Windows 7

[TheHarlequin]

yes. intel hasn't released a 32-bit processor since the pentium 4 chips in 2000.

 

taks

 

And even some of those, if I am not mistaken, were 64-bit.

 

AMD did not release their first x86-64 chips until 2003. And they were the first to do so with consumer CPUs. So that is incorrect.

[TheHarlequin]

In short, I think people attribute mystical destructive powers to 64 bit

 

Agreed. I have run xp64 and now w7 64 and they all have run my games (new and older) and apps without issue. First year or so of xp64 sometimes 64bit drivers were a pain to find but now they are released same time as 32bit. The time I feel is sooner then later when only 64bit drivers will be released for new hardware.

[TheHarlequin]

I also got Windows 7 for free (through MSDNAA)!

Heh, me too. And it's even the Pro version.

 

Got w7 ultimate in early oct at a pre-release w7 conference here in Boston. $0.0 is a sweet price

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So that is incorrect.

 

I don't think so. I'm fairly positive there were Pentium 4 chips that were x86-64 (id est these).

[TheHarlequin]

So that is incorrect.

 

I don't think so. I'm fairly positive there were Pentium 4 chips that were x86-64 (id est these).

 

AMD -CREATED- the x86-64 instruction set, intel followed suit after the fact when it realized it wasn't a fad and here to stay. While I am not a huge fan of wikipedia when it comes to tech or pop culture its pretty good. I'd suggest you check out the page on x86-64

 

I think you are confusing IA-64 and x86-64 two very different and non-compatiable 64bit implimentation. Unless you are simply stating there were P4 x86-64 chips and in that case you are correct. I am simply stating AMD were the first to make the chips. Your previous post made it sound as if intel were first to do so.

Edited November 18, 2009 by TheHarlequin

[LadyCrimson]

Except for using all my RAM and having DX11 for future gaming (I guess), I'm not impressed with Win7(64bit) over XP in other way. Perhaps as people have more time to figure out all the little tweaks I'll like it more. It's not that it sucks (it seems ok performance wise, altho not faster in anything I personally use) but every Windows version comes with so much unnecessary UI "ease of use"+visual crap that I find utterly useless and less easy (and more clicking!). :/ Turned a lot of it off but...ah well.

 

I did, however, manage to get the XP-style Quick Launch back, which goes a long way to making Win7 interface much more bearable for me. I cannot stand the new Win7 taskbar. I don't care if you can Shift-click on a "pinned" shortcut to open multiple instances rapidly...still can't stand it, I say.

 

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/888-q...le-disable.html

Edited November 18, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Unless you are simply stating there were P4 x86-64 chips and in that case you are correct.

 

That's all I've been saying.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[taks]

AMD did not release their first x86-64 chips until 2003. And they were the first to do so with consumer CPUs. So that is incorrect.

he never said that intel was or was not first. the only point was that intel's last 32-bit release (well, major release) was the P4 in 2000. the P4 was ported to 64-bit with the prescott in 2004. 4 years between major releases was what gave AMD a huge lead in the market as i recall (i was using them back then, too). they have since squandered that lead, obviously (i'm back to intel).

 

taks

[TheHarlequin]

Unless you are simply stating there were P4 x86-64 chips and in that case you are correct.

 

That's all I've been saying.

 

My bad read between the lines where nothing existed. My appologizes.

[Arkan]

So I finally got Windows 7 installed, and it is sleek, but I have a question. Wasn't 7 supposed to hide or 'make invisible' inactive windows? Mine seem normal, and it's not that I'd find it a particularly useful feature, but I'd like to see it in action.

[LadyCrimson]

Wasn't 7 supposed to hide or 'make invisible' inactive windows? Mine seem normal, and it's not that I'd find it a particularly useful feature, but I'd like to see it in action.

Not sure about invisible, but you can grab the top bar of the active window and "shake" it to make all other open windows minimize (Aero Shake).

 

The only hide thing I know of at the moment is hiding icons in the notification area of the taskbar.

[Arkan]

Wasn't 7 supposed to hide or 'make invisible' inactive windows? Mine seem normal, and it's not that I'd find it a particularly useful feature, but I'd like to see it in action.

Not sure about invisible, but you can grab the top bar of the active window and "shake" it to make all other open windows minimize (Aero Shake).

 

The only hide thing I know of at the moment is hiding icons in the notification area of the taskbar.

 

Doh! After a little research, what I was thinking about was "peeking". In the taskbar, if you hover over one of the open windows, it will turn all the other windows into "glass" so you can see the window preview you're hovering over.

 

Here's the link to what I'm talking about, halfway down the page:

 

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2008...t-windows-7.ars

 

It's pretty swank.

 

Now I just have a problem with my usb wireless router not working after I come back from standby. I have to unplug it and plug it back in every time.

[Matthew Rorie]

I keep getting a weird ATI driver crash when my computer attempts to wake up from sleep mode in Win7. For the moment I just disabled sleep mode, but that's going to be a waste of power going forward.

 

Apart from that I love Win7. It's smooth like butter. My only other complaint is that the folder view options don't seem to be saved very well. I want everything to be in Details view, but attempting to apply that view to all other folders inevitably leads to me finding one that has everything as thumbnails. So that's annoying.

[Arkan]

I keep getting a weird ATI driver crash when my computer attempts to wake up from sleep mode in Win7. For the moment I just disabled sleep mode, but that's going to be a waste of power going forward.

 

Apart from that I love Win7. It's smooth like butter. My only other complaint is that the folder view options don't seem to be saved very well. I want everything to be in Details view, but attempting to apply that view to all other folders inevitably leads to me finding one that has everything as thumbnails. So that's annoying.

 

I hear you! I prefer everything in thumbnails (large icons in 7), and I often get detailed view. Everything else, as you said, is smooth like butter.

[LadyCrimson]

Under Tools/Folder Options/View there's an "Always show icons, never thumbnails" checkbox. That seems to have prevented actual true thumbnails ever showing up for me, but occasionally folders don't want to default into details mode, or remember which details I want displayed.

 

Don't know for a fact, but it feels like you have to apply settings to "all folders" for each main directory folder to get to all subfolders.

 

All the sleek stuff I have turned off so I know nothing about those things. But it does all run like butter...then again, so did XP...I think on my new PC it would all run smoothly.

Edited December 1, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[LostStraw]

Apart from that I love Win7. It's smooth like butter. My only other complaint is that the folder view options don't seem to be saved very well. I want everything to be in Details view, but attempting to apply that view to all other folders inevitably leads to me finding one that has everything as thumbnails. So that's annoying.

Using the "Apply to Folders" button applies settings to all folders of a certain template.

 

To change the template of all folders on a certain drive:

1. Right click on the drive in Windows Explorer and select "Properties"
   
2. Select the "Customize" tab
   
3. In the drop down box select the template you want to use
   
4. Check the box "Also apply this template to all subfolders"
   
5. Click "OK"
   

Note: The "Libraries" folders have to have their template changed for each folder. Just right click on them and select "Properties" then select the template from the drop down box.

 

Now when the apply to folders button is used on a folder of this template then all other folders of with the same template should also be affected. Hope this works

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It's an older review but a funny one...

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

That was hilarious.

[Arkan]

I have an odd question.

 

On my desktop and my mother's netbook, I was able to pin Windows Media Center to the taskbar/superbar. However, on my laptop, when I rightclick on the WMC icon (in the taskbar while it's open), I don't get the option to 'pin to taskbar'. Am I just missing something, or what? It's really odd. It's not a huge deal as I have WMC on my desktop, but I just like having a clean desktop with as few icons as possible.

[Tigranes]

Based on reading bits and pieces of this thread and other articles the last few months, I'm thinking of going Win7. I've stuck with XP on my laptop for obvious reasons, but 7 seems pretty nice.

 

Questions:

1) How is older game compatibility? Have any people tried out SNES emulators, DOSBOX, and 90's games like Thief 2, Infinity Engine games and Fallout? I can't get an OS that can't deal with Fallout or Torment.

2) Compared to XP (not Vista) is there a noticeable performance boost or drop, on the whole for you personally?

[zerexaki]

Depends on the game.

 

Diablo fully patched works on Vista no graphic problems and no Battlenet problems. But has huge graphics problems with Win7 and works with Battlenet.

Diablo unpatched works great in terms of graphics but won't work in Multiplayer/Battlenet modes.

 

So if you have an early version of Diablo (when it was released) you have two options for you with Win7. Either Graphics or Battlenet.

If you have a recent version (that's been patched) then you don't have an option at all. Graphics is a huge problem.

 

I haven't tried out that many old games so far on Win7. I do have quite a big list (over 100 games) in excell of old games that work/don't work on Vista - but it seems Win 7 is another beast when it comes to old games. Although, I have a Win98, WinMe, Win2000 and XP computers to play my old games on.

[LadyCrimson]

2) Compared to XP (not Vista) is there a noticeable performance boost or drop, on the whole for you personally?

I don't have any number tests to give you, but in terms of how it feels...no, in either direction. Maybe XP felt a little faster here, and Win7 a little faster there, but overall I really see no difference. Keep in mind that I don't use all the Areo "pretty" options tho, since I have no need for "pretty" - plus I don't run that many programs on Win7 besides some basic stuff + games.

 

My main annoyance with Win7 is that most of my fave (non-game) programs will work poorly-they run/don't crash, but don't work properly- requiring either new versions or new programs, which is as always, a potential added expense. And yeah, very old games are kind of a coin-flip, imo. Depends on patches, original disc etc. No dos-box, but I had the same thing with Diablo1 (had to put it on my ancient XP for bnet), and Lords of the Realm2 wouldn't install.

 

If very old games are important, I'd make sure to keep an old XP system around, if you can, long as you can.

Edited December 16, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[mkreku]

Yeah, I was going to suggest dual booting XP and Win 7, but then I remembered the dual booting XP/Vista fiasco I had a few months back. I added Vista to see if it had become stable/optimized enough and was planning on eventually switching to it when I had phased out all my XP needs. It turned out that using Vista felt like being able to do 90% of what I could do in XP, only significantly slower, all the while being bugged by UAC. In the end I kind of forgot about Vista, just stopped using it and eventually uninstalled it. It was only good for the occasional game (STALKER) using DirectX 10.

 

I got a version of Windows 7 burned out and ready to go (got it free from my university, same as with Vista and XP) but nothing tells me I need to switch yet. Why 'upgrade' for less performance and no gains? I just don't get it.

[LadyCrimson]

I haven't tried Win7's "XP emulator" or whatever that is...I'd have to research how it works & I'm too lazy, since I have the extra PC. (I still much prefer separate rigs vs. dual-booting etc). I've considered switching this new pc back to XP, in fact...but eh...since I use this new one mainly for gaming/media having Win7 on the new rig seems fine. I left things like email, photography files etc. on the old XP. :D

 

So yeah, I'd say if you don't have a specific need to switch, there's still no real reason for a home user to do so. The only reason I did it was because I built the new PC and wanted to see how Win7 ran on it compared to how XP ran on the same system, and since it doesn't run any worse/slower, at least, I'll leave it alone for now.

 

Win7 pretty much uses 1GB of RAM even at idle...was Vista the same?

Edited December 16, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[LostStraw]

1) How is older game compatibility? Have any people tried out SNES emulators, DOSBOX, and 90's games like Thief 2, Infinity Engine games and Fallout? I can't get an OS that can't deal with Fallout or Torment.

ZSNES works and so does DOSBOX. I have no idea about the others.

 

I haven't tried Win7's "XP emulator" or whatever that is...I'd have to research how it works & I'm too lazy, since I have the extra PC. (I still much prefer separate rigs vs. dual-booting etc).

Win 7's XP emulator is rather pathetic. I tried it about a month ago -- it was limited to a 16-bit display and ran very sluggish when trying to do much of anything. The only real benefit to using it over some other virtualization software such as VirtualBox is that one doesn't need to have XP to use it.