Rumor mill says public Windows 7 Release Candidate coming on April 10th

sonny_c · February 22, 2009

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/20/exclusive-windows-7-rc-set-for-april-10th-2009

I can't wait! I've been testing Build 7000 for the past two weeks and I have to say I like it. Here are the details:

2-09-09
UPDATE PART 1:
I installed Windows 7 Beta (build 7000) on my Dell Vostro 1500. It was painless! Went to Dell's website and downloaded and installed all the Vista drivers for the laptop. Then I installed all of Windows Updates.

Right now I'm installing LR2, Proshow Producer 4, and Adobe CS3 suite.

The look and feel is Vista with some slight changes. Initially the OS feel very responsive and snappy. But then again I have not loaded it down with a bunch of software and applications....YET! Also, I'm not sure if I'll load an Antivirus app. They usually have an effect on performance.

Not much else to report. Will check back in later with updates.

2-12-09
Continuing my testing of Windows 7 Beta.
UPDATE PART 2:

DONE
1. Installed Office 2007.
2. Installed Nero 7 Ultra.

* custom install...took out everything but Nero SmartStart, Vision, Burning ROM, Cover Designer, & Tools.

3. Installed K-Lite Mega Codec Pack.

* I prefer using Media Player Classic to watch media. It's simple, ugly, but rock solid!

4. Installed IZARC.

* It's like winzip, winrar and more all rolled into one. And it FREE!

5. Installed FireFox 3 and add-ons.

* themes, bookmark syncronizer, plugins....

6. Installed DVDFab

* use this to "backup" my DVDs. It's also great for converting DVDs and movie files for my iPhone.

7. Turned off UAC. It's still annoying!
8. Modified power settings to 'High Performance'.
9. Installed iTunes 8.0.2.20. Imported QT videos, played QT videos, and created iTunes playlists.
10. Test audio and video playback functionality. Used Media Player Classic and K-Lite Mega Codec Pack.
11. Installed Nero 7 Ultra.
12. Installed Office 2007 updates.

NEED TO DO
1. Test battery life at 'High Performance'.
2. Test all software installed.
3. Surf a lot to test FF3.

2-17-09
Continuing my testing of Windows 7 Beta.
UPDATE PART 3:

DONE
1. Burned multiple data DVDs using Nero 7 Ultra.
2. Used DVDFab to created a 1:1 backup of a DVD movie.
3. Used WM12 and Media Player Classic to view video files, DVDs, and mp3.
4. Spent many hours surfing the net using FF3 with various plug-in, add-ons, themes, and extensions.
5. Used iTunes to play .mov files and podcasts.
6. Used IZArc to unzip .zip & .rar files.

So far so good. I very few (minor) complaints.

2-22-09
UPDATE PART 4:

I am having minor software issues with LR2, IZArc & windows explorer, but that's to be expected. The issues are not major...more so little glitches.

I would love to put this on my desktop PC, but I kinda of hesitant. Not because I do not have confidence in the OS...more so because I use my desktop PC to do everything and I wanna see where Microsoft goes with their official release date.

The same thing happened to me with Vista. I tested it on my laptop for 3 months with no issues. Then I build a new rig with the dual vid cards and dual monitors....and BAM...BSOD. There is no pattern. They happen infrequently. And they seem to happen at the most inopportune times.

Of course neither ATI or MS will accept blame. They blame the issues on each other. So if the BSOD continue then I might go ahead and load Win 7.

***UPDATE***

Right after my previous post I read ATI released Catalyst 9.2 drivers. It's supposed to fix the dual monitor issue causing the BSOD.

FINGERS ARE CROSSED!

dogwood · February 22, 2009

What's the advantage over XP? Seems like microsoft is going to have a hard sell with this latest OS considering the economy and how many apps may, or may not, work with it.

Pupator · February 23, 2009

dogwood wrote:

What's the advantage over XP? Seems like microsoft is going to have a hard sell with this latest OS considering the economy and how many apps may, or may not, work with it.

One upside is that XP is an 8 year old operating system. MS hurt itself badly with Vista though Vista wasn't nearly so bad as its criticisms suggest. MS will not offer XP downgrade or Vista downgrade options after this year, so everyone who buys a new computer with a Microsoft OS will have Windows 7 once it's released.

Every application that works with Vista will work with Windows 7. Vista will be 3+ years old when 7 is released and I have a hard time believing that a significant portion of the user base has applications that don't work with a 3 year old OS. (Incidentally, the same is true for drivers. If it worked with Vista, it will work with 7. This is also an important factor for encouraging upgrades.)

7 adds some nice features and security features to the core of Vista. It performs about the same but is able to do so even on older, slower hardware because of significant overhead improvements.

I don't think a bad economy will have anything to do with 7's numbers. MS fans will still upgrade their machines, and everyone else will still buy a new computer when they need it (even if it's a less expensive computer than they would have purchased in past years).

dogwood · February 23, 2009

Pupator wrote:

7 adds some nice features and security features to the core of Vista. It performs about the same but is able to do so even on older, slower hardware because of significant overhead improvements.

I don't think a bad economy will have anything to do with 7's numbers. MS fans will still upgrade their machines, and everyone else will still buy a new computer when they need it (even if it's a less expensive computer than they would have purchased in past years).

Well personally, I'm not seeing any reason to upgrade. XP still works better for me than Vista so that's what I meant-- MS is gonna have a hard sell with 7. Yeah, if I buy a new laptop, 7 will be there but I'm not going to run across it otherwise. And honestly, if I buy a new laptop I'm wanting a new laptop-- the OS doesn't matter.

And didn't MS just announce more than a thousand layoffs? Again, I suspect 7 will be a hard sell in this economy. With careful use (firewall, router, frequent spybot scans, etc) XP seems plenty secure to me.

Pupator · February 23, 2009

dogwood wrote:

With careful use (firewall, router, frequent spybot scans, etc) XP seems plenty secure to me.

I think a lot of people believe that an upgraded, more secure OS is a better value than spending money and a lot of time on those other things.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Richard · February 23, 2009

dogwood wrote:

Well personally, I'm not seeing any reason to upgrade. XP still works better for me than Vista so that's what I meant-- MS is gonna have a hard sell with 7. Yeah, if I buy a new laptop, 7 will be there but I'm not going to run across it otherwise. And honestly, if I buy a new laptop I'm wanting a new laptop-- the OS doesn't matter.

And didn't MS just announce more than a thousand layoffs? Again, I suspect 7 will be a hard sell in this economy. With careful use (firewall, router, frequent spybot scans, etc) XP seems plenty secure to me.

I have never installed a newer version of Windows on an existing machine, but have waited for the natural obsolescence cycle to take its course on the next machine, which was always more powerful. The one exception was my current laptop. I bought it about 18 months ago and went out of my way to get XP-Pro rather than Vista, which I thought wasn't ready for prime time. So far I haven't seen anything about Windows 7 that makes me think of migrating to it. It does sound like Msft has fixed a number of the problems in Vista, but until it's on the street, we won't know very much about new problems it introduces.

wildviper · February 23, 2009

I also would not upgrade to Windows 7 or as I call it "Vista Redone".

Just as an FYI: I am very computer literate...I can program them.

From what I have seen, Windows 7 does not offer any thing more significant than XP Pro SP2/SP3 for someone with a tiny bit of knowledge.

That tiny bit of knowledge is to know when not to open attachments, when a site looks suspect and so on. All this to avoid spyware and viruses.

I never really understood the reason for Vista for what it gave us. I think that the most important parts that as an end user we need are:

- Speed
- Stability
- Ease of Use
- Compatibility
- Security

We get pretty much all of this with XP except for perhaps Security(though SP2 and SP3 are way better). Even my wife's Vista laptop got a spyware...so not sure how solid security is in Vista either.

The argument over 64bit computing is pointless I feel. Though Vista is 64 bit, the software we all use may not be. What advantage do we get? Capability of addressing RAM over 4 Gigs? While that is great, I think a majority of people are using less than 4gigs. Typing a letter in Word is not necessarily going to require 4 gigs you know.

So, ultimately, Windows 7 is just to get people to buy new hardware. The Intel/Microsoft conspiracy!

Can anyone tell me if Windows 7 offers anything substantially different that would make someone run out and get it?

Pupator · February 23, 2009

wildviper wrote:

Just as an FYI: I am very computer literate...I can program them.

- Speed - 7 is faster than XP, faster than Vista
- Stability - More stable than XP, more stable than Vista
- Ease of Use - Enhanced usability features (some great ones on the desktop alone) in Windows 7 that you won't find in XP or Vista
- Compatibility - there is no way that an 8 year old OS and even a 3 year old OS will be more compatible with emerging apps and hardware than Windows 7. Whether or not they work with old stuff you have is of course another question.
- Security - 7 is more secure than XP (even Pro) and Vista

Even my wife's Vista laptop got a spyware...so not sure how solid security is in Vista either.

User error? You said above that it only takes "a tiny bit of knowledge" to avoid that stuff. But when your wife gets it Vista is to blame?

The argument over 64bit computing is pointless I feel. Though Vista is 64 bit, the software we all use may not be. What advantage do we get? Capability of addressing RAM over 4 Gigs? While that is great, I think a majority of people are using less than 4gigs. Typing a letter in Word is not necessarily going to require 4 gigs you know.

I guess you've never used a computer with a 64-bit OS? When the core of the OS runs faster the whole computing experience is faster. And yes, 4 GB are better than 2 (noticeable improvement) and most people on dgrin do a bit more with their computers than write Word documents. Lightroom (which is 64 bit) SCREAMS on my desktop.

So, ultimately, Windows 7 is just to get people to buy new hardware. The Intel/Microsoft conspiracy!

Yeah. Companies should never innovate and never release new products. Why'd they bother inventing the computer anyway? We had typewriters and calculators that worked just fine.

Can anyone tell me if Windows 7 offers anything substantially different that would make someone run out and get it?

Nope. Because you don't want to hear it.

I know MS has no one to blame but themselves, but Windows users are so jaded. Mac users will pay to upgrade an OS because Apple changed the border on the clock application to a different color, and they'll be excited about it! It simply doesn't matter how good an OS Windows 7 is (and it's very good, based on early versions) the mis-information campaign (by Windows users!) is well underway. If I liked OSX (I don't)* I think I'd love hanging out with Mac users - they might be mindless fanboys sometimes but at least they don't suck all the joy out of every product release.

*Tried it. Don't like it. Currently have Windows 7 running (exclusively) on my Macbook Air.

wildviper · February 23, 2009

Read below in bold and italics

Pupator wrote:

- Speed - 7 is faster than XP, faster than Vista - have to wait and see this one.

- Stability - More stable than XP, more stable than Vista - A majority of people don't have an issue with XP. So what exactly are we getting here? More stability? Its like going from point A to point A.5!!! Wow!!!

- Ease of Use - Enhanced usability features (some great ones on the desktop alone) in Windows 7 that you won't find in XP or Vista - What usability? Is my dad(computer noob) going to be able to change the font size of the screen easier? Is he going to be able to email a few pictures to his friends in an easier way?? Or, is he going to be able to surf the internet in an easier way?

What EXACTLY is easier in Windows 7? Can you give me some examples rather then just stating your opinion?

- Compatibility - there is no way that an 8 year old OS and even a 3 year old OS will be more compatible with emerging apps and hardware than Windows 7. Whether or not they work with old stuff you have is of course another question. - Yes, an 8 year OS that Microsoft just keeps on extending the support for huh??? Yes, I am having issues running it on my Core2Duo!!! By the way, most software vendors are still supporting XP. Emerging apps? Well, that was the whole argument for 64bit computing that we are finally seeing software vendors implementing. That took a while! If you mean that XP won't be able to support USB3....well, you may have a point there! (sarcasm)

- Security - 7 is more secure than XP (even Pro) and Vista - Yes, I have heard that one before (wink, wink). Again, let's wait to see this in real world. I am sure the hackers are already at work trying to bypass Win 7.

You know, I remember when Vista was being launched and the ongoing theme was Speed, Stability and fancy application switcher! Now, with Win 7, the same thing is going on again. So, do I believe a few "power" users with ultra fast computers to tell me that Win 7 is fast? Or should I just wait it out and let the mass public say that Win 7 is fast??? I prefer the mass public opinion rather than the select few.

User error? You said above that it only takes "a tiny bit of knowledge" to avoid that stuff. But when your wife gets it Vista is to blame?

That is exactly the point!!!! Vista is supposed to prevent people like my wife(computer novice) from making a mistake. It didn't! So what is this security that you are talking about? It comes down to knowing what you are doing versus not. And that is what I said that with XP, you are as safe as you are with Vista!

I guess you've never used a computer with a 64-bit OS? When the core of the OS runs faster the whole computing experience is faster. And yes, 4 GB are better than 2 (noticeable improvement) and most people on dgrin do a bit more with their computers than write Word documents. Lightroom (which is 64 bit) SCREAMS on my desktop.

I haven't used a computer with a 64bit system. You are right. The reason is that the software I have used are only barely becoming 64bit.

While I agree most people here on dgrin do a lot more with their comps than do others, I was referring to the general public.

Yeah. Companies should never innovate and never release new products. Why'd they bother inventing the computer anyway? We had typewriters and calculators that worked just fine.

What is innovative about Win 7? I can tell you that Adobe innovates....Microsoft, not so much with the OS system. I mean, a simple action of copying files takes way longer than if I use Teracopy. Like it or not, OSes are boring and there is only so much innovation you can do. Does Win 7 have the innovative backup system that Apple OS now have? Hmmm...do they have a system that warns you that system may become unstable and that you better save your work?

Tell me, what is so innovative about Win 7? Speed? Well, that was promised for Vista. Security? Until the hackers figure out and by pass the system or the user makes a mistake.

Nope. Because you don't want to hear it.

Yes, that is exactly what I had said before right? Please don't tell me cause I don't want to hear. Yes...I think, let me re-read what I wrote "Can anyone tell me if Windows 7 offers anything substantially different that would make someone run out and get it?" Yes, you are right...I don't want to hear it!

Mac users will pay to upgrade an OS because Apple changed the border on the clock application to a different color, and they'll be excited about it!

Oh, so now it is the users fault! Well, sir, I apologize. Please churn out your new products and we will keep on getting excited and buy without prejudice! Yes, we have money growing on trees.

"So, what is the next version supposed to do?" Oh, just run a second faster huh? "Well, by gosh, give me TWO!"

Kyle D · February 24, 2009

I just wanted to jump in and say that I'm currently dual booting Windows 7 and Windows XP Home on my 2.5 year old Toshiba Laptop (1.6ghz CD/3gb ram/100gb hard drive) and it runs much faster and smoother when I'm in Windows 7 than when I'm in XP. Windows 7 boots up and shuts down much faster than XP does. On my old install of XP Home it would take 7.5 minutes for it to be up and useable, from pressing the button to having Firefox 3 open and google loaded). With a fresh install it takes XP Home approx. 2 minutes to fully load where as Windows 7 takes 30-45 seconds or so.

FYI, before Windows 7 beta was released I was dual booting Vista Ultimate 32bit on my laptop with XP Home, and Vista ran horribly. It was so slow in comparison to XP, was a pain in the *** to get everything set up correctly and working properly. For the added features Vista gave me over XP versus the cost in speed/performance I went back to just straight XP for a while. Because of this I won't touch a 32 bit version of Vista, where as my desktop is working flawlessly with Vista Ultimate 64bit.

So to say that Windows 7 is just Vista rebranded or to even imply that, I think is a gross understatement of what Microsoft has been trying to fix/accomplish with Windows 7. Now, after my first impression with Vista 32bit I had made up my mind to buy a Mac as my next laptop. But after using Windows 7 on it, I'm not sure I'll need to buy a new laptop as soon as I had thought, let alone spending the extra money and buying a Mac.

Pupator · February 24, 2009

http://i.gizmodo.com/5069661/windows-7-walkthrough-boot-video-and-impressions
http://i.gizmodo.com/5070219/giz-explains-why-windows-7-will-smash-vista
http://i.gizmodo.com/5078337/windows-7-to-extend-laptop-battery-life-by-minimum-of-11
http://i.gizmodo.com/5108692/windows-7-benchmark-results-very-promising
http://i.gizmodo.com/5138406/win-7-tip-maximize-and-dock-your-windows-by-dragging-to-the-screen-edge
http://www.pcworld.com/article/152898/microsoft_windows_7_a_closer_look_at_your_next_os.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/158537/handson_guide_to_windows_7_lesson_1.html
http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/windows-7-prebeta-build/4505-3672_7-33357386.html?tag=mncol;lst
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=106237&pn=2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/microsoft/4163510/Microsoft-Windows-7-in-depth-review-CES-2009.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3223
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9125179

Yes, that is exactly what I had said before right? Please don't tell me cause I don't want to hear. Yes...I think, let me re-read what I wrote "Can anyone tell me if Windows 7 offers anything substantially different that would make someone run out and get it?" Yes, you are right...I don't want to hear it!

Sometimes what people say and what they mean are two different things. It's clear that what you mean is "I'm against Windows 7 and dare anyone to spend their time overcoming my irrational prejudices!" It matters not to me what OS you use so I've got other things to do with my time. However the entire community would benefit if people who didn't know what they were talking about would avoid making baseless claims. You've speculated that an OS you've never used has no substantial improvements over an operating system that is 8 years old and that its release is simply a money-grab by the manufacturer. You've said that XP is (essentially) the perfect OS on which improvements could never be made. There's not really going to be a worthwhile way to have this debate with you.*

Best of luck with XP - I hope it lasts you for many more years (really, I do). But maybe you could stop the 7 bashing until, I dunno, you've actually used it and have something to base your statements on rather than pre-standing biases?

* You said yourself that you won't believe my claims anyway. So why bother?

So, do I believe a few "power" users with ultra fast computers to tell me that Win 7 is fast? Or should I just wait it out and let the mass public say that Win 7 is fast??? I prefer the mass public opinion rather than the select few.

sonny_c · February 24, 2009

Oh Geez!

*I am going to TRY and be as civil as I can.*

I'm sure we can all argue about our computer skills. Myself, I've been in the industry for 9 years. I've had my hand in all the operating systems. Windows, Mac, and Linux (all the different flavors). I've worked for Compaq and then HP after the merger. Today I'm out of the industry, but I make it a point to stay well informed about what is ahead. Since I run my business using a PC it can only benefit me to be well informed.

Wildviper...you are computer elitist. All I tried to do was inform users about the RC version of Win7. I was not attempting to convert Mac users to Windows. I was not bad mouthing XP, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on">Vista</st1:place></st1:place>, or OSX. If you don't like <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on">Vista</st1:place></st1:place> or Win7, then why post? Who cares what you think. You are not bringing anything new to the "I Hate Vista" table. The problems are well known. They have been discussed over and over. To me it seems you're argumentative, standoffish, and uninformed. In your three posts all you did was regurgitate the same information that is splattered all over the web. I too can copy and paste. Stand on your own too feet. Formulate a thought that is your own, and not borrowed.

You mentioned that you are "very computer literate...I can program them". Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself of that very statement. To the rest of us, your responses in this thread dictate otherwise. How can you speak about something you know NOTHING about? Again, quit repeating what others have said. Get your hands dirty. Test Win7 for yourself. It's free from Microsoft. They even supply you with a free legit product key. I had <st1:place w:st="on">Vista</st1:place> loaded on my laptop (which is now running Win7) and I am still running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my desktop. Both systems ran great…with one exception. My desktop computer has two ATI videos cards and dual monitors. I would sporadically get BSOD. Of course ATI blamed my dual monitors and blamed Microsoft. Come to find out it was an ATI driver problem after all which has been fixed by ATI’s release of their Catalyst 9.2 driver. This is another example of somebody else hatin’ on <st1:place w:st="on">Vista</st1:place>. You don’t need to be a programmer to realize that with a little reading and research most of the problems with <st1:place w:st="on">Vista</st1:place> can be fixed EASILY!

Oh <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on">Vista</st1:place></st1:place>, my how you have gotten a bad rep. Not without reasons. Most <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on">Vista</st1:place></st1:place> haters tend to easily forget that XP was in the same boat years ago. Microsoft was in a hurry to release a better operating system after the Windows ME debacle. This was Windows 98 retarded cousin. When WinXP was released many Win NT4.0 & Win2K users thought is was the most horrible abomination created by Microsoft. It had the same driver issues, BSOD issues, and hardware compatibility issues. Overtime and THREE service packs later, it is now the OS you defend to be solid, stable, and trustworthy…funny how history repeats itself.

I won't bother rambling on about the rest because Pupator and Kyle D have done a great job properly educating your lack of knowledge.

Don’t get me started on macs. I could go on twice as long talking about that subject. What I will do is quote Charlie Brooker..."Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centers for adults; Macs are for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; Macs are for people who earnestly believe in feng shui." I've done the whole Mac thing, and it ain't all it's cracked up to be. That's why I'm back to PC. No need in spending twice as much for the same product.

One operating system is not better than another. It all depends on your needs and the operating system that BEST suites those needs.

I've said my peace. *steps off soapbox*

Moogle Pepper · February 24, 2009

Note: I love my macbook pro and I am not fond of this statement: "Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centers for adults; Macs are for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; Macs are for people who earnestly believe in feng shui." :cry

I am using windows 7 beta on my PC. I never used Vista, well.. that's a lie. I have to use it at work. I had XP on my home desktop, but reformatted and is solely Win 7. So far I really like windows 7. Even though I use my mac exclusively, flirtation with Windows 7 might make me use my desktop more now.

Pros that I like so far:
None of that security pop ups that Vista has
Faster booting
The spiffy looks are more functional

Cons is that I can't seem to install my RAID drivers of my motherboard to it. yet.
Nor my soundcard.

sonny_c · February 24, 2009

Moogle Pepper wrote:

Note: I love my macbook pro and I am not fond of this statement: "Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centers for adults; Macs are for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; Macs are for people who earnestly believe in feng shui." :cry

No harm meant. Us PC boys are always taking on the chin from the Apple fans. :cry

I just thought it was a funny quote by an obviously angry columnist.

wildviper · February 25, 2009

sonny_c wrote:

Wildviper...you are computer elitist....To me it seems you're argumentative, standoffish, and uninformed. In your three posts all you did was regurgitate the same information that is splattered all over the web. I too can copy and paste. Stand on your own too feet. Formulate a thought that is your own, and not borrowed.

Well, sonny_c and others...if that is the impression that you got from my posts, I apologize. Sometimes some people read too much into it, other times the author(in this case, me), can't articulate appropriately. Obviously, in this case, it seems that my wording could have been used differently.

My whole argument against anything new by Microsoft with the OSes is based on Vista experience. After spending over $1,500 for a fast laptop, the slowness of Vista just infuriated me! I am sure you can understand why, I and many others have doubts about anything new that is promising huge improvements.

I do not have time to "test" OS systems. I need the system to just work and not give me headaches when it is installed. That is the whole reason that I had not installed the Win 7. (For the record, I have downloaded the Win 7 64bit previously).

With what you and pupator has provide with info and links(thanks for those), I have been convinced that Win 7 is something that should be on my radar. I read through all those links...I can't lie, but what I read did excite me!

I stand corrected.

Btw, I have decided to install the Win 7 on my wife's Vista lappy. Am I able to just upgrade it or is a clean install necessary?

dogwood · February 25, 2009

If Window 7 is faster than XP, that could be nice. But to be honest, a lot of speed issues with XP can be easily 'fixed' with after market software.

For example, over time, XP will boot slower. I've personally found that defragging the resistry on a regular basis makes a big difference in how fast XP boots. So does the drive you install it on (ie, it seems to run smoother/faster on a dedicated drive or partition). Temp files and other crap can also slow everything down.

We'll just have to see when the official release of 7 comes out. But I maintain my original point-- upgrading an OS is probably not a big priority for most people in this economy-- even those of us who depend on computers to make a living.

And me personally? I still prefer XP over Vista AND Mac OSX.

Nikolai · February 25, 2009

My take on this.
My next machine (ETA 6..12 month) will have at least quad-core CPU, 8Gb of DDR3 RAM and dual video card. My friends at MS have been providing some nice feedback on W7 for quite some time. As much as I love my XP, it's not gonna cut it. I will need 64-bit OS - and no, it's not gonna be the one with a big cat name.:-)
Depending on the time table I may start with Vista64 and then upgrade to W7x64.

sonny_c · February 25, 2009

If I may, I would like to offer one bit of advice.

***WARNING...this is just my past experience with Windows.***

I keep hearing the term "upgrading". If at all possible DO NOT UPGRADE! While a clean install is not always necessary, to achieve the fewest problems and greatest performance, ALWAYS install the operating system to a clean hard drive or partition.

Since storage space is so cheap I always buy a new hard for a clean install. ONLY the operating system (OS) and programs will be installed on this drive. Everything else (documents, media, photos....etc) will be stored on a second drive or backup system. This will serve two purposes. One, as I mentioned above it will save time and headaches later on trying to troubleshoot problems. Two, the hard drive you are replacing now becomes your insurance. If something was to go wrong with the new install, you can always pop this drive back into your PC and continue usage as normal. Also, you have a backup of your emails, links, anything you left on the "desktop", and application preferences/settings. If you choose to perform a clean install to the same drive, formatting the drive will leave you none of the options I just talked about.

"Upgrading is so much easier and faster. Plus all my files and programs are transferred as well." Although this may be true, you can run into some potential problems. So what are the advantages to a clean install? A clean install will yield a smaller footprint on the hard drive. Knowledge and piece of mind that nothing is carried over from the previous OS. Sometimes system files from the previous OS and system files from the new OS will conflict with one another. Where you can run into biggest problems is DRIVERS. Drivers are probably the most common reasons for OS instability. Finally, you have the original hard drive...ICSH (in case shit happens).

What are the disadvantages? You will need to reinstall all your programs, copy your data from the other hard drive(s), and re-do all of your personal settings and custom tweaks. To me this is not a disadvantage. The more time I put into the install the less problems I will have later. Believe me, you'll thank me later. I've learned this lesson the hard way.

Thanks for listening (I should say reading)

Nikolai · February 25, 2009

wildviper wrote:

...After spending over $1,500 for a fast laptop...

With all due respect

, in my book this is akin to saying "after spending $300 on a great Pro DLSR body". There is no such thing as "$1,500 fast laptop"

. Desktop - maybe, if you cut a few corners and talking "case only" (no monitor).

wildviper · February 26, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

With all due respect , in my book this is akin to saying "after spending $300 on a great Pro DLSR body". There is no such thing as "$1,500 fast laptop" . Desktop - maybe, if you cut a few corners and talking "case only" (no monitor).

I should have clarified since fast for one, is slow for another. Just like I would say a AMG Benz is fast, Michael Schumacher would probably disagree and say his F1 is fast!

THe laptop I mention is a Sony Vaio, Core2Duo T7200 with 4 Gigs of DDR2 RAM, a 7200RPM 160Gig HardDrive, a dedicated graphics card(I forget which one right now..ATI or Nvidia) with 512MB on-board memory. I would say this is pretty fast specs, considering what she uses it for: browsing, Word, Excel and some Photoshop.

Locke · February 26, 2009

Sonny_c makes a great point. You should always isolate your data from your OS. Nothing is worse than trying to find a file only to realize when you formatted last month you forgot to back it up. I take it one step further. I have a server with a 1.5TB RAID 5 running on my network. All of the client machines (two desktops and a laptop) have mapped shares to directories on the RAID volume. The advantage here, is I never have to worry what happens when I format a client, since they never store data. The other advantage is the drives are in a RAID so if one were to fail, I can simply pull it out, put a fresh one in, and my data is still in tact.

--Locke

Nikolai · February 26, 2009

Locke wrote:

Sonny_c makes a great point. You should always isolate your data from your OS. Nothing is worse than trying to find a file only to realize when you formatted last month you forgot to back it up. I take it one step further. I have a server with a 1.5TB RAID 5 running on my network. All of the client machines (two desktops and a laptop) have mapped shares to directories on the RAID volume. The advantage here, is I never have to worry what happens when I format a client, since they never store data. The other advantage is the drives are in a RAID so if one were to fail, I can simply pull it out, put a fresh one in, and my data is still in tact.

--Locke

Totally.
I'm trying tri-prong approach: 1) apps/os 2) interactive data 3) archives

sonny_c · February 26, 2009

Locke wrote:

Sonny_c makes a great point. You should always isolate your data from your OS. Nothing is worse than trying to find a file only to realize when you formatted last month you forgot to back it up. I take it one step further. I have a server with a 1.5TB RAID 5 running on my network. All of the client machines (two desktops and a laptop) have mapped shares to directories on the RAID volume. The advantage here, is I never have to worry what happens when I format a client, since they never store data. The other advantage is the drives are in a RAID so if one were to fail, I can simply pull it out, put a fresh one in, and my data is still in tact.

--Locke

Same here Locke. I have my drobo backing up everything!

jeffreaux2 · March 25, 2009

Im glad I stumbled onto this thread.

I am in the early stages of planning for a new pc build. I may even delay the build to accomodate the official release of this operating system. A few of the features I plan to include on the new box are:

-Intel Core i7 processor.
-16 gigs DDR3 RAM
-ATI dual processor graphics card

This hardware would all be useless, really, without a 64 bit OS. Add to that the fact that Win7 is supposed to hand off some chores to the gaphics card....and Photoshop CS4 is also supposed to hand off rendering to the graphics card....and everything begins to be worthwhile. The processor is a quad core design, but is dual threaded to behave like 8 cores. And maybe Ive got some terminology incorrect here, but the gist of it is that I am REALLY looking forward to the new OS. I have avoided Vista...primarily due to my contentment with XP....but I realize that XP has run its course...especially in 32bit configurations.

Im no programmer....or IT whiz.....but I know a thing or two about hardware.....and the software I use.....and I can run a perfectly good over the counter pc into the ground.

Its time for a change!

Nikolai · March 25, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Im glad I stumbled onto this thread.

I am in the early stages of planning for a new pc build. I may even delay the build to accomodate the official release of this operating system. A few of the features I plan to include on the new box are:

-Intel Core i7 processor.
-16 gigs DDR3 RAM
-ATI dual processor graphics card

This hardware would all be useless, really, without a 64 bit OS. Add to that the fact that Win7 is supposed to hand off some chores to the gaphics card....and Photoshop CS4 is also supposed to hand off rendering to the graphics card....and everything begins to be worthwhile. The processor is a quad core design, but is dual threaded to behave like 8 cores. And maybe Ive got some terminology incorrect here, but the gist of it is that I am REALLY looking forward to the new OS. I have avoided Vista...primarily due to my contentment with XP....but I realize that XP has run its course...especially in 32bit configurations.

Im no programmer....or IT whiz.....but I know a thing or two about hardware.....and the software I use.....and I can run a perfectly good over the counter pc into the ground.

Its time for a change!

I'm in the same boat.
i7, ddr3, dual cards...
Keep in mind, dd3 ram sticks come in threes, not in twos, so it's gonna be 3-6-9-12..., as opposed to traditional parity-based 2-4-6-8-10...

jeffreaux2 · March 25, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

I'm in the same boat.
i7, ddr3, dual cards...
Keep in mind, dd3 ram sticks come in threes, not in twos, so it's gonna be 3-6-9-12..., as opposed to traditional parity-based 2-4-6-8-10...

Yup your right....I made a typo with the 16....should be 12 gigs of RAM.

moe · April 2, 2009

Love the thread. Been using Win7 since it was first posted, was using Vista 64-bit since it was released. I've had nothing but positive experiences with Vista and consider XP an antique (not one worth collecting BTW). I can't fathom using XP voluntarily. It's a shame Vista received such bad press. Much of it was totally unwarranted and I think the bad press fed on itself and got a little out of control. I encouraged all of my customers to switch to Vista and they've all been very pleased with the experience.

Windows 7 features a number of enhancements that for me make it an extremely worthwhile upgrade.

Performance! Lots of geeky stuff under the covers here. Suffice it to say Windows 7 is far more capable of taking advantage of current and upcoming hardware. See the Mark Russinovich series for all the gory details.

New User Interface! Some folks just don't care for change but the new taskbar in Windows 7 is simply amazing and a long time coming. I can automatically cycle wallpapers without an add-on and I can change my logon screen without an add-on. Nice!

Easier Home Networking. The Homegroup feature makes connecting and sharing information among computers work the way it should always have worked.

Search is faster.

Power management appears to be improved as well. Battery life on my notebook is noticably improved. Sleep and resume are remarkably fast.

Security. Again a lot of under the covers geeky stuff here but solid improvements. Vista was a little in-your-face at times. Windows 7 just stays out of your way.

Amazingly, after the installation, Windows connected to Windows Update and installed drivers for everything. Granted your mileage may vary here but I didn't have to install drivers for anything. Even my Canon scanner just worked!

And this is a 64-bit install of a BETA product. Microsoft, just ship the damn thing already!

T. Bombadil · April 2, 2009

Pupator wrote:

Mac users will pay to upgrade an OS because Apple changed the border on the clock application to a different color, and they'll be excited about it!

you're right!

Pupator wrote:

If I liked OSX (I don't)* I think I'd love hanging out with Mac users - they might be mindless fanboys sometimes but at least they don't suck all the joy out of every product release.

*Tried it. Don't like it.

that's a shame. it has a nice clock.

i'm a mac fan (and also use windows). the enthusiasm for new Apple products is fun, but can make it difficult to uncover the specific features you want to know about.

can somebody explain to me how it is "Windows 7"? I must have lost count . . . there was Windows 3(point various), Win95 (#4), Win98 (#5), Win XP (#6), Vista (#7, by my count), Windows 7 (#8). (I left WinNT out because that was really a business-grade version of its sister product).

I haven't followed much of the press, so apologies if everybody already knows the answer (what happened, is it an admission that Vista didn't really count as a new release?).

Richard · April 2, 2009

T. Bombadil wrote:

can somebody explain to me how it is "Windows 7"? I must have lost count . . .

I found the explanation on Slashdot.

Nikolai · April 2, 2009

Richard wrote:

I found the explanation on Slashdot.

Purrfect!

Ric Grupe · April 2, 2009

Richard wrote:

I found the explanation on Slashdot.

NOW...I don't know if my wife will allow me to "upgrade".

Rumor mill says public Windows 7 Release Candidate coming on April 10th

Comments