Windows 7 likes and dislikes

[wtsinnc]

The truth is that Vista has been unpopular because it cannot deliver what was promised. It is neither inherently more secure (v. XP or W2K) or capable of a higher level of performance. Many people who purchased Vista found their "Vista capable" PCs and laptops unable to function properly.
Microsoft lied about the true system requirements for Vista and is currently in litigation regarding the "Vista capable" designation.
They will lose.
It's hard to find any reason at all to praise or use this severely flawed OS.

Time has (perhaps) clouded the memory of some;

Remember the lack of compatible security software ?
This occurred because Microsoft refused to divulge in a timely manner to software vendors pertinent information about the kernel structure as well as other elements of the OS. Hardly a well thought-out process.
These compatibility issues lingered well into the first year of Vista's public availability
and extended to most if not all of the other categories of software applications.

Remember the multitude of hardware interface issues ? Way too many to reference.

Remember the licensing and upgrade issues ?

I remember all of this; I had to muck through all of this unnecessary s**t just to get the operating system I paid for to operate as promised.

-By the way-
How many of you are still waiting for your vista Ultimate Extras ?


Microsoft has ceased any real attempt to address user complaints and there is no effort to materially improve Vista, at least none that I've heard of. Instead, they have pushed for a replacement operating system due to Vista's failure to be adopted by government as well as the bulk of the corporate community. Just as was the case with ME, Vista has become an embarrassment to Microsoft and they rightfully want to bury it asap.

I truly hope Microsoft has learned from their Vista experience and will continue to develop Windows 7 until it becomes the absolute, unqualified best operating system they have ever produced.
We deserve nothing less

[disturbed1]

Time has (perhaps) clouded the memory of some;

Remember the lack of compatible security software ?

Remember the multitude of hardware interface issues ? Way too many to reference.

Remember the licensing and upgrade issues ?

I remember all of this;
-By the way-
How many of you are still waiting for your

Not doubting anything you're saying, it's just the exact same crap that was posted when MS brought out 95. Everyone moaned and groaned. Then they updated from 95 to 98, same crying, then from 98/ME to XP, even more people crying about the same stuff. Now from XP to Vista, we have new people crying about the same stuff.

This isn't anything new. Deal with it, or get over it. That's really all that can be done. Find a way to fix it, or learn to ignore it

The same thing will happen with Windows 7, then Windows 2012, then Windows 20/20 Perfect Vision TM

[DereX888]

Time has (perhaps) clouded the memory of some;

Remember the lack of compatible security software ?

Remember the multitude of hardware interface issues ? Way too many to reference.

Remember the licensing and upgrade issues ?

I remember all of this;
-By the way-
How many of you are still waiting for your

Not doubting anything you're saying, it's just the exact same crap that was posted when MS brought out 95. Everyone moaned and groaned. Then they updated from 95 to 98, same crying, then from 98/ME to XP, even more people crying about the same stuff. Now from XP to Vista, we have new people crying about the same stuff.

This isn't anything new. Deal with it, or get over it. That's really all that can be done. Find a way to fix it, or learn to ignore it

The same thing will happen with Windows 7, then Windows 2012, then Windows 20/20 Perfect Vision TM

and that's why I myself use Slack and always encourage others (if they're capable of using PC beyond clicking on the big e on their desktop of course).

wtsinnc, most of people have short memory. They can't remember what they themselves did just few days ago, and you want them to remember what was promised to them by someone else

Windows 7 is just another patched-up but still the same Windows NT operating system.
Every hole/bug that was patched there since Windows NT4 is fixed in all those 10,000+ patches, hotfixes and Service Packs released by MS since 1996 (NT4 release year), but of course countless yet-unfixed and even more undiscovered ones are still there. Not to mention Microsoft's own shoddy coding introducing sleuth of new bugs and holes in every newer version of the "add-ons" that come with it (i.e. IE).
Treat Windows 7 as Windows NT 4.0 With All Cumulative Security Patches Included version and you'll see it in a completely different way and perspective, hehe (as everyone should, because that's what it really is - with a bunch of few kernel hacks and more elaborate GUI on top )

[wtsinnc]

Well stated, disturbed1 !

[wtsinnc]

-And DereX888 !

[Dv8ted2]

The truth is that Vista has been unpopular because it cannot deliver what was promised. It is neither inherently more secure (v. XP or W2K) or capable of a higher level of performance.

This is debatable, but I have since given up on trying to convince you. I know differently.

[DereX888]

/delete pls - combined with next post/

[DereX888]

@wtsinnc:
thx

The truth is that Vista has been unpopular because it cannot deliver what was promised. It is neither inherently more secure (v. XP or W2K) or capable of a higher level of performance.

This is debatable, but I have since given up on trying to convince you. I know differently.

How it could be debatable?
Any Windows version can be hacked-open by not even brightest hackers. (I hope you don't doubt or want to 'debate' this fact?)
Does it really matter is this NT version has Aero and is called "Windows Vista", or that NT version has "classic" and is called "Windows 2000"? Most of the Windows hacks work exactly the same on Windows 2000 and Windows Vista, doesn't this tell you that it's the same Operating System? (except of course for those that target specific subsystems non-existant in other versions - aka distributions - of Windows, like IE7 on Vista or IE5 on W2K).

Words like security and Windows don't go in the same sentence... unless accompanied by "lack of"

[MJPollard]

My reason for skipping Vista was simple: for what I'm doing, I saw no advantage to it over my current XP setup. With no advantage, I saw no reason to put up with Vista's added bloat and slowness. (I also recall reading something about Vista further tightening the DRM noose, which further made it a non-starter.) I'll sit back a bit and wait to see how Win7 plays out before taking the plunge, which seems more likely this time around.

[stiltman]

Welll, I was kinda hoping for a different discussion on this thread

I will keep posting my likes and dislikes

[RabidDog]

Be nice if they sent the right serial number... My one doesnt work.. So I just pressed enter at that bit.

Yes of course W& is a taster.. they are relying on Apathy and familiarity to "sell " this OS after the
Failure of Vista. A years free use? yeah ok.. But whats the price gonna be at thend ? And I notice they give the
Ultimate version, so you get used to, possibly even rely on, the extras and have to pay the "ultimate" price.
Not death, but a large chunk of coin.. and of course we in the UK will get royally ripped off with a straight
Dollar to Pound conversion. I reckon in the region of £295 for Ultimate and around £150 £195 for Home Premium.
I'll use it for free, but womnt be paying those prices (unless I can claim it on expenses)

[rallynavvie]

Welll, I was kinda hoping for a different discussion on this thread

I will keep posting my likes and dislikes

Yeah, you had to know it was going to turn into a Vista-bashing session

Since I work in software development now I'm seeing things in a much different perspective, namely one that is not at all as biased as what has been seen here. One person said it right when they said there has always been resistance to new Windows OS. With the internet and its social networking mire, the ability for people to Google reasons to fan their own flames of hatred of upgrading, these releases are getting more and more negative review. I still think, even after using it in development and at home, that the appeal to Win7 is mostly placebo right now. I've BSOD it twice and frozen it over a dozen times, and that's just at home. It reminds me of Longhorn a bit in that regard. But since MS offers Win7 as a free, open Beta they're going to get good publicity from a lot of people just for that.

[Dv8ted2]

@wtsinnc:
thx

The truth is that Vista has been unpopular because it cannot deliver what was promised. It is neither inherently more secure (v. XP or W2K) or capable of a higher level of performance.

This is debatable, but I have since given up on trying to convince you. I know differently.

How it could be debatable?
Any Windows version can be hacked-open by not even brightest hackers. (I hope you don't doubt or want to 'debate' this fact?)
Does it really matter is this NT version has Aero and is called "Windows Vista", or that NT version has "classic" and is called "Windows 2000"? Most of the Windows hacks work exactly the same on Windows 2000 and Windows Vista, doesn't this tell you that it's the same Operating System? (except of course for those that target specific subsystems non-existant in other versions - aka distributions - of Windows, like IE7 on Vista or IE5 on W2K).

Words like security and Windows don't go in the same sentence... unless accompanied by "lack of"

No, and the fact that you believe it is the same operating system is really silly. The OS has had so much rewriting that it hardly resembles previous versions. Vista alone needed rewriting to eighty percent of the OS. Windows 7 further rewrote the code. Your beliefs are misguided.

You are wanting to slight Microsoft for the same thing that Apple is guilty of. How many freaking versions of OSX are needed? Can they count to 11? I am not biased towards Microsoft. I also use Ubuntu, but I can see things from both sides of the fence.

Getting back to the point of the thread...

I like the fish wallpaper.

Dislike - no classic start menu
Dislike - less secure than Vista

[wtsinnc]

Windows seven is definitely faster and in some ways less "bulky' than Vista.
As far as startup and shutdown, it seems to be the fastest Windows OS I've used.
In my rudimentary testing, W 7 has crashed only once. That is impressive for an RC !

Obviously, Microsoft has seen the necessity for something more nimble than the previous offering and in this, they have succeeded.

The UAC is better designed but still needs work.

Defender runs by default and it's dashboard is now essentially hidden from the user. I believe that should change.

Registry hacking is far more cumbersome than in XP or any other (earlier) version of Windows. This was carried over from Vista and I don't like it.

Yes, "explore" is missing from the context menu. Microsoft needs to restore that feature.

For whatever reason, I am having several problems with the backup and restore function.
Despite repeated attempts in three separate installs, I cannot get W-7's B&R to recognize a backup made on a different computer or one made from an older OS.
This problem exists regardless of whether I have or have not first completed a full system backup within W-7.
I did not have this problem with Vista.

The new taskbar is one of 7's most promoted features, but I see little practical use for me.
I can see that it will be very useful for multi-taskers, so in spite of my first comment about it, I give it a thumbs up.

I do like the ability to adjust the video settings , most notably the gamma adjustment feature. Another thumbs up.

IE 8 is an improvement over IE 7 in terms of features (In Private Browsing, Multiple Session support), but in terms of security, it fares no better than IE 7 when tested via the tests at PC Flank and "Shields Up" .
My personal browser choice when running Windows 7 is K-Meleon.

There are other considerations, but I want to experiment further before stating those.

One of the major considerations about posting and feedback in these forums is that so many Videohelp.com members are deeply involved in advanced and very sophisticated video and photography either professionally or as hobbyists, and what many of them will look for in an operating system will necessarily center on what it can do for them in that regard.
This is how it should be, and what I value as of critical importance might be of little or no importance to others, and vice-versa.

To this point Windows 7 is a nice toy to play with, but for those like me who only care about web surfing, e-mail, and conventional DVD backup, neither Vista or Windows 7 offer anything constituting a real and honest upgrade.
As of now, I see no reason to leave either W2K or XP for Windows 7.

[RLT69]

Four the thousandth time...Vista is not a rewrite, nor is Windows 7. Longhorn was suppose to be Vista, which was a complete kernel re-write but it was scrapped! Vista was based on the Windows Server 2003 SP1 code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

Windows 7 is JUST AND UPGRADE. Vista is NT 6.0 and Windows 7 is NT 6.1, just like Window 2000 was NT 5.0 and XP was NT 5.1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

It's that simple.

No, the complaints are not the same. For businesses and corporations, the resistance to upgrading to Vista are huge, bigger than previous Windows releases. You did not have OEMs still offer OSs long after Microsoft has stopped selling them. As soon as ME was out the door, you could not get a Dell with Windows 98. Today you can still get a Dell with XP!

There have been very long and detailed reasons why corporate users have stuck with XP. There are significant issues to upgrading which do not appear to have been addressed with Windows 7. We'll wait and see what happens after the official release.

But this notion that people are simply whining is false. There is a resistance to the product because there is a major problem with the product.



p.s. Sorry stiltman. I do find you list informative

[Dv8ted2]

Four the thousandth time...Vista is not a rewrite, nor is Windows 7. Longhorn was suppose to be Vista, which was a complete kernel re-write but it was scrapped!

Vista/Longhorn was originally composed of spaghetti code by multiple groups within Microsoft. When the reset happened, eighty percent of the code had to be rewritten. Functionality was removed, such as WinFS. This was confirmed by multiple sources. I also know it was based off of Server 2003. You are not telling me anything I do not already know. I have stated this multiple times on this website. If you want to get down to brass tacks, SP1 for server 2003 came from concepts of XP SP2.

Wikipedia is not a credible source. You should do more research.

Windows 7 is JUST AND UPGRADE. Vista is NT 6.0 and Windows 7 is NT 6.1, just like Window 2000 was NT 5.0 and XP was NT 5.1.

I know. I said this months ago on this website. I am not some blithering idiot.

No, the complaints are not the same. For businesses and corporations, the resistance to upgrading to Vista are huge, bigger than previous Windows releases. You did not have OEMs still offer OSs long after Microsoft has stopped selling them. As soon as ME was out the door, you could not get a Dell with Windows 98. Today you can still get a Dell with XP!

There have been very long and detailed reasons why corporate users have stuck with XP. There are significant issues to upgrading which do not appear to have been addressed with Windows 7. We'll wait and see what happens after the official release.

But this notion that people are simply whining is false. There is a resistance to the product because there is a major problem with the product.

SP1 fixed the product, and the comparison to ME is false

[zoobie]

Wikipedia taken as gospel truth by media

[MJPollard]

and the comparison to ME is false

The comparison to ME is valid in that both products had enough flaws to gain them bad reputations with both the media and the buying public (and both had their defenders, too, but that hardly mattered). Sure, SP1 undoubtedly addressed many of Vista's shortcomings, but by the time it came out the damage to Vista's reputation was already done.

[Dv8ted2]

and the comparison to ME is false

The comparison to ME is valid in that both products had enough flaws to gain them bad reputations with both the media and the buying public (and both had their defenders, too, but that hardly mattered). Sure, SP1 undoubtedly addressed many of Vista's shortcomings, but by the time it came out the damage to Vista's reputation was already done.

Not necessarily...

XP had problems when it came out as well. Most people in IT will not touch and operating system until at least SP1. Colleges are starting to roll out Vista.

[stiltman]

Well if you're still reading this thread for LIKES and DISLIKES for Win7, and not hijacking this thread to argue about the inevitable or past Windows versions;

Like
I can now move the "gadgets" to any position on the desktop YEAH


Dislikes
Here's an obvious one I forgot about
Why the heck did MS move the "show desktop" icon over to the tool tray right of the clock...Oh yeah, they got rid of the quick launch (by default but can be hacked back in) so they had to put it somewhere. IMO, What a bone head move

Plus, how do you get rid of the Libraries folder on the desktop, it's a pain in the arse
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Explorer\HideDesktopIcons\NewStartPanel]
"{031E4825-7B94-4DC3-B131-E946B44C8DD5}"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Explorer\HideDesktopIcons\ClassicStartMe nu]
"{031E4825-7B94-4DC3-B131-E946B44C8DD5}"=-

[DereX888]

Yeah stiltman, I too sometimes don't get Msoft's "redecorating the house" with every next version. They always have to move few things that "were there" before (like what is the point, geez).

This is specially valid and noticeable with Quick Launch.
When most of Windows users had "square" screens, with much lower resolution desktops than today - Msoft pushed them to use Quick Launch by default (thus cluttering short back then taskbar).
Now, when most of Windows users have plenty of desktop space at much higher resolutions and possibility of really long taskbar on their widescreen monitors - a perfect environment TO HAVE Quick Launch - Msoft disables Quick Launch for no good reason at all
IMHO it is typical ignorance (or stupidity) and inconsistence possible only from Microsoft...

Usually I think they move and shuffle buttons and features just for the sake of having more "changes", otherwise how can they charge again and again and again good money for "new" OS or "new" Office version if it wouldn't have some significant "visible" changes there. People would think that i.e. Windows XP is the same Windows 2000 just with more colourful GUI plus Windows Movie Maker
And that would be bad for business
As long as most of people believe they are getting "new" "better" operating system - for as long Microsoft is able to sell their Windows. Otherwise they'd go bancrupt, or would have to start to charge us for all patches and hotfixes (which normally consist of the bulk of whats "new" and "better" in every next Windows version)

I also know it was based off of Server 2003. You are not telling me anything I do not already know. I have stated this multiple times on this website. If you want to get down to brass tacks, SP1 for server 2003 came from concepts of XP SP2.

You are contradicting yourself there
Make up your mind, either Windows 7 is based on Windows 2003 (which was based on Windows NT5.1 aka Windows XP, which was based on Windows NT5 aka Windows 2000, which was based on Windows NT4 aka NT 4.0) or it is completely rewritten "new" Vista code, which one is it according to you?

SP1 fixed the product, and the comparison to ME is false

Of course NO, SP1 did NOT fixed the "product" (Vista), SP1 just made it usable.
Windows 7 seems like it may finally "fix the product" (because it *is* Windows Vista with SP1 and all patches and bug fixes - there really isn't anything really new than it is in Vista, didn't you notice yourself?)

If Vista would not have been THAT BAD, Microsoft wouldn't have call this NT6.1 "Windows 7", they would have just call it as usual - "Vista SP2" or "Vista version 2009" (as in example of Windows XP version 2002) or such.
Windows Vista gained possibly worse reputation than Windows ME had, hence the comparison is absolutely true and valid.

And again - Vista *IS THAT BAD* and you don't have to take my word for it, just read what truly vast majority of "computer experts" say about Vista. It is really hard to find any professional review of this OS saying otherwise, so it is not like we are making it up just for the sake of discussion with you
I don't want to argue with you anymore on this silly subject because most of us and me too know you are so wrong, and anyways I really don't care if your opinion is different or that you seem think to know better than most of the experts
All I had to say to you on this subject I have already said, now I can only add: good day to you.


/edit
Just FYI:
When Microsoft compares different Windows versions in their propaganda, they do it retail version against the retail version.
What it means?
When you read that i.e. Windows XP "improved" on few thousand of Windows 2000 bugs and security holes - it means only if you are using Windows 2000 in its virgin version that came on your CD, without all the patches and hotfixes that they released later.
If they would have compared i.e. Windows XP vs. Windows 2000 with all the patches and hotfixes as of the day of XP's release, suddenly there wouldn't be almost no improvements in security at all (or possibly the next Windows version could be even less secure due to inclusion of new and as always not fully tested built-in add-ons that introduce plenty of new security holes).

(blast from the past I remember from a heated discussion in 2001, but you bet same goes for Vista and XP comparisons in Msoft propaganda today, and Vista or XP vs Win7 comparisons in few months)

[wtsinnc]

As far as hoping for immediate changes in the features and/or functionality of Windows 7, it doesn't look good at all.
Based on the linked article, anyone who chooses to run W-7 will just have to get used to it as it is, at least for the next several months (if this article is to be taken at face value).

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-RTM-5-Things-You-Need-to-Know-111436.shtml

[guns1inger]

"Microsoft is evil" - Yawn
"Windows is crap" - Yawn
"Vista is the worst windows ever" - Yawn
"Linux is good" - Yawn

[lacywest]

When Build 7022 x64 came out I installed it ... its okay ... I like the Media Center on it ... the feature of seeing up coming movie trailers is cool ... still installed today on a second Hard Drive of 40 GB ... sata cable not connected. Desktop picture is a cut scene from the game ... Left 4 Dead.

I also recently installed Build 7100 x64 ... a few changes have been made ... it is also installed on a 3rd Harddrive ... not connected ... only feature I really like is the Media Center Edition on it.

For both OS installs ... I have removed the water mark on the bottom right corner and supposely Build 7022 is going to expire soon ... but Build 7100 wont expire until ... March 2010.

I have installed some extra "things" to activate it and to remove the watermark.

But I really am not that gung ho over it ... I dont care for the Windows Explorer interface ... I feel lost when using it.

When I want to ... Search ... for something ... it checks the whole Drive ... and I am not able to see the stuff flying by [heh ... I might see something else I was looking for] ... I prefer ... doing a reboot and use the "Search" feature in WIN XP ... I really do feel that if I want to get something done fast fast ... I need to be in WIN XP ... doing it.

I use Quick Launch ... my Quick Launch on WIN XP is filled with my favorite stuff ... in WIN 7 ... Quick Launch is not there ... I have to take the Quick Launch folder from WIN XP .... I then have to find the empty Quick Launch folder in WIN 7 and setup the path way to it ... it is a real pain in the butt ... to have a Quick launch folder ... and in WIN 7 it is located on the bottom right side ... weird ... and the "Show Desktop" icon button ... it is located at the far far right bottom ... totally different from WIN XP or Vista.

So basically ... both WIN 7 installs ... Hard Drives ... just sit there ... not being used at all ... not powered up. I also have Vista Ultimate installed ... I like the Media Center Edition in it too ... but that is all I like ... it to is on a 4th harddrive ... not connected ... not powered up.

[DereX888]

"Linux is good" - Yawn

NNot exactly true.
Most linux distros are today at about the same level as Windows 95 was, from the *average user* perspective and usability.

It is easy enough today to be installed by Average Joe, but when installed it may or may not support his devices "right out of the box".
And after installation it is ready to do all typical simple tasks (browse/mail/chat) "right out of the box" too.
Basically all the same as it was with Windows 95 when it came out.
But that's about it.

Unfortunately for any linux distro to be a "good OS" for the average user it requires steep learning curve most of average uers don't want to even bother with
So, in that regard, as a less advanced and "dumber" tool, Windows is better, and for average user it doesn't matter it is full of bugs and security holes. They are not running a bank or keep government secrets on their PCs, they just need the browse/mail/chat/burn my videos/pics, if that much. Even if they get rooted - what is there to steal? Nude pics of Joe's wife? His maxed-out credit card?

What is wrong is that the governments, army, banks and such nowadays all have Windows on their PCs!

[disturbed1]

"Linux is good" - Yawn

NNot exactly true.
Most linux distros are today at about the same level as Windows 95 was, from the *average user* perspective and usability.

That's harsh. But I guess it's a pretty close comparison.

I don't recall anyone stating Linux is Good in this thread It's not hard to tell which OS I choose to use, but I think I do a good job of keeping my biased opinion out of Windows related threads.

very restricted module of driver signature enforcement in Windows Vista and Windows 7. All drivers and system files must be digitally verified or they cannot run when using both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7.

This is (on the surface) a great idea. The thought is to improve quality and reliability. It is a shame that some will turn this into a money maker and/or a marketing game. Hopefully, for the consumers, companies will be able to release quality drivers before the OS actually debuts on the market.

I know this (drivers) was, and still is, an issue with Vista users. Some hardware just does not work as well as it should. Microsoft is working on the software compatibility aspect by instituting a Windows XP layer, now the hardware companies need to get the drivers together.

If Windows turns out to only support a handful of hardware, and some authorized applications, haven't they just became what people balk at a Mac for?

[skaleton]

Sorry to intrude in this thread with a very baxic question.

32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista

I did not see on the MS site mention of different versions of Vista.

[minidv2dvd]

Sorry to intrude in this thread with a very baxic question.

32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista

I did not see on the MS site mention of different versions of Vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/64-bit.aspx

[DereX888]

Another dislike:
Explorer in Win7 is completely useless!
I took all the complaints I read about it before with a grain of salt - until I started to actually use it today.
It is unbelievable.
I'm in a process of restoring Windows 2000 on this machine... (gotta love SnapShot ) and I promise not to come back to this thread






OT:

"Linux is good" - Yawn

NNot exactly true.
Most linux distros are today at about the same level as Windows 95 was, from the *average user* perspective and usability.

That's harsh. But I guess it's a pretty close comparison.

I don't recall anyone stating Linux is Good in this thread

I always say it
Harsh? I tell you what was harsh: my first slack 4.0 distro, it made me stay away from linux for like 2 years until i even tried any distro again ...nowadays Ubuntu or SuSe are piece of cake (but I too prefer slack)


cheers, mate

[stiltman]

It's IE8

Whats so bad about it compared to IE7/8 in XP?

I have yet to have it crash. However I do run it compatability mode for videohelp

Even thought I hate Vista and Win7, I know it's the future and I will have to support it one way or another.......bummer, as my main home OS is win2k

edit:
removed nonthread related comments