Windows "7"

[Matt_H]

Kindly reconcile the version numbers of Kickstart, Workbench and Amiga OS and get back to me, slappy.

Haha, true! But those numbers never matched, nor were they ever intended to.

[Matt_H]

I have to laugh at quite a few of the posts made in this thread.

First of all, the version number.  Who here hasn't learnt already that version numbering is pretty arbitrary everywhere?  Some developers use it to show that they've reached a certain milestone, others never get to version 1 because they kind of see that as reaching perfection, others use it partly to show when a batch of security patches have been released, the list of different uses goes on.  The only silly thing about the version number is, if it's true, that MS didn't put it up to 7.0 because of (potential?) compatibility issues.  Personally I think Win7 is v6.1 because it is a patched-up version of Vista

Absolutely it's a patched up Vista! So why didn't they just release it as Windows 6.1? Of course the naming is arbitrary, I just thought it was dumb/weird of them to make the fundamental marketing shift from the year-based release names they've been using since Windows 95, back to number-based release names like Windows 3.1, and not have internal and external version numbers match.

however the OP's comment about it being "barely different" - I bet 9 out of 10 people who upgraded from Vista (usually because of performance issues) to it would disagree with you.  There's an enormous performance difference.

I don't doubt that there's a tremendous performance difference, not one bit. But will you agree that 7 isn't substantively different from Vista apart from the critical bug/performance fixes? The Vista-to-7 transition seems much more like the 95-to-98 transition (or 2000-to-XP transition) rather than the 3.1-to-95 transition (or even XP-to-Vista transition). That is to say, under-the-hood improvements and tweaks rather than a fundamentally changed user interaction experience.


EDIT: A reference point for my comments in this thread: Table of Windows versions. Note the internal version in the 4th column matches the external version until Windows 95.

[smerf]

Well my ubuntu 9.04 laptop boots up in 22 seconds and is using about 250 Mb ram.  Vista on the same machine takes 4 minutes and 30 seconds before it reduces the hard drive access enough to let it have enough resources to give me control of my mouse pointer.  And its uses over 1 gig of ram.  '7' I'm told boots faster and uses less ram than Vista.

 But I'll run down our City Mall butt naked if it beats Ubuntu.  Now THAT would be surprising.

Hi,

@stefcep
Been using Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10 on a dual boot system. Windows 7 is approximately 3 seconds faster in booting after GRUB.

Have a nice run!!

Not really a Windows fanboy, but ya all should upgrade your pc's at least to a dual core, with a modern graphics card.  The old 486's went out years ago, about the same time Commodore declared bankrupcy. To all you Apple Mac fanboys you should all upgrade to at least a 486, that way you would only be about 17 to 18 years behind the PC computers.

Windows 7 is nice, almost reminds me of the Amiga, only years advanced.  Windows 7 is where  the Amiga should of been.

smerf

smerf

[asymetrix]

I have been using Windows 7 about a year now on Acer TM 5720. Its oK. BUT

Network speed is very slow ~1mb/s.
USB 2.0 devices slow 1.5 MB/s transfer (cruzer and others) - major problem in windows 7 world !

My Sandisk cruzer micro 32 GB, 2.0 USB memory stick takes forever to format and corrupts files copied to it.
1 mb copy speed !
It uses Windows drivers so 'im up to date' great help.

reinstall usb - no help

My Intel Graphics media accelerator driver is only 1.19 GB in size.
Its fast ish at 1.8 GHZ duel core - but overheats (common for laptops).
anyone know a high end laptop that dont overheat ?

[bhoggett]

I don't doubt that there's a tremendous performance difference, not one bit. But will you agree that 7 isn't substantively different from Vista apart from the critical bug/performance fixes?

But then, having made Vista so different from XP it would have been commercially and technically suicidal to have another substantive shift at this stage. What they needed, and in fairness what they have done, is to consolidate and perfect the Vista base to a point where production environments could have confidence in adopting an up-to-date version of Windows again. Lots of businesses never upgraded from XP to Vista and this will have been a huge blow to Microsoft's expected revenues. To fix that Windows 7 had to show stability and consistency, not a whole raft of radical changes.

Regardless of what many people think, Microsoft have been at this game a long time and they have a decent grasp of what they are doing. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but never assume them to be stupid.

[bhoggett]

I have been using Windows 7 about a year now on Acer TM 5720. Its oK. BUT

Network speed is very slow ~1mb/s.
USB 2.0 devices slow 1.5 MB/s transfer (cruzer and others) - major problem in windows 7 world !

My Sandisk cruzer micro 32 GB, 2.0 USB memory stick takes forever to format and corrupts files copied to it.
1 mb copy speed !
It uses Windows drivers so 'im up to date' great help.

reinstall usb - no help

My Intel Graphics media accelerator driver is only 1.19 GB in size.
Its fast ish at 1.8 GHZ duel core - but overheats (common for laptops).
anyone know a high end laptop that dont overheat ?

Sounds like you have a seriously broken installation, because the faults you describe aren't typical (except for the last - high end laptops overheat because they use components designed for desktops, where heat dispersion is easier. Use the laptop on flat surfaces where ventilation isn't obstructed, and if you're going to use it on your lap or on a bed, use one of those aluminium radiators underneath).

Incidentally, most people's problems with USB transfer speeds seems to be down to somehow using the wrong drivers.

[Nlandas]

Had a very brief chance to play with Windows 7 for the first time last weekend. Here I am thinking that Microsoft has finally moved away from arbitrary names for their products ("ME", "XP", "Vista") and gone back to a nice, sensible naming scheme based on version numbers.

Not so! A quick glance at the "About Windows" entry in the help menu reveals that Windows 7 is actually Windows 6.1, internally.

While it's true that Windows 7 is barely different from Vista, you'd think they would have at least bumped the internal version number.

I'm running Windows 7 on both my HTPC(Wife's computer) and my machine. I have to say, it's heads and tails above Vista in terms of function, stability and overall impression of speed.

I am no Windows fanboy but Windows 7 has all the makings of a stable robust operating system with cutesy eye candy. I personally don't care about the internal version number.

I'd rather be running AmigaOS 6.1 but hey, I'd rather be running Windows or Linux than that other fruity OS. Uh, oh - is it getting hot in here ;^)

-Nyle

[ElPolloDiabl]

USB 2.0 devices slow 1.5 MB/s transfer (cruzer and others) - major problem in windows 7 world !

My Sandisk cruzer micro 32 GB, 2.0 USB memory stick takes forever to format and corrupts files copied to it.
1 mb copy speed !
It uses Windows drivers so 'im up to date' great help.

Format it with 64k cluster size. That sped mine up a bit.

[stefcep2]

Hi,

@stefcep
Been using Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10 on a dual boot system. Windows 7 is approximately 3 seconds faster in booting after GRUB.

How do you define boot time?.  I define it when you have smooth control of your mouse pointer which for the average user is the most basic of requirements to get the computer do anything.  Also my ubuntu system is fully loaded with third party software. and not just a bare OS.  We've all had the experience where windows gets slower the more you install.  What about RAM after you've booted? No way will Win 7 use about 250 mb.  My clothes stay on.

[joblow]

yes it should be called vista 2,i mean really it IS vista  2--cheers--

[koaftder]

I've been using XP forever. A few weeks ago I built a new pc. Core 2 quad (q8300), Radeon 5770, 4gb ddr3 memory and windows 7 64bit. It's a hell of a lot faster than my p4 2Ghz system with 512MB ram. VS2k8 and NetBeans IDE still runs like a dog on it, WTF?

Other than some UI changes, it's still windows as usual. Cool. All my sh*t still runs on it. Thats all I care about.

[tone007]

You can't have Windows without "WIN!"

[Golem!dk]

Oh yeah, lots of money to be made with the Vista name.