Windows 7 Is Windows 7 really that different?

[ajames]

I am certain that i am not the only one to hold this view, but i do feel in the minority.

In my humble opinion, Windows 7 is nothing more than Windows Vista with more pieces of flair. One can make the case that Vista, while lacking flair, is not any less of an OS. The added features of Windows 7 still serve up the same goods, but adorned with more shiny pieces of flair on its vest.

I made the decision to use Vista when i build my PC this past summer, and have no regrets. It was delivered to my door with SP1 (64-bit, mind you), and i have had zero problems. Yes, i was annoyed for a few minutes until i found the "off" switch for UAC, and yes the redundancy of certain menus is another qualm, but all in all, its fine, and i enjoy it.

After installing, and using Windows 7 for a short while, i don't find it noticeably faster, either. Running an overclocked Q6600, with 4gb of ram, and an 8800 series card, the law of diminishing returns, i feel, makes it irrelevant. I try my hardest to keep my system quite clean, and though 7 improves on bootup/down/suspend times ... again ... dimishing returns. I don't feel as though its groundbreaking.

The desktop peak feature, snap features, and aero "shake" feature are nice, and i'd be lying if i said i didn't enjoy them. Again, groundbraking though? We each have our own style for organization, and despite many innovations, programs and add-ons ... alt-tab is still king. And though i do see potential with the new taskbar, i feel as though its looks are too obtrusive. Yes, i did shrink its size, but then, the icons are no bigger than a Vista-sized taskbar shortcut icon. I suppose i'm being picky, but i do feel as though its not as grown-up as it could be. Its main redeeming quality is the ability to shift things around like the tabs in my beloved firefox. I could do away with all the other new organizational features, if only for a Vista upgrade that allowed that.

Windows 6.1 is truly fitting, and though it has its perks, i would like to see a simple update to Vista, instead of an all out new OS. A new OS is certainly a business move by microsoft to side-step away from the bad publicity of Vista, while all the while ... simply releasing a tweaked version of Windows 6.

Your thoughts?

 

[crysisevolved]

Yes, it is a really stable and amazing operating system, and it is in the beta stage. There is less lag in games, and doing anything that you do in vista. There is windows live essentials, support for new programs and applications. The UAC is not as annoying, its like vista SP2

 

[Kyle]

It's not supposed to be different, it's supposed to be better, and it is.
Faster, cleaner, easier to use, more secure, and with a better UI.

 

[ajames]

I suppose i am questioning then, why a "better" and not different version of a product is being marketed as a vastly different OS.

I feel as though issues of security and stability should be issues resolved by a service pack, and not a new release. I don't like the way Microsoft is ditching its "broken" Vista and starting fresh ... when it is not a fresh start ... its an update.

And again, i don't feel there is enough of a difference to justify declaring it "easier to use".

 

[Kyle]

It's a lot easier to fix an OS to install freshly than to write a service pack to optimize, remove, add and move code in an already made OS.
If you have an issue with it, don't buy/use it. It's just like the jump from XP to Vista, theres as much of a change between those as Vista to 7.

 

[ajames]

So that's what we're doing here? Fixing it? Is it broken?

If Windows 7 did not exist, and wasn't currently being reviewed by all of us, would we be that dissatisfied with Vista SP1? Would we yearn for Aero "shake" or any of the other UI enhancements? Would we hope for an entirely new OS? or maybe just another service pack to correct some security/stability issues ...

I'm perfectly aware that i do not have to participate in Windows 7. I am, however, allowed to question why this epic new OS is allowed to tweak my OS, add a feature macs have had for years, and come out on top. If Vista is truly this crappy in comparison, i find it hard to believe that people can't wait to open their wallets and shell out for what would have been with Vista ...

 

[iroken22]

Lets see here if an operating system was perfect why on earth would we make new ones. Oh that is right Every operating system has newer versions(Windows, Mac, and Linux). No Operating system is perfect. VISTA was a great operating system but just like all the rest could use a little cleaning up and Microsoft did it perfectly. As Kyle said it takes a bunch more code to do a service pack for an operating system than it does to make a new one. I for one will spend the money to purchase the new operating system no matter the cost. OH and by the way the doc originated in WINDOWS 1. Where they had a little taskbar at the bottom with icons pinned on it that you could click to open various applications. So no Microsoft did not take anything of Macintosh's. Attached is a photo of the operating system with the icons pinned to the taskbar. Don't go stating facts when you dont know the history behind it.

 

[ajames]

Easy, killer.

I'm referring to the "desktop peak" feature. The one where you slide your mouse to the corner ... and it lets you view your gadgets ...

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the position that no OS is perfect, and there is always a progression forward that's motivated by the fixing of previous issues, as well as innovation. I also agree that Vista is a great OS. My major qualm is that Windows 7 seems to be based more on fixing the issues within Vista and ridding Microsoft of the bad connotations of Vista. At the time of Vista's release, XP was a giant. Microsoft released a very different OS, one that was supposed to carry us into the next wave of software, and paired it with innovations in Office 2007. They weren't releasing a new OS because it was easier to do so than "update" XP. Vista to 7, however? The proximity of their releases suggests it was quite apparent that it wasn't what they were trying to release in the first place ...

 

[iroken22]

Have you ever written and operating system before? Have you ever tried to rewrite an entire operating system to work to new features you put together? Have you ever just written a program and then find bugs and try to go back and figure out where to fix them?

I have and it is not an easy task at all. It takes at least 5 times the code in many cases to rewrite your own operating system. So in my opinion microsoft made the best choice in not trying to clod VISTA as much with a service pack and just move on. They however are not giving up. They are just moving on. It in many ways is like the difference between windows 95 and 98. The changes may look little to the user on the outside but the changes to the inside of the operating system are vast.
​

 

[mangkook]

Vista will have the fate of ME. Too much hate that MS had to shortlived it and people abandon it as quickly too, either to XP or Win2k.

most PC i repaired are either 98SE, or XP. very few ME.

 

[ajames]

I must confess, i have not written my own OS. And the little bit of programming that i have done is minute in comparison. It was enough, however, to give me a slight knowledge of what it takes to find a bug, especially if you change the nature of the program after it was written. I gotcha there. The point i'm making is -- same program, new features. Features which would be too cumbersome a task to release as a service pack. I get it. Its close enough to make Vista seem to be incomplete, but too far away to fix it. I find that discouraging.

According to Microsoft, i do believe they are releasing another SP for Vista though ... and i will be interested to see what's in that.

 

[Radenight]

@ ajames

I have to disagree with the negative of what you have said about Windows 7.. it IS an epic new OS... and in my opinion it's much more than just an update to Vista.. It's new features are indeed awesome to say the least.. it IS faster than Vista in almost all intances and is actually faster than XP in alot of instances.. (which has been proven in early benchmarks - and yes I am aware that benchmarking a Beta OS isn't the best thing to go by but that's not what I'm going by when I say it's faster than Vista and even XP, I'm going by the fact that I've been using 7 since build 6801 and have seen for myself the differences in speed/overall performance) My question to you though is this: Do you not remember how bad Windows XP was in the first 2-3 years of it's "public retail" life? Not only was it painfully slow but it was plagued with bugs, incompatibility, hardware issues and countless driver issues among many other things.... It annoys the hell out of me when people go on and on about XP like it never had that "bad spell" in it's life, yes it's a remarkable OS now, but it was just as bad if not worse then Vista was when it first came out... the only difference between XP and Vista in that regard is XP had 4-5 more years for Microsoft and developers to literally master it and make it the "best" OS Microsoft ever released.. for quite a while.. but like anything in the technology world, there comes a time to move on, and with the release of Windows 7 that time is now..

I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you over which Windows OS is the "best" or which should be an update to a previous one rather then a full fledged OS.. but I will say that Windows XP wasn't always the gem that it has become and I think alot of people forget that fact.. Also do you honestly think XP would be near as popular now if it only had a 3-4 year lifespan before Vista came along.. like many previous Windows OS's? XP was lucky in my opinion and reeped the benefits of being the "newest" Windows OS available for almost 6-7 years before another was released..

I truly believe Windows 7 will be the death of Windows XP.. XP has indeed had a very good life... but it's time to move on already..

Though Vista IS a good OS now, people are ready to move on and if takes shelling out another $200 + to do so, well that's what their gonna do.. myself included..

Go Windows 7!!

 

[ajames]

@ Radenight

Thank you for your post, and your opinions.

My reference to XP as a giant was in regards to the level it had reached after such a long time. The lowly state of XP at release is sort of what i'm getting at. Since then, bugs were fixed, compatibility issues were completely gone, and people had written programs to mold XP into whatever best suited them. I liked XP, but i embraced Vista given the chance. I'm not against Windows 7 -- i am only questioning why Microsoft isn't maturing Vista as they did with XP.

I'm somewhat taken aback by how all the new features, bells and whistles have transformed Vista into some sort of deformed animal, when in reality, it in fact WASN'T any worse than XP at release. I would expect Windows 7 to be this stable in Beta, because does it not run on the same Vista kernel? I'm not disputing Windows 7's superiority to Vista ... i'm only questioning why Microsoft is, in a sense, labeling Vista the next "ME".

I am curious though. Which additional features make Windows 7 the "epic" OS? It took maybe a few days for someone to create a small app for XP/Vista allowing the "snap to" feature of Windows 7 after it was announced ...

I truly have not seen the speed, but i admit it could very well be result of not using it for too long ...

 

[iroken22]

Windows 7's taskbar is amazing. The way microsoft has designed it has decreased the time it takes me to get my jobs done to the point where i actually get bored and just sit around. If that is not saying anything then i dont know what is. The performance gain is very noticeable especially if u had been using VISTA before 7. The fact that the requirements to run 7 are less than VISTA is out of this world amazing. I never would have guessed.

 

[ajames]

I'm sorry for being skeptical ... but what sort of jobs are sped up considerably simply by 7's taskbar? Was the older clunky system just slowing you down all this time?

I am amazed at its power-saving features, its performance boost, and its lowered requirements ... but are these not things we should expect from new technology and software? I suppose i'm just perturbed and skeptical at how Microsoft comes out looking like hero's after spending some time streamlining their own software ...

 

[iroken22]

"Dont judge a person by there past. Judge them by the present." A Quote one of my teachers used to tell us a long time ago and it has stuck with me. Just because they made a little misstep with VISTA does not mean that they are heroes for fixing it in seven. This is how we all should look upon things. Forget the past it has no bearing on the present.

 

[ajames]

I applaud you for the merit of that statement, but you must remember that i'm not attacking the individual programmers. I'm questioning the business practices of a corporation, and their efforts to rid themselves of bad connotations. If they come out with Vista: Mulligan ... and don't put any effort into solidifying Vista ... it does not fare well with a poor college student who bought Vista, only to realize it was actually incomplete as microsoft proclaims ... "ok, sorry about that ... try this one ... "

 

[kharmapolizei]

I'm sorry for being skeptical ... but what sort of jobs are sped up considerably simply by 7's taskbar? Was the older clunky system just slowing you down all this time?

THe old taskbar did actually slow down a few things. If you really had a lot of windows open (and at work, I can't avoid that), you spend a lot of time asking yourself "Just WHERE was that window again?" Not with 7, though.

I am amazed at its power-saving features, its performance boost, and its lowered requirements ... but are these not things we should expect from new technology and software? I suppose i'm just perturbed and skeptical at how Microsoft comes out looking like hero's after spending some time streamlining their own software ...

THe latter two things are quite the OPPOSITE of what you usually get with a new OS. Look back and name one, just one, OS other than 7 that had significantly lower system requirements than its predecessors? My guess is, you can't, and there's certainly now Windows OS which could take credit for that.

I myself don't think Windows 7 is monumental, but it's a huge step forward. Microsoft deserves a huge part of the praise it gets these days. They had same really great ideas of how using an OS can be improved - and that in itself is remarkable.