Windows 7... finally, the windows you've been waiting for...

Windows 7 will be equal or even less the system requirements of Vista from what I've heard.

freepizza wrote:Windows 7 will be equal or even less the system requirements of Vista from what I've heard.

That is correct. One of the gripes people had was how power hungry Vista was... and while Windows 7 probably hovers around the same benchmark, they have decided definitely not to make it any more resource hungry.

As for DDR3 Ram... the only occasion where you would "need" it would be with the new Core i7 processors from Intel, as they have an integrated DDR3 memory controller in them. Couple this with an X58 chipset and you're set... but if you're using anything less than those two, you'd get similar performance with higher clocked DDR2.

-Cub. =o)

actually I would like to know what did people like or hate about vista
I use both xp & vista . What features excelled in both OS

One feature of vista which I thought was great was the driver feature that it automatically installed a driver for you. I had a usb problem with a usb external drive & finally I did an update for a new driver from device manager & then it installed the lastest & my problems went away. The disk actually worked better under xp than vista I might add.

Just purchased a powered usb hub & it now gives me more power. Typing this on a new keyboard thats's also great "it's a wave" feels good to use.

Hang on, so the new version of Windows lets you run XP if you want to - so why would anyone upgrade??

Microsoft must make so much money selling computers anyway they probably didn't make a loss on Vista. It must be great to sell something and make a profit even when it flops.

The biggest mistake as far as I'm concerned was those plug and play laptops that automatically installed Vista the first time you turned them on. It was an absolute pain to get rid of it and install XP, and if you wonder why I'd want to do it, that's simply because a truckload of those laptops barely met the minimum requirements to run Vista home. The market here was flooded with cheap 700$ laptops running on Vista that were so ridiculously slow it made no sense whatsoever, but you had absolutely no choice of the OS upon purchase.

Three of my aunts, so pleased to buy their own first laptop with fantasmastic gizmos have been calling my brother or myself to the rescue within the same month, all with entirely different laptops that quite simply couldn't run the most basic programs an aunt has any right to use!

yes your are right, when I picked my toshiba notebook the first thing I did was add memory. Stupid thing is it was known fact that you need 2gb with vista yet these manufacters were putting out these machines with 1gb. Now how were even to run office as well.

Demonlawyer wrote:Hang on, so the new version of Windows lets you run XP if you want to - so why would anyone upgrade??

64-bit support is a good start, giving you the ability to run more than 3.25GB of RAM (a native 32-bit limitation present in Windows XP). And with software an gaming becoming more demanding, and RAM prices dropping, running a high-spec PC with XP is about as useful as putting 12-inch rims on a Ferrari. Given current hardware, most components have already broken the boundaries of XP, so literally anything you buy in terms of hardware these days, choosing to run XP on it would be grossly devaluing your investment.

I think the virtual XP mode in Windows 7 is not meant to turn your PC into XP... it's designed to enable you to run software that was never given the chance to become fully 64-bit (or Windows 7) compatible. For example: a lot of people still run software that was designed during the XP days of 32-bit computing, and even earlier. But many of the companies that made such software have since gone bust, so there has been nobody around to make them compatible with newer Operating systems (much like how Tex Murphy will not run on XP natively). The XP virtualisation mode enables software that never got the chance to upgrade the ability to run in the Windows 7 environment, thus not forcing people to abandon their legacy software for the sake of upgrading.

But also keep in mind that legacy software and hardware now makes up less than 10% of all currently used components in a PC thanks to everyone's gradual adoption of the Windows Vista environment... and becuase anything designed for Vista will work natively in Windows 7 by the time 7 is released the percentage of still "in-use" legacy software and hardware will be well below 3%. But, as stated earlier, XP virtualisation has that 3% covered... a very considerate move by Microsoft.

Frank wrote:The biggest mistake as far as I'm concerned was those plug and play laptops that automatically installed Vista the first time you turned them on. It was an absolute pain to get rid of it and install XP, and if you wonder why I'd want to do it, that's simply because a truckload of those laptops barely met the minimum requirements to run Vista home. The market here was flooded with cheap 700$ laptops running on Vista that were so ridiculously slow it made no sense whatsoever, but you had absolutely no choice of the OS upon purchase.

Three of my aunts, so pleased to buy their own first laptop with fantasmastic gizmos have been calling my brother or myself to the rescue within the same month, all with entirely different laptops that quite simply couldn't run the most basic programs an aunt has any right to use!

Yes, sadly most notebook manufacturers during the early days of Vista's implementation decided to make a huge profit with trusting consumers. Microsoft was initially very clear when it came to Vista's hardware requirements, yet most notebook manufacturers (knowing that the average consumer of PCs is not terrible computer literate) decided to skimp on these basic hardware requirements, knowing full well that consumers would only initially judge a computer by its operating environment and not its internal components. During its initial implementation most notebooks were only really fast enough to run the Home Basic version of Vista. But realising that this was not a good "selling point", most manufacturers shipped their notebooks with more advanced versions (such as home premium), without actually upgrading the internal components to match. The end result is a notebook with an advanced operating system with hardware specs barely high enough to run it properly. This deception was purely in the individual manufacturers part, however seeing as it was detrimental to Microsoft in the long run you would think they would've done something about it.

None the less, since SP1 for Vista, most notebooks are more than well equipped to run all versions of Vista, which has enabled it to gain more momentum.

-Cub. =o)

haha I thought I might get a better explanation from you Cub, and interesting too - quite right that XP has limitations, though most people probably don't see them on a day to day basis. Do you think this means that running XP in windows 7 will be able to run new software that wasn't designed for it?

That sounds a little like it will be a nightmare with bugs.

Demonlawyer wrote:haha I thought I might get a better explanation from you Cub, and interesting too - quite right that XP has limitations, though most people probably don't see them on a day to day basis. Do you think this means that running XP in windows 7 will be able to run new software that wasn't designed for it?

That sounds a little like it will be a nightmare with bugs.

I am not sure what you mean? Are you saying that if you were in XP "mode" would you be able to run Windows 7/Vista apps? Then most likely no. Newer software designed for Vista or 7 will run naively in 7 without the need for any virtualisation. Only apps that are flagged as problematic in windows versions later than XP will be launched in the virtual XP environment.

But also, just clearing things up, it's not the same as having 2 completely separate operating systems on the one PC. XP mode will be like a piece of software within Windows 7. anything you launch in this piece of software will run as if it is running in the windows XP environment. So essentially XP will be contained within it's own window, allowing you to also run Windows 7 software alongside XP software.

There has been an update on the system requirements for the XP mode as well. While Windows 7 recommends a minimum of 1GB of ram, XP mode recommends you have at least 2GB to run it. This is becuase (as stated above) you are running an OS within an OS, and have to cater to both memory requirements concurrently. Which makes sense.

-Cub. =o)

I think I'll just keep Windows XP for the moment. Only reason I would see myself upgrading is if I buy a new computer, and it comes with Windows 7 installed.

I still have Windows 2000. And I like it.

So Windows 7 is not going to be Big Brother like Vista was?

That is the main thing that kept me from getting vista.

It takes over your computer.

Windows 7 is starting to sound like the answer to xp though.

I'll wait and see what happens.

I may be one of only a few persons here that really likes Vista. It has not chrashed yet! I have used it nine months and counting... It sometimes take it a tiny bit longer to run some Windows functions, but compared to XP it does most of the common tasks faster once the application have been started. I like Vista. The graphics are nice too

And...

It has not slowed down by time. In some way or another it really must have gotten rid of old installations I have uninstalled. I do not know the technical terms...

Do you install and uninstall a lot of things or rarely? I just wonder whether it still runs quickly because it's much the same as when you got it.