Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: My Issues with Windows 7

02 Feb 2010   #51
pweegar

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by bigmck View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Everyone I have talked to raves on about how finished and polished Win 7 is and that couldn't be further from the truth.
Everybody is wrong..................
Not wrong perse, just exagerated or something.

Also after exploring this more I am starting to find more and more people who agree with me.

It just bugs me that Vista got so much flak and 7 gets all the praise. It's a complete reversal and both are unwarranted.

Sorry, but both rock. I have Vista ultimate 32 bit on my laptop with 1.5 GB of memory and it's fast. I have Win7 64 bit on my desktop and it's fast and stable with 2 GB of RAM. I don't have OSissues with either.

As far as no paging file, you aren't using software that requires one. As far as XP booting faster than Win7, that is because you aren't doing anything but e-mail and the internet. I can get both my pc's to boot that fast too, if that's all I am doing. Xp was cool in it's day, but has out grown itself.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
02 Feb 2010   #52
BunBun

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pweegar View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by bigmck View Post

Everybody is wrong..................
Not wrong perse, just exagerated or something.

Also after exploring this more I am starting to find more and more people who agree with me.

It just bugs me that Vista got so much flak and 7 gets all the praise. It's a complete reversal and both are unwarranted.

Sorry, but both rock. I have Vista ultimate 32 bit on my laptop with 1.5 GB of memory and it's fast. I have Win7 64 bit on my desktop and it's fast and stable with 2 GB of RAM. I don't have OSissues with either.

As far as no paging file, you aren't using software that requires one. As far as XP booting faster than Win7, that is because you aren't doing anything but e-mail and the internet. I can get both my pc's to boot that fast too, if that's all I am doing. Xp was cool in it's day, but has out grown itself.
My XP dual boot was for running Solidworks... hardly just internet and e-mail :P

I am not saying Win 7 is horrible. I am saying Vista got way more flak then it derserved and Win 7 is getting way more praise then it deserves. Win 7 is not perfect and polished and Vista is not the bug ridden choppy mess everyone thinks.

Win 7 still has its issues like every OS does and thanks to my determination and this thread (and other posts on this forum) I have solved all my performance issues and only a few quirks are left to work out.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
02 Feb 2010   #53
BunBun

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by antt View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.

Windows 7 works great on netbooks. seriously. Windows 7 has the ability to adapt to whatever situation you put it in, unlike Vista. If you put it in a low ram situation, it will adapt and precache less. If it has a slower processor speed, it will adapt its indexing to suit.
I have no idea why all the manufacturers are putting Starter Edition on all the netbooks, Home Premium runs perfectly!
Win 7 starts up with over 900mb of ram used on my machine. Most netbooks are only 1GB. I dont see that going over well.

BTW I never said anything about putting Vista on a netbook...
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

03 Feb 2010   #54
Frostmourne

Windows 7 Ultimate x86-64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by antt View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.

Windows 7 works great on netbooks. seriously. Windows 7 has the ability to adapt to whatever situation you put it in, unlike Vista. If you put it in a low ram situation, it will adapt and precache less. If it has a slower processor speed, it will adapt its indexing to suit.
I have no idea why all the manufacturers are putting Starter Edition on all the netbooks, Home Premium runs perfectly!
Win 7 starts up with over 900mb of ram used on my machine. Most netbooks are only 1GB. I dont see that going over well.

BTW I never said anything about putting Vista on a netbook...
Who would put a proper OS on a netbook? It can't do anything except browse the internet and give you eye and back problems.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Feb 2010   #55
zzz2496

Windows7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Wow, a lot had happened in the last 7 hours...

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Frostmourne View Post
Comparing 7 to XP is idiotic - resources have to go up and technology has to move - what is the point of stagnation? Hardware is cheap too. XP should die permanently and stop being used as a point of reference.
Define "Cheap", I have to agree though, resources do have to go up, hardware is getting cheaper (but it's not dirt cheap), but come on... Why does it have to use resources in order of magnitude MORE than XP? XP will be forever be used as point of reference, just like NT4 that precedes it. Why? Because it's so successful... It has a legacy, everyone will compare anything new to the "tried and true" solution.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Frostmourne View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Frostmourne View Post
Comparing 7 to XP is idiotic - resources have to go up and technology has to move - what is the point of stagnation? Hardware is cheap too. XP should die permanently and stop being used as a point of reference.
Why is it idiotic? They are both OS'es based on the same platform with the same target audience.

Why do resources HAVE to go up for technology to move forward? When did efficiency get lost...

XP still has its place for now and Windows 7 fan boys need to accept that.
Efficiency matches the hardware - I can easily put in a maximum of 16GB DDR3 for my motherboard right now - technology improves everything especially features and XP is virtually dead. No support for DirectX 10 or 11, poor security, and an ugly UI.
BunBun, one word: AGREED !!!
Frostmourne: XP is NOT virtually dead, companies still uses XP, in fact XP still cover more than 60% of Windows Clients used right now. Netbooks, millions of them are on XP, old computers are on XP, majority of office computers are XP too. XP is NOT dead, Microsoft is trying to kill it...

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Frostmourne View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Sure you can expand your memory. But RAM isnt free nor do you have infinite dimm slots availible.

More effort into efficiency would make our hardware go that much further.

Hardware is cheap relatively. It is far from free.

Directx 10, 11 and security drawbacks are only lacking due to Microsoft wanting to strong arm people into their new OS'es.

And ugly UI is only in your opinion as I disagree. Esspecially with XP in classic mode. What good is pretty if it impedes on work done or play?

I want my OS to use as few resources as possible and to be as efficient as it mose possibly can to give things I want to do more resources even with the best of the best hardware (more is still better... right?)
Resources are meant to be used and 16GB of RAM would last a while. Because of XP, I bet developers are still supporting DirectX 9.0c. Kill that and make gaming pointless on XP and there will be a shift.
I have to agree with BunBun here, I do have hardware, I want my hardware to be used efficiently (efficiency differs from person to person). In my case, I don't really care if 7 uses a lot more memory upon boot up, I know it's for precache. 7 has so many "safety" feature that will rob my processor's processing time to give Microsoft feedback to perfect 7, IMO this is good, it's OK to use my processing time to do all that... But not all thinks like me (or you, Frostmourne). There are people who wants to use every ounce, every nanosecond of processing power/time they have in their machines. You can't argue with them, they have different mindset, different objective, different perspective, different principle about their computer and computing in general.

A developer not supporting DirectX 9.0c... that would be horrendously idiotic, stupid beyond help, and he needs to commit suicide for exiling 60++% of the market for your product. It is idiocy beyond all the stupidity committed in history of mankind. That developer should commit suicide and die (in the eye of publisher at least). Games are Business, to make money, the higher requirement your game needs, the less market you'll have, just like Vista back then, which is stupid.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by antt View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.
Windows 7 works great on netbooks. seriously. Windows 7 has the ability to adapt to whatever situation you put it in, unlike Vista. If you put it in a low ram situation, it will adapt and precache less. If it has a slower processor speed, it will adapt its indexing to suit.
I have no idea why all the manufacturers are putting Starter Edition on all the netbooks, Home Premium runs perfectly!
I tested my Acer AspireOne 751h (Atom Z520 1.6GHz, 2GB of memory) netbook with 7, it doesn't feel any faster to me. I think Windows 7 in netbooks have "placebo" effect. Because Microsoft said "it's much more optimized from Vista", etc so the general assumption will be it's better than XP... This logic is flawed from the beginning (remember, optimized from Vista)...

====================================

What is it with you guys? Windows 7 has it's shortcomings, it's not a perfect OS... Yes it is way better than XP or Vista in many aspects, but it's not perfect. One of Windows 7/Vista's feature is security, it much more secure than Windows XP (on default installation), yet I have something to write about this...

Security can be achieved in many different levels. The analogy is this: if you want to secure your computer from the evil grasps of the Internet, the easiest way is to just unplug it off the internet, it's secure unplugged. But you can't do your job unplugged, so you need to make some sacrifices. Keep it plugged but put a firewall on it (Windows Firewall, or any 3rd party firewalls). It has some leverages when you use an internal firewall, but at times when your computer somehow someway got infected, that software firewall can't do anything, because it's integrated into Windows. Then next step would be to have a "hardware" firewall. That will keep the nasty ones off, if you need MORE, use a security appliance... See my point?

Same as XP, for those who claims XP is not as secure as Vista/7, I suggest you take a Microsoft Windows Client (XP) class before you throw another useless comment. XP from ground up is VERY secure, it has ACLs, it has limited user, it has every measure, every feature you need to secure your computer. The stupid decision is that the "administrator" always runs as "Administrator", which will eventually get you many problems (IF you're not careful). If you are inclined to make XP secure, it can be as secure as Vista/7, disable services that you don't use, close down EVERY PORT you don't use, use limited user account for day-to-day use, un-own important files, run backup as a "Backup user", etc. That'll give you the security of Vista/7 and the speed of XP. Want to install something in that "mode"? Easy, use "Run as" command... The point of failure is 80++% is on the user, not the computer.

Security is relative, it can be implemented in various different levels. Security for general public, now that's a different matter all together, because the user (pre-vista) is assumed to be the Administrator, this is the most fatal single point of failure EVER.

As for performance, XP is based on NT 5 kernel, NT 5 is VERY scalable, it ran on multi socket Itanium systems, it ran on 4++ processor machines (not cores), it ran on multi gigabytes memory servers. The problem is, NT 5 kernel is not efficient enough to optimally use current hardware, to exploit today's hardware to the max. It's scheduler is based on a "Server" scheduler, it's not optimal enough for our usage model, it's not "brave" enough to schedule work for other cores/processors (remember it's based on a server product, so it will use the first resource to it's max point, then move to the next). But it's still "good enough" , that's why it survives all these years...

Whew, I said a lot... I'll add some more later... For those who say XP sucks and it should die, I hope you can get a little bit more information as of why it survived...

zzz2496
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Feb 2010   #56
RST101

Windows 7 Ultimate x64.
 
 

One thing to keep in mind though people is if you go back to the days when XP was of sevens' age(new) then you will see xp was in quite a bad way and was no where near as complete as what seven is. It took a service pack to straighten it out. People were reluctant to make the switch from 2000 to xp.

Windows seven is still very very young and when you consider all that is to be considered then you will find its far more advanced, funtional and stable than any os this early in life..

Cheers....
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Feb 2010   #57
1Bowtie

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
 
 

+1 RST101 Apples to Apples
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Feb 2010   #58
antt

Windows 7 build 7100 x86
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by antt View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BunBun View Post
Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.

Windows 7 works great on netbooks. seriously. Windows 7 has the ability to adapt to whatever situation you put it in, unlike Vista. If you put it in a low ram situation, it will adapt and precache less. If it has a slower processor speed, it will adapt its indexing to suit.
I have no idea why all the manufacturers are putting Starter Edition on all the netbooks, Home Premium runs perfectly!
Win 7 starts up with over 900mb of ram used on my machine. Most netbooks are only 1GB. I dont see that going over well.

BTW I never said anything about putting Vista on a netbook...
you obviously missed the part about adaptability.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Feb 2010   #59
BunBun

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by RST101 View Post
One thing to keep in mind though people is if you go back to the days when XP was of sevens' age(new) then you will see xp was in quite a bad way and was no where near as complete as what seven is. It took a service pack to straighten it out. People were reluctant to make the switch from 2000 to xp.

Windows seven is still very very young and when you consider all that is to be considered then you will find its far more advanced, funtional and stable than any os this early in life..

Cheers....
I never had any issues with XP when it first came out and i installed it on my K2-550 with 256MB of ram... oh Diablo II how I miss you...

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by antt View Post
you obviously missed the part about adaptability.
It can't magically use less RAM. It's either pageing it or cache differently or whatever. Either way its not good.

Unless it dynamically unloads services and stuff in which case I want control over that so I can streamline my build!

I will reply to the rest later... busy day today.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Feb 2010   #60
Merlin2000

Windows 7
 
 

Quote:
I will reply to the rest later... busy day today.
- It's probably not really worth it. There are too many people here that no matter what you say, simply won't be able to take criticism about Win 7.

Quote:
Whew, I said a lot... I'll add some more later...
- Damn zzz2496, that was a long post! I think you've said enough! lol.. if people still can't understand why all this stuff holds true, there really isn't anything else you can say that they will understand.

This is a really interesting thread, a lot of the problem I was actually going to complain about, were brought up in here. I hope that even with all the disagreement, this thread will still stay open.

It's good to be able to see both sides of the story.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Closed Thread

 My Issues with Windows 7




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Rolled Back Windows 10 to Windows 7 - Now big Windows Live Mail issues
Hello. I have an HP laptop running Windows 7 Home Premium Service Pack 1 on an HP Pavilion dm4-Notebook PC. It has 6.00 GB of installed memory and a 64 bit operating system. Windows is activated and I have Product ID. I download Windows 10 but could not deal with it and rolled back to Windows...
Browsers & Mail
Recording issues with recorders (fraps hypercam etc) sound issues
Hey guys, ive lately been making lets play and walkthroughs on youtube and im having a couple of problems. With my headset, in the background while recording thats like a static noise and i cant seem to make it go away, ive tried multiple recording programs like fraps and hypercam but its still...
Gaming
Win 7 Upgrade-MANY issues!! Search, screen flashing, Outlook issues..
I have recently upgraded from XP to Win 7 and I have encountered so my problems I've lost count... However, I work from home and I need to get these issues worked out NOW... So, I am DESPERATE for answers... 1. Main problem: I have done a full system index 273,852 files and 2 days later...
General Discussion
Dhcp issues and network connectivity issues since windows 7 x64 sp1
I reformatted my computer because after installing service pack 1 and other updates from Feb 14th my computer has been having issues getting a dhcp from my router. I have a windows 7 home premium 32 bit laptop that works just fine. I also have a ubuntu machine that pulls an address from this...
Network & Sharing
Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit issues with desktop freezing/ other issues
Hi all, Going to try and make this brief, "try" being the operative word here.. I have a Gateway PC running Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit 4 gigs of ram but obviously not all useable (yet) Dual core processor Nvidia 9800GT graphics Card Corsair 650 watt PSU HT Omega Striker 7.1 Souncard..
General Discussion


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App