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

will keep you updated on my experience:thumbsup

thanks for the heads up on that one! intel pulled the firmware and i was getting ready to use it

Ok Dr. Flavin.

Look forward to hearing about it.


As for SSD, I guess a fragmented drive doesn't matter. The only reason it does on mechanical is because the head has to be physically moved over the platters. SSD drives just make light speed calls no matter what.

Thanks for the review! :thumbsup Been thinking about upgrading

awesome os...and you can build a $500 windows PC thats 4 times faster than a $2000 mac

Upgraded yesterday from Vista. Everything went great except one driver for an infrared remote control did not work. Got that going today. So far, it seems great.

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.

Wrong! Here is the right list (dare try to catch my at any point?):

If you want a good reason to upgrade then consider these points about Win XP 64bit compared to Win 7 32bit on the same hardware:
1. you can use more than 4GB of ram with Win XP 64bit
2. most programs will run faster if you have more than 4GB of ram in Win XP 64bit due to having more memory available for each program
3. 32bit programs run faster in 64bit Win 7 than on 32bit XP << Wrong for both Win 7 64bit and Win XP 64bit operating systems. It seems you have no clue how 32bit applications are running in 64bit environment and you even have no idea what thunking is, but I'm telling you that 32bit applications will work as fast as they can on 32bit operating systems ONLY.
4. Win XP is faster overall than Win 7 and there are lots of benchmarks in the Net that prove it. Furthermore, there are many benchmarks that says: Vista and Win 7 have almost the same speed,e.g.: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ance,2442.html :

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/8/226...l/image003.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/C/226...l/image007.png

At some serious tasks Vista is even faster than Win 7: What a surprise! :1orglaugh

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/K/226...l/image015.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/H/226...l/image012.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/I/226...l/image013.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/J/226...l/image014.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/M/226...l/image017.png

So please don't even try to state that Win 7 is faster than Win XP. Sometimes it even slower than Vista which was sucking from its birthday and will suck forever.

:pimp

Win 7 seems a lot faster than Vista because they fixed the bottleneck where the GPU was divided amongst all windows rather than just active ones.

There is no doubt the GUI on Win 7 is much snappier.

But for application benchmarks it's fundamentally the same.

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

i got 2 vertexes 30gb in raid 0 ... i would reinstall whole windows if I was you, image would probably work but i'd still reinstall

my 2 vertexes in raid 0 do 450mb/s read and around 300mb/s write, and access time is like 0.1sec, you click anything and it pops up right away... like right now I clicked photoshop cs4 and it opened up in 3 seconds, lighter programs are instant....

I just love it!

with enough ram you don't even need to have page file turned on, I got my page file turned off with no problem... been running 2 vertexes in raid 0 for close to 8 months, and performance dropped from 460mb/s to 450mb/s :pimp

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."

W7 Rocks! :pimp

its only you bro....works fine here

The man behind Tom's Hardware is an idiot. Why do you quote his stupid comments? Trust to benchmarks but not to silly jerks. ANY benchmark including those that built into 3D games ALWAYS use an electronic timer. So I don't understand the bullshit quoted above.

thanks for the info. I'll get in my next computer.

Cool, so you were able to use him as a reference to make your "point", then at the same time you say he is an idiot. SWEET!! XP 64 forever and ever and ever. Its the very airy best thing EVA!!! Hysterical... :1orglaugh

Typing this from a 100% stable Windows 7 RC1 build 7100 install that has not had a single solitary error, has not had to been hardbooted, has worked flawlessly with every single thing I have done with it. XP I always had issues with one way or another on high quality machines that were setup 100% right.

Didn't you just quote the benchmarks from tomshardware?

Maybe he is an idiot, but the guy runs a pretty successful computer hardware site. He has been reviewing and benchmarking computer hardware for a living for at least 10 years... I would say he is in a pretty good position to comment on the performance of windows 7...

...and he is actually right, PCMark or SYSMark tests more accurately represent performance experienced by an average user...

Dude, do you have a brain inside yous skull? I was using only benchmarks performed by by various INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE and I don't give a shit about stupid comments some moron gives on their results.

Some people should be kept away from computers :disgust

So what does it mean? Does it mean that the guys behind the most popular porn sites are the most sexiest dudes in the world? Don King is a good boxer, Oprah is a pro in EVERYTHING etc. Right? :1orglaugh

BTW, that guy has even no idea how the computer applications are measuring the time.

We get it. You are a computer genius guru. You use an 8 year old operating system and that makes you part of a super elite club. Xp will never be bested. It will be the best operating system for eva and eva and eva. :error:1orglaugh

May be not? May be my previous job as a system programmer made me a bit more informed on the discussed topic? Did you try to imagine such a possibility?

Sometimes I believe that human race will die because it's own stupidity. :(

P.S. I have 3 desktops: one with XP32SP3, another with XP64SP2 and the third with Win7. So I not just tried Win7, but I'm even typing this post from it. Win7 is really much slower than XP64 which is not 8 yeahs old OS as you Mister "I know it all" used to think. BTW, I spent almost a day only to get OpenVPN client finally working on Win7. So read my words again: Win7 is the same Vista and it still very raw to be used with comfort professionally.

I've been using it for few months, looks like tweaked Vista, but I like it... a lot! :)

Well the fact you had to spend a full day to get OpenVPN client running on Win7 says a lot.

http://www.fiberworks.com/DNN/Suppor...S/Default.aspx

Seems a common issue with an easily available fix. But you spent a full day due to the terribleness of Win 7?

And btw why is it Win 7's issue that OpenVPN hadn't updated their software to be compatible with the long long announced release of Win7? :1orglaugh

Oh and btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP


How do you figure its not 8 years old? This is Nov 1st 2009 right? :uhoh

LOL, you're much more stupid than I thought before :1orglaugh Do you really think I haven't saw that "manual" while trying to run OpenVPN client? Hint: google about IEUSER.EXE application error in Vista and Win7 (yes, Win7 has the same errors as Vista)

Because it's not an issue with OpenVPN, it's an issue with kernel code of Vista/Win7.

Dude, you are really funny one :1orglaugh

I really impressed with your mind skills man. Haven't you noticed that I was talking about XP64? Do you know that XP64 and XP32 are DIFFERENT operating systems? Do you know that they have different cores (NT 5.1 and NT 5.2)? Try to calculate how many years have passed since 25 April 2005. I strongly suggest you to use a calculator.

Ya you are brilliant we are all aware. Computer genius... One that spends an entire day getting a program to work. :thumbsup

Not true.

I am a PC guy and just bought a Mac book last June. So far I love it. It works really well, is pretty fast, and batter life is great. I am using my Mac more and more.

I will be upgrading my PC's OS to Windows 7 of course. I was going to buy a new Quad Core PC, but you know what? The new iMac is so much nicer. The more I look at iMacs, the more PC's seem really out dated. Even worse, no matter what PC I look at, they ALL come with pre-installed garbage that I do not want, and idiot PC sales people look bewildered and confused when you try to ask for a PC with WINDOWS ONLY. "But sire! Why wouldn't you want 500 free trial programs taking up every last resource on your machine? "

Meh. iMac's are looking sweeter every day.