I have had it for a day, and it works as a clean install (I've tried the upgrade option and bluescreened on the first use of the desktop). It feels faster on my machine but not visibly faster (I had it without an AV, so that in itself would make any system a bit snappier). I like Vista, and I think Windows 7 is very similar, when I was using it felt like nothing had really changed (memory usage is less, UAC has different levels of alerts, and processes were 45 against my usual 75 with Vista, shutting down only took 10 seconds). Because of my HP scanner wouldn't install in it I had to go back to Vista, although I suspect from other posts that even First Defense PC Rescue wouldn't work with it. I'm sure that by the time it reaches the final release and I get it on a new computer it will be fine tuned. I forgot to mention that before going back to Vista I've installed Avira Premium to test compatibility: It works.
I've installed Win 7 on a 3 year old P4 system, a standard casual user desktop (2.5 GB RAM), which is now a dual boot XP/Win 7 system. First impressions are that it seems fine. No major surprises or disappointments. Performance is fine (casually speaking seems on par with XP, perhaps a small amount slower at this stage. Nothing distressing). UAC seems a lot better than on Vista, it really shouldn't raise complaints. I was a little surprised that I had to supply the driver for a Linksys Gigabit ethernet card - that was the only driver needed though. Everything else worked fine from install time and the install itself was completely painless. Not sure I'd upgrade from XP, but if I did, the price per machine would have to be in the reasonable range. Something along the lines of the Apple OS X family pack ($200 for 5 user family pack vs. $130 single user - why MS doesn't embrace this and limit OS SKU's as well is simply beyond me). Anything else and I wouldn't bother unless there was a compelling application (or something I'm not seeing at the moment) that required an OS upgrade for whatever reason. Blue
I installed it on my Intel box. I am again amazed at Microsoft's dumbness. The big reason for all this is to win over folks who stubbornly stick to XP over Vista. So naturally the design it so you can't do an upgrade install from XP. Duh. I wanted to evaluate with the software I run, so I grabbed my Vista Ultimate SP1 disk and started an upgrade from XP to Vista. Went thru the compatiblity stuff, and had to remove a couple of programs. Finally got Vista up and running. Then proceeded with the Win 7 upgrade install. Again sat thru the compatibility check. It found nothing and proceeded. Got to the last stage of the install, preparing the desktop and it bluescreened and rolled the install back. Great. So then I did a clean install. It went very quickly and soon was up and running. Tried doing an update as I did have one driver issue. Then discovered had no connectivity. It said there were no network adapters installed. Oh well. Restored my XP image and still had no network adapters. Hmm. So I powered down the machine, and when it came back up, everything was fine. So I again did another clean install of Win 7 and again found the network adapters gone. Powered down, and came back up. Indeed the network adapters were there and I was able to get on line. Was playing with IE8 when I lost the adapters again. That was it, end of play. Pete
It does seem as though network adapters are a bit of an issue. In my case, it kept telling me that my ethernet cable was unplugged...., well, it was unplugged from the integrated ethernet, but my gigabit adapter was live and once I installed from driver from the Linksys supplied CD I was good to go... However, it's not like this is a new card or anything. That part of the install should have been handled seemlessly. On the upgrade path from XP..., this is being handled somewhat curiously, especially since they appear to have some visions on the netbook market with Win 7, which is almost pure XP Home in the Windows domain of that segment at the moment Blue
I will not be trying Windows 7 or installing Vista. The MS operating systems I have now (2K and 98 ) will be the last closed source systems I use. If I upgrade any of my installed OS, it'll be one of the Linux systems. At present, the operating systems I have do everything I need so I'm in no hurrry to update any of them.
I agree totally on the pricing arrangement. Although i'm just as fierce a skeptic over matters like this although if indeed it seems it is on par with XP to some acceptable measure and can show some definite improvements in comparison to the Longhorn/Vista line, then their may be a change of heart on my end, but the cost measure will definitely need to fall in line as Blue indicated IMO before i would pick up on it. Especially cautious since i got XP Pro running like a champ and completely customized!
Will I try 7? Nope, not much interested. I currently run Vista x64 and Ubuntu x64 as desired, but have no desire to test a beta OS. When 7 is done, I will then decide if it's worth looking into...
I've decided not to try it,no point really. XP for me is 100% stable and does what I need it to do,no need to change.
Unfortunately looks like i'll be following suit and one of those who "aren't keeping up with the times" as some will no doubt blow off about. On the other hand, it disturbs me that come late summer i'll be fooling around with it's other beta version if it's not a release candidate by then. I just hope i can stomach it when the time comes
windows 7 beta works fine on my hardware. used vista drivers for most stuff. windows updated supplyed the wdm 1.1 nvidia display driver. i will definatly be purchasing oem windows 7 pro when it goes final. hopfully i can get away with a small bit of hardware to get oem version. vista is just a tweaked lightened version of vista but it is definatly better. i will buy it mainly for the under the hood improvements. btw on another note upgrade install are a stupid idea. upgrade installs arent even reccomended with linux. windows installs are quick enough that you dont need to worry about it imo.
I tend to disagree. I run XP since it was first released, switched to Vista because owning new laptop with Vista preinstalled. It took 2-3 weeks to start to like Vista after XP My personal feelings are Vista is faster, more stable (especially after the BSODs), and which is most important for me it is much safer even using admin account with UAC off. Many malware samples that succesfully infect XP fail to infect Vista. As for W7. Installed, got into several issues, uninstalled. I think this is not usable yet, though it looks faster than Vista.
Vista = 14 GB of mainly waste of space, for those who like it slim and minimalist it is not the right thing. I never use UAC and the first thing I do is to turn it off. Patchguard is annoying compulsive necessary security through obscurity feature, WinXP= transparent. Most useful feature since nt 6.0 is snipping tool, photo gallery and the ability to move inside pictures most of the rest is negligible.
I downloaded/installed W7 within 24 hours after it was available and keep going back and forth with it; sometimes I sort of like it- sometimes not so much. Yes, it is faster than Vista, but what isn't, and I keep looking for a good reason to "upgrade" from XP. I keep looking for the killer application that will make- for me- the transition worthwhile, but (so far), I haven't found it. Video quality with my computer, a Dell E510/P4 630 (Prescott) 3.0ghz, 2.5gb of 533mhz RAM, Radeon X300 video card, and a 17" Westinghouse analog monitor is poor- hard and glary. XP is much easier on the eyes. I cannot justify the purchase of another monitor and video card just so I can see Vista or Windows 7 as it was intended to look. For the majority of users, XP still offers everything needed in a simple package. I will play around with Windows 7 from time to time, but unless Microsoft offers a huge discount versus Vista's pricing structure or I end up with a more advanced computer and monitor, I don't see a voluntary transition from XP/W2K.
I have to agree with the assessments of BlueZannetti and YeOldeStonecat. I'm running the Windows 7 beta on a older P4 system and it's almost as fast as XP on the same system. IE8 is also faster than IE7 (what could be slower?); the javascript interpreter is faster for the websites I've visited. Windows 7 seems very stable for a beta release. I think of it more as Vista SP2.
I am ready to try, but if I get a Disc off someone. Downloading 4 GB will clog my home network for a long time and the Mrs will start throwing knifes again....
The fact is vista is a solid operating system. the only problem since sp1 is that its slow. windows 7 is great much better than xp.
XP is solid and stable. I can go months without any problem what so ever. Vista uses and wastes more resources and I don't see much benefit over XP. I even get an occasional crash, which requires two reboots when moving from website page to page on the internet on that machine. Don't know that Vista is at fault...but the difference in horsepower on those two machines you would think Vista would be smooth as silk. I can only hope when Win. 7 is rolled out, it will be as stable as XP with the more advanced features of Vista and more....otherwise microsoft is going to have it tough as time goes on.
