I have a full subscription to MSDN and so I have been fiddling with it for some time. I am running both the 32 and the 64 bit versions on eval desktops and laptops and I must say, so far so good. I am about ready to put the 64 bit eval release on my working machines I am that impressed.
All my posted impressions here are based on the 64 bit version but there is no reason to doubt much of this will apply to 32 bit as well, with the exception of RAM capability which is where the difference is dramatic. But as far as stability is concerned one is as good as the other.
I am not one to jump to the latest greatest as soon as it hits the streets, I ran 2000 Pro until I simply could no longer justify it, it was (and still is) simply the most stable OS MS ever came up with. But benchmarking 7 leaves me fairly convinced that Microsoft finally got one right, this is what Vista SHOULD have been. I LOOOOVE being able to load all the RAM I want into the PC because of the 64 bit architecture and utilize every last bit of it, my big AMD desktop will be running 32 GB of RAM on a quad core ASUS board and if my lab PC is any indication, it will be the most screaming machine I have ever built.
Not terribly crazy about the GUI on it in some aspects, I am a 2000 classic kind of guy, the look and feel is so much more intuitive but the eval release of 7 so far doesn't give you the customization capabilities to recreate the look and feel you want. Plus I HATE the new version of IE, not that I use it but Windows 7 forces Firefox to uses the same header displays, which annoys the daylights out of me.
Windows 7 in 64 bit utilizes its resources very efficiently, especially if you have a very robust MOBO with a big northbridge and lots of pipeline, it tends to be a RAM hog but when you have no limitations to how much RAM you can run it is a non issue. The laptop I installed 64 bit on is only capable of 2 GB of RAM and even at idle it soaks up 45-53% of that, but the way it loads into RAM it frees up the CPU to really realize its potential (except for the first minute or 2 coming out of hibernation), this laptop runs a 1.6 duo core Intel but it is running much, much faster. more like a 2.8, benchmarks have it about 32% quicker than when it was running 32 bit XP Pro, and it is loaded with background apps (hence the RAM issue) and is still remarkably faster.
It is a huge OS, the 64 bit Windows 7 Ultimate, which I am running, full install is about 18 GB on the drive, and I wouldn't recommend less than 8 MB of cache on the drive, 16 would be better, and no less than 7200 RPM, desktop or laptop. I run a 320 GB WD Black, 7200 RPM, 16 MB cache 3.0GB/sec on my working laptop, and a 150 GB, 10,000 RPM WD Raptor as my boot drive on the desktop, this will give the OS all the it needs, and the Raptors have come down in price.
I wouldn't waste my time with that bloated and ridiculous new version of Office. 2003 Pro is waaay easier to use.
Anyway, just my opinion.
