Thetownend.com

So anyone using this as yet ? as with most MS OS's it is usually wise to wait until SP1 is released to fix all the bugs but just wondered if 7 is as bad as Vista was when it was first released or if MS have actually taken their time to get it right this time.

Few folks using it at work - most folks seem to generally rate it as an improvement on Vista, but evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Consensus seems to be "Vista but fixed". But yeah, installing any MS OS prior to SP1 is asking for trouble.

I have been using it for a few months and have found no serious bugs in it at all, the only problem is that some drivers for the 64bit especially are a bit patchy but in general its good.

A couple of compatibility problems with XP software has been experienced but much much less that I ever had with Vista.

Other users may have found some problems but I havent.

what's it like for games? that's the only reason i still use windows at all

Very good, virtually all the games I have tried on it run smoothly in DX9 and DX10 modes, but you do need a fair amount of memory (4gb+) if you go for the 64bit version to play games.

I'm using Windows 7 and I'd have to agree with Paul for the most part. Evolution rather than revolution but a few very nice additions and runs without being overly offensive, unlike Vista. I've not had any problems with any games or other software that was previously installed.

Windows 7 rocks compares to Vista!

What doesn't?

Windows XP 64 and Windows ME!

Well if you're going to scrape the barrel ....

win7 now has XP mode to run all the old programmes so shouldn't be any compatability issues.


don't forget new DX11. my new 5870 runs all games sweet as a nut. i'd even say they are a lot smoother in Win7 than compared to Vista.

...or 95 or 98.

NT, 2k or 32 bit XP after SP2 are the only Windows os's worth having. I will never ever use Vista and probably only 7 after SP 2,354.

Alternatively you could line up fellatio from Davis and install Ubuntu.

Only if you build your own kernel. Otherwise it's just a no-frills hand job

Ooo check you. Is there really any performance increase running a custom kernel? Not a criticism, genuine question. I fancy compiling my own kernel but i'm not sure if it's worth the hassle.

I couldn't even build a kennel let alone a kernal.

Plus you can't even spell it.

Marginal these days tbh. Or at least yes there can be but there's likely to be so many more factors affecting performance that are worth looking at first, the usual suspects. I just resent how easy it all is for newbies these days - when I were a lad, we had to build our own kernels, then our own X-server, and THEN we had to know the exact modeline to use in case we blew up the monitor. Graphical installers, indeed!

I haven't built my own kernel in years - I have grown soft and flabby with being spoilt by being able to install the whole kit and kaboodle from scratch in a couple of hours like everyone else. But last time I did, it's not really that much hassle, so worth a try, see if it does do anything for you. Made little or bugger all difference last time I tried it, but it was curiously satisfying if only for the retro blast :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KERNAL

I meant this obviously.

How long did you spend searching for a reference to "Kernal" that you could use to try to cover your arse?

I think you really missed the point. You must try harder if you want to be a smart arse.

I don't think i'll bother. I really haven't got the time lately what with preparing for babby. I used to install a differnet distro at a rate of about one a day at one point (sad cunt) Including base installs of Arch, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware and building them up. Fucking around with obscure WMs like JWM and Awesome. I've just about tested them all several times. In the end I thought fuck it KDE and QT are the best and I want an easy life so it's Suse and be done.   

Although I can't claim to have reached quite your peaks of geekery/sadness, it sounds like we've followed a remarkably similar trajectory, although away from SuSE/KDE to Ubuntu/Gnome in my case. Although openSuse 11.x is on my todo list (see, still get the itch :) )

Opensuse 11.2 with kernel 2.6.31 and ext4 , oooh yeah baby!!! You know you want to.

How did my life come to this?  :(

I do, I do! (Although using ext4 already and it's nice) But I don't have time atm and am trying to resist the urge. Get thee behind me, Melksham.

When you find yourself having conversations like this, the term "life" is inappropriate :)

Sad, very sad

Paul, I didn't have tou down as a beardy wierdy, open sandal with socks type man.

I have the lack of social life, just without the fashion sense :)

In mine and MR's defence, I'd point you at the hotly raging "flat rate of VAT" debate between the accountants on the Southend administration thread. When it comes to sheer tedium, beancounters outdo geeks hands down.

Can't disagree on that Paul!

Also, it is his job is it not?

I love it, there's not many of us freedom fighters around.

Have you tried kde 4.3.2 Paul? It's sweet and kicks gnomes ass for speed, functionality and beauty. If you want to stick with the buntus then give kubuntu 9.1 a test. It's a really good qt distro now. Right up there with suse and mandriva now in my opinion.   

Even my behatch runs kubuntu on her laptop, she was so sick of vista. And there's no way i'm shelling out for windows 7.

Stop it. My missus will slay me if I do another "I'm just going to have a quick play with .... " installfest. Once I unlock that door, that way madness lies :)

You aint wrong. It opens the door to rampant distro hopping and a fucked hdd. My missus got fucking sick of it too. I've promised her kubuntu is the last on her laptop. Good job i've still got my old workhorse desktop in the spare room to play with.   ;)

I'm already on dangerous ground - just got the missus to accept the mythbox under the telly and now trying out the sexy new 0.22 on it. Providing hours of faffing-related entertainment for me (much more entertaining than actually watching anything on it) and sighs of "But what's wrong with the old one, it works fine?". Works fine? I ask you! Since when was THAT the point? :)

Works fine doesn't matter and isn't the point. It's the getting it to work fine bit where all the fun is to be had!

Fuck I need to get out!

I'd love to be able to call you both sad, but I'm in no position to do so. I've got a pile of Cisco routers and switches that make up my "home lab" and am about to add a Dell server to it so I can run VMWare, Windows Server and Exchange as well. And that's what I do for pleasure in my spare time.

Seeing as you're both Linux guru's.... I want to be able to run a number of virtual operating systems on the server to add some virtual users to my network, is there a decent small footprint Linux OS that would give me basic features like email (with Exchange support if possible) and a web browser? The lower the memory and cpu requirements the better.

How small a footprint are you after?

MR's probably better placed to advise on small-footprint distros. Not really something I've got direct experience of - the usual suspects such as Puppy, DSL etc spring to mind but without having tried any of them myself, I'm loathe to make a recommendation. As MR says, a lot will depend on what you mean by "small footprint"

On the Exchange support front, Evolution is, theoretically, an "Outlook-alike" mail client for Gnome which does have Exchange support (not sure how full-featured it is) and IIRC Kontact also does for KDE. Whether either of those would fit in your definition of "small footprint" may depend on how small is small :)

Compared to Windows 7 / Vista or MAC then all linux distros can be considered "small footprint"

You want something stable as well as light. I'd recommend Debian if you're up for a bit of learning.

www.debian.org

However, as Paul states there's plenty of tiny distros out there:- puppy, slitaz, tinycore, DSL, tinyme, slax to name a few.

www.distrowatch.com is probably the best resource for info on linux distros for newbies. Have a look at the distros i've mentioned.

By small footprint I really mean the lower the memory requirements the better, as the memory will be limited on the server and the smaller each VM requires the better - I can run more with less paging. As I said before the aim is to be able to simulate some users on a network, with each user being an instance of the OS running under VMWare.

I really don't want to have to fuck about getting an unsupported OS running under VMWare, which would limit my choices to the following supported Linux OS's; Asianux, CentOS, Debian, FreeBSD, Oracle, Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu.

Though I guess if I'm just running an email client and web browser and stop everything else I don't need, then the memory usage should be pretty minimal anyway. I'm tempted to just stick to FreeBSD as it will be good to learn it more and it will double up as a web server nicely.

A minimal debian install is light as fuck and the most stable and well supported distro there is. Perfect for a server.

What MR said.

As a point of note, FreeBSD is not actually a Linux OS, it's a similarly Unix-alike OS as is Linux. But that's so pedantic, even I'm embarassed by it

Not the most embarrassing thing in this thread, sadly.

Threads like these make me realise there is still hope for me. I have no idea of what any of this is about for the last page at least.

Something I like about Windows 7. I always leave my machine on and in the past if it decided to update and reboot I lost whatever I had been too lazy to close. With Windows 7 when I log it back in all my windows I had open previously open back up :)

I have been working on Computers for 26 years and half of that was just gobbledegook to me too Si!

pah, i understood every word!

:blink: :D

Back on topic, my copy of W7 still hasn't turned up yet. Fucking Royal Mail cunts.

It turned up. Yay.

Only took 20 mins to do a clean install. A bit shorter than the two hours (yikes!) it took to back up my iTunes library.

gay

Got this today. Fantastic! Very fast!!! :)