backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Shmak.. on May 8 at 3:28 PM


Consumers can download the Release Candidate build of Microsoft's slick new OS, Windows 7, and try it out for themselves. Both 32- and 64-bit versions are available for download.
Consumers can finally get their hands on a near-release copy of the latest version of Windows

Windows 7 has the tech community and the consumer world buzzing.  For consumers, it has been a long four months since the release of the Windows 7 beta which saw hundreds of thousands of downloads.  Some turned to torrents to try to swipe the newer beta builds or the recent Release Candidate, but for most it was a matter of waiting.

The waiting is over at last as Microsoft has officially released the Release Candidate 1 build of Windows 7 to the general public.  The build is available directly from Microsoft for download.

Microsoft is suggesting that novice users not download the build as no tech support will be provided.  Customers who download the build will have to burn the ISO onto a disk.  Unlike the more recent beta candidate builds, the RC1 build requires a complete reinstall, even on machines with a working build of Windows 7.

Both 32- and 64-bit versions of the build are available.  Microsoft recommends users' computers have at least 1GHz processor, 1GB of RAM and 16GB of free disk space.

Microsoft is promising not to limit the number of downloads of the new release, like it initially did for the beta release (before later relenting and allowing unlimited downloads).  The beta release proved a headache for some, as the large demand crashed some of Microsoft's servers at the time, rendering many eager users unable to download the beta from Microsoft.  Microsoft is hoping that this time around things go more smoothly.

The test builds of Windows 7 will work until June 2010, but starting in March 2010 they will shut down every two hours.

Microsoft has publicly stated that Windows 7 will launch "no later than January 2010."  However, it now appears that the new OS will land in time for the holiday season, as Acer has leaked its release date as October 23.



Comments     Threshold


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

Windows 7 on dv9207us
By rmdesai on 5/5/2009 9:33:04 AM , Rating: 4
Hello,
I installed the RC release on my dv9207us HP laptop. It was error-free. It is definately the way Vista was supposed to be. The new task-bar is good.
It allowed me to install and run MusicMatch Jukebox that Vista did not allow.
WMP12 plays divX, DVD and VOB files. It still takes around 7GB of HDD.

Ravindra.




RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By FITCamaro on 5/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By xti on 5/5/2009 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 3
is 7gb too much? 1TB is under 100 bucks now a days.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2009 10:18:56 AM , Rating: 1
No 7GB is great. 16GB is huge though. I mean Vista is already big.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Slinger2112 on 5/5/2009 10:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
Also remember that this is the 'Ultimate' edition... This is theoretically the 'big boy' of the line.

For reference, check the DailyTech article on Windows 7 editions (http://www.dailytech.com/Updated+Windows+7+Edition... ).

The footprint should be much smaller for the OEM Starter edition ... which should make Netbook owners pleased. The lowest retail edition, Home Premium, will probably still require the lion's share of Ultimate's footprint... however any computer modern enough to be loading Windows 7 on should have sufficient HDD space.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Sulphademus on 5/5/2009 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 3
I believe the way Microsoft was going to do it was to ship all the Windows 7 discs will all the versions on it and what features you get are dependent on the lisence key you enter. I had read that they wanted seamless upgrading from one version to another and this would enable that.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By docmilo on 5/6/2009 2:29:03 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, all disks will have all versions, it doesn't mean that all installs will be the same. Win7 x64 is a 3+ gig download whereas Win7 32bit was less than 3gb. The more goods you want means larger footprint. Take features away and you hd has more empty space.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2009 4:59:41 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently those who hate me don't limit their stupidity to my more political posts.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2009 5:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, I was thinking the same thing since Microsoft's download page gives the following requirements...

1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB RAM (32-bit) / 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

7 is much better than 16 even though space is a non-issue for the general public.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By teldar on 5/5/2009 6:05:12 PM , Rating: 5
Hell, there are people out there who don't realize there's a difference between hard drive and ram space.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By retrospooty on 5/6/2009 7:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
"Apparently those who hate me don't limit their stupidity to my more political posts. "

No, you posted negatively about Vista... an instant downrate on this site. I can't figure out why, but if you post anything negative about vista, even something mildly observational and non-critical like you just did its pretty much automatic that you'll be at -1.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By xti on 5/6/2009 11:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
or you could just not cry about 16 GB. That's like...smaller than a football game in HD.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Googer on 5/5/2009 6:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
Storage is cheap, an 8GB flash card costs only a couple of dollars. Hard drives are even cheaper, 300GB HDD should cost you about the same a a PS3 game.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Makes sense, around a 3GB initial footprint with another 3-4 gigs reserved for paging and hibernate files.

Personally I disable paging completely, the average user will probably never need it with 4GB, and personally I have 8GB of RAM, and I have never even come close to the limit, even with some intense video editing. ok.. intense amature video editing ;)


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2009 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
We don't need to know about you editing your home movies with your boyfriend.

jk man. :)


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Lord 666 on 5/5/2009 10:58:36 AM , Rating: 4
Speaking of pink shirt designer jean wearing metrosexuals, haven't seen mdogs on here for a while.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2009 11:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't know whats up with him. I'll ask him tonight.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 11:42:31 AM , Rating: 5
Hey A**hole! I'm Canadian, how do you know we are not married?


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By siberus on 5/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Smilin on 5/5/2009 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 3
Turning off your pagefile is a bad idea regardless of how much RAM you have. Saying you'll "never need it" shows a lack of understanding of how windows memory management works.

You are essentially forcing your computer to consume usable RAM for memory allocations that are never actually used.

Foolishness.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2009 11:42:47 AM , Rating: 1
Not to mention there are no noticable performance benefits aside from saving a few gigs of HD space.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 12:35:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Saying you'll "never need it" shows a lack of understanding of how windows memory management works.

Ok, I don't actually totally disable it (I find you need 512M, mainly because some older programs require a page file, and for a few reasons I will mention below), but its damn close. Unlike XP which indiscriminately used whatever memory was available, whether it be paged or not (resulting in thrashing) Vista/7 specifically tries to load as much into the system memory as possible in the first place. The only reason Microsoft recommends to at least match the amount of physical RAM is because it is required to do a full memory dump. I've never done this in a home environment in my life, and I still have enough virtual mem to perform a mini dump, or capture blue screen errors.

I've also heard claims that it helps with managing the loading and unloading of applications, but I have yet to see a negative impact with only 512M RAM.(as I will mention below it is quite the opposite). That being said, your most commonly used programs are already in system memory because of superfetch, pretty much rendering your point about 'forcing your to consume usable RAM for memory allocations' moot as this is already default behavior.

By definition paged memory cannot be as fast as system memory, there will be a negative impact on your system anytime virtual mem is used as a subsitute for system memory. There is no getting around this, and while Vista/7 tries its best not to do so, I found that it would do so anyways on a regular basis. Although not nearly as bad as XP.

There is no doubt in my mind that going to the minimum page definitely speeds up my system, and while I would never attempt this at work, there is no reason to have a full fledged page file with 8GB of RAM at home.

P.S In the unlikely event Windows somehow does run out of memory with 4GB+ of RAM, Vista+ has a feature (which interesting enough is called RADAR or Resource Exhaustion Detector and Resolution) which will shut down the program using the most resources, so the days of XP where your system would become completely unresponsive are gone.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By ChronoReverse on 5/5/2009 1:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
All your memory in any modern operating system is using "virtual memory". Virtual memory is NOT the same thing as the page file.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 1:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Virtual memory is NOT the same thing as the page file.
They are directly tied to one another, using virtual memory implies that the page file is being used. Notice how they say increase the virtual memory and not the page file size in the text below.
quote:
If your computer lacks the random access memory (RAM) needed to run a program or operation, Windows uses virtual memory to compensate. Virtual memory combines your computer’s RAM with temporary space on your hard disk. When RAM runs low, virtual memory moves data from RAM to a space called a paging file. Moving data to and from the paging file frees up RAM to complete its work. The more RAM your computer has, the faster your programs will generally run. If a lack of RAM is slowing your computer, you might be tempted to increase virtual memory to compensate . However, your computer can read data from RAM much more quickly than from a hard disk, so adding RAM is a better solution.
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/hel...

*also notice the 'Applies to all editions of Windows Vista.' displayed at the top.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By TomZ on 5/5/2009 1:50:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are directly tied to one another, using virtual memory implies that the page file is being used
Not necessarily. You could have a virtual memory system that doesn't use a disk page file. I would guess that this is exactly how Windows operates when you completely disable the page file.

Also, the OP is right - Windows always uses virtual memory. For example, as an application increases its memory requirements, Windows will map more and more memory into that process' memory space.

The quote you gave is really for non-tech end users; it is a simplified and not totally accurate description.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 2:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wow.. My interpretation was so wrong its not even funny.. Kind of sad considering what I do..

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2...

I may need to disappear for a while!


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 2:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
Although my previous point still stands.. just replace virtual memory with paged..


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By GaryJohnson on 5/5/2009 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
In the years since I turned it off I've never needed it and after I turned it off I saw a performance improvement... clearly I'm a moron.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By TomZ on 5/5/2009 4:05:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Turning off your pagefile is a bad idea regardless of how much RAM you have. Saying you'll "never need it" shows a lack of understanding of how windows memory management works.
Not really. You will only run into problems if your current memory usage requirements exceed your available physical memory. If you have, e.g., 4GB of RAM and just run a handful of non-memory-intensive apps, you'll be just fine.

I've run machines for long periods of time like that and didn't run into any problems. But on the other hand, I never noticed any performance difference, so when I reloaded the OS again, I never bothered with that.
quote:
You are essentially forcing your computer to consume usable RAM for memory allocations that are never actually used.
What does that even mean? Memory is only allocated in the first place when a program requests it. So, by definition, if the memory is being used, then it is needed!
quote:
Foolishness.
The foolishness is that your post somehow got rated to a 5. I can't really explain that.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By GaryJohnson on 5/5/2009 4:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You will only run into problems if your current memory usage requirements exceed your available physical memory.


If that was the way it worked in practice that would be great, but in XP there is a lot of hard drive activity (thrashing) with the page file on as opposed to off even before it's used all your available physical memory.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 4:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
It does work that way in practice. I think you are confused here, Tomz was describing what happens when paging is turned off completely. You are describing a situation in which it is on.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Slinger2112 on 5/5/2009 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 3
I'll agree that the 32-bit base install (I'm another TechNet subscriber) on my 2500+ Barton test system clocked in at 7 GB of system HDD space. Note that this includes the 'system controlled' swap file probably based on my 1GB of RAM ... and possibly a hibernation file (don't remember if I hibernated once before checking the disk usage ... and if it keeps the hibernation file on the drive).

It was a nice clean install. My AGP nVidia 6600GT is running Aero fine. GUI is pretty responsive. Boots were pretty quick for a system that isn't that far beyond the minimum specs. On a non-technical side ... Microsoft included some *stunning* American landscape photos. Ultra-crisp even on my older 1440x900 panel. I haven't done much testing beyond that...


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By axias41 on 5/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:50:44 AM , Rating: 5
Apples to Oranges anyone? Xubuntu is light weight by nature, how about you compare a full fledged release like Ubuntu or Kubuntu. 7 has a 3 gig footprint without paging or hibernate files, i.e even your xubuntu stats are not that impressive.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By oTAL on 5/5/2009 10:58:05 AM , Rating: 5
Warning: Trolls are lurking around. Do NOT feed them!


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Yaron on 5/5/2009 4:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Xubuntu sucks!

*Quickly feeding troll and running for cover*


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By just4U on 5/5/2009 9:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I just hope they practice the Catch and release method.

Alot of semi-pro Trollers kicking about and the know that the DT Waters are thriving with little fishies just waiting to be baited!


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By albundy2 on 5/6/2009 4:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
I practice the "pull and pray" method... XD


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By just4U on 5/6/2009 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's clever to! :)


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By bim27142 on 5/5/2009 10:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed it took around 7GB of HDD space @ fresh install AND it still takes about 700MB of RAM as well...

I just thought that it was going to be much "leaner" than Vista...


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
My I ask how much RAM you have? I've noticed RAM use differs from machine to machine. Makes me think there is some kind of formula to figure out how much RAM superfetch is to use. (which would be very smart).

P.S throw out everything you knew about 'RAM usage', as with Vista it is not the same as in XP. Superfetch will load your most used programs into memory so they will start almost instantly should you choose to use them.

If you have the RAM why not use it? Its not clear cut like 10 years ago, if you were to disable superfetch completely on a Vista system and a 7 system, you would surely see less resources being used in 7, and nowhere near the 700M you have described. (I've tested this myself)


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By StraightPipe on 5/5/2009 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
In Vista I disabled prefetch entirely (via Regedit) and I was quite pleased with the results.

I'm running a gaming rig with 4GB of ram and vista would eat up 30% on boot (over 1GB), then each day it would ramp up until 90% was being used. That may be great if i could control what was fetched, but i cant...ideally I'd like to see it fetch my web browser (currently Chrome), my video player (VLC) and the last game i played (drakensang).

Instead it was out there gobbling up all sorts of ram for MS apps and other junk, then as soon as I'd start a game it would take massive swapping before it could actually cache my game...this was a real performance killer, so it's disabled.

When will smartfetching arrive on windows?


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
then each day it would ramp up until 90% was being used.
Thats not normal behavior in my books. Sounds like a memory leak to me, and chances are it is one of the programs you are running, and not Windows. And just so you know, Chrome has been known for its mem leaks in many situations. Especially if you leave the chrome windows open, while their cleanup efforts when you close a tab are amazing when compared to IE and FF, they have a long way to go with leaving windows open.

P.S on your 'smartfetching' comment, that is exactly what it does. Its not going to load a program into memory that you use once a year. If you use Chrome and VLC on a daily basis, these are surely the programs that are getting priority. Prefetch was XP, Superfetch is essentially a 'smart' approeach to Prefetch


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By StraightPipe on 5/5/2009 12:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
It may be a memory leak, in windows, because it behaved that way since i installed Vista Business 64 (and on Vista RC2, and on Vista Beta). I haven't tried re-enabling superfetch since the service pack got installed.

Also Chrome was not installed when I disabled this feature. At the time I was using IE7.

What I meant by "smart" fetching, was the ability to designate which apps got fetched instead of Windows arbitrarily deciding for me. Like a memory manager.

//i'd like to think i know what I want a little better than windows does...

for example, fetching web browsers that load in less than a second anyway doesn't make a difference that's distinguishable to the naked eye.. fetching a huge ass game on the other hand can be very useful (and noticeable)

for another example. say I play fallout3 every day for a month. Windows says hey, the user has run this game 30 times, lets fetch this game. but on day 31 I install a crysis and stop playing fallout. it'll take weeks before windows realizes that i no longer play fallout and move on to crysis, when I knew it on day 1. hell, it owuld be nice if "smart" fetch even had an option in installer to make the new game your default fetched game.

really i see it needing default browser, default player, default game, and maybe default word processor...
of course every user wont need every category, and some may want two options for one category, but let the educated user choose if they want to.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By TomZ on 5/5/2009 1:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt there's a serious memory leak in Windows itself. Much more likely to be in one of the loaded apps, services, or drivers. Can't you see the leak when you look at the memory allocated to each process in the Task Manager or Resource Monitor?


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By StraightPipe on 5/5/2009 2:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
NO, you couldnt see the leak (no apps were using more than 100MB in taskman). But disabling super fetch immedieatly solved the problem.

Who knows, it could ahve been fixed in SP1, but i'm happy without superfetch.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By TomZ on 5/5/2009 6:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really get the downside with Superfetch, since it is just using unused RAM anyway. If applications need the RAM, then Superfetch doesn't use it, and the application uses it instead. I'd rather have at least some marginal benefit from unused RAM, rather than no benefit at all.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Sazar on 5/5/2009 3:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
To add on. On the 64-bit version of Windows 7, Chrome with default settings is broken.

You need to add some instructions. Copy/paste from Google.

The fix for launching Chrome from its icon:
1. Right click the icon and select Properties
2. Select the Shortcut tab
3. Add a space and --in-process-plugins to the Target field, after …\chrome.exe"
4. Click OK

Note that this fixes Chrome to work with x64, however I get periodic faults with pages not loading and have to refresh to fix the problem. x32 works flawlessly.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By inighthawki on 5/5/2009 8:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Superfetch works by using "unused" ram for apps that u used the most, its not stupid, but of course it wont know exactly what u want it for. But in the case of loading a game, no memory is "swapped", its directly overridden as soon as the app needs it. There are no performance hits to having it enabled.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By oTAL on 5/5/2009 10:53:28 AM , Rating: 5
I admire your courage... not for installing MS Windows 7...
...you know... for publicly admitting you use MusicMatch Jukebox.

On the other hand I'd advise you to try out SongBird (great and simple player - extensible like Firefox). Or if you feel courageous go for FooBar2k. If you give it enough effort it turns into a really bad ass music player. Look for the builds modded by the experts. ;)


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 11:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
Foobar2000 is the best ;) Windows 7/Vista + bit-for-bit exclusive mode == amazing.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Pirks on 5/5/2009 12:14:59 PM , Rating: 1
What's so special about this bit-for-bit thing? Stops sound from interrupting when system is under heavy load or what?


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 1:03:28 PM , Rating: 3
No.. it bypasses the Windows Mixer allowing for bit for bit reproduction of the audio in question. i.e if you are listening to a 44khz/16bit MP3, it uncompresses the file to PCM and outputs that PCM audio bit for bit. By doing so, it locks out all other apps from playing sound (including windows sound).

The problems lies with the fact that you can have multiple programs outputting sounds in multiple formats, and Windows needs a way to join the all together. Previously in Windows XP all sound was resampled(and even Vista in non exclusive mode) to 48KHZ regardless of what is being played. So if you have ever wondered why your CD sounds different on XP (and most other OS's for that matter, as most follow a similar approach) than on your CD player, this is why. Your 44.1Khz CD audio is being converted to 48KHZ before output. To make matters worse (in XP) sound volume was tied to the bitrate, the lower you go, the lower the bitrate. This had the potention to vastly decrease sound quality.

Even Vista has many of these problems, although audio is dealt with in a totally different way (which I am not going to discuss right now)

In comes Exclusive mode in Vista, which completely bypasses the Windows Mixer and passes the sound untouched for output..
The only problem is it must be specifically coded into the application (Foobar has an WASAPI output plugin available for download from their site to take advantage of this).

It is essentially the same concept as kernel streaming in XP, although this feature is native to windows. Many soundcards also have special ASIO drivers too which do the same thing, although exclusive mode is a lot less buggy then both. I have had many system crashes in XP due to kernel streaming in particular.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By Pirks on 5/6/2009 12:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you should be an audiophile to notice a difference, and run some pretty high end audio gear too. Not my turf.


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By nevermore781 on 5/5/2009 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent! I put the RC on my laptop as well. HP v6000 Turion x64 2gb of ram and it runs great. Aero still eats a ton of memory and seemed to make diablo 2 run a little slow at times so i turned it off...yes im playing diablo 2 on it. Windows Update found all my updated drivers and hooked me up. Got the XP Mode installed as well and it works like a charm. Oh yeah then i decided to dual boot ubuntu 9.04 :) Everything is playing nice and the new ubuntu is slick as well. Good luck to everyone installing!


RE: Windows 7 on dv9207us
By eddieroolz on 5/5/2009 3:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, the whole thing seemed to only take about 10GB, and that's with x64.

I started downloading at 12:08am EST too :) Got it very early!


Working OK so far
By GreenEnvt on 5/5/2009 9:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Installed it on my media center last week (technet plus member) and it's working pretty well. Didn't even need to download any codecs to handle a lot of the movies I have.

One sad note is the excellent free app "Webguide" does not work with Windows 7 (does with Vista), so I can't remotely watch my tv programs or schedule recordings. I'll have to use Orb or something similar for now.

It certainly seems a bit quicker then Vista on my media center, which is midrange hardware (Athlon X2 4600, 3gb ram, Ati 3650). My work laptop also seems pretty quick on the x64 version, it's a C2D 2ghz, 4gb ram and a Ati mobility 3650 as well.




RE: Working OK so far
By Bateluer on 5/5/2009 9:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
Might throw this on my Dual 1Ghz P3 test system, it runs pretty close to the minimum specs, so I can see how accurate MS's specs are.


RE: Working OK so far
By icanhascpu on 5/5/2009 9:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
Minimum recommended != True minimum


RE: Working OK so far
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't be that bad, if an out of order single core Atom 270 can run it, a dual P3 1GHZ system should be able to handle being a test box. I remember reviewers comparing the 270 directly with a Pentium3-M 1.16GHZ although I am sure the FSB is bumped a bit over traditional P3 chips.


RE: Working OK so far
By jvillaro on 5/5/2009 12:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
A friend just installed it on his EEEPC 1000HE, only 1gb RAM.
So far i rest's as responsive as XP. He even says it's faster.


RE: Working OK so far
By jvillaro on 5/5/2009 12:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry...
quote:
So far i rest's as responsive as XP. He even says it's faster.

So far IT'S as responsive as XP. He even says it's faster.


RE: Working OK so far
By Sulphademus on 5/5/2009 11:33:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but it would still be a good test. Ya know, for science.


RE: Working OK so far
By Bateluer on 5/5/2009 1:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, that's the only reason I have for doing it. ;)


RE: Working OK so far
By Sulphademus on 5/5/2009 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
Same reason I ran Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my old PII 266 (256MBSDRAM + 32MBTNT2) running XP. Just to see if I could.

And frame rates still sucked at 640 with everything turned down.


RE: Working OK so far
By Screwballl on 5/5/2009 9:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have the 64bit on my main desktop (E6600, 4GB DDR2, 320MB 8800GTS) and it is 2-3 times faster than Vista x64 is, but still slightly slower "feel" than XP SP3.

I have the 32bit on my laptop (CQ60-211DX, 2GHz Celeron, 2GB RAM, Intel 4500M video) and it runs circles around the default installed Vista Home Basic. I initially tried to install it from within the Vista OS itself (Upgrade option) but it refused to boot after that, rebooting with BSOD but it went so fast I could not get any specific details. So I went with a clean install and is running like a champ now. It works well with Avira and Comodo firewall (although you do need to use Vista compatibility to install Comodo properly). Even the Synaptic mouse driver and other HP tools I tested work well without any compatibility install needed.


RE: Working OK so far
By jarman on 5/5/2009 9:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand what you are calling 2-3x faster, nor how you are qualifying that statement. Are you talking about specific benchmarks, boot times, etc? Can you provide data? 2-3x seems like a bit of an overstatement.

Not flaming, just interested in seeing the data..


RE: Working OK so far
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
Its all about perception. I would say performance wise, it is very comparable if not better than XP SP3 in terms of performance. That being said, it is not truly 2-3 times faster than Vista. They have just changed many things to make your experience far more fluid. Boot times are greatly improved, coming out of hibernate is almost instant.

They have also definitely improved upon superfetch (it also does not seem nearly as aggressive as with Vista i.e HD is not always flashing) and as I said before, generic use is far more fluid. They have definitely taken a page out of the Apple playbook, benchmarks and numbers are not everything. Giving the user the perception (using animations while loading etc) is a far more effective way of making an OS seem faster.


RE: Working OK so far
By Screwballl on 5/5/2009 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 4
It is a combination of actual load times, boot times and perception. On this same system, XP SP3 loads in just over 2 minutes (typical boot times was around 2:03-2:10), W7 beta (x86) came in around 2:45, W7 RC 7100 (x86) comes in around 2:25, and Vista x64 is at a usable state around 3:45 to 4 minutes. I have tried fresh clean installs different security programs, no security programs, after multiple attempts, different hard drives, no matter what I do, I cannot get this x64 Vista Ultimate to come in any lower than 3:30.
As for application boot times, using the exact same Photoshop CS2 program and options, no scripts or anything extra. Amount of time to load the program itself, not an image or anything else, from double clicking the program link itself: XP SP3 = 21 seconds, Vista x64 = 48 seconds, W7 beta = 22 seconds, W7 RC 7100 = 21 seconds.

As for the feel of it, W7 does feel that it can be used and is in fact usable before even XP but there are still programs loading in the background when it is at a usable point. Usually on XP this is met with a delay of several seconds before you see something actually happen. With Vista x64, there is a delay of usually 10-15 seconds under the same circumstances. I did testing using IE8, Firefox 3.0.10, Google Earth, and Songbird.


RE: Working OK so far
By jarman on 5/5/2009 12:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Are those boot times hard disk only or are you also using Speedboost?


RE: Working OK so far
By anotherdude on 5/5/2009 2:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have tried fresh clean installs different security programs, no security programs, after multiple attempts, different hard drives, no matter what I do, I cannot get this x64 Vista Ultimate to come in any lower than 3:30.


I have a very similar spec system and Vista 64, after a fresh install, gets usable way faster than that for me. Same on my much lower spec laptop - my conclusion is that your experience is not typical.


RE: Working OK so far
By icanhascpu on 5/5/2009 9:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and it is 2-3 times faster than Vista x64


I'd love to know what is improving that much.


RE: Working OK so far
By Sazar on 5/5/2009 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 3
File copy, disk cleanup, disk defragment are all items which have sped up tremendously.

Also there is no inherent lag here and there like I would experience sometimes under Vista.

I have 3 machines, 1 with Vista Enterprise and 2 with Windows 7 at the moment and overall, I don't notice a lot of difference in day to day stuff.

But, Aero peek is vastly superior to anything else I have used before and I love not having Vista Sidebar running.

Also, the new Media Center is massively more responsive and intuitive than before. XP Media Center sucks, Vista Media Center is pretty good, Win 7 Media Center is just about perfect.

Lastly, adjusting to larger fonts/icons for a media center tv setup is not only smooth but it is readible without any of the inherent fuzziness from XP and Vista.

Well done Microsoft :D


RE: Working OK so far
By Spivonious on 5/5/2009 4:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
They also did some work on the graphics system to use video card memory for drawing windows instead of system memory. That right there should give a huge speed increase and lower memory usage.

channel 9 has some videos about it. (channel9.msdn.com)


RE: Working OK so far
By Sazar on 5/5/2009 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't notice this as much, but then I usually turn off my animations.

Regardless, items like Aero Peak on my HTPC (2GB mem, AMD sckt 939 4400+ proc) are running flawlessly. I also have an 8800 g92 gpu in there. Vista ran fine, Win 7 runs much smoother from what I have experienced and just having the larger fonts SMOOTHLY represented makes my life easier :D

I keep my taskbar at the top of the screen and there is still an issue with some of my apps and their close buttons appearing underneath my locked taskbar, however middle-clock to close works fine :)


RE: Working OK so far
By jrb531 on 5/6/2009 2:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Any reason why you do not shut off Vista Sidebar?

You close it down the first time and it asks "do you want to run this at startup"

Seems easy to me

:)


Downloading now...
By Spivonious on 5/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Downloading now...
By SUV Owner on 5/5/2009 11:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
I know the feeling. I just wet myself too. I cann't wait to get home and ignore my mom when she calls down to the basement for dinner. This is just too way cool.


RE: Downloading now...
By TomZ on 5/5/2009 1:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny. Come on, downraters - it's humor!


RE: Downloading now...
By StraightPipe on 5/5/2009 11:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
waiting for MS site to be ready now....it's fubared

//can I please have some more windows?


RE: Downloading now...
By StraightPipe on 5/5/2009 3:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like it's just chrome that is FUBAR. I can DL just fine with IE8


Can you instal from a USB drive?
By Mr Perfect on 5/5/2009 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know if you can install the RC from a USB drive instead of a DVD?




RE: Can you instal from a USB drive?
By TomZ on 5/5/2009 1:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Can you instal from a USB drive?
By Slinger2112 on 5/5/2009 1:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't watch the video, so I can't comment on the content, but here's the first search find on technet for the topic: http://edge.technet.com/Media/Installing-Win7-usin...

Its 7 mins. long. I didn't login, so I assume its accessable to the public. So... by the title of the article, I would assume the answer to your question is, 'Yes'. Good luck! Let us know if/how it works...


By Starcub on 5/6/2009 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
I just managed to install the RC from an SDHC disk. The process was fairly simple. Just extract the ~3GB image on to your hard drive, format your removeable drive NTFS, run the bootsect program from the image to make the removeable drive bootable, and finally copy all the extracted files onto the removeable drive (it takes a little over 3GB of space). The install process went much faster than Vista, and, with updates, the install takes up just over 15GB of space.


Anyone Know...
By jskirwin on 5/5/2009 10:06:58 AM , Rating: 1
when the trail period expires (Spring 2010) one would have to do a clean install after purchasing the product - vs MS issuing you a key to keep the OS?

It would be great if after trying the OS I could buy it without having to reinstall everything next year.




RE: Anyone Know...
By gmtimmons on 5/5/2009 10:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
According to the link below the answer is no ...

http://m.pocket-lint.com/news/news.phtml/23839/win...


RE: Anyone Know...
By Slinger2112 on 5/5/2009 10:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
There's no guarantee that this is the only/last Release Candidate. Even if it was, I would make the assumption that the RC1 bits won't be exactly the same as the RTM. If they had a way to Windows Update the RC1->RCn->RTM differences to you and issue a key, that would be great, but they haven't done this before.


RE: Anyone Know...
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you will have to do a clean install, MS has mentioned this many times. And just so everyone knows, it was previously reported the RC would expire June 2010, but that is not really true. As of March 1st 2010, your machine will shut down every two hours until June 1st when it fully expires.


No it will do an upgrade install, just from vista.
By sotti on 5/5/2009 9:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Customers who download the build will have to burn the ISO onto a disk. Unlike the more recent beta candidate builds, the RC1 build requires a complete reinstall, even on machines with a working build of Windows 7.


Actually it will upgrade from vista as well. Just no 7 to 7 upgrades.




By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 10:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
I was about to say the same thing. Successfully upgraded from Vista yesterday. Although you can't upgrade 32bit Vista to 64bit 7, they have to match.(which should be obvious, although they do not tell you this)


By GeorgeH on 5/5/2009 6:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, that's not completely accurate. You can do a replacement (non-upgrade) install from within a Beta version. Just mount the RC ISO to a virtual drive (Slysoft's freeware Virtual CloneDrive would be a good choice) and run the install. Run disk cleanup after the install to remove your old Windows files and you're golden.


ATI HD4770 FAIL
By Morphine06 on 5/5/2009 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
I picked up an ATI HD4770 last week. There was no XP, Vista, or W7 driver for it at ATI's site, still isn't. No catalyst drivers for W7 worked with the 4770.

ATI isn't supporting a product that has already gone to market! I was forced to use the Diamond driver disc in XP32. Still using vgapnp.sys for W7...

Just a heads up for those interested in the 4770. No driver love no matter what OS you are using, but especially W7.




RE: ATI HD4770 FAIL
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 4:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
May 13th.. Cat 9.5 drivers..

If you can't wait.. try these
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=293664

Have not confirmed myself.. I'm going to wait until official.

Make sure you install them manually (ie through device manager, I have my own disk, etc..)


RE: ATI HD4770 FAIL
By Donkeyshins on 5/5/2009 5:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
There should be MS WDDM drivers built into Win7 that support R7xx chips including the HD4770. The only exception may be if RV740 is substantially architectually different from RV730 / RV770 (which from what I read doesn't seem to be the case).


By crystal clear on 5/6/2009 3:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
After all those positive reviews/comments on the Win 7 & an O.S. to be released soon,now comes the most difficult part of marketing this O.S.

When Vista was released, opinions like bloated to sluggish to problematic etc restricted the smooth expected transition from XP to Vista.

Now with Win7 to be released the so called smooth expected transition from XP to Win7 & Vista to Win7 could be hindered due to an economy deep in recession.

We once had the great depression now we have the great recession & that makes the corporate buyers in a massive cost cutting mood, ask some disturbing questions like-

# "There is nothing in Windows 7 that has been compelling enough to motivate us as an organization, especially in this economic climate ....

# "The reality is if it is not broken, don't fix it,".....

# "It is going to drive my hardware costs up. It is going to drive my support costs up. I will have to train all my people." .....

# "Tell me what I get from it," to move from XP to Win7...when I am desperate to cut my cost....

# "Just because it works better doesn't mean we'll move to it." ......

# Microsoft is going to support Win XP until 2014,so we can afford to wait,...

# " Whats the hurry".....

# WE plan to have all of our PCs off Windows XP by the end of 2012. "Plan for year end 2012 and I think you'll be in pretty good shape,"

# "Green is about money, not about the environment,"

Good luck to Microsoft ! marketing a good O.S. in real bad times....




By SandmanWN on 5/6/2009 9:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
They don't need to market the product in any special way. Just keep doing what they are doing and that is combat the competitors ads. The one thing they must do is cut XP off cold turkey.

Soon when people go to the B&M store it will have Win7 as the only option. The same will happen at all the online retailers like Dell/HP and so forth. From there a good product and word of mouth has always been the better marketing tool.


By Chaotic42 on 5/6/2009 7:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am completely ready for Windows 7 at work. We've been stuck with these horrible XP32 machines for too long.

Honestly I think 64-bit will do the pushing for Microsoft.


MD5 Checksum
By blogmaster on 5/5/2009 4:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Can anyone who have downloaded the file please provide me the MD5 Checksum of this latest Windows 7 RC ISO image (32-bit version)?
the name of the file is like below:

7100.0.090421-1700_x86fre_client_en-us_retail_ult imate-grc1culfrer_en_dvd.iso

Actually I am using a very slow internet connection to download the file (32 KBps, Asia,Bangladesh) and so can't download within a few hours but will take some 2-3 days, the problem is with the electrical blackout/loadshedding in my country, and so I think if the file get corrupted. So need to check the file before burning/using the image on a DVD/bootable pendrive.

Please, I will appreciate a reply. It is very simple to get the checksum using Fastsum utility. please help me.




RE: MD5 Checksum
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 4:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
These should be correct.

x86
MD5: 8867C13330F56A93944BCD46DCD73590
SHA1: 7D1F486CA569EFFFFB719CFB48355BB7BF499712

x64
MD5: 98341AF35655137966E382C4FEAA282D
SHA1: FC867FE1AB2E0A9796F9E4D155B44EA6998F4874

softpedia released this info, and I've personally checked against what my friend downloaded from MSDN too and they match. (i got it from a torrent a few days back and wanted to make sure)

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Build-710...


I'm impressed With it so Far on my Sony Vaio
By sapiens74 on 5/5/2009 4:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
Runs much better than Vista on my high end laptop




RE: I'm impressed With it so Far on my Sony Vaio
By FITCamaro on 5/5/09, Rating: 0
By sapiens74 on 5/5/2009 5:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Work paid for it

Thanks for the comments about Windows


Just Wish the Fish Moved...
By jskirwin on 5/7/2009 10:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
Installed Win7 on a new build. It had to be the easiest install ever; the hardest part was downloading a non-corrupt ISO. It took 4 tries.

It would be cool if the Siamese Fighting Fish moved around the desktop though. Useless and a complete waste of clock cycles but cool...




RE: Just Wish the Fish Moved...
By Shmak on 5/8/2009 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it would be sweet if it went belly up instead of BSOD, then you could say, "My Beta died."


Seems ok
By SandmanWN on 5/5/2009 11:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
Seems just about as fast as XP in most respects. With the exception of opening a folder with nothing but photos in it which took a while. Seems like it was doing a photo reduction script instead of a traditional thumbnail and it is rather slow.

Also, the desktop taskbar option isn't working well. Can't delete certain icons even if they show the option to do so. The control panel icon replicates itself when you tell it to delete. If you open control panel and change the view option it creates a second icon. The first opens the CP in traditional view, the second with your settings which seems silly.

Had to install a number of programs in compatibility mode, but they all seem to be working just fine. Symantec 11 will not install no matter what you try. I guess there will be a version 12 soon.

Have noticed that while it does not cache while you are using the system, if you turn your back on it long enough the hard drive starts caching pretty hard.

All the recent games work so far. Going to try a few old favorites this week. See how well Win98 compatibility works. :)




This thing is great!
By eddieroolz on 5/5/2009 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's way improved over the Beta, I can tell you.

I used to have to install the broadcom drivers as well as the graphics drivers and sound from a driver folder I backed up from HP Vista installation, but the RC has everything! Didn't need to install one bit. :)

I started downloading at 12:08am EST and finished in about half an hour. The connection with download manager is a little finicky, and downloading straight from them gave me a 0byte iso :\.

Installation takes 15minutes, and the whole thing consumes 10GB on my hard drive. Pretty damn good, I say.

Now, let's hope this will be priced at $77 when it comes out...




Also
By crystal clear on 5/5/2009 7:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the new OS will land in time for the holiday season, as Acer has leaked its release date as October 23.


Add to this-

<Acer also confirmed that any Vista-based models purchased in the 30 days prior to this date will be eligible for Microsoft's free upgrade programme.
/i>

Plus -

Even though Vista will be officially available for sale,but for all practical purposes its history ....No buyers.




best windows ever...
By DrRap on 5/7/2009 4:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
guys windows has left the building
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov4Km0ziC64&feature...




"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki