Windows 7. Possibly the Best MS OS Ever?

<p>Leaked versions of Windows 7 have been out for awhile now. Starting yesterday, the public beta is now available. Reports are impressive, even with the beta that will run slower with de-bugging code running in the background. With that said, the beta runs faster than XP or Vista. It's built on/around the Vista kernel, so compatibility with drivers is already a breeze for those testing it. Testers are giving it thumbs up on 5 year old computers.</p>

<p>People trying it under Bootcamp are also impressed and state the same; it boots and runs quicker/more stable than Vista. Normally I don't give a toss about OS's nor am I a fanboy of any camp. The only thing I demand is stability and compatibility and I get that at the moment with Vista64.</p>

<p>The reason I do start this thread and feel it is relevant to digital photography is that Windows 7 in 64-bit might be an option for those with older 64-bit hardware that are running XP32 yet are wishing for a 64-bit OS (so they can use more ram) but are hesitant of Vista64. There are plenty of older P4's and dual cores out there that are 64-bit that one can still install 8 gigs of ram and then run Photoshop in CS4 64-bit.</p>

<p>Although a few kids and flame wars to ignore, some interesting Windows 7 Beta 7000 comments here.</p>

<p>http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/03/windows-7-build-7000-already-outperforming-vista-and-xp-in-real/1#comments</p>

<p>The public beta is open until 2.5 million users download it. Beta expires on August 1, 2009. I have room for another hard drive in my email box so I might just install a $60 Western Digital drive and download it. Links and info here. But work backwards from the thread as there are 500 and some odd posts and the first 2/3'rds of the thread is just complaints that the servers crashed.</p>

<p>http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/09/windows-7-beta-goes-public/#comments G</p>

Whenever Microsoft releases a new operating system, it is always "the best" ever system. Frequently a new system failed to deliver on promisses, and required multiple iterations of upgrades and patches.

 

You say "500 ... odd posts" - nothing odd about them. These are not odd posts as you say, they are just observation and experiences that will continue for much longer time. I see no reason to expect miracles, and certainly it will take time to mature the system.

<p>Frank, I think he means "500 odd" in the sense of "500 plus or minus", not "500 strange".</p>

<p>Garrison, I'm currently running XP 32 bit and I'm tempted to try the beta, but I also think installing a second internal HD is a good idea.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whenever Microsoft releases a new operating system, it is always "the best" ever system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disagree 100%. Did you miss the XP and Vista releases? It certainly wasn't fun times for users, vendors, or MS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Frequently a new system failed to deliver on promisses, and required multiple iterations of upgrades and patches.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No OS, on any platform, has been perfect out of the gate. However, W7 is the same kernel as Vista. So user experiences going from Vista to W7 will not be like it was when going from kernel to kernel when normally switching OS's; from NT to XP, or going from XP to Vista for instance.</p>

<p>Took a look, but I'll wait for the production version. I think it's just Vista SP2...</p>

<p>

If you read through some of 500 plus posts, people are running it faster than XP on really old hardware with only 512 meg of ram. This is kind of big news for me as I really have a tough time with the "light bulb" mentality with consumerism. One of the things that I love about Ubuntu is that is runs on almost anything. With 99% of the computer users out there that only surf the web and do word doc's, having an OS like Vista really pisses me off because of all the forced hardware upgrades people must do in order to run it and reply to an email. Needing two gigs of ram to run an OS in order to watch youtube makes me shake my head. With W7, I'm hoping new life can be bread into older laptops and desktops and people can jump from XP to W7 and save the world of some e-waste.

<br />

<br />

With XP32 loaded on a current 64-bit cpu computer, one can only run their older 32 bit versions of photoshop with 1.7 gigs of ram. Unless they go with the "3 gig switch" and get 2.5 gigs for PS. But with W7 64-bit, they'll be able to get 3.5 gigs providing they have 4 gigs or more installed. If they can intall more than 4 gigs on their old P4 like I can on this email box I'm using, then install W7 64-bit and CS4 64-bit, this is an attractive option than otherwise buying a new box.

<br />

<br />

<blockquote>

Frank, I think he means "500 odd" in the sense of "500 plus or minus", not "500 strange".

</blockquote>

<br />

<br />

Thanks, William. Yes, I'd like to try the 64-bit W7 beta as well.

<br />

<br />

</p>

<p><i>" If they can intall more than 4 gigs <b>on their old P4</b> like I can on this email box I'm using, then install <b>W7 64-bit</b>..."</i></p>

<p></p>

<p>Wasn't the P4 a 32-bit processor?</p>

<p>Wasn't the P4 a 32-bit processor?</p>

<p>Good point. Thanks for catching that, Songtsen. Only the last few P4's (since 2.8ghz?) were 64-bit.</p>

<p>Best MS OS ever? Windows XP for Legacy PCs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals - everything that was good about XP (which wasn't a lot but it was at least a heck of a lot better put together than Vista) and trimmed right back so that it is faster and leaner.</p>

<p>Vista is a joke. I have to use it professionally and I hate every minute of it. Sure, it looks nice (in places) but it's a usability disaster. Don't expect W7 to be much better, frankly...</p>

<p>Here I use many different OS's.<br>

<br /> I have DOS; Win 3.11. . . to VISTA<br>

<br /> I have an old electrical RF program that only runs in DOS 3.2; it will not work with 3.3. Its a 9 grand program that I paid 2 grand for; because I took a series of RF courses and got the educational discount. It requires a hardware dongle hanging off the parallel port; I am serial number 0047.<br>

<br /> I have about 2 dozen computers; plus spares. There is the old PC and XT too. An IBM 286 that cost us 5600 got scrapped out 12 years ago; it was the payroll and accounting machine.<br>

<br /> The boss hog Photoshop dream machine of 1994 ish now is on the UPS shipping table; its wattage consumption is little; way less than a modern computer. Its a 75 MHZ Pentium with 72 megs of ram; it was a 3 grand box it its day; 4 when on bumped the ram up to 72. Ram was once higher; at its peak it that era it was 1000 bucks per 16 megs. The box went from Win3.11 to win95 to win98se; it is total overkill for printing ups labels; it is paid for; it boots up real quick. The *concept* of using assets that are paid for and still work well is a foreign concept to consumer; there goal is to consume; to waste! :)<br>

<br /> In servers for running printers I use NT3.51 OEM; NT4 embedded; XT embedded. ALL 3 are not a dual cpu mateur versions; but stripped down lean variants made for the OEM market. Each LOOKS like its cousin; but is trimmer; no bload; no fat; no eyecandy. The NT3.51 OEM is so old it has to use an 8 gig drive or less; and a CPU thats no more than a Pentium; unless one hacks into the bowels and changes the CPU check lines of code. The NT3.51 server drives several 36" wide color printers; of which no 3rd party RIP was made or available. The NT and XP embeded OEM OS's are on servers that drive large printers; the CPU's are several GHZ.<br>

<br /> On normal computers NT4 was stopped using eons ago; all were upgraded to Win2000; some to XP too. NT4 does NOT have USB. NT4 with the multi cpu patch is what we used with our dual cpu 200Mhz Pros with 512 megs of ram; with Photoshop 4 that added dual cpu/core support. One had a 2.5 grand box with another 2 grand in added ram and another cpu; plus cpu#2 voltage card.</p>

<p>The Color Rip Box/Fiery for a graphic printer has Linux in its server<br /> One older box I built about 2004 has RED Hat shrike; I have dabbled with Ubuutu too.<br /> In 64 Bit I have several XP 64 bit boxes; one is an HP 3.3Ghz dual core box with 8 gigs of ram and two 2 meg L2 cores; a heater.<br>

<br /> I will download windows 7 and place it on a new HDA to mess with Windows 7 beta on one of the XP 64 bit boxes. ie just placing another HDA in the box; and swapping SATA cables and rebooting.<br /> A recent computer bought last week was a HP dinky mini tower for 340 bucks; 3 gigs of ram; dual core; 320 gig hda; dialup modem; lan card; wifi jack; speakers; keyboard, optical mouse; Vista Home premium; AMD X2 cpu.<br>

<br /> The reason I got it/VISTA BOX is we get cd's and dvd's burned by customers that are not readable with win2000; and require one to randomly try several/many XP boxes to read the bastard discs. Its a huge waste of time; it is not a CD reader issue; its some dumb canned burning issue with Vista that makes CD's or DVD's that require one to try several XP boxes. In extreme cases maybe 1 out of 5 XP boxes can read the ill disc; it the box is dumb as a stump for 5 minutes before one can copy and paste or view. The purpose of the new VISTA box is to see if this reading problem goes away; and to fart around with the burner settings to see what folks are doing.<br>

NONE of these ill discs burned on VISTA boxes are with Nero; its by Joe Six packs using the default burner program(s) . The ONE XP box that *tends* to read these ill data discs burned on Vista systems most of the time is the oldest box that I have XP Pro on; a 333Mhz dual CPU Pentium II box; its got a slow busmaster 12Mhz IDE cable ie think 1996 PPro IBM motherboard. With a balls to the wall 3.3Ghz 64 bit XP box; the CD/DVD reader(s) often spazz out and are doing a zillion retrys; "my computer" or File browsing locks up; and maybe after a few minutes one can or cannot SEE the customers files.<br>

<br /> It is really lame that the chaps who create these canned burning software(s) on consumer VISTA boxes have the default settings so that the burned discs are unreadable on win 2000; unreadable on our 2 year old Imac 20"; marginally readable on XP. The folks who create this lack of backward compatibilty with burned discs are morons; ie stupid folks who; should be fired as fakes.<br>

The US government printing jobs being sent out with these ill discs; contractors often cannot read them; they get another from the government; its still not readable; then we as a printer get the job. Since the time to do estimates is less; bidders often bid higher to cover their bases; thus the us public's cost on buildings and is higher due to these "better" OS's and Better software. If dumb canned bundled Nero from 2004 that comes with a 35 buck Walmart LG CD burner; the discs would be readable on about any mac or pc.<br>

<br /> Maybe for Windows 7 they could add a burner program so cd's and dvd's are only readable with Windows 7? :)</p>

<p>Am I the only one who is tired of this OS Upgrade crap?</p>

<p>Admittedly, early versions of windows really needed help. Win 3.n was horrible! We were all part of a "failed experiment" at that point in time. Excitement was high and expectations were low.</p>

<p>I would be less tired of the Upgrade Race if Microsoft would continue to support legacy OS software (with security upgrades etc). Win 98 worked well for me...and now I have XP working well and it is all that I need.</p>

<p>The fact that MS will not continue to support superseded software tells me that they could not continue The Madness if we were left to continue to do our jobs/hobbies with stuff we already own.</p>

<p>At the very least, we should have the choice (i.e., continued support for our chosen OS)!</p>

<p>I don't want to be forced into going through another bunch of MS BS!</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>"Whenever Microsoft releases a new operating system, it is always "the best" ever system."</p>

<p>Well, yeah. But that's just not a very high standard. The bar is set so low that they could roll over it.</p>

<p>

 

<blockquote>

Am I the only one who is tired of this OS Upgrade crap?<br />

<br />

 

</blockquote>

In the grand scheme of things, computers have just been born and not sure how one can expect to evolve like we have in the last 15 years from 8-bit to 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit operating systems without going through the 'OS upgrade crap'. I don't mind upgrading as long as it's an improvement. That means lighter by a smaller install that takes less resources and runs faster. More security...I can't complain about XP either. It's been out for a long time, MS keeps extending the support period and offering updates. But it is the most risky OS to be using these days. Vista 64 the least risky.<br />

<br />

Vista, released as it was, was a MS blunder, imo. When released it was slower and bigger and not at all what I'd call an improvement over XP. Really, I don't know what they were thinking. Now patched and everyone has caught up, Vista 64 is the best Windows OS I've ever used. Fast, stable, pretty, unlimited ram, backwards compatible with 32-bit software written for XP. Todays Vista, SP1, has a different kernel than the original release. Essentially, a different OS with the same name.

<br />

<br />

For those on computers that are are running 64-bit cpu's with XP 32-bit, going to W7 64-bit should be what one expects when OS updating; an improvement! From the little reading I've done with the limited amount of time the beta has been out, W7 sounds like they are on track. Hopefully.

 

</p>

<p> Microsoft loves to add all sorts of things to the operating systems which are unnecessary for the use of the computer for work. Taking the entertainment out of the system, things might run a lot easier. Also Microsoft needs to learn that they need to support existing hardware in their new releases, and not expect hardware manufacturers to "update" their drivers because Microsoft changed something on a whim.</p>

<p>Anyway, Vista was such a disaster that it doesn't take much to beat it in usability.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I the only one who is tired of this OS Upgrade crap?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Adobe's upgrade crap is far more egregious than OS upgrades. That you have to buy a new version of an expensive software program just to support another camera is one of the nastiest software policies of all time. OS changes don't have to be made just because I buy a new camera.</p>

<p>i think whe would say now that the best upgrade for Vista is Window 7, not Xp anymore ; )</p>

<p>hope it work well for evey user this time..and be release before 2012.</p>

<p>I certainly agree with Jeff about Adobe. They are much worse than MS.</p>

<p>The only Adobe software on my PC is the "free" "Acrobat Reader"...my last auto-update of "Reader" put an annoying link on my PC that caused an unwanted window to open every time I turned-on my machine! Took me quite a while to figure-out how to put a stopper on that.</p>

<p>Since I am not in the photography business, I am not forced to use Photoshop. I have used PWPro since I started with digital photography and am very happy with that software.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>Each new OS has more stuff; it requires more ram.<br /> <br /> With NT 3.51 and NT4 the minimum ram is just 12megs.<br /> One of our 3 grand 200Mhz Ppros came with 32 megs of ram with NT4 and we used with photoshop; it was like having say 16 to 32 gigs today as for cost; these boxes were stuffed with 512 megs when ram prices dropped.<br /> <br /> win2000 likes about 32 megs as minimum; XP about 64 megs; Vista about 512 megs.<br /> <br /> Thus one could take a 1996 200 Mhz box with NT4 and have a 5 to 7 grand dream machine with 512 megs of ram; then one could place VISTA on it and one has a slug; no room; not enough ram.<br /> <br /> <br /> ***** As the 1960's and 1970's saying goes at one of the 7 dwarfs I worked for' "software is a gas that expand to fit the available space."<br /> <br /> <br /> Thus once alot of folks have 64 bits boxes with 8 gigs of ram; an OS can expand to require say a few gigs; heck why not 4!<br /> <br /> Since ram and HDAs are cheap; lets make sloppy code! :)<br /> <br /> In the mid 1970's the HP desktop computer I used for Optical ray tracing had digital HP cassettes; special cassettes with a white area for a sensor; plus they were certifed. One formated the HP cassette with spaces for programs; say 512 bytes; 1k; maybe 2k for a big program.<br /> <br /> <br /> ***** As the 1960's saying goes in computers; the "only thing constant is change."<br /> <br /> <br /> Well we could go back to keypunch machines; punched hollerith cards; tractor feed green bar paper too; and drum memory; or core memory.<br /> One could go back to when a "computer" was a persons job title; say ww2 for calculating ball bearings; tracing optical rays; figuring trajectories; cracking coded messages.<br /> <br /> At one place I worked we had a leased Ma Bell Modem and 300 bps line for about 500 per month; thats what our isdn line was about in 1995 for a 128k up down connection; now the business cable modem is 99 per month; with 6 Mps down; about 1 Mps upload.</p>

<p>*****<br>

<br /> ***** In a few years you can buy your brand new Acme dslr and have to upgrade to CS6 to mess with the raw files; but alas you only have old Windows 7; but CS6 requires Windows 8; coded named bload.<br>

You realize that your old 64 bit box only has 16 gigs of ram; and no anal probe for digital rights management; no auto withdraw from visa account module; no Blueray reader for the 33 gig install Window 8 data disc. Thus so you do the retro Windows 8 install with NINE old obsolete dvd discs; or upgrade to blueray?<br /> <br /> Your box has the old obsolete SATA hda connectors; but no new BETA connectors that are fiber optic. You still have old usb 2 stuff; and realize that usb was dropped in bload for the new msb port; which you pay per megabyte of data passed.<br /> <br /> A friend as a bootleg msb to usb adapter and thus you are ok; if the keygen works. Your try the keygen and get a trojan; your face and id now get posted on myspace as a cheater; one that clings to the past; one who tried to work around the msb ports rules.<br /> <br /> The web updates to bload require giving them your credit card; the first updates are not that bad; just a few gigs. Folkk with just cable are just ticked off; many move to fiber to reduce upgrade times.The update seems to hang on real bload verify; you unplug the illegal msb to usb adapter to fake off the probeing and all is good.<br /> <br /> It takes awhile to find the "their computer" feature you liked. At least task manager is still there; there are only 577 processes running; ram use is 8 gigs at idle. After awhile you learn where alot of the old stuff is. Your trusty printer doesnt work with bload; no drivers; thus you buy a new printer.<br /> You are happy now that you have a few years before another upgrade cycle.<br /> <br /> A buddy just downloaded CS7 Beta ; you feel abit worried.<br>

<br /> He says Bridge is better and its quicker in Photoshop too.<br>

<br /> Its not clear if bload will support CS7 or not yet; or if you video chips will work with CS7.<br>

<br /> It came out a few months ago on the Mac; CS7 has raw support for that new ACME2 dslr you really need.<br>

<br /> If you get an ACME2 it will support nano auto focusing; but only 1/2 your lenses are ACME2 usable; the older ACME lenses from 2011 only work in non nano mode.<br>

<br /> You wonder if your old ACME lenses can be upgraded to ACME2's with nano technology or not; will they drop in price?<br>

@STOP<br>

@END<br>

@FIN</p>

<p>@</p>

<p>Agreee with Jeff 100%. It's been bugging me for years now. Every upgrade seems to offer less "wow" in features. I guess that's what happens when you gobble up your competition with aggressive take-overs and then sit on your laurels while being the only chump on the block. At least they offer the DNG converter to work backwards on older versions with todays cameras. But nevertheless, it's a joke alright. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gee, sometimes I wish I had my old Tandy (Radio Shack) TRS-80 back, with its 64K ram, a nice cassette recorder for file/software storage, and doing my own programming in BASIC.</p>

<p>Right.</p>

<p>Does anyone get how far computer technology has progressed in the last 30 years, compared to (for instance) how far aviation progressed in the 30 years following the first Wright brothers flight? And, it's still progressing at an explosive rate. That doesn't mean every new edition of a software product is going to have a whole bunch of new lights, bells and whistles. There may be a limit to how much of that is actually useful, and how much amounts to silly toys. Any new software that keeps apace with new developments in computer hardware capability is probably good. Anything that simply appeals to jack-off instincts, probably not good. But MS, Adobe, and others still have to sell their products to stay alive, or we'll all be back to programming in BASIC.</p>

<p>Change is inevitable, but you don't have to buy into every level of it. Just wait for something that you can use, and ignore the rest.</p>

<p>Linux! I like Ubuntu. It is an unbelievable value for $0. I would have to say it is easier than Windows because it comes with everything you need, or makes downloading it virtually pain free, whereas with Windows you have to spend at least a week downloading important software such as Adobe Reader, Antivirus, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Irfanview, Slowtime, etc.<br>

I really don't see how anybody can get as excited about Microsoft software as Garrison has become. Perhaps it is due to the dynamic and charismatic leadership of Steve Ballmer.</p>

<p><em> I really don't see how anybody can get as excited about Microsoft software as Garrison has become.</em></p>

<p>Hardly excited, Bill. And unaware of my past words.</p>

<p>90% of the world is on MS and everyone that wishes to use Photoshop is forced between one of two greedy corporations. With the advancements in our hardware, operating systems aren't supposed to get slower while needing more resources. W7 seems to be an improvement over XP and hopefully we can forget about the Vista mistake.</p>

<p>I respond to this on my Ubuntu 8.10 P4 that used to have XP...</p>

<p>So does Microsoft Windows 7 have the *improved* defrag like Vista; that drops the graphical interface; what each logical drives format is (fat fat32, NTFS); plus drops the status bar too? What they could to is move everything around again; rename stuff; hide it.</p>