Topic: Windows 7 Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=30991" title="Pages that link to Topic: Windows 7" rel="nofollow" >Topic: Windows 7\

 
Author Thread
Tao
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Pool Of Life
Insane since: Nov 2003

IP logged posted posted 05-07-2009 17:00 Edit Quote

Hello my beautiful Asylumites
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with the new release of Windows 7? It seems it is free to try up to about June of next year or thereabouts. I'm in the process of downloading a 64bit version for a new computer I'm hoping to build or buy in the very near future.
Actually that brings me to another question. I plan on having at least 4 gig of RAM but would like twice that amount as RAM is so relatively cheap at the moment. So I'm looking for an OS that will recognise and use that amount. I know XP will only recognise 3.5 gig or somewhere in that region.
I seem to remember hearing that Vista, or perhaps it's Vista 64bit, can see and use over 8 gig of RAM but I don't really want to splash out on Vista with a new OS in the pipeline.
I also have not tried Ubuntu 64bit yet. I'd love to hear from anyone with any experiences with these matters.

poi
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Norway
Insane since: Jun 2002

IP logged posted posted 05-07-2009 17:46 Edit Quote

Haven't tried it myself but a friend of mine, who's a Mac OS user, installed Windows 7 RC and said pretty good things about it.

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

IP logged posted posted 05-08-2009 00:12 Edit Quote

All the descriptions and changelogs I've seen for it suggest it is just Windows Vista 0.2, with even more familiar features outright disabled (whereas they tended to be just no longer the default in Vista), and none of my principle Vista gripes mentioned as being fixed at all. It's interesting to watch how Windows progresses each version to adopt more and more of what Unixland has had already, though, and also how its price steadily doubles.

I have heard good things about it, but only from people who couldn't find anything they didn't like about Windows Vista.

Tao
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Pool Of Life
Insane since: Nov 2003

IP logged posted posted 05-08-2009 01:48 Edit Quote

Thanks poi and reisio.
I've been digging around for information about memory allocation and found this link about memory limits for the various windows releases interesting.
I've completed the Win 7 64bit download (3.04gig rar archive) but can't install it on this particular machine of mine I'm using now. I'll have to wait, till I get to my other computer. Looking at the minimum specs for running Win 7 32 bit:





  • 1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor





  • 1 GB RAM (32-bit) / 2 GB RAM (64-bit)





  • 16 GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit)





  • DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver


I may just get away with it on this present computer. (P4 1.9GHz with 1gig RAM) I wonder if MS will be cool if I download the 32bit version to the same computer? I can only try...

GrythusDraconis
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Here and There
Insane since: Jul 2002

IP logged posted posted 05-12-2009 20:18 Edit Quote

I've found that if you are moving to 64bit its because of a memory limitation. If you are going to actually make the move.. it makes no sense to only get 4Gb of RAM. I would move to 64bit without at least 8Gb of RAM. From the software side of things (I work in 3D architectural and Engineering software) the baseline for 64bit OS and Apps is that they tend to be bigger and need more resources than their 32bit counterparts.

Dislike Vista all you want and dislike Win 7 for the same reasons but the surface work they've done in Win 7... I like. I've been running it since Beta 2 and this will likely be the only OS I buy without a computer wrapped around it.

GD

White Hawk
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: zero divided.
Insane since: May 2004

IP logged posted posted 05-12-2009 21:23 Edit Quote

On a 32-bit (Windows) OS, due to memory addressing limitations, any single process can only be allocated a maximum of 3.25GB, though various tricks are used to address up to 4GB with the right environment. 4GB on a 32bit Windows system is only really of use with integrated graphics solutions that may take advantage of the unused excess... which isn't saying a lot, as integrated solutions suck...

This limit still exists in the 32bit flavour of Vista.

To all intents and purposes, there is no memory address limitation in 64bit Vista (aside from the artificial limits imposed in the cheaper versions). The actual limit of allocatable memory is around 16 exabytes (according to Wikipedia), which could only be considered a limit if you're busy processing (literally) astronomical data... and even then, you've a lot of spare memory to play with.

Now, while I agree that the minimum required specifications published for the various flavours of XP/Vista are somewhat conservative, I cannot agree that it is pointless to have less than 8GB of RAM! My rig is built for gaming, runs 64bit Vista, and performs perfectly (I mean, perfectly) on 4GB of 800MHz RAM, even with the latest games. In fact, because I went with 64bit, I get a lot more eye-candy with no compromise on performance - and gaming is not the only area in which 64bit computing is increasingly offering more oomph with no added overheads.

I'm not suggesting that gaming is the only intensive application for your technology, but it is arguably one of the most demanding; from the viewpoint of a serious gamer with a stonking addiction to eye-candy and ridonkulous overclocks, I can assure you that 4GB of RAM is adequate for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I will be purchasing 8GB of RAM (or more) when I can step up to DDR3 and the next generation of CPUs. It's a matter of when the technology falls within range of my gaming budget, and the next generation of games demands it. Until such a time, I'm happy to report that 8GB is a luxury I can live without.
_____

While we're on the subject, as an IT professional, I have had far fewer problems with Vista than I had with XP when it first came out (I loved my Win2K, and it took ages for me to move on). From what I can tell, Windows 7 is more of the same (or less - a stripped-down OS with paid bolt-ons). Unless you have a reason to dislike Windows (full-stop), you generally shouldn't have a problem with Vista or 7. It's a matter of personal taste.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-12-2009 21:25)

Caliburn
Obsessive-Compulsive (I) Inmate

From: Las Vegas, NV
Insane since: Sep 2009

IP logged posted posted 09-17-2009 12:41 Edit Quote

I haven't had the opportunity to truly tinker with Windows7, yet. I'm waiting for it's final release before I upgrade from XP. Mostly everything I've read about it though has been positive.

...Why are they releasing it in 32-Bit anyhow? They should force everyone up to 64-Bit. It's past time. And where's my 128-bit OS? Someone needs to invent that.

And I dare say the bare minimum now-days for a truly smooth computing experience is 8GB of RAM and a 1GB GPU or better. You have so many programs that are true memory hogs now-a-days. Virii scanners, firewalls, media players, browsers, photo editing, the list goes on.

(Edited by Caliburn on 09-17-2009 12:43)

SleepingWolf
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Jul 2006

IP logged posted posted 09-17-2009 13:54 Edit Quote

After getting burned with Vista, I'm not giving Microsoft another penny.

And what is the OS good for? File management? Whoopy shit. I can manage files from DOS.

I don't need fancy transparent desktop icons and code that is so bloated it fills a 1 TB drive.

So MS will need to find another sucker.

Nature & Travel Photography
Main Entrance

Blaise
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: London
Insane since: Jun 2003

IP logged posted posted 09-17-2009 15:42 Edit Quote

Well I installed the 64bit version of Windows 7 a few months back, and although I still use Ubuntu (CrunchBang Linux to be exact) as my main OS, the play time I have had with Windows 7 has been positive.

I really disliked Vista, especially the problems with performance I was having, however Windows & has been very efficient on my machine, and I've even taken to playing games on it.

My problems with Windows often happen after months of it being installed where inefficient updates start to drag the machine to a halt, where I've found Linux to be much more stable in the long run.

Either way, I would try it out when you can it runs splendid on 4GB, and if it's not for you, then enjoy having the freedom to choose Linux

mas
Maniac (V) Mad Librarian

From: the space between us
Insane since: Sep 2002

IP logged posted posted 09-20-2009 21:45 Edit Quote

a quickie: i got my copy of windows 7 a few days ago, and i really enjoy it! (but i also liked windows vista (yeah, really)); win 7 is basically just an update, they fixed a few bugs and tweaked the interface a little bit.
still.....a great OS imho

The Space Between Us | My Blog: lukas.grumet.at

White Hawk
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: zero divided.
Insane since: May 2004

IP logged posted posted 09-21-2009 13:29 Edit Quote
quote:
After getting burned with Vista...



SleepingWolf, how were you burned?

Ramasax
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

IP logged posted posted 09-21-2009 14:56 Edit Quote

I installed Windows 7 RC1 a few months ago and have only good things to say about it. It's stable, the UI is greatly improved, the new taskbar (albeit a ripoff) is excellent, and as a long-time XP user it was easily adjusted to. I am pretty sure I finally have a replacement for XP. For context, about a year ago I installed Vista, and it lasted a grand total of 2 hours before I wiped it in frustration and went back to XP.

Ram

White Hawk
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: zero divided.
Insane since: May 2004

IP logged posted posted 09-21-2009 18:20 Edit Quote

For the record, I have seen and heard enough about W7 to make me seriously consider it when these two conditions are satisfied:

Upgrade from Vista is not stupid money.

Gaming performance and stability clearly matches or exceeds Vista.

I didn't adopt Vista until I had a machine capable of pissing it, which gave me a firm and happy footing with it, but I can understand the viewpoint of some Vista haters based upon its greedy requirements for anything approaching reasonable performance.

I think Windows 7 may turn quite a few anti-Windozers around. As it's a clear improvement upon Vista in the performance stakes in every area that isn't gaming-related (this area comes down largely to the maturity of drivers), often matching or exceeding XP, and it includes a host of useability enhancements (that could honestly be applied in a Vista service pack - bleh)... I think I can see myself as a convert eventually.

As it happens, the upgrade path to W7 isn't as muddy as I previously thought either. Woot!

SleepingWolf
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Jul 2006

IP logged posted posted 09-21-2009 20:26 Edit Quote
quote:

White Hawk said:

quote:After getting burned with Vista...SleepingWolf, how were you burned?



Burned in the sense that despite reading all the bad press about Vista (caveat emptor), despite holding off forever before purchasing the VIsta upgrade, I stupidly gave in - being an early adopter of PC technology - and spent good money on a worthless upgrade. I did have the good sense to install Vista as dual boot.

After playing for weeks with Vista, after hours of tweaking it and customizing it, I finally came to the realization that XP was all I needed.

So as You stated yourself WH, unless they offer a really good price break to the Vista Suckers and unless the press gives them high ratings, I'm not going there.

Nature & Travel Photography
Main Entrance

(Edited by SleepingWolf on 09-21-2009 20:27)

Caliburn
Nervous Wreck (II) Inmate

From: Las Vegas, NV
Insane since: Sep 2009

IP logged posted posted 09-22-2009 01:16 Edit Quote

@SleepingWolf: You should read the reviews of Windows7 already out. It's getting really positive reviews. The way Microsoft is handling this release... from beta to final ... is the proper way to do it. I have a feeling the first full release is going to be bug free for the most part.

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

IP logged posted posted 09-22-2009 04:31 Edit Quote

Vista got "really positive reviews", too. The only useful review at this point would be a side-by-side comparison that actually includes everything peopl hated about Vista in it, not just comparing nonsense fancy crap they added in Windows 7 to a slightly lower amount of nonsense fancy crap that was in Windows Vista.

White Hawk
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: zero divided.
Insane since: May 2004

IP logged posted posted 09-22-2009 12:58 Edit Quote

Hehe - I know I keep repeating myself, but I'm fonder of Vista than I ever was of XP (which took me ages to trust), but then, I have multiple CPUs, multiple GPUs, and a nice chunk of RAM with a decent hard drive, so it runs very nicely (better than XP did on my old machine, which means XP would run very nicely on this one, I guess). XP is excellent, but I can't do without the extra eye candy that DX10 gives me in my games.

In that respect, I don't consider myself a Vista sucker at all so long as one accepts without question that DX10 would not be practical or possible in XP, but I digress... *cof*

Reiso, there are plenty of comparisons! Try searching for "XP vs Vista vs Windows 7". One I looked at recently included testing everything from gaming performance to copying files of various sizes, boot times and application loads, and battery longevity, etc. In a lot of tests, W7 near-matched or beat XP on similar hardware. It's pretty amazing for a beta - and Vista never even came close to that sort of positive comparison when in beta... or since, for that matter.

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

IP logged posted posted 09-22-2009 19:26 Edit Quote
quote:
White Hawk said:

One I looked at recently included testing everything from gaming performance to copying files of various sizes, boot times and application loads, and battery longevity, etc.

None of those are problem areas in Vista as compared to XP, et al. This is what I'm talking about, the biggest issues with Vista are not included in the comparisons.

White Hawk
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: zero divided.
Insane since: May 2004

IP logged posted posted 09-22-2009 23:22 Edit Quote

My mistake; aside from slow file copying, poor boot times, greatly decreased battery life, etc (all areas that Vista falls behind in), I think I'm showing ignorance of the issues. Just what are the major hates? Where should Windows 7 improve over Vista to convert the XP devotees?

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

IP logged posted posted 09-23-2009 03:14 Edit Quote

If it were XP, that would be a start.

Blaise
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: London
Insane since: Jun 2003

IP logged posted posted 09-23-2009 12:27 Edit Quote

In my opinion XP has been sabotaged by Microsoft when they brought out service pack 3, it's become bloated and slow, a pale shadow of a figure of its former self.

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

IP logged posted posted 09-23-2009 14:22 Edit Quote

You sir! You dare slight Microsoft's good name!?

jive
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Greenville, SC, USA
Insane since: Jan 2002

IP logged posted posted 09-24-2009 03:21 Edit Quote

been using it on a few machines, and I like it. I use win xp, vista, mac osx snow leopard and ubuntu across different machines. All of them have
their perks and caveats. I do like the fact that vista can be installed on my old clunker machines (unlike vista) and it runs pretty fast on those machines.

So I was able to resurrect a couple of old dell clunkers (p4's).

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

IP logged posted posted 09-24-2009 04:53 Edit Quote

/me shakes head



Post Reply
 
Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:
 
Your Text:
Loading...
Options:


« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu