Veteran Member
|
I downloaded (available until Feb. 10th) and installed the beta on my mac this week and so far it's pretty amazing. First off it seems a lot more stable even in beta form over XP and Vista and runs significantly faster than either on my MacBook (2.2 Core2 w/ 4gb of ram), though it's the only version of windows I got in the 64-bit variant. It has also been a lot snappier in regular tasks and far quicker to start up and reboot, almost feels like an instand reboot. Another great thing is the taskbar which seems very similar to the dock, all very welcomed improvements. In the short time I've used it though, it doesn't seem to have changed much else over Vista, but those changes make it feel like night and day. I have to say, this is best windows experience I've had since Windows 2k (my last satisfied experience with windows). Still, I really hate their control panels and on a standalone PC, I have to say, I wish PCs had bonjour. I got to say bonjour saves my ass when setting up network printers.
All in all I have to say I actually plan to buy Windows 7 when it's released. Still need Windows to run trading software unfortunately, but at least now it'll be less of a drudgery. With that said, I can't wait for Snow Leopard and the onde upping game. :P Any of you guys try Windows 7? What you think? Retired 8 years ahead of schedule. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
|
I've played with it a little bit in Parallels on my MacBook. So far, I'm pretty impressed. It seems much faster and more user-friendly than Vista. I don't know if I'm going to buy it for my existing PC, but I'd certainly be more interested in using it than Vista.
|
quote |
‽
|
I've moved to it as my main dev VM OS rather quickly. Relatively low resource footprint, some nice UI improvements (a taskbar with rearrangable items without the need for a third-party tool‽ UNPOSSIBLE), not very nagging.
The library feature feels forced and has its annoyances/confusions, the home group feature feels like another Microsoft-esque abstraction that brings more problems than it solves (about as bad as Vista's "Network and Sharing Center", which Windows 7 still has and which seems to be a complicated window that ultimately lets you do virtually nothing), the "Action Center" (ZOMG) keeps telling me Windows Defender isn't on, only to retract its statement seconds later, and there's an unfortunate display bug in "combine when taskbar is full" mode. Other than that, it's a fine OS, and quite worth of a first beta. |
quote |
Making sawdust
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
I played with it a bit on a VM before installing it on a free partition on my pc. Big mistake. Somehow, it hosed my vista partition. I had Home Premium installed, but after installing Win 7, it thought it was vista ultimate and was rejecting my cd key. I tried a system restore, but that hosed things further, finally had to format and reinstall. Good thing i keep my user data on a seperate drive.
|
quote |
geri to my friends
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Heaven
|
I have been using it on an Advent Netbook (1.6 processor, 1GB ram) and it runs fine, quicker than Vista. Although similar to Vista it is a vast improvement, adjustable UAC etc.
I will probably buy it for my Netbook. As well as Snow Leopard for my Mac mini. I used to be undecided.....But now I'm not so sure. No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
My experience was the opposite, performance-wise. I installed it in VirtualBox and it was way too slow to be of practical use. I needed Windows for one of my computer science classes and though I can get any version of Windows I want for free, I gave 7 a shot. When it was too slow, I tried Vista, but it wouldn't even install. I just installed XP Pro and it's working well for this. I only need it for Visual Studio.
Last edited by Ryan : 2009-01-31 at 12:58. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
VMs need a lot of RAM, how much did you give it?
|
quote |
‽
|
(FWIW, I'm using it with 832 Megs and 2 CPU cores. If your physical machine has 3 or more Gigs, consider giving it even more RAM than that.)
|
quote |
Veteran Member
|
I originally gave it only 700 some mb and it still worked pretty well in vmware. Have since switched it to over two gigs though.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
2 gigs. Given that VirtualBox is relatively new and not quite mature yet, Windows 7 might not be the culprit. Either way, XP runs plenty fast for what I need.
On a side note, has anyone tried using Windows Server 2003 or 2008 as a desktop? Through my ACM membership I have access to every MS OS since XP for free and I've thought about giving those a spin. |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Formerly “adambrennan”
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
|
I finally got it installed after deleting my XP Boot Camp partition and having a bit of trouble making a new partition (Boot Camp Assistant kept complaining about being unable to move files) but I got there eventually.
Next problem is drivers. It seems those supplied on the disc arent supported by 64 bit version of Windows 7, so it seems I'll have to spend a bit of time hunting about for suitable drivers. It seems good so far. I never used Vista, but there are a couple of nice features I like over XP. I'll probably end up having to install XP again, but may just run it in Parallels this time, leaving Boot Camp for playing with 7. |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Looks like it's gonna come in six versions. Again.
OS X - and everything you could possibly want it for, at $129 - never looked so good. Quote:
Just seems so needlessly complex and confusing. Why not just a single Windows 7, which would be the "ultimate" package, for whatever price ($149-229) and be done with it? Why make people have to stand there in the store and analyze their particular set-up/usage situation and make some big choice based on that (and what happens if you choose wrong)? Before you even get the thing home and installed, it's already working on bugging you, and making you think too hard. How is this type of approach friendly or "with the end user in mind"? Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2009-02-04 at 11:03. |
|
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
OS X comes in three versions, technically - the normal one, server, and the iPhone/iPod Touch version. Only two of those three are actually sold. Windows has a broader user base so they need more versions to cater to the needs of all their customers.
Starter will be good for netbooks and it won't even be available for sale in stores. It might be available in volume licensing, which would probably make sense for certain uses like kiosks or elementary school computer labs, where there's no need to run more than one app at a time. Home Basic is for low-end PCs that can't handle Aero graphical effects, and it also won't be available in stores (apparently it'll be for emerging markets only, where people have slower PCs). Home Premium is the version 99% of people should (and will) buy. It's also the version that will come bundled with 90% of new PCs. Professional is for small businesses and adds a few features for them. This is the other version that will be available in stores. Enterprise will be sold through volume licensing only to large companies. Not in stores. Ultimate isn't really useful. I think it's there to pad MS's margins when someone decides that they're too good for Home Premium. So really, MS is only selling three versions to the normal consumer, and it's pretty clear who they're for. You might read on the Internet that there are six versions, but if you walk into a store you will see a big wall of Home Premium and a little section with a few copies of Professional and Ultimate. The other three aren't sold in stores and are available only to system builders and businesses. |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
If it's laid out that way, okay. It just sure sounds like a lot.
If you're a general, day-to-day Mac user, it's obvious which one you buy (like you said, the iPhone OS isn't even available for sale so it's a non-issue; and many people probably don't know OS X Server even exists, or what they'd ever use it for). In fact, I don't think I've ever even visited the OS X Server page at Apple's site. You kinda have to look for it at Apple's site (and the people who would are, naturally, the ones who'd know enough to do so). But you're not faced with it, as the average consumer. But yeah, if their user base is that big and broad (with such a wide range of hardware out there), maybe that's the only way they can realistically cater to everyone. I don't know. I'm just glad I don't have to wade into those particular waters... |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
Oh, and since you counted iPhone OS, there's also of course Windows Mobile Standard and Professional, and those two are only for smartphones — I'm going to leave out he various editions for automobiles, portable media devices, etc. Quote:
|
||
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
All I'm really saying is that editions aren't as crazy and out of hand as you guys seem to think they are. I still don't think it should be necessary for a typical computer user to have to choose which edition fits them best, but I also think that Windows' popularity means that offering it in several specialized versions makes some sense. I think the key is that there are very few versions that actually matter to consumers. The rest are for people who know what they are doing. |
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
There just seems to be a lot of arbitrary break-points and divisions, I guess.
Even among the "knows what they're doing" crowd, why the multiple professional/higher-end versions with different features or capabilities tacked on when they could just sell a single "serious user" (professional enterprise, or whatever) box? There's still just a single OS X and a single OS X Server. Two choices, covering everything (one of two distinct applications). Not six. Not even multiples within each category (consumer and more pro-oriented). It comes across as a bit chintzy, nickel-and-diming for the few differences between those upper versions. Why not just have it all in there and simplify things a little. What are the price spans of each? I know the Ultimate is around $319 full (or $3.50 if you're a student ), but what about that lowest-end, "stripped" netbook-oriented version? Is it going to be $89 or $119 or something like that? The current low end (at least what is shown at their online store) is Home Basic for $199.95 full ($99.95 upgrade). So $70 more for the "low end" than OS X client costs, with probably so much more (and targeted toward a much smaller target crowd, obviously. Just seems like you pay a lot for stuff not included/standard. And if you want those things, then you step up and really pay a lot... If anything, considering their marketshare and entrenched presence (the whole world can't - or isn't going to - switch overnight, after all), you'd think they'd be in a position to sell for a little less, and more than make 'dat mad money in volume. Wouldn't "pretty much everyone in the world buying the full-tilt version for $199" shake out to roughly the same numbers as the various scales and degrees, some of which aren't even on most people's radars and probably don't get bought in any sort of numbers? I was just looking at the Windows Vista page at the Microsoft online store, and you've got the four versions, then full and upgrade pricing for each. You really have to do something thinking/analyzing ("what do I have? Is it eligible for upgrade? Can I go cheap now, but upgrade in a year or so easily? Do I drop $320 now for it all? What if that's overkill...can I downgrade? Wait, I've got two versions at home, on different machines...can I upgrade one, but...wait, I can download this but I need to purchase and have shipped the other, and...". Holy crap. It's just more than I ever imagined. I guess I'm spoiled beyond reason...I'm just not accustomed to being presented with so many options (buy, download, full, upgrade...and then four, at least, variants within each of those). Do the math...that's like 170,000 possible buying scenarios. I couldn't even imagine being some sort of IT or purchasing agent at a large firm or school, trying to muddle through all that for all the machines under my care. I'd eat a bullet by the second day, I'm sure. "Hell, I don't know...just order a bunch of $#%&@ Etch-A-Sketches, some spiral notebooks and a crapload of Bic pens or something...jeez!" Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2009-02-04 at 13:50. |
quote |
Veteran Member
|
I completely agree that when it comes to consumers it should really be a one size fits all configuration for simplification purposes. Keep in mind, I do not mean this in a lowest common denominator sort of thing either. I mean I really don't mind the whole version thing, but really, the current Home Basic is just petty and in my opinion, professional editions of anything MSFT tends to be vaguely professional and just another way to get people to spend more.
More than Windows, the editions that REALLY piss me off are of office. Any version of office not including outlook is really incomplete. I mean, who can't use a calendar/email/task and general organizing program? Again, another time they are petty. To be honest, I think that was the biggest reason I moved on from outlook, but really, now I just have to manually sync two address books. :/ Retired 8 years ahead of schedule. |
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
You know what would actually make more sense, pscates? One version of Vista and all that extra crap they throw in with the various versions is sold separately by MS. That's basically how Apple does it. Apple has a lot of their own software but they actually sell it separately as boxed software. MS, on the other hand, incorporates all of it into their OS and chooses which pieces to include and which not to include based on the OS edition, and then charges accordingly.
Have the installer scan your computer's hardware at the installation time and it'll determine whether you can run Aero or not and set the default accordingly - no need to have a separate edition just to determine whether you get Aero or not. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
Quote:
Large firms just buy site licenses. My school, and I imagine most universities operate this way, has a giant site license for Vista Ultimate and Office. It's a small school with fewer than 2500 students and our IT department has as many computers to manage—that's not including student-owned machines, which they support. They give Office, Vista and several other Microsoft products away to students, faculty and staff for free. This university alone is probably responsible for six to seven *thousand* copies of Vista. |
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Quote:
"Windows 7. One version, one vision. For $199 it's everything you need to STFU." Has a nice ring to it, huh? I didn't know about the Aero thing until just now. That would be the equivalent, I assume, of installing OS X and being told that your machine doesn't support Aqua; so you'd get all the functionality of OS X, but wrapped in the plainer, less-taxing OS 9 "platinum" interface? Bye-bye shadows, transparency, pulsing buttons, etc. Odd. So if you run Vista on a machine and Aero isn't the interface, what is it? The bubbly Windows XP look? Or 8-bit bitmap? Is Aero (that's the glassy look, right?) the look/interface in Windows 7? Or is it something else entirely? |
|
quote |
‽
|
Not only would it be easy to do; it would be what Windows and OS X have been doing all along anyway. There is only one technical variant of the two. (For simplicity's sake, I'm going to talk only about the client, but the same holds true for the server. On both systems.) With Vista and 7 (and Server 2008 and 2008 R2), the serial number determines which features you actually get. But if you have an Ultimate (or Enterprise) serial number, the features that wouldn't work on your machine simply are disabled. There. Not a technical hurdle, and already implemented anyway. Another example: switching a Windows XP installation CD from Home Edition to Professional? Essentially a few modifications to the registry and a disc burning operation away.
The editions part is purely, as you put it, a function of nickle-and-diming, or of marketing, in that it gives customers the illusion of additional value. As a rough equivalent, consider the odd software limitations of the iPod touch (let's skip the SOX discussion, shall we): its version of Google Maps on iPhone OS 2.2 has fewer features than the exact same app does on the iPhone. But it's not because they're missing from the files: getting Street View back is just two preferences changes away. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I just found some examples. They're not perfect (and the big difference is in the shadows, glows, and mouse-over effects), but they'll show you the basic difference. Aero enabled Aero disabled By the way, all this can be done in the options in any version of Vista that has Aero. So you can always disable it if you want. Quote:
EDIT: Chucker beat me. |
|||
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Hmm...Aero enabled is much nicer looking.
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dallas
|
Speaking on Aero, I have to admit that I really like it. A lot. That you can customize it so much is a great addition. It's something that I wish was available in OS X. I get really tired of the gray sometimes.
Something that bugs the hell out of me though, is the sidebar in windows explorer. Kill the hover effect already. I know where my mouse is and it's annoying as all hell when the words suddenly become buttons as I move across the screen. |
quote |
Veteran Member
|
Quote:
Retired 8 years ahead of schedule. |
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: eastmidlandshire
|
Just a quick note to further endorse Windows 7. I've been running it on my big ugly PC and under bootcamp on my MacBook and it's great! Compatibility is great; everything from Office 2003 to some in-house work software runs flawlessly. I've not had to chase-up a single driver on either machine (other than install the official Apple bootcamp drivers for the MacBook. Rock solid, no app crashes and certainly no OS crashes. Good stuff!
There's something about Windows 7 that reminds me of OS X Tiger; the OS has matured enough that further development refines and polishes the product. |
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: eastmidlandshire
|
I've just downloaded the Windows 7 Release Candidate. I was going to wait a few days for the rush to subside, but then I thought I'd take a look to see if how hard the servers are hit. To my surprise it downloaded in a matter of minutes with no sense of sluggish servers at all (I downloaded the 64 bit flavour). Sadly I won't get a chance to install it 'till the weekend, but at least I know I have it burned to disc and ready to go!
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next Last |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sweet Nothings | drewprops | AppleOutsider | 10 | 2008-07-31 22:45 |
Hockey is sweet. | MBHockey | AppleOutsider | 8 | 2006-12-15 00:56 |
Windows Vista Beta 1 Impressions | JK47 | Third-Party Products | 1 | 2005-07-30 23:34 |
Sweet, sweet intraweb. | billybobsky | AppleOutsider | 2 | 2005-03-10 19:47 |