Timewaster's Guide Archive

General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Andrew the Great on December 12, 2009, 05:37:48 AM

Title: Windows 7
Post by: Andrew the Great on December 12, 2009, 05:37:48 AM
I spent the last 5 hours trying to fix a problem with windows 7 - every time I would try to access something from My Computer or use any of the Windows Search Functions, Windows Explorer would stop working. After much googling, several possibilities tried (and failed), I finally got it to work. Still, I'm currently using Ubuntu just because I don't want to deal with windows right now.

Anyway, I was curious to see if anyone else had tried windows 7 or had similar problems with it.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on December 12, 2009, 05:46:31 AM

I have been running 7 since one of the early beta releases and updating with every new release.  I haven't had any problems.

What are your specs?
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Chaos on December 12, 2009, 09:57:49 AM
I haven't had any problem remotely like that, in my beta experience or in the actual release. Very bizarre.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Eerongal on December 12, 2009, 04:12:44 PM
Yeah, I'm with everyone else, I haven't had a single problem, and I used the beta, RC, and full versions as they came out.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: ryos on December 12, 2009, 09:42:30 PM
Heh, I'm sure you'll never have a problem with Ubuntu that takes hours to fix. :P

(As a Mac user, pretty much every hours-long head-scratching how-the-crap-do-I-make-this-WORK episode I've had is with open source software...)
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on December 12, 2009, 09:46:15 PM

Ubuntu only takes at MOST a half hour to fix if you have a decent amount of experience programming in Linux.  I never have problems with it.

I try to use mostly Open Source software.  It's usually the best there is, minus the lack of support.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Andrew the Great on December 13, 2009, 07:26:01 AM
I agree. And with Ubuntu, there's even extensive support for most problems. I've never spent more than a half hour fixing a problem, largely because I can google the issue and there are fifteen other people who had the exact same issue and fixed it, kindly posting how they did it online for all to see.

With Windows 7, it's been like me googling the various things I could find, and everybody saying, "Hey, I have this problem too! I wish I knew how to fix it." Then you go to a page that supposedly has a solution, except it's actually unrelated to the problem. There's no support on the issue to speak of from microsoft, and actually calling them results in a lot of holding and no results. So then I have to start going through Windows Error logs and trying to figure it out on my own. This is not fun, trying to isolate one system crash error from another, figuring out which was caused by what. Especially since they all claim that different things caused the problem.

Then, after five long hours of essentially screwing with everything that I could think of to screw with, my system suddenly begins working normally again. And I have absolutely no idea why.

I'm not particularly happy, but I figure that there's some random issue that caused the problem, and I still do like windows 7 quite a bit. I'm just not particularly eager to go back to it after my happy little adventures yesterday. I almost just reinstalled windows, since I really don't have anything important directly on that disk. It's all on a external hard disk. But then I decided I wanted to know what was wrong so that if I ever had issues with it again, I could fix it. Dumb idea.

But yeah, this fun little adventure is hopefully over for a while.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on December 13, 2009, 07:33:20 AM

If all else fails update drivers. xD  It's weird how much that can screw up Windows.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Andrew the Great on December 13, 2009, 07:36:18 AM
Yeah, I did that too, but the problem was, it started working after I'd given up completely and had just started to use it in broken mode since it was more annoying than anything else (I mean, while it's annoying to have windows explorer crash again and again, as long as I can still access my files, it's not that bad). Then all of a sudden, everything started working. I'd done so many things to try to fix it, but none of them recently (like, not even within an hour) so I had no idea what finally did it.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on December 13, 2009, 07:47:16 AM

Did maybe Windows updates finish installing?
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on December 13, 2009, 05:57:05 PM
Ok, well, I would love to help with this issue, but you really have not given us any information to go on.

What brand of computer are you using?
How much RAM do you have?
Hard drive size?
Laptop or Desktop?
Was it an upgrade or a clean install?
dual boot with Ubuntu?
Processor speed?
Anti-virus software?
Anything "Special" about the computer?
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Andrew the Great on December 13, 2009, 10:50:34 PM
Well like I said, the problem seems to have solved itself, but since you asked/ if you still want to try to figure out what went wrong:

HP DV6000 Laptop
3 GB RAM
160 GB Hard drive
Clean Install of Win 7
Yes, Dual-boot with Ubuntu
AMD Turion TL-60 X2 Processor (2.0 GHZ clock)
AVG Anti-virus

And nothing particularly "special" about my system. I haven't made any modifications to it since I bought it.

Like I said, the problem seems to have solved itself. I posted here more out of the need to rant than to actually get help with the issue.

miyabe, It might have been updates, but they were one of the first things I tried, so if so, then they took forever to install.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on December 13, 2009, 11:27:14 PM
HP

FOUND IT!
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on December 13, 2009, 11:32:48 PM
Always be concerned with a problem that "solves itself" lol.

One of my concerns is the dual boot. Sometimes, Windows, any version, will act "funky" if the primary ("C") drive is not formatted to that version of windows specs. For example, if your ubuntu partition is Fat32, and your primary drive, but your Windows is NTFS, that could cause the issues you have experienced. (or vice-versa). this issue is not as uncommon as you may think. Soemtimes, it will work fine, others, well, you may have run across the issue. (This is not specific to non-Windows with windows, i experiences a similar issue about 10 years ago with a Dual-boot NT4/Win2k).

The other could be, like mentioned above, driver related. Since that particular model of laptop was designed with Vista in mind. and since Vista was a complete joke, in order for it to work well, the manufactures jumped through hoops. It could be that updating the drivers worked out the kinks, or you silently downloaded a patch.

If the problem recurs, I would, unfortunately, recommend reloading Vista onto the machine and doing an upgrade instead, as much as I hate upgrades, sometimes it is the best way to go, especially from bad versions of windows and the computers made specifically for those versions. (Think "Windows ME" <shudder>)

Good luck!
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Andrew the Great on December 14, 2009, 02:00:14 AM
Thanks for the tips! I'll keep them in mind if the problem pops up again.

And the whole thing with the dual boot makes sense, though I really hadn't thought of it at all.

As to the problem "solving itself," I'm hoping that it's something that I did that fixed it. Thanks again!
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Dark_Prophecy on January 01, 2010, 01:25:49 PM
HP

FOUND IT!


That made my day.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on January 01, 2010, 01:36:25 PM

I'm glad someone enjoyed it. ha ha.  I was beginning to think no one either got it or liked it.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Dark_Prophecy on January 02, 2010, 01:58:57 PM

I'm glad someone enjoyed it. ha ha.  I was beginning to think no one either got it or liked it.


I don't think I'm a fan of any one type of computer over another, really. I've only owned a Dell and a Gateway, though, and they've both worked wonderfully, so I've got no complaints. My grandfather owned a HP way back in the day though, and that thing must have been leprous. Things were practically falling out of the case within a few weeks.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 02, 2010, 07:39:25 PM
I am a fan of whoever makes good computers at any given time. Dell has been tops for about 5 years now, but only for desktops. Gateway, in my opinion, reigns supreme on the netbook side. IBM for laptops (Lenovo, really).

But each manufacturer has models to stay away from, of course, like with Dell, stay far far away from the Optiplex. But Inspirons are fantastic.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: zas678 on January 03, 2010, 08:51:48 AM
mac......

I only say that because Customer Support is much much better than any Windows. But that's just my experience. And, truth be told, my Mac has had as many troubles as my Windows computers have had, only Mac was easier to fix.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on January 03, 2010, 09:24:26 AM

There's also the fact that Mac can run twice as fast on half the hardware as a Windows machine.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Silk on January 03, 2010, 09:49:16 AM
mac......

I only say that because Customer Support is much much better than any Windows. But that's just my experience. And, truth be told, my Mac has had as many troubles as my Windows computers have had, only Mac was easier to fix.

You must have called their tech support when I wasn't working there. :P
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 03, 2010, 02:40:39 PM

There's also the fact that Mac can run twice as fast on half the hardware as a Windows machine.


Thats just hilarious! Macs are no faster, no sturdier, no safer, yet cost 4 times as much. The one thing MACs do better is video and 3D image resolution. And that is pretty much it.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on January 03, 2010, 10:12:28 PM

There's also the fact that Mac can run twice as fast on half the hardware as a Windows machine.


Thats just hilarious! Macs are no faster, no sturdier, no safer, yet cost 4 times as much. The one thing MACs do better is video and 3D image resolution. And that is pretty much it.

I've ran a fresh install of a Windows machine and a Mac machine with pretty close to the same software, the Windows machine had a bit better of a graphics card.  The Mac machine ran everything faster.

Mac doesn't run 10 million background programs that are necessary like Windows does, it IS faster.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 04, 2010, 01:50:59 AM
I promise you, I can get them equal. windows does not need all those background programs either, they are dunped on their by the specific manufacturer. I can actually get an OLDER WinXP machine to perform better (not graphics) than a brand new Snow Leopard Mac.

I support, in a corporate environment, 15,000 PCs running XP, and 1,000 Macs (split between Leopard and Snow Leopard). On average, I get more Mac calls than PC calls. And I would say 50% of the Mac calls, the OS has to be reinstalled. and sadly, the Mac users are more saavy than the PC users, so it is rare for a Mac user to call up with a simple reboot issue.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on January 04, 2010, 06:21:00 AM

I never said it wasn't possible, I'm just saying out of the box Mac runs faster. 
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 04, 2010, 05:12:22 PM
well, again, that is assuming you are comparing it to a specific manufacturer and they have the same specs, which is pretty much impossible. My 1 year old "Out of the box" Dell here at work (a crappy Optiplex) completely blows away my brand new "out of the box" Snow Leopard machine. the specs are close, the Mac processor is slightly "faster". But download speeds? The Dell by a mile, internet page loading? With java: Dell, without Java: Mac. Zipping files: Dell. Saving to network: Dell. completely useless applications: Mac wins every time. Word processing, spreadsheets, databases, email, and anything else useful: Dell.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Eerongal on January 04, 2010, 05:27:43 PM
well, again, that is assuming you are comparing it to a specific manufacturer and they have the same specs, which is pretty much impossible. My 1 year old "Out of the box" Dell here at work (a crappy Optiplex) completely blows away my brand new "out of the box" Snow Leopard machine. the specs are close, the Mac processor is slightly "faster". But download speeds? The Dell by a mile, internet page loading? With java: Dell, without Java: Mac. Zipping files: Dell. Saving to network: Dell. completely useless applications: Mac wins every time. Word processing, spreadsheets, databases, email, and anything else useful: Dell.

Yeah, it's been my experience that "what's better, windows or mac" is a hit and miss sort of scenario. Lots of variable factors that make each experience different.

Though, i do find most of apple's claims in their ads to be rather...false. Especially the "Just works" ones. Every experience i've had with someone having a mac, it seems like they've had way more problems than a windows PC (except, of course, when windows ME was the big thing, then windows had way way WAYYY more problems.)
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 04, 2010, 07:42:57 PM
well, Me was an incredible bomb, far beyond what Vista was. At least Vista worked. ME didnt work for anything lol. But I would put XP or 7 up against Leopard and Snow Leopard any day of the week. Plus, you also have to consider cost.

My Dell Inspiron at home is a fantastic computer, barely 2 years old now, and cost me only $500 flat out. A new Mac woul d have cost at least $1500 at that time.

5 weeks ago, I bought my wife a Gateway mini-netbook for $350 2.6ghz processor, 4gb SD ram, 250 GB hard drive. A Mac-mini starts at $600 with about half those specs. to match the specs, you need to spring $800. (yes, i did a straigtht up camparison on the Apple site).

Plus, windows is hardware portable, Mac OS is not. I can load windows on a Mac machine, but cannot load MAC on a windows machine (at least, not easily).
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Eerongal on January 04, 2010, 07:59:52 PM
well, Me was an incredible bomb, far beyond what Vista was. At least Vista worked. ME didnt work for anything lol. But I would put XP or 7 up against Leopard and Snow Leopard any day of the week. Plus, you also have to consider cost.

Oh yeah, you don't have to tell me that twice. I had ME for four years before i finally broke down and picked up XP

My Dell Inspiron at home is a fantastic computer, barely 2 years old now, and cost me only $500 flat out. A new Mac woul d have cost at least $1500 at that time.

5 weeks ago, I bought my wife a Gateway mini-netbook for $350 2.6ghz processor, 4gb SD ram, 250 GB hard drive. A Mac-mini starts at $600 with about half those specs. to match the specs, you need to spring $800. (yes, i did a straigtht up camparison on the Apple site).

Plus, windows is hardware portable, Mac OS is not. I can load windows on a Mac machine, but cannot load MAC on a windows machine (at least, not easily).

I saw an article a while back, just before 7 released, talking about PC cost vs. Mac Costs, and apparently mac, just the OS, comes out to costing more over time because of the constant stream of upgraded versions compared to windows. Because windows versions are fewer and far between, but cost quite a bit more.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 04, 2010, 09:56:47 PM
the nice thing about the Mac OS is the abiklity to integrate it into a UNIX network, because the OS is basically a fancy version of UNIX, kind of like Linux.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Eerongal on January 04, 2010, 10:22:52 PM
the nice thing about the Mac OS is the abiklity to integrate it into a UNIX network, because the OS is basically a fancy version of UNIX, kind of like Linux.

yeah, i always thought it was weird that windows is the only OS i can think of that isn't based on a UNIX kernel in some capacity.

Which is kinda odd, since it was based on a dos kernel way back when, which i think was based upon a unix kernel. Though now we're using like their own NT kernel or something, i think
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: ryos on January 04, 2010, 10:32:03 PM
I saw an article a while back, just before 7 released, talking about PC cost vs. Mac Costs, and apparently mac, just the OS, comes out to costing more over time because of the constant stream of upgraded versions compared to windows. Because windows versions are fewer and far between, but cost quite a bit more.

I'm calling BS on that one. Nobody has to upgrade their Mac OS if they don't want to. It's highly worthwhile to keep current, but the same could be said of Windows.

As for Windows being faster than MacOS for some things: umm, yeah. The architectures of even the most fundamental things—like the IO subsystem, VM subsystem, networking stack, and especially the kernel—are completely different between the two. In my experience, Apple prioritizes user interface responsiveness above all else, and that has its cost in terms of raw performance. It's also one of the many things that keeps me using Macs despite the greater hardware cost.

It's also not surprising that Windows 7 is actually slower than XP in most cases. XP came out in 2001, when computers were a lot less capable. It does less, and does more with less hardware. More than that, Windows 7 (actually Vista, but most seem to want to pretend it never existed) modernizes many systems, most notably the graphics stack. A modern compositing graphics stack takes a heavy toll, but it's very much worth the cost.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: mtlhddoc2 on January 04, 2010, 10:43:35 PM
ryos: you can pare down Win7 pretty good and put it n par with XP for raw performance. The Win7 "Starter" edition leaves alot of the crap out and just is a basic OS, which I love.

It will take alot for me to give up XP though. XP is incredibly stable.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Eerongal on January 04, 2010, 10:48:55 PM
I saw an article a while back, just before 7 released, talking about PC cost vs. Mac Costs, and apparently mac, just the OS, comes out to costing more over time because of the constant stream of upgraded versions compared to windows. Because windows versions are fewer and far between, but cost quite a bit more.

I'm calling BS on that one. Nobody has to upgrade their Mac OS if they don't want to. It's highly worthwhile to keep current, but the same could be said of Windows.

well, of course anyone can do that. I could still be rocking some MS-DOS if i really wanted to. :P

However, the article was written because something (i dont remember if it was apple specifically or some other pro-mac source) talking about how if you just look at the OS's macs are cheaper than PCs.

Also: upgrades are included in any calculation where you have to measure the "total/true cost of ownership" for a PC system from an accounting/business perspective.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on January 04, 2010, 10:50:04 PM

I was initially really excited for the MinWin server to run Windows 7, but them Microsoft had to go and shelve the project after they had spent millions of dollars making a smaller, faster kernel.  Yeah, we would have had to wait for developers to get caught up and remake software for the new kernel, BUT it would have been well worth it.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Chaos on January 04, 2010, 11:29:05 PM
My Windows 7 computer runs faster than my XP install did without question. It boots faster, it loads applications (notably Firefox) far quicker, shuts down quicker, and multitasks better. However, I am also on a quad-core CPU, so I'm sure Windows 7 handles that newer processor far better than XP ever could. Still, in my experience, Windows 7 has run quickly and effectively, and no major hiccups.
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Eerongal on January 04, 2010, 11:36:31 PM
My Windows 7 computer runs faster than my XP install did without question. It boots faster, it loads applications (notably Firefox) far quicker, shuts down quicker, and multitasks better. However, I am also on a quad-core CPU, so I'm sure Windows 7 handles that newer processor far better than XP ever could. Still, in my experience, Windows 7 has run quickly and effectively, and no major hiccups.

same here. However, you are correct, windows 7 is optimized for multi-core processors, XP wasn't.

I can find a link if anyone doesn't believe that for whatever reason, but it's supposedly true (i haven't benchmarked an XP v 7 PC)
Title: Re: Windows 7
Post by: Miyabi on January 04, 2010, 11:40:53 PM

XP dislikes my 64 bit processor.