locked
Have Comments about Windows 7? (Part 1 - Do not post questions in this thread)

    General discussion

  • To all forum users:

    Please use this thread to note any comments that you have about Windows 7. Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, create a new thread.

    PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS WINDOWS 7 BETA OR WINDOWS 7 RC.

    Thanks

    -Tony Mann
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:53 PM
    Owner

All replies

  • I do seem to like W7 but I don't think its fair for Vista owners because basically this is what Vista should of been . MS pull up will you for Vista owners and show that you do care for your customers . I know if you did this would make Apple look sad ...
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 4:24 AM
  • i still think Windows 7 is just Vista with a new taskbar and limited alerts. its fast now but will eventually go slow just like previous Windows Operating Systems.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 5:01 AM
  • All I know is people who spend good hard cash for Vista should protest against Microsoft and refuse to every use Windows again unless MS does something very fairly to them and I don't mean the ones who are going to buy it after July 1 either ... Vista owners aren't you piss ? MS with Windows 7 is really Vista the way it should of been and now Vista owners are left with a bloated down OS that nobody will be using in a few years from now ( 2 years ). Don't just sit there and take it do something about it .
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:51 PM
  • It's sad, that i have to agree with you MikeBreta.
    In a few years nobody, will have windows Vista anymore.
    The big amount of XP users will wait for Windows 7.
    I have Vista now since March 2007 and i really liked it. It is much more stable than XP and a lot more user-friendly.
    Now i use the Windows7 Beta on my test system, and i like the many little changes they have made.
    So I will have to throw vista overboard and start using Windows7, only two years after vista.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:18 PM
  • I'm not trying to be a troll or anything but let get real here MS . If you care for your pre Vista consumers ? Then I would hope you would treat them fairly with this new Vista/W7 version . Not that it matter to MS but I'm sure bet you wouldn't see many of those Apple TV ads if they did . LOL

    Oh yeah , its not sad Jorupi , its true .

    Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:59 PM
  • Come on people get real.  Buying software from Microsoft is just like buying any other technology.  There will always be someting that works better, faster, be prettier, easier to use than what you just bought.  They don't have "Lemon Laws" for software.  You take your chances with it just like with anything else.  I've had Vista ever since it came out and never had a problem with it.  Went from Vista Home Premium 32-bit to Vista Ultimate 32-bit to Vista Home Premium 64-bit and no complaints.  Never once froze, no BSOD's, no nothing.  What I read in the NNTP newsgroups is that the major problem people are having with Vista is PEBKAC.  Sorry, that's not sad either, but the truth.
    If all is not lost, where is it?
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:48 PM
  • ©LarryEº said:

      What I read in the NNTP newsgroups is that the major problem people are having with Vista is PEBKAC.  Sorry, that's not sad either, but the truth.


    If all is not lost, where is it?


    Thats a little unfair I think.

    I too have never had any problems running Vista but I (like I suspect you are) am very computer literate.

    The average person on the street will have seen Vista released, seen it's min specs, seen their PC's just reach the min spec, will have brought Vista, wouldn't know the first thing about doing a clean install, would have kicked off an upgrade, and if they were lucky enough that the upgrade went smoothly (didn't ask them any questions thay you and I would find a no brainer, but is completely double dutch to them), they would have started Vista and be presented with an op system that runs like a dog.

    I have also noticed that most people that have zero problems with Vista, built their PC's themselves where as most people that struggle with Vista, have the likes of PC's brought from the big named companies.

    If MS put out a realistic min spec, then Vista would have had a far better reception in my opinion.

    That said, 9 out of 10 people I come into that slag Vista off, do so because of what a friend told them down the pub, and have never tried it for themselves.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:59 PM
  • Also, if you feel frustrated or disagree with Microsoft and Vista, it's easy: you can switch to another commercial, closed-source, proprietary operating system like Mac OS X, or a free, open-source operating system like GNU/Linux or any of the BSD variants :)

    As LarryE says: you're buying something. There will always be better, faster, nicer products in the market that will be released shortly after you buy. If you don't want to spend money, stop buying them, but don't complain.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:41 PM
  • I agree that Windows 7 has some improvements over Vista but I don't agree that there is something major wrong with Vista. I've been using it every day on several computers since it was released. I am much more productive in Vista than in XP (which I also use very day along with various distros of Linux). I have many customers who are happy with Vista. I have a few customers who don't like Vista and went back to XP. It's more about tolerance for change than anything else. Vista has bugs as all OS's and major applications do. As with other OS's these bugs are identified, tracked, and ultimately fixed with updates and service packs.

    To get back to the statement "this is what Vista should of been". You could apply that to every new release of any software. New releases have new features, fix bugs, improve performance, etc. Does this mean that once you buy any software product you are entitled to free upgrades for life?

    Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:54 PM
  • Where I live, merchants are obliged by law to offer warranty that merchandise is free of defects at the time of purchase... why (all!) software makers seem to get around this on a regular basis is unknown to me.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:59 PM
  • _jodo said:

    Where I live, merchants are obliged by law to offer warranty that merchandise is free of defects at the time of purchase... why (all!) software makers seem to get around this on a regular basis is unknown to me.


    Simply because of the nature of software. This is even more true with the PC market. Anyone can make an addon or piece of software for the PC, hence there will always be loads of problems with any operating system.  No one software writer/company can ever be 100% sure what other software (legit or virus) is going to interfere with it etc

    But it's not only the software world where this happens. New houses very often have faults that need builders back numerous times.

    New cars often have faults

    Even my last new washing machine packed up and when they came out to fix it, installed a completely different part as they had to re-design it due to all the problems they were having.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:16 PM
  • Vista's not perfect, but it's a far cry from defective. This sort of "Microsoft owes me because I bought Vista" attitude is silly. If Nike put out a subpar pair of runners and you bought them without reading about them first would you complain that Nike owes you a new pair of their newest runners?

    Vista's just a product, products aren't perfect and may not meet everyone's needs. Just because Windows is ubiquitous doesn't mean that consumers shouldn't be informed about what they're buying.
    Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:18 PM
  • True,

    I have a Quad Core Processor with 4 GB of memory and the fastest hard drive avail (10,000 rpm SATA). Vista flies, Win7 flies.
    I also loaded Win7, and Vista on my little Samsung NC10 netbook that came with XP Pro. Vista is OK, Win7 is OK. XP is OK. I don't see a difference at all.

    Yes I found UAC annoying at first, but I just basically downloaded registry tweaks to make it like Win7. Really don't see much change.

    So far I'll just stick with Vista.




    Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:47 PM
  • People complaining about Vista is 1. PEBKAC and 2. others repeating what they heard from the PEBKAC user. A lot of perception and view few experiences.

    I'v used Vista on 5 pc's since November 2006, i installed them then and since then they are all running fine, no problem at all. Vista doesn't degrade that fast as XP it keeps on running smooth on all the pc's in the house. Most hardware also worked, though i hate the hardware companies who refuse to release Vista drives for some current pci devices. (From them i will never buy anything anymore)

    I must say that i feel that Microsoft (Ballmer) pushed out Vista to soon, driver compatibility was experienced bad, computer users these days don't want to hunt the internet for hours to make there printer the recently bought work with a new OS.

    To gain back some user loaylty Microsoft should have a very cheap upgrade option from Vista to Windows 7.
    Sometimes it's better to take the blame, be responsible and move on.

    • Edited by Allards Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:04 AM
    Monday, January 12, 2009 9:35 AM
  • Vista Home Basic is rubbish...
    Home Premium and Ultimate did run better, but the 32bit Versions had not really a advantage over XP Pro. SP2, did even run slower.

    When Vista came on the market it was worse then the W7 beta we testing now.
    A lot of HW was unsupportet, Software crashed, some Manufacturers blamed MS for not giving informations or asking for two much money and then MS blamed them with something else.

    The other thing, people don't get it, as longer your Vista is running as faster it becomes, because it learns. Some people I know, even say, if you reboot it, it starts from scratch, can't agree with that, but maybe if you don't had run it for days.

    Now, I play arround with W7, after a week I will know how good it is, will test it, see how it handles some games and music making software.




    C ya
    Monday, January 12, 2009 11:14 AM
  • I'm a Vista owner... but I'm not mad. It came with my system and ever since, I loved it.

    Definitely much better than XP.

    Also, why be mad? When you bought a phone and then a better version of it came out after 6 months, does the company owe you a new phone? NO!

    It will always be like that.
    Monday, January 12, 2009 1:02 PM
  • Blame who you want but the way MS gets around the lemon laws or any defects in quality or anything else you want to say is that you do not own the software! You my friends are only renting it. It's a license and nothing more. Even though you get the CD or DVD you don't own nothing and if MS wanted to it could pull the plug on those licenses and then what would you have? NOTHING!
     Listen I have been in this business for over 20 years and thats one thing that no one ever reads is the EULA. It tells you about the conditions to which you agree and by pressing the I agree button, all be it blindly, you still agree to the terms of that EULA.
     So as for demanding that MS replace your license with a different one, for yet another operating system, the request is moot. They don't have to because they just rebranded Vista with the way it should have been and don't or won't care in the slightest. This is the way MS has operating since just after Windows 98. Either get used to it or don't use it. Those are your only choices here.
     And for you out there that have no idea what a software key is if it isn't present the OS won't work.

     I'm sorry you feel cheated but that is the exact reason I stayed with XP x64 pro. There was and is nothing slow about it if it is properly setup and maintained, just like any OS. The only reason I am testing Windows 7 is that I kinda thought they did a revamp on Vista and boy I was right. I like it and probably will upgrade as soon as they get the modest bugs that are left to fix. No one is saying you need to upgrade.
    Monday, January 12, 2009 11:16 PM
  • The problem is, that no one can see the changes inside the code. "Because it looks like Vista, it's an improved Vista with a few minor changes" - That sentence is the problem. The people can only see what's visible. And in fact, 7 looks like an improved Vista. But the must significant changes were made on the kernel. Just open the Task Manager and watch the RAM usage.
    Monday, January 12, 2009 11:59 PM
  • I agree andre. There are other less than notable changes including the bad rap Vista garnered. Like I said MS can do what they like it still changes the licensing even if it is just updating the core which by any other name is Vista. The problem is they bought a product however flawed it was and now they have changed it and given it a new name which I believe they only need to change it by 20% per law to be able to sell it as a new product in the USA.
     It can still look the same but if they did indeed change it by 20% it would explain the improvement in the OS. And since they don't want to come out with the New and Improved Vista they needed a name change. You know just think about all of us who actually went out and got Windows x64 pro only to find out that most vendors didn't see it as a real operating system. But yet they were selling it in retail. Vista was a fail in a majority of the cases just like Windows x64 pro was and now it is time for a real OS to come about. MS met their obligation to change 20% of the system to be able to sell it as a new OS and I for one am happy that they finally got it right! I was patient to wait till they got it worked out and now I think I'll actually buy a license for this new OS. Like I said it is a choice, no one is forcing you to upgrade.
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:46 AM
  • OK, I've spent the whole weekend thinking about this very topic, and here's what I've decided I would do if I were one of the folks in charge...

    XP users are gonna have to pay for Windows 7, that's that. It's fair. You bought your copy 4-6 years ago, or you bought it recently to avoid Vista, but now it's time to upgrade like anyone else. Also, I think it's perfectly fair to not offer an upgrade path for a release that is now officially 2 generations back. It was purely your choice.

    Vista users would be able to buy the upgrade at a significant discount--- Free for Vista buyers within 3 months of RTM, 60% off for buyers within 1 year, 30% off for early adopters- because they bought it and liked it enough to keep it, so again it was their choice.

    But if I were Microsoft, I would drop Vista faster than Microsoft Bob as soon as W7 is available.
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:09 AM
  • MS has said themselves after releasing Vista it was not finished and was almost only a "Beta" in itself. OSX 10.5 just came out so both 10.4 and 10.5 had come after xp with no word from MS, so people demanded the new OS. MS gave in and released Vista before it was ready, and everyone complained.

    It happens a lot people ask and beg, or believe so highly in something that when it comes out as it was planned but not how the "consumer" planned it they get mad.

    Should vista owners get a discount? I think those buying vista within 2-4 months of 7's release should get free upgrade. Anyone else probably would not get anything, though should get at least 10-30% off. XP should pay, its about time.
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:58 AM
  • I certainly am not fan Vista and had many many issues (No, no the typical PEBKAC issues) that's I've blogged about.  I disliked Vista so much that I upgraded my Dell Laptop (at the time) to Windows XP and eventually to *AhemMacBookPro*.  It seems that many of the Microsoft MVPs are also Mac users.  Personally,  I think Windows 7 will change that and after sitting through a few of the Windows 7 NDA session along with playing with the Beta I have to say that I am really impressed with what Microsoft has learned and implemented.  Windows 7 is not a service pack for Vista.  It really is a next generation OS.  Sure the GUI looks the same (similar, but not the same.  UAC is better,  Explorer folders don't ping pong, etc) but there are marked improvements under the hood that make this a really great OS.

    Joe
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:44 AM
    Answerer
  • Let's see: I have a quad boot system now: Xp Pro 64 bit, Vista Prem 64 bit with Sp2 Beta, Win 7 Beta 64 bit and ubantu. Guess which is now loading the fastest? My Beta Win 7. And yes, there is always something newer and better. The average Joe on the street does not care as long as it works. Now most of us who are geeks  and aficionados at various levels, we care. But we spend and we build and we tweak and blog, etc. So the real complainers about MS and Vista etc-Get Lives!!!!
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:47 AM
  • vista isn't that bad... who remembers windows ME?  or the first edition of 98?  when you get down to it, the only great OS microsoft has released since 3.1 is windows 2000!  I predict win7 is gonna be another highlight in their catalog-- eventually-- but vista is pretty much par for the course.  no free OS for you!
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:53 AM
  • I am currently running 4 systems side by side to do video editing, audio editing, and other work. 2 of them are running Vista Ultimate X64, 1 is on XP Pro 32bit, and my main is on Win-7 X64. I got Sony Acid, and Sony Vegas Pro 8 on the Win-7 box at this time, and it really seems to process everything almost 2x faster for me than on XP or on Vista Ultimate x64. All 4 boxes are the exact same only difference is monitor size. I am very impressed with Win-7 thus far, and I do wish Microsoft would have put a little more brain power into Vista. I seem to all ways get problems running Acid Pro with Vista that is why I had a box with XP still on it. Now, it seems everything I have tossed at Win-7 is perfect and runs fast and smooth. I got my sons PC loaded with Win-7 and all his games, everything from Crysis, Fallout 3, Lineage2, and tons of other games, they seem to run much faster than when he was running Vista Ultimate X64 as well, and Fallout does not crash on him constantly like on Vista. So far this OS has a 8.5 on a 1-10 from me, just a few quirks that are annoying like if you turn UAC off, you cant get the side bar to work, the Media Player has things missing like the EQ ect. and other "minor" things. As for a Beta, I got to say this beats the pants off the Vista Beta by a mile MS really has something here lets hope they do some polish work to it like they should have with Vista.
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:15 AM
  •  People said the same thing about windows 95,98,AND  XP.  Thinking back to windows 95, I remember no benefit from the OS until I purchased a new pc or faster pc.  Just because Microsoft releases a new OS doesn't mean every person using 4 year old PCs can upgrade.   I say -->   1. Get a new computer. 2. Stop filling your hard drive with tons of ____.  3. And watch where you browse on the internet, THEN and only then will you realize that Vista is not a bad os.  Probably wouldnt hurt to disable service not being used also. I'm really tired of the Vista bashing. Have ANY of you actually used mac os x or linux in production ? To imply that WINDOWS is the only OS with problems shows your ignorance.


    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:08 PM
  • I think some people are upset by the precedence set by XP, and the expectation that their new OS purchase (Vista) receive the "teir 1" status at MS for a similar length of time.  There are things such as the inclusion of certain video codecs as native to the OS, and the performance upgrades, that I feel should be made available to Vista users either at a heavy discount for upgrade to Win7 or via a free patch, just due to the significant fraction of Vista users who purchased the OS in the last year or so.
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:47 PM
  • XP was good, Vista was good in some respects, but was a bit bloated, Win 7 seems well thought out, and upgrading from Vista to 7 costs less than just buying 7, so there really isn't an issue. Forcing Vista on all new PCs was a bit low though.
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:47 PM
  • I'm mad! I have two almost new dual core laptops that came with Vista premium and when I tried to play a dvr-ms file on either, all I would see was about 75% frame drops. Vista's Media Center was totally unusable! The HD LED would stay lit all the time. CPU load was maxed out no matter what I did. One laptop is an Acer Aspire 9410Z and the other is a HP TX2000. Every time the HD LED came on my blood would just boil!
    I had only one choice at this point. In order to use the laptops I had to upgrade both to XP and that solved my problems. Of course, most of the TX2000's features don't work with XP, but I can a least enjoy a video (dvr-ms file) when I'm in an airport or on a plane. Both of my laptops deliver the performace I expect from a dual core with Vista.
    I don't want to buy a laptop that is capable of using Vista. It would have to be a quad core and consume 500 watts of power! Who wants to travel with a hot potato blowing out heat like a blast furnace.
    Vista Sucks!
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:55 PM
  • when XP came out it became the standard "forced" os. osx 10.5 was "forced" for all later updates and programs. It happens. There is no perfect OS, otherwise no updates would be created. New hardware comes out, software is created, and OS's need to be upped to keep up. 95-2000 looked about the same, dull grey graphics, and then xp brought some color to the bar and windows. Vista comes because everyone wanted it, then they complained that it was not good enough.

    I would also love a quad-core, nice power there. I have a dual core 2.00 (maybe higher), 3gb memory, and standard laptop battery. Vista boots in about 15 sec, 7 in 10. My laptop has never had a heat issue, even when running Dawn of War in high graphics or even WoW in high for hours.

    (also 500 watts isn't a lot in modern computers) 
    Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:59 PM

  • (also 500 watts isn't a lot in modern computers) 

    Agreed. My tower is a 1200w system...now that is a heater for sure!

    Anyways, vista bashing...well...most of the time is spot on. Not your ignorant comments from your average joe on the street but the ones from people that demand a bit out of their system. I tried it once but definitely noticed there was a lot more going on inside than XP or now 7. I hated it, I noticed a severe drag on the system right out of the box. This was done on a dual core AMD at 3.4ghz, 3x 9800GTX's, 4gig DDR2800 running at 1100mhz, FSB at 1400mhz, and one OCZ SSD.

    Now that I have 7 I too noticed a great improvement over Vista AND XP. I always felt Vista was for people that would take off running mid-conversation if they saw something shiney. Alotta average low knowledge users love it, the rest not so much.

    The "microsoft owes us something" is most definitely retarded. That is what research is for. Go buy a video card and then a year later when everything embarasses what you bought go try to get something free or discounted even. They will laugh very hard in your face for your ignorance. This is why alot of XP users still exhist, they did their research through un-biased sources and held off.

    Windows 7 is a much better setup, this time they definitely put the time where it counts...behind the scenes.

    Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1:50 AM
  • I remeber Me(much to my chagrin) and look what followed. Probably the most successful O/S there will ever be. However, the world needs to realize it's time is past Xp is now what 9+ years old. How many of us keep cars that long . If we look at how much better Vista is with graphics and handeling newer tech. There is no contest . Vista Sp2 is really good and I already like Win 7 even more. And it is true, the code changes are there inside. Unfortunently, ave Joe does not know, nor care. To anyone who poh-pohs MS and their O/S es needs to see the freedom we have with the O/S and have MS update for us. And if we want change, we do not have to buy a whole new machine from the software vendor.
    Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:11 AM
  • You may have payed for windows 3.1, also, 9t5, 9t5 plus, win9t8, win9t8 second edition, windows me, win xp home, win xp pro, vista home basic, vista pro, still yet we pay out for a upgrade of a old os,

    when is it time for a complete remake then a upgrade !!!

    Idear for microsoft.

    1./ Start of building a system for kids we have many operating systems for grown ups.

    2./ Kids no how to get what they want of Mommy' i want new laptop with cool animals on it, you no if mommy won't buy, then is daddy might do.

    Maybe using animals as a user interface that kids would love to play on, don't you think at the moment win 7 is for grown ups.

    Get on the bandwaggon or your big truck and put a nice os out there for the little ones.

    Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:33 AM
  • MikeBreta said:

    I do seem to like W7 but I don't think its fair for Vista owners because basically this is what Vista should of been . MS pull up will you for Vista owners and show that you do care for your customers . I know if you did this would make Apple look sad ...



    Wow, what a bad and wrong viewpoint.  I guess that older car owners should be mad about new car models coming out with better features?  Get a clue, OK?

    I love Vista.  There is very little wrong with it, and far less wrong with it than XP.  Should XP owners be mad at Vista owners in your viewpoint?

    And, BTW, Apple already looks sad in comparison to Vista.  But you have to look beyond the idiots who bad mouth Vista because it's different.
    Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:07 PM
  • umm, ok.

    Nothing wrong with windows tbh, they are like all companies, some stuff is good, other stuff isn't, ME was a good example how not to make an OS, and personally, I don't think Vista was any good either, but 7 already beats Vista and XP in my eyes, and the upgrade from Vista to 7 will cost less than 7 outright, so why complain?

    You are getting a discount by trade in, your fault for buying a ____ car (If you think it's ____).
    Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:00 PM
  • For me, W7 has so far proved to be FASTER and better than XP in a lot of ways. The most convincing for me was trying to run Crysis on my laptop in XP and having it chatter and frameskip and lag all to hell, but then running it again in W7 on a crappy 60GB hard drive with a base score of 2 and having it run smoothly with no lag. I was blown away!

    I got a copy of Vista from lenovo because I bought my laptop in the 3 month period before Vista came out, but I just never installed it out of fear. This W7 beta has restored my faith in MS to some degree.

    Also of note was the fact that W7 managed to install drivers for everything but my fingerprint reader without me having to spend countless hours on Windows update like you do with XP. Everything just plain worked and worked well without any third party anything, which also surprised me because I figured there would be a lot of driver downloading from Lenovo to be done. Sure it's got a few bugs with sleep, and I've had a couple random program crashes, but hey, it's a Beta. I will definitely buy W7 when it is released.

    BTW I have a lenovo thinkpad z61m with a core duo at 1.83Ghz, 3GB of RAM, and a 128MB ati mobility x1400. Also as stated, W7 is running on my crappy old 60gb 5400rpm hitachi travelstar HDD.
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:00 AM
  • Sounds a bit over complex, I think a 50% discount for Vista owners would be fair enough, I'd buy 2.
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:50 AM
  • I run Vista 64 quite happily (but now seeing Windows 7 I see what it could have been) and was recently asked about Vista by a person who had only heard the bad rap. And I described it like this:

    'It was the OS we had to have' (as in the recession Paul Keating said Australia had to have)

    Now while MS definately mismanaged the release, system specs, getting the hardware driver devs on board, etc, etc, etc...Windows 7 wouldn't look this good without the foundations laid by Vista. The annoying UAC system got devs to tighten their code so it didn't require admin rights. We now have 64-bit drivers for most recent hardware. The security model has been significantly improved. And it caused a lot of pain to Vista users while we got here.

    But if Windows 7 had been released straight out, a lot of the issues faced by Vista would be faced by Windows 7 instead. MS can loosen the UAC system now because the Vista UAC system got the change they needed.

    These are just my thoughts obviously, but I don't think we could be in our current position without the pain we've gone through (we'll some of the pain at least). It's like when a company hires a new executive to lay off employees and they take the hate, then they fire him and get a new one that pals up to the staff. All the bad blood goes with the old exec.

    Maybe Vista will be like that. It pushes through the admin rights and driver nastiness required to get to a more secure position, everyone can dump Vista and love Windows 7. :)
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:39 AM
  • I use Vista but I am not mad. Microsoft is making a new Product and as such I expect to pay for it when it releases. As stated earlier by some people, say you just bought an brand new '08 model car but then six months later the '09 models enter the show rooms. Nobody expects the company to issue a free refund/exchange/replacement for the upgrade. Windows 7 is much more then a service pack and as such it should be charged for, I can only hope the prices aren't as high as Vista prices origionally were.
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:42 PM
  • MS has historically offerred a retail upgrade for Windows.  Unlike other companies it usually doesn't matter what version of Windows you are upgrading from, one upgrade and one price fits all.

    I think it would be much fairer with a tiered system, ie the older the system you are upgrading from, the more the upgrade costs.  Those that have upgraded with every new OS ultimately then have the cheapest upgrade path to Windows 7.

    Similar to the car analogy above, if you had a newer car to part exchange against the 09 model, you'd be paying less than someone with an older car.
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:01 PM
  • the secrecy of it all was what kept Vista down it had the potential to be a great OS if it was not for the secrecy.
    the public beta of  windows 7 is because  i believe they seen that flaw and made its beta public for reasons of testing it getting public view and then if it is fully functional releasing it.
    look at the Linux community and how it grows and expands through public help some of them have to pay employees to get the job done but most of the inner workings of Linux are GNU public creations even the most popular browser Firefox is GNU and look where it has gone. IE's  stocks have dropped because of Firefox's popularity now with this public help of Windows 7 i believe that it will become greatly advanced and highly used.

    for Vista users im sure some will be mad im sure the same will happen for XP users but none the less anger only gets you so far most people will just get mad then go and upgrade because its life not everything is fair or right or even justified but it is life in a world bent on being rich money makes all the diffrence in Microsofts case they are the largest corperation in the world at the moment  so mistakes like vista can not be taken back just improved on and put in the past im sure they will find a way to make it right and im sure we will all adapt to new things

    enjoy windows 7 ;)
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:06 PM
  • MikeBreta said:

    All I know is people who spend good hard cash for Vista should protest against Microsoft and refuse to every use Windows again unless MS does something very fairly to them and I don't mean the ones who are going to buy it after July 1 either ... Vista owners aren't you piss ? MS with Windows 7 is really Vista the way it should of been and now Vista owners are left with a bloated down OS that nobody will be using in a few years from now ( 2 years ). Don't just sit there and take it do something about it .



    Boy, don't I wish everything in the World was free, and perfect.

    Vista is a very good OS.  I would never expect MS to give any discount.  I'd expect OEM computer makers to do something, they always do.  But Microsoft is in business, and like all businesses they are there to make money.  Not to give out freebies to all the folks that step up and complain.  Just like the move to Vista, nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade a good XP machine to Vista.  It's a choice.  If you feel you made the wrong choice, that's your problem not Microsoft's.  I personally upgraded every machine I own to Vista, and extremely glad I did.  I'll most likely do the same for W7 once it's for sale.  And, yes, I'll buy my copies just like anyone else who wishes to move ahead.

    There.  I did something.
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:07 PM
  • I think it's funny that people keep thinking they are OWED a free major release every time one is released because it's better than the last one.

    Let's say I go and buy a new Chevy Cavalier with a 4 cylinder motor.  It drives nice, has a nice stereo, no problems to complain about.  Most things work, and work well. (And, I've actually driven it so I know what I'm talking about!  Ahem.  Something a LOT of Vista bashers have not done.)

    Next week, Chevy comes out with a new Corvette-ish Cavalier with a V8 motor.  It's Prettier, Faster, Sounds better, has more options, etc....

    Am I entitled to a FREE Upgrade?

    I think not!

    IF you'd actually used Vista for more than a couple days, you'd see that it performs quite well.  That is if you are not trying to run it on a Dinosaur of a computer without enough graphics power, memory, or CPU.

    Should Microsoft ALWAYS keep their software in the dark ages so that older systems and software are compatible?  I'd hope not.  We'd never advance technologically if they did that.  I for one am Happy to upgrade my computer every year or two to keep up with new software or OSes.  Otherwise, it's like driving the newer Corvette-ish Cavalier with the older 4 cylinder motor.  Not as much fun!
    Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:29 PM
  • I am one of the Vista bashers but I have a bit of a right...I quad boot (haha if thats what its called) with 32bit XP, 64bit XP, Windows7 64bit, and 64bit Vista and OC'ing, TRI-SLI'ing, etc is very much a pain in Vista 64 compared to XP 64. I mainly keep XP32 on there for a fallback if either 64bit OS's give me ____. Not a bad operating system and better in most areas than XP but worse where it counts (to me anyways and alot of my friends in the same intrests). Not to mention the pathetic resource sucking (still) but here is 7 that is most definitely improved on that note.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 12:56 AM
  • I've been using Vista since I got my notebook about a year ago and I don't have any problems with it. I mean sure it uses up more resources than XP but it's not like it eats up everything and makes it impossible to run programs. Recently, I upgraded my RAM to 2GB and it made a huge difference my computer is running a whole lot better. I've got the option to switch over to XP, since Sony has XP drivers up that I can download, but I like Vista a whole lot more. It's more user friendly and it looks a whole lot better than XP. It's all a matter of opinion though, Vista is nowhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be. There's not a huge difference between Vista and XP.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 12:56 AM
  • LBC_Sublimer said:

    I've been using Vista since I got my notebook about a year ago and I don't have any problems with it. I mean sure it uses up more resources than XP but it's not like it eats up everything and makes it impossible to run programs. Recently, I upgraded my RAM to 2GB and it made a huge difference my computer is running a whole lot better. I've got the option to switch over to XP, since Sony has XP drivers up that I can download, but I like Vista a whole lot more. It's more user friendly and it looks a whole lot better than XP. It's all a matter of opinion though, Vista is nowhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be. There's not a huge difference between Vista and XP.



    Vista Premium 64 bit with 6Gb or more of memory, on a desktop, is a very good OS (better than XP). I would not run Vista Premium , Basic should not be an option, on a notebook without a dualcore and at least 3Gb of memory. 
    Friday, January 16, 2009 2:23 AM
  • Well,
    I do like looking at threads like this.
    The vast array of different opinions always seems to interest me and i really like the "New Car" analogy.  It really shows how people think it should work and how it really works.
    If you bought a brand new car without researching it (vista on release day) got it home and found it had a square wheel, you would expect a replacement. you take it to the garage and instead of giving you your old car back (XP) they replace your wheel for you in a nice, easy to use and install automatic update.  as and when you find an issue, generally microsoft will issue a fix/patch for it.  (just take the recent IE security flaw that was deemed pretty serious and was fixed a week later) No different to taking your new car to the shop and waiting for the new faulty hose to be replaced but it needs to be delivered first.

    Now,
    If you do a little research and talk to a few ITPro's and they recommend you keep your XP installed (the next model of your car will have nice wheels and even free air conditioning) and you still chose the car with square wheels, who else but yourself do you have to blame?

    I think it is completely unreasonable for ANYONE to expect a free or discounted upgrade just because they bought vista and it is not what they like to use.  I personally have feelings for and against Vista and i have been using it since it came out.  I believe that it runs smoother than xp when it comes to video editing and playing with audio (in my opinion, the machine code for XP just wasn't built for that purpose)  and playing games which i occassionally do run so much smoother than they ever did with XP.  That being said, i think the glaring issues with vista really can tilt the scales a bit for some people.  i personally was enraged by vista's ability to only utilise 3 of the 4 gig of RAM i had installed(on x86 of course, the 64-bit was much more accomitating but had it's own issues).  And to be honest, i love the pretty cosmetic stuff, but i did feel like vista was truly bloated.

    all that aside,  If people can look at W7 as an independant operating system, and NOT just an upgrade to Vista and send decent, useful feedback to MS while they are using it, Quite literally everything youlike and don't like, then we may get the OS that we all finally want.

    My last note. (somewhat off topic)
    To the people i am seeing asking about upgrading the beta when retail is out, how do i put vista back, etc etc.  these people need to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS before using the damn beta.
    Upgrades will NOT be offered
    ONLY use the beta if you are comfortable troubleshooting etc etc
    do NOT use this on your main PC if you are not comfortable with the possibility of losing everything you dont back up

    Its all writtren there before you download it


    This Is Your Life And Its Ending One Minute At A Time
    Friday, January 16, 2009 10:25 AM
  • I would've gone up to 3gb but my notebook only supports up to 2gb so it's not like I had much of a choice. But I've got Home Premium and it runs pretty nice on my notebook. I'm running a dual core 1.6GHz processor with 2gb RAM like I said. I didn't think it'd make a big difference but it did my computer is running a lot better than it did with just 1gb, I was very surprised.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 4:12 PM
  • I tell you what,

    That extra 1Gb comes in handy when your using stupidly system heavy software like premiere pro (check the gasps, i hate it too) or Sony Vegas.

    Crysis likes the extra RAM too

    This Is Your Life And Its Ending One Minute At A Time
    Friday, January 16, 2009 4:35 PM
  • Yeah see I don't use anything like that, but I get what you're saying. The most I do is use Nero to burn multiple projects, stream music, use internet, and instant message; and I don't have any problems doing all that at the same time.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 5:36 PM
  • i agree with all above there should be and will not be any free or discount upgrades for vista unless Microsoft says there is a good reason for this much like the XP systems they released after vista come out they added a pretty sticker saying free upgrade to vista which was not a Microsoft doing it was a System Manufacturer doing.

    if they do so again its at there own penny not Microsoft's i believe as i said above they are doing as any other major corp in the world would and thats make the money required to stay alive.

    i don't care about the free handout or the free upgrade or discount i am just loveing the open beta feeling of it all its a  amazing leap for Microsoft to risk information leaking and all that from this beauty of a operating system to let the public give there view on the next gen Operating System and i for one will not mess this opertunity up by abuseing Microsoft's trust.

    i am sorry to say it but as much as we all like to believe there is a better replacement for everything Microsoft's Operating System is one of a kind with ease of use and awsome program's.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 5:38 PM
  • Let's be honest.
    When your name is symbolic of the industry standard in home and business operating systems.
    And you have worked hard enough to ensure that Apple is no longer the first thought when someone mentions DTP programs
    You can do pretty much what you like.

    I am grateful to microsoft for allowing the average joe public to try the beta free gratis and happily take our comments about our feelings and thoughts on the new look etc.
    I only got to play with the Vista Beta/RC because someone passed me a copy that they were invited to try but didnt want.

    I don't think the leak of code is too much of a worry as the W7 beta is an evolution of vista which is easily available to all and sundry. 

    Bring on the next Beta or release candidate.
    I look forward to seeing how MS takes the comments we all make.

    This Is Your Life And Its Ending One Minute At A Time
    Friday, January 16, 2009 5:45 PM
  • Lonewolf,

    I'm surprised to find the W7 beta is faster than Vista SP1. Here is the timing of a test I run on some in house software. It is a program we make using SQL Server 2005 Express as the data base.

    25 min 40 sec on XP SP3 on a 2.8Ghz HT CPU, 2.5GB RAM, WD 7200 rpm hard drive
    5 min 30 sec on Vista 64 SP1 on a 3.0 core duo, 4GB RAM, WD 7200 rpm drive
    4 min 20 sec on W7 64 beta 1 on the same 3.0 core duo, 4GB RAM, WD 7200 rpm drive

    I'd gladly pay the fee to upgrade to W7 for a 25% improvement in performance over Vista. This is better than expected form a new beta.

    The next machine here will be an i7 CPU running W7. That is going to be fast!

    MylesJ
    Friday, January 16, 2009 6:07 PM
  • I haven't done any benchmarking, but I wonder if the snappy feel of W7 is due to our just having installed it?  Isn't every fresh copy of any Windows version pretty snappy until you've installed and uninstalled a hundred different programs and added and removed a bunch of different hardware?

    Let's see how it does after a bit of entropy has set in before we declare a winner.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 6:50 PM
  • This is what is on my Win-7 box at this time. I got No Slow Down like on the other machines at all! I am very impressed.

    Sony ACID Pro
    Sony Vegas Pro
    Corel PSP X2
    27 Games too many to try listing, but everything from Crysis to FarCry 1.
    Everest
    CCleaner
    AVG Anti Virus
    Nero 8
    ConvertXtoDVD
    Total Video Converter
    Adobe CS4
    After Effects
    Autodesk
    Turbo Cad
    115GB of Images
    200GB of MP3 FLAC, WMA, WAV, RA, M4A, AAC, AC3, OGG
    500GB AVI, MPEG, WMV, DivX, MP4, H.264/AVC, AVCHD, MKV, RM, MOV, XviD, 3GP, etc.
    and about 25 other programs that I use for work.

    My other work boxes I use have the exact same data on them with every OS from Vista X64 Ultimate, to XP, and XP X64 and
    Win-7 it tearing my times in half on most things, and not far off half on others that are more intensive.
    Currently Testing Windows 7 Beta: 4 Systems built the same: 1Win7 ~ 2Vista Ultimate X64 ~ 1XP Pro/XP Pro X64 Dual Boot Box AMD X4 Phenom II 940, 8GB Corsair XMS2, EVGA 730a Motherboard, EVGA 9800 GX2 SCC, 2x500GB 32MEG Cache Seagate SATA Drives in Raid-0, 2x1TB WD SATA Data Drives, 6xHP w2207h HDMI LCD, 52" Mitsubishi LCD TV, Antec 900 Case, Antec TPQ 1000w PSU, 2 Sony BluRay Burner Drives.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 8:22 PM
  • barth2k

    Depending on how badly you manage or mismanage your PC, you can experience performance degradation over time. This is true of any OS/hardware combination. 

    For my test of the difference between Vista and W7, both OS's had the exact same software installed except for the OS version. For a beta to be 25% faster than a service pack is impressive.

    Betas are generally slow. There can be a lot of logging, tracking actions at breakpoints, etc. that will be gone in the retail version. If you have been doing the IE8 beta you will have seen the performance increase of each release.

    I'm timing a long job on proprietary software we sell. This helps me recommend the proper level of hardware to match the performance expectations of customers. I have a customer that uses a particular feature in an unusual way. He would like the program to be faster in that area. I can fix his problem with several thousand dollars of custom programming or for $500 with an O/S and hard drive upgrade that will benefit his other applications as well.

    Friday, January 16, 2009 8:24 PM
  • I bought a new HP Notebook in April of 2007. It had Vista on it... It's worked just fine.

    So I really don't understand why some people feel they've been ripped off.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 9:20 PM
  • I agree with you all, this is just the real Verison of VISTA and what it was to be.  NOW they come out with Windows 7 to make everyone believe that it's a new OS, in the mean time if you have VISTA it's best if you upgrand from it.  So, it makes you wonder just how important customers are to MS.  I don't think they think we mattter, but MS, should steup and give it to the people that had vista already.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 9:43 PM
  • RobertNWV414 said:

    I agree with you all, this is just the real Verison of VISTA and what it was to be.  NOW they come out with Windows 7 to make everyone believe that it's a new OS, in the mean time if you have VISTA it's best if you upgrand from it.  So, it makes you wonder just how important customers are to MS.  I don't think they think we mattter, but MS, should steup and give it to the people that had vista already.


    Uhh that's just not logical. Say you go buy a video card and a week later an improved model comes out the same price as the one you just bought, same specs, but just runs better...would you demand a free card? No. If you did they would give you a respectful reply telling you how they can't do that and be secretly laughing their butts off in the office. That is just not how it works. Get off your high horse expecting an entire free OS because you are upset something new came out so fast.

    I have Vista myself but also kept XP, you won't find me whining about wanting a free OS because this is "what vista shoulda been". It doesn't work that way with cars, bikes, houses, computer hardware, furniture, etc...I mean name it and it doesn't work that way. Why do you think that is how it's supposed to be here? It is a product and a newer better product came out. That doesn't mean free replacement. It'd be awesome if that's how the consumer market worked, heck...none of us woulda ever paid for more than one car, house, etc etc etc.

    MS owes you nothing, really when you think about it they would have every right to charge for those major service pack updates. They don't. So maybe that's why a bunch of these self righteous idiots think they are owed an ENTIRE FREE OS. They gave an inch and some people want a mile.

    /rant
    Friday, January 16, 2009 10:23 PM
  • I never upgraded to vista and haven't bought a pc with vista on it so I have no beef.  If I'm disappointed about something, it's not that w7 is vista done right, but that it isn't more of an upgrade from vista.  Looking at the what's new with w7 pages I found, there doesn't seem to be a lot of new stuff under the hood.  Didn't Longhorn promise much more?

    in any event, I can say w7 beta runs a lot better than the vista beta I tried.  this is on the same machine, which back then was solidly on the performance end of the scale.  the vista beta ran pretty slow.  w7 beta feels like release code (except for the some missing drivers for me) whereas the vista beta felt like alpha code.

    maybe MSFT will give a discount for ppl upgrading from vista.  it'll be a good PR move and probably good business given the current economy.
    Friday, January 16, 2009 11:37 PM
  • Cry,whine,cry,whine. You people would spend 200.00 for the latest phone or IPod or whatever. Drop 300.00 for a MB or PSU, but spen 110 or 125 for a new O/S after say 3 years or so? And who is forcing anyone to change from Vista to 7? Have any of your installed the Sp2 for Vista yet? I have and it makes Vista so much smoother, which means my Vista rig will keep on chugging. My old rig, when rebuilt will get Win 7 if avail. If not use the XP until that time. Trouble makers. Just like the reviewers on Newegg, blaming Intel because the can't install the fan or Newegg because they happened to get an OEM HDD without SATA cables. Be relavent in the posts. I come here to learn not see gripes so I will stop mine
    Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:11 AM
  • I think Windows 7 is GREAT!!! I have used Vista since it was released and I like it also, but man o man Windows 7 is GREAT!!! It's so different than Vista. It's sleek and modern. I'm discovering new stuff everyday.
    Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:24 AM
  • Myles, et al:
    as a note:
    running Ubantu, xppro 64,vista prem 64 and 7 64bit on a rig of seasonic 600w psu, 2x wd hdd 500gb with 32mb cache split in half on each for o/s, nvidia 8600gt, intel 6750 proc, 8gb kingston value ram ddr2 800 on  a Gigabyte P35-d4s board and no ocing
    Xp load fron time I option it: 26.8 sec average
    Ubantu: 19.6 sec
    Vista Prem 16.9 sec
    Win 7 Beta 14.1 sec
    Everything installed on O/s is as equal as possible
    I di not use any of the scientific means, bute even so that is impressive
    Dave

    Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:37 AM
  • haters abreviate it M$ for a reason-- and, unfortunatly, it's not charity for their customers
    Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:54 AM
  • lonewolf said:

    Cry,whine,cry,whine. You people would spend 200.00 for the latest phone or IPod or whatever. Drop 300.00 for a MB or PSU, but spen 110 or 125 for a new O/S after say 3 years or so? And who is forcing anyone to change from Vista to 7? Have any of your installed the Sp2 for Vista yet? I have and it makes Vista so much smoother, which means my Vista rig will keep on chugging. My old rig, when rebuilt will get Win 7 if avail. If not use the XP until that time. Trouble makers. Just like the reviewers on Newegg, blaming Intel because the can't install the fan or Newegg because they happened to get an OEM HDD without SATA cables. Be relavent in the posts. I come here to learn not see gripes so I will stop mine


    /Agreed

    Currently Testing Windows 7 Beta: 4 Systems built the same: 1Win7 ~ 2Vista Ultimate X64 ~ 1XP Pro/XP Pro X64 Dual Boot Box AMD X4 Phenom II 940, 8GB Corsair XMS2, EVGA 730a Motherboard, EVGA 9800 GX2 SCC, 2x500GB 32MEG Cache Seagate SATA Drives in Raid-0, 2x1TB WD SATA Data Drives, 6xHP w2207h HDMI LCD, 52" Mitsubishi LCD TV, Antec 900 Case, Antec TPQ 1000w PSU, 2 Sony BluRay Burner Drives.
    Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:40 AM
  • Did anyone get a discount when the upped to the beautiful XP from the truely god awful ME?

    I personally have paid for xp AND vista in my time for more than one machine.

    If you want Free, completely updatable,  I suggest LINUX


    I really do agree with lonewolf.
    I have said earlier that i come here to see other peoples experiences with W7 and maybe learn a little something.
    there are blogs and forums all over about the hate that people have for MS and Vista.

    Please leave the W7 forums on technet to those that want to use them for their intended use



    This Is Your Life And Its Ending One Minute At A Time
    Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:06 AM
  • I don't expect them to, but does anyone remember a time when a new operating system was released within just a few years what Microsoft did to promote goodwill towards customers that had upgraded to their previous OS.  They offered that new operating system to those customers for only $49 for a limited time.  This was when Microsoft released Windows ME and they wanted to give Win 98 users an incentive to upgrade.  I don't expect they will give a discount on Windows 7, but I wouldn't completely discount the idea either.  Contrary to popular belief, they HAVE done so in the past, so there is a possibility that they might do the same for Vista users who upgrade to Windows 7.
    Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:29 PM
  • I like 7 - so far a lot more than Vista.  Don't get me wrong - I do enjoy Vista - but so far I've noticed that 7 seems to fly on things like booting up and definitely shutting down.  Vista takes awhile to shut down.

    Of course - right now - I have a quadruple boot system.  I use System Commander - and I'm able to boot into 7, Vista, XP Pro, or Mandriva Linux.

    And for all of them - there's are things I like and dislike.  But, right now - 7 has become my main operating system of choice.

    MS has the right idea with this one.
    Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:59 PM
  • Good perspective: I've had no trouble with Vista because I read what machines the support people were building in anticipation of the final release. No doubt they were beta testing. I spent $399 for software and $1700 for computer parts. Must say Windows 7 is much faster, especially on start up.
    Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:59 PM
  • I have use al os from windows 3.1 to XP, as a person on long term sick with limited income as with vist my problem has been cash flow. I would love to have vista when xp finaly dies, what i would like to see is family edition of Win7  as i have a pc the wife the children buying seperat copies will be on the tad expensive.
    Maybe with Win7 family you get the OS but able to activate on upto 4 pcs and charge a extra 15% ontop. I know there would be fraudulent possibilites but if you do it on say ip based it could work :D.

    i like Win7 it runs nice at the mo and all the progs i need runs with no hic cups , as alwasy  price will be my deciding factor
    Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:32 PM
  • First off I never said a free upgrade . I'm saying a discount to Vista user's would be nice .

    Don't forget guys most of these people who reply in my post that are on MS side probably work for MS and they have to sell MS products or else they will be one of these below

     

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10128880-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

    Friday, January 23, 2009 4:14 PM
  • It is possible they (MS) will do something like they did with ME to XP. Win 98 users where not qualified to buy the cheaper upgrade version of XP but ME users where. ( At least this is how I remember it )

     

    If I'm misremembering or not this would seem like a good idea to me. Vista owners get to buy a discounted upgrade to Win 7. XP users have to buy the full version.  Oh and beta users get the same break. :-)

     

    LOL can you guess I did not buy Vista?


    Computer User
    Friday, January 23, 2009 4:22 PM
  • People think about this a little

    Windows95  - Windows 98  (3 years)

    Windows98 - Windows 2000/NT (2Years)

    Windows 2000/NT - Windows XP[2001] (1 Year)    most change from Windows 98 to Xp  (3 years)

    Windows xp[2001] - Vista[2006] (5 years)

    Windows Vista[2006] -  Windows7 [approximal 2009] ( ~3Years+)

     

    Microsoft uses often an Upgrade system, were you was able to get it a little cheaper.

     

    Think before cry. Its not that suddenly after 6 month a new Windows was coming out.

    Think about someone using an Anti Vir Licence for version 2008. 2 month later the 2009 version comes out. He will get updates till his licence runns out. But he won't be able to use the 2009 version. [example Norton]

    Friday, January 23, 2009 7:42 PM
  •  Your not reading what Windows 7 can do. It is a great improvement over Vista, just as Vista is over xp.

    Since I switched to Vista from XP, not one crash, no virsus, no malware. My friendly computer repair guys hope noone switches from XP since they will no more costly reloads of xp. I had 2.

     

    Check out Libraries in 7 and bitlocker

     

    Bob

    Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:42 PM
  •  I AGREE::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:47 PM
  • I have had no real problems with Vista. I resisted using it for a long time, but since I do a lot of IT work, I jumped into the 64-bit on one machine. I have had no more issues with this than with XP. It took a slight amount of getting used to. I used Yamicsoft Vista Manager to get rid of annoying things.

    I like Windows 7 in that I can avoid most of Vista's annoyances without additional help. However, for what I use on a daily basis, so far I have noticed no real differences in Vista and Seven (other than cosmetic). So far I tend to agree that this is what Vista should have been and people with Vista should get a very significant savings on this version.

    Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:10 PM
  • I am using a network with different Systems (used all former windows , now XP home+Pro, Vista diff. versions) and no Windows 7 64bit version. Until today (2 weeks) I had no crashes, blue screens and problems with Windows 7, as well I had never problems with my vista systems. A little difficult is the the configuration of the networkswith vista. Windows 7, which seems to be a better vista, is a little easier and much more faster.

    Great system!

    Monday, January 26, 2009 9:08 AM
  •  

    Windows 7 public beta has "Vista" written all over. I think that pre beta was much faster…


    snovakovic
    Monday, January 26, 2009 10:58 AM
  • This Vista owner is not mad about it at all .. Vista (ultimate x64) is fine ... Win 7 is a nice idea that makes my pc look more like my Mac ;)

    As far as Beta software goes, I am very impressed with Win 7 so far.

    Sure there are some glitches, but I expected that, and have had no problem at all finding a solution to the problems (so far).

     

    Monday, January 26, 2009 8:14 PM
  • I'm all for advances in technology. R&D costs money. I have no clue on how to program my own OS, so, I have to rely on software designers to do this. Windows 7 is a step up from all the previous versions, in my opinion. I'm not mad at all. I'm glad to see these improvements being developed.

    Somebody else mentioned automobiles. I drive a 2003 Ford Ranger. It looks good, runs good, has low mileage...Do I get mad because Ford comes out with newer versions of the Ranger every year ?? Of course not. Do I like the new models ?? Of course, but a new truck every year would be out of my affordabilty range. Does Ford offer me a new truck every year for free ?? Of course not. The same reasoning holds true with Microsoft. As long as they are reasonable with their price, and I can afford it, I'll get the new Windows 7 software when it comes out. I'll probably get the 32 Bit Home Premium Version, as I don't need lots of bells and whistles.

    Think for a minute if the alternative was true, that Microsoft closed down R&D, and said there will be no more updates or new operating systems. That would get boring. Think if they would have done that after Windows '98 came out, we'd be stuck with '98......

    Monday, January 26, 2009 9:37 PM
  • But Microsofts pricing for Vista was too high. Ultimate retail was $399 out of the gate (no SP1 back then) the upgrade was a little bit less than that and OEM a little less than that and so on.....I'm not seeing a whole lot different OS here than Vista. I've been running Ultimate 64 since day one and have Windows 7 64 dual booting with it now, they run very close to the same performance. I'm amazed how stable the beta is but that is thanks to Vista. Microsoft should be easy on us Vista people because we did upgrade from XP (XP does run and look old). If Microsoft would keep pricing in check and not have 5 different versions then maybe we all can be happy. Just my take on it.
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:36 AM
  •  Why are you crying about Vista? It' a product that no one forced you to buy, I think Win7 is leaps above Vista and we should be grateful M$ heared our complaints about Vista and improved it with Win7 although I am sure laying off 5000 people cause of the backlash of Vista might have something to do with it aswell I still feel Win7 has alot more to offer then Vista. We all could be stuck with no Win7 and still be using Vista. I just hope the 5000 M$ employees that got fired are the entire Vista team that way there stink don't roll over into Win7.
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:49 AM
  • In the music industry most will not touch vista with a ten foot poll. They seem to be loyal to xp 32 and 64 even its not supported. Vista reminds me of ME not really bloated but mainly set up more along the lines of entertainment. As far as music production goes I can see now why Vista was avoided. Ever since I loaded win 7 on my dual boot pc. There is a huge noticable differences in performance. Even the die hards are checking out windows 7.   
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:56 AM
  • I will add my 2 cent I like vista and not upset that I paid for it.  I run vista on my media center for last year and half and is amd 3800 has 2 gb ram It runs wonderful even with 2 user logged on. Out of all the also with the exception of maybe windows 2000(1st reall os that worked) I have logged the most hours on vista. The media center machine runs 24 x7 for last year and half with very little down time. My amd tl-38 laptop has run vista from the day that it was 1st released upgrade from windows xp pro and is still on that same install. With no re imaging. So I am huge vista fan see nothing really wrong with it(It had some drivers issues begining but I don't blame ms for that). I have even run vista on old amd xp 1800 core(rip 5 year old power supply died took the motherboard with it).
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:15 AM
  • One nice feature they have incorprated right into the download experience with W7 is an up-front analysis of your hardware and software to let you know ahead of time the consqeuences of updgrading. This has been around since XP, but needed to be run as a separate step and I'm sure a lot of people never new about it or never bothered to run it and thus were disappointed when they updgraded.

    I bought a new computer that was designed to run Vista and was pre-loaded with it. My experience has been very positive and I have never understood all the negative comments I have read about Vista, with the exception of the confusing and frustrating mishmash of security permission surrounding in particular file management. Vista was not incompatible with MS Office, Quicken or any of the other software I run. I did need to download one or two device drivers, but this was no problem.  The computer even ran well with Norton security suite pre-installed. I have since replaced Norton with a similar product that my ISP provides free of charge

     The conclusion I arrived at was that upgrading from XP to Vista was seldom a good idea, but also that there was no need to avoid Vista when buying a new computer. 

    Since I am fairly computer literate, and am retired and not dependent on my computer to make a living, I have taken a chance on upgrading my operating system to W7 bacause of all the ggod things I was reading about it.  I have had a few glitches, but have been able to resolve them and I intend to stay with W7 until I find out what my options are in August. I feel it is unlikely at this point that I will ever revert back to Vista. 

    I agree, it would be nice if Microsoft offered us Vista "pioneers" some kind of migration incentive, especially in view of the relatively short life span of Vista but I really don't feel that Vista was the "dog" that many do.  Moreover, if you look at MS hostory  with W98 and then W98+,   I don't believe they gave W98 + to anybody free of charge. Also, does anybody remember W-ME, the absolute worst operating system in the history of MS.  I also paid for that one and after a while went back and did a clean re-install of W98 plus. 

    Cheers

     
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:23 PM
  • The Vista BETA had some really neat features that never made it to the RTM, and the same will be true for 7, so don't feel too bad until it's released.

    I tend to think of 7 as Vista Service Pack 2... and that's all it should be.

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:20 PM
  • Disagree that "most came to Vista prejudiced by what their friend told them down at the pub".  I don't have MS market figures here, but I'd bet most came to it as a preloaded OS on the new computer they, or their IT department, bought.

    Most of the people I've had to help with OS problems saw a demo Vista -- usually on a store shelf -- and said "I don't want THAT..!" about one part of it or another part of it, but were sadled with it on their new laptop.  I think they're going to say "I don't want THAT..!" it about 7, too; I don't believe it was the BSOD rumors or the rumors about performance that held people back, it's been the obfuscation of their everyday tasks that the new GUI's impose on them.

    Jeers, must go to the computer manufacturers who sold machines with Vista pre-installed on hardware - CPU's, RAM and graphics - that weren't up to the task of running Vista.  But I still hold the most jeers for MS for publishing an OS that required so much raw computing horsepower just to run that nearly all computers in use went obsolete when it was released.

    I'm not having the same horsepower issues with 7 that I've had with Vista, and all my temperatures - CPU, RAM, graphics cards, and HDD's -- are significantly lower running 7 Ultimate than running Vista Business.  And that's a definite improvement!

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:36 PM
  • So you're the God of consumer comments, are you?  I always wondered who that idiot was; now I know.

    The point of a consumer comment is not just to lick the face of the master; it's also to tell them what isn't working and what doesn't cut it for them. as a consumer.

    Geez... if all we ever said was "How wonderful!" we'd all still be uing DOS 2.0.

    Give the "Love it or leave it" idea a rest, would you please?

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:39 PM
  • They aren't selling anything tangible; they are licensing use.
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:40 PM
  • I disagree that XP degrades faster over time than Vista.  I rebuild (i.e. wipe clean and reinstall) all the software on my machines, servers included, once a year.  I have used Vista since the pre-BETA (Longhorn) was released to MSDN Subscribers, have only once had a BSOD (on the pre-BETA) and have no terrible reliability or compatibility experiences to relate (except: I hate the interface).  On an identical twin computer -- as identical to this machine as possible, given slight hardware variations in manufacutring -- I also run XP Pro SP3.

    Vista performance degrades just as much over the 12 months between "cleanings" as does XP.  Now Windows Server 2003?  That's stable across time.

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:50 PM
  • Good points!  How quickly we forget about Windows Millenium...
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:53 PM
  • first off agave you are a moron and should have your rights to use a computer revoked for being stupid! how you even managed to install yet operate Win7 should be a testement that even monkeys can do it. thanks for the comments you have posted I needed a good laugh.
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:28 PM
  • Nothing like calling the kettle black............right ParaRanger. He was giving you his opinion, but I guess your the only one that has one. You need to think before you type!
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:40 PM
  • Agave said:

    Disagree that "most came to Vista prejudiced by what their friend told them down at the pub".  I don't have MS market figures here, but I'd bet most came to it as a preloaded OS on the new computer they, or their IT department, bought.


    This is an excellent point.  I'm tired of the 'bad press doomed Vista' meme.  The ppl here tend to be tech-y type so they assume everyone else is a tech-y type too.  But most ppl are not.  They don't read slashdot.  They don't read the tech blogs.  On the consumer side, people just get Vista with their new machines.  They only know it's Windows.  They may vaguely hear bad things about Vista, but they don't even know that they can get a different OS, unless they buy a mac.  I've never heard any of my non geek non tech-y friends discuss the various flavor of Windows.  If they do talk about OS, it's whether to get a mac. My sister was home during the weekend.  She used my computer for 2 hours and didn't make a single comment about w7.  She just wanted to know where iTunes was.  She probably thought I'd put on a different funky theme, as geeks are wont to do.

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:07 PM
  • Think Windows98 plus or Windows 98ME. I certainly agree that so far W7 is at least 90% Vista 
    Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:18 PM
  •     Mitchyboy - 399.00 for Vista out of the gate? MSRP, surely, but I know of no local retailer (BestBuy, Walfart, Circuit City, etc.) who actually sold it for msrp. On the day of release, I got Vista Ultimate (Full version w/Billy G's "autograph") for 249.00 and it came with a 1gb pc5200 sodimm and Windows OneCare as premiums. As for problems with the O/S itself - installation was a nightmare from the get-go. First there was the issue of systems with more than 2gb of ram, then there was the problem with chosing upgrade over clean install..the list is endless. However, once I got past those issues, everything ran and continues to run fairly smoothly and not BSOD has popped yet. There was driver support for ALL of my peripherals (Lucky me, I know.) and with the exception of a few older games like "Giants" and the original "Unreal," all software ran quite well.

       All in all, I'd give Vista an 8.5 overall rating and Win7 (Beta notwithstanding) an even 9. Truthfully, my gut instinct is that Win7 is really just Vista with all the fixes M$oft really planned for Vista but with the stigma attached to Vista, it would have been a losing battle. If this is truly the case, I don't fault M$oft one bit for going this route. In fact, I'm glad they did, because it keeps the best aspects of Vista and builds upon them.

    -jay

    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:29 PM
  • Agave said:

    The Vista BETA had some really neat features that never made it to the RTM, and the same will be true for 7, so don't feel too bad until it's released.

    I tend to think of 7 as Vista Service Pack 2... and that's all it should be.


    The general outside changes to 7 are pretty much a SP2 for vista but the entire internal operating system makes huge leaps from vista. Response time and boot up and shut down times are improved a ton.

     

    Ive had Vista for two years and dont have much to complain about. Yes the security details were a little annoying but it was only one thing. I do have a quad core computer with 3GB of memory so I never had many of the minimum spec issues. I can see where people would come from with that becuase I use Vista at school with minimum spec computers and its a pain. MS should have mentioned that somewhere

     

    The big thing is that as technology advances so is the software that goes with it and it does take some getting used to but is an improvement overall in my opinion.


    Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:45 PM
  • ©LarryEº, Kerry Brown and others,

    YOU are 100% right.

    99.9% of the problems, Vista / W7, are nothing but PEBKAC even if the majority of people does not recognize that, too proud to!

    You can never have  a new thing, program, OS or other without change or without loosing/transforming at least a part of the old things!?

    We always have to accept change and learn to handle it!

    Have a nice day

    marmos

    Friday, January 30, 2009 8:17 AM
  • Nothing wrong with Vista? I'll be 64  in late March. I'm getting to the age where I don't want to waste 3 or 4 minutes of my remaining time on Earth whenever Vista boots up and connects to a wireless network. Life is too freaking short.

    If there's nothing wrong with Vista why has virtually every business in the country refused to switch to it ?(hence XP Pro SP3). I wonder how much money has been lost in computer sales over the past several years because folks didn't want Vista and its baggage?

    I know someone in support for one of the leading computer companies who says at least 80 percent of the complaints they get turn out to be Vista, not hardware related. That wasn't the case with XP.

    Friday, January 30, 2009 3:41 PM
  • I tested Vista Beta for about a week when it was released. I couldn't find any drivers that would work for my SB Live soundcard so I went out and bought an Audigy 4 which also did not work with Vista. I tried it again with new drivers that were released later and again no luck so I decided to stick with XP.

    Someone here mentioned that W7 is what Vista should have been. It's just like when MS release ME. I always considered ME to be the final service pack for W98. Vista seems to be similar. A product that falls short of what was promised.

    I installed W7 32-bit last week just to test it and I am impressed. Games do take forever to install but once the level is loaded it is fast and stable. That was with a 3.0 P4 630 Prescott, 915P MB, 2GB Patriot DDR, GeForce 6600 & WD 10,000 RPM SATA HD.

    I just bought a new E8400 Core 2 Duo and Intel DG45ID MB with 8GB Patriot DDR2, GeForce 9800GT & 320 GB 7200 RPM Seagate SATA HD and I am building the machine tonight.

    I'm hoping that W7 64-bit will work well with these components and install / load game levels faster.

    Has anyone tested 64-bit with games like Far Cry, Far Cry 2, Crysis, Age 3 - War Chiefs, etc.?

    Should I install using 32 or 64 bit? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Friday, January 30, 2009 6:05 PM
  • If you want to be able to use all 8gb of RAM, you'll need to install the 64bit version. 32bit has a 3.5gb limitation when it comes to RAM. As for an actual choice of 64 or 32bit, I've been using 64bit Win7 (As well as Vista Ultimate 64bit) and have so far loaded Spore, Crysis, Unreal T3 and FS-X. All run quite well and have yet to post any annoying errors. The only issue I have is that there is an average 10% framerate drop from what I get in Vista. 

    -jay

    Friday, January 30, 2009 6:19 PM
  •  jdj522,

    I didn't realize that there was a 3.5 GB RAM limit on 32-bit.

    I can't to try this. Thanks.

    Friday, January 30, 2009 6:34 PM
  •  

    Hello Zorki1c,

     

    I have only some questions, who forced you to change to Vista? Was it not your own free decision? So whom do you want to blame if your decision was not the best for you? Did you collect enough real information before you changed to Vista? Are you immune to PEBKAC?

     

    Have a nice day

     

    marmos

    Friday, January 30, 2009 6:41 PM
  •  
    Kerry_Brown said:

    I agree that Windows 7 has some improvements over Vista but I don't agree that there is something major wrong with Vista. I've been using it every day on several computers since it was released. I am much more productive in Vista than in XP (which I also use very day along with various distros of Linux). I have many customers who are happy with Vista. I have a few customers who don't like Vista and went back to XP. It's more about tolerance for change than anything else. Vista has bugs as all OS's and major applications do. As with other OS's these bugs are identified, tracked, and ultimately fixed with updates and service packs.

    To get back to the statement "this is what Vista should of been". You could apply that to every new release of any software. New releases have new features, fix bugs, improve performance, etc. Does this mean that once you buy any software product you are entitled to free upgrades for life?


    Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience




    Absolutely Right!!!! what would happen if I buy a new car today and don't like it? would that entitle me to get a free car when the next model is available just because I didn't like the car I purchased? I am just amazed at how some people use there brains to analyze things.....

    If vista was really that bad, why did one try to dare file a Class Action Suit against Microsoft - it's just the tyranical over the hill blabbery of a minority that is making so much noise. These people sometimes seems to know everything, it makes me wonder why they don't make their own Operating Systems.....that should make them shut up.





    Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:34 AM
  • We have to be realistic guys, Windows XP will disappear, sooner if not later. right now it's life cycle is already on extended support.  That will expire on 2014.

    So it's either you get stuck with XP - Gobble up vista - or move on the Windows 7.
    Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:46 AM
  • Windows 7 beta is running very well on my old machine - gigabyte 7nnxp which I assembled way back 2003. It has 1 gig memory, AMD processor, Nvidia 5600, Nvida APU. If it's running very well on this type of old hardware, there's no reason why it shouldn't run on your new hardware......

    Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:50 AM
  • i think u sld check out performance 
    Saturday, January 31, 2009 10:25 PM
  • You see this is my point . People who use XP or Vista believe me you DO NOT need to get Windows 7 when it becomes available , there really isn't that  much improvement over XP or Vista . It not worth spending your money for it . Yes W7 seem to be a really smooth operating system but to buy it because the Jones have it ? It really isn't worth it . Keep using XP or Vista until there no more support for it . This should be the only time when one is looking for a new OS . Just use what you have until there no more support for it . Don't just go and buy this because everyone has it . Save your money ....
    Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:36 PM
  • Everyone's opinions and thoughts on MS OS products are valid and true ... they experienced whatever they experienced, and it formed the basis of what they think. Those with great experiences think the product (i.e. Vista) is great. Those with mediocre experiences think the product is mediocre. Those with bad experiences think the product is bad. Due to the magnitude and scope of an MS OS, MS will NEVER be able to satisfy everyone ... we all have different needs and expectations. However, having been in the computer business for more years than I care to admit (anyone remember CP/M?), MS consistently produces products that eventually run just fine. it might take an SP or 2, but they all get to where they need to be for the product's design mandate ... or it is dropped (i.e. 95 and ME).

    Think of software like a car. You see and buy a brand new model ... in its first months of production. It looks new. It smells new. You fall in love. Then 10 months later the next model year comes out and there are major revamps. Now you are "stuck" with a car that USED TO BE at the pinnacle of its class, but is now sub-par. You aren't entitled to a new version of that car! You either stick with the orginal (i.e. don't upgrade your PC OS) or trade in and get the new model (i.e. upgrade your PC OS). THIS IS THE NATURE OF RETAIL MARKETING AND SALES! How long do you think ANY manufacturer (regardless of product) would stay in business if they produced only ONE perfect product that satisfied every consumer. First of all, they could never do that. And second, what is state of the art today, is passe tomorrow ... and newer/bigger/better/shinier that wasn't heard of today, is common-place tomorrow.

    Likewise, with drivers and peripheral compatibility, I never understood why folks blamed MS for this (especially in Vista). Regardless of what vendors say, they had YEARS to prepare their drivers for Vista. YEARS. Don't forget that. The majority of vendors just took a "I'm going to wait a bit and see what all the fuss is about" approach. Too bad THEY got caught with their pants down, the end-user had to suffer their incompetence, and MS took the blame. And they took the blame with panache ...

    It is easy to love MS and it is easy to hate them. They are the largest, pre-emminant company of their kind. They are the Big Brother of Big Brother. And everyone takes ahots at the big guy ... especially those who are envious of their position. (I'm not saying that MS got to that lofty position without some pretty under-handed shinnanigans, but they did survive!) Keep in mind what I wrote earlier: "MS will NEVER be able to satisfy everyone ...". It's a fact of life. You must get over it. You can't fret over the things you have ZERO control over.

    Microsoft is a business ... a BIG business. They are in business to make their stock holders money. Nothing more than that. They offer products and services in the market segments they chose to stay in, and they do it pretty darn well. They also make their share holders a pretty good penny (yes, that includes Gates and Balmer). THAT IS BUSINESS. All the other business practices are add-ons (i.e. employee retention, customer retention, marketing strategy). The very bottom line for any company is to obtain a strong foothold in their market segment, turn a nice profit, and make their share holders (or partners in a non-public company) money. Period.

    So, to those who love to bash MS (and Vista, or 7, or Express vs Windows Mail). Have at it. I hope it makes this crazy world a little better for you. Just do it with style and intelligence. Let MS know how you feel. But be realisitic. Its not about YOU personally ... its about what fits the market best.

    And for those of you -- like me -- who like and appreciate MS products and services, keep up keeping MS aware of what you think ... and how to be better.

    One final note: Microsoft -- like any business -- DOES listen to their customers. Change will come when it is determined to be of benefit to their company (i.e. share holders), will have minimal impact on the existing customer-base, and makes sense. Since MS OS is in 90+% of the PCs world-wide, they aren't going to make a radical change because 10 people ... a 1000 people ... even 10,000 people think the product should do something differently. The law of numbers wins everytime.

    So ... stick with MS or don't ... your choice. If you stay, work with them as a professional business partner. If you decide to venture elsewhere, that's cool too. But don't get mad at a Linux installation because you can't run one of the millions of software products (in native mode) because it was written for Windows and not Linux (or Apple or Unix or whatever else may be out there/come down the road). [Side note:I've tried every version of Linux out there, and NONE compare to the power and scalability of a MS OS. Nor is their GUI as good. Nor do they have the software/peripheral penetration. But, they work just fine if they do what you need them to do. No big deal.]

    Frankly ... I'm more worried about the economy than the lack of a particular driver in Vista. but then, that's just me.

    Have a great one ... and thanks for letting an old man ramble on!
    Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:56 PM
  • Sorry, but ever evolving technology only gets better with time. If we never upgraded our systems, we'd still be using Windows '95.

    I've had '98, 98SE, ME, XP, Vista, and now W7 Beta...they all are better than the previous versions in many ways. It's the wheels of progress in motion. I'll be getting Windows 7 as soon as it comes out. Why ?? Because I really like the improved task bar, and it's performance. It's definitely a step up from XP and Vista.
    Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:57 PM
  • MikeBreta said:

    You see this is my point . People who use XP or Vista believe me you DO NOT need to get Windows 7 when it becomes available , there really isn't that  much improvement over XP or Vista . It not worth spending your money for it . Yes W7 seem to be a really smooth operating system but to buy it because the Jones have it ? It really isn't worth it . Keep using XP or Vista until there no more support for it . This should be the only time when one is looking for a new OS . Just use what you have until there no more support for it . Don't just go and buy this because everyone has it . Save your

    money ....

    I don't see your point - it's a pointless dot...

    Who are you to say what we need or what we do not need, who are you to judge how much of an improvement there is from xp to vista? Who are to to tell us it's not worth spending money on, who are you to tell us not to buy it just because the Jones have it? Who are you to tell us it really isn't worth it? Who are you to tell us to keep using XP or Vista until there is no more support fot it, Who are you to tell us when to buy a new OS?, Who are you to tell us not buy something, Who are you tell tell us when to save our money?

    Get it? Work hard, get lots of money, indulge in things  that you want, but if you are lazy and as a consequence you don't have money? Stop telling people how to use their money.  UNLESS IT'S YOUR MONEY WE ARE USING TO CATER TO OUR INDULGENCE AND CAPRICES - then and only then can you tell us what to do...other than that...it's your choice...whatever it is...just don't shave your own personal choice on others. it's a free world, if people like us choose to waste our money then it's our choice, it's not your money anyway...(And besides, it's very easy to recover investments in new technology). tiptiptiptiptiptip....
    Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:16 PM
  • Lhyksus said:

    MikeBreta said:

    You see this is my point . People who use XP or Vista believe me you DO NOT need to get Windows 7 when it becomes available , there really isn't that  much improvement over XP or Vista . It not worth spending your money for it . Yes W7 seem to be a really smooth operating system but to buy it because the Jones have it ? It really isn't worth it . Keep using XP or Vista until there no more support for it . This should be the only time when one is looking for a new OS . Just use what you have until there no more support for it . Don't just go and buy this because everyone has it . Save your

    money ....

    I don't see your point - it's a pointless dot...

    Who are you to say what we need or what we do not need, who are you to judge how much of an improvement there is from xp to vista? Who are to to tell us it's not worth spending money on, who are you to tell us not to buy it just because the Jones have it? Who are you to tell us it really isn't worth it? Who are you to tell us to keep using XP or Vista until there is no more support fot it, Who are you to tell us when to buy a new OS?, Who are you to tell us not buy something, Who are you tell tell us when to save our money?

    Get it? Work hard, get lots of money, indulge in things  that you want, but if you are lazy and as a consequence you don't have money? Stop telling people how to use their money.  UNLESS IT'S YOUR MONEY WE ARE USING TO CATER TO OUR INDULGENCE AND CAPRICES - then and only then can you tell us what to do...other than that...it's your choice...whatever it is...just don't shave your own personal choice on others. it's a free world, if people like us choose to waste our money then it's our choice, it's not your money anyway...(And besides, it's very easy to recover investments in new technology). tiptiptiptiptiptip....




      Good gravy people, it was only the guy's opinion. Not really one I agree with, but still *JUST* an opinion. What useful purpose does it serve to jump down someone's virtual throat for simply stating their opinion?  Forcing a continuing diatribe certainly is not going to make him change his mind. Nor would initmating that his reason for not wanting to switch is because he cannot afford it.  

      Personally, I have always immediately upgraded to the newest O/S from M$oft on the day of release. Why?  Because as an IT pro whose livelyhood is extremely dependant on being up to date on software and hardware, I feel a need to have access to it at home as well as work. The knowledge of new s/w and h/w comes in handy when my programmers and developers say to me "Hey..can we get a test box with____ installed?"  For me to only be able to install the o/s and have no real knowledge of its inner workings would make me about as useful as a bird without wings or a bell that never rings.

      Mike's opinion may not suit your personal tastes, which is fine. But to attack him for expressing said opion, is in bad form. (IMHO.)

    -jay
    Monday, February 02, 2009 6:08 PM
  • Well way back then, I was having very good luck with XP, and thought things would only get better with Vista....So I bought Vista right away too. My sound card and printer would not work as there were no drivers for them. So after a couple of months without my soundcard, I dropped Vista and went back to XP, as the manufacturer said it would be about a year for drivers to become available.

    So far Windows 7 is what I was looking for as far as a replacement for XP. My soundcard works, my programs work, so I'm happy with it.

    I liked Vista, it looked great but was a little slow. Windows 7 seems to be a great looking program that runs fairly quick.

    Stability is important to me, so that's why I'm trying out different ways of installing it...upgrade vrs. fresh install, and my findings are the fresh install on a freshly re-formatted drive works best for stability.
    Monday, February 02, 2009 8:59 PM
  • I don't hate Microsoft . I have no reason to hate and hate is such a strong word to use . I don't dislike Microsoft , in fact I like Microsoft , though I  think they can do a better job .
    • Edited by MikeBreta Thursday, February 05, 2009 6:57 PM
    Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:41 PM
  • Can anyone say.....Moooojjjjaaaaavvveeeee.



    What do people think of Windows Vista when they don’t know it's Windows Vista? To find out, we disguised it as "the next Microsoft Operating System" codenamed, "7" so regular people who've never used Windows Vista could see what it can do – and decide for themselves.

    Primary Results

    94% of respondents rated the “new operating system” codenamed Windows “7” higher than they initially rated Windows Vista before
    the demo.

    0% of the respondents rated the “new operating system” codenamed Windows “7” lower than they initially rated Windows Vista before
    the demo.

    Of the 140* respondents polled (on a scale of 1-10 where 10 was the highest rating):

    • The average pre-demo score for Windows Vista was 4.4
    • The average post-demo score for the “new operating system” codenamed Windows “7” was 8.5

    19% of respondents rated the “new operating system” code-named Windows “7” a “10”

    Types of Computer Users participating in the “7 Beta:”

    • 84% Windows XP users
    • 22% Apple operating system users
    • 14% Pre-Windows XP users
    • 1% Linux users
    • Some users use multiple platforms.
    Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:59 PM
  • I am not sure if anyone has noticed, but Win7 has a much smaller footprint than Vista as well.  It seems they cleaned up the code or used newer dev tools to make it slimmer.  Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit was about 30gig and Windows 7 Ultimate is about 9-10gig.  I hope it stays that small so it continues to easily fit on my 32gig ssd drive.
    Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:41 PM
  • I have had nothing but trouble with Win7, was hoping for a replacement for XP since vista sucks but it seems win7 is not going to be much better.  another let down from microsoft yet again.  i am glad i ditched the stock before vista and dont see win7 making things any better,  As i said, i have installed it on multiple PC's and have had nothing but trouble with all of them. including a rig i put together just for 7 with all newer components.  It seems i will have to advise my customers to stay away from this version as well as vista. looks like I will be supporting mac :( in the near future.  microsoft NOTE.  Remove head from rectum and design something usable for the consumer without all the headaches. go back to basics and start over

    Friday, May 08, 2009 1:58 AM
  • It would be good if Microsoft made the upgrade version from Vista cheaper then XP.  I know you dont want so many different versions out there so maybe do it by way of a redemption voucher or even offer some free "Microsoft service ".

    Or even let them upgrade to Win7 but still be able to use Vista on another PC.


    But we all know the chances of the above happening are pretty slim


    btw:  used "pretty slim" instead of a vulgarity, see it can be done   :-)
    Friday, May 08, 2009 8:05 AM
  • First, WHFC.

    It appears that Windows 7 has changed the way printer queues and their registry interfaces operate.  As such things that want to install a print monitor (and that's a fairly long list) break instantly.  WHFC is one of these; it is a print monitor to talk to a HylaFax (production, large-institution fax) server.

    ORB is the other - it ALSO appears that Microsoft has done something with how codecs are registered and manipulated.  As such ORB will run, but it is unable to attach to the tuner card in the PC, and thus, you can't stream through it. 

    This second one is a REAL PROBLEM as ORB is device-independent on the viewer end.

    Between these two it may kill Windows 7 ENTIRELY for me; I CANNOT lose my enterprise fax compatability.
    Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:09 PM
  • Windows 7 ultimate "not free", that means  many downloads actually, so MS disabled  (MS Germany told me), professional is "free" (download enabled)
    • Edited by karlx Friday, August 07, 2009 2:54 PM
    Friday, August 07, 2009 8:55 AM
  • Windows 7 ultimate "not free", that means  many downloads actually, so MS disabled (MS Germany told me), professional is "free" 

    karlx,

    Please do not spread rumors. Saying that Windows 7 Professional is free and Windows 7 Ultimate is not free simply is not true. No edition of Windows 7 RTM is "free". All editions are available as of yesterday for MSDN and TechNet subscribers. A subscription is not free and downloading/installing from those locations using your subscription does not permit you to use the sofware in a production environment. Carefully review the license agreement for your subscription.

    Thank you.
    -Tony Mann
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Friday, August 07, 2009 2:39 PM
    Owner
  • I didn´t spread rumours, you see the "quotes" ? With "Free" I just meant downloadable !! And with "not free" i JUST meant "not downloadable"
    because MS is not able to handle download requests in this measure, OK??And even now I cannot download ultimate! 
    THANK YOU!!
    • Edited by karlx Friday, August 07, 2009 2:52 PM
    Friday, August 07, 2009 2:45 PM
  • I didn´t spread rumours, you see the "quotes" ? With "Free" I just meant downloadable !!!!!!!! And with "not free" i JUST meant "not downloadable"
    because MS is not able to handle download requests in this measure, OK?????And even now I cannot download ultimate! 
    THANK YOU!!

    There is no reason for an attitude here. All we know is what you post. It is best to say what you mean from the very first post to avoid confusion. We are not mindreaders here.

    You are incorrect about Microsoft not being able to handle download requests. If you click "Details" you will see under the instructions section text displayed as follows:

    "This file is available for download to all eligible subscribers on Top Downloads. Keys are available on the My Product Keys page."

    Click the Top Downloads link provided and as long as you are a subscriber you can download immediately.
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Friday, August 07, 2009 2:56 PM
    Owner
  • I used topdownloads and was redirected to MS Germany  with ultimate disabled! I called MS Germany and I got this information (to try later) at the 2nd call!

    And clicking details I get

    The server method 'GetFileDetails' failed
    Apropos mindreaders: I wrote : "not free", that means ..............
    • Edited by karlx Friday, August 07, 2009 3:11 PM
    Friday, August 07, 2009 3:01 PM
  • OK. I will look into this for you to see what is going on. I need to know the URL you are using before you get redirected and the URL you get redirected to. As to limit the "noise" for others on this thread, please send this information and screenshots to us at w7forum@microsoft.com.

    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Friday, August 07, 2009 3:08 PM
    Owner
  • Just what is the problem with Microsoft fixing Windows Explorer once and for all? If Explorer is fixed, a very huge number of XP users (including me) who're holding back will happily migrate to Windows 7. Here's a roundup of all issues with Windows Explorer in the RTM release (which I've also listed in Wikipedia): All of these are must-fix issues, without these I can't even consider migrating to Windows 7 from XP.
    1.  Let's say I delete some files. Now if I go to the Recycle Bin, I can't select more than 1 file and see its Properties. The "Properties" menu item is there but it's broken, that is, it does nothing. I'd have used details view to see sizes however it only lists sizes in KB, not in MB or GB.
    2.  Icons of 16-bit EXEs are not shown because Microsoft self-declared this to be a trivial feature.
    3.  "Display simple folder view" option which showed dotted lines connecting folders and which auto expanded and collapsed folders by 1-click is gone. Please bring it back.
    4.  You can't set ACLs/permissions on more than 1 file because if you select more than 1 file and see their properties, there is no security tab!! Please fix it.
    5.  Of all the possible shell extension handlers, only IColumnProvider is missing/deprecated because of which column handler shell extensions are not working since Vista. This is unacceptable. Please support IColumnProvider..column handlers can be turned off by default on SMB paths/networks to prevent performance impact.
    6.  Neither the details pane nor the status bar shows free disk space, size of files in a folder without selection, zone/location. This issue is perhaps the single most annoying and most requested fix from users I've seen for Windows Explorer.
    7.  Viewing sizes of more than 15 files is very problematic UI-wise, please make it more simple by always showing sizes instead of requiring users to click "Show more details".
    8.  The keyboard shortcut Alt+Enter is broken in the left pane/navigation pane of Windows Explorer. The most minor fix Microsoft refuses to fix. This is important because users can navigate folders quickly only using the left pane and calculate sizes by quickly pressing Alt+Enter. If using the right pane, users have to come out of that folder by pressing Alt+Up or back to do an Alt+Enter on the parent folder.
    9.  Making autosort/autorefresh optional/configurable so users stop getting annoyed when working with large number of files. Because of autosort, I'm getting this error when I create a new folder, quickly type a name and press Enter:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/263939305/ShellFailOS.png
    http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4103/shellfailos.png
    10. All folders under Libraries and a particular library always share the same view. If I set the view of a folder inside the Videos library to "extra large icons", my entire Videos library and all folders included in it change to the same view. This is unintuitive, please fix this to per-folder view like XP.
    11. The navigation/left pane has a bug where if you scroll all the way down in the left pane and then use the keyboard arrow keys to expand a folder in the left pane, it'll scroll up again. Why does the OS not respect the user's scrolling?
    12. The "Sort by" bar should appear for any view. It was most intuitive to sort by 1 click.
    13. The sort order should be consistent, each category like size, data modified, name should have a consistent sort order. Currently, sort of name sort in ascending order, some other column sorts in descending order.
    14. Clicking in the left/navigation pane but outside the folder name, that is, clicking to the left of the folder on the white space in the navigation pane selects the folder however it doesn't show its contents. As a result, I've sometimes lost some other files thinking that was the folder I had selected.
    15. The Open/Save dialogs require too much scrolling in the left pane and Favorites are not static/pinned like Vista or XP.
    16. The Open/Save common dialogs (new ones which use libraries) don't always remember their views like Explorer does now in Windows 7.

    Windows shell team if it's listening, please understand that file management is still the most important thing users do in an OS and with their data (pictures, music, videos, documents). Windows Explorer issues need to be fixed, especially because Windows XP Explorer has had none of these issues.
    Anonymuos
    Friday, August 07, 2009 3:30 PM
  • Ok, email is on the go
    Friday, August 07, 2009 3:40 PM
  • Probably not on the top of too many folk's list, but I finally got MS Combat Flight Simulator 2 running. The only difference is I have to run my joystick (Sidewinder Precision Pro) through a USB slot because the were no drivers for Game Port joystick input. 
    Friday, August 07, 2009 3:46 PM
  • I´ve overseen something! I apologize!
    Now it works! Thank you
    Friday, August 07, 2009 4:02 PM
  • Great. Glad to hear it.
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Friday, August 07, 2009 4:19 PM
    Owner
  • $349!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I don't pay this to get a copy to test. Pay $ 349 and work free as a beta tester for us.

    OK, it's over. Time for Linux.


    Greetings Dr. Gerry. Tests were made in the Beta and RC. RTM is supposed to be free of bugs and full optimized. That's the build ppl will be able to buy in a near future. And there are editions cheaper.

    oh! Or are you talking about a TechNet subscription? If that's the case, you don't get only a copy to test. You get full access to tons of software to make all the tests, checks you can imagine. It's worth the money, trust me


    Regards.
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP and Microsoft Essentials Beta x64... hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Saturday, August 08, 2009 9:26 AM
  • Hello guys,

    now that RTM is installed in most of our computers, do you miss a feature? Would you request something to Microsoft?

    I miss this one: Sysinternals Desktops I can't understand why such a neat utility is not part of Windows 7.

    Regards.
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP and Microsoft Essentials Beta x64... hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Saturday, August 08, 2009 9:31 AM
  • -Ability to turn off "Auto-arrange icons" is NEEDED ! Seems I'm not the first wondering why such a necessary feature has been removed.

    -Wtf with Explorer ? XP's explorer was a zillion times more powerful than W7's... some examples :
     -Menubars are not custommable in W7, they were in XP. So, I'm forced to have useless buttons everywhere (burn, ...) instead of the some I needed
     -No more "parent directory" button, neither a shortcut (alt not-gr + up isn't a shortcut, its unusable). Why can't I use backspace anymore ? Why can't I remap this stupid shortcut ? Now, I'm forced to navigate with the mouse.. its another regress
     -It's not possible anymore to put a favorites bar under the menu bar.. What sounds fun to me is that MS changed the look of explorer to make it "feel more like a browser", but doesn't allow this basic feature anymore. As I don't use the navigation pane, I got no place for quick links other than my desktop...
     -"Too much long" file names are never shown entirely, even if the file is selected. Unergonomic, and factor of mistakes.
     -When pasting some urls in explorer's adress bar, my browser opens... A short example of how stupid it is : Navigate somewhere, choose a folder, shift-right click it and select "copy as path", now, select an explorer window an paste the adress in its adress bar -> you'll get a 404, under your favorite browser ! (Fortunately, removing the quotes of your clipboard will fix this)
    Now, let's suppose I use IE as browser, it sometime would open explorer when I paste some adress in its bar !!! I don't have much problem about this, as I use firefox, but beeing able to open a local folder with IE could be sometime useful.
     -Small issue, but fun, tough : since beta, and still in RC, turning off the thumbnails f**** every preview up, not only the icons, but also the detail view, and, really fun, the preview pane (which gives huge icons instead of previews). I don't understand how such bug (or feature ? -.-) made it to the RC, but now, I wouldn't even be surprised if it's the same in the RTM.
     -Also, having to turn off either all thumbnails of no-one is just ridiculous : what is the point of thumbnails for non-media files/folders ? Having folders with thumbnails of the .txt or dlls in it is ridiculous and annoying, but can't be disabled...

    -Allow "classic start menu" would be nice too, as many, like me, just turn off "recent programs" and are still forced to have the left part of their start menu... The "new" menu can't be customized enough to be useful to me. Only the search may be useful.



    Time for the suggestions now :

    Suggestion 1 :
    I would like to be able to hide tasks in the taskbar as it is possible for the tray icons. And I think hiding, separately, the tasks in the "alt-tab" switcher could be a 3rd good thing.

    Suggestion 2 :
    "shift+right click" gives more options than usual right click. VERY good concept, really, but alas, hardly used.
    I'd like to setup myself what appears and doesn't appear in the "basic" and "advanced" menus. This would let me have more accessible actions I often use (like "copy as path" or "open shell here"), and hide options I never or rarely use, like "zip&e-mail" or so.

    Minor issue 1:
    I use an account picture with transparency, but Windows doesn't handle it (e.g. if I open the start menu, transparent areas appear white).
    Still about start menu image : I disabled transparency for my windows, but the frame around the picture is still transparent, which doesn't go unnoticed.
    And finally, If I just could choose to have NO account picture, it would be perfect.

    Minor issue 2:
    When I cancel a program install, most of the time, the system shows a popup shouting "THIS PROGRAM MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED CORRECTLY !!! "
    It may be a good thing when installers do crash, but when I just cancel the installation for some reason, this popup is just superfluous. It also shows up randomly after some programs install, even though they work perfectly.

    Less minor issue :
    A more useless & annoying popup: Why not put some option somewhere (maybe highly UAC protected) to specify I know what I'm doing with my computer, and don't want stupid warnings each time I execute a downloaded file ?
    Considering how much Internet is used today, such bad-usability example is really a shame to me. I kept away from XP's SP2 many years just to avoid this warning (and trust me, I didn't miss any feature of XP's SP all that time...)

    One thing like that isn't dramatic, but don't forget they stack.
    Anyway, I wont switch to Seven before explorer issues and the auto-arrange icons have been fixed, but I think that it's important to give the most complete feedback we can, to help things evolve (or re-evolve :/ ).

    Saturday, August 08, 2009 3:55 PM
  • I use Windows 7 on my 8-core Apple Mac with 10GB RAM, instead of Leopard OS.

    The computers performance is about 300% better.

    I work with Adobe CS4 Collection, Lightwave 3D, Vue 7, Poser 7 and MS Office 2007.

    I made some tests with Leopard, Windows Vista and Windows 7.

    Windows Vista is faster and more stable than Leopard.

    Windows 7 is faster than Vista, but not such stable. (not yet)

    In the Windows 7:

    The Lightwave some times disaper from screen and then come back again like nothing happened.

    Photoshop CS4 has some issues with video drivers.

    IE8 suddently stops to working, a lot of times.

    Gmail slows down a lot and some times didn't work, with IE8 and Firefox.


    Suggestion:
    Windows Media Player could play Blu-Ray movies.

    Peter.
    Saturday, August 08, 2009 5:00 PM
  • I suppose it, but I don't need this information. It's not my job.

    Anyway, I'm sure Microsoft has not changed the terrible Windows Explorer, so, long life to XP! (I hope)
    Saturday, August 08, 2009 6:37 PM
  • Just reporting no yellow bangs in Device Manager for a Latitude 2100 with Win7 RTM installed with an active network connection. Drivers auto installed for Dell 1510 wi-fi-N, integrated webcam, touchscreen, and Intel Graphics (Aero enabled). Very easy install from a USB CD/DVD reader. System is quite spiffy, even with a Windows Experience Index of 2.1 (CPU:2.2, RAM:4.4, GDI:2.1, Game:3.0, HD:5.6).

    Edit:
    Post install:

    No audio. Drivers installed, working audio icon, etc., just nothing audible.  Installed Windows 7 drivers from Realtek and issue solved.

    No Bluetooth: Not showing in Device Manager even.  So installed Dell's drivers for Vista. Now working Bluetooth.

    Added Dell touchpad drivers - no problems.
    Added Dell touchscreen drivers (for calibration app) - no problems.

    -Joe
    Saturday, August 08, 2009 9:34 PM
  • Guess Gates and company still don't know who buys the $200.00+ video cards & premium memory. We have 200+ desktops at work, not one is Windows 7 ready. My son (typical 20 year old college student) is dropping back to XP Pro 64 (from Windows 7 Ultimate 64) as I type.

    Bill, give up on selling everybody an X-box already. Come up with a 32 bit system that can see more then 3.5 gigs of memory. Or a descent 64 bit gaming system (one that lacks compatability issues).  20 year old gamer.

    Bill, if you think I'm upgrading 200+ computers to run Windows 7 the way the economy is.....Dream On! 54 year old IT Professional.

    Sunday, August 09, 2009 5:54 PM
  • And if an xbox with file explorer, then please not a crippled one! Let the lads among your programmers play on another playground !!
    Monday, August 10, 2009 6:03 AM
  • Greetings,
    Guess Gates and company still don't know who buys the $200.00+ video cards & premium memory. We have 200+ desktops at work, not one is Windows 7 ready.
    One of the computers where we are testing Win 7 is an AMD Sempron + 2 Gbs + HD 200 GB + Discrete VGA (128Mbs Shared) and all we can say is WoW! And if you disable some visual improvements, the performance is better than any XP.
    [...]
    Come up with a 32 bit system that can see more then 3.5 gigs of memory.
    [...]
    You should read this entry "Pushing the limits of Windows: Physical Memory" from the Mark Russinovich's technical blog. And even more if you are a 54 year old IT Pro. Specifically I strongly recommend you to read the paragraphs "Windows Client Memory Limits" and "32-bit Client Effective Memory Limits". The question is: "is this just a Windows limitation?"
    My son (typical 20 year old college student) is dropping back to XP Pro 64 (from Windows 7 Ultimate 64) as I type.
    As I type, every IT I know there and here, is installing Windows 7 in any of the available editions for their subscriptions. And as far as I know, they are quite happy.
    Bill, give up on selling everybody an X-box already
    There are millions of Xbox users worldwide who love to interconnect their Windows with the Xbox. I don't see any drawback here. And you have editions free of all those features you hate. Just look at N editions, bussiness editions, etc. You can remove that "xbox" feeling for a simple, sober enterprise/bussiness desktop installing a N edition and removing visual improvements.
    Or a descent 64 bit gaming system (one that lacks compatability issues).
    I really don't know which games are you trying to play, but those we've tried are running with no issues so far. I'm sure some games shall have issues. So many different games/gpus and drivers out there!

    And obviously, Windows 7 could be better. Any software can. Alternatives, like the last Ubuntu distribution is, simply said, awesome. And totally free.

    But as of today, if you want a real gaming/full entertainment computer all you need is... Windows. For small companies/bussiness we could discuss if any of the options available out there is better than Windows. 

    Best regards,

    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Monday, August 10, 2009 9:36 AM
  • Hi Folks

    I removed some of the messages in this thread for being off topic. Please read the statement in the first message for this thread.

    PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS WINDOWS 7 BETA OR WINDOWS 7 RC.


    We are focused on encouraging feedback for the current RTM version of Windows 7.

    We do support the RC build and will still work with users to solve problems they are having with that build, but not in this thread. If you have any comments about the RC build, please start your own, separate thread.

    Thank you for understanding.

    Thank You for testing Windows 7

    Ronnie Vernon MVP
    Forum Moderator
    Monday, August 10, 2009 12:45 PM
    Moderator
  • I am not replying to anything simply making a statement. It  took 6 years for Vista to replace XP and and what a horrible operating system Vista is. Now 2 years go by and Vista is being Axed for Windows 7. I would be very worried about buying something meant to replace a very poor OS with such a short design and development period behind it. I see no refunds are offered for the turn in of Vista,  This is almost as comparable as the Windows 98 to Windows ME edition that was meant to save the computing world  from  Global electronic Armageddon of 2000 as we rounded the corner to the 21st century. If I remember correctly ME was out for a total of 2 years before XP replaced it.  I'm almost 100% this will never be seen by the general public because you know what I'm saying is true.
    • Edited by fuzzpuss Monday, August 10, 2009 2:20 PM
    Monday, August 10, 2009 2:11 PM
  • I am not replying to anything simply making a statement. It  took 6 years for Vista to replace XP and and what a horrible operating system Vista is. Now 2 years go by and Vista is being Axed for Windows 7. I would be very worried about buying something meant to replace a very poor OS with such a short design and development period behind it. I see no refunds are offered for the turn in of Vista,  This is almost as comparable as the Windows 98 to Windows ME edition that was meant to save the computing world  from  Global electronic Armageddon of 2000 as we rounded the corner to the 21st century. If I remember correctly ME was out for a total of 2 years before XP replaced it.  I'm almost 100% this will never be seen by the general public because you know what I'm saying is true.

    fuzzpuss,

    This blog post will help you to clear up your misunderstanding of the development process of Windows 7. This link will help you to better understand the lifecycle of Microsoft products. You seem to be inferring that your post will be deleted. No moderator is going to edit/delete your post if you are simply expressing an opinion. It would only be edited/deleted if you are unprofessonal in your post or do not follow the posted code of conduct.

    Have a great day!
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Monday, August 10, 2009 2:55 PM
    Owner
  • My family has 3 PCs running Vista ultimate, 1 with XP,  and 2 running vista home Premium.

    Now I'd like to upgrade them all to windows 7 with 2 family packs.  However, I can't because the windows 7 family pack is only upgradable from XP and vista home premium, not ultimate.
    I really really really don't want to have to do a clean install on my vista ultimate machines.  I paid $160 to upgrade my laptop to vista ultimate about 2 years ago, but now Microsoft is actually punishing me for upgrading by charging the same price as they would to upgrade from home premium.  Not only that, but I can't even do an upgrade!  So in the long run, I actually wasted my $160 and now I have to do a clean install which is something that will be a real pain to reinstall all my software on it.


    Now here are two solutions I came up.

    1.  Create 7 Ultimate family pack for $299.99 for 3 PCs.

    2.  Create a new Vista Ultimate Extra that allows you to upgrade to windows 7 Ultimate for $100 or less.


    Those are just 2 ideas I came up with, I mean, your vista ultimate customers paid a lot more to get ultimate, yet you treat them the same as, if not worst then, Vista home premium customers.  Us Vista Ultimate customers even lose some the extras we pay for in the process of upgrading, yet we have to pay just as much as anyone else.

    Now I don't mean to sound like a complainer, I love windows, if I didn't I wouldn't have upgraded to vista ultimate to begin with.  I even have the vista ultimate signiture upgrade.  I've throughly tested out the RC and I'm posting on it now and loving it.  But I'm not going to spend $660 just to upgrade my 3 ultimate PCs to it.

    Please offer us a better deal!
    Thanks for hearing me out,
    -Phil

    Monday, August 10, 2009 3:27 PM

  • Alternatives, like the last Ubuntu distribution is, simply said, awesome. And totally free.




    I had really, really hoped Windows7 RTM would complete the job and totally supercede Vista.


    It was nearly 25 years ago that I bypassed the cryptic unix world in favor of the i808x cpu family and friendly 8.3 O/S.  I never looked back.  I would not even use C programming language because it smelled like unix to me.  Can you imagine the laughing debates I engaged in, being a strict ASM programmer who berated C?  Ha.  Yet now I will tell you frankly, after witnessing the policies of this Win7 beta-to-RTM launch, which has pit so many forum members against each other.  I have indeed downloaded Ubuntu.  I did so just a few weeks ago.  I've not yet clicked the button.  But I am so very close.  And I am sure so many here would offer me a final good riddance.


    To be clear, I had not yet posted anything appearing on this page.

    That's my opinion, seen as professional or otherwise.

    Monday, August 10, 2009 4:01 PM
  • I had really, really hoped Windows7 RTM would complete the job and totally supercede Vista.
    I'm not sure what "complete the job" means, nor do I know what you mean by "totally supercede Vista". Why would this affect your decision to adopt Windows 7? The end-game for you should be a great operating system that enables you to complete your daily tasks and performs well.

    That's my opinion, seen as professional or otherwise.
    Great. As I've told you many times, we want to hear your opinions (even if they are negative) as long as they are on-topic, professional, etc, which this one certainly is. Thank you.

    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Monday, August 10, 2009 4:12 PM
    Owner

  • I really liked where Vista was going.  But a few things did not advance, and some other things are gone.


    Thank you for the opportunity to express that.

    Monday, August 10, 2009 4:19 PM
  • My family has 3 PCs running Vista ultimate, 1 with XP,  and 2 running vista home Premium.

    Now I'd like to upgrade them all to windows 7 with 2 family packs.  However, I can't because the windows 7 family pack is only upgradable from XP and vista home premium, not ultimate.
    I really really really don't want to have to do a clean install on my vista ultimate machines.  I paid $160 to upgrade my laptop to vista ultimate about 2 years ago, but now Microsoft is actually punishing me for upgrading by charging the same price as they would to upgrade from home premium.  Not only that, but I can't even do an upgrade!  So in the long run, I actually wasted my $160 and now I have to do a clean install which is something that will be a real pain to reinstall all my software on it.


    Now here are two solutions I came up.

    1.  Create 7 Ultimate family pack for $299.99 for 3 PCs.

    2.  Create a new Vista Ultimate Extra that allows you to upgrade to windows 7 Ultimate for $100 or less.


    Those are just 2 ideas I came up with, I mean, your vista ultimate customers paid a lot more to get ultimate, yet you treat them the same as, if not worst then, Vista home premium customers.  Us Vista Ultimate customers even lose some the extras we pay for in the process of upgrading, yet we have to pay just as much as anyone else.

    Now I don't mean to sound like a complainer, I love windows, if I didn't I wouldn't have upgraded to vista ultimate to begin with.  I even have the vista ultimate signiture upgrade.  I've throughly tested out the RC and I'm posting on it now and loving it.  But I'm not going to spend $660 just to upgrade my 3 ultimate PCs to it.

    Please offer us a better deal!
    Thanks for hearing me out,
    -Phil
    Monday, August 10, 2009 7:21 PM
  •  Phil -

    Microsoft is shifting the way Windows is being sold. The Ultimate version is no longer being emphasized quite so much. They've changed the way the entire product lineup is composed mainly to make things MUCH easier on themselves and everyone else. Home Premium or Professional is now positioned so that it'll do pretty much everything anyone would need. Unless you've got a dire need for Bitlocker, Branch Cache or any of the other 3 - 4 features that are unique to Ultimate, Home Premium or Pro are plenty. They're significantly cheaper as well.

    In other words - don't hold your breath waiting for an Ultimate Family Pack. It's not likely to be happening.
    Monday, August 10, 2009 7:59 PM

  • I really liked where Vista was going.  But a few things did not advance, and some other things are gone.


    Thank you for the opportunity to express that.


    Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think did not advance and what were left out.


    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:58 AM
  • And obviously, Windows 7 could be better. Any software can. Alternatives, like the last Ubuntu distribution is, simply said, awesome. And totally free.
    Well, is awesome if you don't need to work with professional audio o video programs ;)
    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:23 PM
  • Well, is awesome if you don't need to work with professional audio o video programs ;)

    Greetings Dr Gerry,

    all the OS out there have its limitations. That's a fact. It's a good start for everybody to know that no operative system will meet all of our needs. Having said that, Ubuntu, for a regular user, connected at home to surf the web and read emails, is awesome.

    If you are looking for something else, then we have to look for other alternatives. And that is one of my points: if you need a full capable OS, stick with Windows. You shall find everything you need, either to work or simply to game.

    Regards.
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:35 PM
  • To all forum users:

    Please use this thread to note any comments that you have about Windows 7. Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, create a new thread.

    PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS WINDOWS 7 BETA OR WINDOWS 7 RC.

    Thanks

    -Tony Mann
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner

    Windows vista aero, had a nasty bug with progress bar, that still is not fixed in Win 7:

    Progress bar never completes.

    Perfectly running code in Xp completes the progress bar, but in vista/7 the progress bar do ever closes withouth showing 100%.

    The purpose of the progress bar is for the user to understand how much work is donne. Is vital to show 100% when the code sets the control to 100%. Otherwise, the user may feel that something is broken, and YES something is broken.
    Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:07 PM
  • The biggest problem i have is that there is no option to disable the "align to grid option"

    and i can't organize folders the way I want to
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:07 AM
  • i was looking forward to giving W7 a good test run in gaming world and everything else. i love it for the most part. but, my problems are with gaming, and is the primary reason i went back to xp after 2 days of W7.  please, if u dont mind spending about an hour downloading and installing Rohan blood fued ~ www.playrohan.com ~ and try getting the resolution to fit the screen without it stretching and distorting, not fitting the screen, and also see if u can keep the pc from crashing while adjusting resolution.

    ive not had any of these problems with xp. the system crashes when i put it to 1280x768 in the rohan game. 1024x768 is normal resolution for ingame and outside of game on my xp OS. first thing i noticed with W7 was the resolutions were WAY diffrent from xp, so it took me a few minutes to adjust them. i did attempt to adjust those settings several times and then run the game, also adjusting ingame, but had the same results.

    runs fine on xp and vista, fails on W7

    wheres the revolutionary windows? its the same stuff that looks diffrent.............................  this is 2009, come up with some off-the-wall crazy sh1t. microsoft is still thinking like it did in 95.....

    also alt ctrl delete should pop up task manager without having to go thru anohter screen to get to it, just something that was convienent. im sure, just like i do, that a bunch of people use that on a regular basis to fix, end, or possibly find something. something i hated about vista too (-.-)

    i do apologize, i am a noob with forums, but not so much a noob with my pc.

    my thoughts of W7 ~its sh1t, looks good, but sh1t~  still XP FTW, best damn OS ive had!
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:53 AM
  • littledevall -

    1.) Sometimes it takes 3rd parties a while to get their code up to speed and make things run right on a new OS - especially grapically intensive games.  Patience..

    2.) Now that's a new one on me... Most of the posts complaining about the UI think Microsoft went too far with the UI design (especially by removing "classic mode") and now we've got someone who thinks they didn't go quite far enough.

    But seriously... You can only change things just so much before everyone starts freaking out. As it is now, there are tons of posts complaining about this change or that change or the other change... There are people who have gone to great lengths to change Win 7 to be exactly like XP because they can't stand the changes already made.

    Sometimes change needs to be made in increments. Too much change, and you've lost your audience.
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:36 AM
  • i was looking forward to giving W7 a good test run in gaming world and everything else. i love it for the most part. but, my problems are with gaming, and is the primary reason i went back to xp after 2 days of W7.  please, if u dont mind spending about an hour downloading and installing Rohan blood fued ~ www.playrohan.com ~ and try getting the resolution to fit the screen without it stretching and distorting, not fitting the screen, and also see if u can keep the pc from crashing while adjusting resolution.

    ive not had any of these problems with xp. the system crashes when i put it to 1280x768 in the rohan game. 1024x768 is normal resolution for ingame and outside of game on my xp OS. first thing i noticed with W7 was the resolutions were WAY diffrent from xp, so it took me a few minutes to adjust them. i did attempt to adjust those settings several times and then run the game, also adjusting ingame, but had the same results.

    runs fine on xp and vista, fails on W7

    wheres the revolutionary windows? its the same stuff that looks diffrent.............................  this is 2009, come up with some off-the-wall crazy sh1t. microsoft is still thinking like it did in 95.....

    also alt ctrl delete should pop up task manager without having to go thru anohter screen to get to it, just something that was convienent. im sure, just like i do, that a bunch of people use that on a regular basis to fix, end, or possibly find something. something i hated about vista too (-.-)

    i do apologize, i am a noob with forums, but not so much a noob with my pc.

    my thoughts of W7 ~its sh1t, looks good, but sh1t~  still XP FTW, best damn OS ive had!

    i hate that microsoft added a screen for the crontrol alt delete thing as well. however there is an alternitive key sequnce you can use if you just want to get the task manager. its called "ctrl" + "shift" + "esc". that keyboard combination for the task manager has been around since XP. well, i have been using it since XP at least. however it does not take full priority like the classic "ctrl" "alt" "delete".

    unlike you i am having a better experience with games. the only game PC I tried on Windows 7 was the Sims 3 and it worked great, no issues at all. not that that i could tell at least. i only tried it because one of my sisters is obbessed over "the Sims" so i thought i would test it under Windows 7 even though i quit playing it in 2006. but overall XP does give a better gamib exoerience... well, so does Windows 2000...lol if the game allows itself to install on the PC. the old OS just has less services, so it can run certain things faster and better, but sadly it has its limitations.
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:11 PM
  • I quite like the sticky-note idea but it's a bit half-baked. A sticky note is something that you stick to a surface - however the implementation of this has been as an application, it's either open or closed. It would be better if we could stick notes to the desktop and they then persist until we remove the note.

    In addition, I suspect quite a few people are getting confused with the traditional X being used to delete rather than close the note.

    Best

    Charles
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:31 PM
  •  Phil -

    Microsoft is shifting the way Windows is being sold. The Ultimate version is no longer being emphasized quite so much. They've changed the way the entire product lineup is composed mainly to make things MUCH easier on themselves and everyone else. Home Premium or Professional is now positioned so that it'll do pretty much everything anyone would need. Unless you've got a dire need for Bitlocker, Branch Cache or any of the other 3 - 4 features that are unique to Ultimate, Home Premium or Pro are plenty. They're significantly cheaper as well.

    In other words - don't hold your breath waiting for an Ultimate Family Pack. It's not likely to be happening.

    Wolfie, I like how Microsoft has shifted their producted line back to 2 primary SKUs, Home and Professional.  My problem is that I can't upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Home.  Instead I have to pay full price for 7 Ultimate for features I probably won't use.  I don't want to do a clean install so that's not an option.

    If they allowed me to upgrade from vista ultimate to 7 Home Premium I'd love to get the famiy pack and upgrade my vista ultimate PCs for just $149.99.
    There is no way I'm going to pay over $600 just to upgrade 3 PCs to Windows 7.
    As I said, this problem needs to be fix.
    THey could:

    1.  Just Allow upgrades from Vista ultimate to 7 Home Premium.(You don't get to keep the Ultimate Extras with 7 Ultimate so you're going to lose them anyway with 7 Home Premium.)

    2.  1.  Create 7 Ultimate family pack for $299.99 for 3 PCs.

    3.  2.  Create a new Vista Ultimate Extra that allows you to upgrade to windows 7 Ultimate for $100 or less.


    I paid more than $160 for Vista Ultimate, and I have to pay the same price as any other version of Vista to get to 7 Home Premium.  In addition, I have to do a clean install of windows 7 home premium; while the cheaper, inferior version of Vista that I paid to upgrade from, doesn't have to do.
    THat just doesn't sound right to me.

    From the way I see it, Microsoft has already disappointed Vista Ultimate users like me by creating very few Ultimate Extras that were promised.  And now, we who paid more, are not going to get any discounts whatsoever?  Not only that, but we lossed our ability to do an upgrade to windows 7!

    Please, I'm not just trying to complain, I offered 3 different solution that I'd pay for.  But right now, my investment in Vista Ultimate is turning out to be more of a downgrade in the long run.
    Please do SOMETHING to fix this problem!
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:31 PM
  • Beaver -

    Actually, per this chart*, you CAN upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Home Premium - with one gotcha. You would have to do a clean install. There isn't any real way around it. You can't downgrade from a higher edition to a lower edition - just upgrade from the lower one to a higher one. It's all about the registry - Microsoft is NOT in the registry cleaning business. Removing a key from one spot might have an unexpected side effect elsewhere.

    The fact that you don't WANT to do a clean install, well... That's your decision. For what it's worth - clean installs usually work out better than upgrades anyhow.



    *This chart is an official Microsoft chart hosted in an article by Walt Mossberg. A much simplified version was created by Ed Bott from ZDNet and can be seen here

    Friday, August 14, 2009 1:44 AM
  • Comment 1:

    Please change icons that are associated with Vista. For example, the taskbar and start menu properties icon shows the Vista taskbar.  

    Comment 2:

    Please repair Vista bugs in Windows 7.  For example, the flashing close button on any hardware properties dialog box in the Device Manager is a bug also found in Vista.

    These are all found on Windows 7 RTM.  Please consider these suggestions.  We all want Windows 7 to be the best it can be.

    Thanks.
    Friday, August 14, 2009 3:53 AM
  • Beaver -

    Actually, per this chart*, you CAN upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Home Premium - with one gotcha. You would have to do a clean install. There isn't any real way around it. You can't downgrade from a higher edition to a lower edition - just upgrade from the lower one to a higher one. It's all about the registry - Microsoft is NOT in the registry cleaning business. Removing a key from one spot might have an unexpected side effect elsewhere.

    The fact that you don't WANT to do a clean install, well... That's your decision. For what it's worth - clean installs usually work out better than upgrades anyhow.



    *This chart is an official Microsoft chart hosted in an article by Walt Mossberg. A much simplified version was created by Ed Bott from ZDNet and can be seen here


    Woflie, I know the clean install generally always work better, but I just have so much software installed on it would take hours to reinstall it again.  I wouldn't be that upset about if it wasn't because I upgraded to vista  ultimate.  Right now I feel screwed pretty bad.
    Take this for example, a Windows Vista HOME BASIC user, can do an upgrade to windows 7 Home Premium at the same price that I have to pay for Windows 7 Home Premium.  I even bought the Ultimate anytime upgrade for $160! 
    Yet Micrsoft treats me the same, if not worse than the customer who bought the lowest product of them all. 

    WHen the Vista Basic user upgrades to 7, he gains a ton of features.
    But when I upgrade to Windows 7, I actually lose a ton of features that I had in Vista.  Like Bitlocker, Shadow Copy, etc.

    THe only way around this, is to rebuy the features I ALREADY PAID $160 for in VISTA ULTIMATE with Windows 7 ULTIMATE!
    Does Microsoft really expect me to pay an extra $400 {To install on 3 PCs} to NOT take away features I've previously paid for????

    Here's a simple solution. 
    Make 1 Windows 7 Upgrade version for ~$120.
    And the upgade, detechs what OS your use, lets say, Vista Home Premium, and upgrades you to the corrosponding 7 version such as Windows 7 Home Premium.
    If you have Vista business, it upgrades you to 7 Professional.
    If you have Vista Ultimate, it upgrades you to 7 Ultimate.
    If you have XP Pro, it upgrades you to Windows 7 Professional.
    And so on.
    Users who want to jump from Vista home premium to a higher Version of 7 can just use windows anytime upgrade.

    Does that not make a lot more sense?

    Please guys, I'm a big Windows fan, who else would pay $160 for anytime upgrade to Ultimate.  On my other computer, I did the Ultimate Bill Gates Signiture upgrade edition.  And the other has a RETAIL version of Vista ultimate on it.

    Furthermore, I love Windows 7, I've tried out the RC on multible computers and its great!

    I just feel like I'm one of the few loyal Microsoft customers who paid for ultimate yet are getting treated like dirt.  That's what frustrates me so much. 
    I might just keep my Windows Vista going and just wait on 7 for the pricing to stop being absurd for ultimate users.
    Friday, August 14, 2009 6:33 AM
  • Hi,
    I'have been using Win7 beta and RC soon after their release, and had a really good first impression : The OS feels smooth, and some things are really nice (e.g. taskbar previews, or the copy dialog auto-renaming files with the same names)

    BUT, quickly, I felt upon some (really ) annoying things, like the not-manually rearrangables icons, crappy explorer, (even crappy MS-paint, rofl), which didn't bother me too much immediatly, but become more and more exasperating now.
    The real problem is that nothing really useful is there to offset all thoses lacking features, which means I constantly lose time when performing usual tasks like browsing my files, but NEVER get any gain from the "power of windows 7"
    In other words, Win7 cost me time (and nerves), but doesn't give me anything in return.

    As a result, I'll soon upgrade to XP, as I got enough with this, but what I'm seriously wondering about the ones who are satisfied with win7 is in my topic's title :
    HOW does win7 increase your productivity ?
    WHAT advantages do you get, you would miss so much under XP ?

    I honestly can't find anything worth the switch, imho, the only true progress is about system security, which has really been improved, but I don't care about it for thoses reasons :
     -At home, I don't need security. I never used any antivirus beyond DOS ones, I just remove spyware sometimes, and never have problems.
     -At work, I'm in a little company (<20 ppl) which doesn't have time or money to put in a real security system, sure they got some firewalls & other stuff, but anyone determined with some hacking skills could certainly pass trough, and they are aware of it. I really don't think the OS we run on our personnal PCs would change much, only the server really matters anyway.
     -Be it at home or work, the time lost and annoyance caused by the use of Win7 would have a direct negative impact on our productivity, which for sure matters much more than a theorically better but still full-of-breaks security.
     -We wouldn't even be paid for this switch, but would HAVE TO pay for it !
     
    Please, convince me than Windows 7 can bring me at least 1 useful feature !

    --
    Regards
    Friday, August 14, 2009 10:17 AM
  • I tried windows 7 RC on my computer it is great.And the most amazing thing that i running it on 512 MB Ram and it is working faster than Windows Vista.It's theme is great and it has a great boot screen but i'm very sad because i can't run aero on my computer coz my video card hasn't any wddm drivers.But i'm really happy about windows 7 coz it has a high performance.
    Friday, August 14, 2009 11:57 AM
  • Windows 7 is great i tried it. But i want to know what are people saying about it?
    Friday, August 14, 2009 12:00 PM
  • Gobix -

    Ok... I'll give it a go...

    1.) Speed. Windows 7 IS just plain faster. Faster to boot, faster running my apps... XP on this same machine is just plain SLOWER.

    2.) Easier networking - and I'm NOT referring to HomeGroup networking either. I mean connecting to my domain server. It's simply a FAST flawless connection.

    3.) Stability. Since Windows 7 is based on the NT 6 (Vista) kernal, drivers are no longer loaded in Kernal mode. They're all user mode now. As such, if something does crash - it doesn't BSOD and kill the system. Since the RC went live - I haven't had any driver crashes.
    4.) Security: I'll go one step further. In the past 8 months or so, I haven't so much as had to remove any spyware. About the only thing Spybot S&D has had to delete were tracking cookies from RightMedia.

    5.) The new taskbar design is a lot easier to navigate. It takes a bit of getting used to, but once you do, it's much easier.

    6.) The start menu, likewise, is blazing fast. If I know what I'm looking for, I simply type in a few letters and it filters everything out and finds what I'm looking for. I don't have to navigate any confusing menus, sub menus, sub-sub menus, sub-sub-sub-sub menus, etc...

    7.) If I'm looking for a document, searching for it is also easy. More often than not, the file I'm looking for is in an indexed location and finding it is VERY FAST and easy. And if they aren't, adding drives or locations is faster and easier than search under XP...

    It's not one big "must have" feature, more like a collection of smaller, yet very significant improvements.

    As with any new OS version, there's bound to be a learning curve. If you bother to sit down and LEARN how to use the tools and do it with an open mind, you might find that you actually like them. But if you go into it thinking this is just like XP, you're likely to be quite disappointed.

    Friday, August 14, 2009 1:29 PM
  • I am running vista on two machines, and w7 RC on another.  All the points wolfie made are absolutely on target, and more.

    I do not understand the resistance, and the constant excuse of a "learning curve".  One day, you will be forced to upgrade, by hardware failures, or by application demands, or adding additional staff to your business.  Personally, I would take the time (which will be small learning curve) and have my employees get on W7. 

    Doc
    Friday, August 14, 2009 1:47 PM
  • I'll continue where Wolfie left off...

    I was comfortable with XP, and I set it to the classic look on every install I ever did.  I could go to start and have a huge overflowing mass of columns open up showing all of the installed programs.  for a time I saw the clutter as a "feature".  Comfort.  My wife decided to use the default XP UI just to see if she liked it.  It was "different" so she used it, but whenever I was up there trying to use it, I didn't care for it because it "hid" things from me I was used to. 

    I could navigate to nearly anything with great speed because I'd done it tens or hundrends of thousands of times before.  But once I started using the Win7 interface, I came to a somewhat shocking conclusion that I could find what I needed facter, with fewer clicks, than I ever experienced with XP.  Oh, sure, for a time I tried the typical "power-user" stuff of making separate folders for all my stuff (text files in a test file folder, Excel in Excel, Docs in a Word folder and all of that, and I knew how to find them quick enough.  But when I tried the same thing on Win7 I realized clicking on my username from the start orb took me straight to the library of these folders.  Less clicks, less remembering where I put something.

    Network browsing plain sucked under XP, even though I was "used to it" it ALWAYS iritated me that it took so long to do anything, to find out if the wife's machine was on so I could drop a file in her shared folder, etc.  Under Win7 I open "Computer", and after a delay much shorter than XP's, all of the network connections show up for all 7 machines.  When I click on one to open it, it happens instantly, with no delays perceptable.  INSTANT access.  In fact I like the networking in Win7 so much by itself, and since I use it often enough, it alone would satisfy my criteria for "worthy of paying to upgrade".  Easily in fact.

    The control panel layout is nice, I set it to large icons, and everything I need to see is right there in front of me, I don't have a huge column to scroll through to find something, it's all just THERE for the picking.  While control panel is generally a low-use type thing, the direct access (start orb/control panel/icons) is MUCH smoother than the by now clunky start/settings/control panel/scroll I have to do under XP.  Could I rearrange it so system went up top since that was the most likely destination for my control panel activities?  Sure.  But it was still an extra click at a minimum, and a huge list of junk popping up to navigate through.  Could I have used the default UI to have a more Win7 like look?  sure, but remember, I didn't like the standard UI for almost everything else.

    In this regard, the changes made to the entire start-get to where I want to be interface is better in every way for me.  Maybe not you, but definitely for me.  Beleive me, I WANTED to be hyper critical and wanted to carry on (and on, and on) as others have done about not having the classic look, but it took me less than a day to realize I would have been complaining for complaining's sake because the new approach is better for me.  Oh, I really wanted to beech up a storm as some sort of godly power user wailing about how my precious interface was changed, but I was instead plesently surprized that if you tried to work with the setup as delivered, even for only an hour or so, if you have even a hint of an open mind, the improvements should be obvious. 

    Is it different?  Yep.  Did the differences improve it it some way?  Yep. 

    Same goes for Office 2007.  I've been using Office stuff since it came on 3.5 inch floppies.  My first version of access was on 5 or 6 floppies as I recall.  With each new release that I bothered to upgrade to, I hated the changes for a short while, then came to realize the changes were not for pure profit as many still contend to this day, but actual, verifiable changes that aided productivity.  I settled on Office XP 2002 Pro as the "really can't get much better" version, and I used it for years.  My first introduction to the 2007 suite was on a work laptop, and the first time I saw the ribbon, I thought well, maybe there is such a thing as change for profit "breaking" usability.  I ended up doing a few large projects that required Word, Powerpoint and Excel, and for the first day or two, I literally couldn't wait to get home so I could use my "good" versions of these apps.  By about the 3rd and 4th days though, that had completely reversed.  Now I was using my laptop at home while working on the work projects, and somewhat disappointed in having to use my old stuff for my personal efforts. 

    Is the ribbon different?  yep.  Does it improve my workflow?  Without any doubt.  So what did I do?  I finally upgraded to Office 2007 Ultimate for my main home machine.  Now what?  I'm a bit disappointed that Publisher 2007 doesn't have the ribbon, that's what.  I know a lot of people don't use or care for publisher, but I've done a lot with it for "side jobs" and started using it for myself due to familiarity.  Accordingly, I have quite a few Publisher projects, and I can publish efficiently, right up there with the pagemaker and Illustrator power users.  In fact I own several versions of Illustrator, and while undeniably a better package in it's entirety than Publisher, I still use Publisher more than I do Illustrator.

    So, in a nutshell, I see virtually every change Win7 (and office 2007) bring to the table as honest, verifiable aids to productivity.  The key is an open mind, and to try and understand through using it, why changes were made.  NO, Microsoft didn't change it for profit, no, they didn't "break" the old way because they are "playing god" as some diehards insist, they made changes because they saw avenues for improvement.  I will say that they could have easily included a "classic" UI for the diehards, but then they'd have people beeching about "no changes other than being faster, why would I bother to upgrade?"

    If you are worried about having to teach folks how to use the new stuff, I'd say that might be a concern for the borderline computer illiterate, the type of operators that can only go to the same place and do the same thing evertime, without benefit of any understanding of what they are actually doing.  But for people that understand where files are stored, that there is a difference between a word doc and a text file, a difference between publishing and word processing, these people are VERY likely to notice immediate improvements in their productivity.  I base this on quite a bit of experience with other users, but my wife was the real acid test for me.  I would call her barely capable, she know enough tomake things work, but simple things always seemed to escape her, like where her files went when she saved them and simple stuff like that.  When I set up a Win7 machine for her, I really expected a bunch of gnashing of the teeth about it looking different, couldn't find anything, so on and so forth, but I was pleasently surprize she took to it almost immediately, with question here or there, but I can honestly say she know more about how to find stuff, store stuff, retrieve stuff faster and easier on her 3 month old Win7 system than he ever could on her XP machine she'd been using since 3 or 4 days after XP showed up for first retail.  That my friend, speaks volumes.

    I've already written enough, but application and hardware compatibility are shockingly good under Win7 too.  Her printer?  Plug it in, Win7 loaded a canned driver.  She said something about "what about the ink level monitor, I use that a lot"  Click-there it is.  COOL!.  What about her aging scanner?  Dowload the driver & SW package, install in compatibility mode, works like a charm.  what about her precious Print Shop Deluxe?  Compatability mode, installed, moved her creations over from the archive server, ready to roll without a single hitch. 

    Microsoft got it right, all that is required is an open mind.  No, they do not change UI's so they can get new money for old code repakaged, they change this stuff for a reason.  Oh, before I go, I had fantastic results with Vista too other than lazy manufacturers wanting to sell new hardware rather than tweak drivers.
    Vista was a resource pig, but other than that, it woked great too, I guess I'm immune to change, I never got the feeling I was being screwed for the sake of being screwed.  Call it a personal flaw...

    DAS
    Friday, August 14, 2009 2:39 PM
  • @ Win7Tester :

    you didn´t write anything about the messy windows explorer!? For THIS peace of "software" you need more than an open mind! You must have
    a deep love for ... choose an appropriate word !!
    If the win explorer were a peripheral program I would not criticize it that much , BUT it belongs to the heart of the win os!
    • Edited by karlx Friday, August 14, 2009 6:27 PM
    Friday, August 14, 2009 3:13 PM
  • @ Win7Tester :

    you didn´t write anything about the messy windows explorer!? For THIS peace of "software" you need more than an open mind! You must have
    a deep love for ... choose an appropriate word !!
    If the win explorer were a peripherel program I would not criticize it that much , BUT it belongs to the heart of the win os!
    Windows Explorer is TERRIBLE, to say the least and keep the conversation polite. If a "real" word could be used to define the new Windows Explorer I´m afraid it would be a censored one.

    In Windows XP file management is easy, and simple happens. But, Every time I need to do ANYTHING with my files in windows 7, I start to get irritated.
    Friday, August 14, 2009 4:11 PM
  • same here

    i hate all the new virtual folders since Vista. I even simplified my file management. in the c drive i have a folder called backup. in this folder i keep everything including my itunes library. and i have a netbackup policy set to back this folder up. this way i'm sure everything will get backed up when i backup my laptop
    Friday, August 14, 2009 7:05 PM
  • First, thanks for your answers, as they indeed help me to understand your point of view.
    (as my Thread has been merged, you can read why I blame seven for, up here, in the first posts)

     @Wolfie
    1) Speed : I didn't notice any serious difference between XP and 7. Considering boot, I think my XP boots a bit faster, but didn't notice anything worth it. Its the same for me. (I don't say it's not faster, but not enough for me to notice it, with my daily use)
     
    2) Network : I don't use it enough to be able to rate its management. As XP's one was rather bad, I trust you when you say 7's one is better. Tough... I personnally don't need such upgrade :p

    3) Stability : Dont speak of BSOD and refer to XP, many years have passed since my last BSOD under XP... and I use it everyday. Under 7 beta (and maybe RC), yes, I got some, and some other weird bugs including an imposible to shut-down laptop, but I consider it is normal for a beta.
    7 might be better on the long run (i.e. not needing a regular reinstall, or less frequently), but I wouldn't bet on it, maybe that will happen the day registry base will be removed... atm, I'm quite skeptical.

    4) Security : I wont get back over it : I agree it is better, but I just don't need it.

    5) New taskbar is a bit better to look for a precise window, yes, but has drawbacks. Among them, it has a doubled height (annoying on small screens, plus I hate wasting space), can't be manually hidden (not auto-hidden, reduced to the bottom of screen, I wouldn't have noticed it if I didn't needed it) and using the "old look" would be a pain, as the light-effects makes it very hard to see what task is selected. Also, I just cant use the "dock style" with pinned apps. I tried it , used it during several month , and really, it ****** me off, as it makes it more difficult to know what tasks are opened, and merges active windows order with quickbar icons order. Thumbnails are good, hiding apps name is rather good too, but once more, thoses aren't key features which would make me use 7...

    6) Start menu : I don't use it... Either you want something really fast and use hotkeys for all your frequently used programs (like launchy), or stick to some shortcuts (I use my desktop, but quick launch bar works fine too)
     The only features I use in start menu are recent docs, all programs, control panel and shut down. For that, a classic menu would be enough, as it would save me the empty left pane. I kept the default start menu at work, id doesn't save me any time...
     Btw, the "all programs" menu is even worse than before now, as you have both horizontal and vertical scrollbars when using it.
     Also, the few time I try to use the search, it gives me crappy results. It only works if you know perfectly what you are looking for, which, imo, isn't the point of a "search" feature.


    As you may have noticed, my real problems are not about thoses points (except the start menu, there's nothing I don't like in 7 in what you said), but about removed features which were useful (and have no reason to be removed)
    Why is explorer so bad ? Why can't I custom anything in it ? Why thoses stupid dynamic menubars which replace the (to me, more useful) classic menu bar ? Why can't I sort my icons manually in folders, is it so buggy that they preferred to disabled it ? (I read that somewhere), if so, can't they at least allow it when using icons ?
    And so on...


     @Dr.strangelove
    I didn't talk about a "learning curve", what is supposed to take time to learn here ?
    My problem is about missing features that were in XP and aren't in 7.


     @Win7Tester

    I don't consider the control panel is nice. Its still very messy, just it's a different mess. A simple example : on my to-do list when I install windows, I have "remove the shortcuts for sticky/(filter?)/(bascule?) keys" . Under XP, the 3 options were on the same place, so I just had to press eight times left shift, and was brought to the place to disable all of them.
    Under 7, I got to naviguate and look for both other keys shortcuts.

    I like the ribbon interface, and agree that it must increases efficency (well, not on paint, but that's a particular case :) But it's not related to 7, it's just an example of progress in the good direction among other.

    I don't think MS puts change to "play god", nor they just want to "make something different" (they would have taken XP and put a skin on it for that, it would have cost them way less than Vista's developpement), but I think they just neglect too much some important aspects, as they know they'll be able to sell it due to the lack of alternative for the consummer.
    Look at Vista.. It might have some good sides, but was mostly ____ (imo, normal for a brand new kernel, which lacked years of testing, feedbacks, and optimisation), tough, it was sold with every new PC, despite his really bad popularity...
    I know the image cost of Vista isn't nothing, and MS reacted to it, but what I mean is that they become so used to beeing criticised on whatever they do (and I dont pretend it is always solid based) that they ever neglect some really important points.
    To me, examples like the absence of "classic start menu" - things which would cost them nothing to implement -, are typical illustration of what they did wrong : maybe you would have reverted to it when installing 7, and be less productive than now as you wouldn't have tried it, but it's up to YOU to choose if you want to try the new menu, not to them... your way of working isn't their business, it's yours... Many ppl just don't use its features, and preventing them from using classic start menu is just stupid. Not dramatic, but stupid.
    If every obsolete thing was forbidden to use after some time, many things would go wrong.. even our banks IT, which often rely on COBOL/Fortran or other ____ stuff would stop to work, many programs couldn't be used anymore, as better ones come out (office here is a good example), but WHY , would anyone impose such things ?
    When something is too bad, people stop using it by themselves.. I didn't hesitated long before upgrading to XP, despite his ressource consumption, my crappy hardware, and the fact that I hated the idea of having part of the few ressources I had wasted by the polished interface.

    About application compatibility, it seems I'm less lucky than you.
    I got many programs which either don't work or have various problems, regardless of the compatibility mode used.
    That isn't supposed to be an issue with virtualization but atm, its one more annoyance.

    About Vista, as I said.. the simple fact that it was a "ressource pig" was too much for me, but anyway, I didn't expect something that new to work well : a 1st release can't be fine, especially for such product.



    I, honestly, can't understand that some core features are completely removed. Things as stupid as the forced icons auto-arrange makes me mad : WHY remove that ? What did it cost to keep it ?!
    Explorer's issues are way worse than this one, and when it comes to OS, MS's lack of flexibility just can't be compensated by using a tierce party program. Maybe they just made XP too good ? 7's explorer is just unacceptable

    And I'm not saying there has been NO progress in 7, there is a bunch, but just not sufficient to compensate the lacking features atm.
    some examples :
    Jump list are a typical excellent feature example. Simple, efficient, and even intuitive
    Architecture is, as I know, better, or at least "more suitable to todays needs". Sounds logical as the basis have been reworked.
    When renaming a file, the extension is kept off selection, which allows a faster renaiming once you're used to
    When copying files, if you're about to overwrite one, the dialog asks you if you want to rename one
    New taskbar, search-for-dummies, [...] are overall rather cool
    [...many other little improvements...] ...alas, too little to compensate removed features


    Pre-posting edit :
    Ha, seems I'm not the only one who noticed your absence of response about Explorer (Which is indeed THE main problem)
    Friday, August 14, 2009 7:14 PM
  • there is a bug with notification area, some uninstalled program still there (my asus management programs uninstalled)

    And so WE WANT THE BACK OF SHOW MY DESKTOP SHORTCUT PLEASE ON TASKBAR ! (i know the workaround but ..)
    Friday, August 14, 2009 7:53 PM
  • Gobix -

    I think I can answer some of your concerns as far as why things were removed.

    Windows 7 is ALL about getting rid of the clutter. Yes... Clutter. It's about making Windows 7 as lean and mean as a cheetah. For years, some people have been whining about how Windows is so bloated and swollen. Where do you think that bloat comes from? It comes, in part, from retaining older UI elements while adding new ones.

    Explorer... I'll admit that it could have been done better in some ways. There's no such thing as perfect.. Not even XP is perfect - in spite of what many seem to think. There's always room for improvment. Service Packs are always an option. In the mean time, it's not a showstopper in my book.

    In the meantime, the apps and applets that were removed - Messenger, Photo Gallery, and so forth - those have been moved to the Windows Live Essentials package. There's a benefit to this - there's now one version of those apps that'll run on Win 7, Vista and XP. You don't need to install the whole package - just the bits you need.

    Friday, August 14, 2009 8:31 PM
  • Gobix:

    You didn't see anything about explorer because you didn't read very closely.  As I stated clearly, the barely informed users seem to find their way around even better in Win7 than they do XP.  I didn't feel like I had to mention it by name because it is such a core part of the system redesign that it doesn't bear mentioning.  I see you are cruising along with a bit of a chip on your shoulder so there is nothing I can say to sooth your perception.  You want XP with no changes, presumably so you can beech about having to pay for an OS all over again in order to maintain support.  At least that's how it feels, there were 10's of thousands of posts about how the new UI was great, how this or that was changed and the workaround was acceptable if not a great improvement, how many wanted the classic back (security blanket?) and everthing else under the sun, but as soon as RTM was announced it seems as though the floodgates of complaints opened.  Now either these were late arrivals, or people just saw an opportunity to pile on using someone else's complaint as their cause du jour.  I especially like the comments "OK, that's it, I'm going with Linux", or "Time to buy a Mac" and all the rest of the hyperventilating "pay attention to me, my needs are important" type posts, but the further you ratchet up the rhetoric, the more you look like a good old fashion Gates/MS basher.  Here's the story:  Go out and create an industry, make yourself worth billions, and you too can have people hating your guts for using good clean air everyone else deserves.  Me, I'm a programmer, a video editor, a surfer, a gamer, and almost everthing else you use a PC for, but I'm not so set in my way that I can't recognize an improvement for what it is.

    In the end though, frankly, I'm a bit TIRED of XP.     

    Here's what I took away from the changes:

    I initially didn't like the sweeping changes until I knuckled under and decided to see how it was supposed to work.  When I approached it with an open mind and used it as it was meant to be used, I found it easier AND quicker to move around.  You are free to disagree, and you are free to post a long diatribe about how you did things in XP that you can't do now, but I have to say that if you move past this not being like you are used to, you might just find things flow pretty well after all.  Again, the results from "barely informed" users proved this to me better than me finding it out for myself.  I fully expected a series of complaints, but I had none, and to see my wife navigating without me having to prompt her for every click, it actually blew me away.  Prior to Win7 I used to have to tell her just about every step to take, and even with me looking over her shoulder and guiding her she still never "got it".  Now, she's got it, and all by herself.  what changed?  The changes you hate. 

    I'll also disagree with coding for the old functionality being a zero cost/zero effort thing.  I don't know how much code you've written, but I've done millions of lines of code, and even the most flexible, modular design has core principals that guide development.  Having said that, I didn't write any code for MS, so I could be way of base here, it could have been as easy as dropping in a module and a recompile, but I seriously doubt it. 

    I'm sorry your old shortcuts don't work, that can be a pain.  It might be funny to find out that what you used to have to do is now 2 keypresses though, but I'm not going to bother to research it, it would still be different and therefore a source of apparently insurmountable frustration.

    My best suggestion?  Stay with XP.  Or, get really really mad, stomp your feet, and try one of the hundred or so flavors of Linux, that's what all the spiters do.  Or, you could really show MS who's the boss and go buy a MAC.  Trust me, I wanted to be just as much of a di ck as everyone else, but I LIKE the way Win7 works, and I'm on machines on the order of 12-14 hours a day.  The company I work for is XP based, and I find myself anticipating getting home to use Win7 to do the same stuff I do on the XP machines all day.  Since I installed Win7 on what used to be my Vista box, the only use I have for the XP machine shaing the same desk surface is to run the video capture card for importing video, then of course I transfer it to the Win7 machine to do the editing.

    DAS 
    Friday, August 14, 2009 8:40 PM
  • @wolfie: getting rid of cluttter, like the new status bar that's now triple the size of the old status bar, but doesn't show free disk space, or total file size if you select more than 15 files?  I guess your idea of clutter is my idea of basic functionality.  If you design a car dashboard, you'll get rid of the odometer to avoid "clutter".
    @win7tester: sorry but it's total revisionism to say there were little complaints before RTM.  There were plenty, but people do get tired of repeating themselves, so eventually the complaints died down.  Of course with RTM, there will be new complaints as people find out all the issues they complained about are still here.  Floodgate, what floodgate?  Most people don't even have RTM yet.  This thread is short compared to the 7 other threads pre-RTM.
    Friday, August 14, 2009 10:00 PM
  • Pre-posting edit :
    Ha, seems I'm not the only one who noticed your absence of response about Explorer (Which is indeed THE main problem)

    Gobix may I know:

    What is so annoying for you in the Windows Explorer?
    What features don't you like?
    What about the new libraries concept? Do you use them?
    When do you get horizontal bars in the "All Programs" menu? I've never seen that in any of the versions (Beta, RC and RTM)
    What do you mean by customization?
    What do you miss compared to XP?

    As a sidenote, I'd like to say that the "I don't use that feature" or "I don't like it" it doesn't mean it's bad. Personally, I found really neat the Start Menu / Search Box. There is no need to recall tons of hotkeys or having hundreds of shortcuts in the desktop. Our computers nowadays are full loaded of programs, I can't really tell you the %, but I'm pretty sure that the increase is very noticeable, compared to XP first days of life. So, again, +1 to the new Start Menu and the Search Box.

    About the Taskbar, if you set it up properly, is quite easy, at a single glance, know which apps are opened and which aren't. And last but not least, the most dificult task for us is to change the way we are used to do things in XP. That's the real MAIN problem. We don't want to change, we are reluctant, averse to the changes.


    Thanks for reading and regards.
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:07 AM
  • to be honest i do not care about the seach bar thing in the start menu at all in Windows 7 or Windows Vista. in Ways it sucks for when searching for files, or is it just me. i miss the classic file search engine that came with Windows 200 and XP those wirked better for me and in ways those were a lot more user friendly. but thats just my opinion. i think there should be an option to open a search Windows from the Start menu like there was in XP. that was nice. i like some of the new options, but i really would like some of the old options back as well.

    for example we all want the classic start menu back. In Vista microsoft discontinued the use of the Windows 98/Windows 200 folder customization feature. :( at least in XP it was usable, but you had to extract the utility from Windows 2000 to use it because they took it out of Windows explorer and stuff. at least in XP they added the ability to change folder icons which is nice, but i still do want the ability to change all the other folder customizations again with font color, font highlight, web content, background color, and whatnot. it was nice, yet it also took up hard drive space and whatnot, but still....it gave us users a nicer Windows theme just like in Windows 7. At times i also wish there was a way to bring back the Windows XP theme.
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:30 AM
  • there are many new items that are out for all of the windows products. I loved windows 98 and did not want to ever let it go. Change is hard to take at times. Good things - - the speed of the new windows 7 can be seen, but I want more, I want to have it all. . . .  So can we not bend and blend? I would like to have dreamscenes can it not be an add on? I sure it can, there are things from each of the windows system that I have liked and disliked. It would be nice to have opptions of what we would like to have on our systems, after all these programs have all been made by the same company. I started way back with dos and moved up to 3.1 and learned all I could then upgrade to 95 and bought then upgrade 98 and bought and upgrade to me went back to 98 2000 i checked out stayed with 98, bought xp liked it thought I had found what I wanted. upgraded computers and got vista. Love a lot of features, checked out windows 7 like the speed but I want my toys. Please set things up so we can have the toys we want, if it takes from the speed we so be it.  Thank you for letting me ramble on, Like to learn all that I can about systems, I have played with window 7 May have to stay with Vista just for the toys.
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:30 AM
  • Hi,

     

    Thanks for sharing your opinion on Sticky note. Customers feedbacks such as yours are great for developing products. Your suggestion is always appreciated and taken seriously. However, I need to say this feature is by design in this application. I recommend that you get other gargets to meet your requirements. Just right click the desktop and click Gadgets, then click Get more gadgets online. There are lots of similar gadgets there and also you can give your suggestions on developing gadgets.

     

    BTW, I would like to provide the following website for references.

     

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480731.aspx#stic_topic5

     

    Best Regards.

    Dale Qiao

    Saturday, August 15, 2009 5:52 AM
    Moderator
  • It seems to me that some people posting here are payed by Microsoft to write very positive about Win 7.

    I'm using Win 7. The setup was very fast, the OS runs without problems. All driver are recognised and working fine.

    But Windows Explorer is a mess. And the missing blinking network activity icon is a big security issue. This 2 features are enough reason for me NOT TO BUY Win 7.

    It is very easy possible to delete importand folders in explorer because of this very stupid auto sort. The info bar and status bar are useless. So why aren't they removed completely?

    The startup of Win 7 is fast, but not much faster then XP. Shutdown is 5-6 times slower then XP. The OS is not faster then XP, there are just a lot of features, like in Explorer, taken out to make some things faster. The same what Linux is doing for years. Les features, faster OS! Very easy, very clever.

    As an investor I will wait for the 3rd and 4th quarter earnings of Microsoft to see if the cutomers "really like Win 7".

    As the support for XP ends soon, I'am seriously thinking about installing Linux after 8 years. So please do me a favor, extend the support for Windows XP
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:44 PM
  • @ Drew1903 :

    you wrote : if Vista was helll, Win 7 is heaven.

    And explorer in win 7 is then a "pleasure trip" to helll?


    @ papagallo. I think they will not extend, there must be a argument for "upgrading"
    • Edited by karlx Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:25 PM
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:22 PM
  • Whenever and wherever the topic of shell/Explorer on Windows Vista/7 arises, I've only seen people badmouth it like anything and curse it. Explorer is a total mess with bad UI and the features people need removed and the features people don't need so badly all there. Does anyone know what a bootload of features MS has taken out of the new taskbar which the old one had? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_7#Taskbar) Explorer has basic functionality which was available from Windows 95-XP missing (advanced file types, viewing file sizes, viewing properties painlessly, viewing free space, sorting ascending once, descending for some other criteria?, multiple file permissions, column information missing for shell addons, autosorting which is so annoyingly bad and irritating that files get mixed up, views still getting forgotten across places, navigation weirdness) and MS refuses to even acknowledge or reply about the issues? I'm sorry but in spite of wanting to like this OS, if it doesn't get such a fundamentally basic thing such as managing my files right or make it more harder, I prefer to use the earlier OS which allows me to manage files and folders on my HDD effortlessly without ANY annoyances.
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:48 PM
  • I haven't read through the entire thread but I'm hope I'm not the only one who's voicing his displeasure at the fact that Ecosystem participants are not receiving a complimentary edition of Windows 7 like the Windows 7 Beta participants.
    I was going to be running Windows XP, Vista, 7 & linux as operating systems for maximum support however now I'll have to leave windows 7 off because I won't continue to use the release candidate and run the risk of incompatabilites with the rtm & I can't justify the $320 USD they're asking for the "ultimate" edition which would be the ideal target. To be honest the only reason I'm even running Vista is because a Costco had it for a very reasonable price when I was on holidays... $100 less then any other retail outlet. Microsoft is pushing me in the direction of not supporting thier new systems much at all.
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 5:00 PM
  • Well, is awesome if you don't need to work with professional audio o video programs ;)

    Greetings Dr Gerry,

    all the OS out there have its limitations. That's a fact. It's a good start for everybody to know that no operative system will meet all of our needs. Having said that, Ubuntu, for a regular user, connected at home to surf the web and read emails, is awesome.

    If you are looking for something else, then we have to look for other alternatives. And that is one of my points: if you need a full capable OS, stick with Windows. You shall find everything you need, either to work or simply to game.

    Regards.
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    That's what I said. Anyway, I have 30 years with computers and I don't find Ubuntu an easy OS for people without knowledge. I think there's no other OS like Windows specially for my people like my mom and, of course, as you said, no other OS is full capable as Windows (not a fan, just a fact).
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:00 PM
  • Papagallo:

    While tempting to strike out for your comment, I'll take the high road.

    Microsoft has nothing to do with me, no relationship whatsoever.  If I had a relationship I certainly would have used it to leverage some assistance for a dear friend who was caught up in Microsoft's totally bogus "Genuine Advantage" program.

    Tim and I bought our OEM copies of XP (I bought 2, he bought 1) the same day, from the same vendor.  I drove over because Tim couldn't find it once the company had moved, I guess my "simple" directions weren't so simple.  Anyway, we went back to Tim's place first to install his copy, I'm more or less his OEM contact, I do virtually everything "technical" for his several PCs.  Once that was installed and working, I went home and installed my copies, great stuff, I had XP on my Sony laptop and on my "killer" (for the time) machines, XP was really pretty close to awesome.

    And so it went for 6 years.  Tim was running his, I was running mine, those 3 machines working everyday, surviving untold passes once the "Genuine advantage" stuff started.  Neither one of us gave it a second thought, we know we bought them, we know the vendor was/is legit, and we had our reciepts and COAs, just like good little customers.  About 6 months ago (perhaps less?) Tim called and said his copy came up and warned him about being illegitimate.  He tried all to the suggestions, renewing the key with the one from the sticker, chatting with a MS "support" guy on an official MS forum.  The end result was Tim was told his copy (his key) had been flagged as pirated, and he could take advantage of a the "charitable savings" by purchasing a new key.

    6+ years, and they flag his key.  No recourse, they didn't even want to see his reciept, his genuine CD, his genuine sticker, none of it, his key was flagged, PERIOD.  So what could have happened?  My best guess is someone with a key generator happened to land on his key combo and started going crazy.  That's the ONLY possibility because I literally watched the original supplier go to the shelf, take (3) copies out, and hand them over to the (super hot chick) that took our order.   Tim's key was as valid as mine, this vendor is a MS partner, and they are doing business with MS to this very day.

    So if anything, I have one ____ of a chip on my shoulder against MS.  If they would have allowed Tim to send in his materials for a change in keys, I'd have been unhappy, but satisfied in the end.  But no, they just left him completely out to dry.  NO RECOURSE of any kind other than to spend more money.

    So, how could I possibly get past that and give them high marks for Win7?  It's called integrity.  It would be shallow and childlike to smack them down for Win7 just because they absolutely screwed the pooch on something else.  I LIKE Win7.  If there was some way to change the stuff for the people that love XP, I'd be all for it so long as they don't break Win7 in the process.  I'd be happy for those who "must have" the old way, but at this point I'm VERY glad it wasn't that way out of the gate because I too would have most likely just set it to look like XP.  The problem then would have been I would have never had the opportunity to use the OS as it was intended, and I would never have come to realize the verifiable improvements that work well for me.  That is to say if they came out tomorrow with a patch for the changeophobic, the only problem I'd have with it is my system would have new stuff installed on it that I myself would have no plans on using.

    So, call me a shill for MS, I'm fine with whatever it takes to make you feel better about yourself.  In the end though, I like Win7 just fine.  I've been doing this stuff as long as anybody else, and believe me, I wanted to swing my sword of "vast experience" just like the rest of the chageophobes, but if I did, it would be a lie.   Apparently I don't play the arrogant game as well as others.  If I did, I'd be beating ____ out of MS for what they did to my buddy Tim, cloaking my distaste in fabricated slaps against an OS I've genuinely learned to enjoy. 

    I wish MS would "fix" these issues for you guys, but by now I'm pretty well convince no matter what they did they'd still be the subject of wrath, hate, and general discontent.  Seems to be the way of things.

    DAS
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:25 PM
  • Maybe u say this coz u don't need all the new features of win7 but auto sort is not bad,when u choose to sort by name it will sort the files by name in a file it will sort it automatically every time u open this file it is not bad.U can use the info bar to know more info about a file and the status bar tells u what explorer is doing.Shutdown is 5-6 times slower than XP coz win7 is bigger than winxp and has more features and services that win7 needs to close first before shutting down.I think support for winxp will not extend coz microsoft doesn't want to people to use old os.


    Greatings
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:48 PM
  • Iso_the_man16:

    Thanks for the reminder, I meant to say something about shutdown time.

    My Win7 systems (wife's and mine) shut down in 7-8 seconds.  My 3 current XP machines vary between 23 and 45 seconds.  Quite a while ago I decided I had to use the hive cleaner on one of the XP machines, and it still took about 25 seconds to shut down, usually closer to 30.  Conversely, a semi-retired XP machine that I still fire up from time to time has alway shut down in under 12-13 seconds.  The thing about that machine is it uses 4 drives, 2 Raptors (37GB) as C: and D: and E: formed by 2 250GB running in RAID0.  This is a video editing machine, and I put the swap file on D: and of course the RAID was the video project drive.  I always assumed the swap file being on a separate physical drive is what made that machine so quick to shut down.  I guess the bottom line is each system has unique issues that determine the shutdown time.

    For a while my Win7 machine was much faster to login than any machine I've had since DOS.  Once I added MicroTrend AV that seems to have extended the startup to the point that the XP machine on the same table surface  and turned on as simutaniously as humanly possible routinely beats it to login by a good 2-3 seconds now.  Prior to that while using the Kaspersky beta trial, the Win7 machine was booting with a good 7-8 second advantage.

    The one thing I can take away from this is startup and shutdown are largely governed by AV and other startup items, not the OS itself.  I'm not suggesting a witch-hunt to determine what is holding up the system, I probably put in 15-20 hours trying to find the source of the XP machine's super extended shutdown.  That's the one I finally decided to run the hive cleaner on, I spent way too much time and never found the original source of the problem.

    Bottom line is, my Win7 machines are very quick to shut down, and have stayed consistent on shutdown time since the day they were installed. 

    Have a great day.

    DAS
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:20 PM
  • Greetings, "Papagallo"
    It seems to me that some people posting here are payed by Microsoft to write very positive about Win 7.
    Any of us in here, except those with the MSFT tag are MS employees. In the same way we accept your strong dislikes of specific Windows 7 features, you have to accept we do like it. And some of us even love it! And we are not saying you are a troll, a Linux Fan Boy or any other excuse. You don't like it. And that's all I want to read.  No need to add anything else.
    But Windows Explorer is a mess. And the missing blinking network activity icon is a big security issue. This 2 features are enough reason for me NOT TO BUY Win 7.
    I know Windows Explorer is far away of being perfect and need improvements. We are aware. I miss the "free space" information and autoarrange features along with the "number of files", detailed space "used per folder", etc. All these functionality can be added with some free tools, but that, obviously, is up to the customer. Like you and others are saying, I'd like to see an improvement in the Windows Explorer.

    About the blinking network activity... If your final decision is based on a blinking icon... Sorry to say, but it sounds a bit exorbitant to me. Again, there are cool gadgets where you can see the network activity in real time. Again up to the customer. 
    It is very easy possible to delete importand folders in explorer because of this very stupid auto sort. The info bar and status bar are useless.
    Well, system folders and so on are protected by the system itself and you'll have to click the "Yes" button to the UAC prompt window. About the Windows Explorer info/status bar, as I said before I also miss some basic details as free space, etc.
    The startup of Win 7 is fast, but not much faster then XP. Shutdown is 5-6 times slower then XP. The OS is not faster then XP, there are just a lot of features, like in Explorer, taken out to make some things faster. The same what Linux is doing for years. Les features, faster OS! Very easy, very clever.
    To me and other reliable resources, like this one by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes (ZDNet - Hardware 2.0 Blog), Windows 7 is faster in everyway, not just at start-up. Look at the shut-down graphic bar please.

    Boot up speeds for Windows Shutdown speeds for Windows
    Even the Vista SP1 is much faster than any XP. Period!
    As the support for XP ends soon, I'am seriously thinking about installing Linux after 8 years. So please do me a favor, extend the support for Windows XP
    Look what I have installed in one of my virtual machines:

    Ubuntu 9.04 taskbar Open Suse 11.1 taskbar


    See it? Ubuntu 9.04. Look at the taskbar and the "Network Icon": no blinking icon anywhere (at least not for me). And If I recall correctly, same in OpenSuse 11.1. But I will check it tomorrow morning. I'm sure that the Ubuntu built-in explorer provides more basic functionality that Windows 7 currently does.

    Added OpenSuse 11.1 screenshot. Network icon, no blinking activity anywhere.

    But nothing prevents me to go and get Windows 7. I really like it. And no, I'm not paid by Microsoft. And I also use/test/compare other OS.

    Best Regards.
    Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:34 PM
  • I love the new Media Player. It plays Quicktime Movies better than Quicktime! And finally I can have Quicktime thumbnails in Windows Explorer! Can I please have it for Windows XP? It doesn't matter if it's in beta.

    Also: I think the command prompt needs a menu bar. It would also be nice to be able to resize the window. I don't use PowerShell, just cmd.
    Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:24 AM
  • @ Recon ...
    you wrote "I know Windows Explorer is far away of being perfect and need improvements. We are aware. I miss the "free space" information and autoarrange features along with the "number of files", detailed space "used per folder", etc. All these functionality can be added with some free tools, but that, obviously, is up to the customer. Like you and others are saying, I'd like to see an improvement in the Windows Explorer. "

    I think most of the explorer critics would be content if the explorer didn´t degrade since w2k, xp! BUT it did, in the name of .... what? Modernization? Is it modern
    to be messy, to loose nice and very useful features?
    "All these functionality can be added with some free tools, but that, obviously, is up to the customer"
    You are jokester: Standard features I want to have in the win exp itself, not in free tools, and THAT is up to MS! BTW, for really good filemanagers
    you have to spend some extra money. Ok, MS cheapen your win7 , about 70 $ less, and the b i l l is ok!
    Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:50 AM
  • Greetings Karlx,

    As you remarked/quoted from my post, I said that Windows Explorer is far away of being perfect, and therefore need to be improved.  If you read this thread I posted back in May, you'll see that I already asked for a better Windows Explorer.

    About the jokester thingy: thanks! My family think I'm so unpleasant. :)

    Regards.
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:04 AM
  • Windows 7 overall is Microsoft's best operating system IMO. Unfortunately the feature I value and use the most, Offline Files, has been broken somehow between beta build and RC/RTM. This isn't a question, just a comment. Offline Files refuses to work right, and it only adds to my frustration that the first beta build of 7 that I tested for months worked perfectly. 

    I hope Microsoft gets serious about making offline files a real and useful feature in 7. It was a valuable feature because I could sync my important business data between my business desktop and my notebook which I use frequently. And it wasn't just "syncing" that I cared about. It's the fact that Offline Files synced changes INSTANTLY, so if I were in a rush to leave the office and had a Word document open on the desktop, I'd simply save the doc on the desktop and within seconds the revised version would be synced on my notebook. And Offline Files required no manual synchronization (unless you changed the settings). It just synced as soon as it detected changes to a file.

    I know I could buy 3rd party file sync software anywhere, but the instant sync feature of Offline Files made it a lot easier for me to manage my data between computers without "sync schedules" and having to remember to sync my files before leaving. I got used to it in Vista for several years (although with some issues & headaches) and Windows 7 beta (which just worked). And unfortunately no other 3rd party software can do that (instant sync). From RC forward, it's plain dumb and just does't work as it should.

    I'd be happy to spend some time with a real Microsoft tech/enginneer troubleshooting this feature and figuring some stuff out. My 2 cents.
    • Changed type eq07 Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:22 PM edit
    • Merged by Carey FrischMVP, Moderator Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:01 PM Moved to proper category
    Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:22 PM
  • Hi Folks

    Just another reminder.

    As stated in the first post of this thread.

    Please use this thread to note any comments that you have about Windows 7. Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, create a new thread.

    The posts that do not meet these requirements distract from the intended reason for this feedback thread and will be removed.

    Please start a separate thread for these question discussions.

    Thanks for understanding.


    Ronnie Vernon MVP
    Forum Moderator
    Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:26 PM
    Moderator
  • @Wolfie
    Beeing able to customize explorer isn't clutter.. no one is forced to. I don't care about default options as far as the useful ones are still here somewhere, waiting for me to reactive them.


    @Win7tester
    -I'm a developper too, and I know what you mean about the cost of options, but wasn't the classic start menu available in Vista ? Anyway, taking away the right part of start menu (+moving the shutdown button) = classic start menu, so it wouldn't have been much work. Same for manually arrangeable icons.
     About explorer's menus, it's certainly a bit much, yes, I agree. But this kind of layout is fairly common in todays apps, e.g. you get custom menus in every complete IDE, and even taskbar has very close features...
    -See below for the shortcut thing.
    -I'm not here to shout that everyone should go under linux or buy a MAC. I'm here to give my feedback (and, with my previous post, to get the other's feedback), about Win7, in order to make it better, so that I can use it !
     For sure I'll stay with XP for the moment, but trust me, I'd really like to use 7. I was expecting much more from it than from Vista, but it seems that Vista wasn't enough. (As I didn't try it, I can't see how better 7 is, except about the performances)
     Once again, I didn't hesitate one second between 98 and XP, tough, I was a bit afraid by XP, but saw immediately it was better all the way, I don't remember having lost anything when switching to it.

     
    @Reckon - J. Devesa
    I already posted most of what I -so far- found, up in this thread. It's just one ctrl-F away :)
    But I'll give you some more details as it seems many things are not obvious to everyone (and I know some other ARE not obvious).

    *** What is so annoying for you in the Windows Explorer ?
    *** What do you miss compared to XP ?
    *** What do you mean by customization ?

    -You can't custom any menubar anymore (choose the buttons you want, with or without label, and so). I agree that such feature has to be disabled by default to avoid people make elements of their interface disappear with a misclick, but the feature itself is damn useful...
     Here, I can't add my favorite bar (the one with direct access to every frequently-used place on my hard drive)
     Also, you can't custom shortcuts. It wouldn't even be an issue... if backspace action didn't change (I don't know if it does exist since 3.1 or 95 but it for sure has been here for some years...). I ALWAYS navigate through my hard disk using keyboard, using arrows & enter to go in folders and.. backspace to go back 1 level. Since I use seven, I either need to navigate with the mouse (which is slower, and not always handy), or try to use the keyboard, and make mistakes as backspace now sends you to the "previous" (browser-style) folder instead of parent. Of course, people which never used it won't be bothered, but what would it be if mouse clicks had been inverted ? Everyone would cry, isn't it ? I understand that few people do notice this change, but when it directly impact the way you work, the necessity to have an option somewhere becomes more obvious. The new shortcut for parent folder is not a solution, ever tried to type alt+left arrow (btw alt-gr doesn't work) with one hand ? Impossible.
    -Thumbnails are ****, but if I disable them, I can't have ANY preview, even in the preview pane. I laughed at it in the beta, was badly surprised when I saw it was still in the RC. I haven't tried the RTM yet, but now, I'm afraid it's still the same.. could someone confirm or invalidate that plz ?
    About that, I proposed to have separate policies for each folder types (e.g. my video&pics folders with thumbs, nothing on the other), as it would make much more sense to me.
    -Another example of thing I'll never use and am not sure I can disable is the "previous versions" tab everywhere. Why are such features added while core ones are removed ? I'm able to backup my files myself, which is the only way to have reliable saves anyway. I'm pretty sure this service won't work better than system restore, and it probably wastes at least the same amount of space when enabled.
    -Not beeing able to manually rearrange icons. I dont't use it in many folders, but when I need it, (e.g. to group things which can't be sorted by any existing property), I miss it. Having to create n folders and move things in to do the same is *****
     And at least, auto-sort should be possible to disable, at it's confusing in many situations.
    -There is a bunch of other small or not so small things. The fact that you need to rename files with a name longer than XX characters to see their full name is one, the missing "files types" tab in "folder options" is one other (how can I choose with which program I will edit (or other action) my .XXX files now ? If there's a way, I didn't found it yet). An other one could be the "copy as path"/+"paste in explorer's adress bar" (see my 1st post), and I forget (or haven't found yet) many other.

    *** What features don't you like ?
    -Examples of features I don't like in the NEW explorer ?
     -The completely useless dynamic menubar, with options like "organize, include in lib, open, burn, share...". First, I got a right click for that. But also, its just unusable.. Create a new folder -> 1 click, it works. Try to create 3 or more -> 3 clicks, you just created a new folder, burnt it, and started sharing it ! Wtf ? Why not put "mole-bash-game" menubar, with random options popping-out on it at time intervals ? It would be soooo fun !
     Of course, this bar can't be removed, while the old one is now hidden by default. (I agree that the old one wasn't very useful, but at least there was folder options and some other things I sometime use, here the only thing I may use is new folder, which could have been one of the static buttons in the interface (like previous/next/search...).
     -I don't like the navigation pane. I tried to use it, but always lose time due to the dynamic positions of the items in it. No element stays in place, you always have to look for everything... with all my useful places in favbar, everything was 1 (mindless) click away, which was way easier&faster. Using favorites in the treeview is not as good : It takes much more place than a fav bar, icons are smaller, it quickly adds a vertical slider (and so, prevent you from using your nav pane efficiency for anything else than favorites), and a vertical bar isn't very handy. I tried it, but really don't like it.
     
    *** What about the new libraries concept ? Do you use them ?
    -No, I don't use the libraries. My music is in my music folder, my videos in the video folder, and so.. the only library which could be useful to me would be the one uniting all of thoses, but it already exists : it's "D:".   They might be good for you or other people, which is fine, but I just don't need them.

    *** When do you get horizontal bars in the "All Programs" menu? I've never seen that in any of the versions (Beta, RC and RTM)
    My bad, I didn't get horizontal bars in "all programs", just horizontal scrolling. When some shortcut lurks in the depth of two or three folders (let's suppose it's XXX database ->database management->maintaining tools->shortcuts), looking for something is really a pain, as the menu make little sidesteps on the left/right as you change depth levels. (this might need long program names too, I remember I didn't understand how it works immediately, but the fact is I experienced it with some existing installed program (maybe SQL server 2008, but not sure)).
    I agree that you're not supposed to use this menu too much, but it's not a good enough reason to cripple it more than it was !
    About the vertical bar.. I tried to remove most things from my start menu to avoid it, but it quickly growed too much.

    *** sidenote
    I didn't say that the features I don't use are bad, just that as most new ones are of little use (especially to me), and several core ones of XP really miss to me, I couldn't get ANY benefit from a switch to Win7 atm.
    That's precisely the problem I try to hilight, as a few more elements could enable me to use 7.
    My goal isn't to "bash MS cause its fun" That would be pointless. I'm just trying (as many other do) to explain WHY some of the changes in 7 really hurt me, up to the point of preventing me from using it, as I lose too much atm. And yes, the goal is to have some things changed in the OS, but I'm not asking things "for me", I'm asking for some logical changes which would benefit to many users, even if the majority wouldn't notice any of it.
    If I wasn't able to distinguish what matters and what doesn't, I would ask for tons of things, as 7 would never fit to my exact expectations. (same would apply for XP).
    Some examples could be : "gadget service shouldn't be enable by default, it wastes some ressources", "I don't like the new tree icons, they suck", "I don't like the color effects on buttons and/or sliders, they suck", "I hate the 'sunray' reflect on windows, I want a more simple theme, closer to XP or WMC's one", and so on... But thoses things aren't really important, don't cost me time, and will even probably be possible to change with some Win7 tweak pack in some time for the most resistant ones, so I don't mention all thoses little, negligible things.
    I stick to the core ones : if explorer is ****, what else that switching OS can I do ? That's why I post here, hoping that MS will hear us and give us back the few features we need.
    And when there's an efficient workaround, even if it needs some registry edit or other boring manipulation, it's often enough for me, as soon as it works correctly. But there's nothing for the moment to fix what I spoke about, and that's why Win7 is for the moment a true deception for me : cause I can't use it.


    @Steven Wabik
    I miss the old search too a bit, but imo, both are quite bad, but still usable. Tough, I don't think it was more "user friendly" (for non IT users), and the new one "is faster", as more things are indexed by default. For my personnal use, I think the old one was better, as I knew exactly what I was doing, but it's really something negligible to me.
    Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:40 PM
  • Woflie, I know the clean install generally always work better, but I just have so much software installed on it would take hours to reinstall it again.  I wouldn't be that upset about if it wasn't because I upgraded to vista  ultimate.  Right now I feel screwed pretty bad.

    Take this for example, a Windows Vista HOME BASIC user, can do an upgrade to windows 7 Home Premium at the same price that I have to pay for Windows 7 Home Premium.  I even bought the Ultimate anytime upgrade for $160! 
    Yet Micrsoft treats me the same, if not worse than the customer who bought the lowest product of them all. 

    WHen the Vista Basic user upgrades to 7, he gains a ton of features.
    But when I upgrade to Windows 7, I actually lose a ton of features that I had in Vista.  Like Bitlocker, Shadow Copy, etc.

    THe only way around this, is to rebuy the features I ALREADY PAID $160 for in VISTA ULTIMATE with Windows 7 ULTIMATE!
    Does Microsoft really expect me to pay an extra $400 {To install on 3 PCs} to NOT take away features I've previously paid for????

    Here's a simple solution. 
    Make 1 Windows 7 Upgrade version for ~$120.
    And the upgade, detechs what OS your use, lets say, Vista Home Premium, and upgrades you to the corrosponding 7 version such as Windows 7 Home Premium.
    If you have Vista business, it upgrades you to 7 Professional.
    If you have Vista Ultimate, it upgrades you to 7 Ultimate.
    If you have XP Pro, it upgrades you to Windows 7 Professional.
    And so on.
    Users who want to jump from Vista home premium to a higher Version of 7 can just use windows anytime upgrade.

    Does that not make a lot more sense?

    Please guys, I'm a big Windows fan, who else would pay $160 for anytime upgrade to Ultimate.  On my other computer, I did the Ultimate Bill Gates Signiture upgrade edition.  And the other has a RETAIL version of Vista ultimate on it.

    Furthermore, I love Windows 7, I've tried out the RC on multible computers and its great!

    I just feel like I'm one of the few loyal Microsoft customers who paid for ultimate yet are getting treated like dirt.  That's what frustrates me so much. 

    I might just keep my Windows Vista going and just wait on 7 for the pricing to stop being absurd for ultimate users.

    Beaver -

    Well.. I can understand your reluctance to spend a bunch of money on it.

    There is one question you might want to ask though - do you actually use those features you're "losing" by going from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Home Premium? Do you really need Bitlocker?

    Personally, I'm in a similar situation. I have Vista Ultimate and I'm now quite happy to be getting Win 7 Professional. The only reason I got Vista Ultimate was that I wanted the Windows Media Center stuff AND I needed to connect the machine to a domain controller. Unfortunately, with Vista, the only version that could meet that need was Ultimate. But now that Win 7's features are structured differently - Pro is more than adequate to the task. I never had a need for Bitlocker or any of the other Vista Ultimate only features. I don't see the point in paying the big bucks for Windows 7 Ultimate either. I merely look at my needs and go for what suits them best.
    Monday, August 17, 2009 5:36 AM
  • I have what I feel is an important UI feature-request for Windows 7, but am not sure where/how best to submit it.

    Feature request: Tabbed browsing in Windows Explorer

    http://www.timacheson.com/Blog/2009/aug/windows_explorer_needs_tabs

    Windows Explorer definitely needs tabs. It seems obvious when you think about it! :)

    Monday, August 17, 2009 9:28 PM
  • @ Tim Acheson Keep in view QTTabBar, perhaps it will work in foreseeable time with Windows 7! Up to now problems with vista sp2 and windows 7 http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/tabbed-explorer-add-on-for-windows-vista-and-an-up-button-too/
    http://qttabbar.wikidot.com/forum/t-138343
    • Edited by karlx Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:30 PM
    Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:22 PM
  • I have what I feel is an important UI feature-request for Windows 7, but am not sure where/how best to submit it.

    Feature request: Tabbed browsing in Windows Explorer

    http://www.timacheson.com/Blog/2009/aug/windows_explorer_needs_tabs

    Windows Explorer definitely needs tabs. It seems obvious when you think about it! :)

    while surfing the web, you naturally want to keep several pages opened.  I usually have at least 8.  In win exp, tabs would be useful but the need to keep a bunch of locations opened at a time is not as great.  there's also the practical problem of picking b/t showing the full path name which makes the tab too big or not showing the full path name which can render the name too cryptic (e.g., I have a lot of folders named 'images', how can I tell which is which). 

    probably more useful is an easily accessible list of recent folders.  (I know there's the jump list but it always open a new window which may not be what I want).  

    what win exp really need is a split pane, so I can open two folders side by side at all time.  this makes it easy to drag/drop between folders.  Easier than opening two windows and arranging them side by side.

    of course there's nothing to say you can't do both tabs and a split pane.

    umm, so when is the win8 beta open to the public?

    Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:21 PM
  • I think its about time for the Windows operating system to have tabs in Windows explorer. personally i do not have that many Windows Explorer windows open at once so i may not need the tabs in Windows Explorer, but i am beting that there are plenty of other users that would gain a lot more usuage from having tabs in Windows Explorer.

    I hate how it does the dirrectory thing "> Computer > Loccal Disk (c) >". I want it to go back to displaying the full dirrectory path just like it used to: "C:\Users\Steven Wabik\Documents", but for the tabs it should just say the folder name. ex: "my documents" or "my music". or if the users wants to have a custom non generic name for the folder, there should be a customization property in "properties" right click menu, under the "customize tab" called "Windows Explorer tab name".
    Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:22 PM
  • i tested Windows 7 on one of my old laptops, i mean one of my really old laptops. its like 10 years old or whatever. anyways it had better startup and shutdowntimes with XP than Windows 7, but i never tested it under XP. the notebook PC only met the minimum requirments for Windows 7 except for the graphics card, but i upgraded the graphics card anyways with a PCMCIA card...

    anyways the startup times for the PC were 5 seconds under XP (from pushing the power button to seeing the desktop). then the shutdown time was about 2 seconds. then when i used it with Windows 7 the startup time doubled and so did the shutdown time.

    to me that is a problem and that is an issue and it needs to be fixed. can the issue have anything to do with the fact that it had two single core processors, when microsoft is trying to support multi-core proseccors now adays? well, if it is? than i want microsoft to have better support for computers with multiple processors because if microsoft made better and proper support for it in Windows 7 than maybe my older notebook would work faster in Windows 7 than it did in Windows XP. at least they support 64-bit PCs better now, than they did back then. dispite the fact that my older notebook has slower startup and shutdown times with Windows 7, at least it runs smoothly in every other operation that it needs to go through....
    Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:06 PM
  • Windows 7 is a bid faster to boot than Vista, but it is left in the dust by my Mac. By the way, both have same processors and the PC has more RAM and still it takes for ever to get ready!
    The other aggravation is the constant permissions I have to give to work on my own PC. 
    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:08 AM
  • I think MS will at earliest introduce tabs and split pane in winexplorer, when no more bells and whistles come into it´s mind! And then  celebrate 2 superb "innovations" .  Or just 1 , the 2nd in the release to follow.
    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:43 AM
  • I think MS will at earliest introduce tabs and split pane in winexplorer, when no more bells and whistles come into it´s mind! And then  celebrate 2 superb "innovations" .  Or just 1 , the 2nd in the release to follow.
    what bells and whistles?  honestly, I can't think of anything new in 7's win exp over vista, just a further whittling down of features.  (I guess you can count "Libraries", but I think of that as part of the OS rather than win exp.)

    To me, the problem with win exp is they seem to have started out with the UI -- a stripped-down, simplified, "clean" look and then built the functionalities around it.  They designed the screen, then asked "ok, how do we put all the features in and disturb this screen as little as possible" rather than: "ok, what do we want to be able to DO with win exp?  what features would the users want, what features do we WISH win exp had during our daily use?" then designing the UI to accommodate the features.  The end result was they shed features instead of adding new ones.  Things that don't fit get thrown out.  Customized toolbar?  Well, that doesn't fit the new look, so buh bye.  Up button?  Well, you can do that with the breadcrumb (not exactly, but close enough), so out it went.  Stuff that people hardly use got put in just because there's now a place for it (how often do I want to burn files?  Now that flash drives come in 8GB and bigger, who wants to burn to CDs or DVDs anymore?  takes too long and too unreliable. exception is burning ISOs, but windows doesn't do that anyway)

    win exp is what I call "boss friendly".  You give your boss a 10 minute demo -- it looks clean, simple, easy to use, he likes it!  it's also focus group and newbie friendly for the same reasons.  Of course it's perfectly doable to have a stripped down UI by default but let power users customize it to their taste, but they didn't do that.  

    I don't buy the "bloat" argument.  directory opus, a win exp replacement, has a ton more features and it's a 16M download.  Win7 is a 6GB install.  I don't think a few more megs for the one app in windows you use most would've broken the bank.  opus starts up just about as fast as win exp and also uses less memory.  (I'm tempted to buy opus; I just hate having to shell out $80, half what I pay for windows itself.)  if MS were to duplicate all of opus' features, the resulting app would be even slimmer b/c they would be able to reuse a lot of code already existing elsewhere in windows.

    I think the real problem with win7 is a shift to the apple philosophy which sacrifices functionalities for  aesthetics and prizes consistencies and uniformity over customizability.  The onion has this spoof of the apple iwheel, a laptop with no keyboard or mouse, just one big ipod wheel.  It's a gross exaggeration but it does capture the apple mindset.  During the safari 4 beta, apple decided to try putting tabs on top, like chrome.  Some people complained b/c the tabs were harder to read and there wasn't enough space to grab the title bar and move the windows. apple made some changes to it, but by the release version, they got rid of tabs on top.  Not even an option for people who actually liked it.  It's one way or the highway.

    the problem with MS trying to ape apple is that MS is just not as good at it!  for whatever reasons, apple is just better at designing sleek and aesthetically pleasing UI and design.  ipods and iphones are fashion and lifestyle statements as much as consumer electronics.  go to microsoft.com and go to apple.com.  I'm sorry, but the microsoft.com home page looks like a generic free template from templatemonster.  the apple home page looks like they actually hired a designer.  so MS trying to be apple just ends up giving you the worst of both worlds: less features and functionalities, but not better looking or easier to use.

    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:06 PM
  • what bells and whistles?  honestly, I can't think of anything new in 7's win exp over vista, just a further whittling down of features.  (I guess you can count "Libraries", but I think of that as part of the OS rather than win exp.)

    To me, the problem with win exp is they seem to have started out with the UI -- a stripped-down, simplified, "clean" look and then built the functionalities around it.  They designed the screen, then asked "ok, how do we put all the features in and disturb this screen as little as possible" rather than: "ok, what do we want to be able to DO with win exp?  what features would the users want, what features do we WISH win exp had during our daily use?" then designing the UI to accommodate the features.  The end result was they shed features instead of adding new ones.  Things that don't fit get thrown out.  Customized toolbar?  Well, that doesn't fit the new look, so buh bye.  Up button?  Well, you can do that with the breadcrumb (not exactly, but close enough), so out it went.  Stuff that people hardly use got put in just because there's now a place for it (how often do I want to burn files?  Now that flash drives come in 8GB and bigger, who wants to burn to CDs or DVDs anymore?  takes too long and too unreliable. exception is burning ISOs, but windows doesn't do that anyway)

    win exp is what I call "boss friendly".  You give your boss a 10 minute demo -- it looks clean, simple, easy to use, he likes it!  it's also focus group and newbie friendly for the same reasons.  Of course it's perfectly doable to have a stripped down UI by default but let power users customize it to their taste, but they didn't do that.  

    I don't buy the "bloat" argument.  directory opus, a win exp replacement, has a ton more features and it's a 16M download.  Win7 is a 6GB install.  I don't think a few more megs for the one app in windows you use most would've broken the bank.  opus starts up just about as fast as win exp and also uses less memory.  (I'm tempted to buy opus; I just hate having to shell out $80, half what I pay for windows itself.)  if MS were to duplicate all of opus' features, the resulting app would be even slimmer b/c they would be able to reuse a lot of code already existing elsewhere in windows.

    I think the real problem with win7 is a shift to the apple philosophy which sacrifices functionalities for  aesthetics and prizes consistencies and uniformity over customizability.  The onion has this spoof of the apple iwheel, a laptop with no keyboard or mouse, just one big ipod wheel.  It's a gross exaggeration but it does capture the apple mindset.  During the safari 4 beta, apple decided to try putting tabs on top, like chrome.  Some people complained b/c the tabs were harder to read and there wasn't enough space to grab the title bar and move the windows. apple made some changes to it, but by the release version, they got rid of tabs on top.  Not even an option for people who actually liked it.  It's one way or the highway.

    the problem with MS trying to ape apple is that MS is just not as good at it!  for whatever reasons, apple is just better at designing sleek and aesthetically pleasing UI and design.  ipods and iphones are fashion and lifestyle statements as much as consumer electronics.  go to microsoft.com and go to apple.com.  I'm sorry, but the microsoft.com home page looks like a generic free template from templatemonster.  the apple home page looks like they actually hired a designer.  so MS trying to be apple just ends up giving you the worst of both worlds: less features and functionalities, but not better looking or easier to use.

    Could not agree more. It´s terrible to "have" to live with this kind of decision. If Windows Explorer was not a core part of the system I would never complain that much.
    But the lack of functionality in WinExplorer is enough for me (and lots of people I know) to want to stay in Windows XP. It is sad, because Windows 7 is, otherwise, a very good and solid product. I would like to use it, I would like to see Windows XP gone and replaced by a newer, safer version of windows. (WITHOUT Internet Explorer 6).
    But, Windows Explorer is just terrible. Microsoft can add tabs on it, but first Explorer need to have back functionality, or it will end beeing just a blank screen with tabs, and a huge panel saying: 0 items. (all is valid for a cleaner look, doesn´t it?)
    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:34 PM


  • In any case, I think this is the kind of feedback MS sought 6 months ago.  Not anymore.

    In fact, it is not, derosnec. I and many others posted about this and other issues, specific for Windows 7 for more than eight months ago. Some issues are even carried from Vista, and there are people complaining about many issues since the time Vista was in beta. MS never listened.

    Unfortunately, they appear to do not want feedback at all. The decisions are already made, the product is done, we don´t need feedback.
    The only problem is that this tought is not restrict to a era posterior to RTM, but comes from the beta, pre RC as well.

    As barth2k said, they appear to be using the "one way or the highway" policy.
    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:05 PM
  • Bells and whistles : fe new taskbar, aero shake, scrolling thru the views of winexp, colourfull wallpapers ....., some cosmetics to startmenu- ( ok, the search in
    win 7 is pretty good) ... Apropos Dopus : this filemanager is the only reason for me  to stay with vista and not to go back to xp! Win 7, no thx!
    • Edited by karlx Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:55 PM
    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:43 PM
  • When moving a folder that has new and or updated files to and existing folder
    You may experience only the new files being copied across, and none of the files updated
    And since it was a move, the original is no longer available.

    This has happened to me 6 times now

    This bug happens more often when moving from a networked pc to a local pc
    Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:52 PM
  • Windows 7 compared to XP and Vista

    The positive:
    - More modern than XP, a lot of things "updated"-
    - Faster than Vista and, strangely, seemingly at least also XP-
    - A lot of small nuicanses and annoyances from Vista have been fixed.
    - More secure than XP.
    - Couldn't run vista cause I kept getting BSOD, even with latest updates. Windows 7 no such problem so far. More stable apparently.

    The negative:
    Is basically a very expensive patch for vista. I'm still p***** about having paid a bunch of money for an OS (Vista) that I've never been able to use.
    Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:57 PM
  • Bells and whistles : fe new taskbar, aero shake, scrolling thru the views of winexp, colourfull wallpapers ....., some cosmetics to startmenu- ( ok, the search in
    win 7 is pretty good) ... Apropos Dopus : this filemanager is the only reason for me  to stay with vista and not to go back to xp! Win 7, no thx!
    yes the win7 shell certainly has more bells and whistles, of course.  But I was referring to win exp., the application, what MS used to call the file manager.  I don't see much changed from vista (except maybe the integrated search bar? not sure, I don't have Vista on my main PC.)  They just took out a bunch of stuff.  just an example: the filmstrip view from xp was actually one cool feature I liked.  it's pretty ideal for quickly browsing through a picture folder, but it's gone.  the new preview panel just isn't the same.
    Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:25 PM
  • Windows 7 is simply a trumped-up, sugar coated, trying to pull the wool over the eye of the public again, simple named, version of their very unpopular, non-sellable Windows Vista! Simple as that! Don't let all the "falldirall" and "hoopla" fool you again into thinking this is something super! It's NOT! And personally, I find it very disrespectful that Microsoft thinks I'm stupid enough to fall for this kind of crud they put out!
    Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!  8))
    Friday, August 21, 2009 10:43 AM
  • Windows 7 is simply a trumped-up, sugar coated, trying to pull the wool over the eye of the public again, simple named, version of their very unpopular, non-sellable Windows Vista! Simple as that! Don't let all the "falldirall" and "hoopla" fool you again into thinking this is something super! It's NOT! And personally, I find it very disrespectful that Microsoft thinks I'm stupid enough to fall for this kind of crud they put out!
    Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!  8))

    I wonder if you ever tested Vista and Win 7 or you are talking biased on rumors. Please, I don't want to be misunderstood, but I'm saying this because your profile states that you have joined today and this is your very first post here in the Windows 7 TechNet Forums.

    I've been using Vista/Win 7 since 2006. I've installed the bad reputated Vista CTP, Betas, RCs, RTM, SP1 and SP2... Obviously Windows 7 has a solid foundation in Vista, but the improved performance and, mainly, the way it has been debugged to work in low-end computers, it's impressive.

    I hope you enjoy any of the Linux distributions we have out there available as I do. Personally, as I've said in several times, I find Ubuntu quite nice... for the price it is.

    So nothing/nobody forces you to get the new Windows 7 or Vista. You can stick to XP if you have it or try Linux.

    This is my story... and yes, I'm sticking to it as well.

    Regards and have a nice day!
    W7 RTM x64 running along with Office 2010 x64 TP hope my computer won't crash! ;)
    Friday, August 21, 2009 11:58 AM
  • Someone please tell me why an individual purchasing a computer with Vista on it now is more deserving of a free upgrade to an equivalent version of 7 than I am? It should be just the opposite. Anyone who purchased a system with Vista during the initial release and had to live through the nightmare of software and driver conflicts, incompatible hardware, forced hardware upgrades to make the computer run as the manufacturer AND Microsoft claimed it would and general misery of dealing Vista should be more than enough to qualify for a edition to edition upgrade for FREE. Anyone purchasing Vista machines now are going to have (much more on average than the rest of us) a computer physically speced-out to meet realistic requirements for Vista to run smoothly, the driver issues have for the most part been resolved and a service pack and many updates later, it actually runs reliably. I don't think I would even have a gripe if I hadn't beta tested 7 and found the OS that Vista should have been right from the initial beta release.

    Friday, August 21, 2009 2:41 PM
  • Because of the business model employed by the seller.

    Doc

    Friday, August 21, 2009 2:46 PM

  • Personally, if I got a new computer today with an upgrade coupon, I'd probably wonder why.

    Friday, August 21, 2009 3:06 PM
  • @ natejake : you are right in a sense! But may I comfort you a little ?! : I do not think that it is a real loss not to get win 7! I kicked off win 7 rc and use vista again! It is more flexible, customizable and there exists pretty nice software which does NOT run on win 7. Win explorer is a bad joke on both systems.
    The UAC in win 7 - at least rc- seems to be worse than in vista. See  http://www.pretentiousname.com/misc/win7_uac_whitelist2.html 
    And I do not think that Ms changed big issues if they didn´t easy ones.
    Friday, August 21, 2009 4:29 PM
  • If someone comes to this thread to get any info about W7 he must be really stunned.

    I said a lot of times that Windows Explorer is really a bad choice, but as I know about Vista, it is worst there. In fact all of the bad things in W7 WE are the inherits from Vista.

    Anyway, I found more software and (specially) drives not working in Vista than in W7.

    I can understand someone who decides to return to XP because of thebig difference, but lwve W7 to return to Vista is really something I can't understand. Sorry.

    If fact, till now WE have a better behavior in RTM than in RC. At least for me.
    Friday, August 21, 2009 6:53 PM
  • with win7 rc and rtm i had problems with my graphics, when starting from hibernate, there were white-black rectangle patterns in my application windows. 
    (ATI mobility Radeon HD 2400). With vista "everything" is nice. But this i did not mean with the pretty nice software, of course ! The graphic problem is a further
    annoying thing!
    I told already that vista would neither be a choice, if there were not  DOpus. It´s worth each Euro of the 49.95.
    Let´s see when Ms will savvy that a clever designed and coded filemanager is much more important than optical and other ( fe jumplists) bells and whistles in all the rest of the os.  
    Better behaviour in rtm? Wow, there happened signs and wonders, and i did not realize ´em. You cannot understand why vista and not win 7? Read about several "imworsements", fe concerning the taskbar. And it doesn´t bother me, whether some application needs 1´32 or 1´38.
    • Edited by karlx Friday, August 21, 2009 7:47 PM
    Friday, August 21, 2009 7:27 PM
  • I would like to add my voice to those asking that you bring back the ability to detach the toolbars from the taskbar.  I am sorely disappointed that this feature was removed, as it was one of the most useful things in Windows, period.  It's surprising that you would remove this feature, considering that it is available and used extensively in other operating systems like Linux and Mac OSX.  
    Friday, August 21, 2009 11:32 PM
  • @CrackHappy : do not be surprised! We have learnt that Ms is "sometimes" maximal obstinate! When they don´t like they don´t. The best arguments are
    useless, see fe my link above (UAC). The best means to break a stubborn mind in this case is, NOT to buy! Quite simple, isn´t it?
    Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:07 AM
  • How can you design and write a bloated OS and not think of the hardware that is out here on real computers?  There are no drivers for the Chicony webcams that are on MOST Toshiba laptops since late 2006 or earlier.  VISTA has them and it's so bloated it works my HDD for 20 minutes before it finishes loading and reading itself.
    Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:00 PM
  • Discussion