So after the debacle with servers crashing, etc... I finally got my hands on a copy of Windows 7 Build 7000, and just got a few activation keys this morning to try it out on a few PC's. For anyone wondering, HERE is the link for the Download. I've got it set as a Dual Boot on my big laptop (Toshiba X205-SLi1) and after tinkering with that a bit last night I'm just finishing upgrading my work laptop (HP Pavilion TX2110US) from Vista to 7. Initial impressions are very good. It is noticeably faster than Vista (especially on that machine since it's a convertible laptop/tablet and not terribly fast) and most thing are working just great! One surprise is that all of my drivers were included either in the OS itself or in Windows Update. Unlike Vista, not one driver hitch. As well, even all of the HP "special" buttons located around the screen are working perfectly. So far I'm only running into one application that I'm having issues with. That is the DirecTV2PC Beta app. And I'm not to surprised since it's made by Cyberlink (and oddly enough if you have their PowerDVD program installed it breaks their DirecTV app. Very unimpressed with this company) For some reason it's not activating properly. But besides that so far everything is just great. I really hope things just get better from here. So is anyone else using Windows 7? What are your thoughts/feelings?
7 is built on top of Vista, if you've used Vista since SP1 has been out, you'll have the exact same experience regarding drivers. Vista driver support is phenomenal. Many of Vista's early problems were due to program and driver compatibility issues. Since 7 is primarily Vista code, MS is saying that all programs and drivers compatible with Vista will work with 7. This should limit many of the typical "new OS" problems. Glad to see MS got their server space back up. I guess larger then expected interest in the beta is a good thing..
Not wrong, just wrong. The need for 'add on graphics' is determined by the minimum system requirements of the game you are trying to play.
For example: I have a laptop that doesn't have a graphics card. Well, it does, but it's the Intel 965 Chipset. It's 32MB of video memory, so the game has to steal some from my RAM to make up for the loss. Since I have 4GB of RAM, I am able to play Counter-Strike: Source, WoW, and various other games that require a graphics card far superior to mine. Summary: Having a substantial amount of RAM and little to no graphics card memory will allow you to play games that require a high-end graphics card.
Just curious, if one downloads win7 beta then once the final release is out would it still have to be purchased? How does that work?
No, what I'm saying is you could play Crysis with 32mb of vram AND 4+GB of RAM, with an FPS Config. Crysis is almost an exception to that rule.
I have to disagree with some of this. While available video memory does play a part, people seem to be ignoring other factors like the GPU, Memory clock rates, etc...
I downloaded it from MSDN early this week but haven't put up a VM for it yet. Since Vista 64 has been working fine for me since SP1 I don't really have a need to re-image my workstation with it.
QFT. Memory and GPU clock rates play a big role in how graphics information is passed around. If the GPU isn't up to the task of processing the amount of information being tossed at it, then it isn't going to work. Some games don't even support certain chipsets...especially integrated ones. On a side note, I have Windows 7 x86 32bit running on a P4 laptop with 256MB Ram and it seems to be running nicely. Peformance is about the same as it was with XP. Haven't dug into it alot yet, but the Vista driver support is great as Bullwinkle said earlier.
I'm running it right now on my desktop at home. I'm currently running 2 gigs of ram and I'll probably run 6-8 when I get around to it. Oh, I'm running the 64 bit version too
So my question would be, why? The only real time upgrading RAM is worth it is when you are already using all of the existing stuff. If you're not running the existing stuff at near 100% then the extra makes no difference. Also, much like the previous conversation about graphics, a better Mobo, and processor would probably provide greater benefits. (and if you can, a mobo that could handle DDR3)
I still haven't tried installing crysis into Windows 7 yet, but when I was running it with XP I was using 98% of my ram. My current setup right now is, core 2 quad q6600 nvidia 8800GT 2 gigs of ram mobo is a ecs-nf650 I would really like to be able to run some background processes like bittorrents, or burning discs or anything like that while I'm playing games. I do plan on upgrading the videocard probably in the next year. There is some crazy stuff out there now that would be fun to play with But overall, I'm actually not that hardware saavy, more software and stuff like that. So you guys probably know more about this stuff than me.
i installed it on friday, but BF2 (punkbuster) kicks me out of any online game because it doesn't recognize the OS signature. it is snappier than vista for sure, but i'm not too keen on the bluescreens. i've had 5 since installing.
i was being pretty rough with it, but no rougher than i am on xp. i haven't had xp bluescreen on me in forever. maybe once or twice since i built my machine.
I've been beating on mine and so far no blue-screens, but I probably jinxed myself for saying this. :ugh:
installed it on a VM server at work for "testing" purposes. Not real impressed. Looks like another ver of vista but requires 12 gigs for the damn install. Now I know the final ver will be smaller, just a bit shocked at that space requirement. A few new bells and whistles, but overall was a yawn for me. I'm running vista right now with no problems. Now what I'll be interested to see is if windows 7 is less of a resource hog then vista is.
Problem there usually isn't memory or processor causing issues, it's HDD access slowing you down. I run 6 HDDs in my new workstation to delegate things to so the only thing being taxed is the SATA controller on the ICH. I regularly run a lot of background tasks (usually within VMs) on that machine while gaming but it has loads of resources. And FWIW Crysis, even the "64-bit" version (which is just for x64 compatibility), didn't see anything more than 3.5GB of memory and still ran chunky on high settings. All the memory is really doing is buffering more map ahead of you, the graphics still require some beefy GPU support.
Gotcha! Right now I'm running 1 hd as an OS only, and 3 in a raid. I'll take your advice and give use 4 gigs max and see how that goes. Thanks!
plus the fact that IOPS on sata suck balls. sas or scsi is the only way around this, or a raid10 sata array
I only use my little U320 array for scratch disk space. I don't RAID all those SATA disks, there is no point. They serve me better running separate tasks.
