Hawk & Badger Railroad Forum

Seems that Microsoft has admitted that the Vista OS is a failure ["too cumbersome" is the description that has been posted around]. They've been working on Vista's replacement, called Windows 7.

According to the official Microsoft site:

Over the past few years, you've asked us to make some changes to Windows. We listened closely. Now it's time to share an early look at how we've used your feedback. Windows 7 is faster, more reliable, and makes it easier to do what you want. Both the everyday things and the killer "is that really possible?" things.

So, what do you think this new Windows OS [to be released 4th Quarter 2009 - 1st Quarter 2010] has in store for us? Should we continue to build Vista "work-arounds," or should we wait for the W7 release, or should we just chuck it all and go back to XP?

-- Cliff in Virginia

I really love the idea of sticking with XP, it may not have all the bells and whistles of Vista but unless your specific applications of an OS require what Vista has, XP has done fantastic. I build computers for myself and family and will never give up my XP Pro disc. When I ordered my laptop for my business I had no choice but to get Vista Business on it. It has been an adventure to say the least but after almost a complete day I was successful at getting the laptop in my network at home. If Microsoft uses the security features of Vista and the ease of use from XP to create Windows 7 I think it would be a hit in the computer world. Just my on the matter.

... or buy iMacs and run XP in a window within the superior Macintosh OS X. Use XP only for your good old games, but for everything else use Mac's OS which has been doing the things that Vista tried to do for at least five years before M$ got its clunker out the door!

Seriously, use XP for now, until 7 is out and established. I use Mac OS X at work and am a fan, but on my home-made PC (the never-ending upgrade) at home I use XP.

Actually I understand that Win 7 is the fixed version of Vista. It is built on the Vista core.

I just bought a new OEM version of XP Pro that I'll be using on a new computer I'm building and I may go back to NewEgg and buy 1 or 2 more copies while I still can.

While looking for a solution to replace that Vista crap on my new laptop, I came across some talk on "slashdot" I think. They were talking about how this new Windows 7 may just be an update that Microsoft is trying to make money on like Windows 98SE. It sounded like they had seen something about the features and that was what it was looking like, new name, just updated with some "new stuff", if I could afford a MAC I'ld get one, but I'll just go back to XP and deal with it. Just my

Hawk wrote:Actually I understand that Win 7 is the fixed version of Vista. It is built on the Vista core.

I just bought a new OEM version of XP Pro that I'll be using on a new computer I'm building and I may go back to NewEgg and buy 1 or 2 more copies while I still can.

Buying more? What happened to the NEVER GET XP guy of not so many years ago ?

This Windows 7 thing has de javu of Windows Millennium Edition!!!

AZ Rail Rat wrote:[This Windows 7 thing has de javu of Windows Millennium Edition!!!

Ouch! Don't remind me of Windows ME

-- Cliff in Virginia

I'm going to have to agree with everybody else around here. Stick with XP Pro.
After having to replace my PC after my fire, I had to have this one custom built because I couldn't get a PC without Vista on it. I now own an OEM of XP Pro and will stay with that for as long as I can. (At 61, 10 - 20 more years, maybe...)

AZ Rail Rat wrote:[
Buying more? What happened to the NEVER GET XP guy of not so many years ago ?

Oooh Rat, that's not kind, but it's true! I remember!

AZ Rail Rat wrote:Buying more? What happened to the NEVER GET XP guy of not so many years ago ?

As Bob Dylan said: "The Times They Are a'Changin'."

Actually there were a couple of programs I wanted to use that wouldn't work in 98SE.
It wasn't by choice. I was forced into it.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

That's the true measure of a man - the ability to change when advisable and stick firm when necessary - and to tell the difference between the two!

This thread is about a year old, now.
What's the general opinion as we stand now about W7???

So far, I'm still stickin' with XP Pro.

I am running Windows 7 64 bit for 6 weeks now. All the old programms are working fine.
Sid Meiers Railroads! ( Yea, I am one of those ) RRT 3, is running flawlessly. All the older programs, even my wifes Oblivion is working fine. Had no problems, whatsoever.
It is true thou, this is what Vista should have been.
Jancsika
PS using all 4 MB RAM and could have more if needed.

If I'm not mistaken a 64 bit OS can utilize up to something like 64 GB of RAM, whereas a 32 bit OS can only utilize 3.2 GB out of 4 GB of RAM

32-bit Windows can only access about 3 GB of RAM, but some 32-bit programs, such as Photoshop, can utilize more. You have to use the "3 GB switch" to do it.

Wolverine@MSU wrote:32-bit Windows can only access about 3 GB of RAM

Yep! That's what I said. About 3.2. I have 4-1 GB sticks installed. I haven't used that switch.

Most programs won't benefit from the extra RAM, but some do. There's an interesting explaination, and debate, about what the "3 GB switch" does and can be found here:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-re ... 13208.html

Interesting thread. Thanks for posting that link Wolvy.

As fate would have it, I got the latest Newsletter form Windows Secrets this morning and one of the articles discusses 64 bit apps. and apparently their oddity for the home user, claiming that they're primarily available, at the moment, for the corporate/IT world.
Here's a link to it if you're interested. http://windowssecrets.com/2010/01/28/01 ... es/#story1

Bottom line: What I come away with is that a 64 bit OS may be beneficial to me but I'm not sure the additional cost would offset the benefits.
I say it might be beneficial to me as I'm currently running a dual monitor setup and I sometimes have 7 or 8 programs loaded at the same time. The biggest memory users I guess would be PSP and 3 different browsers (one with several tabs opened), along with the programs I use for web design, email, and the stuff running in the background - anti-virus, firewall, Cacheman XP, Display Fusion (for the dual monitor setup), Weatherbug, and Secunia, plus all the hidden stuff.

BTW! A correction on a previous post of mine where I said 64 bit OS's can use up to 64 GB of RAM. That should read 16 exabytes (16 billion GB), at least according to the Windows Secrets article.
That is, of course, theoretically. Even Win 7 Ultimate can only use 192 GB RAM.

My understanding is that XP can only utilize about 3 GB of ram or so BUT any third party app can be written to utilize much more.
I also understand that the new W7 can utilize 8 GB of ram... Again, any third party app can be written to use much more.

Hopefully, the third party writers will write to use more ram then we have...

Any 32 bit OS, be it XP, Vista, or Win 7, can only utilize about 3 GB of ram (3.2). It's not the OS but the bit parity (is that the right terminology?)that controls that.
I don't know about any third party apps but as mentioned in the article I linked to and the thread Wolvy linked to, that kind of stuff can be problematic and not really work as it claims to be able to.
Something like that, at least the 3 GB switch, doesn't give you the ability to access more RAM, it simply addresses how some software utilizes it, but even then it can't make a truck out of a car.