Are you satisfied with Windows 7?

[Muz1234]

Are you satisfied with this product? What kind of modification does it need?

 

[townsbg]

Are you satisfied with this product? What kind of modification does it need?

That's a pretty broad question. The answer depends upon what you are comparing it to.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

No matter what you compare it to, Win 7 is still better than anything elae out there. The only modification it needs is for MS to give it up and allow someone else to provide ongoing security updates (and fix the recent bad ones).

 

[Paul Black]

Hi Muz1234,

Are you satisfied with this product? What kind of modification does it need?

That is like saying, how long is a bit of string!

As far as to what modification is needed, that is easy. M$ needs to release a new and upto date ISO. This includes all the critical and possibly important updates, and doesn't include the optional or any telemetry updates. It would also be nice to have the drivers for USB3 and newer generations of MB's included, etc, etc, etc, just to list a couple of examples [the list could get quite long].

I hope that helps!

 

[Jeyneko]

It is fine the way it is to be honest, other than the fact Microsoft has now injected spyware into it via embedded security Windows Updates.

Meaning I refuse to update the system with any patches after and including April 2015 (when GWX was first added).

 

[Paul Black]

Hi Jeyneko,

Welcome to SevenForums,

I refuse to update the system with any patches after and including April 2015 (when GWX was first added).

There are proven methods, just search this forum [there are MANY posts covering this], where you can update the OS without the inclusion of any GWX updates.

Certain programs and software will only run using the latest versions, like .NET Framework etc.

I am surprised that you haven't had any performance or stability issues!

I certainly wouldn't run my OS as at April 2015!

 

[Jeyneko]

I only fresh installed W7 the other day, to replace an aging Vista SP2 installation.
I'll look into the guides and if it's not ridiculously hard to follow I'll go through with it

I just want a stable, fast OS and that's what 7 pretty much was when it came out, not so much now as the 10 spying backports started coming out and decreased performance.

Thanks for mentioning it

 

[Paul Black]

Hi Jeyneko,

I only fresh installed W7 the other day, to replace an aging Vista SP2 installation.

I'll look into the guides and if it's not ridiculously hard to follow I'll go through with it.

I just want a stable, fast OS and that's what 7 pretty much was when it came out, not so much now as the 10 spying backports started coming out and decreased performance.

Thanks for mentioning it.

You are very welcome!

I suggest that you start a new thread with regard to this as it is really off topic for this particular thread. I can post a solution for you if you intend to go down the update route!

I hope this helps!

 

[Muz1234]

Do you think it has bad luck precedence from Windows Vista? Since Windows 7 is based as Windows Vista kernel.

 

[Ranger4]

Muz1234. Yes, Windows 7 is based on the Vista engine, but is a very much better Operating System. Vista was also a very good system, but was maligned by many whose computers were probably not really capable of running it to it's full potential. I used Vista for a couple of years & I never had any problems with it.

 

[townsbg]

Muz1234. Yes, Windows 7 is based on the Vista engine, but is a very much better Operating System. Vista was also a very good system, but was maligned by many whose computers were probably not really capable of running it to it's full potential. I used Vista for a couple of years & I never had any problems with it.

Exactly. So called "vista capable" computers released before Vista came out, which included a free upgrade, where really only capable of running XP which required way less resources than Vista. IMO when considering the Windows system requirements, disregard the minimum requirements and use the recommended requirements as the minimum requirements for just running the OS. Add more resources, especially memory, for your required uses, and then add some to spare. Manufacturers didn't do that when Vista first came out. They designed the systems for XP or to meet the minimum requirements for Vista. Users where left without enough memory and as a result their systems where slow. Because of this Vista got a really bad rap until manufacturers really started making systems with adequate resources.

I never really had any issues with Vista. The only issue I had was that Vista wouldn't use my internal wireless card when I first installed it even though the drivers where supposedly compliant. I didn't have any issues after I replaced the card with an external one. I ran Vista as my primary OS until the psu died even after 7 was released. I still use it on a Virtual machine and in certain ways I prefer it over 7.

 

[ShadouFox]

Are you satisfied with this product?

Very satisfied. Installed it on an old Dell Optiplex that was just given away. It looks like an early -- mid Oughts rig that originally came with XP installed. I ran that even though the particular app I needed it for didn't recommend this. Finally, that app wouldn't run at all, so I installed Win-7. It runs just fine, and I have no problems running what I need. The apps that came with it also run quite well, and noticed no issues so far with using it on such an old rig. That's one perfectly functional computer that didn't wind up in a landfill.

What kind of modification does it need?

Since Microsoft doesn't seem to be interested in supporting it any more, Win-7 needs to be relicensed under the GPL and made Open Source, like any Linux distro. That way, we can take care of maintaining it.

Yeah, like that'll ever happen. :sarc:

 

[Paul Black]

Hi ShadouFox,

Since Microsoft doesn't seem to be interested in supporting it any more, Win-7 needs to be relicensed under the GPL and made Open Source, like any Linux distro. That way, we can take care of maintaining it.

Yeah, like that'll ever happen. :sarc:

I like your thinking, but unfortunately that will never happen. It's a secret!

 

[RoWin7]

Muz1234--

I like it now, but the first few months (actually last year) were hairy because of UAC. I was constantly at my favorite tech sites, including this one, with problems. Once you get over the UAC hump, it's a good, stable OS. In fact, I just installed it over a Vista in a machine that a customer was dumping. I'm not switching to 10, not even after 2020.

My main modification was installing Classic Shell, which make the interface look like XP, while not really changing anything in the innards. When I had XP, I made it look like Win98SE, so I guess my 7 looks like 98SE now, but only on the outside.

 

[RoWin7]

Very satisfied. Installed it on an old Dell Optiplex that was just given away. It looks like an early -- mid Oughts rig that originally came with XP installed. I ran that even though the particular app I needed it for didn't recommend this. Finally, that app wouldn't run at all, so I installed Win-7. It runs just fine, and I have no problems running what I need. The apps that came with it also run quite well, and noticed no issues so far with using it on such an old rig. That's one perfectly functional computer that didn't wind up in a landfill.....

I ran my XP for 3 years past the end of updates, but stopped, and switched to a 7 machine just 2 years ago. I still have the XP. You're saying that I can put 7 into it if I stick to 32-bit programs? It's a Pentium 4 I think, 32-bit, with 6GB RAM. What about an A-V?

 

[townsbg]

6 gb of ram requires 64-bit and to get all of it you will need xp 64-bit professional. XP 64-bit didn't have much driver support so you might have issues there.

 

[RoWin7]

:-(

 

[Muted]

Are you satisfied with this product? What kind of modification does it need?

I absolutely am satisfied with Windows 7! It meets the minimum and maximum of everything I desire from an operating system.

Prior to Windows 7: I used Windows XP (from 2004 up to 2014). Prior to that? I used Windows 95/98/3.1 and MS-DOS 6.0 (all clustered together).

Windows 7 has the same short-comings as any other Microsoft product: It's very bloated with generic features for generic use (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). I agree that the "start-menu" idea from the '90s has been long dead and is more or less never used. The worse part: They replicated it with the "folders!" I've never used the default custom "library" folders (Music, Photos, Documents, etc).

My biggest pet peeve is probably relating to all the default enabled MMC tools that log just about everything. If you're using a 5400RPM HDD: That hurts. Even if you're using a 7200RPM HDD: It still hurts! The thought of using an SSD and having Windows write logs 24/7 that you'll never read (until that one moment that you actually need to) kills me inside.

Luckily: There are tools such as RT 7 Lite or NTLite to tweak everything away that you don't like and don't care for (it's a pretty exhaustive list, so, I'll keep it as those two only)!

All-in-all: I still love Windows 7 and still use it and program on it.

 

[RoWin7]

...I agree that the "start-menu" idea from the '90s has been long dead and is more or less never used. The worse part: They replicated it with the "folders!" I've never used the default custom "library" folders (Music, Photos, Documents, etc).

My biggest pet peeve is probably relating to all the default enabled MMC tools that log just about everything. you don't like and don't care for (it's a pretty exhaustive list, so, I'll keep it as those two only)!...

MMC?

I don't use the Library either, as I have all my data on the D partition. I like the Start Menu, restored it with Classic Shell.

 

[LemonMints]

I would say Overall I'm pretty satisfied with Windows 7.

I would say that I don't really like the pre-set up "libraries" as this is a feature I've never really used on any OS that had it.

I would like to ask though since it was mentioned in a couple posts, what are the "spyware" updates?