Shino Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Doesn't make sense that XP, Mac OS X, every *nix and even Windows Server 2008 are less sluggish and more responsive on the same hardware. You can compensate by buying more expensive hardware, but you shouldn't have to.Agreed. Still UAC doesn't make sense for anybody, and doesn't help computer safety at all. But it was hailed as one of Vista's big new features.It's sure taking them long enough. Features of it were already planned for Windows NT 4.0 XP was released in 2001, back then was considered a sluggish and heavy system, never used Mac OS X or Windows Server 2008 (and this one was released a year later to Vista so it includes more optimizations and it doesn't have the graphical stuff Vista has). Windows (contrary to Mac OS X I believe) is built thinking in future hardware developments, so it's normal that it asks more than its available at release. I dislike the current UAC (I turned it off), but I consider myself a more experienced user than average user and don't have a problem in dealing with possible negative outcomes of this. I do believe that after the first week of use it might be pretty good, but I can't be bothered.
DCK Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Windows Vista received all Server 2008's improvements in Service Pack 1 - Vista and Server 2008 are identical now (2K8 even released as 'SP1', MS develops them symmetrically). Even with Aero enabled in 2K8, it's apparently more responsive and scores about 15% better in desktop usage benchmarks, and uses a third less memory. There are websites dedicated to converting 2K8 to a desktop system, because it does everything Vista can, even DirectX 10, on lesser rescources for some magical reason. Windows (contrary to Mac OS X I believe) is built thinking in future hardware developments, so it's normal that it asks more than its available at release.That's just nonsense. An OS should take the rescources it needs, not the rescources it can.
Shino Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 It should use the resources available. If most new PCs today come at least with 2GB RAM what's nonsense is not having a OS that doesn't take advantage of them. Of course the should always optimize, but if they need 1GB to make it the way it should be, why not use it?
DCK Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 It should take rescources available? You mean, it should do its regular stuff and just fill up the memory with 0s and 1s and spend CPU time calculating 1+1 over and over?! You really don't get what an OS is supposed to do. You have 2GB of memory and a fast CPU so your applications can run smoothly, not to have your OS take them. It's fine to be rescource heavy if you get something back in return, but as I mentioned, Vista doesn't really do anything to justify its sluggishness.
Konfucius Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 I actually more or less reduced Vista to XP functionality. I disabled 30 processes and services combined and it's still slower than XP. That is for instance noticable for me when I copy something because on the same machine I also run XP. Basically I use Vista only for Gaming because of DX10 and that's exactly where it fails. Games in DX9 mode are still slower than they are on XP and I won't get started on DX10 here. Where are the gaming features that were promised? I have faint hope for Windows 7 there though, that gaming performance will indeed increase compared to Vista. I'd actually like that it offers some kind of profiles, particularly one for gaming. So when I select that profile unneccessary services like the spooler, WIA and whatnot are terminated and once I switch back to standard started again. I don't know if many would actually like that but I tend to terminate everything I don't need to save resources for whenever I might need them. So far what I heared about it seems really promising but I guess it will use up more resources than Vista does but if that means it will actually do things faster than the good olde XP I'd take that.
Shino Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 I must be the only person that doesn't have any problem with Vista. Seriously, killing system processes for performance?
Raining_again Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 I must be the only person that doesn't have any problem with Vista. Seriously, killing system processes for performance? I never have any issues with Vista either. And I haven't made any registry mods or anything the cool kids do to make their computer run faster (when it really makes little difference - and they need patience more than anything) The only time I've ever seen anyone with issues is when they've installed a ton of crap - but that will happen on any OS.
Konfucius Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 Seriously, killing system processes for performance? Why not? I mean it's not that I disable things I need and it improves startup time and gives me a better overview of what is running and what should not be (aka Viruses) Anyways, Laptopmag installed Windows 7 on an Eee PC and were pretty happy with the results. This morning we loaded Windows 7 Ultimate (Pre-Beta) on an ASUS Eee PC 1000H. And just as Microsoft said: it works. The Eee PC running a 1.6 GHz Intel Atom processor and 1GB of RAM handles the new operating system pretty well, just as it ran Vista pretty well when we loaded Vista Basic on it a few months ago. [...]But, one feature on Windows 7 might just be perfect for netbooks: the improved Network Manager. One thing I hate about Vista is having to connect to a wireless network. Things are easier in Windows 7. Selecting the network icon in the System Tray extends a jump list of available networks. Connecting to our home network was simple. I just clicked the network name and entered the password.[...] the performance monitor showed only 485MB of the RAM was in use with no applications — except the standard Eee PC driver set — were running. Source
DCK Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 Way to go Microsoft. If they can keep Windows 7 as light as Vista Home Basic, it's really the way to go. Vista is not made for netbooks, really, it's cost Microsoft quite a bit of money.
Dante Posted January 2, 2009 Author Posted January 2, 2009 Microsoft Windows 7 Beta 1 Build 7000 x86 DVD-WinBeta is out to download. Windows 7 Beta 1 Build 7000 running on a P3 800 Mhz & 512mb RAM. jump to 4:50
Dante Posted January 8, 2009 Author Posted January 8, 2009 Information that Tech ARP has gathered about the Windows 7 Upgrade Program seems to be inline with a previous rumor about three upgrade scenarios for Vista to Windows 7: Home Premium to Home Premium, Business to Professional, and Ultimate to Ultimate. While Microsoft has not revealed any final dates for the upgrade program yet, rumor has it that the program eligibility will begin on July 1, 2009. In other words, if you purchase a computer with Vista preloaded on it, on or after July 1, up to some undecided date (OEMs can choose to have an even shorter timeframe within the one Microsoft will give), you will have the option to upgrade to Windows 7 for free when it becomes available. However, as with previous Microsoft operating system upgrade programs, there are restrictions: A language version of the qualifying Windows Vista product can only be upgraded to the same language version of the Windows 7 upgrade software. The Windows Vista product can only be upgraded to the associated edition of the upgrade software. No other upgrade paths are available and supported under the Program. For example, the following upgrades are not allowed in the program: upgrades from Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Starter, upgrades from Windows Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate, or upgrades from Windows Vista Business to Windows 7 Ultimate. Remember that Microsoft has not made this information available to the public, and it is still subject to change. It won't be long now before we know for sure which editions of Windows 7 the software giant is planning on releasing. So far, it's clear that Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise are on the table but an official list still isn't available. Arstechnica.com Download Fix Windows 7 MP3
Shorty Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Isn't the official beta supposed to be out now? The Windows site seems to be a bit iffy at the moment though - they said 'afternoon of Jan 9', and since it's approaching 5pm, that's about 2 minutes away from noon Eastern US time so maybe loads of people are visiting to see if it's available.
McPhee Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 They said in the afternoon, not at noon. Expect it within the next few hours I cannae wait, although i'm a tad annoyed that i'm in work tomorrow so i won't get a proper chance to play til Sunday (assuming it actually downloads in that time, my net connection is as slow as a turtle with parkinsions!)
DomJcg Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Disclaimer, i don't mind windows 7 or whatever it does
Guest Jordan Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Its out, but the servers are being raped... Give it a couple of hours. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dd353205.aspx
McPhee Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 When will it likely to be out to buy? Summer? The beta finishes in August apparently, although it could be cut short. I'd expect it'll be released to OEMs over the summer for a consumer release in September. EDIT: You get to the end of the registration process to be greeted by this: The site is currently experiencing technical difficulties, please check back in the next business day. Oh yay
DCK Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 When will it likely be out to buy? Summer?Microsoft says early next year, but rumour has it that they may go for the Christmas season. Steve Ballmer said the beta feels 'finished' to him, so development might actually be quicker than planned. To be honest, I don't mind Vista for some more time, if they make Windows 7 as good as possible. Don't know anyone who'd give anybody else an OS for Christmas anyway, but maybe that's me.
Charlie Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 MSN seems to be down for me as well? To do with the Beta downloads raping MS servers?
Dyson Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Giving someone an OS for Christmas isn't what they're thinking of. I'm fairly sure they're thinking of people giving laptops etc as gifts :wink:
Shorty Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 They said in the afternoon, not at noon. Yeah, I know, I was just saying that was probably why the site got so busy suddenly - because people on EST would be checking as soon as it was technically noon. I wasn't saying that I expected it to be out at that moment. I think open beta is limited to 2.5 mil? Might have missed the window >.<
Shino Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I still can't believe how fast this is going... Vista shouldn't be side by side with ME as a tainted windows...
Guest Jordan Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Vista is a very good operating system. But it wasn't XP in terms of its spec. People who thought Vista would run well on a slow Pentium 4 with less than a gig of ram are completely insane... Windows 7 is Vista but much faster, less resource using and some great new UI features... So under all this, people will really be running Vista. Just like how people who adore XP are just running Windows 2K with more features a new shell.
fex Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Vista is a very good operating system. Really though? Edit : After more consideration I will give you a proper answer. Vista has developed to become a reliable OS. It's a shame it doesn't run like Server 2008. I think alot of people could benefit from the 15% speed gain.
Recommended Posts