Hate to say it but Windows 7 sucks in my experience

Discussion in 'Windows 7 Help and Support' started by DancingmadRB3, Dec 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Highwayman

    Highwayman Extraordinary Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    112
    So-called pro like yourself should know how to correct those issues very easily... the forum is full of such useful tweaks, yet you clearly never even disabled UAC... lmao if you can't even do that you have no call judging the stock defaults as the only way to do things, try googling the god folder, suddenly all your prayers are answered, but I guess you ARE the luddite I thought you where if that's the best excuses you have for rubbishing Windows 7.
     
  2. sirloyne

    sirloyne Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don't actually remember calling myself a pro, but if you think I did at some point...

    I did disable the UAC before I installed Firefox. You know what happened? I couldn't install firefox until I re-enabled the UAC. Not being able to install software on my own computer until I've jumped through enough hoops and said "Yes I'm Sure" enough times isn't an improvement.

    I looked at the so-called "god folder". Big whoop, It's just the control panel in one window. The "god folder" does nothing about grouping folders alphabetically does it? No, because it's beyond the ability of Windows 7. All of my music is on an external hdd. If I want to listen to Devo, I want to look in the D's... not in the middle of the A-H block. I'm sorry if you feel this is an improvement. The "god folder" doesn't let you upgrade to media player 10 does it? No. What does MP10 do that 12 doesn't? Let's see. You can see the album artist, album title, full size (in my case 500x500) album art, song titles, song length, total album play time, bit rate... oh yeah, I almost forgot, I can change the background color. Nothing says improvement to you like lack of information and choice I guess.

    I gave Windows 7 a fair shake. A few times actually. I just don't see how something that takes up 4x the space, uses 2x the system resources and lets you do 1/2 as much is an improvement. It isn't a user friendly OS, it's user safe. I imagine the thinking was something like this... "If we don't let them do anything, they can't break anything."

    I'm not opposed to change when the change is for the better. Windows 7 (or if you prefer, Vista SP2) is NOT an improvement to XP.

    Now you tell me... how exactly, as you put it, "all they have done is improve things"
     
  3. JMH

    JMH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    30
    Off topic perhaps & pardon my butting in... but you sound a tad like me.
    I have 2 laptops here on my desk. Both purchased as new with high end specs & each with a new OS - One Vista Ultimate 64-bit the second Win7 Ultimate 64-bit { ALIAS VISTA SP3}
    My preference is to use the Vista lappy on a daily basis.

    I wouldn't go so far to say Win 7 sucks but it is not my preferred choice.
     
  4. zigzag3143

    zigzag3143 Honorable Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    115
    I had exactly the opposite experience. Purchased a new laptop with Vista pre-installed from Dell and it was a nightmare. I wanted to downgrade to XP but was told it would void my warranty so I took the only option left and clean instlled Win 7 beta. I have not looked back. Search works, drivers are available, sidebar, and more efficient given the same hardware. Sure it isnt perfect but I am used to that.

    My parting comment time marches on, support for vista ends soon, and sooner or later users will migrate to win 7 IMHO
     
  5. Mike

    Mike Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    783
    There are some issues with the Sandy Bridge architecture on newer laptops because the drivers on the SP1 disc and Retail/OEM original copies don't have compatibility for USB3, the new unprecedented architecture, and so forth. By today's standards (July 2011), Windows 7 is actually an old operating system on install. This makes it impossible to install Windows 7 via USB3 flash drives. All clean installs need proper drivers after the fact. For Intel boards once you have the Intel INF Chipset drivers, Intel Rapid Storage Technology, and the video/graphics and audio drivers for your system, you are usually good. For USB3 they are sometimes on a non-Intel controller (JMicron is a good example here). This is the only place I've experienced issues.

    BSODs can be cured - without specifics and just saying "Ahh I'm getting blue screens, I should go back to XP" - you put yourself into a tough spot and that includes an unwillingness to adapt to technology changes. Windows 7 shipped with more compatibility drivers for more devices than any other operating system in history. At the end of the day, it is up to the manufacturer of these devices to support their hardware. Admittedly when we are looking at blue screens, most of them are caused by faulty/crappy drivers when its not a software or hardware issue directly. The Dell 15z laptop on sale now is a great example: A clean install is difficult because the OS is kind of clunky without drivers. Once you install drivers after the clean install process, including drivers for the integrated Intel graphics adapter and the NVIDIA card you are good. Manufacturers are starting to build systems with an integrated video card just for Aero and the desktop experience to save battery life / electricity and then add on the dedicated card for video editing, graphics, and gaming support.

    Because Windows 7 is fairly pre-USB3 and pre-Sandy Bridge you are going to run into problems with new hardware on a clean install. But with best practices, we collect a list of drivers we need post-install and work our way from there. This should help avoid BSODs altogether. Using premium software is also key - software like ZoneAlarm and other security apps that try to integrate into the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) usually cause more harm than good. Look at our BSOD forum and you will see how many crashes we are getting from people using ZoneAlarm combined with anti-virus software like McAfee or some other solutions. These are heavily advertised in the marketplace, but cause conflicts and hardly secure the system any way.

    An informed user running Microsoft Security Essentials and Malware Bytes, could probably get away with never seeing a virus. Users looking for a more robust option could use ESET Smart Security or just NOD32. I use ESET SS with the firewall feature disabled and it has worked great for years. You should see the quarantine list on a friend's computer.

    Over all, I don't see how you can say Windows 7 is inferior to Vista or XP. It can run on nearly the same hardware as XP and the security is bolstered 10-fold. Let's not even go into Vista because hardware compatibility was turned into a joke by late manufacturers. Its a good OS but its bulky. Windows 7 reduces that bulk. Best practices with Windows 7 and you will have a great computing experience. Start thinking ahead, use quad core procs, get boards with USB3 and eSATA, start looking into touch screens. Forward looking custom-built systems will last much longer than cheap throw-away hardware. If you build a computer for $200-$300 you're going to experience lag, freezes, and the problems associated with having a bottle-necked computer. I would not build a new system today that did not have at least 4GB+ DDR3, SSD, and a mid-level gaming graphics card. Doing so would be irresponsible and a gigantic waste of money.
     
  6. JMH

    JMH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    30
    Or wait for Win 8.... :tongue:
     
  7. zigzag3143

    zigzag3143 Honorable Member
    Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    115

    And have to buy new hardware. It is the dealers choice, but it will happen
     
  8. JMH

    JMH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    30

    Reality here - New laptop, new OS / hardware...
    {Easy come easy go
    .}
     
  9. sirloyne

    sirloyne Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    8
    "...you put yourself into a tough spot and that includes an unwillingness to adapt to technology changes" But there are no technological changes here. At least none for the better. They've made the colors a bit brighter and the corners a bit rounder I admit, but it's twice a hard to actually find anything and at least 4x bigger. Everyone keeps saying how much better Windows 7 is, but they never say how.

    "Windows 7 shipped with more compatibility drivers for more devices than any other operating system in history." Great... but I only have one printer. Why do I need every printer driver under the sun on my computer? Oddly enough, when I bought my printer it came with the drivers. Imagine that. Is this another reason why Windows 7 is so big?

    "A clean install is difficult because the OS is kind of clunky without drivers." Harder to install on a completely blank hard drive? Now I am convinced.

    "An informed user running Microsoft Security Essentials and Malware Bytes, could probably get away with never seeing a virus." I've never run updates on my XP machine. Why, you ask? Because for every 1 update to fix a "security leak" it creates 10 more leaks, needing 10 more fixes, and on and on it goes. ZoneAlarm firewall and a good anti-virus is all you need. I also use Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware. I have never had a virus that I can remember, (apart from a few back before I had at least an idea of what I'm doing). Windows 7 isn't more secure than XP, just bigger.

    "I don't see how you can say Windows 7 is inferior to Vista or XP. It can run on nearly the same hardware as XP and the security is bolstered 10-fold." If by security you mean having to say "Yes I'm Sure" over and over... Being able to do almost as much while being 4x the size...

    "Start thinking ahead, use quad core procs, get boards with USB3 and eSATA, start looking into touch screens." This is all well and good, but most people buy their PC at one of those brick and mortars. And if they go into a Best Buy, well, they're doubly screwed. Most people will also never benefit from a Quad. For many people, their PC is for e-mail and Facebook. This is who Windows 7 was made for. The Facebookers. USB3 and eSATA are external and have no impact on the performance of the PC. Touch screens? You think those will catch on? Do you have one?

    "If you build a computer for $200-$300 you're going to experience lag, freezes, and the problems associated with having a bottle-necked computer." This isn't true. It might be slower, but it'll run just fine. I know, I tried it. (and I'm not just making that up. Or that.) You can also fix bottle-necking in the bios. I have 4GB DDR2 800 in my XP machine. I under-clocked it to 667, raised my FSB to 400 bringing my memory back to 800 and my INtel e6750 from 2.66 to 3.2. My FSB/DRAM ratio is now 1:1. No bottle-neck.

    "I would not build a new system today that did not have at least 4GB+ DDR3, SSD, and a mid-level gaming graphics card. Doing so would be irresponsible and a gigantic waste of money." Depending on the timings, DDR3 memory is no faster than DDR2. Just because 3 is bigger than 2, that doesn't make it better. SSD drives wil make no difference to the Facebookers of the world, they just cost more. How would that be "irresponsible? An odd choice of word.
     
  10. nmsuk

    nmsuk Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    195
    "If you build a computer for $200-$300 you're going to experience lag, freezes, and the problems associated with having a bottle-necked computer." This isn't true. It might be slower, but it'll run just fine. I know, I tried it. (and I'm not just making that up. Or that.) You can also fix bottle-necking in the bios. I have 4GB DDR2 800 in my XP machine. I under-clocked it to 667, raised my FSB to 400 bringing my memory back to 800 and my INtel e6750 from 2.66 to 3.2. My FSB/DRAM ratio is now 1:1. No bottle-neck.


    I also overclock but overclocking isn't for your average windows user. The average user wants stabilty and speed, so I normally recommend they over spec their machine so it'll last. Most of windows 7's problems from my point of view are old drivers the oem's use in their install images. It has always amazed me when some ones building a pc they'll use the drivers that come with the mobo etc. When I built my current machine. I assembled it and then used my laptop to grab the latest drivers. Not had one single problem with windows 7 and Vista before it.
     
  11. Mike

    Mike Windows Forum Admin
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    783
    There are plenty of new features to go around in every new release of Windows. Working in an enterprise environment, we witnessed plenty of total mayhem with Windows XP computers. In every possible way, their security was compromised, and this was the result of exploitation of an open system.

    Windows 7 is smaller on disc and on ISO than Windows Vista. The kernel is actually smaller, and so are the number of pre-installed applications.

    A complete copy of Windows 7 64-bit with Service Pack 1 in ISO format is 3.09 GB (3,319,478,272 bytes). Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 is 3.59 GB (3,861,460,992 bytes).

    This is going to happen whenever you install an operating system on a machine that was created with parts that were designed after the operating system was released.

    Nearly everything Microsoft does after the release of an operating system is now based on securing the operating system. Please familiarize yourself with SDL.

    What was changed in Windows 7 security?
    • Windows 7 is built upon the security foundations of the Windows Vista® operating system while improving auditing and the User Account Control (UAC) experience.
    • Windows 7 helps IT control what software can run in their environment with AppLocker™.
    • Windows 7 enhances the core features of BitLocker™ Drive Encryption with the introduction of BitLocker To Go™ for removable storage devices.
    Windows 95 is a 5.46MB zip file. By this logic, we should continue using this operating system. I think most mainstream IT personnel would agree that this is not the proper way of evaluating the usability of an operating system. Most businesses today are still using Windows XP for cost and training reduction reasons. IT departments are not willfully withholding new technology from employees that they know can improve their management role. The problem is that adoption of new operating system technology takes place en-mass when application development becomes impossible for the previous operating system. It almost never has anything to do with feature set, performance, or security (which it should).

    I use touch screen devices all the time. I use USB3 and eSATA to backup my files. The next decade will involve surface and touch technology. While there will always be a role for the keyboard and mouse, development for HIDs is moving ahead because that is what is attracting consumers. Consumers will be buying touch screen enhanced phones, tablets, and other ARM/RISC-based devices well into the future. The first dual-core cell phones have already been rolled out.

    I can run a Commodore Amiga perfectly as well, but the point would be I don't use it anymore. The production work I still do requires more than 3.5GB of RAM so I need a 64-bit operating system. I won't run Vista because secure as it is, it still does not manage resources as well as Windows 7. I can install Windows 7 32-bit on an under-powered netbook with a first generation Atom processor and minimal RAM and it runs just as well as Windows XP. Mind you, not everyone can overclock, but the ones who do aren't doing it to run an operating system that lost mainstream support from the manufacturer two years ago. That's right: Windows XP lost mainstream support 4/14/2009 and will lose all extended support in 2014. There will never be another service pack for workplace deployment for Windows XP. Windows XP has no DirectX 11 support and suffers from severe kernel-level vulnerabilities. The fact that you "have never patched your operating system" should be cause for concern.

    When the system crashes, people wonder why. They bring it to a store, and the magician repairs all of the parts for X price. For those of us who want efficiency or want to bring efficiency to a workplace environment, this involves using better technology. Devices with non-moving parts are a part of that equation. DDR3 has an 8-burst prefetch buffer which is superior to DDR2 and allows for more high bandwidth data transfer. This is the same reason performance systems need better L1 and L2 cache on the northbridge. Its the same concept. DDR3 is simply faster and it is a factually inaccurate statement to say its "just as fast". It can be just as fast if you buy DDR2 modules and overclock them until you can cook breakfast on them, but they're not just as fast or just as good as DDR3.

    Obviously we won't agree on these issues, and I understand your desire to continue to run Windows XP in your solemn environment. However, recommending this to a business at this point in time, or a group of unskilled computer users is disastrous. There are a lot of people out there that really do know nothing about computer systems and the basic security that is provided in Windows 7 can prevent bot nets and major security holes in a business environment. Windows XP is becoming a legacy operating system, and whether you like it or not, this will be difficult for mainstream computer users to deal with over the coming years. The alternative that you would suggest is that everyone just stay with Windows XP forever. What this would lead to is stagnation in technological development as a whole when it comes to hardware and software.

    Windows 7 is based on Windows Vista, which was based on the Windows XP kernel. Windows Vista substantially improves the security for the end-user by providing user account control, service hardening, and the implementation of security as the end design goal. I urge you to read this document on how security has been improved since Windows XP:

    Download Details - Microsoft Download Center - Windows Vista Security Enhancements

    Yes, there have been improvements in security. It is a more secure operating system. Windows 7 was all about complimenting the security that came with Windows Vista's development with performance improvements. New generations of games and audio/visual/graphic intensive applications are designed around DX11. You are using a kernel that hasn't had a significant change since October 2001. The reality is Windows 7 is the same as Windows XP. It is the same kernel. It just has 8-9 years of development on your old OS. This is the reality. Recommending that people stick with XP is a bad idea for countless reasons. If you are going to stay on XP, do the rest of the Internet a favor and unplug the ethernet cable. (Maybe it's Cat3?)

    This is an argument that will never end, but I assure you that changes have been made an urge you to read about both SDL, Microsoft's life-cycle practices, and the documents I have linked to you above. Come back to me and tell me XP is a better system.
     
  12. MikeHawthorne

    MikeHawthorne Essential Member
    Microsoft Community Contributor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,052
    Likes Received:
    303
    "I did disable the UAC before I installed Firefox. You know what happened? I couldn't install firefox until I re-enabled the UAC. Not being able to install software on my own computer until I've jumped through enough hoops and said "Yes I'm Sure" enough times isn't an improvement.

    Hi

    This is the kind of thing that I don't understand.
    I have the UAC turned off on my computer so...

    Just for the hell of it I downloaded Firefox and tried to install it.

    In less then 90 seconds from the time I hit the download button I had Firefox downloaded installed and open and running.

    I didn't have to turn on the UAC or have any other problems with it.

    There have to be something going on here that has some elements beyond the operating system.

    I'm always seeing posts that say that something doesn't work in Windows 7, when I find that it works fine on my computer.

    It's the old Apple argument.

    If they had to run the Apple operating system on every computer that every discount computer manufacture or basement assembler puts together, then it wouldn't be any more reliable then Windows.

    For myself, I found that Windows 7 worked better even on my old 5 year old computer then Windows XP.
    On my new computer which is powerful enough to take advantage of the features it wouldn't make any sense at all to run XP.

    I haven't had problems running anything in W7, not even my old Tomb Raider games from the 90s.

    The only problems I have had at all relate to running things in 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit.
    And even that was only 2 programs, Adobe InDesign CS2 and the computer game the Witcher, both of which ran fine in W7 32 bit on my old computer.

    I think the hand holding goes too far, you shouldn't have to run an app like "Grant Admin Full Control" to access folders that you created yourself the day before but on the whole it's still a big improvement.

    Mike
     
  13. Super Sarge

    Super Sarge New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    64
    I agree with Mike, I disabled UAC the first thing after doing a Clean Install of W7. I have never had a problem loading any software with UAC off. I would bet 2 cents the problem is with the user as 90 percent or greater of problems are.
     
  14. sirloyne

    sirloyne Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    8
  15. sirloyne

    sirloyne Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    8
    An impressive post, but you'll excuse me if I cherry pick.

    "Windows 7 is smaller on disc and on ISO than Windows Vista. The kernel is actually smaller, and so are the number of pre-installed applications." But my question was if 7 is so big because it has hundreds of drivers I'll never need.

    "This is going to happen whenever you install an operating system on a machine that was created with parts that were designed after the operating system was released." Referring to a difficult clean install... This has never been a problem with XP. I just got some new stuff a couple of weeks ago.

    "Windows 95 is a 5.46MB zip file. By this logic, we should continue using this operating system." Well, if the other 16GB is nothing but a load of fluff, stuff like Aero, then maybe we should. I've always said I don't need an OS to try to make me say wow, I can install my own software for that.

    "I use touch screen devices all the time. I use USB3 and eSATA to backup my files." Touch screen devices, yes. But the original poster said "touch screens". I assume (feel free to say what you need to say here) he was referring to tower-less pcs. As I said USB3 and eSATA are external and don't directing effect the performance of the computer.

    "The first dual-core cell phones have already been rolled out." My Cowon S9 has a 500MHz dual-core, and that came out at the end of 2008. Just saying.

    "Mind you, not everyone can overclock, but the ones who do aren't doing it to run an operating system that lost mainstream support from the manufacturer two years ago." Umm, ok? You're right... I didn't overclock to run XP. I did it to get my FSB/DRAM ratio 1:1. I could always lower my cpu multiplier so it isn't overclocked, but it's been running great for 3 years so what the hell. I'm not really sure why you brought this up. Also, I'm not a "gamer" so DX11 means nothing to me. I should mention that I do have SP2 on one and SP3 on another. I never do the automatic updates. I should have said that. I feel I was very misleading and I apologize.

    "When the system crashes, people wonder why. They bring it to a store, and the magician repairs all of the parts for X price." Your true colors are starting to show. It sounds like you're saying PC's crash because of DDR2 and HDDs.

    "The alternative that you would suggest is that everyone just stay with Windows XP forever." I'm all for change, I really am. What I'm against is bloatware. I'm opposed to having to jump through hoop after hoop. I really don't like having a 2-3 click operation turned into a 8-10 step process. This isn't progress.

    "If you are going to stay on XP, do the rest of the Internet a favor and unplug the ethernet cable." Are you saying my using XP is going to give you a virus? Ok... I've just lost all respect. (Maybe it's Cat3?)" Your true colors again. I love how everyone uses sarcasm and name calling to prove their points. It really works.

    By the way... Microsoft extends Windows XP downgrade rights until 2020 - Computerworld
    I guess we can keep on blaming Microsoft for spreading virus then... according to you anyway.
     
  16. NaiyaShamiso

    NaiyaShamiso New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    48
    Okay this was so miss guided that I had to post a reply to it. Aero is the 3D component used for the transparency, it is also what runs the thumb nails and peak, that you mentioned. Aero Peak is the ability to look behind any windows on screen with out moving them, this is good for seeing any kind of system monitoring tool gadget you may have running on the desktop. Granted it dose take a lot of resource, but its not useless. You got a point on the grouping, point for you. Screw the quick launch, its for lazy people. Media Player 12 is really good, some of my friends use it, and it takes even pirated music and ads the digital information to it and makes it run perfect, not advocating what they are doing, just a point. The reason you have to confirm the starting of some applications, is because you give it permission to change things outside of the user area, the reason you are having to do it twice in 7 is because you are not an administrator. That is one thing they changed in Windows 7, over Vista. UAC is smarter and changes depending on your level of permissions. Disabling UAC is a bad idea, I know it is annoying, but it is needed. Say you get a new screenshot program, all it dose is run, not install required. When you run the program, it attempts to install an plugin to your web browser, with out your knowledge or you accepting it. UAC was made to stop that. If you disable UAC, that would get through. It doesn't stop there, it will watch browser extensions as well, and even extremely snoopy cookies. I loved XP and still run a copy of XP Pro SP3 on an older computer, as well as Server 2003 Enterprise R2 SP2, Server 2008 Enterprise R2. Tech people are starting to sound like wanna be gamers, "Why play BioShock, when BioShock 2 is out" Umm, cause its not an update, but an entirely new game. BTW, that was part of a real conversation that I had with a person, trying to fix the no sound on my BioShock on Windows 7 64 Bit. I have fixed it before, just cant remember how.
     
  17. Joe S

    Joe S Excellent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    113
    After Vista the first thing I did in Windows 7 was disable UAC and have never had problems installing anything.
    Joe
     
  18. Joe S

    Joe S Excellent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    113
  19. CraveRummer

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. NaiyaShamiso

    NaiyaShamiso New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joe, not that you will have problems installing things. I'm talking about the things that can get in through your browser, and install that way. Windows is not virus proof, and never will be. Not even virtual installs of Windows are safe, that was proved at my school, when over 150 installs of Windows got that Confliktr in one day. The idea behind it is if something comes through your browser or attempts to mess with anything outside your user directory, then you know about it. This was a great idea, don't take away the ability, just make it obvious to the user.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...