Would you change OS to Windows 7?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

As long as you don't log on as a guest

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

@ BosonMichael,

I am not competing or trying to pretend to be a victim or can't admit I was wrong - I want to learn and share knowledge - but the problem here was the way you expressed yourself - what you said didn't sound nice to me. You sounded rather arrogant than like someone trying to tell me that truth is something else - but instead was quick to put an effort in finding kool-aid drink link - maybe that is cool senior behavior ... Your reply was more like bitter medicine with slight dose of poison and that dose is repeated with kool - aid drink
What I wrote about Vista was according to my reading and experiences from others who were fooled by low RAM requirements "promised" by Mc. and weren't happy with performance, as a start and than masses of other examples. But, I didn't stop reading and absorbing - I am a junior, loving IT.

 

Then, like I said, you have completely misinterpreted my motives and meanings.

Maybe I just need more smileys.

 

maybe, then you might not come across as an arrogant tw*t a lot of the time.

[Message to member and Infraction for personal attack given for this post - Bluerinse]

 

and back on topic
I've been using it since I got the RTM a couple of months a go from work. I wiped my Vista installation and put it on there. Not had many problems yet and it seems a lot quicker than Vista (especially at starting up + shutting down).
I'd recommend going for it, especially if you don't have a lot of data to migrate.

 

I have two things to say

Windows errrmmmmm..only if I really have to........it sucks and blows..... "The simpsons"

Linux like garlic bread is the future, to quote a line out of "phoenix nights", (Avoid Karmic Koala = Ubuntu, too new although Jaunty is fantastic)

 

I have it at work and home (both 64bit) and love it. Not came across any problems yet with drivers ect..
Just a good feel to it and some handy features (I like the new task bar).

 

I think that was the issue of when you try Windows 7 next to Vista the differences are glaring. The fact I ran Windows 7 on my netbook and it worked well says it all as I know Vista would of crawled. I still think they should of done Windows 7 as a service pack as I bet a lot of Vista users probably feel a little ripped off considering the price MS charged for it.

 

Yeah and the fact that I don't have any real problems with Vista, it works for me. So i am a bit bummed that they have now, so soon after me splashing out for Vista, released something that could give me a bit of a performance hit but nothing more (apart from a horribly clunky taskbar).

Thank you Micro$oft *ching*

 

The issue with it wanting to be a SP is all XPs fault anyway, back in the day MS were releasing new desktop OS's all the bloody time

95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP (2001!!) then.. omg 5 YEARS before Vista came
then win 7 three years later, 3 years? thats a pretty sizable window, the issue is most people did the 'wagh wagh it sucks on my crappy system' BS and waited half of that before upgrading, or even longer, and now really feel cheated

not much i can do to fix that, but Windows 7 is the 'big' desktop OS for a while, enterprises held off Vista for years, but i've alerady got A LOT of clients planning 7 roll outs next year, this is the OS you really should be running

if XP is still giving you life, great for you, but as a tech, i want the latest and greatest in a real world day to day usage so i can be intimate with it

 

Spot on post as always.

I've had no problems with Vista, I bought it from the outset and enjoyed it. Never had an issue with it. As soon as 7 was released. I got that too, it is polished and looks to be the major OS for quite a long time. I never understood why people stuck with XP, all I used to hear was "because it works", seems a lot of people are trapped in their own paranoia and afraid of change.

 

Yeah, the problem is 3 years flys past in like 3 weeks, the older you get the faster time flys

 

That's just because you've forgotten what day it is.

um... what day IS it?

 

Is it Sunday?

 

I actually just dived into the shower this morning thinking I was late getting up my flight. Half in the shower I hear "Dave, are you having a shower?"

"yea, I got up late"

"Late for what? are you going out"

"yes I've got my flight, don't you ****ing remember, why didnt you get me up"

"Dave. It's Sunday"

 

I disagree. Vista had many more problems than just drivers. The main one being speed, which windows 7 has addressed. I think they even said in a press conference they were considering a netbook version of 7!? now can you imagine Vista on a netbook!

Main Gripes;
Speed (booting, executing software.. everything!)
File operation performance (about the slowest OS at copying or deleting)
Bloat (much much larger than XP)
Game performance (you often need a hardware upgrade to run the same games on Vista as you do XP)
Shut down (in this energy concious world who wants to have a suspend button where the shutdown should be)
User account control (say no more)

Like windows ME, Vista has had a short life that will be forgotten very soon. 7 is what Vista should have been.

 

...speed which was likely caused by faulty drivers. How is it that I didn't have any speed problems with Vista on a 2.4 GHz P4 with a gig of memory, and the rest of the world has troubles? Oh, that's right, I made sure to select hardware from quality vendors that were ready for Vista when it was released! ;)

I do recall one file operation performance problem when copying files over the network, but this was solved in the first service pack, I believe.

...just like Windows 7 is larger than Vista, and XP was larger than Me, which was larger than 98, which was larger than 95. How was Vista different than all the rest?

...just like you often need a hardware upgrade to run the same games on 7 as you do Vista, or XP after upgrading from Me... etc, etc, etc. Again, how was Vista different?

Dude, you gotta understand, we heard these exact same complaints when each and every one of those operating systems were released. This is nothing new.

Perhaps you should just install DOS 3.3. I hear it's BLAZING fast!

You mean, the suspend/hibernate feature that hasn't worked ever since Microsoft implemented it?

That said, if it DID work correctly, why wouldn't you want a suspend button where shutdown would be? If you don't like it, you can change it. But surely you knew that already, right?

In any case, it doesn't matter to me; I leave mine powered on.

First users gripe that there's no security... then when Microsoft gives it to them, they whine because it takes an extra mouse click to confirm actions that require administrator-level priveleges. Do you want security or not?

If you don't like it, turn it off. But then don't whine when an app installs a rogue process without requiring confirmation.

Please. Did you ever administer Windows Me? Vista was nowhere near the turd Me was.

Don't believe me? Plenty of respected people and publications agree.

If you'd like to debate me on these topics, feel free. I welcome the debate. But I'd recommend that you read this book thoroughly before you do.

EDIT: edited for more smileys

 

ok i'll give you some benchmarks.

speed;
it may run ok on those specs but XP would still be faster. Also did you try any of the low end laptops your local computer supermarket were selling? absolutely abysmal, much slower than any low end ones that were around when XP was about. Also windows 7 is remarkably faster than Vista. Which shows that there is an issue with its performance as 7 uses the majority of the same drivers.
Vista SP1 speed test

File performance.
SP1 did not solve the file transfer problem. XP is still faster than Vista SP1 at nearly all types of file transfer/extraction except for transferring a single file.
File transfer benchmarks

Bloat, the percentage difference in Vista to XP is enormous compared to other comparisons you can make.

suspend/shutdown,
But why should you have to change it? just another Vista annoyance. In 7 guess what, that button is back to being shutdown.

My main point is nearly all of the issues consumers had with Vista have been solved in windows 7.
I'm sure you know 7 is actually windows version 6.1, vista being 6, XP being 5.1
Again, 7 is based on the same kernel so really its Vista SP3. Because of terrible press Vista had Microsoft felt like they had to wipe the slate clean.

 

Sorry Mike, Vista sucks balls. Up until last week, I'd been using it for two years at work (forced on me).

Until SP2, network file copy performance was utterly, unspeakably dreadful. The drivers I used for my NIC were written specifically for Vista, with Microsoft's full co-operation, and fully certified. I updated them at least six times - not one update made a difference until SP2, when all the problems miraculously disappeared.

The UI was slower and far less responsive than XP (or, mercifully, Win 7) - even with all the bells & whistles crap turned off.

Many programs that ran perfectly well under XP (which, again, were specifically rewritten by the vendors for Vista), were dog-slow under Vista in comparison. In fact, we shelved a Vista rollout to the salesforce because the Blackberry Desktop manager performance was absolutely awful, despite it being a recommended configuration from both RIM and MS, and being the exact same version & stepping as they were (and still are) running on XP.

I've never had a desktop OS ask me whether I wanted to 'safely remove' my hard drive while the machine is running before...

UAC - which I won't even bother going into here

Numerous explorer crashes (I can't remember the last time I had an explorer crash on XP)

It took me five times as long as it does in XP to delete a large number of files. That isn't an exaggeration.

How 'bout the ridiculously pessimistic file copy dialog? You know the one: "Vista estimates it will take 5 minutes to move seven files totalling 1.2 meg"

Or the security dialogs (surely related to UAC) that told you that you didn't currently have access to a particular folder... before letting you click continue and asking you if you really wanted to access the folder in question. Click OK? Oh go on then, since you asked nicely... What the hell sort of security is that? Either stop me accessing the fricking thing entriely without delving into some arcane setting, or just let me open the sodding thing when I ask you to!

How about the changes to the Vista bootloader - which prevent you from being able to change the name of the O/S's listed - stopping you being able to identify them properly in the boot menu if you have (as I did at one point) three different versions of Vista installed for testing. You can still change the boot delay, so why did they take out the ability to rename the O/S installations

The breadcrumb trail explorer is, frankly, ****. Not only will I never get used to it, but in Vista it was so dire that I downloaded an alternative explorer to use (Directory Opus). I don't need Microsoft to tell me to work in a different method to the one I've gotten used to over 15 years of using Windows, I don't want to be forced into doing things in a 'cool' way, and I don't want my PC to work like a poxy Mac - If I wanted that... I would have bought a poxy Mac.

I'm not sounding the death knell for Vista because of buggy drivers, I'm not sounding the death knell for it because of programmers not understanding the O/S properly and coding for it poorly... I'm sounding the death knell for it because it is a useless, clunkly, slow-witted piece of crud that should never have crawled forth out of Redmond. Windows 7 blows it completely out of the water - I am already more productive at work as a result of using it, and am already halfway toward recommending a rollout plan to the workforce at large.