Mmmm... Win 7...

[GreNME]

I found out this week that my MAPS account with Microsoft included the release copy of Windows 7 more than a month earlier than expected. This evening, I began backing stuff up and I installed not too long ago. The installation (64-bit version) went way faster than I expected, and at this point I'm just getting stuff reinstalled and set back up. Still no app for mounting ISO images, which is a shame (though not something I can't find a 3rd party app for).

Some highlights:

• True to my experiences on my laptop, the operating system is noticeably snappy. Even on my modest system settings-- my desktop is a Core2 Duo @ 1.87 GHz, has 4 GB or RAM and an NVidia 8500 GT 1GB video card-- I can tell I'm going to be more pleased with this performance-wise. I was previously running Vista Ultimate 32-bit (and happy with it), but this is definitely speedier. Since I also made the jump from 32-bit to 64-bit along with the upgraded OS, that could be an additional factor for the uptick in speed.
• Not only did the install take under 20 minutes, but I literally didn't have to install a single driver to have my dual-monitor setup already working (Windows detected and extended my desktop for me), my NIC up and running, and even my UPS detected and monitored.
• If it runs in Vista, it's going to run in Win 7. There are some out there saying that Win 7 even runs a few things XP ran but Vista couldn't, but I can't speak to that. Absolutely no compatibility issues here with software. I haven't yet reinstalled Office on the system yet, but I don't expect any problems. Nothing else I had running has any problems either.

Anyone else install the final release yet? I can't be the only one with access-- it's available through both MAPS and TechNet, as far as I know.

[Rika]

I'd test it but with 512MB RAM, this comp can't handle it. Good to know it's worth buying if I get a new comp like I'm planning.

[jsiv]

There are issues for users that do more obscure things though, especially when it comes to drivers (hi Atmel and Jungo). With 64-bit, it's worse because it requires that drivers be digitally signed, something that isn't really feasible for hobbyists and something that rules out using older drivers (ie 2003). You can put Windows into a special mode where it will accept self-signed drivers, but it's a hassle (and puts a warning on your desktop).

[Wowbagger]

This should be their slogan:

Windows 7: Made of Win!!

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

This should be their slogan:

Windows 7: Made of Win!!

Ever-so-much win. If people that anyone here knows is looking for a new computer and doesn't want the hassle of trying to fill out paperwork, waiting 6-8 weeks, and reinstalling a new operating system (per the "free upgrade" offers), I strongly recommend waiting just one more month for a computer running Win 7. It's really worth it.

Another highlight: I went through the MS Office install and, while updating it and Windows (there was an IE8 update), downloaded and installed a few hundred MB in updates (Office service pack). No reboot required. Had to install a couple of ancillary updates to the Office SP, and again no reboot required. For those who have had to reboot umpteen times when running updates on their computer, or for those fewer who have done OS reinstalls and spent half the time restarting the computer for updates, this is a very welcome change. To be honest, I'm sure there are going to be several types of instances where an update will require a restart of the computer, but as far as I can tell the frequency or (as I call it) the "reboot by default" reaction from older versions of Windows while updating has changed (for the better).

Trust me, this makes me very happy. I'm someone who hates frequently rebooting, both in Windows and Mac OS (because both do it at about the same frequency). This is a very nice change.

[arthwollipot]

I've been thinking about upgrading my laptop. Sounds like I probably should.

[glsunder]

I had a hard drive die a few weeks ago and rather than reinstall vista, I put on the 90 day trial of win7. It's definitely better than vista.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by jsiv

There are issues for users that do more obscure things though, especially when it comes to drivers (hi Atmel and Jungo). With 64-bit, it's worse because it requires that drivers be digitally signed, something that isn't really feasible for hobbyists and something that rules out using older drivers (ie 2003). You can put Windows into a special mode where it will accept self-signed drivers, but it's a hassle (and puts a warning on your desktop).

Hrm. I do have an idea of what you're talking about (I've had clients when consulting who had to use legacy machines for specialty purposes), but could you give an example and description? The reason I'm asking (aside from being beneficial to informing the thread) is because this sounds similar to the difficulties of transition from 16-bit computing to 32-bit computing back in the 1990's. If you're instead talking about the difficulties some older apps have had with the changes in the user-land permissions since Vista, I'd suggest (first) testing it in Win 7 just to be sure, and then I would ask what level of performance does it require to be efficiently run-- in other words, could virtualization suffice?

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that virtualization is going to be a panacea for the apps that won't run in Win 7-- the free "XP Mode" VirtualPC license is intentionally limited in the amount of RAM and hard disk space you're allowed to use, on top of other realtime concerns of working from a virtualized system-- but in a lot of the examples I've run into personally having a small sandbox to run a legacy app can often suffice with regard to the job it exists to do. If there's a lot of graphics load or the GUI interface chews up on memory, then obviously virtualization won't be a useful solution. It sucks that some stuff just hasn't been updated (or hasn't offered a free update to make it usable) for Vista or Win 7, but that's an unfortunate aspect of the software market. It can make a computer that requires such a software product also require a legacy operating system, but eventually software makers have to catch up with the times or get replaced by someone who is.

This is one of the tough problems with newer operating systems coming out, and it looks like Windows isn't going to be alone in having this problem during the march to 64-bit and heavily-altered subsystems. OS X, as I read in this exhaustive review from Ars Technica, seems to be going in a similar direction, though Apple is addressing backwards-compatibility differently than Microsoft (in other words, not offering a virtualized older version a la the days of Classic). I think that with the two major software vendors both making the move at about the same time (since they now use the same hardware), the software industry will adjust accordingly. Well, I hope it does.

[Sabrina]

Good to know Win 7 is living up to the hype.

I'm considering replacing my tower with a new, Win 7 one when the OS releases, and to see that it's working so well for many is encouraging. I've had some noticeable problems with various programs on my computer while running Vista (incidentally, Gren; that problem I was asking about a few months ago regarding some Flash animations has cleared up; apparently I needed an update to my Flash player that wasn't released yet) and quite frankly I'm just tired of how slow my computer is getting. I understand they have computers with 1 TB of storage as well as at least 8 GB of RAM, which interests me greatly. My only concern is with ensuring that all of my programs and personal files can be transferred over with a minimum of fuss; does anyone know if there'll be a way to connect the two computers to transfer files, like there was with the Vista computers? It was extremely handy for me when I upgrated to Vista; I just plugged a cable into both towers and transferred the contents of the hard drive.

[icerat]

I've been running win7x64 since some of the early betas and have been on the RTM version for a while. I like it.

Sabrina - yes, it has the transfer wizard much like Vista.

[Pantaz]

Just ran across this via Slashdot...

"A Microsoft Software Engineer has posted the results of tests the company performed to the upgrade time of Windows 7. Worst case scenario is that it will take a bit over 20 hours. But a clean 32-bit install on what Microsoft calls "high-end hardware" should take only 30 minutes."

Full article here... http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...p-to-a-day.ars

I would consider that an anomaly, however, there were a couple of other installs that required more than 600 minutes (10 hours).

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Rika

I'd test it but with 512MB RAM, this comp can't handle it. Good to know it's worth buying if I get a new comp like I'm planning.

I was able to install the RC on a 512MB convertible just fine. We'll see when I get he final release.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Pantaz

Just ran across this via Slashdot...

"A Microsoft Software Engineer has posted the results of tests the company performed to the upgrade time of Windows 7. Worst case scenario is that it will take a bit over 20 hours. But a clean 32-bit install on what Microsoft calls "high-end hardware" should take only 30 minutes."

Full article here... http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...p-to-a-day.ars

I would consider that an anomaly, however, there were a couple of other installs that required more than 600 minutes (10 hours).

I think Vista upgrades were comparable. I remember the time I upgraded a Business Edition of Vista to the Ultimate edition, and even that took many hours!

My boss once started an upgrade from XP to Vista, that lasted a good, solid chunk of most of a work day.

A clean install, on the other hand, has always been licketty-split fast.

-Mitch

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Pantaz

Just ran across this via Slashdot...

"A Microsoft Software Engineer has posted the results of tests the company performed to the upgrade time of Windows 7. Worst case scenario is that it will take a bit over 20 hours. But a clean 32-bit install on what Microsoft calls "high-end hardware" should take only 30 minutes."

Full article here... http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...p-to-a-day.ars

I would consider that an anomaly, however, there were a couple of other installs that required more than 600 minutes (10 hours).

Okay, on my laptop it'll probably take about 12 hours, given download speed and processing ability...

[Wowbagger]

What I plan to do is dual-boot with it.

For my laptop, I am going to install a larger hard drive, partition it, and dual boot Vista and Win7 on it. The Win7 will be a clean install, and I will gradually move everything: apps and settings, etc. over from Vista. (I will already have access to all the same document files in both.) (This will most likely be the 32-bit edition of Win7.)

On my main desktop machine, I already have it booting between XP, Vista 32-bit edition and Vista 64-bit edition. I will probably toss the Vista-64 partition, and install both Win7 32-bit and Win7 64-bit.

Right now, I only have Win7 running in a virtual machine on that desktop.

[Eddie Dane]

Deleted. wanted to start a thread, not post in this one

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

(This will most likely be the 32-bit edition of Win7.)

Wuss.

Seriously, why all the multi-boot stuff? Why not run virtualized instances?

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

I'm thinking of getting a netbook.

As a happy Ubuntu user, I don't think I should pay money for an operating system that I'll replace on day one. I'd prefer some Linux variant.

But in the big shops I've been to, its all Windows. And a quick Google of webshops for Linux netbook comes up snake eyes.

Should I search for a certain type of Linux?
Or am I just the only one in the Western hemisphere who wants a cheap netbook without Windows?

Ideas?

It depends on what you mean by "netbook," I think. I would suggest the Eee PC netbook line.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Wuss.

For the laptop, it will probably work better. For the desktop, it kinda depends on what you're doing. I end up using the 32-bit edition more often, even though I have both.

ETA: the laptop only has 2 GB of RAM, anyway, as far as I recall. You need more than 4GB for the 64-bit edition to do any good.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Seriously, why all the multi-boot stuff? Why not run virtualized instances?

The laptop dual-boot is intended to be a gradual switch-over, which you can't do as a VM. There is a chance I might eventually take Vista off of it, (though I'll probably end up keeping it on for sentimental purposes. And, I might get a new laptop in a year or so, anyway).

For the desktop:
It takes better advantage of the hardware. This is important for gaming, video editing, and other processor-intensive graphics-related stuff. XP supported certain things better than Vista, so I had to go with both.

[GreNME]

Hey, they're your computers, I was mostly teasing. I do think all of that is a bit unnecessarily complex, though, based on experience. The only dual-boot I still have is my BootCamped MacBook Pro running OS X Leopard and Win 7.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by GreNME

I do think all of that is a bit unnecessarily complex, though, based on experience.

I'd rather not format the laptop's hard drive. And, I need a larger hard drive on it, anyway.

[Wowbagger]

And, for the record, I still think it would have been better if they called it Windows 2010.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

And, for the record, I still think it would have been better if they called it Windows 2010.

...The Year We Made It Work.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

And, for the record, I still think it would have been better if they called it Windows 2010.

...The Year We Made It Work.

At least it isn't called "Snowy Vista" or something.

[jsiv]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Hrm. I do have an idea of what you're talking about (I've had clients when consulting who had to use legacy machines for specialty purposes), but could you give an example and description? The reason I'm asking (aside from being beneficial to informing the thread) is because this sounds similar to the difficulties of transition from 16-bit computing to 32-bit computing back in the 1990's. If you're instead talking about the difficulties some older apps have had with the changes in the user-land permissions since Vista, I'd suggest (first) testing it in Win 7 just to be sure, and then I would ask what level of performance does it require to be efficiently run-- in other words, could virtualization suffice?

Atmel's AVR in-system programmers don't work, unless you go into device manager and add each driver to the device manually with the legacy hardware wizard (7 only recognizes one automatically, even though there has to be several associated with the same device). Their DFU bootloaders don't work either, because they use libusb, and that isn't digitally signed. That too has a workaround, by putting Windows into test mode and self-signing the driver, but there are things like this that make the out-of-box experience not the greatest compared to Vista if you use something obscure. Of course, give it six months and the ecosystem will begin to catch up. I guess those are the woes of the early adopter.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, on my laptop it'll probably take about 12 hours, given download speed and processing ability...

Don't forget that Australians have to insert the disc upside down, otherwise everthing on the screen will be the right way up.

[negativ]

I do not yet have a RTM version of Win7, but I have been running the 64-bit public RC since it was made generally available. The machine I have it on is mainly used for gaming, and I am very happy with the RC. I had 64-bit Vista on the same machine, and Win7 noticeably outperforms it in every way that matters. I wave Win7 in the faces of those who insisted that Vista was Just Fine and that any criticism of Vista was just MS-bashing.

And I say that as a frequent MS basher.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Don't forget that Australians have to insert the disc upside down, otherwise everthing on the screen will be the right way up.

Australians also have to contend to some of the worst broadband speeds in the developed world.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by negativ

I do not yet have a RTM version of Win7, but I have been running the 64-bit public RC since it was made generally available. The machine I have it on is mainly used for gaming, and I am very happy with the RC. I had 64-bit Vista on the same machine, and Win7 noticeably outperforms it in every way that matters. I wave Win7 in the faces of those who insisted that Vista was Just Fine and that any criticism of Vista was just MS-bashing.

And I say that as a frequent MS basher.

I'm getting a free upgrade for a laptop I got in July but my desktop is another matter. I've got 8GB of ram on the desktop so even for my most intensive work it brute forces past the resource hogging sorta... At least the laptop will get a more efficient resource user,,,