Well, regarding the search function in Windows 7... By default it only searches indexed areas. But there's an option to make it search through all files/contents. It's a lot closer to XP's search then, so I always use it like that. It's not perfect, I'd like to be able to specify whether I'm searching for a filename or file contents, but hey.
Posted on 2010-10-06 09:00:23 by Scali
When I purchased my machine it originally came with Vista 32-bit.  When Win7 came out I purchased the x64 Ultimate version and installed it along-side Vista in a dual boot configuration. My development requires writing code for both 32 and 64 bit environments.  I must say that I do nearly all my work now in Win7 x64 and only load Vista for the purpose of testing code on a 32-bit environment.  I've had no driver issues and haven't had a BSOD yet. I also have a Linux x64 Fedora box for my Linux development. I am equally impressed with both 64-bit operating systems.  Running dual or quad-core with 6-8 GB of ram and an SSD makes for a very pleasant computing experience. IMHO - the Steam survey also proves this as more gamers realize that just having a fast graphics card isn't enough to remain competitive.  I can only imagine what Fatal1ty's personal system must consist of  :)
Posted on 2010-10-06 09:28:45 by p1ranha

Well, I ride XP into the grave on my main machine :P I bloody hate Vista, actually just replaced it with Ubuntu for good. Don't have a Win7 system yet.


I plan on doing the same JimmyClif.

Statistics have their role, but they are just a small piece of the picture.

I would venture a few questions.

1. For company use, was going to Win 7 based on increasing productivity and profitability?
    Or was it to maintain "your budget so you don't get less next year.)

2.  For the general public, what percentage are aware that XP can still meet their needs for many years?
    That'll save them some "cash-ola."

3.  Going to Win7 means many computer systems ending up in landfills with all those toxics percolating into the soil.
    How many knows that happens?

4. "Feel free to add additional ?'s that I haven't thought about.

Posted on 2010-10-06 21:47:06 by skywalker

1. For company use, was going to Win 7 based on increasing productivity and profitability?
    Or was it to maintain "your budget so you don't get less next year.)


Well, I work in the software industry, so what we do is more or less affected by what the world around us does.
We HAD to move to Windows 7, because we need to develop and test our software for Windows 7, since pretty much all new computers that our customers buy, come with Windows 7.


2.  For the general public, what percentage are aware that XP can still meet their needs for many years?
    That'll save them some "cash-ola."


I think you could take that even further... I would argue that technically, Windows NT4 probably fits the needs of most people already. The real problem is that most software simply doesn't work anymore on such old OSes. Microsoft is already ditching XP support. For example, IE9 will never work on XP, and I think XP also no longer gets Live Message update and things like that.


3.  Going to Win7 means many computer systems ending up in landfills with all those toxics percolating into the soil.
    How many knows that happens?


Well, I guess that makes me feel good in a way... I have 3 Windows 7 machines at my disposal, my desktop at work, my desktop at home, and my private laptop. All three are older machines, which I upgraded to Windows 7.

I'm not too sure how many people really think about this when throwing their old computers out (especially laptops with their batteries). But I also wonder how many people buy a new PC just because they want Windows 7, and how many people get an upgrade to Windows 7 just because they were upgrading their outdated PC anyway.

I will say this... I have an old laptop from the early XP era, from about 2002-2003 I suppose. It's a Celeron 1.6 GHz Northwood processor. Originally it came with 256 mb memory. Used to work okay, but I upgraded it to 512 mb later.
But now, after three service packs, the thing is incredibly slow. It takes ages just to boot the thing, or open a mail client or internet browser. Yes, I've tried to reinstall it, but apparently that is not the problem. Might be the extra security features they've added over the years, not sure... but I'll say XP today is not the XP it was in 2002. I would now need 1 GB to run it adequately, where originally the 256 mb was doing an okay job. But that is physically impossible in that laptop, 512 mb is its maximum. Running Windows Update takes about half an hour.

I would say that on a system that actually runs XP adequately (say a Pentium 4-class system, perhaps HT or dualcore, and 1 to 2 GB of memory), you could probably run Windows 7 just as well. My laptop is a very modest 3 year old Core2 Duo 1.5 GHz with an Intel IGP and 2 GB of memory, and it runs Windows 7 Ultimate x64 like a dream, with all eye-candy and everything on.
Posted on 2010-10-07 02:43:03 by Scali
Yep I've recently installed Ubuntu as well - not interested in 7, period.
I think I'll wait for 8, and then not install it as well.
Posted on 2010-10-07 05:37:37 by Homer

Yep I've recently installed Ubuntu as well - not interested in 7, period.
I think I'll wait for 8, and then not install it as well.



Homer, we oughta be buying stock in companies that make ram, hard drives, etc.
Posted on 2010-10-08 18:36:21 by skywalker