While I am aware the 'spinup' issue of readyboos is negated by SSD, I would immagine there is an aspect of parallelization that could be achieved by using multiple devices (in a quazi RAID form) to get more data through the bus simultaniously during startup and multitasking in Windows. Any word on if this will be the case, or should I just 'shut off' ReadyBoost with a SSD?

Wow, no Linux fanboys putting their two cents in yet. It might be a good day.

Support for exFAT in ReadyBoost is welcome. On that note, formatting USB keys as exFAT may be worth it now that MS has a download for Windows XP adding support for it (Vista supports it with SP1, but does not support ReadyBoost with exFAT).

the day in young! ;-)

i'm still not convinced, let's wait til tom's hardware or someother object website does some extensive benchmarks, for now looks like mucker$oft hype/spin machine in full gear, they even got the dweebs out and about proclaiming how great it is. reminds me of the blind fervour around vista.

At home I am Linux, at work I am Windows admin. I will criticize MS every time when they do something bad. For Linux I can't ... I have to fix it my self. Mark Russinovich is one of the bright minds in MS. I only wish that old dinosaurs step down and new bright guys start running MS. Mark joined MS too late to make any changes in Vista, but I hope that he was able to fix some the problems in W7.

here is the 2-cents from Linux guy

Seemed like Microsoft or someone using Windows 7 created these questions to answer them and promote Windows 7 with its new or updated features.

who are you referring to, Ballmer, aka Grandpa Munster? Although to be honest he looks more like Frankenstein's monster from Young Frankenstein.

how can i get a negative. look at ballmer then look at Frankenstein's monster from Young Frankenstein. see no difference, they are one and the same. so beware kiddies see what billions of dollars do to you, they turn you into a monster. ;-)

ballmer:
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/10d-7 [...] soft-3.jpg

http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images [...] allmer.jpg

monster:
http://giantmonster.tv/giant/wp-co [...] n_1974.jpg

http://www.broadway.com/site_image [...] nstein.jpg

http://students.ou.edu/H/Emily.E.Holt-1/z_young.jpg

(middle one)
http://l.yimg.com/img.omg.yahoo.co [...] 172434.jpg

then look in a mirror and stop talkin about how other ppl look, this must be by far the most stupid argument against windows ever.

jsloan is just a troll. he posts his shit on every windows article. clearly from his spelling he has also enjoyed schooling at a government facility. he has no valid point to make against w7 so he resorts to trolling tacticts. jsloan, you can have your linux and it's 5 week setup time. configure DHCP, DNS, 5 websites load balanced, domain controller, email server and clustering. all this with single sign-on for user accounts. exactly how many shell scripts would I need to do that on Linux? but hey, linux is sooo more secure. in which way exactly? no-one seems to ever know exactly how. hackers will hack your windows! exactly how? check out http://www.zone-h.com/ see who's topping the list. and if you say that apache is hacked more than IIS because its more popular, then the argument for hacking windows vs. linux on popularity remains valid. anyways, linux is just a kernel. windows is a complete package. you can take your command line based, 3000 apps on a 3 DVD's bloatware, outdated, complicated, non innovative, hippie hobby OS and shove it. While you learn hopeless commands like ls -R | grep ":$" | sed -e 's/:$//' -e 's/[^-][^\/]*\//--/g' -e 's/^/ /' -e 's/-/|/' i will merrily go start -> command prompt -> tree. or even better use windows explorer! because windows comes with it. linux is just a kernel.

Jsloan, have you even tried windows 7 and compared it against the other windows OS's? Or do you remain exclusively linux?

Vista sucked so much I couldn't even get the upgrade to windows 7 to run. So I had to boot from the disk and do a fresh install of Windows 7. I must say I haven't had any issues and I'm finding it to be completely compatable with all of my windows vista software. Performance differences are like night and day. Vista is sh*t. Most corporations will stick to windows XP until they are able to move to windows 7 for better stability and speed.

ok that funny, but i run windows and develop in .net :-)

sure i'm running windows 7. been running microsoft beta's since Windows For Workgroups 3.11!

Then if you've tested Win 7 in any recent enviroment, how can you have any negitives against it? It improves on everything vista was.

Watching people wage the Windows Vs. Linux debate is such a sad affair, it's like watching reality TV rejects get into an argument over whose most retarded.

They are different tools, with different purposes, and should be used as such. I have Linux Mint on my left and Windows 7 on my right and use Synergy to soft-share my mouse and keyboard between them. I can honestly say I am excited about Windows 7, as it seems much more solid and better designed than Vista ever did, and I have contributed several items to the feedback link. I am also awaiting the next Ubuntu release, Jaunty Jackalope.

For my computing requirements, having both allows me to get a ton done, no matter what my task. I don't spent time chasing my tail trying to get things to work on a platform it does not support, and I also don't try to do scripted or programmatic tasks on a platform optimized for single app GUI programs.

Blonds, Brunettes, and Redheads. Different, useful, and special in their own little way.

i agree with you that it's an improvement over vista, can you imagine if it was worse! but it's still vista. did you checkout just how much memory it was using, it's bloatware. lipstick on the vista pig. ;-) they should have given people the option not to load all that junk, should not have moved so much of it to kernel and shell. check out the size of the kernel and shell, it keeps growing as they move more drm and security stuff into kernel and into shell and have it loaded all the time whether you are using it or not. why not dynamically load it as needed, first it would speed up start up time, reduce cpu and memory utilization when not used. later i'm post some interesting facts...

First, they did.
Second, the DRM is no worse than XP. Sure, it blows compared to open source obviosly, but Microsofts DRM is one of the most succesful if not the most succesful DRM to combat piracy.
Third, Even with most of the features enabled, and an antivirus program, I've cut the start up memory usage to 418mb. Comparing this to XP, with service pack 3 and the same antivirus program, I'm looking at 397mb. So a 21 mb difference is absolutely nothing to complain about. Vista on the otherhand with SP1 reaches 900 and some, and that's without the Antivirus.

Sure, it's lipstick on a pig, if you consider the fact that the vista pig has cut off about 300 pounds, extended it's range of motion and toned up it's ass.

ok i just ran xp, vista and windows 7 and did some quick testing. i stopped most optional processes and services.

xp sp3 vista sp1 windows 7
commit charge 220mb 434mb 367mb
handles 5,377 7,854 9,016
threads 301 428 426
processes 20 29 32
kernel 105mb 75mb 80mb
paged 73mb 57mb 66mb
nonpaged 32mb 18mb 14mb
memory 1,023mb 1,023mb 1,023mb
available 909mb 730mb 703mb
cached 77mb 38mb 703mb
free 30mb

on windows xp home ive cut it down to like 70mb and on pro to 140mb
on vista 434mb and on windows 7 367mb. if i spend a little bit more time i can cut vista and windows 7 some more, by eliminating optional, unnecessary services, but i dont think i will come close to 140mb.

I've done beta's since win95 on floppys, and I've never pulled one as fast as I pulled win7. I have a new build with an I7, and I had nothing but problems trying to run older but still solid programs like Nero 6. I understand a lot of software companies will hype up win7 because that will force people to update their programs. I also understand that some of those companies may have people post on sites like this to counter the people like me who have problems. But in the end, if I have to spend a thousand dollars to update the rest of my software for a $150(?) operating system, you can bet it will be a long time before it happens. BTW, I've got 6 gig on Vista64 on that I7, and I've never been happier. Rock solid! I couldn't care less how much memory it uses. It works and hasn't crashed yet.

i fear that too, as a software developer ive spent a lot of time over the years retrofitting software so that it would run on new versions of windows. i mean like windows 2.x, 3.x, 9x, nt, 2k, xp, 2k3, vista, 2k5, 2k8, w7... it never ends each of the sdk are like different. i've also had to support all flavors of windows ce, windows mobile, embedded nt, xp, 2k, ect, it's like nuts. i have dlls from hell.

The most wintardest comment in the decade... How is micro$uxx DRM "successful"? By screwing customers and appeasing MPAA, RIAA & BSA? Vi$hta's "success" just proves it. It's the biggest flop of the decade, until $even eventually takes over...
Enterprises don't care about DRM, but care a lot about performance, security and compatibility. While DRM just eats CPU cycles and clogs RAM, no business in it's right mind will ever adopt $even, because it's just make-up over vi$hta sp2.

Dear THG,

Please stop raping me.

Signed,

The English language.