Forum Settings
       
1 2 3
Reply To Thread

windows 7Follow

QuoteReply
#27 Sep 22 2009 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1595176826689
View User Forum
Sage
****
4,588 posts
Wint wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Wint wrote:
Just found out I got picked to host a Windows 7 launch party, so I get a free signature edition of Windows 7 Ultimate


Me too, haha! I wonder what the "signature" editon has that is different than normal ultimate.


More Microsoft branding?


Yeah I can't imagine it's much (if at all) different than the regular ultimate edition.

Probably different packaging and extra profile pictures to choose from... and a few extra bundled wallpapers.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#28 Sep 22 2009 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
Windows has too many ******* versions.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#29 Sep 22 2009 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I
went from vista 64 bit to 7 64 bit. Everythign is faster in 7. Basic operations, gaming, etc. I'm averaging about 5 frames per second (FPS) faster in most games over where I was before, which isn't huge, but it's not bad either.


This may not be answerable, but would win 7 be faster then xp?

Also, if this is windows 7, 6 was vista, 5 was xp, 4 was '98, 3 was '95 and 2 was windows 3.x series? Not that I really care how they count.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#30 Sep 22 2009 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
yossarian wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I
went from vista 64 bit to 7 64 bit. Everythign is faster in 7. Basic operations, gaming, etc. I'm averaging about 5 frames per second (FPS) faster in most games over where I was before, which isn't huge, but it's not bad either.


This may not be answerable, but would win 7 be faster then xp?

Also, if this is windows 7, 6 was vista, 5 was xp, 4 was '98, 3 was '95 and 2 was windows 3.x series? Not that I really care how they count.
Win 95 was 4 and 98 was 4.10.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2009 2:52pm by Sweetums
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#31 Sep 22 2009 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1675037783679
View User Forum
Guru
*****
12,363 posts
What about that steaming pile of **** Windows Me? Smiley: smile
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#32 Sep 22 2009 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Kaolian
View User Forum
Leet Haxör
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Wint wrote:
What about that steaming pile of sh*t Windows Me? Smiley: smile


The OS that Shall Not Be Named was 4.90
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#33 Sep 23 2009 at 4:05 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592341145849
View User Forum
Sage
***
1,058 posts
Running Aion on Windows 7 with no problems whatever. Really weird seeing the game environment moving around while 3d flipped. I can even play while in 3d flip!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#34 Sep 23 2009 at 7:23 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1627863823061
Scholar
***
3,229 posts
Relevant weird campaign is weird:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/23/windows-7-party
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#35 Sep 23 2009 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
KTurner
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
The cynic in me wonders how much better windows 7 is than current vista, if at all. I've never used it. Does it run the same and since people now have better computers they dont notice the resource usage? Vista was being packaged with computers that only had 1GB ram (or less?) when it was released and now even the cheapo Dell Laptop comes standard with 2GB. You can get a 500 dollar desktop from bestbuy with 8GB ram.

So is it the OS thats improved, or the publics hardware? My rig came with vista originally and it blew goats. I switched to XP and got a huge performance boost. Then i upgraded my ram and got a better video card and now everything runs swell regardless of the OS.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#36 Sep 23 2009 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1680481127345
View User Forum
Sage
******
21,262 posts
Related to this topic: Windows 7 OS-tan.

That blog also has an explanation (in garbled but readable English) of "breast size=RAM requirements" theory. If 7 is a loli, though, it shoots the pattern right out the window. But I think the adult form will probably become the standard once its actually released.

Edit: Vista ran horribly on my present PC when I bought it, even with 4 gigs of RAM and a pretty modern processor (AMD 4000+ dual core.) For over a year I ran XP on it in rebellion. When the RC for Windows 7 became available, I was shocked at the difference. I remember Vista being painful for the two months I've had it installed, with lag and IRQ errors and crashes. Windows 7 has been dressed up, but more importantly, the under the hood bits have been rearranged to work together better. I've had to reboot my PC once in the last three weeks, and that was because of a driver update.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 12:04pm by catwho
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#37 Sep 23 2009 at 8:46 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
KTurner wrote:
The cynic in me wonders how much better windows 7 is than current vista, if at all. I've never used it. Does it run the same and since people now have better computers they dont notice the resource usage? Vista was being packaged with computers that only had 1GB ram (or less?) when it was released and now even the cheapo Dell Laptop comes standard with 2GB. You can get a 500 dollar desktop from bestbuy with 8GB ram.

So is it the OS thats improved, or the publics hardware? My rig came with vista originally and it blew goats. I switched to XP and got a huge performance boost. Then i upgraded my ram and got a better video card and now everything runs swell regardless of the OS.


I can confirm Windows 7 has more lenient hardware requirements than Vista. I ran it on a virtual machine successfully for several weeks to test it out before installing it on my home PC. This virtual machine was assigned 1 CPU and 1GB of ram and had no problems running the base OS, multiple browsers, Visual Studio, and SQL Server Express. My home PC has 4GB of ram and Windows 7 64 bit and is a dream to use now.

Trying that with Vista would have brought both the VM and the host to their knees.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#38 Sep 23 2009 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
Does 7 offer anything over XP if you only use Windows occasionally?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#39 Sep 23 2009 at 9:45 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Does 7 offer anything over XP if you only use Windows occasionally?


In terms of stuff you might need, not really.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#40 Sep 23 2009 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1595176826689
View User Forum
Sage
****
4,588 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Does 7 offer anything over XP if you only use Windows occasionally?


In terms of stuff you might need, not really.

The only thing I can think of would be continued support by Microsoft, but if you're buying a computer with it already installed, MS would refer you to your computer manufacturer if you need OS help.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#41 Sep 23 2009 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
LadyOfHolyDarkness, Eater of Souls wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Does 7 offer anything over XP if you only use Windows occasionally?


In terms of stuff you might need, not really.

The only thing I can think of would be continued support by Microsoft, but if you're buying a computer with it already installed, MS would refer you to your computer manufacturer if you need OS help.
I bought XP off of newegg, and support for it is unlikely to be dropped for a long time.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 3:40pm by Sweetums
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#42 Sep 23 2009 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
KTurner wrote:
The cynic in me wonders how much better windows 7 is than current vista, if at all.


A friend of mine is a teacher and has been beta testing with Windows 7 for about 6 months or so. His opinion is that 7 is the XP to Vista's ME. Just as home users saw XP as the next real upgrade from Win98, Win7 is the next real upgrade to XP.

His *only* problem was issues with drivers that weren't released yet during testing. Everything else worked. Win 7 is the OS that Vista was supposed to be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#43 Sep 23 2009 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Win 7 is the OS that Vista was supposed to be.

This is pretty much what anyone needs to know.

Or, in other words, "Vista...Done Right".
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#44 Sep 23 2009 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1593375281492
Sage
**
615 posts
Random Win7 tidbit - Win7 can boot to VHD with a performance hit of only 3-5%. This makes testing software, dual booting, and deploying workstations very interesting.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#45 Sep 23 2009 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1680481127345
View User Forum
Sage
******
21,262 posts
The reason for the stripped down hardware requirements, compared to Vista, was that they wanted Windows 7 to be able to run on netbooks.

So if it can run on 1 gig of RAM and an Atom processor, they succeeded.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#46 Sep 24 2009 at 5:34 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1675037783679
View User Forum
Guru
*****
12,363 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason for the stripped down hardware requirements, compared to Vista, was that they wanted Windows 7 to be able to run on netbooks.

So if it can run on 1 gig of RAM and an Atom processor, they succeeded.



The RC ran perfectly on my Dell Mini 9.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#47 Sep 24 2009 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Kaolian
View User Forum
Leet Haxör
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason for the stripped down hardware requirements, compared to Vista, was that they wanted Windows 7 to be able to run on netbooks.

So if it can run on 1 gig of RAM and an Atom processor, they succeeded.



Well that, and they wanted to tap the older computer market. Vista, even SP2 always suffered from bloat in certain areas. Much of that was because they tried to make vista too compatable with certain program aspects, but at the same time incompatatable with the hardware that would have been likely to utilize those functions. By stripping alot of the truly old legacy support crap out and reqwriting the remaining bits, they were able to end up with a more responsive system in most cases.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#48 Sep 24 2009 at 6:50 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1627863823061
Scholar
***
3,229 posts
Microsoft Windows 7 Ad "Launch Party":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#49 Sep 24 2009 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Win 7 is the OS that Vista was supposed to be.

This is pretty much what anyone needs to know.

Or, in other words, "Vista...Done Right".


I still use XP. What am I missing? (This may sound flippant, but I'm serious: if there are great new things in Vista, maybe I'd use them).
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#50 Sep 24 2009 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason for the stripped down hardware requirements, compared to Vista, was that they wanted Windows 7 to be able to run on netbooks.

So if it can run on 1 gig of RAM and an Atom processor, they succeeded.



Well that, and they wanted to tap the older computer market. ...


Would it run faster then XP?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#51 Sep 24 2009 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
yossarian wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason for the stripped down hardware requirements, compared to Vista, was that they wanted Windows 7 to be able to run on netbooks.

So if it can run on 1 gig of RAM and an Atom processor, they succeeded.



Well that, and they wanted to tap the older computer market. ...


Would it run faster then XP?
As long as the speeds are comparable, a more modern OS would be preferable.
▲ Page top
1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 333 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (333)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC