PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7



dweinkauf
01-08-2009, 11:52 AM
I thought this might interest Vista users and those of us who choose to stay with XP because of Vista's compatibility issues with older equipment:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/08/microsoft.ballmer/index.html

Anyone planning to download the beta version?

Nicolas Jordan
01-08-2009, 12:02 PM
Sounds promising. I am looking forward to getting it once it comes out. :)

SonicChuck
01-08-2009, 02:56 PM
Vista x64 is already the best version of Windows :) But I'm sure Windows 7 will be an improvement judging from everything I've read about it so far. There's already a lot of information available on it and has been for a while.

I agree....I love vista x64. The only issues I have had with it have been on the digital audio side at my recording studio. Although I used Ableton Live and they seem to be slow in patching their software for new operating systems...

But overall, to me it seems pretty stable and fast.... I'm in no hurry for 7

dweinkauf
01-08-2009, 03:02 PM
If 7 won't let me work with my older equipment, I'm in no hurry for it either. I'll stick with XP and XP-64 that never give me any headaches.

ted
01-08-2009, 08:35 PM
We are doing very well here with Vista 64. I'm in no hurry for 7 unless I see a reason.

kremesch73
01-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Vista x64 is already the best version of Windows :) But I'm sure Windows 7 will be an improvement judging from everything I've read about it so far. There's already a lot of information available on it and has been for a while.

For people looking to use old "legacy" hardware I'm afraid that Windows 7 won't bring any help in that department. Windows 7 is driver compatible with Vista and builds on the same framework. It's simply time to move on, if you need to.

Now that drivers have matured for the framework introduced in Vista, Windows 7 will have a much smoother launch.

Whether it will be worth switching to Windows for people who have no issues with Vista is yet to be seen. But it probably will be down the line.

I have no intention of running the beta. I can wait :)

Agreed.

DiedonD
01-09-2009, 03:52 AM
I switched back to XP from 32 x Vista.

Didnt want to join the Microsoft and PC nose pull. The whole game of make a bigger operating system that demands a greater ram thus cost more in money, and this can go on for infinity to the cost of your pocket, seemed repulsive to me.

I think the operating system shouldnt drain so much RAM and the processor for itself. It should just stay there, operate and shutup! And leave the RAM for the real goodies like LW, AE, Vegas and the rest of the goodies instead!

DiedonD
01-09-2009, 04:09 AM
You need to read up on how Vista works. And it's not like it hasn't been discussed around here before... Vista uses only marginally more RAM than XP and has vastly better memory management. You just have to understand how it works.

But all tha glorious outline fine graphic all around and gadgets and stuff, doesnt it requires more RAM than usual?

Howcome 1Gig of RAM suddenly became a neccesssity because of the op system? I understand lifting RAM for other goodies, but now the Op system demands it?! Nah, Ill pass. Id say it shold shut up and work there quetly in shadows and leave users do their job after the operating system is done.

Kuzey
01-09-2009, 05:34 AM
I remember reading somewhere that Win 7 is just a washed down version of Vista, with most of the extra stuff that came with it taken out.

Anyway, why call it Win7 and not keep the Vista name with Vista2 or something. And after they have spent a ton of money trying to make people like vista in ads :)

This is just more fodder for Apple's I'm a Mac ads, I can't wait to see them when they come out :beta:

Kuzey

doimus
01-09-2009, 05:41 AM
Bah, this Windows 7 thing is pure spin-doctor marketing.

Vista is perceived by general public (ie. most of the Microsoft customer base) as buggy, unstable, "nothing-works" OS.

Microsoft had to release anything, make a few cosmetic changes and rebrand it as the next most stable, does-everything Windows, and all we'll get in the end is yet another nip/tuck version of Windows 2000.

EDIT: just google a bit and look what Win 7 was SUPPOSED to be, and then look what it is now and everything will be clear...

Captain Obvious
01-09-2009, 06:23 AM
Perhaps Windows 7 isn't all it was meant to be anymore, but according to the tests I've seen, it runs faster and uses less memory than Vista. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

I guess the reasoning behind Windows 7 is mostly to get away from the "Vista debacle" or whatever. Vista is generally perceived as a failure, a flop, slow, buggy, etc, despite the fact that it is in my experience the least problematic and the fastest Windows system ever released. I'm running 64-bit Vista on my PC, and I've had fewer issues with it than I've had with any other operating system in a long time. Even Mac OS X. Of course, my problems with OS X have largely been related to trying to run it on the very same PC...

Kuzey
01-09-2009, 06:53 AM
Perhaps Windows 7 isn't all it was meant to be anymore, but according to the tests I've seen, it runs faster and uses less memory than Vista. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

I guess the reasoning behind Windows 7 is mostly to get away from the "Vista debacle" or whatever. Vista is generally perceived as a failure, a flop, slow, buggy, etc, despite the fact that it is in my experience the least problematic and the fastest Windows system ever released. I'm running 64-bit Vista on my PC, and I've had fewer issues with it than I've had with any other operating system in a long time. Even Mac OS X. Of course, my problems with OS X have largely been related to trying to run it on the very same PC...

That seems the case, they are trying to turn over a new page and forget about vista. However, it's funny that they spent or planned to spend $300 million on ads to make vista look good....just a couple of months ago.

I just learned that they aren't using a unix base as I hoped they would, but instead sticking to their own thing...something called PowerShell. Oh well.

Let us know if you do get Mac OS X running on your PC :hey:

Kuzey

Matt
01-09-2009, 07:52 AM
It seems to me that MS might finally be getting their act together.

I think the biggest problem they have are too many cooks when it comes to usability studies, they need more people standing up at those meetings saying "hang on guys, this is ridiculous, that will just annoy people!"

I can just imagine the meeting where the dog, cat and paperclip _seemed_ like a good idea!

The presentation I saw one guy mentions about Windows was just too 'noisy', I was like ... FINALLY they get it!

:D

Lightwolf
01-09-2009, 08:09 AM
I just learned that they aren't using a unix base as I hoped they would, but instead sticking to their own thing...something called PowerShell. Oh well.
What's the connection between the "base" (I suppose you mean the kernel???) and a shell?

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
01-09-2009, 08:15 AM
That MS is not using unix based commands and instead opted for their own system, which still seems like it's basic stuff/not powerful enough.

As an example, I didn't see a command for ditto in powershell.

That's all.......:hey:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
01-09-2009, 08:44 AM
That MS is not using unix based commands and instead opted for their own system, which still seems like it's basic stuff/not powerful enough.

As an example, I didn't see a command for ditto in powershell.

That's all.......:hey:

Kuzey
Ah, allright, I see what you mean. Well, it is different when compared to one of the unix shells, indeed. More like a proper scripting language with some shell features (i.e. XML support for example).
Having said that, you can get Unix type shells for windows as well, they're just not included by MS.
I suppose it goes both ways, I don't like AppleScript at all, and it's the only way to properly interact with some parts of OSX - so you end up with hybrid scripts.
Not much of a difference in the end.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
01-09-2009, 09:20 AM
I suppose it goes both ways, I don't like AppleScript at all, and it's the only way to properly interact with some parts of OSX - so you end up with hybrid scripts.
I believe there is a Python framework for interacting with OSA. So, basically, writing Apple Scripts in Python...

adamredwoods
01-09-2009, 11:05 AM
Do people still cry because they can't run XP with 64 MB RAM when Win98 worked wondrously with that amount of memory?

I remember running LightWave with a couple of megs RAM, now Layout alone takes 100 MB just to load up. I don't see people complaining about this massive increase in apparently wasted resources, should we follow the OS logic that some people apply.

If lightwave demands more memory, and the OS demands more memory, and IM demands more memory, and.... well, you see why it starts to add up. OSX is the same.

The problem I had with Vista is that it touted this AMAZING (the WOW campaign) interface, but instead the interface was rubbish. This was the main hate for Windows Vista.

IMHO, the OS should not be something that one wants to be "in-your-face" unless all one does is copy files all day. That way, the shiny buttons really makes file copying all the more fun.

Yes, OSX is to blame as well.

Kuzey
01-09-2009, 01:33 PM
Having said that, you can get Unix type shells for windows as well, they're just not included by MS.

Cheers,
Mike

That's the point, you have to install them yourself when they should be built in and part of the OS :screwy:



I suppose it goes both ways, I don't like AppleScript at all, and it's the only way to properly interact with some parts of OSX - so you end up with hybrid scripts.
Not much of a difference in the end.


You always have options on a Mac, AppleScript or unix shells....or a combination, on a PC you have to find it and load them yourself. So, in the end, no two PC's are the same....doesn't that make writing programs harder, if you want to use a shell scripting language . A program that uses shells will work on any Mac that runs OS X. While, you have to manually install each extra part that's necessarily and probably set it up...before the program will work on a single PC :D

Kuzey

Lightwolf
01-09-2009, 01:40 PM
That's the point, you have to install them yourself when they should be built in and part of the OS :screwy:

The same goes for the OSA extensions for Python on OSX... *shrugs*


You always have options on a Mac, AppleScript or unix shells....or a combination, on a PC you have to find it and load them yourself.

You have to find them on the Mac as well, you just don't have to install them, that's all. Then again, you also need to fight with finder in the process. Try running multiple instances of an .app, passing on arguments, via the shell.
Or draging and dropping files onto a shell script without an Applescript wrapper.

So, in the end, no two PC's are the same....doesn't that make writing programs harder, if you want to use a shell scripting language . A program that uses shells will work on any Mac that runs OS X. While, you have to manually install each extra part that's necessarily and probably set it up...before the program will work on a single PC :D
Since scripts are usually designed for low-performance sysadmin type jobs, you're likely to have a proper install image as well as a remote installation setup in the network...
Or you just package the script and be done with it (something you can do on OSX as well for that matter).

So, in the end both systems suck... or blow. Just in different areas (I'm glad to see that network sharing has improved a lot in OSX 10.5 for example) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

DiscreetFX
01-09-2009, 07:30 PM
Once Windows 7 ships watch Microsoft pretend that Vista never even existed.

AbnRanger
01-09-2009, 09:08 PM
That seems the case, they are trying to turn over a new page and forget about vista. However, it's funny that they spent or planned to spend $300 million on ads to make vista look good....just a couple of months ago.

I just learned that they aren't using a unix base as I hoped they would, but instead sticking to their own thing...something called PowerShell. Oh well.

Let us know if you do get Mac OS X running on your PC :hey:

KuzeyThey sat back idly while Apple effectively used stereotypes to degrade PC users...Apple did this because PC isn't a company. So they were setting up a straw man to tear down.

Finally, Microsoft, realizing that even though it wasn't a direct shot at them, it indirectly affected them, nonetheless. Thus the campaign FOR PC USERS....not for Vista.

Cute as Apple's commercial's may be, I wish MS would have had their Chubby little Nerd character come running in with an armload of shiny, brand-spanking new software and games (all giddy like it's Christmas or something), and start playing a brand new game while the "Cool Mac user-guy" has to sit there with nothing....having to twiddle his thumbs.
Then the PC....uh, hum, Windows guy snidely remarks, hey don't get be so depressed, you can either come play along on my PC or wait a few years to get them for the MAC!
Boo'ya! :devil:
How's about them Apples, you Apple-marketing smart-ellicks:rock:

Captain Obvious
01-09-2009, 09:29 PM
I don't really get the new Windows adverts, though...


"A life without walls, Windows"

How the heck does that make any kind of sense? You can't very well have a window, unless you have a wall to put it in!

ted
01-09-2009, 09:47 PM
......Cute as Apple's commercial's may be, I wish MS would have had their Chubby little Nerd character come running in with an armload of shiny, brand-spanking new software and games (all giddy like it's Christmas or something), and start playing a brand new game while the "Cool Mac user-guy" has to sit there with nothing....having to twiddle his thumbs.....

I've been playing that commercial in my head as well. Since you "published" the concept first, you get to present it to MS. I bet you get a golden apple. :D
I always love it when I see a major corp miss a golden opportunity.

Kuzey
01-10-2009, 06:21 AM
Finally, Microsoft, realizing that even though it wasn't a direct shot at them, it indirectly affected them, nonetheless. Thus the campaign FOR PC USERS....not for Vista.


I'm sure the very the first one with Jerry Seinfeld was about vista, even though it probably wasn't mentioned in the ad. If I'm wrong, then they got one thing right. However as for the next set of PC Users ad, that made me laugh and sad at the same time. Here is the majority (PC users) feeling like they are the minority. It's akin to white folk complaining that everything is done for minorities in the community .



Cute as Apple's commercial's may be, I wish MS would have had their Chubby little Nerd character come running in with an armload of shiny, brand-spanking new software and games (all giddy like it's Christmas or something), and start playing a brand new game while the "Cool Mac user-guy" has to sit there with nothing....having to twiddle his thumbs.
Then the PC....uh, hum, Windows guy snidely remarks, hey don't get be so depressed, you can either come play along on my PC or wait a few years to get them for the MAC!
Boo'ya! :devil:
How's about them Apples, you Apple-marketing smart-ellicks:rock:

You see, the Mac guy wouldn't just sit there, he would boot up XP on his Mac and play those games if he wanted to. Or wip out his iPhone.

It's about options :thumbsup:

The other thing about games, is that Apple is making inroads in that sector with it's iPod touch/iPhone and the app store. In a few years, if the trend continues it will be a major player there too, so watch out :D

Kuzey

AbnRanger
01-10-2009, 06:27 AM
I'm sure the very the first one with Jerry Seinfeld was about vista, even though it probably wasn't mentioned in the ad. If I'm wrong, then they got one thing right. However as for the next set of PC Users ad, that made me laugh and sad at the same time. Here is the majority (PC users) feeling like they are the minority. It's akin to white folk complaining that everything is done for minorities in the community .



You see, the Mac guy wouldn't just sit there, he would boot up XP on his Mac and play those games if he wanted to. Or wip out his iPhone.

It's about options :thumbsup:

The other thing about games, is that Apple is making inroads in that sector with it's iPod touch/iPhone and the app store. In a few years, if the trend continues it will be a major player there too, so watch out :D

KuzeyOh...but you see. To boot up Vis*^, uh...I mean Windows on a MAC is a dignified form of PC worship. :D

Kuzey
01-10-2009, 07:03 AM
The same goes for the OSA extensions for Python on OSX... *shrugs*

You have to find them on the Mac as well, you just don't have to install them, that's all.


That's easier to then finding them on the web, installing them and then setting them up. Most of it's there ready for use, the computer doesn't know what you want so you need to do some research yourself :D



Then again, you also need to fight with finder in the process. Try running multiple instances of an .app, passing on arguments, via the shell.


Well, it's seems you have you're PC hat on because instancing apps is a no no as you well know. Sometimes I think this instancing rubbish has clouded the PC users eyes. :devil: Instancing is great within an app, Lightwave could improve greatly. However, instancing apps themselves is a bug that everyone in the PC world thinks is a feature :)



Or draging and dropping files onto a shell script without an Applescript wrapper. That sounds fine, but wouldn't it be better to have an app with a UI and the user select the files from there...sounds like over kill to me.



Since scripts are usually designed for low-performance sysadmin type jobs, you're likely to have a proper install image as well as a remote installation setup in the network...
Or you just package the script and be done with it (something you can do on OSX as well for that matter).


See, why should they be limited to "low-performance sysadmin type job", wouldn't it be better if it extended the power of the OS and not limit the user to the UI. For example, I believe Vista finally got it's own inbuilt archive/zip command via the contextual menu (I think). Yet there is not a unix/dos/shell command to access that feature.



So, in the end both systems suck... or blow. Just in different areas (I'm glad to see that network sharing has improved a lot in OSX 10.5 for example) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

This is what I'm saying, Mac OS X is not perfect. Take Spotlight Query as an example, it's great, but what do I do if I wanted to limit the search to a particular folder and not the whole computer, say my LW content directory. You can't, but you can with it's unix equivalent and it's simple.

You can also tag files and folders with text or colour labels to help maintain/keep your files organized and to make it easier to find them via spotlight.

You can't tag your PC files and folders in particular like you can on a Mac.

The real question is which one sucks the more and that is Windows...don't take my word for it, look at MS's actions. MS doesn't have a research and development department it has a copy department...Songsmith anyone :D Imitation, maybe be a form of flattery, but it's also an admission of a) lack of imagination and b) an inferior product/or services. This is the whole iPod v Zune debacle all over again. The funny thing in all of this, is every time Windows gets a Mac OS X (like) feature the PC users are over the moon :hey:

Kuzey

Kuzey
01-10-2009, 07:05 AM
Oh...but you see. To boot up Vis*^, uh...I mean Windows on a MAC is a dignified form of PC worship. :D


:D:D

I see it as options, why limit yourself to one OS...but nice one :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
01-10-2009, 07:26 AM
Well, it's seems you have you're PC hat on because instancing apps is a no no as you well know. Sometimes I think this instancing rubbish has clouded the PC users eyes. :devil:
Oh, I thought OSX is based on Unix, and that surely allows for that.
It's the OS9 legacy that doesn't, not the underlying system.


Instancing is great within an app, Lightwave could improve greatly. However, instancing apps themselves is a bug that everyone in the PC world thinks is a feature :)
Actually, the OS9 legacy is the only system that doesn't allow for it. And if it takes away from my flexibility then I have an issue.
There's a lot of reasons to run multiple instances as separate processes, one being that if one task goes down it doesn't take all the others down as well.
It might not be an issue for you because you only have OS9/OSX eyes ;) I tend to use the same eyes on Linux, Windows, OSX, the Amiga or even the C64 for that matter ;)

That sounds fine, but wouldn't it be better to have an app with a UI and the user select the files from there...sounds like over kill to me.
And app with a GUI surely would be. Again, it's about flexibility as you yourself so thoughtfully pointed out earlier in this thread.


See, why should they be limited to "low-performance sysadmin type job", wouldn't it be better if it extended the power of the OS and not limit the user to the UI.
If the GUI wouldn't limit as much on the Mac one might not need to - but I heard that Finder is finally getting a revamp for Snow Leopard ;)

For example, I believe Vista finally got it's own inbuilt archive/zip command via the contextual menu (I think). Yet there is not a unix/dos/shell command to access that feature.
XP had it as well. And you're right, there is no command line tools that'S bundled afaik...

This is what I'm saying, Mac OS X is not perfect.
No OS is, which is my take on it. They all suck.


You can also tag files and folders with text or colour labels to help maintain/keep your files organized and to make it easier to find them via spotlight.
On the other hand... less options on how to display folders/files. I.e. is there any way to display files and folders separately in list mode Finder? That always annoys the heck out of me.


The real question is which one sucks the more and that is Windows...don't take my word for it, look at MS's actions. MS doesn't have a research and development department it has a copy department...Songsmith anyone :D Imitation, maybe be a form of flattery, but it's also an admission of a) lack of imagination and b) an inferior product/or services. This is the whole iPod v Zune debacle all over again. The funny thing in all of this, is every time Windows gets a Mac OS X (like) feature the PC users are over the moon :hey:Kuzey
It goes both ways... Apple copied some of Windows features as well. Songmith is something you can't get on a Mac atm (it's got very little in common with GarageBand if that's what you're hinting at).
Just have a look at some of the stuff coming out of the MS research labs, there's a lot of neat stuff going on that might make it into a product... or not.
MS has a completely different target group that Apple doesn't even know how to tackle, and that's corporate users. Coupled with a very tight infrastructure for developers (that use Office as a platform and not the OS). Not to mention embedded systems, car PCs etc...
Zune sucks, no doubt. Then again, MS can afford to loose some, they have plenty of other opportunities.
Not trying to compare them, there's little point really. MS sell software, Apple has a set-up that is a lot more mixed.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-10-2009, 07:35 AM
Just to sum up my thoughts on this:
We can bicker about feature a vs. feature b for ages. It depends on what you want and need.
I like some aspects of OSX just as I like some aspects of windows. I also dislike a few things on both of them. I don't see muuch of a difference though. And I primarily work on PCs because they offer a lot more bang for the buck for my needs.

One thing I don't buy is the "one is better than the other" because that's just too general. "Tell me what you need to get done and I'll tell you what to get." is more like it. And that may well be a Mac... or a PC.

I have to admit though that I lost all passion for those machines when the Amiga died. :D

Cheers,
Mike

akademus
01-10-2009, 07:39 AM
Are we going to go through all the drivers mess again? It took me 2 years to move to Vista and I have no plans switching for at least 2 more.

Lightwolf
01-10-2009, 07:47 AM
Are we going to go through all the drivers mess again? It took me 2 years to move to Vista and I have no plans switching for at least 2 more.
Afaik it uses the same driver architecture.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
01-10-2009, 08:46 AM
Ah ah....I always thought instancing was a PC thing only, thanks for the information :thumbsup:

It's about time Finder gets an update and the corporate sector needs attention, no doubt about that....I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

I wonder if Soundsmith would have been made if it wasn't for GarageBand, granted it sounds like they didn't do a direct copy like the zune, zune phone, movie maker etc. etc. and that's progress :D

But what I really want to know has nothing to do with OS X v Vista/win7 because like you said we can go round in circles. A couple times can be fun but it does get tiring in the end :)

Here is the big question, is there an easy way to trigger an shellscript from Lscript? I know you can create/delete a directory from Lscript using commands but can you use a copy/move command instead?

:D

Kuzey

Lightwolf
01-10-2009, 09:09 AM
Ah ah....I always thought instancing was a PC thing only, thanks for the information :thumbsup:
It even works on the mac with command line, Unix style apps.

I wonder if Soundsmith would have been made if it wasn't for GarageBand, granted it sounds like they didn't do a direct copy like the zune, zune phone, movie maker etc. etc. and that's progress :D
I don't see why not. MS bought Bars'n'Pipes (for the Amiga back then) what, 20 years ago? If I remember it allowed for some algorithmic music back then already.


Here is the big question, is there an easy way to trigger an shellscript from Lscript? I know you can create/delete a directory from Lscript using commands but can you use a copy/move command instead?

I think you can. Jeremy Hardin (and others) use it to launch Screamernet in the background. I think the command to use is "execute".
You could probably use it to trigger a shell script as well, I've never tried it though (I'm not much of a scripter, I spend more time in IDEs).

Cheers,
Mike

DiscreetFX
01-10-2009, 04:20 PM
Vista was a crap name too, kept reminding me of an old Amiga landscape generating program. Windows 7 is a much more appropriate name.

Kuzey
01-11-2009, 09:05 AM
It even works on the mac with command line, Unix style apps.

I don't see why not. MS bought Bars'n'Pipes (for the Amiga back then) what, 20 years ago? If I remember it allowed for some algorithmic music back then already.

I think you can. Jeremy Hardin (and others) use it to launch Screamernet in the background. I think the command to use is "execute".
You could probably use it to trigger a shell script as well, I've never tried it though (I'm not much of a scripter, I spend more time in IDEs).

Cheers,
Mike

I did a search on instancing, I wanted to know how it developed but I couldn't find anything in 5 minutes :D

But, I'll take a stab at it with the clues you have given me. It seems it wasn't intended to be a preemptive workaround as it is today, keep processes separate in case of a crash with your app or OS.

I think when the unix/shell was developed, sooner or later they realized that a single shell process won't do. I would think some shells would continue to run as long as the PC was running or until someone killed it. Now, my thinking is, that instead of disrupting one of those long running shells to run a shorter process...the idea of instancing came about. Create an instance and use that to run a new command etc.

So, now when UI apps came along, there was a choice to be made. Keep the idea or try looking at it in another way/go in a different direction. The PC guys said yes please while the Mac guys said no thanks...we have other plans.

Was I close...was I close :D:D

I did remember having some instancing issues in the past month or so. I would have around 4 instances of IE7 open and one would become unresponsive. When I tried to close it via the close button icon...or from the taskbar thingy at the bottom...it wouldn't work. Moments later, I'll get an error message saying IE7 must shutdown and all the good instances would be killed off as well. As far as I can tell, instances that go bad can affect the good ones...in the end, it has a chance of acting like a non instancing app. :)

Thanks for the tip, I'm going to see if I can get it working when I have the chance :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
01-11-2009, 09:30 AM
I did a search on instancing, I wanted to know how it developed but I couldn't find anything in 5 minutes
It didn't. It's what a multi-tasking OS is supposed to do, run multiple processes at the same time. And whether they are the same binary on disk or not makes no difference.
Usually it takes extra effort on the OS level to prevent it by default (even though apps can do it manually as well). So in this case what you call "instancing" is not a special feature but default behaviour, and thus has no naming convention.

IE always runs as one process, but with multiple windows. Afaik Chrome is the only browser that actually uses different processes for different tabs and windows.

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. I suspect this is why OSX still has it, as a legacy from OS9 which wasn't a proper multi-tasking OS. So, from that PoV it's an inheritance that was dragged on to accomodate old users and Apple OS "style" (as opposed to NeXT style).

Kuzey
01-11-2009, 09:52 AM
Ah cool...I thought the shell instancing came first and then the idea moved on to applications.

That's funny in regards to IE7 on Windows...I thought it would have been different, not Mac like :D

Thanks for the info.

:thumbsup:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
01-11-2009, 09:58 AM
Ah cool...I thought the shell instancing came first and then the idea moved on to applications.

If you look at something like XWindows... or even windows, then there's little difference between an app with a GUI and one without.
Even better, apps can basically act as both if they wish to (at least on windows).


That's funny in regards to IE7 on Windows...I thought it would have been different, not Mac like :D
On windows a similar concept exists for ages, it's called MDI -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_document_interface

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
01-11-2009, 10:39 AM
This is what I'm saying, Mac OS X is not perfect. Take Spotlight Query as an example, it's great, but what do I do if I wanted to limit the search to a particular folder and not the whole computer, say my LW content directory. You can't, but you can with it's unix equivalent and it's simple.
Eh, what? It's easy to limit a spotlight search to just a particular folder. It doesn't work from the spotlight widget in the upper right corner, no, but do a search in the Finder instead and you can limit it to wherever. Then you can save that as a smart folder.




Actually, the OS9 legacy is the only system that doesn't allow for it. And if it takes away from my flexibility then I have an issue.
There's a lot of reasons to run multiple instances as separate processes, one being that if one task goes down it doesn't take all the others down as well.
Well, you can't honestly claim that running many instances of applications is unproblematic in Windows. Just look at the simple example of Lightwave! The instances overwrite each other's configuration files, the Hub only works in the first instance, etc.

Yes, sometimes it's useful to run several instances of the same application. On the whole, though, I greatly prefer the OS X way of doing things: Applications have document. In Windows, it's the other way around: Documents ARE applications.

Also, it's important to notice the distinction between an application in a UI sense, and an application in a technical sense. In a technical sense, you only ever run one instance of the Microsoft Explorer. All the windows are part of the same process. However, from a UI point of view, they're all separate applications in the classic Windows style. Mac OS "Classic" way back when was not a properly multi-process OS. However, even when there was no technical reason for doing so, Apple chose a UI design where you run a single application, and that single application has many documents. In Windows, you have many Explorers open. In Mac OS X, you have ONE Finder open, and that one Finder has many windows. This is an important distinction. I'm not saying one is better than the other, mind you, but I do prefer the apps-have-documents approach.



On the other hand... less options on how to display folders/files. I.e. is there any way to display files and folders separately in list mode Finder? That always annoys the heck out of me.
It always annoyed the hell out of me in Windows that they stay separate! :D

Use Path Finder instead.

Lightwolf
01-11-2009, 10:50 AM
Well, you can't honestly claim that running many instances of applications is unproblematic in Windows. Just look at the simple example of Lightwave! The instances overwrite each other's configuration files, the Hub only works in the first instance, etc.
The config file is something you can work around with custom config paths... and the hub is a disease anyhow. Then again, try running Layout in th ebackground rendering something while you work in another instance (for users that can't set-up a render node).
Is it an ideal case? No, of course not, and LW could do a lot better. But it doesn't... at least there's a simple workaroud (as opposed to copying stuff around first).

In Windows, it's the other way around: Documents ARE applications.
That depends a lot on the app, have a look at the MDI link. You'll find that a lot of MS apps use the same philosophy.


In Windows, you have many Explorers open. In Mac OS X, you have ONE Finder open, and that one Finder has many windows. This is an important distinction. I'm not saying one is better than the other, mind you, but I do prefer the apps-have-documents approach.
The only difference in terms of GUI is the menu bar... and the fact that you can alt-tab through all explorer windows, but not through finder windows (which is why OSX also relies on Exposť a lot more.) Personally I find OSX a lot messier in terms of window management).

Cheers,
Mike

wacom
01-11-2009, 11:03 AM
I can just imagine the meeting where the dog, cat and paperclip _seemed_ like a good idea!


:D

Good point. If they have the money to waste on such development then I see no reason they can't "waste" a little more on actually useful features.

The average computer user at the end of the day only cares if IE or Firefox runs OK IMHO. How many people do you know that if you put their current computer in a new shiny box and attached XYZ brand name they trust, wouldn't be happy for the next six years?

While other people love vista- I think a lot of them bought computers that are all post vista release. I tried to install a printer driver that was certified by MS for Vista 64, and since I didn't know about "system restore points" it brought my whole system down- with no way to repair it! They later revoked that driver for a while...hmmmm

I also bought 8GB of RAM that was certified to work in my system by the manufacture. Windows XP booted and saw the RAM, vista hung and hung- oh and the little patch- didn't help etc. Uh...I upgraded mainly for this feature alone!

Vista is great when things work correctly- but man, when they go wrong, it causes me to have flash backs of changing IRQ's and DMA's via jumpers on a board and seeing the blue screen of death! So I'm going to play wait and see with seven- but right now I have no reason to upgrade unless I can get back some of my system resources this bloat ware uses for no good reason....grrrrrrr....

Vista: state of the art or open PAID beta for windows 7?

zapper1998
01-11-2009, 01:14 PM
I wonder if I can get the old classic view to work in Win 7 ?????

Kuzey
01-11-2009, 03:08 PM
Eh, what? It's easy to limit a spotlight search to just a particular folder. It doesn't work from the spotlight widget in the upper right corner, no, but do a search in the Finder instead and you can limit it to wherever. Then you can save that as a smart folder.



Hi Captain Obvious,

I was talking in terms of programming and using the terminal.app :D

Have a look see here (http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/mdfind.1.html#//apple_ref/doc/man/1/mdfind)

Kuzey

Captain Obvious
01-11-2009, 03:14 PM
Hi Captain Obvious,

I was talking in terms of programming and using the terminal.app :D

Have a look see here (http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/mdfind.1.html#//apple_ref/doc/man/1/mdfind)

Kuzey
mdfind can be limited to a certain directory. I don't follow.

Kuzey
01-11-2009, 03:20 PM
That's it. It can be...so mdfind is useful in programming to limit your searches to particular folder(s) :)

Kuzey

stone
01-11-2009, 03:23 PM
Vista was a crap name too, kept reminding me of an old Amiga landscape generating program. Windows 7 is a much more appropriate name.
i agree with the exception that its not windows 7 but 6

windows 2000 was windows 5
xp was 5.1
vista was 6
windows 7 is windows 6.1
- just look at the beta build name, 6.1.7000

as for macox vs windows- its pretty much the same thing with the same basic flaws of removing the users control of system, trying to be smart and organizing things behind your back. when in reality they take away choice, flexibility and efficiency.
will take a new version of amiga workbench any day. datatypes, libraries, the ability to put files where you want them and know exactly what runs when and why .

/stone

Captain Obvious
01-11-2009, 04:12 PM
as for macox vs windows- its pretty much the same thing with the same basic flaws of removing the users control of system, trying to be smart and organizing things behind your back. when in reality they take away choice, flexibility and efficiency.
I strongly disagree with that. The reason we use computers is because there are many things computers do better than humans could. Why would I ever want to do anything myself, if my computer can do a better job at it? Yes, true, sometimes the computer will do a worse job than you would (autocomplete features come to mind), but that does not mean that all automation is a bad thing.

I know it varies from person to person, but the main reason I use Aperture for my photos, iTunes for my music, etc, is because they take care of all the files for me. Yes, I lose the power to store everything exactly where I want it by using their catalogue management, but in exchange I never actually need to worry about where the files are. It's all kept neat and tidy, based on the information that I actually care about. iTunes puts all music files in a directory structure based on artist and album. If I start moving files manually, iTunes loses track of them, that's true, but the thing is that I no longer need to. The computer is much better at keeping track of thousands of MP3s than I ever could hope to be, so I let it to do it for me.

Modern operating systems are sort of moving in the direction of a "hands off" approach. Yes, you sometimes lose a bit of power and flexibility, but in exchange you have less work to do. Isn't that the point of computers? Making you do less work is a key feature, I'd say.

Besides, Vista and Mac OS X alike still give you ultimate control. There's always "sudo," you know...

COBRASoft
01-11-2009, 04:42 PM
I have to admit though that I lost all passion for those machines when the Amiga died.

RIP Amiga, you were my best CPU friend!

Serious, I feel the same way. Now I'm earning my money writing MS .Net applications. The brand of my computer is not that important anymore, if you pay enough, you'll get a good computer, no matter what brand.

For the people against OS evolution and more gadgets, buy a pencil and some paper :D Just kidding, but memory is so cheap these days.

IMI
01-11-2009, 04:54 PM
...

Ernest
01-11-2009, 06:45 PM
I wonder if I can get the old classic view to work in Win 7 ?????Better! There is a classic theme where the taskbar looks classic, but you can still (finally) re-arrange the program buttons in the taskbar (just 13 years of begging for this feature!!!)!!!!
Changing to the classic theme still leaves the taskbar disgustingly huge vertically but if you set it to "small icons" and "never group", it will look great again.
First OS I've tested and actually looked forward to using since Windows 2000.

My sincere thanks to all the complainers who made this release so quick, quality-controlled and carefully thought out.

zapper1998
01-11-2009, 09:16 PM
no EMAIL with Win 7

Thats BAD...

what will i do ????

:D

IMI
01-12-2009, 12:50 AM
no EMAIL with Win 7

Thats BAD...

what will i do ????

:D

Eudora. Far, far far far...far far far... far far far... superior to Outlook or Windows Mail.

Now they should also have the decency to remove Internet Explorer and make it an optional download instead...

COBRASoft
01-12-2009, 01:00 AM
How will you download anything without a browser on your computer? :D

Install Windows Live, it will become the future in the cloud...

I got my first Win7 blue screen. I've installed Win7 x64 on my HP nw9440 laptop and it had problems recovering from sleep mode... I must say that Win7 didn't find a driver yet for my SATA, Network and PCI bridge.

DiscreetFX
01-12-2009, 12:38 PM
no EMAIL with Win 7

Thats BAD...

what will i do ????

:D

Easy, just goto www.gmail.com.

:D

IMI
01-12-2009, 01:51 PM
How will you download anything without a browser on your computer? :D


Well, you have a good point there. ;)

But to answer the question, what I would do is install Firefox from a copy on CD, or download it onto another computer and install it via the network. But I suppose that option isn't available to your average home user

steamthunk
01-12-2009, 01:52 PM
Amiga! That's what I like about this bunch. A perspective on the history of personal computing as it actually happened. PCs and Macs were not the only computers that emerged wholly from the era of mini-computing. I always thought that it was only me that thought after Amiga it all kind of did just fade into one mass of OSes that all seemed equally bland. Linux, Solaris, Windows, Apple...meh...

So after years of computing I just decided that if it's all just different flavours of meh then I might as well go with the thing that runs the most stuff. Windows it is then. So, back on topic, I'm running 2 Vista 64-bit boxes, 1 Vista 32-bit box (work), and 2 XP boxes. Aside from the memory limits they're all about the same to me. I would not downgrade from Vista to XP voluntarily though. Honestly, I had the same amount of hardware troubles going from W98 to XP which is to say that hardware on the way out had issues.

My hand built Vista 64-bit box is the fastest booting and quickest to a ready-to-use state (hint: don't use sidebar!). The same hardware booting to the XP partition seems to take forever now. Vista hibernation actually works compared to the dodgy XP version - the system sleeps and recovers (including wireless network connections) quickly and seamlessly. Network file sharing seems to finally "just work" now vs. XP's. The only non-working hardware out-of-the-box was my Epson Perfection 1240 (circa 2000) scanner which with a bit of digging I also got working. To my surprise, the PS3 recognized my WMP media server thingy instantly too. Nice.

I also don't get people who think that software usage specs should be capped at current date -10 years. I loved Amiga - I have Amigas 1000/3000/4000 to prove it - but damned if I'd go back to those days as a day-to-day computing experience in 2009 using WB3.1 just to boast about running on 3-18MB!

Can't say for initially, but running Vista SP1 now is definitely not the end of days in computing that people may tell you.

DiscreetFX
01-12-2009, 02:12 PM
@steamthunk

Don't forget about Amiga OS 4.1 & MorphOS 2.2, Amiga has been updated for modern times.

:D

doimus
01-13-2009, 07:59 AM
I also don't get people who think that software usage specs should be capped at current date -10 years.


While i agree that attitude is mainly nostalgia-driven, I also remember the time when I did all of my high-school papers, drawings, programming attempts, gaming etc. on 486SLC/25MHz/4MB RAM computer, using MSDOS 6 + Windows 3.1. If I had a modem I could even surf the web (and BBS-es!) with it.
While we have youtube and 3D accelerated games these days - basic everyday computer usage is exactly the same as it was 15 years ago.

But say 20-25 years ago you couldn't do all that on a Commodore 64 for example. That's the period (1985-95) when the real "revolution" happened.
Now, we re just filling manufacturers pockets buying things "we really need" in periodic intervals.
The fact that today there is probably enough computing power to render out Toy Story in one working day in an average lawyer office is kind of depressing. Especially when it all goes wasted on Word, Solitaire and Facebook.

Ernest
01-13-2009, 08:25 AM
I also don't get people who think that software usage specs should be capped at current date -10 years. I loved Amiga - I have Amigas 1000/3000/4000 to prove it - but damned if I'd go back to those days as a day-to-day computing experience in 2009 using WB3.1 just to boast about running on 3-18MB!I's not really about software usage. What Apple and Microsoft seem to have a hard time understanding is that people don't want to run operating systems. People want to run actual programs. It is on the programs that people want their computer resources to be consumed; not in the background platform that should just fade out when the programs launch.

steamthunk
01-13-2009, 09:06 AM
I's not really about software usage. What Apple and Microsoft seem to have a hard time understanding is that people don't want to run operating systems. People want to run actual programs. It is on the programs that people want their computer resources to be consumed; not in the background platform that should just fade out when the programs launch.

I can get behind this in spirit. It's why I don't put on the fanboy hat for OSes anymore. The OS is a launcher of applications for me now and one launcher is pretty much the same as the next in my opinion. :)

As a software developer by trade, I have spent a lot of time writing stuff that is dependent on the services directly or indirectly of the operating system. In the past these services simply did not exist probably. People programmed at a lower level out of necessity. The speed of application development and the feature bar these days need to be so high that to be competitive you must leverage libraries and services available to you. Some of these are provided by the OS no doubt. It's a double edge sword that I have mixed feelings about. Not re-inventing the wheel is good, but yes there is resource waste.

mattclary
01-14-2009, 01:40 PM
I wonder if I can get the old classic view to work in Win 7 ?????


Not that I have found. I've committed to using Win 7, and am typing this on it, on my laptop, x64 flavor.

Negatives:
1. Searching is greatly dumbed down, even by Vista standards.
2. User profile uses virtualized folders, which makes it hard to tell EXACTLY where your files really exist.

Positives:
1. The interface seems snappier than Vista
2. It's easy to download themes from the MS site
3. It IS prettier than XP

In the end, I'll adjust to it.

Mr_Q
01-14-2009, 04:04 PM
What I like most so far about Win7 is the network services start right up as soon as you see your desktop. No more 2 minute wait to go online or connect to your network after login.

And yes it's snappier...I appreciate the new right click integrations and the new start menu task bar item stacking.

MooseDog
01-14-2009, 08:22 PM
I's not really about software usage. What Apple and Microsoft seem to have a hard time understanding is that people don't want to run operating systems. People want to run actual programs. It is on the programs that people want their computer resources to be consumed; not in the background platform that should just fade out when the programs launch.

seconded! the screenshot below is the system monitor of my linux install (dual boot). if i understand it right, the only thing working is the application i'm using :).

this should rile neverko's feathers:

http://philosecurity.org/2009/01/12/interview-with-an-adware-author

windows is simply defective by design. not for this community, which understands how things work, more or less, under the hood. but to the great unwashed out there, it's an os that doesn't work. if it did, would the os-security industry exist?

DiscreetFX
01-15-2009, 01:31 AM
@neverko

You could get a lot of work done on Linux if you can afford a Flame or Smoke system from Autodesk. Got a few $100,000? The Linux computer is free when you buy that software.

LOL

DiscreetFX
01-15-2009, 01:37 AM
@neverko

But after you spend all that money you could take a picture next to the system and be part of the in crowd.

:)

archijam
01-15-2009, 06:41 AM
http://xkcd.com/528/

MooseDog
01-15-2009, 09:29 AM
Shows how little you know about me.

correct. i know nothing about you...except your marvelously consistent public postings in defense of vista and windows.


That Windows is most targeted by various shady people is only due to it being the most widespread OS by far. That can hardly come as a surprise to anyone...

that's a canard to deflect form the issue at hand: defective by design. how's about an alternative reality: universally used but safe and secure.


I haven't had a virus or malware for as long as I can remember. If you aren't a complete moron it is very easy to avoid.

confirms my suspicion that you are quite thoroughly knowledgeable, and learned too dismissively elitist. i too have never had any virus/trojan/malware/adware on any computer i've been responsible for. i don't dismiss anyone for not pursuing and being interested in the same level of knowledge on this subject as myself.

in point of fact, there are millions of very intelligent, successful people who haven't the faintest idea how their computer works and have neither the time nor the desire to learn. all they know is that the computer they bought just 9 months ago doesn't work anymore, and they're being told by the repair-person they have to spend more money on software they don't understand to protect themselves against something they don't understand.

when folks ask me about this scenario, i just answer: defective by design. it's what we all have to live with from microsoft.


I can't get work done under Linux, which makes it completely useless to me. Even OSX is vastly better than Linux as I can run the Adobe apps I use along side LightWave and modo, all in their native environment and without jumping through hoops.

Linux is worthless to me. There's absolutely no reason for me to install it.

I think it is fine that people like Linux and I have no intention of putting it down or telling people that Linux is the wrong choice. Linux just doesn't make sense for me to use at all.

100% agree. i don't do any work in linux either. not capable, wrong tool. atm, linux is more of a toy, a toy to explore and learn about 'cuz i'm interested. when a malware author says that the only way to protect oneself is to use unix, there's some merit there.

so when i feel like it, i boot up linux to do some surfing, e-mailing, typing. day-to-day bull***t that frankly it's very capable of. even the smallest step beyond this appliance type usage is asking it to be what it's not. (which is not to dismiss the strength of it's underlying design, which is bulletproof pretty much, and it's amazing capabilities to configure and manage your computer) the success of osx shows what can happen to unix in the right hands.


I care a lot more about the applications I run than the OS layer below as long as the OS does what it is supposed to and Windows manages that just fine.

agreed about choice of applications and it's importance, agree to disagree that windows puts paying, unsuspecting customers at serious and unstated risk; that is not "just fine". i'll repeat, if windows was safe and secure, the o.s. security industry would not exist.

Lightwolf
01-15-2009, 09:59 AM
that's a canard to deflect form the issue at hand: defective by design.
Would you like to elaborate on that?

Cheers,
Mike

MooseDog
01-15-2009, 10:01 AM
the once every two weeks i fire up linux, it does exactly the same thing! lol, not surprising considering their both unix variants.

anyhoo, i view evolutionary, quiet, under-the-hood improvements quite differently from an entire industry of coders, consultants, academics, communities and vendors.

BigHache
01-15-2009, 11:03 AM
Why is OSX constantly updated with security updates if it is so damn impenetrable in the first place? I often wonder that while installing the security updates at work...

Maybe they're overthinking the code they just released and keep going, "oh crap, another loophole, maybe, possibly!" :)

Ember
01-15-2009, 11:18 AM
Ok, I have to say that NOTHING is more irritating than OS-fanboys (or well, any fanboy to be honest). Windows, OsX or Linux are all quite capable operating systems and neither of them are really good in all situations. I have extensive experience in Windows and Linux and little less in OsX. In my opinion the situation is like this currently:

- OsX: best desktop OS
- Linux: best server OS
- Windows: best corporation OS and best all-arounder

Yes, I know that Linux has gone with leaps and bounds forward in desktop experience within the last five years but it is STILL behind Windows. Why? Linux has multiple desktops, packet managers etc which just aren't there in Windows (by default and in Windows 7 driver handling is using Windows Update which is basically a packet manager). The problem with linux and desktop is it's a) hardware support (no, I really am not kidding here. Linux's hardware support is really really bad when compared to windows. There is a reason why pretty much every linux guy tells you to buy nVidia graphics card and forget all the other options...) b) inconsistence in how things are done within the same system. Oh and by the way: all the linux desktop machines I've used through the years (believe me, there's a lot of them and with quite varying distros) have been more unstable than Windows. No, the operating system itself doesn't crash often but X Window System does. And in 99% of the desktop use cases it's pretty much the same to me as if the whole operating system had crashed.

On the other hand Linux really shines in server use.

And about the whole linux command line (bash/zshell/whatever you want) and powershell thingy: I prefer PowerShell. It's way more powerful than any of the linux based shells and I can do a lot more complicated operations within it than I can with eg in bash. Oh yes, I do know that you can do a LOT with bash but it just can't quite compete with PowerShell. If you say anything else, then you haven't really learned how to use it. The main philosophical difference between linux shells and powershell is that in bash etc you have huge amount of small applications which you use together to achieve what you want. In powershell you have very very little of these programs and instead you have commands which are more like functions or methods. It is indeed appropriate to call powershell a 'shellished scripting engine'. Shell scripts in linux can't compete. Oh by the way, I'm a programmer.

Now don't get me wrong, I love linux (hey, I'm from Finland!). I'm just so totally PISSED and BORED in reading this garbage all over again how Windows is so bad and it's broken by design and blah blah. Windows is a very capable operating system and from my few days experience I'm quite confident in saying that seven is going to be the best windows ever. There's still some things which need fixing and polishing but it is really really good already. Oh, and it is indeed fast - faster than any other operating system I've ran on this computer. Let's just hope that it stays that way when final comes out.

DiscreetFX
01-15-2009, 04:12 PM
@Ember

Linux is very stable when you buy it as part of a complete Flame system.

LOL

Stooch
01-15-2009, 05:05 PM
I LOVE THIS OS!

REALLY nice... sooo slick, fast, organised. im in love

and i love vista too. I hate ignorant whiners that complain at the drop of a hat instead of trying to figure things out. for me upgrade from vista was flawless and everything transfered with 0 effort.

yeah i really dont see how macos has any chance now.

COBRASoft
01-15-2009, 07:13 PM
Any1 tried Windows Server 2008 in combination with Vista? I use this setup everyday (even for LW).

I want to challenge all OS X and Linux developers out there to develop a descent ERP application within the same timeframe as a Windows developer does :D.

Mha8649
01-15-2009, 10:28 PM
that's a canard to deflect form the issue at hand: defective by design. how's about an alternative reality: universally used but safe and secure. If someone is determined enough to screw up someones program then they will do it no matter what the os is. Weather it be mac (which does have viruses just not as much as window), windows or linux. I along with many other people have made programs. We should not be held responsible nor should we be expected to think of every possible thing that every hacker or person who understands code might think of to mess with our program. I agree that it should have all of the service packs or security risks patches at launch only due to the long updates at times but I understand that in this buisness you can't prepair for every possibility.

Matt
01-15-2009, 11:19 PM
For those that have installed Windows 7 on one machine along side your current OS, I take it you used something like http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/ so as not to bugger anything up.

Question: If I installed VMWare on Vista 64, then Windows 7. Can I uninstall Windows 7, then uninstall VMWare to get back to how I was before?

I fancy trying Windows 7 with the VMWare demo, but don't want to end up in a situation where I have to wipe my HD just to get Windows 7 off.

Ember
01-16-2009, 01:07 AM
For those that have installed Windows 7 on one machine along side your current OS, I take it you used something like http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/ so as not to bugger anything up.

Question: If I installed VMWare on Vista 64, then Windows 7. Can I uninstall Windows 7, then uninstall VMWare to get back to how I was before?

I fancy trying Windows 7 with the VMWare demo, but don't want to end up in a situation where I have to wipe my HD just to get Windows 7 off.

I actually installed Windows 7 without using any virtualization server software. Just took backups of everything I couldn't lose and did the install into an empty partition :) Thought about vmware for a second but then I realized that they don't support 3d-hardware that well and seven does have Aero. And after that I just thought "screw it, this is just my home computer and I don't do my work with it". :P

Anyway, if it gives you any comfort: install went smoothly (easiest OS install ever I tell you) and my old Win XP x64 still works just fine. I really really like Windows 7, too bad it's still in beta so that I just can't rely on it as my main operating system. Been poking it and sending bug reports on even the smallest possible thing :) Everyone at beta! Do the same so that we can get the best possible release of Windows Seven. :)

DiscreetFX
01-16-2009, 03:26 AM
Looks like MS is looking for some free unpaid beta testers. Win7 does seem very stable for a beta release though.

Matt
01-16-2009, 04:30 AM
I actually installed Windows 7 without using any virtualization server software. Just took backups of everything I couldn't lose and did the install into an empty partition :) Thought about vmware for a second but then I realized that they don't support 3d-hardware that well and seven does have Aero. And after that I just thought "screw it, this is just my home computer and I don't do my work with it". :P

Anyway, if it gives you any comfort: install went smoothly (easiest OS install ever I tell you) and my old Win XP x64 still works just fine. I really really like Windows 7, too bad it's still in beta so that I just can't rely on it as my main operating system. Been poking it and sending bug reports on even the smallest possible thing :) Everyone at beta! Do the same so that we can get the best possible release of Windows Seven. :)

If I put it onto a separate blank hard drive, won't that change the drive lettering? Making recovering my original C: drive difficult?

If I could put in onto a different hard drive and boot between them at startup, then, when I want to get rid of it (after beta expires) simply boot into Vista, and wipe the other hard drive, then that would be great!

But I don't think I can do that can I?

COBRASoft
01-16-2009, 06:00 AM
Hey Matt,

I've installed it on a seperate partition. At startup, I get a bootscreen asking what Windows I want to start.

When I start my regular Windows, all drive letters remain the same, when booting from the new Windows, that partition becomes the C and strangly enough, my 'old' C is not visible. Other partitions are visible as normal.

You can always change your driveletters (except C).

Greetings,
Sigurd

Matt
01-16-2009, 06:11 AM
What about a totally separate hard drive though?

Reason I ask, when Vista beta came out, I installed it on a separate hard drive. It ran like molasses (it was my old PC) so I decided to take it off right away.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I booted into XP, then wiped the Vista disk (in the hope of returning to normal) but when I next restarted my PC couldn't find Windows XP, I didn't sort out the MBR you see!

Had to reformat and install a fresh.

So questions are:

1) If I install Win7 on a separate HD, that HD will be assigned the C: drive right?

2) If that's the case, can I still boot into Vista (will that drive be assigned C: at boot)?

3) When in Win7, are you saying my 'other' C: drive with Vista on it won't be visible?

4) When I come to remove Win7, how can I do that and make sure my Vista install remains intact? Basically how do I revert that back to C:?

Cheers
Matt

Medi8or
01-16-2009, 06:25 AM
Had to reformat and install a fresh.Probably could have booted with cd and typed "fdisk /mbr" on command line... ?

Matt
01-16-2009, 07:25 AM
Probably could have booted with cd and typed "fdisk /mbr" on command line... ?

Now you tell me! ;)

JMCarrigan
01-16-2009, 10:41 AM
I looked around and decided to create a partition to put 7 on. Actually a partition of C. Not knowing better, I read I should get GParted to create the partition. I did, figured out how to use it, created the partition and, in the process of installing 7, discovered I could use the installation process to partition, etc. Everything went smooth though. Like CobraSoft says. at boot time I'm prompted for which OS. Windows 7 does not see C :D but XP does see 7. Windows7 calls its partition C, but XP calls it F I think. Both OS's consider their location to be C: I'm in 7 now and I like it better than I thought. It actually looks better somehow - the fonts? And it's a bit snappier. Just a matter of getting used to the navigation. JMC Reporting........

JMCarrigan
01-16-2009, 10:45 AM
Oh. I don't like the Taskbar on top all the time (I want ALL my screen real estate.) and I don't like autohide. Anyone find a way to make the Taskbar stay behind applications without autohide?

Matt
01-16-2009, 11:28 AM
So, has _anyone_ installed it on a separate HD and survived? :)

Medi8or
01-16-2009, 11:38 AM
I'm still alive, but I haven't checked how my Vista installation is.. :p

Matt
01-16-2009, 12:03 PM
Ooooh, do I, don't I, do I, don't I? :D

ivanze
01-16-2009, 12:29 PM
I updated my Vista installation on my laptop to Windows 7 and everything is working fine until now. It kept all my installed programs and no problems so far. In fact, my laptop seems like a different machine, it feels faster than before.

Matt
01-16-2009, 01:14 PM
This is a dumb question to which I think I know the answer to, but you can't uninstall an upgraded Vista install can you?

zapper1998
01-16-2009, 01:42 PM
Any1 tried Windows Server 2008 in combination with Vista? I use this setup everyday (even for LW).

I want to challenge all OS X and Linux developers out there to develop a descent ERP application within the same timeframe as a Windows developer does :D.

I don't think anybody else, has 3000+ millionaire's, working for them .....

JCG
01-16-2009, 02:00 PM
Having a dual boot and eliminating one of the OSes can be easy if it's done the hard way. There are two kinds of dual boot. The one handled by the BIOS and the one handled by the operating system's boot manager or another software boot manager. The second is the easiest and most comfortable one, but it can be hard to revert from it.

When you install Vista on a system that has XP on another drive, the boot record gets upgraded to Vista and it uses its backwards compatibility support to load XP. That's why removing Vista leaves XP unusable. You need to change the boot manager back to XP (bootsect /nt52) and that tends to be easier in theory than in practice.

I'm not sure how different the Win7 and Vista boot sectors are (if at all). If they're identical, this could be a non-issue.

However, if you want to make sure that you can go back, you can use the BIOS to dual boot instead.

Just disconnect your current Vista hard drive to make sure it will not get modified at all and install 7 on the new hard drive.

Then, every time you reboot the computer, go to the BIOS and set the hard drive with the OS you want to start this time as the first boot device.

Neither of the two OSes will affect the other one in any way.

The hard drive that has the bootable OS is not assigned C: by default. The one with the boot sector is assigned C:, even if the OS is installed somewhere else. So, if you use this method, each hard drive will have its own separate boot sector and you won't have to worry about reassigning the drive letter.

ivanze
01-16-2009, 02:43 PM
In my desktop pc I have installed Vista x32 and 7 x64 in other hard disk, when my pc boots it asks me what windows I want to use. But in both OS, C: is the hard disk where it booted.

Matt
01-16-2009, 02:58 PM
Getting closer to taking the plunge! Did you guys back up all your MP3 files, the Beta build can destroy those if you let WMP search for them.

mattclary
01-16-2009, 03:08 PM
For those that have installed Windows 7 on one machine along side your current OS, I take it you used something like http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/ so as not to bugger anything up.

Question: If I installed VMWare on Vista 64, then Windows 7. Can I uninstall Windows 7, then uninstall VMWare to get back to how I was before?

I fancy trying Windows 7 with the VMWare demo, but don't want to end up in a situation where I have to wipe my HD just to get Windows 7 off.

Matt, with VMWare, the install of the OS is stored in a folder on your hard drive. The VM has no effect on your current OS, it is a complete sandbox where you can play. if you want to uninstall VMWare, the VM itself will not be touched. You can even burn the VM to disc (if it is small enough) or copy it to a backup drive.

Personally, I would not dual boot to Windows 7 since it is a beta and will expire in August. Once it expires, you may want to install the real deal there, and MS says you should not upgrade to full from beta. I'm sure it can be done, but is it a risk you wish to take with your production environment?

mattclary
01-16-2009, 03:12 PM
What about a totally separate hard drive though?

Reason I ask, when Vista beta came out, I installed it on a separate hard drive. It ran like molasses (it was my old PC) so I decided to take it off right away.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I booted into XP, then wiped the Vista disk (in the hope of returning to normal) but when I next restarted my PC couldn't find Windows XP, I didn't sort out the MBR you see!

Had to reformat and install a fresh.



Exactly what I was getting at, and the type of problems you run into when jiggering with a dual boot setup.

COBRASoft
01-16-2009, 07:00 PM
I don't think anybody else, has 3000+ millionaire's, working for them .....

What about Eclipse from IBM? That's developped by a lot of people and still not half as good as Visual Studio. Oh, I wish Visual Studio and .Net would be cross-platform. Then whole this Windows 7/Linux/OSX wouldn't matter anymore to me :)

JMCarrigan
01-17-2009, 10:16 AM
In case: I use Acronis True Image to image my whole C: drive to another drive. If anything goes wrong, TrueImage will return the C: drive to its previous state. Like nothing ever happened. Am I living in fantasy land thinking I'm safe?

COBRASoft
01-17-2009, 01:37 PM
You're safe, as long as your second drive is ok :D

*Pete*
01-17-2009, 02:39 PM
Windows 7 seems to be good and stable...for now, it seems better than XP and Vista, but i need to use it more to make a final decision on that.

i have dual boot with 32 bit XP and the 64 bit Windows 7...the 64 bit LW works like a wonder, i render scenes that are impossible with my XP due to lack of memory (i have 4 gb).

i have not used Vista much so i have not much to compare with, but as i said..so far i like windows 7.

Ember
01-18-2009, 09:23 AM
Getting closer to taking the plunge! Did you guys back up all your MP3 files, the Beta build can destroy those if you let WMP search for them.

I have my mp3s on my file server. Removed it from the network "just in case" until I had installed the fix for that mp3 -problem. As far as I know the problem occurs in two situations:

1) You open and use WMP before installing the fix
2) You navigate with windows explorer to a folder which has mp3s before installing the fix

Anyway, installed the fix and so far my mp3s are quite intact :)

Captain Obvious
01-18-2009, 09:52 AM
WMP eats MP3s? That's unusual.

zapper1998
01-18-2009, 10:01 AM
So, has _anyone_ installed it on a separate HD and survived? :)

yes sir

Ember
01-19-2009, 02:43 AM
WMP eats MP3s? That's unusual.

It's called a bug in a beta release you know :)

Magnus81
01-19-2009, 12:44 PM
The MP3 problem was actually a problem with the Crossfading feature in Media Player. This happened to my brother the other day. He thought that "the" bug had destroyed his MP3s until he realized that that crossfading was muting the first 5 to 10 seconds.

I have a triple boot right now, Xp 32bit, XP 64bit(which is my primary OS), and Windows Seven Beta. I have to say that I'm very impressed with compatibility and stability in this "testing" build. I tried installing old Xp programs like Wood Workshop and it installed and ran perfectly fine. Many other examples too. So far everything just works with it! I'm loving it. Can't wait to buy it.

JMCarrigan
01-19-2009, 03:02 PM
You're safe, as long as your second drive is ok :D

Yep, I was safe and I'm back to XP Pro SP3 on one partition on my programs drive. I liked 7 so much that I decided to upgrade my system with the beta! Then i realized/remembered that it won't UPGRADE XP.

At least I have Lightwave 9.6!

NVentive
01-21-2009, 09:13 AM
Interesting discussion. I guess Vista will be the next Windows ME?

Mha8649
01-21-2009, 09:39 AM
You know, that is one thing that kind of pissed me off with microsoft, making a new os when the previous still needs attention. Like windows xp 64, instead of fixing all of the bugs with it they came out with vista 32 and 64 and they said vista 64 will not have all of the problems that xp did but it had alot of the same problems and it had alot of new ones. Whatever happend to fixing what you already have out before moving on. I am glad Newtek doesn't do that. They keep on improving what they have well beyond anyones expectations. Maybe a few developers from NT should teach microsofts developers how to do things right.

KiloWatkins
01-21-2009, 09:43 AM
In case: I use Acronis True Image to image my whole C: drive to another drive. If anything goes wrong, TrueImage will return the C: drive to its previous state. Like nothing ever happened. Am I living in fantasy land thinking I'm safe?
__________________
J Michael Carrigan

As long as you can remove your C: you made the image from, and boot up to the backup drive you are safe. I use the clone OS/programs feature and do a boot test. I then use Services.msc to turn off things I don't want to startup and frees alot of XP SP3 headroom. Installing 9.6 today. I'm hoping to skip Vista or Fistya as a friend calls it, and upgrade a new Quad to Win7.

fwiw

Wrap
01-22-2009, 05:40 AM
You need to read up on how Vista works. And it's not like it hasn't been discussed around here before... Vista uses only marginally more RAM than XP and has vastly better memory management. You just have to understand how it works.

The thing that gets me is that operating systems that are meant to make our machines more efficient and faster should surely be using less ram and processor power not more???

Lightwolf
01-22-2009, 05:55 AM
The thing that gets me is that operating systems that are meant to make our machines more efficient and faster should surely be using less ram and processor power not more???
Not necessarily. As you state yourself, more efficient and faster - and that may mean using the existing ressources extensively, making more use of them.
After all, tons of empty RAM doesn't help either, might as well use it if it's idle.

Cheers,
Mike

IMI
01-22-2009, 08:41 AM
The thing that gets me is that operating systems that are meant to make our machines more efficient and faster should surely be using less ram and processor power not more???

What Mike said, above.

Plus, you have to consider Windows wasn't made either then or now "for" high end 3D apps or high end apps of any sort. As it is, it's been tweaked more to that extent over the years, but it's primary sales point is still for the off-the-rack PeeCee buyer who shops at Comp USA, Circuit City, Best Buys, or Dell kiosks in malls all over the world...

He wants a computer he can use to send out millions of emails saying nothing to people who care only marginally, to download the latest must-see YouTube short, and to spend as much money as possible on ebay and Amazon.

And of course, the office scene is pretty big too, with Excel, Power Point, Office, and all that.

Windows can certainly handle all the 3D apps and the games and the video editors, and the hardware is getting better, but that's only a secondary concern. If Microsoft made Windows specifically tailored to high end 3D and video editing apps, they'd find themselves losing out on the market where the real money is at.

What we really need is not for Windows to get better, but for someone to create the ultimate 3D operating system that spontaneously gets adopted by all the major and minor players in the industry, from Autodesk to ZBrush... A to Z, as it were.

grimoirecg
01-22-2009, 09:28 AM
Not necessarily. As you state yourself, more efficient and faster - and that may mean using the existing ressources extensively, making more use of them.
After all, tons of empty RAM doesn't help either, might as well use it if it's idle.

Cheers,
Mike

I've never understood the details of that though, because if you have 8 gigs ram and are running with no page file and the 'system' is using 1 gig of ram at any average time, then what happens if you fire up an app that needs 7.8 gigs of ram?
Does the system suddenly give up 800 megs of what it was using and make do with 200 to run itself?
How much ram a system actually*needs* at minimum to run would be useful to know, regardless of all the ram it's predicting your going to use and lining up various processes in the background in case you need them.

Further, if you have the same scenario but have the page file turned on, then what happens? The 1000 that the system was idling with gets dumped over into page file ram and your 8 gigs of fast physical ram is used for your app?
I doubt it's as simple as any of that, and that the system is tying up ram unnecessarily and it is effectively cutting some of your physical ram off from being used when needed by a hungry app, and so the nerdy response of 'unused ram is wasted ram' is not a sufficient explanation.

Lightwolf
01-22-2009, 09:34 AM
I've never understood the details of that though, because if you have 8 gigs ram and are running with no page file and the 'system' is using 1 gig of ram at any average time, then what happens if you fire up an app that needs 7.8 gigs of ram?
Does the system suddenly give up 800 megs of what it was using and make do with 200 to run itself?
A bit more. Roughly 300 MB (Vista x64), a tad more than XP64. Adn even then it can swap out parts of that to disk.


Further, if you have the same scenario but have the page file turned on, then what happens? The 1000 that the system was idling with gets dumped over into page file ram and your 8 gigs of fast physical ram is used for your app?
Nope. It's just a cache. And caches don't get flushed to a page file. The point is to have existing data available for quick access.
You only write data to a page file that isn't readily available anywhere else (such as memory used ba an app such as LW to hold its internal state... models, images, animation data). Data that would be lost if just deleted.
Caches (at least read only caches) don't lose any data if you delete them.


I doubt it's as simple as any of that, and that the system is tying up ram unnecessarily and it is effectively cutting some of your physical ram off from being used when needed by a hungry app, and so the nerdy response of 'unused ram is wasted ram' is not a sufficient explanation.
Is this one better? It is as simple as that after all.

Cheers
Mike

KiloWatkins
01-23-2009, 06:03 AM
2) Get (www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php) Ramdisk Plus for $34.95

RAMdisk is back, to use that extra ram, after winXYZ uses its 1.x gig. What I find interestingly disturbing, 8 core Intels are in Mac's but not WinTels. Win7 may be the OS as someone pointed out, that kills Vista. EWK found the above link, and King Richard B has tested and liked the results. But as technology builds technology, 3 chanel RAM and Win7 may break the program, I have none of the above, so can not test.

FYI

Lightwolf
01-23-2009, 06:06 AM
What I find interestingly disturbing, 8 core Intels are in Mac's but not WinTels.
:question: that would be dual quads actually... and you can get those from other vendors as well (or quad quads etc...).

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
01-23-2009, 07:48 AM
OK, I think I just fell in love with Windows 7.

I downloaded Vue 7 Pioneer, and during the install some DLL dependencies had a problem that crashed the install. I got the obligatory "Do you want to submit this to Microsoft?" message. Normally, I say no, but had heard they have beefed this up with Win 7, so clicked yes.

Before I could finish closing all the dialogs from the failed install, a window popped up with instructions on how to fix the problem from the command prompt. It was a registry modification of some type, didn't pay much attention, just copy and pasted to the command line.

This has really impressed me.