MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Windows 7  (Read 23309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 22, 2009, 16:15 »
0
I ran the RC for Windows 7 very briefly after it first came out, but I had a hardware issue that caused me to go back to Vista.  However, I've since upgraded my hardware and decided to jump on the bandwagon and buy Windows 7 this morning.

I did a clean install of Windows 7 Pro 64-bit and so far I'm impressed.  It has no problems with my two 1.5TB hard drives or my 16 gigs of RAM.  And it boots up almost twice as fast as Vista did.  I am still re-installing all of my apps, but MS Word 2003, PhotoShop CS4 and AE CS4 all launch faster in Windows 7 than they did in Vista.

Since I mostly deal with footage, the biggest surprise was that the native AVCHD files (.mts and .m2ts) from my camera are now supported in the OS and they play without stutter in Windows Media Player.  THAT more than anything was worth the upgrade for me.  It will improve my video editing workflow significantly.

I use the Home Edition of AVAST! Antivirus and it's not playing nice with Windows 7.  It works, but Windows is bugging me that it's not up to date, even though it is.  But all of my other apps seem to work just fine.

Installing apps is not as obnoxious as it was in Vista.  But they spread all of the customizable features for the desktop theme across 3 different control panels.  So it was a PITA to change colors, turn off animated windows, etc.

So far I'm liking the Windows 7 upgrade.


« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2009, 16:35 »
0
You know, MS doesn't offer upgrades for OS here.  They say the Brazilian customers prefer to buy a new PC with a new OS.  I think they are just sick of people using pirate copies, so they simply charge an absurd price for those hwo buy the legal package.   :-\

OEM OS isn't however very expensive, but I won't pay over US$200 (Home edition) for a new OS that I don't need right now.

« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2009, 17:16 »
0
For my software work I'd need the "Professional" version and at $199 for an upgrade, I have absolutely zero interest.   They are not going to sell many upgrades at these prices.  And I don't think they intend to. The outrageous upgrade price is supposed to herd you towards buying a new PC that you don't actually need. 

« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2009, 17:32 »
0
Fortunately, I'm taking some classes at the local community college, so I qualify for their $30 upgrade to Windows 7 Pro.  Otherwise, I would not have upgraded now.  I would have waited until my next round of microstock payments next month and bought the $109 OEM upgrade.

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2009, 19:09 »
0
I also use Win7 since its Beta Test phase. It works great. (after Vista nothing can be worse). I have 4 GB of RAM and the 64-bit version, that's good for photography, even if I'd wish more memory sometimes.....

« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2009, 19:19 »
0
I'll stick with Linux

« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2009, 19:32 »
0
Just installed it today and so far it works great. Had a minor issue with some old drivers, but that's the only thing that didn't work out of the box. Tweeking the settings atm :D

« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2009, 20:37 »
0
I upgraded to Win XP after my laptop (Vista preinstalled) went out of its warranty period. I didn't know my laptop could be that fast.

« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2009, 16:03 »
0
I bought 2 copies of home premium for US$50 about 1/2 year ago when MS had a special. Cant wait to get the components for a new build.

« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2009, 16:38 »
0
Maybe after Christmas, when reality sets in, they'll cut the upgrade prices.

graficallyminded

« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2009, 15:00 »
0
I'm still an XP user too, but I plan on upgrading very soon.  I am going to need something with at least 8-12 gb of ram and i7 Quad Core though, to handle all of this new OS software.

Being able to skip Vista ... priceless ;)

I also skipped Windows 95, Windows Me - so happy about not having to deal with those.  It seems like every other OS for Windows is a good one.  Windows XP/2000 are pretty stable, Win98 was decent, Win 3.11 was okay. 

« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2009, 15:06 »
0
I will be a happy day when I get rid of Vista on my laptop.  :)

« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2009, 15:54 »
0
I think I'll give it a while. I have a PC running XP that is just fine, but my newest machine is Vista and is slower despite being higher spec. So if the hype for Windows 7 turns out to be well founded, I might just go for it. Might wairt for the first SP though. You can't be too careful.

« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2009, 18:19 »
0
I bought a new desktop PC yesterday with Windows 7 and so far it's playing quite nicely with my main programs (Lightroom 1.4, Corel PSP12, Dynamic HDR4, AVG9.0 anti-virus).  Boot-up is blazingly fast but then I also have a 1.8gb Video Card and 12gigs of RAM.  My previous pc had Vista but I ditched it and went with XP home.  So far so good!

« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2009, 00:42 »
0
I'm still an XP user too, but I plan on upgrading very soon.  I am going to need something with at least 8-12 gb of ram and i7 Quad Core though, to handle all of this new OS software.

Being able to skip Vista ... priceless ;)

I also skipped Windows 95, Windows Me - so happy about not having to deal with those.  It seems like every other OS for Windows is a good one.  Windows XP/2000 are pretty stable, Win98 was decent, Win 3.11 was okay.  


If you're saying that you think you will need eight to twelve gigabytes of RAM to run Windows 7, then you're mistaken. Four gigabytes is plenty. At least for the home version. I don't know about the professional or ultimate version. So on second thought, maybe you're not mistaken.  :)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 00:44 by Whiz »

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2009, 16:06 »
0
I bought a new desktop PC yesterday with Windows 7 and so far it's playing quite nicely with my main programs (Lightroom 1.4, Corel PSP12, Dynamic HDR4, AVG9.0 anti-virus).  Boot-up is blazingly fast but then I also have a 1.8gb Video Card and 12gigs of RAM.  My previous pc had Vista but I ditched it and went with XP home.  So far so good!

If you don't mind saying, which PC did you get?  I just ordered an HP e9280t.  Hopefully it will be as fast as promised.  Unfortunately they won't allow you to order it with an upgraded power supply and/or larger fan.  I am hoping the power supply and fan supplied are adequate to keep it running cool.  If not, I may upgrade them myself, but I don't want to void the warranty.

« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2009, 16:09 »
0
I also use Windows 7 since it's beta, so far so good. It is stable, the user interface is way better (I'm not talking about aero). Finally they did some major changes to their color system and it is way easier to calibrate monitors comparing to XP. Monitor calibration on Windows 7

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2009, 17:14 »
0
Thank you tall Russian, we have been on W7 Ultimate for some days now, and are loving it - however did not know about the new calibration options. Very interesting.

« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2009, 00:45 »
0
Lisa,

I got a gateway FX desktop with the Intel I7 core.  Im AFK till tomorrow aft but I prefer gateway or other more generic PC's over HP sine HP's dont like hardware being added all that much.  Ive found with HPs that once I start upgrading RAM, graphic cards or adding a hard drive, they tend to crash.
My gateway also has two eSATA hard drive bays in the front, so I can add two extra drives(I already added a 1tb drive).  I can get you the model number once I get back home if you like.

graficallyminded

« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2009, 07:41 »
0
I'm still an XP user too, but I plan on upgrading very soon.  I am going to need something with at least 8-12 gb of ram and i7 Quad Core though, to handle all of this new OS software.

Being able to skip Vista ... priceless ;)

I also skipped Windows 95, Windows Me - so happy about not having to deal with those.  It seems like every other OS for Windows is a good one.  Windows XP/2000 are pretty stable, Win98 was decent, Win 3.11 was okay.  


If you're saying that you think you will need eight to twelve gigabytes of RAM to run Windows 7, then you're mistaken. Four gigabytes is plenty. At least for the home version. I don't know about the professional or ultimate version. So on second thought, maybe you're not mistaken.  :)

No, I heard that too - 4 is all you ened, but what about when you're rendering stuff or doing labor intensive processes in Photoshop or other programs?  What if you want to multi-task like the dickens?  A PC will never match a MAC's abilities in that area, but the extra ram will definitely help.  I'm running on a 7 year old Pentium 4 pc with 1.5 gb of ram right now...the way I like to buy PC's is to buy a little more than what I need at the time, and that way it lasts me a while.  I need to be sure that my own machine isn't stifling my production abilities.  I'm a one man show, so if I can get a faster PC, no doubt it will improve my editing speed a little bit.  Less time waiting and more time doing :)

« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2009, 14:51 »
0
Thats why I went with a higher end PC; I shouldnt have to upgrade for a few years now.  Plus there was also the fact that the sales associate goofed on the price and I ended up getting 400.00 off, so it was meant to be.
Im also running a 23" monitor with 1920x1080 true HD resolution, so the extra goodies I got Im sure will help keep everything running nicely. Definitely a nice upgrade from my older 19" 4/3 aspect ratio monitor.

graficallyminded

« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2009, 15:33 »
0
The newer iMac 27" with the i5 is pretty sweet too, for around $1800-1900 if I remember correctly.  I recently picked up a 24" Dell widescreen, so all I really need is a new machine.  The apple monitors are way higher end than any monitor you'll find in bestbuy or staples, though.  I'm happy enough with the quality of mine, you'd have to have them side by side with the same images to compare the minor differences. 

It's tempting to switch over...comparing macs to pc's is like trying to compare apples and oranges.  I've used them for years in the design world.  Macs just multi-task way better than pc's, the architecture is entirely different.  I haven't testing multi-tasking while running Windows on a Mac, to see if was any better than a comparably equipped PC.  Comparing processor to processor, ram to ram, video card to video card with mac vs pc, mac is always going to win in performance, for the line of work we're doing.  But if you want to be easier on your wallet and can don't need to have 10-20 applications running at once, at all times, just save your money and go PC. The whole "macs dont get viruses" argument is true, but that's not really an issue when you know what you're doing on a PC.  Also if you go with a mac you'll also have to pick up a copy of Windows XP or 7, then you'll have the best of both worlds.

« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2009, 15:51 »
0
The newer iMac 27" with the i5 is pretty sweet too, for around $1800-1900 if I remember correctly.  I recently picked up a 24" Dell widescreen, so all I really need is a new machine.  The apple monitors are way higher end than any monitor you'll find in bestbuy or staples, though.  I'm happy enough with the quality of mine, you'd have to have them side by side with the same images to compare the minor differences.  

It's tempting to switch over...comparing macs to pc's is like trying to compare apples and oranges.  I've used them for years in the design world.  Macs just multi-task way better than pc's, the architecture is entirely different.  I haven't testing multi-tasking while running Windows on a Mac, to see if was any better than a comparably equipped PC.  Comparing processor to processor, ram to ram, video card to video card with mac vs pc, mac is always going to win in performance, for the line of work we're doing.  But if you want to be easier on your wallet and can don't need to have 10-20 applications running at once, at all times, just save your money and go PC. The whole "macs dont get viruses" argument is true, but that's not really an issue when you know what you're doing on a PC.  Also if you go with a mac you'll also have to pick up a copy of Windows XP or 7, then you'll have the best of both worlds.

apple fanboy much?

I don't care about the argument, but some of the stuff is completely untrue.  Apple is now using Intel processors (and will be releasing Core i5 and i7 models soon) and similar architecture for the most part, so if there are differences, they could be minor or major, depending on programming of OS and many other factors.  Macs do get viruses, and there was a big issue a while back regarding huge vulnerabilities that needed patching - I don't use macs and I'm not sure if the article I read was just hoopla, but it seemed to make a bit of news.  Not to mention that Snow Leopard sucks, as I have an uncle who uses CS3 on it and none of the drivers work, CS4 won't work properly.

Not to mention that Adobe used to write their programs for Apple first, then patchwork their way to Windows which made many versions crappy, but now they do write them for both systems.

The lines are blurring and the prices Apple charges for their machines is insane, especially when their newest OS doesn't work with anything.

Hi Vista, I'm a Mac.  I suck just as much as you did.

Its based on preferences -

and if you want amazing monitors, I believe that LaCie is among the best
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 16:05 by ichiro17 »

CofkoCof

« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2009, 16:19 »
0
I have to agree. I think both systems work fine (used both, also daily using ubuntu), macs look much nicer than average PC (still you can find some insanly beautiful pc racks or laptops) and it has a status symbol (well at least you don't pay the marketing for nothing). PC is better price/performice wise especially if you can get all Microsoft products for free (all legal, don't understand me wrong) :D The difference in price might not be so big in USA, but here it's drastic. The possibility of hardware customization is also a big bonus of PC (however it problably shows in a bit slower OS because it has to be more generic). The only thing I really do miss on PC from mac is the ultra fast sleep mode.

Windows 7 are working great, they are really fast. I compared stuff like rendering, copying files, photoshop actions (also done the retouchartists speed test and compared it to the result I got on XP), opening programs and it's up to 30% faster than XP. And 2Gb is enough, I'm using it on my 2Gb laptop with no problem at all.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 16:34 by CofkoCof »

« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2009, 12:48 »
0
Just installed windows 7 and I don't seem to be able to move files around in a folder.  They are all kept in order, with vista, I could drag files around and put them in the order I preferred.  Is there a way to do it?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
3642 Views
Last post April 02, 2008, 18:17
by vphoto
4 Replies
4399 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 15:07
by donding
4 Replies
3476 Views
Last post February 20, 2011, 18:11
by Stu49
32 Replies
20724 Views
Last post November 16, 2012, 06:50
by leaf
2 Replies
1475 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 21:22
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle