Windows 7 Hate to say it but Windows 7 sucks in my experience

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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." Two things. 1. All it shows you is the outline of any boxes you have open, it doesn't show you what's actually in the boxes. I call that useless. 2. They already had something that worked just as well, without being a resource hog, it was called "Show Desktop".

"Screw the quick launch, its for lazy people." Holy Cow! You said that out loud? I guess going through the completely awful new start menu for everything is better than the quick launch. I suppose that's why they tried so hard to hide it.

"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" So it's good because it will play mp3s? And trust me, there's much better software for editing metadata than MP12

"the reason you are having to do it twice in 7 is because you are not an administrator." Yes I was.

"When you run the program, it attempts to install an plugin to your web browser, with out your knowledge or you accepting it." I use Firefox, and that asks you before installing a browser plug-in or add-on.

"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 use ZoneAlarm firewall and have it set on maximum. It asks me before anything new tries to run or install. Also Firefox doesn't save any of my browsing history and deletes all the cookies every time I close it. Plus I use Ccleaner after I close Firefox. Like I said. Windows 7 is not a user friendly OS, it's user safe. By stopping you from doing anything, there's less chance of breaking it.
 
You are still way off about Aero Peak. It is show desktop. If you hover over the button, it will show your desktop with an outline of all open windows and where they are placed, regardless of if they are minimized or not. Then you can click on it, and it will do the same thing it has since Windows 95. Gadgets are not Windows, when you hover over it it keeps your gadgets visable. Like the name indicates, it's a peak. Maybe in 8 they will make it customizable. Something like, don't hollow out system windows. The way I see it is, there is a quick launch in the start menu, the first thing you get to by clicking on the start button. That would make the quick launch bar and desktop icons, pointless. Yea, point on the MP12, there are better, but I didn't say it was the best, I said it is really good. I may be wrong about the UAC, I only use Pro, Enterprise and Ultimate. So that is why I can say you should only have to confirm once. I have noticed that most people use Home. So what flavor are you using? Firefox is not perfect, there are ways around that. I have gotten plenty of nasty things on Firefox 3 and Firefox didn't warn me about any of it. I still use Firefox, but I don't depend on it to protect itself. That's great that you have third party software to do stuff. But UAC is for those that don't have that. Unfortunately user friendly is used as a term for any one can use it. No matter if you are a lamer or a super user, you can use it. That makes if more difficult for people who knows something about computers, because its not as customizable. I don't understand where you get stopping you from doing anything. Unless you are under some one elses control, like the head IT or a manager. Your computer is yours, and being an administrator, you can do what ever you want.
 
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. My claim is that it is flawed, and I have no reason to abide by it. By extending downgrade rights, they are allowing consumers to go back to the operating system they prefer. You are free to use Windows XP. The goal of my message was to try to help you understand what happened from 2001-2006 in terms of Windows kernel development. Read more on SDL. You are distorting my message when you say that “Microsoft is promoting viruses” by allowing users to run Windows XP.

When someone is robbed late at night, you do not blame the victim for being out late at night. Similarly, in an ideal world, people would be able to continue to run Windows XP without the threat of virus. What you are describing is madness: You are claiming to run an unpatched copy of Windows XP and that this works for you. Therefore, we should acquiesce to this concept and join you in adopting those ideas.

For so many reasons, this is a bad idea for others to adopt. Windows XP is certainly a functional operating system, but has been systematically targeted over and over again. Windows 7 is the most stable Windows operating system that Microsoft has ever designed.

No one is going to stop you from running Windows XP, but I do object to you urging others to do the same. Making accusations that no security improvements have been made and that the operating system hasn’t changed since 2001 except “get bigger” is not only ridiculous – it simply holds no water. The OS is running a kernel that has gone through thousands of builds and compilations to make it better than Windows XP. It holds records as the fastest selling operating system and it will eclipse Windows XP.

With best practices (and this does not include keeping Windows XP unpatched and unattended), you can still squeeze by with this operating system. Fundamentally, however, it can be a prime target for abuse. The 3.5GB barrier should also be a concern for anyone talking about the need to multi-task. Windows XP 64-bit’s compatibility for 32-bit applications is horrendous.
A lot of time and money was spent on making Windows what it is today. This argument should remain intellectual and we should not resort to personal attacks. Even when Windows XP was released, die-hard Windows 2000 fans were admonishing it for its “fisher price” style interface and similar features to 2000. In reality, hundreds of thousands of lines of code had been re-written since 2000, the system had more stability and better memory handling, and crashed less than Windows 2000. You really are making the same argument here. Its just a different time and a different place.

If you want newer features, better native-level support for drivers, upgraded network stack, support for Windows Server 2008, and security hardening on your operating system, check out the last 2 Windows operating systems that came after Windows XP. Otherwise, stay with XP. It does have a reduced memory footprint, but thats because it doesn't utilize all of your memory properly. It sits there with unallocated memory while power is going to the modules instead of using pre-cache and pre-fetching of data. All I can really do is urge you to understand the development process that went into Vista and 7. Look at SDL, what they did with security, and understand that this is the best for most users.

Windows is used by 90% of the population. So yes, with UAC they did have to add a "yes or no" button. Experienced users hold the option of turning this off. Your other gripes don't hold water with me because they don't have to. You can keep running Windows XP forever, for all I care. Just don't try to advocate this as a reasonable idea for new computer users because its a recipe for disaster for most of them. Everyone can admire a '57 Chevy - that doesn't mean they own or drive one.
 
I'm wondering if Sirloynes is a pseudonym for a certain Ms Borman...lol
 
Highwayman said:
I'm wondering if Sirloynes is a pseudonym for a certain Ms Borman...lol
Click to expand...

I'm new to the forum, so I am lost in this. Who is Ms Borman? How do you know them so well? How do people save so much on their car insurance by switching to Geico?
 
Okay, just wondering. I may not be as experienced as some here, but I ask questions, a lot of questions. If that gets annoying, I'm sorry. The thing that sets me apart from others is that I welcome debate, and discussion with any one that thinks they have a better idea. Granted that the conversation stays civil, I love getting into heated debates. Taking facts and research and throwing it at the other person, then having counter research for their lame facts. Although like I said, must remain civil. Sid that make since?
 
"You are distorting my message when you say that “Microsoft is promoting viruses” by allowing users to run Windows XP." It was your request that I unplug my ethernet cable from my XP machine to protect you from viruses. I didn't distort anything. You implied that my XP put you at risk. By allowing people to downgrade to XP, Microsoft is also putting your computer at risk.

"You are claiming to run an unpatched copy of Windows XP and that this works for you. Therefore, we should acquiesce to this concept and join you in adopting those ideas." First, I pointed out that I have SP2 one one machine and SP3 on the other. That's hardly unpatched. I think you have selective reading. Second, I never told anyone they should do this, now you're just putting words in my mouth. I simple said that Win 7 is an overinflated OS that's more concerned about impressing people with glitz, and it's very user un-friendly.

"It holds records as the fastest selling operating system and it will eclipse Windows XP." This is just double-speak and you know it. They've only sold more OEM licenses to people like Dell, not over the counter sales. More licenses have been bought because more computers have been bought with windows pre-installed. Big deal. The same thing was said with XP and the same thing will be said about Win 8.

"With best practices (and this does not include keeping Windows XP unpatched and unattended)..." I think Paul Simon said it best when he said "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

"Everyone can admire a '57 Chevy - that doesn't mean they own or drive one." But they'd like to.
 
"I'm wondering if Sirloynes is a pseudonym for a certain Ms Borman...lol"
"I was thinking the same!"

I see name calling is alive and well. Good to hear it. Also, there's no "s" at the end. If you're going to try to be clever, at least check your spelling. That would make it more impressive.
 

I don't see any name calling, a harmless joke at your expense but definitely no name calling.

You using XP is fine, I think what some of us see as a problem is you not updating that XP with security updates. Which if that is the case leaves you open to al sorts of nasties on the internet.
 
Right.

If you're not going to play fair, I'm going home and taking my ball with me.

So naaa! naaa!

 
nmsuk, that is very true, and a valid point. Though, remember sirloyne said that that both have SP2 installed. As for the SP3, it can be argued that it doesn't do much. sirloyne, I hear you talking about how bloated and over weight Windows 7 is. Although I don't see you making any points. If you want to be taken seriously, give us some examples.
 
If memory serves SP3 for XP was mainly to patch better networking compatibilty between itself and vista, which was limited use depending on home my PC you have in the home or work. As for my spelling thanks for pointing it out, now I really feel self concious as I suffer from a disorder that affects my hand co-ordination
 
I think he should get a W7 pro machine, put his copy of XP in a virtual box or in 98 or 95 or heaven help us DOS 6 or windows 3.11. I think he would be able to live in the past to his hearts content. Progress go forward if you do not go forward with it, you will soon wither on the vine and drop to the ground as rotten fruit.
 

*beatnik tone* Right on man. It's like, the government doesn't WANT to tell you man. *back to reality*
For real though, it's a good point. Life is progress, if you just sit and spin your wheels, you learn nothing and get left in the dust. Not saying that you can't like Windows XP and use it for as long as you want, but you cant just say Windows 7 is evil cause it is. No matter if you or any one else likes it, Microsoft is always going to make a new Windows, and try to out do the previous.

Then you go into this talk about how blah blah blah isn't user friendly. When asked what do you mean. The response is the UI, is not user friendly. Yea great you can use zinger terms, I'm sure, a newbie like me, can user terms that will make you feel stupid. But that's not the point. The point is to convey ideas, and get points across.

Sorry didn't mean to go off an a tangent. Oh, and SuperSarge, I hope you aint saying that DOS is a useless OS. There are still a lot of things that you can do with DOS. Granted its all IT Pro and Programming stuff, but it is still useful.
 
I am not saying DOS is not useful, in fact you need to know how to use a few DOS commands to use the CMD function which is a emulated DOS Window
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Solved
So what really is Microsofts worst system in the end?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Fixer1234
F
Confessions of a Windows 7 to Ubuntu switcher
Replies
1
Views
3K
TorrentG
T