Windows 7 to lose email, photo & video apps

[Rastalovich]

Create a folder with a bunch of files in it. (a disposable folder that doesnt contain anything special obviously)

Copy the folder to another partition, keeping the same name.

Then move the original folder to the same partition the copy is in.

Vista will ask u if u want to copy/replace/rename - select replace and tick the box for "do it for all.."

When Vista finishes, the folder u tried to move will still be there, but empty.

(I move an arse-load of files on a regular basis and this is a constant I can duplicate on all Vista builds)

 

[PP Mguire]

What you told me to do just gave me 2 folders with the same thing in it........When you drag and drop like that all it is doing is copying and pasting. Thats why it keeps the same stuff.

 

[Rastalovich]

U copied instead of moving. Start again

 

[PP Mguire]

I just moved the folder from one drive to the next and it just copied it over so i then had 2 folders one on each drive both with the same thing in it.

 

[Toxcity]

This sounds like a turn in the right direction.

XP was a very good OS whereas Vista was very bad this is why a lot of people think bad of Windows.

I use Linux and Windows but from my experience a lited version of XP is quicker than Linux (gets ready to get flamed).

Also Windows has more viruses written for it as it is the worlds most popular OS. But to tell you the truth, I haven't seen a Virus in years and everyone knows I don't use anti-virus or a firewall.

So overall I am looking forward to Windows 7 as long as it is quicker than that bloated waste of money Vista. I have yet to get my head round how many people on here who are educated in computers moved to Vista... it has yet to be proved worth while. Check out DX10 for example.. what a load of rubbish I have yet to see an impressive FULL DX10 game. Crysis can be tweaked Stalker Clear Sky once again can be tweaked.

DX10 was the biggest marketing ploy I have seen in years.

As long as Windows 7 can be the next XP then I am very happy.

 

[mrapoc]

*Gets hacking and virus sending tools at the ready for Tox*

I too was sceptical of Vista - I tried the 64 bit version (32 bit just wasnt worth it) and its really grown on me. I've even bought my own OEM copy. As for Windows 7 i just hope they offer "upgrade" options to upgrade my license to Windows 7. Also modular sounds the sex.

Vista x64 looks nicer than xp, better driver support (XP x64 shouldnt even be considered an OS the support is that bad) plus XP would have received the same treatment while 2000 was the primary OS. Perhaps Windows 7 will be an exception considering its just Vista - on steroids

 

[Zoot]

I use Linux and Windows but from my experience a lited version of XP is quicker than Linux (gets ready to get flamed).

What sort of Linux distro were you using if I may ask?

DX10 was the biggest marketing ploy I have seen in years.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm one of the many people using Dx9 on Dx10 hardware and have no intention of switching anytime soon.

 

[Rastalovich]

I just moved the folder from one drive to the next and it just copied it over so i then had 2 folders one on each drive both with the same thing in it.

eh ? How can u have 2 folders ?!!? lol

1. Create a folder on partition A. Put a bunch of miscellaenous files in it.

2. COPY the folder to partition B. (so u have a copy of the folder on each partition)

3. MOVE the original folder from A to B (move meaning it`ll not be on partition A anymore).

4. Vista will ask u for copy/replace requirements. Tell it to replace.

The folder on partition A will still be there but empty.

To MOVE, u hold ur right mouse button on the thing u want to move and drag it to the destination. When u release it`ll ask if u want to Copy, Move, Shortcut, Canel.

If this were the reverse, u`d be complaining I couldn`t follow instructions

 

[Toxcity]

Have had a few mainly running a stripped down Ubuntu but have played with Red Hat and BackTrack.

All are much slower than a highly tuned Windows Server/XP 64bit.

 

[mrapoc]

you must have been lucky with xp x64 - drivers are absolute pants!

my digital camera wouldnt work for one!

i have no complaints with my vista and tbf i havent tweaked at all - no need

 

[Jaster]

I'm reconing the transition from vista to windows 7 is gonna be like 98 to ME...talking of which I had an enquiry at work this morning asking how to update from ME to XP or would it even be possible to upgrade to vista, I loved the way he put the terms "my machine is ONLY 8 years old"...

 

[Toxcity]

I'm reconing the transition from vista to windows 7 is gonna be like 98 to ME...talking of which I had an enquiry at work this morning asking how to update from ME to XP or would it even be possible to upgrade to vista, I loved the way he put the terms "my machine is ONLY 8 years old"...

What? I think it 98 to ME can be better compared to XP to Vista as Vista is a poorly configured colourful version of XP.

I find 64bit XP to be a dream it is one of my fave OS's as it does everything I want it to do and very quickly. It is built from the Server 2003 x64 kernel. SPEED!

All 32bit camera drivers seem to work well on 64bit from my experience.

Also, people have different expectations of operating systems some (like me) need to have speed and can feel the difference between Vista and XP and see it through benchmarks. Others just want it to work and look pretty. All about personal prefence.

But I see Vista as the modern ME like I have said before as it is slow buggy and just a waste of time. Seems to me to be a very n00by OS because of the colours and the adverts. It isn't good to mix MAC and XP Vista shows this.

Just get MAC and XP and dual boot.

 

[mrapoc]

Lol but what im saying...having used both xp 32, 64, server 2003, vista 32 and vista 64, vista 64 is the fastest or just as fast plus the bonus of supporting everything and is not an eyesore

but if windows 7 kept the niceness, sped it up even more and made it modular

phoaar

 

[Jaster]

Its the same arguement people had from me to xp....time for a change....most machines Ive built with vista have had zero issues and are stable and reliable...Ive not had my vista x64 machine go down once...and the only BSOD i've had is when running ntune....and even running Ntune sometimes it just gives the "NTune has recovered from a serious error" message....without BSOD....I could go on but I think this anti vista movement has less and less amunition these days

 

[Diablo]

I have found vista less stable but I would never have done such ambitious overclocks or run as much at the same time on my old pc. XP has only once given me a BSOD, about 2 years back. Vista gives me 1-2 a week sometimes. But I think vista is faster, easier and prettier and has better power to recover instead of freezing up and dying. I wouldn't give up XP on my little machines (eee and pico) but i reckon on a big power desktop its fine.

Windows 7 probably won't make a huge difference to some machines here, bearing in mind MS has to focus on the average consumer, with a £500 dell or something or worse a low power laptop so I can see why they might strip out functions to make it boot quickly.

 

[nathan]

People were moaning about XP pre SP1 saying it was crap and they were going to stick with 98se. Look at them now? The same could happen with Vista. I'm guessing your all using certified drivers with your vista installs? didnt think so!

 

[Zoot]

Have had a few mainly running a stripped down Ubuntu but have played with Red Hat and BackTrack.

All are much slower than a highly tuned Windows Server/XP 64bit.

Here I sit with Ubuntu with the most memory hungry window manager enabled (Compiz with 3D desktop effects), transcoding video, downloading 4 files simultaneously, and unraring a 8GB ISO all at the same time.

Both cores of my laptops T7500 are 100% loaded but yet I still can surf away fine using Firefox with Amarok running in the background.

I most certainly couldn't do that kind of multitasking under with Windows even with the Q9450 based system I've in my sig.

Talking of Red Hat...

I too did find Red Hat slow on my last Opteron 150 based work pc, but then again I was running pretty complex simulations loading the CPU 100% pretty much all the time.

XP has only once given me a BSOD, about 2 years back.

One of the few Bsods I got in XP which wasn't Creative's or nVidia's fault was when I removed the IDE bus of the HD with the OS installation from the motherboard while XP was running. I was running my old rig outside of the case at the time and I got quite annoyed with XP that day.

Talking of Vista...

I got a good few Bsods with Vista before SP1 but since then it's worked pretty well for me when I use it (which now is rare).

Once you have the hardware to run it (>3GB RAM) it can't really complain, just strip it bare with Vlite and disable stuff like UAC...

And I think the Pre-fetch *does* actually work.

 

[Toxcity]

On 64bit XP I can do that and more, Folding all cores including GPU un-rar an ISO playing winamp and browsing OC3D.

It is all about how you set up the system. I will agree Vista is pretty but not worth it just for that since I still think classic is best looking.

 

[Jaster]

zoot who the hell uses less then 3gb of ram....with ram being so cheap its ludicrous...I just got a 4gb kit for my vista premium laptop for 47 quid (OCZ)....it ran fine on 2gb but i needed the extra to run warhammer on full as my memory takes a hit from my 2600xt (feckin hyper memory)...and before u say it its a laptop...that cost me 300 quid....a tosh satelite p200-123...and even this runs vista home premium fine...its round hole square peg syndrome...people with older hardware being advised by MS (and check the court applications to see this as dell/intel/hp and MS are all involved in a class action lawsuit) about lowering the advised specification for vista to sell old stock of hardware thats causing the scaremongering from vista.....but this is all to do with law and corporation ..the side that deals with the actual software and ignoring the various ms logos (designed for vista, vista capable etc) if you truly have hardware that is designed for vista you would encounter zero issues...as i've experienced with the 300 plus machines i've built in the last 12 months...vista from a hardware technical sales point of view is a god send with far less issues.....saying that though from the power user and enthusiast market im still sidelined as software dev is taking a hit from the scaremongering meaning less customization available.....its swings and roundabouts but whatever you believe it or not, the fact is that were going vista whether u like it or not...MS will make sure of that...don't like it .... go linux instead...

 

[Diablo]

Agreed, a lot of vista scaremongering came from people who thought their £500 dell from 5 years ago was still "cutting edge" and then realised they couldn't use vista particularly well. For many enthusiasts (i.e. people here) vista will run well and quickly. Sure it uses more memory (partly due to prefetch etc.) but memory is cheap.

MS unfortunately has to cater to people with years old mid-bottom of the range hardware or else they lose a big customer base.

On the note of ram, most of the computers in my house are below 3GB, only my big one has four (tommorow fingers crossed 8). The rest have 1 or 2 with the old linux box running 256mb. On XP its not worth having much more than 2GB I found, but I generally didn't edit huge files etc.

Also not everybody is going vista, I think a lot of buisnesses resent having to replace hardware and do a whole roll out, so they may hang on for W7