Windows 7: Is it just me, or is anyone else disgusted?

I have been looking up on the new Windows 7 and about how everyone thinks it is going to be so wonderful. It just seems to be just another version of Windows Vista just more junked up.

I see that it requires twice as much RAM as Vista did and the XP mode not only requires a download it claims, but it requires an insane amount of extras just to use it. From what I have read, how is it any different from just running a virtual machine in windows vista, assigning 1GB of RAM to it, making a 15GB virtual HDD and installing XP onto it? What a waste!

The operating system is supposed to be as lightweight as possible leaving all of your system's resources open for your applications. The OS is not supposed to eat up all of your RAM, processor and GPU so other programs cannot use them. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous amount of disk space required.

I know if I could install Windows 98 or even Windows Millennium on a P4 or better PC, you could install it in a matter of minutes. That's not even an exaggeration. Why can't we have it this way? It would save lots of headaches and make much more sense.

 

I don't know where you saw this, but you're inventing facts.

It requires a CPU that can handle hardware virtualization. I can't count that high, but to me, that seems like one thing.

Well, first, you get a free XP license. Second, XP runs seamlessly - any programs you install appear on your regular desktop. The "virtualization wall", where everything is compartmentalized, is gone. It no longer seems as if you're using 2 operating systems side by side, instead, it feels like you're just using one.

Windows 7 installs in about 30 minutes, and recognizes most of your drivers automatically. Good luck getting all your hardware to work in Windows 98/Me.

An aside - where are you getting your information from? The Apple Store?

 

Er...where have you been? More RAM usage does not necessarily = more overhead.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

ROFLMAO! are u working for apple?

seriously? where have u been? its 2009 now now not 1999!

 

I wasn't aware that there is a cave in Saint Louis where people can live in.

 

Stupid question, I suppose, but it must be asked - have you actually installed and used Windows 7?

 

Yeah. It's just you

 

Ok, here my take. Windows 7 is great, quick and lightweight. However, XP Mode just blows chunks. What a terrible implementation. I tried running Matlab using it, and wow was it ever laggy!

 

He sounds like some guy who makes a living off Apple Products trying to promote OS X by bashing Windows 7 as usual.
EPIC FAIL due to well informed users.

 

hmmm...he does have a pic of a Vaio as avatar though '

 

You do realize that any Virtual Machine requires a processor with Hardware virtualization right?

 

But i do think the op has a point, why all the fuss. It really is justa vista service pack, and no wonder it works well, as vista after sp2 was ok working.

The op does have a point, and me too cannot see why everyone is so excited over it, vista should of worked like how win7 does out of the box. People remember brought vista, like they brought winme and others.

Thats life and we all get conned by the big monopolies, and its life.

 

You're right.

It's just you.

 

You mean that Vista SP2 has superbar? It has XP Mode and a lot more new stuff in Win7?

 

The way you phrased this makes it sound as if the people who do like it are just pulling that opinion out of their rear. The positive reviews were by and large from individuals who had downloaded and used the RC prior to purchase... and these were not just professional reviews, but everyday users who found the OS to be superior to Vista (myself included)

How about you provide an example of how it is just another "Vista just more junked up" if you are going to make this statement. I mean, you do have an example, right?

Um, no it doesn't. I have it running well on a Sony UX with a core solo processor and 1gb RAM. Sure it's not going to win any races but it is certainly more usable than Vista was on this particular platform (the original OS BTW).

Insane extras... you are using a virtual machine, what do you expect? You need processor capable or running 2 OS', enough RAM to support both, and a large enough HDD. Since this is only included in the Ultimate and Professional versions I would assume that if you are considering an upgrade to either of these "premium" flavors of 7 you are not so poor that you cannot afford the hardware to make this work.

This has already been discussed.

Actually no, the OS is supposed to give the most users the experience that they want. As it stands most people like having all of the bells and whistles like transparent desktops and all of the other effects. I'll tell you a secret though.

Shhh, this is a super secret h@cker stuff!

You can turn that stuff off! That's right, go in and disable all of the extra stuff from msconfig.exe and you will have lean OS (*edit* as far as RAM footprint is concerned at least)! Remember don't tell anyone... they might break into my Prodigy account.

~10gb is ridiculous? How much space do you think an OS should occupy?

Now I know you're trolling... either that or you NEVER installed either of those OS'. I assure you that they took more time to install than Win 7 and a lot of that was due to the way MS went about the installation back then. Win 7 is MUCH easier to install and faster to install as well.

Seeing as how most of your post has either been wrong, either deliberately or due to your ignorance, I'm not sure why I feel the need to respond to this.

 

Since you haven't tried it yourself why make a thread about it and bash it? It's a great os and it's much better than vista.

 

As for the space...

From MS:
Win 95 ~50-55mb
Win 98 ~175mb
Win XP ~1.5gb
Win Vista ~40gb
Win 7 ~16-20gb

Now these numbers are from MS and real world is bound to be different, but go with me on this one.

Let's now look at the typical disk sizes (desktop) from when each of these were released... Now I am doing this from memory, but it sounds right to me:

Win 95 (1995): ~120mb
Win 98 (1998): ~4gb
Win XP (2001): ~20gb
Win Vista (2006): ~200gb
Win 7 (2009): ~500gb

SO in...
1995 according to MS you should have allocated about 50% of your HDD for your OS
1998 according to MS you should have allocated about 4% of your HDD for your OS
2001 according to MS you should have allocated about 7.5% of your HDD for your OS
2006 according to MS you should have allocated about 20% of your HDD for your OS
2009 according to MS you should have allocated about 4% of your HDD for your OS

4% of your HDD is a ridiculous amount of space? Even if you take into account smaller laptop HDD standards (nearly all laptops being sold today have at least 120gb... and that is pretty low end) you are only taking up about 16% of the available space which isn't that bad IMHO.


*edit*
OK, seriously, I just looked at your signature line... a Pentium M 760... Are you freaking kidding me? Your computer was manufactured ~4 years ago... I mean honestly. This is the equivalent of someone complaining that their 80386 wouldn't run Win95 perfectly. Your hardware is old, that's not to say that it isn't worth keeping, but I think you should try being a little realistic about what it is and is not capable of doing.

 

WOW...I wish users could be banned for FAILED Threads like this one.

 

That's not true. Hardware assisted virtualization greatly improves speed, but is not required for most virtualization software.

Other than that, I think this thread has run its course. The OP has not responded (not that there's much to respond with), and this thread should be closed.

 

A lot of you are asking where I got my information from. I got it straight from Microsoft's website. And, NO, I will NEVER suggest Crapple. I would obviously choose Windows 7 over Apple's OS any day of the week.

I know that the XP mode requires CPU virtualization and does not work like a virtual machine in the way that it directly emulates XP into the currently working (Windows 7) OS, but why all that extra memory and disk space if it is to just emulate the older OS.

Yes, I know that you could not install an older OS like 98 or ME on newer systems because of lacking hardware features, drivers and such. The thing is I can shut down a 98 PC with 400 MHz in less than 2 seconds guaranteed with a clean install. Windows XP and especially Vista takes often a whole minute even on 2 GHz machines. As far as installing an older OS like 98 in a matter of minutes, I don't mean 30.... I mean 5!

Imagine how fast those older operating systems would start up and shut down on newer machines and how much faster your games would run. It would not just be a little increase, but rather a *significant* difference.

I also find it sad how many people responded to this so quickly and seem to not catch my point.

 

The fact is that it's not just an emulation. It's the installation of XP. That's the reason why it works so well. Emulations run into errors, but an actual installation of XP, an actual XP environment removes most, if not all of those errors.

How fast would Windows 98 start up on my system? Let's try never, unless you count a BSOD as a successful startup.

How fast would games run if I ran Windows 98? Minesweeper would be blazing fast, if you ignore the aforementioned BSOD. But none of my other games would even install, much less be able to run.

So yeah, you're right. There is a *significant* difference between running games on Windows 7 and Windows 98.

 

Of course, if you look at it that way, but then you are comparing different hardware to the original OS or whatever that was designed for it at that time. It might be difficult to explain, but just because an OS is older does not mean that it cannot have only the simple and required updates to make it capable and still be a small OS. It could still do everything.

I still wish to make it clear to everyone who may have thought I was trying to promote Crapple's OS, you are all sadly mistaken. I do not like anything about apple and despise them so much I would never even touch an Ipod or Iphone. The software that they make you use is.... well, I just don't like it and it puts obnoxious processes in your background.

I re-read some of these replies and read one that tells me about disabling all of that stuff. DUH! I know that it can be disabled and turned off, but that is exactly WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A HALF HOUR DOING!!!!

I also want to apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my post. I am not trying to get on anyone's case or tell them that Windows 7 is bad or anything like that. I am merely trying to understand something for myself and get some honest answers and opinions about this particular OS and why anyone might suggest that I buy it and, furthermore, if I am just misunderstanding something about all of this. That is what forums are for, right?

If you have Windows 7 and like it, all the more power to you. I am not trying to get anyone to stop using the OS or anything even close to that.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You're saying (I believe) that the older operating systems ran faster than what they do now on games and stuff. Well, yeah... Windows 98 had hardly anything extra to it, meaning it was just a basic GUI which took nothing to run because back then, that's all we wanted/needed. But now, 11 years later, we like eye candy and "more" to an operating system. If you compare playing Unreal Tournament on Windows 98 using Directx 7 then yeah, load times will be pretty fast. Compare that to Crysis running on Directx 11 on a Windows 7 machine and yes, the load times are going to be signifactly longer because the game is obviously completely different. If you want to keep using Windows 98 then go for it, but you can't compare load times from 98 to Win7 because they were made at completely different times, meaning the OS was built for entirely different machines and environments.

 

The only reason I brought up Apple is that your information that you started this thread with is so completely erroneous, that I find it hard to imagine where you would get them from.

You're comparing the speed of Windows 7 to Windows 98, while completely ignoring that Windows 98 can't do half the things you're saying in the first place.

 

I can pretty much hack into most of the computers that run Windows 98, even windows 2000.
Not that's easy with 7, actually it gets pretty tough from XP. But since Vista that takes a lot more effort and windows 7 takes it to a higher level.

 

Not really. I ran Virtual PC 2007 on Vista for two years before I hacked the BIOS in my Vaio to turn on VT so I could use the new XP mode in Win7. It runs a bit faster and has better hardware support with VT, but it was possible to run VPC2007 without it.

Gary

 

Just installed Win7 (replacing Vista) and while I love that it seems to be a leaner, meaner version of Vista I have certianly not been blown away as I expected from all the glowing praise I've read over the last few months.

I had tweaked my Vista Business installation to work nicely, so maybe that's why I was not blown away. Win7 does feel a tad mroe refined, lighter and just less full of "junk" for want of a better term -- illustrated by the fact that I have far fewer processes running that I ever did in Vista.

 

Let me ask a few things. I want to know some of the cool things that may make me think far better about all of this. Again I state that there just may be a small misunderstanding.

I have read too that Windows 7 will support what they call "WARP" which allows you to run newer graphics features on older video hardware using rasterization. I really think this is cool, but is it for real? I know, too, that if you use rasterization that you may make only 5 fps which will be worthless, but it would still be cool.

Also, with my experience with virtual machines, you usually cannot use video acceleration because the VM cannot directly access your actual video hardware inside->outside of the VM. What I want to know is with the XP emulated mode in Windows 7 will you be able to use applications that, say, require video acceleration? I believe the answer is yes to this and I will say that is pretty friggin' sweet.

Pipspeak has mentioned fewer processes in 7 than in Vista, which I am very glad to hear because Vista had 38 as almost minimum which was disgusting. How many processes run in the background in 7 right after a fresh install?

The fact that I have not used 7 yet is very true unless you count my trying the beta versions. I am sure that doesn't count because it was a very incomplete project and not much worked in it at that time. Although, knowing Microshaft and their minions, I could easily imagine what may have become of 7 considering what they tried to do to make Vista which I don't think anybody really knows that one.

I think forstbit3 has understood more of what I am trying to say. What you imply about the newer operating systems with their eye candy and newer features is true, but you can have too much of that eye candy even if one likes it. Sometimes taking advantage of newer computer hardware with the OS alone can become WAY too much.

Again, I am not trying to talk s*** on Windows 7, but on all OSes that are new. Even Linux (e.g. Backtrack, Ubuntu, etc.) have required far more memory and such just to get them to run and takes forever just to boot them from discs. I am not just smashing one particular OS here. It is like this for all of them and I just think people are getting carried away!

 

i'm not sure WARP actually got into win7. anyways, it was ment as a fallback if the gpu drivers fails, so aero still continues, while, then, on the cpu.

virtual machines provide virtual gpus since some while, enough to allow vista aero or win7 aero to run (they remap the virtual calls to the real one).

fewer processes, yes, but you have to learn that it's unimportant. the processes in vista where idling to just be ready the moment you need them (no need to start some service from disk, then, which would result in a delay). win7 handles it differently, looks like less, still as snappy reacting when needed.

welll, win7 is based on what changes vista brought. most of those changes where awesome revolutionary, but people didn't "got" that. it was a much needed restructuring of windows, and now, we're at the second incarnation of that new, fresh os.

problem is, people don't adapt. "requiring memory" is one of those typical old school things. it's not requiring it, but actually USING it. you payed for the ram, which shall be the fastest memory in your system. so you want your os to put it to good use, not? well, i want.

 

Fewer background processes is extremely important. Although you are correct that some run idle until they are needed, you won't be able to even use an XP computer with 80 processes running in the background or any OS in the same situation for that matter.

As far as the OS using the memory you paid for, NO, I don't want it using all of that memory. I state again that you should have all of your memory available as possible so your applications will run smoothly. I paid for 2 GB of RAM so my apps can use at least 1.9 GB of it, not 1 GB. Even the people here say that you should have plenty of RAM that it does not matter.

The point is if you have 32 GB of ram in your computer you don't want to be stuck with ony 30 GB of it. You should want ALL 32 GB of it open or at least as much as possible. You would be surprised how much that can make a difference, especially when video or graphics editing.

 

Win98 took 30mins to install on my old toshiba (pentium mmx 166mhz).
It was a good OS.

 

and you haven't understood ANY of my statements you never have any bit of ram for YOU. it's always 100% under the os' control. so the os should put it to BEST use possible. that means, too, give it ALL to some funky app that uses all if that's the BEST possible at a given situation. but it almost NEVER is. when have you filled your ram with an app last time? not while surfing, not while watching a movie, not while doing file managment, or office work, or what ever. and during those times, it's better to let the os fill the ram with data you MIGHT need. IF you need it, it will be much faster. a hdd has 100MB/s read speed, 8ms latency. ram is ORDERS of magnitude faster. you would like to not have a hdd at all if you could have all in ram, basically.


and the processes eat up NO physical resource after booting. NONE. this got stated more than once. they are event-based processes (the services, that are). they just wait for some system interrupt. and they are again, if possible, in ram, if not, they aren't. but having them, if possible, in ram, means they are able to react the fastest way possible to process the interrupt.

otherwise, the processes are, while idling, paged out to unimportant parts of the memory pool, and that can even mean down onto the hdd.

they DON'T CONSUME RESOURCES.

you don't want to believe me, fine. get stuck in win98 thinking, where technology and software where completely different. people like you made vista the big failure it was. not a technical one, but a comprehension one. people couldn't (and still can't, as you prove) understand that, maybe, their knowledge is dates, and not true anymore.

 

Gotta give you credit for trying to explain it once more

 

i will always try to fight for it! and you know (maybe) that i personally don't like win7 for completely different reasons. i still don't want to see it bashed for the wrong things. and, actually, i get used to it, and the issues i had at the start got away mostly. and it now starts to, just as vista did, kick . xp stopped kicking about half a year after sp2 was out. one half year of shine, and then it started to lose more and more in performance for most including me..
before sp2, it was a shiny nt based what ever win98 2000 mix. starting sp2, it got a real clean os, for it's time. but vista and win7 are so much further than it..
and don't let us talk about the dos-gui called win98

 

With regards to OS, you have to always remember:
More Features --> More Code --> More System Resources required.
It is a fact to implement new features you need more lines of function and code to execute.
The crux is if an OS is good is that it is able to do the above efficiently utilising the least amount of resource and overhead to achieve more features.

So far Windows 7 is good because it is able to achieve the effect while utilising less resource than Vista.
You can use Windows 9X or even NT or 2000 but do they have new features like Aero?
Network Media Sharing?
You can further reduce system overhead by turning off Aero and disabling certain service that is about it but with that I am sure the system load will be low enough even without the tweaks,

Microsoft official intent on Xp Mode is to allow users to run legacy Applications without issues not gaming
Anyway running Games in VM makes little sense as you will have bottlenecks that drops your FPS.

If you check the data about WARP you realise it is just to run Aero for Computers that have GPU not supporting Aero.
In WARP even a Core i7 cannot even hit the performance of a low end graphics.
Simply saying software design cannot make up for the architectural benefits of SIMD 3D instructions.

Anyway I owe you an apology for jumping to conclusions.

 

Why do you guys waste time on this retarded troll, lol.

 

topic starter = fail.

 

because that way no one-sides wrong statements happen to get shown up as a result in a google search, spreading missinformations to people who then hope to be able to rely on it.

 

Perhaps, but 5 pages now.. Come on ^^

 

Windows 7 is a very good OS for Windows Microsoft.
Windows XP sucks, it doesn't have much features as Windows 7 did and the UI is very old compared to 7. In addition, there's a lot of benefits of using Windows 7.
Windows XP used less resources due to it don't have many vital and great features that Windows 7 offers. So, people will have a sense that Windows XP runs faster than the other OSes. It is WRONG.

Seriously, it sounds like you're working with Apple MAC.

 

I was actually over my friends house on friday and he just got a loaded inspiron with windows 7 on it. He seems to love using the problem, though I believe that audacity might be having windows 7 problems because he couldnt get it open. Might have just been because it was friday the 13th though. Anyway, he loves it. Personally I prefer vista though. 7 just seemed a lilttle to in my face and that really got to me. Vista is just much smoother in my opinion.

 

This one paragraph speaks VOLUMES about this conversation. Clearly you do not have a clue what you are talking about. If you REALLY understood the OS architecture behind Vista and Win7 you would understand that the number of processes loaded is a meaningless measure. Before you continue to belittle an OS that you haven't even tried (save for the short use of the beta) might I suggest you go to the TechNet pages of Microsoft's website and educate yourself a bit.

Gary

 

Bull hockey. Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. Educate yourself before you continue with this uninformed line of reasoning. The raw number of processes has NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH to do with the ability "to even use" an OS.

Regarding the memory use, again you have no clue what is going on in the OS. Under XP your concern about memory use MIGHT have been justified. But that is not the case with Vista or Win7. The OS may have something loaded into memory, but that does not mean it is unavailable to your video or graphics editing app. It just means that the OS is doing a better job of anticipating what is needed BEFORE it is needed.

As I said before, you really need to back of these bombastic assertions about what the OS should not be doing and educate yourself on what it is doing and why the folks who design operating systems for a living have done and why.

Gary

 

Audacity loads fine on Win7 here.

Gary

 

lol stop reading crap about an os and use it
it doesnt need more ram than vista, it runs better than vista on the same ram here on my old HP lappy

 

Agreed. My 3D Lecturer will screw us if we say HDD space is expensive or something like the file is very big. LOL.
Now a day, HDD is cheap. With 60-80USD you can get 1000TB HDD.

 

Ok this thread hasn't been going anywhere for some time . . . it is now closed.