Who else just installed windows 7 ? First Impressions

Outkast_IRE

I didnt want the thread to descend into this .....
I just wanted other people who have installed windows 7 to give their first impressions

paddy2k

I'm another Ultimate7 64bit installer here.
Did a clean instal over Vista and was very happy to see it pick up XP in my second partition, as Vista killed it last time.

The install process was just as smooth as I've become accustomed to when installing Ubuntu.

I had Build 7000 installed using a vhd (not virtualized just a virtual disk) and it got very slow after a couple of boots.

Windows 7 is nice but it's not gonna make me change from Linux.

transylman

The search box in the menu helps in finding your way around the new operating system. Lots of eye candy. Still not sure what to make of the new taskbar. Think I would prefer if folders at least were shown separately (i think this is an option).

Main problem is my system is too slow to run it without constant freezes eveytime I open something, so I am going back to XP until I get a new computer.

paddy2k

You're right Outkast_ire people are getting off topic.

First impressions:
1. it doesn't boot as fast as i'd expected, moblin and ubuntu 9.04 are much faster.

2. The new task bar is good, a new take on open applications and shortcuts in one. It'll take some getting used to for some people but most people should warm to it pretty quickly. The only thing is that it's easy to get lost if multiple instances of the same application are open.

3. The multiple windows/tabs preview is pretty cool, as is the ability to launch an applications tasks by right clicking on it.

4. The control panel settings are once again hidden behind a wall of fudge, it's been harder and harder to get to settings in ever version since 98.

All in all as the next version instance of the windows series it's a pretty good os. One thing i would like to know is have microsoft fixed the horrorendously slow file copying and zipping functions?

Outkast_IRE

paddy2k wrote: »

You're right Outkast_ire people are getting off topic.

First impressions:
1. it doesn't boot as fast as i'd expected, moblin and ubuntu 9.04 are much faster.

2. The new task bar is good, a new take on open applications and shortcuts in one. It'll take some getting used to for some people but most people should warm to it pretty quickly. The only thing is that it's easy to get lost if multiple instances of the same application are open.

3. The multiple windows/tabs preview is pretty cool, as is the ability to launch an applications tasks by right clicking on it.

4. The control panel settings are once again hidden behind a wall of fudge, it's been harder and harder to get to settings in ever version since 98.

All in all as the next version instance of the windows series it's a pretty good os. One thing i would like to know is have microsoft fixed the horrorendously slow file copying and zipping functions?

Well the control panel settings should have a classic view im looking at the moment but cant see it , vista had it so i presume this does .
I thought startup would be quicker too but its fast enough if i wanted faster i would get a ssd.

thebman

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well the control panel settings should have a classic view im looking at the moment but cant see it , vista had it so i presume this does .
I thought startup would be quicker too but its fast enough if i wanted faster i would get a ssd.

Click category on top right in control panel and select large icons to go to classic control panel.

Kintarō Hattori

I got myself a copy of Vista Ultimate and installed it on the main PC the other night. I was told that you can install both the 32bit and 64bit versions (seperate discs in box) on different PCs as there are two licence keys. I only see one myself so I suspect he must be wrong.

paddy2k

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I got myself a copy of Vista Ultimate and installed it on the main PC the other night. I was told that you can install both the 32bit and 64bit versions (seperate discs in box) on different PCs as there are two licence keys. I only see one myself so I suspect he must be wrong.

At the win7 launch in DIT microsoft explained that there is only one licence provided despite providing the two disks. Only one install is allowed per licence, that includes virtual machine running on a licenced machine.

Bob_Harris

So apart from the cool name, why are people paying the premium price for Windows 7 Ultimate?

I'd wager a lot of people don't need the "extra" features at all.

thebman

Bob_Harris wrote: »

So apart from the cool name, why are people paying the premium price for Windows 7 Ultimate?

I'd wager a lot of people don't need the "extra" features at all.

JIC (Just in Case)

Cianos

Have just installed 7, and so far it seems very nice. The design is actually pleasant, and it feels a lot more solid than Vista. Not quite sure yet about the functionality of the taskbar, active programmes can take up a lot of screen space even if they're just passively working in the background (eg MSN Messenger). But I think I'll enjoy using 7 and hope it gives me less headaches than Vista.

thebman

Cianos wrote: »

Have just installed 7, and so far it seems very nice. The design is actually pleasant, and it feels a lot more solid than Vista. Not quite sure yet about the functionality of the taskbar, active programmes can take up a lot of screen space even if they're just passively working in the background (eg MSN Messenger). But I think I'll enjoy using 7 and hope it gives me less headaches than Vista.

I love the new taskbar

Its the windows should always have been IMO.

flyswatter

I ordered a Dell laptop there with Vista on it that hasn't arrived yet. I probably have a free upgrade to Windows 7 but I don't think I'll be installing Windows 7 as soon as I get it. I have an M Audio Fast Track Ultra soundcard and theres no Win 7 drivers for it yet so I think I'll wait for them before I take the plunge.

Biggins

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

I have a laptop (2.5 years old) running XP media edition with 1Gb RAM, would it be worth my time installing Windows 7 on that or should I just wait until I upgrade my laptop (in about 2 years time:( )

I installed one copy of Win 7 on an old laptop that had 512 mb of ram.
Worked absolutely grand. No hassle -and still was faster at starting up than Vista on another with its 4 gigs of ram!
Mad stuff. LOL :pac:

Biggins

Bob_Harris wrote: »

So apart from the cool name, why are people paying the premium price for Windows 7 Ultimate?
I'd wager a lot of people don't need the "extra" features at all.

Some folk are paying for it due to the virtual operating system feature added on and the Bitlocker in-built functionality, amid other reasons.

Cianos wrote: »

...Not quite sure yet about the functionality of the taskbar...

thebman wrote: »

I love the new taskbar

The taskbar nice as it is, can be reduced in size remember by right-clicking on it, going to "properties" and selecting "Use small icons".
I did this on all my systems and still it looks great.

Dartz

Had a hell of a time getting my graphics card drivers to work.

The latest Nvidia ones "worked", but at the same time, they didn't give me the control panel so I could actually do anything with them. The old Dell Vista drivers worked slower, but at the same time they gave me the control panel I liked.

It was a pain in the arse to get them working either way, because they didn't work off the disk.

I also got a rather nasty surprise when Windows smashed my parition table so badly that my Xubuntu install next door to it was just gone... the partition was erased. Not very nice, Mr Ballimer.

But then again, It gave me an excuse to install 9.10 RC

Bob_Harris

Biggins wrote: »

Some folk are paying for it due to the virtual operating system feature added on and the Bitlocker in-built functionality, amid other reasons.

According to the Microsoft website, Ultimate costs $100 more than Home Premium for 4 extra features.

• Windows XP Mode - Free and more advanced alternative in VirtualBox.
  
• BitLocker - Free and more advanced alternative in Truecrypt.
  
• Domain Join - Valuable for Business use. There are plenty of ways to connect into a Domain already.
  
• Back up to a home or business network - No explanation given for this feature. Most likely comes into play if the business has a Windows Server running with multiple Windows clients connected. Not applicable to non business users.

Amid other reasons? Like uncontrollable consumerism? :pac:

Ricky91t

Happily running professional 32 bit for a week now,I'm yet to run into an issue with it,It's great

Recommend reducing the buttons on the task bar,Looks much nicer

Johnny Bitte

Put the beta on my laptop and loved it. So much easier to use than Vista.
Now I have the RC and couldn't be happier. Its great. So will have no problem installing the full version shortly.

Now, in work its a different story. Got an old laptop and stuck it on and while the performance was great, the incompatibility with programs (Lotus notes, Active directory etc) was annoying.

So got a new pc and used xp mode to install them, and it is great i have to say. It open s like a remote desktop session and you install whatever you like. Then it appears on the start menu. But again Active directory would not work and when you click to open any program installed in xp mode a load window opens for a few seconds which could get tedious.

Bob_Harris

I don't think the superbar works that well.

When you have one or two pinned applications and a few non pinned applications running they all get muddled up so instead of the logical layout of having a set of quick launch icons to the left then all of the open windows to the right they end up in a mishmash, sometimes with pinned applications which are not running in between the open windows.

Also lets say I have notepad pinned to the taskbar, and I want open a file up with it by dragging the file and dropping it on the notepad icon. With quick launch icons you can do this, but with superbar pinned apps you cannot. Instead it asks if you want to pin the file to the application.

And finally, if I do have a file pinned to an application, why are the pinned files at the very top of the list, above the recent files? I right click, or single click and move the mouse up, on a pinned application to see my pinned files nearly at the top of the screen, so I have to move my mouse all the way up to click on them.

Pinned files should be at the very bottom, because they are obviously file you are using a lot, so they should be first in order.

markfla

what's the difference between the 32 and 64 bit? I'm not that savy with this stuff.

BostonB

I was running Windows 7 for quite a while. But same as Vista I had lots of problems with ownership rights on the files on my external drives. I never really got root of the problem. So I went back to XP on my main machine and Vista on the other one. Vista drivers worked better then Windows 7 on that machine. I might try it again now.

Bob_Harris

markfla wrote: »

what's the difference between the 32 and 64 bit? I'm not that savy with this stuff.

Well the first thing to consider is do you have a 64bit cpu?

64bit allows you to use more RAM, and if you install 64bit software you may see an improvement performance.

You might run into trouble finding 64bit drivers for older hardware/peripherals.

32bit is the safest bet.

Paulw

Bob_Harris wrote: »

64bit allows you to use more RAM, and if you install 64bit software you may see an improvement performance.

You might run into trouble finding 64bit drivers for older hardware/peripherals.

Is there any way to work out which would be best for your system?

I installed 32bit, but am wondering if I should have gone 64bit.

Bob_Harris

Paulw wrote: »

Is there any way to work out which would be best for your system?

I installed 32bit, but am wondering if I should have gone 64bit.

How much RAM do you have and are you planning on installing more RAM in future?
32bit can only address roughly 3GB. 64bit can address much more.

How much RAM does your graphics card have?
If you have a large amount of RAM in your graphics card it eats into your system RAM in some kind of complex mapping arrangement on 32bit systems I won't pretend to understand.

Do you do any data and processing intense activities like large scale photo editing in Photoshop or video editing?
If you can get your hands on 64bit versions of these types of applications you may see an increase in performance.

The average user should just go with 32bit to be honest.

Paulw

Hmmm, guess I might have to reinstall the 64bit.

I have 4GB ram in the machine, and 128mb graphics card.

I do a lot of photo editing, so the extra power might be handy.

Time to plan it all again, I guess.

Ricky91t

Paulw wrote: »

Hmmm, guess I might have to reinstall the 64bit.

I have 4GB ram in the machine, and 128mb graphics card.

I do a lot of photo editing, so the extra power might be handy.

Time to plan it all again, I guess.

Not many applications take advantage of 4gb of ram,Barely any applications I know of do tbh..

You'd be better off getting a better processor of a 7200 rpm hard disk to increase exporting times.

Overheal

If they manage to keep this OS as long as they ran XP for I might just buy a full Ultimate license.

Overheal

Ricky91t wrote: »

Not many applications take advantage of 4gb of ram,Barely any applications I know of do tbh..

Its good to have though when running a pool of programs, and Photoshop DEFINITELY benefits from having a 64-bit wide bus to play with. That is, if your photoshop program has a 64-bit version available. Newer Adobe ones do.

Crackity Jones

Upgraded from Vista. Really like the new taskbar and jump lists. 7 is definitely less resource hungry. Load up time from hibernate is better but cant see much improvement from startup. Well worth the €30