Who else just installed windows 7 ? First Impressions

Outkast_IRE

Just did a fresh install from vista 64 to 7 64 .
Must say it was totally problem free , feels nice to use so far so good very impressed.

joolsveer

I installed 7 Ultimate over Vista Ultimate a couple of weeks back and so far no problems.

Outkast_IRE

Just getting drivers for a creative sound card , hope they work ok!

DevilsBreath

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Just getting drivers for a creative sound card , hope they work ok!

Should work fine i have an audigy 2 in mine.

cpu-dude

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Just getting drivers for a creative sound card , hope they work ok!

Run Windows Update, it finds 95% of required drivers in my experience.

spartacus93

No problems here, running 7 32 for the moment.

Didn't have the time to do a fresh install, hopefully I'll get a chance over the next week or so to run the 64 bit version.

Picked up all my drivers automatically, but I may have more trouble with the 64 bit version.

Outkast_IRE

Well creative are pretty on the ball with drivers this time around worked no problem . Just Getting all programs i need now like ATI Catalyst and vlc player .

projectmayhem

Installed Ultimate last week in place of XP and found it very smooth and it all worked very easy out of the box. The only slught work-around I had to do was with my Belkin wireless USB adapter which Belkin conveniently didn't supply 7 drivers for. Windows fixed it for me though, after some cajoling.

As a Mac head this is a surprise release from MS. Good job all 'round, and a noticable performance boost over XP, particularly in games (crysis runs smooth as butter now)

phill106

running windows 7 ultimate 64 bit perfectly on a hp dv6799ea. Loving it. Now how do i get this internet tv working in windows media centre

thebman

Installed it a few weeks ago. Infinitely better than Vista Home Premium. Went with Ultimate edition, think the different versions are a mistake TBH.

Its much more responsive and loads faster than Vista and I just did an upgrade.

Installed Ultimate 64bit last week, no problems at all thus far, very user friendly system, very quick install and it installed all the drivers. I was running the 7100 build before it and had no issues with that either which surprised me.

By far the best system Microsoft have released to date.

thebman

hellboy99 wrote: »

Installed Ultimate 64bit last week, no problems at all thus far, very user friendly system, very quick install and it installed all the drivers. I was running the 7100 build before it and had no issues with that either which surprised me.

By far the best system Microsoft have released to date.

Its kind of sad that this has to be stated at all as each OS release should be an improvement. We should never be going backwards like Vista was

run_Forrest_run

I have a laptop (2.5 years old) running XP media edition with 1Gb RAM, would it be worth my time installing Windows 7 on that or should I just wait until I upgrade my laptop (in about 2 years time:( )

thebman

thebman wrote: »

We should never be going backwards like Vista was

You said it, Vista for me was a nightmare.

axer

thebman wrote: »

Its kind of sad that this has to be stated at all as each OS release should be an improvement. We should never be going backwards like Vista was

Actually Vista was not a bad operating system but the public perception of it was bad from the start. I knew so many people out there who criticised Vista until they started using it after which nearly all said they liked the enhancements.

There was so many people giving out about the UAC when in fact it is a great idea to bring in. People just don't like being disturbed but the problem is that in order to have a secure system you have to be disturbed. The option was there to turn it off if they didn't want it.

Alot of the problems with Vista were with badly written 3rd party drivers. Vista has much better error and driver handling than XP but because XP is much more mature it naturally had better drivers written for it.

I have vista home premium on my laptop and in the next week or two I will be putting Windows 7 premium on it.

tman

Well put axer.
The way some people go on about Vista, you'd swear that it was the modern equivalent of Windows ME!
Vista was a fine OS, and Windows 7 is a very nice improvement on it...

I've been happily using Windows 7 since March and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anybody

Outkast_IRE

I happily used vista 64 the last 3 years the only time i ever got hassle was with badly written 3rd party drivers .
One thing nobody can take from vista was that it was a huge step up from xp in terms of security ..
xp i had many nights of sorting malware and virus problems , vista caught any issue straight away and sorted it thats a big plus for me

thebman

axer wrote: »

Actually Vista was not a bad operating system but the public perception of it was bad from the start. I knew so many people out there who criticised Vista until they started using it after which nearly all said they liked the enhancements.

There was so many people giving out about the UAC when in fact it is a great idea to bring in. People just don't like being disturbed but the problem is that in order to have a secure system you have to be disturbed. The option was there to turn it off if they didn't want it.

Alot of the problems with Vista were with badly written 3rd party drivers. Vista has much better error and driver handling than XP but because XP is much more mature it naturally had better drivers written for it.

I have vista home premium on my laptop and in the next week or two I will be putting Windows 7 premium on it.

Vista was fine for me at the start and then went down the crapper TBH.

First thing I did was disable UAC because I don't need it. One thing that was being said about Vista Pre SP1 was that SP1 was going to make copying and pasting faster and closer to XP speed. That says it all really IMO. It was just sluggish and unresponsive compared to 7 or XP.

It also had weird things happening such as when I ran Steam and was flicking between apps, it would stop the OS registering any mouse clicks until I end tasked explorer and started it again.

You can say that is probably an bug in Steam but it doesn't occur in 7 or XP with Steam so it seems more likely to be a Vista bug. I never had driver problems with Vista but my computer was built for it so you wouldn't expect to.

axer

thebman wrote: »

First thing I did was disable UAC because I don't need it.

What makes you think you don't need it?

thebman

axer wrote: »

What makes you think you don't need it?

I only use my computer for Internet and games. I use Opera browser and only go to a few sites that I regularly use and don't have anything dodgy. I have a filterset to block ads from advertisers in case they try to do something dodgy in an ad (have seen this happening).

I get my games from Steam which is a reputable source.

batman2000

I agree with axer...Vista was not all that bad, especially when compared for MS ME.!

I have just installed W7 HP 64 over Vista HP 32bit. Did a clean install, no problems took about at 2hrs. W7 found nearly all drivers.

Just installing the additional programs.

thebman

Vista may not have been bad but compartively it was a step back from XP SP3 for many people as it took up way more resources to do what most would percieve to be little to no extra work.

Also they tried to make everything friendly in control panel (this is in 7 too) so you have to go through all these friendly menus only to end up being provided with the relevant dialog of the XP system that you would have gotten to in about 5 clicks in XP. I mean if your going to try to make it user friendly you should swap out the XP menus and keep everything consistent and use the control panel window to configure everything but advanced settings like it is for battery settings.

axer

thebman wrote: »

I only use my computer for Internet and games. I use Opera browser and only go to a few sites that I regularly use and don't have anything dodgy. I have a filterset to block ads from advertisers in case they try to do something dodgy in an ad (have seen this happening).

Epic Fail! The highlighted part is the reason UAC was brought in. Do you not understand that *any* website can be compromised with code to download and install unauthorised software unknown to the owners of the website? Once your machine is connected to the internet or a network you are vulnerable to unauthorised installs - not to mind other removable storage.

thebman wrote: »

Vista may not have been bad but compartively it was a step back from XP SP3 for many people as it took up way more resources to do what most would percieve to be little to no extra work.

It provided many extra functionality in the background that you did not notice like better error handling, better built in firewall, better protection from malware.

thebman wrote: »

Also they tried to make everything friendly in control panel (this is in 7 too) so you have to go through all these friendly menus only to end up being provided with the relevant dialog of the XP system that you would have gotten to in about 5 clicks in XP.

It takes one click to enable classic control panel. I actually think the logic of the vista control panel in non-classic mode is pretty good - definitely much better than the way XP had non-classic mode - now that was a disaster.

thebman wrote: »

I mean if your going to try to make it user friendly you should swap out the XP menus and keep everything consistent and use the control panel window to configure everything but advanced settings like it is for battery settings.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What does "you should swap out the XP menus" mean?

thebman

axer wrote: »

Epic Fail! The highlighted part is the reason UAC was brought in. Do you not understand that *any* website can be compromised with code to download and install unauthorised software unknown to the owners of the website? Once your machine is connected to the internet or a network you are vulnerable to unauthorised installs - not to mind other removable storage.

loike OMG the suxor, not epic fail. I have an anti-virus and a browser that will not allow many of the common exploits found in Internet Explorer with anti-spyware and will not download software without asking me. UAC is asking me everytime for an event that may occur one in a million times I go to a website but I have to put up with it constantly annoying me to save from something that might annoy me one in a million times. The feature of UAC with its constant pop ups is a virus in itself.

Anyway how many open exploits are there for the Opera web browser exactly?

I ran Vista without UAC since I bought my laptop which is over a year ago now and XP didn't have it and I never had a single piece of adware/spyware/virus on either laptop I've run.

It provided many extra functionality in the background that you did not notice like better error handling, better built in firewall, better protection from malware.

Well 7 has these features? Why does it run better, couldn't be better optimised code could it? Maybe Vista was just rushed out the door.

It takes one click to enable classic control panel. I actually think the logic of the vista control panel in non-classic mode is pretty good - definitely much better than the way XP had non-classic mode - now that was a disaster.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What does "you should swap out the XP menus" mean?

I'm not talking about the initial control panel menu. I'm talking about the entire logic of how it operates after this. You click the option you want and the control panel window changes to give you some basic options or give you a list of things you can do. Then you click again and a new window appears showing an XP window list of features.

They should have standardized it, they went half way and completed in some cases (on XP in work now so can't get examples) leading to inconsistency in how the interface operates when trying to change settings in control panel.

I presume you worked on the project of Vista because TBH, your unnaturally defensive about it.

Bob_Harris

axer wrote: »

Epic Fail! The highlighted part is the reason UAC was brought in. Do you not understand that *any* website can be compromised with code to download and install unauthorised software unknown to the owners of the website? Once your machine is connected to the internet or a network you are vulnerable to unauthorised installs - not to mind other removable storage.

I've always and will always disable UAC.

Your hypothesis is verging on scaremongering.

What difference does a prompt make? The user has to initiate the installation, and if they believe it is what they think it is, then they will click Yes to the UAC prompt and continue with the install.

UAC doesn't protect you from anything.

Just on a side note, aside from resource hogging (which is a fairly major issue for an OS), Vista is a sub-par operating system. From the overly verbose and confusing prompts to the idiotic layout/structuring which places options in hard to find places. It's just frustrating to use.

axer

thebman wrote: »

Anyway how many open exploits are there for the Opera web browser exactly?

Maybe you should look here:
http://www.securityfocus.com/swsearch?sbm=%2F&metaname=alldoc&query=opera&x=0&y=0

No browser is 100% secure.

thebman wrote: »

Well 7 has these features? Why does it run better, couldn't be better optimised code could it? Maybe Vista was just rushed out the door.

Windows 7 is based on vista and naturally the code would be refined and optimised for Windows 7. It seems to me that MS abandoned Vista because it got such an initial negative response with many people just following what the "experts" thought like sheep i.e. those that said Vista was crap without even trying it out just because they heard it from someone - this was widespread.

thebman wrote: »

I'm not talking about the initial control panel menu. I'm talking about the entire logic of how it operates after this. You click the option you want and the control panel window changes to give you some basic options or give you a list of things you can do. Then you click again and a new window appears showing an XP window list of features.

As far as I know the basic settings are included as part of the main window and more advanced settings bring up a separate window.

thebman wrote: »

I presume you worked on the project of Vista because TBH, your unnaturally defensive about it.

Yes, my name is Bill Gates. I am just sick of people unnaturally making up crap about Vista e.g. UAC - if you don't want it then disable it, it should not be considered a negative of vista since it adds an extra layer of security - it is a positive. If you go on any flavour of *nix, for example (since they are seen as being more secure than MS OSes, you will see that you need to be logged on with the root account to do many admin tasks. If you made your account part of the admin group in vista you would *not* be asked via UAC to approve of setting changes. It is a simple secure mechanism used by other more secure OSes.

thebman

axer wrote: »

Maybe you should look here:
http://www.securityfocus.com/swsearch?sbm=%2F&metaname=alldoc&query=opera&x=0&y=0

No browser is 100% secure.

Never said it was, just wondering how many serious exploits I'd have to worry about. Can't browse that at work. I'm guessing a fraction of whats out there for other browsers though since opera has about 1% marketshare. Never the less I never encountered a problem going to the sites I usually go to so barring they get hacked and the person happens to put something on their site that can effect Opera, I should be pretty damn safe still with my anti-virus and anti-malware solution without constant annoying prompts coming up.

Windows 7 is based on vista and naturally the code would be refined and optimised for Windows 7. It seems to me that MS abandoned Vista because it got such an initial negative response with many people just following what the "experts" thought like sheep i.e. those that said Vista was crap without even trying it out just because they heard it from someone - this was widespread.

Yeah I was quite happy with at first after turning off UAC but over time I just ran into things that annoyed more and more.

As far as I know the basic settings are included as part of the main window and more advanced settings bring up a separate window.

Yeah some of those settings are pretty basic like mouse cursor theme or windows sounds (if I remember correctly). Those aren't exactly advanced settings.

Yes, my name is Bill Gates. I am just sick of people unnaturally making up crap about Vista e.g. UAC - if you don't want it then disable it, it should not be considered a negative of vista since it adds an extra layer of security - it is a positive. If you go on any flavour of *nix, for example (since they are seen as being more secure than MS OSes, you will see that you need to be logged on with the root account to do many admin tasks. If you made your account part of the admin group in vista you would *not* be asked via UAC to approve of setting changes. It is a simple secure mechanism used by other more secure OSes.

I have Kubuntu on the same machine, I gave UAC a chance for about an hour or so but I was getting prompts to do anything and had to turn it off. In Kubuntu I only get them when launching something like the package manager. I don't use Kubuntu much though because it can't run my games

Paulw

Just finished my install of Windows 7 Professional, 32 bit.

So far, it feels light and fast. I like it, a lot.

Now, I just have to go reinstall all my apps and such.

Royale with Cheese

Did an upgrade from Vista professional to 7 professional 32 bit. Shuts down a lot quicker, haven't noticed much else different in terms of performance. Probably should have done a fresh install but I wasn't that arsed. Maybe later.

Have to say I never had a problem with Vista (aside from issues with printing wirelessly). If it wasn't for the huge amount of bad press it received then I wouldn't have had a clue it was supposedly a bad OS.

extra-ordinary_

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

I have a laptop (2.5 years old) running XP media edition with 1Gb RAM, would it be worth my time installing Windows 7 on that or should I just wait until I upgrade my laptop (in about 2 years time:( )

Microsoft will still support XP, I wouldn't bother unless you see a specific advantage.

mukki

mods....
Thread should be renamed "what is your opinion on vista"

Outkast_IRE

I didnt want the thread to descend into this .....
I just wanted other people who have installed windows 7 to give their first impressions

paddy2k

I'm another Ultimate7 64bit installer here.
Did a clean instal over Vista and was very happy to see it pick up XP in my second partition, as Vista killed it last time.

The install process was just as smooth as I've become accustomed to when installing Ubuntu.

I had Build 7000 installed using a vhd (not virtualized just a virtual disk) and it got very slow after a couple of boots.

Windows 7 is nice but it's not gonna make me change from Linux.

transylman

The search box in the menu helps in finding your way around the new operating system. Lots of eye candy. Still not sure what to make of the new taskbar. Think I would prefer if folders at least were shown separately (i think this is an option).

Main problem is my system is too slow to run it without constant freezes eveytime I open something, so I am going back to XP until I get a new computer.

paddy2k

You're right Outkast_ire people are getting off topic.

First impressions:
1. it doesn't boot as fast as i'd expected, moblin and ubuntu 9.04 are much faster.

2. The new task bar is good, a new take on open applications and shortcuts in one. It'll take some getting used to for some people but most people should warm to it pretty quickly. The only thing is that it's easy to get lost if multiple instances of the same application are open.

3. The multiple windows/tabs preview is pretty cool, as is the ability to launch an applications tasks by right clicking on it.

4. The control panel settings are once again hidden behind a wall of fudge, it's been harder and harder to get to settings in ever version since 98.

All in all as the next version instance of the windows series it's a pretty good os. One thing i would like to know is have microsoft fixed the horrorendously slow file copying and zipping functions?

Outkast_IRE

paddy2k wrote: »

You're right Outkast_ire people are getting off topic.

First impressions:
1. it doesn't boot as fast as i'd expected, moblin and ubuntu 9.04 are much faster.

2. The new task bar is good, a new take on open applications and shortcuts in one. It'll take some getting used to for some people but most people should warm to it pretty quickly. The only thing is that it's easy to get lost if multiple instances of the same application are open.

3. The multiple windows/tabs preview is pretty cool, as is the ability to launch an applications tasks by right clicking on it.

4. The control panel settings are once again hidden behind a wall of fudge, it's been harder and harder to get to settings in ever version since 98.

All in all as the next version instance of the windows series it's a pretty good os. One thing i would like to know is have microsoft fixed the horrorendously slow file copying and zipping functions?

Well the control panel settings should have a classic view im looking at the moment but cant see it , vista had it so i presume this does .
I thought startup would be quicker too but its fast enough if i wanted faster i would get a ssd.

thebman

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well the control panel settings should have a classic view im looking at the moment but cant see it , vista had it so i presume this does .
I thought startup would be quicker too but its fast enough if i wanted faster i would get a ssd.

Click category on top right in control panel and select large icons to go to classic control panel.

Kintarō Hattori

I got myself a copy of Vista Ultimate and installed it on the main PC the other night. I was told that you can install both the 32bit and 64bit versions (seperate discs in box) on different PCs as there are two licence keys. I only see one myself so I suspect he must be wrong.

paddy2k

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I got myself a copy of Vista Ultimate and installed it on the main PC the other night. I was told that you can install both the 32bit and 64bit versions (seperate discs in box) on different PCs as there are two licence keys. I only see one myself so I suspect he must be wrong.

At the win7 launch in DIT microsoft explained that there is only one licence provided despite providing the two disks. Only one install is allowed per licence, that includes virtual machine running on a licenced machine.

Bob_Harris

So apart from the cool name, why are people paying the premium price for Windows 7 Ultimate?

I'd wager a lot of people don't need the "extra" features at all.

thebman

Bob_Harris wrote: »

So apart from the cool name, why are people paying the premium price for Windows 7 Ultimate?

I'd wager a lot of people don't need the "extra" features at all.

JIC (Just in Case)

Cianos

Have just installed 7, and so far it seems very nice. The design is actually pleasant, and it feels a lot more solid than Vista. Not quite sure yet about the functionality of the taskbar, active programmes can take up a lot of screen space even if they're just passively working in the background (eg MSN Messenger). But I think I'll enjoy using 7 and hope it gives me less headaches than Vista.

thebman

Cianos wrote: »

Have just installed 7, and so far it seems very nice. The design is actually pleasant, and it feels a lot more solid than Vista. Not quite sure yet about the functionality of the taskbar, active programmes can take up a lot of screen space even if they're just passively working in the background (eg MSN Messenger). But I think I'll enjoy using 7 and hope it gives me less headaches than Vista.

I love the new taskbar

Its the windows should always have been IMO.

flyswatter

I ordered a Dell laptop there with Vista on it that hasn't arrived yet. I probably have a free upgrade to Windows 7 but I don't think I'll be installing Windows 7 as soon as I get it. I have an M Audio Fast Track Ultra soundcard and theres no Win 7 drivers for it yet so I think I'll wait for them before I take the plunge.

Biggins

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

I have a laptop (2.5 years old) running XP media edition with 1Gb RAM, would it be worth my time installing Windows 7 on that or should I just wait until I upgrade my laptop (in about 2 years time:( )

I installed one copy of Win 7 on an old laptop that had 512 mb of ram.
Worked absolutely grand. No hassle -and still was faster at starting up than Vista on another with its 4 gigs of ram!
Mad stuff. LOL :pac:

Biggins

Bob_Harris wrote: »

So apart from the cool name, why are people paying the premium price for Windows 7 Ultimate?
I'd wager a lot of people don't need the "extra" features at all.

Some folk are paying for it due to the virtual operating system feature added on and the Bitlocker in-built functionality, amid other reasons.

Cianos wrote: »

...Not quite sure yet about the functionality of the taskbar...

thebman wrote: »

I love the new taskbar

The taskbar nice as it is, can be reduced in size remember by right-clicking on it, going to "properties" and selecting "Use small icons".
I did this on all my systems and still it looks great.

Dartz

Had a hell of a time getting my graphics card drivers to work.

The latest Nvidia ones "worked", but at the same time, they didn't give me the control panel so I could actually do anything with them. The old Dell Vista drivers worked slower, but at the same time they gave me the control panel I liked.

It was a pain in the arse to get them working either way, because they didn't work off the disk.

I also got a rather nasty surprise when Windows smashed my parition table so badly that my Xubuntu install next door to it was just gone... the partition was erased. Not very nice, Mr Ballimer.

But then again, It gave me an excuse to install 9.10 RC

Bob_Harris

Biggins wrote: »

Some folk are paying for it due to the virtual operating system feature added on and the Bitlocker in-built functionality, amid other reasons.

According to the Microsoft website, Ultimate costs $100 more than Home Premium for 4 extra features.

• Windows XP Mode - Free and more advanced alternative in VirtualBox.
  
• BitLocker - Free and more advanced alternative in Truecrypt.
  
• Domain Join - Valuable for Business use. There are plenty of ways to connect into a Domain already.
  
• Back up to a home or business network - No explanation given for this feature. Most likely comes into play if the business has a Windows Server running with multiple Windows clients connected. Not applicable to non business users.

Amid other reasons? Like uncontrollable consumerism? :pac:

Ricky91t

Happily running professional 32 bit for a week now,I'm yet to run into an issue with it,It's great

Recommend reducing the buttons on the task bar,Looks much nicer

Johnny Bitte

Put the beta on my laptop and loved it. So much easier to use than Vista.
Now I have the RC and couldn't be happier. Its great. So will have no problem installing the full version shortly.

Now, in work its a different story. Got an old laptop and stuck it on and while the performance was great, the incompatibility with programs (Lotus notes, Active directory etc) was annoying.

So got a new pc and used xp mode to install them, and it is great i have to say. It open s like a remote desktop session and you install whatever you like. Then it appears on the start menu. But again Active directory would not work and when you click to open any program installed in xp mode a load window opens for a few seconds which could get tedious.

Bob_Harris

I don't think the superbar works that well.

When you have one or two pinned applications and a few non pinned applications running they all get muddled up so instead of the logical layout of having a set of quick launch icons to the left then all of the open windows to the right they end up in a mishmash, sometimes with pinned applications which are not running in between the open windows.

Also lets say I have notepad pinned to the taskbar, and I want open a file up with it by dragging the file and dropping it on the notepad icon. With quick launch icons you can do this, but with superbar pinned apps you cannot. Instead it asks if you want to pin the file to the application.

And finally, if I do have a file pinned to an application, why are the pinned files at the very top of the list, above the recent files? I right click, or single click and move the mouse up, on a pinned application to see my pinned files nearly at the top of the screen, so I have to move my mouse all the way up to click on them.

Pinned files should be at the very bottom, because they are obviously file you are using a lot, so they should be first in order.