My first impressions of Windows 7

[pip_seeker]

I haven't used it, I don't like the idea of running a Beta OS. AFAIK, WinFS is still MIA. Perhaps we'll get that pillar back with windows 8/9. Until they get all four pillars up and running, or DX10 makes a bigger splash, I see no reason to upgrade from XP.

The biggest improvement from XPpro to Vista64 is better security, at least that is what I notice the most. Vista64 is not bad but surely needs work.

To bad about WinFS, that's really needed and an improvement that would be worth the upgrade I think. The biggest pitfall of Vista is the "poof", closing programs with out saving and your work just disappears. How could you use this in a work environment with that kind of trouble?

It doesn't happen all that often, but if and when it does it's very frustrating... also many times even IE will lock up and stop responding to the point where you have to shut it down and restart via task manager. I don't know that Vista64 is entirely to blame, but this doesn't occur in WinXp-pro.

Even with all these minor problems I still like vista, but it's what they need to fix first.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

I don't get the point of the home groups, I never read much about them.

If you ever tried to setup shared folders between 3 or more computers you can see where home group your really shines. I think most of use have a central server with all of our computer linked to it in sort of a X network. (think of the middle as the server the points other PC)

The problem lies that most homes are setup in a web type structure. computer 1 has files to share to everyone while computer 2,3,4 all have different files and folders that they would like to share with everyone. If you did it the normal way each user would have to have a username on the other machines and a password. Or they would have to setup open shares (which I personally could never get to work right) which really compromise security.

Home Group is kinda like putting a password on the entire workgroup. So as long as you have the home group password you are allowed access to all the shares in the group.

As for all the people saying the win7 is JUST vista sp 2, I would like to remind them that XP is windows 2000 sp4. no one in their right mind would choose windows 2000 over XP. So you sholdn't be so quick to dismiss what windows 7 can do.

 

[randomizer]

Thanks for that. I only have two computers networked here and usually they don't share files so my "network" is really just to allow each PC access to the internet. If I need to share files I just use a flash drive I will have to look into the homegroups more.

 

[nukemaster]

Home groups will be great once everyone here has Win7. Since everyone has XP for the most part I just use a workgroup and set what folders have write access and what has just read only access.

Most of my large file transfers are over gigabit too so that helps.

So far it has been good for years.

 

[Zoron]

Actually, SP5... since SP4 for 2K actually exists... and since SP2 for Vista will be around before Win 7... Win 7 should be considered Vista SP3.

As for 16-bit support, I for one am glad it's gone. All this clinging to ancient code is partly why Windows is so bloated. The more backwards compatible things have to be, the more bloat will exist. That is one thing the Mac fanatics don't consider when talking about Windows. While Apple gets to rewrite all it's software without so much as a boo from it's zealots... if MS were to suddenly break compatibility with old software, there would be millions outside their headquarters with torches and pitchforks.

I like backwards compatibility, but at some point you simply have to move on.

 

[randomizer]

I decided to time the boot for all three OSs on my system. This is from the bootloader menu until the desktop appears.

Win XP: 27s
Win Vista: 25s
Win 7: 32s.

 

[yadge]

That sounds about right. Because I remember when I first got vista I was surprised about it's boot time because it was faster than when I had xp. And as I stated earlier, windows 7 seemed to load slower to me. So yeah, that matches my experience.

 

[randomizer]

Others say it boots faster, it's pretty mixed.

 

[Scotteq]

I decided to time the boot for all three OSs on my system. This is from the bootloader menu until the desktop appears.

Win XP: 27s
Win Vista: 25s
Win 7: 32s.

How long before each actually become responsive? That can be a different story, as we all know. Also - Have you V-Lite'd stuff out of Vista? That time is quite impressive.


I'd run the same test, but my XP box is a work machine and hopelessly underpowered. My Vista box has been my main for the last two, and I've got a few extra (and one hungry) programs that automatically start. And while it's the exact same machine and same type HDD, my Win 7 drive is a very fresh and clean install with only AVG added. So my doing the comparison could hardly be called fair: Under these conditions 7 is clearly the winner and is responsive almost the instant it finishes loading. But I think we can all agree it's a meaningless comparison since the installs are hardly equal.

 

[swiv]

Spacing of icons = my answer = TOUCHSCREEN COMPATABILITY

Allright guys, im still yet to use Windows 7, but im guessing the spacing everyone is talking about is probably cause of "TOUCH SCREENS" I know it is one of the biggest aims of Microsoft, Apple and HP. And probably all the other innovative companies around the world.

Sometimes instead of all the whinging we all do, just sometimes we should think why would they do that?

I was a very early beta user of XP and also Vista, they both were revolutionary.
I loved them both, and i'm sure i will use Windows 7 also, thanks to microsoft for supplying everyone with usable operating sysytems for the past 20 years or so.

 

[sportsfanboy]

I have win 7 beta, but i have 2 3870's, so i cant confirm how it works, but here is a Tom's article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-cpu-gpu,6645.html

Yes sir, I knew I read it somewhere, just wasn't sure if it was Tom's or not. CPU assisted graphics acceleration is a pretty good idea, just how well it works remains to be seen. I also like the possibility of running without a graphics card or on board graphics.
Seems like really low power consumption for those that don't play games(which is a lot), and for people like me, it might allow the ability to sell your current card while still being able to view your desk top.

 

[sportsfanboy]

Swiv, Microsoft should be thanking us, for making them the richest damn nerds to ever live.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

They we're able to get crysis running using cpu assisted graphics. I would ik to test it with mybe world of warcraft or portal. Does anyone know how to get it working? Is it automatic? I have a spare ATI HD2400 that should be weak enough to show some results.

 

[montyuk]

hmm i hadnt considered the touchscreens capability, but i do know its meant to be multitouch compliant (i heard it somewhere) so that would be cool with the right gear,

however it could use a tickbox in the taskmenu options which basically says- optimise spacing for touch - and then uses the current spacing otherwise it should minimise the spacing to make it look better.

 

[boner]

well i love it!!!

 

[randomizer]

How long before each actually become responsive? That can be a different story, as we all know. Also - Have you V-Lite'd stuff out of Vista? That time is quite impressive.


I'd run the same test, but my XP box is a work machine and hopelessly underpowered. My Vista box has been my main for the last two, and I've got a few extra (and one hungry) programs that automatically start. And while it's the exact same machine and same type HDD, my Win 7 drive is a very fresh and clean install with only AVG added. So my doing the comparison could hardly be called fair: Under these conditions 7 is clearly the winner and is responsive almost the instant it finishes loading. But I think we can all agree it's a meaningless comparison since the installs are hardly equal.

Two notes before I begin my explanation.
1. I defragged and got Win 7 down to 29s. I also retested Vista and it went up to 28.5s, so there's a bit of variation each time.
2. My hard drive looks like this:

Not exactly optimal, but XP has really got the rough end of the deal there. I need a second HDD...


Everything else was working in favour of XP and Win 7. Vista was a fairly old installation with quite a few startup programs but with services disabled. Win 7 has barely been used, in fact SuperFetch is only now working. It also had services removed and only Steam and Skype started up. Win XP was running SP3 but is otherwise in an out-of-the box configuration, with all services running as default settings allow. I only use it for fallout 3 so that's not a problem. No OS has been nLite'd or vLite'd, as Vista seems to fail to detect my mouse when I do that.

Win 7 appeared to be responsive more quickly than Vista. It doesn't seem like that so much now, I really think SuperFetch is the culprit even though it is supposed to make things load up faster (which it does once it's finished chewing up the drive). XP by far is the most responsive after a short time, and it is also the only OS without SuperFetch Without disabling services, starting FireFox on Vista as soon as I got to the desktop would mean waiting up to a minute for the program to be started and operating properly. It is significantly faster now, but by no means snappy.

I do believe that while XP has flaws (no WPA2 support without SP3 or an update to SP2, missing simple drivers like Realtek Ethernet etc.), it is still the most snappy OS MS has released in this decade. IMHO, and in my experience, of course. If you have an SSD everything will change though, as Win 7 is amazing on SSDs so I've been told.

 

[Zorg]

Apparently you don't understand what a beta is for.

 

[Wgfalcon]

Making a "new quick launch" is easy

Make a new quick launch folder under your user folder(easy clean place for it)
Add you shortcuts to it(i was lazy and just copied them over from Vista)
Right click the taskbar and Toolbars => New Toolbar....
Select you new folder and tada. If you want to go all out hit the taskbar properties and set "Taskbar buttons" to "Never combine"
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/193/quicklauncheh4.jpg

Thanks for the info. i was sure there was any easy way to do it.

 

[randomizer]

Apparently you don't understand what a beta is for.

I do, but I am not impressed by it. I have found more things that are bad than good (mostly aesthetic things that I don't like because the underlying OS performs the same as Vista), and a few bugs, which I have submitted to M$.

 

[croc]

I do, but I am not impressed by it. I have found more things that are bad than good (mostly aesthetic things that I don't like because the underlying OS performs the same as Vista), and a few bugs, which I have submitted to M$.

I'm beginning to believe, as you, that this is not a new OS. I have now installed the unchecked MSDN x64 version, and indeed the boot times and system load aren't that much of an improvement over Vista. Biggest disappoint from my point of view is the lack of winfs (again).

Some things are a bit better:

Memory usage is down by a tad.
Indexing 'seems' faster.
Legacy support is certainly no worse, with a few exceptions (Skype wanted a newer, beta versio;, had to re-install winpcap with 'start on start-up enabled'.).

So I'll continue filing bug reports, haven't really found too many so far compared to the Vista betas (I filed over 500 reports for that one...). I am beginning to really think that this IS the Mojave experiment released into the wild.

 

[cjl]

Boot time is significantly faster for me. My laptop, with a 5400RPM drive, and a Core 2 Duo @ 2.33GHz is just as fast booting into Win7 as my desktop, with an i7 at 3.9Ghz and a pair of RAIDed velociraptors is at booting into Vista. My desktop is almost stupidly fast booting into Win7, despite the 7 partition not being on the Velociraptors (it's on a Caviar Black though, so not too bad).

 

[mitchellvii]

Apparently you don't understand what a beta is for.

Snide comments like this are flame starters and uncalled for in my thread.

 

[FHDelux]

This is Mojave II as someone said above. They tweak, reskin, relabel Vista and make you think its some ground breaking thing. Vista is not horrible, but everyone wants to look at it like the bad guy, like Windows ME. The pinups are cool, but honestly, does it help you do your work any faster than xp, seriously.

If they want to sell me another version of windows, give me a version that i don't have to reboot when updates come in. That would be an impressive feature. How about not having to call the activation center every time i swap out a piece of hardware. What about being able to ghost the Vista boot volume without having to repair it. What about selling it at a price where people will actually purchase it instead of downloading it from the internet. The pirate version is free and doesn't need to be activated. My 400 dollar Vista Ultimate is a pain in the butt every time i want to install it.

Microsoft is so backwards, and the only reason a lot of you like Windows 7 is because they released it for free, when the time comes are you honestly going to lay down 400 dollars for this OS when your XP is working just fine? I don't think so.

 

[Shadow703793]

Gonna install Win 7 x64 today. Gona see if vLite still works with Win 7, if it dose that's AWSOME. I don't think any one has tried it yet so I'll give it a try.

 

[rodney_ws]

What would Windows 7 have to do with overclocking? Someone mentioned higher GPU overclocks were one benefit of 7... I just don't get that.