I pretty much agree. But, I would upgrade to Vista, but a couple of things stop me doing so :
As we've said, it drains too much resources. Sure, some products may indeed run better on Vista, but the majority do not.
Secondly, would be the lack of decent drivers that actually work. Yes, I know Vista has been out for a while, and I could probably find drivers for everything, however I cannot speak of the quality of the drivers, and if indeed they'd provide me with many of the features I get (and expect) on XP.
Besides, I'm not really into the hassle of having to transfer (or re-download) some 30gb of non-redownloadble games, 50gb of Steam-platform games, 2gb of music and 35gb of films. Many of the things that I have on my PC aren't replaceable (photos, some files and stuff) and not all are copyable, nor replaceable, if you get what I mean.
I'll wait for Windows 7 to be released, and assuming it sorts out all of the bugs on Vista, while retaining the (somewhat limited) driver support of Vista, then I will most likely upgrade when I can be arsed/afford it.
Windows 7 installed every single driver for my computer and devices (pen drive, sound card driver, graphics card driver, 2 different printers, webcam (and it's a VERY OLD webcam!!), fax, cell phone drivers and network), everything works amazingly well and I'm not experiencing any problem with any of the drivers that windows installed (and everything works correctly).
And the best part: it installed every of these DURING THE WINDOWS INSTALL!! When the desktop first came out after 18 minutes of installing Windows 7, all of the drivers were already installed and working.
I was amazed because it did all of this alone, the only thing It asked me to do was "choose the hard drive disk in which you want windows to be installed", then it did everything else and started windows after finishing. :jawdrop:
I have already installed Windows 7 in three computers, one of them is really old (athlon xp 1.2Ghz, 2GB RAM, fx5500 256MB), and it's running and starting up a lot faster than XP in this computer (it used to last 10 minutes to completely start XP up, but starts up in 28 seconds using Windows 7).
My dad already said "when Microsoft release it, I'll buy Windows 7. But until this happens, I'll keep using the beta"
Regarding to Steam: I know you said you can't copy it, but if you just get a way to save your steamapps folder, you can paste it in any computer and all of the games will work perfectly. You don't even have to install steam again: just copy "Steam.exe" and the "steamapps" folder to anywhere you want (it doesn't even have to be the default folder, you can put it anywhere you want), and once it finishes moving/copying the files, run Steam.exe and it will generate the necessary files and make sure all of your games will run in the directory you have put them on. If you put it on C:\games\steam.exe, when you run it it'll stay there, generate the necessary files (very fast) and after that you can already play
Games seem to run slightly slower for me than with XP, much like Vista. It does seem to be an improvement over Vista though, generally speaking. It's not quite so bloated, and there are less annoyances.
It honestly seems more like a Vista upgrade than a whole new OS though. I suppose calling it Windows 7 will avoid the negative stigma of Vista, not to mention they can charge full price since it's a "new" OS.
I think it's pretty much the same. Lag is usually more dependent on your internet connection and network (NIC, router, modem, etc) than anything else.
There has to be something configured wrong or some sort of driver problem for him to get that kind of difference in FPS. That's the only explanation.
Still only uses 1 CPU for me. That's how the game was/is is coded, changing operating systems won't change that. When LFS came out dual/quad-core CPUs didn't exist, so there was no reason to code for them.
I would have thought any dual core CPU would run LFS flawlessly though (because LFS is pretty old and dual-core CPUs are pretty new), even though it only uses 1 core.
Well running at 1/3rd speed would still be significantly slower. Whether it's fast enough to "get by" I don't know, but I think for the best experience you'll obviously want to run it from a HDD.
Keep in mind that number for HDDs is the sustained speed as well. Modern HDDs have burst speeds of 200-250mb/s, and burst speed is what matters when it comes to quickly loading applications/small files/etc.
Also, as someone mentioned the amount of writing Windows does will wear out your flash drive very quickly. They just aren't designed to have data constantly being written to them in the way Windows does.
win7 boots a LOT faster, and surfing the web, i would say about 100% faster. If not more. Its not just because of fresh install on new hdd either. Everything seems faster. (could be hdd :S) Everything does come to a screeching slowdown once a lot of things are happening on my ancient amd 3700, though. overall it's a great o/s and I'm currently using it as main, and havent had to go to xp for 3 days now! Might even consider paying for it once it gets released. 9.3/10
Linux is NOT windows. If you run linux then you shouldn't be on the side of the argument that windows seven can run off a usb stick without issues.
That random access is faster on a stick but the overall bandwidth is what makes USB not something that bigger operating systems can run on well. Besides, latency works for the speed of finding the file not moving it. you would still bottle neck on larger files in startup and any time you used anything over a few KB.
I don't know what you are smoking but a modern hard drive (sata II) run at 1.2gb/s sustained. 1200 vs 25-30.
As for the writing argument, I guess you all don't remember when compact flash came out? Everyone thought it would be awesome to use a CF card to run their OS on with a HDD adapter and a card. I ran through 5 of those cards. One lasted a week. One a few months. The average was about a month tops. This was on linux, with the fstab modified to query and write the hard drive less. Running something off a USB stick for extended periods of time is not a viable option, especially with cheap sticks.
That said I still keep a Ubuntu 8.04 stick around in case my desktop or anything else nukes itself.
What are the experiences of you guys with other games on Windows 7? If there are a few positive replies here I'll be mightily temped to install the beta.
Personally I haven't had many problems with Vista, for all intents and purposes it works fine, but I've never been wowed with the performance of Vista over XP, and I've noticed instances where XP is definitely faster, even on an older computer.
right because a fully fledged linux with gnome and compiz is that much lighter than windows... listen to yourself
where the hell did you get those numbers from? either way theyre as wrong as it gets
this is the fastest mechanical sata drive money can buy: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3303
tops out at ~120mb/sec a more normally priced one will top out at around 90-100 and drop to ~50 on the slower sectors
you must be doing something wrong we have tons of fpgas with oses booting from cfs running in our labs here and they run just fine
Another question, if i choose to keep my trusty xp and run a dual boot system (xp and 7 at the same hd) where i can choose witch system to boot on, will i be able to run lfs no matter what?
Thinkin of the serial key unlock problem.
Dont i need to unlock lfs on the new 7?
And if i choose to boot on xp, is that unlocked lfs locked again?
In my example i have two fysical harddisks. HD1 with xp on (and perhaps 7 as a dual boot) and HD2 with my games installed on.
Short post:
My experience with Windows 7 is very good, I'm using it as my main system and no bugs found yet, the games and apps seems to run more smooth than in XP, I didn't have any problem with it yet.
Huge post:
On Windows XP I wasn't able to play GTA IV with the steam overlay in-game, the fps dropped under 3 even on lower resolution and graphics... on Windows 7 I'm able to run GTA IV the same FPS regardless of steam overlay, using the same graphical options (fps doesn't drop anything even with a lot of chat and web browsing windows on steam).
-----------------------------
LFS on Windows XP doesn't lock the frame rates correctly, if I set it to limit on "90fps" it will always get ~86fps and instable. On Windows 7, when I set LFS to limit on "90fps", the game will always have a perfect locked frame rate: "90.9fps", which never drops. It also seems a bit more smooth.
-----------------------------
I had nothing better to do yesterday so I decided to try crashing my system (Windows 7) and while I was at it I was showing it all for a friend of mine on windows live messenger.
I was able to run and play Crysis + LFS + Stalker Clear Sky + 1080p movie running + about 8 Opera tabs running youtube videos + a lot of other tabs (browsing many different websites) + 4 explorer windows + Windows Live Messenger + Webcam (showing stuff and Windows 7 for my friend), using Dreamscene for the background, Steam overlay in-game and Windows Aero enabled and running, everything at the same time.
The system didn't crash as expected, and also didn't slow down at all and I was able to show off every kind of stuff from Windows 7 to my friend, I showed him the games running on flip 3D (it's real time! every game I tested works fine with this), the real time preview on the taskbar and the games running flawlessly.
The only thing that reduced system performance a bit was the "show window only" feature (it shows only the window you are previewing, and make the other ones completely transparent), but it wasn't enough for crashing and as long as I didn't use it the system wouldn't get slower.
System tested:
Windows 7 32bits official beta build 7000
Pentium D 820 2.8Ghz
2GB RAM DDR2 667Mhz
9800GT 512MB GDDR3
HD 500GB 7200RPM + 160GB 7200RPM
22" wide LG monitor
Settings used in this test:
Crysis , directx10, everything set to "very high", no AA
LFS windowed 1440x900 AA8x, AF16x, my enbseries (bloom) settings + depth of field
Stalker clear sky: windowed 1440x900, directx10, everything maxed out, every effect enabled no AA
PS: Except for Crysis (which I run 1440x900 even when in fullscreen mode), I always play these games on 1680x1050, but since I wanted to show him the stuff running at the same time I had to put 1440x900 and windowed for everything so he could see more than a single game running and appearing on the screen at the same time. I didn't just open the game on the menu and started showing it off, I started on LFS a race with 12 AI and 120 laps, loaded a level on Crysis, loaded a level on stalker clear sky and I was showing everything for him as I played. No windows minimized, everything appearing on the screen.
-----------------------------
Not only my system is a lot faster, but also another one I have installed Windows 7 in it too:
Windows 7 32bits official beta build 7000
Athlon XP 1.2GHz
2GB RAM DDR
FX5500 256MB AGP16x
HD 40GB 7200rpm + 20GB 4500rpm
It boots faster, it works faster, it opens files faster, and runs flip 3D, Aero, the blur and transparency things flawlessly.
I had Windows XP 32Bits Professional installed in both computers before getting Windows 7, and, in the computers I tested and on the great experience I had with this system, I say it's faster, I didn't find bugs yet and I'm using it as my main system in both computers. (I have dual boot with windows xp but it's already been about 6~7 days without ever accessing windows xp again)
-----------------------------
Warning! Regardless of what I said, always backup your system files, and don't install Windows 7 over the previous Windows you had, remember this is a BETA build and it's recommended to be installed in another HD, just as I did.
-----------------------------
Tips: after installed, Windows 7 will block access to any HD which have another windows installed (so no program can use the files from the other windows, thus disabling the program to mess them up). In order to re-enable access to the other HD and access its files, go to:
Start > search for "administrative tools"
Open it, select "Computer Management", go under "Disk Management" and select the HD in which a older version of windows is installed. Right-click on it and select "Change drive letter and paths", click on button "Add..." and choose any letter you want. Click "OK" twice (thus closing both open windows) and close it. Doesn't need to restart, open "Computer" and the old HD is already there.
