• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

WINDOWS 7 ANYONE?

Open Sauce is great if you have software to run on it, but when it comes to gaming, Windows is still where it's at. I have been playing with 7 the past week and I do have to agree, it is the best Beta Microsoft has put out. I installed the 64-bit version so I could get more than 3gigs of RAM in play, and so far, even installing some 32-bit programs like VLC and my scheduling software hasn't hosed it. In fact, the only bottleneck has been the fact I installed it on an old IDE Harddrive! Graphic's look tight with Directx 10 and my 8800gs card, and the little "tricks" that it does, work as smooth as Mac's OS's... I think 7 is gonna be a decent step up for MS and what Vista should have been (or what I think the engineers originally had in mind..) I am just waiting to give the GUI-less server rollout a test run.

As for mac. Come on, you are engineers! Think of it like processing, it's real easy to make something stable when you have complete control of all the variables! You buy an Mac in a couple different configurations and it has Mac OS, easy as pie to make it run optimal. It's like setting a processor with one CD/album. The processing can be optimized for that album, and you can make that album sound FANTASTIC! But you start run different albums from different mastering techniques, imaging, different voices, now the problems with your processing settings begin to show up. That's what Windows has to deal with over a Mac.
 
Hot96portland said:
Open Sauce is great if you have software to run on it, but when it comes to gaming, Windows is still where it's at. I have been playing with 7 the past week and I do have to agree, it is the best Beta Microsoft has put out. I installed the 64-bit version so I could get more than 3gigs of RAM in play, and so far, even installing some 32-bit programs like VLC and my scheduling software hasn't hosed it. In fact, the only bottleneck has been the fact I installed it on an old IDE Harddrive! Graphic's look tight with Directx 10 and my 8800gs card, and the little "tricks" that it does, work as smooth as Mac's OS's... I think 7 is gonna be a decent step up for MS and what Vista should have been (or what I think the engineers originally had in mind..) I am just waiting to give the GUI-less server rollout a test run.

As for mac. Come on, you are engineers! Think of it like processing, it's real easy to make something stable when you have complete control of all the variables! You buy an Mac in a couple different configurations and it has Mac OS, easy as pie to make it run optimal. It's like setting a processor with one CD/album. The processing can be optimized for that album, and you can make that album sound FANTASTIC! But you start run different albums from different mastering techniques, imaging, different voices, now the problems with your processing settings begin to show up. That's what Windows has to deal with over a Mac.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, such things as "what Windows has to deal with" are really not MY problem. They should the realm of the people who design and assemble the computers, and definitely NOT the end user.

When it comes to computers I'm pretty pragmatic. If it does what I want it to do, I'm satisfied. I don't care if it's Windows, Mac, or Fisher-Price.

You really have to consider if the computer is the end or the means. For me, I just want a computer to work. The WORK is important, not the computer. Which is why I use a Mac for most of my work. The less I have to focus on the computer the more work I get done.

From what I have read, I think (hope) Windows 7 is moving more towards this perspective.

Kind Regards,
David
 
I agree with you David. After a week of testing, I found that Windows 7 is far better than Vista. One of the first softwares I've tested is your Ariane Sequel remote, it works fine on Windows 7. As a Mac user like you, I will also apreciate very much an Ariane remote for OSX ;)). Unfortunately, the softwares that were not compatible on Vista are still not on 7. I "can't" understand thatMicrosoft stategy...
 
I going to say, what I've already said before. XP works fine for me. I'm sure it works well for most people. That being said, why do we need Vista, 7 or anything else? Other then putting more money in Microsofts pockets, what is the purpose?
 
LowPayDJ said:
I going to say, what I've already said before. XP works fine for me. I'm sure it works well for most people. That being said, why do we need Vista, 7 or anything else? Other then putting more money in Microsofts pockets, what is the purpose?
Click to expand...

XP is fine if you only want to support the hardware that was available through 2007. XP is not capable of using all of the capabilities of some of the newer processors, systems with a LOT of RAM, and has issues with large hard drive arrays. More than "tweaks" were required.

Windows 95 was replaced by Windows 98. Windows 98 was replaced by Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was replaced by XP. Now, XP is being replaced by Vista and/or Windows 7. It's all driven by the development of faster - and now multiple - processors, expansion from a 16-bit to a 32-bit to a 64-bit data bus, expansion of the internal processor bus from 32-bit to 64-bit to 128-bit, and a host of other hardware-related factors. Throw enhanced multi-media expectations - and capabilities - into the mix, and you find that XP just can't do the job.

The truth is that a lot of people could get by with Microsoft Word 2.0 on a system running Windows 95. Some of us do very well with Windows XP. If that's the case, continue to run Windows XP. The day will come when you want to do more, and a faster quad-core processor, several gigabytes of RAM, and terrabytes of hard drive space will be required. When that day comes, you'll need Vista and/or Windows 7 to get the job done.

The software and drivers are catching up, and sooner or later manufacturers of new software and devices will stop supporting XP.
 
Loaded it up this past weekend. Struggled with sound driver issues but got through that. Noticed some glitchiness in the sound. As I understand Microshaft redesigned that entire subsystem.
 
i'm testing it on my very cheap pc, asrock mb, quad core q9450, 4gb mushkin ram, onboard audio, network, 9600gt nvidia video card, onboard wireless. all drivers were included in the beta, i didn't touched anything, it was working like win7 was made for it. i only had to install the tv card, a hauppauge hvr-4000. works great, even the media center.

ps:btw, i installed the 64 bit version.
 
SirRoxalot said:
LowPayDJ said:
I going to say, what I've already said before. XP works fine for me. I'm sure it works well for most people. That being said, why do we need Vista, 7 or anything else? Other then putting more money in Microsofts pockets, what is the purpose?
Click to expand...

XP is fine if you only want to support the hardware that was available through 2007. XP is not capable of using all of the capabilities of some of the newer processors, systems with a LOT of RAM, and has issues with large hard drive arrays. More than "tweaks" were required.

Windows 95 was replaced by Windows 98. Windows 98 was replaced by Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was replaced by XP. Now, XP is being replaced by Vista and/or Windows 7. It's all driven by the development of faster - and now multiple - processors, expansion from a 16-bit to a 32-bit to a 64-bit data bus, expansion of the internal processor bus from 32-bit to 64-bit to 128-bit, and a host of other hardware-related factors. Throw enhanced multi-media expectations - and capabilities - into the mix, and you find that XP just can't do the job.

The truth is that a lot of people could get by with Microsoft Word 2.0 on a system running Windows 95. Some of us do very well with Windows XP. If that's the case, continue to run Windows XP. The day will come when you want to do more, and a faster quad-core processor, several gigabytes of RAM, and terrabytes of hard drive space will be required. When that day comes, you'll need Vista and/or Windows 7 to get the job done.

The software and drivers are catching up, and sooner or later manufacturers of new software and devices will stop supporting XP.
Click to expand...

As an IT professional and former broadcast and cable TV engineer I can say this. If your applications will run on XP then stick with it. The problem is that Microsoft will cut off the support for it in the future and yes it will not utilize all of the functionality of newer hardware. I myself prefer XP and have since they finally addressed all of the issues with it. My gripe is with the fact that Microsoft will be cutting it loose and more or less forcing people to upgrade against their better judgment.

The other side of the coin is that if you have an older machine it may very well not be able to function with Windows 7 but the central concern should be that when you replace a computer and it comes with whatever the current version of the OS that you should be able to migrate your existing software and peripherals. That was where Vista had the most problems.

I got Vista on a new laptop I bought a year ago. I have few complaints other than the software and peripheral problem. Because of that I shall not be first in line for my copy of Windows 7. We live in a world of expendable and disposable hardware so we just have to face it. One thing to keep in mind, the old 1927 Western Electric Transmitter at WLW is still capable of going on air. How many newer rigs that you know of can do that, how many are even still intact?
 
All of my Macs (4 total with 3 on the storage shelf) still work. My old original Classic will even boot directly off a 100meg external SCSI ZIP drive after copying the Classic internal 40meg hard drive to a Zip disk. I do a lot of my work on Mac including all web and E-mail access for added security.

I just recently retired my old white box PC that has 2000 on it. 2000 required very little resources and ran all programs I need. I broke down the other day and built a new PC and loaded it with XP Pro. I don't see any need right now to upgrade unless new programs won't run on it. I don't see that happening for quite a while with all of the legacy hardware and software out there.

Vista looks to me as an annoying copy of OSX. Both OSX and Vista require additional processor resources just to run the operating system. Although 2000 and XP don't have all of the fancy eye candy they are both processor efficient.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom