[-X-]

bugmenott, on Jul 1 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

No. I won't downgrade from M$-Linux 11.2 milestone 3 to M$ win7.

heh, bugmenot! I use that site!
If you didn't notice, this is a Microsoft forum.

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

This post has been edited by -X-: 01 July 2009 - 12:56 AM

[pm*]

Hi
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

[clavicle]

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

[Nerwin]

I will be indeed!

[pm*]

I'm Proud to Upgrading on the windows7
i'll upgrade it on end of the year

[-X-]

pm*, on Jul 2 2009, 12:36 AM, said:

I'm Proud to Upgrading on the windows7
i'll upgrade it on end of the year

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

[Angelico_Payne]

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)

[beats]

Angelico_Payne, on Jul 2 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

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.

[aviv00]

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

[DigeratiPrime]

I am confused: how is 'search' faster in XP than in Vista/7?
http://en.wikipedia..../Windows_Search

The convenience of having it in the StartMenu also saves time and adds up.

[-X-]

If search my OS drive for shell32 in XP, the results are displayed in less than a second. Boot into Windows 7 and do the same and it takes about 30 seconds.
Another test to make it fairer (since 7 has to go through 6~8 gigs), I had Windows 7 search the XP drive and it still took about 5 seconds.

That's how it's faster...at least for me.

This post has been edited by -X-: 04 July 2009 - 12:47 AM

[Zxian]

-X-, on Jul 3 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

If search my OS drive for shell32 in XP, the results are displayed in less than a second. Boot into Windows 7 and do the same and it takes about 30 seconds.
Another test to make it fairer (since 7 has to go through 6~8 gigs), I had Windows 7 search the XP drive and it still took about 5 seconds.

That's how it's faster...at least for me.

Wait... what? You're honestly making an argument about the search speed for a system file? Unless your work involves constantly manually accessing these files, how is this an advantage in any way?

Think about the amount of time (from the real start to finish) of finding a commonly used file (document you're working on, picture that you've taken, that song you want to hear).

XP: Think about where file is located. Browse to said file (depending on where in the directory tree this is, it can take a while). Then open it.
Vista/Win7: Hit start, type something related to that file. Click.

I deal with Matlab code for my thesis work right now. I've got quite a few pieces of code here and there from other people I've worked with, and finding that one function through all the different folders can be kind of tough if I had to do it manually. Thankfully, I've setup my indexing to include .m files (the extension for Matlab code files) to search file names and contents. Now I hit start, type the function name, and then the file that contains it appears. This is far faster than any alternative XP could ever have provided.

[-X-]

If all that applies to you then fine. Windows 7 is faster for you. It doesn't apply to me and as such I prefer XP search.

Update:
I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that system files where somehow different. I had my doubts but thought maybe the system cached them and might influence search speed.

I tried a non-system file by creating a file in my documents called search.txt. I repeated the experient but this time only searched the XP drive so I wouldnt handicap Windows 7 too much. The results where the same.

XP < 1 second
W7 ~ 5 seconds

Your results may vary. I am only telling you what I see. Try these experiments yourself to arrive at your own conclusion.

This post has been edited by -X-: 04 July 2009 - 02:28 AM

[Dislocated Time]

Vista was only for people that don't really tinker with stuff and accept having zero control over their computer system.

It seems the further up the road you get with the windows operating systems, the less control and less configuration possibilities you have.

Therefore I hate Vista and would probably like Windows 7 just as little.

Anyone that likes writing their own scripts and tweaking their computer to the max will know what I mean.

[MagicAndre1981]

no, wrong. Give some details and try the same under XP with a LIMITED user account!

[D_block]

i wonder why ppl are so against upgradin hardware for win 7 ... if your hardware cant run windows 7 proper then what ever your Os is now is probably on the slow side of the chain !!


im already on the win7 side of things, but i have xp on my SATA HDD

[hydroplant]

what version can i upgrade to from home premium ?

[John305]

Yes of course I will use win 7 but also I never had a problem with vista 64 bit. Win 98 ha ha come on I guess if you have a very old pc that can’t run anything else. But if you have a newer pc I don’t think win 98 is going to run a quad very well. As for win xp yes let’s all use a os created in 2001 but I don’t think it will run a quad very well either or any other new hardware. Yes I know there is win xp 64 bit it was a jk. I used it on this system and now this is running win 7 64 bit much better than it did xp 64 bit. I feel most of the poor rating vista got was from manufactures putting in on systems that could not run it. Also they all wanted the ultimate version loaded with network stuff they have no idea what it is for or will ever use it. But then again if you are going to buy a system with a vista rating of 1 you deserve what you get. So in my opinion vista was much better than xp and win 7 will be better than vista. But then of course you have to learn a new os which some people seem to be afraid of, or learning anything for that matter. Also i guess it makes a diffrence if you only sit at home with your pc, but if you are in the pc business not useing win 7 or learning it will make you look stupid. Same as the people that skipped vista i guess they dont fix pc's well Win 7 is alot like Vista. So if you dont want to keep up and have no need to ,use win 98 and a old pc. Myself I love the new stuff hehe


Hammey

[herbalist]

Quote

i wonder why ppl are so against upgradin hardware for win 7 ... if your hardware cant run windows 7 proper then what ever your Os is now is probably on the slow side of the chain !!

Upgrading hardware makes sense if you need it or if your existing hardware is developing problems. Spending money just to "keep up with the times" is a waste. In case you haven't noticed, money is tight in this present economy. I can think of a lot of better uses for it than giving it to one of the richest companies in the world in exchange for an OS that gives me nothing in return that I don't already have. Buying new hardware just to be a bit faster is not likely to ever pay for itself for most people.
Rick

[the xt guy]

Dislocated Time, on Jul 7 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Vista was only for people that don't really tinker with stuff and accept having zero control over their computer system.
It seems the further up the road you get with the windows operating systems, the less control and less configuration possibilities you have.
<snip>

Somewhere I read that Microsoft would really like all of us using nothing more than "dumb terminals" with a simple shell interface (probably Microsoft Bob-like!) that would connect to Microsoft and only to Microsoft. We would rent use of an O/S from them, which would reside on their servers. No CD's of software to buy or be pirated. All the software we would use would be rented from them and reside on their servers. Outside of a simple shell interface, our computers would be dumb terminals with not even our own data stored on them. We would pay yearly fees for the rental of the O/S, Microsoft Office, etc. Microsoft would control EVERYTHING, all our data would pass through their hands and there would be no privacy, no using older operating systems or software. If we did not pay our yearly rental fees, BOOM! everything would become unaccessible and we would have nothing more than a useless dumb terminal.

This post has been edited by the xt guy: 08 July 2009 - 03:03 PM