Now that Win 7 has been out a while...

TBH there isn't much in it, Win7 is more feature addition and advertising blitzed version of Vista. The only reason I upgraded to Win 7 was because I loved the home share feature (almost all other machines in our house had Win 7 on when purchased) and it only cost me £30 (student). Otherwise I would have stayed with Vista.

Performance wise and general use wise I see no difference at all.
 
So because your ancient hardware was unstable on Win7, a modern OS that commands more resources than what is available on the hardware it automatically makes teh OS unstable by default?


Nope.

I know all about industrial uses because the company I work for is in that area of expertise and our machines run boxes controlling them running DOS/NT but that doesn't stop us using the latest hardware/OS on everything else.

It's not Win7 fault if your company doesn't want to update the hardware to meet the OS requirements.
 
I used Vista for almost 2 years before switching to W7 a few months ago, performance seems about the same but I think due to the lighter looking interface (sharper lines etc) it 'feels' faster.

Aside from a couple of nice usability features, a bug fix here and there and the UI tidy-up, the switch from Vista to 7 was generally underwhelming(but still nice!), compared to the switch from XP to Vista which was the real evolution - better memory management, more stable, more responsive UI and nice new features.

Only reason I could see someone preferring XP over Vista is if they were using a low-spec/old machine
 
Rolling out some Win 7 machines to some users who have been on XP machines that are 4+ years old.

At one point it looked liked some custom software we use might not have been compatible and there was talk amongst management of rolling them back to their old desktops whilst the issue was resolved.

One of the users hugged the tower and said "Nooooo not my lovely new PC".
Testiment that even the most nooby of users appreciated the difference.

The difference between W7 and Vista from a business point of view is the initial lack of driver support for legacy hardware/software. We didn't touch Vista here because we have a lot of old stuff that is still in use.

The new features as described earlier are also worth their weight in gold.
 
I'm amazed by people that insist on bashing that same old "Windows is unstable" stick. When will these people get with the times?

The Windows NT kernel has never, at any point in its lifetime, been unstable.
 
NathanE said:
The Windows NT kernel has never, at any point in its lifetime, been unstable.
Click to expand...

I don't think everyone is specifically speaking about the kernel though. NT4 also had driver issues that lead to a few BSOD. But of course that had a different driver model to win 9x
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I don't think everyone is specifically speaking about the kernel though. NT4 also had driver issues that lead to a few BSOD. But of course that had a different driver model to win 9x
Click to expand...

The guy mentioned specifically about W7 "leaking memory". This to me is quite a fundamental problem, suggesting perhaps a kernel bug or design flaw. It was specifically attributed against W7. Not at any particular software that was running.
 
Or instead, the most likely and reasonable explanation, the software being run wasn't designed for such a modern OS and needs updating because I have never heard of a Win7 memory leak or kernel issue at all.
 
Khaaan! said:
So because your ancient hardware was unstable on Win7, a modern OS that commands more resources than what is available on the hardware it automatically makes teh OS unstable by default?


Nope.

I know all about industrial uses because the company I work for is in that area of expertise and our machines run boxes controlling them running DOS/NT but that doesn't stop us using the latest hardware/OS on everything else.

It's not Win7 fault if your company doesn't want to update the hardware to meet the OS requirements.
Click to expand...

This is on NEW HARDWARE circa 2010 , duo core 2.66Gig processors 2 Gigs of ram etc not olde stuff.

It certainly walks all over Windows ME. lol.
Click to expand...

No argument here lol

Or instead, the most likely and reasonable explanation, the software being run wasn't designed for such a modern OS and needs updating because I have never heard of a Win7 memory leak or kernel issue at all.
Click to expand...

I had better give the folks at NI a shout then , labview 2009 must not have been designed for such modern OS's that exist now in 2010.
 
Last edited:
Strange how nobody else has complained about memory leaks then no?

Which only means it's the software or hardware (now eliminated) being used.
 
lurkio said:
I had better give the folks at NI a shout then , labview 2009 must not have been designed for such modern OS's that exist now in 2010.
Click to expand...

Well you should definitely talk to them, they need to oath the memory leak in the application, because its not coming from Windows.
 
Works out of the box, it is very stable, offers good performance, relatively bug free and a delight to use. I'll stop there.
 
NathanE said:
The guy mentioned specifically about W7 "leaking memory". This to me is quite a fundamental problem, suggesting perhaps a kernel bug or design flaw. It was specifically attributed against W7. Not at any particular software that was running.
Click to expand...

To be fair there is more than one KB article with hotfixes to fix memory leaks present in Windows 7, though they don't tend to be issues that would affect everyone.
 
Broken Hope said:
To be fair there is more than one KB article with hotfixes to fix memory leaks present in Windows 7, though they don't tend to be issues that would affect everyone.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all programs contain leaks (a.k.a. bugs that result in unclosed handles or unfreed memory). Thankfully most processes are short-lived so the snowball effect is never really noticed (because, yes, the NT kernel *will* free up everything that process was using, including any handles or memory it didn't free up itself). And none of the critical Windows system processes (or other server-class software that Microsoft produce) contain such fundamental errors. Which is why Windows can run for years on end without issue, and has been able to do this ever since NT 3.51.
 
Looks like Labview is pretty well known for memory leaks... I know who I'd be blaming in this instance, and it wouldn't be Windows.

I stand by my assumption that anyone who says Vista is rubbish, too slow, unstable, etc, etc... Has either installed it wrong, had a hardware issue, installed it on hardware not meeting minimum requirements, only used it for a month or so at release OR is still trundling along on the anti-Vista bandwagon and has never used it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom