View Full Version : Just got windows 7 home premium...
and man, it's awesome!!! Just as fast as the RC, finally Microsoft didn't screw this one up. Anyone else have it yet? I got it on the 22nd, but didn't have time to post til now. Go newegg! haha.
I have Windows 7 Premium 32-bit. Love it. :D:
Aiming to put Ultimate 64-bit on another computer soon as I can.
Anyone else have it yet?
I'll install it on Sunday or Monday :bigthumb: and hope that there are no big problems with my security programs like AntiVir, Spybot and SpywareBlaster.... :lip:
I'm just sticking with Vista for the time being. However that doesn't mean I can't have the Windows 7 'feel'. :D:
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9026/vista7theme.png
drragostea
2009-10-25, 03:16
ARG! No support for duo cores... Well, Home Premium that is D:<.
But Microsoft was vague about it when they said Windows 7 will support more than one cores. I was curious on what kind of things Windows 7 will support. Programs?
It would really be (slightly) crippled if Windows 7 Home Premium (running on a Duo Core 2) disabled a program's support for duo processors (program runs like normal, except it does not utilize duo cores because Windows 7 fails to allow it).
ARG! No support for duo cores... Well, Home Premium that is D:<.
But Microsoft was vague about it when they said Windows 7 will support more than one cores. I was curious on what kind of things Windows 7 will support. Programs?
It would really be (slightly) crippled if Windows 7 Home Premium (running on a Duo Core 2) disabled a program's support for duo processors (program runs like normal, except it does not utilize duo cores because Windows 7 fails to allow it).
I have a quad core, and it utilizes all 4 of them on home premium. As far as I know that is. It sure looks like that. Anyways, I'm not entirely sure on that information, might have to look into it. Wheres bitman when you need him? lol.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-GB/GettingReadyforWindows7/thread/566d8e98-5ff6-41ad-bd79-593f5afa3655
http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/microsoft-windows-7-home/4505-3672_7-33704139.html?tag=mncol;lst
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/32-bit-64-bit-faq.aspx
http://www.windowsvienna.com/windows-7-takes-more-advantage-of-multi-core-cpus-a24.html
Hope this helps guys!
Wheres bitman when you need him? lol.
:rotfl: :bigthumb:
Thank you for the links.
Wheres bitman when you need him? lol.
Helping his cousin choose the new Windows 7 Home Premium PC that will finally replace that old Windows XP Home thing (originally ME!). In fact, it will have quad-core and 10+ times the capacity/quantity of virtually everything else on the old one!
You've already found your answer, but the limit is physical processors, not cores which are covered no matter how many there are. This is the direction of the future, with multiple cores taking the place of clock speed as the method to scale and increase overall processing speed. Overclocking is simply a dead idea, the new idea is cool, fast and non-blocking.
If you want the info from the source, here's the Microsoft page on the matter:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx
Bitman
What are your thoughts on windows 7 bitman? Do you like it, think its a good OS? What do you all think? In my opinion, Windows 7 has the speed of Xp with the reliability of windows 2000. Windows 7 has actually changed my whole view of what Microsoft can really do when they work hard enough. To bad, that they use this work broken cycle to make business. What I mean is, I see a pattern with Microsoft.
Windows 3.1>ok
Windows 95>bad
Windows 98>good
Windows Me>Bad
Windows 2000>Good
Windows Xp>great
Windows Vista>horrible
Windows 7> amazing
If you ask me, I seem to think that every now and then, they release a "bad" OS just so that there next one can be seen as amazing and beautiful. The reason being, everyone will compare the newest one to the one before it. Example>vista to 7. Everyone compared 7 to vista. However, I compared 7 to Xp, as that is the last operating system that Microsoft made that was good. And even after comparing to Xp, 7 (in my case) is faster and more reliable even on the same hardware. If you think about it though, it's great business sense; and an easy way to rake in much more money. Just my thoughts. :bigthumb:
What do you guys think? :)
Windows 7 is much more stable than Vista, but a huge part of this is due to driver improvements by PC hardware manufacturers since the core kernel was already fine from what I found. The other large change though is some tuning for better performance, the stated requirement for 1GB RAM vs 512MB with Vista and a lot of user level interface improvements.
Vista was doomed not by its kernel, but the fact that the public doesn't care if its core is good, as their entire perception is the front-end user experience. People like myself used Vista all along because it was much more secure than XP, but we also fought manufacturer driver issues and stupid decisions like including outdated 'crapware' that caused systems to crash. My own laptop was a perfect example, since it's finally stable after a bottom-up OS rebuild.
The basic problem for a new OS at the public level is it must be tailored to them, unlike those of us with a deep background at an Administrative level. Vista was designed to change the direction of the OS, design in security and seriously begin the switch to a 64-bit OS, which is always a difficult transition.
Just look at your list, since Windows 95 was the 16 to 32-bit transition, ME was the 'hold-over' OS while Windows NT 3.5x was occuring in business, eventually to be completely re-worked into Windows 2000 and then that was re-faced for the public as Windows XP 1 1/2 years later. You also missed other half-step versions like Windows 98SE, XP x64 and those proceeding 3.1 all of which had their own issues.
So each major technical transition has been difficult, especially for the public which really has no deep technical understanding and thus no patience for something that doesn't just 'work'. Since Microsoft is more focused on the pure technology than say Apple, they really have to switch gears and get key people involved to create this 'polished' version that the average Joe can accept. For example, the key person behind the consistency of the Windows 7 GUI was the same one who created the 'Ribbon' in Office 2007.
So no, I don't believe they purposefully do this, it's simply part of the nature of the technical innovation cycle versus user interface improvements. As the number of users with a PC increases their ability and willingness to try to understand the technology decreases, resulting in a GUI gap. I saw this originally at an engineering school where I worked in the 90's, since the newer students were more used to having simple to use technology in their hands almost since birth.
This really isn't surprising, since human factors has been basically understood for years, but always gets supressed by the techno-geeks until something like a Vista kicks them in the b_tt economically, requiring a serious re-thinking of focus.
This is why some tout Apple, since it's stayed on the human factors side of things most of the time, but generally shown the higher cost that typically comes from this choice. PC users as a group don't like to pay for this and so don't always get it, it's really that simple.
Bitman
That was written very well I might add. I see your point. Thanks for your thoughts. What I have noticed to, that also helped Windows 7, is the way it handles services differently compared to other windows versions. While vista did offer a service to be set to automatic-delayed start, 7 seems to handle this way better, more 1 by 1 then all at once kind of thing. Hope that makes sense what I am saying there. Anyways, I noticed that in the final version of windows 7 home premium, instead of in the rc (and past Microsoft OS) where almost every service was listed automatic, Windows 7 has set most services to manual as the default, rather then automatic; thus increasing performance on boot. It seems they set every service that was not required for windows to run and put it on manual. That way, if the user starts a program or tries to access a service, its only started when needed. For example, windows media player streaming. I think this is why as well that windows 7 works so much better.
I also see your point about my list. The transitions are a key fact to consider. Guess I should have noticed that. ;)
And your right, the GUI is a major fact in how people see windows or any OS for that matter. When vista launched, most of the world had learned/knew Xp's way of doing things better then any OS. And XP wasn't so much different that 98 and 2000 users could still understand. But vista changed everything about the way it looked, where stuff was, etc. That was what people hated the most, you could not get the classic look back. People Do not like change, they despise it. But eventually, everyone eventually grabs on and moves on with the change. And now that a few years have gone by, people have learned to accept this new look and deal with what Windows now looks like.
Thanks for your thoughts. I like the way you think, makes me learn alot.