Windows 7 Will Never Outshine Vista

You first had to perform a few tweaks like disabling ... the sidebar and gadgets

As a general note, what is it about UI design that drives professional developers to constantly be trying to put sidebars and crap on the interface? Sometimes this is useful (navigation tree, e-mail boxes, etc)... but MS has tried to add panels/"channels" to the desktop and IE, Netscape/Mozilla did with Netscape and Firefox... I've never seen one person actually use the damn things. Vista's was exceptionally stupid - an analog clock (when you have a digital one right there) and a little 100 pixel slideshow? I can see a day trader putting stock quotes up there, but there aren't too many real applications for the code bloat, and it could as easily be added as an optional standalone program. Does anyone really need a real time weather feed taking up 20% of their desktop (and inevitibly screwing up the display of some programs)?

7 has very nice performance in general, and I think the XP-lovers will have to grudgingly accept it, but quickly forget about that pastel blue taskbar.

There should really be a small core group of Windows systems, and then selecting modules (similar to how many Linux distributions are set up).

SIW2 said:

The Windows PC is no longer the only game in town, and for that we can thank Vista. Significant indeed.

Especially on the notebook market, right?

Want a cheap, portable workstation? Linux netbook it is.

Well, not so fast...

Even Linux’ temporary success with netbooks has been short lived. After initially embracing Linux for the cost savings, many netbook manufacturers such as MSI are backing away from Linux after recognizing a 4x higher return rate.

The future isn't much different for Linux on the desktop/laptop either...

However, one area where Linux will never succeed is the desktop.

Having choices for the OS is great and most welcomed; people can choose system based on their current and future needs for computing. The chances are that most people will choose Windows PCs for a number of reasons; Windows 7 will probably make the choice easier.

Cr00zng

After a long career in tech support etc, I can say for sure that even the simple Ubuntu setup will escape their mental grasp. They can't even tell if they're using WinXP or Win95.

The recent Mac commercials are funny, though. They blast PCs for having many options and needing security updates and virus scanning. O NOES? Average idiot-user is better off getting a $1000 Windows laptop than a $2000 Mac laptop and having the luxury of... being able to run Office...

Zagadka said:

After a long career in tech support etc, I can say for sure that even the simple Ubuntu setup will escape their mental grasp. They can't even tell if they're using WinXP or Win95.

I just love techy people who cannot grasp the concept of most people care about applications and not the OS.

The concept is rather simple, the OS provides the platform for the application to run on; without applications the OS in itself pretty much useless.

Cr00zng

I just love techy people who cannot grasp the concept of most people care about applications and not the OS.

From a tech support standpoint, knowing which operating system the user has is somewhat important. And my example was of only one basic piece of knowledge. Ever diagnosed a home network connection when their ISP has freaky DNS changes and they need to open a port in their firewall? The user not only doesn't know what system they are on so you can't direct them to the proper place, they have no clue what a DNS is, or a proxy, or a port number. They usually don't know what firewall they have. God help you if it is wireless and they have the crappy Linksys software installed.

I think Windows Vista is okay, when it is up and running.

But my normal Windows Vista x86 needs about 3-5 minutes for startup, before I can work with a normal speed

I made that experience both on my Lenovo Thinkpad Z61p and on my desktop (ASUS P5B W DH DELUXE, Core2Duo @ 2.66 etc.)

And also the shutdown needs the same amount of time.

The reason for that unacceptable time are all those Live Mesh, Messenger, Auto Update etc. programs coming from MS, , Adobe, Lenovo, Creative Labs, HP, Logitech, Nero, Symantec, Logitech etc.

I think Windows 7 is fast at the moment since there are lots of compatibility issues with those kind of autostart programs. I think in one year Windows 7 will run as slow as Vista nowadays during startup. And when I used XP I had the same problem.

With every software installed there is a decrease of speed and a dramatically encreasing startup time: I like the naked

Actually the fast booting speed offers the Win2008 x64 Server running SQL-Server and Sharepoint

There is just one solution for that problem and it is called either Linux or possibly MAC

Hi all
This has sort of de-generated into "do people care about type of steel used or relative Gas Flow pressure" when their heating systems have broken down.

They just want the Engineer to come and fix it ASAP and be able to turn it on.

They couldn't give 2 monkeys to the other sort of questions.

Actually its the same with computers -- if you didn't actually TELL a lot of people what they were running on their computers they wouldn't be bothered in any case.

So long as a Menu guides them to an application that does what they have to do and brings it up clearly and quickly then that's all they really need.

I'll bet with some of the latest builds of KDE on a Linux Desktop even some Die Hard Windows guys would have a difficulty telling the difference -- KDE is beginning to look more like "Windows" than "Windows itself" and you can still have the old "classic" XP like menu system.

I like W7 but until I can run ALL my apps on it I'll still have to have XP around for a while -- and I guess that's the general consensus.

VISTA when it came out with hardware available at the time wasn't very good -- who had dual / quad processors and 4 - 8GB of RAM on WORK computers back then.

Since then VISTA SP1 and SP2 have improved things (but don't forget the 1000% or more HARDWARE improvement).

And I remember when XP first came out it wasn't so great until at least SP1 and it was called Windows eXPensive.

The point of this post is really that VISTA won't outlast XP since nobody will go via VISTA to W7 and essentially you can say VISTA is now an "Orphan OS".

Cheers
jimbo

This has sort of de-generated into "do people care about type of steel used or relative Gas Flow pressure" when their heating systems have broken down.

They just want the Engineer to come and fix it ASAP and be able to turn it on.

Engineers generally don't do repairs by instructing a layperson over the phone.