[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Tech Pros Plan to Leapfrog Vista for Windows 7 here

[ClaudeD]

The enterprise environment has a large number of vertical applications in use, these apps work fine in XP but in Vista fail. Windows 7 is basically only a rework of the failed Vista operating system. In Win7 is unlikely those enterprise applications will work. For those of you whom do not kow what a vertical application might be, its a program made specifically for a company's special needs. It can perfom simple commands or possibly run an entire large company. These program can cost hundreds of thosuands of dollars and will need to be reworked to maybe function on VistaWin7. And people wonder why enterprise environments don't want to use it. Get the beta copy of Windows 7, try it. But don't waste your time installing it on anything less then a dual core with lots of ram. It works like Vista only slower. Assumably the release version will improve on some of its short comings. Enterprise adoption, likely will not happen until IT budgets significantly increase or more likely Microsoft's policies force it. The "Tech Pro's" I been in contact with are not planning to change. Saying most of their pc's cannot support the new Win7 and their IT budgets are not large enough to allow their replacement.

[joking]

I am not a leapfrogger. Have been in the business for over 15 years. As with all of MS Software releases it is buggy and you have to invest 100's of dollars just to get video acceleration to work. It won't run on anything prior to 2008. With out the video acceleration it will take hours to play one hand of Solitare. I'm wondering at that rate why upgrade. My clients are happy with XP now that is simi-fixed. And as for Vista I have been using it for a year now without any complaints, infections, or "where's the tnt?" My clients cannot afford Vista and at the priceing schema for Windows7, well let's just say I'm tired of having clients laugh in my face. And it's not just the market causing them to laugh.

[Reuntes]

Everything works fine on WinXP. Why should we spend money buying copies of Windows 7, and then even more money to get the hardware up to speed with the new system? Vista and 7 are okay, I've used both, but as other posters said, you HAVE to upgrade your hardware significantly. Why can't Microsoft build something simple, inexpensive, and doesn't need crazy hardware upgrades?

[WinTard]

Come on all you naysayers... You've not even tried Windows 7 and claim this or that worn't work. You are FULL OF BS.

I've tried Windows 7, and can assure that most everything that work under XP in 32-bit works in Windows 7 in 64-bit. PERIOD.

At least before making such biased judgements, try it and come here and discuss specifically what won't work... With proofs, not hearsay.

"I heard it through the grapevine..." ~ Great song by Marvin Gaye.

[joking]

I'll have to laugh at your post. I'm a Windows 7 Beta tester. So I do have a reason to be frustrated. My rack consist of 17 computers which all run various versions of windows and linux. Linux for the most part even Ubunto and Fedora 10/11 work great on the hardware. Loaded Windows7 out on one of the newer ones (purchased a 2 months ago) and video acceleration would not run on any video configuration I tried. Some as late as Last Feb. Windows7 is a bust. Not gonna pay for something that requires something that isn't in existance now.

[izzledizzle]

i will be so glad when windows 7 comes out and everyone can stop bashing vista every single day on every tech site... has any of these IT professionals used vista since sp1? I'll admit, Vista was pretty shaky when it first got released, but hell, XP's list of programs and applications that weren't compatible with it when it was released was about 3x's as long as vistas and wasn't even that stable of an OS until sp2. Vista since sp1 has been flawless with just abotu everyone I have talked to that doesn't have very outdated hardware. It's like buying an HD tv but not getting HD receiver and bashing the TV b/c the picture is terrible when being used with a standard coax cable that you used with your 90's TV. There comes a point in time when you need to bite the bullet and buy updated hardware, and I think these IT pros who refuse to change might need to get some pressure put on them by entry-level college grad IT's who have learned about vista/7's superiority and finally put it to use...

[izzledizzle]

and joking, what PC did you buy 2 months ago that can't run windows 7? I have windows 7 build 7077 on a 2 yr old sony vaio that was outdated when i bought and was even on sale to get rid of it and it runs it flawlessly, even better than vista. Sounds like you bought a POS.

[WinTard]

Hey let me laugh with you too! I've been using beta 7000 since Jan 13th, and am now at 7077... Zero problems. Zero issues. So what's your beef?

Oh, 17 in a rack? Well, I've got 18 computers at home, and hundreds at work... And not just Unix like but real Unix! Aix, HP-UX, and Solaris...

So what's your point? Other than being a bozo?

If you have issues, why not post specifics so we can discuss them productively? And share your experiences, other than just bashing?

To your video acceleration specifics:
What kind of hardware, chipset, GPU, and what does not work with your video acceleration?

Linux? It's easy! For the amateurs...

>

[WinTard]

Oh and for the record, Windows 7 is way faster than XP on the same hardware! All Intel Core 2 Duo processors are x64 (AMD patented technology) thus 64-bit processors, address and bus width. And will support 32-bit code natively. (Yes Intel and AMD have agreed to cross-license patents).

Thus any recent system with a Core 2 Duo even as little as 1GB RAM will perform better and faster than the equivalent identical hardware under XP x86 (32-bit). Simply due to the fact that for a single CPU clock cycle, it will read / write 64 bits at a time, instead of 32 bits, requiring two such identical CPU clock cycles. Effectively doubling the memory transfer rate on I repeat the exact same hardware!

All this bull about Windows 7 being slower than Vista or XP are simple LIES!

I put it to everyone that Windows 7 on your existing system will either be equivalent or faster than the existing XP you are using! And also that if XP runs on your hardware, then Windows 7 knows about XP and its drivers, thus will also run on YOUR hardware. By simply using Microsoft's provided HWQL drivers. No need for third party crap drivers.

Of course, no need to upgrade at all, if one wants to remain in the 32-bit world... But try to purchase a non-64 bit CPU system even low-end in 2009...

For home enthusiasts:


And for pros here's a $300 mobo supporting up to 48GB RAM:
>

PS: Windows 7 supports more than 64 LPU's per socket... Yes that is more than 64 cores or multi-threads per socket. Whereas XP is limited to 2 only. Welcome to the 21st century...

[ImaPhake]

"Get the beta copy of Windows 7, try it. But don't waste your time installing it on anything less then a dual core with lots of ram. It works like Vista only slower."



Gee, you really don't know what you're talking about, fella!

Not only does Windows 7 run faster than Vista on identical hardware, Windows 7 can, and does run on a single-core processor just fine and just about as fast as Windows XP.

I've been running the beta of Windows 7 since it was released on a 10-year-old P4 with 1Gb of RAM, a lowly 400MHz FSB and a 4X AGP GPU with 128Mb of VRAM. It runs nearly everything I was running with XP and it does it almost equally as fast! That same machine can run Vista but that's about ALL it can run. The difference between Vista and Windows 7 is vast where system resources and speed is concerned. Windows 7 wins, hands down.

When netbooks came out, you had a choice between a Linux OS or Windows XP -- they couldn't run Vista. But guess what? Window 7 runs on netbooks just fine.

Please -- in the future it would be nice if you refrained from posting FUD and gross misinformation.

[Gizmo]

Lets get Hostile.How about this, Windows 8 will run faster that Windows 7, though a little humor mite lighten things up a little....GEEEEZ

[WinTard]

Gizmo said:

Lets get Hostile.How about this, Windows 8 will run faster that Windows 7, though a little humor mite lighten things up a little....GEEEEZ

A better solution would to simply keep it to the facts. No bias. No bull. Just the facts... But I do expect Windows 8 (whatever that is) to be better than Windows 7.

[dorst622]

if your hardware doesn't work with Vista, most properly it work not work with windows 7.

Also skipping one windows version would sure save some cost on the OS, but not the hardware.

eventually you will need to upgrade the hardware.my experiences tell me, the later i upgrade

the cheaper and faster i would get for the same value.

it is only recently i have upgrade to vista.

Well, i am on vista64 at the moment, looking forward for win7 64bit.

I feel Microsoft neglated the 64 bit computing. 64bit bit OS support > 4GB ram.

I remember my first PC only has 4MB ram.

[Shawkad]

Thank You. for the information...you answered all the questions I had about Winows 7.I often wonder if some of windows changes "jump" onto the older version, some of the actions, shapes of drop down boxes, and questions are a different format on mine than from a few weeks ago..No I didn't even try to download the new version, I'm noobe and at this point still to unsure about some things.Thank you again.

[WinTard]

Shawkad said:

Thank You. for the information...you answered all the questions I had about Winows 7.I often wonder if some of windows changes "jump" onto the older version, some of the actions, shapes of drop down boxes, and questions are a different format on mine than from a few weeks ago..No I didn't even try to download the new version, I'm noobe and at this point still to unsure about some things.Thank you again.

Um, so what are your specific questions by the way? That were answered by ClaudeD? Or are we onto more FUD + BS by anti Microsoft shills?

[ClaudeD]

WinTard: Windows 7 setup on 3.315 ghz Quad Core with Sata 3 WD HD ,8 gb 1066 ram and a fast ATI video Card(should those specs be confusing please feel free to use this description, its really fast)) . Windows 7 boot time from turn on to usable desktop is 30% longer then XP Pro 32 or 64 bit. I congratulate you on your results; however they don't track with my results or for that matter the results of several others. Or with the results from my 3.2 ghz dual core, 2.7 ghz quad core or duo core laptop. Everyone has the ability to download and try the Windows 7 operating system. I suggest if they have a strong pc available, they try the Win 7 beta and make their own decisions. I will not recommend to anyone or any of my clients that they purchase Win 7 for reasons obvious to most of us providing services and hardware to our clients. I have two clients with Vista(they had to have it), their complaints echo the same one’s usually found in articles here on PC World as well as other publications. I know several Clarion developers who also have little nice to say about Vista. And I would be amiss if I failed to address the driver and software issue. The Vista drivers and many pieces of software do not cross to Win7. But again I congratulate you on your truly exceptional results as evidently your testing indicates the rest of us are a bunch of “misinformed liars”. Windows XP is a reliable, proven operating system and a bunch faster; it would be irresponsible for me or my people to represent to a client that Vista or possible Windows 7 would enhance their computer or internet use by switching..

[WinTard]

Hey, I am reporting facts on my Dell Latitude D830 run-of-the-mill standard issue (at my work) laptop.

Boot time from off to login screen: 28 seconds.
Wake up from sleep to login screen: less than 1 second.
Wake up from suspend to login screen: 21 seconds.

Drivers loaded: All from Microsoft WHQL. I didn't have to search out a single driver.

Crashes or BSOD: Never!

Odd peculiarities:
- IE8 beta did exit once on me, without any reasons. Recovery? Simply click on IE icon, and voila, back to normal.
- Chrome didn't run until lately under Windows 7. Now at beta 7077.

Time in use: All the time since Jan 13 2009. Down only when I reload a newer beta.

My second laptop, the Windows XP-SP3 running under identical hardware, is MUCH slower.

All the programs I throw at Windows 7 RUN flawlessly. 32 and 64 bit.

What can I say? I only report a truth from my perspective as an experienced beta tester.

Would you care to publish your performance index, like I did please? So we can compare?

I am sincerely curious, and looking to exchange real information with other beta testers, and am interested in their experiences. However, when nonsense comes up as slower, that defies logic, I must step in and question the motives...

So what are your boot times in XP and Vista and Windows 7 please?

As I said: Facts only please. No bias. No bull...

PS: I regret to say that other members right here on PCWorld Community report similar experiences with Windows 7 as I do. Thus something is amiss? Technically it is impossible for XP x86 to be faster than Windows 7 x64... And you're much more likely to run into troubles with XP x64 than Windows 7 x64. How do I know? Because I tried. Precisely the lack of 64-bit drivers for XP. But that isn't the case for Windows 7.

BTW: we subscribe to Microsoft Open Licensing, with Software Assurance, giving us ALL the versions of Windows and other software... In 32 and 64 bit flavors. And granted, even though we had XP x64 for eons, never really deployed it, neither Vista x86 or x64. We had it all along, but it just wasn't right for us at the time. Whereas Windows 7 x64 is just right IMHO.

>

>

[ImaPhake]

I know you've seen this before but these are my experiences with Windows XP Pro, Windows Vista and Windows 7 (all 32-bit) running on the same machine:

The machine is a 10-year-old Sony VAIO desktop (RX-650).

CPU: Intel P4 2.4GHz w/400MHz FSB

1Gb RAM

ATI AIW-9700 Pro GPU w/128Mb VRAM



Boot time for XP Pro: 17.9 seconds as measured by Microsoft BootVis.

Boot time for Windows Vista: Well over 1 and a half minutes as measured with a stopwatch.

Boot time for Windows 7 beta: 31 seconds as measured with a stopwatch.

The boot time for XP Pro is exceptionally fast as it is stripped down for gaming purposes and all unnecessary processes and Services are disabled (just 15 running processes in Task Manager).

The boot time for Windows 7 could be faster, but it is still far and above Vista -- nothing in either OS was disabled. The number of processes running in the background for Windows 7 was about 30, so it too could have booted much faster if stripped for performance, but it wasn't. Same with Vista but it had pretty much the same number of processes running if not just a few more.

With Windows 7, all drivers were WHQL unlike Vista which required some search-work on my part to get it all working (as much as it did if you could call it "working").

All 23 of my installed games worked the same in both Windows XP Pro as well as in Windows 7 with virtually the same frame-rates on the same graphics settings. The same could not be said of Vista -- more than half of them did not work at all. Why? Because Vista does not leave enough system resources and RAM available for the games to use (remember, this is a machine with just 1Gb of RAM). The only games which would work without crashing in Vista were those that required less than 128Mb. I suspect the rest would have run just fine if the RAM could be upgraded beyond 1Gb to 2Gb or more, but it can't.

All-in-all, my experience with Windows 7 is pretty much on par with XP Pro on that machine. My WinTV application was the only program which wouldn't run on Windows 7 but I could get around that by using the Window Media Center to record TV programs.

[WinTard]

Thank you ImaPhake for your comprehensive and factual reply. On my system running XP, booting is slower, but I admit, it is top-heavy with all kinds of crapware (Cisco VPN, Panda with heuristics, plus a bunch of stuff required as part of the Corporate Standard), and has not been optimized for efficiency. However, I can state on an old Pentium 4, that a clean version of XP only takes 120MB RAM. This is the kind of environment I use to certify our software. Just XP, nothing else. Of course, XP the latest as of each patch Tuesday... Including whatever MSRT and Defender and IE (plus all patches recommended by MSFT for their NET stuff)... Just under 120MB running lean and mean... No AV or anything else. Oh and no infections whatsoever either... But then again I don't surf porn sites either... Also I must report the later beta versions of Windows 7 idle with more RAM than the earlier versions... Now I average .98GB with only Avast as AV loaded... It used to be in the 700MB range before... But speed wise, apparently Windows 7 didn't slow-down.

Oh, I also use a stopwatch...