I went back to vista for programs that didnt work.. and the fact that It was missing alot of stuff I used in vista.. so I went back..
O that and the speed of vista was beating the win 7 wich was like wtf.. I supect its just drivers for now..
Printable View
I went back to vista for programs that didnt work.. and the fact that It was missing alot of stuff I used in vista.. so I went back..
O that and the speed of vista was beating the win 7 wich was like wtf.. I supect its just drivers for now..
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha49
Any chance you could put this into english please?!
-gaz
What programs didn't work? 7 isn't technically released yet, so you can't fault a 3rd party program for not working. What were you missing from Vista? You realize that MS removed a lot of extra features that people weren't using, and that many of them are available as separate downloads. Also, of the 6 computers I've used 7 with, all of them have had significant speed improvements, so it probably was drivers.
What are your specific problems?
/\ This has been my experience too. Heck, I have a friend who installed 7 on his Eee 1005, and it runs beautifully. Good luck running Vista on that. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Datech
I cant wait to get my upgrade from vista on my lappy. vista, when stripped completely, runs ok, but when i first got the piece of crap I was getting BSODs every 15 min. and it wouldnt hibernate without forcing me to restart after restoring from a hibernation. gay. it works now, but I am anxious for 7!
Acrobat programs... right of the bat lots of problems..Quote:
Originally Posted by Datech
Problems with my raid controller.. it has random read write issuses.. had non in vista.. just gets all lagy and screws up seems like bad driver with a bug..
Outlook express is gone
Windows movie maker is gone
Basicly anyprogram that you install thats windows live.. they removed it from windows 7 so you can install the crapy windows live programs instead... and ANyone that says movie maker is there its a Lie.. ITs replaced with windows movie maker live its a link to download it.. meaning its not preinstalled.. It just seems like they stripped out features made it look better and utilize less ram and call it windows 7.. and what they are doing is makeing it so that dx11 wont come out for a while with vista even though it works fine already.. you need sp3 for dx11.. which isnt a huge thing since well not like anything is dx11 yet..
Now if you have low amounts of ram or a slow pc then windows 7 is faster but if you have a fast pc already then windows 7 is the same speed..
Are the Windows Live programs free? Seems to me like they just cut out some of the less commonly used stuff from the default installation, and let people install it for free if they want it (last I checked, that was supposed to be a good thing; cheaper distribution costs, faster install time, etc). *shrugs* idk, I'd probably have different feelings about it if I actually used any of the programs they stripped out. I can't comment on Acrobat; I only use Reader, though I've never had any problems with it.
I have Acrobat Pro on one of the Win7 laptops with no problems. Also, there are plenty of free programs that do more than Acrobat, like doPDF and Foxit. Why don't you tell us what problems you are having so we can help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by haha49
That's a third party hardware thing, fault the developer, not Win7. Have you checked their support forums for the issues? What specific raid controller is it, as again we can help you through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by haha49
Again, they removed programs that weren't being used. More people use Thunderbird than OE now, and both OE and WMM are available for downloads. How is downloading them separately any different than what you do for a product like Firefox, or CCleaner, or Steam?Quote:
Originally Posted by haha49
Would you rather have all those programs preinstalled, and have a slow computer because they didn't bother to have the thousands of developers work together and streamline all the programs? Would you rather not have the option of installing Win7 on a low power PC and know it will work better than both XP and Vista? As for the same speed on high power computers, I have to disagree. Even though most people think Win7 is just Vista SP3, the changes in architecture reflect more of Windows Server 2008 than it does Vista code. In my comparisons, Vista takes about 25-30% more RAM and 5-10% more CPU utilization due to all the extraneous background process. Adding the downloadable content back into 7 will not bring back any of the background processes like the 13 instances of svchost.exe that commonly show up on Vista computers.
If you are having problems, say so and identify the specific instances. Just like with driver and architecture problems when Vista was released, you can't blame an OS for problems with 3rd party developers.
I ran W7 back during the beta test for about 3 weeks and ran CS2, CS3, CS4, Dreamweaver, Image Ready, Acrobat, COD MW, Fear, GTA IV, UT III, All the office 2007 programs, all the normal anti virus / spyware programs, filezilla, Photomatrix pro, Adobe Literoom, and many more programs and the only problem I ever found was trying to get it to recognize my 4 year old D-Link router.
IMO those who have problems with Vista or W7 either don't know enough about computers to properly check for updated drivers or install the OS on a machine not capable of handling it. Its 2008 people, everyone should have at minimum 2gb ram, and a 1.8Ghz dual core processor at the least. Trying to run vista or W7 on legacy hardware is never going to work as good as it would on an up to date machine. I mean you seriously don't think the guys at Redmond are going to code a completely new OS around hardware that's 5-10 years old do you?
But that begs the argument of whether Redmond is advancing hardware requirements at the benefit of the hardware companies, like Intel... The big stink with Vista was that a lot of 'Vista Ready' computers weren't really Vista ready, and Intel knowingly applied those brands in hopes users would upgrade to REAL Vista ready computers.
Linux doesn't have that kind of problem.
I would definitely not say that Redmond is advancing hardware requirements to the benefit of hardware manufacturers. Consumers like shiny, therefore OS developers make shiny. Shiny is harder for the computer to run, so it requires more powerful computers. However, the power required for an OS is never a cutting edge thing; it's just when people try to run a brand new OS (with lots of new shiny) on 3-4 year old computers, and expect them to work just as fast as they did on the old OS (with less shiny).Quote:
Originally Posted by Datech
In all honesty, the only thing that any of those 'Vista Ready' computers were missing was RAM. I ran Vista on a (single core) Athlon FX-55 with 2GB of DDR-400 RAM for over a year with no problems at all; I even did heavy gaming on it. I don't remember seeing a single 'Vista Ready' computer with less than 2 CPU cores, but I do remember seeing plenty with as little as 512MB of RAM...which frankly was just a dick move on the part of the OEMs.
Oh I beg to differ; Debian clearly states that I need 64MB of RAM to run a desktop environment. That's clearly pushing up the hardware requirements :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Datech
I run reader all the time and CS3 and it runs flawlessly. and you can just download OE and WMM like the others said. I dont use OE so I dont care about that, but I did download WMM and use it a lot.
Well of course they are. That's how business works. A big corp like M$ has a vested interest in coding around current and future architectures. They know that this is what the current OEM manufacturers will be building with and if they code it to slightly higher than current but aging hardware, the smaller component manufacturing companies will update their hardware. This will cause a chain reaction that will eventually trickle down to the consumer having to purchase new hardware to be able to run this new flashy and cool OS, thus driving the industry and selling more copies of the OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Datech
Video game coders have been doing this for years. They code games inefficiently so that they will use more video card resources, causing the consumer to have to upgrade their GPU to play the latest game. Ever wonder why the same game with almost the same coding will play on your X-box 360 with the same GPU that played the previous game in the series and you were stuck spending $200-500 on a new video card to play that same game on your pc when your 360 has less than half the power of your current GPU?
I chose to stick with 16-bit hand-painted sprites for that reason. Not all game developers are doing that.
And, look at the requirements for 7 vs Vista-they're the same or lower. The industry is slowly but surely wising up-now let's get them to worry more about gameplay and less about pretty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Datech
The drivers were preloaded into the os that Im haveing issuse with.. raid random read and write bugs.. opening a photo on a memory card is very bugy.. it can hang the system
O and have you actually used windows live movie maker? .. Trust me it sucks so bad try it you will see... acrobate has problems working.. and several other programs installing was easyer but windows 7 is way way over hyped..
I was suppose to get the windows the 22 because i bought a laptop with the free upgrade . I called hp still ahvent got it yet steve said everything was ok dont worry lol I want my os steve
I Izzzzz!!!!!!!!!!
I just upgraded to Win 7 from Vista and noticed a speed difference. Programs seem to open faster (well IE still kind of sucks but don't use it anyways) and windows update isn't annoying as all hell when updates are present. So far I have had no problems getting programs going, not done all the installs but seems to be working well and as opposed to Vista I actually have all my damn drivers from day 1 so woo! (Not Windows fault but hey it's nice not having the nagging icon in device manager)
I actually like the task bar. I wasn't sure how I was going to like it, but it works well and systray is way less clogged up, not to mention way way less processes running! So far I'm satisfied, bumped a few more frames in some games maybe 5%, unlike Vista first install where I was losing at least 10% frames.
Did have 1 problem though, updated my network drivers (through windows update) and for some reason it installed the old driver and totally botched my connection, so had to do rollback and went to newer driver, problem solved.
It took me a little while to get used to it, but I really like the task bar too. Plus, and added bonus, it's the first Windows taskbar that actually works well on the side of the screen. Yay for less wasted screen space :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Killa_Ape
same here. got mine through dell supposed to be sent an email. but nothing yet. gay gay gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid_Scope_99
maybe its you card then. I open photos on meory cards all the time and itsQuote:
Originally Posted by haha49
flawless. Acrobat also run flawless on my machine. I am having 0 issues with W7. The only thing I had to do was go to some MFR's websited and get updated drivers (updated Catalyst, updated software for my keyboard, etc)
This is amazing, I really like not having titles for programs I always use on the taskbar. Way useful having the taskbar on the side of the screen with my laptop screen. The tray works great, I can hide but still easily access icons I don't use all the time, and choose a few to keep visible that I always use, like my chat client and steam. I also like the new take on the sidebar gadgets, I can place them wherever I need/want them, which makes my desktop look a lot cleaner.Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
Just switched over to 7 today.
64-bit support for things already laid out by Vista FTW.
Not to mention, it had out-of-the-box support for ALL my hardware, meaning as soon as the install was done, I was on my way!
The taskbar definitely does look good up on the side, much better than it was in XP.
Not to mention, Aero is the hotness.
Omega, just wait til you install it on a laptop. It friggen configures the wireless driver DURING windows setup, before you ever hit the desktop!
It did that on this system as soon as I put a Vista/7 capable wireless care in it (my old one wasn't)Quote:
Originally Posted by Datech
The only issue I've had with Windows 7 is that Logitech dropped the support for a large portion of their webcams. I'm waiting for an RMA so that I can try XP mode to see if that's a working solution. Other than that, Windows 7 actually fixed a number of hardware issues that I had in Vista, such as my TV tuner card. I've been running the full release since September (legally aquired through MSDN-AA) and have been extremely happy.
XP mode most likely will not solve your webcam issue. If the only problem is that there's not a 7 driver, if there's a Vista driver, that'll work. Same base kernel, just updated.
I was just using Windows 7 64 bits addition in my laptop. But its hardly working on it. Because my laptop having a 2 GB RAM so its become slow my laptop. While this OS is nicely working in my PC now a day.