View Full Version : Windows 7

11-17-2009, 09:32 PM
The laptop I primarily use has had Windows Vista since I received it. Since I had it, there were all the issues I heard and I tried downgrading to XP. My laptop wouldn't support it (for some reason). So I was stuck with Vista for many years, and encountered a lot of issues. My CPU would max out with the battery in, though sometimes the WiFi caused it. Programs routinely were slow, and crashed. Admittedly, the feel of Vista was comfortable, but the OS was killing me.

Then Windows 7 came around. I finally got the upgrade! The good thing with this was that I could actually "upgrade" and not have to do a fresh install. (The headache of reinstalling everything, AGAIN. Uhg!) But certainly with the issues I had with Vista, I'd do anything to escape. I've been using 7 for about a week now, and I haven't looked back. It's MUCH faster, I am logged into Windows in 2 minutes instead of over 5 with Vista. The graphics are much smoother, and I have yet to have my CPU max out and cause programs to crash (notably Outlook).

Has anyone else upgraded to Windows 7? If you have Vista, it really shouldn't be an option -- you aught to upgrade. If you have XP, admittedly the OS works great. 7 certainly is a stepping stone if you buy a new computer, so I wouldn't rush if you had XP.

11-17-2009, 10:10 PM
I'm a Mac user now, but I do run Windows in a virtual machine for testing. I bought Vista last year when I bought the Mac and was completely underwhelmed with it so I found a copy of XP and just test on that.

I've been hearing good things about Windows 7, but I also heard good things about Vista at first. I've been waiting for someone I know to use Windows 7 and offer their opinion.

Sounds like this time Microsoft got it right. At some point I'll probably buy it and install on a virtual machine. I'll wait until more people have started using it though.

Do you like Windows 7 for Windows 7 or is this more a comparison to Vista? How does it compare to XP? I was always happy with XP. I even liked the look of it better than the look of Vista.

11-17-2009, 10:43 PM
I have a Vista laptop I haven't upgraded yet, but plan to. I've hated Vista from day one, though because it's a resource hog, I've not had any real "problems" with it. I knew in advance that Vista was a pig, so I bought a powerful laptop that could handle it. In spite of the power, it has still always been slow.

I've heard a lot of good things about W7, especially the speed difference. The only thing holding me back from upgrading too fast is I want to make sure all the issues with software get resolved first. I don't know of any issues, but it seems there is always something that doesn't get along well with a new OS. Sure the computer will be fine, I just don't want to encounter buggy behavior in any of my apps.

Since I work primarily on my desktop still running XP Pro, the laptop is not a high priority, but I expect to upgrade sometime in the next couple months.

There are still things I like much better about XP Pro over Vista even if performance was equal, so I seriously doubt my desktop will get an upgrade. It will probably be due for replacement after a couple more years anyway.

11-17-2009, 11:08 PM
Compared to Vista, W7 is a godsend. There is a difference in how things appear, and W7 isn't a resource hog like Vista was. Again my CPU always was maxing out, and I no longer have that issue. Battery life is also great!

I do like the features of W7. I no longer have a stupid "Permission needed" window coming up every 10 minutes when I'm doing something like Vista required.

XP to W7 will be noticeably different. For one, it's a bit more "futuristic" feeling with all of the graphics and what not. XP certainly has that "basic" feel to it that is easy to use. It's not that W7 isn't, but again it just feels a bit more luxurous. Would I upgrade if I was running on XP? Probably not. I had few issues with XP.

Microsoft finally got W7 right, and I really haven't seen anything negative about it... yet. Of course there is probably something vital that they neglected to get right (again).

11-17-2009, 11:20 PM
Thanks for the info. I've read a few articles on W7 now and they have been mostly positive. Now I did also read positive reviews of Vista from many of the same sources as well. I think the proof will come in a few months after more people are using W7 and talking about. The early reports do seem to suggest W7 was done well.

Interesting though that you wouldn't necessarily upgrade from XP.

I will offer one complaint about W7 and all Windows versions. Why do there have to be so many of them? Seriously do we need all these versions:

Windows 7 Starter
Windows 7 Home Basic
Windows 7 Home Premium
Windows 7 Professional
Windows 7 Enterprise
Windows 7 Ultimate

I'm holding out for Windows 7 Double Super Secret Ultimate Professional Enterprise version. :)

11-18-2009, 12:07 AM
I do like the features of W7. I no longer have a stupid "Permission needed" window coming up every 10 minutes when I'm doing something like Vista required.

Yeah, I read they got rid of that, and many people are happy to see that go. Once I get a copy to play with, it'll be interesting to see how the management areas are set up. Vista is terrible IMO. I think they moved a lot of things around just because they could, not because there was any good reason to. It always seemed like hide and seek to me. I could see the sense in moving the Run command so novice users couldn't access it so easily, but other things seem like it's just to keep us guessing. Course knowing MS, it was probably to sell more training classes for techs.

11-18-2009, 12:09 AM
I'm holding out for Windows 7 Double Super Secret Ultimate Professional Enterprise version. :)

That's for servers and hosting companies.

11-18-2009, 01:15 AM
Oh I thought that was the home version.

The funny thing about all those permissions needed windows is that prior to Vista everyone was complaining about the security of Windows. So Microsoft added things to help make Vista more secure and then got panned for it being too annoying. I kind of felt bad for them. They gave people what they wanted and were lambasted. Granted they didn't do permissions very well, but still.

11-19-2009, 07:13 PM
I still wonder why they have so many versions myself. I chose Ultimate because as a student, the price was very cheap.

The security popping up wouldn't be so much of an issue if there was a way to "remember my setting" with certain applications. A few of them, every time it launched, I was asked if I wanted to give it permission. I still get it with ONE application on W7. Oy! [And I'm sure there is a run-around, but it's not serious enough where I ever think about finding the solution.]

11-20-2009, 12:04 AM
I do have to feel sorry for Microsoft with all the security windows. People did complain a lot about security so Microsoft gave people security. Then people complained all this security is annoying. We want convenience. It was a no win situation.

11-20-2009, 08:56 AM
I see the difficulty, and it occurs in all walks of life - the squeaky wheel gets the oil!

A minority of people want something. It only takes a very small minority to make enough noise to get what they want, even though the majority don't want it. Well, you say, why don't the majority speak up and say they don't want it?

The answer is that the majority don't know they don't want it. You can't go around telling everyone everything you don't want. I don't want them to raise the electricity from 110v to 150v but why would I tell anyone that? I don't want Liptons to put sample packets of some other kind of tea in the packages I buy, but who cares?!

I wonder how many letters Microsoft received that said, I don't want more security on your next OS release.

11-20-2009, 10:32 AM
With that said, there are always ways to improve security, but Microsoft implemented it incorrectly.

I find it a pain, that when ever an update is being completed for Firefox, I get a warning. In the majority of my work, I use Linux and Linux has always had security in mind. Their implementation of when to require security is much cleaner and user friendly.

However, Linux is setup as a more secure operating system in the first place. Where Windows has become secure over the years to thwart all the viruses and malware that come its way.

A small example, in Windows, a executable file runs as soon as you run it. Or, before you even notice its running. In Linux, you have to make a file executable, then you can run it. Its this small step which I think makes it an improvement of Windows and possibly Mac... Although I have no experience with the latter.

11-20-2009, 09:50 PM
I wonder how many letters Microsoft received that said, I don't want more security on your next OS release.

I don't think this was a matter of letter writing. It was pretty much everywhere. In everything you read about Vista and what people said on blog posts and whatever ways they communicated. It wasn't that people would say they wanted less security, but rather they complained about the way Microsoft was handling security with popup boxes everywhere. MS went over the top.

Bryan Mac OS X essentially has FreeBSD under the hood. It's permissions are *nix based. When I want to install something for example I need to enter my admin password. I'll also get a warning the first time I try to open anything downloaded from the internet.