Anand and Tom's Hardware - Windows 7 slower than Vista

[wulf109]

Both these sites tested Windows 7 and found it slower than Vista and XP on video encodeing and about the same on audio encodeing.

[guns1inger]

Links ?

[jagabo]

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-performance,2442.html

[JohnnyMalaria]

"Anand and Tom's Hardware - Windows 7 slower than Vista"

Excuse me? That isn't the conclusion at all. There's really bugger all difference between the two except that Windows 7 feels snappier (which I can attest to).

Windows 7 also has new stuff under the hood that can affect performance. The balance of kernel vs user mode thread scheduling can be adjusted to suit the general use of the OS (e.g., audio/video, gaming, server etc) and applications can be locked to a specific processor core - this prevents threads being switched between cores (even single threaded).

Sorry, but to pick one result to make the argument is plain stupid.

[deadrats]

There's really bugger all difference between the two except that Windows 7 feels snappier (which I can attest to).

Windows 7 also has new stuff under the hood that can affect performance. The balance of kernel vs user mode thread scheduling can be adjusted to suit the general use of the OS (e.g., audio/video, gaming, server etc) and applications can be locked to a specific processor core - this prevents threads being switched between cores (even single threaded).

windows 7 feels "snappier" than vista and vista felt snappier than xp and the reason is simple: Aero is hardware accelerated, i ran both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of vista and realized what was happening when i was shutting off services to optimize vista (the way we used to optimize xp and 2k), when i shut off Aero vista went from being significantly snappier than xp to being significantly slower than xp (in my case xp 64). a quick look through vista documentation revealed that the gui was gpu accelerated which accounted for the speed difference, however the non-Aero interface under vista was not hardware accelerated. my guess is that windows 7 probably also hardware accelerates the 2d desktop as well.

furthermore, vista was a much more threaded OS than xp which also led to it being more responsive (check to see the number of active threads of comparably configured xp and vista installs) at the expense of higher ram usage (as you know, the more threads the more memory is needed) and win 7 is more threaded still.

what all this means is that on older hardware xp will run faster and win7 will scale better on cpu's with more and more cores.

lastly the the ability to lock an application to a specific core has existed since win2k (if not NT), i'm sure you know what i'm talking about, affinity. the only difference is that now the OS does it automatically.

in all honesty i would like to have seen microsoft take a page from the open source crowd, if you try vector linux soho, pc-bsd, yoper or any of the other properly optimized alternative OSes you can't help but notice that windows vista and windows 7 are a bit on the fat side or even follow Snow Leopard's lead.

i even remember reading an interview with a microsoft project manager who said that windows 7 would most likely be microsoft's last monolithic operating system as the code base has become ridiculously big.

as an interesting side note, i have also heard that development of windows is highly compartmentalized within microsoft, with developers of one portion of the OS not having access to the source for other portions of the OS except for that which is needed to make the parts work together.

[Noahtuck]

Interesting already, just reading this thread, now i will have to read those links.

[rumplestiltskin]

Windows 7 really does suck less. However, older hardware won't be able to run the newer software that Microsoft now makes you download separately (likes MovieMaker). This isn't M$'s fault.

If your hardware is old, forget about multimedia; but Office runs okay.

[Noahtuck]

Yeah, i did not actually read those links but on one i skimmed i did see where they said

Microsoft is finally ready to handle that concern with Windows 7, which is really an improved version of Vista.

However, older hardware won't be able to run the newer software that Microsoft now makes you download separately (likes MovieMaker).

As far as WMM.... who cares?!?!?!

That's like saying you are pissed because WMP & IE were not included with windows

Anybody that knows any better, does not want them anyways.

:P

[rumplestiltskin]

However, older hardware won't be able to run the newer software that Microsoft now makes you download separately (likes MovieMaker).

As far as WMM.... who cares?!?!?!

That's like saying you are pissed because WMP & IE were not included with windows

Anybody that knows any better, does not want them anyways.

:P

My point in mentioning this was that it's a pretty poor excuse for an OS that doesn't even provide you with the ability to manage/edit your photos, edit your movies and then burn them to DVDs, create web sites, create music, manage your music collection, manage your email, etc. For all of M$'s bragging about how good W7 is, why is no one complaining about this? Is it that, like you, everyone expects anything M$ to provide (outside of the basic OS) to suck and then you scrounge around looking for something that will do the job? Sorry; I'm not trying to start a flame here but it seems to me that simply saying that "anybody that knows better does not want them anyways" is being an apologist for Microsoft. It also accepts that the cost of Windows 7 is just the start of your software expenses in order to provide parity with what Apple gives you with OSX. (No, this isn't an invitation to go off on an anti-Apple screed; I really do want to like Windows 7 as it does manage to fix what was wrong with Vista without f***ing up what was okay about XP. However, not including decent multimedia apps is just chickens**t and provides an excuse for M$ to say "well, we can't test everything".)

[lordsmurf]

The OS was never supposed to create DVDs, create web sites, create music, manage your music collection, manage your email, etc.

It's only supposed to operate the damned computer! An interface between the hardware and software.

That's why Windows has become so bloated.

Next thing you know, people will demand Windows comes with it's own empty thumb drives, DVD blanks, etc.

[disturbed1]

My point in mentioning this was that it's a pretty poor excuse for an OS that doesn't even provide you with the ability to manage/edit your photos, edit your movies and then burn them to DVDs, create web sites, create music, manage your music collection, manage your email, etc. For all of M$'s bragging about how good W7 is, why is no one complaining about this?

As lordsmurf pointed out, an OS is just the Operating System. Should not be anything more.

But, I believe you are eluding to the fact that in your eyes, Windows is more than just purely an Operating System, but in fact a collection of software for operating your computer. This is not the job of Microsoft to bundle these applications together, but the job of the OEM. This is why when you purchase an Apple computer with the Apple Operating System, it comes with Apple software that only runs on Apple Hardware. Much in the way when you purchase a Dell PC. It comes with Dell OEM versions of software that (usually) only run on a Dell PC.

Microsoft has many of these feature programs available separately for download and purchase. But honestly, why would you want to use Paint as a substitute for Photo Shop? Also given the fact that, if someone wants to edit/organize/print/scan Photo's they would need a Printer (comes with software), and/or a Scanner (comes with software) and/or a Camera (comes with software). Same with movies - when you purchase a camcorder it comes with software. But I thought Vista and Windows 7 came with a DVD Movie Maker? And an HTPC application?

If you want to create a web site, you usually use a Web Hosting Provider. Use their built in templates, or if you must use [gasp!] Front Page.

AFAIK Microsoft has always included an application to manage your email.

For 99.9% of the software needs a person has, there are enough free, either freeware or Open Source, software alternatives that are by and large the same - if not higher - quality as the payware alternitive available for the average consumer. The Pro-sumer/Professional in any field has special needs, and should (if they are truly a Pro ) already know which software they need.

The way in which you so choose to operate/use your 3rd party piece of hardware is (should be) the responsibility of the OEM. Microsoft does not make PCs, they do make a few pieces of hardware though, so it is not their responsibility, nor should it be, to include a software application to interface with every piece of hardware offering every option to every feature. The consumer needs to take responsibility now and then and drop the It's owed to me attitude.

[rumplestiltskin]

My point in mentioning this was that it's a pretty poor excuse for an OS that doesn't even provide you with the ability to manage/edit your photos, edit your movies and then burn them to DVDs, create web sites, create music, manage your music collection, manage your email, etc. For all of M$'s bragging about how good W7 is, why is no one complaining about this?

As lordsmurf pointed out, an OS is just the Operating System. Should not be anything more.

But, I believe you are eluding to the fact that in your eyes, Windows is more than just purely an Operating System, but in fact a collection of software for operating your computer. This is not the job of Microsoft to bundle these applications together, but the job of the OEM. This is why when you purchase an Apple computer with the Apple Operating System, it comes with Apple software that only runs on Apple Hardware. Much in the way when you purchase a Dell PC. It comes with Dell OEM versions of software that (usually) only run on a Dell PC.

Microsoft has many of these feature programs available separately for download and purchase. But honestly, why would you want to use Paint as a substitute for Photo Shop? Also given the fact that, if someone wants to edit/organize/print/scan Photo's they would need a Printer (comes with software), and/or a Scanner (comes with software) and/or a Camera (comes with software). Same with movies - when you purchase a camcorder it comes with software. But I thought Vista and Windows 7 came with a DVD Movie Maker? And an HTPC application?

If you want to create a web site, you usually use a Web Hosting Provider. Use their built in templates, or if you must use [gasp!] Front Page.

AFAIK Microsoft has always included an application to manage your email.

For 99.9% of the software needs a person has, there are enough free, either freeware or Open Source, software alternatives that are by and large the same - if not higher - quality as the payware alternitive available for the average consumer. The Pro-sumer/Professional in any field has special needs, and should (if they are truly a Pro ) already know which software they need.

The way in which you so choose to operate/use your 3rd party piece of hardware is (should be) the responsibility of the OEM. Microsoft does not make PCs, they do make a few pieces of hardware though, so it is not their responsibility, nor should it be, to include a software application to interface with every piece of hardware offering every option to every feature. The consumer needs to take responsibility now and then and drop the It's owed to me attitude.

So many claims...

1. I was alluding to all of the "I'm a PC" ads which claimed that $1000 (pick your number, the ads were all over the lot) would provide a PC that would be at least as complete/adequate/competent as a Mac. The real people in these ads were all talking about how much value they received with a PC for less money than a Mac. Did this not imply that all the apps one needed to manage one's digital life were included? They did say this. Furthermore, look at all the latest Win7 ads; they imply exactly the same thing.

2. I never mentioned Pro/Prosumer apps. That's an entirely different level and I agree with you. But that's not an argument you can make to counter anything I said because I didn't say it.

3. There is no eMail app in Windows 7. Like everything else (except IE), you must download it separately.

4. You are confusing Apple with Dell (or some other "me too" PC vendor). To say that Apple bundles its iApps software because it's an OEM is a somewhat twisted view of reality. Apple makes the whole widget and has improved the value of what it provides by "bundling" (I'll use your word) remarkable software to let its users accomplish remarkable things. Again: M$ claims in its ads you can do these things and then, when you fire up the machine, you find that it includes nothing except...you can boot.

5. You believe that printer, scanner, and camcorder manufacturers are responsible for providing their own application software. I will respectfully disagree; they should provide device drivers. What happens if I own two different scanners (which I do)? I should use two different apps to manage my photos? And three different apps to manage thse same photos if I use my digital cameras? This doesn't pass the laugh test. One app that communicates through device drivers with all my cameras and scanners is the right way of doing this.

5a. Quality: Is there anyone who believes the quality of the software that accompanies a camcorder is even usable? The crap that Samsung includes with their camcorders is a disaster (and you only have to do a short search in Google to prove this for yourself). You may, as well, be correct about M$'s software but my point was that I shouldn't have to search for it and then find I have to download it. (Wait; I forgot. Providing it with the OS is a monopolistic practice and must be stopped.)

6. Freeware/Shareware - As you are a Linux user, I hope this won't degenerate into a religious argument about Open-Source. Let me just say that I've traveled down that path and found great disappointment in the quality of Linux apps that allege "multimedia". Some Linux developers with whom I've conversed tell me "if Apple would create a Linux version of QuickTime, all things would be possible." All the more reason to "go Mac" IMHO but let's not go down that path in this thread either.

We were talking (I was, anyway) about Windows 7, not Macs and not Linux. My original comment was that I thought it sucked less (as it was faster than Vista and seemed to be pretty stable) and I voiced disappointment that nothing in the way of useful apps came with it unless one downloaded them from M$. LordSmurf and you both spent your time apologizing for M$ by relieving them of the responsibility of providing any such apps (and said their apps sucked anyway which may be correct) and saying this was the responsibility of the 3rd party hardware vendors. Do I have this correct? Has your expectation of what M$ can accomplish really sunk to such a low level? Does the fact that Windows 7 actually boots mean M$ has done what they set out to do with this upgrade?

[JohnnyMalaria]

rumplestiltskin - bravo. Couldn't agree more. Windows is a package that includes an OS and other components.

To the purists, if you want to be very pedantic, the OS is the kernel. No more, no less. Should MS just provide that without any user-mode applications such as Explorer etc? All the user-mode parts of Windows are NOT the OS. The OS serves to co-ordinate the necessary hardware/data transfer operations of the computer. Interfacing with a human is another matter aka the user interface.

Personally, I'm very happy to have simple apps already present as part of a Windows install. Perhaps MS should remove Notepad and Calculator, too, and force people to find alternatives - not exactly viable if there's no internet connection or web browser installed.

[deadrats]

@disturbed1 and lordsmurf

in the strictest sense you guys are correct when you say that the only function of an operating system is to act as a go-between for the hardware and the apps you run but by that definition the only thing that can be considered an operating system is the BIOS, EFI, dos or a the linux kernel/boot manager/shell combo, once we started adding gui front ends, basic text editors, compilers, scripting abilities about 20 years ago or so they stopped being operating systems and became operating environments and started to be marketed as such.

windows, OS X, linux distros are products and they are marketed as such (as a side note, it's ironic that disturbed1 would take the stance he did considering he clearly is a slackware user and said distro comes complete with a full complement of software by default). if a company markets their product as having certain features then its reasonable to expect said features to work as claimed.

in the case of windows 7 ultimate, microsoft differentiates it from the cheaper variants by explicitly pointing out that it comes with the following additional features not found in the cheaper brethren:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/default.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/ultimate.aspx

Designed for people who want it all

Windows 7 Ultimate is the most versatile and powerful edition of Windows 7. It combines remarkable ease-of-use with the entertainment features of Home Premium and the business capabilities of Professional, including the ability to run many Windows XP productivity programs in Windows XP Mode. For added security, you can encrypt your data with BitLocker and BitLocker-To-Go. And for extra flexibility, you can work in any of 35 languages. Get it all with Windows 7 Ultimate.

lastly lordsmurf's stance, that was supported by our disturbed friend, could be likewise applied to vehicles, in the most technical sense automobiles are just supposed to get you from point a to b but that doesn't stop us from demanding automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, limited slip differential, all season tires, heater, a/c in the most basic and cheapest of cars and if something doesn't work right we certainly hold the manufacture accountable.

same thing with what we refer to, using the misnomer moniker, as an OS: they are complete products that are packaged and marketed together a certain way to get the consumer to use them, if something within that package we bought is substandard then it is not only our right but our responsibility to hold the company selling it accountable to provide that which they promised when they took our money.

this holds true for which every version of windows you purchase, it holds true for OS X, it holds true if you purchase a linux distro such as red hat or novell, hell it even holds true if you choose a free distribution, if the company behind the distribution says it comes with certain software by default then they better make sure that said software works the way is expected, if they can't get it to work they should remove it from the default iso configuration and offer it as a secondary download at the user's risk.

the only thing that annoys me more than a company that sells a product that doesn't function as is claimed are the people that apologize for the company by claiming it wasn't the company's job in the first place to provide that service. they made it their job when they a) made the claims and b) accepted the cash.

i ran my own pest control business for 5 years and if i told a customer that as part of the service i would do something not normally part of the service, as a way of acquiring the customer, then by God i fulfilled my promise to that customer, i didn't turn around and say after i had their money "sorry, but that's not part of a regular service", i expect any company who's products i spend my cash on to be the same way.

[disturbed1]

3. There is no eMail app in Windows 7. Like everything else (except IE), you must download it separately.

No more Live mail?

4. You are confusing Apple with Dell (or some other "me too" PC vendor). To say that Apple bundles its iApps software because it's an OEM is a somewhat twisted view of reality. Apple makes the whole widget and has improved the value of what it provides by "bundling" (I'll use your word) remarkable software to let its users accomplish remarkable things. Again: M$ claims in its ads you can do these things and then, when you fire up the machine, you find that it includes nothing except...you can boot.

These ads are about buying ..... OEM machines. Not any of these I'm a PC ads show someone buying a boxed copy of Windows. They show people purchasing OEM computers from Dell, HP, Gateway. Not a Microsoft PC with Microsoft Windows running all Microsoft software. That would be too close to what Apple does.

5. You believe that printer, scanner, and camcorder manufacturers are responsible for providing their own application software. I will respectfully disagree; they should provide device drivers. What happens if I own two different scanners (which I do)? I should use two different apps to manage my photos? And three different apps to manage thse same photos if I use my digital cameras? This doesn't pass the laugh test. One app that communicates through device drivers with all my cameras and scanners is the right way of doing this.

And you believe an Operating system should provide the user with 3rd party applications And that this operating system will magically support everything that anyone could possibly own and implement every feature they could possibly have? Puff Puff Pass ... PLEASE!!!

5a. Quality: Is there anyone who believes the quality of the software that accompanies a camcorder is even usable? The crap that Samsung includes with their camcorders is a disaster (and you only have to do a short search in Google to prove this for yourself). You may, as well, be correct about M$'s software but my point was that I shouldn't have to search for it and then find I have to download it. (Wait; I forgot. Providing it with the OS is a monopolistic practice and must be stopped.)

6. Freeware/Shareware - As you are a Linux user, I hope this won't degenerate into a religious argument about Open-Source. Let me just say that I've traveled down that path and found great disappointment in the quality of Linux apps that allege "multimedia". Some Linux developers with whom I've conversed tell me "if Apple would create a Linux version of QuickTime, all things would be possible." All the more reason to "go Mac" IMHO but let's not go down that path in this thread either.

Because ffmpeg, avidemux, avisynth, x264, Virtual Dub, HCenc, Paint.Net, and on and on and on all suck Wonder why 90% of the forum posts and howto's here are about these freeware apps and OpenSource apps. You're joking about QuickTime right? Try Google "quicktime for linux". And I'd like to see these developers with whom I've conversed because I'm calling you out on that. It's pure made up bullshit.

We were talking (I was, anyway) about Windows 7, not Macs and not Linux. My original comment was that I thought it sucked less (as it was faster than Vista and seemed to be pretty stable) and I voiced disappointment that nothing in the way of useful apps came with it unless one downloaded them from M$. LordSmurf and you both spent your time apologizing for M$ by relieving them of the responsibility of providing any such apps (and said their apps sucked anyway which may be correct) and saying this was the responsibility of the 3rd party hardware vendors. Do I have this correct? Has your expectation of what M$ can accomplish really sunk to such a low level? Does the fact that Windows 7 actually boots mean M$ has done what they set out to do with this upgrade?

No, you falsely accused of Microsoft of some how having the responsibility to provide these things. Are you new to computers or something? God forbid you just paid $150 for DOS and then had to turn around and pay $195 for the personal version of Word Perfect never mind the $495 price tag at the full version of Word Perfect
Then apply that to every single release since then.
Perhaps that's why it doesn't surprise me. I haven't seen anything different, so I don't expect anything different.
And yes my expectation is that low of Microsoft. I'm still waiting on the Cloud version of Windows where you have to pay per day/week/month a certain amount just to use the OS. Once Gates left the helm <-- which took place pre-Vista --> things went downhill in Redmond.

(as a side note, it's ironic that disturbed1 would take the stance he did considering he clearly is a slackware user and said distro comes complete with a full complement of software by default)

I am a Linux user, not a lame ass zealot that for some odd reason hates Microsoft. I actually think Microsoft makes decent products. That fact that XP is still going strong almost 10 years latter is evidence of this. Linux fits our usage better Microsoft != Linux, and they should not be compared to each other, as they fill different market niches. I don't say Linux is this or that, while Microsoft can't do this or that, I leave that for Ubuntu users :P (<-- Joke)

stop us from demanding automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, limited slip differential, all season tires, heater, a/c in the most basic and cheapest of cars and if something doesn't work right we certainly hold the manufacture accountable.

Aren't those options? If the standard base model comes with these options they inflate the base price. I know when we purchase 2 2008 Trucks we special ordered the base models with manual steering and a manual tranny. No different than what Microsoft has done. They offer a Caviler, Regal, and Cadilac. (or am I missing something - The version of Windows Vista Ultimate I used and Windows 7 Ultimate I used had everything included, working, as advertised)

this holds true for which every version of windows you purchase, it holds true for OS X, it holds true if you purchase a linux distro such as red hat or novell, hell it even holds true if you choose a free distribution, if the company behind the distribution says it comes with certain software by default then they better make sure that said software works the way is expected, if they can't get it to work they should remove it from the default iso configuration and offer it as a secondary download at the user's risk.

Can you elaborate on how this is not true? Or are simply making a point that it is true by explaining the cost and option difference between the different versions available?

[16mmJunkie]

because I'm calling you out on that. It's pure made up bullshit.

Boy I like you more and more each time I read your post...keep it up !!



16mmJunkie


If the Light ain't Bright, It ain't Right!!

[deadrats]

stop us from demanding automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, limited slip differential, all season tires, heater, a/c in the most basic and cheapest of cars and if something doesn't work right we certainly hold the manufacture accountable.

Aren't those options? If the standard base model comes with these options they inflate the base price. I know when we purchase 2 2008 Trucks we special ordered the base models with manual steering and a manual tranny. No different than what Microsoft has done. They offer a Caviler, Regal, and Cadilac. (or am I missing something - The version of Windows Vista Ultimate I used and Windows 7 Ultimate I used had everything included, working, as advertised)

did you notice what you said: you had to "special ordered the base models with manual steering and a manual tranny.", in other words the base model by default comes with power steering at a minimum, it comes with a basic radio, you don't want these items you need to make a special request to have them removed, but cars have evolved to the point where the base model at a minimum includes certain features that while you technically don't absolutely need to operate the vehicle, its expected to be there. likewise what we refer to as OSes have evolved to the point where at a bare minimum we expect certain things to be included.

the point i was making, in case it wasn't clear enough, is that while you and smurf were technically correct in claiming that the OS "was never supposed to create DVDs, create web sites, create music, manage your music collection, manage your email, etc. It's only supposed to operate the damned computer! An interface between the hardware and software." (<--lordsmurf's words and you agreed), the actual product that we call an OS has evolved over the past 20 or so years and different OS vendors market their offerings based on added features that may not in the strictest sense be part a OS in the most technical of definitions.

be that as it may however, if the vendor does decide to market their OS as having certain features then those features should work as advertised and if they don't its perfectly legitimate to complain about it, not excuse the vendor by saying it's not the vendors job to provide all that additional software, the vendor made it their job when they decided to market their product as having those features and when they took your money under the guise of offering those features.

this holds true for which every version of windows you purchase, it holds true for OS X, it holds true if you purchase a linux distro such as red hat or novell, hell it even holds true if you choose a free distribution, if the company behind the distribution says it comes with certain software by default then they better make sure that said software works the way is expected, if they can't get it to work they should remove it from the default iso configuration and offer it as a secondary download at the user's risk.

Can you elaborate on how this is not true? Or are simply making a point that it is true by explaining the cost and option difference between the different versions available?

hmm, let's see i said:

this holds true for which every version of windows you purchase, it holds true for OS X, it holds true if you purchase a linux distro such as red hat or novell, hell it even holds true if you choose a free distribution

and then you ask me:

Can you elaborate on how this is not true?

at which point i need to ask you what exactly are you smoking? and where can i get some?

and then you follow up with:

Or are simply making a point that it is true by explaining the cost and option difference between the different versions available?

which is how you responded to this quote from me:

if the company behind the distribution says it comes with certain software by default then they better make sure that said software works the way is expected, if they can't get it to work they should remove it from the default iso configuration and offer it as a secondary download at the user's risk.

so at this point i am forced to ask if i stuttered when i was typing? do you need some eye drops to clear out your eyes? an english comprehension class? some footnotes at the end of my posts to act as a literary guide?

tell me, what can i do to make my writings clearer so that you can understand what i am saying?

[disturbed1]

stop us from demanding automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, limited slip differential, all season tires, heater, a/c in the most basic and cheapest of cars and if something doesn't work right we certainly hold the manufacture accountable.

Aren't those options? If the standard base model comes with these options they inflate the base price. I know when we purchase 2 2008 Trucks we special ordered the base models with manual steering and a manual tranny. No different than what Microsoft has done. They offer a Caviler, Regal, and Cadilac. (or am I missing something - The version of Windows Vista Ultimate I used and Windows 7 Ultimate I used had everything included, working, as advertised)

did you notice what you said: you had to "special ordered the base models with manual steering and a manual tranny.", in other words the base model by default comes with power steering at a minimum, it comes with a basic radio, you don't want these items you need to make a special request to have them removed, but cars have evolved to the point where the base model at a minimum includes certain features that while you technically don't absolutely need to operate the vehicle, its expected to be there. likewise what we refer to as OSes have evolved to the point where at a bare minimum we expect certain things to be included.

Yes I special ordered the Base model, because it was not available on the showroom floor. I can see how that sounds
We ordered the Base Model as it was not available for point of sale, the standard model was on the showroom. There was no special check boxes, or wheelin' and dealin'. Just we want the base model ... no that's the standard model, the base model, 2 of them please.


Dude you must be high!!! :P

Here we go - quote for quote (with out quote tags bold instead) in actual order of what it appeared, instead of the circle (part b, then part a, then part a+c) that you just posted.
if a company markets their product as having certain features then its reasonable to expect said features to work as claimed.
in the case of windows 7 ultimate, microsoft differentiates it from the cheaper variants by explicitly pointing out that it comes with the following additional features not found in the cheaper brethren:
Gottcha! So you agree they are providing what they advertise.

if something within that package we bought is substandard then it is not only our right but our responsibility to hold the company selling it accountable to provide that which they promised when they took our money.
Hmmm, OK, so something is/was missing, not upto snuff?

if the company behind the distribution says it comes with certain software by default then they better make sure that said software works the way is expected, if they can't get it to work they should remove it from the default iso configuration and offer it as a secondary download at the user's risk.
So something was advertised and not provided?

the only thing that annoys me more than a company that sells a product that doesn't function as is claimed are the people that apologize for the company by claiming it wasn't the company's job in the first place to provide that service. they made it their job when they a) made the claims and b) accepted the cash.
Gottcha! (I think) They are selling a product that doesn't function as claimed and we are all apologizing for the company?

You are stating both - companies are advertising and delivering said products, then you turn and put the above in. This is the reason I asked you to elaborate. Which is it? You stated both, they are or they are not. I got confused

[deadrats]

You are stating both - companies are advertising and delivering said products, then you turn and put the above in. This is the reason I asked you to elaborate. Which is it? You stated both, they are or they are not. I got confused

let's try this a different way, lord smurf said the following:

The OS was never supposed to create DVDs, create web sites, create music, manage your music collection, manage your email, etc.

It's only supposed to operate the damned computer! An interface between the hardware and software.

That's why Windows has become so bloated.

Next thing you know, people will demand Windows comes with it's own empty thumb drives, DVD blanks, etc.

and you agreed with him by saying the following:

As lordsmurf pointed out, an OS is just the Operating System. Should not be anything more.

The consumer needs to take responsibility now and then and drop the It's owed to me attitude.

to which i responded with what i posted.

you and lordsmurf took the position that its not microsoft's job to include any additional software with windows, and you further took the position that if something is wrong its customers responsibility, not microsoft's (or any software vendors) and i pointed out that microsoft (and all software vendors) make it their responsibility the moment they decide to package and market their product in the manner they do.

nice and simple isn't? i have just taken the content of 5 posts and condensed it to a couple of sentences.

and do you know why i did it?

because i got high, because i got high, because i got hiiigghhh....

[rumplestiltskin]

I can respond to disturbed1 thusly:

"Linux _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly. "

That's your signature. It's an excuse for things not running without alpha-geek intervention. It is elitist.

Secondly: My comments about the Linux developers asking for QuickTime are accurate; however, based upon your attitude, I will not reveal their names or companies as I am afraid you will hound them in your religious fervor. Just search through the Ubuntu forums for QuickTime and you'll see what I mean (assuming the forum hasn't been scrubbed by the Lunix Taliban). I do have some eMails from these folks but, as I've written above, I do not have to prove QuickTime's value to you. It's so valuable that it drives everything in OSX (and it's wonder of wonders a *nix system). What's available in Linux without QuickTime is like pulling teeth...with an ax. Yes, I've tried many of the apps you and lordsmurf have mentioned and they're unstable and provide inconsistent results. Yes, I've used avidemux in both Linux and OSX. It sucks; sorry. You want to see good freeware? Look at MPEG Streamclip. Runs perfectly well in both Windows and OSX. In OSX, it uses QuickTime. In Windows, you have a choice: QuickTime or QuickTime Alternative. I use QuickTime. Why? It makes my PC run better. Of course, in OSX we use Perian which permits us to play almost anything in video or audio that's not built into QuickTime and OSX. What do I do in Linux? I suck it up and learn to live without.

Thirdly: Your response to my post makes assumptions about my expectations. You do not know my expectations except what I have written in my posts. I expect Microsoft to deliver exactly, no more and no less, what they have promised. In fact, they are doing so with their Windows Live Essentials package. It may be piss-poor software (and I'll be checking out all the apps) but it runs on my PC and does so without the hoop-jumping required by Linux.

(I can't believe I'm sitting here defending Microsoft. I'm a Mac user!)

Lastly (almost): Your comment about me buying a $90 OS and expecting considerable more value than that is puzzling. You don't even buy your OS and prefer open-source (free) software. I guess you want it all for free. (OK; that was a cheap shot.) I just bought a 27" iMac for about $1700 that included an OS and all the iApps. I can drop my purchased apps - Lightroom, Final Cut, Parallels (and Windows from XP through 7), and a few dozen smaller shareware and commercial apps - into the machine and know that all of these apps will run flawlessly. Why? One word: QuickTime. (Well, maybe not in those VMs; I usually reserve the dark side for Office 2007 as I teach it to college students. My real PCs do get QuickTime installed.)

Finally (really): I am not a n00b computer user. I started with a Basic Four minicomputer running an evolutionary dead-end of Unix on a 68040 with multiple disk-packs. I wrote my first games on a Commodore 64. The odds are that I've been using computers longer than most of the users of VideoHelp have been alive.

[guns1inger]

The vehicle analogy is flawed for a few reasons, not the least of which is this; if Ford decide to put power steering into one of their cars, they don't have every third-party power steering manufacturer crying to the courts saying "poor me, I can't compete".

Microsoft are now, rightfully, somewhat gun-shy regarding bundling too many useful application level features because of the whiny, woe-is-me bitching of the competition. of course, every Linux distro and Apple's OS X come packed to the top with applications and non-OS features, and nobody says boo, and even applaud them for it.

Yes, there should be a base level of functionality built-in to an OS. A basic browser, a basic email client, a basic text editor, a basic calculator, a basic media player. Enough to get you started and allow you to access resources on-line to get more sophisticated and feature-rich applications that better suit each user.

To make it simple, there should be a cross platform set of basic apps that every OS is forced to bundle, with nothing else. Everybody gets the same basic baseline (the difference being the underlying OS only), and everyone builds from there.

Of course no-one will be able to agree on exactly which apps should be included, and anyone who isn't included will bitch and whine in their "It's not fair" voice.

Or, you let everyone compete the way they want to, and let the chips fall where they may.

Everyone is entitled to a fair go. This is not the same as saying everyone is entitles to succeed, or that everyone's point of view is equally valid.

Everybody has different needs. There is no way an OS can contain the capabilities to work with every device known to man (and those yet to come), and have applications that do everything that everyone wants it to do. Aside from the huge amount of disk space required to install such a behemoth, you have the enormous tasking of trying to test it and ensure it actually does work correctly together. Talk about bloatware. The best example that comes to mind of how bad this can be is Nero. What was once a tight burning application a few MB is size is now a huge mess of applications and features that requires almost 1.5 GB for a full install.

You have plenty of choice now :

You can live in a gray coloured iWorld, where you have a small number of applications, from which most output looks remarkable similar - polished, no doubt, but lacking personality.

You can live in Penguinland, where you have a huge range of base levels and add-ons. Very few of them offer the same level of polish and features that you can get in the payware world of Apple or M$, but you have the self-satisfaction that comes from any DIY project (the self-satisfied smugness that comes from shoving it to capitalism, if that is your thing)

Or you can live in Windows world, where you are hated by most, but have a good range of products, including best of breed in most areas.

If you cannot find something to shut you up from all of these choices, then I suspect nothing would ever shut you up anyway.

I don't want an OS filled with lowest common denominator apps, and I don't want one that includes a full install of Nero. I want an OS that works, and lets me build the system I need, to do the things I want to do do. That's it. Simple.

[rumplestiltskin]

"If you cannot find something to shut you up from all of these choices, then I suspect nothing would ever shut you up anyway."

Thank you for the good laugh. A worthy close to this thread. Bravo!

[lordsmurf]

A user can't install his own power steering, etc. That analogy is retarded.
No disrespect rumple, but you're reaching here.

Apple is an OEM.
They use OEM hardware.
Customize the OS to suit their needs (i.e., the Darwin BSD/UNIX kernel)
and then stuff it full of their own apps -- many of which are just re-branded apps from 3rd party devs
Apple makes iPods, and does computers on the side now. Let's not lie to ourselves otherwise.

Windows is software company, not an OEM.
They make an OS, office software, and craploads of other office/web tools (some are online-based, some are client-based)
Whatever you want to call them, it's not an OEM.
The only hardware they make is XBOX, Zune .... anything else?

The OEM takes the best collection of hardware, apps, OS, and makes a ready-to-use computer for Joe Blow.

Stuffing inferior apps into the OS is why the basecode is so bloated, doing things it really doesn't need to do.

Going back to a car analogy, should your car come with it's own family already sitting in the backseat? What about suitcases full of clothes that may or may not fit you? Should it come with vanity plates that say "ILUVYANKS" when you're a Red Sox fan?

For Windows to say "Here is your software" is almost insulting to a degree, to the OEM's, the users, to software competitors -- and that's where the legal problems came from. Rightfully so, too. The aggravation stems from the fact that the included crap is just that -- crap. Window Paint? Wordpad? IE? Seriously? Those are useful tools?

A GUI is an integrated part of most kernels now, so to say the BIOS is the OS is again stretching for arguments.

The world isn't black and white, it's shades of gray. Including apps in the OS base code is a charcoal color approaching black.

If MS wants to provide freeware, then it can compete with all the other freeware sites out there. Stuffing it into the OS is a hindrance for those who don't really want it. For the folks wanting that type of software, it created an unfair advantage, bulldozing competitors. The courts have already decided that bundling is the job of the OEM.

If you want another analogy, it was very similar to when phone companies provided you with a phone and accessories. Or what if the electric company included free light bulbs in the cost of you monthly bill? By "included", we all know the bill would be higher -- much higher -- than if we just went to Lowe's or Walmart ourselves.

Bringing up another point -- why the hell does the OS cost so much now? Maybe because of all the "freeware" that's included? Hmmmm?

For the record, I happen to like Windows. I'm not a rabid Linux or Mac fan. Platform agnostic, thanks.

[Video Head]

A user can't install his own power steering, etc. That analogy is retarded.

No disrespect rumpel, but you're reaching here.

Well, they could...but it would have to be worth the effort, expense and engineering: a Model T with a 4.6 puffy, air and power everything. Saturday night boulevard cruiser! But it would have to be black!

War, what is good for? Absolutely nothing!

[deadrats]

Window Paint? Wordpad? IE? Seriously? Those are useful tools?

yes they are, if you didn't have IE included with the default install how many users do you think would have the technical expertise to connect to the internet and download a web browser? sure, if you knew what you were doing you could ftp into a server (assuming you knew the address), download the source, download gcc and manually compile and install a browser, but in all honesty, how many people do you think are capable of doing that?

as for wordpad, have you ever used vi or vim? wordpad is a very useful tool for writing letters, creating a simple text document or even a batch script, hell i used to even use it for coding, type my c code, save the file as a blank.c and point gcc to it for compilation.

word paint is a good learning tool, it's perfect for just getting your feet wet with regards to working with digital photos.

A GUI is an integrated part of most kernels now

no its not, the gui is still a separate component, as are the various api's, under linux you can swap out gui's at will, run the OS without a gui, and i have a surprise for you, you can sort of swap out the gui under windows (there are desktop replacements

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

and hold onto your hat, you can even run windows without a gui, just go into task manager and kill explorer.exe and the gui will be shut down but the OS will keep running, in fact there are many apps that don't really on the gui so shutting down explorer.exe doesn't kill them, they still keep running (i've done this numerous times).

Bringing up another point -- why the hell does the OS cost so much now? Maybe because of all the "freeware" that's included? Hmmmm?

the answer is greed, pure and simple. the OS cost so much because gates, balmer and the rest want to have billions in the bank, stock holders want huge returns on there investments and the employees want huge paychecks with benefits out the ass, a senior programmer at microsoft earns 250 grand a year and a junior programmer earns 125 grand a year and they employ God knows how many people, it was reported that microsoft spent over 100 million dollars in developing Vista, a good portion of that in salaries, where do you think that money is going to come from?

a linux distro is crammed full of freeware, yet most don't cost a dime (there was a time i was working on my own distro and i could have afforded to give it away for free if i had gotten to to the point where i felt it was ready for prime time).

there needs to be some basic functionality included with an OS, can you imagine if microsoft took your advice and shipped windows 8 without a text editor, a browser, a few games, a fancy gui, no drivers, people would be screaming bloody murder.

lastly, the reason windows has gotten so bloated is because of the decision they made to support practically every device a person could possibly have, all those drivers take up space, just the nvidia drivers are 170 mb.

i ran into the same scenario when i was working on my distro, i had to decide how to configure the kernel, did i support all the hardware that the linux kernel is capable of supporting and compile the kernel with loadable modules, did i statically compile the kernel with all the modules which would have killed performance but increased compatibility, did offer a stripped down kernel and target only certain users with my distro, fortunately i abandoned the project and didn't have to worry about any of it in the end.

one final reality, windows is not properly optimized for modern hardware at all, it's a business decision to ensure that it runs on older hardware as well, which also adds to the "bloatedness", win7 can be install on a 266mhz Pentium 2 with 128mb of ram:

http://www.techspot.com/news/35164-windows-7-installed-on-a-pentium-iibased-pc.html

that's one thing about linux and the fact that you can recompile the kernel, you learn a lot about OS designs, if you take a plain vanilla install of a distro like Fedora and compare that performance against the performance of the same install after you custom compile the kernel for your specific cpu, the difference is like night and day and that's just by recompiling the kernel.

[rumplestiltskin]

re: Power Steering - you're confusing me with someone else.

re: Macs vs iPods - From Apple's Q4'09 results: 3.05 million Macintosh® computers during the quarter, 10.2 million iPods. Let's use $1500 for an average Mac sale (although it's probably higher) and $300 for an average iPod sale (although it's probably lower).

Macs = 3.05 million x $1500 = $4.57 billion
iPods = 10.2 million x $300 = $3.06 billion

The iPod line contributes much to the bottom line but to claim that Apple does iPods with Macs on the side is ludicrous.
(If you don't believe my numbers, Google it.)

re: re-branded apps? Which one? They certainly have purchased software development companies and taken them in-house when they found apps they liked. Since when does this become "re-branding"? Isn't that taking an existing product (still in the marketplace) and having your name pasted in on the splash screen? A number of the peripheral vendors do that. (Nero whores their apps everywhere.)

"Stuffing inferior apps into the OS is why the basecode is so bloated, doing things it really doesn't need to do." Apps don't get "stuffed into the OS"; rather, they get loaded onto the hard drive so any "bloat" is just hard drive space (and, in Windows, probably a few registry entries). You don't like an app? Uninstall it. There's a Control Panel for that. Bloat in the OS is caused by the Luddites demanding backward compatibility. Microsoft should tell them to pound sand and get a real computer. Of course, that would tick off the OEMs who would then not be able to sell Celeron and Sempron/Athlon machines.

While we're on the topic of "OEM", Please understand that virtually all the PC assemblers aren't OEMs. They manufacture nothing; they assemble parts they purchase from OEMs. They design nothing (well, maybe the case but often that's not even true).

"Going back to a car analogy, should your car come with it's own family already sitting in the backseat? What about suitcases full of clothes that may or may not fit you? Should it come with vanity plates that say "ILUVYANKS" when you're a Red Sox fan?" (I'm sure I missed the original post that prompted this - Maybe this was meant for someone else?)

"The OEM takes the best collection of hardware, apps, OS, and makes a ready-to-use computer for Joe Blow." In an ideal world, this might be true. In reality, we have Dell. Are you seriously implying that Dell uses the "best collection" of anything? I'll give you Windows 7 (as that was the original topic of this thread and, frankly, is the best thing that comes with a Dell).

"Bringing up another point -- why the hell does the OS cost so much now? Maybe because of all the "freeware" that's included?" If you're platform-agnostic, dump Microsoft and go Linux. Problem solved.

I'm done. Thanks for listening.

A user can't install his own power steering, etc. That analogy is retarded.
No disrespect rumple, but you're reaching here.

Apple is an OEM.
They use OEM hardware.
Customize the OS to suit their needs (i.e., the Darwin BSD/UNIX kernel)
and then stuff it full of their own apps -- many of which are just re-branded apps from 3rd party devs
Apple makes iPods, and does computers on the side now. Let's not lie to ourselves otherwise.

Windows is software company, not an OEM.
They make an OS, office software, and craploads of other office/web tools (some are online-based, some are client-based)
Whatever you want to call them, it's not an OEM.
The only hardware they make is XBOX, Zune .... anything else?

The OEM takes the best collection of hardware, apps, OS, and makes a ready-to-use computer for Joe Blow.

Stuffing inferior apps into the OS is why the basecode is so bloated, doing things it really doesn't need to do.

Going back to a car analogy, should your car come with it's own family already sitting in the backseat? What about suitcases full of clothes that may or may not fit you? Should it come with vanity plates that say "ILUVYANKS" when you're a Red Sox fan?

For Windows to say "Here is your software" is almost insulting to a degree, to the OEM's, the users, to software competitors -- and that's where the legal problems came from. Rightfully so, too. The aggravation stems from the fact that the included crap is just that -- crap. Window Paint? Wordpad? IE? Seriously? Those are useful tools?

A GUI is an integrated part of most kernels now, so to say the BIOS is the OS is again stretching for arguments.

The world isn't black and white, it's shades of gray. Including apps in the OS base code is a charcoal color approaching black.

If MS wants to provide freeware, then it can compete with all the other freeware sites out there. Stuffing it into the OS is a hindrance for those who don't really want it. For the folks wanting that type of software, it created an unfair advantage, bulldozing competitors. The courts have already decided that bundling is the job of the OEM.

If you want another analogy, it was very similar to when phone companies provided you with a phone and accessories. Or what if the electric company included free light bulbs in the cost of you monthly bill? By "included", we all know the bill would be higher -- much higher -- than if we just went to Lowe's or Walmart ourselves.

Bringing up another point -- why the hell does the OS cost so much now? Maybe because of all the "freeware" that's included? Hmmmm?

For the record, I happen to like Windows. I'm not a rabid Linux or Mac fan. Platform agnostic, thanks.

[lordsmurf]

You're getting too technical and totally missing the point. Selective quoting, too.

[dessieclive]

lordsmurf r u runin win 7

[JohnnyMalaria]

Window Paint? Wordpad? IE? Seriously? Those are useful tools?

Yup - and at times they are the best tools. I use Notepad, Wordpad, Calc, WMM quite frequently because they do what I need and can expect to find them on any computer I happen across (I only happen across Windows machines by choice). IE = crap? Now that's a retarded statement. Apart from Netscape more than a decade ago, I have only used - and only ever needed to use - IE. I don't need to buy a 500-piece chrome-vanadium toolkit when all I need is a couple of screwdrivers.

A GUI is an integrated part of most kernels now, so to say the BIOS is the OS is again stretching for arguments.

Bollocks. Utter bollocks. I normally have appreciation for your commentary but this just beggars belief. A GUI is nothing but a fancy application. Indeed, if such integrated OSes exist where you cannot separate the OS from the GUI then I'd avoid them like the plague. Windows as in WIN32 is a user-mode API and is the basis for the GUI that most people regard as "Windows". It depends on the NT kernel. But the NT kernel doesn't require WIN32 to operate nor is it restricted to Windows.

If MS wants to provide freeware, then it can compete with all the other freeware sites out there. Stuffing it into the OS is a hindrance for those who don't really want it. For the folks wanting that type of software, it created an unfair advantage, bulldozing competitors. The courts have already decided that bundling is the job of the OEM.

Bollocks again. What about the folks wanting to just pay for the computer, turn it on and starting doing the stuff the want to do with it?

[rcubed]

Hi,
Just to put my two cents in, and not to start a big argument. I just wish $MS would get an operation system which is more secure, and doesn't need weekly updates to deal with security holes. We'll have to wait and see with Win 7. I've tried the trial version of Win 7 and being an "old fart" have trouble with dealing with how $MS moves things in the GUI from version to version of OSs or apps. There is a learning curve which must drive large businesses nuts with the training curve. I'm still on the fence with regard to buying Win 7 and will probably wait until it's been out a while to make a decision - at least until SP1 is released.

The Europeans were a little more aggressive with what $MS was allowed to include as part of the OS. From what I have read (I do not develop apps for PCs), $MS was putting hooks in the OS that $MS apps were using, but not know to other developers giving a performance advantage to $MS. $MS also has a 5 year business model where they plan on having whatever you buy from them (hardware/software) being obsolete in 5 years. They got a push back from industry in regard to Vista etc. and ended up having to supply support to XP way beyond their planned retirement date. One of the up sides of having $MS in the picture is that the number of OSs an application developer has to deal with is limited, but when $MS "bundles" apps with the OS that can lead to them forcing out the competition.

I confess I am a freeware, shareware user. There is both good and bad available. Most of the apps I use are supported by their developers and they are eager to correct problems and reasonable to answer questions etc. using forums. A lot of them have real pride in their software and how it works. However as someone has pointed out it depends on your level of expertise and expected ease of use.

As one contributor pointed out one of $MS's future ideas is to make you pay for every time you used the OS or any of their apps, not one I look forward to. If $MS had it's way every piece of electronic equipment cell phone, TV, maybe even your kitchen appliances would be running some version of an $MS operating system. I shudder at this thought. Imagine having you refrigerator hacked.

rcubed