Windows 7 = AWESOMENESS

[Sandy]

Nice to see so many Linux users here... I wonder if we've maybe met before on another forum? ha ha ha!! That'd be too weird!!

~Jasmine

Linuxchix.org?

-Sandy

[Flan]

* FlanHusky hangs up the windows flag to see the reaction from the linux nutters

[Sandy]

Sandy I feel confused now.  When I upgraded, it copied all of those files onto the same harddrive for me, I know this because I subsequently decided to xfer them to a different drive to create space on my C:.  80-90% of the programs it retained work just fine and I def didn't have to reinstall most of them.  The only drivers I had to redo were the sound and video cards- everything else ...just ...worked.  Okay besides CS4, but what were the chances of that working?

Literally, my upgrade took 30 minutes, not counting reinstalling CS4.

Maybe my machine was more compatible for some reason?

Any number of things could be different between your configuration and mine (probably a lot since I tinker).

All I know is that I downloaded MS's advisor and it referred me to the MS site that said I was pretty much screwed.

Not that I wouldn't take that on as a challenge, mind you.   

But it just what the micro-stuff reported.

-Sandy
Post Merge: February 17, 2010, 04:33:23 PM

* FlanHusky hangs up the windows flag to see the reaction from the linux nutters

You realize that to some, that is like waving a red cape in front of a bull...

Now before we turn this into a "My OS is better than your OS", remember to play nice like good little boys and girls.  And also the original poster (F/R) was just commenting on the wonderfullness of W7!

-Sandy

[V M]

I wants me a Mac 

[findingreason]

Personally whenever I upgrade I usually do a major time backup to an external HDD, and then wipe the slate and start fresh since I don't trust upgrades (know some people with some bad results of that), then I go on a reinstalling spree of all my programming. What was weird was that when I went to Win 7, it gave me the clean install upgrade option, which I expected it to just format my HDD and restart, which it didn't, it migrated all the old windows to a windows.old directory and installed this one. I would've used XP on my laptop instead cause I tried to install it clean before, but I think my laptop was rigged against it (don't buy Gateways; they suck ><). Since XP didn't have SATA recognition in it's setup without your BIOS allowing you to go into legacy IDE mode, it would not detect my hard drive. And my bios was designed to not allow you to go to legacy. So in order to install XP I had to use a splicing program to modify the XP setup CD with a SATA driver built in, and it eventually worked. But then my graphics adapter (ATI Radeon Mobility HD2600) did not have proper win XP drivers available for it. So in the end I had to give up and go back to Vista T_T. But now Windows 7 came out and it's been working absolutely perfect for me so far.

[BunnyBee]

I wants me a Mac 

Me too!  I'm so sick of wires and clutter.  The new iMacs look lovely.

[NDelible Gurl]

I had Vista for like a week on my T400 and have rid my laptop of it! It wouldn't connect to our router and I remembered my sisters Vista experience. We had to zero out the drive two or three times and for some reason the defragmentation GUI was plain ridiculous. I mean instead of a graph to show you how much percentage you have left we get- "This may take a day or two... you can wait can't you???" I've since installed and dual boot XP Pro and Karmic on it now. A pretty good combination since I need MS for some school programs.

I do have the W7 7100 build on another machine I have... with Karmic again. It's working out nice so far. I like snazzy but I also like my machine to just get my work done without a GUI that wants to put a show on for me

[lizbeth]

I wants me a Mac 

Me too!  I'm so sick of wires and clutter.  The new iMacs look lovely.

I love my new macbook pro

* beth~chella pops collar

I want one of the new imacs too, but I just can't justify the purchase right now with so many other expenses. (read:new macbook pro, lol)

We had to zero out the drive two or three times and for some reason the defragmentation GUI was plain ridiculous. I mean instead of a graph to show you how much percentage you have left we get- "This may take a day or two... you can wait can't you???"

1. people still defrag? it really isn't necessary anymore like in the windows 9x days in fact it's thought to be detrimental to your overall drive health.
2. I suspect that was lenovo's reimage disk since that sounds noting like a windows defrag utility and they wouldn't allow you zero out your system volumes.

[NDelible Gurl]

1. people still defrag? it really isn't necessary anymore like in the windows 9x days in fact it's thought to be detrimental to your overall drive health.
2. I suspect that was lenovo's reimage disk since that sounds noting like a windows defrag utility and they wouldn't allow you zero out your system volumes.

The zeroing out is using Killdisk to overwrite all data in the HDD in zeros. It's just a habit I do before reinstalling an OS especially if reinstalling from an Recovery Disk. I have heard something about defragmenting being a thing of the past but I've noticed that a HDD that haven't been scandisked, cleaned and defragged eventually will run slower. It's totally a MS thing for sure! Which is why I also use a Unix-type OS also

[Christo]

we got a new computer & it's got windows 7.  dunno what most of the junk in the background is for yet  but yep its cool.




I like firefox better though 

[Sandy]

Since XP didn't have SATA recognition in it's setup without your BIOS allowing you to go into legacy IDE mode, it would not detect my hard drive. And my bios was designed to not allow you to go to legacy. So in order to install XP I had to use a splicing program to modify the XP setup CD with a SATA driver built in, and it eventually worked.

That was my experience also.  When I attempted to boot my XP partition on my new SATA machine, it BSOD'd.  I persisted and eventually got everything to work.

Ah well, I may approach the issue again later, but I am in no real hurry.  If the issue is forced I'll switch to my beloved linux and run windoze in a VM partition as an application.  There is some justice in that...

-Sandy

[spacial]

I gave Linux a real good go.

I tried several different versions. I spent ages on each.

But my own experience is that it is so specific to certain cards and motherboards that it was not worth the effort.

Asking various Linux forums I was left feeling like I had a bad smell. (I do since I smell like a male, but they didn't know that).

[Teknoir]

I installed and played with Windows 7 on a class machine a while ago, and I can't really say I'm a big fan. It wasn't slow or anything, but they just seem to keep taking their OS in a direction completely opposite to what I like and want (demand!  ) in an OS.

I would have run linux exclusively except my work-from-home software only supports windoze.

Have you considered using a VM? Edit : Never mind... That'll teach me to walk off mid-post

I needed a Windows box around for class (Same reasons - not all apps have Linux ports or decent alternatives) so I just installed XP to a VM. I've found it to be a fantastic solution.

I know that VMware works fine under LFS, should be fine if you're using a major distro. I think they do nice little packages for those, too.

[Flan]

Since XP didn't have SATA recognition in it's setup without your BIOS allowing you to go into legacy IDE mode, it would not detect my hard drive.

XP lacks the chipset drivers to support SATA drives, you have to integrate them beforehand using nLite.
http://www.nliteos.com/

[Sarah B]

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.  Having said that, I recently brought myself a laptop "acer extensa 5635" to be precisely and it came with Windows 7 Pro.   I tried it and it seemed quite nice.  However, as usual, I installed the latest version of Fedora over the top of it.  Oh what a feeling when I did that.

I work in a environment where everyone uses windoze and I have to use it as well. Oh well that's life sometimes, you have to do things that you do not want to do.

Kind Regards
Sarah B

[Julie Marie]

That was my experience also.  When I attempted to boot my XP partition on my new SATA machine, it BSOD'd.  I persisted and eventually got everything to work.

Ah well, I may approach the issue again later, but I am in no real hurry.  If the issue is forced I'll switch to my beloved linux and run windoze in a VM partition as an application.  There is some justice in that...

-Sandy

Maybe that's the problem I'm running into right now.  My puter has been down for almost a month.  I've replaced everything but the HDD and the graphics card and when I boot up I'm still getting the BSOD.  It's been like owning a boat, a hole in the water into which one throws money.

Maybe Win 7 is where I need to consider going??

[Sandy]

Maybe that's the problem I'm running into right now.  My puter has been down for almost a month.  I've replaced everything but the HDD and the graphics card and when I boot up I'm still getting the BSOD.  It's been like owning a boat, a hole in the water into which one throws money.

Maybe Win 7 is where I need to consider going??

Been there, done that!

Julie, if that is the same machine that you and I worked on oh so many moons ago, it could be a bit cranky.  But I thought that all the drives were already SATA...  But my memory could be failing.

If you are using a new computer and you are trying to boot and if there are SATA drives on it and XP has not been "spliced" to handle the new drives, it will crash and burn.

SATA was developed after the XP was released and the upgrades to it have to be installed before it boots.  A kind of chicken and egg thing.

Google SATA and XP and there should be a wealth of information.  But it is real nutz and boltz things.  PM or call and maybe we can figure something out.

-Sandy

[Flan]

Maybe that's the problem I'm running into right now.  My puter has been down for almost a month.  I've replaced everything but the HDD and the graphics card and when I boot up I'm still getting the BSOD.

another bug of windows xp, if you go from a single core CPU to multi core, you have to reinstall.

[Sandy]

another bug of windows xp, if you go from a single core CPU to multi core, you have to reinstall.

Yeah, but with a multi-core cpu a simple install will take care of it.  With SATA you actually have to create an NEW installation CD with the SATA drivers pre-installed.

It is a bit of a hassle.

-Sandy

[Flan]

Yeah, but with a multi-core cpu a simple install will take care of it.  With SATA you actually have to create an NEW installation CD with the SATA drivers pre-installed.

It is a bit of a hassle.

-Sandy

yeah, that's probably why Microsoft switched from the old NT installer to WinPE (windows preinstall enviroment) for vista and Win7, so that install would be faster overall since it's (vista and 7) based on an install image that self configures during OOBE. (out of box experience)