Switching to windows 7?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by pwr, Apr 3, 2009.

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

    pwr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Posts:
    70
    Hello,

    I have been starting to think about the future of XP lately, and as much as I love XP, I wil probably be forced to switch to W7 some time down the road, mostly because the developers will likely not keep including XP support in their W7 applications/games (assuming they will be radically different).

    And I absolutely hate the Aero "experience". I hated it at work in Vista, and I hate it in W7. Unless I am able to more or less tailor the W7 interface into resembling my XP setup, then I can't use W7 (I use the SlanXP2 theme from customize.org, which basically just changes the taskbar and windows to a black frame).

    Also, it seems like they had senior citizens in mind when they designed its features. Everything, including settings, is laid out as if it was designed to be controlled with a joypad. Feels like a console.

    I can understand the security changes, but apart from that:

    WHY FIX IT IF IT ISN'T BROKE?!

    Oh well, is anyone else having the similar thoughts - and what are you going to do?
     
  2. PROROOTECT

    PROROOTECT Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Posts:
    1,102
    Location:
    HERE ...Fort Lee, NJ
    Hi pwr,

    I want to buy a PC with Windows 7 for my wife.

    This way my wife would be much occupied with what Windows 7, and I would be quiet on my PC with Windows XP SP2.

    Thank you understood me.


    Warmly, your PRO ...:argh:
     
  3. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,728
    You can use the classic looks in Windows 7.
    That solves the ugliness partially.
    Mrk
     
  4. yashau

    yashau Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    151
    What's so ugly about it? In that case I take it that would prefer a Chevy over a Carrera as well.
     
  5. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,009
    I dont see the problem with it.
    I hate the look of XP now.
    I prefer the look of vista which I use daily and like the look of windows 7 even more.

    btw in windows 7 you cant have the classic start menu anymore.
    imo thats a good thing.

    I rarely use the control panel.
    I just search for what i want using the search box at bottom of start menu and jump right to what i want.
    this way administration is much faster.
     
  6. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,797
    Yeah, I don't see the issue with the look of Vista or 7. I personally like it now and think XP looks old and dated. It's funny cause this is the reaction that XP got initially, everyone thought it looked silly and bad. Gotta move on and change with the times. To me the XP look is now boring....
     
  7. RAD

    RAD Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Posts:
    332
    I have been using/struggling-with VISTA since it first came out.

    I like the "VISTA BASIC" visual interface, but have all the "Aero" features turned off. MS was obviously trying to emulated the "flowing elegance" of the MAC op-sys when they designed Aero.

    They just didn't realize that PC people really are different than MAC people, and we DON'T WANT all that foo-foo nonsense !!!

    We want stable and fast. STABLE and FAST.

    There are really only two things: STABLE AND FAST
    I can only hope they have learned a lesson from the VISTA debacle.
    Unfortunately, I don;'t think they will.


    [MOVE]Did I mention STABLE and FAST ? [/MOVE]
     
  8. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,797
    If they wanted stable and fast, MS should have stuck with Windows 2000 and refined that. It kicks XP's ass on performance.

    Unfortunately, you can't stop progress.... :D
     
  9. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Yes, that is true.

    If I may, let me ask those who now prefer Vista over XP something.

    If you were spending an afternoon or evening setting up a fresh install or doing some tweaking, where you were using many of the different areas of admining the OS, such as NIC properties, device manager, controlpanel. Changing many different settings. Basically, tweaking your computer to your likings.

    Would you find, either Vista or 7 to be intuitively faster? I ask because, my main disappointment above all others, is how slow it is to do many standard tasks, and how many more mouse clicks are involved. That is, both Vista and 7 are slow in navigation compared to any earlier verions of windows.

    If I were performing some test or something like I described above, I am going to realistically say that XP would be twice as fast to navigate and change things in. I have already been doing it. It is the most annoying part of the new OS's.

    Even with that, I will probably buy 7 after it hits a service pack, unless initial problems are very few.

    Sul.
     
  10. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,797
    I have come to like and prefer Vista over XP myself. Mostly because I find performance to be good enough (although I will give the edge to XP), and I do like the look n feel much better than older OS's. I don't do all that much admin or tweaking here, most of that, if any, is done after a fresh install, then I'm done. For daily use, it's just me and my apps, and in that regard, I find Vista x64 to be fine. There are navigational differences I guess, but that doesn't bother me. If it takes me a few more clicks or steps to do something, that's fine, as most likely I won't be doing that repetitively anyway. Also, I have had no issues with apps not working yet either, after using Vista for 9 months now. I suspect 7 will be just as good, if not better.

    I think when 7 is released, that will be the time for many people to finally move on and let XP go.
     
  11. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I'll replace XP with any other Windows when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

    For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would replace an operating system that has matured and works with one that is over bloated and might work for some.

    In my calloused opinion, pioneers who use brand new Operating Systems should get paid by the originating company for their beta testing.

    There. I said it. (SourMilk dons his flameproof suit and hides in a bomb shelter)

    SourMilk out
     
  12. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,638
    Location:
    UK
    I haven't switched to Vista yet, let alone consider Windows 7.
     
  13. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    While Windows XP is a stable operating system, it will eventually have to be phased out. Hence, the need to upgrade to a newer operating system. Also, I do not believe Windows 7 is bloated. In fact, I find the performance to be very good, especially for a beta version.
     
  14. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    My Windows XP OS is 2.7GB. How big are the new Windows (Vista/7)? If all you need can be found in less than 3GB, I consider any larger to be bloat.

    SourMilk out
     
  15. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    Windows 7 is smaller compared to Vista (fresh install). I did not really pay attention to the size of Windows 7 after a fresh installation, but I would assume it is ~2 GB.
     
  16. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,797
    What difference does it make how much disk space the files take up? Who cares about that? The real issue is performance. Does the OS perform well, is it snappy, responsive and fast, etc etc.
     
  17. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,797
    LOL.... :D

    You could say the exact same thing about Windows 2000 and XP. Why in the world did they bring out XP, which looked like Mickey Mouse, when Windows 2000 was great, outperformed XP by miles, and something new was not needed.

    Face it, it's just going to happen, it's marketing and sales $$ mostly, with a few new features etc.

    You can't stop "progress" as they say, and once Windows 7 hits the streets, XP will begin it's slow phase-out and death, just like Windows 2000. There is nothing to be done about it. So might as well hop on the 7 train and enjoy the ride... ;)
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,009
    vista has alot of under the hood changes to make it more stable and reliable.
    for example if a display driver crashs in vista it will restart in a few seconds since it is largely user mode.
    if a display driver crashs in xp you will have to do a hard reboot.

    windows 7 is the underneath of windows vista (more stable and reliable) but is faster than xp. it also has some nice new features such as the new taskbar and better codec support. unless you use itunes good riddens to quicktime.

    you still have to reboot for alot of things with vista and windows 7=(
    less than xp but still to much.

    do people still think vista is just a new gui?
    microsoft done alot of work from xp > vista.

    there is a few things I want:
    1. more stable ala linux/other unix based operating systems.
    2. less reboots aka hardly ever needed.
    3. no slowdowns after installing and uninstall software because the registry cant handle it... it should be as fast as the day you installed it.
    4. better hardware support out the box. on linux all my hardware works right away. well creative x-fi doesnt but that is creative's fault.
    i have an idea thou. windows should include all network cards wireless and wired. all the rest of the drivers should be got the first time you run windows update. this would mean you can get the other drivers and you dont have tons of wasted space on disc for devices you do not have.
    overall i prefer windows to any other operating systems but wish the above three things could be fixed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  19. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Being a die hard xp fan, I do remember when xp was the spawn of evil. Vista/7 is the same thing. I do think Vista, from my use, is definately more like a Windows ME event than what XP was over 98/2k.

    All in all, having been using it a lot for awhile now, it is not unusable. For myself, I evolve to better drivers, browsers, games, tools, utilites, etc etc, all the time. There are times when older versions are better, but usually the newer versions bring better features.

    However, why must we be staring into a sort of Mac wannabe? I don't mind Aero, in fact I actually like it. But much of what I do is naviagate the OS. For years MS has kept a 'scheme' of where the tools to manage itself are, and how you get there. For years, it seemed, they have strived to make it more convenient to reach those tools in the shortest most logical route, while not changing it enough to confuse even intermediate users.

    Now I will say, I have been through the guts of every windows OS starting at DOS. 9x started it all with a certain layout as to where things were. XP/2k had some changes that were mildly different, but actually offered a better method to get to where you were going. Vista/7, not so at all. Personally, I find everytime I want to do something, I have to go hunting for it. But not just finding 'where are the network adapter properties', but having to click 4 different links to get there, when it should take 1 or 2.

    Everyone has thier gripe on new features. And every gripe will be different. I just wished they would have left some logic in thier new layout, so those of us who don't use it much, could help those who do, withuot doubling or tripling the time, just looking for where they put that tool you need, or worse, how to navigat to it. I mean really, does it have to change that much to be new?

    Oh well, hopefully when I start using it full time I can tweak it to where it is as fast with a click or two to get where I want. If not, hopefully there will be some good replacement shells for it that do it anyway.

    Sul.
     
  20. Pliskin

    Pliskin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Posts:
    343
    Why .NET Framework requirement? Whyyy?
    Maybe because of the people who like the gui? Thank you guys.
     
  21. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Well, we still use the wheel alot and it's pretty darn old technology. :blink: LOL
     
  22. Defcon

    Defcon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Posts:
    332
    I suppose if someone is happy with their W2k/XP install then there is no reason to change, of course. I am running Win7 on all my pc's and have never had a better install or usage experience. I didn't have to find or install a single driver, it feels faster than XP (a fact which is also reported by many online reviews of 7), has a ton more functionality, and looks a lot better. I have nothing to complain about.
     
  23. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,797
    Yep, but I don't think XP is the wheel..... :)

    I'm not knocking XP, I have XP x64 here and use it also.... But there will come a day when most have left it behind I think... like everything else.
     
  24. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    When there are Windows7 themes/transformation packs available for XP and Vista, I am sure the converse will also be true. Maybe in a few months, you'll find the XP theme for Win7 and everything will be great again.
     
  25. yashau

    yashau Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    151
    If disk space or any other resources is a problem then you should forget installing Vista/Windows 7 altogether and stick with XP because technology moves faster every single day and newer applications demand newer/faster hardware and if you haven't got it then too bad for you. Technology won't stop moving forward just because you want it to. Most modern systems have more than enough disk space to cater for an OS. I myself have almost 2TB of storage.

    By the way the whole XP is more stable is just hogwash. People keep reading fanboy articles all over the internet and just because one person says that Vista is so bloody slow and it crashes all the time doesn't mean you got to believe it. Believe me when I say that XP was A LOT WORSE when it came out. XP was only usable as an OS 24/7 when service pack 2 was released. Vista was already incredibly stable before service pack one and after service pack one I can't find a single fault in it. Take this small example as how Vista/Win7 is more stable, if your display driver crashes in the middle of a 3D app such as game or media player or animation app XP will just reboot without even trying to recover it. With Vista/Win7 it will at least try to recover from where it left off (and almost always does so successfully) saving you an incredible amount of work sometimes. Same goes for people that think x64 Windows is crap. It's just not true. You got to try it for some time. It might seem like new environment at first and might take some getting used to but if you just be patient it will work out. :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.