• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Guest

Will you be upgrading to Windows 7?

be upgrading to Windows 7 when it's released or soon after?    107 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you be upgrading to Windows 7 when it's released or soon after?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      14

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

79 posts in this topic

that's why NT6.x uses the old SMB1.0 too. If you have 2 RAM modules (1 DDR2 800 and 1 DDR2 533) the fast module will run with the speed of the slower module. So this is the same. You are slowing down the possible speed to be compatible ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now I am using Windows 2k. I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 when it matures (Probably 5-7 years from now) Microsoft has this annoying tendency to turn out really bad software packages and then fix them in a service pack.

So I usually hold back and wait until they work out the bugs. Windows XP (before SP1) Was awful. So was every single initial release of a Windows operating system (Never saw the initial release of 2k, though I'm sure it's just as awful as the other initial MS OS's before they worked out the bugs).

Windows Vista is almost to the point it's usable. Though I'll probably wait another couple years to upgrade to it (I'll have to soon, since I need to get a new PC to use Office 2007)

5-7 years is maturing to you? You would be lucky if anyone knows what windows 7 is by then :P

XP SP1 did not take that long and the very mature SP2 came out way less than 5 years after XP's initial release. I would not advise waiting another few years to upgrade to windows vista. Since win 7 was built off vista (and backwards compatible with it) then in a few years win 7 will have a SP1 and be plenty ready for use with everyone. So skipping windows vista and going to windows 7 sounds a lot better than waiting longer for windows vista then even more time to then go to windows 7.

Edited by Zenskas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, from XPSP3 x86, although not still sure which version to use.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fast file copy/moves... not with Vista.
It takes no longer with Vista to copy files than it did with, say, Win2K (unless your network drivers are awful). It's just that it's no longer lying to you and telling you "hey, I'm done!!!" when it's still copying files from cache to disk (or the network). WinXP, for instance, would close the file copy dialog once everything was either in cache or at the intended destination - note the distinction. Vista only closes the copy dialog once everything is *actually* written to disk.
Network transfers... you're joking, right?
Works great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault. And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

As to SMB2.0 vs 1.0, If the Vista machine finds the remote machine uses 1.0 rather than 2.0, it'll fall back to 1.0 - and considering the protocol is slow, complex, and designed long before the advent of fast networks, I'd say moving on isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Network transfers... you're joking, right?
Works great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault. And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

Yes I just read an article on tom's hardware which found out it is the computers HDDs that are the bottleneck for network transfers. Gigabit ethernet is much faster transferring data than many HDD's can keep up with (135 megabytes per second or 1000 megabits per second). Transferring data from the system RAM to another PC's RAM got speeds of up to 111 megabytes per second, much faster than most HDDs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I won't upgrade when it comes out. I'm gonna wait awhile. Vista runs very fast on my brand new laptop. I have no issues with it. The only thing I liked about Windows 7 is the theme. That's not worth the cost of upgrading when I just paid nearly $800 for a new laptop less than 4 months ago. Plus vista sp2 meets all my needs. No reason to waste money on the latest stuff to end up with the same results. I went from 98se to xp the day it was released and the performance was about the same which is what I'm getting with vista and windows 7. No difference performance wise. I will save my money and wait.

Edited by adrian2055
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It takes no longer with Vista to copy files than it did with, say, Win2K [...] Vista only closes the copy dialog once everything is *actually* written to disk.

That's not my experience, but I'll concede that the last time I evaluated Vista was before the release of SP1 and performance may have drastically improved.

[Network transfers work] great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault.

All computers have gigabit ethernet adapters connected with CAT6 cabling and jacks through a gigabit switch. Speed wasn't necessarily the issue, but reliability certainly was. Again, I evaluated pre-SP1 code, so things may have changed considerably since then.

And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

As to SMB2.0 vs 1.0, If the Vista machine finds the remote machine uses 1.0 rather than 2.0, it'll fall back to 1.0 - and considering the protocol is slow, complex, and designed long before the advent of fast networks, I'd say moving on isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case.

I was under the impression that if any machine in the workgroup used SMB1.0 then Vista reverted to SMB1.0 for all network communication. I don't recall where I read that, but it makes sense to me. When I evaluated it, I had Vista x64 running on only one machine with XP x86 SP2, XP x64 SP2 and Ubuntu 7.10 x86 Home on the others. In my case I had no other Vista machines, so what you say may indeed be true. I cannot say.

Other issues still prevent me from using Vista, such as broken file search as mentioned previously, but your observations so far are compelling.

Edited by 5eraph
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Searching for strings in files in XP is not great either. Try finding a string in a registry file. It wont find it. Even the much touted Locate32 wont. Agent Ransack to the rescue.

At least XP search, though slow, seems a zillion times quicker than Windows 7 and I would presume Vista.

Edited by -X-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I evaluated pre-SP1 code, so things may have changed considerably since then.
Comparing Vista RTM and Vista SP1 are almost two separate OSes. Vista SP1 was the "real" RTM release of Vista (regardless of what Microsoft says), so you should at least consider it. However, with Win7 looming, I'm not sure it's worth it anyway.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already got the Win7 RC on my netbook and it's fantastic. One of these days, when I find the time, I'll be upgrading my desktop system to Win7 as well. Yes, I will be purchasing Win7 licenses for all my systems when it hits RTM.

As for all the talk about Vista/Win7 being slow and bringing nothing to the table - I'll give you my anectodal experience with my Netbook. This is an ASUS EEE 1000HA - 1.6Ghz Atom, 2GB DDR2-533, 320GB 7200RPM drive (upgraded from the stock drive - 160GB 5400RPM). By no means is this a top-performing set of hardware compared to what's readily available for a desktop or full-sized laptop, and in terms of actual crunching power, it's probably about 2 years behind the times (at least). I haven't noticed any slowdowns compared to running XP on this system, and the layout of the OS makes things far easier than they ever were with XP. The condensed buttons in the superbar, Libraries, instant search (that's still surprisingly responsive for a comparably sluggish machine). Applications load up faster here than they did in XP, likely due to the aggressive pre-caching done by superfetch. Anyone who says that this "wastes memory" - memory is meant to be used. Empty memory is wasted memory.

Vista/Win7 network transfers are most definitely faster than XP and earlier. Vista/2008 has brought back the disk caching of file transfers (as cluberti mentioned), and it's not uncommon for me to see "file copy" speeds of 115-120MB/s when transferring large files from one system to the other. Pre-SP2 installation, the transfers would be topping out at whatever the write speed of the disks was (~60MB/s on my media center, ~90MB/s on my desktop, etc). Not to sound overly rude, but many of the problems with Vista are a case of PEBKAC. I was in this boat as well when I first made the switch from XP to Vista, and again from Vista to Win7, but if you sit down and use the OS before running back to the familiar world of the old, you'll see that the grass is definitely greener on this side.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but if you sit down and use the OS before running back to the familiar world of the old, you'll see that the grass is definitely greener on this side.

I use Windows 7 on a daily basis and while I like some things that were added that XP does not have, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Everyone is different. We all have different needs and likes/dislikes. Just look at the 9x forums here.

To give you one example of my negatives, I can't stand the new Windows Explorer. It's very cluttered compared to XP. I like things as simple as possible while still retaining functionality.

At this stage I wont upgrade until I am forced to due to lack of support/compatibility. It was the same with W2K. I prefer it over XP but finally had to ditch it due to some anomalies in certain programs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To give you one example of my negatives, I can't stand the new Windows Explorer. It's very cluttered compared to XP. I like things as simple as possible while still retaining functionality.

Fair enough - the Vista/Win7 explorer layouts show a lot more information by default than WinXP's did. However...

Vista-Explorer-Simple_thumb.png

As you can see, I can remove the extra panes very easily. It's a simple matter of going into Organize->Layout and selecting/unselecting the elements you don't want.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need both panes showing to move things around quickly. It's the extra stuff in the left hand pane - homegroup, user, favorites, libraries, etc.

Edited by -X-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I will be upgrading, been using XP forever and Vista sucks balls. I was quite impressed when I downloaded the RC so yeah 7 is the way to go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not until I absolutely have to! I can't even get the RC to work correctly so...

Edited by Gray__Fox
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I won't downgrade from M$-Linux 11.2 milestone 3 to M$ win7.

heh, bugmenot! I use that site! :ph34r:

If you didn't notice, this is a Microsoft forum.

logo.jpg

If we wanted Linux fanboys to come here and post messages with dollar signs... :puke:

Edited by -X-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi :thumbup

I've Used Windows 7 for a little such day

it's a great success for Microsoft corp...

i've used the release canditate only

i'm expecting i'll buy the genuine windows 7 at the year end of 2009 :hello:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I already ordered a couple of upgrades licenses for me!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be indeed!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Proud to Upgrading on the windows7

i'll upgrade it on end of the year :hello:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm Proud to Upgrading on the windows7

i'll upgrade it on end of the year :hello:

You already told us. Calm down with that reply button. :realmad:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, Its better then Vista, will keep XP installed on Vmware, just in case I need some program that isn't 7 friendly ;)

And offcourse x64 variant of it (althought driver finding and driver installs are driving me crazy)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, Its better then Vista, will keep XP installed on Vmware, just in case I need some program that isn't 7 friendly ;)

No need, Windows 7 gets a Windows XP Mode for that. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there a branch of upgrades from xp but from vista there no big different

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.