Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Windows "7"  (Read 11235 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amigakid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 667
    • Show only replies by amigakid
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #29 from previous page: November 22, 2009, 07:20:43 AM »
Actually I like 7 a lot. Been using it since May and have had no issues.  Don't get me wrong nothing will ever take the place of my miggy(s) and her OS but since I can't stand Mac fanboys and the prices are outrageous for outdated H/W and the fact i have to work on windows for a living anyways i am glad they made a version more stable and able to utilize h/w better than Vista.  Just my 2 cents.
 

Offline Tripitaka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2005
  • Posts: 1307
    • Show only replies by Tripitaka
    • http://acidapple.com
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2009, 11:46:05 AM »
To be fair Win7 has some nice features but let's not forget it's still huge, full of nannying and hides options in obscure places, splatters DLLs all over your harddrive and eats resources. In short, it's still Windows. To the credit of Apple, at least they have been trying to trim the resource footprint of MacOS. MS could do with following suite.
I agree with the comment on 64bit being a missed chance for MS to go this direction. Let's face it, over 200Mb for a driver!  That's insane.
Falling into a dark and red rage.
 

Offline AeroMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 342
    • Show only replies by AeroMan
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2009, 01:28:45 PM »
I have a small tool made with VB6 that I use at work. It is a really simple server that communicates with our product using UDP and breaks down the bytes received to show the value of each field. Nothing special, no voodoo tricks, even my grandmother could write that code...
I was at a costumer last month and he was using our tool in a Windows 7 Core 2 Notebook. I was amazed how slow it was running. It looked like a 486.
The same tool runs smoothly on my 900MHz EEE with XP (!), and I've never heard about nobody having similar problems with it. But this was the first test with Windows 7
Other software was running nice, even stuff that he made with .net. The only thing I could figure out is that Windows 7 have some problem with software made in VB6. Does anybody knows something about it ?
That makes me think twice about using Windows 7 :-(
 

Offline tone007

Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2009, 02:15:50 PM »
Quote from: Tripitaka;530744
To the credit of Apple, at least they have been trying to trim the resource footprint of MacOS. MS could do with following suite.
Windows 7 uses a great deal less hard drive space (gigabytes less, I believe) and RAM than Windows Vista did.  My 1GB RAM, 40gb HD subnotebook Fujitsu which shipped with Vista runs MUCH better with Windows 7, and has way more free hard drive space.

Quote from: Tripitaka
over 200Mb for a driver!  That's insane.
This is the vendor's fault for packaging them poorly with added "support software" and unnecessary junk ("order new cartridge!" reminders, etc.)  The driver itself probably isn't more than 1mb.  HP is great at making you download way more than necessary from what I've seen.

..and to the discredit of Apple, they've just disowned millions of non-Intel Apple machines with their newest OS release, while Windows 7 runs fine on my 5 year old laptop.  I imagine orphaning all that hardware will go a long way to shrink the size of their OS!
3 Commodore file cabinets, 2 Commodore USB turntables, 1 AmigaWorld beer mug
Alienware M14x i7 laptop running AmigaForever
 

Offline DonnyEMU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2002
  • Posts: 650
    • Show only replies by DonnyEMU
    • http://blog.donburnett.com
Drivers are now a non-issue with windows 7 both x64 and x86
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2009, 02:20:51 PM »
Drivers are now a non-issue with Windows 7 thanks to Windows 7's online compatiblity center. It provides a search engine and every driver ever made for Vista and Windows 7. If your hardware is supported it now shows up on the list. If the manufacturer of the driver (NOT Microsoft, but the 3rd party who made it!) also got the driver certified with Microsoft it's listed. There are literally thousands of devices listed.

Microsoft and the 3rd party hardware makers will have every driver for every device listed there from now on and where to get it. So you don't have to go looking around for it. It will also point out the 3rd party companies who you bought from who didn't get their drivers tested and certified (which costs them virtually nothing through Microsoft to do)

if you are curious about support for all the devices windows seven has drivers for directly in the box (and online via windows update) just go there and give it a search). It will also help you get support if your hardware company isn't supporting Vista/Win7..

It's great to see this and it gets updated everytime a new driver is tested and put out on Windows Update..

Check out this website.. It will let you search for a driver..

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Default.aspx?type=Hardware

They now list everything Windows 7 is compatible with both hardware and software (tested) and what drivers attained certification etc.

So you never have to wonder if your 3rd party is providing or going to provide support anymore you just look on the list..

If you search for a driver that isn't there it both a) gets you help to find the driver b) notifies Microsoft that a customer is looking for something they can't find so Microsoft can bug the hardware maker about it (if they are in business, if there were enough sold to warrant driver support from them or someone else)

If you are still missing a driver you can go here and suggest a driver too..

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Feedback/Default.aspx?feedbacktype=suggest

Same if you are having a compatibility issue..

As for someone's comments about 200 meg for a driver being insane.. I agree, companies are using it as a marketing opportunity (like HP to sell printers and ink and supplies). Most drivers alone can be downloaded off of Windows update and are just the drivers alone.. If you buy a printer today there is usually a scanner driver and a fax driver and all sorts of marketing. Mac 3rd party hardware seems to be doing this more these days as well due to lack of advertising by Apple that their third party prouducts work on Mac..

On Windows, most drivers that are Windows "certified" are either in the win7 box (with no big download), provided on a DVD when you buy it new, and available just the driver on windows/microsoft update and are a QUICK download.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 02:31:03 PM by DonnyEMU »
======================================
Don Burnett Developer
http://blog.donburnett.com
don@donburnett.com
======================================
 

Offline adolescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2003
  • Posts: 3056
    • Show only replies by adolescent
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2009, 04:21:29 PM »
Quote from: Tripitaka;530744
To be fair Win7 has some nice features but let's not forget it's still huge, full of nannying and hides options in obscure places, splatters DLLs all over your harddrive and eats resources. In short, it's still Windows. To the credit of Apple, at least they have been trying to trim the resource footprint of MacOS.

Since when?  Snow Leopard uses more RAM and just as much disk as Leopard did (mainly because they removed PPC compatibility, not some magic diet they put the OS on), which used more resources than Tiger, which used more than Panther, etc.

Your description sounds like any modern OS be it Windows, Mac OS, or Linux.  They are all getting bigger, using more memory, and have many more features that take more disk space.  

Quote
I agree with the comment on 64bit being a missed chance for MS to go this direction. Let's face it, over 200Mb for a driver!  That's insane.

64bit has nothing to do with driver size.  Microsoft has offered a desktop 64bit operating system since 2003 (XP x64) so things are fairly well sorted by now.  Of course, in the beginning there were application and driver issues just like Snow Leopard is having now.  See my post about my Snow Leopard 250MB+ driver update for my old Canon inkjet.  The HP driver pack is over 300MB now!!!  Thanks Apple.  :lol:
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 04:31:59 PM by adolescent »
Time to move on.  Bye Amiga.org.  :(
 

Offline sammypetter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2010
  • Posts: 3
    • Show only replies by sammypetter
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2010, 05:34:23 AM »
Windows 7 is best.Because it has better features then the other.And Windows 7 is a vast improvement from Vista as it takes up much less ram and has other optimizations such as fast booting times. I recommend Windows 7, and if you really don't want vista and don't want to wait for the final version of Windows 7, you can download a copy of the Release Candidate from the Microsoft website for free and use it up till June of 2010. I am working with the Release Candidate right now and so far I have absolutely no complaints, considering Im a heavy computer use with advanced software.

Offline Matt_HTopic starter

Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2010, 06:46:53 AM »
Quote from: sammypetter;537259
Windows 7 is best.Because it has better features then the other.And Windows 7 is a vast improvement from Vista as it takes up much less ram and has other optimizations such as fast booting times. I recommend Windows 7, and if you really don't want vista and don't want to wait for the final version of Windows 7, you can download a copy of the Release Candidate from the Microsoft website for free and use it up till June of 2010. I am working with the Release Candidate right now and so far I have absolutely no complaints, considering Im a heavy computer use with advanced software.


Uh, the "final" version of Windows 7 was released months ago - there's no wait for it whatsoever.
 

Offline Xenobiotical

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 159
    • Show only replies by Xenobiotical
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2010, 08:09:49 AM »
I've tried Windows 7 and.... now on my PC i have Ubuntu 9.10 and i will NEVER come back......

All the best

Carlo
 

Offline mikeymike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 3420
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by mikeymike
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2010, 09:35:59 AM »
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, 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.

Next, "OMG Win7 is crap because I installed an XP driver which didn't work, then I installed another one which didn't work".  At the end of the day, every OS has its foibles, and to me, being familiar with Windows, it seems like you're saying "the A1200 SUCKS!!!111 because I couldn't install my 16-bit 3.1 ROMs into the 32-bit sockets it just wouldn't work!".  You can hardly say an OS sucks because of a third party's drivers.  If you would like to argue things that way, let's rate AmigaOS as highly as the Microsoft Basic software that got released with Workbench 1.x shall we?  As for the large driver download which still didn't work, it could even be that you had a corrupted download (more likely just a crap driver, but hey).

Next, memory usage.  I haven't seen a new PC with Win7 that has less than 2GB RAM (which I regard to be ideal for Win7).  From what I've seen, a new install of Win7 (I've done a few already for customers), settles out at using about 600MB RAM, perhaps 800MB for the 64-bit version.  That's leaving 1.2GB RAM for you to use.  As far as I'm concerned, if an OS wants to use the resources available for any sort of operation, I don't mind as long as when I want it to do something, it is ready to do it quickly and responsively.  IMO, Win7 is pretty good at doing that, whereas I think this was Vista's achilles heel (even with indexing switched off, which made little difference, the OS always seemed to be accessing the disk).  I would be surprised if anyone can give an example of a modern, up-to-date OS for the average uses of a computer that doesn't have a similar resource footprint to Windows 7.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Windows fanboy, I think there are plenty of things that suck about Windows 7 especially.  I think it's just about an adequate replacement for Windows XP (which I regard to the be the pinnacle of Microsoft's achievements) which will keep Microsoft afloat while it gets its development model in order, which went drastically wrong with Vista.

One of the points in this thread that I agree with is about the 64-bit version.  I think 32-bit Vista shouldn't have happened, let alone 32-bit Win7.  Backwards compatibility is to a certain extent a good thing, but Microsoft is pushing it way too far.

If you want to laugh at pointless releases, then surely Microsoft Office is a better target?  Although there are plenty of pieces of software out there that simply bump up the version number because they made some trifling aesthetic change.

HP drivers - normally you can download a 'basic' driver, which does all the basics, the package is about a tenth of the size of the full-feature driver, and doesn't slow your machine up.  I use that quite often (though I normally recommend Epson), and introduce customers to other methods of scanning in stuff.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 09:38:43 AM by mikeymike »
 

Offline DyLucke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 130
    • Show only replies by DyLucke
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2010, 09:57:49 AM »
I don't like windows at all... However i can say 7 is what everybody expected from vista... which is pure crap. But 7 works fairly nice, and has real improvements compared to XP, runs more or less at the same speed, and has some nice features. So it's OK.
The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke.

A1200 Blizzard 060/66 64MB FastRam + 40GB HDD + Subway USB.
A1200 Apollo   040/33 32MB FastRam + 40GB HDD.
CD32!!!!
A500 4MB + 2GB IDE-CF adapter.
Mac Mini G4 1,5ghz  waiting for MorphOS.
C64, C64C, C64G, C128... 1541U-II.
Atari STe... SatanDisk, Atari 130XE... SDNuxx
 

Offline stefcep2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 1467
    • Show only replies by stefcep2
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2010, 01:58:39 PM »
Quote from: mikeymike;537291
I have to laugh at quite a few of the posts made in this thread.

 I would be surprised if anyone can give an example of a modern, up-to-date OS for the average uses of a computer that doesn't have a similar resource footprint to Windows 7.



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.
 

Offline mikeymike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 3420
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by mikeymike
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2010, 03:01:52 PM »
I've seen Win7 boot in about 15 seconds.  I'll get the camera!
 

Offline persia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 3753
    • Show only replies by persia
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2010, 03:09:11 PM »
I find it funny that people are talking about a few gigabytes of hard disk space as a lot when a TB drive cost US Dollars 100 at most....
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

What we\'re witnessing is the sad, lonely crowing of that last, doomed cock.
 

Offline B00tDisk

  • VIP / Donor - Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2002
  • Posts: 1670
    • Show only replies by B00tDisk
    • http://www.thedelversdungeon.com
Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2010, 03:12:29 PM »
Quote from: Matt_H;530557
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.


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

With that said, yeah, I have tried to puzzle that one out to no avail.  Hell the first version of WinNT (the start of the current Windows product line) began with...3.5.  WTF??

(Also I really like 7, and the "barely" difference?  Makes all the difference in the world...)
Back away from the EU-SSR!
 

Offline Matt_HTopic starter

Re: Windows "7"
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2010, 06:49:11 PM »
Quote from: B00tDisk;537330
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.