TeknologikL

Thanks for the real world information that doesnt come from a paid writer. I always worry that the writer was thinking of his next paycheck more than the content of his writing.

Drew

To be fair, I'm an engineer at Globalspec and a moderator of CR4, so in a sense I get paid too. We (Kaplin & I) just have different opinions is all.

How much slack space is available in that 4TB/RAID0?

Only 600GB is RAID0 (2xVelociraptors). I gave Win7 50GB to play in and it's using about half that with only a few programs installed.

Your comments on boot times hit home. What I would really like is something like my Palm OS that boots instantly! Linux has the same issues with boot times...

In many ways 7 is a step backwards for me. For example in XP if I want to know what speed the CPU is running at and how much RAM is recognized by the OS it's : start>settings>control panel and the info is there in 3 clicks.

With 7 I just get some arbitrary and useless 'performance index' rated from 1.0 to 7.9

Anyone know how to get CPU speed and RAM available in 7?

Right click computer and select properties

I just got my copy of Win7 Ultimate today in the mail and if it's anything like Vista(and i'm preping for install), i'm sure that the same short cut will work for this. XP has a fabulous tool that for some reason, developers decided to hide away in Vista... The "Task Manager" has a performance tab (one of many) which maps out your current usage in real time from the moment the tab is opened... ALT+CNTL+DEL should get you there (if it's the same as Vista) and there should be an option "Start Task Manager"... if not, then you may be able to find it with this improved search that i've read about. I'll check back in a couple days and see if that was helpful or not, if not, then i'll most likely have a better answer for you at that time.

This is what I'm talking about when I said there was a steeper learning curve for users of XP than users of Vista. Most of the settings are in the same place they were for Vista but will be hard to find for XP users.

I definitely had to google a few things that I couldn't find but once I found them the first time, it was easy after that.

And although it is true that I'm paid to write this blog, It is not by Microsoft or any company who has a vested interest on the content of my review.

As stevem pointed out, a lot of the network connectivity features are part of the reason I like Windows 7. As you can tell from some of my older blogs I'm big on media streaming and although I don't really use the Media Center on my PC, it is accessed through other devices to play content on my PC.

I found that Vista would automatically function and fulfil tasks instead of the methodical process of manual settings required when using XP, even this low level of intuitiveness is much appreciated.

For this reason I will progress with win7 and take advantage of advanced electronics though one must realize one must use advanced electronics to grasp these advantages.

Machines designed for use of older operating systems may only just get by.

You may be interested in this : http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/11/05/review_media_player_hisense_1080p/

Looks pretty cool but my Wife just ordered me the new Popcorn Hour C-200 that I posted about. (Currently back-ordered about one month) I plan on fitting it with a PC Blu-ray drive and internal HDD. (two things it doesn't look like the hisense player can do.) This player is a lot less expensive though.

I am glad to see the hisense player can take advantage of YAMJ. (Yet Another Movie Jukebox) So browsing through my movies looks like this. With all of the movie covers and info being pulled in from IMDB.

it is possible to access everything you just mentioned faster in 7 than in XP. My advice is try out the universal search in Windows 7. For example, Start > [type in 'control panel']. voila.

Want CPU speed and RAM available in 7? control-shift-escape. brings up task manager. Want something with a prettier interface? Start > [type in 'performance'] and see what comes up.

Sounds like you just need to use 7 more.

I just installed 7 pro and have not had much time to try it out yet. I am a former XP user and you are right. Finding what I want is a bit of a hassle. The only reason I moved to the "Latest and Greatest" is my 2 year old 250G hard drive took a dump. I have swapped it out for a 1TB and am anxious to over load it with old vinyl that I am converting to Cd's. Thanks for including the More Info section in you discussion. I plan on checking out the XP to 7 upgrade link.

Again, Thanks

I reccently upgraded from XP pro (32 bit) to 7 pro (64 bit) and it's been my experience that 7 is vastly out-performing my old XP in the tasks I do. Boot up is faster, webpages load faster, and programs run with fewer crashes. My personal "benchmark" (which I freely admit is purely subjective) comes from online gaming. Online games run light years ahead in performance in windows 7 then they did in XP, given the same programs and hardware, not just in data transfer, but also in visual performance.

I only have 2 complaints:

1) The media file structure and its synergy with windows media player is a bit cumbersome

2) The gadgets dont scale very well in size and look pathetic on a high resolution screen.

I am running Ubuntu 9.04 (32 bit) and Ubuntu 9.10 (64 bit) side by side on the same computer. 9.10 is CONSIDERABLY faster in this machine, but I suspect that is due mostly to the 64 bit instruction set. But, my personal benchmark is Excel working with a .csv file about half a meg. How fast to get to a plot of selected portions of the data. So far, nothing that I have tried beats Excel 2000 running on my Excel 98SE machine. Even running Excel 2000 in XP is slower. Excel 2003 can not even come close in XP or Vista. OpenOffice Calc is slower than molasses in January.

This benchmark is far more important to me than clock speed or industry benchmarks or exotic eye candy, because this is a test from my real world usage. I am sure that if my work consisted of other operations, I would have some other favorite system (i.e., Apple for desktop publishing, Windows for gaming, etc.).

The calling card of an inadequate graphics engine.

"Multiscreen monitors are just starting to hit mainstream computing..." My first touch screen was an old IBM portable (much, much smaller than today's netbooks) in the early 1990's. I have been using my Palm touchscreen for several years now. But I do not see using it on my desktop or laptop- too inconvenient.

So, I keep reading all the blather about how great the new Windows 7 is, but I have yet to read anything that suggests it will meet my personal needs. So far, no one has given me a reason to upgrade my Windows 98SE to a newer version...

I just bought a new laptop, loaded with Vista. The first thing I did when I turned it on was wipe the hard disk and install Ubuntu. I could not decide from the literature which Ubuntu version to install- 9.04 (more stable) or 9.10 (latest release), so I installed both to give them a try. Try that with Windows...

I have now added Windows 98SE, Windows XP (limited use, because Uncle Bill wants me to ask permission to change computers), and Ubuntu 8.04 running in VirtualBox on the same computer. Try that with Windows.

The Ubuntu installs went flawlessly, no need to search the web for drivers or jump through hoops with exotic authentication schemes requiring entry of 35 digit security codes. It just works.

I do not pretend to believe that this is the solution for everyone. When I first started using Ubuntu, there was a pretty steep learning curve. But, shifting from version to version does not require going back to school to learn the intricacies of the newer systems, and I can "try before I buy"- I would be really frustrated were I to spend $200 on a new operating system only to find out that my favorite applications would no longer function. When I first had a look at upgrading from Windows 98SE to Windows XP a few years back, I calculated that I would need $7000 just in software upgrades to maintain the functionality of the old 98SE system- a system that cost me considerably less in hardware to implement.

I do a it of signal analysis, CAD and FEA analysis, and the primary reason for buying the new computer was that, the last FEA I did took about 12 hours to run. The best signal analysis program I have found is AutoSignal, and that runs fine on XP. The FEA package I am using is Salome-MECA, OpenSource and packaged with Ubuntu 8.04 (which won't run on my new computer due to graphics issues). OpenSource does not have a decent CAD suite, unfortunately, and no one has yet come up with anything even close to the capabilities of MS Excel, so I still have need for my legacy Windows systems.

You Windows gurus out there, please tell me why Windows 7 is worth trying! An operating system should just sit in the background doing its thing without requiring a whole lot of maintenance attention, while I get on with the real work at hand.

You may benefit from moving to a 64bit OS (whether XP, Win7 or Ubuntu) simply because it is able to address significantly more RAM. If your calculations are using the hard drive at all for memory keep in mind that access time to RAM is six orders of magnitude faster than hard disk.

Stevem-

ABSOLUTELY! RAM is the critical issue here- My new laptop only has 3 meg, to be upgraded to 8 meg as soon as I can find a source for it- mostly for my more critical applications like FEA (remember back in the days when 64k was considered sufficient?). However, I do not believe this is going to have much noticeable effect on my Excel/98 SE benchmark test, mostly because I don't have the capability to do an analysis at the millisecond level. This is actually a very critical test for me- get a quick view of the data before I start investing too much time in more in-depth analysis.

With regards to CAD, I do not use AutoCAD or SolidWorks because:

1. My CAD work does not generate sufficient revenue to justify the investment

2. I do not do enough CAD work to become really proficient with these packages. I prefer something simpler, like TurboAD or DoubleCAD. Unfortunately, Linux is rather barren when it comes to a decent CAD package...

If all I was doing with my computer was surfing the net or watching movies or listening to music, it is unlikely I would find the old 98SE machine very useful. If video were a critical aspect of my computer usage, I most likely would not be using Linux, because Adobe Flash is too important these days.

But, when I look at the direction of the MS mavens, I get the distinct impression they have no idea of what users want or need, and they could care less about my opinion. In the OpenSource environment, there are people out there that are really interested in how I use my computer, and willing to help make the use more efficient (not always at no cost). THIS is how support should be! What I get from MS is typically, "Thank you for contacting us. We have no solution for you."