Windows 7, would you switch?

[synaesthetic]

It's funny how they haven't used version numbers since Windows NT 4.0, and now they're finally back to version numbers (as Vista was NT6.0, Win7 is NT7.0)...

[chikorita157]

Windows 7 is not NT 7.0, but NT 6.1 as mentioned earlier, so the number in Windows 7 is pretty much contradictory (and Windows 7 and Vista uses the same kernel, except there are some changes in 6.1 (Win7) kernel.)

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

Windows 7 is not NT 7.0, but NT 6.1 as mentioned earlier, so the number in Windows 7 is pretty much contradictory (and Windows 7 and Vista uses the same kernel, except there are some changes in 6.1 (Win7) kernel.)

So the "build 7xxx.blah" is pretty much more psychological than any real kernel mod milestone? I pretty much stopped paying much attention to Windows kernel stuff when XP started looming on the horizon.

[grey_moon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Well, at least they've come up with a naming convention they can stick with til "Windows 95"

Well if we take the version numbers into account rather then the marketing then Windows 7 is on form, it is in reality Vista SP2 and XP really got its wings on SP2 too!

[aeriolewinters]

Nope, 7 is not a service pack of Windows Vista. It is more like Vista R2; ala 2003-R2. 7 was a big revision on the part of the Driver base, especially on how it handles the WDM service. While Vista will suck down ram to operate WDM, 7 utilizes the GPU dedicated RAM.

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by Vexx

So the "build 7xxx.blah" is pretty much more psychological than any real kernel mod milestone? I pretty much stopped paying much attention to Windows kernel stuff when XP started looming on the horizon.

Builds are there to determine at which point in time was the OS compiled and thus figure out whether it's a still CTP, alpha, beta, RC, escrow or RTM (for Windows 7, anything below Build 7600 is beta/RC-level) or beyond (see below).

Build strings are also there to identify the Service Packs - the original Vista was 6.0.6000, SP1 was 6.0.6001 and SP2 was 6.0.6002. W7 original is 6.1.7600 and according to the build strings I posted on the previous page, W7 SP1 will be 6.1.7601. On the other hand, kernels are recognizable thanks to the version numbers ((NT) 5.1 for XP, (NT) 6.0 for Vista and (NT) 6.1 for W7), which are the first two numbers in the build string (just type winver in cmd.exe to get it).

[Vexx]

Thanks, I know what build strings are and what they're for. However, Microsoft's product cycle process is *anything* but standard or typical in the engineering industry so there's no intuitive reading of them without the milestone map you lay out.

[grey_moon]

Originally Posted by midnightlumina

Nope, 7 is not a service pack of Windows Vista. It is more like Vista R2; ala 2003-R2. 7 was a big revision on the part of the Driver base, especially on how it handles the WDM service. While Vista will suck down ram to operate WDM, 7 utilizes the GPU dedicated RAM.

Actually my point was more about when people are comparing how good XP is when comparing it to Vista. Most people forget that XP only really got good and stable with the release of SP2.

Also what is XP SP2 if not a major replacement for the original OS, it is over 250 MB in size!

[iKurisu]

I use Windows 7 Ultimate x64

It does its job

[Alchemist007]

Innocent looking update KB971033 is the new WGA. Been out since end of Feb.

[Renegade334]

Looks like Microsoft won't stop at the now more commonplace 64-bit architecture for the next versions of Windows... They already reached a certain milestone when they decided to produce the next Windows Server editions in 64-bit only (2008 R2 does not have a 32-bit version) but, well, they're already looking beyond that.

[Vexx]

Been doing some Windows 7 installs .... must say its a mind numbing exercise. Everything is *relatively* automated but with no indication of what it is doing during 10-30 minute interludes of "doing stuff" static screens.

You're never quite sure it hasn't just tanked and frozen. And woe unto you if you're AFK at a critical decision

[Alchemist007]

I really wish they could make load screens 100% accurate. Stupid computers.

[felix]

Microsoft Load Screens = placebo, a lot of the time. If I remember correctly one of the techniques they used at one point was to make the movement increasingly slower and slower as you progress and just throttle to 100% when it was actually done.

So why show a progress bar when there's no way to know when the operation will end? well like I said its a placebo-bar, it puts the user at ease (even if they think its completely inaccurate). On the other hand spinning things that don't show any indication of completion (ie. the supposed "honest way") will make most people think "omg it crashed", after like 3 seconds.

[chikorita157]

From my knowledge, when you boot Ubuntu and Mac OS X, Ubuntu shows a progress bar and Mac OS X shows a progress wheel, but however, Ubuntu does boot a lot faster than Windows 7 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard a few seconds faster than Windows 7.

The Windows 7 boot screen seems to be a lot flashier than Vista and even XP boot screens.

[aeriolewinters]

Actually, the boot screen for Vista was slowest because It had a longer routine, than 7's or XP's

[Vexx]

Stupid fun fact.... it helps immeasurably to be hardwired connected to the Internet when installing Win 7.

Friend of mine was trying to install it and she lives where she has *only* wireless access. Despite having one of the most common wireless cards in the universe (linksys wireless-g pci), that driver was not on the installation disk - she wasted hours before calling me. I hooked it to my wire network with the idea of downloading drivers and started the install ... seconds after the install it was downloading several motherboard drivers and the Linksys wireless driver on its own.

O.o :P

[felix]

^ Reminds me of the old "Press key Something to install Monitor".

[Vexx]

Actually, instead of a bar or running dog, or spiraling hourglass.... gimme a screen with the *operations* in progress. That way I'd at least get a glimmer on what it hung/crashed on.

(Oh, it can't find file X. That compressed file is corrupt. Can't find driver X. etc). Or the most likely: "That hard drive is slamming resends and is probably unworthy")
The hard drive example is the most recent ... install was taking forever (hours per phase). On intuition, swapped the drive out - bingo.

It'd certainly be a lot more impressive to Joe Public to see all that complexity flying by... more so than a silly bar.

[synaesthetic]

Allow me to translate for the uninitiated.

Annoyingly long loading screens is Microsoftese for, "buy a goddamned SSD."



Seriously, there's not one single upgrade that will speed up your system's overall performance more than replacing those spinning platters with a good SandForce, Indilinx or Intel based SSD.