jjrambo Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Did you perhaps mean you can't find any reason to run XP over Vista? Because most of your posts tend to claim that Vista SP2 is perfectly fine (and it is) and that there's no reason to upgrade right now. I run Vista SP2 for gaming only for the most part, sometime i surf internet with IE8 or listen the music and that's about it. I do use Windows XP at work and i work in VS2008, Office etc, i am a programmer. Only reason as I said i run Vista SP2 is DX10.0. Vista SP2 is very stable and its performance is great, but i guess it has to be no matter what when it's running on i7 processor with 6GB of DDR3 and SLI Video setup. It's just sad that i don't use Windows for anything else. At home i am on Mandrake, running on laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 How much smaller is the installed Windows size? Did they fix the stucky explorer when selecting files from a slow storage medium (like an MP3 file) when moving files to or from the medium? You know, there is a difference between something being supported and being optimized. :) There is no need to optimize XP to run on 8 cores or something like that because XP can run without any problem on a Pentium 3. The job of the software to be able to utilize advanced CPU instruction sets and multi processing capabilities. I run XP on a dual core and both cores see activity when using built-in XP functionality. The limit of two physical CPUs might be something to worry about - if you have or planning to get a setup with more than two physical CPUs. XP also has a 32-core limit; so modern CPUs are supported, but future CPUs might not be. Keep in mind that some useful components in Windows 7 do not take advantage of mutiple cores, such as regedit not using 100% of my C2D to search through the registry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br0adband Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Windows XP x64 Edition works with i7 + HT fine as well. From Business point of view XP runs Office 2007 SP2, IE8, WMP11, VS 2008 and everything else, Vista/W7 user is not any more productive then XP user. I guess DX10.0 and now DX11.0 (possibly on Vista too) would be only reason as far as gaming goes.Now having Windows Vista and Windows 7 next to each other it really makes me :rolleyes:, what's the point. If you haven't figured it out by now, you never will. But you go right ahead coupling that brand new monster hardware to the older OS, fine by us. As stated, no need to consistently post that you're not interested nor planning to run Windows 7 in a <gasp> Windows 7 discussion subforum. I mean really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t3chw00di Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Google ReadyDriver Plus. I use it to automate the F8 at startup for my XBCD drivers. Thanks protocol7, but luckily I just found out there was a new signed driver released for my tv tuner card (skywalker-1), so I don't need it anymore :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 On the plus side, I love the leaks every week. it shows just how quickly the Windows team is actually putting the OS together. It was only last week that 7137 was leaked, and now we're into the 72xx numbers. Even if it's only small revisions, shows they have been beavering away non stop with 68 other build number passing in 7 days. At this rate, the final build number will be 7500! It doesn't work like that. The last build that was built before 7200 was 7141, so it's build 7142 they found fit enough to become the new milestone 7200 - effectively skipping 58 build numbers. With the transition from Beta to RC, they found that build 7082 was fit enough to become the RC build 7100, skipping 18 build numbers. With the release of a milestone, they are always some build numbers skipped as the new milestone build number is move to the next full hundred number. The next milestone, Rtm, will thus be 7300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 It doesn't work like that. The last build that was built before 7200 was 7141, so it's build 7142 they found fit enough to become the new milestone 7200 - effectively skipping 58 build numbers.With the transition from Beta to RC, they found that build 7082 was fit enough to become the RC build 7100, skipping 18 build numbers. With the release of a milestone, they are always some build numbers skipped as the new milestone build number is move to the next full hundred number. The next milestone, Rtm, will thus be 7300. While this is mostly true, there hasn't been any confirmation one way or another that 7201 is a milestone build. Yes the large increase in the build number would seem to indicate it is, but since Microsoft keeps saying there isn't an RC2 or anything of the like, it's hard to really label 7201 as anything other than just another leaked build, until we hear otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 While this is mostly true, there hasn't been any confirmation one way or another that 7201 is a milestone build. Yes the large increase in the build number would seem to indicate it is, but since Microsoft keeps saying there isn't an RC2 or anything of the like, it's hard to really label 7201 as anything other than just another leaked build, until we hear otherwise. It would be utter nonsense to jump over a large amount of build numbers just for fun :pinch: Just because it isn't RC2 doesn't mean it can't be a milestone - it's just a differently named milestone: "Internal Developer" (ID). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RvXtm Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Anyone gets this ? i open media player and another media player tab shows up in the taskbar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xJakex Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Anyone gets this ? i open media player and another media player tab shows up in the taskbar That's weird because I got that myself. What I did to fix it was unpin Windows Media Player, then go to Start -> All Programs -> Windows Media Player, then open it up and pin it. I also got this when I was making a partition: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RvXtm Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 That's weird because I got that myself. What I did to fix it was unpin Windows Media Player, go to Start -> All Programs -> Windows Media Player, then open it up and pin it. I did that myself too , and still like this, i had to unpin it,start the program then pin the started program...and it's back to normal. Bug i think, and PS: I don't see my image in IE8 ... but i'm not amazed by this ...IE is allways IE :)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 What score does a Core 2 duo @ 2.8ghz get on 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomlag Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Symantec Endpoint Protection v11.04 is getting a driver block error in this build. "Confidence Online Utility Driver" That didn't happen in any previous build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Ok that was my fault, seems WinSAT does not like Fraps.....closing fraps and running it made it run fine:Processor: 7.1 (same as on 7100) Memory: 7.1 (same as on 7100) Graphics (Aero): 7.4 (Up from 6.8 on 7100) Graphics (3D): 7.4 (Up from 6.8 on 7100) Primary HDD: 6.7 (Up from 5.9 on 7100) Therefore going from 7100 to 7201 my base score rose from 5.9 to 6.7. Thats on: Q6700 @ 3.6Ghz 4GB DDR2 @ 1000Mhz HD4850 512MB Toxic (factory overclocked) OCZ Apex 128GB SSD It is clear they finally fixed some WEI bugs....when I upgraded to my SSD (normal 7200 RPM drive on Windows 7 RC up to my SSD on Windows 7 RC, both were fresh installs) my score stayed the exact same for my primary HDD (5.9 on the mechanical, 5.9 on the SSD) now, with 7201 my SSD does much better than my mechanical drive ever did (it maxed at 5.9 in both Vista and Windows 7, from Beta to RC). Oddly, my graphics scores improved drastically so they must have fixed those bugs as well (Windows 7 Beta I got higher graphics scores than I did on RC). All said and done yes, I know WEI score doesn't mean much, but its nice to see they actually fixed the bugs despite many people claiming there were no bugs......in my case even newer better hardware led to the same exact score up until 7201. LOL for some reason my 4870X2 get worse score then RC build Windows 7 RC score 6.3 >>>W7 #7201 score 6.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunden Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 There is no need to optimize XP to run on 8 cores or something like that because XP can run without any problem on a Pentium 3. That's not what I meant at all. The job of the software to be able to utilize advanced CPU instruction sets and multi processing capabilities. [...] Yes, exactly. The way timesharing (the distrubution of time slices) works can be optimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerChan Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I also noticed a performance increase specially at opening applications. Still I don't have all the installed software (still missing 2 background apps: steam and snagit) that I had with build 7100. For the search index I usually have 84 000 indexed files. On 7100 the searches would go really slow sometimes and never instantaneous (in fact, they were slower than vista's). On 7201, the index already indexed 72 000 files and the search is still instantaneous comparing with 2 000 indexed files, not like with 3 seconds delay (or more) on 7100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scumdogmillionaire Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 It doesn't work like that. The last build that was built before 7200 was 7141, so it's build 7142 they found fit enough to become the new milestone 7200 - effectively skipping 58 build numbers.With the transition from Beta to RC, they found that build 7082 was fit enough to become the RC build 7100, skipping 18 build numbers. With the release of a milestone, they are always some build numbers skipped as the new milestone build number is move to the next full hundred number. The next milestone, Rtm, will thus be 7300. Ughh. I hate the speculation as fact. Will you be right? Maybe. I'm not saying it won't be. I'm saying YOU DON'T KNOW! Do you work for Microsoft? Are you the Windows 7 Project Manager? Release Manager? Nope. For all you know RTM will be 7249. No one knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrambo Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 This 7201 builds is error free as far as event viewer goes. Also Sleep and Hibernation finally propertly works for this Laptop below. Still x64 edition says only 2.87GB is usable and i have 3Gb installed. Vista detects correctly. Also Windows 7 doesn't detect i7 Core speed correctly, neither stock or overclocked speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plocri Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 That's funny, someone said that their single 4870 got 7.5, haha. Yes.. that was me :D It's weird that a 4870 got 7.5 and a 4870x2 "just" 7.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagisan Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Also Windows 7 doesn't detect i7 Core speed correctly, neither stock or overclocked speed. Windows 7 has NEVER detected my Q6700 speed correctly. I run a 400Mhz FSB on a 9x Multiplier for an end speed of 3.6Ghz, Windows 7 (ever since the first beta to 7201) has displayed my processor as 4Ghz (which is what it would be on a 400Mhz FSB and the default, 10x, Multiplier) its like 7 doesnt read the Multiplier from the BIOS and instead has a chart of CPUs with stock settings and is getting the multiplier from their. Yes.. that was me :DIt's weird that a 4870 got 7.5 and a 4870x2 "just" 7.1 And a 4850 gets a 7.4....which I would say does seem right vs your 4870....my 4850 is factory overclocked so its a bit better than a stock 4850 but still not as good as a 4870. Just re-tested my system, I was AFK when I installed 7201 and it put my computer to sleep which, due to my overclock, caused my computer to be unable to wake up and reset my overclock....I have been running at 2.67Ghz since I installed windows 7.....after turning it back up to 3.6Ghz I retested my system and everything gets 7.4 flat except for my HDD which gets 6.7. So the overclock boosted both my CPU and RAM score from 7.1 to 7.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Mazza Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 AUDIODG.EXE STILL CONSUMING A LOT OF CPU while idle. This is SO annoying. I wonder whose fault is it... Realtek, Nvidia or Microsoft. I didnt' have this problem before 7100 builds. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x AAAAARGH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Windows 7 has NEVER detected my Q6700 speed correctly. I run a 400Mhz FSB on a 9x Multiplier for an end speed of 3.6Ghz, Windows 7 (ever since the first beta to 7201) has displayed my processor as 4Ghz (which is what it would be on a 400Mhz FSB and the default, 10x, Multiplier) its like 7 doesnt read the Multiplier from the BIOS and instead has a chart of CPUs with stock settings and is getting the multiplier from their. That's the same here with XP and now 7. I think Windows just looks at your FSB and lists your CPU speed as FSB x Max multiplier. I'm running a e6600 at 3.2 (400x8) but it's always showed as 3.6 as 9 is the max multiplier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Yes.. that was me :D It's weird that a 4870 got 7.5 and a 4870x2 "just" 7.1 Windows 7 has NEVER detected my Q6700 speed correctly. I run a 400Mhz FSB on a 9x Multiplier for an end speed of 3.6Ghz, Windows 7 (ever since the first beta to 7201) has displayed my processor as 4Ghz (which is what it would be on a 400Mhz FSB and the default, 10x, Multiplier) its like 7 doesnt read the Multiplier from the BIOS and instead has a chart of CPUs with stock settings and is getting the multiplier from their.And a 4850 gets a 7.4....which I would say does seem right vs your 4870....my 4850 is factory overclocked so its a bit better than a stock 4850 but still not as good as a 4870. Just re-tested my system, I was AFK when I installed 7201 and it put my computer to sleep which, due to my overclock, caused my computer to be unable to wake up and reset my overclock....I have been running at 2.67Ghz since I installed windows 7.....after turning it back up to 3.6Ghz I retested my system and everything gets 7.4 flat except for my HDD which gets 6.7. So the overclock boosted both my CPU and RAM score from 7.1 to 7.4. LOL , wtf guys i got only 6.1 for my X2 :wacko: and i am using CCC9.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagisan Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 That's the same here with XP and now 7. I think Windows just looks at your FSB and lists your CPU speed as FSB x Max multiplier. I'm running a e6600 at 3.2 (400x8) but it's always showed as 3.6 as 9 is the max multiplier.Not sure how XP would react to my CPU as I have not used XP since I went to multiple cores, but I know Vista showed it correctly at 3.6Ghz....so to me it seems like something changed in the way it reads the CPU speed between Vista and 7.LOL , wtf guysi got only 6.1 for my X2 :wacko: and i am using CCC9.5 I think WEI just doesnt properly handle X2 cards. I guarantee you will get better performance in most games than me and the person with the normal 4870 (unless your X2 is faulty or something). Its more likely that WEI just doesnt handle multiple cards well (its even stated in the detailed section that it doesnt handle multiple cards)....its possible the X2 is sort of behaving as a multiple card would (in terms of WEI seeing them as two cards instead of just one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrambo Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Not sure how XP would react to my CPU as I have not used XP since I went to multiple cores, but I know Vista showed it correctly at 3.6Ghz....so to me it seems like something changed in the way it reads the CPU speed between Vista and 7.I think WEI just doesnt properly handle X2 cards. I guarantee you will get better performance in most games than me and the person with the normal 4870 (unless your X2 is faulty or something). Its more likely that WEI just doesnt handle multiple cards well (its even stated in the detailed section that it doesnt handle multiple cards)....its possible the X2 is sort of behaving as a multiple card would (in terms of WEI seeing them as two cards instead of just one). I think Windows 7 is confused with Turbo Mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminx Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Hmmm... getting a BSOD with 7201 every time I try and install SP1 for Visual Studio 2008. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts