Originally Posted by TheSenator (Post 16466463)

Hopyfully, Window 7 on an i7 920 overclocked to 3.5 play nicely.

Planning for an upgrade.

Originally Posted by quantum-x (Post 16466406)

Don't be a fucking troll.
How long did it take apple to get OS/X? Do you even remember the horrors of System 9 / 8 etc?

Not to mention that the stability comes from darwin / bsd.

In any case, without trying to be inflammatory - serious question for you to ponder..

Mac: The OS only has to handle one set of known hardware configuations.
PC: The OS has to handle literally billions of hardware configurations, dating back over 15 years.

The sheer task of maintaining compatibility etc on Windows is amazing - honestly, amazing.

Originally Posted by V_RocKs (Post 16463859)

I have pretty much been a beta tester of Microsoft products since Windows 98.

I loved windows 98SE and didn't upgrade to anything else until Windows 2000 Professional. That was a solid mother fucker right there. Windows XP Professional was a bit testy in the beginning, but SP1 fixed a lot of problems and by SP2 it was just as solid as 2000P...

Vista was a fucking nightmare from the beginning. Nothing worked and all of the high hopes functionality was stripped out because it just got too damn chaotic.

Windows 7 has reminded me of Windows 2000 Professional since the beginning. It is solid as fuck. It is a lot like have the addons of Vista integrated with the solidness of the Windows NT line (which 2000P was a part of).

I have 4 cores on the processor and 6 gigs of ram. I no longer close shit down or have to restart FF because it bloated to 700mb of memory. While FF still does that and seems to always want to consume 16 to 25% of the processing power, which translates to 60% - 100% of a single core, I don't have to give a shit anymore. Yes, this has a lot to do with the simple fact that my PC has 4 cores and so much memory... I know... But Windows 7 seems to handle shit pretty good. I am using 64 bit Ultimate and it kicks ass!

I elected to "upgrade" from Vista. I did this so I could tell you if it sucks or not. I have upgraded from 98 to ME, etc... I know the horror stories. This upgrade was flawless. I truly could not be anymore impressed with how solid this system runs.

Windows 7 found every single driver but one. It was for a USB network card and it seemed that Windows thought it was a drive. So I had to stick another USB network bard I had in another computer into it and it loaded its drivers, hit the Internet and loaded the other cards drivers. Unplugged the 2nd one and Windows 7 elected to switch to the 1st for the wireless connection. Nice.

Overall I have to say Microsoft finally did something right. It has been a long time since 2000P and they finally knocked another one out of the ballpark.

For those of you that don't know, 2000 Professional was built on the Windows NT architecture. I believe Vista was also built on it but it seemed more like the ME architecture... Windows NT was built with corporations in mind. You can have Joe the Plumber complain on his shit blog all you want, but if Sears says your shit sucks, well, you are going to lose a lot of business. So they did NT right. Now they did Windows 7 right.

Originally Posted by qwe (Post 16472305)

don't forget to get some nice SSD drive for it (ocz vertex or intel)... i'm running i7 920 + tripple 6gb memory + ssd + win7 = amazing... you'll never go back to regular HDD

Originally Posted by qwe (Post 16472305)

don't forget to get some nice SSD drive for it (ocz vertex or intel)... i'm running i7 920 + tripple 6gb memory + ssd + win7 = amazing... you'll never go back to regular HDD

Originally Posted by Persius (Post 16474226)

What is so good about SSD .. sell me on it :upsidedow

Originally Posted by Persius (Post 16466231)

I'm running vista 32bit on a 64machine was waiting to use my 64bit for windows7.

So your saying the upgrade went fine? isn't it usually better to do a full fresh install?

Originally Posted by Elli (Post 16467745)

read a review on Tom's Hardware today that concluded saying there will be about a 7% perceivable difference from Vista to 7. That's a little small, imo.

Originally Posted by V_RocKs (Post 16477253)

Doesn't SSD drives have the limitations as flash memory? As in you can only write to a certain sector so many times (I believe it is around 1000)?

Originally Posted by cyberxxx (Post 16477516)

We have a good joke here in Russia which fits for Vista vs Win7 case just perfect:

A rat asks a hamster: "Bro, we are almost the same rodents but why people are trying to kill and poison me while they caress, feed and love you?". The hamster fall to thinking for a moment when answered: "I believe it's because your PR-managers suck"

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 16477611)

Lolz windows 7 rocks, and for most people Vista did great as well.

Originally Posted by tical (Post 16463891)

Windows 7 is a fantastic OS. Even Mac users say it's good (which translates to its awesome).

Originally Posted by NOTR (Post 16474763)

To give you an idea of how fast the intel SSD is.

Left the office about 1.5 hours ago to the local pc store to pick up the SSD, got home and installed win 7. Moved all necessary user files and this thing is fast as FUCK.

Originally Posted by Shoplifter (Post 16477827)

I am running a 160 Gig Intel X-25m SSD as my system and application drive.

It is simply the bees knees. There is pretty much nothing else that you can do to upgrade your system that will improve it as much as this SSD drive.

Things like this are pretty much why my main work box is a Win 7 PC. I love to tinker with the latest technology. I also own two Macs and they simply just don't come close to the newest PC technology, not even the Mac Pro. OS X is nice and all, but Apple hardware is always just too behind.

Originally Posted by NOTR (Post 16477610)

Here's an excerpt from an article on http://icrontic.com/news/micron-alle...nand-endurance

"Even Intel’s MLC-based X25-M G2 drive is estimated to have a 31,500 cycle write endurance, which is good for 20GB of erase/write sequences a day, every day, for five years. If that’s not enough, the company has included a 100GB/day margin of error."

Quite honestly for the price, I would pay $280 and replace them yearly because that's how noticeable the speed increase is.

Originally Posted by Arnox (Post 16477654)

No, this translates to I have no concept of what a good OS consists of and think anything that has clicky icons is awesome.

I use Windows ME and have yet to find an OS that outdoes it.

Originally Posted by V_RocKs (Post 16477928)

I am wondering if the speed stays up later on in the drives life.

Originally Posted by Shoplifter (Post 16477993)

The newest drives support the Windows 7 TRIM command which in essence defragments the drive to a near new state. Even fragmented the drives are so goddam fast that there is little comparison to mechanical drives.

As for what happens in 4 or 5 years who cares. Things go obsolete so fast now I doubt I have anything older than 6 months in my computer case right now.

Check out: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3607 etc. There is a lot of cool info on these drives there.

Originally Posted by Persius (Post 16477911)

damn ssd are expensive :Oh crap

Originally Posted by NOTR (Post 16478856)

Did you upgrade to the newest firmware? Saw a few blog postings about people being bricked .

But ya SSD is night and day, going to test this bad boy out for a few weeks and start converting my machine at work to SSD.

Originally Posted by cyberxxx (Post 16464243)

"Haters" is a gay word :winkwink: The straight males (persons with a male brain and male logic) can't hate the operating system because it's just a binary code :) They can discuss it's features (arguing with facts) but not hate or love it - Windows is not a woman.


Actually it does because both OS have a same kernel code.


Just FYI.

Originally Posted by Persius (Post 16478910)

Updated. Just installed win 7 64bit ;) running smooth and fast

will keep you updated on my experience:thumbsup

Originally Posted by DirtyDave (Post 16484443)

If you want a good reason to upgrade then consider these points about 64bit Win 7 compared to XP on the same hardware:
1. you can use more than 4GB of ram with 64bit Win 7
2. most programs will run faster if you have more than 4GB of ram in 64bit Win 7 due to having more memory available for each program
3. 32bit programs run faster in 64bit Win 7 than on 32bit XP
4. Win 7 is faster overall than Win XP.

Originally Posted by NOTR (Post 16474171)

Which ssd do you have? I was looking at the intels, don't feel like reinstalling win7, should cloning my drive to a new ssd do the trick?

Originally Posted by Persius (Post 16474226)

What is so good about SSD .. sell me on it :upsidedow

Originally Posted by V_RocKs (Post 16477928)

I am wondering if the speed stays up later on in the drives life.

The way it handles its write endurance is that it will take something like an ini file or a cfg file of a program that gets written to every time the program is closed and move it around the drive. So that it doesn't continuously write to the same spot. Eventually this creates fragmentation issues. So your drive might be lickety-split right now and will be not so much in 4 or 5 years...

BTW - The windows page file would be a good example of a file that will be written to every few seconds while you are actively using the operating system. At a few gigs in size it can really add up quickly and have to me moved constantly by the drive.

Originally Posted by cyberxxx (Post 16485349)

Hmm... Have you got a chance to look at the benchmarks above? :helpme

Originally Posted by EscortBiz (Post 16467732)

new win 7 machines will not pickup your wireless unless you do a whole buch of bullshit, just a heads up not to fuck with it unless u got 2-3 hours to waste

Originally Posted by woj (Post 16486980)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,2442-9.html

"To better gauge the user’s performance experience or how fast the system feels, load times must be captured. While we could certainly have used a stopwatch, an electronic timer is far more accurate, and benchmarks such as PCMark and SYSmark use them. These programs indicate that Windows 7 feels 7% to 10% faster than Windows Vista, and that’s enough to make us give the new OS the nod in spite of its lack of differentiation in most of our other test."