Windows 7

[sunny staines]

Just wondering how many intend getting windows7 by the end of the year and which version. or have you tried the beta and had enough.

 

I have an upgrade voucher but does not say what version it will be. Looking forward to it.

 

[i tried the beta of Vista and found it dreadful, but a year after release upgraded and found the final version had improved so much I preferred it over XP for this reason I did not try w7 beta]

[demitris]

hi stainess

 

I have been using Genuine Vista home premium 32bit sp2 for a year now and i am very satisfied with it.

 

I think that Windows 7 will be offered for free for Vista-users but i will stick on Vista cause i don't want to experiment.

 

cheers

[sunny staines]

demitris

 

best wait till after the general release then read the feedback.

 

I see you are in sunny cyprus, went there in 1972 a great place stayed in kyrenia it was a greek sector then, and the trodos mountains were spectacular. Never been back due to rumours its been ruined by the club scene.

[enoskype]

Hi sunny,

 

I was using Win7 Beta, but about 2 months ago I learned that Win7 RC 7229 (only) have a life time of a year. I installed it and still using it.

The higher # Builds have a much shorter life time.

 

At the moment it is doing great with Vista RTM Ultimate in dual boot. From what I read, Vista sp2 seems to be also very good. Although the 7 is in the inner part of the disk, it is much faster and clearly using less CPU and less RAM.

 

I didn't have time to look for the difference with Win7 7600 RTM.

 

Cheers.

[Maxxwire]

I have been using Genuine Vista home premium 32bit sp2 for a year now and i am very satisfied with it.

 

I think that Windows 7 will be offered for free for Vista-users but i will stick on Vista cause i don't want to experiment.

 

I have been running Vista Home Premium for 1 /2 years and after reading of the improvements they made on Vista to create Win 7 I realized that over that time period I had made changes and improvements in the exact same areas of performance only on a more radical and permanent basis i.e. not just delaying services to improve start up time, but permanently reducing the total number of services in Vista from 137 to a total of 51 that have permission to start which MS could never do in a public release which reduced the start up time of Vista from 105 seconds to just 55 seconds.

 

In addition to the scores of other improvements that I have made to Vista I also use the Norton UAC Tool to give the same level of authorized permanent permission that I give to my security system to start to the handful of applications that I use most often to let them run in order to avoid the constant full screen UAC prompts in Vista/Win 7. Win 7 also comes with WMPlayer and IE as optional installations both of which I have under control with my Firewall and Security System to keep them from making unauthorized access to the internet.

 

Despite the very generous offer from MS of a free upgrade to Win 7 I have decided to politely decline and save myself the weeks of work that it would take to get Win 7 to boot up for 550 MB of RAM at the desktop, get a full day's use and close at 640 MB of RAM like my Vista Home Premium already does now.

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

Vista/Win 7. Win 7 also comes with WMPlayer and IE as optional installations both of which I have under control with my Firewall and Security System to keep them from making unauthorized access to the internet.

 

hi again

am i reading this as you have tried the OS ?

but decline the os (uninstalled it) and just run vista ?

 

as most people who read my posts , know by now i use wi7 exclusivity now --

by the way i have just received a brand new copy CD of Vista

i requested from my friend jonh -- that i shall try out

on a new pc .just build for me yesterday...

let all know how it is going.. i must test this now to see if its as good as thy say ,and compare it with 7 ...probably about time i try it out now...

to get the look and feel of this OS

 

itsmejjj

[Maxxwire]

by the way i have just received a brand new copy CD of Vista

i requested from my friend jonh -- that i shall try out

on a new pc .just build for me yesterday...

let all know how it is going.. i must test this now to see if its as good as thy say ,and compare it with 7 ...probably about time i try it out now...

to get the look and feel of this OS

 

Besides the look and feel of Vista and Win 7 which are highly subjective evaluation criteria I am hoping that you will be able to compare them with an internationally known and recognized benchmarking program for example the highly comprehensive and free to use Passmark Performance Tests which supports both Vista and Win 7 and is used by professional computer operating systems reviewers around the world. I know that you have very high standards with regards to the performance of an operating system and I am looking forward to hearing the results of your unbiased, rigorous and comprehensive testing procedures.

 

~Maxx~

[enoskype]

free to use Passmark Performance Tests

 

Hi Maxxwire,

 

When you say free to use, please indicate that " Passmark Performance Tests" is a paid program and Free for 30 days for evaluation, as you indicated in your another post. It is a very reliable, good program though.

 

Thank you and cheers.

[itsmejjj]

part of the forum of the site :---

 

 

99% are submitted. We only have about 20 test machines.

 

But you should also read the graph notes. Are there are other "factors that effect the results," like if users are running 32bit or 64bit Windows.

 

Quote:

Could you please try to make sure that all processor models still available from at least the last 3 years are listed

There are roughly---- 490 CPU types listed at the moment. Some CPU types were very low volume and rare, and there has been an explosion in model numbers over the last few years. I don't think we will ever get to 100% coverage.

 

Quote:

Could you label & highlight Overclocked systems...

We have a special chart just for overclocked systems. On the other charts we try and keep overclocked systems out of the results.

 

Quote:

Could you clearly differentiate when multiple processors(sockets)...

The number of CPU's is presented in [square brackets]. The number of cores depends on the model number. So it should be clear. It is confusing because in real life it is confusing. Intel were nuts to call their CPU's Core, and Core 2, then make a Core 2 with 4 cores.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

so really its useless to sent up results and past them here ---as this is not a forum that deals with testing speeds of cp or OS builds,as this go on forever

but just of interest ,

 

i ran 10 tests on the same cp

installed with XP with different results

.than tried

the tests on my new PC ,,crashed half way into it--

did the same on my older model ,than tried on the oldest one i own

that still had xp installed..as i said

 

 

started of with test 1, result ( 243.2) -- to test 10- ( 249.7) variegation

with each test it showed a different number.. and speed ..

so really this proves nothing ..

 

i suggest to any one who is into this go to the site and read into this .

myself i found very boring ...and prove nothing bar a lot of mathematical

results that are not accurate as its deviates every time ..at a test done...

on the same CP with the same system OS...,,perhaps the cause ma be its the old os ,that may be doing it who knows...

 

any how good luck to any one trying it ...

itsmejjj

[Maxxwire]

Hi Maxxwire,

 

When you say free to use, please indicate that " Passmark Performance Tests" is a paid program and Free for 30 days for evaluation, as you indicated in your another post. It is a very reliable, good program though.

 

Thank you and cheers.

 

enoskype- The context that I have been referring to the PassMark Performance Tests was for a brief period of testing in which the program is free during its 30 day trial. I myself only downloaded and ran it to get a comprehensive evaluation of my computer's performance so that I would have a standard benchmark for its performance that is recognized and comparable worldwide before uninstalling it and now I realize why professional computer performance reviewers use the PassMark Performance Tests as their international standard of measurement.

 

Thank you for your comment and in the future I will make sure to point out that the PassMark Performance Tests are shareware with a free 30 day trial period.

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

part of the forum of the site :---

 

 

99% are submitted. We only have about 20 test machines.

 

But you should also read the graph notes. Are there are other "factors that effect the results," like if users are running 32bit or 64bit Windows.

 

Quote:

Could you please try to make sure that all processor models still available from at least the last 3 years are listed

There are roughly---- 490 CPU types listed at the moment. Some CPU types were very low volume and rare, and there has been an explosion in model numbers over the last few years. I don't think we will ever get to 100% coverage.

 

Quote:

Could you label & highlight Overclocked systems...

We have a special chart just for overclocked systems. On the other charts we try and keep overclocked systems out of the results.

 

Quote:

Could you clearly differentiate when multiple processors(sockets)...

The number of CPU's is presented in [square brackets]. The number of cores depends on the model number. So it should be clear. It is confusing because in real life it is confusing. Intel were nuts to call their CPU's Core, and Core 2, then make a Core 2 with 4 cores.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

so really its useless to sent up results and past them here or there as far as i can see

 

---as this is not a forum that deals with testing speeds of cp or OS builds,as this go on forever and bore readers to death!

but just of interest ,keep this short...

 

i ran 10 tests on the same cp

installed with XP with different results

.than tried

the tests on my new PC ,,crashed half way into it--

did the same on my older model ,than tried on the oldest one i own

that still had xp installed..as i said

 

 

started of with test 1, result ( 243.2) -- to test 10- ( 249.7) variegation

with each test it showed a different number.. and speed ..

so really this proves nothing ..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

i suggest to any one who is into this go to the site and read into this .

myself i found very boring ...and prove nothing bar a lot of mathematical

results that are not accurate as its deviates every time ..at a test done...

on the same CP with the same system OS...,,perhaps the cause ma be its the old os ,that may be doing it who knows...

 

any how good luck to any one trying it ...

itsmejjj

 

to add i spent over 2 hours trying to get a idea if this testing meted,if it is 100%

the site itself tells you its approximate reading depending on hardware,software,the hard disk ,memory,and type of chips used-graphic cards -and a heap of ather oscillates,and merits seem very sketchy indeed--even the mathematical testings are not 100% right

some clams made , lean to different OS BUILDS AND MAKE FOR AND AGAINST. say if 1 tested it my be faster on this or that but slower on this or that ---BUT agree on a average-- post (uploaded tests) is what thy base

findings on...and put them in there lists ,for comparison--

any how i fed up with this -as i never had faith in burn in programs or so call speed of a pc unit--

my way of thinking if its faster on a system than a older os and seems to be so, use it.and one can see the results before you ,well whats the fuss

for me i am very happy with my new os ..i tried vista again ,and am not happy ,for me it crashed installing zone alarm .blue screen- locked up when running this silly program.-and a lot of applications would not install

but thats not to say its rubbish if people find it better and feel thy have the Best OS out use it one would be silly if one did not...

 

any way thank you for the time spent on this boring post ....

[Maxxwire]

started of with test 1, result ( 243.2) -- to test 10- ( 249.7) variegation

with each test it showed a different number.. and speed ..

so really this proves nothing ..

 

any how good luck to any one trying it ...

 

With only a 2.6% variation on total of 10 consecutive tests this gives you a good range of performance for your XP computer. Now you are able to legitimately and accurately compare the performance of your computer with other XP PassMark Performance Tests from around the world! Welcome to the World Stage of computer benchmark comparisons!

 

After years of reading about the top professional computer reviewers from around the world using the PassMark Performance Tests as a primary tool in their evaluations of the performance of XP, Vista and Win 7 I ran the tests on my own computer I can now agree completely with enoskype when he said "It is a very reliable, good program."

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

A dear OK SIR So now what do you want to see how fast my New win7 is?

is that what you are asking for?

[Maxxwire]

Computer experts from around the world have been using the PassMark Performance Tests to benchmark Win 7 for over a year so it will be interesting to see what the screenshots of your results look like.

 

~Maxx~

[itsmejjj]

Ok we be running Next week end many tests that will be uploaded to the site

For the different comparison's ,where you can down load them .

you understand i do not pass any info on forums from our systems in forums or

or past any info of any thing of our systems CP operating any thing-- or what we use-we use 15 different proxy ip.s to stay Anonymous---and spoof the same ip number for safety ..

look at my posts ,and you see samples of our ip scanning...

to just any one -be it ever so trivalent -it has to be a very trusted site that accept anonymously ...if not we shy away fast...

we have to be very car full what we do over the net in the western world you have a thing called freedom,and not watched like we are. We must stay as Anonymous as possible ,thank you for understanding----

you ether accept my findings as true ather wise we leave it there. sorry --no pasting any thing..thats it..

 

 

itsmejjj

[Maxxwire]

In the western world you have a thing called freedom,and not watched like we are. We must stay as Anonymous as possible ,thank you for understanding----

you ether accept my findings as true ather wise we leave it there. sorry --no pasting any thing..thats it..

 

I have a first hand knowledge of what extreme governmental repression is like having lived in post WW|| Taiwan for 5 years under martial law during the reign of Generalissimo Chang Kai Shek. I have had good friends that were under suspicion who were whisked away during the night and never heard from again so I have a great respect concernig the need for security in one's dealings under such strict governmental scrutiny.

 

I was just hoping that you would be able to send us screenshots of your tests to lend complete legitimacy to your findings and so that we would be able to directly compare your results to all of the other professional testing that has been done on Win 7 using the highly respected PassMark Performance Tests because without a set of common benchmark procedures relative comparisons are all but impossible to quantify.

 

~Maxx~

[Maxxwire]

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr44/Maxxwire_Photos/Album%202/windows-7.png

 

Since this thread is about Win 7 I thought that I would share this excerpted article concerning the most basic elements of Microsoft's latest operating System...

 

Microsoft clarified a few things about its next operating system code-named Windows 7 on its Vista blog.

 

For one, it is not developing a new kernel for Windows 7, but instead will refine the Vista kernel for use in the new operating system. There have been reports that Microsoft was developing a new kernel.

 

IT managers can expect less hardware and software incompatibilities as a result if they make the move from Vista to Windows 7, which is unlike the problems many IT shops are having when migrating from XP to Vista.

 

The OS team is "well into the development process" of Windows 7. It will run on the same hardware specs designed for Vista and support software that now runs on Vista, according to the blog.

 

By keeping the kernel the same, Vista is getting a reprieve, said Jonathan Eunice, principal at Illuminata Inc., the Nashua, N.H., consulting firm. He said Microsoft's decision would be akin to a second release candidate for Vista. "There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the [Vista] kernel. Windows 7 would give Microsoft more time to tune performance issues with Vista … call it Vista Plus 1."

 

And starting from scratch would lead to the same incompatibility problems Microsoft is currently having with Vista. "[using the same kernel] is an appropriate move because if you look at XP it was really a culmination of four tuning cycles going back to the mid-'90s with Windows NT version 3 or 3.5," he said.

 

An operating system migration is not a pleasant move for IT shops, and to hear that a new one is under development with little changes to the kernel makes some wonder why a move to Windows 7 would then be necessary.

 

Kroll Factual Data plans to complete its Vista migration by the end of this year. The Loveland, Colo., subsidiary of risk consultancy Kroll, speeded up its deployment of Vista because many of its users are buying laptops and desktops with the new OS.

 

"We're just doing it now. Bringing a new OS into the mix isn't exactly a great bit of news for me," said Christopher Steffen, principal technical architect with Kroll Factual Data. "If there are no substantial changes to the [Windows 7] OS, like security and functionality improvements and not just cosmetic changes, I don't see us having a rapid deployment for it."

 

As an early adopter, Steffen does expect his company to migrate to Windows 7 to some degree, but not on the same scale as its Vista migration.

 

He said he does believe, however, that introducing OSes closer together would be a way for Microsoft to avoid the kind of market saturation and resistance to change that they are experiencing with XP. Five years passed between the release of XP and Vista.

[itsmejjj]

My - SYSTEM tested 15 times ---on my cut back version and full version --Windows 7 (64-bit)

first hard drive---

4313.3 to 4319.9 -- not much variation--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this one on my full version win7 ( 64 bit).. 2nd hard drive ---

4251.3 to 4263.5 (seems slower than the cut back version..)

 

note the tests are made on clean hard drives, 400 gig --on loan

"thanks to my good friend jonh-- just for testing this ---

no added programming bar the os .

no running applications.

on the shop pc same build,as follows

 

4278.7-4291.3 --under vista -sev -pack 2

Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3.00GHz cpu 4203 - 1 cor- cor - ph-4

NVIDIA Ge Force 9800 GX2 -- 22"viewsoic screen...

 

same system -pc build ed ---

not that much difference ---between the 100% install OS

Barring Vista came up a little faster...

i don't really understand this but if its useful to you your welcome -----

and that's all i am prepared to post --

so this is the end of this for me..

thank you for the lively posts on this

i shall refrain in future -posts - my comment will not read its a "good alternative to XP..."

that started all this ..

itsmejjj

[Maxxwire]

Thanks to you jjj and your friend John for all of the effort that you have put into these benchtests of Win 7, Vista SP2 and the heavily hacked Win 7 version which you fellows worked so hard on to miniaturize into the extremely fast (Min)Win 7 that now flies as you promised it would! The results that you posted demonstrate that we who use the Vista and Win 7 Operating Systems have much fewer differences than we have things in common.

 

~Maxx~

[peastoyou]

I am running ASC Pro and Security 360 on my Dell Studio XPS 1640 laptop with 64 bit Vista and 64 bit WIN 7 and on my multi-boot home made desktop with 32 bit XP, and 32 and 64 bit WIN 7. I have encountered no problems. WIN 7 has a much more responsive feel to it. It is what Vista should have been. The difference is more pronounced on my desktop as the 64 bit system is able to use my 4GB of RAM.

[Maxxwire]

WIN 7 has a much more responsive feel to it. It is what Vista should have been.

 

peastoyou- You are exactly right! I have people bring me their Vista computers all of the time and within a few hours I can get them running like they should have been all along without all of the resource consuming programs and dozens of needless services running. Just about a month ago I found out that many of the same things that I ave been doing to these Vista computers are much the same as the changes MS made in Win 7 only more specific to the end user's needs.

 

You are also right about the varying responsiveness of different computers with different builds. So far I have been able to increase the responsiveness and measured speed of every Vista computer that I have applied the set of 'VistaLite' upgrades that I have developed which includes the amazing IObit ASC Program with the slowest computers showing the highest percentage of improvement. The measured range of improvement so far has ranged from 40% to 100% with the amount of RAM used at the Desktop dropping in 1/2 to as low as 535 MB with the help of IObit Smart RAM Technology.

 

I am not making a comparison between Vista and Win 7. Quite to the contrary to me the greatest thrill is to see the look on someone's face and hear the shouts of delight when they get their Vista computer back and discover for themselves that it is now fully 2X as fast as it was before! I never charge for my services because the thrill of seeing someone else so happy is reward enough for me so I guess some of that 60's spirit is still with me and if MS had gotten it 100% right with Vista none of this would be needed just as the 'VistaLite' upgrades are not needed with Win 7 because as you pointed out MS finally got it right.

 

~Maxx~