MJimLay
aka FlexBaud
Premium
join:2004-10-06
Beach Haven
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
|  [WIN7] Is it really worth it?
I have the following system:
Windows Vista Ultimate X64
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
8 GB DDR2 PC6400 Memory
GeForce 8800GT 512MB PCI-E
Blu-Ray ROM
DVD-RW
750 GB Hard Drive.
For the most part, I have been pretty happy with my system but the biggest thing that bothers me is sometimes my system will come to a complete crawl and the hard drive is spinning like crazy. I did play around with the RC and I remember that it worked out good, but I had a lot of driver issues (a lot of my devices didn't have Windows 7 drivers) but since the release of Windows 7, I am now able to locate drivers for all my devices.
My biggest dislike of Windows 7 is the new layout (I hate the taskbar) and Windows Media Player. There is also a Aero "bug" that I find annoying, but most people don't notice it, others do.
Either way.... is Windows 7 a worthwhile upgrade and is the performance much better than Vista? |
|
Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | You can disable the aero...
if its worth it depends on what you are moving from. From Vista? Yes
From XP.. nah |
|
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Texas
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
| reply to MJimLay
said by MJimLay  :Either way.... is Windows 7 a worthwhile upgrade and is the performance much better than Vista? I do not believe so, as far as games are concerned and your rig looks like a gaming rig. If you play DirectX 9 games then they will still be the same speed in Vista and 7 because, according to what I can find, DirectX 10/11 aren't actually backwards compatible and DX 9 and earlier are emulated. This has overhead, and on my lowly XP 3200+/6800XT there is a 20% loss in fps which is significant for the games I still play (so I stick with XP). Otherwise you got 4 cores and 8GB of memory, are you really going to notice or care that a window closes or that Firefox opens 0.000000000000000001 seconds faster?
One thing I do like about 7 is the ability to remove middleware. Don't want WMP or IE? Toss it.
I have a random problem in Windows 7 RTM where I can't delete files that I certainly have permission to own, even Administrator can't delete and causes problems when uninstalling programs. The only help I could get what "It must be malware" 
--
Peter Schiff for U.S. Senate.
»www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport |
|
Mercurybird
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Hooks, TX
·Allegiance Communi..
·CableOne
| reply to MJimLay
It's the overall performance that I think is worth it. I went from XP Home 32-bit to 7 64-bit and the difference was appreciable.
I don't run IE, but for those who do, on my XP setup it ran like a dial-up browser. On my 7 setup it is as fast as Firefox.
I'm dual booting both systems, so I can make sure I merge both worlds a little better after the easy transfer procedure.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free. |
|
MSeng
Premium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to MJimLay
If you are happy with the current performance then there really is no reason to spend the time, effort and money to upgrade.
Unless, of course, you are like me and like to be running on the latest OS available. 
--
If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me. |
|
Tyreman
join:2002-10-08
2 edits | reply to MJimLay
I have XP, Vista and 7
I wouldn't get just jumping up and down to swap over unless you like to say you run the latest and greatest with the newest eye appeal.
--
Southern Ontario,Canada |
|
Razzy12345
@rr.com
| reply to Augustus III
said by Augustus III :You can disable the aero... if its worth it depends on what you are moving from. From Vista? Yes From XP.. nah Huh, it's the other way around... =p |
|
not quite right
I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person
join:2001-06-23
Puyallup, WA
| reply to MJimLay
I know! .... Why not read the other five thousand "is Windows 7 worth it threads", and form your opinion from those ..... 
--
"Not many people know this, but I happen to be quite famous." |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs: | reply to MJimLay
This is just one of those questions that no one else can answer for you. You have to make your own decision. |
|
MJimLay
aka FlexBaud
Premium
join:2004-10-06
Beach Haven
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| reply to MJimLay
Overall, I am happy with Windows Vista. I will admit, when I first started using Vista, I hated it with a passion as I had a load of problems with it. However, it seems SP2 has made the system much more stable as well as my upgrade from 4 GB to 8 GB of ram.
However, Vista still runs very slowly at times (I think due to superfetch) which is pretty bothersome.
I might just wait it out for a bit. I already own Vista and for the most part, it does what I want other than being slow/unstable at moments. |
|
decades
join:2005-01-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to MJimLay
from vista, maybe but if you have fast hardware vista is fine. from XP---what are you waiting for. |
|
MJimLay
aka FlexBaud
Premium
join:2004-10-06
Beach Haven
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| said by decades :from vista, maybe but if you have fast hardware vista is fine. from XP---what are you waiting for. Well, I am keeping XP on all of my systems except my primary (which is running Vista) I am pretty much stuck with XP on all of my systems and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon  |
|
siljaline
mind that delimiter
Premium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to MJimLay
»[WIN7] Windows 7 - Final Verdict?
»[WIN7] RC to retail version-"upgrade" or fresh install?
»[WIN7] win 7 upgrade ? |
|
Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
 ·GoDaddy Hosting
Host:
Microsoft Help
Wireless Security
| reply to MJimLay
All I can tell you is there has been a measurable improvement in performance on my system after moving from Vista 32 Ultimate to Win7 Ultimate. I have a 2.4GHZ Core 2 Duo E6600. WIN7 is supposed to be more effective with dual core processors and all I can say is that must be the case. I couldn't be happier. |
|
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium,MVM
join:2000-01-13
Beaverton, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to MJimLay
I preferred the memory management in XP vs Vista, as in XP doesn't actively try to use all your physical memory to live in the pagefile, where Vista doesn't control itself very well, it's like an ocd hoarder when it comes to it's vcache, so you find that your file cache is being written back too the disk, again... instead of just being dumped like it should be. Win 7 uses very similar memory management as Vista, but more sophisticated
I'll stick with XP until I make a new machine.
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
$125 per hour if you called tech support, and didn't fix the issue while making things worse |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to MJimLay
said by MJimLay :Overall, I am happy with Windows Vista. I will admit, when I first started using Vista, I hated it with a passion as I had a load of problems with it. However, it seems SP2 has made the system much more stable as well as my upgrade from 4 GB to 8 GB of ram. However, Vista still runs very slowly at times (I think due to superfetch) which is pretty bothersome. I might just wait it out for a bit. I already own Vista and for the most part, it does what I want other than being slow/unstable at moments. You are going to get that awful superfetch in Windows 7 also. I disabled it in Vista Ultimate and Windows 7. I use Agent Ransack instead. Search in Vista is horrendously awful. Agent Ransack is outstanding. Plus, I don't allow indexing on ANY OS including XP. I hate things like that. Anything running in the background, I generally disable permanently like on Windows 7 defrag by default runs constantly in the background which is totally unnecessary as XP and Vista need defragging about 3 times a year and never any more than that. So, defrag is permanently disabled on Windows 7 now as it should not need defragging more than 3-4 times a year and should never run in the background.
XP is far superior to either Vista Ulitmate which I also have or Windows 7.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
MJimLay
aka FlexBaud
Premium
join:2004-10-06
Beach Haven
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| said by Mele20 :said by MJimLay :Overall, I am happy with Windows Vista. I will admit, when I first started using Vista, I hated it with a passion as I had a load of problems with it. However, it seems SP2 has made the system much more stable as well as my upgrade from 4 GB to 8 GB of ram. However, Vista still runs very slowly at times (I think due to superfetch) which is pretty bothersome. I might just wait it out for a bit. I already own Vista and for the most part, it does what I want other than being slow/unstable at moments. You are going to get that awful superfetch in Windows 7 also. I disabled it in Vista Ultimate and Windows 7. I use Agent Ransack instead. Search in Vista is horrendously awful. Agent Ransack is outstanding. Plus, I don't allow indexing on ANY OS including XP. I hate things like that. Anything running in the background, I generally disable permanently like on Windows 7 defrag by default runs constantly in the background which is totally unnecessary as XP and Vista need defragging about 3 times a year and never any more than that. So, defrag is permanently disabled on Windows 7 now as it should not need defragging more than 3-4 times a year and should never run in the background. XP is far superior to either Vista Ulitmate which I also have or Windows 7. I actually like SuperFetch, I just wish it wasn't as big of a memory hog as it is in Windows Vista. In the Windows 7 RC, SuperFetch was much better.
I've turned off indexing and SuperFetch before in Windows Vista, and it just made everything much slower for me. Sure, my hard drive wasn't flashing like crazy all the time, but the system was much slower with SuperFetch turned off. |
|
PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
clubs:
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Mele20
I like XP...still use it with my netbook, and XP Pro for my work notebook, runs well on both.
I like Vista, have it on my wife's notebook as well as mine...it runs smooth and stable on both.
I expect based on all reports that I will like Windows 7...however, will I run out an buy a copy? No!
When it comes pre-installed on my next machine, then I will have it. Outside of any desire to simply have the "latest and greatest" (nothing wrong with that if it floats 'yer boat!), I see no compelling reason to spend $119 (give or take a buck). Both XP, and now Vista, run all my apps and are stable, manage hardware resources (memory) well, and give my computer a "base of operations", which is after all what an OS is for. The last OS that I upgraded to, was XP, to leave behind the DOS-based Windows 9X series, with it's archaic memory management.
If there were apps that I use which would not run on XP or Vista, that would prompt me to purchase Windows 7.
It always gives me a chuckle...so many folks positively bashing Microsoft, but at the same time, they can not wait to shell out a hundred extra bucks or so, to replace an OS that already functions...while I basically "like" MS (or, at least do not "dislike" them)...but do not want to spend money to replace an already functioning OS! Go figure?
--
Deeds, not words |
|
FusionGuy
join:2001-12-06
·Mountain Cable
| reply to MJimLay
I've been very happy with Vista. Never had any issues and everything works blazing fast. I do have 7 installed on another drive and don't notice any difference. As someone earlier said, if you are coming fro XP then it's a definite yes. But if you are satisfied with Vista then there is really no need. But as you can see 7 does use less memory. Vista was using around 1.6GB but was still very fast and stable.
I'm running
ASUS P5Q Deluxe
Core 2 Duo e8400 @ 3.6GHz
Mushkin XP2-8500 2x2GB
BFG GTX 260 OCX MAXCORE
2 x 500GB HDDs |
|
Tyreman
join:2002-10-08
| reply to MJimLay
I just swapped hard drives and looked at Vista 32 bit.
56 processes cpu use age 0-1% physical memory 30%
green memory bar graph 1.05gb
'7 64 bit is at
59 processes cpu use age 0% physical memory 30%
green memory bar graph 1.22gb
Vista cpu use age fluctuates a bit more.
have 4gb of ram.
--
Southern Ontario,Canada |
|
