Windows 7 are you moving?

[Drywolf]

I started with DOS and Windows 3.X then came WinntX/Win95, Windows 2000 and finally XP (32/64) pro. I skipped a few editions like ME, Vista 64 and a few others, basically because my employers did too. I've made a decision that I am going to migrate to Windows 7 (64bit) ultimate edition. So it's on order and I will soon bear the pain of rebuilding my system again. Just wondering if many other will be making the change too and why? I know I am going there because I like to keep my hardware sort of up to date and I like to keep my computer skills growing and also up to date.

Currently I run the following harware:

Supermicro X8SAX MB
Intel W3520 CPU
Sapphire HD5850 video
12GB mem
USR modem
Intel 160GB SSD/c: disk
6 SATA disks in a raid 6 3Ware configuration Data/d: disk

I think I'm going to need a new video card (replaced) and maybe a PCI sound card which are supported in Windows 7. I'm also making a huge upgrade I hope. I plan on replacing my system/C: storage with an Intel SSD.

Happy Halloween,
Frank

 

[Empath]

Off-topic Apple promotion hijack was removed.
If you want to talk about Apple computers, start your own thread.

 

[Flashanator]

yes. no doubt 64bit.

 

[carrot]

I am a big, big, Apple fanboy and my resounding answer to 7 is YES.

Every time I boot up 7 I am excited to use it because it is by far the best OS Microsoft has ever put out. Before that, the "best" was XP SP3, and before that, 2000. IMHO it even rivals OSX Leopard in terms of productivity for me.

The user interface (taskbar, etc) is greatly improved over XP. Let's face it, it's even pretty greatly improved over Vista.

It is responsive and snappy on our 8-core 3.0GHz machines at work, the way it should be. XP and Vista are noticeably sluggish.

The UAC is no longer constantly in your face unlike Vista.

I highly recommend the upgrade to 7 for any machine currently running Vista (an upgrade will be 90-95% pain-free) and for any reasonably new machine with multicore processors. The difference is HUGE.

Just so you know, 7 is fully compatible with Vista drivers so driver issues are pretty much nonexistant at this point... it's a good year for Windows users...

 

[Mundele]

I've been running Windows 7 at work for a few weeks (We're MS partners). I like it a lot! Big big fan. Much better than Vista.

 

[PhotonBoy]

I'm thinking that Windows 7 is a keeper. I'm planning on buying a new PC after the Christmas rush. I'll also be keenly watching for real-world feedback from early adopters.

I hope that Microsoft has learned its lesson with Vista. MS should extend the time interval between OS upgrades. This would reduce mistakes and improve customer satisfaction.

 

[carrot]

I'm thinking that Windows 7 is a keeper. I'm planning on buying a new PC after the Christmas rush. I'll also be keenly watching for real-world feedback from early adopters.

I hope that Microsoft has learned its lesson with Vista. MS should extend the time interval between OS upgrades. This would reduce mistakes and improve customer satisfaction.

8 years between releases is pretty long though.... XP came out in 2001 and 7 is coming out officially in two days, 2009.

 

[Patriot]

8 years between releases is pretty long though.... XP came out in 2001 and 7 is coming out officially in two days, 2009.

Are you forgetting about Vista?

 

[carrot]

Are you forgetting about Vista?

What's that?

 

[blasterman]

It is responsive and snappy on our 8-core 3.0GHz machines at work, the way it should be. XP and Vista are noticeably sluggish.

Any OS should be responsive on eight cores.

I find it absurd that the single core, 2.0gz Athlon64 box I have at home that I use as a spare Photoshop workstations seems 4x as responsive than any Vista Machine I'e ever used in any corporate environment. Matter of fact, the Citrix Servers I've built running on P3s and hosting 20 or more user sessions would launch apps and page faster than most Vista machines.

Conceptually I liked Vista, didn't bash it too much, and found it's installation process to be pretty flawless. It's the sluggishness that drove me crazy because I expect basic apps to launch instantly, not hump your HD and sludge along like a 486 like Vista often does. The fact Microsoft was able to come out with 7 so quickly proved they knew something was wrong. At times I wondered if Vista was running a DRM check on every cluster on my HD when it was loading something.

For the record, UAC can be disabled in Vista. Not sure what Win 7 defaults to because I haven't installed it yet. If Windows 7 defaults to full local admin rights then we've taken a big step backwards and pacified the moronic security knowledge of most home Windows users and I'm buying stock in companies in Russia that write spyware :twothumbs

Also a big kudos for the mods for nuking the apple post. We all know that OSX is so perfect it's on Version 1, never requires patches, and upgrades are free.

 

[Beamhead]

Yes, since my current XP desk top is a brick, I'll be buying a new one with it preloaded.

 

[carrot]

Any OS should be responsive on eight cores.

I agree with you, but that's not what the reality of it was in my experience, across four separate workstations. 7 is a lot faster and more responsive than both XP and Vista. Let's not forget that in XP multicore support was fairly limited compared to what it is today in 7, and Vista... well, is Vista.

 

[baterija]

I have no reason to actually spend money to move. I probably wouldn't if it was free. My laptop is my primary system and it was effective if not fast with Vista. After a couple weeks of forced annoyance and a driver issue with Vista I upgraded back to XP and got a speed boost in the process. There's no direct XP to Win7 upgrade, so besides the monetary cost I would have the hassle of wiping my system clean and starting fresh.

I found Vista and the Aero interface to be more about looks than function. (I liked Vista much better once I turned most of the UI "enhancements" off.) Most of the additional UI changes Win7 brings in are again things I would either turn off, not use, or I have the functionality already in XP with add on software. I only have a 2 core chip and my system is more powerful than I need for most tasks. I'm not upgrading just to run Win7. From what I have seen XP and it's lower system requirements is still going to beat Vista/Win7 till the number of cores is much higher. So I can go slower, for minimal if any gain in actually getting things done, and pay money for the privilege. No thanks.

Honestly the only thing either Vista or XP really offers to me is the better security architecture. That's big but not enough. I've managed this long with sound security practices controlling the risks of a weak XP structure.

 

[Mech3]

No more Gates here. I started with Dos 5 and run every OS MS put out till Vista. I tried Vista, and it took a good fast computer, 5000+ Dual core athlon64 with 2 gigs of memory 3.0 SATA drive and turned it into a slow and sluggish pile of junk. My sons 800MHz celeron with 256gb of memory, running XP, run better I lost money, when I bought the ME edition years ago, and I think that I threw a lot, of good flashlight money away on Vista Ultimate as well. I have given Bill all I am going to give him. I swapped over to Ubuntu and never looked back. Saving my money for more lights.:twothumbs OS is free and no need to buy antivirus software either.

 

[blasterman]

7 is a lot faster and more responsive than both XP and Vista.

Personally I was never a big XP fan because I don't trust any MS OS that doesn't have a server version and Server 2000 makes a better desktop than XP. But....if you're finding Win 7 ismore responsive than XP...damn cool.

In regards to security, if you can install an app, then so can spyware. Doesn't matter what OS it is. Not surfing with admin rights renders any MS desktop since NT pretty much inert from baddies.

 

[Ajay]

I have been using Windows 7 Beta for months now as my gaming/experimental OS. It is amazingly stable and runs all my old games that windows vista was having problems with. Great overall OS but like all OS's it slows down over time. The boot time is now like any vista machine but I still really like windows 7.


If the beta is this stable I wonder how the finished product will run?

 

[geepondy]

Yes, I have a copy of home premium on the way that I bought for the upgrade half price sale earlier this year.

I have a couple of questions:
1) Will you have the choice of 64 or 32 bit option at install or is already hard coded into the version I bought?

2)Can you install it on a blank HD (again this is the upgrade version) and put copy of XP in cd drive as proof like when upgrading XP over 98 or does XP already have to be residing on the hard disk?

I'm hoping my Athlon 64 X2 6000+ along with 2GB of ram will be zippy enough to run it ok. Eventually I hope to build a new system (probably core I5) and don't wish to waste money on upgrading this system.

 

[carrot]

Personally I was never a big XP fan because I don't trust any MS OS that doesn't have a server version and Server 2000 makes a better desktop than XP. But....if you're finding Win 7 ismore responsive than XP...damn cool.

Isn't Server 2K3 the server version of XP? We run it at work.

 

[Mjolnir]

I don't really understand what windows 7 really offers. The biggest flaw with Microsoft's operating systems is the registry, which inevitably gets corrupt and makes all windows computers slow. There is NO REASON why a 4 or 5 year old PC should not be able to do basic tasks like web browsing and be just as responsive as a much newer, more powerful computer. Because of the registry, computers slow down over time, which is one of the main reasons that people buy computers when they don't need them. Most people only use their computers for email, web browsing, and creating documents, so they do not need to buy a new computer every few years. If they just reinstalled the operating system, their computer would be sufficiently responsive to do these tasks.
Most of what everyone is raving about about windows 7 is related to the GUI, not the actual operating system itself. Saying that it is "stable" is like saying that the wheels don't fall of your car; they are supposed to stay on. Vista was basically a yugo in this regard. I don't see why microsoft is releasing yet another broken operating system. If they REALLY wanted to make a good operating system, they would get rid of the decades old registry and come up with something else that doesn't result in computers slowing down significantly in half a year. However, most people haven't been exposed to the idea that computers aren't supposed to slow down like this, so Microsoft doesn't really have any incentive to make an operating system that can remain stable for long periods of time. Because of this fatal flaw, I have to restore my computer back to an earlier image right after the OS was installed every few months, when it starts getting less responsive. I SHOULD NOT have to do this with a well designed operating system.

However, Windows 7 does offer DirectX 11, so I would have to upgrade in order to use that (although most game developers still don't even use DX10). I will probably at least dual boot Windows 7 with Vista, since I would rather not have to reinstall all of my programs again.

 

[Crenshaw]

GOod to hear that Windows didnt try to "mac-i-fy" their OS more then they already tried with vista, and good to hear they realise most people dont care about slick animations and cool buttons, and what we want is snappyness

as for registry, I like to use specfic uninstaller programs what sweep your registry for unused entries from the software you just uninstalled.

Crenshaw