Windows 7 Windows 7 To Beat XP?

[Bazcee]

I have used Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP, 98, ME and 95.
Lets face it Microsoft have an almost impossible task to replace XP! For me XP is so good, it runs all my software, all my hardware, no problems. Vista will use most of my hardware but not software. Windows 7 wont run properly with some of the most important (to me) hardware, Creative sound card (works ok in Vista) WinFast DV2000H TV card, again worked ok in Vista. In Windows 7 it blue screens me. I thought one reason Vista was so hated was its incompatibility with hardware and software but Windows 7 is much worse than Vista!! So apart from the new interface, what is so good about Windows 7? It is supposed to be built on Vista, yet cant use most of its drivers, so whats going on?
I will continue to test 7 and will keep open mind until its full release but for me and many others Microsoft unwittingly produced the best operating system ever when XP was produced and will have the devils job trying to beat it if they can.
For overall use XP cant be beat!
I know its not what Microsoft and maybe most people here want to hear but XP just cant be beat, Windows 7 I feel will go the same way as Vista, not because of its bloat but because of its incompatibility with existing hardware, which even Vista could work with.

 

[Kevinw596]

AMEN!!! Alot of folks are hung up on "what's new", as opposed to "whats better". theres not a doubt in my mind that XP is the best OS ever!!! so what if its not pretty compared to vista? everything works on it. I'm starting to wonder if win/7 is gonna be much better. lately, it freezes up alot.

 

[doorules]

just like there is no doubt in my mind vista is better than xp and W7 is already as good as vista as a beta

 

[davehc]

As Windows 7 is still Beta, the discussion is premature. I am running 7 32 bit and 64 bit and already feel it is performing as well as XP. (I also echo doorules remark - I had no problems with Vista and prefer it to XP) All the software I have thrown at 7 has been installed without incident, and runs flawlessly. I have had no BSOD's since the early builds, except from my own "experiments"
You must also remember that XP is old. many software writers will be writing there updates and new programs for Windows 7. You will most probably find, in a couple of years, that you have the choice of staying with your old software and OS (No harm in that) or moving forward. This will also apply to new hardware.

 

[Kyle]

Personally, given the choice between Windows 7 Beta+ or Windows XP, given a mid range system of today's standards (Dual core, 2 GB+ RAM, Mid range graphics card) I would choose Windows 7 over XP hands down. I just find it a lot easier to navigate, and don't see any reason to stay with an 8 year old OS. Now, given a low end system, that's another story, but even so, Windows 7 runs fine on netbooks and sub $300 desktops, so it'd have to be quite low end (I'm talking pre-1 GHz, less than 1 GB RAM, integrated graphics....)

 

[reghakr]

Personally, I'd choose Windows 2000 profession with the added security of Windows7.

As for easier to navigate?

It takes at least 2 additions steps to locate the program you're looking for rather than having a "fold out" menu which makes it a single click.

In Windows Explorer, it displays about 10 folders, which now make you scroll down and locate the folder you're in.. In Vista, you simply had to click your username and these folders were displayed for you, eliminated the clutter that you get with Windows7

As for Windows Explorer itself, it hasn't changed much since Windows 95. There are many explorer replacements that have the ability to place all your shortcuts on various tool bars, again giving you a one click access have a large image preview, can zip and unzip, encrypt and decrypt, have FTP capability,

there are several which include the Quick View Plus (or Inso) file views that allow you to view over 100 formats without even having that particular program installed on your computer.

I don't expect this much, but windows Explorer sure could use an update.

In IE8, you no long get the dialog box to save your session, you now have an additional step, because you now need to go to tools and choose Restore Last Session.

In Control panel, do we really need 55 Control panel items, when some of the applets contain the same information as some others do?

These are just 3 that come to mind immediately

I know some people don't use their computer as I do, but for me, these are major drawbacks.

 

[Kyle]

Windows Explorer seems fine to me. I have no issues navigating network files, regular files, hidden files, video, pictures, audio, etc.
As for IE, I don't use it, and could care less that it's even included in Windows.
Control panel I use, but I rarely open the actual panel itself.
The start menu is WAY better than the old style. I don't even open the "All Programs" menu as search finds me the needed program in a few short taps, much easier than lifting my hand from the keyboard.
Quick launch was a joke, and the new taskbar handles program launching and pinning like a pro. The preview boxes are way better than names, and I can get to the correct windows with dozens of windows and programs open with ease.

I don't know exactly how you use your computer, but I can tell you, you're not doing so efficiently.

 

[reghakr]

My comments weren't directed at you, I was just stating my view on the subject. Obviously you took it personal by your snide statement you made at the end of your post

I will go over some of the points you mentioned.

I don't even open the "All Programs" menu

You may not, but the average user certainly does.

as search finds me the needed program in a few short taps

A few taps is better than a single click? Without indexing your whole C: drive, the only thing you get by doing a search is a windows with Libraries, Homegroup, Custom, and Internet. I tried a search for mspant.exe and got this window. I'm certainly not turning indexing on for the entire drive as the help files even states it will slow down your search. Also I have an E: partition with all my 3rd party apps. That would mean I would have to index that partion as well to locate anything

Quick launch was a joke

It was a simple one click solution for launching your favorite programs. At least now software makers won't be able to add their icon to the quick launch without even asking.

The preview boxes are way better than names

They don't provide a clear enough view of the program or directory you're in. I feel the switch between windows feature gives a much clearer view. I'm glad the option is still available by hitting the win key + tab

Finally, if you can't read names in the taskbar, then you have a problem.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi All
The main issue I have with the new start menu is that it wastes so much more Screen Real estate - I wouldn't mind this if I could customize the whole thing as to HOW I want to use it.

I'd have just a FEW apps on it . I prefer the Linux idea or the old XP Power Toy where you coul;d run a number of Virtal desktops each with their own independent screens, apps, backgrounds etc then it would be easy

1 desktop for Office
1 for Multimedia
1 for Photoshop etc
1 for Mis and corporate connections.

BTW if you want the old Quick Launch it can be re-enabled - there's a thread on Windows 7 tips which shows how to do this.

Actually it seems a pity you can't have both quick launch and the new system.

here's two screenshots to show what I mean about wasted screen real estate --These are from Vista X-64 as W7 doesn't have classic menu

 

[davehc]

Wasted screen space. Probably. But after selection it does vanish, of course.
I have my "All Programs" put into known folders, which I have used since the first Vista. I save and copy into my new installation, in the event.
I honestly did not see the last sentence as such an awful remark. It was an observation. I just failed to understand some of your criticism of Windows explorer. I feel, also, that you are fighting against the natural order in your use.
I wasn,t even clear if you were following the thread title, or expressing your comparitive views of Windows 2000
I guess in the Control panel youe are referring to the full view, "All Control Panel Items"? Windows 7 has more available items, which may be viewed as such, similarly to Vista.
I had to get used to the new "Non-classic " view, but now find it no hindrance. It is not often, in any case, that I need access there.

 

[djwayne]

The only thing I miss in the new start menu is the "run" option.
I know it's now located in the "programs>accessories" section, but it was more convient in the start menu.

 

[Radenight]

Although you have all been making some very valid points on both sides of this "argument". I strongly agree with the comment that was previously made... this dicussion is very premature.. I mean geez, at least give Windows 7 a chance to get to the final release before you start a convo like this... It would only be fair.. seeing as XP is 8 YEARS OLD and NOT IN BETA STAGES... hahaha That being said I'll only comment a little for now and save my big comments for when 7 is in final release form..

As far as comparing Windows XP to Windows 7 Beta.. though I do it myself I still feel it's not exactly a valid comparison at this point in time.. to me, it would better to start comparing the two OS's in depth when they are both in final release form..... . I mean come on guys.. you all know as well as I do, a BETA OS is going to have bugs.. it's going to run into hardware problems, driver issues.. etc.. that's the purpose of a beta, to find these issues and let microsoft know about them so by final release they are fixed..

Now, it seems to me from what I've been reading around the web regarding Windows 7 Beta that overall it is liked, and liked alot.. I personally have had no problems with software (with the exception of Lightscribe, which I now have working on the 32 bit version of 7) or hardware.. so as far as 7 being compatible, I have to give it a 10 out of 10 for that.. especially considering the fact that it is still in BETA stages.. I haven't used any other Beta version of Windows (and I tested 2000, XP and Vista while in Beta) that was anywhere near as useable, stable and compatible as Windows 7 Beta is.. honestly.. I have 3 in use pc's at my house and 1 in use pc @ my personal business and all 4 are running Windows 7, 2 of the 4 as their main OS.. (the other 2 aren't using it as their main OS simply because of what I use them for. Windows 7 works flawlessly on these other 2 pc's as well, it's just not neccessary to use it as the main OS on them. But as far as drivers go, all 4 pc's installed everything during the install. now granted it's not always the best move to use Microsoft's sometimes sh!tty drivers so I did install 3rd party drivers on them and guess what.. they all worked.. and 99% of them are Vista drivers.. so I don't know about the comment that was made about Vista's drivers not working well... because all the Vista drivers I've tried so far have worked without problems... This is expecially good consering one of the 4 pc's I use daily is a Pentium 4 2.4 GHZ with 768MB of ram and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro.. the rest are running alot more modern hardware than this but that just goes to show that Windows 7 is extremely compatible in my opinion...

I'm not even going to comment on the visual aspects of Windows 7 simply because, yes I do like it and yes they did add more to it, BUT I'm not basing my entire opinion of a beta OS solely on visuals.. as some are..

And even though some of you don't like certain aspects of 7.. you have to give credit where credit is due.. and of course it's going to take a while for some to get used to the differences between 7 and XP.. I mean holy fu*k what do you expect when you've been using an OS for 8+ years.. it's obviously not going to be easy to move on... but I bet ya's you'll all be able to within time. In the meantime, let's try to not criticize Windows 7 BETA too much.. considering the fact that's extremely useable, rock solid, and VERY compatible in my opinion.. it's going to be a very interesting year to say the least.. I only hope that the end result is as good as I think it's going to be..

 

[Bazcee]

In my original post, I wasn't trying to compare 7 over XP, but trying to point out that the reason Vista wasn't readily accepted by the masses is partly because of incompatibility. I have Vista and XP installed, and now 7, Vista is on (a now I guess) elderly IBM M52, it runs flawlessly even running a wireless card that Vista says wont work! I had it originally installed on this computer and again, it ran flawlessly, including the TV card and Creative Audigy 4 Pro card. OK, so the audio card is working, but not very well using the drivers that 7 installed, so far it is much better using the driver posted elswhere on this forum. As for the TV card even using compatibility mode, it will not work on 7.
My point is why, if Vista was rejected partly because of incompatibility, is the problem worse on 7? Maybe there will be a fix for it in time, that is why I will continue with 7. If there is no fix, well I guess I will have to upgrade the offending parts (or simply remove them) if I decide to keep it after the beta test.

 

[Theo]

W7 over Wxp

I have had most of the windows operating systems and I think that 2000 and XP ran the smoothest.I never had a chance to use Vista but from what I have read and heard I am not missing anything.I think if you are gonna spend alot of time online like myself appearance never hurt.Any ways I am thrilled with this new version.

 

[confused]

1st I thought I saw some where that you could use the classic start menu. (Not sure though). I also thought xp would be king for a long time but after using this beta I think xp will start to look old and outdated. People want something new and I think this is it. The hardware vendors I think will be there in time for the official release this is just the beta test.

 

[reghakr]

First off, I want to apologize to Kyle for my closing statement.

And davehc, the reason why I'm so adamant against the Start Menu change is the fact I have two search utilities that expand out when you choose the search feature in the Classic Menu as you can see in the attached thumbnail. also, notice the Desktop folder at the top of the Start menu. this is where I keep all my frequently used programs which eliminates clutter on the desktop.

If there was a search entry on the right side of the new Start Menu, maybe I could figure out a way to add those functions.

If anyone knows of a way to accomplish this, I'd love to hear it.

My first comment was just stating I'd like to have the Win 2K Pro look, the following comments refer to XP.

There's no question that I'll purchase the final release, I'll have to live with it.

 

[davehc]

I guess noone has looked at a hack for that search yet. I doubt if they will, as the search pane is right there, when you open START.

 

[Radenight]

In my original post, I wasn't trying to compare 7 over XP, but trying to point out that the reason Vista wasn't readily accepted by the masses is partly because of incompatibility. I have Vista and XP installed, and now 7, Vista is on (a now I guess) elderly IBM M52, it runs flawlessly even running a wireless card that Vista says wont work! I had it originally installed on this computer and again, it ran flawlessly, including the TV card and Creative Audigy 4 Pro card. OK, so the audio card is working, but not very well using the drivers that 7 installed, so far it is much better using the driver posted elswhere on this forum. As for the TV card even using compatibility mode, it will not work on 7.
My point is why, if Vista was rejected partly because of incompatibility, is the problem worse on 7? Maybe there will be a fix for it in time, that is why I will continue with 7. If there is no fix, well I guess I will have to upgrade the offending parts (or simply remove them) if I decide to keep it after the beta test.

I really don't know why you think Windows 7 has worse compatibility than Windows Vista? Because a couple devices won't work yet on it?.. common.. seriously, it is frustrating for sure.. I've been in that situation multiple times with other OS's and I know it blows.. but that doesn't mean that the OS should deemed as being "worse than the previous one" just because a couple devices won't work on the BETA version of it.. If those devices work on Vista than I'm willing to bet they WILL in fact work by the final release of Windows 7 is not before.. if not then maybe it's time to move onto other devices... if your budget permits of course..

 

[Bazcee]

I guess you're right! Time for some new bits & pieces I've now switched off the Creative card and switched over to the Realtek device, disabled the TV card & guess what... my new Microsoft web cam drivers are incompatible, so I disabled that too!
I dare say that the final will be better than the beta, I hope they keep its footprint as small as it currently is though!
On the whole I like this version, it just surprised me that it couldn't use devices that Vista could, though in fairness I never had the chance to test the beta version of Vista, which might have been worse.
As far as Windows 7 goes it is pretty stable, those items mentioned are the only things that caused it to fall over.
On a different thing, come August 1st, this version will expire. Do Microsoft ever extend the life of these beta's?

 

[davehc]

Not to my knowledge