Do you see windows7 as an improvement over vista and xp

IMO, Windows 7 looks much nicer than Vista, and a lot of changes (esp. gui) make it more usable.

I can't really relate to the people saying how slow/clunky/unstable Vista Sp2 is. My installation of Vista slip'd w/ SP2 is fine. I wish I could tweak how it looks more like in 7, but I can't agree that it runs slow and/or crashes with any frequency at all.

I do agree it eats the most resources, but I suppose since my rig can handle it, I don't get bothered.

Edit: oh, right. 7 gives me one refresh rate for my big ol' Trinitron CRT fatty monitor...so the display starts to shake after a while. I don't know how to fix that. That might be the biggest reason I'm still using Vista.

Muad Dib said:

IMO, W7 is what Vista should have been. I am not trying to start a flame here... I am just glad that MS seems to have their act "5x5" on this one.

I don't think anyone will accuse you of trying to start a flame war. :)

Although, IMO, Vista was a complete overhaul compared to XP on many levels, and while the general reception towards Vista still isn't very high, I don't think that the Windows 7 we've all come to love and appreciate would've been possible without Vista.

holo88 said:

wasn't he a decepticon?

btw, what refresh rate do you get? for some unknown reason on 7 mine is 85hz, on XP the default was 60hz. 85hz used to give me that 'no signal' error.... weird huh?

Yeah, he is. I shoulda know before the transformations...it's big and evil enough.

The rate that I get is 75hz. On XP it gave me the choices of 60, 70, 75. Vista gives the choices of 60, 70, 72, 75. 7 just gives me 75hz. I set to 60 when I can, as that stops the shaking. 60 is the default for Vista and may have been for XP as well (maybe XP was 70, or 75).

That is strange on the no signal error. Hopefully, later versions (like the 13th RTM) will be able to work with old, giant CRT monitors.

I feel it's better Vista, not better than XP. I miss the XP modem lights. I miss being able to turn off Remember Folder Settings in Windows Explorer. Not fond of the windows 7 superbar's popup display that shows all the windows in it. It gets in the way. Don't like the Shut Down button not offering any way to say "oops, I didn't meant to click that" like the XP.

Current Intel GMA X3100 drivers for W7 are sluggish at games that older drivers seem to play fine. The newer sluggish drivers give higher performance scores despite not performing nearly as well. I'm hoping they will be improved.

Otherwise... it's fine.

KazeNoKoe23 said:

Although, IMO, Vista was a complete overhaul compared to XP on many levels, and while the general reception towards Vista still isn't very high, I don't think that the Windows 7 we've all come to love and appreciate would've been possible without Vista.

Agreed. Also, I did not make Vista my main OS until I had a system that had the resources to support it. Maybe that is why I liked Vista for my personal use unlike many others. But I still would not and did not recommend upgrading numerous times. Either the hardware was not up to it or the users were not up to it. A new OS does require a willingness to learn how to do things "differently".

Trev0r269 said:

Edit: oh, right. 7 gives me one refresh rate for my big ol' Trinitron CRT fatty monitor...so the display starts to shake after a while. I don't know how to fix that. That might be the biggest reason I'm still using Vista.

I had a 19" Sony Trinitron for 7-8 years until it finally bit the dust just before XMAS. They were not inexpensive in 2001 (2?) but I never regretted the purchase. The best CRT I ever had.

I believe I ran it at 75Hz in Vista and XP with both Nvidia and ATI drivers /cards.

Also I miss "up button".

Trev0r269 said:

IMO, Windows 7 looks much nicer than Vista, and a lot of changes (esp. gui) make it more usable.

I can't really relate to the people saying how slow/clunky/unstable Vista Sp2 is. My installation of Vista slip'd w/ SP2 is fine. I wish I could tweak how it looks more like in 7, but I can't agree that it runs slow and/or crashes with any frequency at all.

I do agree it eats the most resources, but I suppose since my rig can handle it, I don't get bothered.

I've always run WindowBlinds so between the two OS's i see no difference. I use the same skin on both.

I've yet to see a BSOD on my Vista Sp2, had several with 7.


Improvements i dislike :

Taking away columnheaders in the list view. Yes they serve no real purpose for displayreasons but it's much easier to click on columnheader to change the sort order dan to do several mouseclicks.

Adding libraries. It just add's another layer of indirection. It might be great for business users to group files over a intranet but on a homecomputer it's just extra luggage to carry;

Aeropeek, shaking, whatever. Hardly groundbreaking and just annoying after a while when come to close to the screenborder and your app suddenly maximizes, or you just moved your hand to fast whilst incidently having mouse down.

Taskbar. Huge icons which change colour. Thankfully Windowblinds takes care of that.

What i do like is the ability to change audio endpoints whilst the app is running.

I can see that those with out of date computers need every bit of memory and processorcycles and it might make a difference. But it's still like pulling a truckload with a compact car.

I'm loving 7's interface as compared to XP. Unfortunately it doesn't run COD4 as well on my rig as XP does so I'm still dual-booting. I figure my main bottleneck now is my CPU (Athlon 64 X2 4200+) and my memory (Corsair XMS 2 GB DDR). I plan on building in the spring, or at least starting to gather the parts, so that will resolve those issues.

I do still plan on picking it up for the VERY reduced price, just have to decide if RDP host is enough to sway me to spending another $50.