Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

[|D|-Jaws]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

Yeah, I just went into Disk Management and used the Partition Editor that's built into Vista, and shrunk my partition by 16 gigs. That left plenty of room for Windows 7.

As for Windows 7 though, it's nice, but I don't think I'll be buying it. It's got some really nice features, but it doesn't seem any faster than Vista (Though it's loads faster than Windows XP was) and the User Interface isn't as intuitive as the hype said it would be.

Intuitive has nothing to do with microshaft's vision. Their vision is to make the OS easier to use.

Here is the root problem with that.....easier to use was designed through someone else's workflow. So with the best intentions, the team made it easier to use for them.


The team doesn't define usability, the end user does.

Windows users should not ever have to relearn the OS. Efficiency. Simplification doesn't mean that advanced options get so buried that you are forced to drill down through a dozen tabs.

[Namakan]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

I should mention, my Windows 7 is a clean install, no upgrade. Everything was fresh.


Found this interesting

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1383898

[|D|-Jaws]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

I should mention, my Windows 7 is a clean install, no upgrade. Everything was fresh.


Found this interesting

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1383898

I've had discussions with Brent outside of [H] and that info is so biased and one sided it isn't even funny.

Here's the other side of his side by side review....

He isn't comparing the operating systems, he's comparing program usage inside the operating system environment. And the idiot even stated at the end...."if it weren't for the compatibility issues".

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.

What that idiot did on the [H] forums was NOT show you how the OS performs under default conditions after a new install. Vista UAC purty much interferes with everything you want to do and kills your productivity.

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.

XP only needs 3 things.

DirectX updates
UI refinements
64bit compatibility

If they could do those 3 things while shrinking the size of itself....


I have zero need to pay more for no performance gains. If I want more performance, I upgrade my hardware.

[Namakan]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

He isn't comparing the operating systems, he's comparing program usage inside the operating system environment. A

Kinda what I was looking at?


And for the lols

http://xkcd.com/528/

[=98=]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

I am about to upgrade to Win7 X64. I am going to do an upgrade install. Will it delete my files in my docs and and programs i installed?

[Vreki]

Re: Windows 7 Build 7000 First Impressions

First impressions: The 64bit version does not like my 4850, the driver keeps crashing.
And of course the dual boot installation overwrote my linux bootloader.
I was kind of expecting that, but it would be really nice if they could agree on a standard for multiboot

ETA: And it doesn't recognize my onboard LAN either

[=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:

[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.

[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"

[|D|-Jaws]

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....

[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?

:)

[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.

[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..

[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

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

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