Windows 7

Palbin · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:58 am

That test is highly inaccurate, and I don't believe it. I have vista and 7 and 7 is defiantly faster.

meotoo · Hangin' Around Joined: Aug 04, 2009 Posts: 36

Great. I trust you more than those tuxradar guys Smile

(I assume you mean vista and w7 on the same machine..)

nuken · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:54 am

7 seems to be a real good OS. I never had problems with ME, XP, Vista and now 7 seems to work without issues. I know a lot of people talk smack about windows, but if you are just using it to surf the web and check email and regular stuff, it works well. I do like Ubuntu better but not because of performance as much as security. So far, my wife is real happy with 7.

djmaze · Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:06 pm

meotoo wrote:

I/We have been hear everywhere Windows 7 is faster than Vista, i hope that is regarding general usage because boot times looks like to sux too much...

Only registered users can see links on this board!
Get registered or login to the forums!

What do you guys think? specifically those of you using w7 already...

Test is inaccurate, Windows 7 is faster. Boot is not the only thing and the test for "boot time" sucks.
Hardware configuration is very important, and what about EFI?
Try some hefty lifting like DVD playback, after all what do you do after boot?

I use Fedora because it's newer then Ubuntu and the overall package is swift.
I use Windows XP because it's fast (20 seconds boot).
Vista is like Windows ME but, Windows 7 is nice. It has a lot of features that OS X and KDE 3 have for years so it's a nice add-on to test stuff.
If you use Adobe Photoshop use Windows 7 or OS X.

Does boot time count when you run for your first cup of coffee at work?
Be real, how long does it take to get the coffee?

unicornio · Involved Joined: Aug 13, 2009 Posts: 432

I agree with djmaze. I also use Windows Xp Pro Sp3 on a solid hard drive. SSD SATA and I boot in 14 seconds. Isnt that nice? lol

bobbyg · Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:59 pm

I use windows7 (64 bit) on my laptop and xp professional (64) on my desktop. The booting could be faster, but it really isn't that slow. I think it is actually faster than the desktop.

bdmdesign · Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:47 pm

Hello,

The difference from Linux and Windows is:
Linux you can tune with the kernel. You can tune Linux exacly on your Hardware and so you make it very stable and very fast. New Hardware on Linux? No Driver (Modules) ? You can write your own. I did it with the HVR 1300. Windows you cant tweak simple. For Windows You need many external Programms to tune/Tweak it.

Did you have try to tweak the windows Kernel ?? ROTFL

And yes Windows 7 is a good choice for Windowsgames with Copyprotection. Windows for Surfing and Mailing ?? NO, Never. The AV Programms need many resources. On Linux i dont need an AV Programm.

Best Regards

Peter

montego · Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:18 am

bdmdesign wrote:

On Linux i dont need an AV Programm.

Oh really? I love it when Linux users make this claim, and for the record, I am a linux user. You are right in your thinking that most of the linux kernel and programs are pretty much immune to viruses (if your system is appropriately hardened). However, what I have to keep reminding folks is that a virus can still do quite a bit of damage to files owned by the user that you are logged in as... no?

For example, what about all those documents you have written using Open Office? Are they protected from a rogue program running as the user which created those documents? Rhetorical question.

While I agree that linux makes a HUGE dent in the virus writer's arsenal, as well as most nefarious types are generally lazy and will go for the easier targets, just be careful not to be so dogmatic about not having to worry about viruses... Wink

In other words, don't let your guard down completely...

bdmdesign · Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:31 am

I know thats give Viruses for Linux. But 99 % of the Viruse are Writen for Windows. Over 10 Years i use Linux, i dont have a problem with Viruses without an Virusscanners. I use this PC alone, dont open Mails, if i dont know the sender. And any more. I use good Passwords on my System. And Yes i have Installed a Virusscanner. But only to Scan NTFS-Partitions, from Windowssystems.
I have scanned my USB-Drives, no Viruses found, i scann my Linuxsystem, no Viruses found.
I dont go on xxxx Sites, i dont use warezsites.

I get one Virus in my Life and thats only on Windows 98, with the happy new year 99 Virus. Wink

Best Regards

Peter

bobbyg · Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:52 pm

I use windows7 on my laptop only but i also protect my files with "fingerprint" security. So even if someone took my laptop they can't get into those files without my finger print. That doesn't mean that the "system" can't be hit with a virus should I open an infected email, etc.

djmaze · Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:01 pm

"fingerprint" doesn't protect you from virusses. Should i write one as Proof of Concept?
Problem is that "fingerprint" is a layer on a driver so if i write a virus that writes straight to the disk your "fingerprint" is useless Laughing

bobbyg · Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:19 pm

djmaze wrote:

"fingerprint" doesn't protect you from virusses. Should i write one as Proof of Concept?
Problem is that "fingerprint" is a layer on a driver so if i write a virus that writes straight to the disk your "fingerprint" is useless Laughing

bobbyg wrote:

That doesn't mean that the "system" can't be hit with a virus should I open an infected email, etc.:

The "fingerprint" is a bio-encryption and can be used for individual folders, user, files. Like I said if someone took the laptop they could not get into it or the files, however, a virus can still destroy the system, but the individual files cannot be opened without the physical fingerprint.