rblair Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Windows 7 stopped saving window positions. Epic fail MS. You sure about that? it's working for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The argument here is one that needs to be put into proper perspective. Professional usage and adoption ALWAYS lags behind by a number of months or years due to the issues being illustrated in this thread. With XP and functionally out performing the new kids on the block on current tech, there's no need or want to move on. With those tools being used, why bother, right? That's what we're saying. Gaming, right, but tools like this, there's no need. In fact, it's better to stay on older platform like XP. With a brand new system, core i7 with 12 or more gigs of ram, three massively powerful videocards running in SLI, XP is simply going to let most of that power sit unused, even the 64 bit flavor. So, with that, the argument goes against upgrading to the newest, beefiest hardware . . . This right here is the point where you would go to Vista or 7, because you have good enough hardware to the point where it may not be maxed out if you optimize and overclock the system right. But once the big tools that you are using are tweaked to be optimal on a new build computer with all of those resources, you are going to move over to Windows 7, and with that kind of hardware, the perceived lag will disappear completely. Software like this normally is never tweaked for newer OS's. The point of it all is to drive people to buy the newest hardware, and it always has been. But newer doesn't always mean better. It's made to push people forward, but there's no point in going forward if you won't get anything out of it really. My view is that this complaint was a comparison of apples to oranges, as Windows 7 was written with a whole new generation of hardware and resources in mind. XP just can't keep up anymore. Windows XP has been patched so many times to take advantage of new technology. Sata, dual core, quad core, 64-bit(TERRIBLE THOUGH, No SP3 even.), Crossfire, SLI, etc. Nothing really massively different has changed at all. I will agree though, XP is at the end of its road. That's as good as it's gonna get. But that's my $.02. d There's mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drougnor Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Software like this normally is never tweaked for newer OS's. This is my only issue with your replies . . . Of COURSE software like that is going to be updated and tweaked for newer OS's . . . Otherwise, you'd be working with software that was engineered to be used on DOS, or in the case of the multimedia software, the now nonexistent Amiga. Also, to think a professional software company just leaves things as is while KNOWING that MS is GOING to end of life XP at any time now is just foolishness. Mind, none of my arguments are angled towards stating that XP isn't good enough for certain things, cause I work in an environment where DOS is still good enough for certain things . . . I'm just pointing out that "Good Enough" doesn't trump "Real World", and never will. d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.SubZero Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 You sure about that? it's working for me. Reproduction: (I'm using the "open in new window" here but the result is the same if every folder is set to open in its own window) Click Start, Computer Move Computer to the left side of the screen (which is where it should already be) Size the window so the contents of Computer fit in the window perfectly Double-click C: Right-click the Windows folder, "open in new window" Observe Windows opens in a window the same size as Computer, slightly down and to the right Move Windows to the right side of the screen Make the Windows folder fairly large, almost the full height of your display, and about a third across the screen Write down - "Computer" must always open in a small box in the top left of the desktop. "Windows" must always open in the lower right in a large window Close the Windows folder Close the c: folder Click Start, Computer Observe where Computer opens, and the size Every version of Windows prior to Windows 7, *including* pre-NT OS/2 (circa 1992), could remember folder positions and sizes. Even in Vista, Computer can be set to a size and a position, and it will *always* open in the exact same spot every time and at that size. OS X can do it too. Oddly, the setting which is in Vista and earlier to remember folder size and location, and is always checked by default, is now completely gone. I'm wondering if this is a legacy setting only removed in the GUI that could be found in a registry key somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 This is my only issue with your replies . . . Of COURSE software like that is going to be updated and tweaked for newer OS's . . . Otherwise, you'd be working with software that was engineered to be used on DOS, or in the case of the multimedia software, the now nonexistent Amiga. Also, to think a professional software company just leaves things as is while KNOWING that MS is GOING to end of life XP at any time now is just foolishness. Mind, none of my arguments are angled towards stating that XP isn't good enough for certain things, cause I work in an environment where DOS is still good enough for certain things . . . I'm just pointing out that "Good Enough" doesn't trump "Real World", and never will. d Are you joking? That's the biggest problem with software right now, is because it's designed for different operating systems. As long as developers continue to support XP, that's really going to kill a lot of potential for programs. The only company that really optimizes their own software, is either Microsoft, or apple. And with microsoft, they only optimize their software with a new os for 32-bit environment. The only thing other developers do with software, is patch a couple of things for compatibility, and say it's optimized. That's real world for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snerler Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Before Vood asks, yes I did watch the entire video. I think the problem is that the Vood pretty much makes it seem as if Windows 7 is overall worse than XP with “one giant step backward”. This is all based on the GUI render time. :D :D Then Vood dodges questions about what real world implications this synthetic benchmark has. There is even somebody who appears to be a real developer telling him that in some regards Vista/7 is better. We also know that 7 is quicker than Vista in regards to startup and other tasks; these facts go unnoticed to Vood. Most people would guess that 7's GUI would be slower than XP's with the aero options and the transparencies. You say 7 is good for email and web browsing, well that’s about 99% of worldwide computer usage. As for professionals, if you are messing around in the services window while working with audio or video, the result won’t come out garbled, you just might notice a slowdown. The slowdown is a bad thing for sure though. The services window does seem to have an issue. But why was this the only window used to compare drawing speed with XP? Overall 7’s GUI may be a bit slower, but not twice as slow and nowhere near 5 times slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nano2k Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I have a question, maybe I dont really know what I'm talking about... If the so called Pro Tools are the only thing pushing hardware to the limit, then how come game developpers such as those from ID Software, Crytech or Epic are regularly at conferences etc explaining the future developments of software and hardware to a "performance oriented" crowd? Let's see how a game such as Crysis when using the most extreme settings and running at 1FPS on crazy machines is not pushing the limits? How come Intel and AMD use gamers and overclockers at their official product presentations and inundate hardware enthusiast websites with gaming benchmarks? and that the same overclockers use only Windows OS and 3D game engine based benchmarks? Maybe it is because this represents the type of people that spend the most on hardware, I don't know... Then if you consider purist extreme overclockers then why not one of them uses any of these pro tools as benchmark if they are so pushing the limit of the hardware? Are you really pushing the limits of performance of computing when you are using a 2.4ghz Mac Pro if you can build a PC for less and overclock it at over 4ghz and get almost twice the performance? This said I can believe that some software/hardware is better written/made for OSX than for Windows, to say that OSX is superior that's another story. I'm not saying I'm right for sure, that's just my 0.0002$ as a long time computer hardware enthusiast. Ah good place to read about extreme computer performance http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snerler Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 The GUI is slow and buggy in Linux compared to OS X and Windows, yet i don't hear anyone saying Linux is "one giant step backward" from the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curlyboy Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Some people just dont like windows always , Apple osx isnt perfect none eithers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cain. Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I like Windows 7 better than XP, it rocks on my Wind. Still, I think that the OP still has a valid point - they should really add this, and I did have some issues with my Explorer (not on the Wind but a proper machine, mind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadGhost Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 XP has not the same GUI maybe it's the reason why in part at least. But with such hardware you have why do you want it to run with exactly the same ressources? I think if you optimize 7 and desactivate Aero for classic theme it will be a test more just. If you don't like it you're not forced to criticize. But never forget a windows is a windows it's just good for video games and you shouldn't connect the ethernet cable nor the wifi to keep it alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Funny thing is, my 9800GTX+ died, and in place of it I'm using a PCI 5500 FX. Windows 7 actually performs better with aero enabled versus disabled on the 5500. As for the 9800gtx+, it didn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cain. Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 I won't complain about Windows 7 ever again - at least it never had a BSOD or anything, not even on the RC. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, gave me two kernel panics TODAY alone and is sometimes close to unusable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share Posted September 8, 2009 I won't complain about Windows 7 ever again - at least it never had a BSOD or anything, not even on the RC. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, gave me two kernel panics TODAY alone and is sometimes close to unusable... I neverd had a BSOD with XP or Snow Leopard. If you are having kernel panics in snow leo is due to incompatible hardware/bad installation/incorrect kexts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srs5694 Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 I won't complain about Windows 7 ever again - at least it never had a BSOD or anything, not even on the RC. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, gave me two kernel panics TODAY alone and is sometimes close to unusable... You might want to check this out: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Sep/0039.html As Homer Simpson would say, "d'oh!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cain. Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I neverd had a BSOD with XP or Snow Leopard. If you are having kernel panics in snow leo is due to incompatible hardware/bad installation/incorrect kexts. Thing is, on an original iMac and a 100% vanilla install I would be pretty upset if any of that was he case. No, Snow Leopard gives me Kernel Panics. Only Apps that regularly are running when it happens are FF3 and/or Plex - not necessarily together.The report says something about unlocking a mutex that is not locked. No idea what could cause it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jzboarder Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 This is just stupid. I am running windows 7 Ultimate RTM right now and used to run vista and XP. Windows 7 is a lot faster and dies not do that black box {censored}. The person who made the video could not be running the RTM. I have the official RTM build 6.1.7600.16385 32 bit. My Windows 7 is nothing like his and I have a 3.2ghz Pentium D processor, 2GB's of RAM and a Nivida GeForce 9400 GT. It is also a O7 computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 This is just stupid. I am running windows 7 Ultimate RTM right now and used to run vista and XP. Windows 7 is a lot faster and dies not do that black box {censored}. The person who made the video could not be running the RTM. I have the official RTM build 6.1.7600.16385 32 bit. My Windows 7 is nothing like his and I have a 3.2ghz Pentium D processor, 2GB's of RAM and a Nivida GeForce 9400 GT. It is also a O7 computer. It's Windows 7 RTM on a Q6600 4GB ram, AHCI SATA2 7200 rpm HD, and geforce 8600GT. 7600.16385.090713-1255_x86fre_client_en-us_OEM_Ultimate-GRMCULFREO_EN_DVD.iso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alahad Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 yes ...in 8 Years , 5 times slower ... that's the Reason Mostly people who cant afford the High Speed computer , they are using still Xp Sp2 or Lower . and also ... it is the reason that microsoft Windows Going to Down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 7 runs fine on older systems! I know, because I've ran it and am running it now on an older system. A 478 Celeron 1.7 ghz, 1024mb, geforce 5500 pci, and it runs with aero and everything just fine. Plus, don't be surprised if it doesn't run all that great. It's not meant to run on older systems. This has always been the normal routine for windows. Microsoft windows isn't going to go down because of this, this always happens. Even Linux is getting difficult to run on older hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaaroshi Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I have win 7 rtm x64, what i can say.... I WANT MAC OS XD Win7 should be vistas sp 3. Its hell better than vista but it its still "just windows" Guess what i got on the first boot? :> A NICE BLUE WELCOME SCREEN OF DEATH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michigan PI Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 My machine w/ 7 runs just peachy. All this talk of 8 years blah, blah, blah.. I'm thinking that it all must be GWB's fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts