Reg readers flocked to install Windows 7 last week, and then flocked to our comments and inbox to tell the world exactly how they were finding life with Vista Mk II. Thanks to all of you who contributed. We're sure some of you have waded through all those comments, but just in case you haven't, here are a few choice highlights …
One on a 4GB dual core AMD desktop, 32 bit, took about 20 minutes, another on a 4GB quad core Q6600 32 bit with a 64GB SSD, and 2x 4TB RAIDs took about 30 minutes after updating some PCI card drivers, another on an 8GB triple core 64 bit took about 25 minutes (this machine also dual boots Ubuntu 9.10 faultlessly), and finally on a lenovo Y550 laptop dual core 3GB 32 Bit took 20 minutes. All installations apart from the laptop have been operational since the RTM and none of them have had any serious issues, I haven't noticed any increased time to desktop on boot, and if my machine was taking 20 minutes to get to a desktop I would be threatening it with a screwdriver at the very least!
Paris cos 20 minutes is probably too long for her!
It's only an operating system. Why bother "upgrading"? It won't make you type faster in your word processor, your email will still work the same and the speed of your 'Net browsing won't change - and it's more likely your favourite apps won't work . All this hassle for a "pretty" UI? (there's plenty if UIs for XP!)
Never understood this ;-)
Same old Same old
Theres explainations for most of this behaviour that apply to XP and Vista as much as 7.
Kill tablet and DFS services, cull out the vista cruft in services. The guy with PPTP problems, turn off 'use remote default gateway' for your tunnel.
Bluescreens - drivers or RAM are screwed, using old drivers for another OS, especially NVIDIA ones are a really bad idea. Sounds more like old hardware than OS issues. It does install and run fine on a 4 year old Pentium M lappy.
First release Win 7 install yesterday and machine out the door, brand new Phenom/Gigabyte/Nvidia machine and it worked a dream even after 24 hours of trying to break it on perpose.
FWIW I HATE vista with a passion, I dont particularly like XP if I'm honest. 7 Does seem to be a good step in the right direction
Explorer not expanding folders as you "explore" your hard drive
easy fix, go to "Folder Options" and there's two new options down the bottom, one of them is to expand folders automatically, check it, no longer a problem.
Why Microsoft changed how explorer functions in that regard after all these years I really don't know, but at least you can put it back.
And if you want to connect to an SMB share (for instance on a Mac) you'll need to go into Local Security Policy and change the Lan Manager settings to accept NTLMv1 passwords as well as V2.
I'm about to install 7 on the last of our computers here (it's on my desktop and laptop, about to put it on the wife's laptop) and I'm really liking the "Homegroup" feature, no longer will I have to share random folders so my wife can see our family photos from her computer!
Its funny, all these so called professionals who cant install an OS or buggers it up in 3 hours.
I am trully grateful that we dont all need to rely on some of these people, because the world would probably stop if we did, with giant BSOD messages on every TV and computer screen in the world, never mind if its a Mac or running Linux, it'll still be microsofts fault.
Still, could all of you people with problems installing and running this let us all know what company you work for, your job title and your direct line manager.
Translation for our American readers
"(well, went out for a fag and a tea)"
(well, went out for a cigarette and a tea)
better han Vista, Probably
I keep getting a BSOD on Win 7 but I have a feeling that its down to not being able to find a disk image mount program that works properly.
I have a fairly meaty setup and vista was rock solid and responsive on it that said I have seen it on far too many lower end systems where it runs like a dog.
Why upgrade - come on el reg!
Look, the one thing that I think most of us really want to know is WHY should we consider migrating to Win7. As in, business reasons that stand up to scrutiny from sysadmin level scrutiny and then survive the bigger level of skepticm that finance/management will have when they see the bill. Then i'd like to see some analysis of those business reasons and the benefits to be expected from them.
At the moment, your coverage seems more based towards the home market "cos it looks pretty" crowd, rather than the IT Professionals and I have found much of the coverage so far to be dissapointing and useless.
According to your own research most of us are still managing XP estates, so please could you let us know how it compares to XP. You know a lot of us sysadmin types are intensely skeptical of anything salesdroids are pumping out, and to a lot of us "faster than Vista" says "but still slower than XP" unless that's said explicitly, because we are used to salesdroids trying to sell us expensive and useless tools by lying to us through the omission of important facts.
It's definitely Vista-II in reality...
It's not a new OS at all, everything is so distinctly Vistaesque, however memory management is better and everything is a little more clicky and idiot proof - although that's not catering for those experienced PC users who don't need an applet or shortcut for even the simplest of tasks.
Beneath the veneer there are glitches and problems galore, I found bugs with WMP 12, with Media Centre, with Windows Update palming me the wrong driver updates and bricking my internet adapter...
Anyone who jumps in prior to SP1 on any M$ OS can call themselves nothing more than an advanced BETA tester in reality.
Slow startup? Not here.
I've been running 7 x64 RC on my main PC since it was released, and it still boots to usable desktop in well under a minute. In fact, the POST takes longer than the boot to the login screen, and login (local only) takes a few seconds. And I've got dozens of things installed, including the full Microsoft Office, two versions of Visual Studio and all the frameworks, SQL Server 2008, IIS7, Eclipse, and a bunch of ickle background things like MSE, uTorrent and goodness knows what else. Applications load almost instantly, I've had no blue-screens or compatibility problems, and I think this is the best version of Windows ever.
Of course, my main PC is a 3Ghz quad with 8GB of RAM and an OCZ Vertex as the system drive. But I've also been running 7 Ultimate x86 RTM on my Samsung NC10 (with 2GB RAM) since it hit MSDN, and that's still running fine, too, with a similarly diverse bunch of things installed. It is noticeably faster than the originally-installed XP.
Only real problem is, I'm bored now. When can I get my Windows 8 CTP?
Pleased others dislike Explorer
A comment you included from AC:
"5) When you enter a folder it doesn't auto expand in the folder pane."
Yes, I noticed that too and thought I was just being anal. You now have to either double click on the folder name to expand it or click on the Lotus Notes style arrow. (I am very disturbed to see MS copying that given that so many Lotus customers are migrating to MS)
Another quirk with the folder pane (for which the activation function is well hidden, why couldn't it remain as an icon?) is if you double click on a folder it somes jumps down to the bottom of the folder pane instead of remaining at the same location after its opened. Such small issues are really the biggest problems as it affects usability.
El Reg, you neglected to pick up on a major mailing of Windows 7. The ability to remember the location of your Explorer windows after a reboot has GONE! If you like to continue working with your open Explorer windows in the same place with the same settings then tough luck. Win7 forces you to manually put them all back to how you like them each and every time you reboot.
I'm all for retro design, but going back to Windows 3 is a bit too much!
Remember people - all that glisters is not gold, as Shakespeare wrote some 413 years ago in his play "A Merchant of Version 7". Has the merchant Ballmer taken your pound of flesh?
Vista II == VII == 7
Interesting or stupid?
"used xp drivers and gor BSOD". Really??
Installed on 3 machines and had zero problems. One 64-bit, two 32-bit. Virtually every device found a driver. Install took about 45 minutes but so what, how often do you do it??
I can't believe people when they say it's crap when they have installed on some old pile of shite, "used XP drivers" and then winge about BSOD! Amazing.
Buy a machine Windows 7 compatable and then you have some right to complain.
My biggest gripe has always been the 99% coped sitting there forever before it comes back. You know what? It only happens on large files and guess what it was AVG virus checking before the copy from cache to desktop. Not Vista at all!!
I got a name check, Wicked!!! :)
is the answer for Windows 7 slowdowns. :)
They should change their name...
To Microshaft or Microshlock. Their programs since XP are absolutely outrageous. I still run XP and Office 2000. Does the job with no bugs.
I'm an old Commodore Amiga Fan that machine was a precision tool. If you watch the task manager in Windows you will see that it doesn't execute programs in sequence. It just switches back and forth randomly.
Watch the windows media player progress bar it can't keep in sequence with the music etc.
Shafted again I think.
From a Linux user...
Installed Windows 7 64 on the kids gaming machine from my corp MSDN, works 100% no issues. Its quicker, slicker and he is more than happy. Thats 1 month plus and almost 1TB of games + MS Office etc etc...
Zero complaints... (*I hate to say).
Installed 7 32 Bit on the Mrs PC for her Uni work, she's 100% happy and one month in on a crappy dell single core with 1GB of ram. She thinks its much better than XP + Bloat + More Bloat.
Installed 7 32 Bit on my *now spare, dont ask free laptop* dual core 1.8 2GB ram and its running fine for remote access to my nix box / office, no gripes...
Installed 7 64 bit on my Nix server quad core AMD 6GB RAM and 8TB RAID 5.(*on a spare pata drive for the kids mates to play on when they come round), 100% happy no issues... 4 weekends of solid gaming and no bitching.
WTF M$.... its actually quite good.
Maybe its the fact the PCs run for a day and are switched off, unlike my *nix box which is 24/7 until his mates turn up wanting left4dead game play.
Bad 1st Sentence
Windows 7 Reg readers flocked to install Windows 7 last week, and then flocked to our comments and inbox to tell the world exactly how they were finding life with Vista Mk II.
A few of our esteemed Windows 7 Reg readers flocked to install Windows 7 last week, and then flocked to our comments and inbox to tell the world exactly how they were finding life with Vista Mk II.
There fixed it for you.
I won't be installing Windows 7 anytime soon. The first time I saw someone try to use it it BSOD'd at boot. The reason? He attached an external monitor to his laptop before trying to boot it after the install had completed. IMHO, its not fit for purpose (like most Compute Operating System I might add) especially as they think I should part with some of my hard earned £££ for it.
Better than Vista but...
I run 3 operating systems on my 5 home computers: 1x OSX, 2x Windows XP and 2x Window 7 RTM. So far Windows 7 has shown problems with a number of applications and refuses to run even in compatibility mode. Yesterday, a Windows 7 update disabled an external Wireless-n device. Not impressed at all.
"Yesterday I plugged in a Mobile Device for the first time, it automatically installed Mobile Device Centre and connected to the device for me. Now that's cool. :)"
No, it isn't cool, its typical microsoft. Want to do something? It installs some extra software. I hate that about windows stuff.
Probably never upgrading now.
only one problem
When it wakes from sleep, my Microsoft wireless keyboard and mouse no longer work - so proper shutdown required. This wasn't a problem with my XP install, and faster waking is one of the big W7 selling points.
Windows 7 slowing down...
Sounds like the "tuning services" they have installed by default. To my understanding it tries to preload data for commonly used applications, tune your network connection, cache data from network drives, all sort of fancy BS.
The first thing I did when I installed it was go through and disable all non-essential services, and that got me down to 32 processes, and it still runs like a dream, and I've been running it since it was released on MSDN. (July I think?)
"better than vista"
"When you enter a folder it doesn't auto expand in the folder pane"
It does if you if bother to read the "Folder and search options".
Windows 7 Redux
Commented on an earlier article and see no reason to change those comments. Fedora and Ubuntu do everything I need and they were free. No problems hooking up new thingies or loading on new machines. May end up with it during the next upgrade simply because my bosses do not offer choice in OS. (I can see their point; we are horribly understaffed and the staff is under-trained. Adding Linux to the mix would blow their little minds.) So, I am happy that some are enjoying their experience. No one has yet convinced me that I need to shell out my own money to purchase this OS. Meh
I will be downloading a new OS
in a few days ,
The one that is due to be released on 28 October.
It's the PC, not the OS
Why is it that Apple OSes run so reliably? Well, it's because they only allow their OS to run on a highly restricted set of hardware manufacturers and models.
Here is my philosophy for running a Windows PC with a new OS. When Windows create their OSes they will be designing and alpha testing the new software on stable, well understood systems. This means good, matched RAM chips, a fast, cool running SATA drive, Intel dual core CPUs and vanilla ATI or NVidia graphics cards. The PCs will be well cooled, and will have stable PSUs.
Now, many PC manufacturers tweak the vanilla hardware base components of their PCs and so the new OS will not have been extensively tested on the hardware sets. As far as MS are concerned (and with so many manufacturers, who can blame them?) it's the manufacturers' job to make drivers that allow a stable running environment on hardware they themselves have customised. The same goes for home built PCs running cheap hardware or cutting-edge hardware. MS can't design their OS to run perfectly with every single variation of every model of mobo and certainly can't design out-of-the-box W7 specifically to work with hardware that didn't exist when RC1 was released. The high variation in hardware quality and the high numbers of manufacturers means that Windows has to deal with a much higher rate of hardware error than MacOS, and there's a limit to what we consumers can expect. Vista fell well beneath that limit, but from what I've heard from friends and colleagues who have used Windows 7 beta and RC1, almost all non-software reliability problems have resulted from non-vanilla hardware issues.
So, if you want a PC that will smoothly upgrade to a newly released OS, make sure your hardware is recent, but not brand new, and make sure it's as vanilla as possible. If you buy from Dell or HP, you should wait a few months until they've put decent drivers out. If you overclock, go back to factory settings. If you have new or tweaked hardware, wait a while - and If you have cheap hardware, don't expect it to run smoothly, even if it ran XP really, really well. It's not MS fault if your hardware is a rip-off copy of someone elses XP-compatible design.
Basically, expect what you pay for. The cheaper the computer you buy is in comparison to an equivalent Apple computer, the greater the number of manufacturing cuts that have been made. Low cost means either the manufacturer is taking a hit on profit margin (ie as Samsung are doing at the moment to try and gain a big increase in market share), or that the hardware is simply cheaper to make. Cheap hardware means eaither it's old, it's cheaply designed, it's copied off someone else, or it has a high failure / error rate. All of these will have an effect on OS performance. No OS, no matter how good, is ever going to run as well on bad hardware as it does on good hardware, and a new OS release is inevitably going to highlight the differences.
So, before blaming Windows 7, check your PCs hardware.
Step in the right direction
I think W7 is a step in the right direction. It is better than vista so that is in itself an important thing to recognize.
If M$ is reading this I'd like them to consider a more modular release system.
One big similarity intel chips today have with, say stuff from 10 years ago is that they all run pretty much the same core 32 bit instruction set (not couting of course extensions like MMX, SSEx, AMD64, virtualisation etc).
If they could release a modular release, say a bare kernel and some tools and just have addons as needed which you can purchase when and as you need them, and have newer kernels easily available as upgrades, ie SMP, 64 bit, that would be sweet.
I know it kind of happens now (ie netbook w7, vs w7 ultimate) but it would help if the process was ... more like err... Linux, you know, swap in/out bits AS YOU NEED, to customize your system. I'm not talking about live real time hot swapping device drivers in a microkernel but at least just the option to build up your system the way you want it.
That would make it more appealling to a lot of people. One could get a base W7 install for example, for a netbook, and say, add on for the sake of argument, an encrypting file subsystem, and remove/uninstall say a subsystem that wasn't wanted.
I mean really remove not disable.
That way the footprint could be potentially much smaller.
Under XP, all my apps work, all my data is in place and, well, all my stuff just works!
XP running sweet as a nut.
7 costs $$$ to upgrade s/w and h/w plus some pain.
Where's the payoff here?
Why change a thing?
Or am I missing something truly important?
I think your poster should look at the highly potential correlation between these two points:
"3) Boot-up has slowed over time which is not caused by new software being installed.
4) No multiple desktops like in Linux. I've had to buy a utility to do this"
Despite claiming that this slowdown isn't cause by new software being installed, he goes on to strongly imply that he *has* actually installed some new software and by its very nature, software which will get kicked off and initialise during the latter stages of bootup/login.
"It;s what Vista should have been"
I'd throw one out there and say that it is what Longhorn should have been.
I've had no probs with it at all. Through BETA and RC and now to Release. Its great!
Best Windows Ever.
Just... People with a Mac should wait for the Bootcamp update before they install.... as that can cause BSOD.
My favourite comment
My favourite comment is undoubtedly "3) When you click on a filename to rename it, it highlights only up to the dot. My fave feature."
So Microsoft have done something right for once. If the rest of the comments are anything to go by, they've got everything else wrong though!
I like it. It works on old gear, new gear and is pretty straightforward. A nice look to it, doesn't crash and is responsive.
But then thats not enough for most people....
Acutally I installed ALL the software on the machine on day 1 (including the multidesktop utility) . The slowdown has happened gradually over the following weeks.
Windows 7 compatible hardware?
I think the comments here are missing an important aspect of the problem.
I appreciate that it has always been the case that new hardware will always run new operating systems better, but some of the systems people are complaining about aren't really old.
People (and computer companies) seem to imagine that anybody who has a system older than 2-3 years should really replace their hardware. Think what this would mean if the same were true for cars, your heating system, your cooker, or your television ( - scratch the television, the manufacturers are already managing to convince people that their 2 year old 1080i LCD televisions are not 'true HD').
What is missing is the ongoing support for the 2-5 year old Athlon XP, Pentium D, M and 4 machines that are still perfectly capable of doing the Web browsing, Email, Word Processing and home accounts, that many people still have. These are still usable machines, and the only thing that will make people dump them (literally) is either a hardware failure, withdrawal of support (as MS are threatening to do for XP) leading to their online banking complaining that their system is insecure, or a sales person persuading them that what they have is lacking in some way.
If MS wish to make XP an OS of the past, they must have an affordable upgrade path to W7, IE8, WMP 10 etc, and make sure that drivers are available for older hardware (and the same must forced on the display and audio device manufacturers who are so keen on abandoning their old-hardware customer base). After all, I'm sure that a 3GHZ Pentium 4 must be at least as fast as a 1.5GHz Single core Atom 270, which is supposed to be able to run Windows 7 without problems.
Of course, there is a vested interest in the computer manufacturers shifting new hardware, and support issues for older stuff is a useful lever to them. I've long thought that MS and the hardware manufacturers are in collusion to make sure that they continue to sell the new 'shiny' things.
Computers should be commodity tools now, not subject to the whims and fads of fashion. It sickens to see, week after week, serviceable computers and televisions being sent to the recyclers, not because they no longer work, but because the owners have been conned into thinking that the old ones are too old/slow/difficult to secure or support, and the answer is to replace them. I'm not a Green, but the blatant waste is bordering on the criminal.
A computer should be for (it's) life, not just Christmas (sic).
First impressions are good, but......
I took delivery of Win 7 professional on Thursday and the clean installation was fairly painless once I had saved my profile migration settings and Firefox/Thunderbird profile from my laptops rubbish Vista Home Premium pre-installation.
Initial thoughts are that this is a definite improvement but I still see no need whatsoever for any company to rush this onto the user desktop in the workplace. XP does the job fine for basically all businesses. In fact, if my home laptop had XP professional on rather than Vista Home Premium I never would have bought Win 7 in the first place!
Of two Minds...
I ran a W7 ( like the idea of VII=7, that actually explains the name) RC2 install, it had some nice features, and a very quick boot time. The downside was that I used the boot time frequently. The bloody thing would not stay up for more than 24 hours. I actually saw it BSOD a few times (on one occasion 4 times in 15 min - it is a quick boot), but mostly I would leave it on over night, It would go into hibernate, and when I got back from work the following day it had rebooted; all work lost.
I'm gonna try(ial) again with the actual release, because I don't like having a $2000+ paperweight, and can't find my XP install media, if it does it again, I'm going back to Kubuntu (or maybe even eComStation)
No ambivalence Icon... I guess "drunk" is close enough.
I guess if you're going to be another pile of crap (" It's better than Vista "), you want to be a small pile of crap. Which Windows 7 is. Dachshund size, or maybe Chihuahua. But certainly not Great Dane size, that's just gross ... overstatement.
XP is fine?
I'm amazed at the XP comments.
Every time I have to touch a client's XP PC it's barely usable. Two XP machines in my daughter's classroom are so slow they are definitely unusable - I will telling her not to bother even touching them - not going to waste education time waiting for MS bloatware to grind slowly along.
The Windows users expectations must be so, so low.
We've converted a couple of clients to Ubuntu and the main comments are how fast it is.
So, all the XP users - please try a modern OS - you'll then realise how much of your lives you've wasted due to MS incompetence - the sooner you switch the better.
File copying/deleting bullshit still there
I really, honestly, truly like Windows 7, and it works perfectly, except for one thing. One fundamental flaw: the little bastard will still only copy files at 1.5MB/s, and deleting them is no faster. WHAT THE FECKING HELL? I've tried changing, updating and reinstalling the storage controller drivers, but nothing helps. I don't want to see 1.5MB/s on anything in 2009 - my net connection's faster than that!
And before anyone starts on with that "crappy hardware" nonsense, this is a quad core box with 15000rpm hard drives. It does *not* dick around, and under XP x64 I would easily get 80MB/s between drives, no problem. I don't think it's the drivers either, because loading from the disk is still fast as hell - it's just anything involving a write that's slow.
I wouldn't pay 90p for an operating system that couldn't do the most basic operations without cocking them up, let alone £90 (or £150, as it now is).
If I can't figure out a way to make this thing...
a) Stop pausing for a couple of minutes halfway through the bootup process (no disk activity, nothing)
b) Start copying/deleting files at a reasonable pace
c) Stop lagging the rest of the system when copying large filesets (talk about kicking a guy while he's down)
...then it's going back under "unfit for purpose", which I believe trumps their EULA any day. Still got my copy of XP x64, and I am not waiting 5 minutes per module for a Maven build because Win7 wants to take its time with copying.
It's a real shame, because other than that, it's great, and worth the upgrade from XP.
Kubuntu Karmic would kick this thing's ass if I could get it to work properly with my Triplehead2Go.
But is it better than XP?
Well, is it?
And in passing, could *anything* be *worse* than Vista?
Just had a thought
Double post! Following on from my original rant, a colleague of mine has described exactly the same symptoms on much more mainstream hardware, and we noticed something - installations are still really fast. So why does one type of file copying run fast, and one run slow? Is it something to do with privileges? Wonder if disabling UAC would help.
Not just for home users.
I've been running the RTM for a fair while now, on a fairly non-standard machine (an overclocked sony ar21s laptop with raid) and it runs beautifully, especially compared to vista. No BSODs for months. It boots faster, has a more stable wifi connection, multi-tasks better, cascades windows faster and makes (for example) working on 10 different rdp sessions a much better experience.
Some of the features in 7 that tie in with Server 2008 R2 look awesome, and the extra group policy settings, management features, and power savings make it a no-brainer for me. I've tested it on a few virtual machines and various physical machines and I'm installing it on 20 machines in November.
And i have to agree with some previous posts. If you can't manage to install Win7 without getting confused and irate about BSODs or driver issues, what are you doing as an IT professional?
@Steve Davies 3
A few of our esteemed Windows 7 Reg readers flocked to install Windows 7 last week, and then flocked to our comments and inbox to tell the world exactly how they were finding life with Vista Mk II.
A few of our esteemed Windows 7 Reg readers flocked to install Windows 7 last week, and then they, along with hordes of people who haven't installed/seen/used Windows 7 but wanted to get their opinion of how Ubuntu/OSX/AmigaOS must be better because Steve/rms told them it is flocked to our comments and inbox to tell the world exactly how they would have found life with Vista Mark II if they had installed it, which they mostly didn't, cos it's by Microsoft so must be evil and they use Ubuntu so they are better than you, so there!
There, fixed it for you.
I installed the RC on my vintage PC this weekend for kicks (Athlon XP 2600+ nForce 2 and Radeon 9800 Pro, all bleeding edge stuff). Given nVidia abandoned the mobo chipset and never put out Vista drivers, I wasn't overly optimistic, but thought I'd see just how badly it runs. The Upgrade Adviser told me all would be well, and my only heartache would be running WU after installation to get the sound working. Of course, I didn't believe it for a moment, but now as I wipe away the last few crumbs of humble pie from my lips, I must say it installed flawlessly.
The only reason I had to open the Device Manager at all was to satisfy my curiosity that all was indeed well afterwards. Not only did it find drivers for everything, but the whole setup is running much more smoothly than ever it did on Vista.
It's no speed demon, of course, but Vista was practically unusable on this machine - perhaps due to the dodgy nForce drivers I had to use.
I'm now installing all my crud on to it, and waiting to see how long it takes to slow to a crawl... But so far, so good. If it stays snappy, and I can find an upgrade for cheaps, I might be tempted to buy it. Which as a Mac head is a hard thing to say(!)
I though Windows 7 was supposed to be intuitive?
works for me
Windows 7, quite simply, is a good OS.
If you're happy with XP, stick with it. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.
I have 7 on a netbook, business desktop on an AD domain and gaming machine at home. It works flawlessly on all of them. Virtual Box runs like a dream on my x64 desktop for Linux.
It's as if people are annoyed with MS for coming up with a good OS. Even the Mac Weekly podcast has admitted that Windows is now in parity with OSX.
I've installed it on 2 systems that are both 2-3 years old and it works as well as XP.
Haven't had to upgrade the hardware, it just works.
1 supports Aero, 1 doesn't.
Only problem was getting sound on one of them, but after finding the correct Realtek driver it works fine.
Win7 is different and takes a little bit of getting used to but, once you do, it's a big improvement.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month