What don't you like about Windows 7?

Sonixmon said:

This one is new for me, another major thing I discovered. I have a network drive with about 300GB of stuff on it. I keep a backup on my second Raid array in my main PC (to have 2 identical copies).

Occasionally I decide to move files and folders around and sometimes join multiple folders/files by overwriting with the move command. Today I was moving about 2.2GB that was pretty much overwriting the same thing (but I wanted to make sure I had all the files from both folders). *Keep in mind all the files were on the Network Drive, just moving the location.

Anyway I started the Move process and it took 5+mins for W7 to start actually moving files and said it was going to take 7+ hours!! Again most of the files were already there and the rest was just a move!

I switched to my laptop (XP) and using the same move command it started copying instantly, it said it would take <60 seconds but ended up taking 2-3 mins total! Ok something is wrong with that picture!! 7 Hrs vs 2-3 mins and I watched the files copying from W7 for about 5 mins and they only got to about .2GB. So 5 mins to figure out it would take 7 hrs then 5 mins for .2GB Vs. <3mins for complete copy with XP!

It seems W7 was copying the files to a temp folder or ram, etc. before copying them back to the new location on the Network Drive. XP Seemed to take the smart route and just move the files to the new location on the Network drive without copying them to a temp folder/ram etc. Even with a Gigabit network and HD 2.2 GB takes some time, especially if W7 is copying it to memory then back to the HD.

So Glad I kept a dual boot of XP now!

Side Note, I would like to use the offline sync feature, but this doesnt give me enough control of where the files go, so I use a 3rd party sync program which is Awesome!

Try using Microsoft SyncToy 2.1 - It works great on external and network drives.

it's perfect, except for :
1) Compared to XP, it's still slower and has a larger footprint
2) if something can crash XP, it can still crash win7 64-bit, such as the buggy winmount
3) I suspect M$ has content protection built into 7 just like vista, here is a quote:

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium content”, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

source here

@akramh, please for the love of that is great and holy do not quote Peter Gutmann....please. There is no "cost" to the "DRM" that is implemented in Windows Vista or 7. In fact without it you will never be able to watch DVDs or Blu-ray legally on your computer. And it only effects media that is in fact copy protected in the first place. None of your non-protected media is going to be affect. So where is the issue?

This issue may have already been mentioned--though I did a search for "animated network icon"-- or the lack thereof.
I dislike the "new" static network icon, which is clearly a step backward.

Oh, another thing I don't like is a Scheduled Task feature. In the Scheduled task creation dialog
Action tab there are 3 possibilities;Run a program, send an e-mail, display a message.In one of my tasks called Food Timer I have enabled both 'Run a program' (Winamp plays a small mp3 file) and
'Display a message' (Food is done). The problem is the message does not 'steal focus' or display
'always on top' . Instead if an application is open on the Desktop the message is displayed behind the app and therefore unseen, and the taskbar icon does not flash to warn you the message is displayed.
If one goes to the trouble to have a message displayed to inform them the task has run shouldn't
the message be displayed more prominently? I feel the message box should pop-up 'always on top'
or to 'steal focus' at least. This omission in my opinion shows poor planning on the part of the developers of this feature (Display a message) in Task Scheduler.

akramh said:

it's perfect, except for :
1) Compared to XP, it's still slower and has a larger footprint
2) if something can crash XP, it can still crash win7 64-bit, such as the buggy winmount
3) I suspect M$ has content protection built into 7 just like vista, here is a quote:

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium content”, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

source here

That article was last updated in June 2007, so is perhaps a little out of date. The store where I work has 40-something different varieties of PCI-Ex graphics cards from 6 different manufacturers, of which all of those that support HD have HDCP as standard. That article mentions ATI HD1900 and nVidia 7800 series graphics cards. I didn't continue reading past that, as the author if obviously a ranter with inadequate hardware...

Dzomlija said:

That article was last updated in June 2007, so is perhaps a little out of date. The store where I work has 40-something different varieties of PCI-Ex graphics cards from 6 different manufacturers, of which all of those that support HD have HDCP as standard. That article mentions ATI HD1900 and nVidia 7800 series graphics cards. I didn't continue reading past that, as the author if obviously a ranter with inadequate hardware...

maybe it's me who is on a rant, lol. I confess that after playing around with win 7 for 8 months since beta 7022 I want to move away from windows all toghether to open source OS, such as ubuntu, I have been trying it for a few days now and so far so good. I will keep both win7 and XP available for dual boot in case there are some things I cannot do in ubuntu, but so far I am able to do everything ( I don't play games so.. ) mostly I like to download and watch movies on my LCD TV, open and edit office documents ( I can do that with openoffice ), I use filezilla and utorrent for fire transfares. I tried convertxtodvd also on ubuntu running under wine and it is running at half speed ( encoding at 60fps instead of 120fps on XP ) which is not that bad really considering I am running a windows app inside linux...

I guess that's why I am digging old documents that are anti M$, I am just not a big fan of M$ anymore lol. sorry if my views looked a bit biazed, yes I'm an open source OS fan boy now, lol.