Windows 7
- Thread starter ToyotaNSaturn
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Originally Posted By: wavinwayne
College students will be able to get W7 for $30. See the story at C-Net News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10355710-56.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
Attentive readers will also find something "unusual" on the page.
Ewwwww.....
LOL yeah. you'd think that they wouldn't point it out...
I get the impression that CNET lets the staff write their own bios, from the 3rd person perspective. To me, that would explain the "anomoly" being pointed out in the author's bio. Either that orhe? wanted it to be pointed out. Either way, I couldn't care less.
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Originally Posted By: wavinwayne
College students will be able to get W7 for $30. See the story at C-Net News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10355710-56.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
Attentive readers will also find something "unusual" on the page.
Ewwwww.....
LOL yeah. you'd think that they wouldn't point it out...
I get the impression that CNET lets the staff write their own bios, from the 3rd person perspective. To me, that would explain the "anomoly" being pointed out in the author's bio. Either that or
Originally Posted By: tmorris1
They are based in San Francisco...
So is Mori.
They are based in San Francisco...
So is Mori.
A caveat for those thinking of pumping Win 7 x64 into older platforms with 4 gb ram . . . 4 or 5 year-old AGP systems, etc.
Once you get up past 3 gb of ram, you can start running into significant HW issues on some of the older MBs. This is with Build 7600, which I understand is the RTM build. But it really has little to do with W7.
I've run into various problems with 4gb ram on some of the older MBs, even though they were advertised to go that high. You sometimes have to run older BIOS versions to successfully boot or see that much ram, which then causes its own problems with ancillary HW.
It amounts to straight hardware issues once over the 3 gb threshold, and not necessarily a W7 problem. There was no need to ever contemplate running 4gb on these systems before W7. And some HW makers are not addressing it on their older devices with W7. For instance, one Marvell onboard NIC (found on many older Asus boards) at 4 gb ram with W7 will simply not operate, and Marvell has no plans to correct the issue.
There are also still some other x64 driver headaches. Some older ATI cards will cause BSOD in x64 on the older rigs. Same for some older SB Audigys. There are some workarounds, but it is a lot of extra work. Throwing new cards at an old AGP system is not necessarily a cost-effective alternative.
The onboard SATA controllers (typically fakeraids, but usable as jbod) present their own set of W7 nightmares. More than half the time, the W7 installer won't accept the attached HDD. But an ATA-133 drive running off the SB chipset works fine, and is nearly as fast.
So for some of these older systems, it may be much less headache to spool back to W7x86 and 3gb ram., especially if you have older ancillary cards and devices that you want to keep using. W7x64 is not necessarily a panacea on these older systems anyway. It is unlikely that these old timers are going to see the memory-intensive conditions where x64 and 4gb would make a real difference. For instance, I've an elderly Abit AV8 running W7x86 on 2gb faster than it ever ran XP, with no driver headaches. A genuine improvement in this instance.
Once you get up past 3 gb of ram, you can start running into significant HW issues on some of the older MBs. This is with Build 7600, which I understand is the RTM build. But it really has little to do with W7.
I've run into various problems with 4gb ram on some of the older MBs, even though they were advertised to go that high. You sometimes have to run older BIOS versions to successfully boot or see that much ram, which then causes its own problems with ancillary HW.
It amounts to straight hardware issues once over the 3 gb threshold, and not necessarily a W7 problem. There was no need to ever contemplate running 4gb on these systems before W7. And some HW makers are not addressing it on their older devices with W7. For instance, one Marvell onboard NIC (found on many older Asus boards) at 4 gb ram with W7 will simply not operate, and Marvell has no plans to correct the issue.
There are also still some other x64 driver headaches. Some older ATI cards will cause BSOD in x64 on the older rigs. Same for some older SB Audigys. There are some workarounds, but it is a lot of extra work. Throwing new cards at an old AGP system is not necessarily a cost-effective alternative.
The onboard SATA controllers (typically fakeraids, but usable as jbod) present their own set of W7 nightmares. More than half the time, the W7 installer won't accept the attached HDD. But an ATA-133 drive running off the SB chipset works fine, and is nearly as fast.
So for some of these older systems, it may be much less headache to spool back to W7x86 and 3gb ram., especially if you have older ancillary cards and devices that you want to keep using. W7x64 is not necessarily a panacea on these older systems anyway. It is unlikely that these old timers are going to see the memory-intensive conditions where x64 and 4gb would make a real difference. For instance, I've an elderly Abit AV8 running W7x86 on 2gb faster than it ever ran XP, with no driver headaches. A genuine improvement in this instance.
You make a good point about using older stuff with the 64bit version of Windows7/Windows 2008 Server R2.
For those, 32 bit versions are best way to bridge the gap between old & new...
For those, 32 bit versions are best way to bridge the gap between old & new...
As far as I know. If it has AGP, then it is 32bit and you couldnt run 64bit if you wanted to.
I've heard about issues with going over 4GB on non-server mboards as well. Luckily, my "old rig" uses such a "server" board (Tyan K8WE) so it was somewhat future proof for a few extra years since it had 133mhz PCI-X slots, 2 PCIe X16 slots, and 8 SIMM slots for a total of 32GB of usable RAM. It's running like a champ with 64-bit versions of the release candidate as well as the 7600.16385 RTM version. I'm using it to validate some custom software for a Fortune 25 client and have tested it with 4GB/8GB/16GB/32GB. Not bad for a 4 year old motherboard.
I put the prerelease on my Thinkpad T40 and it ran great, but there is no video support for the Radeon 9000 Mobility, so I probably won't upgrade. I was actually able to put the Windows XP driver on it and get accelerated 2D and OpenGL support, but anything making a call to DirectX caused a kernel panic.
If it worked flawlessly I might upgrade, but as it is XP works just fine so I don't see the point.
If it worked flawlessly I might upgrade, but as it is XP works just fine so I don't see the point.
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
I've heard about issues with going over 4GB on non-server mboards as well. Luckily, my "old rig" uses such a "server" board (Tyan K8WE) so it was somewhat future proof for a few extra years since it had 133mhz PCI-X slots, 2 PCIe X16 slots, and 8 SIMM slots for a total of 32GB of usable RAM. It's running like a champ with 64-bit versions of the release candidate as well as the 7600.16385 RTM version. I'm using it to validate some custom software for a Fortune 25 client and have tested it with 4GB/8GB/16GB/32GB. Not bad for a 4 year old motherboard.
FWIW, it can be done on the older desktop MBs, but is trial and error on every install as to what HW will flake out. The above Abit board we're testing 7600 on can run x64, but requires a PCI nic at 4gb. The onboard VIA nic can't handle 4gb addressing. A lot of older onboards can't.
Onboard NICs, audio and fakeraids are particularly troublesome once into x64/4gb environments. On desktop products, they're cheap solutions to begin with (to help sell the MB), and aren't particularly well supported compared to the carded brethren.
Still, x64 on an old Athlon 64 rig isn't noticeably better running than x86, even with the extra ram. To really appreciate x64, you need a bit more than 4gb ram. Unfortunately, the old VIA chipsets stop at 4gb. Pity, as the old A64 was a breakthrough mainstream consumer CPU w/64 bit. It has always been shackled by the desktop MBs it usually found itself in. Wasted potential.
The server boards ARE a different beast. On our Supermicro platform, we've twin onboard Intel nics that run as nicely as the carded solutions. x64 and 12gb don't bother them and they will happily run teaming. Ask a Marvell or Realtek desktop onboard to do THAT.
I've heard about issues with going over 4GB on non-server mboards as well. Luckily, my "old rig" uses such a "server" board (Tyan K8WE) so it was somewhat future proof for a few extra years since it had 133mhz PCI-X slots, 2 PCIe X16 slots, and 8 SIMM slots for a total of 32GB of usable RAM. It's running like a champ with 64-bit versions of the release candidate as well as the 7600.16385 RTM version. I'm using it to validate some custom software for a Fortune 25 client and have tested it with 4GB/8GB/16GB/32GB. Not bad for a 4 year old motherboard.
FWIW, it can be done on the older desktop MBs, but is trial and error on every install as to what HW will flake out. The above Abit board we're testing 7600 on can run x64, but requires a PCI nic at 4gb. The onboard VIA nic can't handle 4gb addressing. A lot of older onboards can't.
Onboard NICs, audio and fakeraids are particularly troublesome once into x64/4gb environments. On desktop products, they're cheap solutions to begin with (to help sell the MB), and aren't particularly well supported compared to the carded brethren.
Still, x64 on an old Athlon 64 rig isn't noticeably better running than x86, even with the extra ram. To really appreciate x64, you need a bit more than 4gb ram. Unfortunately, the old VIA chipsets stop at 4gb. Pity, as the old A64 was a breakthrough mainstream consumer CPU w/64 bit. It has always been shackled by the desktop MBs it usually found itself in. Wasted potential.
The server boards ARE a different beast. On our Supermicro platform, we've twin onboard Intel nics that run as nicely as the carded solutions. x64 and 12gb don't bother them and they will happily run teaming. Ask a Marvell or Realtek desktop onboard to do THAT.
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
As far as I know. If it has AGP, then it is 32bit and you couldnt run 64bit if you wanted to.
That's a pretty accurate rule of thumb to go by. But remember, there were a lot of Socket 754 and some Socket 940 (the early ones) motherboards that supported Athlon 64 processors that had AGP slots. They could run Win7 64 but I doubt you'd want to.
As far as I know. If it has AGP, then it is 32bit and you couldnt run 64bit if you wanted to.
That's a pretty accurate rule of thumb to go by. But remember, there were a lot of Socket 754 and some Socket 940 (the early ones) motherboards that supported Athlon 64 processors that had AGP slots. They could run Win7 64 but I doubt you'd want to.
I have never seen one of those, good to know. I have an oddball one myself. A Pentium 4 (Socket 478) with a PCIe x16 graphics slot.
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
As far as I know. If it has AGP, then it is 32bit and you couldnt run 64bit if you wanted to.
That's a pretty accurate rule of thumb to go by. But remember, there were a lot of Socket 754 and some Socket 940 (the early ones) motherboards that supported Athlon 64 processors that had AGP slots. They could run Win7 64 but I doubt you'd want to.
And socket 939. When the A64s came out, PCIe was not yet dominant.
There are a mountain of 4,5 and 6 year old AGP/A64 systems out there. They CAN run x64, if you are willing to endure the effort. They run it fine once you negotiate all the hardware hurdles.
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
As far as I know. If it has AGP, then it is 32bit and you couldnt run 64bit if you wanted to.
That's a pretty accurate rule of thumb to go by. But remember, there were a lot of Socket 754 and some Socket 940 (the early ones) motherboards that supported Athlon 64 processors that had AGP slots. They could run Win7 64 but I doubt you'd want to.
And socket 939. When the A64s came out, PCIe was not yet dominant.
There are a mountain of 4,5 and 6 year old AGP/A64 systems out there. They CAN run x64, if you are willing to endure the effort. They run it fine once you negotiate all the hardware hurdles.
Anyone planning to preorder W7? Newegg has them on preorder and you can get the OEM versions if you want to save money and not changing motherboards often. Im planning to get W7 Home Premium OEM to replace XP on my netbook. If I had extra dough I would get W7 for my desktop, but I got suckered into buying Vista Ultimate Retail version.
Home Basic and Starter are not available for retail unfortuantely. It would be good for someone who wants to install it on their netbook or laptop.
Home Basic and Starter are not available for retail unfortuantely. It would be good for someone who wants to install it on their netbook or laptop.
Last edited:
I pre-ordered a W7-pro upgrade for $99 several months ago.
The family pack is also a good deal - three home premium upgrade licenses for about $140. Most people don't need more than home premium.
Otherwise, there is also the $29 academic offer, if one gets one.
Just my opinion, but I wouldn't buy OEM in year one unless the MB was new or close to new. I have a sense that 7 is going to be an OS with legs, like XP turned out to be. Transferability is a bigger factor when you buy in year one of a new OS cycle.
After running 7600 on several systems for several weeks now, I think 7 is going to do very well.
The family pack is also a good deal - three home premium upgrade licenses for about $140. Most people don't need more than home premium.
Otherwise, there is also the $29 academic offer, if one gets one.
Just my opinion, but I wouldn't buy OEM in year one unless the MB was new or close to new. I have a sense that 7 is going to be an OS with legs, like XP turned out to be. Transferability is a bigger factor when you buy in year one of a new OS cycle.
After running 7600 on several systems for several weeks now, I think 7 is going to do very well.
The main purposes for people to run 64 bit OS at a consumer level is to use more than 3.5GB of RAM. If you are running an old system, it might not have that much RAM.
How much RAM is really needed? If you need that much you probably need a faster CPU to begin with.
How much RAM is really needed? If you need that much you probably need a faster CPU to begin with.
I have to laugh at everyone who says "I'm quitting windows"
If you havent used linux before good luck even installing a program half the time.
VLC media player or anything.
thats not to say the preinstalled options arent fine..
wait till you have to update firefox and you google for 30min
trying to figure out how to upgrade it..
and it keeps failing from some obscure default security option.
etc
I use both, but you cant really game.. on linux.. and dont give me any wine etc.. thats about the same as me running linux on a VM in windows.
and to the OP yes win7 > xp > vista x10
If you havent used linux before good luck even installing a program half the time.
VLC media player or anything.
thats not to say the preinstalled options arent fine..
wait till you have to update firefox and you google for 30min
trying to figure out how to upgrade it..
and it keeps failing from some obscure default security option.
etc
I use both, but you cant really game.. on linux.. and dont give me any wine etc.. thats about the same as me running linux on a VM in windows.
and to the OP yes win7 > xp > vista x10
Originally Posted By: Rand
If you havent used linux before good luck even installing a program half the time.
Yeah, the fact that most applications for a linux-based OS are pretty much all in the same place from one source that maintains and tests everything, accessible via one program to manage and update them all instead of the Windows method, where you gather innumerable .exe install files that you have to go get, then install, then update individually from trusted or perhaps untrusted sources. All that convenience, security and ease makes linux management a *real bugger*. [
Originally Posted By: Rand
VLC media player or anything.
Really?! *Really*???? You open the ONE PROGRAM that handles all of your applications; in Ubuntu's case it is Synaptic, you find VLC, you flippin' click on it and then click Apply and it installs. You don't even have to know where VLC's web site is.
Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Slackware, and every linux distribution I have ever tried makes software installation *absurdly* simple.
Originally Posted By: Rand
wait till you have to update firefox and you google for 30min
Nah, I'll just let my automatic Update Manager tell me there is an update, which the kind folks in the Debian community compile and test for me, and click ONE BUTTON called "Update".
Originally Posted By: Rand
and it keeps failing from some obscure default security option.
I have heard "fail" and "security" in the same sentence a lot over the years; always to the detriment of Windows, and usually peppered with lots of cussing.
If you havent used linux before good luck even installing a program half the time.
Yeah, the fact that most applications for a linux-based OS are pretty much all in the same place from one source that maintains and tests everything, accessible via one program to manage and update them all instead of the Windows method, where you gather innumerable .exe install files that you have to go get, then install, then update individually from trusted or perhaps untrusted sources. All that convenience, security and ease makes linux management a *real bugger*. [
Originally Posted By: Rand
VLC media player or anything.
Really?! *Really*???? You open the ONE PROGRAM that handles all of your applications; in Ubuntu's case it is Synaptic, you find VLC, you flippin' click on it and then click Apply and it installs. You don't even have to know where VLC's web site is.
Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Slackware, and every linux distribution I have ever tried makes software installation *absurdly* simple.
Originally Posted By: Rand
wait till you have to update firefox and you google for 30min
Nah, I'll just let my automatic Update Manager tell me there is an update, which the kind folks in the Debian community compile and test for me, and click ONE BUTTON called "Update".
Originally Posted By: Rand
and it keeps failing from some obscure default security option.
I have heard "fail" and "security" in the same sentence a lot over the years; always to the detriment of Windows, and usually peppered with lots of cussing.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Rand
If you havent used linux before good luck even installing a program half the time.
Yeah, the fact that most applications for a linux-based OS are pretty much all in the same place from one source that maintains and tests everything, accessible via one program to manage and update them all instead of the Windows method, where you gather innumerable .exe install files that you have to go get, then install, then update individually from trusted or perhaps untrusted sources. All that convenience, security and ease makes linux management a *real bugger*. [
Originally Posted By: Rand
VLC media player or anything.
Really?! *Really*???? You open the ONE PROGRAM that handles all of your applications; in Ubuntu's case it is Synaptic, you find VLC, you flippin' click on it and then click Apply and it installs. You don't even have to know where VLC's web site is.
Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Slackware, and every linux distribution I have ever tried makes software installation *absurdly* simple.
Oh, REALLY? yourself!
I started using PC's with DOS in the early '80's. Upgraded through every version of DOS, then through most of the versions of Windows. I have made my living as a hardware support guy, a network admin (in the very early days), and a designer/business analyst for corporate ERP systems.
But the two times I have tried Linux (because people say it is now so user friendly, and I'm disgusted with Windows) I'm immediately confronted with installation options which are meaningless to me, with no Help, no nothing. I guess I didn't wasn't born with the knowledge that I should reference "...Synaptic, you find VLC," etc.
Could I have researched and found that out? Of course I could, but that is not my definition of user friendly at this point in my life. If it is user friendly, it should at least not be confusing a veteran PC user during the installation process. Given that it does, I can only say that the definition of "friendly" is being made by people so geeky that they have no idea what that means in a normal context.
Originally Posted By: Rand
If you havent used linux before good luck even installing a program half the time.
Yeah, the fact that most applications for a linux-based OS are pretty much all in the same place from one source that maintains and tests everything, accessible via one program to manage and update them all instead of the Windows method, where you gather innumerable .exe install files that you have to go get, then install, then update individually from trusted or perhaps untrusted sources. All that convenience, security and ease makes linux management a *real bugger*. [
Originally Posted By: Rand
VLC media player or anything.
Really?! *Really*???? You open the ONE PROGRAM that handles all of your applications; in Ubuntu's case it is Synaptic, you find VLC, you flippin' click on it and then click Apply and it installs. You don't even have to know where VLC's web site is.
Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Slackware, and every linux distribution I have ever tried makes software installation *absurdly* simple.
Oh, REALLY? yourself!
I started using PC's with DOS in the early '80's. Upgraded through every version of DOS, then through most of the versions of Windows. I have made my living as a hardware support guy, a network admin (in the very early days), and a designer/business analyst for corporate ERP systems.
But the two times I have tried Linux (because people say it is now so user friendly, and I'm disgusted with Windows) I'm immediately confronted with installation options which are meaningless to me, with no Help, no nothing. I guess I didn't wasn't born with the knowledge that I should reference "...Synaptic, you find VLC," etc.
Could I have researched and found that out? Of course I could, but that is not my definition of user friendly at this point in my life. If it is user friendly, it should at least not be confusing a veteran PC user during the installation process. Given that it does, I can only say that the definition of "friendly" is being made by people so geeky that they have no idea what that means in a normal context.
You would honestly prefer to go to the (for example) VLC web site, wherever that may be, find the appropriate .exe to download, download it, find where you downloaded it, double click it and go through a whole slew of options and what-not than open up the one program that handles ALL of your installed applications and browse from there? So it has a name (Synaptic): Did that make it more difficult? I honestly thought this was a joke at first.
There seems to be a LOT less research involved in adding and removing applications in Ubuntu than trying to find the Add/ Remove Programs area in (the Control Panel in) Windows, no?!?!?!?!?!
Any time - *ANY TIME* - you delve into a new way of doing things, you need to find out just a thing or two. When I first got my Mac, simply dragging the .app into the Applications folder seemed a little weird; but I did it once, then I knew.
Quote:
I guess I didn't wasn't born with the knowledge that I should reference "...Synaptic, you find VLC," etc.
But you WERE born with the knowledge of how to go find, download, (register, pay for and get serial numbers and call and response activation numbers), install, update and maintain applications in other OS's? You don't do *any* of that in most linux-based OS's. You open one application management program, you find the program you wish to add or remove, you install or remove it. It's been tested and compiled by people who know their stuff, and you don't worry about it. *REALLY*.
There seems to be a LOT less research involved in adding and removing applications in Ubuntu than trying to find the Add/ Remove Programs area in (the Control Panel in) Windows, no?!?!?!?!?!
Any time - *ANY TIME* - you delve into a new way of doing things, you need to find out just a thing or two. When I first got my Mac, simply dragging the .app into the Applications folder seemed a little weird; but I did it once, then I knew.
Quote:
I guess I didn't wasn't born with the knowledge that I should reference "...Synaptic, you find VLC," etc.
But you WERE born with the knowledge of how to go find, download, (register, pay for and get serial numbers and call and response activation numbers), install, update and maintain applications in other OS's? You don't do *any* of that in most linux-based OS's. You open one application management program, you find the program you wish to add or remove, you install or remove it. It's been tested and compiled by people who know their stuff, and you don't worry about it. *REALLY*.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
But you WERE born with the knowledge of how to go find, download, (register, pay for and get serial numbers and call and response activation numbers), install, update and maintain applications in other OS's? You don't do *any* of that in most linux-based OS's. You open one application management program, you find the program you wish to add or remove, you install or remove it. It's been tested and compiled by people who know their stuff, and you don't worry about it. *REALLY*.
The difference is that the Windows requirments you mention need no inside knowledge. Having to know which application management program to use, and which programs to add or remove, requires special knowledge. That is not user friendly. I'm sure the person who has been through the past with Linux thinks it is friendly, because by comparison it is.
But in an absolute sense, to a person with no Linux experience, it is no more friendly that it ever was. And the most perplexing part is, if it takes so little extra knowledge to make it friendly (as everyone always intimates), why hasn't that been designed into the installation procedure? The fact that that last step has never been taken (to my knowledge) when it would supposedly be so easy, is what keeps it in the geek category.
But you WERE born with the knowledge of how to go find, download, (register, pay for and get serial numbers and call and response activation numbers), install, update and maintain applications in other OS's? You don't do *any* of that in most linux-based OS's. You open one application management program, you find the program you wish to add or remove, you install or remove it. It's been tested and compiled by people who know their stuff, and you don't worry about it. *REALLY*.
The difference is that the Windows requirments you mention need no inside knowledge. Having to know which application management program to use, and which programs to add or remove, requires special knowledge. That is not user friendly. I'm sure the person who has been through the past with Linux thinks it is friendly, because by comparison it is.
But in an absolute sense, to a person with no Linux experience, it is no more friendly that it ever was. And the most perplexing part is, if it takes so little extra knowledge to make it friendly (as everyone always intimates), why hasn't that been designed into the installation procedure? The fact that that last step has never been taken (to my knowledge) when it would supposedly be so easy, is what keeps it in the geek category.
- Status
