Windows 7.... I like :D

Windows 7I like :D Just installed Windows 7 Build 7000 :o

I like it ALOT!
its stable as a mofo so far :D

anyone else played with it?

geek_ply-boy, Jan 5, 7:40 pm

Yup its awesome although I dont have any gripes about Vista. Only people who havnt used it do

geek_wholesaler, Jan 5, 7:45 pm

I've used it, and I have gripes It's a dog on a machine with a gig or less of RAM, and a half decent graphics card. Sure, most supporters cry that it needs the right system. But it sucks when it's sold on laptops and desktops that don't usually don't have high enough specs(most of them). Not to mention decreasing the battery life on a laptop because it uses so many more resources. From what I've read, W7 will perform much better on less powerful machines.

geek_cybertao, Jan 5, 8:01 pm

shut up dik I've used Vista and it is a steaming pile IMO. 5 years and that's the best that MS can do? WTF do the developers do there? Not much as far as I can tell...except how to piss off their customers and integrate DRM into the OS

geek_sirfer, Jan 5, 8:09 pm

Hehe pirate much? &0;&0;

geek_kane199, Jan 5, 8:10 pm

Pirate??? where? lol

I like Windows 7...
didnt have any gripes about VIsta thoughBut I have a quad core with 4GB ram and 2tb hdd spacenot my fault lol

But windows 7 seems alot like the transition from win 98 to win98se lol

geek_ply-boy, Jan 5, 8:13 pm

Cybertao Don't blame Vista, It's a very stable Program. You blame the companies that put it on their systems with min specs. Or blame the User that want's a cheap-as new system, and then complains it doesn't run as good as it should, PEBKAC's. I run vista on my Toshiba A50 with a gig of ram, up and running in a minute, and never had a problem.

geek_swivel, Jan 5, 8:17 pm

Were you even born in 98 ply?

geek_flewy, Jan 5, 8:19 pm

Downloaded it this afternoon off some dodgy ftp site in New Jersey. Already burned the DVD, about to swap some drives around and give it a spin.

geek_little_egypt, Jan 5, 8:22 pm

Care to share the download site ;-)

geek_sakkara, Jan 5, 8:47 pm

Yea I found 50GB to spare in a partionso sectioned it off and wamo!!! :D

I love itgot everything working, EXCEPT! media portal :(

but I love WMP and the taskbar and also the display properties setup is Nice...
everything else is fairly vista like

geek_ply-boy, Jan 5, 8:51 pm

Ftp site it's in the other windows7 thread

geek_little_egypt, Jan 5, 8:52 pm

Half an hour And it's rebooted itself. It said it will reboot 'several times' during the install so I guess it has a way to go.

geek_little_egypt, Jan 5, 9:06 pm

I don't blame Vista, I blame Microsoft for trying it on. They seem to have produced Vista like they did with hardware manufacturers and movie/music industry in mind...instead of the end users. Why should someone buy a system with a new graphics chipset and at least 2Gb of RAM? Especially when most want a cheap system to check their email and surf trademe. I went to my aunt's place yesterday to secure her network and had to change the settings on two laptops running Vista. I consider myself a patient person and have worked on many systems over 20 years, I was really frustrated by that stupid spinning circle while trying to do such a simple task. It looked pretty doing it though. :-\

geek_cybertao, Jan 5, 9:11 pm

All installed Not bad at all. Pretty easy install, seems to have picked up most of my hardware (no TV card, but everything else) and it's a nice responsive desktop. I'll have to have a bit more of a play with it I think.

geek_little_egypt, Jan 5, 9:40 pm

What other windows7 thread

geek_sakkara, Jan 5, 9:43 pm

Installed it last weekend very solid for a beta and seems compatible with most of my old programs =)

geek_gazzanova69, Jan 5, 10:00 pm

Ply still around kido? got a job yet? anywhofound a disk mounting program that will run in W7? -Omnicurse

geek_ammcats, Jan 5, 10:58 pm

Microsofts Operating Systems have pretty much always been geared toward tomorrows hardware. XP's minimum requirements are 64MB of RAM and yet people wouldn't run it on anything less than 512. Before that was common place they wouldn't run it on anything less than 256MB. Point being as soon as 4GB is the norm people will be saying that's whats required for Vista. It will run on 1GB fine (provided of course your not a gamer)

geek_evoeater, Jan 5, 11:12 pm

As for Windows 7 I've tried it and its not bad, I quite like the new explorer. Seems much tidier. But seeing as I use Vista I'm not seeing a lot of change. Will get it for the Media Box but possibly not this one

geek_evoeater, Jan 5, 11:14 pm

But when is 4gigs ever going to be 'the norm'? The average user doesn't need that many resources. I can't imagine a system that requires 4gig to run an OS used to check email and look at youtube videos. We've reached a point that people don't need more. There is no advantage to a bloated system that uses so much. Can you imagine the start up time if Windows needs to load 2gigs of itself off current hard-drives?

geek_cybertao, Jan 5, 11:23 pm

Can I quote you on that? Bill Gates said a similar thing a few years back

geek_evoeater, Jan 5, 11:26 pm

Vid at top of this page springs to mind about now: http://telcontar.net/store/archive/CrashGallery/?page=5

geek_pcmaster, Jan 5, 11:31 pm

Windows just doesn't make sense I've used Windows Vista and the latest build of Windows 7, but I see that Microsoft still hasn't realized that a lot of their new operating systems cannot be worked out by common sense or logic.

Why does Microsoft keep changing the locations of certain items/options for no particular reason. If it doesn't allow a new feature or make it easier to understand, why change it?

The only reason I can use Windows XP well is because I've spent years using it; when it was first introduced it was the same feeling I have had with every version: complete frustration.

I use Macs most of the time simply because they make sense. I'm not just posting this to promote my choice of computer though, I just think Apple has the ability to create interfaces that can be worked out without having to use trial and error. Like the iPod and Mac OS X.

I get really frustrated with every new version of Windows and I wish Microsoft would wake up and realize people use their systems.

geek_kazanne, Jan 5, 11:37 pm

Kazanne Windows hasn't really changed at all from a gui perspective since Windows 95, only the eyecandy and theres a bit more bloat onboard but everythings essentially the same once you strip all that away. I mostly still use keyboard shortcuts which haven't really changed since windows 3.11, however one or two new ones are added to every windows version.

geek_pcmaster, Jan 5, 11:56 pm

http://tafkac.org/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_memory.html cybertao, read 2nd paragraph of Bill's answer.

geek_lostdude, Jan 6, 1:01 am

yes, not much has changed. But what I think kazanne is talking about is layout. MS is always shifting things around. Merely optimising an already flawed design lol.

geek_lostdude, Jan 6, 1:05 am

Oh come on. Someone give me one idea requiring more power that the average user needs. We have reached a point that technology has surpassed most people's needs, and the understanding of many. The main reason Vista was a flop is because users don't need anything more than XP.

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 1:12 am

How do you know tomorrow's OS's won't be holographic 3d images that are motion & touch sensitive? Now imagine how much processing & memory power will be required to run such things. Bill & even Steve Hobbs wouldn't have imagined the amount of raw power required to run even today's OS's back in the early 80's, but they definitely knew that there will never be enough - so Bill claims lol.

geek_lostdude, Jan 6, 1:44 am

I don't ...but I know Vista and Windows 7 aren't designed for something like that in mind anyway. And something like that isn't realistically available now, or the near future. So why not have an OS that actually allows people to do what they want on the hardware that they have? That's why I'm happy Windows 7 is looking to be a much more realistic model for todays use. If you want to go buy a system with a quad core processor, 4gigs of RAM, and dual graphics chipsets then go right ahead. But once again, why expect someone to waste their money on something like that to check their email?

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 2:01 am

but how bout when the time comes when checking your email means using hand gestures and face recognition? lol. I know where you're coming from, but a lot of people are recommended machines (by us BTW) that have twice the power now then when XP was first released, to do just that. We recommend the best features for their needs. Well, with email & general internet browsing, a 2002 system will suit just fine. But why do we not recommend them now? Not only because the hardware is no longer supported by the manufacturers, but because they will get a far better/smoother experience with today's technology. We are somewhat future proofing them, maybe not for long into the future, but the future nonetheless. Remember, the core software hasn't changed dramatically (in XP's case) but the internet certainly will forever evolve, specifically in multimedia - hence more hardware requirements.

geek_lostdude, Jan 6, 2:23 am

ContinVista is no exception to the MS eVERSIONlution table as evoeater pointed out, but the average user is not a robot either. A first timer may well only want a system for email & internet but they will (& I guarantee they will) explore their system's boundaries. One perfect example is an uncle of mine. Required a laptop for work, email & general internet browsing. Pointed out a nice Sony VAIO for him which suited him perfectly at the time. Now 4 years later, he has suddenly discovered video editing & forked out heavily for a mass of video applications that made a total mess of his laptop. Including wasting several weeks of my time in the process with his constant flow of problems & then wondering why the heck I could edit & encode video on my machine almost 10x faster than his. LOL.

geek_lostdude, Jan 6, 2:23 am

you mean how "C:\my documents" suddenly became "C:\documents and settings\[user]\my documents" among other subtle changes right? is completely true, although even xp for the majority of my clients is actually overkillmost of mine would be happily using Win95 still if it wasnt for stability issues!!!

geek_pcmaster, Jan 6, 6:56 am

Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft released a nice, slim, fast operating system WITHOUT all the rubbish many people never ever use? Most will never use many of the included features but they are all installed by default and many can't be uninstalled easily leaving others to make LITE versions. I will never use Movie maker for example so would prefer NOT to have to install it. XP Pro which I currently use takes ages to set up just the fact that I live in New Zealand. about 7 settings need to be made then it still says TIME ZONE TIJUANA...Grrr.

geek_kiwikidd77, Jan 6, 7:10 am

I alway smile when I see that default time zone DO YOU WANNA IN TIJUANA?

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 8:25 am

Windows 98 setup used to default the timezone to russia if i remember rightly LOL

geek_pcmaster, Jan 6, 8:32 am

Gotta remember lostdude the price v performance of a computer has gone down allot since 2002, so recommending a future proof machine becomes easier

geek_kane199, Jan 6, 8:33 am

Gotta remember, price point is where the market is at. It's not much cheaper to get a system with only 512Mb of RAM and a 80Gig hard-drive. But it is more expensive to get 2Gigs(let alone 4) of RAM and a 500Gig hard-drive. The price point is what the end consumer is all about.

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 8:40 am

Default timezone? All of the default settings for XP are USA, and IIRC the default timezone in all previous versions of Windows was for Washington State.
Windows 7 asks you once for the country and then sets all the defaults appropriately. Just like Ubuntu has done for the last five years. And the default desktop looks so much like my Gnome desktop it's creepy!

geek_little_egypt, Jan 6, 8:49 am

Parts are cheap as chips now!!! 500GB for $100 4GB ram for $200 easy id say for a grand id say you could build one mean machine minus monitor k/b mouse speakers...

geek_ply-boy, Jan 6, 9:03 am

Luckily those bits are interchangeable lol

geek_pcmaster, Jan 6, 9:05 am

I really don't belive it Even when you say something positive about MS, the fanboys still argue with you. So I guess Windows 7 is a step backwards from Vista, being the almighty and great epoch of OS development.

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 9:27 am

I dont see it as a step backIt seems more like realistic thinking.. the taskbar wmp explorer is all a step forward from vista its ease of use and not as resource hungry

geek_ply-boy, Jan 6, 9:44 am

Shhh!!! Careful Saying things like that in post is how this all started.

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 9:56 am

Hahaha ohh wellLinux is gay

so what are they gonna do?

geek_ply-boy, Jan 6, 10:35 am

Linux can compile it's own source code. So it's asexual, not homosexual.

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 10:49 am

Windows looks pretty, while not reproductive. So it's more like a lady-boy.

geek_cybertao, Jan 6, 10:51 am

the laws of physics dictate That the 3D "holograms" you see in Star Wars will never become a reality, just like "anti-gravity" drives. Light can only be perceived if emitted OR reflected, therefore images in empty space are not possible...it might be something like the OSes in "Minority Report" but 3D holographic projections are the reserve of fiction.

geek_sirfer, Jan 6, 10:57 am

I disagree projected holograms are no more impossible than printed holograms. You don't project the image into 3d space, you project it onto the visible surface behind where the 3d projection appears to be, in a way that the observer sees a different image depending on their position. The projector would need to make a detailed scan of the projection surface, and then do lots of processing (Almost the exact inverse of what's required for CT) and have very tight control over the projected beam to take advantage of surface irregularities and compensate for changes in reflectivity.

geek_little_egypt, Jan 6, 11:21 am

Price Vs. performance is all well & good if you're talking about new. But price point, how about 2nd hand machines from 2002 still running strong for the price of a dozen beers? Most PCs from that era are recommended (by us once again) to be sold at dirt cheap prices yet they could still last for another decade or 2. We recommend new mainly because it's 'easier' on all parties involved, whereas a thoroughly checked over 2002 PC can well be the best investment for the average user. BTW, this argument is only valid based on your original contingency.

geek_lostdude, Jan 6, 2:25 pm