Windows 7

[BrianG]

The other day, I got a new computer at work (dual core Intel 2.6GHz, 8GB RAM, 80GB HDD) to replace my aging XP box (single core 2.6GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HDD). I really didn't want a new box to be honest, this one ran everything I did perfectly fine. If anything, give me a new box with the latest and greatest hardware, just put XP on it (too bad new hardware drivers are becoming rare for XP)! But, I noticed the old box was slowing down and when I checked into it, many caps on the mobo were puffed and some even started leaking electrolyte. Certainly not good for stability.

So anyway, back to Windows 7 topic. Let me start off by saying that I don't like it! "Hate" is a strong word, but it's pretty darn close. Here is my take:

This OS is great for grandma/grandpa, Mac users (), and anyone else who has no freaking idea how computers work, and nor do they care. They need something that prevents them from accidentally messing things up. And they don't care where their documents, pictures, etc are as long as Windows can serve them up wherever they might have been stuffed. Personally, this encourages disorganization since Windows takes care of that for you. Me, I like knowing exactly where things are and the nuts and bolts of how things work.

Like Vista, it's needlessly "pretty". I don't want a bubble-gum interface with semi-transparent windows. All that means is more CPU and memory resources are being used for the base OS. Sure, you can get the shell to look like the old classic style, but it really does nothing for increasing performance.

No "up-directory" button in windows explorer. OK, that doesn't seem like a big deal to many, but I really miss it! So, I either use a keyboard shortcut to do it, or use the left navigation pane to click where I want. Easy enough I guess, but the "up directory" button was easier and more intuitive IMO.

The Start Menu. Hmmm, I guess it's tolerable now that I have my common programs pinned to the main menu. Being able to type programs into the search bar works, but I feel it's too simplistic.

Many dialog boxes are much more "wordy". A perfect example is the dialog box you get when copy a file to a location where a file with the same name exists. WinXP is simple and to the point, Win7 explains things more for the less-than-knowledgable user.

The Start Menu and Explorer can be returned to the XP format via a plug-in called ClassicShell, but it's just one more program running eating resources for nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind "change"; I gladly welcomed XP after dealing with Win98! But to me, an Operating System should be just that: software that operates the system. Period. And 99% of the resources from all the fast hardware I get should go to applications. The OS taking ~1.1GB of RAM to run for around 40 base processes is ludicrous, not matter how cheap memory gets.

But it's not all bad I guess. It does boot faster than similarly equipped (hardware-wise) systems I've seen, and does not have nearly the amount of annoying "Are you sure you want to do this?" messages.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by BrianG

The other day, I got a new computer at work (dual core Intel 2.6GHz, 8GB RAM, 80GB HDD) to replace my aging XP box (single core 2.6GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HDD). I really didn't want a new box to be honest, this one ran everything I did perfectly fine. If anything, give me a new box with the latest and greatest hardware, just put XP on it (too bad new hardware drivers are becoming rare for XP)! But, I noticed the old box was slowing down and when I checked into it, many caps on the mobo were puffed and some even started leaking electrolyte. Certainly not good for stability.

So anyway, back to Windows 7 topic. Let me start off by saying that I don't like it! "Hate" is a strong word, but it's pretty darn close. Here is my take: I like Windows 7, I skipped Vista for obvious reasons of intrusiveness and being resource heavy.

This OS is great for grandma/grandpa, Mac users (), and anyone else who has no freaking idea how computers work, and nor do they care. They need something that prevents them from accidentally messing things up. And they don't care where their documents, pictures, etc are as long as Windows can serve them up wherever they might have been stuffed. Personally, this encourages disorganization since Windows takes care of that for you. Me, I like knowing exactly where things are and the nuts and bolts of how things work. I don't understand this point , as you can just as easy organize all your files and folders just as easy in W7 as XP, it just has the added benefit or file indexing search feature.

Like Vista, it's needlessly "pretty". I don't want a bubble-gum interface with semi-transparent windows. All that means is more CPU and memory resources are being used for the base OS. Sure, you can get the shell to look like the old classic style, but it really does nothing for increasing performance. You can turn off Aero and make it 'Windows Basic', however I don't notice a difference either actually but I am also running an OC'ed e8400(3ghz) at 4.2ghz, along with a good graphics accelerator. I have found though, that it runs faster than XP and is easily adaptable to different systems, as far as power is concerned.

No "up-directory" button in windows explorer. OK, that doesn't seem like a big deal to many, but I really miss it! So, I either use a keyboard shortcut to do it, or use the left navigation pane to click where I want. Easy enough I guess, but the "up directory" button was easier and more intuitive IMO. I too miss this. But I have just started using my mouse 'back' button.

The Start Menu. Hmmm, I guess it's tolerable now that I have my common programs pinned to the main menu. Being able to type programs into the search bar works, but I feel it's too simplistic. I too don't like this, why not just have the classic setup like XP, I would be happier with that. Sometimes I really don't like the bottom task bar.

Many dialog boxes are much more "wordy". A perfect example is the dialog box you get when copy a file to a location where a file with the same name exists. WinXP is simple and to the point, Win7 explains things more for the less-than-knowledgable user. Come on Brian, I have three words for the explanation for this: 'DUMB AND DUMBER'

The Start Menu and Explorer can be returned to the XP format via a plug-in called ClassicShell, but it's just one more program running eating resources for nothing. Does it take resources? I am not sure on that one.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind "change"; I gladly welcomed XP after dealing with Win98! But to me, an Operating System should be just that: software that operates the system. Period. And 99% of the resources from all the fast hardware I get should go to applications. The OS taking ~1.1GB of RAM to run for around 40 base processes is ludicrous, not matter how cheap memory gets. You have a 'brand name' PC (I assume), which has more resource hungry apps and useless garbage than a custom built PC does, my PC for instance takes 22% of 4GB, my install is about 1.5 months old now. Still runs great

But it's not all bad I guess. It does boot faster than similarly equipped (hardware-wise) systems I've seen, and does not have nearly the amount of annoying "Are you sure you want to do this?" messages.

If you want even less than go to "change when these messages appear" and move the slide bar all the way to the bottom.

[thzero]

Windows 7 is no more intrusive than Vista. And yes there were some optimizations done (and one big 'fix' with the video driver that caused the same information to be stored in local memory too often). Windows 7 IS Vista, just a bit more refined version of it.

I like Windows 7, I skipped Vista for obvious reasons of intrusiveness and being resource heavy.

The thing I dislike most about the task bar, which is a change from Vista, is the way things stack. I also find myself occasionally forgetting to right-click on say Windows Explorer or IE (yes I use it, yes I have FF, et al installed), etc. to get a new window as opposed to a list of currently running windows.

I too don't like this, why not just have the classic setup like XP, I would be happier with that. Sometimes I really don't like the bottom task bar.

It is an application? Yes. Then it requires resources.

The Start Menu and Explorer can be returned to the XP format via a plug-in called ClassicShell, but it's just one more program running eating resources for nothing. Does it take resources? I am not sure on that one.

And this is a good tip.

If you want even less than go to "change when these messages appear" and move the slide bar all the way to the bottom.

[thzero]

As a tip, you can click on the directories in the folder bar too and get there. Clicking on the arrow even gives you a list of subdirectories. The 'up' would be nice, but really I dont even notice the lack.

I've used almost every windows OS from Win 3.1 all the way through 7. I've got Vista at work, used to hava Vista at home (prior to that XP and prior to that 2000) but upgrade to Win7 on a gaming rig, XP on a tablet. Not to mention that the 2008 servers.

I'd definetly classify myself as a power user. I change the layout of the All Programs, change the location of the 'My' folders (which is damn easy in 7 without the need of tools) and on and on [I usually run a C: OS drive at least a D: data drive; normally push all my User folder to that D: drive.] I will say that I actually dislike working on XP thats on my tablet (this will go to Win7 too).

The example you gave of the dialogs, I still feel they are lacking. I want more information, i.e. don't tell me a time, tell me exactly how many bytes out of how many bytes, etc.

With Vista/7 both the driver model (this includes moving the video driver out of the kernel which is great) and the virtual memory model have changed. With 7, I haven't seen the memory usage reported as inflated as with Vista. But I also haven't bothered to look deeply. While there are more resources for the new Aero interface, we do have more resources than we did in XP days so why not use them, since the new driver model actual offloads much of the GDI calls to the graphics card instead of processing them itself. This is far better than 2000/XP, no need for the CPU to do things that the GPU is much more capable of doing.

Bottom line for me is that I found some initial issues with the switch, but really I've gotten used to 7 and actually enjoy it more than I did XP. And I know *exactly* where everything is. :) But I do use the search feature too.

Oh and 7 is hardly a bubble gum interface; if you want that go visit default Mac-land (but only if Steve Jobs lets you).

[wallot]

Originally Posted by BrianG

This OS is great for grandma/grandpa, Mac users (), and anyone else who has no freaking idea how computers work, and nor do they care. They need something that prevents them from accidentally messing things up. And they don't care where their documents, pictures, etc are as long as Windows can serve them up wherever they might have been stuffed. Personally, this encourages disorganization since Windows takes care of that for you. Me, I like knowing exactly where things are and the nuts and bolts of how things work.

You can change location of everything in W7. You would not complain if you knew how :)


Like Vista, it's needlessly "pretty". I don't want a bubble-gum interface with semi-transparent windows. All that means is more CPU and memory resources are being used for the base OS. Sure, you can get the shell to look like the old classic style, but it really does nothing for increasing performance.

Why increase performance of something that is fast enough

No "up-directory" button in windows explorer. OK, that doesn't seem like a big deal to many, but I really miss it! So, I either use a keyboard shortcut to do it, or use the left navigation pane to click where I want. Easy enough I guess, but the "up directory" button was easier and more intuitive IMO.

Shortcuts are way faster to move around the system. And with a mouse with lot of bttons you dont even need to use keyboard

The Start Menu. Hmmm, I guess it's tolerable now that I have my common programs pinned to the main menu. Being able to type programs into the search bar works, but I feel it's too simplistic.

Is not the OS supposed to be simple to use? If you want to use the hard way go to search for your software in a program files directory

Many dialog boxes are much more "wordy". A perfect example is the dialog box you get when copy a file to a location where a file with the same name exists. WinXP is simple and to the point, Win7 explains things more for the less-than-knowledgable user.

Not everyone is a IT pro and good explanation does not hurt.

The Start Menu and Explorer can be returned to the XP format via a plug-in called ClassicShell, but it's just one more program running eating resources for nothing.

No need for old style start menu. you will see in couple weeks with w7

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind "change"; I gladly welcomed XP after dealing with Win98! But to me, an Operating System should be just that: software that operates the system. Period. And 99% of the resources from all the fast hardware I get should go to applications. The OS taking ~1.1GB of RAM to run for around 40 base processes is ludicrous, not matter how cheap memory gets.

Windows is not just a core operating system. It includes a ton of applications. Have you seen how much resources standard user friendly linux needs? What would you do with just a kernel and couple drivers?

But it's not all bad I guess. It does boot faster than similarly equipped (hardware-wise) systems I've seen, and does not have nearly the amount of annoying "Are you sure you want to do this?" messages.

Yes this is what we wanted. Stable, fast, solved indexing.

You will really hate what is MS cooking after w7 :)

[snellemin]

I love the speed of Win7. Sure it's not as "simple" as XP, but dammit you can install win7 on an old system and you would swear you bought a faster system. Installing Win7 in half an hour or less is what I like over the 3-4 hours with xp on old systems.
I still use xp on some of my PC's and laptops, but the rest are all Win7 now. Only Vista crap I have is my work pc. I have to be honest that it took a bit to get use to Win7, but once you see how "fast" it is, you'll like it.

[bdebde]

I have been "trying" to run Windows 7 for the last couple months. Finally got all hardware that will actually work with the 64 bit version. I completely skipped vista myself and all of the frustration with Windows 7 has almost made me go back to XP (32 bit), but I hate having the latest hardware with old OS. My old machine was working fine until the power supply croaked and took the MB and some drives with it, so I figured it was time to upgrade.

And yes, the missing "up" button in windows explorer kills me... WTF. The "back" button works, as long as you just came from the up level directory, still not ideal.

[thzero]

To repeat myself:

Click on a folder in the location bar to up one (or more) level(s).

While I don't quite understand why the "up" button was removed, this is a very easy and even more useful way of doing it.

Originally Posted by bdebde

And yes, the missing "up" button in windows explorer kills me... WTF. The "back" button works, as long as you just came from the up level directory, still not ideal.

[Finnster]

Originally Posted by thzero

To repeat myself:

Click on a folder in the location bar to up one (or more) level(s).

While I don't quite understand why the "up" button was removed, this is a very easy and even more useful way of doing it.

I know that & I still fing hate it. V cool you can redefine the default doc dirs. They are nice to use but I hate how they tether them to the boot partition.

[BrianG]

To be clear, I can for sure "deal" with the changes; it's just that this OS (or should I say POS?) seemed to be designed for the typical computer ignoramus ("press any key to continue; where is the 'any key'?"). Everyone seems to be accepting of the changes, even though they aren't necessarily "better". Just spoon fed crap from M$.

I just wish M$ would stop making face-lifts to the GUI and make changes that really matter; like run faster. And for those who say this OS does run faster: Imagine how much faster it would really be if those performance changes were made without the extra crap.

If this was my home PC, I would definitely shut more things off, but there is a limit to what I can do on this one since it is a work PC. One resource hog I'd LOVE to get rid of is Norton. What a hunk of bloatware. Aside from that, I don't have anything running that is not needed, such as all those apps represented by the irritating icons in the sys tray.

I too have used all sorts of Windows OS's: Win3.1, Win98 (and SE), Win2k, WinXP, and a little bit of Vista. I had no problem going from 98 to XP because the improvements in the UI were improvements, and not simply changes to justify customers spending more cash on something that is not needed.

I will obviously be forced to deal with this because it is what it is. But I don't have to like it.

And yes, I do know what Mac is like; my fiancee has one and I'm forever griping about that too. Biggest gripe: Why does clicking the application's "X" button not close the app? It just goes into the tray thingie but is still "running". Isn't that the same as minimizing?

On a postive note, I was able to install SQL 2000 (needed because some servers NEED to run this for now) development tools (Enterprise Mgr and Query Analyzer) on 64-bit Win7 system, despite everything I read saying it couldn't be done. Yup, this is me thumbing my nose at M$...

[zeropointbug]

Brian, YES! the first thing you want to get id of is NORTON or ANY other virus program you have to pay for, they are crap, if it slows down your PC to the point that you think you have a virus, then what is the point? you know?

Get AVG or something similar to it, they are free, and low resource hungry, plus you can adjust the amount of priority it takes too, further reducing resources.

Why don't you reinstall Windows 7? Really, brand name PC's always come with a bunch of crap on them, fresh bare bones installs always run 10 times better than a 'customized' brand name Windows install.

I have my pet peeves with Vista/W7, but I thought it was time that I upgraded (?) to the latest OS. Overall, it really is better than XP.

[thzero]

Ugh, SQL Server 2000! I'm so glad not to ever have to work with that beast again. 2005/2008 streamlined so many things that its just a bear to go backwards.

Well as I mentioned, part of the 'face lifts' to the GUI were:
a) New driver model that supported the removal of UI rendering from kernel. This is great because it means if the UI crashed, it doesn't blue screen (thats not to say 7 won't BSOD... I've done it. )
b) Aero offloads the processing of the win32 graphics API calls (GDI/GDI+) basically to the graphics card. This is great because it allows the graphics card to do what its does and relives the CPU to do other things. This was an area with one of the big issues in Vista.
c) DirectX 10 (which does more than just 3D!). To some degree these changes had to do with the new driver model too which is one of the reasons it is not being backported to XP.

In all my time, I really haven't felt the Win7 (or even Vista) was really designed for the typical computer ignoramous (can't be said of the upcoming Windows Mobile or at least whats been bandied about in the tech web-rag world). Once I got accustomed to it, I really don't have many complaints.

And yeah, Nortin is a POS for sure. So is McAfee.

Remember people didn't really dig XP all that much to start with. My money is on that within 2 years people will have forgotten about XP and Win7 will definetly be the new standard. Of course there will be people who will disagree just as I'm sure you can find a few still running Win9X or heck even Win2000!

[BrianG]

Believe me, I'd LOVE to get rid of Norton, but this is the office PC and I have to use what they say. :sigh:

And I have to use SQL 2000 because some of our servers still use it, and cannot change right now. There are reasons for this that I cannot say (if I told you, I'd have to kill you. )

When XP came out, I dug right in once the little bugs were ironed out (mostly driver updates). So, I am certainly not a luddite, just opposed to what doesn't make sense. Change is good, as long as it isn't change just for the sake of change.

I tell ya, if everything worked in Linux without having to run emulators or virtual environments (and with no performance hit), I'd switch over in a heartbeat. I really am tired of Windows in general. Between Mr. Gates and his "Windows will make your life easier, cure world hunger, and get you laid more often" promises, and Mr. Job's super-inflated head and his i-everything, I sometimes just want to run into the mountains...

[thzero]

As he said he's in an office environment, so he's limited. However, paying for an anti-virus is not necessarily a bad thing. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean its slow or bloated. After all even AVG has an upgraded "pay" version. Anti-virus/spam software depending on the review of which there are plenty depends on who is on top. That being said, both Norton and McAfee has been known to be bloated and resource hogs.

Originally Posted by zeropointbug

Brian, YES! the first thing you want to get id of is NORTON or ANY other virus program you have to pay for, they are crap, if it slows down your PC to the point that you think you have a virus, then what is the point? you know?

That's unfortunate. It's a pretty easy upgrade path to 2008 depending of course on what hardware/software requirements there are.

Originally Posted by BrianG

And I have to use SQL 2000 because some of our servers still use it, and cannot change right now. There are reasons for this that I cannot say (if I told you, I'd have to kill you. )

Well, linux never will. Not until it gets a high-end company behind it to force companies to produce quality drivers for it (no more running the Nvidia package that compiles their driver, etc). That and it absolutely has to work seamlessly in the Windows world (re: no hoop jumping, 3rd party software, etc. to connect to Windows pcs, etc). Unfortunately you are still stuck with OpenOffice or Google Apps. Unfortunately if it did go that way, I'm of the opinion it'd probably end up in much the same heavy handed way as MS or Apple.

Originally Posted by BrianG

I tell ya, if everything worked in Linux without having to run emulators or virtual environments (and with no performance hit), I'd switch over in a heartbeat. I really am tired of Windows in general. Between Mr. Gates and his "Windows will make your life easier, cure world hunger, and get you laid more often" promises, and Mr. Job's super-inflated head and his i-everything, I sometimes just want to run into the mountains...

[squeeforever]

I'd agree with you on the whole Windows/Mac thing, but I think they both have there ups and downs. I can't STAND Mac computers. What VERY little I've used them, I don't like it at all. The performance though is amazing. Some of there desktops are just plain rediculous on the hardware aspect. Microsoft has its up, like compatibility with everything, unlike Mac, but all the virus's and shit with Microsoft that compromise its performance are a real PITA. On the flip side though, as far as phones go, Mac blows them out of the water. Windows mobile is complicated and BLOWS, and the iPhone OS is amazing and I would love to get a iPad. That would be a great alternative to a netbook.