Today is Windows 7 release day.

Reply

Kenny007 replied on 10-23-2009 8:28 AM

rated by 0 users

I've been using 7 since the middle of August and overall it's been pretty good.  An occasional problem with a game, poor network drivers back then, and one really bad lockup (software related) are my only real qualms.

New network drivers released at the beginning of this month which I installed yesterday.  Hope they fix my only real lasting issue with 7.  Worth the inclusion in a new PC (no need to avoid it like Vista), NOT worth upgrading from XP/Vista over.

Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!

GreenManGaming

Reply

DonMc replied on 10-23-2009 8:39 AM

rated by 0 users

I downloaded my digital river copy yesterday, had preordered professional x64 edition through a friend with an .edu account for $30.  So far no issues, moves snappy.. but then again my Vista install was solid as well..  I probably should've ordered a couple of those upgrade copies when they were dirt cheap, as that .edu discount has a 1 per shipping/billing address limitation I think.

Reply

Renaissance 2K replied on 10-23-2009 9:07 AM

rated by 0 users

Okay, this discussion is going to go nowhere, but I'm going to break it down anyway.

Hexpane:

LOL if  the latest SP fixed issues, why upgrade?

New features, new user interface, compatibility with upcoming hardware and software, easier tech support for other people, etc.

Hexpane:

The answer is clearly Vista is slow, bloated, unintuitive, resource hogging, error prone and not even good for gaming.

At this point, the only one of those adjectives that still describes Vista is "bloated" as it takes up a huge footprint on your hard drive, probably unnecessarily.  As far as being a slow, error-prone resource hog, you're either just rehashing hearsay you've read on the Internet, or your installation isn't up to date.

The performance gap between Vista and XP is negligible at this point, especially for gaming, and the support for DirectX 10 makes up for those single-digit percentage differences.

Also, you are using the 64-bit version, correct?

Hexpane:

MS has completely abandoned it after only 2 years, a total slap in the face.   Reminds me of what they did w/ XBOX1

Windows 95 was around for two years.

Windows 98 was around for two years.

Windows ME was around for two years (too many).

Windows XP was around for over six years.

Windows Vista was around for two years.

A two-year cycle is nothing out of the ordinary for Microsoft, but most people can't remember the days before Windows XP because of how batpoop awesome it was upon release.  Paying $50 every two years is nothing compared to paying $300-600 every five years for some new piece of gaming hardware on which their legacy software probably won't even work.

What exactly did they do to the Xbox that wasn't out of the ordinary?  Sony still provides half-ass support for the PS2, but that's out of the ordinary for any console manufacturer.

Microsoft deserves a lot of flak for some things, but Windows 7 deserves the praise it's been getting.  They probably could have dropped the price of the Home edition to be closer to what Apple did with Snow Leopard, but the software itself is a pretty solid piece of work.

Reply

Kenny007 replied on 10-23-2009 9:31 AM

rated by 0 users

DX10 isn't worth upgrading for, IMHO.  DX9 games can be rather pretty themselves.

From what I've heard, DX10 allows easier development, not night and day difference in graphical quality.  Seems accurate with me in my use of it in Crysis, World in Conflict, and I think even Company of Heroes has DX10 support.  Played them all on Xp --> 7 and the difference is minimal.  XP still ran them the best though.

7 was nearly free for me though, so I don't mind using it.

Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!

GreenManGaming

Reply

acsguitar replied on 10-23-2009 9:36 AM

rated by 0 users

I love the search feature, libraries, and speed of 7. Over all it's my favorite OS. Really easy to navigate and powerful

Reply

spooon replied on 10-23-2009 9:42 AM

rated by 0 users

i thought the mac commercial was funny ;)  THIS time it's good, trust me.

this isn't vista or ME. hahha

Reply

acsguitar replied on 10-23-2009 9:56 AM

rated by 0 users

spooon:

i thought the mac commercial was funny ;)  THIS time it's good, trust me.

 

this isn't vista or ME. hahha

Mac commercials are filled with more lies then the republican party

Reply

Brenex replied on 10-23-2009 10:40 AM

rated by 0 users

Just ordered a $30 dollar professional version off the student discount website. Going to install it as soon as I backup my files. Very excited, I have been using the RC version since beta was released a year ago or so. I have had no problems with it during this period, to be honest. Occasional hiccup but hell I have seen more hiccups when I have had to use my friends Macbook Pro with the newest OSX upgrade.

Reply

Solatso replied on 10-23-2009 10:42 AM

rated by 0 users

Renaissance 2K:

At this point, the only one of those adjectives that still describes Vista is "bloated" as it takes up a huge footprint on your hard drive, probably unnecessarily.  As far as being a slow, error-prone resource hog, you're either just rehashing hearsay you've read on the Internet, or your installation isn't up to date.

The performance gap between Vista and XP is negligible at this point, especially for gaming, and the support for DirectX 10 makes up for those single-digit percentage differences.

 

THANK YOU!

Seriously, if you're still having problems with Vista (especially for gaming) then either you don't know what you're doing or you're doing something wrong.

A friend and I ran a side-by-side comparison last night of Crysis, Fallout 3 and WoW on a computer running Vista SP2 and another running a FRESH Windows 7 install.  Specs were identical except for the hdd size (one was 250gb the other was 500gb).  Each system is running E6850 Core2 Duo 3.0ghz, 4GB of OCZ SLI RAM (forget the fsb on them at the moment) and a 2GB Geforce 285GTX video card.  Due to monitor limitations we were only running the games at a max of 1650 x 1080 resolution all settings maxed AAx4.

WoW had a FPS difference of 2-3 better on the 7 machine.

Fallout 3 had a FPS difference of 2-5 better on the 7 machine.

Crysis had a FPS difference of 1-4 better on the Vista machine (which we can't figure out but whatever).

Again the 7 install was FRESH, the HDD had never had another OS on it before.  The Vista machine is my personal that I've been running for about 2 years now.  As a side note Crysis still ran choppy with that 2GB card and AAx4, without AA turned on it ran great.  We were running DX10 on everything except WoW, couldn't get it to work kept crashing on both systems.....maybe a video driver issue

I'm going to continue running Vista, at least for now, until I have a darn good reason to go through the hassel of "upgrading".  1-5 FPS difference in gaming isn't enough for me, maybe when SP1 launches for 7 it'll matter more but for now I'm good with Vista. 

Another side note, neither Vista nor 7 runs as good as the XP machine he has   For what it's worth.

Reply

txa1265 replied on 10-23-2009 10:55 AM

rated by 0 users

acsguitar:

Mac commercials are filled with more lies then the republican party

And almost half as many as a Microsoft commercial or press release ;)

Reply

xBuTcHeRx replied on 10-23-2009 10:56 AM

rated by 0 users

I was suppose to have it yesterday, but Amazon being as "smart" as they are (*sarcastic*) they said they can't ship it till today due to an "unforeseen delay", yeah right.

Reply

txa1265 replied on 10-23-2009 1:17 PM

rated by 0 users

Renaissance 2K:

Windows 95 was around for two years.

Windows 98 was around for two years.

Windows ME was around for two years (too many).

Windows XP was around for over six years.

Windows Vista was around for two years.

Thing is you miss NT history.  With Windows 2000 in the mix there was no reason for WinME to exist at all.  Also, Win95 was around *much* longer than 2 years, and most companies never switched to WinME - they stayed with Win98 or went to Win2K.

That is why I equate WinME and Vista - they offered the wrong answer and never tried to find out the question, and while folks with high-end machines didn't have too bad of a time, it showed that MS was completely clueless about the whole move to cheaper PC's, notebooks in general and netbooks in specific. I still think WinME is their worst OS, but Vista is a stark showing of incompetence and arrogance.

I've always been a NT guy, and NT 3.51 and XP are my faves.  Looking forward to installing Win7 soon.

Reply

DirtyHippie replied on 10-23-2009 1:25 PM

rated by 0 users

Since I only do minimal gaming on my computer a Mac works perfect for me. It's very sleek and does everything I need it to do. Since getting a macbook to replace my vista notebook I haven't looked back. Everything is a lot less complicated for me and to upgrade the OS is dirt cheap.

Reply

Kenny007 replied on 10-23-2009 1:29 PM

rated by 0 users

txa1265:

Renaissance 2K:

Windows 95 was around for two years.

Windows 98 was around for two years.

Windows ME was around for two years (too many).

Windows XP was around for over six years.

Windows Vista was around for two years.

Thing is you miss NT history.  With Windows 2000 in the mix there was no reason for WinME to exist at all.  Also, Win95 was around *much* longer than 2 years, and most companies never switched to WinME - they stayed with Win98 or went to Win2K.

That is why I equate WinME and Vista - they offered the wrong answer and never tried to find out the question, and while folks with high-end machines didn't have too bad of a time, it showed that MS was completely clueless about the whole move to cheaper PC's, notebooks in general and netbooks in specific. I still think WinME is their worst OS, but Vista is a stark showing of incompetence and arrogance.

I've always been a NT guy, and NT 3.51 and XP are my faves.  Looking forward to installing Win7 soon.

I'm Kenny, and I agree with this sentiment.  ME was terrible.  However, I think Vista might edge it out as being the bigger debacle overall.

Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!

GreenManGaming

Reply

txa1265 replied on 10-23-2009 1:32 PM

rated by 0 users

DirtyHippie:

Since I only do minimal gaming on my computer a Mac works perfect for me. It's very sleek and does everything I need it to do. Since getting a macbook to replace my vista notebook I haven't looked back. Everything is a lot less complicated for me and to upgrade the OS is dirt cheap.

OK - before we even start ... let's NOT get into a Mac vs. PC thing here.

One thing I'll add - my Macbook Pro running WinXP is absolutely sweet.