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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
posted 05-07-2009 17:00
