Windows 7 experience

[Jorkand]

[XP FANBOIII ]Search is horrible, pathetic, and non-user friendly. What has ever happened to good ol' Classic Search, "Winkey + S" then "*.mp3" then "enter" and displayed all my music files :( [/XP FANBOIII]

Bad xp fanboii! Its Win-F. And it still works.

[FiB3R]

7057 x86

7

6

6

[rednekcowboy]

I'm running build 7057 on both my laptop (x86) and my desktop (x64) and am very impressed thus far!! Other than some minor glitches, it is very stable for me and can't wait for rtm!!

The only major annoyance I have is with the WEI. I'm running two 9800gx2's in sli and I only get a 5.9 score for my aero and gaming graphics. This score seems awful low to me as it was maxed out in Vista. Maybe it's just a driver issue, I don't know, will have to wait and see I guess.

While I think it's a very stable and great OS so far, I would give it all 6's as it is still beta and has some issues to work on, but thoroughly impressive, IMHO.

[djeter]

Installation: 7... The upgrade process worked flawlessly for me from the Beta to Build 7022 to Build 7048 to Build 7057... x86 of course.

Compatibility: 6... Almost everything I run works, except for my Brother MFC-420CN. It freezes during the driver installation, but it installs enough that I can print. Also, there's a few graphics glitches I noticed in Windows Media Player 12 and GRLevel3 1.52. There may be other programs I haven't noticed yet. I attribute it to my graphics card drivers (I've got a nVidia GeForce 7600 GS-- 181.71 driver). I think it's a great OS for a Beta. Sure it has its issues, but I find it pretty impressive so far.

Features: 7... I like the new and updated features, especially the updated Remote Desktop and the ability to change the login background. Granted there are some minor issues, but it's a Beta and glitches are bound to pop up.

[Owen W Veteran]

Performance Wise, I noticed a 25% decrease in read speed of my SSD. On the other hand, it *might* be more stable with my SSD which has horrible write speeds. So in all, a slight downturn.

Performance Wise, Windows 7 needs some help - UI feels somewhat non-instant. Not for people with less than 2GB RAM. There is a slight pause when going from one mp3 to the next in WMP, odd.

Vanilla drivers are A Quality. No A+, there were two devices without drivers. After I installed drivers, one device does not have a driver still.

[XP FANBOIII ]Search is horrible, pathetic, and non-user friendly. What has ever happened to good ol' Classic Search, "Winkey + S" then "*.mp3" then "enter" and displayed all my music files :( [/XP FANBOIII]

I like the wallpaper change feature

UI is good though, Power Management, and features are pretty good though.

For now, stuff works without problems. Have not tested IE8.

Ummmk? The search is the same...but faster, and looks different.

Also, that *.mp3 (or any other extension) search works still - and probably in about 1/10th of the time.

With 512MB of RAM on a test machine I can report that Windows 7 is still perky, instant and responsive (unless I have HEAPS open, but expected), so I'm unsure what you mean by 'non-instant'.

As for your drivers, Windows 7 Action Center would pick them up if you were running build 7000, but you're probably not, and I've noticed it doesn't offer you them in any build above 7000, probably due to compatibility.

I suggest you give Windows 7 a bit more of a chance.

[Udedenkz]

Ummmk? The search is the same...but faster, and looks different.

Also, that *.mp3 (or any other extension) search works still - and probably in about 1/10th of the time.

With 512MB of RAM on a test machine I can report that Windows 7 is still perky, instant and responsive (unless I have HEAPS open, but expected), so I'm unsure what you mean by 'non-instant'.

As for your drivers, Windows 7 Action Center would pick them up if you were running build 7000, but you're probably not, and I've noticed it doesn't offer you them in any build above 7000, probably due to compatibility.

I suggest you give Windows 7 a bit more of a chance.

What are you comparing the speed against? I am comparing the OS responsiveness against XP x64 SP2. I am also comparing speed of opening things like Photoshop CS3. It seems to take longer than in XP to go from A to B in the UI, even with those annoying animations disabled. By responsiveness I mean, the time between me clicking something and me getting a result. I don't feel like timing it, but if XP needs 1/50 of a second to open Explorer then 7 is more like 1/12 of a second... :/

Do you know how I could specify where to search (computer, etc) and how (+hidden, +system files, -zip files) before searching? Is there any way to enable classic search (Windows 2000 style) - I would love that! :D Or is there an alternative to Windows Search?

One thing that is odd is that regedit search is STILL not SMP optimized - it just does not use 100% of my both cores to search the registry - odd.

I think it needs tweaking, lot and lots of tweaking. Did anyone disable WFP?

Do not get me wrong, W7 is excellent in all departments, except diagnosing crash on boot problems and performance

[ToneKnee]

Performance Wise, I noticed a 25% decrease in read speed of my SSD. On the other hand, it *might* be more stable with my SSD which has horrible write speeds. So in all, a slight downturn.

Performance Wise, Windows 7 needs some help - UI feels somewhat non-instant. Not for people with less than 2GB RAM. There is a slight pause when going from one mp3 to the next in WMP, odd.

Vanilla drivers are A Quality. No A+, there were two devices without drivers. After I installed drivers, one device does not have a driver still.

[XP FANBOIII ]Search is horrible, pathetic, and non-user friendly. What has ever happened to good ol' Classic Search, "Winkey + S" then "*.mp3" then "enter" and displayed all my music files :( [/XP FANBOIII]

I like the wallpaper change feature

UI is good though, Power Management, and features are pretty good though.

For now, stuff works without problems. Have not tested IE8.

Your drive is suffering from micro-stuttering because it doesn't have onboard cache. Another user from this board had two in a RAID-0 array and solved the problem by getting a hardware RAID controller with DDR memory which acts like a cache for the drives and the speeds went up. :)

I'm thinking about putting down ~?200 for a OCZ Apex 60GB SSD soon, haven't decided yet. I might buy one and then wait for the price drops to happen then get another and use a RAID array. But I won't need a hardware RAID because these come with 64mb of cache already.

[macf13nd]

Your drive is suffering from micro-stuttering because it doesn't have onboard cache. Another user from this board had two in a RAID-0 array and solved the problem by getting a hardware RAID controller with DDR memory which acts like a cache for the drives and the speeds went up. :)

I'm thinking about putting down ~?200 for a OCZ Apex 60GB SSD soon, haven't decided yet. I might buy one and then wait for the price drops to happen then get another and use a RAID array. But I won't need a hardware RAID because these come with 64mb of cache already.

knowledge.

[Udedenkz]

Your drive is suffering from micro-stuttering because it doesn't have onboard cache. Another user from this board had two in a RAID-0 array and solved the problem by getting a hardware RAID controller with DDR memory which acts like a cache for the drives and the speeds went up. :)

I'm thinking about putting down ~?200 for a OCZ Apex 60GB SSD soon, haven't decided yet. I might buy one and then wait for the price drops to happen then get another and use a RAID array. But I won't need a hardware RAID because these come with 64mb of cache already.

What are you talking about? Seriously, not that you are fully wrong, but I do not agree with this judgment, for the following reasons,

I think that the UI speeds are dependent on the bloat level of the OS and well as more features are added the less performance one should expect from the same specs (98 vs XP for example) even if the newer OS can utilize the same hardware better (better mutlicore functionality). I think this is why performance is worse with 7, god I do not want to find out how bad it is with Vista:))

Stuttering only happens when large files (90+ MB) are written (and a good OS does not write much to a SSD/HD - it keeps itself in the RAM - Ubuntu is excellent at that IMO) unto my SSD. Windows 7 actually kinda made that better (at a cost of slowing down read speeds? ) for when I installed Adobe, system did not freeze up - only "stuttered".

Also, I am on a laptop so that would be impossible. ...or did I miss something?

EDIT: Also 7/6/7 is my rating ATM.

[ToneKnee]

What are you talking about? Seriously, not that you are fully wrong, but I do not agree with this judgment, for the following reasons,

I think that the UI speeds are dependent on the bloat level of the OS and well as more features are added the less performance one should expect from the same specs (98 vs XP for example) even if the newer OS can utilize the same hardware better (better mutlicore functionality). I think this is why performance is worse with 7, god I do not want to find out how bad it is with Vista :)

Stuttering only happens when large files (90+ MB) are written (and a good OS does not write much to a SSD/HD - it keeps itself in the RAM - Ubuntu is excellent at that IMO) unto my SSD. Windows 7 actually kinda made that better (at a cost of slowing down read speeds? ) for when I installed Adobe, system did not freeze up - only "stuttered".

Also, I am on a laptop so that would be impossible. ...or did I miss something?

EDIT: Also 7/6/7 is my rating ATM.

I'm not fully wrong at all. I've done a lot of research because I am in fact considering buying a SSD. And a lot of reviewers have reported problems with earlier drives like your one.

The reason why Windows 7 is better for SSD's is because the file system has been changed to better support SSD's. The way SSD's and HDD's access data differently, so Microsoft and some other companies have worked together to try and help solve this problem.

And I'm sorry, you are indeed wrong. SSD's excel in large files, the problem is actual smaller files, somethings less than 100kb/s. Many SSD's on the market have this problem because they are MLC's (SLC's are better in this area). One solution is to use large memory caches to help speed things up by loading a lot of smaller files into the cache itself. The reason why a hardware RAID controller with memory works better is because when a a lot of smaller files get told to be written to the SSD, all the files are cached and queued in memory so fast that micro-stuttering simply goes away.

Here is a on the issue with the OCZ Core series which had a similar problem, it might help you:

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/sh...ead.php?t=47183

Here is review of other SSD's, your SSD is actually listed in this benchmark (though, it's 128GB version): http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2...gb-ssd-review/4

Basically to put it this way. Your SSD is great at writing/reading larges files, but totally gets destroyed in random write/read performance (Btw, this applies to most SSDs, newer ones are getting better at it). Stuff like booting up are fast because the files needed to boot are organised and arranged accordingly, once it gets into Windows/Ubuntu etc, random access by programs happen and cause a problem.

[ToneKnee]

Here is the thread I was talking about earlier: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=680212

[Udedenkz]

I'm not fully wrong at all. I've done a lot of research because I am in fact considering buying a SSD. And a lot of reviewers have reported problems with earlier drives like your one.

The reason why Windows 7 is better for SSD's is because the file system has been changed to better support SSD's. The way SSD's and HDD's access data differently, so Microsoft and some other companies have worked together to try and help solve this problem.

And I'm sorry, you are indeed wrong. SSD's excel in large files, the problem is actual smaller files, somethings less than 100kb/s. Many SSD's on the market have this problem because they are MLC's (SLC's are better in this area). One solution is to use large memory caches to help speed things up by loading a lot of smaller files into the cache itself. The reason why a hardware RAID controller with memory works better is because when a a lot of smaller files get told to be written to the SSD, all the files are cached and queued in memory so fast that micro-stuttering simply goes away.

Here is a on the issue with the OCZ Core series which had a similar problem, it might help you:

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/sh...ead.php?t=47183

Here is review of other SSD's, your SSD is actually listed in this benchmark (though, it's 128GB version): http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2...gb-ssd-review/4

Basically to put it this way. Your SSD is great at writing/reading larges files, but totally gets destroyed in random write/read performance (Btw, this applies to most SSDs, newer ones are getting better at it). Stuff like booting up are fast because the files needed to boot are organised and arranged accordingly, once it gets into Windows/Ubuntu etc, random access by programs happen and cause a problem.

Never experienced stuttering, just system unresponsiveness copying large files or large amounts of files. I seriously can't regret upgrading from a cruddy 7200RPM Hard Drive to an SSD. :)

From what I understand, you are saying that W7 is slower than XP because it attempts to remove SSD stuttering? For, tracing back to your original post, you state that the culprit, although I am not sure if you realize that XP is also on the same SSD.

It would be surprising to see Windows 7 actually be faster than XP as that itself would not make sense, just like it is silly to say that XP is faster than Windows 2000. My complaint about sluggishness is that I thought W7 could do better, nothing else. Ofcource if you think that XP is slower than W7, feel free to start a new thread and take this discussion elsewhere where we can discuss this, show 3DMark Scores and compare HDTUNE results :)

[Defiant]

Quick question: Is there a way to make the drives/folders automatically expand when clicked (like Windows Explorer in XP)? I like being able to drill down the folder in that view without having to expand using the arrow.

This seems trivial but it really is so annoying when using the file explorer a lot with lots of drives and folders.

Those folder options are still there in Windows 7, just the default does not expand the treeview when first opened.

Regards,

Steve

[ToneKnee]

Never experienced stuttering, just system unresponsiveness copying large files or large amounts of files. I seriously can't regret upgrading from a cruddy 7200RPM Hard Drive to an SSD. :)

From what I understand, you are saying that W7 is slower than XP because it attempts to remove SSD stuttering? For, tracing back to your original post, you state that the culprit, although I am not sure if you realize that XP is also on the same SSD.

It would be surprising to see Windows 7 actually be faster than XP as that itself would not make sense, just like it is silly to say that XP is faster than Windows 2000. My complaint about sluggishness is that I thought W7 could do better, nothing else. Ofcource if you think that XP is slower than W7, feel free to start a new thread and take this discussion elsewhere where we can discuss this, show 3DMark Scores and compare HDTUNE results :)

Windows 7 is faster than XP, why? Because Windows 7 takes advantage of SSDs, multiple CPUs (Multitasks a lot better), can make great use of free RAM (Free RAM is wasted RAM). Windows 7 as a whole is far better, the GUI is more responsive, it takes work off the CPU and lets the GPU do it (I know XP has GDI+, but it's nothing compared to DWM),

No, I never said Windows 7 was slower than XP because it tries to remove the stuttering, it's the opposite. Microsoft have said themselves that they've made changes to the NTFS filesystem to optimise for SSDs. Nearly all of todays file systems are designed for hard drives that use spindles, onboard cache (that was the real problem withthe earlier SSDs) etc.

It's not silly at all that Windows 7 is faster than XP. XP was great for it's time and hardware has matured to see it's full performance, but we are at the beginning of seeing hardware (SDDs for example) that XP wasn't designed for. XP doesn't take advantage of free RAM, why? Because back in the day, Windows was really restricted to how much RAM it could use and was designed for systems with 512MB (1GB was it's sweet spot). These days, 2/3/4GB's of memory is becoming a standard and Windows over the past few years has grown around new hardware. I'm not sure if you've ever tried using a P4 system with Windows 98. I did and the performance was sluggish, why? Most likely down to drivers, but Windows 98 couldn't take advantage of all the CPU's features.

Windows XP is fast, but it's coming to the end of it's ability and Windows 7 is taking it's lead.

Windows 7 is still in testing, and it's quite possible we'll see more performance from it because of possible debug code.

[Udedenkz]

I want to see these benchmarks you keep talking about, what you are talking about and what I am experiencing are two different things. Also, I will dismiss any source like M$ for reasons of heavy bias.

I have not seen any SSD advantages with 7, in my opinion slower read speeds is not an improvement. Even though XP was not designed for SSD in mind - my HDTune benchmarks show that is much more consistent, with 0.1ms faster seek, and higher avg read. The gui requires more resources than before. Unloading it to GPU would effectively damage CUDA performance? RAM utilization is all nice, but I am not seeing it in action either.

Also there is a bug where the changing WPs stop changing, anyone else experiences this?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Udedenkz

[Athlonite]

I also like the fact that the OS is not running little processes in the background.

did you bother reading the botom line where it says how many processes it's running

[ValiantSaint]

After installing the 32bit version of Windows 7 last night, I'm still left a bit cold by it. The install was flawless and after a couple of updates everything seemed to be going well. After firing-up my PC in the evening to have another look at the OS, it just seems so "laggy" I don't know what's happened. I did install an anti-virus program (Kaspersky Beta) and did a defrag and cleaned up the install with CCleaner. I have had IE8 crash out on me a few times as well. Are there any trick for speeding up Windows 7? My Rig's spec shouldn't cause any problems:

Dell Inspiron 530

Q6600 QC

4GB DDR2 800mhz

HD4850 512mb

360gb SATA2 HD

[Udedenkz]

After installing the 32bit version of Windows 7 last night, I'm still left a bit cold by it. The install was flawless and after a couple of updates everything seemed to be going well. After firing-up my PC in the evening to have another look at the OS, it just seems so "laggy" I don't know what's happened. I did install an anti-virus program (Kaspersky Beta) and did a defrag and cleaned up the install with CCleaner. I have had IE8 crash out on me a few times as well. Are there any trick for speeding up Windows 7? My Rig's spec shouldn't cause any problems:

Dell Inspiron 530

Q6600 QC

4GB DDR2 800mhz

HD4850 512mb

360gb SATA2 HD

By laggy, you mean laggy compared to XP or Vista?

[Berserk87]

ive had some small compatability issues (same ones i had on vista) but overall i love win 7.

it runs much smoother than windows xp does on my low end netbook.

[Jorkand]

I want to see these benchmarks you keep talking about, what you are talking about and what I am experiencing are two different things. Also, I will dismiss any source like M$ for reasons of heavy bias.

I have not seen any SSD advantages with 7, in my opinion slower read speeds is not an improvement. Even though XP was not designed for SSD in mind - my HDTune benchmarks show that is much more consistent, with 0.1ms faster seek, and higher avg read. The gui requires more resources than before. Unloading it to GPU would effectively damage CUDA performance? RAM utilization is all nice, but I am not seeing it in action either.

Also there is a bug where the changing WPs stop changing, anyone else experiences this?

You know it does nothing for your credibility as a technical observer when you say stupid **** like "M$" and refer to HDTune benchmarks as examples of real world I/O performance.

[-Hiroshi-]

Tried 7068, loved it, tinkered with it, but at the end of the day, I prefer Vista due to the fact that Vista's been tweaked out by patches from Microsoft, and despite Windows 7's incredible stability, it's still a leaked OS, and an illegally leaked OS, and I'd rather run my machine on a legal, rtm'd, and stable OS.

Wow, the pigs must be flying high today, never thought I'd imagine myself saying that I'd rather stay on the rock solid stable Windows Vista, but Microsoft knows how to fix their stuff. They were slow to get going, but now Vista is incredible.

[ValiantSaint]

By laggy, you mean laggy compared to XP or Vista?

Sorry, I ment by Vista's standards. It just seems to pause for a second before it does what I want. I do understand that it is a beta, but people have said that they have noticed a speed increase over Vista..........

[Udedenkz]

You know it does nothing for your credibility as a technical observer when you say stupid **** like "M$" and refer to HDTune benchmarks as examples of real world I/O performance.

Valid point, performancemark (unlike HDTune) shows pretty much equal scores for my SSD for both XP and 7 - then again it shows weaker scores for everything else, most noticeably 10 times slower GUI performance. Compared to XP, the UI is indeed drastically slower (I notice this when scrolling or when watching Firefox load pages- this is even with the latest build and WU nvidia drivers) and DX9 rendering performance is dramatically decreased as well (and then there is glide things like Quake III Live which renders at about 20FPS on W7 on an 8600MGT). IMO, any performance concerned individual (like a person dealing with editing of gigantic photoshop files) or DX9 hardware gamer would, at this point in time, regret switching to 7-based OS. ...and, what the hell is from with saying M$- stop being a Microsoft fanboy. I can't commend on the aids called Vista though, never used it.

Sorry, I ment by Vista's standards. It just seems to pause for a second before it does what I want. I do understand that it is a beta, but people have said that they have noticed a speed increase over Vista..........

Make sure you have latest drivers for everything and disable anything you do not use. This might help, otherwise I do not know. :(

[rMutt]

The things that bother me most in windows 7:

* Search - simply doesnt work for me. in libraries, in indexed locations, non indexed locations - it doesnt matter - i cant find $#it. i have to start total commander whenever i want to look for something.

I have a few folders where i keep stuff i download - i added them all into a "downloads" library. when in the library, i start to type the name of a folder in the search box, and it cant find it. i then have to scroll to the folder, and find it manually. in one word: awful.

* the explorer customization options (see attachment) - i really miss the "up" (third from left) button, and the ability to add "delete" and "properties" buttons..

--

my 2 cents

[BeerFan]

Agreed with rMutt on both of the above points.

Search - IMO it has taken several steps backwards in terms of ease of use and effectiveness since Windows XP. Back then it was just so simple, and you could more easily find what you needed. Now, it's arguably more simple; but you can't find jack. :laugh:

Explorer options - I agree, and i think most people who were comfortable navigating with explorer really miss the "up" button. But, i think we'll eventually get used to the new method of navigation.