Windows 7

[Acanthus]

From what i've seen so far windows 7 doesn't appear to be any better than vista in any measurable way. The improved calculator and photo albums... New themes...

Are there any real changes under the hood? Did they finally implement WinFS that was promised in Vista and dropped?

Or is this more like the Win2k => WinXP exchange where the updates are almost purely cosmetic?

I'm just not seeing what all of the glamor is about with Win7 over Vista.

 

[lxskllr]

You're right. Everybody's gushing over Win7, acting like it's the second coming. All it is is Vista with a few tweaks. I actually prefer Vista. I'll be sitting this upgrade out I believe.

 

[Modelworks]

Biggest changes to me, its leaner, runs faster on less hardware.
Clear type improvements.


It isn't the second coming, it is what vista should have been.

 

[tatteredpotato]

I used Vista for about a year before installing this beta, and I haven't looked back. The new task bar and aero improvements are what sold me.

 

[slugg]

Well while it may not be a measureable improvement, I do like the new taskbar a LOT. Also, Vista runs like total crap on 2 gb of memory, while W7 is running like a champ on my 2 gb.

Other than that, it feels, looks, and behaves like Vista. It has floating gadgets now instead of a sidebar, but I find every gadget to be useless anyways, so whatever.

My opinion, at least regarding build 7000, is that all of this could be included in a Vista service pack. I might be missing something, though.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: slugg
Well while it may not be a measureable improvement, I do like the new taskbar a LOT. Also, Vista runs like total crap on 2 gb of memory, while W7 is running like a champ on my 2 gb.

Other than that, it feels, looks, and behaves like Vista. It has floating gadgets now instead of a sidebar, but I find every gadget to be useless anyways, so whatever.

My opinion, at least regarding build 7000, is that all of this could be included in a Vista service pack. I might be missing something, though.

See, the stuff you like, I dislike in Win7 :^D

I prefer the old taskbar, and I want my sidebar back :^D It does seem to take less horsepower to run, but my machine is more than good enough for Vista.

 

[KoolDrew]

Or is this more like the Win2k => WinXP exchange where the updates are almost purely cosmetic?

That's how I see it.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
From what i've seen so far windows 7 doesn't appear to be any better than vista in any measurable way. The improved calculator and photo albums... New themes...

While Windows 7 is a improved Vista, it is not as simple as Vista with a new skin and improved calculator.

Are there any real changes under the hood? Did they finally implement WinFS that was promised in Vista and dropped?

Most of the functionality of WinFS is in both Vista and Win 7. The improved search of Vista/Win7 and Libraries in Explorer in Win 7 are the types of functionality that WinFS was supposed to provide. The WinFS implementation was a resource hog and performance was horrid so Microsoft scrapped it and found better ways to incorporate the functionality into both Vista and Win 7. WinFS was not a new file system, but was supposed to be a object oriented extension to NTFS. Libraries in Windows 7 is the realization of the promises that this object extension was supposed to provide. Since Microsoft found a more efficient way to add this functionality, there is now no need for WinFS.

WinFS was crap and rightly dumped. I wish people would quit beating this dead horse and move on.

Other changes under the hood in Win 7 besides Libraries include WDDM 1.1, A new services algorithm that only runs services when needed, better support for multicore processors up to 256 cores and a little more efficient memory management on old and substandard hardware.

Or is this more like the Win2k => WinXP exchange where the updates are almost purely cosmetic?

You are partially correct here. Yes it is more like going from Win2K to XP. The part you are wrong on is the changes from Win2K to XP were hardly just cosmetic and were much more involved than you realize.

I'm just not seeing what all of the glamor is about with Win7 over Vista.

I partially agree with this in the sense that people that never used Vista and then test Win7 seem to praise it to high heaven over Vista and yet Win 7 is mostly Vista. For those familiar with Vista that are praising Win7 these are some of the improvements that are receiving compliments.

1. Libraires

2. Superbar (Plenty of Vista users hate the Superbar too)

3. HomeGroup

4. Ability to hide icon on the taskbar

5. New useful keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures like the ability to now show a window half screen without jumping through hoops.

6. Unattended installation

7. Faster installation

8. Simplified and improved Start Menu

9. Jump List ( Another either love it or hate it item)

10. Sticky Notes

11. Devices and Printers (Finally a modern way to administer hardware without having to use Device Manager)

If I had the time or patience I could find a lot more than this.

 

[tatteredpotato]

You can still make the "SuperBar" look pretty similar to the old standard one. Just choose "Never combine" for the taskbar buttons option, and check "Use small icons."

The only real difference is if you pin icons to use them like quick launch icons they'll use that same icon for the window management.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Acanthus
From what i've seen so far windows 7 doesn't appear to be any better than vista in any measurable way. The improved calculator and photo albums... New themes...

While Windows 7 is a improved Vista, it is not as simple as Vista with a new skin and improved calculator.

Are there any real changes under the hood? Did they finally implement WinFS that was promised in Vista and dropped?

Most of the functionality of WinFS is in both Vista and Win 7. The improved search of Vista/Win7 and Libraries in Explorer in Win 7 are the types of functionality that WinFS was supposed to provide. The WinFS implementation was a resource hog and performance was horrid so Microsoft scrapped it and found better ways to incorporate the functionality into both Vista and Win 7. WinFS was not a new file system, but was supposed to be a object oriented extension to NTFS. Libraries in Windows 7 is the realization of the promises that this object extension was supposed to provide. Since Microsoft found a more efficient way to add this functionality, there is now no need for WinFS.

WinFS was crap and rightly dumped. I wish people would quit beating this dead horse and move on.

Other changes under the hood in Win 7 besides Libraries include WDDM 1.1, A new services algorithm that only runs services when needed, better support for multicore processors up to 256 cores and a little more efficient memory management on old and substandard hardware.

Or is this more like the Win2k => WinXP exchange where the updates are almost purely cosmetic?

You are partially correct here. Yes it is more like going from Win2K to XP. The part you are wrong on is the changes from Win2K to XP were hardly just cosmetic and were much more involved than you realize.

I'm just not seeing what all of the glamor is about with Win7 over Vista.

I partially agree with this in the sense that people that never used Vista and then test Win7 seem to praise it to high heaven over Vista and yet Win 7 is mostly Vista. For those familiar with Vista that are praising Win7 these are some of the improvements that are receiving compliments.

1. Libraires

2. Superbar (Plenty of Vista users hate the Superbar too)

3. HomeGroup

4. Ability to hide icon on the taskbar

5. New useful keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures like the ability to now show a window half screen without jumping through hoops.

6. Unattended installation

7. Faster installation

8. Simplified and improved Start Menu

9. Jump List ( Another either love it or hate it item)

10. Sticky Notes

11. Devices and Printers (Finally a modern way to administer hardware without having to use Device Manager)

If I had the time or patience I could find a lot more than this.

Thanks for the info, it was a genuine question and not just a retarded troll post.

I have tried to do some research on the improved functionality... and found the data out there to be lacking.

Can you elaborate on the printer and device changes?

Do you think any of this functionality will come to Vista in SP2?

 

[soydios]

Windows 7 is what Vista should've been.

Four biggest improvements for me:
- reduced RAM usage
- faster going in and out of sleep mode
- faster connecting to WiFi networks

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: slugg
...Vista runs like total crap on 2 gb of memory...

True, besides the fact that it doesn't run like crap at all.

Unless you're running memory intensive programs, or many programs at once, Vista is just fine with 2gb...This is coming from personal experience on both old (as in P4) and new (C2D at least) computers (each with decent video cards). Tests even back this theory up...Vista is best with 2gb and up.

However, Windows 7 can apparently run decently on just 1gb of memory, unlike Vista.

 

[cvrefugee]

I think people who love Windows 7 (namely tech editors, journalists, etc.) never used Vista. It's basically the same OS with a few tweaks/changes here and there.

 

[dwell]

Installed Windows 7 over the weekend, not really impressed. Never ran Vista but coming from XP SP3 it didn't really offer me anything other than a pretty interface and some graphical bells and whistles.

Windows 7 seems to have the Barack Obama thing going for it. After years of a lame incumbent, anything remotely decent that comes along will be praised, especially by "the party".

 

[n7]

I personally am not overly excited about 7.

I am glad that there's positive hype surrounding it, as maybe the people still clinging to their 7 year old XP will finally let go.

But i adopted Vista as my main OS since the RTM basically, & 7 really doesn't seem all that marvelous to me.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: cvrefugee
I think people who love Windows 7 (namely tech editors, journalists, etc.) never used Vista. It's basically the same OS with a few tweaks/changes here and there.

Bingo, lol

im not that impressed with windows 7, lemme just say this. I was far more impressed xp --> vista, then I am vista --> windows 7.

But i do like the little changes in windows 7. The superbar seems a step backwards. But I like the tray options. Dont see the reason they got rid of sidebar, considering you could undock the gadgets and then close the sidebar. IE same as win 7.

I like the minor memory improvement, but i am getting more cpu usage. so...

The one click wifi is nice.

But everything i like seems pretty easy to implement to vista. I dont want to skip 7. It better be free.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: cvrefugee
I think people who love Windows 7 (namely tech editors, journalists, etc.) never used Vista. It's basically the same OS with a few tweaks/changes here and there.

Bingo, lol

im not that impressed with windows 7, lemme just say this. I was far more impressed xp --> vista, then I am vista --> windows 7.

But i do like the little changes in windows 7. The superbar seems a step backwards. But I like the tray options. Dont see the reason they got rid of sidebar, considering you could undock the gadgets and then close the sidebar. IE same as win 7.

I like the minor memory improvement, but i am getting more cpu usage. so...

The one click wifi is nice.

But everything i like seems pretty easy to implement to vista. I dont want to skip 7. It better be free.

Yea it's just a steamlined Vista. Vista is great and I'm sure I'll get W7 in maybe 2 years but since I'm a gamer, DX10 implementation is the same since we are still barely getting into it. We are still a ways off for DX11 to start getting implemented into games.

 

[slugg]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: slugg
...Vista runs like total crap on 2 gb of memory...

True, besides the fact that it doesn't run like crap at all.

Unless you're running memory intensive programs, or many programs at once, Vista is just fine with 2gb...This is coming from personal experience on both old (as in P4) and new (C2D at least) computers (each with decent video cards). Tests even back this theory up...Vista is best with 2gb and up.

However, Windows 7 can apparently run decently on just 1gb of memory, unlike Vista.

Well then, I guess we can both agree that I use more programs at the same time than you do and Windows 7 performs better than Vista during my personal usage patterns.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: slugg
...Vista runs like total crap on 2 gb of memory...

True, besides the fact that it doesn't run like crap at all.

Unless you're running memory intensive programs, or many programs at once, Vista is just fine with 2gb...This is coming from personal experience on both old (as in P4) and new (C2D at least) computers (each with decent video cards). Tests even back this theory up...Vista is best with 2gb and up.

However, Windows 7 can apparently run decently on just 1gb of memory, unlike Vista.

Well then, I guess we can both agree that I use more programs at the same time than you do and Windows 7 performs better than Vista during my personal usage patterns.

Whats cheaper new ram or new OS,yes ram 😉.

Win7 Beta is better for older systems(1GB etc ) however personally I would never use any new OS on old systems like that unless I really had too,ram prices are so cheap I'm looking at 8GB plus .

Vista to Win7 Beta on 3GB or 4GB systems can't say I have seen any big speed improvements.