Windows 7 Debuts

av8r · Post by **av8r** » Wed. Oct. 29, 2008 11:01 am

**Broken Link(s) Removed**

djackman · Post by **djackman** » Fri. Oct. 31, 2008 1:41 am

If boot speed and useability reverts back to XP spec it may stop the bleeding in the home user market, but the bigger question is will corporate america adopt it? Microsoft continues to ignore the cost of retraining users and helpdesk staff to use the Vista interface.

We're starting to see some of the recent (1-2 years) Mac convert crowd getting turned off to Mac when they find out the cost of repairing a not-so-old Mac notebook. Suspect a lot of them may go back to Wintel systems if Windows 7 is more usable than Vista next upgrade cycle. Most of the "post-Vista" Mac converts I've met have the same basic reaction to Apple as some do to Vista - "it's ok". Never "great!" or "wow, why didn't I do this sooner!"

To me computers are tools, not a religion.

Lumberjack · Post by **Lumberjack** » Fri. Oct. 31, 2008 11:50 pm

I gave up windows a few years ago.... I will never go back

av8r · Post by **av8r** » Sat. Nov. 01, 2008 9:46 am

it's tough if you have to choose. I use 3 operating systems, each depending on what I need to accomplish. Windows has it's shining areas just as the others do.

gaw · Post by **gaw** » Sat. Nov. 01, 2008 10:30 am

I have a rather short list of programs I use. Windows XP works very well for me. My wife has Vista on a computer with same memory and slightly faster processor as mine and it is the slowest thing I have ever seen. I guess the newer processors with a ton of memory work better. I hope windows 7 is better because I don't want to ever have to use Vista if at all possible.

av8r · Post by **av8r** » Sat. Nov. 01, 2008 3:41 pm

7 is an optimized Vista. It's what MS should have released to begin with.

Post by **Richard S.** » Sat. Nov. 01, 2008 6:05 pm

gaw wrote: My wife has Vista on a computer with same memory and slightly faster processor as mine and it is the slowest thing I have ever seen. I guess the newer processors with a ton of memory work better.

If you disable the Aero interface I hear speeds dramatically increase, that of course makes it look like XP.

I've only used Vista a fw times and I liked it except for the slowness. Haven't had the pleasure of using it on a really fast machine which is what is needed.

av8r · Post by **av8r** » Sat. Nov. 01, 2008 8:57 pm

You need 3-4 gb or ram and a decent video card and it'll run well on an older machine. Aero is off by default.

I've installed it on one of my desktops at work 3 times....and I've reverted back to XP each time...

djackman · Post by **djackman** » Sat. Nov. 01, 2008 10:57 pm

gaw wrote:My wife has Vista on a computer with same memory and slightly faster processor as mine and it is the slowest thing I have ever seen.

Supposedly turning off the agressive disk caching can help

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/how- ... ows-vista/

Might be worth a try. Next Vista box that comes across our bench (that isn't getting upgraded to XP

) I will try it.

Using one of the "alternate" security solutions eg AVG, Kapersky, etc can make a big difference. Memory/CPU hog antivirus programs take a huge toll on performance.

Fast video chipset (even if not running Aero), 2gb+ system memory are really bare minimum requirements for Vista. From what we're seeing the video subsystem can sometimes be more important than the CPU -integrated video chipsets are the worst offenders. PCI Express cards have dropped significantly in price - if you have a recent system that came with integrated video and an empty PCIe slot do the upgrade....

Vista will likely go down in history as Windows98ME version 2.

Hunlock · Post by **Hunlock** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 2:14 pm

Great...another OS my printer won't work with........j/k

Adamiscold · Post by **Adamiscold** » Thu. Nov. 06, 2008 10:26 am

av8r wrote:7 is an optimized Vista. It's what MS should have released to begin with.

Vista is nothing more then another version of Windows 2000. A stepping stone for them to make money until they can get the real OS out to the public.

av8r · Post by **av8r** » Thu. Nov. 06, 2008 3:28 pm

Actually, the back end code is very different from 2000. We test with MS on a higher ed beta team and I can assure you, there is a significant difference.

Adamiscold · Post by **Adamiscold** » Fri. Nov. 07, 2008 8:00 am

Av

I meant Vista is to windows 7 as how windows 2000 was to XP just a quick stepping stone before they come out with the real operating system. Windows 2000 was a buggy nightmare that they never fixed and Vista is and will be the same. Windows 7 will either be out next year or in 2010 depending on which Windows reports you choose to listen too. http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/07/microsoft-mist ... ndows-7-a/

av8r · Post by **av8r** » Fri. Nov. 07, 2008 12:54 pm

We were pretty happy with 2000 server. Had over 100 machines using it in our data center. 2000 on a workstation wasn't a huge deal unless you wanted to do non-work stuff, but then it wasn't designed for that.

Adamiscold · Post by **Adamiscold** » Sat. Nov. 08, 2008 3:13 am

I have no experience with it on servers, just with people who had it on their home computers and had serious trouble getting it to run some types of software on it.