Windows 7 - THIS IS RIDICULOUS! (Review)

Tassidar

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,427
And Vista is just Win2K3 with a desktop superstructure, which is Server2K, which is NT4.0... sortof, kinda.

The point is: it's history is a strength, not a weakness. No-one, not even Microsoft, can write an entirely new operating system every few years. I sometimes think that people who expect something entirely new just don't understand how complex an OS is under the covers (not you, scotty777 - this is just a general observation).

Though we today use "operating system" to mean the whole thing we install to run the system and apps, from an architectural perspective there are many layers and subsystems from the Hardware Abstraction Layer, through the kernel, into the Executive and so on up into the user-level subsystems.

To use a motoring analogy, Vista has a rock-solid and powerful engine, outstanding gearbox and drivetrain, decent tyres, and a taught chassis, suspension & steering systems, plus a whole host of smart subsystems like ABS, SC, ASC, ATC, etc. It even has a built-in Sport mode (DirectX). What users see is the body shape, doors, seats, dashboard, instrumentation, steering wheel, gear lever, pedals, and flicker/wiper/light stalks. Vista introduced automatic default seatbelts and owner-recognition doors. And because thousands of hackers are daily trying to pour dirty laced petrol into the tank, or oil laced with iron filings in to the sump, there's an attempt to put more controls and filters over these orifices - you can't just seal the petrol filler and sump and never allow anyone to ever add fuel, oil, water, or accessories. Now people might not like this year's body shape, seats, and such like, but the underlying mechanics is superb.

Of course the motoring analogy can be taken only so far ... the engine and stuff in a car are hardware, whereas the MS systems are entirely soft. The point I'm trying to make is simply that the basic engineering is very sound. And yes, any smarty-pants can say "what's the use of having a great car if it BSDs every 5 minutes". Even on this point there's a fact that I know from first-hand experience both inside and outside Microsoft: about 99% of the BSDs, crashes and stoppages are due to non-Microsoft crapware (bad drivers), badly-written apps, or flaky hardware --- unlike with cars, anyone can write software that directly controls key elements like ignition timing and fuel feed, and if they ignore Microsoft programming guidelines, they can cripple a system in seconds. It's much like putting molasses in the petrol. There are millions and millions of users who run MS operating systems without hassle or breakdown. I'm running Vista x64 with 4GB on fairly decent hardware, and it's rock solid, blindingly fast, and an absolute delight to use. There are plentsch users who will report the same.

I'm looking forward to next year's model, with sleeker body, nicer seats, better instruments, smarter navigation, and stuff. If that's not your preference, get a small sports car or a Ferrari, or a bakkie, or whatever suits your needs. It's really stupid buying a sedan and then complaining that it badly designed because it doesn't have an open bakkie boot with tipper. Get the tool that meets your needs. After all, it's just an operating system, not a life philosophy.

If you are comparing Vista to a car, it would be appropriate to compare it to an American car made by the almost defunct GM.

While it does everything correctly, it is
1. Overpriced
2. Gas guzzling (high on system resources).
The Japanese make cars that have similar performance but more efficient engines.
I notice that those who praise Vista are generally 64 bit users who have very fast computers. However, the inefficiency of Vista was proven by the fact that MS was forced to extend the life of XP. Why? The Netbook (think cheap Korean 1 litre engine) came along and changed the game, and the overly bloated Vista couldn't compete. Perhaps with sub-prime crisis hitting badly, we will see a surge in Netbook sales at the expense of Vista.

Incidentally, for all people praise Windows (especially XP), I still don't think the architecture is all that good.

My main problem is that Windows performance will degrade over time. After two years you are pretty much forced to reinstall Windows (I reinstall XP at least once a year; I can't speak for Vista, since I don't use it - my computer wouldn't be able to run it). Now to add insult to injury, on later versions, you become forced to phone Microsoft, because of licensing agreements. That really pissed me off.

Security of Windows is of course another issue altogether, and I won't go into it here.

Vista by all accounts was a failure. If you doubt that, look at Vista's sales growth (2% pa) vs the usual over 10%. Also, look at the fact that for the first time since Windows 3.11, MS's market share has fallen below 90%. Considering the advantages that Windows has, this is poor performance. Most of this can be attributed to Vista.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
I run Vista Ultimate 32bit on 2GB ram and AMD Athlone 3500+.
And it runs great.
He doesn't need that much ram he just wants it.
And most retail PC now days almost have more than I have.
You say upgrade so much.

CPU atleast 2Ghz not that much probably already have
Ram 2GB R199 per gig
And a graphics card if you need the visuals
I saw a 8400GS (My card) for R300 somewhere
AND SP1
is that so much.

Does Vista Ultimate run as smoothly as XP on your machine?

I've not used an AMD processor since my AMD 386-DX40 CPU so I can't really gauge your CPU but XP ran perfectly fine for me on a Pentium II-350 MHz,
256MB SDR RAM (100MHz) and GeForce2 gfx card. That is I could:
play Unreal, Quake, Shogo and ONI on that machine and I could run all the Office applications, surf the web, encode and play MP3s and play DivX 3.0 Video.

I now have a Core 2 Duo 1.6GHz Ultra-low voltage CPU with 2GB RAM (of which 1GB is virtually always free - 1GB of physical RAM) and integrated Gfx and I can basically do the same things except also encode and play H264 high definition video. I'm using XP. I don't see a need to upgrade in fact I downgraded as my system came with Vista Business and I made the company
install XP Pro over it.

Yeah maybe H/W is cheap now, but there are things which can't be upgraded and those are laptops. Also why upgrade, spend money and contribute to the carbon footprint (both in producing the extra RAM and CPU) and then waste money on the extra RAM and faster CPU running for no good reason.

I just don't understand why anyone would upgrade to Vista willingly, unless
they need the 4GB+ RAM for PhotoShop or virtual machines or ?AutoCAD
OR play games. Most users simply don't need new hardware or new software.
MS Office 97 is still good enough for most users. Why pay M$ to upgrade the Office suite, the OS and buy new H/W to basically do the same thing.
 

NoRulez

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
553
I just don't understand why anyone would upgrade to Vista willingly, unless
they need the 4GB+ RAM for PhotoShop or virtual machines or ?AutoCAD
OR play games. Most users simply don't need new hardware or new software.
MS Office 97 is still good enough for most users. Why pay M$ to upgrade the Office suite, the OS and buy new H/W to basically do the same thing.

Two words come to mind: "Show Off" :)
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
25,418
...I just don't understand why anyone would upgrade to Vista willingly ... Most users simply don't need new hardware or new software.
MS Office 97 is still good enough for most users. Why pay M$ to upgrade the Office suite, the OS and buy new H/W to basically do the same thing.
True, and if it doesn't make sense to you that's OK. Don't upgrade!

But not everyone computes for the same reason, thank goodness. WARNING - Personal Confessions Follow.

On purely utilitarian grounds I really don't need much more than what DOS + Win3.11 on a 486 can accomplish. If you look only at the outputs and final result then it's hard to justify most of the toys. I mean, what's the reason you have your particular PC, opsys, apps suite, or indeed house finishes,decorations, vehicles, appliances, or just about any and all of the material accoutrements with which we furnish our lives?

But of course rational function-justification is not all there is to it. Like so much else in life, the manner, mode, ease, effort, and style with which we do the things we do is also factor. Call it personal indiosyncrasy. That's why I have pictures on the walls in my house, and decorate rooms in a certain way. To those who don't have my taste, it's incomprehensible and to the utilitarian most of it is mere frippery, easly dismissed as wastefulness, vanity, or even narcissism.

It's hard to explain to my one sister, for example, why I like the particular plasma TV we're using, or exactly why this Pioneer DVD player is niftier than her el-cheapo supermarket house brand player at a fifth of the price. My wife has a similar inability to understand zooty cellphones - she wants want that only makes calls, can you believe it!

Speaking personally, the reasons why I'm running Vista at the moment are actually quite complex, and they work at different levels.

For one, I've been in the industry since its inception and it gives me some personal pleasure to see and work with new technologies. It's a source of some (but not inordinate) pleasure to explore the upper end of the latest technology. Honestly, I don't really need three personal PCs at my desk connected to two large LCDs via 4xdualvga kvm switch, or two webcams, or gigabit LAN & wifi in the house, or a 8TB media server, or six other PCs scattered around the house, or four latops, or colour laser, or about 98% of the technology that clutters my life. But then I don't use the technology only to accomplish rational utilitarian end-results -- though when I do it's on tap and does it very well, of course. This is hard to explain and sounds silly when you actualy say it: using a modern operating system that accomplishes much of the sometimes quite complex interactions with ease and aplomb (such as roaming profiles, so anyone can log an anywhere tethered or untethered and get the same desktop, apps, data, and stuff), is for me to a certain degree a source of some pleasure, amazement, fun, and amusement.

This does not hold for all areas of my life. In cars, for example, I've returned to utility, graduated off high-end Mercs and now drive a little grey Fiesta. It vectors A-B with ease, zip, and economy -- the utility that DOS+Win (okay, Win2K) would provide in computerdom.

Related to this is the fact that I get some small measure of personal delight seeing the technology do things a little smarter, a little easier, a little prettier, and a little faster. I'll quite happily admit that most of it isn't strictly required or necessary, but the incremental little benefits all help to make my life in a terminal a little more pleasant. Fast CPUs and enough memory and disk, fully exploited by the OS, allow me to focus less on managing the infrastructure and more time on working with data ... it's a cumulative effect of a whole lot of little things rather than any particular single feature that stands out. Trivial example: recently I installed the 64-bit version of my fave video editor, Vegas Pro 8.1, and it's just a little snappier and smoother than its 32-bit little-sister. No revolution or super-cool new capabilities or anything, but enough to make the overall experience a little better. This is very hard to describe let alone justify without sounding like I'm rationalising a personality disorder.

And here's a thing: I'm the weird sort of tech-victim-soul that actually gets a little momentary buzz out of the fact that my systems now use 4GB of RAM straight and unpaged without having to resort to PAE fiddles. Rationally I know this is absurd -- it's what my wife calls a "dick thing", something that only appeals to males, like high-lift cams, or overclocking -- but, well, it's true. (My wife is a psychologist, so I suffer more than most.)

I could go on a long examination of arcane technologies like the new WDDM and DWM, or new capabilities in the Heap Manager, or the new Kernel Transaction Manager. Or the super-fast kernel that a Cape-based Linux tools developer recently told me was about 40% faster than any Linux kernel they'd ever tested and demonstrated to incredulous Linux hex-heads (I have names and addresses to back this up). But though I like to delve into these things, they're not really why I run Vista. If pressed I'd really have to admit it's partly history (though my background before Windows was OS/2), partly because I have such a huge investment in Windows apps and they almost all still run, partly because there's a bogglingly wide range of apps and utilities for almost anything I care to dream of doing on the PC, and partly because Windows supports a far wider array of hardware and software and devices than anything else out there, and partly because it just damnwell works.

I'd be interested to hear the real reasons people run the opsys they do
 

EasyUp Web Hosting

EasyUp Web Hosting
Company Rep
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
8,503
The main reason I went to Vista, is because I am sick for the XP look, I know you can use windows blinds or something, but it ain't not the same. Vista works for me and does have useful tools included. I am waiting for Windows 7 (even beta), because I like to see what they (microsoft) is up to and how they think one should go about if you want to dominate the world. :D

Another off topic Q: Why is it that if Linux is so much more powerful and all that (and free), that people still go out and buy an OS? Some will answer: Cause everyone knows how to use windows. But them, Windows was never free, did you had to pay for Linux as well? Which one was out first, windows (/dos) or linux?
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,575
Shark the problem with linux is the stigma attached to it from the old days when you needed a linux diploma to run it, its alot more user friendly these days. Windows sells because people know it and everything works on one platform. Most linux users will have windows as well because they may use some programs and play games that won't run well on linux.

Personally i think why windows is so popular is purely because you do everything on one platform and there is no need for dual booting.

Windows blinds for XP looks nothing like vista, i tried it and wow it was shocking.
 

EasyUp Web Hosting

EasyUp Web Hosting
Company Rep
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
8,503
That makes more sense. I only recently started to "look" at Linux, so I don't know how it was. I actually thought it was always easy to use, but MS had better marketing and that is why windows is used everywhere. Now I know. :D

The point I am trying to make is that almost every thread created ends in a battle of how Linux is better than Windows and then you get guys from both sides fighting over it. I think, only when you know both like the back of your hand, can you participate in a battle like that, cause then you have worked with both. Your experience with the OS will make you decide which one to use.

my 0.02c :D
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,845
Windows blinds for XP looks nothing like vista, i tried it and wow it was shocking.

Eh? It *can* look like Vista. Or it can look like any of hundered of other skins.

True, and if it doesn't make sense to you that's OK. Don't upgrade!

But not everyone computes for the same reason, thank goodness. WARNING - Personal Confessions Follow.

Very nice post, Arthur! I'm with you on that. I don't necessarily *need* the latest stuff, but it's nice to have. It might be hard to justify upgrading XP to Vista, but on a new PC, I don't see any reason to not get Vista.
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,575
Claymore i have used windows blinds on xp and i use vista, its looks nothing like it and feels like a cheap nasty version of vista.

It nothing short of horrible if you ask me.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,845
Claymore i have used windows blinds on xp and i use vista, its looks nothing like it and feels like a cheap nasty version of vista.

It nothing short of horrible if you ask me.

I've used it on Vista and XP, and like it. It has some skins that are nicer than Vista Aero, and they work on XP and Vista. If you don't like a particular skin, then load a different one!
 

SanchoP

Expert Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
1,153
killa,
What's Claymore is saying is that there are lots of themes that you can get for XP - not just a Vista theme...

If you want to try some theme's, but don't want to install software etc, download UXtheme multipatcher and go to winmodify.com (one of hundreds of such sites) and download a VisualStyle... I have an Ubuntu like one, which I far prefer to the default cartoony XP theme...
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,575
Oic i thought he meant windows blinds can make xp look vista, which it can sort of but you can feel there is alot missing :), no for themes its awesome i tried plenty on xp but i just could not find one that looked and felt as smooth as vista does. So i went back to vista after giving xp one last try with my rig, i was basically testing if xp ran better on my rig or if vista does and vista was the clear winner :), the 64 bit version though i don't much like my 32 bit vista home that much.
 

OhGats

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
935
Shark the problem with linux is the stigma attached to it from the old days when you needed a linux diploma to run it,

I liked linux too.... I experimented with 5 different computers getting it to work, but each time I hit the same issue. With Linux when I needed help I was not able to go onto the net and look for it because most of my issues were display driven or modem driven, with windows 9 times out of ten could get onto the net and find answers. Linux worked.... but windows was just so much easier. Migrating all my gazillions of files between windows versions is a breeze, getting them onto Linux was just a pain up the nose. Most users are not interested in command line functionality, they just want the crummy machine to work first time around and not break down because they dont know how to fix it.

I would like to see this windows 7 too.. it sounds interesting, Vista I am afraid just doesnt work for me.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
True, and if it doesn't make sense to you that's OK. Don't upgrade!

But not everyone computes for the same reason, thank goodness. WARNING - Personal Confessions Follow.

Hehe, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to upgrade. I'm saying that for ordinary users, ordinary business users who use a machine to edit Word docs, run Access, use Excel, surf the web, play an MP3 in the background or
a DVD, run some Skype and use that for VOIP, Vista and extraneous RAM and additional CPU power is not required.

Yes you could do most things on a 486, even do it on a 386 as I did,
however the graphics interface ran quite slow, back in those days the CPU
handled all the gfx. A faster machine - a Pentium 200MMX with
a 2D accellerator with Win95 - great except Win95 would crash and if one
app crashed chances are the whole system would die.

Windows XP came along and introduced NT to the masses. You could run
everywith with much more stability and the same apps people ran in 2001,
people run right now - just that MS OFFICE takes 3x the diskspace and double the memory and the new OS takes a heavier toll on resources - but for all intents and purposes IMO the sweet spot came in 2001 when XP
came out for the masses. Win2K came out earlier for the select few so maybe that was the sweet spot right there and then but we're talking ubiquitous computing here and now mom and pop could upgrade from ME or 98SE and enjoy full stability.

Now you, yourself are an enthusiast or a professional, you enjoy extra screens, powerful hardware and so on, that gives you enjoyment but for people who use computers for basic tasks - same tasks since 2001 (ie same OS and same suite of apps) getting Windows Vista means
1. New H/W.
2. New software probably - disk burning apps won't work, MS software will also request you to upgrade.
3. Many old programs won't work.
4. Many old games won't work.
5. Most important here - NO INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY.

Windows Vista with it's Aero (I run Win95 classic interface always on XP)
won't make you fill in Excel data faster, it won't make it easier to write better letters on Word and it won't make your browsing the internet better.

I just don't see the need for all the hype. The author of this article, the blogger, boasted how Win7 takes only 900MB to run Office, Word, a free AV and some other applets. As said, it was possible to run Word for Windows on the i386 and it's possible to run WinWord now on an XP Pentium II and up
machine all with the same speed. There's nothing brilliant in what MS has done, maybe under the hood there is but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and not how the pudding was made.

I concur that some people are professionals in some fields and need 64bit computing and some enhancements that Vista offers. I agree that DirectX10
is great for games and a reason to upgrade to Vista but why shove Vista down everyone's throats and why suddenly forget that Windows 7 running faster than Vista is not a miracle but something which MS had 7 years to do (since 2001) and failed badly at with Vista.

Maybe MS should use the Unix kernel? I also use a Mac Pro for video editing and its simplicity and power is something I've come to expect. Can MS which is a giant compared to Apple not come up with something which is fast, secure and stable and without marketing hype and vaporware?
Can programers at MS even program or do they just buy up companies and assimilate?
 
Top