Print Page | Close Window

Windows 7

Printed From: Speakerplans.com
Category: Other Chat
Forum Name: Computer Talk
Forum Description: Help and discussion about your manly PC or girly Mac
URL: https://forum.speakerplans.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=32064
Printed Date: 03 March 2024 at 12:06am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.06 - https://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Windows 7
Posted By: levyte357
Subject: Windows 7
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 9:26am
Anyone bought this yet or tried the Beta?
 
If you still manage to download a Beta version, will it still work?


-------------
"Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy".



Replies:
Posted By: mk2_ginger_biscuit69
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 1:03pm
ive got it (pro64 bit), its alright....

-------------
''Remember that the object of a subwoofer is to enhance the output of your main speakers, not overpower it''

''Dubstep - an elongated electronic fart''


Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by levyte357 levyte357 wrote:

Anyone bought this yet or tried the Beta?
 

If you still manage to download a Beta version, will it still work?


Until March 2010, when it will timebomb. Just get the retail.


Posted By: minaximal
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 1:45pm
been using the RC since it was released and the prior versions, but 64bit didn't run all my progs so using 32bit, which i like, got it originally for my dell xt touchscreen as xp and xp tablet just dont cut it anymore in comparison, but stuck with it for my t61 as i couldn't go back anymore.

everything that worked in vista works in 7.


-------------
Subs + Barges = :)

http://www.metaacoustics.com" rel="nofollow - www.metaacoustics.com



Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 1:55pm
And from my brief testing everything that didn't work in Vista pretty much works in 7. If not, you have an XP VM anyway.


Posted By: jbl_man
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 3:35pm
I wonder how much ram it takes just to run it?..i had that problem with vista,if you have a laptop with "only" 2gb ram,so slow,swaped it for XP,super fast now...so i wonder if seven is also memory-hungry?

-------------
Be seeing you.


Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 3:41pm
Originally posted by jbl_man jbl_man wrote:

I wonder how much ram it takes just to run it?..i had that problem with vista,if you have a laptop with "only" 2gb ram,so slow,swaped it for XP,super fast now...so i wonder if seven is also memory-hungry?


Vista wasn't memory hungry, it just kept memory 'wired' rather than 'free' which hardly anybody seems to understand.

It should improve performance, but it was some poor management of moving the memory between apps that got Vista it's bad rep. It's much better in 7, but you still won't see as much 'free' memory as you do in XP. Not that it's a bad thing, 'free' memory is memory doing nothing, when it could be used to further increase performance of currently running apps.


Posted By: kevinmcdonough
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 4:07pm
hey

yeah i've been running beta and then RC for ages now on my general machines and they're great. Bass Box Pro and Win ISD work fine, but I haven't tried it on my Pro Tools rig or any music specific programs yet.

And in terms of memory and system usage, while it'll never be as small as XP its significantly better than Vista and runs well even on Netbooks from what I hear.

k


Posted By: norty303
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 5:31pm
Quote Vista wasn't memory hungry, it just kept memory 'wired' rather than 'free' which hardly anybody seems to understand


Exactly


Load as much stuff as you can into RAM for ultrafast access leaving enough free to handle new unexpected requests. Clever predictive pre-caching development only improves things further

-------------
My laser stuff: http://www.facebook.com/SubsonicSystems" rel="nofollow - Frikkin Lasers


Posted By: minaximal
Date Posted: 27 October 2009 at 10:21pm
Originally posted by jbl_man jbl_man wrote:

I wonder how much ram it takes just to run it?..i had that problem with vista,if you have a laptop with "only" 2gb ram,so slow,swaped it for XP,super fast now...so i wonder if seven is also memory-hungry?


i'm temporarily running win7rc with only 1gb ram atm on my laptop which is fine for everyday use and faster than vista.

theres also smartboost thing you can alocate to a usb flash drive to help with caching or something, forget exactly what, but it seems to help a little and a free bonus.

also, with the added functionality of win7 it's a good idea to do as you would have to with vista and turn off a few features or/and set your own task management regime (manual) to optimise your system performance.  the searchbar is very powerfull but things like search cacheing? can slow down the system, if it happens in the middle of something else.







-------------
Subs + Barges = :)

http://www.metaacoustics.com" rel="nofollow - www.metaacoustics.com



Posted By: b3n
Date Posted: 28 October 2009 at 9:21am
Windows 7 is a lot better than vista. But I still just dont see the need to upgrade from xp.
xp does everything I need. I dont care that they moved all the control panel icons about. Or removed the word start form the start menu. I haven't seen one improvement in vista or 7 that would warrant me switching. Come to think of it I dont even remember why I changed from 2000.


-------------
Matrix XP3000H, Thomann TA1050, Peavey CS1400, QSC RMX1450
2 x Eminence Kappa and PSD2002 loaded x15's
2 x SN-15MB and BM-D450 loaded X15's
2 x V18-1000 loaded 1850's
Behringer DCX2496


Posted By: richardhx
Date Posted: 28 October 2009 at 10:07pm
I refused to upgrade to Vista, personally and my recommendation to friends and family was to only take Vista if it comes with a new PC (ie the drivers were already there). I do not like problem solving on Vista. The way the security/permissions is handled has meant for me I will not use it.
 
My last job also put me in charge of a school network (500+ computers) and both myself, and my replacement (I moved diagonally) stated categorically that we would not be using Vista in the school.
My experiences of using vista and the issues that come from that meant it was a no-go for our network. Most of the machines now in, came with Vista licenses but are to date unused.

Once tested however, i would probably agree to the use of 7 within the school. Though I do not have final say anymore, I am still in a position to influence that. 

I had both Vista and more recently win7rc running in VMware fusion on my mac and on vmware on PC, and A/B test wise with same basic install, OS and MS office 2003. Time to operation was faster on win7rc, more stable, and better usability. I find Vista a frustration to use, hence my everyday use of OSX.

However with all things, I would have to check existing software worked on 7 before updating.
In the school, it would have to give a performance/network benefit to justify the work re-imaging all the machines. In many schools, Vista has been refused.

For music machines, it may well be that Vista would be needed as supports higher RAM use in programs, and many music specific software manufacturers have OKd Vista 100% on their products, and not yet done so for Windows7. I will carry on using Mac OSX mostly, and run XP or 7 in a VM.  


-------------
making the word clear


Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 29 October 2009 at 9:25am
Originally posted by b3n b3n wrote:

Windows 7 is a lot better than vista. But I still just dont see the need to upgrade from xp.xp does everything I need. I dont care that they moved all the control panel icons about. Or removed the word start form the start menu. I haven't seen one improvement in vista or 7 that would warrant me switching. Come to think of it I dont even remember why I changed from 2000.


Could the fact you're using an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue in certain pretty important areas be one reason?

XP has a massively flawed security and network model.


Posted By: mk2_ginger_biscuit69
Date Posted: 29 October 2009 at 1:38pm
happy days!! ive hacked a vista driver for my soundcard and it now works on my 7.
 
been using this 3days now, is growing on me. Liking how i can hide bits and bobs i dont need to use, control loadups, the windows all condense to one icon per program, preview whats on them etc. All nice and smooth. Even windows media player PLAYS DVD'S without addons straight from the package!!!!!!!!!!!


-------------
''Remember that the object of a subwoofer is to enhance the output of your main speakers, not overpower it''

''Dubstep - an elongated electronic fart''


Posted By: b3n
Date Posted: 29 October 2009 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by toastyghost toastyghost wrote:

Originally posted by b3n b3n wrote:

Windows 7 is a lot better than vista. But I still just dont see the need to upgrade from xp.xp does everything I need. I dont care that they moved all the control panel icons about. Or removed the word start form the start menu. I haven't seen one improvement in vista or 7 that would warrant me switching. Come to think of it I dont even remember why I changed from 2000.


Could the fact you're using an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue in certain pretty important areas be one reason?

XP has a massively flawed security and network model.


IMO 2000, XP, vista and 7 are all just NT in successively shinier coats. All the changes seem to be just to make windows "easier" to use. I dont need to click on three different confirmation dialogues to run a program. Tell me why I shouldn't be using "an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue"?

-------------
Matrix XP3000H, Thomann TA1050, Peavey CS1400, QSC RMX1450
2 x Eminence Kappa and PSD2002 loaded x15's
2 x SN-15MB and BM-D450 loaded X15's
2 x V18-1000 loaded 1850's
Behringer DCX2496


Posted By: norty303
Date Posted: 29 October 2009 at 6:13pm
Quote Tell me why I shouldn't be using "an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue"?


Flawed right from the start.








Shoulda used Gaffa tape, they'd never, ever need to upgrade your Windows ever again them (although scraping the residue off when you patch it might be a pain)

-------------
My laser stuff: http://www.facebook.com/SubsonicSystems" rel="nofollow - Frikkin Lasers


Posted By: Spesh
Date Posted: 29 October 2009 at 7:12pm
I'm running windows 7 pro (64 bit). No problems as yet.

-------------
Symmetry Soundsystem


Posted By: crystal.a
Date Posted: 11 November 2009 at 12:24am
hi can any one help me here i recently got a new laptop running vista home premium and i'm eligible for the free upgrade to win 7 only problem is i cant access ANY  microsoft sites to get the free down load!
I don't think its my router as the old desktop downstairs running xp is fine and loads whatever i want albeit slowly any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this is really bugging me

Cheers

Connel.


-------------
hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse!


Posted By: _radu
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 1:07pm
I have been using Windows 7 for 8 or 9 monts, ar the begining of October becoming legal, and then I have been using Windows 7 Pro 64 bits.
It runs pretty smooth.
For the one that don't like Vista and like 7, belive me when I'm telling you, it's the same thing, even though M$ guis said that they write it from scratch. Vista in Windows 6.0 and 7 is 6.1.

Windows 2000 was a vertty good and stable OS ( actually it is Windows NT 5.0 ) but because it is very old it isn't being supported anymore, so no error reapiring, no service packs. Windows XP ( NT 5.1 ) is good because there still are users that don't have more the 1 GB of RAM, which is a minimum requirement for Vista to run decently. I had Vista on a Dell Inspiron 1501 with 1 GB of RAM ( 128 MB were dedicated to the video card on board so remained only 892 MB of RAM available ) and in the first 2-3 days afther installation it didn't runned as smooth as XP ran, but afther it optimized itself it was smoother than XP. Thinking that XP had a minimum RAM requirement of 64 MB, 1 GB seems perfect for XP to run flawleslly.
From my point of view Windows Vista ( NT 6.0 ) was just a marketing research, to see how people would react to a new interace and a new core. ( it's the same problem that was with XP when 2000 or 98SE were the popular ones ) Unfortunatelly the reaction wasn't that good so they started to modify it by to create something with a better appeal.


Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by crystal.a crystal.a wrote:

hi can any one help me here i recently got a new laptop running vista home premium and i'm eligible for the free upgrade to win 7 only problem is i cant access ANY  microsoft sites to get the free down load!
I don't think its my router as the old desktop downstairs running xp is fine and loads whatever i want albeit slowly any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this is really bugging me
Cheers
Connel.


This is a common problem when the MTU setting on your computer and/or router is too high for your connection to support. Technically your ISP should help you reduce the value to something more suitable but it's beyond the capability of most ISP's tech support.

There's more info here:
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/MTU.htm - http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/MTU.htm


Posted By: Admin
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 3:52pm
Windows 7 = Vista SP3

Apart from booting where drivers can be loaded simultaneously instead of one after the other, speed, memory, and performance all remain exactly the same as under Vista.


Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 16 November 2009 at 5:07pm
Originally posted by norty303 norty303 wrote:

Quote Tell me why I shouldn't be using "an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue"?


Flawed right from the start.
 
Windows NT 4.0 was pretty sturdy.
 
However the price of * new * Sexy gui, and ability to play games, (Windows 2000) meant they had to allow gfx drivers to be able to crash the OS. Confused
 


-------------
"Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy".


Posted By: Admin
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by levyte357 levyte357 wrote:

Windows NT 4.0 was pretty sturdy.


Maybe the box you put it in was, but the OS certainly wasn't.

Trying to use it as a web server it was more often down than up, which is where Windows hosting got it's bad name from as being unstable.


Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by bruce bruce wrote:

Originally posted by levyte357 levyte357 wrote:

Windows NT 4.0 was pretty sturdy.


Maybe the box you put it in was, but the OS certainly wasn't.

Trying to use it as a web server
 
Surely you jest ? Windows webserver in those days ? LOL
 
No it was purely for use as NDS.
 
Firewalling and Webserving were handled Separate Linux X86 Boxes.


-------------
"Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy".


Posted By: b3n
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 4:01pm
Windows only ever got anywhere near being "reliable" as a server around server 2000
Though why anyone would choose them over *nix is beyond me.


-------------
Matrix XP3000H, Thomann TA1050, Peavey CS1400, QSC RMX1450
2 x Eminence Kappa and PSD2002 loaded x15's
2 x SN-15MB and BM-D450 loaded X15's
2 x V18-1000 loaded 1850's
Behringer DCX2496


Posted By: tallmike
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 4:02pm

You lot are all wrong.

Windows 3.1 (not for workgroups)


Posted By: toastyghost
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by tallmike tallmike wrote:

You lot are all wrong.


Windows 3.1 (not for workgroups)


BeOS actually.


Posted By: tallmike
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 4:48pm
Right, sod it, BASIC


Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 17 November 2009 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by tallmike tallmike wrote:

Right, sod it, BASIC
 
This is a slippery slope Mike, don't do it...
 
There are people on this forum who still code in 'C' for a living... Wink
 
There are also some of us who used to get paid to crack copy protection on Atari ST games. LOL


-------------
"Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy".


Posted By: Saul
Date Posted: 15 April 2010 at 1:15pm
been using new PC at my parents house recently

windows 7 has a lot of "mac" style features in it - e.g. screen flicking and stuff. 

Seems quite good though - much better than vista imo


Posted By: odc04r
Date Posted: 15 April 2010 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by levyte357 levyte357 wrote:

There are people on this forum who still code in 'C' for a living... Wink


There is nothing wrong with that! C is a great language. I really can't be arsed with assembler for embededded programming though.


Posted By: bassmish
Date Posted: 19 April 2010 at 10:35pm
cha!


Posted By: soundguymatt
Date Posted: 20 April 2010 at 10:19am
we're moving to 7 on a 450 machine network soon probably... as soon as we can get our 16bit programs to work that is. 


Posted By: The Builder
Date Posted: 20 April 2010 at 10:24am
Never mind 16bit.
Kodak dentist program, HUGE customer base, "we don't support 7", when then? "It's not in the pipe"!!!
They do support Vista, and no, it wont go on 7, hours of remote doggy poo.


-------------
It just is.


Posted By: soundguymatt
Date Posted: 20 April 2010 at 11:00am
lol no one needs support - here they dont care about what is and isn't supported, they just like 7. 


Posted By: levyte357
Date Posted: 20 April 2010 at 12:30pm
Now that I've got nice new 22" Monitor, I'm thinking I need Q8300, +8gb mem to go with it.

Now seriously thinking about "7", but that would need new hard disk as well.LOL

Still happy with mainboard I bought 3 years ago..Embarrassed


-------------
"Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job.. You must be the other guy".


Posted By: Iverson
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 7:22am
Interesting read.

I bought it and did not like it, so I reformatted. It's been sitting on my self for three months now.


Posted By: Symzzi
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 10:57am
Have x64 win7 partitioned on my storage drive, doesn't acknowledge the existance of the rest of the drive (i.e. all my stuff) for some reason, or 1 of my other 2 XP drives, so it hasn't seen any use aside from a basic flick around. No x64 driver support for a couple of bits of my hardware either.

When I need win7 for something that XP doesn't/can't do i'll make the switch, but whatever that is i haven't come across it yet.


Posted By: AME_Syst.
Date Posted: 16 July 2010 at 1:39pm
Sorry but im an avid xp man, even though vista is "the new thing" xp is good and reliable so i think ill stick to that



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net