Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

[=98=]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

I have nothing wrong with my Windows. Comodo doesn't work, that's it though. It's all good in the hood

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

That is a viable alternative, provided he has the patience. However, Linux has it's own very big set of problems, and it's probably less ideal than just 'submitting to Microsoft'.

I already multiboot Ubuntu Linux with Windows....mainly because it's much more difficult for a haxor to compromise my system in that configuration. I also use gOS on a live CD. Windows is for gaming and content creation. I am also using Win 7 in a virtual environment....very fun stuff.

[Vreki]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

So:

1. Not detecting Netcard, and 4850 keeps crashing in anything but safe mode
2. Scavenged old net card which is recognized. Online!
3. Unable to get through Windows update before crashing
4. Booting in safe mode: Windows update is disabled in safe mode
5. Tried MS update site: Update is now integrated in Control Panel, no patch for you.
6. Download Beta driver from ATI
7. "Failed to load detection drivers"
8. Safe mode AND Disabling driver signature? Not a chance

:cussing:

So to update my defective display driver, I need a working display driver.
What kind of #¤&% thought that kind of Catch22 would be a good idea?

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

So far, I haven't found any good ones. They all lack depth and methodical thoroughness.

I can link you to a handful, but they aren't all that compelling or well executed.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

I'm not sure how accurate this one is, and it only measures disk performance for the most part. I could go on a huge tirade about it, but I think I'll spare you your time.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

Though I shouldn't have to provide benchmarks. Synthetic benchmarks are very inconsistent when used to analyze real world performance.

So if we can't measure performance in the real world.....forget it, not even going to continue. You are out in left field about to enter the parking lot.

And let me ask you. Have you tried Windows Vista and/or Windows 7 Beta 1? If so, on what kind of system? What hard disk configuration did you use? How did you partition your drive? How long did you try it/them? How did you compare it/them to Windows XP? If you haven't tried either of them, you aren't in a very strong position to comment on the performance of the operating system, since it means you have no experience with it first hand. If you've actually used both of them, that's a different story. Second hand resources such as benchmarks are also plagued with problems such as bias, so it's often hard to gauge how accurate they are.

I have used XP and Vista. Vista was nothing but a big bloated piece of crap that forces the PC to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm a geek, a power user, a nerd....I don't need my hand being held by UAC and I sure as hell don't need it asking me if I really want to do something when I just issued a command. Comprende? I'm the master of my PC. What UAC should be doing is asking rogue programs and commands issued outside the user's control if they should be run. UAC treats the user as if it were a virus/malware.

The type of system is irrelevant to the discussion because I purposely ran each OS on the same exact system to insure integrity of my own performance testing. Now if you are saying that I HAD to upgrade hardware in order to reap the benefits of Vista....then I would laugh out loud at you and end the convo. It will be noted that my system is WELL equipped, dual core CPU, latest gen GPU, 2GB ram, multiple high end drives, etc.


Like I mentioned in my previous post, DirectX 10 is strongly dependent on the Windows Display Driver Model in Windows Vista/Windows 7. I'm pretty sure that counts as something.

Microsoft differs with you on this. There was nothing in the DX10 API that prevented it from being ported over to XP.



I'm wrong about all the DirectX 10 stuff I said? Perhaps you could explain it better, then? Be my guest. I'd also like to see that print you're talking about.

No problem....I present to you, the creator of DirectX, Alex St John....he thinks DX10 is a bloated piece of crap and Vista blows. Do you want to argue with the chief engineer of DirectX?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2277870,00.asp

Have fun with that lulz!

So let's hear it. I expect to see a detailed explanation of the goal behind DirectX 10, since you're so sure the efficiency model I explained earlier isn't true.

If the model is soooooooooo efficient, then why don't we see DX10 beating the crap out of DX9 when it comes to graphics detail in games????? Have you actually reviewed DX10/9 games side by side? How about WiC? I personally can't tell the difference between the two and that is what matters. I don't care how efficient the model is, I'm only interested in the end results as an end user. In that respect, DX10...total failure. Show us all a popular DX10 game that looks and performs significantly better than it's DX9 counterpart. Again, I already know that you can't.


Public Opinion of the product had a lot more to do with that then the technical aspect of the product.


And your point is? It's profit, sales, supply and demand, good word of mouth.

If you say so. My first hand experience with both Windows Vista and the Windows 7 Beta is that they're both faster than Windows XP was. If you've got something better....

Show us in benchmarks...prove it. If your opinion matches reality, then we can dismiss your fanboyisms.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/shattered_dreams_and_broken_promises_vistas_failure_launch

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/what_microsoft_must_change_windows_7

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

Don't complain then.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_d..._distributions

That is a viable alternative, provided he has the patience. However, Linux has it's own very big set of problems, and it's probably less ideal than just 'submitting to Microsoft'.

[Namakan]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

So after 8 years....all Vista or Win7 can muster is equal performance to WinXP??????????????????

Lastly, I don't submit to Microsoft.

Don't complain then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution#Popular_distributions

[theminx]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/ma...d.php?t=183890

u are the man !!!!!!!! thx

[Hawkers]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

that is a nice wall paper alex...

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?t=183890

[theminx]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

that is a nice wall paper alex..i wouldent mind having that hint hint ..and yea myself clean fresh install fdisc format etc etc clean as can be always ..i never upgrade so..

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

1. Show me in benchmarks a significant increase in performance. I already know that you can't....I just like pointing it out over and over.

So far, I haven't found any good ones. They all lack depth and methodical thoroughness.

I can link you to a handful, but they aren't all that compelling or well executed.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

I'm not sure how accurate this one is, and it only measures disk performance for the most part. I could go on a huge tirade about it, but I think I'll spare you your time.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

Though I shouldn't have to provide benchmarks. Synthetic benchmarks are very inconsistent when used to analyze real world performance.

And let me ask you. Have you tried Windows Vista and/or Windows 7 Beta 1? If so, on what kind of system? What hard disk configuration did you use? How did you partition your drive? How long did you try it/them? How did you compare it/them to Windows XP? If you haven't tried either of them, you aren't in a very strong position to comment on the performance of the operating system, since it means you have no experience with it first hand. If you've actually used both of them, that's a different story. Second hand resources such as benchmarks are also plagued with problems such as bias, so it's often hard to gauge how accurate they are.

2. There is nothing in the DirectX API that prevents DX10 from being implemented in Windows XP. Nothing.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, DirectX 10 is strongly dependent on the Windows Display Driver Model in Windows Vista/Windows 7. I'm pretty sure that counts as something.

Also you were wrong about all of the DX10 stuff you said. First off, Microsoft already admitted in print that DX10 could have, and should have been ported to XP....but their games for windows initiative and lust for profits pushed them to keep it a Vista exclusive.

I'm wrong about all the DirectX 10 stuff I said? Perhaps you could explain it better, then? Be my guest. I'd also like to see that print you're talking about.

So let's hear it. I expect to see a detailed explanation of the goal behind DirectX 10, since you're so sure the efficiency model I explained earlier isn't true.

Also, Shadowrun was a DX10 game....and it's Vista only tie in was the direct cause for FASA Interactive to go belly up....

Public Opinion of the product had a lot more to do with that then the technical aspect of the product.

You can read all about it in the October 2008 edition of MaximumPC.

I could, but it hardly seems relevant to the topic we're discussing.

So after 8 years....all Vista or Win7 can muster is equal performance to WinXP??????????????????

If you say so. My first hand experience with both Windows Vista and the Windows 7 Beta is that they're both faster than Windows XP was. If you've got something better....

Lastly, I don't submit to Microsoft. Now if you are a subserviant...then I guess you can allow yourself to be forced to upgrade to get DX10. That's on you....

I do not buy products unless I see a need to do so and am highly convinced that they're better than the alternatives. And that goes beyond reading a blog by a sensationalist tech columnist who likes to write about Linux.

[Skaggy]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

First off, Microsoft already admitted in print that DX10 could have, and should have been ported to XP....but their games for windows initiative and lust for profits pushed them to keep it a Vista exclusive.

I'm afraid I haven't been following the whole XP/Vista DX10 issue, do you mind linking me to this?

:)

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

The new kernel, driver model, I/O scheduler, process scheduler, and heap and memory management do a pretty good job when it comes to real world performance, not to mention the superfetch service, which caches programs and libraries in your memory while your memory is free. In Windows XP, a user with 2 gigs of memory is going to have 1.6 gigs of that memory just sitting there, not doing anything. Windows Vista is much more aggressive about making sure your memory is being used, and if you have memory sitting there empty, superfetch is going to cache things in it to fill it. Since the cached libraries and programs are already in the memory, running them is much faster, since they don't need to be fetched from the drive.

Also, if you think about it, Windows Vista is as fast as/faster than Windows XP on release era hardware. On hardware that came out the same year as it's release, Windows Vista is as fast as/faster than an operating system that came out 5 years prior to that hardware. Put Windows XP that came out on 2001 hardware and let's see how well that stacks against Windows Vista on 2006 hardware. How fast do you think Windows Vista will be on 2011 hardware? Give it 5 years and of course it'll run like greased lightning. It'd be pretty sad if it didn't.


Windows XP is fastest right after a new install, and your performance continues to degrade over time. Windows Vista better maintains itself, so your system doesn't slow down nearly as much over time. Also, Vista isn't going to be at it's fastest right after a fresh install. Performance on Vista improves over time as it Indexes and Superfetches things.



UAC is very useful security feature. It insures only the bare minimum amount of processes are running with administrative privileges. On Windows XP, if you're running a program as an administrator, that program will have administrative privileges. On Windows Vista, a program doesn't start out with administrative privileges by default, and when a program tries to do something that requires administrative privileges like changing a system setting, UAC prompts the user before allowing it to do so.



This is so wrong it's not even funny. DirectX 10 is heavily dependent on Vista's new driver model. Without the new driver model, you lose DirectX 10's only benefit to end users. DirectX 10 is all about efficiency, and there literally is no direct visual improvement over DirectX 9. DirectX 10 allows developers to do things with fewer system calls, which equates to better performance. The more efficient set of API's (DirectX 10 is a set of APIs, not an individual API) will allow for better visuals indirectly, by being more efficient. Since it's more efficient, developers can add effects to scenes in quantities that would cripple a DirectX 9 PC without significantly slowing down a DirectX 10 PC.

Since Windows XP doesn't have the Windows Display Driver Model, you have two options to put DirectX 10 on XP. Either re-build Windows XP and essentially turn it into a cut down Windows Vista, or remove all the WDDM dependent features on DirectX 10, in which case you'd end up with something completely pointless. Those 3rd party projects that 'port' DirectX 10 to Windows XP are just to allow you to run DirectX 10 games on Windows XP. They don't actually carry over DirectX 10's benefits from Windows Vista. Essentialy, that's only useful if there's some DirectX 10 exclusive game you want to play on XP, and right now there aren't any DirectX 10 exclusive games.

And before you say "LOL, DirectX 10 is slower than DirectX 9, so that's BS", I'll point out that only a few game developers actually had the time to take advantage of DirectX 10 completely. Games like Crysis aren't a good analysis
of DirectX 10, because they don't take full advantage of it.

On the topic of greed, the only greed here is on the part of End Users. They expect that Microsoft simply put DirectX 10 on their old operating system as a free update, so they don't have to pay money to upgrade their system. The amount of extra money it would have cost Microsoft to release DirectX 10 on both XP and Vista is ridiculous, especially considering that they wouldn't make any money off of adding it to XP. If you want to use an older product, more power to you, but you're not in a position to complain about not getting DirectX 10 for free when you've gotten 5 years out of it without Microsoft asking you to upgrade, as well as DirectX 9.

Let me repeat what I said so that you can amend your essay.

1. Show me in benchmarks a significant increase in performance. I already know that you can't....I just like pointing it out over and over.

2. There is nothing in the DirectX API that prevents DX10 from being implemented in Windows XP. Nothing.

Also you were wrong about all of the DX10 stuff you said. First off, Microsoft already admitted in print that DX10 could have, and should have been ported to XP....but their games for windows initiative and lust for profits pushed them to keep it a Vista exclusive.

Also, Shadowrun was a DX10 game....and it's Vista only tie in was the direct cause for FASA Interactive to go belly up....

You can read all about it in the October 2008 edition of MaximumPC.

So after 8 years....all Vista or Win7 can muster is equal performance to WinXP??????????????????

Lastly, I don't submit to Microsoft. Now if you are a subserviant...then I guess you can allow yourself to be forced to upgrade to get DX10. That's on you....

[Hellsent 2.0]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

COD4

It runs, but when I joined a server after 3 mins, I got kicked for "Unknown Windows API"

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

Windows XP was released to the public in 2001. In 8 years they have not been able to achieve any type of substantial performance gain in either Vista or Win 7. If they have...show me, I'm all ears. Show me facts.

The new kernel, driver model, I/O scheduler, process scheduler, and heap and memory management do a pretty good job when it comes to real world performance, not to mention the superfetch service, which caches programs and libraries in your memory while your memory is free. In Windows XP, a user with 2 gigs of memory is going to have 1.6 gigs of that memory just sitting there, not doing anything. Windows Vista is much more aggressive about making sure your memory is being used, and if you have memory sitting there empty, superfetch is going to cache things in it to fill it. Since the cached libraries and programs are already in the memory, running them is much faster, since they don't need to be fetched from the drive.

Also, if you think about it, Windows Vista is as fast as/faster than Windows XP on release era hardware. On hardware that came out the same year as it's release, Windows Vista is as fast as/faster than an operating system that came out 5 years prior to that hardware. Put Windows XP that came out on 2001 hardware and let's see how well that stacks against Windows Vista on 2006 hardware. How fast do you think Windows Vista will be on 2011 hardware? Give it 5 years and of course it'll run like greased lightning. It'd be pretty sad if it didn't.

What that idiot did on the [H] forums was NOT show you how the OS performs under default conditions after a new install.

Windows XP is fastest right after a new install, and your performance continues to degrade over time. Windows Vista better maintains itself, so your system doesn't slow down nearly as much over time. Also, Vista isn't going to be at it's fastest right after a fresh install. Performance on Vista improves over time as it Indexes and Superfetches things.

Vista UAC purty much interferes with everything you want to do and kills your productivity.

UAC is very useful security feature. It insures only the bare minimum amount of processes are running with administrative privileges. On Windows XP, if you're running a program as an administrator, that program will have administrative privileges. On Windows Vista, a program doesn't start out with administrative privileges by default, and when a program tries to do something that requires administrative privileges like changing a system setting, UAC prompts the user before allowing it to do so.

As for DirectX 10, there is nothing in the API that prevents it from being in XP other than Microshaft and their greed for profit. They hoped DX10 would force gamers to upgrade to Vista and Vista capable machines. They were wrong.

This is so wrong it's not even funny. DirectX 10 is heavily dependent on Vista's new driver model. Without the new driver model, you lose DirectX 10's only benefit to end users. DirectX 10 is all about efficiency, and there literally is no direct visual improvement over DirectX 9. DirectX 10 allows developers to do things with fewer system calls, which equates to better performance. The more efficient set of API's (DirectX 10 is a set of APIs, not an individual API) will allow for better visuals indirectly, by being more efficient. Since it's more efficient, developers can add effects to scenes in quantities that would cripple a DirectX 9 PC without significantly slowing down a DirectX 10 PC.

Since Windows XP doesn't have the Windows Display Driver Model, you have two options to put DirectX 10 on XP. Either re-build Windows XP and essentially turn it into a cut down Windows Vista, or remove all the WDDM dependent features on DirectX 10, in which case you'd end up with something completely pointless. Those 3rd party projects that 'port' DirectX 10 to Windows XP are just to allow you to run DirectX 10 games on Windows XP. They don't actually carry over DirectX 10's benefits from Windows Vista. Essentialy, that's only useful if there's some DirectX 10 exclusive game you want to play on XP, and right now there aren't any DirectX 10 exclusive games.

And before you say "LOL, DirectX 10 is slower than DirectX 9, so that's BS", I'll point out that only a few game developers actually had the time to take advantage of DirectX 10 completely. Games like Crysis aren't a good analysis
of DirectX 10, because they don't take full advantage of it.

On the topic of greed, the only greed here is on the part of End Users. They expect that Microsoft simply put DirectX 10 on their old operating system as a free update, so they don't have to pay money to upgrade their system. The amount of extra money it would have cost Microsoft to release DirectX 10 on both XP and Vista is ridiculous, especially considering that they wouldn't make any money off of adding it to XP. If you want to use an older product, more power to you, but you're not in a position to complain about not getting DirectX 10 for free when you've gotten 5 years out of it without Microsoft asking you to upgrade, as well as DirectX 9.

[=98=]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

Only problem so far is that CCC won't open, but i use Rivatuner anyways.

This is how i'm rolling: