Some windows 7 tweaks if your interested.

http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2...7-secrets.aspx

:yeah:

I am tweaking my main box with 7 now - and loving it. Much smoother than vista, though I don't like the hacks necessary to get back to the "classic" gui. Still - the background memory management and process count is MUCH better than Vista.

My main gripe so far - no Daemon tools. Thankfully I don't use it for illicet purposes, so clone virtual drive is working great for my image installs. Havent put any games on - yet - but gimme time!

Let me mention one massive improvement. The install process is SEAMLESS - fast and easy. MS has never had a OS of any type install this easy, and its good to see.

Yes, Homegroups looks troublesome - havent had time to play with that yet either. The idea is good - but what little I saw seems the implementation is bad.

I'm using Vista x64 and have no problem whatsoever. Of course I only made the switch after having more than enough safe margin, my PC specs that is. It's great. Fluid fast, beautiful and more secure.

My humble(not trying to be modest really) spec:
-------------------------------------------
Vista Home premium x64

8Gb DDR2 800MHz Memory

Intel Core 2 duo 2 GHz(Yea it's the determining factor in my Vista experience index of 4.8 out of 5.9 max)

9800GTX+ 512Mb
--------------------------------------------

I'm planning to change my processor to at least a 2.8GHz core 2 duo since I found out that many app and games are still not utilizing multicore capability leaving the speed of the single core a very important number and back then Core 2 Duo was expensive.....:hmmm: well at least for me lol

My limiter on 7 is windows aero graphics - 4.4

The issue there is my graphix card - a X1650 pro - though for gaming graphics it scores a 4.6

Same scores as with Vista - though I havent rerun since I am not done tweaking yet. The big difference is 7 goes up to a max of 7.9 - where vista was 5.9

I am running a 4200 and have yet to have an issue with CPU speed, my bottleneck remains the vid card.

My Vista runs great. I will probably migrate to 7 a few months after release.

:up:

Fully tweaked :

24 OS processes. Memory Footprint ~ .5Gb, Installed footprint - 7.51G (counting Avast and Updates)

Runs MUCH faster than XP or Vista - now I can see how people are running this on REALLY old P2 or P3 boxes.

Stable, fast and user friendly. The Gui tweaks are really all in the right places.

I have to say - MS keeps this from bloating and they have a real winner - both home and business market. Based off of what I have seen - if NAP and SMS can integrate seamlessly - I would consider a beta rollout to a department!

BIGGEST IMPROVEMENT - Unneeded services actually turn themselves OFF. Manual setting of a service - in most cases - means the OS will turn it on when needed - and turn it off when its not. This doesn't apply to everything - but most. FINALLY! The OS install comes in a close second.

SteveW1 has it right - the homegroups implementation is horrible. The idea is great - but the way they did it drastically needs improvement. It is NOT in any ways backwards compatible. You have to just about turn Homegroups off entirely to get it to see previous network resources.

Leak suggests Windows 7 on course for July release

But really, isn't it Vista II? Not in a bad way, but they rework Vista and give it a new name... it's not new from the ground up, is it?

It is not new from the ground up. A lot of Vista is found in 7. From what I have seen it is faster. Of course the only fast thing I have witnessed is boot up is fast. Others that have used the beta said it is all around just faster and stable. A bit less with the administrator function as well. Also, it is not quite as power hungry.

It's pretty much what Vista could have been, which basically means less bloat. For example, when you started Vista all kinda stuff like a clock and calendar and god knows what would clutter the desktop. That's all gone; probably still optional for people who like it, but not there initially.

The only reason it's not called Vista II is because MS is trying to put as much distance between them and "it" as possible. ;)

Yeah, that makes sense.

I have Vista on my laptop, it's fine. Less bloat and lower resource demands would make me smile.

Its very stable - fast and tweakable. One thing I really like is its ability to "self heal" - if something doesnt work - lets say you turn off a service you need - it will diagnose - and start the service - to fix the problem. Unneeded services shut themselves down. Some very good things here.

Lets talk stable - I have a couple of ways I can force blue screen on box with XP and vista. I have tried the same things and cannot even FORCE a bsod. Thats a danged good sign.

lol BSOD i've had a couple with Win 7, thought I would stick 4 gig of ram in my box running 32 bit version and it didn't like it one bit, lots of lock ups and a couple of BSOD's till I took that 4th gig out.

I'm going to swap back to build 7048 64 bit and see what the networking situation is like with that, as it's a total pain in the arse in build 7057 M$ totally lost the plot with networking in this build.

Steve

Wasn't the story with Vista, when they were developing it, that after a few years they dumped the XP core upgrade and went to the server core, making the desktop OS as we know it go poof?

Wouldn't know about that, not too familiar with the ins and outs of Vista, sorry. :(

I do have another question though: I'm planning a reïnstall. Instead of putting XP back on again, win7 would be an alternative.

From your personal experience, do you have...

1. ...trouble with your day to day software? (Defraggers, stuff like Skype, mediaplayers)

2. ...hardware trouble? (particularly worried about my soundcard, knowing Creative)

3. ...any other issues that make it unsuitable for install on main box for everyday use?



Would be nice to switch; 64-bit, DX10... wait, do I even want those? :hmmm:
*edit: is it possible to legally get a newer build (now 7000) from MS?