Anyone using Windows 7?

I know there's probably a lot of Windows pooh-poohers who read this forum, but I just installed the PR of Windows 7 on my laptop and am finding it to be very very good so far. In fact it's the nicest version of Windows I've used to date, better than XP and far better than Vista. The install was painless, it downloaded all the drivers I needed for my laptop immediately and everything works perfectly. It's very nice visually, very smooth and snappy, boots quickly and with only 45 or so processes running out of the box (compared to the 70+ I had on Vista).

Everything I usually install on Windows works fine, no compatibility issues so far. Some really nice features, like the ability to shake a window and have all the other windows minimize. Shake it again and they come back. Easy to snap two windows to either half of the screen, although it doesn't work how you'd like if you're using two monitors like I do. I think this is the first time I've tried a new Windows and not thought "what the **** is this??"

Yes, using Win7 RC here.
My favorite features are the new taskbar and the Aero Snap feature. Aero Peek isn't so bad, but I don't use it so often. The Aero Shake is just useless IMHO. It's too unresponsive.
Myself I don't get this snappier boot process that every says. Every Windows I've used takes the same amount of time to boot. Well, almost anyway.

Running W7 64bit RC since it came out. So far, it's been a blast. It just works. No crashes so far, no problems. I'll definetly get it on release day (probably an Ultimate Edition from the launch tour like I did with Vista).

However, take this with a grain of salt. I'm still running my XP that came preinstalled with my older box 4 years ago. The same install mind you. I know how to handle windows and not install any crap I find, touch any button I can reach just because or try that cool "registry trick" I read about. Your experiences may vary depending on how you treat your Windows installation. Windows itself has always been fine (except ME), it's the user that messes things up.

Edit: I'm not really sure I'd call it all the user's experience. There's a stark lack of features. Workspaces (my prayers have been unanswered), better memory management, symlinks (finally, sorta), better a/v support, decent suspend-to/resume-form-ram times, etc. One XP machine we had lasted a grand total of 5 seconds on the Internet before getting infected. Not the users fault - I'm not that quick with a browser.

Running Windows 7 within a VM.
It made a poor impression, when within 20 minutes of it's first boot it told me:

Quote:

---

symlinks (finally, sorta)

---

I think NTFS does have some kind of symlink support, just that Windows doesn't allow users to use it, since the Linux NTFS driver (NTFS-3G) supports symlinks. Maybe they emulate it somehow, though.

I only ran Windows 7 in a VM for a few minutes (most of which idling). Only problem I noticed is minesweeper crashed on me... (I was out of idea of what to try on it, so I tried minesweeper)

Quote:

---

One XP machine we had lasted a grand total of 5 seconds on the Internet before getting infected. Not the users fault - I'm not that quick with a browser.

---

ISPs have been throwing routers for free in the general direction of every potential customer for the last 5 years, there is really no reason to connect your XP box to the internet directly. Yes, you can. You can install every piece of software you find. You can run a virus scanner. You can run a software firewall. And you can connect your PC directly to the internet so anyone can connect to it and exploit it. You can also throw it out the window into that mariana trench conveniently located right outside the window. You can. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I wouldn't blame Windows if someone stole my physical harddisk and I won't blame an unpatched Windows to get exploited if connect to the big bad world without protection. If there is an operating system that would survive in the open unpatched, it's because no one cares enough to exploit it.

I tried one of the beta's and read everything I could find about the new system. I really like some of the changes they've made, and I think they've done a good job of listening to their customers compared to what they've done in the past. I did have some serious issues with the beta, but I think I've seen almost all of those problems disappear in the blogs about Windows 7.

I'm also a big fan of XP, and I was told by a Microsoft employee that based on what I like about XP - I would love Win7. So when it's time to upgrade our machines at work, I'll probably opt for the Win7 option. But I don't see myself returning to Windows at home anytime soon - even if it's only an issue of cost.

Quote:

---

ISPs have been throwing routers for free in the general direction of every potential customer for the last 5 years, there is really no reason to connect your XP box to the internet directly. Yes, you can. You can install every piece of software you find. You can run a virus scanner. You can run a software firewall. And you can connect your PC directly to the internet so anyone can connect to it and exploit it. You can also throw it out the window into that mariana trench conveniently located right outside the window. You can. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I wouldn't blame Windows if someone stole my physical harddisk and I won't blame an unpatched Windows to get exploited if connect to the big bad world without protection. If there is an operating system that would survive in the open unpatched, it's because no one cares enough to exploit it.

---

That shouldn't matter anymore, assuming XP firewall is good enough to block incoming connections to SMB ports (or all ports if the user is not running any services). It doesn't take a good firewall to do that.

Quote:

---

it's because no one cares enough to exploit it.

---

A common excuse for Windows insecurity (at least of the pre-UAC versions).

The common refutation -
People DO care enough to exploit BSD/UNIX/Linux. They may be run on fewer computers, but (almost) all mission critical computers/servers run them. Would you rather get access to 10 Windows computers or 1 bank server? Yet they are secure OSes, relatively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberfish

A common excuse for Windows insecurity (at least of the pre-UAC versions).

The common refutation -
People DO care enough to exploit BSD/UNIX/Linux. They may be run on fewer computers, but (almost) all mission critical computers/servers run them. Would you rather get access to 10 Windows computers or 1 bank server? Yet they are secure OSes, relatively.

---

I didn't say that nobody cared about those systems. But I'm convinced that a *nix box that hasn't been patched for 4 years will be exploited just as easily by somebody interested in *nix boxes as a 4 year old unpatched Windows by someone interested in a Windows box. Maybe Windows had X vulnerabilities and *nix had Y where X > Y. Who cares? One is enough. I for one would prefer 10 Windows boxes btw: the risk to get caught is minimal. A bank server running some *nix will probably have security auditing, logs, a staff of professionals and in case of detection a load of police officers trying to get me. Who will want to get me if I fry another Windows box? Will the user even notice it was a virus/worm/trojan or just say "Windows sucks" and reinstall? Comparing risk to reward, I'd take 10 Windows boxes. But I'm kinda conservative :)

Haha, yeah that is true for security in general (unpatched = bad, since vulnerabilities are being discovered everyday), but it's only tricky if you are trying to offer some service (web server for example) while keeping yourself secure. If you (like most Windows users) are not offering any services, just have the firewall drop all incoming connections. That's almost as effective as pulling the network cable, and as effective as installing a NAT without port forwarding, as far as outside-initiated attacks are concerned.

Is anyone else confused that this isn't the 7th version of windows?

Am I the only one who's never had a virus infection in all my years of computing? I wouldn't even know where to get one if I wanted one. All I have is Avast running on my laptop and its never detected anything yet.

The only issue with Windows 7 I've had so far is that when it first installed, Aero wasn't activated and windows would leave trails when I moved them around. I was only able to activate Aero after I ran the performance test and showed it that I had sufficient power. Now everything is funky and smooth. I really like the wallpaper shuffle feature, that's a nice touch, but I wonder why still no support for dualview - separate wallpapers and screensavers etc. Seems like more and more people are using 2 screens now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharke

Seems like more and more people are using 2 screens now.

---

more like 4 (and a TV)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?_?

Is anyone else confused that this isn't the 7th version of windows?

---

95, 98, 2000, NT, XP, Vista...........and so forth?

Presuming they're counting from 95 (which of course was the first 'hit' version of windows - its release was a primetime news story, anyway..)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberfish

I think NTFS does have some kind of symlink support, just that Windows doesn't allow users to use it, since the Linux NTFS driver (NTFS-3G) supports symlinks. Maybe they emulate it somehow, though.

---

NTFS does support symlinks and has for quite some time. It supports soft links and hard links for both folders and files since Vista.
Soft links for files wasn't support in XP, though, IIRC, but it did support the rest.
Although Windows exposes no GUI to create symlinks.
This must be done via their command-line tool or a 3rd party application/extension (I tend to use an Explorer extension).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ

Is anyone else confused that this isn't the 7th version of windows?

---

No, because this is Windows 7.0. This refers to the version string, but the number of released Windows products.
Windows 2000 was 5.0, I believe, and XP 5.1 or something such.
Vista is version 6.0 and Windows 7 version 7.0 (although it uses 6.1 internally for backwards compatibility, I believe).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharke

Am I the only one who's never had a virus infection in all my years of computing? I wouldn't even know where to get one if I wanted one. All I have is Avast running on my laptop and its never detected anything yet.

---

Nope. You are not alone.
I haven't even installed an AV product in these last years and haven't gotten any infections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharke

Am I the only one who's never had a virus infection in all my years of computing? I wouldn't even know where to get one if I wanted one. All I have is Avast running on my laptop and its never detected anything yet.

---

I've never been infected in my 15+ years of computing, but once NAV found & quarantined a virus in a file I downloaded on Kazaa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharke

95, 98, 2000, NT, XP, Vista...........and so forth?

Presuming they're counting from 95 (which of course was the first 'hit' version of windows - its release was a primetime news story, anyway..)

---

All versions of Windows after ME are based on the NT code base. 95, 98 & ME were non-NT versions.
I've used NT 3.51 & 4.0. I'm guessing there was a 1.x & 2.x at some point?
Windows 2000 is just a 'cooler' name than NT 5.0, then they continued to use 'cool' names instead of Windows NT x.0

Quote:

---

Am I the only one who's never had a virus infection in all my years of computing? I wouldn't even know where to get one if I wanted one. All I have is Avast running on my laptop and its never detected anything yet.

---

I've infected myself on purpose on a few occasions.

There have been other times. I got this desktop, and it would shut down immediately after booting (to simulate the experience, I think the command is "shutdown -s"). That turned out to be some sort of malware thing, and I have no idea where it came from. I wasn't using the internet at the time.

I've had bad luck with new computers before now. I bought a Compaq laptop when they cost $2000. It turned on, but the monitor was still off, so I never even got to use it once without a problem. The tech people had to replace the mobo. Not a virus, but I'm just waiting for computers to decide when they'll dislike me outright, and being around them will make them explode, etc.

This has the version numbers of the NT kernel - it appears Windows 7 uses the 6.1 Kernel

Windows NT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I've infected myself on purpose on a few occasions.

There have been other times. I got this desktop, and it would shut down immediately after booting (to simulate the experience, I think the command is "shutdown -s"). That turned out to be some sort of malware thing, and I have no idea where it came from. I wasn't using the internet at the time.

I've had bad luck with new computers before now. I bought a Compaq laptop when they cost $2000. It turned on, but the monitor was still off, so I never even got to use it once without a problem. The tech people had to replace the mobo. Not a virus, but I'm just waiting for computers to decide when they'll dislike me outright, and being around them will make them explode, etc.

---

I've had a couple of Compaqs and they've both been OK. The first I spilled coffee on and it exploded. The second I only replaced when the CD drive started going haywire after 2 years. The best laptop I've had is my current, an Asus. It runs like a charm and never fails me. The worst was an Averatec - lots of bang for the buck but as flimsy as they get, the lid cracked after 2 weeks from normal opening and closing. I once spent almost $3000 on a Sager laptop, supposed 'quality' but it arrived with USB ports that were barely screwed in so I sent it back. I figure I'll replace laptops every 18 months or so regardless of their condition - its just always nice to get a new one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I've infected myself on purpose on a few occasions.

There have been other times. I got this desktop, and it would shut down immediately after booting (to simulate the experience, I think the command is "shutdown -s"). That turned out to be some sort of malware thing, and I have no idea where it came from. I wasn't using the internet at the time.

I've had bad luck with new computers before now. I bought a Compaq laptop when they cost $2000. It turned on, but the monitor was still off, so I never even got to use it once without a problem. The tech people had to replace the mobo. Not a virus, but I'm just waiting for computers to decide when they'll dislike me outright, and being around them will make them explode, etc.

---

http://img292.echo.cx/img292/9489/hackerbomb1mh.jpg

>> This has the version numbers of the NT kernel - it appears Windows 7 uses the 6.1 Kernel
Interesting, when I first heard of Windows 7, I made the same assumption as Elysia.
But here's something more likely, according to the same wiki page, Win7 is the 7th version of windows running on the NT kernel to be released. So 7 as in kernel, not OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

I'm guessing there was a 1.x & 2.x at some point?

---

Nope, the NT line started at 3.1 apparently because the interface looked like the original Win 3.1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

NTFS does support symlinks and has for quite some time. It supports soft links and hard links for both folders and files since Vista.

---

Junction points and hardlinks were introduced in 2000, symlinks came in in Vista.

Speaking of Vista and 7, I'd be interested to know who is actually using the the apis they introduced because apparently MS aren't. Looking at the Transacted FS api's, CreateFileTransacted is the most used in Win7, and that's only in 5 modules throughout the system32 directory despite there being more than 500 more modules than Vista.

Quote:

---

there is really no reason to connect your XP box to the internet directly.

---

In that particular instance, I had no control over the network at the time. If memory serves however, there was a router between the laptop and the internet. It had the same connection as the rest of the machines in the room. The first thing I did was to update it compeletely, and the second thing was virus removal. (It had Norton then entire time.) After the updates, it was fine, but there was no reasonable way to get the updates except to connect to the Internet. I also had to go to safe mode to get rid of the virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

NTFS does support symlinks and has for quite some time

---

NTFS might, Windows however, doesn't. The functionality is crippled between things like it's impossible to use (no UI entrance to the functionality at all), the UI tends to do the wrong thing (deletion of symlinks didn't delete the symlink, but what was symlink'd to!), and, as of Vista, you need root privileges. (To create a file!)

Quote:

---

Am I the only one who's never had a virus infection in all my years of computing? I wouldn't even know where to get one if I wanted one. All I have is Avast running on my laptop and its never detected anything yet.

---

Nope, not alone. I've never got one either. All I have is Linux.

Has anyone tried the "math input panel" in the Accessories start menu folder? Jeez, what a pointless piece of junk that is. I drew an greater-than sign and it interpreted it as a "3," so I used the select and correct on it, selected "greater-than" from the list and it said "Please try a different correction."

I sure do hope other people have more luck with this nonsense than I did!

EDIT: You're ideally supposed to use it with a tablet, but it does say you can use a mouse as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharke

Has anyone tried the "math input panel" in the Accessories start menu folder? Jeez, what a pointless piece of junk that is. I drew an greater-than sign and it interpreted it as a "3," so I used the select and correct on it, selected "greater-than" from the list and it said "Please try a different correction."

---

Works pretty well for me.

This is with a mouse. The only thing I had to redo a few times was the 10. For some reason it kept reading it as 'D', and then 19... I had to add that weird loop at the top of the 0 to make it read as 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cactus_Hugger

In that particular instance, I had no control over the network at the time. If memory serves however, there was a router between the laptop and the internet. It had the same connection as the rest of the machines in the room. The first thing I did was to update it compeletely, and the second thing was virus removal. (It had Norton then entire time.) After the updates, it was fine, but there was no reasonable way to get the updates except to connect to the Internet. I also had to go to safe mode to get rid of the virus.

---

Know that it is not Window's fault for being infected so quickly--especially not an OS without updates that is so old!

Quote:

---

NTFS might, Windows however, doesn't. The functionality is crippled between things like it's impossible to use (no UI entrance to the functionality at all), the UI tends to do the wrong thing (deletion of symlinks didn't delete the symlink, but what was symlink'd to!), and, as of Vista, you need root privileges. (To create a file!)

---

No. You may be only partially right.
There is no graphical UI for symlinks, true, but there is a command-line tool, and all Linux junkies would be satisfied with that. Some are not, including me, but there are great 3rd-party extensions that fixes these problems, so that's good.
The functionality isn't crippled at all--the command-line utility in Vista does its job and it does it well. Deleting a symlink, beginning from Vista, will delete the link itself and not what it points to. Plus Vista also separates symlinks from normal folders (they are shown with a green arrow).
Creating a file can be done without admin privileges depending on where you create the link/file. Of course, I turn off UAC, so I cannot be 100% sure on that one.

What Windows lacks is this:
- No GUI or otherwise easily accessible function for creating soft/hard links.
- No choice between deleting the target or the link itself.

I never did really get the difference between junction points, symlinks, soft links and hard links, though.
From my knowledge, junction points = soft links and symlinks = soft links.

Hello,
I'm using Windows XP, that for me is the best of the Windows versions, and in another PC i use Linux, that for me is the best Operational System, but my impression of the Windows Vista was very poor, i disliked it, but if i was you, i don't will don't install Windows Se7en in my PC, because it's a recently OS, than wait for the first Service Pack.

Sorry About My English,
Nathan Paulino Campos

Then you're alone.
I didn't find Vista that bad as many does. It's mostly a ruined reputation because a lot of problems early in its life.
Windows 7 has been good, stable and a great OS even since the beginning of the beta.
Try it before you badmouth it.

Vista was very acceptable once its service packs came out and you had a computer that could more than handle its requirements. It was definitely a memory hog, UAC was an extreme nuisance, and it hid some of its more useful features... but for those that knew how to tame the beast, once you got it going the way you liked it, I found it pretty nice. I like Windows 7 better, at this point and I don't see any need to wait for service packs when I'm getting it for free, right now, anyway. Once I need to shell out the $200 or so, I'm sure I'll assess just how much I need the new features and likely will revert back to an older (already purchased) selection for a period of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Then you're alone.

---

No. He is not. Windows XP is still the most widely used desktop operating system, by a long shot.

Windows Vista was a major commercial and technical failure. Commercial, because it is the first operating system in Microsoft history to not be widely adopted and demote previous versions in a matter of months. Technical because a) it was plagued with numerous problems that took too long to be solved, b) it demanded the highest investment in hardware upgrade in Microsoft long history of modest system requirements, c) it failed to deliver a set of key technological improvements that were promised and would have indeed advanced the operating system.

It's quite irrelevant if you like it, and I don't. What speaks for itself was the martket adoption of this operating system from Microsoft that became probably the second biggest flop in their history, only surpassed by Windows ME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

No. He is not. Windows XP is still the most widely used desktop operating system, by a long shot.

---

More specifically, alone on this board/thread was more to what I intended.
I take it that most here have actually tried W7 instead of dismissing it right off the bat.

Ah, gotcha. My bad.

Well, I'll blush and confess I haven't installed 7 on my computer yet. Currently I can't find the time or interest. Too many things going on. Still doing Erlang, studying the x86 instruction set, and following on with my current cpp project. Not to mention my recent move from Ubuntu to Arch Linux taking some of my time too. Oh, and I'm pretty much hooked on Z80 programming too, for reasons not important to discuss in here.

I said it here last year, and I will say again, that my interest in Microsoft operating systems may have met its end after 25 years of genuine servitude. Starting last year, I have been slowly dedicating more time to Linux than I have to Windows. I'm waiting for 7 to ship to make my final decision. If this becomes just a repackaged Vista and no real content, that will be the end of it for me.

There will always be a Microsoft operating system on my machine. For no other reason than the fact I like to play games and I still find Visual Studio the best goddamn compiler and debugger on the planet and SlickEdit the best IDE. But as a tool, the operating system will become secondary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I said it here last year, and I will say again, that my interest in Microsoft operating systems may have met its end after 25 years of genuine servitude. Starting last year, I have been slowly dedicating more time to Linux than I have to Windows. I'm waiting for 7 to ship to make my final decision. If this becomes just a repackaged Vista and no real content, that will be the end of it for me.

---

Well, at least you aren't writing it off right away, unlike someone else who had never tried it and tried to persuade others not to try it out either ;)
Well, perhaps there will come a time when you have time to try it out. Time will tell, eh?

Quote:

---

Then you're alone.
I didn't find Vista that bad as many does. It's mostly a ruined reputation because a lot of problems early in its life.
Windows 7 has been good, stable and a great OS even since the beginning of the beta.
Try it before you badmouth it.

---

The biggest competitor for Windows 7 is Windows XP. You are lone ranger on this one because even Microsoft does not agree with you.

What? Alone in what? How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

The biggest competitor for Windows 7 is Windows XP. You are lone ranger on this one because even Microsoft does not agree with you.

---

Vista and Win7 are the same freaking OS. What Microsoft says is just to pacify the market. There is nothing wrong with Vista, just as there's nothing wrong with Win7. The problem was the change in driver model, which tooks the manufacturers YEARS to cope with. Now they've coped with it. So Vista will be re-released with a new name and some UI changes, essentially. And the drivers are more stable.

There's no important system level difference at all between Vista and Win7. This was literally from the mouth of every MS person at WinHEC 2008.

Elysia, Microsoft put themselves in a tough spot. With Windows XP, they have created -- and allow me the elevated speech for argument sake -- the Perfect operating system: Absolute minimum requirements by today standards, delivers incredible performance, it is in line with most of today's technological demands, requires minimum maintenance effort, is today well understood and enjoys a huge knowledge base, and is yet a modern and very current operating system. It's a beast!

DX10 wasn't enough to displace XP. And that's pretty much what Microsoft can do to put an end to this OS; Create technology and do not deliver it to XP. Only problem is... where's that technology? Nowhere to be seen.

With 2010 end of support for XP, assuming there no second extension, they will finally put it to rest. But the decision will be pure business and will affect us customers greatly. Windows XP is today, and will still be next year a perfectly capable (the most capable) Microsoft Operating System in existence for the home market.

There have been a lot of smaller changes in Win7. The biggest visible change, or change in the way we use the OS, is the new UI.
Changes include enhanced audio, built-in bluetooth, kernel tweaks and so on.
Yes, it is Vista 2.0, but it is not Vista 1.0, so they are not the same. But Vista's "troubles" have never been "fixed" in Windows 7, because they are not needed to. It is as you say, driver problems, but they were fixed for Vista eventually and Windows 7 keeps on happily accepting them.
It's a minor upgrade, even though Microsoft keeps implying it's a major release (even though the server revision will be a minor upgrade!).

As for the whole XP debate, I don't agree. XP is old and technically crippled.
They broke a lot with Vista by updating that technology, paving way for the future.
Your methodology is mostly "if it works, then don't break it," and although that works well for end users, it doesn't suit well for developers.
It's really time that XP retire and hopefully Windows 7 will be a good enough OS to take up the responsibilities of XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

It's really time that XP retire and hopefully Windows 7 will be a good enough OS to take up the responsibilities of XP.

---

Trully, I sincerely hope that to be the case.

I honestly cannot clearly understand the XP/Vista phenomena. It's the first time anyone is witnessing it, and a lot of ink has flown already. I need to remind you that something very similar happened with the 3.1 to 95 transition (buggy transition plagued with problems and with a new interface) and yet there was a quick adoption and 3.1 was displaced in months in our homes and businesses.

I can only marvel at what is happening this time. But that doesn't detract me from what I believe to be the real problem here: There is no real technological demand for a new operating system. This is what is at the core of the problem. And this is what has put Vista down. Not his problems. XP too was a bug circus when it was launched, but offered real technological incentives. This is what lacked in Vista and I'm seeing lacking in 7.

But I have very little doubt that 7 will finally prevail. But will be win of attrition, not of its own merit. There's so much XP can take before it lowers its arms. Especially considering we are rapidly approaching the end of its support cycle.

EDIT: And it is yet to be known the effect this will have on businesses. Fact is, even with a smaller performance impact than Vista, 7 requirements will still mean a considerable effort in hardware upgrade. All companies that I visited throughout these couple of years, appointed that has the first cause for not adopting Vista. The second was training costs not being met by a real gain of new features that could benefit the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I can only marvel at what is happening this time. But that doesn't detract me from what I believe to be the real problem here: There is no real technological demand for a new operating system. This is what is at the core of the problem. And this is what has put Vista down. Not his problems. XP too was a bug circus when it was launched, but offered real technological incentives. This is what lacked in Vista and I'm seeing lacking in 7.

---

I'm not so sure. Security is everything these days and Vista delivered many new things to help that. But Vista was stillborn. Hopefully Windows 7 can take up from Vista and deliver security to the masses.
And to me, it seemed that Vista's problems were the things that was its downfall. So much bad reputation.
Well, I'm just guessing. Guess we'll see.

Quote:

---

EDIT: And it is yet to be known the effect this will have on businesses. Fact is, even with a smaller performance impact than Vista, 7 requirements will still mean a considerable effort in hardware upgrade. All companies that I visited throughout these couple of years, appointed that has the first cause for not adopting Vista. The second was training costs not being met by a real gain of new features that could benefit the company.

---

7's requirements are higher than XP's, true. However, I believe this mostly to be merely as an upgrade incentive or just insurance "that it works".
It's meant to be an evolution of Vista, so I assume they didn't want to change those specs. But Windows 7 can run on much lesser specs, as we know. It works great on Netbooks as many sites report. There shouldn't have to be such huge upgrade costs this time around, me thinks.

I'm looking to build my own rig pretty soon with a new better processor and everything, so I am looking forward to using win7. Just felt like saying since it will be the first time I do it.

A little offtopic question:
What'll happen to Windows 7 after this month?. I have installed both XP and Windows 7 on my PC. Although i like Windows 7, i don't use it much as i faintly remember that it will expire on August 1. Will it just stop working without affecting XP?. I heard rumors that Windows 7 makes some changes to XP during installation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I'm looking to build my own rig pretty soon with a new better processor and everything, so I am looking forward to using win7. Just felt like saying since it will be the first time I do it.

---

Do what?
Upgrade that old junk of yours with butt burns? Or using 7?

Sure hope you don't lose it though. It's machines like that, that water our eyes mate.

Quote:

---

This was literally from the mouth of every MS person at WinHEC 2008.

---

Interesting. But it's not what I'm hearing at all.

In short:
XP: Awesome, best ever
Vista: Sucked so bad it increased sales of XP
W7: It's rival - XP.

Not sure where you are getting your information or if you are just getting 'what they are supposed to say'. I guess we will have to wait and see.

However having experienced Vista firsthand both at home and at work (until we removed it and went back to XP) there is nothing that anyone can say or do to make me believe for one minute that it is a good solid operating system. Spin it how you want but the sales aren't there, the users aren't there, DX10 flopped b/c of it, etc. The list is so long and the evidence against it is so strong I cannot believe you buy into the idea it is somehow great. If it was soooo great then every single game out there would be coded for DX10 AND they would drop DX9 like a bad habit. News flash they are not dropping DX9 yet b/c almost 75% of computers out there are still on XP. If 7 lives up to its name and hype then I envision MS will drop XP and DX9 like a bad habit and we can continue to move forward instead of sitting in place spinning our wheels b/c that is what Vista has caused my PC to do. But I'd rather spin my wheels and go nowhere with XP than have them fall off with Vista.

XP is the best Microsoft operating system to date that has ever been shipped. Notice that no one is comparing Windows 7 performance to Vista and really taking it serious. They are all comparing it's performance to XP since more than half of the people reading the articles are on XP. XP is the benchmark by which Windows 7 will be measured. When 7 is released it will be a huge war between XP and 7 and Vista will slowly slip out of view only to be forgotten. XP will not just slip away at the release of 7 and it will be a slow transition from XP to 7.

Plus there are people who have used both Vista and W7 RC and hands down they all say W7 RC is far better and the next phrase they say is 'it's almost as good or better than XP'. If they said it was 'much better than Vista' then everyone would laugh at them b/c what OS isn't better than Vista? There is no conspiracy theory to smear Vista - it really just sucks that bad.

So, Bubba, when was it you tried Vista last?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Do what?
Upgrade that old junk of yours with butt burns? Or using 7?

Sure hope you don't lose it though. It's machines like that, that water our eyes mate.

---

The machine I'm using now has a Pentium 4 so I'm not even using dual core yet like everyone else. In terms of upgrading it, it comes down to whether I want to keep the case, because I will have to replace the motherboard and get a better power supply probably (currently using ATX 300GU @300W). The motherboard isn't that good (no PCI-E slots and 1GB ram maximum, doesn't fit a more recent CPU). Also, it's HP's case, they can have it back when I'm done with it.

But when I build something new I plan to put 7 on it. I've never built my own before.

Quote:

---

So, Bubba, when was it you tried Vista last?

---

My wife installed it on her/my old machine. Sucks just as much as before SP1 since I had the unfortunate task of setting it up.

Why are you trying to sell this to us? What does it benefit you? Who cares? I'm getting 7 the day it launches. Say what you want to whomever you want about Vista but it isn't going to change my mind one bit. I don't understand why this is such a debate. Here's hoping the launch of 7 goes smooth and launches us into the future on a good platform. I have high hopes for it. But, as you say, it is NOT Vista 2.0. Maybe the PR muppets at MS are calling it that to appease the sting of defeat they feel with Vista. If they claim it's the 'same' then why did they release the 'same' crappy OS 3 years after the release of the 'same' crappy OS? Why did they push up the release of 7 that is built, according to you, on the same crappy platform as crappy Vista? That makes no sense at all.

I really think that if the company says it's Vista 2.0 it's to lessen the effects of the left hook they took with Vista. Then they don't have to admit publicly that Vista flopped and was a stinging defeat but they can spin it and say 7 is like Vista but far better. I have no idea why they would even want to associate themselves with the name of an OS that was probably the company's biggest boondoggle since ME. Isn't it odd that over 5000 employees were laid off at MS for the first time in the company's history? You can blame it on economy like every other business or perhaps the economoy was just a convenient cover for a serious internal mistake. Who knows? Microsoft is an enormous company so I'm sure you will hear ten thousand different company lines from ten thousand different employees who are all bound under non-disclosure agreements - therefore they can't really say what it is. We won't know for sure what it is until the thing launches. Companies spin stories all the time and I don't believe any of it till I see the proof. Those little seminars they always offer are just 'spin city' if you ask me.

Hey, take it easy. I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. Just curious, that's all. I just wanted to see if you had bad experienced with Vista in its early life and stayed away, or if it was late in the game and it was messing with you.
No, in fact it is Vista 2.0. It's just that Microsoft insist that it is not. But it's buzzing all over the web. What Vista should have been.
Microsoft still insists that everyone should upgrade to Vista first, and Win7 later. Partly because if Vista works for you, then you know that Win7 will work. And partly, I suppose, because you can't upgrade XP to Win7.

Quote:

---

No, in fact it is Vista 2.0. It's just that Microsoft insist that it is not.

---

I was under the impression you were saying MS says it is. That certainly does not line up with what I've heard. That is a clear misunderstanding on my part. I do not attend the seminars they offer about 7 so I do not know what those muppets are saying. I know that even though we do not agree with everything Microsoft does we know they are capable and talented enough to produce a much better operating system than their last offering.

I really don't think it's spinning to say 7 is not Vista 2.0. I think it would be spinning to say it is Vista 2.0. It may have the features that Vista was supposed to have but that does not mean it is 2.0.
Again this is all conjecture. What we are doing is assuming we have more information about the product when we haven't had anything to do with it's development. I would never assume I knew more about one of your company's products than you did since you worked on it. Why are we doing this with Microsoft? You really believe all the internet fan boys and hardware sites that have been wrong a trillion times over?

Just wait for it's release and then we can discuss how it is or is not this or that. Judging from the reactions of the 7 RC I would say we are in store for another very good OS.

And I do apologize for the closing comment on my last post Elysia. I removed that portion b/c it was a bit harsh. Nothing wrong with discussion but sometimes I feel as if you are not open to other's opinions - but only in threads about Vista which is odd - like you work on the sales team or something.

Although I can't really say about the non-visible parts and about its development, I have been using Win7 since Beta, so I could say a little about that.
But still, you are right in that time will tell. But to me, it does indeed feel like Vista 2.0. I haven't heard that much about inner changes and things, and the UI looks mostly the same.

About that last bit... yes, it's mostly my own fault. I come off as arrogant and proud many times, I'm sure. But it's also something I'm working on. There have been things I have been dead set on, but which I have lessened my stance on now, accepting, even perhaps thinking is good or okay.
But in reality, I am open to other's opinions. I always make to sure to listen to other's opinions, because I am not perfect myself.
Anyway, no hard feelings, right? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

And partly, I suppose, because you can't upgrade XP to Win7.

---

There isn't indeed a direct upgrade path for the RC (but who would want one anyways? That's just scary). But...

- Chances are there will be for the release version simply because it makes sense, considering people aren't upgrading to Vista despite Microsoft efforts in that direction.

- There' will be a price discount on a XP to Windows 7 upgrade license.

Quote:

---

About that last bit... yes, it's mostly my own fault. I come off as arrogant and proud many times, I'm sure. But it's also something I'm working on. There have been things I have been dead set on, but which I have lessened my stance on now, accepting, even perhaps thinking is good or okay.

---

I think it comes with being a programmer. We are a passionate bunch at times and sometimes this leads to some heated discussions. The same thing happens at work but on a public forum it can get out of hand since things can be misinterpreted easily. It's much harder to write what you want to say than say what you are writing. I imagine that's b/c about 60% of conversation is body language and we don't have that here.

Quote:

---

Anyway, no hard feelings, right?

---

Nope. None at all. Just a passionate discussion about something we both feel strongly about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Not sure where you are getting your information or if you are just getting 'what they are supposed to say'. I guess we will have to wait and see.

---

Well, you have to take into account the purpose of the WinHEC conference. Manufacturers send developers such as myself to WinHEC not to be brainwashed but to get a straight story on the TECHNICAL aspects of driver and hardware development on the Win7 platform. So of course a lot can change in application space, but the theme of the conference was basically "This is Vista all over again" except with the usual incremental developments. There is no overhaul of anything.

Again, Vista blew because of driver support. The OS core is fine. It took the manufacturers several years to adjust to the new driver ecosystem. We've pretty much got that nailed, now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Again, Vista blew because of driver support. The OS core is fine.

---

This is the part I don't get.
Is that all that matters nowadays? If the core is fine, if the system is stable, and if it looks good, we are to be herded into buying a new operating system and possibly be forced to spend some extra in upgrading our machines? I feel this is lowering our demands to a dangerous level in which a company like Microsoft can keep spurring new cash cows every 2 years or so, without much effort in real innovations. Where are the promised features of Vista that slowly got removed during the development stages? Forgotten, that's where.

The one thing Vista brought to the our plate was DX10. And even this was made in rather controversial and sleazeball way; By refusing to provide it for XP.

Then Crysis comes to showcase DX10 and make a bunch go get their Vista of some torrent. Only, shortly after someone found out what was really going on, and by changing the config file, XP users were able to play the game in Very High settings, which was... oh, so conveniently removed for XP players. Sure, you still don't have some lightning, some water effects and whatnot. But can I really tell the difference? No, not really unless I'm looking for it. The joke, because it has to be a joke, is that some players report Crysis running better on XP than on Vista on Very High settings. Sure it is the missing lightning and water effects. Right!

It's in Security that I think Vista did manage to provide real content to a a new operating system. This is frankly very little as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not my kind of feature that justifies the adoption of a new operating system. Particularly because everyone in this thread knows exactly what to do to keep their XP secure and free or any virus or malware.

And yet I see Vista being discussed as a meritorious operating system that is finally over the bad days of its shaky launch. Quite frankly, Vista is a bloated bag of nothings. A shiny new interface to keep us entertained and forget about the fact there is really nothing else special about Vista.

I just hope this acceptance of any crap they throw at us doesn't become a trend. Because our refusal to go by is what little control we have left over them. The day we willingly lose that, we cannot blame anyone but ourselves. And I'll definitely will not want to hear anyone complaining why is that Microsoft doesn't provide any real innovations for the past 7 years.

>> XP is the best Microsoft operating system to date that has ever been shipped.

Correction. That would be Windows 2000!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

There isn't indeed a direct upgrade path for the RC (but who would want one anyways? That's just scary). But...

- Chances are there will be for the release version simply because it makes sense, considering people aren't upgrading to Vista despite Microsoft efforts in that direction.

- There' will be a price discount on a XP to Windows 7 upgrade license.

---

I highly doubt it. Microsoft has somewhat stated on their blog that such an upgrade won't be possible due to technical difficulties.
You will have to reinstall, and use some ways of keeping your files and settings beforehand and importing them later to make an "upgrade."

I can also guess that Microsoft wanted to push about Windows 7 early to make up their bad reputation with Vista. So they made it a worthy Vista 2.0, ie - what Vista should have been (except for the missing promised features). We've got a new UI to make us more productive, improved audio, more performance, less glitches and hickups, built-in bluetooth, WDDM 1.1, and many more minor stuff.

I believe we'll see some new things in Windows 8. I already saw they were hiring for some new functionality in it. So perhaps we might see some of those promised features in Windows 8. Let's hope.

"I just hope this acceptance of any crap they throw at us doesn't become a trend. Because our refusal to go by is what little control we have left over them. The day we willingly lose that, we cannot blame anyone but ourselves. And I'll definitely will not want to hear anyone complaining why is that Microsoft doesn't provide any real innovations for the past 7 years."

here here *clinks uncle jack*

(What? You don't like Jack Daniels?)

"We've got a new UI to make us more productive"

Wait? Seriously? That is a reason for dropping mad cash on the latest Microsoft "Almost Ran"? That's a Dvorak argument if I've ever heard one.

I've been using the same development, mastery, content environments and the same keyboards and mice for so long I don't need to look at the screen to use even the mouse. My hands are so tuned to moving "just so" to access the tools that when new versions "upgrade the interface" I have to spend extra hours on my work, until my hands learn the new positions, because the tools aren't where they should be.

If the UI is already effective and the tools do the job a new UI just means "down time" while retraining. And a fresh coat of paint doesn't make a UI new anymore than it makes it improved.

"improved audio"

My audio development machine has excellent 7.1 surround sound. How much better are we talking about?

"more performance'

It will have more performance than my severely tweaked XP SP3--which eliminates basically everything consuming only 94 threads before ATI/nVidia drivers?

"less glitches and hickups"

My XP SP3 based sever--now running lighttpd instead of Apache--is on its seventh month. The XP based machines in the farm only ever reboot when I've added something new. (Which is once or twice a month, depending on the month.)

"built-in bluetooth"

XP has had a native Bluetooth stack and a lot of drivers since SP2.

"I believe we'll see some new things in Windows 8. I already saw they were hiring for some new functionality in it. So perhaps we might see some of those promised features in Windows 8. Let's hope."

So, your advice, is really to upgrade to "Vista 2.0" because it brings a lot to the table as a stepping stone to upgrading to "Windows 8" which may in theory manifest these items?

Soma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomotap

"We've got a new UI to make us more productive"
Wait? Seriously? That is a reason for dropping mad cash on the latest Microsoft "Almost Ran"? That's a Dvorak argument if I've ever heard one.

---

Well, try if and see if you like it.
To me, it makes everyday life, especially on smaller screens, much better. I like it. Not enough to pay a lot of cash for, no, but it is good.

Quote:

---

I've been using the same development, mastery, content environments and the same keyboards and mice for so long I don't need to look at the screen to use even the mouse. My hands are so tuned to moving "just so" to access the tools that when new versions "upgrade the interface" I have to spend extra hours on my work, until my hands learn the new positions, because the tools aren't where they should be.

---

This is a problem, and I agree. Microsoft is making it much harder to access certain common things and hiding them in new versions. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the new Aero (like Aero Peek) and the new Taskbar.

Quote:

---

"improved audio"
My audio development machine has excellent 7.1 surround sound. How much better are we talking about?

---

Improvements to reduce certain audio glitches among other things, I believe. I had perfect sound, too, but this is what Microsoft says, at least. Mostly engineering, making code more robust I suspect.

Quote:

---

"more performance'
It will have more performance than my severely tweaked XP SP3--which eliminates basically everything consuming only 94 threads before ATI/nVidia drivers?

---

More performance and faster than Vista. Also promises faster boot up times and faster shutdown. Though that hasn't really happened to me.
And disabling threads and stuff to gain more performance are just myths. I've found that disabling services doesn't do anymore than give you headaches.

Quote:

---

"less glitches and hickups"
My XP SP3 based sever--now running lighttpd instead of Apache--is on its seventh month. The XP based machines in the farm only ever reboot when I've added something new. (Which is once or twice a month, depending on the month.)

---

This is more about the eco system itself rather than the OS. But Microsoft has put a lot of effort into finding troublesome drivers and stuff that interferes with, for example, audio, and helping manufacturers fix them.
They also work more closely with manufacturers to see that Windows start faster and gives more seamless experience.

Quote:

---

"built-in bluetooth"
XP has had a native Bluetooth stack and a lot of drivers since SP2.

---

But it didn't have native bluetooth functionality. No need for drivers in Windows 7, because it's built-in. Call it good or bad, I don't know.

Quote:

---

"I believe we'll see some new things in Windows 8. I already saw they were hiring for some new functionality in it. So perhaps we might see some of those promised features in Windows 8. Let's hope."
So, your advice, is really to upgrade to "Vista 2.0" because it brings a lot to the table as a stepping stone to upgrading to "Windows 8" which may in theory manifest these items?

---

No, I'm not advising on anything.
All I'm saying is, try it before you hate it.
And I'm mostly comparing W7 to Vista here. It obviously isn't faster than XP. As things grow, they become more slow, but W7 did the other way - it become faster, breaking the trend that everything new must be slower. At least it's a little good.

"Well, try if and see if you like it."

I've had that misfortune when my laptop arrived (Vista). I'll stick with my custom build of xoblite. (I use it party so my *nix boxes are similar and partly because I love it.)

"I was talking about the new Aero (like Aero Peek) and the new Taskbar."

I don't use a "taskbar" style shell in XP--or any other OS since Windows 98 was released.

"And disabling threads and stuff to gain more performance are just myths."

Do you really think that? O_o

"I've found that disabling services doesn't do anymore than give you headaches."

Yea? And? Do you have a point? (Hint: You not reading the documentation and understanding the requirements for your machines doesn't change the reality for the rest of us.)

"This is more about the eco system itself rather than the OS."

Indeed? (See the old, buggy network stack implementations Microsoft used to provide for an example of how the OS contributes to "the eco system".)

"But it didn't have native bluetooth functionality."

Well... it is just an OS. You would still need the hardware.

"No need for drivers in Windows 7, because it's built-in."

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

"All I'm saying is, try it before you hate it."

Well, that is advice but I do get what you are saying, but you've also been saying, more or less, that Windows 7 is some worthy improvement while saying that "Window 8" may actually be the one to bring new stuff the table. What I'm implying here is you shouldn't spend money on nothing.

Anyway, you've missed the point entirely. If Windows Vista was a step down and Windows 7 is a step up you've only made a lateral move. With that in mind, why move from XP? Why pay good money to upgrade and get nothing?

"As things grow, they become more slow"
"but W7 did the other way"
"it become faster"
"breaking the trend that everything new must be slower"

Now you are just being silly. Windows XP runs well on ancient (current standards) hardware. Windows Vista needed serious hardware to run poorly. From all account Windows 7 runs only a little better on similar hardware. It didn't magic anything. It didn't break any such trend--not that such a trend even exists.

Soma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomotap

I've had that misfortune when my laptop arrived (Vista). I'll stick with my custom build of xoblite. (I use it party so my *nix boxes are similar and partly because I love it.)

---

That's Vista, what about W7, which is the point of discussion of trying?

Quote:

---

"I was talking about the new Aero (like Aero Peek) and the new Taskbar."
I don't use a "taskbar" style shell in XP--or any other OS since Windows 98 was released.

---

So why is that?

Quote:

---

"And disabling threads and stuff to gain more performance are just myths."
Do you really think that? O_o

---

Yes. From my experience of trying disabling services, it does nothing.
Shutting down programs helps if you're low on memory.

Quote:

---

"I've found that disabling services doesn't do anymore than give you headaches."
Yea? And? Do you have a point? (Hint: You not reading the documentation and understanding the requirements for your machines doesn't change the reality for the rest of us.)

---

My point being that those services are there for a reason.
If you find yourself using something in the future which requires that service, it usually fails in some spectacular unknown way. So you have to enable the service again.
What's the point? Just leave the service enabled. It's not like it hinders performance.

Quote:

---

"This is more about the eco system itself rather than the OS."
Indeed? (See the old, buggy network stack implementations Microsoft used to provide for an example of how the OS contributes to "the eco system".)

---

o_O
Don't shoot the messenger...

Quote:

---

"But it didn't have native bluetooth functionality."
Well... it is just an OS. You would still need the hardware.

"No need for drivers in Windows 7, because it's built-in."
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

---

Well, yes and no. Sort of.
What I do know is this: In windows 7, all you need to install is the drivers for your bluetooth hardware. Then there's an add device guide which adds your bluetooth devices.
And in previous Windows, 3rd parties usually installed some additional bluetooth software and things.
Again, just the messenger here.

Quote:

---

"All I'm saying is, try it before you hate it."
Well, that is advice but I do get what you are saying, but you've also been saying, more or less, that Windows 7 is some worthy improvement while saying that "Window 8" may actually be the one to bring new stuff the table. What I'm implying here is you shouldn't spend money on nothing.

---

For Vista -> Win7, there are big gains.
For XP -> Win7, there may seem to be less gains.
Is it worth the current amount of money that it costs? I don't think so. And I certainly wouldn't give off the impression that you should upgrade. All I do is tell of the changes in Windows 7, especially over Vista.

Quote:

---

Anyway, you've missed the point entirely. If Windows Vista was a step down and Windows 7 is a step up you've only made a lateral move. With that in mind, why move from XP? Why pay good money to upgrade and get nothing?

---

Because Vista provided good things that XP didn't have. But it also added things that were a downside, such as resource hungry and sluggish.
But the latter was fixed in Windows 7, thus it becoming known as Vista 2.0, Vista as it should have been.
I'm not going to try to list things that are better in Vista, partly because I know it won't add anything worthy to the discussion, partly because there's lists all of the web and partly because different individuals will find different things better.
But the best reason to upgrade? Because XP is antique by today's standards. Had Vista not been so bad at launch, it would have been a good idea to upgrade to it from XP, but alas, that was not so. So let's give another chance to Win7. Even though just moderately better than XP (or not, depending on how you see it), at least it's more modern, secure and will allow easier upgrade paths in the future and will be supported longer.

Quote:

---

"As things grow, they become more slow"
"but W7 did the other way"
"it become faster"
"breaking the trend that everything new must be slower"

Now you are just being silly. Windows XP runs well on ancient (current standards) hardware. Windows Vista needed serious hardware to run poorly. From all account Windows 7 runs only a little better on similar hardware. It didn't magic anything. It didn't break any such trend--not that such a trend even exists.

---

At least it shows that Vista didn't need to be such a resource hog. If they made Vista as Win7 in the first place, the new OS would still run on ancient hardware. That's good, isn't it?