I'm having trouble deciding what to buy in regards to Windows 7

[Pattonias]

I need to do a fresh install of a new OS on my desk top and would like to know whether or not the "Upgrade" is a full install. I figure that it is not, but I would like to hear it from someone else that may have already installed the new OS (Home Premium) before I pay the $100 difference when I make a purchase. The computer has a copy of XP that is not entirely, completely, totally, actually licensed so I figured I'll go ahead and give Microsoft their due with a fresh install of licensed software.

 

[Topher925]

The "upgrade" can be installed as a completely new OS. MS calls this a "custom" installation. I think W7 may just ask you for the key to what ever operating system it is that your "upgrading" upon installation.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This may help you, especailly page 2:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/windows_7_upgrade_guide_all_your_questions_answered"

 

[waht]

I think windows 7 is a joke. I spent half a day helping a friend configuring the ultimate edition which costs around $200 bucks. It detected and installed it's own sound driver, which produced no sound, and didn't accept to install the manufacture's sound driver. It has redundant control panel whose links point to same menus. And Idle ram usage was 800 mb. The only thing that was nice about it was aestehics, that's it.

If you are windows xp user, I would stay with it.

An alternative is linux ubuntu which is 100% free and has all the funcionality of windows ultimate edition.

 

[Pattonias]

Thank you, I appreciate it.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I think windows 7 is a joke. I spent half a day helping a friend configuring the ultimate edition which costs around $200 bucks. It detected and installed it's own sound driver, which produced no sound, and didn't accept to install the manufacture's sound driver. It has redundant control panel whose links point to same menus. And Idle ram usage was 800 mb. The only thing that was nice about it was aestehics, that's it.

So the entire operating system is a joke because you have 3 minor complaints?

If you are windows xp user, I would stay with it.

Windows XP definitely isn't better than Windows 7.

The fact is that WinXP is being phased out especially where new hardware is concerned. We all have to move on some time, and Windows 7 is better than WinXP in every way except maybe hardware requirements (not surprising).

An alternative is linux ubuntu which is 100% free and has all the funcionality of windows ultimate edition.

Ubuntu is kind of a cool operating system for a netbook if you are an experienced computer user that can figure out how to handle advanced trobleshooting and writing/finding your own drivers. It can't really compete with Windows however, and it certainly doesn't have the full functionality of Ultimate Edition out of the box. The fact that 99% of all software out there is either designed for Windows or Mac makes Ubuntu a poor choice for a "standard user" if they want to do more than web surfing and typing emails.

 

[slider142]

The upgrade contains the same software as the full package; it only requires that you have a valid license for Windows XP or Windows Vista in the license agreement. According to http://windowssecrets.com/2009/11/12/02-Clean-install-Windows-7-from-the-upgrade-disc, Windows 7 can be installed over Windows XP installations that have not been validated, however this does not guarantee that your install will work. There are also several workarounds for installation of upgrades on blank disks.
Provided it works, you can even use the http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd671583.aspx to transfer settings like Favorites, etc. and user files from your old Windows XP user folders to the new Windows 7 Users folders so that you can be up and running in familiar territory, assuming you are upgrading from 32-bit to 32-bit and you choose not to format the drive.
If you choose to format the drive, or are upgrading to 64-bit, you can still use the Windows Easy Tansfer tool to preserve your user files and settings before the upgrade to an external drive.
Also, if you have or plan on getting 4GB or more of RAM for your computer, and you have a 64-bit processor, use the 64-bit edition of Windows 7 (it comes in the same box with the 32-bit edition). It will allow you to utilize more than the 3.5 GB that 32-bit Windows is limited to. Ensure first that all of your critical devices have 64-bit drivers available from the manufacturer's websites.

 

[Evo]

I need to do a fresh install of a new OS on my desk top and would like to know whether or not the "Upgrade" is a full install. I figure that it is not, but I would like to hear it from someone else that may have already installed the new OS (Home Premium) before I pay the $100 difference when I make a purchase. The computer has a copy of XP that is not entirely, completely, totally, actually licensed so I figured I'll go ahead and give Microsoft their due with a fresh install of licensed software.

If you purchased your new computer after the end of June, you get a free upgrade to Windows 7. I'm elligible, but afraid of getting more junk I don't want. I spent a day figuring how to disable crap like tab browsing, and a myriad of other nuisances some people call "features".

I finally have my computer working half way decent again and moving to 7 scares the heck out of me.

 

[waht]

So the entire operating system is a joke because you have 3 minor complaints?

Well, no. My objection is that you have to pay for the software and not gain anything substantial in return, from what your already have.

Windows XP definitely isn't better than Windows 7

Windows 7 uses the same kernel as Windows Vista with minor tweaks. And Vista was the next big improvement since XP.

The fact is that WinXP is being phased out especially where new hardware is concerned. We all have to move on some time, and Windows 7 is better than WinXP in every way except maybe hardware requirements (not surprising).

This is what the company wants you to think. The majority of businesses still use XP, and IE6 which forces Microsoft to perpetually postpone the phasing out date.

The reason is: if you have a sufficient software for a specific task why bother upgrading?

Ubuntu is kind of a cool operating system for a netbook if you are an experienced computer user that can figure out how to handle advanced trobleshooting and writing/finding your own drivers.

Both windows and linux support kernel modules, however in linux you can compile your own kernel, and make your own system calls.

It can't really compete with Windows however, and it certainly doesn't have the full functionality of Ultimate Edition out of the box.

Can't think of a thing you can't do on Ubuntu that you can on Windows, except having issues with software made for Windows running on Ubuntu. Similar software to bitlocker in Windows 7 Ultimate Edition was available for linux before Vista came out.

The fact that 99% of all software out there is either designed for Windows or Mac makes Ubuntu a poor choice for a "standard user" if they want to do more than web surfing and typing emails.

Yes and no. Although Linux has much less hardware support than Windows, almost all the software for the average user is available for free. You can get pretty much anything you like, from video editors, high quality photoshop, or free anti-virus and firewall which you don't need anyway. But there is still software out there that can only run on Windows well, and someone needs to use it. The question is if you are ever going to use such a software?

As a final comment: I'm not arguing that Ubuntu is better than Windows. Both probably can do something better than the other can't. But to restate what I said, why bother upgrading if your task works well on what you have, or rather, if you want to upgrade - do it cost effectively.

 

[Pattonias]

Well, this computer is primarily a media center. I have it attached to a plasma screen television. At first I tried Mythbuntu and had a great deal of trouble with the Video Card drivers. The only driver that anyone claimed could work for the particular video card I had, had to be manually configured in order to operate (i.e. cmd). Everytime that I configured the driver, I would restart the computer and have absolutely no video. Ultimately I would have to reinstall the OS, having no way of looking back over the driver. I could not even switch back to the default driver and use the built in video on my mother board...
All that being said, I just don't have the patience for Ubuntu.
I installed XP and had few problems. A few drivers issues and a missing .dll file and I was up and running.

I took the next step and installed a Blu-ray drive and a new sound card that had an optical output.

My first mistake was installing both at the same time not thinking that I would have serious conflicts that could result in the computer becoming useless. My second was buying a new sound card with little or no online background, thus no ability to troubleshoot. Ultimately the registry was irreparably damaged and the mouse and keyboard quit working (I have no idea how that even happened).

I know I need to reinstall the OS and get a clean start, but after hearing all the good reviews for W7, I decided maybe it was time to get a legal, functioning OS and try out some of the networking advantages that you can have with Windows media center.

I am using a 64bit Dual core 2.1 GH Intel Proc. with 8 Gig of ram and Dual SLI 8600 Nvidia graphics cards. I'm using a Creative 5.1 Surround card, but will have to tweak/replace this card if I still have conflicts with other hardware. I don't remember who's Blu-ray drive I have, but I also have a Lite-On DVD drive.
I know that 8 gigs of ram are not really necessary, but I use RamDisk software to create faster caches for programs that I use often or at the same time.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

If you purchased your new computer after the end of June, you get a free upgrade to Windows 7. I'm elligible, but afraid of getting more junk I don't want. I spent a day figuring how to disable crap like tab browsing, and a myriad of other nuisances some people call "features".

I finally have my computer working half way decent again and moving to 7 scares the heck out of me.

Don't be afraid Evo, Windows 7 is really a much slicker implementation than Vista, and has excellent custom support both online and through other users. I can even help you because I'm running Windows 7 right now, which means if you needed help with some troubleshooting, I (or anyone else running Windows 7) can connect to your computer through the internet (with your permission of course) and help you sort out the issue.

I have done this a couple of times with my father in law, it worked very well!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Well, no. My objection is that you have to pay for the software and not gain anything substantial in return, from what your already have.

You gain 3rd party driver support for a start! Windows is on a ton of computers, therefore companies spend money to make sure their software and hardware works with it. That is by far the biggest problem with Linux, having to hunt around the internet for unsupported random drivers written by some HaXor dude only to find out they don't work with your specific hardware version. I've tried to go down this road a couple of times, and it never ended well. Driver support was always spotty, I felt like I was alway troubleshooting some weird problem, much of the software I wanted didn't work properly, etc. etc.

I can appreciate packages like Ubuntu for what they are, and being free is pretty awesome considering what you get; but you definitely have to be a power user to get it to run. As long as you can get drivers, Ubuntu is good for use as an alternative operating system on netbooks for net surfing and simple document editing, but that's about it.

Windows 7 uses the same kernel as Windows Vista with minor tweaks. And Vista was the next big improvement since XP.

That being said, Windows 7 is a far cry from Vista. Using the same kernel doesn't make them the same software.

This is what the company wants you to think. The majority of businesses still use XP, and IE6 which forces Microsoft to perpetually postpone the phasing out date.

The reason is: if you have a sufficient software for a specific task why bother upgrading?

Microsoft is a business and has to make money- I'm fine with that. As long as they have software I want, and they support it and stand behind it, I'm fine with buying it. It's a lot of work to make a software package that installs so seamlessly on such a wide range of machines with infinite different combinations of hardware. It's costs money for them to develop it, and they are right to want to be compensated.

You're right, if your computer works exactly the way you want it to right now there's no reason to change it. The problem is that running a complex operating system take maintinence, and that maintenance is easier with operating systems that are currently supported and have current drivers available.

Both windows and linux support kernel modules, however in linux you can compile your own kernel, and make your own system calls.

Compiling your own kernel and adding your own system calls aren't necessary if the software is designed to work with your system to start with. I prefer to just get software and run it; it seems like it's never a guarantee with Linux-based systems.

Can't think of a thing you can't do on Ubuntu that you can on Windows, except having issues with software made for Windows running on Ubuntu. Similar software to bitlocker in Windows 7 Ultimate Edition was available for linux before Vista came out.

Bitlocker is one of the least useful parts of Windows 7 Ultimate IMO.

Ease of use is a big factor too. Sure you can in theory do <almost> everything in Ubuntu, but how long does it take to get it to work in the first place? What happens when you want to collaborate with colleagues? Everything just takes more work, when you can just buy a Windows box and be ready to go with minimum effort. I'd prefer to spend $200 and save myself the headaches for the next 5 years. Id rather spend time actually accomplishing something than compiling kernels and hunting for drivers in the bowels of the internet.

Yes and no. Although Linux has much less hardware support than Windows, almost all the software for the average user is available for free. You can get pretty much anything you like, from video editors, high quality photoshop, or free anti-virus and firewall which you don't need anyway. But there is still software out there that can only run on Windows well, and someone needs to use it. The question is if you are ever going to use such a software?

You can find free software packages for Windows too, you know. Video editors (I use Handbrake and FlaskMpeg), photo editing (Gimp, for a start), free antivirus (AVG Free), etc are all available. It's not like Linux is the only operating system that has open source freeware available.

As a final comment: I'm not arguing that Ubuntu is better than Windows. Both probably can do something better than the other can't. But to restate what I said, why bother upgrading if your task works well on what you have, or rather, if you want to upgrade - do it cost effectively.

I guess you have to decide how much your time is worth. It's just as easy (if not easier) to find open-source freeware for Windows, and in addition you get a lot of functionality that has to be added and/or hacked into Ubuntu.

 

[Pattonias]

When I get home Sunday I will begin round one of the epic "Installation of of Windows 7 on a Home built Desktop/Media Center!". I'll make sure to keep yall posted on how well it goes one way or another. I purchased a licensed 200 dollar fresh install of W7 as I did not have a licensed copy of XP on my machine. Wish me luck.

 

[Pattonias]

Just to make this interesting I have a blu-ray drive and a optical out 5.1 sound card. Driver fun galore. Let's see how this goes.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

When I get home Sunday I will begin round one of the epic "Installation of of Windows 7 on a Home built Desktop/Media Center!". I'll make sure to keep yall posted on how well it goes one way or another. I purchased a licensed 200 dollar fresh install of W7 as I did not have a licensed copy of XP on my machine. Wish me luck.

My computer's home-built too and I have had minimal issues. And I'm running 64-bit, which can be more difficult to find drivers for.

Just to make this interesting I have a blu-ray drive and a optical out 5.1 sound card. Driver fun galore. Let's see how this goes.

You shouldn't have any problems, especially with the Blu-Ray drive. The sound card should be ok but it will depend on current support for it. Windows has recognized all of my hardware no problemo.

 

[Pattonias]

Wow, this was the easiest install I have ever done. It took about two hours to format the HDs and install the OS. The OS recognized all my hardware initially so I will not have to do any creative driver play to recognize the hardware. The next step will be to install the software that will allow the Blu-ray to actually play Blu-ray. After that I will install the drivers I need in order to use the Optical out on my sound card to play 5.1. If these two things work out I will have to throw a small party to christen my machine.
Now to start designing invitations.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm glad it went well for you!

The best part of Windows 7 IMO is it's integrated with Windows update, which means it can search Microsoft's database for the latest drivers for a piece of hardware. In the past (Windows XP or 98 for example) this integration didn't exist, which meant the disc had to have a TON of drivers on it. Also, the smart reporting of problems you encounter with suggested solutions has worked well for me.

 

[waht]

Glad you got it working too and in one sweep.

 

[rcgldr]

My main issue with Windows 7 versus Windows XP is gaming related. The video drivers for XP run more stuff at ring 0, allowing them to run a bit faster. Windows 7 also requires fiddling with administrative rights to allow some of the games to operarate properly.

If I do get Windows 7, I'll end up buying the full version since I don't want to invalidate my XP license in case I have to reactivate because of a hardware upgrade. Based on what I've read, my current system with 2GB would be marginal with Windows 7, so I'll buy it along with a new system, but not the OEM version so I won't have to worry about upgrading my new system a few years down the road.

If I do get a new system, I'll probably setup a dual boot for Windows 7 and Windows XP, using multiple partitions. If nothing else, I can use one of the OS's to do a full backup of the other OS partition with a simple file copy to a backup partition on a second hard drive.

 

[waht]

You gain 3rd party driver support for a start! Windows is on a ton of computers, therefore companies spend money to make sure their software and hardware works with it. That is by far the biggest problem with Linux, having to hunt around the internet for unsupported random drivers written by some HaXor dude only to find out they don't work with your specific hardware version. I've tried to go down this road a couple of times, and it never ended well. Driver support was always spotty, I felt like I was alway troubleshooting some weird problem, much of the software I wanted didn't work properly, etc. etc.

That's the down side, I agree.

I can appreciate packages like Ubuntu for what they are, and being free is pretty awesome considering what you get; but you definitely have to be a power user to get it to run. As long as you can get drivers, Ubuntu is good for use as an alternative operating system on netbooks for net surfing and simple document editing, but that's about it.

Ubuntu and other distros were running on PCs way before netbooks were ever conceived.

That being said, Windows 7 is a far cry from Vista. Using the same kernel doesn't make them the same software.

The kernel is the essence of the OS. The transition from Vista to Windows 7 is the same as getting a new edition of a book - same content but with a new and colorful cover.

They could have easily made the new upgrade and tweaks in windows 7 as a freely downloadable patch to Vista. But instead they chose to charge crazy amount of money for a new product which it isn't.

Is this their due?

Microsoft is a business and has to make money- I'm fine with that. As long as they have software I want, and they support it and stand behind it, I'm fine with buying it. It's a lot of work to make a software package that installs so seamlessly on such a wide range of machines with infinite different combinations of hardware. It's costs money for them to develop it, and they are right to want to be compensated.

Sure they do, they are a company. But at least make a product that will exceed its predecessors. Make a product with real breakthroughs that will have geeks stand in lines in front of stores 'til midnight on the release date. I will gladly pay for something like that.

You're right, if your computer works exactly the way you want it to right now there's no reason to change it. The problem is that running a complex operating system take maintinence, and that maintenance is easier with operating systems that are currently supported and have current drivers available.

Alot of hardware support sucks for Linux, but that's only because the companies making hardware are only making drivers for Windows, rather than Windows is superior.

Compiling your own kernel and adding your own system calls aren't necessary if the software is designed to work with your system to start with. I prefer to just get software and run it; it seems like it's never a guarantee with Linux-based systems.

Given supported hardware, and there is plenty, Linux-based system are very stable. But this was a response to the super-advanced user that makes his/her own drivers.

Bitlocker is one of the least useful parts of Windows 7 Ultimate IMO.

It's useful for businesses that have sensitive stuff on their hard drives. You can order computers from ebay that have been liquidated, and run a software to scan the hard drive for files even though it has been formatted. Because the files haven't been encrypted, perhaps because of lack of knowledge of the users, many sensitive things can be found.

Sorry, don't have time to reply to the rest: but in the end you have to get work done on your computer, so take whatever route you need to take.

 

[Borek]

Windows 7... So far my experience is not bad, but there are things that I don't get.

I have out of the box laptop with preinstalled Windows 7. It quickly found my home net, asked for password and started to work. That was nice. I have already installed most of the software I need - that went OK. However, there is a thing I don't understand and so far was not able to make it work, although I admit I have more pressing things to do so right now I don't care too much.

I have created two users on the laptop - me as admin, and my wife as just a user with standard rights (whatever that means).

I power laptop up and log as me (admin). Net diode lights up, I can browse web and access computers in my home net (that is parts that are shared).

I power laptop and log as my wife. Net diode doesn't light up, but I can still browse the web, however, iI can't see my local net.

I power laptop, log in as me, then either switch to my wife's account or log out as admin and log in as her. Diode is up all the time, I can browse both web and local net.

It doesn't make sense - if she is to be allowed to browse our home net she should be able to do that regardless of whether I have logged in earlier or not. If she is to be not allowed to browse our home net, it shouldn't matter if I logged earlier or not. What is going on?

 

[DavidSnider]

Windows 7... So far my experience is not bad, but there are things that I don't get.

I have out of the box laptop with preinstalled Windows 7. It quickly found my home net, asked for password and started to work. That was nice. I have already installed most of the software I need - that went OK. However, there is a thing I don't understand and so far was not able to make it work, although I admit I have more pressing things to do so right now I don't care too much.

I have created two users on the laptop - me as admin, and my wife as just a user with standard rights (whatever that means).

I power laptop up and log as me (admin). Net diode lights up, I can browse web and access computers in my home net (that is parts that are shared).

I power laptop and log as my wife. Net diode doesn't light up, but I can still browse the web, however, iI can't see my local net.

I power laptop, log in as me, then either switch to my wife's account or log out as admin and log in as her. Diode is up all the time, I can browse both web and local net.

It doesn't make sense - if she is to be allowed to browse our home net she should be able to do that regardless of whether I have logged in earlier or not. If she is to be not allowed to browse our home net, it shouldn't matter if I logged earlier or not. What is going on?

I'm guessing network services run under the Admin account.

It's quite common on multi-user operating systems that only the Admin group is allowed to start-stop services and non-admin users are still able to use the services.

 

[Borek]

That makes some sense, but ATM it also means to use local (trusted) network I have to log as admin first. I will dig into that some day.

 

[Pattonias]

The kernel is the essence of the OS. The transition from Vista to Windows 7 is the same as getting a new edition of a book - same content but with a new and colorful cover.

They could have easily made the new upgrade and tweaks in windows 7 as a freely downloadable patch to Vista. But instead they chose to charge crazy amount of money for a new product which it isn't.

Is this their due?



Sure they do, they are a company. But at least make a product that will exceed its predecessors. Make a product with real breakthroughs that will have geeks stand in lines in front of stores 'til midnight on the release date. I will gladly pay for something like that.

So far W7 has been worth every penny. If they had created a new kernel just to make the OS more new they probably would have ended up with a real mess. This time they polished the old kernel and really streamlined the process. They spent nearly a year in Beta and have produced a OS that is much, much easier to use than Vista and to the casual observer totally different from Vista. I would argue that for the less savvy consumer that this is the perfect buy. If I had the time and patience I would have tried Ubuntu again, but for now I was able to get a fully functional, up to date, and supported OS for about $200 dollars (not to mention I had it installed and nearly totally functional in two hours. I literally spent three days trying to get Ubuntu to work, but the lack of drivers made it nearly impossible. (That is not to say that I did not have the well intended assistance of the Ubuntu experts at their support forum. They were all incredibly helpful. Unfortunately the drivers did not exist for my video cards that were easy to use.)

 

[Pattonias]

That makes some sense, but ATM it also means to use local (trusted) network I have to log as admin first. I will dig into that some day.

I am sure that is a settings issue. As I'm tuning mine I will try and see where that can be fixed. I'm sure it is a permission of some type.

 

[rcgldr]

This time they polished the old kernel and really streamlined the process.

The benchmarks run at Toms Hardware of Windows 7 versus Vista show little, if any, difference in performance:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-performance,2442.html

 

[Hepth]

I don't like those "benchmarks" . It'm not worried about improvements in how 3ds max renders one frame. Of COURSE that shouldn't change much, why would it? its nearly 100% memory and processor based...

They should do a test in how fast you can open explorer windows, search for files, ctrl alt del, load ctrl panel apps, and stuff like that. Thats true SPEED difference in terms of an OS interface.

 

[Pattonias]

So far, I think that the interface was the major change. My computer is fully functional, as of last night.
I have hooked it up to my TV and was able to watch a blu-ray with 5.1 all working nicely. I will admit that my past experiences made this installation nearly painless, so I will not argue that a newbie would have not problems installing this OS on a home computer.
As far as man hours are concerned I would say that about 4 hours were required for me to install and troubleshoot everything. The longest troubleshooting session was in regards to the software installation for the Blu-Ray drive.
I had no registry problems as I had when using xp with the same hardware and required drivers. All the drivers for everything except the video cards were already on the OS and did not need to be upgraded. The video cards (NVIDIA 9800) needed to be updated in order to play HD.
The OS interface is easy to navigate and fairly intuitive. Right now on a 64 bit machine the system at idle with Firefox open was using 900 Mb of ram. I disabled the swap file (which actually totally turned it off, as opposed to reducing it 90% percent as it did in XP).

I would recommend W7 if you need a new (legal Microsoft) OS. If you are happy with your current set up, I don't see a point is upgrading. This machine was bogged down with registry errors on XP so I decided to bite the bullet and try out this new OS. If I was able to do everything, that I have done so far with W7, with my original copy of XP I never would have upgraded.

I don't see upgrading from XP on my netbook, and I don't really see any need to upgrade from Vista on my Laptop. It just doesn't seem cost effective for the older machines.

(Next project will be installing a RAM Drive in order to boost Firefox speed.)

 

[Evo]

I am entitled to a free upgrade to Windows 7 for a new computer I bought a few months ago. I'm terrifed, I saw the "preview" and it looks like there are some fun things added like shaking files on the desktop, but other than that I don't know what "features" it will add that I won't like. When I got my new computer I spent a couple of weeks shutting off all of the great stuff that came with Vista.

 

[Astronuc]

We just bought a new PC (64-bit) with Windows7. There are some compatibility issues, both with Windows 7 and IE8, which is bundled in Windows7.

Some older software has problems with Windows7 or IE8, and some sites have problems with IE8. May need to update Java and other apps.

Also, the Win7 computer has the network printer. If one has XP machines on the network, one has to install a printer driver on the Win7 machine that is compatible with XP. Then the XP machines can search for the XP compatible driver on the Win7 box.

And like Evo indicated with Vista, Win7 has ways of doing things that I just don't care for. We've had to undo some of the bells and whistles that we don't like.

 

[rcgldr]

windows 7 ... vista benchmarks

I don't like those "benchmarks" . It'm not worried about improvements in how 3ds max renders one frame. Of COURSE that shouldn't change much, why would it? its nearly 100% memory and processor based...

Except what wasn't covered there is the fact that Windows XP is faster than Vista and Windows 7, at least for gaming or any graphics intesive application. In Windows XP, more of the driver runs at ring 0 (privileged) level, reducing the amount of communication between the protected and non-protected part of the video driver.

I won't be getting Windows 7 until I also get a new system fast enough to compensate, and I still plan to dual boot between Windows 7 and Windows XP.

 

[Topher925]

And like Evo indicated with Vista, Win7 has ways of doing things that I just don't care for. We've had to undo some of the bells and whistles that we don't like.

Like what? When I installed W7 Pro it didn't come with any of the bells and whistles activated. It booted with only about 400MB of RAM being used and basically no features except for some security stuff.

Except what wasn't covered there is the fact that Windows XP is faster than Vista and Windows 7, at least for gaming or any graphics intesive application.

I doubt it. Maybe for some older games that will max out the RAM on your computer but every game I have runs faster on W7 than on XP. One of the biggest reasons for this is DX10 for games like Crysis but in any case, your VGA drivers are going to make a much bigger difference than your OS.

In Windows XP, more of the driver runs at ring 0 (privileged) level, reducing the amount of communication between the protected and non-protected part of the video driver.

I'm pretty sure the ring 0 thingy only applies to the x86 instruction set and not the newer x64 instruction set. Since most x64 OS's (I think) use a "sandbox" or UAC type structure only the kernel itself is allowed to operate at the ring 0 level. I would imagine this wouldn't make much of a difference since I think the OS would allow direct communication with hardware for something like a VGA driver, just not direct control.

 

[rcgldr]

Windows XP is faster than Vista and Windows 7, at least for gaming

Maybe for some older games that will max out the RAM on your computer but every game I have runs faster on W7 than on XP.

Tom's Hardware article about XP versus Vista:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

For Vista and Windows 7, the drivers run in ring 1 instead of sharing ring 0 with the kernel. In the case of XP, it's a throw back to when NT supported the no longer existing Alpha processors that only had two priority levels, so in order to share code, XP ended up with just 2 levels instead of being able to use all 4 on the Intel compatable cpus.

The performance differences for most games is small enough that it probably doesn't matter, unless you don't have enough ram to run Windows 7 and the game properly. From what I read, 3GB or more of ram is recommended. My current system only has 2 GB of ram.

The other annoyance is the UAC (user account control) that keeps getting in the way when installing or playing games. I'm not sure how securerom and other protection schemes used on older games will run under Windows 7.

As I mentioned before, in my case, I plan to buy a non-upgrade version so I can dual boot Win 7 and XP. I can then use each of the OS's to back up the other OS partition by copying them to partitions I have on a second hard drive used for backup purposes and swap file.

 

[Pattonias]

I would recommend having four gigs of ram if using W7. The OS could easilly top out anything less when multi-tasking and it is nice when to have a bit of a buffer to prevent problems. Also, having enough memory to avoid using your swap file will insure faster, more reliable operating.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have noticed that the 64 bit version does use considerably more memory than the 32 bit version. This is not a problem for me as I have plenty of RAM, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have noticed that the 64 bit version does use considerably more memory than the 32 bit version. This is not a problem for me as I have plenty of RAM, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this.

I think you might be right about that. I usually see "idle" usage from 800MB to about 1.1GB. Still, it could be I have so much it doesn't try too hard to conserve it- I'm running 8GB of ram

 

[Topher925]

Tom's Hardware article about XP versus Vista:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

The link you posted only compares XP to Vista, not W7. Also, that comparison is almost 3 years old and uses a graphics card that doesn't even support DX10. The computer they tested it on also only has 2 gigs of DDR800 RAM. In other words, ANYTHING you run on XP on that machine will perform better because it is simply limited by hardware. If you did the same benchmarks on a W7 machine with decent hardware and up to date software I believe you will always see a performance increase.

 

[slider142]

I would recommend having four gigs of ram if using W7. The OS could easilly top out anything less when multi-tasking and it is nice when to have a bit of a buffer to prevent problems. Also, having enough memory to avoid using your swap file will insure faster, more reliable operating.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have noticed that the 64 bit version does use considerably more memory than the 32 bit version. This is not a problem for me as I have plenty of RAM, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this.

The recommended amount of RAM for the 64-bit edition is 2GB. However, I am running Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on a laptop with Intel integrated graphics and only 2GB DDR2 memory and frequently multitask with multiple browser windows while listening to music (Zune application) in the background with very little performance hit. In fact, this laptop used to run Vista and 7 runs applications much more responsively. If you intend on doing critical graphics/sound/video editing however, you will need more memory.

 

[Pattonias]

The recommended amount of RAM for the 64-bit edition is 2GB.

There is really no point in using the 64 bit OS with any less than 4 gigs. You use at least half of your RAM at idle. If the computer is limited in the space you have available for RAM then you may get by, but if at all possible you should use at least four. There are so many possibilities for optimization when you don't have to worry about running out of RAM.

If you can only use 2GB I would recommend installing 32 bit anyway.