It is currently March 29th, 2024, 9:05 am

To seven or not

Topics unrelated to Rainmeter.
User avatar
Yelleke
Posts: 73
Joined: September 5th, 2009, 11:38 am
Location: Belgium

To seven or not

Post by Yelleke »

It is 22 october now and M$ has shipped out number seven.
I noticed some of the rainees have allready tested this version.

I know for shure I would never buy the ultimate version again.
I have it for my HTPC and to be honnest, Vista home premium does the same thing.
Now with seven, allmost every version has mediacenter included.

So, is it worth to buy or should I stick with Vista.
I think seven is Vista SP3 with an other theme

What say you
sgtevmckay

Re: To seven or not

Post by sgtevmckay »

Here is my thinking and has been developed over many months and if you include XP Pro and 64: years.

Vista has never been what was promised, and I agree that 7 is a Vista upgrade.
I believe that Windows knows this, but does not wish to undercut themselves and make a deal for the wrongs of Vista (Another topic :x )

As I have been exploring with windows 7 and working with Vista for some time here is my findings.
VISTA 32 Sucks. it is unstable and has a hard time even eating common 32 bit programs. The 64 v 32 bit CPU architecture aside, there is something wrong: like Windows made Vista 64 but, then designed a 32 bit to work.

I loved XP pro and 64. Both were the most stable and I widely utilized them in office and home settings. Combined with 3Com or Cisco products, with Server 2003, this made the most rock solid server systems (out side of Unix) that I have ever had the pleasure working on.
That being said, XP has had its time, 32 bit has had its time, and it is time to move forward.

I will be upgrading numerous systems starting late November to 7, either 32 or 64 bit.
Only one is Ultimate.

In 7 the Ultimate package is going to be something of a candy store like about the 55lb Hershey bar. It is there, but few will want, or need, it.
If you require more, get the server software (server 2008) and do the GUI updates, at least you will gain all the benefits of Vista with server capabilities and rock solid stability.
The following is a quote from the Wiki for Windows 7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Removed features
Main article: Features removed from Windows 7
A number of capabilities and certain programs that were a part of Windows Vista are no longer present or have changed, resulting in the removal of certain functionality. Some notable Windows Vista features and components have been replaced or removed in Windows 7, including the classic Start Menu user interface, Windows Ultimate Extras, InkBall, and Windows Calendar. Three applications bundled with Windows Vista — Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, and Windows Mail — are not included with Windows 7, but are instead available for free in a separate package called Windows Live Essentials.
So as far as I can tell the Ultimate 7 version has been neutered and is no longer worth my time (besides there are a load of hacks that can return most of these flashy candy features.)

I would suggest going with the Windows 7 Home Premium :!:

Now for the argument of Windows 32 or 64 :evil:
To be ruthlessly honest: I hate this discussion, and if Windows had done Vista right, there would be no discussion.
With but one group's dieing bravado: The Programmers.

64 bit has been available for more than a decade, and it is the way that software and system architecture should have gone a long time ago.
Even today's game consoles have been 64 bit for some time, and the graphics card industry is just itching to try 128 and 256 architecture.

Go and look seriously at the complaints of 64 bit, and you will find (more often than not) that they are bitching about Windows and/or Vista, not the architecture.
If you search honestly you will also find that the folks opposed to the architectural change are programmers.
Few programmers want to change because they have spent their lives in a 32 bit environment, and they do not wish to go back to school, and spend money to learn what they are doing right now.
I grew up in a family of Electronic Technicians, and we all had one thing in common: when in comes to electronics, the education never stops.
I would like to know when that philosophy changed: I bet it started about the time of the self serving generation (another argument).
The programmers primary argument is "It works in 32 bit why would you want to change?", this started when the the push came for Vista 64, so Vista, with it's crappy implementation; became an easy target for the folks that wanted to slow or even stop the Architecture advancement.
At the expense of sounding like a hypocrite: I am the first to ask for change, and the first to bitch when it does
BUT; In this case I say it is time to move forward, and well past time for that.
In my life time i have seen the death of 8 bit, 16 bit, and I am watching 32 bit. I expected movement towards 128 bit architecture by now, but Windows hung that duck to be sure.
I take great pleasure in demonizing friends and colleagues about their "Let's stick with 32 bit" attitude.
There is no reason.
Yes we left a lot of good programs behind when 32 bit killed 16 bit, but do not blame the architecture, blame the programmer that refused to change with the time.
I think that Windows 7 having a 32 bit OS architecture is a great injustice, and should not have happened.
I believe that the x86 structure to help support 32 bit programming was good (the x86 Program File), but should be a transition period, not a standard.
This Virtual XP framework from Windows: I will never use.
If the programs I use can not, or will not move to the 64 bit architecture, then these software producers and vendors do not deserve my business or yours, as these folks are the enemies of Advancement :!:

In many ways Windows & is all that was promised in Vista, but there is more. It is faster, stronger, better!

Vista 32 was and is a joke.

Vista 64 is better and seems a lot more stable, but still has a list of issues, I will not go into.

Windows 7 32 seems to have some real stability problems, again it seems that Windows made 7 a 64 bit program, and then created a 32 bit OS around it.

Although I have been only working with Windows 7 (32 & 64) in the RC stage, I find that I am most satisfied with the 64 bit.
I have never had an explore crash situation, the dynamics matches today's CPU architecture and MoBo's are aimed at he 64 bit OS (finally).
I have not drawn a firm conclusion on Windows 7 as I have yet to work with the final product over a period of time and varying situations, but I would say that the 64 bit of 7 is as stable as Windows XP Pro (Opinion reserved. Ask again in a year).

I have a lot of Clientele, and I will advise you as I have advised them:
Go Windows 7!
Go 64 bit!
Go Home Premium!


Apologies for my arrant disposition on this, but I am passionate about this move, and I find it to be a pet peeve when folks start talking the "Let's keep 32 bit" :evil:
User avatar
jsmorley
Developer
Posts: 22628
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:02 pm
Location: Fort Hunt, Virginia, USA

Re: To seven or not

Post by jsmorley »

I went with Win7 back in January and never looked back. I'm very happy with it indeed. It is far better than Vista (mostly little stuff, but they addressed many of the annoyances in Vista and did a good job) and I can't even imagine going back to XP.

I have the 32bit Win7 now, and will probably stay with it for about another year. Win32 addresses 4gig of memory (turns out only about 3.5gig is usable for applications) and that seems to be enough for me at this point. I will welcome going to 8 gig or more when I switch to 64bit, but I never even come close to using 50% of what I have now. Other than the ability to address more memory, I see no real advantage to 64bit at this time. Realistically it isn't any faster, and there are still a few older little utilities (Sandboxie is one example) that I use from time to time that won't work with it. I figure about another year, maybe six months, and I will switch over. I figure by then everything will have caught up to 64bit or it will be time to say goodbye to utilities that won't get with the program.

For most folks, I would agree. Go Win7, go 64bit and go Home Premium.
User avatar
RetardedRaven
Posts: 16
Joined: July 8th, 2009, 10:42 pm

Re: To seven or not

Post by RetardedRaven »

I've played with 7 a little, but I suppose for the mean time I'll stay XP. As for a reason? They upgraded MS Paint. This may be extremist of me, but I'm not sure if that's a change I can handle living with.
sgtevmckay

Re: To seven or not

Post by sgtevmckay »

Towards the bottom of this wiki is an excellent chart for the various Windows 7 builds and will tell you quite a bit about the different OS builds.

Hope this helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Comparison_chart
User avatar
Samus Aran
Posts: 86
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:23 pm

Re: To seven or not

Post by Samus Aran »

For me, it would say:

Go Windows 7!
Go 64 bit!
Go Home Premium!
But go and get money first. :D