Windows 7

[BabyDavey]

I've been switching back and forth from Vista to 7 since the Beta release in January. Even then it was solid and worked well. I installed it on my old laptop (1.8pentium mobile w/2g ram) and it worked like a charm. It even manages high enough on the "Windows Experience Index" to use Aero - while still performing better than XP pro ever did. On my other laptop, dual-boot Vista (Home Premium) and 7 (Ultimate). Once I get my second copy (to install on my wife's computer), I'll be switching to 7 for keeps.

Did I mention I like the interface? On ALL my previous computers, I've disabled the 'new' interfaces, and set everything to classic (win 95/98/me/nt/2k style), as it was what I was used to. Not that I don't like change, but because for me it just worked better - and was lighter on the resources). Now with Aero it offloads the addition use of graphics and smoothing on the screen to the GPU rather than the CPU - much better.

Even for you folks that are holding out on upgrading because you've got software that only works on XP - with ultimate you can use the xp virtual machine (or whatever they call it). Uses virtual PC to run an XP instance virtually so you can install your XP software and have it running under XP. Works good.

[incojohn]

I've been using Win 7 RC for the last three months. I decided that I'm keeping it. Steamrolled over Ubuntu/XP boot that I had for about a year. I'm hoping my school offers it for cheap before next July when the RC license runs out.

[dogpiss]

Not to tech overload here, but those of you who can take advantage of the $10 student upgrade, make sure to click the banner "My computer needs to connect to a domain" on one of the purchase screens if you can do a fresh install. This way you can get PROFESSIONAL instead of Home Premium for $10. The best part of PRO for the lay user if FULL DISK BACKUP and BARE METAL RESTORE! As of the last build, Home didn't have this. The bad news is that you can't "Upgrade" XP Home -> 7 PRO without a re-install, but it really is better if you can put in the effort. OK, back to your regularly scheduled diaper chat.

Well, it's not totally un-related... Microsoft is usually on your arse and often full of sh*t... co-incidence... I think not!

[curiositykilledthecat]

I'm sticking with xp until i get a new cpu altogether. For now I just want to upgrade to ddual core and add another gig of ram.

[diamondback6881]

I'm going to wait for awhile until I upgrade to Windows 7. I have 64-bit Visra on my laptop currently and I'm happy with it.

[CDLover]

Not to tech overload here, but those of you who can take advantage of the $10 student upgrade, make sure to click the banner "My computer needs to connect to a domain" on one of the purchase screens if you can do a fresh install. This way you can get PROFESSIONAL instead of Home Premium for $10. The best part of PRO for the lay user if FULL DISK BACKUP and BARE METAL RESTORE! As of the last build, Home didn't have this. The bad news is that you can't "Upgrade" XP Home -> 7 PRO without a re-install, but it really is better if you can put in the effort. OK, back to your regularly scheduled diaper chat.

Well, it's not totally un-related... Microsoft is usually on your arse and often full of sh*t... co-incidence... I think not!

Where can one find the $10 Professional version? I did the $50 pre-release upgrade to Home Premium... I have all the new hardware w/ XPPro waiting to go... I don't mind doing the full reinstall. All my files are stored on another drive. It's just the hassle of reinstalling all my apps.

Thanks, CDL

[ArtemisEnterri]

Im with crys on this one. Linux may be a bitch to install. But purrs like a kitten ones its roaring.

meh. you know what I ment. I mean once you get it running its Smooth but powerful.

I also agree... My Linux machine has never failed me the way all of my Windows machines have.

I've actually had an up-time report from my Linux file server saying 6 months, 17 days, and 11 hours without rebooting before... No Windows machine could EVER duplicate that.

I'll switch all my machines from XP to Linux before I'll ever install Windows 7... Mainly because I just can't afford to keep paying the price MS charges every time they release the new versions... Linux is FREE to download and install on as many computers as you want to use it on.

[dogpiss]

Where can one find the $10 Professional version? I did the $50 pre-release upgrade to Home Premium... I have all the new hardware w/ XPPro waiting to go... I don't mind doing the full reinstall. All my files are stored on another drive. It's just the hassle of reinstalling all my apps.

Thanks, CDL

You have to /technically/ be a student but you get a copy with a .edu address

http://www.win741.com/

[Dubious]

Linux sucks for gaming

[sarah_ab]

i get my student copy through my university. I go to them, give them $10 and they give me the cd with it on there. so techincally i could load it onto more than one computer, did this with my office suite, loaded it onto both of my laptops.

Or if i am not comfortable loading it myself i go to tech support and they load it for me. But i dont have to download it online.

[ArtemisEnterri]

Linux sucks for gaming

That is not true... Some games (Unreal Tournament, Quake, even Neverwinter Nights - a D&D role-playing game) have Linux versions which are available FREE to owners of Windows versions of the game...

And for other games you can use either the Wine or Cedega packages as a "go between" to make the game think it's running on a Windows machine. Or you can use a virtual PC program like VirtualBox (by Sun - the Java people) VMWare, or Xen (included with most Linux distributions) to make a Windows "guest" machine inside the Linux "host" main OS.

I've done it...

[loopy]

That is not true... Some games (Unreal Tournament, Quake, even Neverwinter Nights - a D&D role-playing game) have Linux versions which are available FREE to owners of Windows versions of the game...

And for other games you can use either the Wine or Cedega packages as a "go between" to make the game think it's running on a Windows machine. Or you can use a virtual PC program like VirtualBox (by Sun - the Java people) VMWare, or Xen (included with most Linux distributions) to make a Windows "guest" machine inside the Linux "host" main OS.

I've done it...

All those games are truly the top selling titles of the moment (ok so they are good just a little old). Those other options, you need a faster machine then you would need with just a windows install, and its just easier to install windows.

I find XP stable enough after a bit of fiddling, I leave my machine on for days at a time and nothing crashes in fact the only thing i have a problem with is the new version of firefox and its damn memory leak :/. And hopefully windows 7 will be just as good, Microsoft os's seem to go good, bad, good, bad vista was pants therefor 7 should be good .

[ArtemisEnterri]

All those games are truly the top selling titles of the moment (ok so they are good just a little old). Those other options, you need a faster machine then you would need with just a windows install, and its just easier to install windows.

I find XP stable enough after a bit of fiddling, I leave my machine on for days at a time and nothing crashes in fact the only thing i have a problem with is the new version of firefox and its damn memory leak :/. And hopefully windows 7 will be just as good, Microsoft os's seem to go good, bad, good, bad vista was pants therefor 7 should be good .

Umm, sorry, you are incorrect. You don't need a "faster machine" because Linux as an OS is much less processor intensive compared to Windows.

I've had very little difference between running XP alone and running XP as a "guest" under Linux on the same PC (tested with an AMD x64 @ 1.6ghz with 1gb ram, using a 32bit copy of XP and an x64 copy of openSuSE Linux).

Linux has one capability Windows will NEVER have: you can recompile the Linux kernel (central core of the OS) to specifically match the specs of the machine you are running it on (which also means the kernel takes less ram and time to load). The reason Windows is so big (and at times slow) is because the Windows kernel is coded with support for all the different types of pre-existing hardware out there (even if your machine doesn't have those devices installed). MS coded Windows specifically for a certain range of machines (listed on the box as "minimum requirements"), and will run well if your machine is better than that "minimum", but will run slowly if your machine is below that "minimum". Even a NEW Linux edition can still be compiled to run on an old 486 or first-gen Pentium processor (not that many people still own them), try Windows 7 on that old of a machine.

A "clean" new XP install on a blank HD can take at least 800mb (not including any temp files or swap files).

A "clean" new Linux install (bare bones) only needs 500mb. And Linux comes with a TON of FREE apps and low-to-mid-level games if you choose to install them, a Windows install CD can ONLY install Windows.

[loopy]

Umm, sorry, you are incorrect. You don't need a "faster machine" because Linux as an OS is much less processor intensive compared to Windows.

I've had very little difference between running XP alone and running XP as a "guest" under Linux on the same PC (tested with an AMD x64 @ 1.6ghz with 1gb ram, using a 32bit copy of XP and an x64 copy of openSuSE Linux).

Linux has one capability Windows will NEVER have: you can recompile the Linux kernel (central core of the OS) to specifically match the specs of the machine you are running it on (which also means the kernel takes less ram and time to load). The reason Windows is so big (and at times slow) is because the Windows kernel is coded with support for all the different types of pre-existing hardware out there (even if your machine doesn't have those devices installed). MS coded Windows specifically for a certain range of machines (listed on the box as "minimum requirements"), and will run well if your machine is better than that "minimum", but will run slowly if your machine is below that "minimum". Even a NEW Linux edition can still be compiled to run on an old 486 or first-gen Pentium processor (not that many people still own them), try Windows 7 on that old of a machine.

A "clean" new XP install on a blank HD can take at least 800mb (not including any temp files or swap files).

A "clean" new Linux install (bare bones) only needs 500mb. And Linux comes with a TON of FREE apps and low-to-mid-level games if you choose to install them, a Windows install CD can ONLY install Windows.

It won't change the fact that windows does work out of the box, I don't need to recompile kernels or set up wine or anything like that. I don't have to worry weather a certain game will run properly in a vm. For me as a game player, windows is the better solution. For me as a user of windows since 3.1 its the better solution because I know how it works. I had Linux installed for quite a while a few years back, but I always had to have it dual booting with windows, just for games. Then it got to the point of while why reboot back into Linux just to use the net and listen to music?

And as for saying a faster machine. To run Fallout 3 in windows you need a pretty shithot machine, to run Fallout 3 in linux on a virtual machine that is running windows, well you're going to lose a bit of performance.

I'm just hoping I can get win7 on the cheap as a student .

[Pudding]

I'd like to interject here for a moment.../I'm really happy for you, Windows, and I'mma letchu finish!

Mac OS X Snow Leopard is one of the best Operating Systems EVER MADE

Just sayin'!

[loopy]

I'd like to interject here for a moment.../I'm really happy for you, Windows, and I'mma letchu finish!

Mac OS X Snow Leopard is one of the best Operating Systems EVER MADE

Just sayin'!

But you have to be a little bit fruity to use it

[Pudding]

That's okay; I'm queer as a chocolate orange anyway XD

[loopy]

That's okay; I'm queer as a chocolate orange anyway XD

I don't mean fruity as in gay, just fruity as in... fruity :X

[ArtemisEnterri]

It won't change the fact that windows does work out of the box, I don't need to recompile kernels or set up wine or anything like that. I don't have to worry weather a certain game will run properly in a vm. For me as a game player, windows is the better solution. For me as a user of windows since 3.1 its the better solution because I know how it works. I had Linux installed for quite a while a few years back, but I always had to have it dual booting with windows, just for games. Then it got to the point of while why reboot back into Linux just to use the net and listen to music?

And as for saying a faster machine. To run Fallout 3 in windows you need a pretty shithot machine, to run Fallout 3 in linux on a virtual machine that is running windows, well you're going to lose a bit of performance.

I'm just hoping I can get win7 on the cheap as a student .

Well apparently you haven't used a RECENT Linux distribution, because they DO "work right out of the box". The newest editions of Linux have been idiot-proofed to make installation easy for even a complete n00b. The option to recompile the kernel is an OPTION, not a requirement. For most users the pre-compiled kernel included on the install disc works just fine. Also, the Wine software can be selected to install during the initial install of the operating system with no additional work.

I have used PCs since the days of DOS 3.3 (mid 1980s) and I have used multiple versions of DOS, Windows (from 3.0 up), and multiple distributions of Linux (including multiple version numbers in each of those distro's).

And think about it this way: every time MS releases a new version of Windows, you have to PAY for that new version (unless you are a software pirate). But if you are running Linux, you never have to pay a single penny for 90+% of the distributions out there.

Also, for 90% of the "updates" Windows does on any given day of the week, you are FORCED to reboot even if it was for something simple like a fix for Internet Explorer. The reason: when Windows loads a file into memory, IT KEEPS THE FILE OPEN ON THE HARDDRIVE.

Linux can update without needing a full system reboot (unless the central kernel itself is updated). When Linux opens a file, it makes a complete copy of the file in ram and releases the original file which allows you to change the file then the changes are taken into account the next time that file is loaded.

I have been running a Linux file server for 6 straight years, and am much happier with the way that machine has been running than I have ever been with any of my Windows machines. I will never purchase any MS software product (or any XBox hardware/software) for the rest of my life if I can possibly avoid it.

And for anyone who says they like the Mac OSX, guess what, it's LINUX!

[Pudding]

And for anyone who says they like the Mac OSX, guess what, it's LINUX!

No, it's not. By confusing BSD with Linux you've essentially discredited the entire post you just made. Besides; it's not only BSD; as well as the elements of NeXT ~ it's also a gawgiss GUI and an experience that never EVER requires the user to resort to the CLI; ever. Pretty impressive for a Unix OS; something Linux will never ever manage.

[loopy]

Well apparently you haven't used a RECENT Linux distribution, because they DO "work right out of the box". The newest editions of Linux have been idiot-proofed to make installation easy for even a complete n00b. The option to recompile the kernel is an OPTION, not a requirement. For most users the pre-compiled kernel included on the install disc works just fine. Also, the Wine software can be selected to install during the initial install of the operating system with no additional work.

But getting a game to work at optimum in wine does take effort, more then I'm willing to put in after a 9 hour shift at work.

I have used PCs since the days of DOS 3.3 (mid 1980s) and I have used multiple versions of DOS, Windows (from 3.0 up), and multiple distributions of Linux (including multiple version numbers in each of those distro's).

And think about it this way: every time MS releases a new version of Windows, you have to PAY for that new version (unless you are a software pirate). But if you are running Linux, you never have to pay a single penny for 90+% of the distributions out there.

I pay for versions of windows that I think is worth it, like xp (which is stable and pretty rapid) and maybe win 7 after i've tested it. The thing is.... I'll use it for at least 5 years, maybe longer so I have no problem paying really, as long as i can find good deals (woo student )

Also, for 90% of the "updates" Windows does on any given day of the week, you are FORCED to reboot even if it was for something simple like a fix for Internet Explorer. The reason: when Windows loads a file into memory, IT KEEPS THE FILE OPEN ON THE HARDDRIVE.

Linux can update without needing a full system reboot (unless the central kernel itself is updated). When Linux opens a file, it makes a complete copy of the file in ram and releases the original file which allows you to change the file then the changes are taken into account the next time that file is loaded.

Rebooting takes all of 2 minutes, if that. I don't need to go for a world up time record on my home pc.

I have been running a Linux file server for 6 straight years, and am much happier with the way that machine has been running than I have ever been with any of my Windows machines. I will never purchase any MS software product (or any XBox hardware/software) for the rest of my life if I can possibly avoid it.

Linux is good for servers. Its not good for my personnel situation for my home box. The only reason I'd install linux again is to brush up on my l33t skills for when I get a job in IT

I like windows, it works, its stable, and everything is made for it. Plus I know how to fix it with relative ease if there's ever a problem.

[ArtemisEnterri]

No, it's not. By confusing BSD with Linux you've essentially discredited the entire post you just made. Besides; it's not only BSD; as well as the elements of NeXT ~ it's also a gawgiss GUI and an experience that never EVER requires the user to resort to the CLI; ever. Pretty impressive for a Unix OS; something Linux will never ever manage.

I in no way discredited anything I said in that post just because you disagree with the last sentence I posted.

And apparently you don't understand Linux then. The ONLY times I ever use the CLI are when I CHOOSE to do so, there is no REQUIREMENT to do it unless you forgot to install the GUI front-end for something. You also seem to not have used any RECENT Linux distribution or you would have known that.

Technically BSD and Linux started around the same timeframe (1990/1991) and SHARE many sections of their source code.

BSD is based on the really old mainframe Unix, Linux was written to make a Minix-like system for non-mainframe machines.

The only REAL difference between BSD and Linux is that BSD is still controlled by Berkley (Univ of Cali at Berkley), and the kernels are more specific in their abilities, while Linux (as created by Linus Torvalds) is simply the central kernel of the OS which is used by the different distributors (Red Hat, Slackware, Mandrake/Mandriva, SuSE/openSuSE, YellowDog, etc).

There are TWICE as many verifiable installations of Linux compared to installations of BSD in corporate settings, and in the unverifiable home setting, the gap is even bigger since the Linux distribution sets install the GUI's and apps, while a standard BSD installation is all CLI driven, and you have to run "port" scripts to download source code files which then need to be compiled before you can use any app not included in the "standard" install.

A great page full of comparisons can be found here! The fact is, it is much easier to install and use a Linux distribution than a BSD one.

[Pudding]

Since none of what you just said has anything to do with "OSX = Linux!!!111one"; I'm going to assume you're just building a strawman argument to cover-up your error. It doesn't matter how many installations of BSD there are vs that of Linux; none of the above facts presented make BSD equal to Linux in all forms and manners. The kernels are different; and though they can be made binary compatible it doesn't make them the *same*.

I'll make a few *really* easy statements for you to understand ~

BSD != Linux

Darwin == A Flavor of BSD

Mac OS X == Darwin + NeXT + Aqua (Carbon/Cocoa)

.:

Mac OS X != Linux

It's okay to say "Oh, right; Pudding. I was wrong with that assumption; haha!" rather than argue a silly point into the ground.

[loopy]

A great page full of comparisons can be found here! The fact is, it is much easier to install and use a Linux distribution than a BSD one.

Is it much easier to install linux instead of OSX?

[Brutal]

My problem with Windows Vista is that it EATS MEMORY! And it is very slow. Is this new Windows 7, going to be a better product with less "bloated code" and continual patches?

If you try to run Vista with less than 3 gigs of memory it's not going to work well. I limped along for a year before adding another gig to my note book. It's painful.

I've used Linux and it's lightning fast by comparison and takes much less operating space. I can boot my computer in either mode.

Free Office works better than MS-OFFICE and it's free. I just don't get the rapture with Windows.

MacOS is a better platform but it'll never take off the way it should because nobody develops any kick ass games for MAC and all the APPS are freaking ridiculously expensive because they have to recoup their investment on such a limited population.

But back to my original question... besides the cute little note functions and doo-dads... is it faster and less prone to problems? Does it require less system resources than VISTA?

If not, they can keep it. I'm not wasting a dime on upgrading everything just to run their lastest software.

-Brutal