Windows 7 FAQ and Questions

Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

That is a ridiculous statement. You can't have everything you want running as fast as you can click them, while having the hardware requirements of windows 98. Yeah, the big hitters of Linux don't have much of a requirement. But have you ran one with all the desktop pretties up on a machine with a terrible processor and 512mb of ram? It doesn't run very fast. It sucks. But that's because it is on 8 year-old hardware, not that the OS isn't lightweight.
I agree. It's like being mad that your Dreamcast can't play Playstation 3 games.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

I actually have a question about Windows 7. Will software on sites like Download and SycloSoft be able to work with Windows 7?
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

After it gets released yeah. All software should be updated to work on Windows 7.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

After it gets released yeah. All software should be updated to work on Windows 7.
Better put some quotations around SHOULD Mak. Everything "should" work on Windows 7, but as Vista has shown us software and hardware developers are reluctant to update their platforms.

And a smaller footprint than Vista? Seriously? 15 gig of your 500 gig drive? 3.0% of your drive consumption and your complaining? Just delete two episodes of Family Guy if you don't have the space :) Funny people will complain about the OS taking up space, but don't second guess when their MP3's and movies take up hundreds of gig worth of space.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

Better put some quotations around SHOULD Mak. Everything "should" work on Windows 7, but as Vista has shown us software and hardware developers are reluctant to update their platforms.

And a smaller footprint than Vista? Seriously? 15 gig of your 500 gig drive? 3.0% of your drive consumption and your complaining? Just delete two episodes of Family Guy if you don't have the space :) Funny people will complain about the OS taking up space, but don't second guess when their MP3's and movies take up hundreds of gig worth of space.

I think he also might be referring to the RAM taken up as well. But with vista a lot of the ram is not even being used, its in cache from what I understand. So it will give you "un-accurate" readings of how much ram the machine is actually using up.

Aero sucks, it looks pretty but its horribly coded. On Linux you can take a cheap laptop with Integrated Intel Graphics and run Compiz Fusion at its fullest glory. But on Vista your Aero is choppy from its see-through windows. Its really pathetic. Sure on my computer I can run Vista great. Four gigs of ram, a good graphics card, nice cpu. But you should be able to run vista on almost any computer/laptop built in the last 2-3 years with no problem using Aero.

I only use Vista because my computer can handle the Aero interface, but in my honest opinion there is no other reason to switch to Vista if you already have XP. There are no "improvements" that I can mention. I am seriously trying to find a list of cons and pros of Vista, but all I can think of is the cons... seriously.

OS Security is overrated in my opinion. There is no real way to even guesstimate how secure an operating system is compared to another. Its all about what the user chooses to download and if he/she is aware of what not to download. If you stay away from bad places on the internet there is a very low chance that you will get infected.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

Okay that post is so horribly inaccurate.

There are no Improvements of Vista over XP? How about the networking stack being rewritten from the top down? That is just 1 of hundreds of things. Almost all of the work done on Vista was "under the hood" not meant to be seen by users.

So yeah you cant mention them cause you dont even know they are there!

System security is overrated? How so? Even OS X is finding out how flaed they are with attacks now. Yet you say leave a 7 year old OS which needs upwards of 100K updates from it was released to now to be used over one that has yet to reach a 1,000 updates? That makes complete sense. Not like everyone has hacked and slashed XP over hte last 7 years to be able to find flaws in it.

If people stayed away from teh bad places and watched what they did. There would be no use for Antivirus apps, spyware apps and all that. Your remark is for a above average person. Not the common user. The common users do not know what is out there. They do not know of such things nor do they care. They only care when their performance is affected then they stop by a place like this and complain that "Vista is slow" cause they are infected to the gills.

There are tons of articles out there that show the "improvements" of Vista over XP.

BentUser - Windows XP and Vista b5270 Side-by-Side
https://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/93929171-8e24-1e6a-cf68-b48eb22073611033.mspx

There are just 2 articles i found with good info. Plus a lot of what Vista has done has been for ease of use in a workplace environment. It has got much better deployement than XP on almost every level.

That post is just like every other Vista hating post out there. You give no real information as to why Vista is bad other than your opinion.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

I understand what you are saying mak213, and I do have to agree with you on some things. For one, I was a little wrong about the security issues.. When I think about the average person I get reminded of how my mom keeps installing toolbars on her computer, installing anything she comes across, and clicking on those flashy adds on the side of the screen. For me, I never get virus's anymore cause I use NOD32 along with the awareness of what not do download.

I guess I've been hanging on to Linux too long, expecting every other update to improve the performance of the OS and everything else. I'm hoping maybe Windows 7 might be like Linux, in the sense that they are able to add all these cool new features without just destroying those without brand new hardware like all of us guys.

But really think about it, for us Vista is not a noticeable performance decrease, but for the average user with the average 2-3 year old POS computer. Vista is a nightmare, even with Aero disabled.

Imo, Vista should be much more optimized for those with older computers, there is no reason for it to take up that much more hardware.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

Alexsabree,

I do not disagree that Vista can be a nightmare. Epically on a older system. I will not deny that. I will not deny that Vista is badly optimized nor that it was released prematurely. All of that is right.

But they have taken great steps to make it better. SP1 was a big step for them to make that move and the features they have added do make it much better over all for the common user. UAC is a great thing for preventing many drive by downloads and i hope that it gets fine tuned enough to prevent much more in the future.

But the thing is this. While Vista does take more hardware so did XP compared to the machines that was running 98 and ME at that time back in 01. With every new Windows release it seems that the requirements get doubled. Not many people pay attention to that stuff and only complain about the current release. This was teh same arguements made back with XP and there will be one just like it for Windows 7.

The NT kernel which is being used is not optimized at all. It has been around as long as Windows 95 has and just been complied upon and added onto. Never before have they bothered to make it work right. With Windows 7 they plan on trimming the fat from it. Which will help greatly.
 
Re: Windows 7 Fact Thread

Windows 7 Shooting For a 15 Second Boot Time?

A senior member of the Windows 7 development team says that there is a team of engineers dedicated to start up performance that has set a goal of having a 15 second or less boot time. The post goes into detail about what it takes to achieve that goal and how the team is progressing. Interesting stuff.


Startup can be one of three experiences; boot, resume from sleep, or resume from hibernate. Although resume from sleep is the default, and often 2 to 5 seconds based on common hardware and standard software loads, this post is primarily about boot as that experience has been commented on frequently. For Windows 7, a top goal is to significantly increase the number of systems that experience very good boot times. In the lab, a very good system is one that boots in under 15 seconds.
 
Back
Top Bottom