Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Windows 7 beta

This is topic Windows 7 beta in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005678

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-13-2009, 06:55 PM:

Saw a note from my mailbox of Win7 downloads, thus I took the stab at it.

Went to the Microsoft site, to the Win7 section, filled out the simple Q&A's to enable the download.

with DSL, took 9 hours to pull down a 2.4gB file that had to be burnt to a DVD as an .iso image file.

Shoved in an extra HDD in my laptop, so I can keep my XP OS intact along with the files that are on it on the other drive, and installed this new OS beta on that spare HDD with telling the computer to boot from CD rom drive.

Install took less than a half-hour. Not bad at all ...

Afterwards, I still had to install some drivers that are needed for my particular laptop - sound, video, pointing devices - that the default install couldn't see.

After the install, I had to activate it to make it 'legal' for me to use.

..beta expires first of August of this year. Thus I got from today until then to play with it and offer feedback to its performance.

As much of it that I play with, I do believe that this is the definite replacement for VISTA.

But as with VISTA, it's a bit of a memory hog. Thus, you definitely need the 1GB of RAM as the minimum requirements.

But, the nice thing is that it boots up quicker than VISTA ,tons more user friendly than VISTA can even think of along with accepting 3rd party programs more easier.

..something to share with the FT gang..

thx-Monte

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-13-2009, 07:04 PM:

So is this a free beta?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-13-2009, 07:29 PM:

Monte... Whats download the link? I've heard alot of good things about Windows 7 from others that are beta testing it.

Mark

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-13-2009, 08:11 PM:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-13-2009, 08:15 PM:

From what I heard, Microsoft had listened (or at least took notice) of the poor take up from Vista regarding hogging resources.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
But as with VISTA, it's a bit of a memory hog. Thus, you definitely need the 1GB of RAM as the minimum requirements.

Sounds like it's not the case. WHY don't they listen? Who wants a resource hungry OS? Not me, that's why I never installed Vista. Any chance we could just have a stable, small footprint OS from Microsoft without any bells and whistles? I don't want LINUX either. I'll stick with XP until, well until I just can't anymore.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-13-2009, 08:26 PM:

To answer the question above: it's a free download being a beta and you can burn as many copies of this to distribute around if you wish - Microsoft gave the green light on this one.

Course, I forgot to mention that I didn't add any AV with this install (even though that I will install AVG being free and hardly uses any memory), thus why it booted up quick and easy, but using the 'gadget' tab, it had a gadget to show processor usage and memory percentage.

And with just the desktop on the screen that it was close to 20 percent memory used - course also, my laptop is also using some of that memory for video being onboard video.

Thus, maybe it's easier on memory allocations that what VISTA is..have to check that one out more..

Also, forgot to mention: IE-8 that comes with this: prettier than anything they've had, lots of more buttons and whistles, but Firefox3 is still better..

-Monte

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-13-2009, 09:09 PM:

The ONLY reason I would consider buying Windows 7 is if they have a Blu-Ray/Hd-dvd software player build into media center.

I built a HTPC and can watch HDTV (over the air) as well as my DVD collection via Media Center with a remote control. But in order to use my bluRay/HDVD player, I have to use a mouse and keyboard and run off of Power DVD. I hate that and currently there is no work around.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2009, 01:57 AM:

Is that what they are calling it? Windows 7? Let's see. If Windows 3.11 was Windows 3, then there was 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP and Vista... hmmmmm something doesn't add up. Just like Microsoft, can't even add.

They seem to be pretty eager to replace Vista. So what's new with this OS? What makes it different?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-14-2009, 02:09 AM:

The "7" number comes from the Build number. Win7 is a Ver.6.1.7000

(To find your version of windows, type "CMD" in the run box. Then type ver, then ENTER .. this will give you the Version number)

An article from C-NET what started my interest.

Windows 7 could be one of Microsoft's greatest operating systems, if it fulfills the promise shown by the unofficial beta version (build 7000) we have been testing for the past couple of days.

Let me preface these quick impressions of Redmond's latest opus by saying that I came to Windows 7 after having happily run the much-maligned Windows Vista on my Intel Core 2 Duo-based PC for the past 18 months (alongside Ubuntu).

I found Vista to be a worthy upgrade from Windows XP SP2. Despite its obvious flaws (can you say "resource hog"?) and the acknowlegement that some of its features need to be disabled by default, Vista at heart is a much more stable and usable operating system than XP, which was first released in 2001.

The release of Service Pack 1 and gradual driver improvements have built on Microsoft's somewhat-shaky Vista beginning.

Coming from this background, I have been pleased to discover over the past several days that Microsoft appears to have built on Vista's strengths and addressed most of its weaknesses with the beta release of Windows 7.

I found the Windows 7 beta a painless install. Out-of-the-box driver support on our test machine was perfect, and it took only half an hour and two quick reboots to begin running a stable desktop environment, though we wondered why Windows 7 created a 200MB partition in addition to its main partition. The 33MB of updates quickly came down the pipe upon loading the desktop.

Basic desktop performance was strong; the reports that Windows 7 is simply faster than Vista appear to be true. Certainly, Windows 7 had no problem simultaneously installing and launching applications, downloading files, browsing the Web, and carrying out other tasks on our modest 2.8GHz Pentium 4, which has only an 80GB IDE hard disk and 512MB of RAM.

Vista's most visible annoyance, User Account Control, has been pared right back on its default setting, and we encountered it only a couple of times throughout a whole morning of installing applications. However, if you feel nostalgic for UAC's old behavior, you can easily change it back via Windows 7's new Action Center, which now centralizes all of the security updates and warning alerts that Windows throws your way.

Windows 7 recommended that we install a third-party antivirus package (it suggested Kaspersky and AVG), but its antispyware package Defender comes preinstalled. Microsoft appears to have an antivirus package installed under the hood; when downloading new software with Firefox, we were told that our downloads were being scanned for viruses.

I particularly like the new photo-realistic device icons, and the overhaul of the way Windows handles and ejects USB storage devices. Microsoft appears to have wiped out a lot of the Windows XP-era interface quirks of Vista; the result is a much more simplistic, unified experience for common tasks.

I also enjoyed the overhaul of the Windows taskbar, especially the slick graphics, but a bug prevented us from being able to use the preview function (it showed a black rectangle instead), and you'll want to play with the taskbar settings to get this piece of the Windows 7 puzzle just right. It's easy to get minimized windows mixed up with launcher buttons, for example.

I want to stress that we didn't test the Windows 7 beta exhaustively, and business users will need to closely examine deployment software and how the operating system integrates into their existing environments, as well as its ability to work well with third-party software. For example, we couldn't get Adobe Systems' Creative Suite 3 to install on Windows 7 beta; the installer told us we needed to quit Internet Explorer first.

But perhaps the most important thing to note about the software is that at first glance, it has much more of that nebulous "Windows XP feel" than Vista ever did. Even on our modest machine, Windows 7 didn't thrash the hard disk or ever feel unresponsive, except when we were installing Apple's iTunes, a notorious pain on Windows systems.

In general, this signals that Microsoft has spent a lot of effort with Windows 7 on delivering a solid operating system that won't "wow" anyone but will satisfy them on a much deeper level. In other words, just what the doctor--and customers --ordered.

[ 01-14-2009, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2009, 11:45 AM:

From that post, sounds like they should have skipped Vista altogether and just gone right to this new version from XP.

At the least they should give every Vista user a free upgrade.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-14-2009, 01:45 PM:

Awesome. Vista lasted a whole year longer than Windows ME!

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-14-2009, 03:30 PM:

BTW. What ever happen to that brand spanking new (and muched hyped) database/file system that was origionally suppose to come with Vista but was to have been pushed back to their next operating system? That does not seem to be a part of Windows 7 either.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2009, 10:23 PM:

I'm fairly impressed by its rock solidness and I'll add that it is not really very resource hungry!! I'm running my beta copy on an Intel Atom 330 based pico computer with just 1 gig of ram and its really pretty speedy.. although I did pull the OCZ SSD I had in there and installed a 250 gig Hitachi GOMHD to test Windows 7 so the GOMHD makes it seem a little slower than XP was.

Install is so easy a three year old could do it. As with the others it took just under a half hour form start to workable screen. The drivers I had to load for wireless and so on went without a hitch.

All in all I think they have done a good job leaving Vista in the dumpster right where it belongs... they seem to have a new winner here! The Beta also includes Internet Explorer 8.

Also... You will recognize ALOT of the good XP Pro features right off the bat that thankfully made it into 7. The addition of quick tabs so you can see all the open pages you have on one screen is also nice.

Edit: One thing that proves without a doubt that its less resource reliant is the fact thet the video playback of news clips and such no longer skip like they did with Xp/Explorer 7.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2009, 10:31 PM:

Someone post a screenshot of how the desktop and Start menu, etc look. I cannot stand the XP START menu. Thankfully it can be switched back to a 2000-ish menu and look.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2009, 10:34 PM:

This start menu is much nicer than the XP version... alot smoother and refined but I am going to keep you in suspense [Cool]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-14-2009, 11:53 PM:

I do believe that Microsoft finally have a winning OS here. But, the question remains: Will everyone want to grab onto it if they're running Xp-Pro like the lot of us are using?

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 01-15-2009, 09:28 AM:

When it comes with the next generation laptops I would probably look into getting it... Until then its XP for now.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2009, 10:31 AM:

The Jen,
The next generation laptops are already here.... they just don't include Win 7... but for now ya can get it for free.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 01-15-2009, 11:12 AM:

I am waiting on Win 7 to be on laptops.

Tempted to try it, I've heard about it for awhile now but I'm not ready to try it just yet...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2009, 01:07 PM:

If you do be sure to get another hard drive to install it on, they are really cheap thee days. Don't overwrite your existing drive... there are not really any Windows 7 problems per say but should some turn up later down the line then you haven't lost anything plus you have the ability to switch back and forth ust by swapping the drive and er-booting.

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2009, 01:53 PM:

With Windows don't you need to go into the BIOS and tell it to look for a different boot drive even when you physically swap drives? I know PCs are kind of dumb that way, but that's what makes them so cute and adorable!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-15-2009, 02:12 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
the question remains: Will everyone want to grab onto it if they're running Xp-Pro like the lot of us are using?

That indeed is the question. XP runs fine for us. I don't think I've EVER had any substantial stability problems with it. For someone who runs an IT department that supports around 300 users and their PCs, why would I pay for and go through the trouble to upgrade anyone (let alone EVERYONE) if I don't have to? Upgrading a server or a piece of software (like the email client or Office) is understandable, but if the OS runs great, why change it?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2009, 02:36 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
With Windows don't you need to go into the BIOS and tell it to look for a different boot drive even when you physically swap drives?

No, not on any of my pc's... and I have some really old laptops floating around. The bios on all of them auto detects what drive is installed. The C drive remains the C drive even if you change the drive to another one... If the drive you install has nothing to boot then the display will just way "Missing Operating System" or "No Operating System Found".

What you're thinking of may have been true with DOS but I believe that even back then the motherboard's bios would still auto detect and see what ever HD is installed.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
but if the OS runs great, why change it

Because the support time is finite on XP, support stops in 2012. Many IT departments may indeed begin the change over so they don't have to do it all at once. But keep in mind that Windows 7 isn't even available yet. This Beta Version of Win 7 is set to expire on August 1 so that may be a hint of the release date or that we may all have to download beta version 2. The original release date was said to be Jan. 2010 but I bet it's more like right around when these Betas expire.

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2009, 03:58 PM:

So you MUST tell the drive itself that it is "C", so that way you can't have it installed at the same time as an XP system? That would suck to be physically swapping drives back and forth. Sure, one drive can be D or F or whatever, but what if you want to take that drive over to a friend's house and show him the hot new OS from the heavens? BIOS time?

In my opinion the whole lettering of drives is unnecessary. The OS should detect what drives are there, which ones have OS's on them and so forth.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-15-2009, 10:18 PM:

Except if you physically swap out the drive so that you only have one drive, then the windows install on that drive will only see the one drive and that one will be the "C:" drive.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-15-2009, 11:02 PM:

There are cases where if you do a new install of XP on a system with 2 or more drives, and there's a bootable OS on an existing drive, the new install becomes D: or some letter other than C: and once that happens you can't change it. You boot and everything is fine but your boot drive is D: or E: or something. Been there done that googled it, found no simple fix. Can't change the letter of the boot drive. Someone tell me if I'm wrong. A boot drive's assigned drive letter as a bootable drive cannot be easily changed. As a data drive, the letter can be changed at will even if the drive contains a bootable OS.

I'm really surprised that Windows 7 is already getting such a positive response. My boss hates MS and thinks Vista is the devil's work, but damn if he isn't all over Windows 7 like it's the greatest thing since Corinthian leather.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-15-2009, 11:18 PM:

The only time it would matter that you are installing onto a drive that is getting called "D:" is if you later install some driver where its install program assumes your windows system directory resides inside "C:" and ignores the windows variable for the actual system directory. Good thing that happens rarely and if it does you should complain to the people who provided that installer, since they are complete morons.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2009, 11:55 PM:

Course, if I had an external HD, or a 16g thumb drive, I'd would have installed it on either one of those devices and did the "F-12" thing to change boot sequence when the POST came up on the screen ...

It's not that all of a biggie swapping out HD's to play with it since my laptop does the autodetect with whatever HD is installed..

"Brother!" doing BIOS recognitions for HD installs,,,isn't that getting to approach the "486" days?

-Monte

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-16-2009, 01:54 AM:

My boot drive on my XP system is F. There are no lower letters anywhere, at least for hard drives. I have no idea how this happened. It confuses some software because it expects to see a "C" drive. Way retarded. And way primitive. They really need to get out of the 1980 drive lettering days. Might as well use a Speak and Spell instead.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2009, 03:38 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The Beta also includes Internet Explorer 8.

Well there's another reason NOT to switch from XP to Windows 7. [Razz]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-16-2009, 05:34 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
My boot drive on my XP system is F

Wonder if you should go into your BIOS and see how your drive assigment is set up as..

Agree with IE-8 .. Kinda pretty, but a full recommendation on FireFox 3.05 install is definitely in order.

Google's Chrome works great as well ..

-Monte

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-16-2009, 06:15 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Because the support time is finite on XP, support stops in 2012.

The world is ending in 2012 anyway, so again, why bother? [Razz]

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 01-16-2009, 09:56 AM:

Is Windows 7 still built on the NT core?

Everyone knows the best OS has already been made, OS/2. The world is actually going to end on February 14th, 2016. I received this information from an alien...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-16-2009, 11:05 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
The world is ending in 2012 anyway

Again? I'm still cleaning up from the last time the world ended.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-16-2009, 01:56 PM:

quote: Damien Taylor
The world is actually going to end on February 14th, 2016.

WHAT??! It got pushed back?! DAMN IT! Now I might HAVE to upgrade.

I installed OS/2 several years ago, and then when it booted up I couldn't figure out how to do anything except shut it down.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-16-2009, 03:19 PM:

I still use OS2 on both my server and my invoicing machine
rock stable unlike the product from redmond

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-26-2009, 05:07 PM:

UPDATE: Micrsoft released IE-8 to the public where 21% of computer users are using Firefox 3.05.

After experiencing IE-8 in Windows 7, Firefox still wins hand down as an excellent browser to use.

-Monte

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-26-2009, 06:07 PM:

I don't like IE 8 either... Windows 7 is really nice though. The worst feature of IE8 is the delete "x" at the right in the drop down address box.... if you're not careful or actually look where you click you'll loose the address accidentally!! Otherwise its not a real bothersome browser but it does seem clunky compared to others.

Sorry guys... About your world ending in 2016... my world will never end!

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-26-2009, 07:16 PM:

...Even Google Chrome and Opera are better than IE8...

I'm still using IE6...and glad to see Mark isn't planning on retiring in 2016...

-Monte