|
Windows 7
The other day, I got a new computer at work (dual core Intel 2.6GHz, 8GB RAM, 80GB HDD) to replace my aging XP box (single core 2.6GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HDD). I really didn't want a new box to be honest, this one ran everything I did perfectly fine. If anything, give me a new box with the latest and greatest hardware, just put XP on it (too bad new hardware drivers are becoming rare for XP)! But, I noticed the old box was slowing down and when I checked into it, many caps on the mobo were puffed and some even started leaking electrolyte. Certainly not good for stability.
So anyway, back to Windows 7 topic. Let me start off by saying that I don't like it! "Hate" is a strong word, but it's pretty darn close. Here is my take: This OS is great for grandma/grandpa, Mac users (:smile:), and anyone else who has no freaking idea how computers work, and nor do they care. They need something that prevents them from accidentally messing things up. And they don't care where their documents, pictures, etc are as long as Windows can serve them up wherever they might have been stuffed. Personally, this encourages disorganization since Windows takes care of that for you. Me, I like knowing exactly where things are and the nuts and bolts of how things work. Like Vista, it's needlessly "pretty". I don't want a bubble-gum interface with semi-transparent windows. All that means is more CPU and memory resources are being used for the base OS. Sure, you can get the shell to look like the old classic style, but it really does nothing for increasing performance. No "up-directory" button in windows explorer. OK, that doesn't seem like a big deal to many, but I really miss it! So, I either use a keyboard shortcut to do it, or use the left navigation pane to click where I want. Easy enough I guess, but the "up directory" button was easier and more intuitive IMO. The Start Menu. Hmmm, I guess it's tolerable now that I have my common programs pinned to the main menu. Being able to type programs into the search bar works, but I feel it's too simplistic. Many dialog boxes are much more "wordy". A perfect example is the dialog box you get when copy a file to a location where a file with the same name exists. WinXP is simple and to the point, Win7 explains things more for the less-than-knowledgable user. The Start Menu and Explorer can be returned to the XP format via a plug-in called ClassicShell, but it's just one more program running eating resources for nothing. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind "change"; I gladly welcomed XP after dealing with Win98! But to me, an Operating System should be just that: software that operates the system. Period. And 99% of the resources from all the fast hardware I get should go to applications. The OS taking ~1.1GB of RAM to run for around 40 base processes is ludicrous, not matter how cheap memory gets. But it's not all bad I guess. It does boot faster than similarly equipped (hardware-wise) systems I've seen, and does not have nearly the amount of annoying "Are you sure you want to do this?" messages. |
Quote:
|
As a tip, you can click on the directories in the folder bar too and get there. Clicking on the arrow even gives you a list of subdirectories. The 'up' would be nice, but really I dont even notice the lack.
I've used almost every windows OS from Win 3.1 all the way through 7. I've got Vista at work, used to hava Vista at home (prior to that XP and prior to that 2000) but upgrade to Win7 on a gaming rig, XP on a tablet. Not to mention that the 2008 servers. I'd definetly classify myself as a power user. I change the layout of the All Programs, change the location of the 'My' folders (which is damn easy in 7 without the need of tools) and on and on [I usually run a C: OS drive at least a D: data drive; normally push all my User folder to that D: drive.] I will say that I actually dislike working on XP thats on my tablet (this will go to Win7 too). The example you gave of the dialogs, I still feel they are lacking. I want more information, i.e. don't tell me a time, tell me exactly how many bytes out of how many bytes, etc. With Vista/7 both the driver model (this includes moving the video driver out of the kernel which is great) and the virtual memory model have changed. With 7, I haven't seen the memory usage reported as inflated as with Vista. But I also haven't bothered to look deeply. While there are more resources for the new Aero interface, we do have more resources than we did in XP days so why not use them, since the new driver model actual offloads much of the GDI calls to the graphics card instead of processing them itself. This is far better than 2000/XP, no need for the CPU to do things that the GPU is much more capable of doing. Bottom line for me is that I found some initial issues with the switch, but really I've gotten used to 7 and actually enjoy it more than I did XP. And I know *exactly* where everything is. :) But I do use the search feature too. Oh and 7 is hardly a bubble gum interface; if you want that go visit default Mac-land (but only if Steve Jobs lets you). |
Windows 7 is no more intrusive than Vista. And yes there were some optimizations done (and one big 'fix' with the video driver that caused the same information to be stored in local memory too often). Windows 7 IS Vista, just a bit more refined version of it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I love the speed of Win7. Sure it's not as "simple" as XP, but dammit you can install win7 on an old system and you would swear you bought a faster system. Installing Win7 in half an hour or less is what I like over the 3-4 hours with xp on old systems.
I still use xp on some of my PC's and laptops, but the rest are all Win7 now. Only Vista crap I have is my work pc. I have to be honest that it took a bit to get use to Win7, but once you see how "fast" it is, you'll like it. |
I have been "trying" to run Windows 7 for the last couple months. Finally got all hardware that will actually work with the 64 bit version. I completely skipped vista myself and all of the frustration with Windows 7 has almost made me go back to XP (32 bit), but I hate having the latest hardware with old OS. My old machine was working fine until the power supply croaked and took the MB and some drives with it, so I figured it was time to upgrade.
And yes, the missing "up" button in windows explorer kills me... WTF. The "back" button works, as long as you just came from the up level directory, still not ideal. |
To repeat myself:
Click on a folder in the location bar to up one (or more) level(s). While I don't quite understand why the "up" button was removed, this is a very easy and even more useful way of doing it. Quote:
|
To be clear, I can for sure "deal" with the changes; it's just that this OS (or should I say POS?) seemed to be designed for the typical computer ignoramus ("press any key to continue; where is the 'any key'?"). Everyone seems to be accepting of the changes, even though they aren't necessarily "better". Just spoon fed crap from M$.
I just wish M$ would stop making face-lifts to the GUI and make changes that really matter; like run faster. And for those who say this OS does run faster: Imagine how much faster it would really be if those performance changes were made without the extra crap. If this was my home PC, I would definitely shut more things off, but there is a limit to what I can do on this one since it is a work PC. One resource hog I'd LOVE to get rid of is Norton. What a hunk of bloatware. Aside from that, I don't have anything running that is not needed, such as all those apps represented by the irritating icons in the sys tray. I too have used all sorts of Windows OS's: Win3.1, Win98 (and SE), Win2k, WinXP, and a little bit of Vista. I had no problem going from 98 to XP because the improvements in the UI were improvements, and not simply changes to justify customers spending more cash on something that is not needed. I will obviously be forced to deal with this because it is what it is. But I don't have to like it. :na: And yes, I do know what Mac is like; my fiancee has one and I'm forever griping about that too. Biggest gripe: Why does clicking the application's "X" button not close the app? It just goes into the tray thingie but is still "running". Isn't that the same as minimizing? On a postive note, I was able to install SQL 2000 (needed because some servers NEED to run this for now) development tools (Enterprise Mgr and Query Analyzer) on 64-bit Win7 system, despite everything I read saying it couldn't be done. Yup, this is me thumbing my nose at M$... |
Brian, YES! the first thing you want to get id of is NORTON or ANY other virus program you have to pay for, they are crap, if it slows down your PC to the point that you think you have a virus, then what is the point? you know?
Get AVG or something similar to it, they are free, and low resource hungry, plus you can adjust the amount of priority it takes too, further reducing resources. Why don't you reinstall Windows 7? Really, brand name PC's always come with a bunch of crap on them, fresh bare bones installs always run 10 times better than a 'customized' brand name Windows install. I have my pet peeves with Vista/W7, but I thought it was time that I upgraded (?) to the latest OS. Overall, it really is better than XP. |
Ugh, SQL Server 2000! I'm so glad not to ever have to work with that beast again. 2005/2008 streamlined so many things that its just a bear to go backwards.
Well as I mentioned, part of the 'face lifts' to the GUI were: a) New driver model that supported the removal of UI rendering from kernel. This is great because it means if the UI crashed, it doesn't blue screen (thats not to say 7 won't BSOD... I've done it. :diablo:) b) Aero offloads the processing of the win32 graphics API calls (GDI/GDI+) basically to the graphics card. This is great because it allows the graphics card to do what its does and relives the CPU to do other things. This was an area with one of the big issues in Vista. c) DirectX 10 (which does more than just 3D!). To some degree these changes had to do with the new driver model too which is one of the reasons it is not being backported to XP. In all my time, I really haven't felt the Win7 (or even Vista) was really designed for the typical computer ignoramous (can't be said of the upcoming Windows Mobile or at least whats been bandied about in the tech web-rag world). Once I got accustomed to it, I really don't have many complaints. And yeah, Nortin is a POS for sure. So is McAfee. Remember people didn't really dig XP all that much to start with. My money is on that within 2 years people will have forgotten about XP and Win7 will definetly be the new standard. Of course there will be people who will disagree just as I'm sure you can find a few still running Win9X or heck even Win2000! |
Believe me, I'd LOVE to get rid of Norton, but this is the office PC and I have to use what they say. :sigh:
And I have to use SQL 2000 because some of our servers still use it, and cannot change right now. There are reasons for this that I cannot say (if I told you, I'd have to kill you. :smile:) When XP came out, I dug right in once the little bugs were ironed out (mostly driver updates). So, I am certainly not a luddite, just opposed to what doesn't make sense. Change is good, as long as it isn't change just for the sake of change. I tell ya, if everything worked in Linux without having to run emulators or virtual environments (and with no performance hit), I'd switch over in a heartbeat. I really am tired of Windows in general. Between Mr. Gates and his "Windows will make your life easier, cure world hunger, and get you laid more often" promises, and Mr. Job's super-inflated head and his i-everything, I sometimes just want to run into the mountains... |
I'd agree with you on the whole Windows/Mac thing, but I think they both have there ups and downs. I can't STAND Mac computers. What VERY little I've used them, I don't like it at all. The performance though is amazing. Some of there desktops are just plain rediculous on the hardware aspect. Microsoft has its up, like compatibility with everything, unlike Mac, but all the virus's and shit with Microsoft that compromise its performance are a real PITA. On the flip side though, as far as phones go, Mac blows them out of the water. Windows mobile is complicated and BLOWS, and the iPhone OS is amazing and I would love to get a iPad. That would be a great alternative to a netbook.
|
As he said he's in an office environment, so he's limited. However, paying for an anti-virus is not necessarily a bad thing. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean its slow or bloated. After all even AVG has an upgraded "pay" version. Anti-virus/spam software depending on the review of which there are plenty depends on who is on top. That being said, both Norton and McAfee has been known to be bloated and resource hogs.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Win 7 rocks because of two things:
1. Press the start keyboard button type program name press enter and program is running.:party: 2. Symlinks, Windows now has symlinks. :party: And yes I know both these things existed in Vista but vista was a god awful pile of junk. It infuriated me no end. It was slow and unstable and so fat it made everything crawl. Thankfully Microsoft spent more time optimizing and less time adding new features to win 7 by the looks of it. And on Brian's Up directory button point. The button is gone but if you click the folder name in the address bar you can go back a folder easily or two folders even easier. Took me a little bit to get used to as I was so used to the up button but now I'm used to it I think it is was better. Hell I even hated that it didn't expand out all the folders in the folder tree. Then I realised how much of a pain the expanded folders were and went back to the default config. Tip for anyone who likes to move their documents, music and pictures or any other folders around. Use symlinks. They work well and you can do some really neat stuff to end up with a very tidy setup. I have been using symlinks in Unix style OSs for years and so often I would go to do something in windows and cry when I realised it wouldn't be as simple as a symlink. |
Up, exactly what I said. And yes symlinks are great.
Quote:
Latest MacBook Pro is still a Core2Duo, whee. Latest iMac does come with Core i5/i7s (it's a Core i7-930) and doesn't do Triple Rate memory. And it doesn't come with even the latest generation ATi or NVIDIA video cards. Now that being said, these specs also fall within *most* PC sellers pump out, but you can usually find them much cheaper. And you don't have to get a 27" monitor just to get a Core i5/i7! :) So no they are not "just plain ridiculous" on the technical specs. iPhone, if you can stand Apple, was quite a breath of fresh air (at least starting at the 3G version). I know a ton of otherwise folks who aren't Mac users. Comparing it to Windows Mobile 6.X is a bit unfair as Windows Mobile existing long before iPhone came about. However saying that MS missed the boat and time spent on 6.5 should have better spent on the upcoming Windows Mobile that looks to compete head on with the iPhone/Pre/Android would be dead on. The Maxipad isn't a netbook replacement; it is a slightly scaled up iPhone/iPodTouch. Period. Netbooks are not mobile phone OSes, rather they are PC level OSes on lower spec hardware but even that hardware is more capable than the hardware on the iPad. Not to mention they are more affordable. Here's a decent techspec breakdown comparison: http://eeepc.net/ipad-vs-netbooks-sp...spec-breakdown. Multitouch is about the only place iPad wins but one undeniable shortcoming of the iPad is (just like iPhone and iPodTouch) is NO FLASH SUPPORT. Hard to surf the web without running into a Flash something or other. Anyways, this is really really really offtopic from the Windows 7 topic. :) Quote:
|
Quote:
As for the iPad, I know the difference between it and a netbook, but if I had a netbook it would be purely to use the internet, and I would prefer the iPad for that over the netbook. Yes, no flash, but I've learned to deal with that since I use the internet on my iTouch and iPhone so much. Eh, I guess its just personal preference. |
Well, I too came from XP, and switched to W7 with very minimal excitement.
I loved my XP system, but figured, I'm getting a new quad core, why the hell not give it a try. I'm disappointed that a few things aren't working correctly (due to Windows 7 not being supported- yet), as my Scanner, CanoScan Lide30, will not work at all, so I'm HOPING, Canon is still working for a driver. As far as the GUI, it's nice, and I like it, I have a new custom system, not the most expensive, but damn good, (AMD Athlon II X4 620 [2.66GHz], 4GB RAM, nVidia 250 GTS), it's lagging like hell! Yes, W7 is lagging! WTF right! So I'm waiting to pick up a new secondary hard drive (switching to Sata, wooo), new DVD Drive (Burns but doesn't read...), then I'll reinstall W7 because it was great with my last duo core setup.. |
Quote:
i've been a solid mac user for probably 20 years now, but in all honesty i did just break down and get a dual-core i3/4 gb RAM/500 gb hard drive PC laptop. it IS faster at things i can compare to my mac - but that's only browsing the internet really fast. :party: bottom line: macs are ridiculously more expensive, but on average, a mac user keeps their mac probably 2-3x longer than the average PC user. |
To be honest, I'm kinda digging the new Macbooks, the design is quite nice TBH, but their expensive as hell! There's no way I'm gonna pick up a Mac just for shits n' giggles, but I think I may have to go with a Macbook for when I go to college, never really digged the PC laptops, but I love my PC Desktop.
Saying that, I also think a Mac will last somebody a LOT longer than somebody with a PC, but with that, I think there's more opportunity with a PC, though Mac has some time to progress til' I go to college (Class of '13!) Woo! |
Sure you do. Those are called workstations which the Mac Pro is part of the class. Trundle over to Dell and you can easily find multi-cpu (not multi-core) workstations that have up 192GB of RAM.
The point was that Apple gives you set product selection, charges you more (its not boatloads more mind you) and thats it. PC-land you have a broad spectrum of choices that just aren't there with Apple. It comes down to if you want to pay more for the hardware and like the OS. Frankly I think Apple is doing it wrong and might actually increase their market share more if they would adjust the pricing of their Macs to the same ballpark as an equivalent Dell, HP, etc. Then it would just come down to whether people like the OSX or not. Quote:
But nonetheless, I bet if you did a suite of benchmarks on your PowerPC then did a complete fresh install of the OS you'd see a definite improvement. I won't dare predict how much or how little, but you will. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Okay, I need to learn how.
Ever since my last hard drive crashed, I wanna put the "desktop" folders into my second partition, and back that up (I weekly back it up) onto my external as well as my Secondary. Can anyone share a link? |
The last apple I liked was an apple IIc. Lol, that and the original mac. What pisses me off the most about apple, besides the cultish following, pricey underweight hardware and the control fr3ak nature of Jobs, is the fact the only ever had one button on the mouse. Where the F is my r. click? Ok, the orig mac had one button when the invented it, early in Reagans second term, but fing Christ it was still only 1 button 20 years later.
Btw, have an andriod phone and it rocks. I type like crap on it, but does everything an iphone does, only cost $25, and its not on chitty AT&T. Plus you can play NES roms on it bc the andriod store is open and not run by the iGestapo. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Whoah! Didn't mean to start a Mac vs PC thing here, but oh well. Here's my take on a couple of points (and these are my suspicions based on logic, not any facts):
- Why graphics professionals use Macs still? Simple: Because that's where they started. I cannot think of one area where a Mac would run the same app than a PC (ported for Win of course). They run equivalent hardware now, so it's no longer a RISC vs CISC processor issue. If people got a Mac to work on graphics 10 years ago, chances are they'll stick to Mac because that's what they are used to. - Macs last longer than PCs. Hmm, that's kinda illogical. Same hardware, same MTBF. Maybe unless Steve J gets the cream of the crop hardware choices. Really, what it comes down to is that a Mac user shells out more up front for the box, and makes it last longer because it's too expensive to upgrade every 5 minutes, and support for hardware and OS lasts longer, so people can stick with it longer. Personally, the gaming community is what drives the hardware performance factor in the PC world for the most part. If it wasn't for that group, 99.9% of the users would be more than happy with ~2GHz CPUs and ~1GB of RAM. How much does it really take to surf the internet, send email, view/edit pictures/videos, and write up an office doc? My aging home box is more than sufficient for that. OK, maybe video editing takes a little bit of power, but that's not exactly what Jane and Joe Sixpack use their box for. Anyway, back to my point; the gaming community requires more and more power to render those realistic games out there. And M$ convinces everyone they need to upgrade the OS in order to utilize all that power, where in fact, the OS uses more of that power for all its crappy UI bells and whistles. So, instead of fixing what is already in place until it actually works right, they release another "beta" OS with new issues. And not to mention M$ stops support for older OS's, and then 3rd party driver makers follow suit and build for the new OS as well. Never ending cycle there. So, both OS's have their downfalls: Steve J and his holier-than-though god complex. What he really needs is an iKick in the iHead. M$ just keeps cranking out new bloated OS's without fixing the issues in the old one. Like I said before: If Linux was a viable all-in-one OS that could do everything Win can, I'd switch in a heartbeat and send M$ their install discs back to them in pieces. |
Oh brother, the whole Mac "I'm better than you" thing is just ridiculous. The following things I hear alot from Mac owners, are also happen to be NOT TRUE, or DON'T MATTER.
1) design and ergonomic perfection - First part, just aesthetics, ergonomics, ya right... 2) have zero manufacturing faults I've heard this ALL too often, not true at all. 3) never break down Again, who are they trying to kid? 4) have the most innovative operating system Innovative... or just a bunch of $BLING?$ 5) do things that other computers cannot do Like.....? 6) are more secure This is part true yes, but they have had plenty of viruses and such. 7) offer value for money HA HA HA, that's funny Speaking of Windows 7 though, my "not so genuine" copy of Windows just DL'ed the new update that searches out these copies and tells you. Bummer. My background keeps going to a black screen now, what else will happen? |
I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 on my laptop and right now my idle is taking about 2300MB of ram idling. FYI I have 4 gigs total.
|
You turn turn your avatar into a anti fan/paint/Win7 now also?
|
Quote:
Brian's got some work to do. I hope W7 have gif editing proggies. :lol: |
lol, if I were to animate all the things I have a problem with, the animation would be FAR too large to use as an avatar. So, I'll just stick to things R/C related to gripe about. What can I say, I'm opinionated. :oops:
|
Quote:
|
Let's not start a Windows vs Mac war. I have an iPhone yet I have a Dell Laptop and a custom desktop I built myself. I use whatever works best.
That being said, I don't use Apple Laptops/Desktops because I'm an engineering student and SolidWorks just doesn't work on them and not to mention you can get much more for your money buying a PC. Yes, it's a little more user intensive requiring to work out a few more bugs and to deal with more settings yourself (if you want to make the most of it, at least). With a Mac it's "if it doesn't work, buy our version of the software - if none exists, sorry." However, I would not trade my iPhone for any other phone. I just can't see any Windows mobile phone or whatever they call it getting anything near the iPhone. I have an iTouch too and I have to say that I'd also take that over any other "Mp3 player" cause the iTouch is more than that. I will have to say that, in my opinion, the iPad has a VERY limited target group. I have a 17" desktop replacement laptop, and an iPhone. So I have a HUGE "portable" device to the smallest one (that I conveniently always have on me because it's my phone). So if anything I'd want to get something right in the middle. I wouldn't want an iPad because it's just my phone with a bigger screen. At that point I'd buy a netbook (a powerful one though, I was looking at an Asus 12" with an Intel DualCore and dedicated Nvidia graphics card). I'd say an iPad is only really logical for someone with a huge laptop (or a laptop with poor battery life) and a "dumb" phone (aka, not a smartphone - one that texts and calls and thats it). |
Quote:
|
Based on what you do, an iPad would be great.
How can you call a 17.3" laptop "not huge" !? Mine is a 17" as well (Dell XPS M1730) and I think it's huge (I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, I knew how big it was when I bought it and I like that it's huge). But I'll agree, battery life sucks. I have 2 Video Cards + a Physics card, 2 HD's, backlit full-size keyboard w/ numpad, a secondary LCD that displays crap like time and date, ram/cpu usage, news, what song I'm playing, and a bunch of ambient effect lights. Just surfing the web with Wifi with screen at full brightness, I get 45 minutes. Turning the screen to it's dimmest setting and turning off all the lights and keyboard backlight, I get an extra 5 minutes... I've gotten as little as 35 minutes of battery before off a full charge... |
Can't you guys underclock the CPU or something when on battery?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You get over an HOUR!? :lol: Actually the :gasp: is more of a response towards the weight. 6lbs is LIGHT! Wow... my old laptop is a 15.4 and it was 9lbs! (Dell Inspiron 8600). My current one is a tank. ~11lbs. The power supply is an additional 1.5lbs. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.