What don't you like about Windows 7?

[logicearth]

Calling Windows 7 a resource hog would be an incorrect assessment.

Well, if you can tell me why all of a sudden you need at least 1GB of RAM and (most of all) 13GB of HDD space, then you can talk about incorrect.

You don't, I have Windows 7 running on 512 MB and a 10 GB partition. But let me ask you, why would you want to? What would be the point of running on 256 MB and a 4 GB HDD? Are you wanting to relive the olden days?

But either way, it does not make Windows 7 a resource hog.

 

[JFelgemacher]

Obviously, the market will still be going, There will always be a demand for a smaller, faster computer. That's just the way its going to go. But read between the lines if that is all you saw. If there is already an operating system that can do most of that for free, then why pay for one that will use all of your resources?

Take any compediter for the sake of argument. mac (in which i do not like) released an update that reduced their code, and it still has a nice visual effect. Linux has a rather small code compared to the others, and still has a nice look to it. Vista (since i actuall have it) had a nice look, but because of the resources it used along with the overflow of the registry, will eventually kill its self while being used by the avarage home user, resulting in a reinstall of the OS. That is a long process and alot of files lost, in which leads to a slightly more dissapointed home user.

Windows 7 uses more resources then vista, better visual effects and ease of use, but why not make it smaller? why not allow more users to use Windows 7 by reduceing some use of hardware?

as far as the market goes, people don't have money like they use to. People can't spend as much just to get a computer that would meet the requirements of a new operating system, expessialy if the current OS is operational, thats the sad truth, but a solution that would help both the end user and Microsoft is to make another version of Windows 7, Smaller, and less features but the same compatibility for future programs / applications. That way, the end user still gets a feel of things, but not all. Still leaving the end user satisfied but wanting more.

We as users/humans, are naturally greedy. we always want more, we always want faster and better things, sure we will be satisfied with what ever we have, but as soon as something new comes out, we want to go higher in the chain, but now, the economy wont let us!

 

[logicearth]

@JFelgemacher, then perhaps Windows 7 is just as you are wanting. People have been installing it on Windows XP and Windows 2000 class machines (aka., from the year 2000) and getting awesome results. Just search around and you can find many examples.

 

[joschw]

Calling Windows 7 a resource hog would be an incorrect assessment.

Well, if you can tell me why all of a sudden you need at least 1GB of RAM and (most of all) 13GB of HDD space, then you can talk about incorrect.

You don't, I have Windows 7 running on 512 MB and a 10 GB partition. But let me ask you, why would you want to? What would be the point of running on 256 MB and a 4 GB HDD? Are you wanting to relive the olden days?

But either way, it does not make Windows 7 a resource hog.

Sure, you can have. But ... other applications ... like ... just office for example ... or maybe some chat programs ... and ... and .. and... you're lost.

 

[logicearth]

Sure, you can have. But ... other applications ... like ... just office for example ... or maybe some chat programs ... and ... and .. and... you're lost.

It would be the same on Linux with 256 MB or 512 MB, while you have a GUI environment and using GUI applications. (Firefox itself on my machine with a mere 4 tabs open and the bare essentials for extensions is running up to 125 to 200 MB all by itself.) I cannot run Open Office on 256 MB, regardless of OS, would be a painful slow tard, watching the system page in and out of long I/O periods to and from the HDD. The GUI is a demanding piece.

 

[joschw]

Amiga system showed it, how to.

How to, for example play a tune which is a couple of MBs on a PC and not even 100 kB on Amiga (with a lot better quality).

 

[JFelgemacher]

Yes, but that is only the minimum, as oppose to the 1gb ram, 16 gb hdd space and the 1ghz cpu speed. This is my resource for that
Windows 7 system requirements - Microsoft Windows

You will not be able to run much on the linux minimum either but that is not the point. the point i was trying to make is that to get the system up and running how it is suppose to run takes alot less resources under linux. So why upgrade? why upgrade if other operating systems run smooth with less resources? If one of my ram cards failed right now, i would still be fine, even if 2gb worth of ram failed right now, i would still get the same performance. but if 2 gb failed in Vista / 7, i would notice a major decrease in performance. I would be running on the minimum. Why would i put myself in that position?

[edit] and what about all of that extra hdd space i would have.

 

[logicearth]

... If one of my ram cards failed right now, i would still be fine, even if 2gb worth of ram failed right now, i would still get the same performance...

I seriously doubt you would have the same performance, if you continued to run the same applications, the same number of applications, and or multitask with the same applications. To run at those lower settings, you need to RUN less and DO less. But how useful is that really? I could write up an Operating System that could run on 4 KB of RAM, but that wouldn't be very useful would it?

 

[Barman58]

No one is forcing anyone to upgrade - If someone is happy with what they are using and can run all the application they need, simply stay with what works for them

 

[JFelgemacher]

I like windows, i really do. I like the fact that you can post widgets on the desktop, that is really useful. I would prefer windows if it didn't use all of those resources. I have vista on my second partition.

Just to wrap this up, i feel that more people (such as myself) would use more of windows and buy more distro's of windows if it didn't take so much resources. There are alot of programs running that the average home user would have no use for.

 

[joschw]

... If one of my ram cards failed right now, i would still be fine, even if 2gb worth of ram failed right now, i would still get the same performance...

I seriously doubt you would have the same performance, if you continued to run the same applications, the same number of applications, and or multi-task with the same applications. To run at those lower settings, you need to RUN less and DO less. But how useful is that really? I could write up an Operating System that could run on 4 KB of RAM, but that wouldn't be very useful would it?

If one of your RAMS would fail, your system wouldn't boot probably. No matter if you have 4GB or 4MB. Most likely.

 

[JFelgemacher]

i wasn't going to get into the useless information of saying "taking the RAM out so it would pass the POST or the S.M.A.R.T" for the fact that it has nothing to do with the O.S. but i guess i will now....=)

 

[joschw]

Amiga system showed it, how to.

How to, for example play a tune which is a couple of MBs on a PC and not even 100 kB on Amiga (with a lot better quality).

With this last remark you just made a complete fool of yourself, if you didn't already in the previous ones.

Not only does this have nothing to do with the discussion you try to enforce without any technical foundation.

The remark that a 100kb soundfile on a Amiga could provide better quality, than a several mb's one nowadays,
is also the most ridiculous, not to mention untrue, remark I've seen in last few months.

And that is quite an achievement.


You can lead a horse to the water, but it will never be a duck.

I guess you have no idea. You're probably a kid.
Just do some research before you talk with adults.

 

[Kari]

Amiga system showed it, how to.

How to, for example play a tune which is a couple of MBs on a PC and not even 100 kB on Amiga (with a lot better quality).

With this last remark you just made a complete fool of yourself, if you didn't already in the previous ones.

Not only does this have nothing to do with the discussion you try to enforce without any technical foundation.

The remark that a 100kb soundfile on a Amiga could provide better quality, than a several mb's one nowadays,
is also the most ridiculous, not to mention untrue, remark I've seen in last few months.

And that is quite an achievement.


You can lead a horse to the water, but it will never be a duck.

+1

Well said, SquonkSC.

Kari

 

[joschw]

That's how live goes on. Bull****ting. I really don't care. Just hope for your bull****ters that you know what you do.

 

[JFelgemacher]

now, now. there is no point in flaming. this is for debating.
As for josh, thats great but it has little to do with what we are talking about. even if you can do that (i don't doubt it, with the right code in the right language you can do anything) it still doesn't allow you to use the larger programs.

@SquonkSC everyone has there methods and opinions. it may be better suited for his standards and not yours. no need to flame.

 

[Antman]

The flame has been extinguished.

I don't like the fact that I had to unseal my Signature Edition 32-bit DVD to get the key for my 64-bit install.

 

[Carl Forster]

You want spec;s and problems...

The flame has been extinguished.

I don't like the fact that I had to unseal my Signature Edition 32-bit DVD to get the key for my 64-bit install.

My system specs and gripes...

And WIN7 will not even see my RAID and setup why....

And just to cap my Gripes WHERE IS THE "CLASSIC" and usual START as it was in VISTA. not to mention the changed interface???

WIN 7 is a no go for me and my users all have the same problem.

And judging from you comments you will just keep paying MS

Regards Carl



OSWhat's your OS? Please state which flavor of Vista you are running and if it is x64 or 32bit. e.g. Vista Ultimate x64, Vista Home Premium 32bit.
CPU
Motherboard
Memory
Graphics Card(s)
Sound Card
Monitor(s) Displays
Screen Resolution
Hard Drivesc: 320GB Seagate SATA single PlatterRAID not installed setup yet 4 x SATA Seagate NQV 250Mb drivesExternal Seagate 320 Welland SATA
PSU
Case
Cooling
Keyboard
Mouse
Internet Speed
Other InfoThis is a custom system that I researched and built

 

[H2SO4]

And just to cap my Gripes WHERE IS THE "CLASSIC" and usual START as it was in VISTA. not to mention the changed interface???

One may agree or disagree with your sentiments towards the non-classic menu, but there's no faulting your dedication to the cause. 5/5 posts so far all mention the same thing

WIN 7 is a no go for me and my users all have the same problem.

They all refuse to use the non-classic start menu? It really is quite uncanny that such a homogenous group of old start menu afficionados would be located in Napier, NZ. Great town by the way! One of my favourite places on the North Island.

 

[sup3rsprt]

lol @ Classic start menu

I hope the folks at MS are reading this thread. Although chances are they wouldn't actually incorporate any of our wishes until Windows 8.