Do your friends, the 'enterprise users' not know that you can easily turn off the Aero interface and pretty much run in Basic mode? There are bound to be a few people who prefer the look of Windows 2000 to even XP. what bearing does that have in a review?
In your tests with Windows 7, how did you fail to notice that the UAC had been drastically toned down to be much less intrusive?
How did a mini review of WIndows 7 get hammered out by yourself without mentioning the tweaks to the UAC, a major source of contention with many users?.
Have you worked in an Enterprise environment before , like a bank or somewhere similar , how many banks do you know that uses Vista. its not because enterprise people hate the cool Aero interface , its more of what is running under the hood. compatibility and stability, i.e what am used to. sure i know a company that still uses windows 98
, again my point was that windows 7 doesnt do anything new from vista, from an interface point of view, beside i don't qualify my post as a review , i was just stating what i experienced using windows 7. a review would have been much more detailed. (btw i didn't notice any change in UAC with windows 7, i was among the few who wasn't really bothered by it)
Did it ever occur to you that all the reviews you read for Vista were on machines that met the recommended requirements given out by Microsoft? Have you EVER seen a vista review that the test machine's hardware was not specified? Vista got a bad rep mainly because people kept running them on older hardware (many people here on Nairaland just went out to Otigba and tried to pop Vista on 800Mhz machines with no GPU and 256 - 512 Mb RAM).
the issue of system requirement too was a major point of controversy. even MS people were confused on what requirement is needed to make a system vista capable.i remembered before the release of vista , lots of OEMS tagged their systems vista capable. so who do you blame on this one , the poor innocent guy who installed vista on a 350mb ram system because it was tagged vista capable (from experience not me sha) infact MS got sued on the issue (for misleading people on vista capable thingie)
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200817/793/Microsoft-fails-in-Vista-Capable-court-appeal Also people strangely kept expecting universal compatibility with all their old software and pushed the blame to Microsoft. Not all companies had updated drivers out and this added to the compatibility issues
upon the release of vista there was no clear cut standard of what the minimum requirement for vista is , sure we knew it would run on a 3gb computer with the latest and greatest hardware, but what was the minimum. i remembered my first vista laptop was 1gb ram core 2 duo , and vista eat up about 700mb of that. just to run, the result was a machine that was slow as hell when doing any task outside of watching the screensaver run,
Reviews done on systems that met Windows recommended specs, and with reviewers that understood that driver and 3rd party software support were responsibilities of the respective companies were almost always positive. Naturally, issues with the OS itself were pointed out. Show me any professional review of the Vista OS that did not criticize the intrusive nature of the UAC.
like i said earlier i take online reviews with a pinch of self , in fact a bucket full of salts if i must say , until recent it was wierd to see people have systems with 3gb or 4gb or ram , i mean systems for home users. even that is not a guarantee for speed. run xp on a 3gb system and see it blaze , not so for vista , again i know my what i mean by speed, vista is by no means slow on a 3gb dual processor , neither can you call it fast either.
The acer ferrari furore involved only about two dozen bloggers. Unless the hundreds of commentators on Engadget, gizmodo et al have all been bribed, i'd say their overwhelming judgement tilts in favour of Windows
you mean 24 bloggers , dude 24 influential bloggers can make a big impact on perception especially if they are well chosen.beside what is unethical is unethical, and gifting people high end laptop to review your product compromises the on their integrity to be unbiased
it's always good to have a personal opinion, yes, but i'm not foolish enough to use my negative impressions about Linux as a basis for a faintly damning review. If my iPhone hangs up often, i'll go online to see if it's a common problem before i start writing reviews talking about a problem.
neither am i , my option is based on my experience and nothing more, calling it a damning review is the subjective qualification you choose to apply to it, its first an opinion , whether is damning on not is a matter of personal interpretation.
99.9% of netbooks sold come installed with Windows Xp Home edition, which runs pretty well on a 1.6 Ghz machine. When i install Windows 7, a more advanced version of the former OS and i get the same speed levels and response time as the XP (with all the Aero eye candy enabled), then i'm damn well certain to call it pretty fast
. well i cant comment on that , since it was your test, although i don't think i will be running windows 7 on a netbook very soon. perhaps it is optimized to take better advantage of ssd then xp was. perhaps it just better optimize to work better on hardware , could be,
If your dell m1330 runs Vista or Xp, install 7 and compare the response time.
no it doesn't run neither , and wont be in a long time, however am ready to bet my money on it that non of the above OS can give me the speed i get on that machine, .
One of the chief complaints about Vista is that it’s a “heavy” operating system that eats up too many system resources. However, in his presentation at PDC, Windows and Windows Live SVP Steve Sinofsky said that WIndows 7 consumes less than half of his Lenovo S10 netbook’s 1GB of RAM. It turns out he was right on the money as the performance monitor showed only 485MB of the RAM was in use with no applications — except the standard Eee PC driver set — were running.
like i said i take this reviews with a pinch of salt, p990 is the worst product ever to be made, yet it had glowing reveiws from almost every tech site, also i haven't seen a review of the dell m1330 that point to the nvidia problem that is turning the machine to an expensive metal weight faster than shoes can be thrown at Bush. (thank God i got the Intel version)
http://mindre.net/post/Windows-7---All-Tasks-and-Memory-usage.aspx
Memory usage (Updated)
At PDC a netbook (Asus eee?) with 1GB of RAM was showcased running Windows 7 just fine.
1GB of RAM isn't much these days, but still I kept wondering how much RAM does Windows 7 really need?
A quick comment pointed out that in the night i forgot to take the page file into account!
As I wanted to find the "static" memory usage of Windows 7, the page file had to go.
The new tests showed that with 512MB of RAM the system used about 369MB of it.
With 400MB of RAM the system used 329MB.
And with 300MB of RAM the system got a critical error after booting.
So what is the real "static" memory footprint of Windows 7?
It seems to need about 350MB of RAM to be able to boot successfully
. nice , and i believe you, also believe me when i say i got 800mb ram on idle usage. from windows 7.
So i do not know how you obtained your idle RAM usage of 800 Mb
taskmanager ? .
You seem to be in the minority here
. dude i am a minority and my window 7 "review" have nothing to do with it.
When your experience is inconsistent with what most other people are getting, common sense dictates you take another look at the benchmarks and your test machine again.
common sense to me is , get on with my life , i wont be using windows 7 and i know what i saw , beside i don't have the time or the resources to do so, in fact i used windows 7 during the hols not because i wanted to but because i had no choice, i just thought to share my experience and my thought about it when i saw this thread , if i was really interested in doing a review of windows 7 i would use my blog.
As a system administrator i wonder how come you have no access to older hardware to test out the veracity of Microsoft's claims
. am longer in lagos and i have no windows 7 cd/iso with me ,
As you said, it's your opinion. But you're reviewing a publicly available beta, which most people have tested with extremely favourably results, even for a beta. The overwhelming majority of people accept that it's a solid return to form by Microsoft. Except for yourself, that is.
what can i say , to each is own and i stick to what i saw , and nobody has to believe me, like i said earlier i used windows 7 not because i wanted to review it, i had no computer to use, and just tot to see if there were any improvements, i was disappointed but i brushed it off and went on with my life, till i saw the thread and decided to post my experience.
have a healthy respect for your IT skills and intellect, and Gamine speaks highly of you
But it's extremely shameful of you to make the above statement without reading the link i provided. Does it make you happier to insist that Vista can outperform Xp on hardware that comfortably meets the Vista minimum requirements?
Here's the link below in case you missed it before
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298This is a scientific test done with several established benchmarks for real world performance. the specifications of the machine are published in the article.
keep on like this and you leave yourself open to 'Stop hating' kind of comments
the real shame is you expecting me to dispel what i experience everyday in my line of work, with people's general usage of computers for some benchmark run in some forum by some guy who uses his computer generally for gaming, dude i provide IT support, and i deal with this issues , latest person is the librarian her shinny vista with 3gb ram is just there when it comes to speed. (plus other annoyance) its my work to install what work best for my clients (and what would make them disturb me less) in my line of work the more xp i install the less problem i get , That Tex is my benchmark
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
Untitled.jpg (139.5 KB, 1024x600 )
