Windows 7 Club

[FordGT90Concept]

Operating systems conform to my needs, not the other way around. Their job is to make the user more efficient. Not finding things in places they are expected is counter intuitive and inefficient defeating the the very purpose it supposed to serve.


Not to mention, Windows 7 is not Windows 7. It is Windows 6.1, a derivative of Server 2008.

Windows XP Professional is to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition as Windows Vista is to Windows 7 (minor version upgrade: 5.1 -> 5.2, 6.0 -> 6.1).

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is to Server 2003 as Windows 7 is to Server 2008 (share version numbers: 5.2, 6.1).


Windows 7 was released for primarily two reasons: 1) get rid of the tainted "Vista" name for marketing purposes and 2) allow workstation virtualization (Hyper-V: inherited from its Server 2008 blood). If you expect something revolutionary, look elsewhere. Yes, there's a few tweaks here and there but nothing major. Adaptation of Hyper-V, on the other hand, is.

Worth upgrading for from Vista? I think not.

 

[AphexDreamer]

do what i do with every new OS, give it a month.

The thing is, you're trying to use 7 as XP. You're not trying to use 7 as 7.
its like driving a manual car for years, and getting into an auto - and complaining that no matter how hard you move the window winder, the gears just wont change.

You need to learn what works differently, as opposed to trying to make it work the same. Dont like the new start menu? well shit, i hated it. i was a classic start menu man as well.

Now i find it easier to use, and cant stand the clunky, slow XP method. i type the first letter or two of what i'm looking for, just like i do with autocomplete in IE or firefox.

Very well said. Those who learn to adapt survive.

I saw Avatar Recently and boy were their Computers Amazing. FordGT's Argument makes me think of a modern day man using the Computers in Avatar only to complain thats its not like Win 7 even though their clearly better than it.

 

[DirectorC]

Worth upgrading for from Vista? I think not.

Wow this is the most shocking statement you've made so far for me. Vista is such a turd compared to both XP and 7, and 7 kicks both their asses. That's the general consensus of practically everyone. It's good to know there are still dinosaurs out there like you though, still fighting the good fight for the few fossils that remain. Keep on fighting for the obsolete. Live for what is now considered legacy.

IMO, posting on the Win 7 club thread about what a piece of crap it is after using it for 2 days, is thread crapping. :shadedshu

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I've had a Windows Vista laptop since 2008. The parallels are uncanny. Let's sum it up:

• XP (5.1) had a poor reception mostly because of bugs, incompatibility with 2000 (5.0), and the new menu. XP wasn't accepted until SP1 and not well liked until SP2 which took care of the numerous security shortcomings.
  
• XP x64 (5.2) had a good reception but the volumes were never there because of the incompatibilities (namely, drivers and 16-bit apps). It was stable from day one, like Windows 7.
  
• Vista (6.0) had an even poorer reception than XP because of how complacent (due to the six year tenure with XP) the market became with XP (markets always resist change unless acted upon by an outside force--i.e. government). Otherwise, it suffered similar problems including incompatibility (software for enterprise and drivers) with XP, usability (support staff had to relearn where some critical settings were moved and how to reach them), and poor performance (1 GiB RAM footprint compared to 128 MiB on XP). The third point, especially, was addressed in SP1.
  
• 7 (6.1), like XP x64, has a good reception not because it is revolutionary but because it addresses the problems of Vista while not creating new problems (same driver model and generally the same GUI).

It all falls in to place. Remember, everything is relative. 7 only looks "good" because Vista was deemed "bad." If you don't like Vista, you won't find much to like in 7.


I can tell you right now, there are a lot of XP users that dislike 7 as much as Vista (I included) that will not upgrade until either a new computer purchase forces them to or until a more 2000-esque (95, 98, ME, NT 4, 2000) version debuts. The changes Microsoft has made don't help businesses, especially, that focus on productivity, not eye candy and useless side apps.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Why don't you use these two review to help aid in your decision.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355703,00.asp

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0

 

[warup89]

I recently purchased W7 ultimate, and even though i was completely fine with vista, 7 feels a bit quicker. I just got windows 7 because i got a great deal for it, if it wasn't for that I would stayed with vista 64b.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Why don't you use these two review to help aid in your decision.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355703,00.asp

XP is still faster in half of the tests:
"Though it may be unreasonable to expect faster performance alongside more interface and convenience features and lower requirements, I was still disappointed not to see Windows 7 top all these tests, particularly that for startup speed, given the promises Microsoft made one Window's behalf."

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0

Same story. XP is faster in pretty much everything except file transfer speeds.

 

[Wile E]

I would not be inclined to use a Windows product at this time.



All you have to do is stop the Themes service to make it return to a semi-Windows 2000 appearance. Everything important to me is already organized on my server in a directory hive. My Computer is too cluttered on Vista/Win 7.

XP x64 is by no means slow. In many regards, it is actually faster. Time to boot, queuing up music in WMP, time to shut down, etc. The only scenario in which Windows 7 is faster is in bringing up the network browser when there is an Active Directory Domain server present. Nevermind all the time wasted clicking through security dialogs and navigating an unintuitive menu I despised since it was introduced in Windows XP (and can no longer use the classic menu, I might add).

Also can't forget how much time I waste trying to find an application sitting in the system tray. I often have a dozen windows open and am rapidly switching between them, closing one, opening another, etc. Windows 7's taskbar is multiplying the time it takes for me to do that by factors in the double digits. It is extremely frustrating.

You can tell Win 7 not to group items in the taskbar. In fact, you can have the task bar act almost exactly the same as XP. I dunno, to each their own I suppose, but if things being changed is your primary complaint, then why bother upgrading your computer setup at all? Why not just stick with 2005 tech, since it seems to suite you just fine anyway?

 

[MKmods]

you make some of the most useful threads EastCoasthandle, thanks

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You can tell Win 7 not to group items in the taskbar.

I did that too.


Well, I think I will hold on to it not because I really like it but I am unwilling to reinstall Windows XP.

 

[GSG-9]

Since its release over 7 weeks ago Win7 appears to have made a substantial impact on Steam's Survey.

Normally I hate having data collected, but I enjoy looking at the results of Steam's Surveys.

Operating systems conform to my needs, not the other way around. Their job is to make the user more efficient. Not finding things in places they are expected is counter intuitive and inefficient defeating the the very purpose it supposed to serve.


Not to mention, Windows 7 is not Windows 7. It is Windows 6.1, a derivative of Server 2008.

Windows XP Professional is to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition as Windows Vista is to Windows 7 (minor version upgrade: 5.1 -> 5.2, 6.0 -> 6.1).

Yes and No. I would say the OS is to conform to the majorities needs, not your needs. I would say it is doing that as well. Which sucks but I think thats the case.

Also I would say:
ME is to XP
as
Vista is to Windows 7

Just my opinion though.

 

[DirectorC]

Normally I hate having data collected, but I enjoy looking at the results of Steam's Surveys.

Oh wow!

Now that I know about this, I will be stopping by...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

ME was only despised because it was released so close to Windows 2000 which fixed the problems associated with Windows 9x. I've used 95, 98SE, and ME for years. All of them were only as stable as the programs and drivers you used. Windows 2000, on the other hands, pretty much eliminated the BSODs caused by software making it a vastly OS and therefore, belittling what 9x was. If there was no Windows 2000, just ME, I doubt ME wouldn't be as disliked as it is.

 

[DirectorC]

ME was only despised because it was released so close to Windows 2000 which fixed the problems associated with Windows 9x. I've used 95, 98SE, and ME for years. All of them were only as stable as the programs and drivers you used. Windows 2000, on the other hands, pretty much eliminated the BSODs caused by software making it a vastly OS and therefore, belittling what 9x was. If there was no Windows 2000, just ME, I doubt ME wouldn't be as disliked as it is.

I actually got WinME (mostly) stable on a computer one time. It was epic.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Same here. Computers that came with Windows ME preinstalled generally faired pretty well with it. Putting Windows 98SE on the same hardware...not so much.


Steams Survey lumps Vista and Windows 7 together. Windows XP 32-bit still composes of 44.77% of operating systems running Steam.

 

[GSG-9]

ME was only despised because it was released so close to Windows 2000 which fixed the problems associated with Windows 9x.

I'm not saying the problems were not in 95 and 98/98se but It just kinda degraded with time, regardless of maintenance.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

XP does too (not necessarily x64 edition). Performance noticably declines after several months of use even with few processes running.

 

[GSG-9]

XP does too (not necessarily x64 edition). Performance noticably declines after several months of use even with few processes running.

You have to agree that its a much slower process though, especially if using Tweakxp and Diskkeeper etc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The rate at which it degrades depends on how much is being thrown on the hard drive. Maybe that's just it: it wasn't necessarily 9x that was the problem, it was FAT32?

 

[GSG-9]

The rate at which it degrades depends on how much is being thrown on the hard drive. Maybe that's just it: it wasn't necessarily 9x that was the problem, it was FAT32?

Thats very true the non active FS im sure played a big part.

 

[MAGMADIVER]

Has anyone figured out how to change WMP's color from that terrible baby blue? Also is there anyway to get WMP 11 instead of 12? WMP 12 seems to be changed from 11 just because for no real reason... its like a bunch of retards with cataracts designed it.

 

[AphexDreamer]

I'm actually having an issue with my Win 7 I made a thread about it but I'll post it here too since its on Win 7.

All my files and Folders are set to read only and won't change to read/write. I think this is keeping my Steam Games from running.

 

[DirectorC]

I'm actually having an issue with my Win 7 I made a thread about it but I'll post it here too since its on Win 7.

All my files and Folders are set to read only and won't change to read/write. I think this is keeping my Steam Games from running.

I can't explain this any other way than a virus.

 

[AphexDreamer]

I can't explain this any other way than a virus.

lol

I think its actually normal behavior. I think I just fixed my issue for steam. unfortunately I uninstalled everything and have re download but I think it will work now.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm really starting to hate Windows Media Player 12. It has gone "non-responsive" on me more than once, the performance is pathetic (constantly waiting for it to do simple tasks), the "now playing" option is gone, forcing it to the side panel which I have always hated, and well, basically, there's nothing good about it. Is there any way to get Windows Media Player 11?