Impressed with Windows 7..Anybody else?

[MTI]

How to look at this . . . should anyone, Apple fan or not, be impressed that a compnay essentially took nearly three years (January 2007 retail release date) to complete the beta testing of an operating system, but changed the name to Windows 7 for release in October 2009? Didn't those Vista users know they were beta testers?

 

[clevin]

I hated Windows because it's Windows. And now I hate it even more because once again, Microsoft fails to use their own ideas, ripping off Mac OS X counterparts like the Dock. But yes, it's an improvement over Vista, but anything is.

u hate things non-apple, lets face it, you hate a thing without even knowing it, and you call a thing rip off without even try it.

and talk about rip off again, did I ever mention to you specifically that the core of OSX is rip off from Unix/BSD, and the core of safari is rip off from Konqueror?

rip off. apple copy just as much, if not more than MS did, from people around.

How to look at this . . . should anyone, Apple fan or not, be impressed that a compnay essentially took nearly three years (January 2007 retail release date) to complete the beta testing of an operating system, but changed the name to Windows 7 for release in October 2009? Didn't those Vista users know they were beta testers?

last time I checked, Vista has 18% market share, 4 times of OSX. You can call it beta as you want, fact is its just not as bad as somebody portray it to be.

and talk about beta, apple putting beta out every two years, let their users test for 6 months, and get a stable version after 3 patches. Together, since first OSX 10.0, users have spent 2 years for beta testing, not exactly a pretty picture neither.

dont OSX users who preorder or stood in line for first day purchases know they are beta testers? what do you think?

 

[blackhand1001]

Does one need a minimum of 2GB RAm like vista to run windows 7? and where are you guys buying it from?

No you don't. I have successfully ran it on a pentium III 800mhz today with only 256 mb of ram and it was pretty snappy and quick.

 

[Bill Gates]

No you don't. I have successfully ran it on a pentium III 800mhz today with only 256 mb of ram and it was pretty snappy and quick.

"Pretty snappy and quick?" I can hardly believe that. Perhaps it bested your expectations, but Windows 7 is definitely not the OS of choice for a computer with those specs; Windows 2000 or XP would provide a much better experience.

I would say that I'm not overly impressed with Windows 7. Don't get me wrong; it's a nice product. I'm more relieved that I don't have to hear incessant whining about Vista anymore, and that computing will be better overall thanks to the improved security and stability initially implemented by Vista, and finally adopted en masse by those that were unwilling, or unable, to implement Windows Vista in their homes and workplaces. Windows XP has been the standard for far too long, and I'm glad to see it go.

 

[MTI]

last time I checked, Vista has 18% market share, 4 times of OSX. You can call it beta as you want, fact is its just not as bad as somebody portray it to be.

and talk about beta, apple putting beta out every two years, let their users test for 6 months, and get a stable version after 3 patches. Together, since first OSX 10.0, users have spent 2 years for beta testing, not exactly a pretty picture neither.

dont OSX users who preorder or stood in line for first day purchases know they are beta testers? what do you think?

Yes, with 4X the market share, it means that Redmond disappointed many more users, particularly those that paid for the pricey corporate licensing agreements, than any other version of an OS in history.

Just as a practical example . . . take a copy of Windows XP Home or Professional or any Vista flavor in its original retail distribution form and time how long it takes to acquire and install all the published Service Packs, security patches, IE Browser updates and patches, Win Media Player updates and patches from the MS Windows Update website. Don't forget the multiple reboots and rescans.

Do the same from a retail copy of OS X 10.5.0.

I've done both several times. Care to guess which one is faster? I think you already may have an idea.

 

[Eidorian]

Just as a practical example . . . take a copy of Windows XP Home or Professional or any Vista flavor in its original retail distribution form and time how long it takes to acquire and install all the published Service Packs, security patches, IE Browser updates and patches, Win Media Player updates and patches from the MS Windows Update website. Don't forget the multiple reboots and rescans..

Slipstream or image.

You can't slipstream under OS X. You're always stuck with the media at its original version and level of hardware support.

 

[designgeek]

I'm downloading the RC right now to give it a shot, I'll let you know what I think provided it works.

 

[clevin]

"Pretty snappy and quick?" I can hardly believe that. Perhaps it bested your expectations, but Windows 7 is definitely not the OS of choice for a computer with those specs; Windows 2000 or XP would provide a much better experience.

win 7 does boot faster and log in faster than xp on my AA1 with 1G RAM. believe is not needed, just need to try it out....

Im running it right now.

 

[robanga]

Definitely impressed. Have it running on a boot camp partition of a Mac Mini. Performance is far better than Vista that I have running on a MBP and a Dell laptop. Crashes far less. Aesthetically its even a better experience.

 

[MTI]

Slipstream or image.

You can't slipstream under OS X. You're always stuck with the media at its original version and level of hardware support.

Try getting the average user to create a slipstreamed disc with all the Service Pack and current updates in less time than it takes to bring OS X to current . . that's the ticket.

Slipstreaming install discs is the way to go when doing multiple machines or to have as a backup disc, but first you have to get the user to create it.

 

[dejo]

win 7 does boot faster and log in faster than xp on my AA1 with 1G RAM.

I guess if all you're ever doing is rebooting and logging in, it might appear snappier. But I suspect most people would like to do other things with their netbooks.

 

[sl1200mk2]

I guess if all you're ever doing is rebooting and logging in, it might appear snappier. But I suspect most people would like to do other things with their netbooks.

I have a circa 2003/2004 (custom built) P4 box (Northwood chip) with 1GB that used XP with for 4 years, Vista for a year or so and now Win 7. I've always used the machine for heavy 'pro app' use (Cubase, Sony Vegas, Photoshop, etc). XP was great, but when you began pushing it things would definitely show and usually rather quickly it'd just 'give up'. Vista was worse in either 32bit or 64bit (no real advantage to x64 in my case but I tried it anyway).

Win 7 has been an absolute joy to use. Everything I've thrown at the RC has been just as or more stable than XP and the system remains far more responsive and graceful under heavy load (exceeding the physical memory as an example). I've never experienced a 'blue screen' either Win 7 or Server 2008, though I'm sure it happens.

I recently added another 1GB to this machine (found ram I originally paid $400 for in '04 for $5!!) and it was like getting a new machine. Yes, XP would have seen a great deal of improvement as well, but Win 7 really shines now. It's allowed me to hold off another year or two on getting a desktop replacement during tight financial times. Granted, when I do replace it, I'll be getting a Mac Pro!

I would absolutely put Win 7 on any machine with somewhat modern specs (P4 2.0 / AMD equivelent or better and 1GB ram) with little reservation.

And before I get (possibly) flamed for all this different software, it's all 100% legal and I get advanced access to virtually everything Microsoft. I work for a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner (we're in the hosting industy) and our MSDN / Technet accounts get us invite only and beta access to everything, so I wind up trying a lot (especially on the server side of things).

Yes, I work in a Microsoft centric environment and I'm not afraid to bash them where due, but Win 7 and it's Server 2008 brother is a damn solid OS.

 

[neiltc13]

I hated Windows because it's Windows. And now I hate it even more because once again, Microsoft fails to use their own ideas, ripping off Mac OS X counterparts like the Dock. But yes, it's an improvement over Vista, but anything is.

Why does it bother you where the ideas come from?

Microsoft's implementation is much better than Apple's, but you're willing to sit there and ignore it just because of some pride for a corporation?

Riiiight.

 

[niuniu]

Wonder what's taken them so long. OS X has been out for quite some time for them to copy..

 

[nora.bg]

I am looking forward to Windows 7, but I also do not get too carried away. As I have to work with Windows I hope that Version 7 is faster than Vista and that it lowers the hardware requirements.
In a magazine I read that Windows 7 is more a Service Pack for Vista than a new OS. But I don't care if it gets the job done ...

 

[ironman159]

Thank god Windows 7 is EXCELLENT. COMPETITION IS GOOD. I hope it makes Apple make Snow Leopard better.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Not really impressed. The changes they made are only skin-deep. Once you use it regularly, you notice the same problems Vista had.

 

[WickedRabbit]

Windows 7 is definitely pretty nice and runs extremely well. There are a few little things in there that I actually hope to see Apple steal ideas from. For example, I like the fact that with having your wallpapers set to change every x amount of minutes you can also right click on the desktop and there's a "next wallpaper" option. I find that often times there's a wallpaper on my Mac that's in rotation that maybe I downloaded months ago or longer and I could care less for it. The fact that you also don't remember the name anymore hurts and I don't feel like going through my 10,000 wallpapers to delete the one, so having the "next wallpaper" option (perhaps someone should add a "view current wallpaper details" option on the desktop too) is great.

The window docking was genious (drag the window to the right or left so it docks to 50% of the screen on that side u can have multiple windows side by side perfectly aligned) and one that I've been waiting to see someone add for quite some time.

Libraries are nice, but not as well designed as Mac's smart folders and being able to view quick info when right click things on the task bar (windows 7's version of the Dock) was excellent.

Overall, it's a smooth running operation system and I noticed during beta and RC that it shuts down and starts up a lot faster unlike previous Windows version and more like Mac's OS.

Overall, it's a Windows that for once I actually really enjoyed and not just "liked".

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Windows 7 is definitely pretty nice and runs extremely well. There are a few little things in there that I actually hope to see Apple steal ideas from. For example, I like the fact that with having your wallpapers set to change every x amount of minutes you can also right click on the desktop and there's a "next wallpaper" option. I find that often times there's a wallpaper on my Mac that's in rotation that maybe I downloaded months ago or longer and I could care less for it. The fact that you also don't remember the name anymore hurts and I don't feel like going through my 10,000 wallpapers to delete the one, so having the "next wallpaper" option (perhaps someone should add a "view current wallpaper details" option on the desktop too) is great.

The window docking was genious (drag the window to the right or left so it docks to 50% of the screen on that side u can have multiple windows side by side perfectly aligned) and one that I've been waiting to see someone add for quite some time.

Libraries are nice, but not as well designed as Mac's smart folders and being able to view quick info when right click things on the task bar (windows 7's version of the Dock) was excellent.

Overall, it's a smooth running operation system and I noticed during beta and RC that it shuts down and starts up a lot faster unlike previous Windows version and more like Mac's OS.

Overall, it's a Windows that for once I actually really enjoyed and not just "liked".

Who has 10K wallpapers? Aside from you, do you know at least 2 people that have 10K or similar numbers of wallpapers? Because that is just extreme....

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I played with the beta of window 7 on my PC. It ran really well and I was very impressed with it. It was to the point where I am considering upgrading off my windows XP install up to something of a little more meat to it.
My biggest problem will be that it will force me to do a clean install to move over to 64 bit and a lot of my software is 32 bit. But for the most part it would be nice to make the jump.

What I have seen of it has impressed me and it looks like it will be able to replace XP. Plus with XP support being dropped in the next year or so it is going to switch over.

Lets face it XP biggest problem is it is a very old OS and is being ask to do things it was never designed to handle. It took a long time for XP to replace windows 2000 but it was forced when support for windows 2000 was dropped. It is going to happen for XP as well. Microsoft biggest mistake with XP is they let it last for so long that changing became very difficult.

 

[WickedRabbit]

Who has 10K wallpapers? Aside from you, do you know at least 2 people that have 10K or similar numbers of wallpapers? Because that is just extreme....

Just a huge collection over the years. But, the count isn't what's really important. Even if I had way less than that it was still a good idea for Microsoft to add in the "next wallpaper" option in case you just don't want to see the one that's currently on the screen.

And to answer your question, I can actually name at least a dozen people that I know of that have close to that number and in a few cases more than that. A lot of us are media enthusiasts in the fullest regard and we save pretty much anything that we like and have kept that collection over the years. You're looking at a guy who's packing two nearly maxed out Drobo's.

 

[djellison]

Once you use it regularly, you notice the same problems Vista had.

I use it regularly. I do not notice the same problems Vista had.

Have YOU used it regularly? Have YOU used Vista regularly?

Something tells me ( maybe it's your forum ID ) that you probably have not.

 

[waynesun]

Same sentiment. Really felt like Win7 was a huge improvement. I actually enjoy using it more than Leopard from time to time. Microsoft is really stepping their game up with their UI design. Here's hoping that Snow Leopard has some cool improvements to offset the effects that Win7 has had on me.

 

[Annngel]

You guys tried it with the aero theme turn on? Does it still hog resources like mad..

 

[sl1200mk2]

My biggest problem will be that it will force me to do a clean install to move over to 64 bit and a lot of my software is 32 bit. But for the most part it would be nice to make the jump.

This is practice really isn't an issue. Most, if not all of the software I've run since the beginning of the RC and now on the RTM release has been 32bit. In fact, I haven't found any of my prior applications for either home or work that wouldn't run on 64bit and I'm talking about some really old stuff too. They just run as 32bit.

I think it might still be possible to grab the 64bit RC release. If it is, image your current system to back it up, then install the RC and give it a shot. If not, you can always load your prior image back up. I use Acronis True Image. I think they offer a 30day demo if you wish to play around.