Windows 7

[Dan Schultz]

I just received my upgrade copy of Windows 7 Home Premium. Anyone install it over Vista Home Premium yet? Any problems? Likes? Dislikes?

[TubaTodd]

....(I'm really considering, though, putting a partition in it and running Ubuntu - or some similar "open source" doo-dah) whenever possible - only jumping over to "Windows" when I MUST.

Did someone say Ubuntu???? The latest version (9.10 - Karmic Koala) comes out Thursday. I have the latest release-candidate running at home.

[djwesp]

I'm currently running Kubuntu and Windows 7.

7 is a slightly more stable Windows Vista. It still doesn't do half the things as well as Mac OS's/KDE Linux interfaces do. It still has the Windows quirks. Mine locked up, yes, 2-5 minutes into the very first start up after installation. It also took about 25 minutes to download the new upgrades for the OS.

7 is better if you have to run Windows. If you don't have to run windows run Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Mac.

Windows is a lot like Taco Bell. Same ingredients just put together 1,000 ways. It is still beans, cheese, and fake sour cream.

Nothing really changes when they come out with a new product, they just attempt to make it look more like a competitor that is distancing itself from them.

[Dan Schultz]

Well... after taking about three hours to do the install tonight... Windows 7 seems to be working fine. No issues with any programs as yet. Finale is working fine. There seems to be a slight increase in speed of loading programs.

[TubaTodd]

I had beta tested Windows 7 on an IBM Thinkpad T60 several months ago. I thought it was good. I haven't seen the final product.

What I don't understand about the upgrade-from-vista process is why does it take so stickin' long to finish? On top of that there have been reports of failed upgrades putting the user in a reboot loop.

Here is article you should check out about the upgrade difficulties.

http://www.osnews.com/comments/22403

[Dan Schultz]

..... What I don't understand about the upgrade-from-vista process is why does it take so stickin' long to finish? ....

I don't quite understand why it took three hours to install, either. Unless.... Mircrosoft finally spent the time to 'do it right' rather than to release a piece of software on the 'bleeding edge' for us to debug for them. It's about time!

From what I read... you can simply install over Vista. However, if you are running XP, you need to completely delete XP and do a fresh install... after which you have to reinstall all of your programs. This IS NOT something I'll do with my wife's three-year-old desktop. For what little demands she puts on a computer (just email and a dab of word processing), I'll just wait until the whole system craps out and then just buy a new computer... complete with a new operating system.

Edit... sequel.... I've had a chance to use this computer for a couple of hours now. No errors and programs load MUCH faster than the old Vista.

[Rick Denney]

Based on what I have read, do not attempt to install 7 on a computer that was running XP. 7's driver requirements are the same as Vista's, so you won't usually have problems with hardware drivers. But those drivers are completely different from XP, so the first thing you'll have to do it get new drivers for all your hardware, including the motherboard, the soundcard (even if it's integrated), the network card, the video card, and on and on.

I will reserve 7 for new machines. I bought one Vista box in the last year, and expensively converted it back to XP. At least 7 has a virtual XP mode (if you buy the expensive version) that will let you run XP software (NOT drivers) using virtualization.

As to Ubuntu...please. Been there, done that. It has a lot of stuff, but it is not a fully integrated package that provides the flexibility of even XP. I gave up on it when I could not get Open Office to properly display an Excel spreadsheet that had used Arial Narrow. Installing that font (or a similar one) required two separate processes--one to allow it to print, and the other to allow it to display. The second required recompiling the kernel (as with all Unix-based systems). The instructions I had, which I had to find from some non-authoritative source on the Internet (a post on the Ubuntu forum from some guy probably as stupid as me) didn't work. I gave up. The model fails because the people who develop software for free only go as far as they need to go. So, IT people can make it work because they can deal with incomplete and often misleading documentation. And it's fine for people who do nothing but the occasional homework assignment and surfing the web. But for people in between who are not IT professionals but who must work on documents that have to be sent to clients and open properly on their machines, fuggedaboudit.

Rick "whose next computer will be a 7 box" Denney

[tubafatness]

I have heard good things about 7, particularly that it is better than Vista at finding drivers automatically. I don't think this applies to everyone, but I've heard that 7 is much better for people running online-intensive video games and other similar programs. It does seem to run better when it comes to higher-end audio and video work, (a big plus for me, as I use my main comp. for everything from killing Nazis to running multiple DAWs and audio software programs.) I'm waiting for my free upgrade disc from Dell, which should be in today or Monday. I'll let you all know how I fare.

Aaron H., (who will start using the Mac OS when it plays CoD 4 for me...)

[TubaTodd]

As to Ubuntu...please. Been there, done that. It has a lot of stuff, but it is not a fully integrated package that provides the flexibility of even XP.

Sounds like you need another go at it.

I gave up on it when I could not get Open Office to properly display an Excel spreadsheet that had used Arial Narrow. Installing that font (or a similar one) required two separate processes--one to allow it to print, and the other to allow it to display. The second required recompiling the kernel.

1) OpenOffice != Ubuntu != Linux
2) If you are recompiling the kernel to fix a font problem, that is like replacing your engine when your tire is flat.

So, IT people can make it work because they can deal with incomplete and often misleading documentation.

Ahem.... http://www.ubuntuforums.org . It is the TubeNet of Ubuntu.

But for people in between who are not IT professionals but who must work on documents that have to be sent to clients and open properly on their machines, fuggedaboudit.

As a rule of thumb, never send your clients an editable file (ie .doc, .xls, etc). Export to PDF. It will preserve fonts and layout, can be resized and is much more professional. OpenOffice has an export to PDF feature built in.

Rick "whose next computer will be a 7 box" Denney

I can't convert them all.

[Rick Denney]

As a rule of thumb, never send your clients an editable file (ie .doc, .xls, etc). Export to PDF. It will preserve fonts and layout, can be resized and is much more professional. OpenOffice has an export to PDF feature built in.

With all due respect, Todd, this type of advice is what got MS in trouble with Vista and what limits the Linux distros that have not been fully integrated. It is rampant on the Ubuntu forums site (which is the only place to get Ubuntu help--expected since it is free--but still insufficient to the needs of users). You ask how to do something, and the answer is, "why would you want to do that?" Of course, that is unresponsive.

The reason I send editable files to my clients is that I am contractually obligated to do so. For my work for the Federal government (of which I do quite a lot), I get the comments back from their reviews as comments and changes using Word's change tracking, which Open Office does not support. I am also required to provide PDF's and Section 508-compliant HTML, so please don't think I'm in the wilderness when it comes to knowledge of these things.

The problem is that that Apple systems are designed to their own requirements (in the systems engineering sense of that word), and as long as you sit within their requirements, they work well. But if you are required to venture outside those requirements at all, then it becomes a nightmare. That has always been Apple's strength AND weakness: It's simple and uncomplicated for people who work inside the Apple solution space but basically impossible for people who don't. Yet, most things I do that might work marginally better on an Apple (such as Photoshop) still work well enough on a Windows box. The only way I can get many of my work applications to run on an Apple is to run XP as a virtual machine. Why do I need an expensive virtual XP box when I can have the real thing for much less, and that still supports all my needs? Apple also appeals to those impressed by a certain style, where I just want my machine to do what I need it to do.

Example: I know a guy who's an Apple nut, and I respect his knowledge and reasoning. But when he uses his Apple computer to run the projector during committee meetings, none of the presentations for the meeting that others created seem to work the way they intended. When they use their own computers, they do, without fail. He sees this as a problem with their machine and software. Uh, yeah.

Speaking of work applications, if you can find traffic signal timing optimization software or stochastic micro-simulation traffic network models to run on an Apple or under Linux, let me know. Note, however, that the programs I use (usually Synchro and VISSIM, in case you think I'm blowing smoke) are also dictated by my clients.

My experiment with Ubuntu was for a computer I was building to use as a navigation computer in my motorhome--just for fun. So, I was trying to keep the price down. That was only about a year ago. Ubuntu was free, so that was what I used, and it's also the poster child for a Linux distro offered under the Gnu Public License. It was well-recommended by expert IT people I know. But when I tried to find a way to implement a navigation system on it--no way. The offerings were laughable, and extremely complex to make work with much of the integration put on the user, compared to $100 off-the-shelf solutions from established nav-software companies like Garmin that run under Windows. When I couldn't even use it to work on work documents while traveling, I gave up and sprung for a copy of XP. Two hours later, everything was installed and working just as I wanted it to. Yes, I spent more money on software, but my time is worth something, too. I still used Open Office and just don't work on "work" documents on that computer. So, if I take work with me on a trip in the motorhome, I still have to bring my work laptop. Oh, well.

Rick "no evangelist for Microsoft, either" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Rick, Intel Macs boot into Windows.

Yes, yes, yes. So, instead of spending under $1000 for a PC, I spend twice that for an Apple, and then another several hundred bucks for Windows so I can boot into it. How is that making my life easier?

Given that I can run everything on the PC that I run on the Apple, even though in some cases it doesn't run quite as well, I fail to see the advantage. If all I did with the computer was Finale and Photoshop, maybe I would go that way. I certainly would have 10 years ago, when those programs ran MUCH better on a Mac than on a PC. But now? If my only requirement was to plug it in and have it work with the software that comes with it, then fine. But if I'm going to spend a large percentage of the time booted into Windows, then I can save a lot of money by just buying a PC to begin with.

Rick "who has an iPhone and as already run into the Apple philosophy of 'you do it our way or you're stupid'" Denney

[TubaTodd]

As a rule of thumb, never send your clients an editable file (ie .doc, .xls, etc). Export to PDF. It will preserve fonts and layout, can be resized and is much more professional. OpenOffice has an export to PDF feature built in.

With all due respect, Todd, this type of advice is what got MS in trouble with Vista and what limits the Linux distros that have not been fully integrated.

With all due respect, no, Vista's plethora of problems did not stem from that "type of advice." Vista was a culmination of ideas to provide users something "new" that they would ultimately be "forced" into buying due to a) change in format [ie .docx, .xlsx, etc] or b) discontinued support of a previous product. Of course instead of taking a page out of Apple's book, producing a highly polished, highly refined and well thought out product (I'm NOT saying it is perfect) for each release, Microsoft decided "let's change this..oh and that...and let's change the kernel in such a way that it causes all kinds of hardware compatibility issues.

Reference...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMN-4byxyc
In the words of Homer Simpson "It's funny because it's true."

Vista failed like many of the worlds projects failed....poor planning and producing a file product before it is ready "for prime-time."

It is rampant on the Ubuntu forums site (which is the only place to get Ubuntu help--expected since it is free--but still insufficient to the needs of users). You ask how to do something, and the answer is, "why would you want to do that?" Of course, that is unresponsive.

There are a plethora of support sites geared towards specific distributions of Linux and Linux in general, not to mention general IT forums for help. Let me ask you something. When was the last time you called Microsoft for a Windows problem? I don't see how this is any different.

The reason I send editable files to my clients is that I am contractually obligated to do so. For my work for the Federal government (of which I do quite a lot), I get the comments back from their reviews as comments and changes using Word's change tracking, which Open Office does not support. I am also required to provide PDF's and Section 508-compliant HTML, so please don't think I'm in the wilderness when it comes to knowledge of these things.

Easy there big fella. Have you read the articles about how state, local and some federal government agencies are working to standardize file formats for some of the same reasons you mentioned above? Some governments are moving to open standards for better compatibility. Heck....you want MS Office...install it. I don't care. Linux and Mac will allow you to do that.

The problem is that that Apple systems are designed to their own requirements (in the systems engineering sense of that word), and as long as you sit within their requirements, they work well. But if you are required to venture outside those requirements at all, then it becomes a nightmare.

This is the generic "Macs are limited" drivel I've read time and time again. Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, Amiga....are all OS' each with a different kernel and each designed with a different set of criteria for their genesis. HOWEVER, they all have filesystems. They use the file/folder concept. You can read and write these files. You launch applications that use these files. Explain to me an application that exists in the Windows realm that if ported to Cocoa or X11 or Java would just crash and burn in the Mac user space.

The only way I can get many of my work applications to run on an Apple is to run XP as a virtual machine. Why do I need an expensive virtual XP box when I can have the real thing for much less, and that still supports all my needs?

Not to sound insulting...but why did you buy the Mac?

Example: I know a guy who's an Apple nut, and I respect his knowledge and reasoning. But when he uses his Apple computer to run the projector during committee meetings, none of the presentations for the meeting that others created seem to work the way they intended. When they use their own computers, they do, without fail. He sees this as a problem with their machine and software. Uh, yeah.

What software was used? What fonts were used? What was the resolution of the monitor of the person who designed the presentation? What was the resolution that the Apple was running at? What was the resolution that the projector was capable of producing?

IF resolutions are a non-factor (and I say they probably are) AND both the Windows and Mac user were using MS Office (which they could be), then shame on Microsoft...NOT Apple. When MS writes software for Apple, they can clearly BUY a Mac and test their software. The software authoring packages for the Apple framework are available. Microsoft CAN make the software work...IF they want it to.

Speaking of work applications, if you can find traffic signal timing optimization software or stochastic micro-simulation traffic network models to run on an Apple or under Linux, let me know. Note, however, that the programs I use (usually Synchro and VISSIM, in case you think I'm blowing smoke) are also dictated by my clients.

If your client insists on a certain piece of software AND it is only available on one platform...you are stuck. The other platforms are not BAD because they can't run it. The software vendor simply didn't port it.

My experiment with Ubuntu was for a computer I was building to use as a navigation computer in my motorhome--just for fun. So, I was trying to keep the price down. That was only about a year ago. Ubuntu was free, so that was what I used, and it's also the poster child for a Linux distro offered under the Gnu Public License. It was well-recommended by expert IT people I know. But when I tried to find a way to implement a navigation system on it--no way. The offerings were laughable, and extremely complex to make work with much of the integration put on the user, compared to $100 off-the-shelf solutions from established nav-software companies like Garmin that run under Windows. When I couldn't even use it to work on work documents while traveling, I gave up and sprung for a copy of XP. Two hours later, everything was installed and working just as I wanted it to. Yes, I spent more money on software, but my time is worth something, too. I still used Open Office and just don't work on "work" documents on that computer. So, if I take work with me on a trip in the motorhome, I still have to bring my work laptop. Oh, well.

Ubuntu and Linux in general does NOT suffer in functionality because of anything "under-the-hood." It fails to meet your needs because it isn't a mainstream desktop OS and therefore there isn't a lot of "off-the-shelf" software you can purchase for it.

Did you happen upon anything like this?
http://ubuntu-install.blogspot.com/2008 ... tbook.html

[tubafatness]

Rick, Intel Macs boot into Windows.

Yes, yes, yes. So, instead of spending under $1000 for a PC, I spend twice that for an Apple, and then another several hundred bucks for Windows so I can boot into it. How is that making my life easier?

Yes!!!!!

This reminds me of a story about a friend of mine. He bought a laptop part of the way through his first year as a grad student, in a school where almost all of the music grads used MacBooks. He got a Toshiba laptop, and said he was going to tape a $500 bill on the back of his monitor cover. When people asked him what that was there for, he was going to answer, "That's how much money I saved by buying a PC laptop that's better than your MacBook."

Aaron

P.S., don't think I automatically hate Macs. I do see their uses, (one of them used to be the amount and variety of ports in their laptops in comparison to PC laptops. That's gone now, especially with the switch to Intel processors.) But I do think there is a kind of "cult of personality" around these things.

[Tubaryan12]

Did someone say Ubuntu???? The latest version (9.10 - Karmic Koala) comes out Thursday. I have the latest release-candidate running at home.

I loaded 9.10 on my old IBM machine that I use to test Ubuntu versions. Up until this point, I was never impressed enough to put them on my main computer. I am typing this from my newly loaded version 9.10 for 64 bit procs version of Xubuntu Linux on my main machine (dual boot, of course). I just finished an install of the Opera browser that went so smoothly, it was almost like installing it on a windows machine. There are still some bugs and add ons to be worked out, but this version by far is the best one I've ever tried. I will be using it a lot because from what I can see so far, my machine is much faster surfing the web using this instead of XP.

[Rick Denney]

With all due respect, no, Vista's plethora of problems did not stem from that "type of advice." Vista was a culmination of ideas to provide users something "new" that they would ultimately be "forced" into buying due to a) change in format [ie .docx, .xlsx, etc] or b) discontinued support of a previous product. Of course instead of taking a page out of Apple's book, producing a highly polished, highly refined and well thought out product (I'm NOT saying it is perfect) for each release, Microsoft decided "let's change this..oh and that...and let's change the kernel in such a way that it causes all kinds of hardware compatibility issues.

Uh, yeah. Whatever. Knock yourself out.

Rick "knowing that some arguments aren't worth the energy" Denney

[MartyNeilan]

With all due respect, no, Vista's plethora of problems did not stem from that "type of advice." Vista was a culmination of ideas to provide users something "new" that they would ultimately be "forced" into buying due to a) change in format [ie .docx, .xlsx, etc] or b) discontinued support of a previous product. Of course instead of taking a page out of Apple's book, producing a highly polished, highly refined and well thought out product (I'm NOT saying it is perfect) for each release, Microsoft decided "let's change this..oh and that...and let's change the kernel in such a way that it causes all kinds of hardware compatibility issues.

Sorry, but you are mixing up apples and oranges. The formats of which you speak are part of the Office 2007 suite. These are applications, which are completely separate from the operating system. Most Windows XP users I know are currently running Office 2007, and you can run older versions of Office under Vista. Don't forget, that they make Office 2008 for the Mac users, which uses the same new formats.
Do I like Office 2007? Absolutely not. It is bloatware to the extreme. However, I eventually had to adopt it several months ago, out of necessity, when the converters for previous version of office just weren't cutting it.
Back on topic, I like Windows 7. I think that it is what Vista should have been in the first place. Hopefully they will do a similar overhaul with the next version of Office.

[TubaTodd]

With all due respect, no, Vista's plethora of problems did not stem from that "type of advice." Vista was a culmination of ideas to provide users something "new" that they would ultimately be "forced" into buying due to a) change in format [ie .docx, .xlsx, etc] or b) discontinued support of a previous product. Of course instead of taking a page out of Apple's book, producing a highly polished, highly refined and well thought out product (I'm NOT saying it is perfect) for each release, Microsoft decided "let's change this..oh and that...and let's change the kernel in such a way that it causes all kinds of hardware compatibility issues.

Sorry, but you are mixing up apples and oranges. The formats of which you speak are part of the Office 2007 suite. These are applications, which are completely separate from the operating system. Most Windows XP users I know are currently running Office 2007, and you can run older versions of Office under Vista. Don't forget, that they make Office 2008 for the Mac users, which uses the same new formats.
Do I like Office 2007? Absolutely not. It is bloatware to the extreme. However, I eventually had to adopt it several months ago, out of necessity, when the converters for previous version of office just weren't cutting it.
Back on topic, I like Windows 7. I think that it is what Vista should have been in the first place. Hopefully they will do a similar overhaul with the next version of Office.

The reference to the new Office 2007 formats were not intended to be related to a change in Vista (I can see how my wording could be read that way...my bad), but as an example of change in a format. Yes, you can download the OfficeCompatibility pack for 2007/2008 formats for both Mac and Windows.