Windows 7 Beta takes another crown, besting Vista in SSD performance
By Paul Miller 
posted Jan 18th 2009 8:20AM
posted Jan 18th 2009 8:20AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Hopefully it'll get better by the release date. SSDs are pretty fast anyway but you might as well optimize as much as possible.
It should, but Microsoft is counting on industry hardware players to do their part too (which, I doubt, current SSDs provide yet).
See the WinHEC 2008 presentation "Windows 7 enhancements for solid state drives" - google for a lot more, but here's a PDF of the Session's powerpoint presentation:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/A/7/FA70E919-8F82-4C4E-8D02-97DB3CF79AD5/COR-T558_Shu_Taiwan.pdf
It appears they can make great strides with their SSD specific drivers and, with a little gettin' onbaord from the manufacturers, can make it seamless - where the OS can tailor the driver to the media, instead of today where it's using the same drivers optimized for platters as for SSDs.
uhhh, well iEye, this is a desktop OS and iPhone OS is a mobile OS... so you can't really compare them...
Well, this OS has copy/paste. And the OSX on the iPhone doesn't.
What ever happened to the Hybrid Hard Drive's hype back in the Longhorn days.
I already know, the next PC I get has to have an SSD.
As for Windows 7, I'm on the fence...I'm having a great time with vista Premium, but windows 7 is likely gonna be buggy when released.
Windows Vista is a Beta of Windows 7 Beta
so you are surprised a new OS out performs a new one........
@Flashpoint:
You should give Windows 7 Beta a try. My laptop came with Windows Vista Home Premium and I shrunk the volume to create a new partition for 7. I'm actually trying out the 64-bit and so far I'm impressed how responsive it is.
You are correct that Microsoft new OSs come out buggy initially, but since 7 is just Vista optimized, I would say it's easy to jump on board early and not wait for the eventual SP1.
Amazing what one can accomplish with a little self-realization that the original product is complete, utter, unoptimized fatware. Does it still take a beefy +$150 DirectX, 3D accelerated card to accomplish what a crappy mac mini does in OpenGL on a builtin Intel GMA shit graphics controller?
It'll be nice to have an "optimized Windows Vista" aka Windows 7 just in time when I switch to Snow Lepared aka "optimized OS X"... then I cry about if and when a Windows 8 will come out to speed up my slow Windows 7 beast with a +$200 graphics card.
No doubt that the SSD is the "wave of the future" and it won't be long before is the standard.
Regards,
~DD
"to accomplish what a crappy mac mini does in OpenGL " .. by that I mean Window's Aero. I'd love to see a version of Windows that actually runs my graphics production suite (read: get work done) faster vs. slower.
Dumb troll is dumb.
What do you think all of the economically priced Windows desktops have? Discrete video cards? If it's not integrated Intel garbage it's the better Nvidia solution. They're running Aero just fine.
Thats Microsoft for ya. As long as they reach the holy grail of 'just fine' or 'good enough'. How about 'really good' for a change?
The point is they could have done it right the first time and avoid all the lawsuites that resulted when users bought 'Windows Vista' certified machines that really just barely met the specs to run Vista Home. Doesn't anyone remember that fiasco? Turned out that Areo didn't fly and the result was am operating system that ran software slower not better, not faster, but rather far worse then Microsoft's pride of and joy of running 'ok'.
Hopefully with Windows 7, they will reach a new milestone of optimized performance: 'barely good enough'
What I really don't understand is why the hell does anyone expect a newer OS to be faster then the one it replaced? If that were the case historically then we'd all have operating systems using 10MB of RAM, but it isn't and how do people get off complaining that an OS should use less resources then the 8 year old one it replaces?
@Steveorevo
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
How exactly do you say that any given version of Windows is "good enough", rather than "great". You keep giving "proof", but don't back it up with any examples behind what you say. It is really easy to simply say something as fact rather than explain your reasoning. (Thats Propaganda 101 for you)
And as for that statement, how can you say that? A Mac doesn't have half of the capabilities that a Windows machine does out of the box. The networking capabilities are nowhere near as sophisticated, and as for deployment, people have pretty much no option other than the built-in options. I think you may be confusing a computer's usability with how flashy it looks. You sound like you are no more than a child fixating on a shiny object...
@Esteban
Wow Estban, do you know how stupid you sound? I'm a majority Windows user and developer but I do know that 'out of the box' a Mac BSD based operating systems comes with way more 'out of the box' then a Windows machine. Here are your examples:
Java is built in 'out of the box'
PHP is built in 'out of the box'
Perl is built in 'out of the box'
VNC is built in 'out of the box'
SMB is built in 'out of the box'
WebDAV and FTP (that works and doesn't have the crippled authorization that comes with Windows SP2) is 'out of the box'
iLife's iPhoto, iMovie, iCalendar, and Mail is way better then Outlook Express and Vista's late but alas (finally) incorporation of a Calendar in their 'out the box' solution. Majority of us had to buy Outlook in Office Professional to the tune of +$200 dollars -it doesn't come with Office Student and Home addition and that's certainly not 'out of the box'.
As for the other applications like 'Windows Movie Maker'? What a joke. Windows Media Player takes hours to catelog +300 CDs and even its search feature takes 30 seconds to a 1 minute to search. iTunes takes about 3 seconds and coverflow is way nicer.
The bottom line is that I use Windows because I expect to pay for or download way more applications to run on it. 'Out of the box' is definately not what I use Windows alone for. Thats a laugh! But I do have to hand it to Mac as 'out of the box' its great. Flashy? Hardly... my DELL XPS is way more flashy then any Mac I've seen...
I belive a lot of users are going to be disapointed when Win 7 iwhen they start using it full time. The Microsoft PR machine and the media in general is working overtime on this one unlike Vista.
Users expectations are being raised to levels that Microsoft might not be able to match when released.
And yet, adrian, the Beta has already been received better than any other Beta in Microsoft's history.
Imagine that.
Gnormie,
Because people like Steveo are out there, i.e. idiots without any sense of history, any sense of reality.
How many people here can name me one OS, one Productivity suite, one killer game built on a new engine, that came out years after its predecessor, and required less resources?
It can't be done, the improvements go hand in hand with the need for better components.
Let the idiots wallow in their own ignorance I say.
@Steveorevo WMP found my 85gig/ music library in about 2min, and the search function is very fast, I have no idea what version of windows7/vista/w.e you have been using.
Also, don't you remember that ms got sued for punting IE and WMP into there os? What do you think would happen if they added a whole suite like iLife?
Same goes for lots of things, antitrust!
microsoft just trying to get back user satisfaction. i highly doubt it can get any better than this. windows 7 seriously cuts back on features of vista for speed... not much better!
"Windows Media Player takes hours to catelog +300 CDs and even its search feature takes 30 seconds to a 1 minute to search."
You're joking, right? WMP just indexed my entire mp3 collection (About 20 gigs) in like 5-10 minutes (I don't know, I went and got a snack), and the search is all but instant.
@Gnormie / Hamidxa
"What I really don't understand is why the hell does anyone expect a newer OS to be faster then the one it replaced?"
It's always funny to see statements this clueless. So the faster technology becomes, the slower the OS? Do you realise that by that reasoning, in 100 years we should have a PetaHertz machine that moves the arrow cursor one pixel a minute?
Resources are one thing, speed is another. With more resources (faster hardware), speed is supposed to increase. A current game requires many more resources than a 10-year old one, but is orders of magnitude faster. That's why a newer operating system, running on newer hardware, *has* to run faster, if done properly.
And citing history is just idiotic; just because Microsoft has always been sloppy at optimising operating system doesn't mean that it can't be done: then why is Windows 7 reportedly faster than Vista? How can it be, if it can't be done? Is this a time paradox? Are we gonna be swallowed up in a black hole?
Wake up people. All of you, idiotic low-rankers.
Guiliop,
Moore's Law has not been in effect for well over a year now.
Furthermore, respond to my challenge, name me one new OS, one new major productivity suite, one new major rendering engine, that has actually netted improved performance on the same hardware over its predecessor, and didn't require beefier specs than its predecessor.
Name me one.
I bet you can't do it.
Windows 7 however seems to be doing just that over Windows Vista.
Your failure to acknowledge this could be as a result of your disdain for Microsoft, or it could also be a symptom of your myopic and limited knowledge of the industry as a whole.
The fact is that you fail to acknowledge the existence of the word "optimisation". The comical thing is that while you insist that a "major OS" can't run any faster than its predecessor, you also say that Windows 7 is indeed faster than Vista. How can that be? Care to explain, with your far-sighted view of the "industry as a whole"?
*I* bet you can't. The reason is that most of the software is bloated and written sloppily because the evolution of hardware makes up for the inadequacy of code and of those who have written it, and "far-sighted" people like you think it's perfectly normal; which takes us to the answer to your futile - and ridiculous - challenge: *every* major rendering engine runs faster than its predecessor. If rendering engines were written by Microsoft we would have games that render one frame per hour. Have you ever asked yourself why, while rendering engines can move huge and ultra-complex images in milliseconds, Vista stutters when it has to move just a little more than a bunch of pixels and has its "visual effects" on?
@Steveorevo
Christ. You guys complained that Microsoft built in too many applications into Windows and was abusing its monopoly back in the day, and now you're saying they have too little?
H
y
p
o
c
r
i
t
e
@Mark Anderson
When Windows 7 is released for real and users start bitching don't say I did not warn you and others.
Hahaha SSD Beta Fish!
You mean "ate" ?
Siamese fighting fish. Also known as Betta in Greek or some other language.
Also, the fish has 7 bubbles.
@superhobo
You're being serious.
Of course it WAS a beta fish, well....... before it's been eaten by SSD drive.
Well that's not surprising because vista was not built around SSD but your convectional drive. So of course it would perform better. A lot more SSD's will be running Windows 7 next year.
@zioncat: I prefer microwave drive myself.
Yet again, it looks like my decision to stick with XP until Windows 7 arrives was the right one... :-)
MS changed ALOT of things when they went from XP to Vista. It just means you have missed out on all the new features for the past few years..even if it was at the expense of some system resources.
Windows 7 was not the release Windows was "supposed" to be. Its a refinement release. Just like Snow Leopard is a "refinement" of Leopard. Ive had kernal panics and freezing problems with Leopard, but i would NEVER go back to Tiger, i would be missing out on too many things.
Vista is a great update from XP...always was...to me...but im a person that can live with the odd problem or inconvenience, so i can experience all the new features and interface updates. I use Leopard as my main OS, and have Vista installed through bootcamp, im a happy camper.
You've had a kernel panic recently? I don't remember my last leopard kernel panic...
@LondonConsultant - skipping an OS release you don't find any worth or benefit from is always a bright idea. On the other hand, I'm sure those who have been using, enjoying, and finding productivity benefits from Vista are glad they took the plunge instead of waiting.
@ Adderz
Resources, boot time, and ESPECIALLY compatibility are all reasons not to upgrade to Vista. I play some older games, I'm quite into amateur indie game programming, etc, none of which has compatibility that has even come close to that of XP. Granted, XP had the same problem with compatibility when it came out, but Microsoft, as well as individual programmers, came up with fixes. Now we have an immense pool of fixes and patches for the compatibility issues on XP. Vista has a lower install base and a shorter life span, so the compatibility issues haven't been fixed. I couldn't even pay my phone bill on a Vista machine. I was online trying to pay the bill, it would just not work. I was no the phone with customer support to see if it was something on their end. It was not. I went, "hold on a sec," ran upstairs to my bro's XP machine, and it worked just fine. Same exact browser.
Let's talk about pricing. Why bother to upgrade if you don't feel like paying for it? Hell, I've been running a bootlegged copy of XP for years because I don't feel like paying for THAT, let alone the crazy prices for Vista. To enjoy any of Vista's nice features beyond widgets (available on XP btw) or the dynamic search, you'd have to get a more expensive edition, and I would have to upgrade my PC. Not worth it.
Vista is pretty much a bunch of unoptimized code layered on top of XP, whereas Windows 7 is a build from the ground up. This is how they are achieving the faster boot times, system performance, and lower system requirements.
I personally am actually interested in 7, and I'm keeping it on my radar. As someone with a P4 system, I'll still probably not have the need to upgrade, as I won't be able to enjoy any games that take advantage of DX10. I'll be interested to see what sets this apart from XP and Vista besides system performance, though.
@ Adderz
I've also missed out on shelling out a few hundred dollars to pay for the vista license and hardware upgrades to run the OS.
And really, I'm glad I missed out on that.
"I don't remember my last leopard kernel panic..."
Just like I can't remember my last Vista BSOD.
7, on the other hand, seems to loathe my ATI card...
@Levi: I don't know how you're experiencing it, but vista is not unoptimized code layered on top of winXP. WinXP is NT v5.1. For vista, they have rewritten a whole lot, and named the resulting kernel NT v6.0. This is exactly why there were so many compatibility issues. With Windows7, they took the vista kernel, en applied some optimisations, an fixed some issues. The result is kernel NT v6.1. The reason why people will be experiencing a smooth transition to windows 7, is because by now, developers have had the time to adjust, and make there programs and drivers decently compatible to this new kernel version.
Cheerz
Dracorius
"Vista is pretty much a bunch of unoptimized code layered on top of XP, whereas Windows 7 is a build from the ground up. This is how they are achieving the faster boot times, system performance, and lower system requirements."
This is the frontrunner for "the catastrophic failure in posting of the year" award so far.
I logged in just to reply to levi's comment.
"Vista is pretty much a bunch of unoptimized code layered on top of XP, whereas Windows 7 is a build from the ground up. This is how they are achieving the faster boot times, system performance, and lower system requirements."
WTF. Where have you been?! The ENTIRE internet has been saying the exact opposite for about 3 months now.
Vista was where they changed everything and made XP programs uncompilable.
As for windows 7, all the linux fanboys have been constantly complaining about how windows 7 IS windows vista with some minor adjustments. Not "built from the ground up".
I agree this is the single biggest fail comment I've heard all year.
This guy sounds like he wanted to jump on the bandwagon but got it 100% wrong. He cant even follow correctly. My advice, uninstall windows. Unplug your computer. Don't even use a computer again.
on second thought this guy is probably trolling us, nobody is that stupid. Right? right?
@ Levi again and maybe late:
Windows 7 is the same kernal as windows vista. Seriously, you should probably do some research before you go talking smack about an operating system you know nothing about. I do all of those things that you said you couldn't do on windows vista (literally every single one). Maybe the problem lies in you, not the operating system.
PwNeD
@Levi
If you are using a bootlegged version of XP, then that means you installed it yourself. That also means, that in all likelihood, unless you are using "bootlegged" hardware as well, that you qualify to use this version of Vista. (they never check anyway)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480
For only $89, I highly doubt that this is what you consider to be "crazy prices".
As far as the reasons why you stay with XP, compatibility for example, doesn't apply to most PC users. I really don't feel that my grandmother/mom/uncle/sister/friends/clients need the ability to do things like "amateur indie game programming". In most instances, Vista has provided a more intuitive way for many of my non-techie clients to learn to use a PC for the first time. Most of these Vista users immediately told me when shopping for a computer that Vista wasn't an option. When I asked them why, they couldn't give an answer. After comparing XP and vista, guess what they chose?
Most of us who visit Engadget are the techie type. We probably have needs that sometimes cannot be met by the newest OS. That doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that it won't meet the needs of anyone else.
BTW, I'm typing this on a machine that dual boots XP and Vista. As a systems integrator/IT consultant, I have only run into a couple of programs that I use day to day that I need XP for.
You DO see that that is an OEM version, right? That means you legally MUST buy a hard drive with it or you are breaking the law. Tack on about $50 or more to that price.
@Andir3.0
Actually, all you have to do is buy any piece of hardware, a USB Cable will do. If he built his own machine then he also qualifies.
@Adderz
I've been waiting for 7 on XP also, I look that any OS that is 3 to 4 times the requirements no matter how many features is not right. It was like when I was on 3.1 and went to 95. True was a lot of differences but when I went to 98 was just a improved version of 95. When i saw ME on my friends PC there was no way I would get on there and jumped on XP. Now the way I look at Vista is just like 95 and 7 is 98 so in my theory I have waited for the right time to redo a whole new computer and be ready for Starcraft 2 and Diablo III on Windows 7.
@Reece:
Perhaps you need to read the license again... Here is a review of what it takes to make an OEM license legal:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=885079
Another way in which a user can obtain an OEM copy of Windows is by simply purchasing it from a vendor. The vendor must still follow the “sellers” EULA when selling a single copy of the OS. The EULA states the vendor must sell the OS bundled with a “non-peripheral component” that is “essential” to running the PC. Microsoft has a FAQ on this as well:
Quoted from Microsoft's OEM Builder FAQs:
"Q. The current System Builder license states that I may distribute an operating system license with a "non-peripheral hardware component". What hardware components are considered "non-peripheral"?
A. A non-peripheral hardware component is a hardware component that is considered to be essential to running a computer system, and includes components such as memory, internal devices and drives, mice, keyboards, and power supplies. Examples of components that are not considered essential are external modems, networking devices, cameras, printers, and scanners. "
So no, you have to buy something essential to the operation of the computer. A cable won't cut it. A keyboard will. (Which I did not know previously...)
So essentially andir, you're saying that Reece was fundamentally correct while you were wrong, yet you're still pretending to be an expert by quoting the MS site directly. Fail.
i figured i'd try it out since my home server's boot drive died on me. must say i'm reasonably impressed and really like the desktop management features. since it's on a server, i wont be seeing the desktop much, but i may install it on my MacBook with bootcamp once the power management issues are resolved.
"...let's hope things continue to improve as we approach "Microsoft would like your money for this" status."
If it stays this good, they'll get mine.
(comment posted from an old 1.6Ghz, 768MB laptop running W7)
"Windows 7 Beta takes another crown, besting Vista in SSD performance"
Not one of Engadget's better headlines.
You may as well have written:
"New Mars Bar Bigger Than Old"
Was I the only one who googled to verify this?
@egothewaffle:
...
no
But Mars bars are smaller than they used to be...
so are Cadbury Cream Eggs - but the funny thing is, on one of their ads, it says something like "They're not smaller, you're just older!" And they actually did make them smaller.
They are still the best part of Easter though.
Be glad they are reporting on it. By the sounds of it except for Paul...the rest of them seem to be acting like their handling bio-hazardous material when using Windows. Heck Gizmodo takes pride in mentioning that their editor doesn't use Windows and at the same time expects to report on technology and the latest software with a straight face.
ugh neha stay on topic plz
I don't get the test. So It's better to have a single SSD than making a raid 0 with SSDs?
They used a rubbish raid controller, the one on the X45 mobo, with a good dedicated one, you should double up almost with two SSD's
I wouldn't be surprised if win7 showed even better results with a decent controller.
I'm going to wait for USB 3.0 to build my next cheap (relatively) rig with ssds and this. I am glad I didn't give in to temptation.
Good idea! I was thinking of upgrading soon, good tip.
Windows 7 Facebook Fan Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Microsoft-Windows-7/39012423321
I think I'll pass
Why can't microsoft package all of these fixes up into a Vista SP2? I'm beginning to think that's all Windows 7 is.
Think about it, if this was Vista SP2, would it have had the same positive reception that windows 7 is having? I doubt it; it's reputation is too low for it to build back up, and they're moving away slightly.
You have never seen a service pack add significant new features over a previous version like Windows 7 has (example SP2 - SP3 didn't add UAC or Readyboost to XP), so why do you expect it now?
I'm guessing that you haven't used Windows 7, because you probably wouldn't say that if you have.
Because it's a rebuild, not an SP.
They have never changed the UI experience in a service pack as well.
A Microsoft developer once posted this analogy, and I like it:
"It's like taking a chimpanzee and a human and trying to take features from the human "downlevel" to the chimp. Some things, like the human's clothes, might be easy to put on the chimp without changing what it is. You might need to tighten or loosen things up here and there, but it could work. But trying to give the chimp opposable thumbs, or a human's brain, or even just some human bones, would be very problematic. The larger brain would require changes to the skull, and those would necessitate changes in the neck and below. In theory you could do it, but the chain of dependencies you'd impact is quite long. In the end, what you'd be left with wouldn't be a chimp."
Why should you get the last 3 years of Microsoft's labors for free? They already gave you Server 2008 with SP1.
i don't care about the UI, the changes are minimal, but you can't tell me they can't put in some of the performance gains back in Vista.
from microsoft's standpoint, it wouldn't be economical to give this away for free. windows 7 deliver more change than a service pack, and they've put a lot of work into it. what i think they should do is make the retail price the same as vista (because you're still getting an activation code), but lower the price of upgrading.
Does anyone know where to get the Windows 7 Beta wallpaper?
Found it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nxtiak/3155350531/sizes/o/
I can honestly say this is one of the worst reviews i have seen ever!
"In every test under Windows 7 we saw CPU usage of -1%. This may be an error, or it could be the correctly reported numbers."
So they actually think that -1% CPU usage could be correct ? so one way of thinking of that is that the SSD gives you a 1% CPU boost! LOL
/w7 fan, using build 7000 as main OS
//IT ROCKS
Most likely bad reporting of CPU usage. It bothers me because that says their CPU usage calculation is incorrect, or they are trying to hide actual usage.
Yeah, can we hold off any conclusions on this until we see a similar test from a site that actually understands you can't have negative CPU usage please?
"let's hope things continue to improve as we approach 'Microsoft would like your money for this' status."
Little harsh no?
Yet still fairly accurate. No?
Not at all. But I guess value is in the eye of the beholder.
Since I revert everything to Classic look anyway (less clutter) the only thing that matters is how it runs my old apps. I could give a rat's ass bout some pretty bars and twinkling icons, so it better damn well be able to boost performance of the apps running and not just add eye candy.
As it is right now, I would not buy Win7 because I can't get rid of some of that needless clutter. I can't revert the machine to a usable state. Explorer view is gimped with all the extra needless "toolbars" and removal of features in the treeviews (lines, disappearing icons, etc.) I posted a lengthy post here as to why Win7 won't work for me:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=716716&st=105&p=590416390&#entry590416390
I would pay even if they released 7000 as the final OS. It's that good.
Wouldn't hurt if they improved things further.
they still have to remove a ****load of debug code. So yes, it'll go faster.
It's good but it's still full of bugs. I think I've reported at least a dozen so far and I haven't been using it in anger.
Having said that, if the beta is this good then the final release should be excellent.
"Having said that, if the beta is this good then the final release should be excellent."
Unless of course they don't have the DRM code enabled and things like that. This could very well be a version with fewer features on purpose to make it run faster. They could be extensively testing the other features in house and dump them into the tree when it comes time to ship. It would be interesting to re-run all these tests when the retail version hits just to see.
@Andir3.0
Pretty harsh don't you think? I'm pretty sure the DRM in Vista isn't whats holding it back. This Beta of Windows 7 is FEATURE COMPLETE. The rest is just bug fixing and optimization. If all you want is a classic view and the ability to run old apps why ever upgrade from windows 2000?
Because the only thing I use Windows for at home is Games, and DirectX8 is the last issued for Win2k. I have to use it for work because... well... I could be fired for installing Linux unfortunately. It's a bitch to get Adobe software at work as well. Someone in appropriations has the mentality that if it's not Microsoft, it's illegal, immoral, or downright sinful.
It's a sad state of affairs the business world is in today. Microsoft has done their job of monopolizing the brains of a great many people.
I was given the new macbook(Al uni-body) for xmas and it is awesome!!!
The track pad(bad ass) and the lil things like PDFs being able to be downloaded to my downloads is so cool. My mac just works and works sooooooo damn good. So, what am I getting it? These pc vendors are crap. They have to wait for MS to bring in the band ,so to speak, just so they can get their wears out the door. Apple is above the curve. And I don't give a damn how many choices of SAME ASS PCS are on the market.
This is the benefits of having your own:
OS(from day 1)
Design team(in house!)
Electrical engineers(in house!)
Software engineers(in house!)
Sound engineers(in house!)
Graphic designers(in house!)
...............................etc
Apple is one of the last great American companies.
How many other American companies are laying it down like this and making it rain on the competition?
Viva Apple and get well Steve!!!!!!!!!
apple was never a good company, AMD is better then them, ipods have the worst sound quality ever, 2000Kbps music sounds like 64Kbps music, as a Huge electronic fan, I see apples products a marketing gimic, nothing more, idoits who think the hipsters just buy them
I just hope quicktime will not be as buggy as with vista... Apple took forever (I guess by purpose) for fix all the bugs.
Quicktime is awful =[
http://www.codecguide.com/about_qt.htm
Is just a bit better
Quicktime is a virus and it always have been. I can't even think of a reason you would need it.
Why would you let a piece of Apple software near your computer? Hell. I only sync my iPod through iTunes in a virtual machine.
Quicktime is Apple's plot to ruin the PC experience.
Phenom II, 8Gb DDR2 1333, W7 and 512Gb in r0 SSDs.
One can only dream.
Why only DDR2-Ram?
I meant DDR3,
force of habit.