Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale Florida
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    This is not a question or even a teaching. It is merely a statement of what I have learned since using Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade.

    First of all, I got it for 50 bucks by pre-ordering it. This has to be the greatest bargain in MS history.

    Second, as I did with Vista, I installed Windows 2000 so I could use my legacy gfx pgms and Ubuntu 9.10 so I could see what the open source folks were up to. I then tried to install Win ME so I could use one legacy pgm it has that I like. However, Win ME wouldn't install (Sun Virtual Box) and that got me thinking. Win 7 has a pgm, and I also have a freeware pgm, that is just as good as the one I wanted to use in Win ME. So why bother with Win ME? Then I realized that I was no longer doing gfx all day, and the several gfx pgms that would install under Win 7 more than met my needs (Photoshop 7, Picasa, and PhotoDraw 2), along with a few gfx utilities such as a color picker. So why bother with Win 2000? All I was doing was updating it. Finally, I realized that Ubuntu was never going to be any real competition with Win 7, and again, all I was doing was updating it. Even its games, which used to be better than the MS equivalents, were now pitiful compared to the cool new Solitaire, etc., that came with Win 7.

    So I began uninstalling stuff. I got rid of Ubuntu, Win 2000, Virtual Box, and much, much more. Win 7 can do all that those things used to do, and a lot more, so why clutter up my computer with the old stuff?

    I'm a performance-and-systems-oriented geek, and I have used many, many DOS/Windows versions, and with every one of them I had a huge stash of third-party utilities. But with Win 7 I also found that most of my third-party utilities were no longer necessary, so I uninstalled, or didn't install, them, too. Win 7 has so many included bells and whistles -- GOOD bells and whistles -- that I just don't need much outside stuff.

    I originally decided to buy Win 7 because some journalist wrote that "Windows 7 is Vista done right." That struck a chord. My computer came with Vista, and I found Vista, IMO, to be overly maligned and a good OS. Nowhere near a great one, however. Not even close. Win 7 is built on Vista technology, but corrects, and goes far beyond, Vista's SP2's quirks. It truly is, IMO, "Vista done [better than] right."

    I called MS tech support on a minor issue, and I found the Microsofties I talked to were truly proud of their new OS. I also found that they WANTED customer feedback and LISTENED to their customers. What a switch from the old days!

    In conclusion, "I would like to say this about that": MS has produced a fine piece of s/w, and I am proud to use it and brag about it.

    God bless you all, and Merry Christmas, everybody.

  2. Subscribe to our Windows Secrets Newsletter - It's Free!

    Get our unique weekly Newsletter with tips and techniques, how to's and critical updates on Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows XP, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Google, etc. Join our 480,000 subscribers!

    Excel 2013: The Missing Manual

    + Get this BONUS — free!

    Get the most of Excel! Learn about new features, basics of creating a new spreadsheet and using the infamous Ribbon in the first chapter of Excel 2013: The Missing Manual - Subscribe and download Chapter 1 for free!

  3. #2
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    12,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    What a pleasant change from the (usual) bashers of the world! I'm glad you sound like you're having "fun" with it.

    And Merry Christmas to you too...


  4. #3
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    South of the North Pole
    Posts
    919
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I agree with everything pretty much straight through, even Picasa, PS7 and Photodraw 2 (though mine is V2 but maybe its the same thing). The only quibbles maybe are the pre-order price wasn't a great bargain--it was close to fair and what the upgrade price should be. The normal upgrade price is actually the retail price...because who hasn't owned and run a previous version of Windows at this point? Very few people. I like Win 7 pro and $200 for the upgrade is NOT an upgrade price, its a retail price. Also, Vista has gotten to the point of respectability with SP2 but its far too little and far too late of course to heal that wound and finally, I still love the heck out of what I can do with XP. It takes a few more add ons and utilities to do some of the things Win 7 can now do natively but those utilities and supplemental programs are often much more capable than those in Win 7 are at this point, but if I were forced to move over to Win 7 completely, I could handle that as well..not going to happen at $200 a pop though.

  5. #4
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Swanzey, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    1,707
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by walter donavan View Post
    I originally decided to buy Win 7 because some journalist wrote that "Windows 7 is Vista done right." That struck a chord. My computer came with Vista, and I found Vista, IMO, to be overly maligned and a good OS. Nowhere near a great one, however. Not even close. Win 7 is built on Vista technology, but corrects, and goes far beyond, Vista's SP2's quirks. It truly is, IMO, "Vista done [better than] right."
    I agree with BigAlDoc that it is a breath of fresh air to read a non-bashing Microsoft response. However, I would have to say that in my experience Vista has been one great operating system; even from day 1. I have not had any of the alleged problems that so many reported. And having had the experience on working on hundreds of PCs, over the years, running all of Microsoft's operating systems, the overwhelming majority of problems I had to fix were caused by the owner and not due to some inherent "flaw" in the operating system itself. The causes of problems, for the most part with few exceptions, were due to trying to run programs that were incompatible, wrong drivers, or "tweaks" which were done after some "guru" recommended how to better what Microsoft failed to do, etc., ad nauseam.

    Personally, I don't SEE much difference between Windows 7 and Vista. The performance is perceptibly the same on both. All my applications, again with the rare exception, work as well on both. Boot times are nearly identical on both with the same applications and configurations applied. I would posit that the acclaim given to Windows 7 is mainly coming from those who bashed Vista without warrant and who, not wanting to have to eat crow, dream up all kinds of reasons why Windows 7 is exponentially better than that "crap Vista". Does Windows 7 have improvements over Vista? Well, of course, as one would expect it would. But is it THAT much better than Vista? My opinion is not really. Should everyone opt for Windows 7? My opinion is yes and no. If one is still using XP, then I would say a definite Yes... go for it. The improvements are substantial. If someone is running Vista, then perhaps upgrading should be considered depending upon what one plans on doing in the future with the PC. Otherwise, stick with Vista and wait to see what the next generation of Microsoft's operating system offers.

    That's my
    Jeff
    simul iustus et peccator

  6. #5
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 929 Times in 851 Posts
    I also thought Vista was Ok, but do like Win 7 much better. It's networking capabilities left Vista in the dust. My boot time is quicker, but that's because I tweaked it. Go to the start button, choose run, then type msconfig and press Ok. On the system configuration window, choose Boot tab. Check No Gui Boot, then lower the timeout to a more manageable time. I choose 3 secods. Next choose advanced options. This is where you can choose how many processors you have. Most modern PC's are duo core (2 processors) with some quad core (4 processors) then choose OK. Now choose apply and OK, reboot and you should see a marked decrease in boot time.

    I hope this helps. Merry Christmas.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  7. #6
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA, USA
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Myers View Post
    I also thought Vista was Ok, but do like Win 7 much better. It's networking capabilities left Vista in the dust. My boot time is quicker, but that's because I tweaked it. Go to the start button, choose run, then type msconfig and press Ok. On the system configuration window, choose Boot tab. Check No Gui Boot, then lower the timeout to a more manageable time. I choose 3 secods. Next choose advanced options. This is where you can choose how many processors you have. Most modern PC's are duo core (2 processors) with some quad core (4 processors) then choose OK. Now choose apply and OK, reboot and you should see a marked decrease in boot time.

    I hope this helps. Merry Christmas.
    I followed Ted's instructions. My boot time until the processor quiesces is approximately 1 minute 15 seconds. Best I've ever seen.
    The "No GUI Boot" setting didn't suppress the "Welcome" screen however, as the Msconfig Help file indictated it would.

    Merry Christmas to all.

  8. #7
    Super Moderator bbearren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    2,365
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 236 Times in 189 Posts
    Allow me to throw in my two cents here. I run older hardware; I stay behind the curve on new developments, because it makes the older (but far from obsolete) hardware much cheaper. On my desktop I have an Intel D875PBZ board, two 300GB SATA drives and a 200GB SATA running through a IDE/SATA adapter. The CPU is a P4E 3.0 GHz with Hyper-Threading, and the graphics are handled by a Diamond/ATI 9550 AGP.

    I skipped Vista entirely; nothing offered in that OS particularly enticed me. I installed Windows 7 Ultimate in a dual boot configuration with XP SP3, and the only driver I needed was the Intel Matrix (SATA) driver; my motherboard is a little too long in the tooth for 7 to have the particular iastor inf file available. But the driver installation went off without a hitch, and Windows 7 was up and running. I used the transfer wizard to bring a total of seven User accounts over to Windows 7, and other than references to programs not yet installed on Windows 7, that was also flawless. An interesting aside, one of the accounts used Windows Classic, and Windows 7 has managed to emulate that GUI to a great extent, even though it isn't directly available in Windows 7. My Windows experience index is 4.1 (the lowest score is the CPU at 4.1)

    I am slowly migrating my progams and apps over from XP. Office 2000 Pro runs without a hitch, by the way. I am currently searching for the pathway to modify the 7 installation in a fashion similar to my XP setup. See my homepage for details of that setup and the reasoning behind it.

    I next installed 7 on my Dell Latitude D800, which Dell does not support or recommend for 7 (of even Vista; only XP drivers are available). The only cachet on that installation was the graphics driver. 7 had a default driver that worked, but did not give me the resolution to match the capabilities of my LCD. I found a free utility that converts nVidia desktop drivers to mobile drivers, ran the utility and updated the driver, and it works like a charm. I'm also dual booting on my laptop toward the same ends of migrating my programs from XP to Windows 7.

    In both cases, my startup times are a bit quicker with 7, switching users is much faster on both machines, and overall performance is better than XP. The Windows experience rating on the D800 is 1.0, but it still runs better and faster than that hardware runs XP.

    I must say that in both cases, I am well pleased. As far as my home network, I only had to enter the WEP code for my laptop to connect; 7 found everything needed.
    Create a new drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!

    "Let them that don't want it have memories of not gettin' any." "Gratitude is riches and complaint is poverty and the worst I ever had was wonderful." Brother Dave Gardner "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else." Sir Thomas Robert Deware. "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?" Captain Jack Sparrow.
    Unleash Windows

  9. #8
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    South of the North Pole
    Posts
    919
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    One of my Win7 installs is virtual and runing in XP Pro with 1 gig of memory. Its a little slower than my virtual XP install running in Vista, but not much slower. Its also a good point made by the OP about reduction and simplification (we still spend way to much time at the computer, and its only going to get worse) if enough new features and backward compability are built into a new OS to allow for it.

    The explosion of highly competent free programs (an important consideration since any additional cost would not be advantageous in OS comparisons when one can perform that task and the other can't without the free program) that both modify and supplement an OS in the last decade has made if very difficult for any new OS and its heralded advancements to supplant an older OS based soley on comparisons of competency. For example, XP doesn't even have the ability to burn DVDs on its own, 7 does, however, if I install CDBurnerXP, or ImgBurn, or Burn4Free or Nero 9 Lite, or...suddenly I've made XP a more competent DVD burning OS than Win 7, without shoring up 7's capability in the same manner. Same applies to file encryption, GUI modification, partition management, imaging and backup, security, and on and on.

    It surprised me on how little Windows 7 offered until I thought about it for a while and realized how much additional sofware I use to supplement all my computer activities. Everyone talks about how rich and diverse, and how the App. Store makes an iPhone what it is now...well, welcome to the world of Windows!!

  10. #9
    Bronze Lounger DrWho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 162 Times in 126 Posts
    I don't run Windows 7 as my main OS. I probably never will. I have it on a spare HD, just to play around with. To really run great, it does require some tweaking and tuning, just like Vista and XP before that.

    Every release of OS since the beginning has had built in SAFE Defaults that seriously limit the speed at which the OS can run. They seem to assume that you're running it on the worse possible hardware, with the least amount of ram. Yes, Win-7 will install and run on just 1 gig of ram, but not real well.

    In 1980 I found the same kind of SAFE Defaults built into the OS for the little Commodore 64. So I re-wrote the C-64 Kernel ROM, to remove its redundancy and had a much FASTER little computer. I sold copies of that revised Kernel ROM, all over the country. Well, anyway, most of the tweaks that work for Vista, also work for Win-7. I use a batch file to shut down or Manual'ize services that don't need to be running 24x7. That batch file for Win-7 is considerably larger than the one for Vista, which is larger than the one for XP. The redundancy just gets worse for each new OS.

    Has anyone compared the size of XP to the size of win-7, as it sits on the HD, after installation? Win-7 is HUGE !!! It reminds me of the Senate healthcare bill.

    One little registry tweak to copy the windows Kernel to ram on boot, GREATLY increases system efficiency and performance. People talk a lot about speed and efficiency, but hardly anyone ever uses this simple tweak. It's been around in one form or another, since Windows 98. Go figure!

    If, by my post, you've gotten the impression that I'm not a real fan of Windows 7............... You got it right !!!

    It reminds me of the little old lady that owned a 37 passenger bus, just to go to church on Sunday. Gross overkill, to say the least.

    Y'all have a great 2010 now, Y'hear?

    Happy New Year!

    The Doctor
    Experience is truly the best teacher.

    Backup! Backup! Backup! GHOST Rocks!

  11. #10
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Great tweak for the boot time, Ted.
    Really sped things up.

  12. #11
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 929 Times in 851 Posts
    Glad it helped Marshall. Happy New Year!!
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  13. #12
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 929 Times in 851 Posts
    Hey Doc, please elaborate on the registry tweak you mentioned. What is the change?? Thanks, and Happy new Year to you as well!!!
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •