Windows 7: OK, I'm done with it . . .
Why I can't commit.
by R. Proffitt
- 6/3/09 6:53 PM
In reply to: Thanks for the feedback by RonS [WINDOWS-TEAM] 
I'm currently on the development treadmill for a .NET 3.5 application. I can't take the risk that Windows 7 pops up and shuts down because we bounce the date around for testing.
There is also some question whether my Visual Studio 2008 will run, activate or lock me out so we don't chance it.
All this product activation has us a little gun shy.
Bob
sorry you were disappointed
by ramarc - 6/3/09 6:49 PM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by Coryphaeuswin7 kicks butt on my laptop (upgraded from vista ultimate). it's noticeably faster than vista!
i think your issues are still with the ui changes. many ui changes in vista seemed to be change-for-the-sake-of-change and forced me to 'unlearn' 5 years of xp. (think of xp as the 'old' car that had gear selector on the steering wheel vs the 'new' car with it in the center console.) but the ui in win7 seems to have addressed my biggest complaints and the new taskbar (which i thought i'd hate) is actually very useful.
my network includes an xp laptop, an xp desktop, 2 win2k3 servers, a vista ultimate desktop, and the win7 laptop. with vista, that laptop would regularly 'forget' it was part of the domain. this no longer happens with win7. the vista boxes struggle just to enumerate the network devices but win7 'sees' everything quickly including my hp multifunction and dlink router. and all my other PCs can see the win7 laptop and use it's shared folders and media center library.
the bundled mail is lame, but windows live mail (download) works much better. it's not designed to store mail on a network (prefers a real pop3/imap server which most consumers have).
look at win7 as a different OS and not XP 2.0 and you might change your mind.
Thanks
by RonS [WINDOWS-TEAM] - 6/4/09 2:31 PM
In reply to: sorry you were disappointed by ramarc
I think you’ve got a point about how you look at Windows 7 (as a new OS and not a second coming of any other OS).
That said, any feedback is good in cases like this and I’m sure that Microsoft is hearing all kinds.
Cheers,
Change for the sake of change
by Dr. Zoltar - 6/5/09 9:56 PM In reply to: sorry you were disappointed by ramarc"many ui changes in vista seemed to be change-for-the-sake-of-change"
I dunno. Sometimes I feel like MS uses the mantra "pretend the end user is uneducated" when coming up with stuff in the UI. Too many extra steps the user has to make to make sure they are safe. Which is good for the novice and inexperienced user. It's not good for those of us who like to tweak things under the hood and know the consequences of what we're doing.
Win7 is NT 6, XP is NT 5
by pepoluan - 6/5/09 10:21 PM In reply to: sorry you were disappointed by ramarcI agree with your take.
Windows7 is a totally different beast than XP. It *is* NT 6.x, after all.
XP is from the NT 5.x family (to be precise, it's NT 5.1, except the 64-bit version which is NT 5.2).
The change from XP to Win7 is similar to the change from NT 4 to 2000 (NT 5.0).
Personally, I found Win7 to be a lot better than Vista, though it will not replace the XP Pro I have on my workstation.
Finally, remember that *any* Win7 you have right now is *not*yet* the final, retail version.
I agree with Coryphaeus
by Dr. Zoltar - 6/5/09 9:52 PM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusI run XP and Vista at home. XP is much better at sharing files and letting a user tweak settings. Here's a list of things I've found that XP does better:
Windows Explorer -- much easier to use on XP
Search -- MS Live Search 4.0 is terrible to try to actually find the file you want
Remote Desktop -- So many hoops to jump through on Vista or 7 for a user to remote into their machine
Ok, I'm done with my mini-rant now.
Hmmmmm
by Dango517 - 6/5/09 10:25 PM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusWindows 7 has a new feature with the Business and Ultimate versions called "Domain Join" that allows connectivity without a server:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd392267.aspx
Beginning with Windows Vista "Outlook Express" was replaced by "Windows Mail" that comes contained within the OS. To date I have not had a single problem with it in over two years using Windows Vista. I use an online service as backup only. For this purpose nearly any service would do.
Of course Windows 7 being an RC will restrict some uses with some services as was explained when you agreed to install the RC. Seems to be some information you have over looked while using the OS and within the agreement.
You did receive it didn't you?
Are you using Linux by chance?
This thread untracked
Complaints About Vista and 7
by Flatworm - 6/6/09 5:34 AM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusI am unfamiliar with Windows 7 but will happily have it on my new computer, the construction of which I am delaying until 7 debuts in October or thereabouts.
But an old Pentium 4 is certainly going to run more slowly under Vista or 7 than under XP, just like an old Pentium 1 ran a lot slower under XP than it did under 98. In part because of new features and in part because of the need for Microsoft to design in legacy support, newer operating systems (whether Windows, Mac O/S, Linux or whatever) will presume that the users have more resources available and will be putting those additional resources to use.
I chuckle at the Vista naysayers. I get the impression that they resent the fact that Vista changed some things around and these people, who had over the years familiarized themselves well enough with XP to consider themselves "gurus" found that they needed to learn some new stuff and resented it.
Despite the whiny naysayers, Vista was as big an improvement over XP as XP was over 98. After thoroughly familiarizing myself with Vista I get the same feeling when I go back to XP as I got after getting used to XP and going back to 98. The older version was like driving an older car after getting used to a new one.
My computer has performed beautifully under Vista. Indeed, since I got the machine more than two years ago, and despite the fact that I use it for rather taxing purposes like compiling programs, editing video, and professional graphics (often simultaneously), it has NEVER crashed, not even once, not ever. No XP machine could perform as well (and with 98, well, it was a good day if you only crashed once).
I doubt that 7 will be as big an improvement. I think (although I do not know and hope I will be pleasantly surprised) that it will be more like going to Windows Millennium after using 98.
But when you sit there and complain about shortcomings in Thunderbird and Live Mail and try to blame Vista for them, well, that's just whining. The day will come, and that right soon, when XP is no longer supported. I would suggest that you and the legions of others who feel betrayed by the loss in your little milieu of guru status because you would prefer things remain static forever to come off your
luddism now and get with the program.
I agree totally.
by Bubba_Gump - 6/6/09 6:26 AM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusXP still serves me just fine.
I've been Beta testing the 64bit Win7 since the original 7000 beta and, though some of the changes are "interesting", I see no justification to spend $100-$200 on a new operating system that doesn't do anything my current system can't do.
Now, if MS were to FINALLY start abandoning the 32bit platform for good, making PC's with more than 4GB of ram practical, and adds a new file system that breaks the 2TB limit of NTFS (as well as add 32bit legacy driver support that is sorely lacking in their 64bit OS's), only *THEN* there might be some justification for "upgrading".
But as long as they continue to support 32bit OS's, software companies will continue to release software compatible with my 32bit XP system.
Vista
by tranic4 - 6/6/09 7:47 PM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusVista is so much better than XP and obvious to anyone that can operate a computer. I said it once and I'll say it again, If you don't think Vista is better or Win7 you don't know how to use a computer.
You haven't used XP much then
by Dr. Zoltar - 6/7/09 10:16 AM In reply to: Vista by tranic4Doesn't sound like you've used XP much, have you? XP is much less restrictive to use than Vista.
XP is old like a model T
by BobTec1 - 6/7/09 2:47 AM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusWindows 7 is about speed and graphic performance. You can get the same performace out of 1 gig of Ram with Windows 7 that you get with 4 Gigs on XP. Windows 7 is great for Games. New free back up, new disk defragger. New user controls, Windows 7 looks and responds very fast.
Wasn't 7 supposed to include a XP emmulation mode?
by wally6151 - 6/7/09 2:21 PM In reply to: XP is old like a model T by BobTec1I remember discussion a while back that MS had said that 7 was supposed to include a UI emulation of XP to satisfy complaints about Vista's constant badgering of do you really want to do that? has this already been abandoned? I don't do heavy graphics, but the improved networking would be nice. I've had vista for two years, and still can't get vista to share properly with XP or ME.
It exists...
by John.Wilkinson - 6/7/09 2:32 PM
In reply to: Wasn't 7 supposed to include a XP emmulation mode? by wally6151
It is called XPMode and is available as a free download from Microsoft. (They wanted to minimize the size of Windows, making it a separate download.) However, it only works with Windows 7 Enterprise & Ultimate editions and requires your processor to have native virtualization support, which has been standard on most AMD processors since 2006 but is not available on many newer Intel processors. That is both an incentive to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate on newer hardware and one of the feature's greatest limitations.
John
Education is the key
by mikebliv - 6/8/09 6:29 AM In reply to: OK, I'm done with it . . . by CoryphaeusHere's my own rant. I'm quite sick of Windows 'gurus' bagging vista/win7 because it did something differently to XP. All that's saying to me is that they are set in their ways. They always complain about having less 'control' than they had with XP, when in fact, if they bothered to educate themselves about Vista/Win7 as much as they know XP, they could get as much control as they used to have. If it took them so many months/years to become the XP guru that they have become, how much personal experience time are they allowing Vista/Win7 before they cast their judgements on how less useful the newer Windows OSes are?
Sure, criticize the newer OSes for doing something unintuitive or having a crappy implementation, but if the main excuse is that they don't know how to do things the Vista/Win7 way as opposed to the XP way, I have no sympathy for them.
Disclaimer: I'm an early adopter of Vista and Win7 but have been working with computers since DOS 4.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
|
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
