Do you see windows7 as an improvement over vista and xp

[Robert Cartman]

I'm totally satisfied with Seven! It runs very well on both of my machine, inspite one of it is an old laptop vith 1gig ram and a slow old vid'card. I use Seven since the build 7000 is out and I almost did not have any problems with it! I did not see any BSODs either.
Before Seven I used XP as my main OS and I really liked it, because there wasn't any better, and during the years I learned how to live with the bugs of XP and found solutions for every problem, but an untached XP is only a sh!t.
Since I'm using Seven I don't need to use a lot of third party apps just to make it to look better.
Finally XP is fast but too old and ugly, Vista is nice looking, but too lazy, Seven is wonderfull and beautifull and nice and fast and new and interresting and comfortable and standalone and .................I like it! So YES!

 

[yadielfeliciano]

13 no's lol

 

[MUff1N]

Couldn't get off Vista Ultimate fast enough!

I just updated my image backup of Vista to SP2, then installed of of the MS updates & updated the Security programs & browsers & I couldn't wait to get off of it as Vista was so slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/15400-just-got-back-updating-vista-ultimate-sp2.html

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

I found Windows 7 to be the culmination of all the advantages that XP and Vista had over one another. So, yes.

 

[persuasive]

Im using this Windows 7 Build 7232 x64 as my primary OS, which is so stable and fast compared to previous builds of Windows 7 Beta 7000, RC 7100 and 7127 x64. Im not going to download any other builds, waiting for RTM so, YES...

 

[BCXtreme]

If one takes in to consideration that every launch of every new OS by MS was riddled with bugs and incompatibilities, took at least 3 SP's to get it halfway working, i find it remarkable that windows 7 was 90% compatible and relatively bugfree right of the bat.

People can fill pages with stories how the win 7 kernel is all 'new' and 'rebuild' but MS's history makes that extremely unlikely to put it mildly.

From simple deduction one can easily see that Win 7 is Vista SP3 with a slightly altered GUI and some extra (pretty, but hardly innovative) goodies.

Put against Vista SP2 it performs pretty even keel, Vista is as stable if not more so since the drivers are way more complete for Vista.

So, i say, 7 is a mild improvement over Vista in some lesser important but very visible departments. Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder rationality goes overboard and 7 gets hyped to the sky.

I'd install it, if it were next to free ($20 about) as a paid SP for Vista.

Other then that i don't see the point.

The point is that Windows 7 runs better on my puny little netbook than XP did. The point is that neither of my computers have crashed once since installing Windows 7 on them back in February. Putting Vista SP2 against Windows 7, I see major improvements in both speed and stability.

If Apple can pass off the minor Leopard patch they call "Snow Leopard" as a brand new OS, then MS can certainly do the same with Windows 7.

Don't be one of those people that takes one look at Aero and thinks "Oh great, just another Vista." There's more to an OS than what you can see with your eyes, and for those of us that really work our computers hard, improvement in that "under-the-hood" area is extremely important.

 

[BuzWeaver]

No doubt, I've been really impressed with how well it runs on my older system, Pen4, 2.8Ghz, 2G RAM, 7800 GeForce (AGP), X-Fi Extreme. Win7 is a lot faster over over all in loading and with applications.

 

[handicapped]

Over Vista

I agree at least over Vista. Vista is to resource hungry and slows everything down.

 

[LarryLaser]

Yes and No, not Absolutely!

Yes Windows 7 has improved over Vista and some improvements over Windows XP but not all.

How many of you have actually run Debugging on any errors or bugs you have had, to this day I have nos seen any users that hav stated a problem of some sort.

Of course there is no perfect Operating System. And Many Open source types run different. But all have issues.

I constantly test Windows 7 for real Application operations and run debugging testing to find the problems. The largest Issue with Win 7 is related to Drivers that are based on the Vista Platform. Many Developers are working on re-designing the Drivers to function properly on Win 7. This will take time.

The largest Issues I have found is Application operations that are based on the Windows XP platform, and converted to run on Vista, the compatibility set in the Win 7 is not fully functional (because the Win 7 API base line has changed) yet, this issue must be focused on the Win 7 Dev team (for better compatibility) and App Dev teams(for better functionality).

So Please, be more truthful, If you find a bug, run debugging and post what you find, you don't have to fully understand everything about debugging, lots of geeks can give opinions on how to fix or workaround the problem.

"petrossa", "noyb" and many others are true, there are bugs, and there are improvements.

 

[Muad Dib]

I can't believe some people voted no

13 no's lol

Sort of "not a realistic" poll given it is in a Windows 7 forum. What is equally weird is the people who voted NO are still monitoring the forum....huh?

But to each their own. One of my clients has 7 desktops in a small office environment for a local charity. I firmly advised him against even considering a Vista upgrade since the release of Vista even though the cost was almost free (MS supports secular charitable organizations).

For Windows 7, based on my experience so far, I will recommend he consider upgrading.

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.

 

[Trev0r269]

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.

 

[holo88]

Trinitron

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?

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

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.

 

[Trev0r269]

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.

 

[tannim]

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.

 

[Muad Dib]

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".

 

[Muad Dib]

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.

 

[darkhorn]

Also I miss "up button".

 

[petrossa]

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.

 

[mlevy]

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.