Windows XP: Kill it, bin it, upgrade it

Dood, your post above is most definitely one of the most disgusting, misleading, narrow minded rants about Win7 I have ever read. I think that was also your purpose, so you achieved at least one of your goals: your post annoys me.

The post does not deserve any longer analysis or response, so I just pick two sentences to comment:

dood said:

If it wasnt for the fact that a certain IVO character wrote a classic menu for 7, it would barely be used.

You could not be more wrong. It's only a clear minority who are using third party Classic Menu mods.

dood said:

I swear the layout changes must have been outsourced to india or developed 'by committee'..in india

IMO this is borderline racism, which has no place on global tech forums.

Kari

Dzomlija said:

And it is a common misconception that Windows is not a secure operating system. As I said, all operating systems are equally prone to virus attacks - it's simply a matter of how talented the virus creator is.

Well, that's somewhat of a simple way of looking at something pretty complicated. In many respects, the Unix and Linux systems have evolved over the past 30+ years as a multi-user operating system since day 1 that encouraged and nearly required standard user accounts for everything and doing very, very little with admin access. This design, coupled with time, has resulted in a system which is pretty secure by design and often these design measures are countered by savvy users trying to make their lives as easy as possible. Thus, I maintain there is a lot more to the security of the Unix and Linux systems than simple lack of install base.


@dood: You are very much entitled to your opinions and can use whatever system that you like. However, stepping back from my own personal use a bit...I think that overall the Windows 7 system is a bit improvement on the Vista system. I find that it runs quite well on most machines that I put it on and I have upgraded quite a number of Windows Vista laptops at work because of complaints of the "computer acting strange" that are not commonplace after the upgrade.

Your thinking of the OS doing nothing but controlling the hardware is fine in principal...but the marketspace has come to expect the computer to do more than just this out of the box. Love it or hate it...it's kinda the way it is. Windows does it, Mac does it, and Linux does it (to a lesser extent granted...but they still do it). As far as the OS being a "bloated pig". I guess if you are still using your hardware from 15 years ago it might really be evident, but for anybody who is a computer enthusiast, you most likely have plenty of hardware to run it and and run it well. For those who want to try it out, the purchase of some RAM and hard drive is so cheap that it's not really a roadblock. for those who want to just keep using their XP boxes because they still meet their needs...by all means....go right ahead. Keeping up for the sake of keeping up...is simply unnecessary in my opinion. With thinking like this, you are more or less a slave to Microsoft.

@dood: I am the person you called a moron. If you read my post more thoroughly you'll notice that I stated the speed increase is the same all around, not just while booting up. Games (mostly the Sims) and other software that use up a lot of resources run a lot smoother in 7 than they ever did in XP. This is of course computer dependent. I doubt my dads old desktop with the Pentium 4 CPU and 512MB DDR ram would have a similar result. Instead I think it would be the opposite. I also agree with everything Kari said.

Edit: BTW, you misspelled dude and stupidest. Just saying.

dood said:

Here are my thoughts...

Bottom line is this..
I run APPLICATIONS...NOT OS's.

All the buzz about 7..xp..yadda..yadda...WHO CARES.
Personally..all I need is a stable kernal and the ability add what I want.
If 'windows kernel' was available on a floppy disk..I'd buy that and build the rest myself.
(Of course I'll also accept basic I/O capabilites)

The OS should only be there for presentation and hardware management. Beyond that? STFU, get out of the way..and let me run my APPLICATIONS.
I DONT CARE about your 'add-ons' (Add-ons amount to anything beyond a presentation manager and I/O control)

You say this; but then you extol the virtues of XP. XP does not fit your criteria above or in your last paragraph.

As far as 7 goes?
Its a pig. Its bloated junk if I had to be honest about it. (And I know many agree)
The only thing 'saving it' is the fact that commodity computers are more powerful than the space shuttle and can run the dang thing.
Its the APPLICATIONS that should be the focus of hardware/resource upgrades..not the freakin OS.

I heard this same complaint made about XP when it came out.

If it wasnt for the fact that a certain IVO character wrote a classic menu for 7, it would barely be used.
I absolutely hate the new menu. Its dumb(sorted backwards), includes dumbazz 'links'/redirects to legacy directories(for which there was no sane reason to 'redesign'), and introduces the stoopidest thing I've ever seen: 'Libraries'. Sure..lets obscure the actual file locations even further with more abitrary links! Ya! Thats the ticket! If I want 'links'..I'll make me own!
MS promotes 'look and feel', the 'experience' and boot times.
Look and feel.. Who cares. I 'look' only when I'm starting my apps. And 'feel' your taking up resources that my apps should be using.
'Experience'.. I 'experience' on the way to load my apps. And I get a lil bit more 'experience' when I had to config the OS's odbc connectors.
Boot time? Gee. 30 seconds faster. Hey moron. Its just a service load order. You 'think' your completely up. Your not. Services are still firing after you login. Its mostly just an 'illusion'. Its just a more efficient boot 'ORDER' rather than anything ground breaking. (No..I dont use prefetch...and shut down most services using only the ones i 'need'.)

What you are really saying is that you don't like change. You want Win 7 to be like and operate like XP and you are trying to mange Win 7 as you manage XP - which does not work, by the way. Basically you are frustrating yourself - and doing a fine job of it.

Bahhh..You get the idea.

Yet the main reason I've gone to 7 is the ability to employ the 8GB of physical memory I have in my main rig.
Beyond that? I'm not terribily impressed. Actually..with all the 'changes', I just use the 'godmode' link to access all the settings since MS has everything spread around so as to be 'pretty'. (I swear the layout changes must have been outsourced to india or developed 'by committee'..in india )
Once I have my prefs done...I'm done. I forget about the OS..and...yup..use my APPS.

I have 7 on few other machines. But XP is still utilized and kicking. I see no reason to go to 7 on ANY of the machines running XP. There is no compelling 'need'.

Hate me..I dont care.
I really have no 'opinion' on 7 'features'...unless of course they really suck or are beyond convoluted or is just useless(Most thinks about windows fit these descriptions.).
But as I stated. I just want a stable environment with a simple/fast front en UI.
Beyond that? Its just baggage.

And when you find that, please let us know. :)

Petey7 said:

@dood: I am the person you called a moron.

Sorry if you took it that way..
I used that sentence to 'the world'...nobody specifically...
It was by no means directed to anybody specifically...

Edit: BTW, you misspelled dude and stupidest. Just saying.

Nope.its not spelled wrong...
I've been the one..the only...'dood' for quite a while.
Do an innerwebgooglebox search on 'doodvision'. Thats me.