I’ve decided to bite the bullet and upgrade my main PC to Windows 7. So I backed it up - twice - and kicked off the install. A blank PC (this one) installed W7 in less than an hour, and all other apps in less than two. The PC being upgraded has been going at it for 12 hours now. It’s 62% through ‘Transferring files, settings, and programs.’ Don’t get me wrong, there’s continual progress, but I really didn’t expect it to take quite this long.
Anyway, it’s a lesson for when I get asked to upgrade other PCs
Your experience is uncommon, but probably a good reminder that a clean install is better. I’m sure it’d take you less than 12 hours to reinstall your programs.
The relevance is that Windows 7, like Vista, is apparently a huge-ass, memory hog.
Whether or not the quote is true, the point was that many people are having problems keeping up with software that is starting to eat up half their hard drive, if not more.
Would be nice to be able to afford a new laptop every two years, but for those of us schmucks who don’t have the money to do so, it is a bit unnerving to see your available memory dwindle every time there is a new version of Windows.
Quartz:
Just out of interest, are you a Technet/Action Pack subscriber or Gold Partner, and so using the general release, or are you using Windows 7RC? If the latter, I presume you used the hack to allow you to upgrade?
When I upgraded from Windows 7 Beta to RC, I, too, was surprised at how long it took. I can’t remember now exactly how long - certainly nothing like twelve hours - more like one or two, but longer than previous OS upgrades.
As an aside, to reiterate what everyone is saying: 7 works very well indeed. It is worth it.
If I’ve learned anything it’s never to upgrade an OS (unless it’s a complete wipe). My hope is that MS will put their OS on a chip so computers boot up instantly and can’t be overwritten. That way, when they slow down we can flush them clean without causing chaos.
Windows 7, despite being hyped as a completely new OS, is really just Vista with all of the stuff that everyone was complaining about fixed. One of the things that folks really complained about was that Vista was an ungodly memory hog. It’s a little unfair to say the same thing about W7 since this is one of the things that Microsoft spent a lot of effort fixing.
While Vista would likely reduce your two year old laptop to a snail on sedatives, Windows 7 will more than likely run on it with few performance problems.
I’m already aware of a pretty nasty flaw with USB KVMs - basically, if you set a machine to hibernate, when you wake it up, you must have the KVM set to that machine.
No, but the RTM build is available in certain channels if you happen to be connected. It’s been up on MSDN for a while now, if you have a subscription to that.
Also, just a thought, dollar for dollar, desktops smoke laptops in overall performance. Maybe your problem is more a predilection for notebooks not that the OS sucks.
Windows7 may have a larger install footprint but it draws less ram and CPU power, the primary gripes from power users WRT vista.