Windows 7

[Hagarthehorrible]

I couldn't find an appropriate spot for this thread, so I figured here is as good as any. Has anyone else out there downloaded Windows 7 yet? I managed to snag a 32 & 64 bit build of "7" but have yet to install it. I'd be interested in hearing what luck everyone else had had with this promising beta.

[NooNoo]

Are you on the beta team?

[Ferrit]

They offered it for public download with registration
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx

http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/3/3/633118BD-6C3D-45A4-B985-F0FDFFE1B021/EN/7000.0.081212-1400_client_en-us_Ultimate-GB1CULXFRE_EN_DVD.ISO

[Hagarthehorrible]

Yup. This is the third time 'round for me. I has XP when it was still Whistler, Vista when it was still Longhorn and now "7". I'm still backing up files (if I toast any of the family photos I fear the wrath of my wife) and am in the process of selecting an anti-virus system.

From what I see so far, this looks like 7 may arrive early.

[Ferrit]

I have it loaded in virtual pc and from what I see it looks like Vista SP2

[MobilePCPhysician]

I've got Virtual PC on xp sp3 and vista sp1. Would it load on either? Or does it have to be Vista?

[NooNoo]

Yup. This is the third time 'round for me. I has XP when it was still Whistler, Vista when it was still Longhorn and now "7". I'm still backing up files (if I toast any of the family photos I fear the wrath of my wife) and am in the process of selecting an anti-virus system.

From what I see so far, this looks like 7 may arrive early.


See you in the newsgroups then!

Ferrit, it doesn't look like sp2, I have sp2, it doesn't look anything like it!!
It is however built on the Vista codebase, but it has some interesting new additions and subtractions.

[NooNoo]

I've got Virtual PC on xp sp3 and vista sp1. Would it load on either? Or does it have to be Vista?

It doesn't upgrade, it's a clean install. If the hardware runs Vista it will run Win 7 and 90% of the vista drivers work in Win7.... kinda the way 2k drivers would work in XP.

[Ferrit]

I need to look more but from what I have seen and all that I have read from reviews it's basically SP2 for Vista.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9367
http://www.businesspundit.com/give-windows-7-away-for-free/
http://www.cloudave.com/link/free-upgrade-to-vista-final-code-named-windows-7-is-a-good-first-step-but-not-enough

[NooNoo]

I need to look more but from what I have seen and all that I have read from reviews it's basically SP2 for Vista.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9367
http://www.businesspundit.com/give-windows-7-away-for-free/
http://www.cloudave.com/link/free-upgrade-to-vista-final-code-named-windows-7-is-a-good-first-step-but-not-enough

Ummm none of those are reviews, they are opinions about what those authors think M$ should do...

What we have here is PR fight. I will start taking them seriously when I see some technical reviews.... something these authors probably aren't up for.

[BOB IROC]

Loaded it today on My Vista x64 Host OS. I am using VirtualBox and running Windows 7 x64. So far it has the overall feel of Vista. Seems to use about 25% less memory than Vista though from just using it for a couple hours today installing applications to see what will run/not run on it. So far my McAfee 8.5 enterprise will not install and says it has known compatibility issues with this version of Windows. I will post more if I find anything compelling.

One thing I am not sure on is the task bar. It is a big change on how it handles running programs and grouping programs. Takes a little getting used to.

I may also find a non used actual computer and run it on that to get a better sense on how it works on actual computer hardware. I am attacking this early as I think my organization is going to skip Vista and go to Win7 in 2010 (or whenever it is released)

[Niclo Iste]

Talked to my buddy today and told him what you all thought of Win 7. He then told me he got the beta also. His general feeling is it's more like Vista Mk II which makes sense. Remember ME sucked horribly then immediately afterward XP came out. If you looked at ME and XP you saw they kept the good things ME had going for it and just migrated them to XP and made a better NTFS based OS. XP just was an overhauled concept of ME with the knowledge of what was inherently wrong with ME they knew what to leave out. Ironically you'd think MS would have learned the first time around and expected them to do something better than offer what felt like an alpha release to the public with vista. Someone should tell MS to do actual project testing with techs and home users instead of inhouse developers and some criteria approved techs. Not to mention I'm sure they ignored 90% of the "negative" feedback that was advising them what they were doing was not going to go over well. Now I'm not bashing MS I just want them to do a little better customer feedback relations. Think of how great the next OS would be if they took good advice and utilized it.

P.S.
I don't believe in paragraphs when I freeflow my typing from thought to text. If I write a book or report I'll focus on it but when I'm letting my thoughts out it's best not to interrupt the thought process or I'll forget what I had to say.

[xpuser357]

Just to add. Millennium only ran about a year. now vista is going out as well??

[Hagarthehorrible]

I've got Virtual PC on xp sp3 and vista sp1. Would it load on either? Or does it have to be Vista?
If you're running XP only, then it is either a clean install or dual boot. If you have Vista with SP1 you can upgrade, dual boot ot clean install.

My plan is to try the upgrade. Will post the results tomorrow.

[BOB IROC]

I know lots of people compare Windows Vista to Me but thats not a fair comparison. I also believe Me was rushed together and released based of Win98 code because many people confused Windows 2000 as an upgrade for Windows 98. Having been using Vista for 2 years now on all my computers (2 at home, and two for work) I really have to say that many of the so called Vista problems are exhaggerated and most are not faults of the OS at all. The only thing I have found wrong with Vista is that it IS a resource hog and really needs 2GB+ of ram and recent hardware to run optimally. Other than that I have found little incompatibilities with some software which I cannot fully blame on Microsoft. Companies like Adobe with their CS2 suite on Vista did not work right and even when they released CS3 it had issues with 64bit Vista that had to be patched. Intuit (The makers of Quickbooks) had issues with Quickbooks 2007 on Vista. Both of these companies failed (IMO) to address their software to make sure it would work on Vista before Vista came out. Vista was in Beta for over a year and a half and I have seen tech docs of Microsoft warning these companies of the potential problems and what needed to be addressed and yet it seems they went ignored. Other than that every 32bit app that was designed for 2000/XP has run fine on Vista x86 and X64 (that I have used). 16bit apps do not run but that was expected. The only exceptions were Antivirus software which seemed to have 64bit engines ready and drivers. Some companies chose not to write Vista drivers and again that is NOT Microsofts fault.

When I talk to people about thier complaints about Vista I usually get things like my older printer/scanner/or other peripheral does not work with Vista and they immediatly blame windows and not the manufacturer for writing an appropriate driver.

Other complaints include slowness and every computer that I have touched that came with Vista that ran poorly was loaded with "Crapplications" loaded by either the OEM or by the end user. Removal of those programs or a fresh install of Vista and every one of those users were amazed on how much better the computer ran.

Lastly the other people complained about performance bought the Vista Upgrade (or got a pirated version) and installed it on their 3+ year old computer that was a low end $399 special to begin with.

People have called me a MS fanboy but I have never had Vista Crash, Blue Screen, or lock up on me due to something wrong with the OS. Actually in two years the only problem I can remember with one of the 4 computers I have running Vista was caused by a Hard Drive failure.

Ok I am done with my Rant and will close by saying that Vista (while not perfect) was and is a good OS. Vista SP2 and Windows 7 will improve upon that and that will be a good thing.

[Hagarthehorrible]

Well said - I agree completely.

Let us know if you can get McAfee 8.5 enterprise to work. I am in the exact same boat.

[BOB IROC]

Well said - I agree completely.

Let us know if you can get McAfee 8.5 enterprise to work. I am in the exact same boat.

So far no luck. I have installed some software with no problem. Vista Drivers seem to work fine so far on the VM and I plan to test on an actual computer or more than one. Office 2007, Adobe CS3, all plug ins (Acrobat Reader 9, Flash, Shockwave, Quicktime, Java) all installed with no problem. I am just doing some early testing to know what I am up against if we decide to roll it out when it is released. That and I am a geek and like to play with new software.

I plan to do a little playing around with McAfee but running it in compatibility mode does not work so I am not sure what can be done. Maybe McAfee will release 8.6 or something before Win7 is released. I hope they do not charge as we got 8.0 - 8.5 for free.

[BOB IROC]

Looks like beta versions of VirusScan Enterprise 8.7i may be what we are looking for.

http://www.mcafee.com/us/enterprise/downloads/beta/beta_mcafee/vse87i/vse87i.html

not sure when it is officially supposed to be released and it doesn't say anything about Windows 7 support but it may be worth a shot.

[Hagarthehorrible]

Looks like beta versions of VirusScan Enterprise 8.7i may be what we are looking for.

http://www.mcafee.com/us/enterprise/downloads/beta/beta_mcafee/vse87i/vse87i.html

not sure when it is officially supposed to be released and it doesn't say anything about Windows 7 support but it may be worth a shot.

It just might be. I tried McAfee tech support today to get this issue cleared up. The on-line support dropped me like a hot potato as soon as they found it was an enterprise edition 8.5. They then gave me a toll free number to call where I spent more time trying to explain how I got the software rather than having my questions answered. At the end I hung up in frustration because the guy was totally clueless.

I just noticed your location - out of curiosity, are you anywhere near the Columbia Yacht Club?

[BOB IROC]

I logged in and got the 8.7i beta and I will try to install it on my VM tomorrow and see what happens.

As far as my location goes I actually live and work in the South Suburbs of Chicago so I am not really in the City. But I am within 30 miles or so which means I am close enough I guess.

I ran into a similar situation when we needed to upgrade our McAfee. Our registration was registered to a previous employee and had to jump through hoops to get support and prove who we are. When Vista was released (and I was testing the beta) I found out McAfee 8.0i did not like Vista and got the upgrade to 8.5i which added Vista Support as well as a 64bit scanning engine. I hope that 8.7i will be the same or whatever version the plan to release. I think we pay an annual subscription cost which gives us our upgrades for free anyway.

[Hagarthehorrible]

Same thing here - the federal agency I work for provides McAfee to its staff.

The reason I was asking about the yacht club is that before we got a bridge to the mainland (www.confederationbridge.com) we used to use the boat that is now the Columbia Yacht Club clubhouse ( http://www.columbiayachtclub.com ) as a car ferry.

[slgrieb]

Ummm none of those are reviews, they are opinions about what those authors think M$ should do...

What we have here is PR fight. I will start taking them seriously when I see some technical reviews.... something these authors probably aren't up for.

MS has restrictions on publishing benchmarks on the 7 beta, no? But, Jason Perlow should really be writing children's fiction, not tech material. If he's written anything about either Vista or Win7 that isn't drivel, I missed the blog, but I wouldn't miss Jason.

[BOB IROC]

MS has restrictions on publishing benchmarks on the 7 beta, no? But, Jason Perlow should really be writing children's fiction, not tech material. If he's written anything about either Vista or Win7 that isn't drivel, I missed the blog, but I wouldn't miss Jason.

Thats the problem today and is one of the major reasons people think Vista is riddled with problems. People believe opinions of bloggers, friends that think they know about computers, and the damn Apple commercials that are nothing but over the top dramatizations. I, on the other hand, like to experience it for myself and so far most of the so called Vista problems that I have read/heard about are not Vista problems at all.

[Hagarthehorrible]

Ditto! Speaking of the Apple commercials, if you ever get a chance rent the last of the Bruce Willis Die Hard series - Live Free or Die Hard. Justin Long (the Apple guy) plays a hacker who uses only Linux.:eek:

[BOB IROC]

Ditto! Speaking of the Apple commercials, if you ever get a chance rent the last of the Bruce Willis Die Hard series - Live Free or Die Hard. Justin Long (the Apple guy) plays a hacker who uses only Linux.:eek:

Yeah, I actually liked that movie. Don't get me started on linux. My Boss wanted to replace WIndows with some flavor of linux like Ubantu or somehting and go open source for office software. Seeing as we are in education and we get Windows OEM with the computer and we get Office Standard for like $15 -$25 a node with staff take home rights there is no real savings. I even asked Dell how much we would save if we stripped the OS from our computer purchases and they said like $2 a unit. IMO it is not worth the headache. Yeah it may save $60,000 or so every time we need to update Office but it is not worth the support headache for our computer inept staff.

Well anyway we are getting a bit off subject. I tried to install the McAfee 8.7i I downloaded from their site and it must have been corrupt. McAfee supposedly is sending me a later build (my network manager said it was the final build and not the beta). If I get my hands on that I will try. Support could not confirm or deny that it will work with Windows 7

[Hagarthehorrible]

I am still trying to decide how to install 7. I recall with other MS betas that if you went the upgrade route, you could uninstall or roll back the installation once the beta was done. I'm leaning towards this because the only way I can install my Roxio & Lightscribe software is on my system recovery disk. In the case of 7 I have read conflicting information on if an uninstall or rollback is possible.

My other option is to go the dual boot path, but then would I have access to the software stored on my C drive so I could run it from the partition?

[BOB IROC]

I am still trying to decide how to install 7. I recall with other MS betas that if you went the upgrade route, you could uninstall or roll back the installation once the beta was done. I'm leaning towards this because the only way I can install my Roxio & Lightscribe software is on my system recovery disk. In the case of 7 I have read conflicting information on if an uninstall or rollback is possible.

My other option is to go the dual boot path, but then would I have access to the software stored on my C drive so I could run it from the partition?

Well if you could always do it in a Virtual Machine using Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 (limited to the 32bit version) or I did it in VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org/) from Sun Microsystems which supports 64bit Client OSes. To me drivers are not the big issue as I am more looking for software compatibility.

[Ferrit]

I am also agreeing with Bob Iroc
Vista 64 for the last 2.5 years and no real issues
Other then a dieing raid card and 2 dead seagates.
I know I know I aint sure who killed who the card or the drives.
Also I have never run 32 bit Vista odd as that sounds.
Alot of BS and oh so and so said its crap and so and so used it and took it off his compaq 5000.
I guess so i wouldnt run win 98 on that junk
Heh

[Guts3d]

Just got a copy of 7 to try yesterday, am buying a new board to try it with. Does anyone know if it is 32 or 64 bit, or will both flavours be available later?

[NooNoo]

Both are available now!

[MobilePCPhysician]

Limited product keys to the first 2-1/2 million....

[BOB IROC]

Hagar,

Just an FYI, it appears McAfee Enterprise 8.7i installs and works on Windows 7. McAfee sebt me the software and I believe it is still in beta because the Release Notes that were in the ZIP file still say beta. But it looks and operates just like 8.5i.

[geoscomp]

Limited product keys to the first 2-1/2 million....
They seem to have backed off the limit at least until Jan 24th:

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/01/10/here-s-where-we-stand.aspx

[sunrise]

I just install it this afternoon as a duel boot on my 2year old system (AMD 4600, 2gigs Ram) It is definitely a faster boot than Vista was, ( I originality installed Vista but went back to XP) and seems more responsive. I laughed when someone earlier called it Vista SP2. But I think Microsoft should call it "Vista Second Edition" or Vista SE for short. That would probably be the most accurate. So far it feels pretty good, it didn't recognize all my partitions at first but I fix that fairly quickly, and it took an update to recognize my old HP LaserJet 4 Plus printer. My first look at Windows Explorer had me floored. "What have they done with my file system hierarchy?" I wanted to know. The familiar file tree that's been in the left pane since, I can remember, was nowhere to be seen. You can get it back if you want apparently. I'm going to play with it for a few more days before I give it a thumbs up or down.

[NooNoo]

That's the library sunrise, once you get your head round it, it's quite nifty, but I can see alot of people struggling to get used to it.

[slgrieb]

Currently, I have a test machine running Build 7000 and IE 8.0.7000.0 and I just can't get very excited. Other than a problem with my Audigy 2 ZS not delivering sound to my rear speakers, and a minor glitch getting the GeForce 7200 in the test system recognized and working correctly, anything that works for me in Vista is also good in W7.

Yes, memory usage is down a bit, but a drop of 100 MB or so in a 3 Gb system isn't significant. Besides, memory is cheap, cheap, cheap now. W7 is faster, but again, not by a big amount.My test machine has an identical performance score under Vista and W7.

I like the redesigned Taskbar and Notification Areas, and I'm pleased that Gadgets are no longer confined to the annoying Sidebar. On the other hand I wish MS would quit F'ing with the Control Panel! Vista replaced Add/Remove Programs with Programs and Features (annoying if you've run Windows since Day 1, but logical at least) now Printers has been replaced with Devices and Printers. When you locate your printer and right-click it, the context menu includes Printer Preferences, Printer Properties, and Properties. Nothing confusing there, right?

Still, W7 seems like it should be Vista SP2. Except that there's a Vista SP2 Beta out and it isn't W7. Overall, I really like W7, but I like Vista. For now, I'd say W7 gets my vote for Most Over-Hyped Product of the Near Future Award.

[BOB IROC]

...Still, W7 seems like it should be Vista SP2. Except that there's a Vista SP2 Beta out and it isn't W7. Overall, I really like W7, but I like Vista. For now, I'd say W7 gets my vote for Most Over-Hyped Product of the Near Future Award.

I agree with your last statement for the most part. W7 is so much like Vista they probably could made this a service pack somehow. I think the "hype" comes from all the negative information about Vista which most of that I think is not warranted. I have been using Vista since Beta2 and when I got my new laptop in January 2007 when Vista was first available my experience has been positive. IMO the problems people said they had with Vista were not fault of the OS but of that of the user or the other software that OEMs/End Users had on their machines. Every computer I have done a clean install of Vista and made sure no crapware was installed worked fine as long as the machine was equipped with decent hardware and a good amount of Ram. Of course those were either dual core or single core processors 2Ghz and above with 1GB - 2GB+ of Ram. I had clients install it on machines that were built in 2003/4 that were celeron class processors with 256- 512MB of Ram that complained and how they expected it to run on a computer that was the lowest end 3 - 4 years before Vista was released is beyond me.

[geoscomp]

Of course those were either dual core or single core processors 2Ghz and above with 1GB - 2GB+ of Ram. I had clients install it on machines that were built in 2003/4 that were celeron class processors with 256- 512MB of Ram that complained and how they expected it to run on a computer that was the lowest end 3 - 4 years before Vista was released is beyond me.
I'm thinking that Microsoft is it's own worst enemy in a lot of these areas..unrealistic minimum system requirements in order to sell more copies, etc. as well as forcing upgrades
by making other previous operating systems unavailable all combine to make end users a bit upset. Microsoft still lists minimum system requirements for Vista basic as 512 of memory, 1 ghz processor, and 32 mb of graphics..even XP doesn't like those numbers much. I've had win98 machines with more power than that.

[BOB IROC]

I'm thinking that Microsoft is it's own worst enemy in a lot of these areas..unrealistic minimum system requirements in order to sell more copies, etc. as well as forcing upgrades
by making other previous operating systems unavailable all combine to make end users a bit upset. Microsoft still lists minimum system requirements for Vista basic as 512 of memory, 1 ghz processor, and 32 mb of graphics..even XP doesn't like those numbers much. I've had win98 machines with more power than that.

Exactly. Same went for XP and people that installed it on 333Mhz Pentium 2 class processors with 128MB - 256MB of ram. Minimum specs were 266Mhz Processor with 64MB ram I believe but it ran like crap unless your processor was 800Mhz + and had 512MB of ram and even then was pushing it. When people usually ask me about upgrading windows I usually tell them if their current version works stick with it until you get a new computer. Many end users do not need to upgrade for what they do.

[travistee]

I installed win 7 32bit as a dual boot with my vista 64.

I install programs with xp sp2 compatibility mode and run as administrator.
Then I run them with XP compatibility.
No problem so far with that. Doing this solves alot of compatibilty issues in vista 64 too. Even my old nero 6 works like this.

AVG 8 antivirus works ok with it. This has to be installed without the xp2 compatibility.

It sees the 4GB of memory I have.
Does anyone know how much memory it can handle.

I don't care about the bells and whistles one way or the other. As long as my apps work that all I need.

[BOB IROC]

...It sees the 4GB of memory I have.
Does anyone know how much memory it can handle...

If you are using 32bit OS then 4GB is the max and just like Vista SP1 it will report 4GB but some of it is reserved and not available to the OS. In most cases you loose 250MB - 750MB of Ram depending on the Motherboard Hardware. For Example my Dell laptop only shows 3.25GB of Ram even though there are two 2GB chips, but I have a Server running 32bit Server 2003 and that reports 3.75GB available to the OS. At any rate it is less than 4GB with 32bit OS. 64bit can accept much higher than that.

[Ferrit]

Basically anything 64 bit can break the 4 gig barrier. Although somewhere i saw a chart that showed Vista Ultimate 64 hitting 128 gigs so I assume that Win7 is the same.
XP 64 was limited to 8 gigs though I think.

[travistee]

I was using Vista64 and testing windows 7, because the Gateway I had came with vista64. I finally got Gateway to take it back and refund my money ( thats another story).
I was starting to convince myself that vista wasn't so bad and I did get almost everything to install and run properly. I was getting used to having to guess if I really had to install under xp compatiblitly mode and run as administrator.
Now I have a an ASUS P6T with an i7 920 and I'm back to XP pro on that one.
Of course its way faster than the Q9300 was on the Gateway.
I also finally got a replacement mobo from ASUS, a P5K-E with a Pentium D820 with XP Home. This one seems to run just a bit slower than the Q9300 on the Gateway.
Definitly glad to be back to XP.
I thought I heard there may have been some advantages to vista for HDMI, but I'm using palit video cards with HDMI and they work just fine for HDMI with XP
I can't see any reason to use vista or windows 7 which I think is really vista anyway.

[slgrieb]

Travistee, I'm sorry, but I just find myself mystified that some people are so attached to XP. Vista does offer some really significant improvements over XP. Native DVD burning, greatly improved multitasking and memory management, an Event Viewer on steroids, much better security, better desktop search, and improved program management, are just a few of the changes.

Just what are you running in Compatibility Mode? Almost any software that conforms to Microsoft's programming guidelines for XP runs fine under Vista. My Vista and W7 machines run pretty much any game that XP runs just fine. Much the same story for business software.

Win7 is mostly Vista, but it does offers some nice improvements. I still think it tends to be over-hyped, but my Win7 Beta still runs better than Vista SP1, and I can't imagine going back to XP anymore than I'd want to revert to Windows 2000 Professional or Windows 98.

Googling the topic shows that there are 425,000 hits for Vista Sucks (http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+sucks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) versus 3,360,000 hits for XP Sucks (http://www.google.com/search?q=xp+sucks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). If you take a few minutes to look at the links, I think the pattern is pretty obvious. Many people just can't handle change. My advice; get used to it. Change is certain and inevitable.

[Kodiak]

I thought windows 7 was ok (vista SE to me) but I had one issue that I couldn't figure out and that was I give remote assistance and when doing so it took anywhere from 1 to 2 minutes to react to commands. This was either way also. Me using it from win7 or coming into win7.

Honest opinion is if you didn't like Vista you won't like Win 7 either.

I didn't see any improvement in the games I play like BF 2142 or COD WAW.
Not sure I will switch when it come's out. Just my opinion.

[NooNoo]

Kodiak, I am interested in your experience with remote assistance. Can you tell me exactly what you did and what the setup was please?

[Kodiak]

Sure I use ultra vnc along with himachi to tunnel into my pc from outside. This is the way I access my pc from my shop with winxp.

I also use ultra vnc along with this http://www.uvnc.com/pchelpware/sc/creator.html so people can download my helpdesk and click on it and I can access there pc from home to help them. It is setup with port forwarding to my pc and I just put ultravnc in listen mode and they click on the helpdesk and I can access their pc. This method of course is from home with win7 on it.

Both methods were effected the same way. Because of this problem I have went back to Vista which has no problems with this. Now this was 64bit Win7.

[NooNoo]

Right so this is ultra vnc being slow and NOT Remote Assistance which is supplied in win7?

[Kodiak]

Yes. I also have the same setup on Vista with no problems at all. I couldn't believe how slow it was. I would not have been able to get anything done like that.

[NooNoo]

So it's a problem that VNC need to sort out.. have you reported it?

Edit: which release of Win7 did you use, RC1 (7100) or another one?

[Kodiak]

The latest one that is out. I just installed it a couple weeks ago.

Now I was using 64bit however so I might try 32bit and see if there is a difference.

[NooNoo]

Good idea!

[Kodiak]

It seems 32bit is fine. I wonder if it was just a bad install with 64bit. I wanted to see if win7 was better in my games I play.



I may try going back to 64bit just in case something weird was going on the first time I installed it..

[NooNoo]

Did you download the newest version of Ultravnc? read this (http://forum.ultravnc.info/viewtopic.php?p=58493)

[Guts3d]

Microsoft plans of a price reduction at first. (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55O2YT20090625)

[Kodiak]

I'm wondering if the upgrade will install like other upgrades where you can do a complete format as long as you have another MS disc to stuff in when it asks?

[NooNoo]

Not sure on that one yet... and in the EU we won't get upgrade disks at all. I did have some fun upgrading my old laptop from XP to Vista to Win7. Works very well indeed, even crippled the spyware.

[Niclo Iste]

I'm curious if the upgrade disk will work on the demo installations of Win7 or if we'll need to get a full version of an earlier edition of windows to install the upgrade.

[NooNoo]

If you mean Release Candidate when you say Demo, the answer is unlikely. This is because it is not an upgrade as such. This is BETA. There may well be incompatible code between the RTM version and the RC and it does not make good business sense to have a bunch of programmers ensuring that there is a smooth upgrade path between unfinished and finished software.

As for the second question, if they left the Vista loophole intact, then yes you will be able to do a clean install from an upgrade version.

[slgrieb]

Niclo, official word from Microsoft has always been that an upgrade installation to Win7 from any of the Betas won't be possible. As far a a clean installation from an upgrade edition, I can't remember reading anything specific yet.

It would seem logical to assume it will still be possible, but I don't know if I would bet money on it. If you read any of the Vista licenses, they are all very much more restrictive than previous license agreements. In fact, if Microsoft actually tried to enforce some of the provisions, there would be screaming and wailing heard throughout the land.

Heck, let's just take OEM licensing for Vista. OEM copies of Vista can only be sold with either a fully assembled computer or to a system builder who is going to sell the computer. An individual assembling a computer for his own uses is required to buy a retail version of Vista. Microsoft has finally gotten around to defining the moment when an existing OEM computer becomes a new computer, and that moment is.... motherboard replacement. So, put a new mainboard in your computer, and you are required to obtain a new Vista license. The only exception is replacement of a defective board with either an exact replacement or the manufacturer's nearest equivalent.

And then there are restrictions on what kind of recovery tools you can provide as a system builder, etc. etc. etc. Let's not even get into MS restrictions on letting volume users upgrade to Vista Business from Home Premium and so on. All in all, though, I wouldn't be surprised if MS tightened up licensing restrictions to the point where an upgrade version of Windows 7 won't do a clean install.

[Niclo Iste]

Thanks for the clarification slgrieb I wasn't thinking outside the box I was just trying to figure the best way to do an install without relying on it building off of the old xp or vista kernel for myself but realizing that now I can always work with the vista installation on my main system.

[Kodiak]

Darn that means I would have to install my old win 2000 before I did an upgrade of win 7 then.

I think it would be worth $50 though.

[slgrieb]

Darn that means I would have to install my old win 2000 before I did an upgrade of win 7 then.

I think it would be worth $50 though.

Currently, MS says that you can use Win7 Upgrade Edition if you run W2K or XP, but you will need to back up your data and do a clean install, then re-install all your software. You can only do a direct upgrade over Vista. Frankly, this is a better deal than I expected MS to offer

[NooNoo]

Pretty much the same codebase and they want business off 2k as it is feeling it's age.

[slgrieb]

I for one really look forward to the day when I can stop supporting W2K. I've come to dislike all the older Windows interfaces quite a bit; even XP compared to Vista and Win7. I have some clients still running mixed W2K and XP machines and doing the Interface Shuffle makes me a little nuts .

Given Microsoft's Vista license restrictions, which goes hand in hand with their anti-piracy stance, I'm pleasantly surprised by the Win7 upgrade policy. It's been a while since MS offered an upgrade package for any of their products that has been desirable and cheap.

[NooNoo]

I just installed Win7 on an HP laptop with 512mb ram which has 64mb allocated to the video (2.6 Celeron processor). It runs really well! If you turn off all the fancy video stuff, it runs just as fast as it did on XP

[BOB IROC]

Travistee, I'm sorry, but I just find myself mystified that some people are so attached to XP. Vista does offer some really significant improvements over XP. Native DVD burning, greatly improved multitasking and memory management, an Event Viewer on steroids, much better security, better desktop search, and improved program management, are just a few of the changes.

Just what are you running in Compatibility Mode? Almost any software that conforms to Microsoft's programming guidelines for XP runs fine under Vista. My Vista and W7 machines run pretty much any game that XP runs just fine. Much the same story for business software.

Win7 is mostly Vista, but it does offers some nice improvements. I still think it tends to be over-hyped, but my Win7 Beta still runs better than Vista SP1, and I can't imagine going back to XP anymore than I'd want to revert to Windows 2000 Professional or Windows 98.

Googling the topic shows that there are 425,000 hits for Vista Sucks (http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+sucks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) versus 3,360,000 hits for XP Sucks (http://www.google.com/search?q=xp+sucks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). If you take a few minutes to look at the links, I think the pattern is pretty obvious. Many people just can't handle change. My advice; get used to it. Change is certain and inevitable.

Thats it pretty much in a nut shell isn't.. people look at a new OS or version of software and instantly form an opinion. 90% of the Vista Sucks for "X" reason can be proven false. I have and only have had 1 issue with Vista. It likes RAM. I solved that problem by getting a good deal on 2GB of Ram for $20 and it runs smooth as silk. Having 4GB on all my computers and Running Vista I have not had nearly as many stability problems as I did with Past OSes. It runs good with 2GB of ram but when you open a few memory intensive programs at once it will choke a bit. Windows 7 improved on that and the way I see it is it took all the good points of Vista and made them better. Just like XP did to 2000. 2000's major drawback was compatibility with consumer programs. XP fixed most of that and added new features over the Win9x versions.