossible to do 2 things at once. I upgraded to 1.5GB RAM and tried Vista again, way faster than Vista with 512 but at the same time I could only have 2-3 applications running without slowness. I slapped Windows 7 on that machine and bam. It's identical to XP, and might I add the laptop is a single core AMD 3500+ @ 1.8GHz.
lol, same cpu that i've been using vista basic on for almost 2 years without any slowness, though i did have 1gb ram....AMD rocks
 


#37
I have to agree.. Windows 7 is definitely faster than Windows Vista, for the reasons the above post suggests and more.. (Very noticeable on older systems, which is good too.. ;) )
I agree I was amazed how fast it booted.
 


#38
lol, same cpu that i've been using vista basic on for almost 2 years without any slowness, though i did have 1gb ram....AMD rocks
That particular processor was pretty good too. It was I believe AMD's last mobile processor before they went dual-core. Anyways my opening of explorer Windows I remember was sluggish, and alt+tabbing with CS Source or Maple Story while OK, if I also was running Firefox with like 20 tabs and MS Office, copying files, I'd see some real pain. Same type of situation with 7 and I could launch Notepad instantaneously whereas under such heavy load would cause a good 5-15 second delay. Not to mention my HDD light would go nuts and explorer would start to crash.
 


This website is not affiliated, owned, or endorsed by Microsoft Corporation. It is a member of the Microsoft Partner Program.