backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by TomCorelis.. on Jan 13 at 6:14 PM


Windows 7 included drivers for a majority of my hardware, with the exception of some minor Intel chipset peripherals and an E-MU 0202 USB audio interface.

On a clean install, the Windows 7 beta hovers around 1 GB of memory consumption.

Strangely, my computer is a third of a point faster in Windows 7 than it was in Windows Vista.
I try Windows 7 and end up pleasantly surprised

Earlier today I downloaded the Windows 7 64-bit public beta and this evening I decided to give it a spin.

But first, let me admit something: I'm not terribly interested in Windows 7. I rather like Windows Vista and W7 doesn't seem to have much to add to the table. My interest was not piqued, in fact, until a friend told that me that W7 would run even better than Windows Vista -- something I had to see to believe, hence tonight's little experiment.

I'm not going to provide detailed thoughts -- again, that's covered elsewhere and there's little point in reinventing the wheel. What I will provide, however, are a couple of technical impressions and some thoughts on how the OS will run on a real-world PC -- hopefully providing you with some ammo to fuel your own decisionmaking.

Before we begin, however, I want to make a quick note of my computer's specifications. It's a year-old, frequently-upgraded gaming PC packed with a hodge-podge of hardware -- I built it by hand to play games, process audio, and get some work done. Its specifications reflect that goal:
  • Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13 ghz).
  • Intel D965WH Motherboard.
  • 8gb DDR2800 RAM.
  • Radeon 4850 PCIe graphics card.
  • Five hard drives, two DVD writers, and about a dozen misc. USB devices
  • An E-MU 0202 USB audio interface and a Novation USB MIDI keyboard.
  • a Microsoft Natural USB keyboard and Logitech G5 mouse
The Windows 7 installation proceeded extremely smoothly -- literally, you click maybe four or five times and then you can sit back and kick your feet up -- and only took about a half hour. This was surprising, as every attempt I've made to install Vista has taken me at least two hours! I thought I'd be able to finish writing another DailyTech article on my laptop while I waited -- but instead the installation finished far before I had even begun proofreading.

The OS itself boots up quickly; the amount of time seems to be about the same as my tweaked Vista install, though 7 seems to do a lot more stuff in the background -- as evidenced by random, lengthy spikes in CPU and disk drive usage. Despite this, however, physical memory usage sat at an astonishing 1 GB, climbing only slightly with a few running instances of Explorer and Paint. By comparison, I seem to recall (and don't quote me on this, I'm working from memory here) a clean install of Vista easily sitting at 1.5 GB and happily chomping up more.

On a side note: W7's explanation of memory consumption is now even more confusing, as it has added an additional "available memory" metric that presents an accurate assessment of available physical memory: "free" memory plus dynamic cache. In Vista, this tripped up users that were unaware that the dynamic cache was freed as needed; the new format, while seemingly written with good intentions, is not presented clearly and might be better conveyed as an equation with "available" memory as the sum.

Curiously, my system scores .3 points higher in the "Windows Experience Index" -- a 5.3 -- than my Vista install. After reviewing the two scores the difference stems entirely from its rating of my CPU: this difference may or may not be attributable to the CPU-cycle-hogging cruft, which comes naturally from a lived-in OS install, that dragged down my CPU score.

User Account Control appears improved, and users now have the option to disable UAC's warnings from either user-initiated or program-initiated system configuration changes, or both. Now, instead of an on/off checkbox, you can control UAC's paranoia level with a slider.

Much like Vista, W7 detected most of my hardware without problems, including the standards-compliant USB MIDI keyboard. Also like Vista, it did not detect the E-MU USB box or the handful of Intel-specific chipset peripherals; all problems easily fixed by installing factory drivers post-setup. Because W7 will use the same drivers as Vista, we shouldn't see all the compatibility pains that, surprisingly, still plague Vista users.

Finally, I wanted to note that Paint and Wordpad have both received a much-needed revamp. While the added ribbon toolbar looks kind of silly -- the concept is clearly designed for feature-laden behemoths like Word and Excel -- it's worth noting that it makes the applications ten times more intuitive. I normally like to do screenshot and article icon cropping in Paint.NET, but -- much to surprise -- this process is now even faster in regular good ol' Microsoft Paint. It's also worth noting that -- finally! -- Paint's default file format is PNG.

I haven't used the new taskbar and Start Menu much, so I can't give you my impressions on that. I will say that they appear to be nifty, although the new taskbar may take a bit more getting used to -- especially since I am a huge fan of the Quick Access bar. (It can fit so many more icons than the OSX dock.)

So there you have it: one geek's thoughts on the new Windows build. I encourage you to try it out on your own, so that you can form your own opinions. It's nice to see that Microsoft is finally listening to users' complaints.

One last tip: get your beta key from the Windows 7 CP web site, and then download the actual ISO from your BitTorrent tracker of choice -- it's much faster that way, and Microsoft's website seems to be experiencing some technical problems with the actual download page. The Windows 7 ISOs on The Pirate Bay (look for the pink icon when searching for "Windows 7") currently have over 1000 seeders a piece.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Dunno what you're doing
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2009 10:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
Not counting formatting the hard drive (full not quick), a Vista install has never taken me longer than 30 minutes. Dunno what you're doing that it takes 2 hours.




RE: Dunno what you're doing
By TomZ on 1/12/2009 10:55:51 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed, it should be faster than that.

Windows 7 installed on my newer Core i7 workstation in about 15 minutes. Sweet.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/12/2009 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 1
Ditto. 2 hours? You had better been using a 1x DVD drive for that to happen lol.


RE: Dunno what you're doing
By ChronoReverse on 1/12/2009 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, one of the nice things about Vista's installation is that it was so much faster than XP's despite dumping 12 metric gigabytes =)


RE: Dunno what you're doing
By Screwballl on 1/13/2009 10:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
My Vista installs have always taken between 30 and 45 minutes including the HDD format. My XP installs, even on older hardware such as my AthlonXP machine, tends to always take 20-25 minutes (unless there is a hardware problem like a failing hard drive or buggy memory).

My x86 W7 install was a shade under 30 minutes on the same system that took 20 minutes for XP Pro, and 43 minutes for Vista Ultimate x64. Even 64-bit XP when I was doing some testing a few months ago ran at 23 minutes.


64Bit or 32
By rabbit74 on 1/12/2009 7:35:17 AM , Rating: 3
So you are running the 64Bit version.

I tried the 32Bit Version last week and found it actually faster and less buggy than 64Bit so far which I started running yesterday.

64Bit won't run Deamon disk emulation or Chrome, (but 32Bit runs both no problem). I am sure this is Microsoft's way of getting back at Google for not running Hotmail natively. Honestly a bunch of kids running these shows.

I am very curious what you are doing that you need to be concerned about RAM consumption when you have so much overhead on such a slow processor. I run 6Gigs of 800mhz DDR2s and turn off pagefiling and even so never run into RAM consumption issues with Vista or Seven

I downloaded both 64 bit and 32bit yesterday, (separately), each took less than an hour to download. Not bloody bad. If you Download from torrent there is always risk of getting a recompiled virus edition so be careful. Not everybody knows how to find clean apps on a torrent site.

One odd thing of the 32Bit version was that it showed all 6Gigs of my ram and even appeared to use them all. Even though 32Bit systems are not supposed to be able to address more than 4G.
Thus far I like the sidebar and there are some improvements with codecs handling in the Media Center. But I still Find it unusable because it still won't run VOBs or MKV files.

If you are going to build something called a "Media Center" I really think it should be able to handle all known or at least common codecs. I would love the media center if it natively played all codec, showed the album covers of the films in my library and easily handled complex script subtitles like Japanese and Chinese. Without these base functions I just can't use it because there are other freeware programs I can use.
It's a beta so try the 64Bit if you want but make sure you tell Ms about the bugs you find so they can fix them. I am sure it will be much more buggy than 32Bit. If you have less than 4G RAM just run the 32Bit version. It is light and clean and relatively bug free.




RE: 64Bit or 32
By TomCorelis on 1/13/2009 6:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
Curiously, 32-bit versions of Windows Server have been able to addres >4gb of RAM for quite some time. I am not sure how it does it. Maybe some weird LBA-style hack?

By the way, I got flamed to a crisp when I suggested people turn off their pagefile late last year... so be careful with how you give that advice. Of course, the people flaming me had no idea what they were talking about *tongue in cheek* but I digress...

Also, the problem with including codecs like MKV and VOB is that observers and pundits will view this as an endorsement of video codecs that have no current major commercial use -- meaning that they will see it as a Microsoft endorsement of piracy. The Azureus team has publicly stated a similar attitude about adding certain features to their BitTorrent client; some features would interfere with their effort to "appear legit". Besides, Microsoft wants you to buy your media, preferably in encrypted WMVs. The commercial MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and H.264 flavors of video have commercial applications, so they are included. MKV, ogg, VOB... all of these are nice formats but for the most part the only people who view files of these kinds are generally dealing with homebrew or pirated media -- and the latter carries a rather large stigma.


RE: 64Bit or 32
By TomCorelis on 1/13/2009 6:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I wanted to add that I am aware that VOB is the container format for legit DVDs. Rarely, if at all, does one need to open the VOB file directly to watch one -- hence the piracy stigma.


Wordpad and ODF
By ChronoReverse on 1/12/2009 11:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
Interestingly enough, Wordpad also supports saving in both ODF and OOXML format. It's as if MS is actually trying!




RE: Wordpad and ODF
By GaryJohnson on 1/13/2009 1:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has declared war on Adobe. I bet 7 ships with Silverlight pre-installed too, if it isn't already in there.


proofreading...
By oTAL on 1/12/2009 7:16:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
installation finished far before I had even begun proofreading.


Nice but...

quote:
My interest was not piqued, in fact, until a friend told that me that


You gotta work on those skills man... =)

P.S. Just so you know, I'm not nit picking and I didn't use a magnifying glass to spot any possible mistake... I just noticed it and found it amusing =)
Keep up the good work and... you had to know you had it coming!...




RE: proofreading...
By tastyratz on 1/12/2009 9:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
, but -- much to surprise -- this process is now even faster in regular gool ol' Microsoft Paint


Sorry man you set yourself up for that one, Couldn't help it ;-)

Good review though.


Statler and Waldorf
By amanojaku on 1/12/2009 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
FTW




2 hours and 1 GB idel usage???? LOL
By iFX on 1/12/2009 6:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
Try harder to rip on Windows 7 - you're not coming off strong enough!!!

Anyone with a brain can see through this sham of an article.




By IcePickFreak on 1/13/2009 2:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't get the argument about Vista eating up ram... umm isn't that what you buy it for? I've only been on Vista x64 for about 6 months now, and while it can consume a bit of memory sitting idle, I have never once made it run out of memory no matter what I throw at including pretty large assemblies in Inventor 2009.

When I bought 4GB of memory, it was with the intention of me using 4GB of memory, not 2GB.




laughable review
By canisMaximus on 1/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: laughable review
By DonkeyRhubarb on 1/12/2009 6:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
Would a home PC not be the perfect platform as this gives an accurate idea of how it will be on other people's home PC's?????


RE: laughable review
By AndyCamp on 1/12/2009 7:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't going to mess with my primary PC so I dragged one of my old ones out of the closet. I'm impressed with Win7. It ran at least as well as XP did on an old Dell 4100 with a PIII 1G and 512 RAM. That surprised me. I think MS might have a pretty good OS here.


RE: laughable review
By Aquila76 on 1/12/2009 8:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
I have remnants of an elderly PC with the same specs! I'm thinking of running it as a Windows Media Center PC. I just need to find an AGP video card w/decent specs.


RE: laughable review
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2009 9:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
I have an old Geforce 6200 256MB AGP I'll sell you. :)


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki