Announcement

**PorscheGuy997** · Oct 22, 2009, 03:35 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

I will probably wait a while to install Windows 7 on my desktop.

Intel is releasing the new 32nm processors, which require another motherboard. So, I plan on doing a major upgrade and installing Windows 7 on a Raptor drive.

For now, Vista Ultimate is doing just fine.

**ClearlyCoated** · Oct 22, 2009, 03:41 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

I'm a LAN admin on a network using almost exclusively Microsoft server and client OSes for the last 9 years. The same rule of thumb from back in the Windows 95 days still applies now. Always wait for service pack 2 for any new Microsoft Client OS before installing it on your personal workstation. And wait for service pack 4 before installing new Microsoft Server OSes.

The bugs and security leaks are always there, and big M never gets it right on the first go-round.

**J. A. Michaels** · Oct 22, 2009, 03:51 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

We are probably going to upgrade around the first of the year.

**seth1066** · Oct 22, 2009, 03:55 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Pre-ordered from Costco. In the UPS system as we speak.

REDMOND, WA, US

10/22/2009

12:21 A.M.

DEPARTURE SCAN

**C30-Mike** · Oct 22, 2009, 04:35 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Beta tested it. Seems pertty cool without all the junk Vista security features.
I liked the wallpaper.
Downloaded the TechNet Subscription and will be testing out all our custom programs.

Usually it is best to wait till SP1 comes out.

**seth1066** · Oct 22, 2009, 05:01 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Originally posted by C30-Mike View Post

Usually it is best to wait till SP1 comes out.

Disagree in this case. W7 had a huge beta release; after the Vista debacle, MicroSoft wanted to get it right.

**InfiniteDetail** · Oct 22, 2009, 05:03 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

I am Director of IT for my company. We decided to forgo vista and stayed with XP. I installed Win 7 on my laptop and absolutely love it! The performance is astounding, easy install, no bugs...by far Microsoft's best effort...ever. I highly recommend it.

**roushstage2** · Oct 22, 2009, 05:44 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

I have no reason to get it. XP works fine for what I need. I'll most likely only get it as the OS on a new computer I either buy or build.

**Markus Kleis** · Oct 22, 2009, 07:01 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

For $30 I think I will pick it up. A good friend of mine is an IT manager and he has been running the beta since the release and has nothing but positive things to say about it.

I think Windows finally got it right this time... Apple is going to have to re-think their "cute" commercials...

**Ryan L.** · Oct 22, 2009, 08:28 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Originally posted by Mark Kleis View Post

For $30 I think I will pick it up. A good friend of mine is an IT manager and he has been running the beta since the release and has nothing but positive things to say about it.

I think Windows finally got it right this time... Apple is going to have to re-think their "cute" commercials...

Yea students have it so well off right now. You can also get the entire Office Suite for $60. Not just Word, Excel and PP; every program out there.

I love it so far, insanely fast compared to Vista and just works smoother in my opinion.

Ryan

**kaptain_zero** · Oct 22, 2009, 08:33 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

To be brutally honest, after I left XP (service pack 1 period) I've not used a MS operating system until last night when I was asked by a colleague at work to help her daughter to hook up her new Vista based laptop via the wireless port on their router.... I was not impressed with the Vista desktop, I have no idea of what Win7 is supposed to do but I do know that my linux computers have done everything I've needed for all this time and they continue to evolve at a blistering (to me at least) pace.

I pay to help support the community that develops my chosen "distro" and they continue to provide me with a solid, reliable... (dang, I just had to reboot one of my computers that has had 2 open terminals aka user interfaces (each with 4 desktops) running at the same time and it only lasted uhhhmmm, uptime appears to have been around 7 months which is rather poor for linux but the hardware on that computer is ancient and a bit flaky so I'm not going to point at the OS being the problem on that computer.

So, in the end, no.... I won't be downgrading (my personal view) to Win7 for the simple reason that I would be entirely dependent on a single company, namely Microsoft, to fix any problems that exist in their product. If I discover a problem in my Linux operating system and I post my findings, ANYONE throughout the world, with the knowledge and skill could fix it *legally*. That is what I like about community sourced open software. As well, if someone else discovers a vulnerability, the fix is usually available in a matter of hours or days rather than months of waiting for the next official patch or service pack. The end result for me is that none of my computer processing power that I paid dearly for is wasted on running programs such as virus checkers, anti spyware and the like that don't do any useful work for ME, but rather they are simply attempting to protect a vulnerable operating system that has not been kept up to date by the author.

I have nothing against MS or MAC as software developers, they both make usable products and my personal feeling is that MAC has the advantage by having based their OS on Free BSD (a unix like operating system, similar to Linux, but that they can legally sell in a proprietary way), but only if they can keep up with newly discovered vulnerabilities and the like. So far it seems like they have.

Thankfully, we can all choose what we want in a free world, and hopefully that will continue, both in the real world of detailing products, and in the world of computers and their operating systems.

It's rather interesting to note that since Mac had to switch to an Intel based architecture, the hardware in Windows, Mac and indeed most Linux based machines are in fact PC's.

Regards

Christian

**captaincog** · Oct 22, 2009, 09:39 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

I am content to wait for now. All of the computers that I have do what I need for now.

Here is where I date myself..... I still miss my Amiga's!

**CieraSL** · Oct 22, 2009, 09:51 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Well, I have a Mac.

Therefore, no comment from the peanut gallery!

**Jbirk** · Oct 22, 2009, 10:01 PM

Re: Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

I have been running it since the Beta x86 (at work), and since the x64 RC (home & work), and I have nothing bad to say about it. At work, I am an IT Administrator and it works flawlessly with Microsoft Active Directory.

At home, it works flawlessly, too as a stand-alone machine. I downloaded my copy from MSDN and installed Win 7 Professional x64 RTM at home; since, the RC will expire March 1st. I did not notice any difference between the released version (RTM) and the Release Candidiate (RC) except a wallpaper

Regardless, I am happy to inform that both at work and at home it has a near perfect driver database/catalog. It had all the drivers for my system at work, and it had all but one at home, which it automatically installed from the Internet anyway - It is nice to have a clean device manager after install without installing drivers

______________

With that said, Windows 7 is really Windows NT 6.1, and it has a strong grounding in Windows Vista architecture, which happens to be Windows NT 6.0. You can click start and type in "winver" (or start, run "winver" for older versions) to get the exact version details for any version of Windows.

Everyone has almost always balked Vista (I did too) because it was slow in the beginning and not compatible with much hardware; moreover, the 64-bit version of Vista had a long wait on drivers because many manufacturers did not want to release new drivers right-away after Windows XP, and Microsoft wanted only signed drivers. Essentially, Microsoft is and has always been blamed for almost ever Windows crash, when generally it is not their fault. Most of the time it is a poorly behaving third-party driver, and because of the problems inherent to drivers running with the Windows Kernel in NT 5.x (2000, XP, 2003), Microsoft redefined the architecture in Windows Vista (and later), so drivers do NOT run in the same processor ring (privilege) as the Kernel. This allows Windows to load and unload drivers fluidly similar to programs, and if a driver misbehaves, the error can be handled more gracefully than a Blue Screen of Death much of the time.

An example of this is when you get a video driver failure or update your video card driver with Windows Update, you get a balloon notification and typically do not have to restart your computer like you did in years past.

Windows Vista is actually very good especially as of the most recent Service Pack. It runs very fast, and has excellent hardware compatibility. Without question, it is fundamentally better than Windows XP in its architecture and design. Surly, it took a few years for the drivers to become available and for Microsoft to work out the bugs, but Windows Vista was really the first completely-different version of Windows since Windows 2000. You may recall how everyone hated Windows 2000 when it first came out. It was touted as the next version of Windows NT (After NT 4). Everyone thought it would be horrible considering the Win9x & WinNT drivers did NOT work with it. However, within a few years it clearly the best version of Windows Microsoft ever put out until they finally released XP, which was good from beginning because it leveraged 2000's reliability, stability, drivers, and success. XP was NEVER revolutionary thought it had the pretty interface and got all the lyme light!

Analogy:
XP is to 2000 AS 7 is to Vista

With that said, Windows 7 is only a minor change to Windows Vista.

Windows 7 has a much improved interface, it is less obtrusive, and less annoying. It has better application shimming (automatic compatibility settings i.e. it can lie to an App expecting XP...). Microsoft avoids the silly things like Gadgets and sidebar, and User Access Control ( A wonderful security feature) is more tuned but still present. Overall, it has the same software and hardware support as Windows Vista. In fact, you can use the Windows vista drivers as needed. My HP Scanner, a Scanjet G3110, does not have a Windows 7 driver, but since I have the Windows 7 x64, I just downloaded the plain, vanilla driver for Vista x64. Turns out Windows 7 already had the necessary software to scan anyway and somehow magically knows what the buttons on my scanner are supposed to do.

If your system works right for you, you do not need to change.
Just because you had problems with Vista 4 years ago does not mean you will encounter problems now.
You do NOT necessarily need to wait on a service pack to Widnows 7 RTM. It is patched equally well as Vista SP2. Any problems are likely cosmetic.
Macintosh systems are great too. In fact anything that runs the software you use allowing you to do what you want without fuss is perfect.
Yeah, Linux is great too, but it takes too much work to setup for the average person. I used it for a year before getting tired of its oddities and updates breaking the system requiring new drivers for each new kernel... Now that I am older and a network administrator instead of a hobbiest, I just want to use my computer.
Windows is king in corporate environments because Microsoft is the king of deployment, patch updates, and centralized management of computes, servers, and software!

Announcement

Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Windows 7: Who's going to get it?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment