Windows 7: XP with Vista layer on top?

[Sonokamome]

I was at Office Depot today and I could not help but over hear two guys talking about Windows 7. I was asking them if they thought that Win 7 would come out around August or September. (taking a gamble if in case they knew when they would be releasing Windows 7. I know, too soon, but hey it never hurts to ask regardless of what you know right?)

So what they told me, as I expected, is that the fall way too soon to expect it to come out.

He later on explained later during the conversation something that struck me curious. And I say curious because, right now, I'm currently in the middle of a build and would really like to avoid Vista.

But anyway, back to the story: He told me that, simply put, Windows 7 was nothing but Vista but stripped down (I kind of figured that part out since, well, a hell of a lot of legacy code is stripped from Windows 7) and, it's the curious part, he said that the architecture of Windows 7 is nothing else than Windows XP.

And I'm thinking "Windows XP?!!". He also said that the whole reason was to allow programs, old ones, to work with the new operating system.

This is quite startling, as it is confusing. Because if this is the case, then I might as well get Vista Ultimate, buy the rest of what I need for my project, and get this over with.

But before I do anything rash, I've come here to ask thee all for advice for this mere pilgrim.

(yeah uh...been reading too much shake spear lately, sorry).

 

[Billb2]

Hogwash!

 

[Cogman]

First off. Ignore all FUD about vista. It has been by FAR the best version of Windows I have ever used. (and I'm even using the 64 bit version of it)

Second. In a sense the guy was sort of right. No OS is built from the ground up, just like CPUs aren't built from the ground up. Parts are tweaked and changed, but for the most part, a lot of things are pretty much common through out. To say that some parts of XP are in vista wouldn't be a stretch (heck, to say some DOS parts are in vista wouldn't be a stretch.)

However, The windows kernel did receive a MAJOR overhaul with vista. Tons of stuff changed (The entire driver architecture). All in all, I would say it changed for the better.

So my advice? If I where considering getting a new OS right now, I would get the RC version (free) of windows 7, and hold off until windows 7 is officially released.

 

[Sonokamome]

Cogman:......hmmmm...............true. Yeah I'm aware of the FUD but it's just that, not to contradict, but it's just that I've had to help people with new computers (stock from the nearest blue box) and they just run very very slow and they have had 64 bit vista very decent specs and I'm like "huh? still slow?".

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Sonokamome
Cogman:......hmmmm...............true. Well yeah the FUD has been around but what about those stock computer that are with vista and run slow? (not to contradict but it's just that I've had to help people with new computers and they just run very very slow).

What do you mean by slow? What are the systems specs? Are they trying to run vista with 256 of 512 megs of ram?

From XP to vista I haven't really noticed any real speed differences (Vista has a bit slower login time, however programs feel a bit more snappy).

 

[Sonokamome]

One computer that I worked on was one with a Core 2 Duo processor, 2gigs of ram, more than enough disk storage. I did a defrag, disk clean up. And it just kept performing not as responsive as it should be after upgrading to the latest service pack. I'm probably missing something here.

On average, aside of the example I just gave, all computers my friends had me work on had similar specs (I mean they were good to go on running vista). But for some reason they just don't work as, again, responsive.

But again, Cogman, Now that you told me that I could just might as well get the RC in the meantime and get the retail version later. I might as well go for it

Thanks man.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Sonokamome
One computer that I worked on was one with a Core 2 Duo processor, 2gigs of ram, more than enough disk storage. I did a defrag, disk clean up. And it just kept performing not as responsive as it should be after upgrading to the latest service pack. I'm probably missing something here.

On average, aside of the example I just gave, all computers my friends had me work on had similar specs (I mean they were good to go on running vista). But for some reason they just don't work as, again, responsive.

But again, Cogman, Now that you told me that I could just might as well get the RC in the meantime and get the retail version later. I might as well go for it

Thanks man.

Clean installs are your friend.

 

[Sonokamome]

***nods and smacks his head***

 

[readymix]

whatever it is, it's not ready. i installed yesterday, added the ati drivers and nis2009, set up ie8, wmp, and live mail, then went to browsing for a while. booted today and it started in recovery console and was unable to repair. hit the reset and it booted fine so i did more browsing, installed acronis 11 and ati hydravision. i was'nt expecting much from the latter but what i got was system lockup when i hit apply in ati's ccc. so it's back to the sidelines and vista for me. fwiw, going from xp to vista was a piece of cake, in 7 alot of the familiarity is gone, folks won't like it.

 

[Sonokamome]

readymix: Dude.....I"m willing to take the plunge man. So "excuse me while I kiss the sky".

 

[masterbm]

Ok I have been running vista since it came out. Their are many things that will effect vista performance. I have no issue with my media center by far the slowest and oldest machine (3800 socket 939, 2 gb, 2400 hd) runs wonderfull on vista. Never see any slow performance on that machine install is very old it was installed july 07. For referfance that machine has been logged just over 51,000 hrs of use from it build date. Vista is wonderfull os. Windows 7 is vista but refined with some gui change if want look them up google paul thurrott. Also vista not very big on older onboard video card actual even some current intel video cards. For what I have seen good vista performance is fast ram 1.5 gb min , good video card and cou over 1.8 ghz

 

[Sonokamome]

Originally posted by: masterbmTheir are many things that will effect vista performance.

I know that. But that was the thing that had me asking when working on those computers "which one among them is the thing I would have to do fox the slow response problem".

Like I said, I"m stumped. But whatever. Some computers work well with it, some others don.t I just don't want to install and then find that it's not good enough despite the hardware

and yeah I know that Win7 is just a stripped down version of the former. But the funny thing is, from what I'm getting at. is that some hardware combinations will work and some won't.
at when it comes to being repsonsive all around

*shrugs*

So why gamble right? Might as well wait it out.

 

[KurtD]

I am no engineer, but as I understand it Vista changed the way the operating system interacts with the hardware. If the hardware vendors do not, or did not, invest sufficient time and testing of new drivers for their existing hardware base, then there will probably be issues. I had problems with a USB Wireless device - of all things! Some "new" machines you purchase off-the-shelf can have surprisingly old components (chipsets, GPU, LAN, etc.). My guess is there is only "so much" they can do with some hardware to make it work efficiently with Vista. IMO Vista compatibility is not the same thing as similar or better performance than XP. There should be some objective standard for hardware performance under Vista, beyond just stating that it is "compatible", so that consumers can make informed decisions. Add to that the effect different components have when they interact and you have an equation with more variables than can be solved.

I just built a new machine with a recent processor, memory and MB with Vista 64. The only issues I had related to drivers for hardware that I migrated from my old box.

 

[Sonokamome]

KurtD: That too was on my mind to be honest in regards to the whole manner of what hardware would work best with what current drivers with Vista. But I just ask myself as to why does it have to be that complicated? if that's the "different" manner that hardware and software are going to be interacting then *shrugs*.

You do make good point, and this was something a guy from HP had told me that what happened was that. Microsoft had given the dates and updates to the development and eventual release of Vista (something they did not do with prior windows OSs).

So what happened was that vendors, and pretty much most of the hardware industry, just went "sure we'll work on it almost towards near the release".

So now, he told me, that they are not telling them the release dates or anything like that. And they do this, as they have done before, because it's effective in making hardware companies to always be on their toes and not relax so much on R&D (am I using that acronym right?).

Hence probably why, current hardware that just release since late last year, is now not going to have problems (as much?) as before or at all.

Again. Not wanting to spread FUD about Vista, it's just the question that if Win 7 is a stripped down Vista with XP on the rock bottom of the architecture (and I'm not going to claim that I know anything about programing since I'm am simply an aficionado) then what? Go for Vista? or just wait out for Win 7?

I would like to thank you all so far for not assuming I was spreading FUD I appreciate it. I welcome future inputs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm sure that bsobel can comment on the architecture of Win7 better than I can, but I can tell you this - Win7 is NOT based on the XP kernel, it's based on an updated Vista kernel. Hence why Vista drivers work with Windows 7, and XP drivers do not.

Perhaps the fellow that you were talking to was slightly mis-informed, becuase the "pro" versions of Win7 are going to include a virtualized form of XP, so you can run older apps on native XP, running inside of a virtual machine. This DOES NOT mean that "Win7 is based on XP".

 

[Sonokamome]

Virtual Larry: Yeah because I was thinking "wait how does that have to do with the virtualization features?". But whatever.

To all: So, as we were on how- with all things considered- can this be all applied to my case and provide some degree of closure on my part for this thread that I have started: I will go with Windows 7. But with the open mind that it was a matter of industry sluggardness almost on the whole that resulted the fiasco for Vista in the end. I believe that Vista was one that Mircrosoft saw as the culmination of old and new. But, alas, could not be handled by the hardware and no proper drivers were prepared to work with this new system.

I will go wait for Windows 7, do a bit more research, and time my time. I look forward to it but will, agian, take it without passion (that kills the whole fun of this hobby of ours as a whole right?)

 

[BD2003]

Windows 7 is not a stripped form of vista. It's a more advanced version, where they went through far more trouble than usual to lower its requirements.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I'm sure that bsobel can comment on the architecture of Win7 better than I can, but I can tell you this - Win7 is NOT based on the XP kernel, it's based on an updated Vista kernel. Hence why Vista drivers work with Windows 7, and XP drivers do not.

Well, its word play, but Windows 7 is based on the XP kernel, but think of it as it's grandparent. Vista was based on XP, and Win7 Based on Vista...

But as told to you (you being the OP, not VL), Win7 wasn't directly branched from XP somehow 'skiping' all of the Vista work. As others have stated, Vista is one of the best OS's to come from MS. It had teething issues due to the driver model changes (changes that needed to happen, but alas were rushed). Most if not all of those are behind us. Vista opened up 64bit computing for 'the masses' and includes lots of internal features no-one is even aware of (I've not seen one thread here on self healing NTFS even given all the Vista sucks vs XP threads)...

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Sonokamome
I was at Office Depot today and I could not help but over hear two guys talking about Windows 7. I was asking them if they thought that Win 7 would come out around August or September. (taking a gamble if in case they knew when they would be releasing Windows 7. I know, too soon, but hey it never hurts to ask regardless of what you know right?)

So what they told me, as I expected, is that the fall way too soon to expect it to come out.

He later on explained later during the conversation something that struck me curious. And I say curious because, right now, I'm currently in the middle of a build and would really like to avoid Vista.

But anyway, back to the story: He told me that, simply put, Windows 7 was nothing but Vista but stripped down (I kind of figured that part out since, well, a hell of a lot of legacy code is stripped from Windows 7) and, it's the curious part, he said that the architecture of Windows 7 is nothing else than Windows XP.

And I'm thinking "Windows XP?!!". He also said that the whole reason was to allow programs, old ones, to work with the new operating system.

This is quite startling, as it is confusing. Because if this is the case, then I might as well get Vista Ultimate, buy the rest of what I need for my project, and get this over with.

But before I do anything rash, I've come here to ask thee all for advice for this mere pilgrim.

(yeah uh...been reading too much shake spear lately, sorry).

He is a salesman trying to sell you Vista now. He is full of horse poo poo.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Sonokamome
Cogman:......hmmmm...............true. Yeah I'm aware of the FUD but it's just that, not to contradict, but it's just that I've had to help people with new computers (stock from the nearest blue box) and they just run very very slow and they have had 64 bit vista very decent specs and I'm like "huh? still slow?".

Repeat after me, update the drivers and remove the crapware. If the system has less than 2 gigs of RAM, add RAM because it is cheap.

 

[Modelworks]

The video subsystem is to me the biggest change in windows 7. They stripped down the vista video API to the basics then built windows 7 system up from that. The changes in that area are one of the reasons why it works better with less memory. In vista there was a lot of moving around of video data unnecessarily . These are not driver changes but kernel changes, as the same driver in windows 7 performs better memory wise than it does in vista.