| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2009 09:18:53 AM · #26 |
I was so frustrated with Vista I was about to convert to an Imac. Thought I would first try this and have been running it for about 6 hours so far it is very impressive.
So far EVERYTHING hw/sw works and I got the virtual XP thang happening real quick 'tho don't think I'll need it. If it keeps going like this I just saved a whole bunch of dough. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:26:24 AM · #27 |
DAM, looks like Ill have to make a real effort at installing this one :)
Its getting shining reviews no matter who I talk to, very impressive.
-dave |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:31:45 AM · #28 |
Just wanted to add that I also installed VirtualPC and VirtualWindowsXP last night. My objective was to get my preferred scanning software, VueScan, talking to my flatbed scanner again. The scanner requires drivers to be loaded, and although the software and scanner both run fine under Vista-64 or Win7-64, the software cannot access the 64-bit libraries the scanner uses, and 32-bit drivers cannot be installed in the 64-bit OS.
After installing VirtualXP, loading the scanner drivers appropriate to XP from inside VirtualXP, "Installing" VueScan into VirtualXP (essentially creating a shortcut to the executable and re-entering my registration info), all I had to do was tell VirtualXP to connect to the scanner and then fire up VueScan, and it just... works.
One funny thing; when I installed drivers to Virtual XP, it wanted to be re-started, and it actually went through all the "shutting down" motions with all the XP sound effects, message box, the whole nine yards. How quaint!
It's funny, I use XP all day here at work, and it just seems, well, normal, but seeing XP running in a window within the Seven interface makes it look like Win3.16 in comparison! |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:44:46 AM · #29 |
| Think im gonna upgrade my laptop to it. Does CS3 work fine? |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:55:01 AM · #30 |
| I've been running Windows 7 (32 bit) on a spare work machine since yesterday morning. It's running like a dream. Fast easy install, everything working so far, super snappy. I'm digging some of the UI tweaks as well. Just in case anyone else might find it interesting, here's a cool site with some "secrets": //blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2009/01/12/the-bumper-list-of-windows-7-secrets.aspx |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:33:31 AM · #31 |
| I tried Win7 beta in March and I never could get sound to work with my AC97 onboard sound. Just installed again last night with the RC and after downloading the new driver from Abit again, onboard sound was able to configure itself. So I'm gonna try it out for a while. Got to try a few apps and see how they work. Most notably CS2 and Call of Duty, World at War. LOL. The only game I play but I hope it runs better at 64 bits. Probably will have to DL an updated driver for the vid card. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:44:37 AM · #32 |
Im going to try to get it on my laptop this afternoon :) One of the IT guys here has it installed and gave me a brief tour and OMG it's looking sweet
-dave
ETA: I LOVE THE PROBLEM STEPS RECORDER! we tested it out and holy shit its awesome!
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 11:45:45. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:51:48 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:01:23 PM · #34 |
| Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, XP were the only decent windows ever released. Any other releases of windows sucked to the extreme, including Vista. I will not upgrade from XP until Microsoft comes out with a decent os again. Hopefully, this glorified Vista(Windows 7) will be equivalent to XP. If not, I will hang on to XP until I am forced to upgrade. Hopefully by then, Apple will have something decent enough and compatible enough with windows software to justify going to Apple. I am hesitant now, because a friend of mine has Apple, and DP doesn't work right on it. Seems he can't score over a 5 with any submission he puts in a challenge with his Apple computer. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:52:06 PM · #35 |
| Rugman, get the RC and try for yourself. It's not hard to put on a separate partition and try dual boot. It will make you a believer. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:11:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, XP were the only decent windows ever released. |
Have you been living in an alternative universe perhaps?? XP is widely regarded as the first really solid version of Windows. Win 9X was horridly unsecure, crashed at the drop of a hat, and needed a clean install every 6b months to keep a machine running well. And Win3.X, well, I still have nightmares.
No, XP was not perfect, but the fact that pretty much all of the business world still runs it as a client OS, and a *ton* of industrial equipment manufacturers actually use it to host machine control interfaces, speaks volumes.
Vista is much maligned, and yes, MS did make mistakes with it, but since SP1 it has been pretty much rock solid. I'd *never* go back to XP by choice, and again that says a lot given 8 years of generally good satisfaction with XP. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:53:55 PM · #37 |
Same with me on Vista. I've never had a problem. Rugman...are you in an alternative universe?
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, XP were the only decent windows ever released. |
Have you been living in an alternative universe perhaps?? XP is widely regarded as the first really solid version of Windows. Win 9X was horridly unsecure, crashed at the drop of a hat, and needed a clean install every 6b months to keep a machine running well. And Win3.X, well, I still have nightmares.
No, XP was not perfect, but the fact that pretty much all of the business world still runs it as a client OS, and a *ton* of industrial equipment manufacturers actually use it to host machine control interfaces, speaks volumes.
Vista is much maligned, and yes, MS did make mistakes with it, but since SP1 it has been pretty much rock solid. I'd *never* go back to XP by choice, and again that says a lot given 8 years of generally good satisfaction with XP. |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 03:39:16 PM · #38 |
I agree with  kirbic and  kenskid the most stable OS up to now has been XP and as mentioned before Vista with SP1 has become a lot better, then again I have a BG in IT so that prob helps a bit. and dont even mention anything previous to windows 2000 to me about stability as anything before that just give me nightmares esp when I can STILL recite the serial number for windows 98' ;)
Anyway installing Win7-64bit as I type this on my laptop... :)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 03:55:13 PM · #39 |
I'm not up on all the Win 7 news but....when you install Win7 on a machine using Vista 32bit...does it run at 64bit ? Or....is 64 bit part of the hardware on the machine itself?
Thanks
Originally posted by dknourek:
I agree with kirbic and kenskid the most stable OS up to now has been XP and as mentioned before Vista with SP1 has become a lot better, then again I have a BG in IT so that prob helps a bit. and dont even mention anything previous to windows 2000 to me about stability as anything before that just give me nightmares esp when I can STILL recite the serial number for windows 98' ;)
Anyway installing Win7-64bit as I type this on my laptop... :) |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 03:59:45 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm not up on all the Win 7 news but....when you install Win7 on a machine using Vista 32bit...does it run at 64bit ? Or....is 64 bit part of the hardware on the machine itself?
Thanks
Originally posted by dknourek:
I agree with kirbic and kenskid the most stable OS up to now has been XP and as mentioned before Vista with SP1 has become a lot better, then again I have a BG in IT so that prob helps a bit. and dont even mention anything previous to windows 2000 to me about stability as anything before that just give me nightmares esp when I can STILL recite the serial number for windows 98' ;)
Anyway installing Win7-64bit as I type this on my laptop... :) |
|
most CPU's made in the last 3 or 4 years will run 64bit OS's. As for windows7 there is a 32bit and 64bit version. Im not sure if you can "upgrade" vista-32 to win7-64 without it forcing a clean install. if you post the specs on the machine you want to install 7 on, one of us should be able to tell you pretty quickly if you can run 64bit or not...
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 04:26:35 PM · #41 |
thanks,
Toshiba Laptop
Satellite A205-S4787
Model PSAF0U 0CR009
Running Vista Home Premium
4GB RAM
T5300 1.73GHz Intel
32-bit operating system
Originally posted by dknourek:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm not up on all the Win 7 news but....when you install Win7 on a machine using Vista 32bit...does it run at 64bit ? Or....is 64 bit part of the hardware on the machine itself?
Thanks
Originally posted by dknourek:
I agree with kirbic and kenskid the most stable OS up to now has been XP and as mentioned before Vista with SP1 has become a lot better, then again I have a BG in IT so that prob helps a bit. and dont even mention anything previous to windows 2000 to me about stability as anything before that just give me nightmares esp when I can STILL recite the serial number for windows 98' ;)
Anyway installing Win7-64bit as I type this on my laptop... :) |
|
most CPU's made in the last 3 or 4 years will run 64bit OS's. As for windows7 there is a 32bit and 64bit version. Im not sure if you can "upgrade" vista-32 to win7-64 without it forcing a clean install. if you post the specs on the machine you want to install 7 on, one of us should be able to tell you pretty quickly if you can run 64bit or not... |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 04:31:59 PM · #42 |
kenskid, I wouldn't put it on your laptop unless you have a very large harddrive and can partition say 75G or so for the dual boot. You wouldn't want to install win7 over your existing structure, which presumably runs fine. I am testing win7 on a 2nd machine that I have. It's fine to test on your main machine so long as you go the dual boot route - when you turn the computer on it'll detect both operating systems and ask you which you want to use.
As far as 32 or 64 bit, you have to make your choice before you download. You download one of the versions as an .iso, then burn it to a DVD, then use that DVD to install. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 04:32:34 PM · #43 |
kenskid heres the specs on your processor, looks like you shouldn't have much trouble at all running 64bit windows7 if you want...
*ETA* for the record I dropped a new hard drive in my laptop for a "clean" install...
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 16:35:37. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 04:38:10 PM · #44 |
Thanks all...
I don't have 75GB unless I offload all my pics and video ! LOL...I may just do it. It is time to back up to my TWO backup drives anyway.
Originally posted by dknourek:
kenskid heres the specs on your processor, looks like you shouldn't have much trouble at all running 64bit windows7 if you want...
*ETA* for the record I dropped a new hard drive in my laptop for a "clean" install... |
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 17:21:35. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 05:15:24 PM · #45 |
Skid,
Let me tell you something Beavis,
VISTA SUCKS DONKEY DOO!!!! Requires too much resources to run, and not particularly stable. Win 95 & 98 were two of the better ones. Not quite as user friendly as XP, but were pretty damn stable. I don't know why someone said you had to re-install every 6 months, but I never had that problem. I have heard to stick an XP disc in every now and then, but I don't know why. I have never had to do this either. I guess if you are not to computer literate, and get a bunch of junk in there, and not keep up with cleaning it out on a daily basis, then I guess you will have problems. An alternate universe? You have got to be kidding me. Next thing you'll be telling me that Linux is the way to go. Wake up!!! Microsoft has sucked for years. I wish I was in an alternate universe where Microsoft actually put out solid products on a consistent basis. This has been going down since they integrated DOS into Windows. DOS RULES cd\ !!! Windows 7 is probably just a Vista update with a lot of fixes.
Originally posted by kenskid:
Same with me on Vista. I've never had a problem. Rugman...are you in an alternative universe?
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, XP were the only decent windows ever released. |
Have you been living in an alternative universe perhaps?? XP is widely regarded as the first really solid version of Windows. Win 9X was horridly unsecure, crashed at the drop of a hat, and needed a clean install every 6b months to keep a machine running well. And Win3.X, well, I still have nightmares.
No, XP was not perfect, but the fact that pretty much all of the business world still runs it as a client OS, and a *ton* of industrial equipment manufacturers actually use it to host machine control interfaces, speaks volumes.
Vista is much maligned, and yes, MS did make mistakes with it, but since SP1 it has been pretty much rock solid. I'd *never* go back to XP by choice, and again that says a lot given 8 years of generally good satisfaction with XP. |
|
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 05:34:06 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Skid,
Let me tell you something Beavis,
VISTA SUCKS DONKEY DOO!!!! Requires too much resources to run, and not particularly stable. Win 95 & 98 were two of the better ones. Not quite as user friendly as XP, but were pretty damn stable. I don't know why someone said you had to re-install every 6 months, but I never had that problem. I have heard to stick an XP disc in every now and then, but I don't know why. I have never had to do this either. I guess if you are not to computer literate, and get a bunch of junk in there, and not keep up with cleaning it out on a daily basis, then I guess you will have problems. An alternate universe? You have got to be kidding me. Next thing you'll be telling me that Linux is the way to go. Wake up!!! Microsoft has sucked for years. I wish I was in an alternate universe where Microsoft actually put out solid products on a consistent basis. This has been going down since they integrated DOS into Windows. DOS RULES cd\ !!! Windows 7 is probably just a Vista update with a lot of fixes.
|
OMG LMAO Im laughing way to hard to reply ATM.
BTW what is it with you and the name calling? |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 05:37:13 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Skid,
Let me tell you something Beavis,
VISTA SUCKS DONKEY DOO!!!!...This has been going down since they integrated DOS into Windows. DOS RULES cd\ !!! Windows 7 is probably just a Vista update with a lot of fixes. |
Ooooo-key-dokey then.
Just pointing out that your experiences are just about the precise opposite of every business IT department I've ever interacted with, and my own personal experience building my own boxes since the '90s. Ask any IT professional if they would even consider trying to support Win9X and they would laugh in your face. Better yet ask some of the ones who had to support it "back in the day."
A little history lesson for you:
Microsoft and IBM partnered to develop a GUI-based OS, but they fell out of bed, and the lawyers got involved. IBM won the fight, and got all the modern code. Microsoft got the garbage. IBM launched OS/2 based on the code they won, which was a *very* sophisticated OS for its day, true multitasking. Win3.x was a cheezy GUI plastered on top of DOS. Win 9X was a prettier GUI plastered on top of DOS. The only stable, reliable Microsoft OS prior to XP (2001) was WinNT 4.X, which many businesses did in fact use, when they weren't running Unix-based workstations for engineering applications.
What happened to OS/2? Shitty marketing and lack of capable hardware killed it off. Some industrial equipment ran OS/2, and it was rock solid stable, but no one knew the OS, few hardware manufacturers wrote drivers to support it, and it just died off. Just as Betamax was technically superior to VHS, OS/2 was far superior to Windows, but Windows won the mass market.
Fast forward to today, the landscape is quite different. The hardware is capable, and Windows is the incumbent. Linux, good as it is, still does not have the application support to be the desktop choice for business and consumers. Market reality. Win7 is not perfect, Vista was not perfect, but they are both good operating systems. Win7 seems to be a *very* good OS, but I'll have to beg off, since I have but one day's experience, and that not with a released copy.
Notice that I didn't resort to "XXX sucks donkey doo". O wait, that was supposed to be all-caps. :-P |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 05:37:56 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 05:43:24 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
 |
*snicker*
He doesn't know who he's up against... this group will pull the rug right out from under him! |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 05:49:46 PM · #50 |
roflmao, I don't think I have ever heard you snicker before Kirbic.
You made me spit out my beer! |
|
