Windows 7

rowdymarlin3 · 2008-10-07T15:49:10+00:00

So, a new Microsoft OS has finally dropped! It’s called Windows 7, basically acting as an extension of Vista. From what I'm hearing buzzing around the web, it …

Michelle Green4 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jan 2009

#301 · Jan 22, 2009

I've only got 20 days left on this beta trial, and honestly, I'm already over it. Does anyone have any bright ideas on how to 😉 "stretch out" the expiration date? 😉

Apparently, there’s an activation tool floating around for Windows Vista. Maybe if I try that, I could squeeze out another week?!

Taylor Brooks3 Active Member

56 messages
joined Sep 2007

#302 · Jan 22, 2009

Please check your private messages. 😉

Mark Sanchez3 Active Member

101 messages
joined Feb 2009

#303 · Jan 23, 2009

Michelle Green4:
Give this a shot! It actually works on Windows XP somehow. It might not be the definitive fix, but there's no harm in trying:
http://rahulhackingarticles.wetpaint...ks+here?t=anon

steeleagle152 Newcomer

9 messages
joined Jun 2011

#304 · Jan 25, 2009

I tried setting up Windows 7 on my laptop, but I think there's some weird issue with the graphics, so I just went back to Windows XP. It seems like it's trying to run two different GPUs at once or something? I have a Mobility Radeon 9200, but there's also an integrated Intel chip in there, and now the screen is split into two pieces and everything looks totally distorted... I guess maybe someone else has dealt with this kind of thing or had it happen to them? Any idea what I should do? 🤷😕

Mark Sanchez3 Active Member

101 messages
joined Feb 2009

#305 · Jan 25, 2009

The minimum requirements you'll need are:

*

A 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor
*

At least 1 GB of RAM
*

16 GB of free hard drive space
*

DirectX 9 compatible graphics with 128 MB of VRAM (this is necessary if you want to run the Aero theme)
*

A DVD-R/W drive
*

An internet connection (required for downloading the Beta and installing any updates)

Mark Sanchez3 Active Member

101 messages
joined Feb 2009

#306 · Jan 25, 2009

I've got a desktop setup with 160GB of storage, an Nvidia 8500 with 256MB, and an AMD Athlon 64x 3000 (2.0GHz)
I'm thinking about installing the 64-bit beta version of Windows 7, so I was wondering if anyone thinks that's actually a good idea?

rustysailor202 Newcomer

1 message
joined Jan 2009

#307 · Jan 25, 2009

Taylor Brooks3 said:Where exactly did they hide Outlook in Windows 7?

From what I could gather, they didn't include every single program... though, honestly, it’s probably for the best that they left them out.
So you have Thunderbird installed... well, that's great. Personally, I just handle everything through my webmail.

Mark Sanchez3 said:My desktop setup consists of a 160GB hard drive, an Nvidia 8500 with 256MB of VRAM supporting DirectX 9, and an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3000 clocked at 2.0GHz.
I am considering downloading the 64-bit beta version of Windows 7, and I find myself wondering if that would be a wise decision.

Just go ahead and run the installer. You didn't mention how much RAM you're working with, but I'd suggest having at least 1GB or 2GB if you actually want to play any games. My system sits at about 500 MB of RAM usage just idling, while the processor isn't breaking much of a sweat. The hardware is solid, but I'm dealing with some annoying driver issues.

Kate James21 Active Member

77 messages
joined May 2009

#308 · Jan 25, 2009

rustysailor202 said:From what I can gather, they haven't included every single program... though honestly, it’s probably better if they didn't...
You've got Thunderbird and you're good to go... although personally, I just handle everything through webmail...

Just go ahead and run the installer... you just didn't mention how much RAM you're working with... it would be wise to have at least 1GB or maybe 2GB if you plan on actually playing games... my own session eats up about 500 MB of RAM while idling... and the CPU usage is minimal... it's a solid system, but I am running into some issues with certain drivers...

Which drivers specifically?

wanderinggardener14 Member

18 messages
joined Nov 2008

#309 · Jan 25, 2009

If you're messing around with Windows Vista or probably even Windows 7, my advice is to stick with the x64 version only if you’ve actually got enough RAM under the hood—I'm talking 4GB or more.

Douglas Phillips4 Active Member

70 messages
joined Apr 2003

#310 · Jan 28, 2009

Installed it, took a look... it’s not bad. The taskbar feels much more intuitive now, though since it's still a beta, some features are obviously missing. Once the final version of Windows Vista hits the market, it'll probably just be forgotten 🙂

For anyone relying on S/PDIF outputs—optical, coaxial, or likely even HDMI audio—heads up: AC3 and DTS sound won't work due to a bug. There's supposedly a fix over here: http://www.xpmediacentre.com.au/comm...tup-spdif.html. They claim it works, but frankly, I just didn't have the patience to deal with it ☕

Taylor Brooks3 Active Member

56 messages
joined Sep 2007

#311 · Jan 28, 2009

I probably won't be making the jump to Windows 7, mainly because I'm quite lost without Outlook—it's just one of those things I rely on heavily. Plus, the taskbar feels a bit off to me; if I'm being completely honest, I find the interface in Vista much more aesthetically pleasing... I spent some time testing it out, but I ran into a few hiccups, like how you can't currently install MSN Messenger on it, among other little things.

Douglas Phillips4 Active Member

70 messages
joined Apr 2003

#312 · Jan 28, 2009

Taylor Brooks3 said:I did some testing on it, and you can't get MSN Messenger running on it right now. There are a few other little issues like that too...

That’s just not accurate. You can install MSN Messenger without any trouble. I can't vouch for an ancient version, though, but the current one works fine.

You can also install Outlook and everything else included in the suite using the web installer here: http://download.live.com/

redotter1 Newcomer

6 messages
joined Jun 2007

#313 · Jan 28, 2009

rustysailor202 said:my session is eating up 500 MB of RAM while idling...

I’d like to pivot the conversation toward this specific thread and all the similar misconceptions floating around out there.

Based on what you're saying, I'd be willing to bet you're running on 1GB of RAM.
Someone rocking 2 GB of RAM will likely find that Windows 7 is sitting on about 1GB just sitting idle.

The whole point of memory is to actually use it, not just let it sit there gathering dust.
Windows 7, much like Vista, relies heavily on the "Superfetch" feature.
Essentially, the OS identifies the applications you tend to launch most frequently and pre-loads them into the RAM so they open almost instantly.
This feature is designed to keep your available memory filled up to roughly 50% capacity.
If you suddenly launch a resource-heavy application, Superfetch will intelligently scale back its footprint to hand those resources over to the demanding program.
It’s also why you might notice a momentary lag right after closing a heavy game; the OS needs a second to let Superfetch repopulate those frequent apps back into the RAM.

Furthermore, you might notice that your RAM usage looks nearly identical whether the system is idling or under a significant load.

Just because the system shows 500MB, 1GB, or even 2GB being used during idle time doesn't mean the OS actually *needs* that much just to function.

XP doesn't behave this way, which is why it seems to "use less," but in reality, it isn't utilizing the hardware's potential at all—and how could it, given it's effectively capped at 3.5GB of RAM (unless you're running the x64 version)?

Sean Perez21 Member

38 messages
joined Oct 2009

#314 · Jan 28, 2009

It seems we’ve hit the same wall again; just like Windows Vista, the 32-bit version of Windows 7 is still strictly capped at that 3.5 GB limit...🤔

redotter1 Newcomer

6 messages
joined Jun 2007

#315 · Jan 28, 2009

I honestly can't imagine anyone being quite so brilliant as to choose the x32 version today.
Unless you’re stuck running some ancient, crumbling software from a defunct company, or you’re still lugging around a five-year-old machine that lacks x64 support, I truly don't see any logical reason to go that route—aside from perhaps clinging to those old myths that still circulate online.
The x32 era is behind us; it’s time to accept that. And please, let's stop holding back the people who are actually looking forward to the advancements within x64 systems. (By "holding back," I mean that market share ultimately dictates whether corporations find these developments profitable; it will happen, certainly, but the speed depends entirely on consumer demand.)

Transitioning to Vista or Windows 7 makes sense because they are 64-bit native, whereas Windows XP x64 has always been a bit of an uphill battle. It’s quite simple, really: because the user base was so small, there just wasn't enough incentive for developers to optimize or adapt for it. But I won't get too deep into that debate, as I know there's always a legion of people ready to argue the exact opposite.

Sean Perez21 Member

38 messages
joined Oct 2009

#316 · Jan 28, 2009

Honestly, I think Microsoft should just focus their energy on releasing Windows 7 x64 and call it a day. If they don't, we're going to end up with a massive crowd of users stuck on x32 systems, which will inevitably drag down the pace of development and make providing support for x64 architecture a total headache for everyone involved...☕

Taylor Brooks3 Active Member

56 messages
joined Sep 2007

#317 · Jan 28, 2009

Douglas Phillips4 said:That isn't quite right. You can install MSN Messenger without any trouble at all. I can't personally guarantee how a much older version might behave, though.

You can also include Outlook and everything else in that package via the web installer here: http://download.live.com/

By the way, would you be able to add your own email credentials (like from AT&T) into that Outlook app?

Thanks!

Kate James21 Active Member

77 messages
joined May 2009

#318 · Jan 28, 2009

Taylor Brooks3 said:And can you actually input your own email credentials—say, from an AT&T account—into that Outlook application?

Thanks!

You can certainly do that without any issues...😉

Amy Parker5 Newcomer

4 messages
joined Jan 2009

#319 · Jan 29, 2009

redotter1 said:I honestly can't imagine anyone being smart enough to pick the x32 version.
Unless you're stuck running some ancient software from a defunct startup—or you're rocking a PC that’s over five years old without any x64 support—I don't see a single reason to go that route, other than just falling for old myths.
x32 is dead and buried! Get over it, and stop holding back the people waiting for better x64 developments. (And by "holding back," I mean the market share that dictates whether those improvements are actually profitable for big corporations; it'll happen eventually, it's just a matter of how fast demand drives it.)

People are moving to Vista and Windows 7 because they're 64-bit, whereas Windows XP x64 always had its issues—mostly because since nobody was using it, developers didn't bother optimizing it much. But hey, I won't get dragged into that debate since there's always an army of people ready to argue otherwise.

Yeah, guilty as charged—I'm one of those users clinging to an old machine that's way older than five years, so I guess I'm doomed to stick with x32!

briskrider15 Newcomer

2 messages
joined Jan 2009

#320 · Jan 29, 2009

Smarter_child;16423646 said:So Microsoft dropped a new OS! It's Windows 7 milestone, basically an extension of Vista! From what I'm seeing online, it's just Vista with some extra bells and whistles! Maybe Microsoft will actually try to pull it off with this new name

yeah, right.

Windows 7

🔗 Similar threads