Anyone using Windows 7?

[Kougar]

I'm kind of glad you bring this point up, because that also annoys the hell out of me. I don't have that exact issue, but what one I do have is that Vista will automatically remove custom sort-by options at the top of a folder (such as 'Type'). I never really thought much of it though, and figured it was just me experiencing the issue.

Okay, I forgot to mention that one as well. So it is three things that are randomly changed... 1) Folder View Type 2) Arrangement of Folder Contents 3) Sorting Columns And I swear, I can open My Documents and spend 5 minutes configuring it exactly as I like... browse around a subfolder or two, close the window, then open a new My Docs folder and it'll be some random mix of settings usually with large or small icons... It just happens, I don't need to do anything else to reproduce it. How could MS miss this one during testing, unless they just dismissed it as unimportant enough to warrant a fix?

Now that is odd. I recall hearing about the issue before, but I figured it was ironed out. I haven't run into that issue personally, but that would be a huge pain, especially with that many drives. If you do find out the service in the future, let me know if you remember to look at it.

I'll remember to grab a screenie next time I boot Vista and it happens. Unfortunately it is very common regardless of SP1 for me. And I made a point to download the integrated Vista SP1 x64 disc off TechNet to do my installs from, in case some patch or something was screwing up the old x32 SP1 install.

minor annoyances (like how it takes five seconds to load up the menu when you right-click the networking icon in the systray).

Yes, quite a few menus do this! I just don't remember them to give specific examples... The Networks folder is especially bad, why does it force the user to wait roughly 10 seconds while it scans your entire home network for devices and shared folders? If I just opened the Networks folder 2 minutes prior, it should act like XP and list the previously detected devices & folders instead of forcing the user to wait 10 seconds every single time they open their network. Hell, even Windows 7 will handle the Network folder like XP, scan once per boot. I am glad to see they fixed it in W7.

For the sake of all that is humane, I hope that Windows 7 works out a lot better for you than Vista did ;-)

Thank you kindly.

I certainly hope so, however I have given up my desire for a blazing fast and secure RAID array. I talked with a chap that used to work at Intel, he didn't have that many flattering things to say about their RAID hardware controllers. I thought about buying a discrete RAID card, but I would rather just put that money towards a single Intel 80GB SSD (Or Kingston rebadges) than mess with RAID anymore. The entire fiasco is partly why I lost my penchant for a Nehalem build. I may wait until Windows 7, GT300, and Westmere launch at the end of this year before I upgrade and buy that SSD. The prices just keep going lower.

 

[Kougar]

Going to double-post as an update. It appears MS's very own feedback program was causing some windows MSI installers to fail to initialize.

An issue with the Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP) client in Windows 7 beta is causing Explorer and some MSI-based installers to stop working properly.

To solve this problem, follow these steps:

• Click the Start button , click All Programs, and then click Accessories.
  
• Right-click Command Prompt, and then click Run as administrator. In the User Account Control window, verify that Program name is Windows Command Processor, and then click Yes.
  
• In the Administrator: Command Prompt window, type or paste the following text at the prompt:
  
  reg delete HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\SQMClient\Windows\DisabledSessions /va /f
  
  
• Press Enter to install the solution.

If The operation completed successfully displays, close the Administrator: Command Prompt window to complete this procedure. If "ERROR: Access is denied" displays, repeat this procedure from the top, making sure you clicked Run as administrator in step two.

They were pretty quick on the uptake updating the troubleshooting files. The Photoshop CS4 installer package and all other installers that this affected now work like normal after applying the fix.

 

[Rob Williams]

The more you talk about the folder stuff, the more it annoys me. It used to annoy me a lot more, when I actually used Vista for more than just benchmarking, but since I don't have room for that PC anymore, it kind of left my mind. That would drive me nuts though, seriously. Something like that -cannot- be difficult to fix.

As for RAID, I don't know. I think in the end, a dedicated card might still save cash in the long-run. The cards are expensive, but you get a lot more data storage than with an SSD. The read speed might not match up with an SSD, but the write speed certainly will. As for the Kingston rebadges, if those can be had for cheaper, they'd be a good buy.

The prices just keep going lower.

Yup... that's the biggest issue around SSDs right now. They're so tempting, but when a better one is right around the corner (literally), it's hard to want to shell out a few hundred dollars right now.

 

[Kougar]

The other problem with getting a RAID card, is that the ultra-affordable models would handicap any kind of SSD. I would want a RAID card that could handle two SSDs in RAID 0, and it takes the some of the better 4-Port cards to begin to offer sufficient performance to handle two of those.

I may sound like I am trying to shoot too high, however considering the RAID card would be PCIe x4 it would last years... at least three years. By then I'm sure I'll be running an SSD or two.

I still watch ebay though, ther've been some nice RAID cards going for a steal there every now and then. I would also worry about having more RAID problems of some kind or another... Seagate drives have grown a reputation to not like RAID unless you buy their special RAID-tweaked firmware models.

 

[Merlin]

So much talk about RAID issues, why would you run RAID, unless you have a business.
If for a home computer, then why run it?

 

[Rob Williams]

Heh, I knew I didn't much care for RAID for some reason... now I might know. It's such a hassle...

If for a home computer, then why run it?

Most people run it for redundancy. In that case, each drive would be an exact duplicate of the other, so if one dies, the machine can be back up fast. From the performance standpoint, running a striped configuration would greatly increase reads and writes, but the risk is far great. If one drive dies, you lose everything.

 

[Merlin]

I've just NEVER had a drive crash on me....Lucky...eh?

 

[Greg King]

I've just NEVER had a drive crash on me....Lucky...eh?

Quite.

I run RAID 0 with a pair of 320GB drives because I happened to have a pair laying around. I honestly don't notice a bit of difference between this setup and when I was running a single drive.

I run RAID 1 with a pair of 750GB drives because I have over a decade's worth of data that I cannot afford to rebuild should something happen. I also have this array setup to back itself up every other day to a NAS located in another part of the house. About every month or so, I also backup my very important data to tape (happen to get a tape drive when my last job was throwing it out). This way I should hopefully NEVER have to work to replace data again.

I have never had a drive die on me either but I have worked on enough computers to know that when they do go, its devastating.

 

[Merlin]

Quite.

I run RAID 0 with a pair of 320GB drives because I happened to have a pair laying around. I honestly don't notice a bit of difference between this setup and when I was running a single drive.
worked on enough computers to know that when they do go, its devastating.

I've never set up a RAID system, do they have to be the same size?
I'll do a little research

Merlin

 

[Kougar]

So much talk about RAID issues, why would you run RAID, unless you have a business.
If for a home computer, then why run it?

Because I wanted both data security/redundancy, better-than WD Raptor performance, yet still have plenty of storage space.

Keep in mind when I originally got these 320GB drives 74GB Raptors were king, and I could buy several 320GB drives for the price of a single 74GB Raptor. It was supposed to be a poor man's Raptor setup, only better and with sufficient storage.

Quite.

I run RAID 0 with a pair of 320GB drives because I happened to have a pair laying around. I honestly don't notice a bit of difference between this setup and when I was running a single drive.

Have you tried running RAID 0 under any OS other than Vista? To be frank my 750GB drive is significantly slower than my RAID 0 or RAID 10 configs and has slightly higher access latencies because it is running in an external SATA enclosure... but Windows 7 is still more responsive and quick to load folders or populate menus than Vista ever was with it's faster RAID 0 and RAID 10 disk subsystem. I think Vista is a poor test to gauge how responsive RAID makes the system "feel", but I haven't tested it yet to say definitively. The moment I can safely ditch my Vista install I plan to test a RAID config in Windows 7 and XP to see if the difference is readily apparent.

In Vista the only times I knew I was running a RAID array was when games and programs loaded much launch faster, and heavy programs become responsive quicker while they were still loading. I was usually the first to load in L4D or TF2 servers. Now with a single drive on Windows 7 not so much, and things in general tend to take longer to start up (even if Windows 7 x64 with a single, slower drive still loads faster than Vista x64 in a RAID 0 config).

I've never set up a RAID system, do they have to be the same size?
I'll do a little research

Merlin

They used to be, but now in most cases they do not. However they need to be similar in performance otherwise the overall array won't perform well. If it is bad enough one drive would bottleneck all the other drives on the same array.

The first thing to consider is hardware RAID versus software RAID... IE does your CPU power the RAID or does a discrete hardware processor offload the overhead (and offer better array performance with more features, safety mechanisms, and more options).

The issue is because SSDs have an order of magnitude faster access latencies, not all RAID cards are built or able to be quick enough to avoid impacting that ultra-low access latency, especially older cards. And because SSDs have the potential to offer performance well above even 15,000RPM SCSI drives, you can imagine low end and midrange RAID cards don't have fast enough hardware processing to handle the sheer amount of overhead to keep up with them.

The good cards will not have any problem, but they also tend to cost almost as much as an Intel X25-80GB SSD by themselves. Some of the best cards will have the Intel IOP348 SoC I/O processor; it runs at 1.2Ghz and is dual core. Previously the high-end consumer cards were using 800Mhz single-core chips, and 500MHz before that just 2-3 years ago.