Windows 7 Build 7100 = Release Candidate 1... kindasortamaybe

Jon55 said:
Wow, is this true? So no more "shutdown" chimes?
Click to expand...
The chimes are still there, they just made them smaller. Oh, and I love the sarcasm on the blog "400ms ... every little bit helps".If you are concerned about 400ms being decreased from your boot time, you've got problems. It's like disabling the 'tick' sound when you are browsing folders...
Andrmgic said:
With the sheer volume of the leaks, I have to wonder if they weren't letting them out on purpose..
Click to expand...
Because they are the development version.
 
The MSDN/Technet build is 7100, which is what a lot of us have been running for well over a week now. It's exactly the same code - the MD5 and SHA checksums match precisely, and that's that.

Microsoft didn't release that build on the 30th on MSDN/Technet only to make a totally new build and distribute it on Tuesday for the rest of the world. This is nothing unique as the same process happened with the previous public beta, 7000. That build was built weeks before the actual public posting date of February 11th, and once they committed to the build - 7000 - there were no more changes from that moment until their website was totally flumoxed by the bandwidth leeching on that date. And, they released the exact same build to MSDN/Technet a week prior...

7100 is it, the RC is done, it's finished, it's out there, development stopped on it when it was built - the fork is because this track is done and the work on the RTM build is still in progress. The RC is finished and it'll be publicly available to the masses on Tuesday as promised. But a lot of us are impatient bastards... and some of us have ties to Microsoft so, we're ahead of the curve purposely... because we can.
 
I also wish they'd change the jump lists, so they pop up right under your cursor, or atleast give you an option, for people who prefer it the way it is.


5022009-05-03_013152.png



2922009-05-03_013152%20copy.png
 
Joe Average said:
Uhmmm... nothing you posted there was "Perfect" and should be more adequately labeled as "Personal Preference" - sorry, that's just how it is. :D

And no offense, but with respect to the Thumbnail shots you posted, the actual image size - if measured - for the Vista shots is smaller from the top to bottom perspective, while the Windows 7 images are taller so that's not a fair comparison. Just for shits and giggles, here's what I mean. This is the first one you showed with a measurement added:

uhuh01.png


and then the "Perfect" Vista hackjob...

uhuh02.png


In that respect, what you did was alter the size of the entire window so everything "fits" in that so-called "Perfect" way - but realistically Vista and Windows 7 are identical in that respect: they even share the same default Thumbnail size... so... "Ehhhh... sorry, wrong answer, Hans..." ;)

And I'm not going to do the same thing for the Explorer images with the Detail view because you did exactly the same thing: you have completely differently sized windows from a height perspective so obviously YES the Vista examples will appear to be more compact; it's a purely visual "trick" of sorts. The font sizes are the same by default, using the same font even, so... they're using the same amount of space. This is ... well... fail. :(

You can alter the size of scrollbars to be more close to what Vista has by default - Windows 7 is a bit larger by default because more and more people are using higher resolutions screens today than they did ~2.5 years ago when Vista was coming out. Most stuff in the default Windows 7 interface is slightly larger to make stuff easier to see, it's just how it goes - but there's nothing you can't adjust to make it look more like Vista as long as you realize Windows 7 isn't broken, it's just different.

Does that make Explorer in Vista "way better"? Hell no... because that's not something you can accurately quantify - it's purely personal opinion and preference, nothing more.

One thing does surprise me however with your apparent preferences: in the Vista Thumbnail view, you neglected to note that the column headers still appear there in the actual pane above the Thumbnails (the Name, Date taken, etc), wasting what, 21 pixels... in Windows 7, that's not there, so Windows 7 by default will show more Thumbnail content...

Go figure that one out. :)

As for Windows 7 and the boot partition, it's that way for a reason, to provide more stability and the ability to have you still be able to boot the machine to start a repair of the boot files if necessary without the need to have the DVD handy anymore. With True Image, you only need to make an image of your actual system partition, wherever Windows 7 is installed. Image that partition, and leave the 100-200MB boot partition alone - you do NOT include it in the image file, that's what will fuck things up completely. Leave it alone and only image the system partition where Windows 7 is, and restore that as required.

Simple.
Click to expand...

You are right, like I said, you have to love organizing ;)

I have different sized windows because I was trying to find the perfect fit that would show both details properly and thumbnails too.

When I tried the same sized windows as Vista(i.e. 4 rows) it messed up the folders in details view(because of the extra space that I indicated in the first thumbnail of my first post - mark - 2.). And visa versa, if you can find the perfect size of the window that shows both thumbnails and folders in detail perfectly in windows 7, please let me know.


As for the boot partitions, yes it's better for stability but what if I want to install a different operating system, yes I'm not going to touch the boot partition when I intend to keep and reinstall windows 7 later, but what if I want Vista or XP? will hiding the 7's boot partition work? or do you have to completely delete it for Vista/XP to boot up properly? because if you have to delete it, it yet again creates a hassle if you want to restore windows 7 later.
 
Well, wish me luck. Tomorrow is dedicated to erasing my long loved Vista 64 installation and finally going with Win7 x64 for good on my desktop. Been upgrading up through the builds on my netbook, but have been keeping Vista64 on my desktop just because I know it works.

With the RC now release, its about time. :) Its just gonna take alot of reinstalling crap...
 
If you want to use more than one OS, the old long standing "Golden Rule" of dual/triple/etc booting applies once again:

If you plan to install more than one OS on the same machine, install them in chronological order by date of release, oldest first, then next oldest, then newest.

It really doesn't get any simpler than that. If you install Windows 7 on a blank hard drive with no partitions, it will use 100-200MB of space at the beginning of that drive for that boot/recovery partition, and use the rest for Windows 7 - this is assuming that you just tell it to use the whole drive. If you decide you want to partition it, say split it cleanly down the middle, when you select the first partition to put Windows 7 on, it'll shave off that 100-200MB for itself for that boot/recovery partition and use the rest as the home for the OS itself.

However...

If you install Vista (or XP, this applies there as well) and you split the drive, say in equal parts, and then decide to put Vista on the first partition and Windows 7 will be installed later on the second, Windows 7 doesn't need to create the boot/recovery partition and it doesn't - it simply uses space on the Vista partition (not 100-200MB of course, but some) for the files it requires, and to be honest what it really does is just add itself to the Vista bootloader, pretty much, as well as add a few files in there as required.

So, as long as you follow the chronological concept, you'll be fine.

Try this example:

Say you install Vista on a split drive, say a 500GB split down the middle. Put Vista on the first 250GB, then install Windows 7 on the second 250GB. Both OSes will work fine, you'll have a boot menu appear (unless you disable it, seems silly but hey, I've seen stranger things) to choose which one you wish to run at any given boot.

Now, say you decide to wipe Vista and install XP on that first 250GB, entirely within the realm of possibility. You can literally use the XP installer to delete that first partition - poof, it's gone, then install XP on it.

But, of course, that basically makes Windows 7 invisible in terms of a bootloader, don't it?

Yep, it sure does. Luckily, after you get XP installed, up, running, and functional, you can just pop in the Windows 7 installation DVD, go into the Repair options on the second dialogue box (click that Repair button), then use the Boot repair options to automagically - because it'll do this with no intervention on your part - "fix" the Windows 7 boot capability by installing the Windows 7 bootloader and adding the necessary entries for XP and itself.

Voila... piece of cake... :)

Just keep that chronological order, and when you make images, image the partitions as required if necessary - but if you just have Windows 7 on the drive, there's never a need to include that 100-200MB boot/recovery partition in an image. You can, but it's a bit iffy - my experience so far with True Image (highly recommended) is that it sometimes does it right, sometimes it doesn't, but I think that's because True Image hasn't truly been updated to deal with Windows 7 and this "new way of doing things" with respect to the boot/recovery partition.

I fully expect the next release of True Image to be Windows 7 ready, in all situations you might need it to work.
 
@ JoeAverage

What is that you cowboys say ..........


So far so good on my rig with this RC build.

Only issue i have is in L4d, after a few hours of straight playing, game will freeze. just alt tab wait a sec looking at task manager for (not responding)
click back on l4d icon, game runs fine.

the right click on taskbar options i dont really like BUT im sure there are tweaks down the road to customize this OS more.
 
Last edited:
As if it's not fast enough... please. :D

Begs the eternal question I've been asking for decades:

"How fast is fast?"

Right click on what?!?!?! The Jump Lists? My word, that's one of the coolest features... if that's what you're referring to, of course.
 
Just for the record, I downloaded Win7 RC from TechNet on Thursday night and it's build 7100. I don't know if Microsoft will keep updating those download images with newer builds or not...

bigdogchris said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the TechNet/May 5th release is more stable than the 7106 version.
Click to expand...
 
/me has to remember to take off his +11 Ring of Thread Invisibility...

Perhaps some folks have me on ignore or something, which is a most definite possibility. Bleh... ignorance ain't bliss... seeing as this is my thread, I mean really. :rolleyes:
 
I can say you aren't on universal ignore at least, Joe.
This is my taskbar. There are many like it, but this is mine.
 
..are any of you guys using readyboost in Win7? ..if so , aside from size restrictions lifted and number of readyboost drives being able to be used ..any difference from Vista?
 
ThreeDee said:
..are any of you guys using readyboost in Win7? ..if so , aside from size restrictions lifted and number of readyboost drives being able to be used ..any difference from Vista?
Click to expand...
Well, if you consider that 7 uses less memory and is much less aggressive with SuperFetch than Vista is, I would suspect the performance benefit of ReadyBoost to decline with 7.
 
Just upgraded to Win7x64.7100 from XPx64SP3. I keep reading about great performace, but I'm not really seeing it when I have a game loaded up. My framerates are down, and switching between windows/etc during loads is really slow. Perhaps it's just my hardware isn't on the improved performance list, but I don't really have anything out of the ordinary.

That being said, I do like the LOOK of it..
 
You really do need a modern system to take advantage of Windows Vista or 7. Framerate losses going from XP to Vista/7 are negligable and the trade offs are well worth a 1-3 fps difference.
 
Would anyone warrant to use this as their main operating system?

I have XP installed on a hard drive, and it's no where near using even half the space, is it still possible to "shrink" my partition and add another for 7? Or do I need to reinstall XP? Or should I just put caution to the wind and go 7 beta until retail?
 
I just partitioned my 640GB so that I set aside 100gb just for the W7 RC1 (and previous betas) and the rest holds my main XP install. Works good for me.
 
veritas7 said:
Would anyone warrant to use this as their main operating system?
Click to expand...
While very possible, I'd hesitate only because it's not likely the RC will be upgradeable to the final release, and using the RC as your regular OS means you're re-installing within the next year, regardless.
 
veritas7 said:
I have XP installed on a hard drive, and it's no where near using even half the space, is it still possible to "shrink" my partition and add another for 7? Or do I need to reinstall XP? Or should I just put caution to the wind and go 7 beta until retail?
Click to expand...
I was using the first pre-beta leaked build as my main OS for a while. But I don't do anything really "mission critical" with my comp.
 
bonsai said:
Out of curiosity what VS is that? Anyone know if Vista VS's work in 7? I haven't tried any myself.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention that he's using a different VS in my dissection post, but decided to let it go. That could also cause some aspects of the interface to be different from the defaults. Not sure what VS it is, has a slight OSX-ish look to the buttons (not the squared off look and arrows). Not a bad one...

No idea if Vista VS stuff will be immediately useful on Windows 7, but I'd guess there should be crossover at some point, definitely.
 
veritas7 said:
Would anyone warrant to use this as their main operating system?

I have XP installed on a hard drive, and it's no where near using even half the space, is it still possible to "shrink" my partition and add another for 7? Or do I need to reinstall XP? Or should I just put caution to the wind and go 7 beta until retail?
Click to expand...

When I originally installed the RC, I was going to do a dual boot setup with XP because I figured there'd be some kind of issue, such as a game or two that wouldn't run right or some of my hardware might not be supported yet, but everything worked "out of the box." After getting it installed and tinkering around with applications and features I use most, I couldn't find any reason to keep XP around.

I posted earlier in this thread about getting the infamous Vista 2mb/sec network copy bottleneck, but just plugging my external HD directly into my system circumvented that issue. I'm still not sure what that's all about.

Of course, I always backup and format my system every 6 or 8 months just to keep it fresh, so having it expire on me in a year or so isn't a biggie.

I remember getting blue screened when I was installing Vista because it didn't like 4GB of ram (taking 2 out, installing, popping it back in solved it), having Vista choke a little on Steam games, and watching it rape the holy hell out of my HD while it was caching data even on a clean install. Even though they've resolved a lot of these issues since then, I expected something similar with Windows 7, but it's been nothing short of awesome so far.
 
Anyone that does gaming, can you tell me if Win7 vs Vista, the performance is about the same, better on Win7 or worse on Win7?
 
they say it's better/faster. i would look for games made for windows... or made for win7.
 
Windows 7 is going to be the cracker for games.
Just google Windows 7 and pc games.

By the way, thinking of PC games ... do you folks know that one ?

Animator v Animation

I thought that was pretty niffty for a flash game.

(Yeah, yeah ... I know. You knew it like 10 years ago and I'm late again)
 
OMG, thanks spanq! That was probably it... I have 4x2GB sticks in, so that might explain it :D
 
Ladic said:
Anyone that does gaming, can you tell me if Win7 vs Vista, the performance is about the same, better on Win7 or worse on Win7?
Click to expand...

My games run about 1% faster on Windows 7 with an 8800 GTS 512.
 
anyone else have reallllly shitty battery life w/ W7?

running an m1330, my battery only lasts about 1 hour and 20 minutes now. yesterday vista would last 2.5-3 hours.
 
Imprez04 said:
anyone else have reallllly shitty battery life w/ W7?

running an m1330, my battery only lasts about 1 hour and 20 minutes now. yesterday vista would last 2.5-3 hours.
Click to expand...

been working great for me, no noticeable difference on my Vostro 1400
 
I'm about to put Win 7 RC1 to the test... I'm upgrading it onto my spare OS drive which is a rather borked installation of Vista SP1 32bit which was itself upgraded onto a borked XP SP2 installation that had numerous repair installs and other things done to it.

If Win 7 runs fast and problem free I'll be impressed :)
 
I'm extremely happy with Windows 7 RC1. This is what Vista should have been. I've been running it on two computers for while now and couldn't be happier. No little bugs or annoying hiccups that I had with Vista 64bit. Used to have random freezes due to Nvidia drivers, supposedly, and now haven't had a single problem. It looks better and runs faster. Even runs great on older computers that Vista would bog down. Microsoft dropped the ball with Vista, but are definitely back on track with Windows 7.

Good riddance Vista, you clunky, buggy, unstable piece of crap. :D
 
Clunky I'll give you, but what evidence is there of Vista being buggy or unstable?

Vista x64 SP1 is rock solid
 
officer921 said:
Oh I see, your opinion is right, and all others are wrong. Sorry, I didn't know people weren't allowed to have their own. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You know the what the difference is between opinion and facts are, do you?
 
meatfestival said:
I'm about to put Win 7 RC1 to the test... I'm upgrading it onto my spare OS drive which is a rather borked installation of Vista SP1 32bit which was itself upgraded onto a borked XP SP2 installation that had numerous repair installs and other things done to it.

If Win 7 runs fast and problem free I'll be impressed :)
Click to expand...

Only suggestion that matters:

DO NOT DO AN UPGRADE INSTALLATION AGAIN ON TOP OF THAT BORKED VISTA SP1 INSTALLATION.

Clean installation of Windows 7, wipe the partition(s) off the drive, make it blank and bare, select the unallocated space and let Windows 7 have it all (unless you plan to partition, that is).
 
Decided to make this a separate post so it's visible...

This thread is about Windows 7, period. It's not for Vista bashing, it's not even for comparison to other versions of Windows, so knock that shit off right now. It's been going great so far, but the childish bullshit ain't gonna happen, I'll ask a Mod to lock this one down tight and I'd really prefer not to do that.

Thank you for your co-operation... have a nice day. :D
 
Fair enough. It just irks me when I see that Vista FUD is still going on. :p

I still have yet to try the latest Win7 build. Has anyone tried playing a MIDI file on the latest build? It doesn't work on the first RC, but it did work in beta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top