Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

[Ian]

[Guest]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I have just been reading an article/review? in Micro Mart magazine which I purchased in Tesco's this morning after seeing it (Windows 7) plastered on the front cover. The writer had mixed feelings about it saying 'It is everything that Vista should have been', over all he liked it but stated that interface takes a lot of time to get used to. He gave it 8/10.

[Ian]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I have just been reading an article/review? in Micro Mart magazine which I purchased in Tesco's this morning after seeing it (Windows 7) plastered on the front cover. The writer had mixed feelings about it saying 'It is everything that Vista should have been', over all he liked it but stated that interface takes a lot of time to get used to. He gave it 8/10.

This sounds like he is comparing it to Windows XP. From everything I've seen, if you are used to Windows Vista,you should be at home with Windows 7. It's true that there is a marked difference between XP and Vista, though I don't think it's a big step from a usability point of view.

I'm expecting Windows 7 to be more spritely in performance, and to have some neat new features, but in essence it is supposed to be nothing more than an improved Vista.

Ian

[Guest]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

Ian - Are you going to invest in a Touch Screen so that you can indulge in the more esoteric features available in this version?

[Ian]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

My laptop has a touch screen, but it's not multi-touch (though it is Wacom pen compatible). The latest versions of my laptop (HP TX2-series) are multi-touch.

Ian

[Kurt]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I haven't loaded Windows 7, but I have loaded Windows 10 (going under the name Snow Leopard)!

[Autumn]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I saw Windows 7 being demonstrated on the TV.

The touch screen does not appeal to me at all. I am too lazy to have to bend forward (which would give me backache and I am sure does not comply with the H&S legislation for correct posture at the keyboard) and draw my fingers over the screen to enlarge or decrease etc. I would much rather use my mouse wheel or keyboard.

Anyway, I'm getting used to Vista now.

[PJPhoto]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I've been using Win 7 for about a year now as well as Vista on my home machines. I do computer consulting as my full time job, so was able to get most of the win 7 incarnations. I like Win 7 better than Vista which itself is pretty good now. I think Win 7 "tightens things up a bit" and the new interface is a little nicer. All my hardware works fine. All my photo software works fine....even DXO which I use for my raw files.

Philip

[Ian]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

Just done a clean install on Julia's laptop, and it's all going smoothly. There does seem to be less waiting around, and the UI tweaks are quite untuitive. I haven't come across any compatibility issues either.

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

As most of my work is done on a netbook, I shan't be installing Windows 7.

The system requirements state 16GB of free disk space. When, oh when will Microsoft stop producing such massive BLOATware?

I've been looking at the alternatives over recent months, and I find it odd that you can have a perfectly acceptable OS of no more than 100MB and run your apps just fine - yet Windows 7 needs 16GB! Why?

What exactly does that 16GB give us? Microsoft seem to have forgotten that the primary goal of an operating system is to make your system operate - not to be saddled with humungous gigabytes of bloat.

[Stephen]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

As most of my work is done on a netbook, I shan't be installing Windows 7.

The system requirements state 16GB of free disk space. When, oh when will Microsoft stop producing such massive BLOATware?

I've been looking at the alternatives over recent months, and I find it odd that you can have a perfectly acceptable OS of no more than 100MB and run your apps just fine - yet Windows 7 needs 16GB! Why?

What exactly does that 16GB give us? Microsoft seem to have forgotten that the primary goal of an operating system is to make your system operate - not to be saddled with humungous gigabytes of bloat.

I'm far from an expert in such matters, but it seems to me that Microsoft are producing an OS that is trying to be all things to all people. Consequently there is a lot of stuff in there that most are unlikely to ever use.

I agree with the principle of what you are saying here, however system requirements are far from being the same as what MS are putting on our systems, and this is the implication of your post. The software will not take up 16GB. However 16GB is nothing in todays terms and can be used up fairly quickly with a few hundred photos from modern cameras. Memory is cheap and 1TB drives are fast becoming the norm.

As a matter of interest, the latest upgrade for my Macs, Snow Leopard, requires 5GB of HD space and 1GB of Ram, and it seems the installation reduced the size of the previous installation by a significant amount. Frankly though it matters not one jot to most people, because we quite simply want the latest software. I'm pretty sure Windaz7 will sell well, even though most don't want or need the touch screen facility. Now there's something worth banging on about. I can't imagine why the average PC user would ever want or need such a facility, its something that seems hard work to me

[JSR]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

However 16GB is nothing in todays terms and can be used up fairly quickly with a few hundred photos from modern cameras. Memory is cheap and 1TB drives are fast becoming the norm.

This is what gets me though. It shouldn't be for a software manufacturer to say "space is cheap, let's increase the bloat".

I bought my current computer based on certain criteria. One of the major appeals was of no moving parts - it uses SSD drives internally, not platter-based hard drives. As a consequence, internal storage space is at a premium - with the primary drive being 4GB and the secondary drive being 8GB.

That 12GB is more than plenty (my current XP system uses up significantly less than 5GB including updates), yet I can forget any hope of trying out Windows 7. It is true that you can get 1TB drives, but as far as I'm aware, Windows 7 still expects to be installed on local drives. Plugging a 1TB USB drive in won't help - and, even if it did, I don't fancy having to dangle a mains-powered hard drive off the computer just to run Windows.

I'm a firm believer of not have large internal drives. I've had enough laptops go belly-up on me in my time and all the hassle associated with getting the files off, that I now only install the bare minimum. Wherever possible I use portable versions of software and external storage. In the event that anything goes wrong, it's a simple matter of plugging these into another computer and carrying on with almost zero downtime. So, I don't particularly want to buy a machine with a multi-GB internal hard drive just so that it can accomodate the ever increasing bloat of Windows.

This isn't a rant about Windows. I use XP and have no huge issues with it. However, alternative OSes demonstrate what should be happening. The OS should be relatively small and, more to the point, portable. It's very nearly feasible to have an entire OS, all of your apps, and your files on one tiny SD card. But not with Windows it isn't. Why do Microsoft continue with this outdated antiquated method of using an OS?

I don't have any familiarity with how Mac handles OS tasks. I just see Windows going from less than 100MB for Windows 95, less than 400MB for Windows 98, to ~2GB for Windows XP, and now 16GB for Windows 7. When does it stop?

As a point of interest, it's feasible to have a GUI-based OS weighing in at less than 10MB - yes, 10MB, never mind GigaBytes of the stuff. Just barmy.

[Rodbender]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

This is what gets me though. It shouldn't be for a software manufacturer to say "space is cheap, let's increase the bloat".

I bought my current computer based on certain criteria. One of the major appeals was of no moving parts - it uses SSD drives internally, not platter-based hard drives. As a consequence, internal storage space is at a premium - with the primary drive being 4GB and the secondary drive being 8GB.

That 12GB is more than plenty (my current XP system uses up significantly less than 5GB including updates), yet I can forget any hope of trying out Windows 7. It is true that you can get 1TB drives, but as far as I'm aware, Windows 7 still expects to be installed on local drives. Plugging a 1TB USB drive in won't help - and, even if it did, I don't fancy having to dangle a mains-powered hard drive off the computer just to run Windows.

I'm a firm believer of not have large internal drives. I've had enough laptops go belly-up on me in my time and all the hassle associated with getting the files off, that I now only install the bare minimum. Wherever possible I use portable versions of software and external storage. In the event that anything goes wrong, it's a simple matter of plugging these into another computer and carrying on with almost zero downtime. So, I don't particularly want to buy a machine with a multi-GB internal hard drive just so that it can accomodate the ever increasing bloat of Windows.

This isn't a rant about Windows. I use XP and have no huge issues with it. However, alternative OSes demonstrate what should be happening. The OS should be relatively small and, more to the point, portable. It's very nearly feasible to have an entire OS, all of your apps, and your files on one tiny SD card. But not with Windows it isn't. Why do Microsoft continue with this outdated antiquated method of using an OS?

I don't have any familiarity with how Mac handles OS tasks. I just see Windows going from less than 100MB for Windows 95, less than 400MB for Windows 98, to ~2GB for Windows XP, and now 16GB for Windows 7. When does it stop?

As a point of interest, it's feasible to have a GUI-based OS weighing in at less than 10MB - yes, 10MB, never mind GigaBytes of the stuff. Just barmy.

I think of it this way. A bike will get you form A to B, likewise a Rolls. If you have the money and need the comfort you go for the Rolls. I'm quite happy with my old banger of an OS, so I'm spending my money else where.

[Patrick]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I don't have any familiarity with how Mac handles OS tasks. I just see Windows going from less than 100MB for Windows 95, less than 400MB for Windows 98, to ~2GB for Windows XP, and now 16GB for Windows 7. When does it stop?

As a point of interest, it's feasible to have a GUI-based OS weighing in at less than 10MB - yes, 10MB, never mind GigaBytes of the stuff. Just barmy.

I think you have put your finger on it, windows 95 through to now. Microsoft are trying to be backward compatible with a lot of old stuff as well as new. There is one hell of a lot of software and hardware that's new let alone going back 10years or more. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but Mac don't attempt to support old software and hardware to the same extent.

Anyway I have just upgraded Vista to Windows 7 on my PC, and it runs faster than Vista, as claimed.
I never had any issues with Vista after I did a clean install on my laptop, my PC was always a clean install it was bought with Vista loaded.
I have a net-book (XP OS) but with a 160gig H/D however I don't think at this stage I shall be installing 7 I will though be upgrading from Vista to 7 on the laptop.

I do however lust after a Mac but my pockets are not deep enough.

Patrick

[Stephen]

Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?

I think of it this way. A bike will get you form A to B, likewise a Rolls. If you have the money and need the comfort you go for the Rolls. I'm quite happy with my old banger of an OS, so I'm spending my money else where.

A new bike maybe?