What don't you like about Windows 7?

[FuturDreamz]

yeah sorry still thinking like a mac user.

 

[paliometoxo]

nice at one point i wanted to get a imac also but it hink to many of my apps i use wouldent be mac compatible but it seems to have a large variety of video editing tools for free where s on windows there is no such thing espesially free and safari is more stable then ie.. im just so used to windows its all i have ever used i dont think i could get used to mac espesially the one click mouse and the small keyboard shortcuts im so used to like ctrl a to hilight everything and it would take to long and be hassle to switch to mac

 

[antt]

Problem is there are many features that were standard in Mac OS that i don't understand why they are not built into the OS.
off the top of my head:
Disk utility alternative (bundled in Mac, does virtually anything that deals with drives, flash cards, other forms of long-term storage, and disk images)
Systeim-wide speel check
Antivirus
.pdf reader
multiple format extracting (.zip, .tar, .7z, eta)

Alot of it would have to do with Microsoft being a monopoly. I'm sure the AV companies and Adobe would have something to say about it.
Spell check would be nice. Though I don't really find it a problem as all the programs I use to input text have a spell checker built in.

Windows 7 has included more disk utilities than previous versions, they just need a bit of finding. Search for 'management' in the start menu to find 'computer management'. This is a utility for managing all of the drives on your computer. You can also attach VHDs to the system, which are kinda Microsoft's .dmg. Windows 7 also includes support for burning .iso disk images, just double click on one and it will open the burning wizard. If only it could mount them, I would be a very happy chappy.

 

[FuturDreamz]

plus you dont have to defrag unless you do have to defrag macbook pro after installing windows.

what do you use now? moved from imac back to win 7? or sticking with the imac? they look pretty good the new ones the designes

i always use the x324 unless i need to do somethng that requires power or a drive

 

[Tatletz]

What don't you like about Windows 7

I think that windows 7 is the best product that came out of microsoft labs. It will take a bit of time until well known soft/hardware products become fully compatible with it. I personaly had trouble with my HP Photosmart printer which I bought 2 yrs ago. It came with 2 instalation disks, one for XP and other for Vista. Despite windows 7 compatibility feature it could not install-both XP or Vista mode, until I found updated for win 7 full featured suite update on HP website. Let's wait for a while and see.

 

[paliometoxo]

agreed. windows 7 is very good. i like when u have things minimised and u put ur mouse over it and it shwos the app without having to click it.. and so much more.. i dont knwo peopel still sticking to xp still

 

[juandiego]

Hello everyone.

Probably this has been already said in this very long thread but I don't like that text on windows can not be selected to be copied and pasted elsewhere. If my memory serves me right, it was possible with XP.

I know there are windows on which a right click allows you to copy all details it shows but many times you just need part of them. However, there are many other information windows in which none of this is possible.

It would look like those windows are images rather than text; though they have links to other options and they obviously work, neither you can copy them.

Am I missing something here perhaps?

 

[paliometoxo]

xp also had animated gifs on desktop that animated..

 

[Kari]

I don't like these nested folders and subfolders, like subfolder of a subfolder of another subfolder e.g. Users > Kari > Pictures > 2009 > November etc.

In Windows 3 it was so nice when you could only have one level of folders, no need to put a folder inside another folder.



Kari

 

[landozelig]

I don't like these nested folders and subfolders, like subfolder of a subfolder of another subfolder e.g. Users > Kari > Pictures > 2009 > November etc.

In Windows 3 it was so nice when you could only have one level of folders, no need to put a folder inside another folder.



Kari

Yeah, and what's up with all these colors? Nobody really ever needs more than 16 colors anyway, right?

 

[logicearth]

plus you dont have to defrag unless you do have to defrag macbook pro after installing windows.

Actually, fragmentation does occur on a Mac. Starting with Windows Vista, defragmentation was moved to a background task that was scheduled to run every so often, like Mac OS does. However, people were confused by that. They could not comprehend that Windows Vista was defragging the HDD behind the scenes.

But yes, Mac OS (even Linux/Unix) has disk fragmentation just like Windows.

 

[paliometoxo]

really because at the wwdc whatever its called when they released new macbooks and iphone 3gs apple mention an advantage to windows is that you have to defrag with windows still but macs you dont have to.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

really because at the wwdc whatever its called when they released new macbooks and iphone 3gs apple mention an advantage to windows is that you have to defrag with windows still but macs you dont have to.

logicearth is right. Fragmentation occurs even on a Mac. Now, you really think Apple, a company, will never lie to you? Every company lies to the consumer, one way or another.

 

[logicearth]

really because at the wwdc whatever its called when they released new macbooks and iphone 3gs apple mention an advantage to windows is that you have to defrag with windows still but macs you dont have to.

Defragmentation takes place in the background on a Mac. This defragmentation only works on files under 25 MB. While on Windows, Microsoft attempted to do the same thing but obviously "some" users didn't like that. Fragmentation is unavoidable on any file system.

Now if you are the type of person to be obsessive over defragmentation, there is a whole eco-system dedicated to it, just for Windows!

 

[paliometoxo]

really because at the wwdc whatever its called when they released new macbooks and iphone 3gs apple mention an advantage to windows is that you have to defrag with windows still but macs you dont have to.

logicearth is right. Fragmentation occurs even on a Mac. Now, you really think Apple, a company, will never lie to you? Every company lies to the consumer, one way or another.

of course they will lie and say whatever they can to sell more, but since its unixed based i thought it was true.. oh well

 

[Barman58]

Unfortunately Apple has a policy of using negative advertising rather than positive.

In my opinion the people responsible are not to worried about the facts, just as long as it fits the plan.

 

[fseal]

Very true. And yes Linux fragments (ext3 and most other as well) in /exactly/ the same way as NTFS. That's what "Discontiguous I-Nodes" are. e2fsck even has a "fragcheck" option and yet 99% of linux users would tell you straight to your face that Linux file systems do not fragment, and I think 99% of those actually believe it!

The truth is, "normal" desktop computer usage, Mac, Windows and Linux NEVER needs to be defragmented. There just isn't enough file deletion going on to make any real difference in speed or any real significant fragmentation.

Serious fragmentation (on ANY system) ocurs when 1) the drive is nearly full and 2) when there is a tremendous amount of file create/deletion going on. 99% of all desktop users probably don't have /either/ of those situations to deal with let alone both.

Unless your system drive is 95%+ full and you are installing and uninstalling dozens of programs a month or using your drive as some kind of scratch space for hindreds of huge files (Ok, games might actually be such a thing) I wouldn't worry about it. I almost never defrag my systems, there is simply no need.

 

[FuturDreamz]

I just thought of something else. lack of compartmentalization.
In mac OS all of the application executables and need files (such as the app image) are located in it's own *.app folder in the applications folder (which is also the main app launcher), User settings is in the user's library/preferences folder, systemwide settings is in the /library/preferences, plugins are in their own library folder.
to install most apps you just drag into the application's folder (or alternatively the applications folder in the user's folder)
and pretty much everything has it's own place.

 

[Barman58]

I just thought of something else. lack of compartmentalization.
In mac OS all of the application executables and need files (such as the app image) are located in it's own *.app folder in the applications folder (which is also the main app launcher), User settings is in the user's library/preferences folder, systemwide settings is in the /library/preferences, plugins are in their own library folder.
to install most apps you just drag into the application's folder (or alternatively the applications folder in the user's folder)
and pretty much everything has it's own place.

Apple and Microsoft have chosen two different models, both have their merits and problems, In actuality the model still used by apple was abandoned by Microsoft Back with Windows 9.x, due to the wasteful duplication of code caused by having every app completely separate. As long as the install and uninstallers are written correctly there should be no issues with the Microsoft Model

 

[jimbo45]

I don't like these nested folders and subfolders, like subfolder of a subfolder of another subfolder e.g. Users > Kari > Pictures > 2009 > November etc.

In Windows 3 it was so nice when you could only have one level of folders, no need to put a folder inside another folder.



Kari

Yeah, and what's up with all these colors? Nobody really ever needs more than 16 colors anyway, right?

Hi there
What about pro photography or really high quality colour printing.

Calibrating a decent monitor to get realistic colours on a high quality printer is definitely NOT a trivial job - and I'm sure if you were doing a wedding shoot for clients etc you'd DEFINITELY want more than 16 bit colour on a monitor.

Just visist a Pro photogs studio if you can and you'll probably DIE when you see the very high quality monitors used in these processes.

Cheers
jimbo