TV with DVR & Internet: $89.90/mo
Windows 7: Buying Windows 7.
- 5/21/09 1:52 PM
Don't think so, not immediately
by john3347 - 5/22/09 9:09 PM In reply to: Buying Windows 7. by Kees Bakker
While Windows 7 does appear to be a significant improvement over Vista in almost every way (after all how good does something have to be to be better than rock bottom?), It is still looks, feels, and in most ways acts TOO much like Vista. There are several features that MANY users wanted to see that aren't included. Windows 7 is still more about Fisher-Price decor and useless fluff and puff than it is about getting work done. Neither my home nor my office will be rushing to move to Windows 7.
Will yo be buying windows 7
by wpeckham - 5/23/09 1:18 PM In reply to: Don't think so, not immediately by john3347One word: Ubuntu
XP was far too expensive, Vista too painful. I am hitching to a faster, friendlier wagon.
agreed
by richteral - 5/24/09 2:28 AM In reply to: Will yo be buying windows 7 by wpeckhamLinux is the way to go in my book, and Ubuntu can well be the flavour. I plan to buy a new HP laptop in the autumn; if it comes with Vista, I may run it for a while just to see what it is like and until any bundled freebies run out. Then it will be a complete reinstall, most likely with Ubuntu, and that will be that. I might consider running virtual XP in it if needed.
XP was ugly in its first year, and if Windows 7 follows suit, it is likely to show teething troubles for the whole of next year. Definitely not worth spending any money on in 2010 and pay MS for the research and testing they should do before releasing the product in the market, with a price tag.
While the notebook OS remains a mentally open issue, my next PC (probably HP as well, definitely this year) will run Ubuntu from day one mainly for security reasons and ease of operation. No hassle with AV, anti-spy, and the gamut of other ancillaries required as belt-and-braces.
Window's 7... To hot to touch this one!
by gem1971100 - 5/24/09 8:31 AM In reply to: Buying Windows 7. by Kees Bakker
All I can say Is, Ubuntu! Window's just does'nt get it......
Cost will be the determining factor for me
by sntholiday - 5/25/09 11:39 AM In reply to: Buying Windows 7. by Kees Bakker
I am currently running the RC and really like it. If the cost of upgrade from Vista to Win 7 is in the neighborhood of $100-150 I'll probably go for it. My desktop PC is used mainly as an HTPC and in that regard I don't see a real big difference between Vista x64 and Win 7 x64. But on my 2 year old Compaq laptop I see quite a big difference in speed and performance between Vista x86 and Win 7 x86. Hope we hear something concrete about pricing soon.
Vista SP1 works just fine
by john55440 - 5/26/09 8:11 AM In reply to: Buying Windows 7. by Kees Bakker
I use Vista SP1 Preinstalled every single day, and have no real complaints; so I don't have much of an incentive to upgrade to Windows 7.
IF I upgrade, it won't be until at least 6 months after the release of Win7. I want to make sure that all driver and software compatability issues are ironed out before upgrading.
I have not yet seen the features
by Anil Kumar Patni - 5/26/09 9:57 PM In reply to: Buying Windows 7. by Kees Bakker
Dear Friends
I have today only heard about window7. What are the new features in the same? Please inform me. I want some thing new to do all job at faster speed.
regards
Anil Kumar Patni
At this point, I don't think so.
by Josh Hill - 5/28/09 6:15 PM In reply to: Buying Windows 7. by Kees Bakker
I've been playing with the RC for about a week now, and I'm afraid that my initially positive reaction has been tempered by experience.
Which is to say that if I were still running Vista, I'd give an unqualified "yes." Windows 7 is, really, Vista that works, which is to say that it's no longer impractically slow.
But -- I switched back to XP some time ago. And I'm afraid that Windows 7 has given me no good reason to upgrade. I've read that it's faster than XP, but in practice, dual booting the same programs, I haven't found that to be the case. Programs and boot time are roughly comparable, but even though I'm running the x64 version many OS functions that I use all the time take much longer than they did under XP, e.g., system restore takes forever to make a restore point, a real annoyance since I like to make a restore point every time I install a new app. (Yes, Win 7 is doing more -- who cares? XP's system restore worked fine.)
What more, to my surprise, MS hasn't fixed some well-known Vista flaws, e.g., I had to turn off User Accounts Control despite the presence of the fancy new protection level slider. UAC required confirmation every time I moved an executable file to a new directory! Not system files, not system directories, just software like Firefox that I'd downloaded and installed and that I wanted to slide into a "done" directory. That's impossible and ridiculous.
Even worse, they've ruined the interface. There are some nice new features, such as the ability to quickly tile two open windows by dragging them with the mouse. But the new task menu DOES NOT WORK unless you're a little old lady who runs only three programs. There isn't enough room to pin your frequently used programs to it without scrolling(!), and you have to go through several steps to do what, in XP and Vista, take only one -- put your mouse on the icon, then choose between several windows that pop up, possible waiting for a full-sized preview to allow you to distinguish them. And I don't want to do that every time I switch back to my tabbed web browser, something I do many times a day, or alternate between open programs that I'm too lazy to tile. With a bit of tinkering, you can return to something sort of like the classic start menu and quick start, but it's a kludge that isn't as good and doesn't work as well.
Also, Win 7 retains and worsens other annoying changes Vista has made to the interface -- replacing easy-to-understand menus with incomprehensible icons, burying important commands and information deeper than an Iranian uranium reprocessing facility.
Forgive me for being literate, but I understand what "file" and "edit" and "view" mean, whereas I don't have the foggiest notion what "=:" and "%~" and "&^" represent, which is kinda the best I can do to imitate the incomprehensible squiggles that now appear on the likes of IE 8 in lieu of "unfriendly" English. (Oh, says MS, you can turn the menus on! Yeah, and I can go buy a steering wheel for a car that doesn't come with one, but I think I'll buy a normal car instead.)
There's a reason we replaced hieroglyphics, you know. And the sort of person who needs a picture of a keg to recognize a pub went out with the Middle Ages.
So, alas, no. I *wanted* Windows 7 to work, just as I wanted Vista to work, but windows XP is reasonably solid and a lot easier to use than 7 and I'll stick with it. Not to mention that it has better driver compatibility, and makes better use of RAM . . .
Sorry, MS, but next time around, you're going to have to think about those of us who aren't computer idiots, and apply some genuine thought to the interface design.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
