|
United States3824 Posts
For those of you that didn't know (or didn't care) the windows 7 open beta was released on Friday. After many hours of waiting and waiting and waiting I was finally able to finish the download and booted the OS on my MacBook. Besides the fact that Bootcamp doesn't support Windows 7 and I might not be able to get back to OSX, everything seems to be running fine.
Windows 7 is supposed to have lots of fun new features, though as of the past half and hour I have only found a few. For one thing, the toolbar in the lower right hand corner has been consolidated a bit, and the arrow that used to pop out to the left to show the hidden tray icons now pops up. Yay! most of the layout as far of the UI follows that model. Multiple web browser windows open at the same time are consolidated into pop out menus etc... Other than that, not much that I have found. Its supposed to be faster and less memory intensive though that was something that everyone already knew. I can use Windows Aero though that is nothing knew from vista. All in all it seems solid, though I probably haven't been running it long enough to hit any bumps in the road.
Kinda a boring writeup , more to come if I find something interesting.
|
can u post some screenshots?
|
How is the speed compared to Vista/XP?
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
|
screenshots would be appreciated!
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb 
|
On January 12 2009 07:08 Kentor wrote:i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb
You can always just use Windows Key + D to show the desktop; I've found that to be much quicker.
I've also tried Windows 7, and aside from the drivers for my wireless card not working, I've found it to be a nice follow-up to Vista. The new UI is pretty similar to Vista's, in all honesty, but that's not really a bad thing. I'll have a better chance to actually mess with the other stuff once I get my wireless card working.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
On January 12 2009 07:32 toipspinserve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 07:08 Kentor wrote:i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb You can always just use Windows Key + D to show the desktop; I've found that to be much quicker. I've also tried Windows 7, and aside from the drivers for my wireless card not working, I've found it to be a nice follow-up to Vista. The new UI is pretty similar to Vista's, in all honesty, but that's not really a bad thing. I'll have a better chance to actually mess with the other stuff once I get my wireless card working.
yes but when your hand is not near the keyboard :D it's annoying. guess i'll have to get used to clicking bottom right
|
Just don't just 7's performance you'll make Microsoft mad! lol they really don't like it when people review their products when they are in beta or still only RC I have win 7x64 seems to be nice few nice features here and there Didn't install it on my laptop because i doubt dell has a x64 vista driver for things like media center or touch pad so i'd loose a small amount of functionality
Why you miss quick launch the pin system is just like quick lauch but for everything just start up your program and then right click and pin it to the taskbar.
|
On January 12 2009 07:32 toipspinserve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 07:08 Kentor wrote:i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb You can always just use Windows Key + D to show the desktop; I've found that to be much quicker.
And what if you do not have Windows Key?
On topic now: Why is Microsoft releasing yet another Windows (before Vista even settled in) when XP is perfectly viable so far?
|
On January 12 2009 08:30 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 07:32 toipspinserve wrote:On January 12 2009 07:08 Kentor wrote:i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb You can always just use Windows Key + D to show the desktop; I've found that to be much quicker. And what if you do not have Windows Key? On topic now: Why is Microsoft releasing yet another Windows (before Vista even settled in) when XP is perfectly viable so far?
Well, you can always just click the little button on the right side of the taskbar if you really want to see the desktop. I can see where Kentor is coming from, though.
And just because XP is still viable, doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't want to make money by releasing operating systems with more features (that also have the benefit of looking really polished). If you want to stick with tried-and-true XP, that's fine, but the new features such as Windows Media Center 7 definitely prompt new OS releases.
|
I still don't get all the Vista hate.
|
vista sucks, its not hate its plain truth.
|
On January 12 2009 08:48 Raithed wrote:
vista sucks, its not hate its plain truth.
I'm just curious, but how much experience do you have with Vista?
|
On January 12 2009 08:46 Ideas wrote:
I still don't get all the Vista hate.
i agree. im using vista and have been since this summer. i havent heard much negative toward it lately so i thought the vista-hate bandwagon stopped being cool.
|
On January 12 2009 08:51 toipspinserve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 08:48 Raithed wrote:
vista sucks, its not hate its plain truth. I'm just curious, but how much experience do you have with Vista?
I guess enough to follow other haters.
Screen shots or it didnt happen^^
|
On January 12 2009 08:55 skuj wrote:i agree. im using vista and have been since this summer. i havent heard much negative toward it lately so i thought the vista-hate bandwagon stopped being cool.
it is one big hassle OS imo. problems i've run into: dvd burning made difficult, webcam won't work, wireless card won't work, slow in general operations. the hate is merited. it's a slow OS and still has a bunch of compatibility issues.
|
United States3824 Posts
Thank go you all jumped on Vista or else I would have to update lol. There is now a button in the lower right corner next to the clock that returns to the desktop.
To TopSpinServe: Microsoft is getting back on the three year cycle for their operating systems. Because XP was so memory intensive (just like Vista was when it came out, crazy!) Microsoft thought the best course of action was to release bigger service packs
As far as speeds, I can't really say for sure. There wasn't enough room on my Desktop hard drive to partition (my desktop is currently running Vista SP1) and I didn't really want to update to Windows 7 for all of the hassle that would come with it (downgrading in august, no Windows 7 drivers for my mouse etc)
|
|
|
I tried it, installed everything. the whole thing is just vista sp2, ms is learning from blizzard to milk $ from public......
|
|
|
On January 12 2009 08:45 toipspinserve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 08:30 Manit0u wrote:On January 12 2009 07:32 toipspinserve wrote:On January 12 2009 07:08 Kentor wrote:i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb You can always just use Windows Key + D to show the desktop; I've found that to be much quicker. And what if you do not have Windows Key? On topic now: Why is Microsoft releasing yet another Windows (before Vista even settled in) when XP is perfectly viable so far? but the new features such as Windows Media Center 7 definitely prompt new OS releases.
I've had Windows XP Media Center and I've never really used any of it's features. As a matter of fact, for the past couple of years this are the programs/features that come with Windows and I've been using them:
- Paint
- Calculator
- Notepad
- Prompt
- IE (only to watch SC games)
That's it. I really don't need any fancy looks, OS that wants to automatically sort the stuff I have (like creating all those MyPictures, MyMusic, MyDocuments and what not folders so that I need to take my time to remove them), wizards that want to automatically install wrong drivers, all new better and "friendly" look and features that I have to turn off so they'll finally stop pissing me off, etc. etc.
MS just started to give too much and quantity has surpassed the quality. Why not release a STABLE and SIMPLE OS with all those super new, cool etc. etc. features available as a free update?
Something similar to most Linux updates, where you enter the menu, check the list of available software/OS upgrades, find something interesting, press the button and it automatically installs.
Or just let you choose all the software you want during the installation process?
Such Windows would take like 10 minutes to install? Would be much easier to code and thus much more stable and reliable? And you could personify it even more.
But no... MS will just throw at you a ton of subpar features of which you'll use maybe 5-10% and call it a "Revolution in personal computer use!".
No thanks.
|
Since I'm not able to create threads yet, I thought I would post this here...
A few days ago, the task bar on my desktop magically doubled in size, and I am unable to restore it to its original size using the cursor (note that I am able to resize it with the cursor, but when I do, it takes away the entire task bar and won't allow me to resize it to its original form). Since I don't have MS Paint, I posted a pic of it in a Microsoft Word document which can be downloaded here:
[url blocked]
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Edit: Nevermind, I just removed the language bar and that solved the problem.
|
On January 12 2009 10:29 Manit0u wrote:
I've had Windows XP Media Center and I've never really used any of it's features. As a matter of fact, for the past couple of years this are the programs/features that come with Windows and I've been using them:
- Paint
- Calculator
- Notepad
- Prompt
- IE (only to watch SC games)
If that's really all you need, Windows 98 would work fine. Just because you don't use the features doesn't mean no one uses them. If you want an easily customizable experience, though, I would recommend linux; you can have really minimal installs with distributions such as DSL and slackware.
|
Yeah some of the planned fealtures will be nice and would be worth a little more then a new service pack but if they dont follow though ill just stick with vista.
|
This reminds me I forgot to buy vista..
|
Don't know what's wrong with Vista, but Windows 7 looks great.
|
On January 12 2009 12:28 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
This reminds me I forgot to buy vista..
get 64bits
|
On January 12 2009 12:34 FreeZEternal wrote:
Don't know what's wrong with Vista, but Windows 7 looks great.
Well it has an annoying pop up when everything install or starts up you can change and shut it off if you want in vista but not every user knows how to.
Too many idiots thinking they can play shit that barely worked with windows 2000 on xp and trying to run it on vista they probably try to play their wii games on a ps3 too.
Too many comp manufacturers have no heart and make computers that can barely run vista.
Err there are more things wrong but i dont know if they are still valid alot of the stuff was fixed.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
wmp is so much better on windows 7. when a video is playing all you see is the video like when you do ctrl + H on vlc
|
Full screen has always been available in wmp and as far as the like play back popping up all you had to do not move your mouse unless your talking about normal playback then you had to use a skin to get rid of the play buttons etc and a semi transparency effect was added in vista to make the video more of the center of attention
|
As long as Windows 7 is better than Vista I will be a one happy guy.
|
The Windows Mojave Project is made for fucking idiots like the people posting in this forum. It's ridiculous how much hate is spawned from this, though 99% of them have zero to minimal experience with Vista. If you're having many problems with it most likely you're a comp-tard.
|
The funny part is after reading that shitty cartoon i closed the pop-up and my IE crashed..
Im using Vista Ultimate
|
On January 12 2009 12:52 Kentor wrote:
wmp is so much better on windows 7. when a video is playing all you see is the video like when you do ctrl + H on vlc
?
ctrl + enter = fullscreen since like win 3.1
|
apparently theres a new feature which makes the window you are viewing transparent and u can see the icons on your desktop underneath which is a cool feature.
is it significantly faster than vista? have you found any other cool features yet?
|
Well its beta so speed tests and other things should be held in reserve atlest until RC2 ish. They promised certain speeds which i haven't seen in beta so optimization is usually the last thing anyways.
On January 12 2009 13:34 Amnesty wrote:The funny part is after reading that shitty cartoon i closed the pop-up and my IE crashed.. Im using Vista Ultimate
The funny thing is that when i was installing windows 7 the help inside of the install install process was exactly the same as vista and in fact said vista not windows 7 shows how much it's just vista revamped right now.
|
On January 12 2009 13:40 ish0wstopper wrote:
apparently theres a new feature which makes the window you are viewing transparent and u can see the icons on your desktop underneath which is a cool feature.
Yeah, the peek feature is pretty cool. Other features I noticed were a beautiful revamp of Windows Media Center (Open it up and play a song, you'll be amazed!) and the new version of paint. =D
is it significantly faster than vista? have you found any other cool features yet?
The boot times for Windows 7 are apparently a little less than Vista's (source), and the general feel of the operating system is a bit snappier, with lower overall system requirements.
EDIT: As Izzycraft says, it's best to wait until later stages of development for speedtests and the like, due to optimizations in performance (or possibly, but hopefully not, more added bloat D .
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
On January 12 2009 13:06 IzzyCraft wrote:
Full screen has always been available in wmp and as far as the like play back popping up all you had to do not move your mouse unless your talking about normal playback then you had to use a skin to get rid of the play buttons etc and a semi transparency effect was added in vista to make the video more of the center of attention
damn man can you use some punctuations and sentences, it's really hard to understand
|
i dont think its much different from vista @.@
|
I got spell check, punctuations and stuff will come later give me another year of improvement! Or until I get so bored that i write a plug in to make grammar check.
|
what makes windows 7 more awesome than previous os's for the average user besides some random prettified shit? i'm pretty sure that it costs less than a hundred billion dollars to program an OS that can be made nicer looking; that's the cost of paying ten thousand programmers a hundred thousand dollars a year for a century working on nothing besides windows 7
i mean i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a percent of that to program prettier graphics
[edit] obviously there is a lot more but it doesn't look like it's the visual updates * 100
|
MURICA15980 Posts
It didn't cost 100 billion dollars to make...
|
well i mean that's how much people are eventually going to pay for it right
maybe i'm off by order of a magnitude
so then you can only pay them 50,000 for 20 years
|
well microsoft has to keep its market share
vista wasnt a smashing success and many people are still using XP.
windows 7 is their way of keeping their enormous consumer base intact, which could be wooed by apple or linux
|
On January 12 2009 14:32 EmeraldSparks wrote:
what makes windows 7 more awesome than previous os's for the average user besides some random prettified shit? i'm pretty sure that it costs less than a hundred billion dollars to program an OS that can be made nicer looking; that's the cost of paying ten thousand programmers a hundred thousand dollars a year for a century working on nothing besides windows 7
i mean i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a percent of that to program prettier graphics
[edit] obviously there is a lot more but it doesn't look like it's the visual updates * 100
That is actually a good question, but I don't know that they feel there's that much more they can make an OS do at this point. I guess they just work on stability and honing the features they already have, while adding a few more. Windows 7 is adding in a lot of touch/multitouch support, as that seems to be an important area for the future of computing. (Personally, I don't think that touch computing will catch on much in wide applications in the near future.)
|
Lol i hope not although i do like their system to make more graphics run off the cpu which tested that the top of the line I7 model could reach 30 fps on a compeltely waterdown call of duty 4 800x600 etc. :D And ofc like evey new windows you get a slightly better system for working HDD's and handeling multi cores.
Edit: WARP is what it's called apparently.
|
On January 12 2009 10:29 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 08:45 toipspinserve wrote:On January 12 2009 08:30 Manit0u wrote:On January 12 2009 07:32 toipspinserve wrote:On January 12 2009 07:08 Kentor wrote:i miss quick launch and show desktop near the orb You can always just use Windows Key + D to show the desktop; I've found that to be much quicker. And what if you do not have Windows Key? On topic now: Why is Microsoft releasing yet another Windows (before Vista even settled in) when XP is perfectly viable so far? but the new features such as Windows Media Center 7 definitely prompt new OS releases. [...] Something similar to most Linux updates, where you enter the menu, check the list of available software/OS upgrades, find something interesting, press the button and it automatically installs. [...]
Due to the nature of Windows and closed source apps this can't work as well as in Linux.
a) Most software you use on Windows doesn't come with Windows itself, so MS cannot update e.g. Firefox and OpenOffice
b) Commercial software vendors want you to go to their download site anyway, and use their installer which can do all sorts of shit (e.g. install stuff you don't want, track usage etc.)
All MS can do is provide easy updates for their own stuff (mostly Windows updates).
For anything else, each and every application needs to have their own, special updater (=> no consistency)... it sucks compared to Linux, but it's not possible otherwise unless they all let MS distribute their stuff, lol.
|
It seems decent, I installed it on both my laptop and my parents' 4 yr-old desktop, it works fairly well off the old desktop (512ram,singlecore,no gfx card lol) without aero, which was fairly surprising
To me so far, it just feels like a more "refined" version of vista with some new features and small visual and performance boosts. Almost everything that works for Vista works for 7 as well, which makes sense considering they're using more or less the same kernel. The only important thing that doesn't seem to work is Daemon tools... >_<
|
Those specs aren't 4 year old comp lol that's like a 6+ year comp 4 years ago Dual core was considered mainstream and 1024 was also considered mainstream.
It always surprises me about performance complains from people that have like computers that are like 6+ years old which is more or less according to Moore's law basically the computer build for one like that would be like 1/6th the cost for 6 times the power lol
My friend put vista on a comp running a Voodoo and a Pentium 3 it took like 10 mins to start up reminded me of like windows 98.
|
On January 12 2009 16:54 IzzyCraft wrote:
Those specs aren't 4 year old comp lol that's like a 6+ year comp 4 years ago Dual core was considered mainstream and 1024 was also considered mainstream.
Wikipedia :
<<
The Core brand was launched on January 5, 2006 by the release of the 32-bit Yonah CPU
...
In 2007, Intel began branding the Yonah core CPUs intended for mainstream mobile computers as Pentium Dual-Core.
>>
Please stop talking non-sense...
Cheers
|
Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p
x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first.
I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2
From 2005
From the mouth of the demon it self
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htm
Which was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle
Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right.
Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad.
|
I know I bought a new PC for my parents with Vista and it would take literally minutes just to display a folder containing about 20-30 mp3 songs. Then whenever opening a folder with video files, it would prompt a warning pop up window. Not to mention the long time it takes to shut down.
I had to install XP because Vista couldn't handle properly the basic functions my parents used with the computer(open browser, read Korean newspapers, watch Korean networks news and call through Skype).
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
XP is still faster and simpler. I don't use Media Centers and other stuff so there's completely zero reason to ever switch.
|
I guess we have to repeat say this again.
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too.
Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it.
Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation.
|
On January 12 2009 17:44 RamenStyle wrote:
I know I bought a new PC for my parents with Vista and it would take literally minutes just to display a folder containing about 20-30 mp3 songs. Then whenever opening a folder with video files, it would prompt a warning pop up window. Not to mention the long time it takes to shut down.
I had to install XP because Vista couldn't handle properly the basic functions my parents used with the computer it didn't occur to me that my crappy comp needed more ram (open browser, read Korean newspapers, watch Korean networks news and call through Skype).
fixed.
|
I'm still fascinated how they managed it to systematically copy Mac OS X..
Desktop Slideshow, Object Bar, Spotlight, Widgets and stuff. It's ridiculous.
|
On January 12 2009 18:10 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 17:44 RamenStyle wrote:
I know I bought a new PC for my parents with Vista and it would take literally minutes just to display a folder containing about 20-30 mp3 songs. Then whenever opening a folder with video files, it would prompt a warning pop up window. Not to mention the long time it takes to shut down.
I had to install XP because Vista couldn't handle properly the basic functions my parents used with the computer it didn't occur to me that my crappy comp needed more ram (open browser, read Korean newspapers, watch Korean networks news and call through Skype). fixed.
That must be it. Thanks for illuminating me, smartass. Except for two facts:
1 - The computer was brand new and high-end. I don't know what your experience with high-end stuff is, but when I pay top dollar for something, I expect it not to fall short at anything.
2 - My parents are not working for ILM or Pixar. They browse the internet. Yeah, that must consume terabytes of RAM.
And even if your genius input was true and my parents computer needed more memory, it would make Vista require 8GB of RAM to browse the web, then it still proofs my point valid: Vista is a piece of shit. Right after installing XP it all went smooth. So again, Vista = Crap.
|
On January 12 2009 18:53 AdunToridas wrote:
I'm still fascinated how they managed it to systematically copy Mac OS X..
Desktop Slide show, Object Bar, Spotlight, Widgets and stuff. It's ridiculous.
It's because those idea's aren't original from Mac there i know for half those things were applications you could download before mac ever implemented them as part of the OS; good idea's are always integrated, you cant get a copyright on headlights although you can copy write a system for them there is always more then 1 way to skin a cat. And as long as it's not ripped code from mac which is impossible due to the nature of how the 2 os's are ran.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On January 12 2009 17:57 IzzyCraft wrote:
I guess we have to repeat say this again.
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too.
Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it.
Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation.
Your view is really inept. People love XP because it's faster than both Win98 and Vista. It's built upon the NT kernel which is an awesome thing and most of it's overhead compared to WinNT is due to increased stability and features that are actually useful. Your comparison is pointless since for modern applications XP is 1000 times faster than 3.1.
It's not about letting something grow or not. It's more about that new Windows versions add a significant (actually, a horrendous) memory and speed overhead for no fucking reason. I would gladly get Vista if that overhead was backed up by a slight glimmer of concise thought, but it is not. With NT kernel we got a stable file system (google FAT and what happens if you switch off power during allocation table writing), we got a remedy to DLL hell and other nice things that are actually useful on the system level. What does Vista offer? DEP? Don't try to be kidding me.
The only useful thing I found in W7's featurelist is native system support for *.vhd. That is useful, indeed. Others are just eye-candy, I don't care how the new taskbar looks or how large icons are, I took my time to remember the hotkeys.
|
Cool. I'll prolly stick to XP anyways for compatibility issues, and then once everything gets made and setup for windows 7 I'll switch over purely for DX10
P.S. Did you guys see that future nvidia drivers (185(?)) are going to support Ambient Occlusion!
Ambient occlusion is an artificial lighting method that sends rays from polygons and determines how many of the rays intersect with other polygons, and darkens polygons whose rays intersect a lot.
Sounds complicated (and it is for the computer), but really it just gives models a really nice effect which darkens concave areas and lightens convex areas, which adds realism.
From the screenshots I've seen though, it looks like it's only an object-to-object ambient occlusion, so one object won't ambiently occlude on itself. So in other words it won't make straight up models look better, but the space between two models will be shaded nicely, kind of like a more advanced version of shadows.
|
On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad.
So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ?
Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops...
Same for Intel from your nice article :
<<
SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform.
>>
A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP.
|
On January 12 2009 19:42 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ? Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops... Same for Intel from your nice article : << SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform. >> A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP.
Clearly it's not how to count it's what to count you exclude things i include things frankly to the avg user you could sell off multi core emulation as real dual tri quad core and they wouldn't know the difference and such I responded in the same manner. I say mainstream you think bargain bin budget.You also seem to be on a man-hunt to take one fact that is a we bit off by your sight but the point still stands =p anyways he can run windows 7 on it pretty easily probably on the easy to see profiles.
On January 12 2009 19:25 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 17:57 IzzyCraft wrote:
I guess we have to repeat say this again.
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too.
Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it.
Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation. Your view is really inept. People love XP because it's faster than both Win98 and Vista. It's built upon the NT kernel which is an awesome thing and most of it's overhead compared to WinNT is due to increased stability and features that are actually useful. Your comparison is pointless since for modern applications XP is 1000 times faster than 3.1. It's not about letting something grow or not. It's more about that new Windows versions add a significant (actually, a horrendous) memory and speed overhead for no fucking reason. I would gladly get Vista if that overhead was backed up by a slight glimmer of concise thought, but it is not. With NT kernel we got a stable file system (google FAT and what happens if you switch off power during allocation table writing), we got a remedy to DLL hell and other nice things that are actually useful on the system level. What does Vista offer? DEP? Don't try to be kidding me. The only useful thing I found in W7's featurelist is native system support for *.vhd. That is useful, indeed. Others are just eye-candy, I don't care how the new taskbar looks or how large icons are, I took my time to remember the hotkeys.
Lol what you do wiki random facts to spout off at me to act superior too bad because my confidence is unwavering, esp with such weak arguments you gave.
XP is not faster then Vista in throughput performance on drives. XP is undoubtedly slower in HDD performance due to Vista and further continuance of improvement in HDD management practices.
XP is loads slower then Vista and Windows 7 in handling multiple threads XP has a weird support originally designed for basically Intel's hyper threading.
As computers continue to advance the gap of performance between Vista/7 and XP will be very prevalent imo by the time windows 7 comes out XP will be considered too slow to be on a modern machine.
Lol FAT! isn't even considered viable past a flash system of storing files if you are formatting a HDD on vista in FAT wtf is wrong with you obviously that computer was never meant to run Vista.
Also just the amount of ignorance you have DEP is in XP you just ... go to system properties advance tab click on performance settings guess what you see. Data Execution Prevention the only diff is that the default for XP is only windows essential files etc while vista covers all aspects by default.
That eye candy guess what too many people love eye candy to give it up elitist users can turn it off if you want but if you gonna complain just because it looks nicer i should consider it not professional and trash it beyond belief, maybe just maybe you should consider broadening what you take in for information to judge something just a wee bit, else you just gonna make an ass out of yourself.
Oh yeah if you respond to this with some sorta you spelled that wrong omg your grammar sucks it would just further prove that you have nothing behind your anger and bias aggression against windows 7 and vista and your points are clearly invalid as such should be.
|
On January 12 2009 19:49 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 19:42 Beamo wrote:On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ? Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops... Same for Intel from your nice article : << SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform. >> A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP. Clearly it's not how to count it's what to count you exclude things i include things frankly to the avg user you could sell off multi core emulation as real dual tri quad core and they wouldn't know the difference and such I responded in the same manner. I say mainstream you think bargain bin budget.You also seem to be on a man-hunt to take one fact that is a we bit off by your sight but the point still stands =p anyways he can run windows 7 on it pretty easily probably on the easy to see profiles.
Just so you know :
Mainstream (terminology): generally used to mean that which is ordinary or usual with familiar appeal to the masses.
I was not questioning how you counted, just wondering if you knew how to count to 4...
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On January 12 2009 19:49 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 19:42 Beamo wrote:On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ? Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops... Same for Intel from your nice article : << SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform. >> A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP. Clearly it's not how to count it's what to count you exclude things i include things frankly to the avg user you could sell off multi core emulation as real dual tri quad core and they wouldn't know the difference and such I responded in the same manner. I say mainstream you think bargain bin budget.You also seem to be on a man-hunt to take one fact that is a we bit off by your sight but the point still stands =p anyways he can run windows 7 on it pretty easily probably on the easy to see profiles. Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 19:25 BluzMan wrote:On January 12 2009 17:57 IzzyCraft wrote:
I guess we have to repeat say this again.
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too.
Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it.
Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation. Your view is really inept. People love XP because it's faster than both Win98 and Vista. It's built upon the NT kernel which is an awesome thing and most of it's overhead compared to WinNT is due to increased stability and features that are actually useful. Your comparison is pointless since for modern applications XP is 1000 times faster than 3.1. It's not about letting something grow or not. It's more about that new Windows versions add a significant (actually, a horrendous) memory and speed overhead for no fucking reason. I would gladly get Vista if that overhead was backed up by a slight glimmer of concise thought, but it is not. With NT kernel we got a stable file system (google FAT and what happens if you switch off power during allocation table writing), we got a remedy to DLL hell and other nice things that are actually useful on the system level. What does Vista offer? DEP? Don't try to be kidding me. The only useful thing I found in W7's featurelist is native system support for *.vhd. That is useful, indeed. Others are just eye-candy, I don't care how the new taskbar looks or how large icons are, I took my time to remember the hotkeys. Lol what you do wiki random facts to spout off at me to act superior too bad because my confidence is unwavering, esp with such weak arguments you gave. XP is not faster then Vista in throughput performance on drives. XP is undoubtedly slower in HDD performance due to Vista and further continuance of improvement in HDD management practices. XP is loads slower then Vista and Windows 7 in handling multiple threads XP has a weird support originally designed for basically Intel's hyper threading. As computers continue to advance the gap of performance between Vista/7 and XP will be very prevalent imo by the time windows 7 comes out XP will be considered too slow to be on a modern machine. Lol FAT! isn't even considered viable past a flash system of storing files if you are formatting a HDD on vista in FAT wtf is wrong with you obviously that computer was never meant to run Vista. Also just the amount of ignorance you have DEP is in XP you just ... go to system properties advance tab click on performance settings guess what you see. Data Execution Prevention the only diff is that the default for XP is only windows essential files etc while vista covers all aspects by default. That eye candy guess what too many people love eye candy to give it up elitist users can turn it off if you want but if you gonna complain just because it looks nicer i should consider it not professional and trash it beyond belief, maybe just maybe you should consider broadening what you take in for information to judge something just a wee bit, else you just gonna make an ass out of yourself. Oh yeah if you respond to this with some sorta you spelled that wrong omg your grammar sucks it would just further prove that you have nothing behind your anger and bias aggression against windows 7 and vista and your points are clearly invalid as such should be.
Your grammar is atrocious.
|
For all those people who speak about Windows 7 being just a revamped Vista:
Well duuuh!
Vista's reputation is so crippled in general public, that the best thing MS can do is release a new OS asap and present it as anything but Vista-like. The majority of the people who were annoyed by Vista will be 100% satisfied I presume, because I think MS got some massive Vista surveys running and will change the little things that made Vista "bad" for the noobs (meaning general public, not derogatory).
To the guys who bash Vista as if it was the devil himself:
Wake up and smell the coffee, buy a dual core comp with 2+ gigs of ram and learn to tune your experience.
I don't know about you, but my Vista business
- boots in 25 seconds (not extraordinary, but surely not poor, certainly better than my previous XP)
- there are no annoying popups if you turn the appropriate manager off (but leave it on, it can save your files, one more click won't kill you)
- performance is without any glitches or freezes, I can play e.g. dota with ventrilo on and then realize I've got photoshop and dreamweaver running in the background
- I haven't had a BSOD or any other fatal error I can remember in the nearly 2 years I own this shit!
All it takes is to reinstall the OS once a year and tune it accordingly (3 hours) and then maintain some order in the system, e.g. delete temp files/unused apps every once a week/month (10 minutes).
For the record, the computer is a Lenovo x61 ultraportable (2ghz core2duo, 2gb ram) with onboard intel graphics(!).
Windows 7 is not about adding some breathtaking new features and turn bad OS into good in reality. It is about making some fine adjustemens, hopefully in the right direction (like, it will be more accessible for the low cost low power netbook crowd) and making it seem like it's better.. because Vista is not bad, it just seems bad because of vocal stupid people. Again, maybe you've got some personal bad experience.. just ask yourselves if you have the appropriate hardware or skills for maintaining the system.
|
On January 12 2009 18:58 RamenStyle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 18:10 strongwind wrote:On January 12 2009 17:44 RamenStyle wrote:
I know I bought a new PC for my parents with Vista and it would take literally minutes just to display a folder containing about 20-30 mp3 songs. Then whenever opening a folder with video files, it would prompt a warning pop up window. Not to mention the long time it takes to shut down.
I had to install XP because Vista couldn't handle properly the basic functions my parents used with the computer it didn't occur to me that my crappy comp needed more ram (open browser, read Korean newspapers, watch Korean networks news and call through Skype). fixed. That must be it. Thanks for illuminating me, smartass. Except for two facts: 1 - The computer was brand new and high-end. I don't know what your experience with high-end stuff is, but when I pay top dollar for something, I expect it not to fall short at anything. 2 - My parents are not working for ILM or Pixar. They browse the internet. Yeah, that must consume terabytes of RAM. And even if your genius input was true and my parents computer needed more memory, it would make Vista require 8GB of RAM to browse the web, then it still proofs my point valid: Vista is a piece of shit. Right after installing XP it all went smooth. So again, Vista = Crap.
1 - So let me get this straight...you paid top dollar for a high-end computer so that your parents could use Skype, watch the news, and browse the web? What exactly is your definition of a high-end computer?
2 - Do you honestly think that a high-end computer is unable to do these basic things with Vista? I just recently built a mid-to-high-end comp with Vista and it runs perfectly fine. Maybe you should stop blaming an OS for all of your problems and actually figure out what could be the real culprit. Or ask someone before you throw your money at a "high-end" computer that can't even run Vista.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
dammit paint in windows 7 is retarded. lines are anti aliased and if you have a line of 1 pixel width it's 0 in the counter on the bottom.
|
Lol but they look so much smoother wonder what kind of anti aliasing they are using seems to be the bad kind used by graphing calculators to plot things wrong.
|
did anyone notice that the default background image is a beta fish and that there are 7 bubbles! My roommate just figured it out and it blew his mind.
|
On January 12 2009 13:39 Amnesty wrote:
ctrl + enter = fullscreen since like win 3.1
D:
it's alt - enter
On January 12 2009 13:39 someone wrote:
What's wrong with Vista?
At first glance, nothing. But I keep running into stuff that doesn't work. Friend of mine has it on a brand new machine and can't do Starcraft over Hamachi, not with reordering network adapters, not with forcebindip, and no one knows why. Works on some other Vista computers I've tried. Never a problem with XP.
Network printers: PITA. Add Printer -> network printer -> browser for printer == fail. The solution, as described on many sites, is to Add Printer -> local printer -> create a new port -> entering the network address. Why? No one knows.
This is with limited time using it. I worry I'd run into more stuff if I used it more often. But so far Vista does nothing important for me that XP doesn't, so I have no reason to change.
|
hows the compatability issues and stuff?
Also Vista isn't crap. It's only crap with backwards compatability issues. Even though it is a bit more graphic intensive, any modern computer can handle it with mostly no lag. All you need is 2gb of ram and a 256mb video card imo and a dual core processor :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
