This is topic Windows 7 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=005958
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-07-2009, 04:24 PM:
Has anyone here upgraded yet. I have a friend whose Vista laptop sucks so badly he is thinking of upgrading to 7 or downgrading to XP. I was checking out the video on the Home Group feature which is their new way of home networking. One thing that I suspect is that it will only interwork with Windows 7 machines. Those on XP or Vista will be unable to be part of the workgroup. Am I on target with this? If so, my friend's best bet would be to load XP.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2009, 04:44 PM:
I usually migrate to a new version of Windows only when buying a new desktop or notebook computer. The last time I did a true OS upgrade was moving from Win 3.11 to Win95. Usually the only thing that happens when upgrading an OS is you make the existing computer even slower. New operating systems almost always have higher system requirements than their predecessor.
OTOH, I've heard Windows 7 actually has lower system requirements than Vista. So it may be an exception. Nevertheless, a lot of people choosing to upgrade to Windows 7 are having to spend a hell of a lot of time doing the upgrade process. From what I've heard the upgrade isn't easy to install, which just reinforces the notion that its best to just move to Win7 when buying a new computer.
We may start upgrading certain computers at my workplace to run the 64-bit version of Win 7 Pro. Right now we're running 32-bit versions of Win XP Pro SP3. The 4GB RAM limit turns into an issue if you're designing things like vehicle wrap graphics. For a full wrap, you'll have at least 5 Photoshop files, each of which can be well over 1GB-2GB or more in size. A 64-bit system can accommodate more RAM and would open and manipulate giant sized Photoshop files faster.
I'll probably wait a little longer to replace my old Dell Inspiron 6000. Notebook RAM is much more expensive than RAM for desktops. I want my next notebook to have at least 8GB or more of RAM. Hopefully Adobe Creative Suite 5 will have all of its applications compiled for 64-bit operation. Right now the PC version of Photoshop CS4 is the only true 64-bit Adobe application.
quote: Rick Raskin
One thing that I suspect is that it will only interwork with Windows 7 machines. Those on XP or Vista will be unable to be part of the workgroup. Am I on target with this?
I haven't heard about that limitation. However, the "home" version of Windows XP and (I think) the "home" version of Vista are limited to seeing no more than 4 computers on a network. I wouldn't be surprised to see Windows 7 carrying on that silly tradition.
We have around 15 computers on the network at my workplace. They're all running XP Pro. One system was mistakenly ordered with "home" on it and couldn't log into the network as a result; it had to be sent back and have XP Pro installed.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-07-2009, 05:20 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
From what I've heard the upgrade isn't easy to install
I found it no harder than installing any other piece of software.
And yes it does run on lower-spec computers than Vista. Heck, I know someone who put the beta and RC on an old celeron for shits and giggles... and it ran perfectly fine minus it not doing well on cpu-intensive multimedia (which was to be expected and not really a problem with win7).
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-08-2009, 09:27 AM:
The one guy I know who's installed it had no problems. Everything but an HP driver went smoothly, and even that wasn't a big deal.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-08-2009, 11:04 AM:
I've upgraded my home system from Vista x64 to Win7 x64, and I did a clean install, not an inplace upgrade. No problems whatsoever except that the upgrade version of W7 expected Vista to be already there. W7 would not accept my activation key. I called MS and they walked me through getting W7 to do a clean install. It was very obvious that their support people were under orders to make the customer happy and not rush through with an incomplete solution.
On the work side, we have now moved 11 users from XP x86 to W7 x64. We've evaluated all our 32-bit apps and tools etc. under W7 x64 and found no showstopper problems. The one "major" problem we've had is with our corporate antivirus system making incorrect changes to the W7 firewall. That is still being worked on but it appears to be the antivirus that's at fault, not W7.
You can't do an inplace upgrade from XP to W7. That's probably the most painful part. However, it's to your major advantage NOT to do that anyway. Why the hell would you want to bring along years of old baggage to your shiny new W7 system?
As far as I can tell, W7 is all good. I have nothing bad to say about it (well except maybe that you have to pay for it).
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-08-2009, 07:16 PM:
Actually I forgot that I did run into a couple apps that wouldn't install and/or run on W7 x64. OpenSSH was one; also Microsoft Exchange 2003 Administrator. Those issues motivated me to install Virtual XP (free from MS). Both those apps work fine in Virtual XP Mode. You can flip back and forth between W7 and XP, works great.
Note that your hardware has to support virtualization for Virtual XP to work, and virtualization has to be enabled in the mobo BIOS settings (I've found it's typically disabled by default, at least on the machines where I work). Also, the Virtual XP environment needs its own antivirus etc. Also also, there are USB "issues" on virtual machines, apparently inherent limitations to USB's design and implementation.
We're using Microsoft's image deployment tools for the W7 rollout, which are new to me: WAIK, SIAM, Sysprep, ImageX, etc. They require some effort to figure out but they work great.
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-08-2009, 08:28 PM:
My standard procedure with all Microsoft products is to wait for Service Pack 1. I'll wait until then.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-08-2009, 08:33 PM:
Shit, what's the time limit now for editing our posts?
I meant "DISM", not "SIAM". Guess my fingers were out to lunch.
Mark, W7 may be the one time when you don't need to wait for SP1 of a MS product. It really is that stable and polished.
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 11-09-2009, 11:52 AM:
Ran the Beta and crashed it a few dozen times but had a blast doing it. I have been running the RC since it came out. A few problems but this thing blows Vista out of the water.
It is a streamlined GUI that has some nice features. I especialy like what they have done with the task bar. And UAC is completely customizable now it's not just totaly annoying and off like it was in Vista.
A couple gripes: MCSFT was supposed to launch a new file system (WINFS) with Vista and never did. Then they were supposed to launch it with 7 and never did. NTFS is fine but there was supposed to be even better file security features for Active Directory built into WINFS.
-next gripe libraries from what I can tell are a waste. I can't see what is so impressive with having a folder that shows basicly a search for say documents. If your not smart enough to put your documents in a file that you know where it is you'd have to search for it. And libraries only list files from folders that you have told windows to include. Not a real feature.
-next Homegroup: This is WIN 7's answer to workgroups. It only works with win 7 pc's. i.e. all members must have win 7
you set up the homegroup on one pc and then it gives you a cryptic password that you can't chose yourself to put into all the other pc's on the homegroup. And the final answer...not any more exciting then a workgroup.
This is miles better then Vista and it is ready out of the gate unlike Vista was. If you are running Vista UPGRADE!! You'll be glad you did. If you are running XP there is no reason to change.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-09-2009, 12:20 PM:
Btw, winfs was scrapped a couple years ago at least.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-09-2009, 12:22 PM:
quote: Paul J. Neuhaus
If you are running XP there is no reason to change.
Most helpful review I have read to date. Thank you.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2009, 01:08 PM:
Yes, that's what I was waiting to hear too. I am in charge of some 8 or 9 computers all running XP so it's nice to be on the same page with all of them.
On the lighter side, here's an appropriate Dave Letterman Top Ten List.
“Top Ten Surprising Features In Windows 7”
10. Includes preview of Windows 8, coming this spring
9. Transforms any laptop into a Hyundai
8. It crashes 30% faster than Windows XP
7. Paper clip guy has a sexy new staple girlfriend
6. Unexpected shut-downs now include a laugh track
5. Ctl-Alt-M = Vibrating mouse
4. Comes with faulty Joe Biden plug-ins
3. If a pop-up lasts longer than 4 hours, it automatically calls a technician
2. Company logo changed from colored windowpanes to crossed fingers
1. When the "Sarah Palin" mode is selected, it quits halfway through the project
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-09-2009, 03:42 PM:
MS is already working on both Windows 8 and Windows 9. That being said, they must be deliberately leaving stuff out of Windows 8 if they are already working on part 9. They probably deliberately left stuff out of 7 as well.
And this most certainly isn't the 7th incarnation of Windows.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-09-2009, 04:03 PM:
It's the versioning based on its Windows NT beginnings.
Win 2K was NT version 5; Win XP was 5.1; Vista is 6.0; and now we have win7.
Stupid, nonetheless. Even more stupid is that win7's internal version number is 6.1. I think it's that quite a lot of third-party stuff relied on the major number not changing (and since they wanted to be able to upgrade in-place easily).
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-09-2009, 04:20 PM:
If MicroHard want to give me a free Windblows 7 upgrade, I'll do it. If they won't, they can get ![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
ed.
And if what Joe says is true, that they are already working on 8 & 9, then what does that say about the 7? Are MicroHard already admitting that 7 is shit too? And have you noticed that the time frame between versions is shrinking?
Sorry guys, but the "wiggling mouse to sort the desktop" feature sounds like a whole lot of productivity-sapping useless gimmickry to me.
Vista was supposed to be the be-all and end-all of operating systems. What a laughable joke.
This must be the only industry where a company can sell ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
, then admit the fact, and CHARGE customers to get a newer, supposedly better version of
And this applies to the Appeal Mac as well.
When will these designers of this stuff realise that the amount of bloatware they shove into an OS does NOT make it any better? To get the same job jone in Vista compared to XP takes many seconds longer AND takes more system resources. Yippee, thats a benefit.
Now, does this sound like the current state of play in the Digital Cinema Projector market?
One day consumers will wake up and realise that all that is new is not gold.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-09-2009, 04:28 PM:
Release cycles aren't shrinking though. This is a longer time between Vista and 7 than 2K vs XP and it's roughly equal in time between 98 vs ME.
The only way you'd say this trend is shrinking is by looking at XP vs Vista and ignoring that XP is simply the one that's stayed in market longer than all the others.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-09-2009, 05:01 PM:
Paul J. Neuhaus: quote:
-next Homegroup: This is WIN 7's answer to workgroups. It only works with win 7 pc's. i.e. all members must have win 7
That's what I thought. Thanks for the informative review. I'll stay with XP.
And by the way Paul, thank you for your service.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-09-2009, 05:28 PM:
I doubt that you'll find much different about any other future versions of Windows... The main differences by them will be that we will be mainly using Solid State Drives on laptops and many home PCs. W7 is the first OS to integrate in any useful SSD tools.
Mark
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2009, 05:31 PM:
Well of course they are working on 8 and 9 already. Don't you think Apple is already working on Snow Leopard 2 and 3 or whatever they're going to call it?
They base new OS features on what most new and many existing computers are capable of doing, not the other way around. If Windows 7 had come out right after 3.1, the entire Windows world would have had to buy new computers to make it work. How do you think that would've gone over?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-09-2009, 05:37 PM:
As for useful upgrades, Windows needs a new filesystem. ZFS would be ideal, but I guarantee that it won't happen. WinFS would have been interesting, but probably would have been doomed to diastrous failure, due to being horribly overcomplicated.
The management tools for medium-size networks (under ~500 Windows machines) also suck and need to be improved.
I would love to see the bloat ("themes" and such) go away, but it won't happen.
Regardless of what we want, the thing that will kill WinXP will be the need to use more than 3.5GB of RAM (just as the lack of USB support killed NT4 in the marketplace). We will all need a 64-bit Windows OS soon, and Win7 is the logical choice.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2009, 06:10 PM:
The 4GB RAM limit is the main issue that makes me want to upgrade to entirely new computer systems. My current notebook is maxed out with 2GB of RAM. My office computer is maxed at 4GB, but WinXP only recognizes 3.25GB of it.
I think 64-bit versions of Windows 7 will become more popular if RAM prices drop another level. It's not too financially painful to stick 8GB of RAM into a new desktop computer. Going above that gets expensive quickly. The notebook computer situation is more difficult. A laptop with 8GB of RAM installed can be pretty expensive.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-09-2009, 06:46 PM:
Mike - Point taken, but then again they weren't designing Windows 7 right after 3.11, either. About the only thing they can be doing is making OS's which require far more CPU and RAM, like Vista. I can understand designing Windows 8 now. But 9 as well? C'mon.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-09-2009, 09:44 PM:
You don't think MS should be working on successors to Windows 7? So every time a company releases a new product you expect them to immediately cease development on any successor version? How exactly do you think companies work? "We'll hire 10,000 coders to create Windows 7 and then on release day we'll fire 9,750 of them and the ones that are left will take care of the service packs and that will be the end of that forever and we'll never have to worry about a successor product." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think 64-bit versions of Windows 7 will become more popular if RAM prices drop another level.
In this past weekend's ads for Best Buy, virtually every machine they offered, no matter how cheap, came with Windows 7 Home Premium x64 and plenty of RAM to run it. I'm talking about systems selling for less than $500! I just checked BB's web site and they have an eMachines with Win 7 Home Premium x64 and 3GB of DDR2 RAM for $380! Someone will point out that the eMachines is a piece of crap. We all know that. The point is the current crop of entry-level boxes come with Win 7 Home Premium x64 and lots-o-RAM.
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 11-09-2009, 09:46 PM:
You will not hear any Microsoft is great shit from me and I'm an MCP(Microsoft Certified Professional). I only have the certifications because there is always support work to do with microsoft applications/operating systems.
What I will say is that Win 7 is what Vista should have been. Whatever made MSFT decide to ship Vista before it was even close to done is hopefully a mistake they will not soon forget or repeat.
Joe is right about one thing the version thing is not right. It is considered the 7th upgrade along the NT path. But it was orignaly slated for 6.1 as it is built on the Vista kernal.
In all honesty 7 is Vista it is just Vista done right and should a hell of a lot cheaper especialy for those of us who got screwed with Vista.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-09-2009, 09:51 PM:
quote: Paul J. Neuhaus
In all honesty 7 is Vista it is just Vista done right and should a hell of a lot cheaper especialy for those of us who got screwed with Vista.
Yea, Microsoft should have a "cash for clunkers" deal to let those with Vista trade up. You're sure to get better mileage too!
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-09-2009, 10:19 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I can understand designing Windows 8 now. But 9 as well? C'mon.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's more of working simultaneously on one product that's based on win7 (essentially the next one in the NT line) and another that's something entirely new.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2009, 11:00 PM:
I have no problem with Microsoft or any other software developer having plans for next versions of software when the "current" version was just released. Honestly it would be suicidal for any software developer to not have a long term plan. Obviously, every software developer must come up with new products to sell in order to keep their jobs.
Does anyone really think Apple isn't working on "OSXI" or "OSXII"? Apple isn't just working on updates to iPods and iPhones.
The current "CS4" of Adobe's Creative Suite line is barely a year old, but the company is already testing "CS5" betas. They have a public beta of their next version of Lightroom out there. It's common knowledge Adobe has a roughly 18 month product cycle.
Intel is infamous for its "processor road map" it continually updates. People can whine and cry about it being vaporware, but when a chip fab runs in the billions of dollars the company absolutely needs to have clear, long term strategies. One bad mistake could have the company reeling for years.
I don't like having to buy a new computer every few years or so. But a computer isn't a washing machine that's going to last you 20 years, or even a decent car that will last at least 10-15 years. One of the downsides of personal computing is the only thing that remains constant is change. You'll never be able to buy just one computer or one piece of software and have it be that for the rest of your life. Buy a grand piano, some art or a high quality firearm if you're looking for heirlooms. Computers and the software on them will never be that.
I have a $1300 Ultra-2 SCSI flatbed scanner in my 2nd bedroom that is pretty much useless. I bought it in 1998. The only reason why I haven't thrown it in the dumpster already is I still know I paid $1300 for it. I guess I'm holding out hope I'll run across someone running a "vintage" setup who can take the scanner off my hands and provide it a good, new home.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-09-2009, 11:54 PM:
Jesus fucking christ raping Mary in the back of a barn while Joseph sticks it up his cornhole, people! Does everyone on this forum lack reading comprehension skills? You disappoint me with your stupidity!
quote: David Stambaugh
You don't think MS should be working on successors to Windows 7?
And just where the fuck did I say that? Is my post above your smarmy reply invisible? It must be because neither you nor Bobby seem to have read it. I was just trying to point how how features are DELIBERATELY being left out of Windows 8 to be included in Windows 9 and everyone spazzes out and goes apeshit. The only good answer so far was from Chris.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-10-2009, 12:25 AM:
Maybe it's because the current processors and other hardware out there is too shitty to roll out the newest stuff.
Take computer-based playback of video for instance. A decade ago it sucked oily brown shit-smelling ass, even for SD quality video. Jump through hoops doing all sorts of nonsense just to keep a SD quality stream from dropping frames from the camera. Arrgh. Now we're only getting to the level where a 1080p video stream (highly compressed) can be sustained on mainstream consumer computing hardware without hiccuping like a baby who just fed on Dolly Parton.
Computer software/hardware companies are famous for floating concepts that aren't ready for mass adoption. Internet-based video on demand is only now barely becoming feasible in SD-quality. Yet too many fuck-stain businessmen think they have the Blu-ray killer already. Um, no. 30-40 million bit per second sustained Internet bandwidth is not and will not be commonplace in American homes for several more years. That's just one example of business people shooting too far.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2009, 01:08 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Maybe it's because the current processors and other hardware out there is too shitty to roll out the newest stuff.
Which is what I said before Joe went apeshit.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2009, 01:31 AM:
Again, does nobody listen? You seem to think that I am saying that they shouldn't work on new versions of the OS. I am not even talking about Windows 7. I am talking about Windows 9 and 8. Chris still has the ONLY good answer and is perhaps the only individual who understood what I was posting about.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-10-2009, 09:40 AM:
Joe, sorry, I responded based on how your post reads to me. In the technology industry, new product releases rarely contain every feature they *could* have. Reasons vary, could be the h/w isn't up to it yet, could be as simple as holding something cool back for later release if you already have a product packed with enough cool features to make it competitive. MS knows what's coming from Intel in the next 3-5 years and probably brainstorms new OS features a couple major releases ahead of the release curve.
As far as people deciding to stick with XP, its end-of-life is 2014 so it has plenty of utility and support left in it. If it's getting the job done for you and you aren't interested in shiny new things, you might not need to upgrade. And there is a 64-bit version of XP available for XP users who could benefit from more than 4GB RAM (which is actually <4GB under 32-bit XP as Bobby pointed out). Ideally you'd want 64-bit apps to go with 64-bit XP though. Likewise for 64-bit Win-7.
To be clear I am not a paid MS booster. And yes I think they should have given Vista users at least some discount on W-7. A $25 rebate would be better than nothing. Win-7 is what Vista should have been, with a few new stuff thrown in. So it goes. I will however give MS credit for getting a new OS "right" when they do so and they have done that with Win-7 as far as I can tell and from reading other users' experiences with it.
"No smarminess intended in this post"
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-10-2009, 10:30 AM:
I basically missed Vista due to the timing of my last computer purchase (pre-Vista). With the new i7-based system I built in March, there was no way I was going to install XP on it, and had it not been for Windows7 beta being readily available, I would have installed Vista.
I've used Vista briefly a few times, and I didn't have any issues with it. From everything I've read, Vista with the latest Service Pack was pretty stable and decent. I think one of the biggest mistakes people did when Vista was released was to install it on machines that were ill-equipped with present day OS requirements. If you have an old machine that runs XP just fine, why put a brand new OS on it?
Windows 7 has been great in my experience since March. I have the RC installed right now, with a full release copy sitting on my desk waiting for the time to install it and reinstall the apps.
When I was selecting components, I made very sure that every item had Vista 64-bit drivers available and tried my best to determine if they were going to be supported by Win7. $99 for 6GB of RAM made loading the machine with plenty of RAM easy, and my motherboard has room for another 6-12GB should I ever need more. Win7 64-bit is ideally suited to take advantage of the 8 cores of the i7 920 processor, better than XP or Vista could.
The only issue I've run into that has been a real pain is the lack of support in Quickbooks 2009 and Adobe Acrobat Professional 7.0 for creating PDF's via the Printer Driver mechanism in both products.
Acrobat is old enough that it's not surprising that it doesn't work properly, but Quickbooks should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to charge customers $150 for minor upgrades that do very little incrementally. But still, even QB 2009 was released before Win7 was available to the public, so it can be excused to some extent for not working perfectly. I have a copy of QB2010 that better solve the problem, or I'm going to go captain on Intuit's butt.
Bottom line, brand new operating systems belong on brand new hardware. It's ridiculous and unrealistic to expect that old hardware will run a new OS without any issues. The OS should not be forced to perform at peak efficiency on outdated hardware.
That said, I've heard lots of reports of Win7 running great on netbooks with 1GB of RAM and tiny Atom CPU's. That's a testament to what Microsoft has accomplished with the new OS.
Device drivers are another story, as I think there should be an expectation of support for at least a couple of years on whatever OS is current for that time period.
Speaking of price, is $100 really too much to pay for an OS upgrade? Really? Look at the upgrade prices for Adobe products sometime, and then see if it's reasonable to complain about $100 for an entire Operating System...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-10-2009, 12:32 PM:
I think comparing what Adobe charges for upgrades versus what an OS upgrade costs is a bit of an apples to oranges thing. They're both different.
Even comparing an upgrade of something like Microsoft Office to an Adobe Creative Suite upgrade isn't an equal thing either. The Microsoft product is meant to be a completely mass market item that anyone can buy for either home use or use at work. Adobe's CS products are not geared for casual home use. They target a smaller crowd of professional users who make a living doing creative work. As industry specific software is focused to a more narrow, specialized task that software becomes much more expensive. Adobe's software is pretty affordable compared to what some large format printing RIP applications cost.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2009, 01:16 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
About the only thing they can be doing is making OS's which require far more CPU and RAM, like Vista.
Well Joe, that's what I was thinking about in both of my responses. I'm sure way back in the Win 3 days, they were going "Wouldn't it be rilly cool if like the windows could like fade in instead of like just popping onto the screen?" But computers then couldn't handle that kind of thing, so it was put on a "list" of future features. So you could say they're leaving features out, but in most cases it's probably justified.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2009, 03:20 PM:
They probably weren't thinking that, but independent Mac devs were. I recall there was a plug-in at that time which made the windows fade in and out. Useless, but neat at the time. All in all it just slowed things down.
However I am wondering what they have in mind for the future that can't be made a reality by the time part 8 comes out. I sure hope it's not just the glossy stuff. That does more to slow things down than anything. I had to run a script containing some registry tweaks just so that the submenus would open immediately instead of waiting a half second before appearing. The script can be found HERE. It will require a restart to take effect.
Here is what it does:
- Adds "Copy To" and "Move To" options in files and folders context menu, so that you can easily copy and move them to other locations.
- Sets Windows to automatically end task of programs which are either hanged or taking longer time than expected to exit.
- Decreases menus show delay time, it'll show the sub-menus fast when you select their parent menu.
- Disables the low disk space check so that you don't get the annoying low disk space notification in system tray.
- Sets Windows to not waste time in searching for a program which no longer exists in your system when you try to open its shortcut.
- Disables "search on Internet" prompt in "Open with" window so that it directly opens the program list.
- Speeds up the Explorer navigation.
- Adds "Take Ownership" option in files and folders context menu so that you can easily take ownership of files and folders in case you want to replace them for customization purpose.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-10-2009, 03:30 PM:
You're still assuming that they're doing that at all.
Again, they could be working on one thing that uses the same NT-line of kernels and another new line of software with perhaps their first kernel from-scratch kernel in a long time?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2009, 04:08 PM:
Yeah, you already said that... remember?
And what am I "still assuming"?
Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 11-10-2009, 04:58 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I was just trying to point how how features are DELIBERATELY being left out of Windows 8 to be included in Windows 9 and everyone spazzes out and goes apeshit.
yes, this is very common in software development I believe (I know I've done this just with some very small projects). There's multiple reasons; one is time and money - you can't get everything into a single release within a reasonable time frame or budget. Another is similar to what Bobby mentioned with Intel processors - you want to have a long term plan so you have releases coming out on a reasonable schedule that each offer new features and fixes to encourage upgrades. And as mentioned technology may be one; if something sounds useful but might not be practical on current hardware set it aside for later. So you take your list of features and fixes and plan to spread them out over several releases based on priority/feasability or whatever criteria. Of course it seems MS hasn't done a great job of this with the delays of Vista's release and it's apparent lack of a compelling reason to upgrade.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-10-2009, 08:02 PM:
A few of our Win 7 users (who upgraded from XP) made it their first goal to disable all the Aero graphics stuff and other similar bells and whistles and make 7 look and work as much like XP as possible. Once they were able to do that, they were happy and declared the upgrade a success because they now have much better memory management and can benefit from other 7 advances, while keeping the interface simple.
In game development, cool stuff gets cut all the time, for reasons having to do with time, budget, and current hardware not being up to the requirements. Some of that cut stuff makes it into subsequent releases or migrates to a different, more powerful game platform.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2009, 08:48 PM:
I made my XP look like 2000 because it was FUGLY and inept in GUI design. Do you mean to say they made it look like XP while XP is looking like 2000? Aero isn't too bad, much better than default XP. I like the icons in the bottom bar (whatever they call it) as opposed to giant tabs with text on them.
Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 11-10-2009, 10:47 PM:
I await the general cursing when all the "kewl new features" monkeys discover brand-new layers of unbreakable (for a while) DRM enforcement.
It took almost a year before some inventive genius figured out how to break Vista's chains off of the media people purchase through iTunes and similar sources of "you can only use what you bought while we let you" music and video.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-11-2009, 12:48 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
And what am I "still assuming"?
You asked what it is that they have in mind for version 9 that can't be done by version 8, which assumes that they actually are thinking about things to include in 9 that can't be made by the time 8 comes out.
Also, where did we get the info that they are working on both of these products?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-11-2009, 01:32 AM:
quote: Chris Slycord
Also, where did we get the info that they are working on both of these products?
That'd just be common sense. Hell, they're probably dreaming up features for five or six versions from now.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-11-2009, 09:42 AM:
Except they have no idea what kind of technology will be in computers by the time they've released 5 more versions. That's an entirely dubious idea.
And common sense, to me, would only dictate that they'd be working on the next product and not something that's going to be the "sequel" to that one at the same time. Common sense or not, do you have actual information showing that they are doing so or is this just an assumption?
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 11-11-2009, 02:02 PM:
You know, I've often wondered about this subject: Programming for computers of the future. Do you make something that will run on the computers of today or tomorrow. How much growth in speed and resources can be assumed? Sounds like a hard job to me. And this doesn't just have to do with operating systems but games too. Of course thats why they get paid the big bucks.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2009, 03:33 PM:
Chris, I heard it through the grapevine so I don't have a link for you.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-11-2009, 09:48 PM:
I've heard that too, Joe. From Microsoft sources in trade magazines. That's standard stuff. They're always developing two versions beyond what they have. One is in active development, one is on the drawing board / proof-of-concept stage. At least that WAS the case, and I have no reason to believe it's not the case now. It makes perfect sense to me that that's the case.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-06-2009, 05:27 PM:
I bought a Netbook on Black Friday with Windows 7 Starter edition installed, and it's great so far, runs fine on 1gb memory. However... as others have mentioned, I'm shocked at the amount of bloatware. It has a 250 gb hard drive, of which 207 of 220gb remains available. I know that when you do the math, the advertised GB doesn't exactly match the real world GB amount. Does anyone know how many GB the Windows 7 Starter edition should take up without the bloatware? The netbook didn't come with a disc, so I guess I have to output a disc image and burn it on another computer.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-06-2009, 06:15 PM:
I don't know answer to your question, but that really isn't bad, especially after you take into consideration the manufacturer's definition of gigabyte versus the real word gigabyte.
Posted by Andy Bajew (Member # 5330) on 12-06-2009, 06:21 PM:
The minimum amount of HDD space Windows 7 requires is 15GB. Windows 7 Starter will actually require a little bit more for the Netbooks depending on the brand you bought. Netbooks are designed to have a dual start up where you boot to a general screen where you can use the most basic of programs and then boot straight into Windows when you choose for a quicker load time(sort of a Asus mimic). Obviously if you have a brand where it doesn't do that style start up then you require less HDD space
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-07-2009, 06:43 AM:
When I started this thread my friend was dealing with a sucky Vista laptop. He has since upgraded to W7 and all of his problems seem to have disappeared. He is now out there telling everyone with similar Vista issues to bite the bullet and upgrade. As far as we can tell, the networking question I originally posed is not an issue.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-07-2009, 02:19 PM:
My Windows 7 Ultimate installation uses about 20 GB, but I have a couple of small programs installed like Firefox as well as all of the Windows 7 updates that evidently happen every week.
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 12-07-2009, 06:14 PM:
Windows 7 was my idea.
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 12-08-2009, 10:06 PM:
I want to retract my earlier statement about libraries. I have started using them and they are really quite cool.
You can include folders on multiple devices to be included on them. For instance my external hard drive has videos on it. I have included that folder in my videos library and now when it is plugged in they show up in one place with all my other videos. This is just one example of how to use them but the neat thing is when that device or network location is not available.. ie unplugged the media does not show up. So you don't have to worry about clicking on something that wont do anything.
You can also set a default save area so that if you drag something to a library it saves to a default folder.
I didn't think it was a good feature until I really tried it and it is now quite fricken convenient!!
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-09-2009, 11:44 AM:
I've been employed by (large japanese storage company) for 9 years and been in charge of supporting 3000 laptops for our users. We skipped over Vista entirely and are going to start a pilot testing program this coming spring for Windows 7. (There are over 40 different applications used throughout the company some of which are custom and built years and years ago so testing a new OS and certifying that all the apps will run takes a LONG time.) Yesterday was my first full day having migrated myself over to Windows 7 on a 3 year old Dell D620 with a 2.3ghz core 2 duo processor, nvidia NVS110 graphics chip and 3gb of ram. I have to say I am surprised and pleased with the performance and have yet to come across any application that wouldn't run. Drivers were no problem. I only had to visit dell's support site and pull down a vista graphics driver which installed easily. I like some of the new features such as the external device file organization as stated above and also how data files in the user profile are organized. Then I put the theme into 'windows classic' and it is even more responsive! It feels like a fast XP with UI tweaks now. I can't comment on how an in place upgrade would go as I did a clean installation.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-09-2009, 04:28 PM:
The only thing I don't like about the Classic mode is the GIANT grey bar on the bottom of the screen which is thicker than it was in any previous Windows incarnation... and uglier. I refuse to use auto hide" type schemes because that is just annoying.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-10-2009, 08:44 AM:
quote:
-next Homegroup: This is WIN 7's answer to workgroups. It only works with win 7 pc's. i.e. all members must have win 7
Wait -- you are saying that if have a bunch of my Users on worktstations with XP and we get a few new computers with Win 7, the XP machines with WORKGROUP won't communicate with the Win7s with HOMEGROUP? So I will have to get all of them on Win7 at the same time? Really?
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 12-10-2009, 10:14 PM:
Worry not Frank. Workgroups are still available. You will still be able to share your files from XP to 7 and vice versa.
Homegroup is a new feature in addition to workgroup which only Windows 7 PC's or XBox can share media. I can't fully comprehend it's purpose though. I only have 1 laptop running 7 so I tried the Homegroup thing out with a friend who was also running 7 on his laptop. The result: it looked like a Workgroup to me! Don't get it. I do know one thing that is helpful is the ability to join a homegroup without rebooting!! Never understood that!!
Maybe somebody here that has used Homegroup extensively can answer this:
WHAT'S THE POINT?
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-10-2009, 10:56 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
The only thing I don't like about the Classic mode is the GIANT grey bar on the bottom of the screen which is thicker than it was in any previous Windows incarnation...
Joe try right clicking the taskbar and choosing properties. Tick the 'use small icons' box. I think that might be what you're after. Also did you figure out how to restore the quick launch area?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-11-2009, 02:08 AM:
What is "quick launch area"? I have no idea what this means. The way I have Windows 7 set up, it works like the Dock in the Apple OS. The apps live in the bottom grey bar. One click and they launch. I do not have the old Windows way of where every single window, page or program is a giant tab across the bottom. I have always hated that about Windows. I also have always hated the useless things in the bottom right corner of the old Windows OSes. They appear, and then they hide only to leave two or three of them exposed. Always been very useless. Windows 7 is far less useless than any previous Windows. Finally some thought went into the design. It really is a first for Microsoft as coming up with new or even good ideas is not one of their strengths.
I did apply a registry hack so that my submenus open immediately when highlighted.
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 12-12-2009, 12:21 PM:
Joe,
"quick launch" is an XP term. It was the little icons that you could turn on as a toolbar in the bottom left of the screen next to the start menu. i.e., media player, outlook...etc.
Windows 7 uses the same area but the new terminology is "pinning" a program to the task bar. And left clicking and pulling up brings up it's "jump list".
Woo Hoo Post 100!!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-12-2009, 01:00 PM:
The quick launch rules. I use it for email and Firefox.
I have always had a deep hatred for the dock, or perhaps I should call it the iDock. I don't want to see everything at once. I only want to see what programs are open. That's just me though. At least W7 lets people choose.
All of the icons in the lower right corner of XP does suck though. Depending on how you install the programs and how you edit the config will make most of the useless ones go away though, so it doesn't bother me much.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-12-2009, 05:28 PM:
Sounds like "pinning" is the same thing as the Quick Launch. I like the Dock because all of my commonly used apps are there, I don't have to hunt for them when I need them, and it is marvelous for drag and drop which is how I prefer to open certain types of files that have not been associated with a program yet (or I want to open it in a different program than it is associated with which I often must to with video files and PCM sound files to do different things in different apps). I don't know if Windows 7 allows that or not, I have yet to try. It is easy to tell what is running and what is not. I don't use the Dock to switch between apps, I use Command+tab. I think the same thing works in Windows but it might be Alt+tab or Control+tab.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-12-2009, 09:21 PM:
I do something really special with my commonly used programs. I make little icons for each one of them that open the program and place them on the desktop. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-12-2009, 10:47 PM:
That's where my saved files go.
Anyway it is harder to launch applications when you have other programs blocking them. For example, I can drag many images from Firefox directly to an application of my choice in the Dock, if need be.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-13-2009, 12:13 AM:
You save all your files on the desktop? I could not do that, but it might work for others.
I make too many changes to too many files on a frequent basis to keep a bunch of things in the desktop folder. I have tens of thousands of art files stored on external hard discs (as well as on optical discs). Long ago I started using a file naming system and system of folders updated on a quarterly basis. Each quarter's worth of files gets moved into another quarterly volume. The up front file organization makes it easy to find specific files regardless of how old the version of Windows may be or how long ago the file may have been created.
I think most computer users are either too lazy or just don't know how to use computers well enough to properly organize their files and folders. A fancy dock on the task bar and other "wizard" like tools will not help these people either. Their computers are still going to be a disorganized mess.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-13-2009, 01:37 AM:
I don't permanently keep them on the desktop, just whatever I am currently working on/dealing with. If I grab pictures from the web, I drag them from my browser to the desktop and deal with them later. Sound and art files used in video editing live on the desktop because I may need to use them in another application and I don't feel like going through a hierarchy of menus just to open it it in any given app. Just drag to the app in the Dock and that's done. Once the project is done, everything gets nestled into its own folder elsewhere.
I used to hate the Dock when OSX first came about. Now I don't see how I ever lived without it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-13-2009, 02:51 AM:
I'll probably get accustomed to using the Windows 7 "dock" or whatever it is they call it when I get a new notebook computer a few months from now.
I already get similar functionality on my work computer by way of having a couple monitors and shortcuts to my commonly used applications placed on the desktop of my primary computer monitor. I can drag files from Windows Explorer on monitor #2 and drop them on the application shortcut and they open just fine. I don't often do that, but sometimes I'll get an art file via e-mail that was saved from a Mac and the "dot-three" suffix isn't there. Is it an EPS file? A JPEG? An Illustrator "AI" file? I hope there's no Mac-based version of MS Publisher. Ugh. Anyway, I drag and drop that unassociated file onto the Illustrator shortcut and more often that not it opens just fine. Same goes for Freehand, but who uses Macromedia Freehand anymore?
Will Windows 7 allow you do drag items from the recently viewed documents menu onto the application dock or application short cuts on the desktop? XP doesn't allow that.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-13-2009, 05:29 AM:
I will have to boot up into Windows 7 to test that.
Everyone I know who uses a Mac still uses the file suffix in the filename. There is an option to hide that on the Mac, but I like to see them. I don't know what Publisher is. As for Windows Explorer, it sucks, you really should use Firefox.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-13-2009, 12:06 PM:
I use Firefox for web browsing, but have been using Google Chrome more and more lately. Windows Explorer is Windows' local hard disc file management tool. Internet Explorer is Microsoft's suck-ass web browser. Publisher is Microsoft's suck ass graphic design tool that doesn't work well with professional graphics programs.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-13-2009, 04:41 PM:
So let me get this straight... the Desktop and the folders associated with it that you navigate through is called Windows Explorer? That is perhaps the most retarded (and redundant) thing I've ever heard. I might allow that if it was simply called "Explorer", but that name is too closely associated with the shitty web browser to be acceptable.
Google Chrome sucks ass. It has nothing over Firefox.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-13-2009, 05:21 PM:
Actually Windows Explorer has been around much longer than Internet Explorer. I'm not sure if it was in the first version of Windows, but it's definitely been there since Windows 3.0.
I'm used to the old disc/folder/file tree metaphor in Windows Explorer. I can manage files in Explorer far faster than I can by clicking through a bunch of dopey separate folder windows. Explorer is not perfect, but it's pretty straight forward. I recall a number of competing file management pieces of software marketed to compete against Windows Explorer back in the 1990s, but I don't know if anything like that is available anymore.
In old versions of Windows, the Windows Explorer application was easy to find. With each new version Microsoft has increasingly buried it in application flyouts farther away from the Start button. In WinXP you have to click Start>Programs>Accessories to get the flyout containing Explorer. But you can right click on the Start button and select "Explore" to bring up Windows Explorer. But it expands all that My Documents folder bullcrap when you choose that short cut. I don't put anything into "My Documents." I save most items on external hard discs.
I agree Microsoft does make it confusing to have two "explorer" named pieces of software. Maybe they should have named their web browser something else.
Google Chrome could be better. I don't like how a lot of things are hidden. Firefox is much better designed. However, Firefox 3.5.5 has been running pretty slow for me, especially when it is launched. Even with the history and everything else deleted it still starts slow.
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 12-14-2009, 12:01 PM:
As I reall from the dos days of windows. That version of Explorer was called "file manager"
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 01:03 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm not sure if it was in the first version of Windows
Well, if the first version of Windows™ had "windows", then it had to have Explorer by default, no? I mean all that it really is are folders/windows that can be opened, moved around and files and sub-folders moved around between them.
quote: Bobby Henderson
In old versions of Windows, the Windows Explorer application was easy to find.
Of course it is. It's ALWAYS there unless you are running DOS. If you are looking at the desktop, you are looking at Explorer by default since the desktop is a folder itself. Don't tell me that in earlier versions of Windows™ you'd actually have to hunt down and launch the actual program that allowed the windows.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-14-2009, 03:36 PM:
Ok, so now my laptop hard drive was on the verge of taking a crap and I decided to give Windows 7 a try as the host OS. Looks ok so far, but I think I still need to turn some stuff off. Sometimes things still seem to hang for a few seconds for no reason at all.
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 12-14-2009, 10:07 PM:
a painted turd is still a turd get a new hdd.
Or, download a drive utility from the drive manufacturer. This is usually a file that you can burn to a bootable cd and run diagnostics on the drive so it is not mounted and running your OS at the same time. There may be bad sectors or something that can be repaired or blocked out from use of any operating system.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-14-2009, 11:14 PM:
I agree. Back up any data you would like to keep off that notebook hard disc IMMEDIATELY.
I've been through this crap a few times already. The original HDD in my current notebook failed after its 3rd year of service. Thankfully I was already using external drives for backup purposes so the change to a new 80GB HDD at the time didn't hurt much.
My office PC has two physical hard drives inside the CPU case. I store NOTHING important on the boot hard disc. Additionally, that PC has a 1 terabyte external HDD attached doing simultaneous backup chores.
Keeping the boot hard disc free of personal files makes it quite a bit easier to wipe out a bugged-to-fuck Windows installation and starting clean. I had to do this 3 weeks ago on my office PC after one of Microsoft's recent security bullshit patches screwed up a couple of my design programs where I could no longer use text functions. Select a font in CorelDRAW = CRASH. Restart. Hit Ctrl+F12 on the Dell logo. Factory restore. Have fun for the next few hours reinstalling applications. Adobe Production Studio CS4 is a nice 1.5 hour slog through 4 DVD install discs. Ugh. Oh and I forgot the Roland VersaWorks install. The base DVD is easy. It's the 1.5GB of updates you have to download overnight that's the real bitch! At least I still have all my data. That's what counts.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-15-2009, 07:37 AM:
Sorry I wasn't clear in my post, guys. I've had this drive for about two years in this laptop and it's not worth it to me to spend time trying to figure out what's wrong with it. For $100 I have a new drive. All of my stuff is running on virtual machines in VMWare 7. All of my data resides on the host OS in a folder that is shared between the VMs (most of which are XP). Normally it would take me about a week to reinstall everything that I use on a new hard drive, but with VMWare the whole process took about four hours. And Yeah, I know what you mean about CS4! That's one of the apps I use.
I do back everything up to an external drive periodically. If I end up not liking Windows 7 I can switch completely back to Linux in less than a day. I am looking forward to being able to watch my blu-rays on Windows 7 though, which is something that's not easy to do on Linux.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2