Windows 7 is basically Vista renamed

phexac

Senior member
Jul 19, 2007
315
4
81
First of all, let me begin by saying that I have been running Vista since the day it came out and I have loved the system from day one. Offloading interface to GPU as and superfetch are the most awesome features. They make the OS smooth and snappy on a decent machine. For the life of me I could never figure out why the feedback was so negative. The system definitely was better than XP from my POV in pretty much every aspect. It's true that I have never tried to run it on P2 300MHz, but why would I ever want to do that?

Now a few years later Win7 comes that is supposed to fix the "issues" with Vista. A question begs itself: what issues? Let's address these one by one.

1. Vista runs slow and needs beefy hardware.
Guess what? Windows 7 needs nearly the same level of hardware to run well as Vista. It may work all right on some marginally lower-end machines, but the difference is not that great. Recommended memory is still 2GB. As it should be. I am running Win7 now, and it's taking up 1.2 GB of RAM. Good, and I hope it's using the rest to pre-cache programs for me so that they pop-right up when I open them, just as they do in Vista. And Windows 7 is snappy on my machine...every bit as snappy as Vista.

But why are there no people complaining about how slow Win7 is? Well, because it's not being compared to XP level of hardware requirement. That does not reflect the quality of the OS, just the direction marketing people pointed us in. But look at the logic here. Vista is bad because its hardware needs are steeper than XP. Windows 7 is fine, even though its hardware requirements are virtually the same as Vista's. Mkay...

2. OMG UAC---halp. Hey Win7 has it too, and it requires nearly as many clicks. One place where I found it needs less is when you copy a file to restricted location. It needs one quick click instead of 2, and that is definitely a positive change. Other than that, it's still all there. Moreover, it's a feature that's also been in Mac for ages. But again, Win 7 - OK, Mac - OK, Vista....bad.

3. "Vista is horrible in general, though I have never tried." This is great, because for those people it goes to, "Windows 7 is great, though I have never tried it."

4. I don't like the look of Vista. Ok, but Win7 looks virtually ideantical.

There are plenty of other examples.

What I think really happened was MS made Vista....and for some reason everyone decided it was horrible, even though most initial reviews were positive. So Ballmer and Gates held a meeting which went something like this:

"Ballmer, man, we are losing our touch. They hate Vista...wtf man. That OS has so many new technologies, and everyone just clings to that retarded XP thing...."
"Well Bill, we'll just have to do better next time--there has to be SOMETHING we can do that people will actually like."
"Like what? All our cool ideas are already in Vista. It's pretty hard to top."
"Well, Bill, you and Steve Jobs are close friends, and everyone LOVES Apple, let's call Steve and see what they can come up with...if anyone can save us, it's Steve!"
"Jeez, man, he's never going to let me hear the end of it...He bet me $1 that I will come to him for help after Vista...but I suppose for Microsoft I have to."

***Rings***

"Hello?. Steve? It's Bill speaking."
"Oh hey Bill. What's up?"
"Well Steve, you were right. I mean, I thought we had something here, but...you were right, we just can't come up with anything good that people like."
"Ah! And you're coming to me for help?"
"Rub it in Steve."
"Hahahahaha....all right, all right, I'm sorry Bill. Just couldn't help myself."
"Look, just help me out man, if this was your OS, what would YOU do? If anyone can help us, it's you Steve!"
"Well, that's true I suppose.Here's what I suggest. STOP TRYING SO HARD!!!"
"Steve...really, you're such an ass sometimes"
"I mean it Bill. Look, there is nothing wrong with Vista. Those fudge monkeys out there are just clueless. Just tell them you're coming up with a new OS that's great and will fix everything. Go on vacation for a year. Then come back, have your people fiddle around with the task bar a bit and add a few gimmicks. Then Call it next Windows and release. They'll gobble it up."
"Steve, we can't do that--our customers will hate us even more than they do now if we stop trying to improve Windows."
"Bill, my poor Bill. They won't. We've been doing this for years. For our next OS, we are just going to rename Leopard and 'release' it again. Heck, I don't think we're even going to rename it all that much. Might add some stars to the wallpaper though..."
"...."
"Bill, just do it. I've gotta run. You owe me a dollar btw. Bye."
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
We have all have different views/opinions on this however I always thought Vista was a very good OS and speedy on my PCs,sure you can argue older hardware had issues with Vista but then XP was designed back in 2001 so you can't expect old hardware to perform well on new operating systems,Win7 addressed the main issue of making it more speedy/ compatible with older hardware .

Win7 is an improved tweaked Vista with some nice new features. Microsoft have take all the best stuff from Vista and you could argue its weakness too with older hardware and tuned it up with Win7.

Consider Win7 will be mainly used on OEM 2009/2010 etc PC hardware(sales wise) and you could argue each year hardware demands for Vista/Win7 is becoming less important,its only when you got old users still using old XP spec PCs it really becomes an issue.

Personally I think its a waste using modern OS on old hardware,modern hardware should go with modern OS in my books,but then thats just my opinion and I know some people use their very old hardware until it dies for thier own reasons(cost,softwarec ompatibility etc..)

Having said all that I think Vista/Win7 are the best operating systems Microsoft have made in my books so far,Win8 /Win9 may be the new improved king on the block down the road we just have to wait and see.

We all know goal posts are moved around with every new operating system, we only have to look at OS history,end of the day you have to move with the times or eventually get left behind.



 

cockeyed

Senior member
Dec 8, 2000
777
0
0
Phexac, great post! I also have used Vista from the start and it has gotten better as it matured. It has worked well for me, but my hardware has always been mid/high performance. The people I know that complain about Vista, either have weak/old hardware or have never used it. Recently I helped on two "bad Vista" machines which the owners had complaints about poor performance. 1st computer: AMD Sempron, 512 memory, OB graphics, Basic Vista - 2nd computer: Celeron, 512 memory, OB Graphics, Basic Vista. And they wondered why "Vista" performed poorly! I think that Microsoft caused alot of their own problem by setting the minimum hardware requirements too low. Anyway, it's now on to Win7 for me sometime next week.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,582
7,645
136
Oh come on, let people enjoy their herd mentality. To their credit Microsoft played it right this time around.

I?m still not moving to 7 (from XP) until I build a new PC next year.
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
3
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Oh come on, let people enjoy their herd mentality. To their credit Microsoft played it right this time around.

I?m still not moving to 7 (from XP) until I build a new PC next year.

STAY OFF MY LAWN!
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
For the life of me I could never figure out why the feedback was so negative.

A. People are dumb.
B. Change is scary.

2. OMG UAC---halp. Hey Win7 has it too, and it requires nearly as many clicks. One place where I found it needs less is when you copy a file to restricted location. It needs one quick click instead of 2, and that is definitely a positive change. Other than that, it's still all there. Moreover, it's a feature that's also been in Mac for ages. But again, Win 7 - OK, Mac - OK, Vista....bad.

The main difference between UAC and the prompts in OS X and Linux are that they happen a lot less in OS X and Linux. Well, that and somehow Apple can do no wrong.

Personally I think its a waste using modern OS on old hardware,modern hardware should go with modern OS in my books,but then thats just my opinion and I know some people use their very old hardware until it dies for thier own reasons(cost,softwarec ompatibility etc..)

It's a waste to not use that hardware regardless of the OS. The machine I'm typing this on is at least 4 years old and I'm completely up to date on all of the packages in my Linux installation and it still runs exactly the same as it did back then. Software, especially an OS, is here to facilitate me, not maintain hardware manufacturer's bottom lines. If Windows was more modular it would fare a lot better in this respect.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: Nothinman
For the life of me I could never figure out why the feedback was so negative.

A. People are dumb.
B. Change is scary.

2. OMG UAC---halp. Hey Win7 has it too, and it requires nearly as many clicks. One place where I found it needs less is when you copy a file to restricted location. It needs one quick click instead of 2, and that is definitely a positive change. Other than that, it's still all there. Moreover, it's a feature that's also been in Mac for ages. But again, Win 7 - OK, Mac - OK, Vista....bad.

The main difference between UAC and the prompts in OS X and Linux are that they happen a lot less in OS X and Linux. Well, that and somehow Apple can do no wrong.

Personally I think its a waste using modern OS on old hardware,modern hardware should go with modern OS in my books,but then thats just my opinion and I know some people use their very old hardware until it dies for thier own reasons(cost,softwarec ompatibility etc..)

It's a waste to not use that hardware regardless of the OS. The machine I'm typing this on is at least 4 years old and I'm completely up to date on all of the packages in my Linux installation and it still runs exactly the same as it did back then. Software, especially an OS, is here to facilitate me, not maintain hardware manufacturer's bottom lines. If Windows was more modular it would fare a lot better in this respect.

I was referring more to Windows then Linux,Linux has much more wider compatible hardware spec then Windows,I'm still using an old AMD XP 1700+ based PC with Kubuntu,problem with mixing old hardware on modern Windows based OS is you get too many users moaning why its not working as fast as their older OS, we all know things change and times move on ,Linux OS seems to be much better with older hardware then Windows OS speed wise.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Originally posted by: Mem
Originally posted by: Nothinman
For the life of me I could never figure out why the feedback was so negative.

A. People are dumb.
B. Change is scary.

2. OMG UAC---halp. Hey Win7 has it too, and it requires nearly as many clicks. One place where I found it needs less is when you copy a file to restricted location. It needs one quick click instead of 2, and that is definitely a positive change. Other than that, it's still all there. Moreover, it's a feature that's also been in Mac for ages. But again, Win 7 - OK, Mac - OK, Vista....bad.

The main difference between UAC and the prompts in OS X and Linux are that they happen a lot less in OS X and Linux. Well, that and somehow Apple can do no wrong.

Personally I think its a waste using modern OS on old hardware,modern hardware should go with modern OS in my books,but then thats just my opinion and I know some people use their very old hardware until it dies for thier own reasons(cost,softwarec ompatibility etc..)

It's a waste to not use that hardware regardless of the OS. The machine I'm typing this on is at least 4 years old and I'm completely up to date on all of the packages in my Linux installation and it still runs exactly the same as it did back then. Software, especially an OS, is here to facilitate me, not maintain hardware manufacturer's bottom lines. If Windows was more modular it would fare a lot better in this respect.

I was referring more to Windows then Linux,Linux has much more wider compatible hardware spec then Windows,I'm still using an old AMD XP 1700+ based PC with Kubuntu,problem with mixing old hardware on modern Windows based OS is you get too many users moaning why its not working as fast as their older OS, we all know things change and times move on ,Linux OS seems to be much better with older hardware then Windows OS speed wise.

I know, and my point was that it should apply to Windows as well. There's no technical reasons stopping MS from having Windows scale back for smaller machines, it already has logic to pick the default pagefile size, display settings, etc.
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
To their credit Microsoft played it right this time around.[...]
Expect for the pricing...

Wake me up when it's $29.95 MIR.

I cannot tell you the last time I bought a Microsoft license (for my own use) - probably Windows 1.0 - which I got at a local thrift store, for the sake of nostalgia. And, so it will go with 7... I'll NEVER buy Windows 7, unless they cut the price to a reasonable level!

I judge that Windows, et al, should cost around $30 retail. I think that's a reasonable price - and a price I'd be willing to pay.

Of course, Microsoft has never sold Windows at a reasonable price to their (ahem) cash cows. Talk about herd mentality... MOOoooo... LoL! Are you shitting me?!?!? $100+ for what? A rehashed version of Windows 6 (Vista)?!?!?! Gimme a break...

I'll simply wait until I get 7 for *free* with a (new or used) computer purchase... just like I've done in the past.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I judge that Windows, et al, should cost around $30 retail. I think that's a reasonable price - and a price I'd be willing to pay.

$30 for something that you'll use daily for probably 5+ years? So you think it should cost you about $6/yr or $0.50/mo? Compared that to cable, cell phone plans, water, food, electricity, gas (house and car), etc. Hell, the only thing cheaper than that would be the air you breath.
 

MBM85

Junior Member
Apr 14, 2009
9
0
0
There are a lot of people claiming Windows 7 runs as well as XP on their older machines, whereas Vista would bring these systems to their knees. So, are these people only seeing what they want to see?
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: phexac
For the life of me I could never figure out why the feedback was so negative. The system definitely was better than XP[...]
It's as simple as this...

Vista (OOTB) did not work for a LOT of ppl, and they were vocal and vociferous about it - for years.

On the other hand, ppl like you (and me) had a good experience with Vista and couldn't figure out what all the rumpus was about.

To 7's credit, I don't 'hear' a lot of bitching about it, and I think 7 ("Vista renamed") will ultimately save Microsoft - only time will tell.

That said, it's estimated that 70%-80% of the world is using XP, so... I don't see XP going away anytime soon.

LoL!

At least all the wailing and gnashing of teeth has subsided...
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: MBM85
There are a lot of people claiming Windows 7 runs as well as XP on their older machines, whereas Vista would bring these systems to their knees. So, are these people only seeing what they want to see?
Smoke n' mirrors? No!

I think this is absolutely true!!!

To my way of thinking... 7 is a neutered version of Vista - and Microsoft's official entry into the world of cloud computing, which doesn't require a powerful machine - a smart phone will do.

If you've got the horsepower, under the hood, I'd go with Vista!

I saw Vista Ultimate for $59 (in a sidebar ad) the other day. Tempting, it is...

If you don't have a lot of power - say a netbook, or green machine - then 7 will be THE way to go, for most (MS) users...
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
13
81
www.markbetz.net
2. OMG UAC---halp. Hey Win7 has it too, and it requires nearly as many clicks. One place where I found it needs less is when you copy a file to restricted location. It needs one quick click instead of 2, and that is definitely a positive change. Other than that, it's still all there. Moreover, it's a feature that's also been in Mac for ages. But again, Win 7 - OK, Mac - OK, Vista....bad.

Nah, it's definitely less. There are lots of examples, but to give one you can click into Device Manager through Control Panel if your account is an admin, without elevating. It's to be expected that they will tune the paths that their own programs, and those of OEMs, take to get to secured resources.
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
re: Pricing - Apple makes an annual service pack, bumps the decimal point up a tick and charges their herd $129 to buy it and they are the coolest company in the world and the line to lick Steve Jobs' ball sweat forms to the right.

Microsoft puts out two or three service packs at no charge to their users and every 4-5 years a complete version upgrade and no matter what price they sell it at, they are called greedy farging bastages who should be giving it away for $29 or less; much less! RAGE!!!!

Don't forget that since you can only run OSX on Apple hardware, you're stuck paying a 50-200% premium for the machinery to run it on. If Apple made a videogame console, they'd sell the games for $40 and charge $1000 for the console itself and the Apple cultists would be sneering about how much cheaper games for their console are.
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: DefRef
[...]no matter what price they sell it at, they are called greedy farging bastages who should be giving it away for $29 or less; much less! RAGE!!!!
College students are eligible for Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade at $29.99.

SUP with that?!?!?
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: DefRef
re: Pricing - Apple[...] charges their herd $129 to buy it[...]
Is that so?

SOURCE: http://www.computerworld.com/s...ales_roar_out_the_gate (ComputerWorld | Snow Leopard sales roar out the gate)

Apple set Snow Leopard's price at $29 for a single license, $49 for a five-license family pack, $100 less than the corresponding Leopard packages, claiming in June that "we want all Leopard users to upgrade to Snow Leopard, so we're pricing it at $29."
Microsoft should be doing the same thing...
 

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: DefRef
re: Pricing - Apple[...] charges their herd $129 to buy it[...]
Is that so?

SOURCE: http://www.computerworld.com/s...ales_roar_out_the_gate (ComputerWorld | Snow Leopard sales roar out the gate)

Apple set Snow Leopard's price at $29 for a single license, $49 for a five-license family pack, $100 less than the corresponding Leopard packages, claiming in June that "we want all Leopard users to upgrade to Snow Leopard, so we're pricing it at $29."
Microsoft should be doing the same thing...

i agree, windows 7 price stinks if you already have vista.

upgrade price should be lower.
 

neothe0ne

Member
Feb 26, 2006
197
0
0
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: DefRef
[...]no matter what price they sell it at, they are called greedy farging bastages who should be giving it away for $29 or less; much less! RAGE!!!!
College students are eligible for Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade at $29.99.

SUP with that?!?!?

The smart ones will be getting Professional for $30. (The lucky ones will be getting Ultimate for $20.)
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: neothe0ne
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: DefRef
[...]no matter what price they sell it at, they are called greedy farging bastages who should be giving it away for $29 or less; much less! RAGE!!!!
College students are eligible for Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade at $29.99.

SUP with that?!?!?

The smart ones will be getting Professional for $30. (The lucky ones will be getting Ultimate for $20.)
Exactly!

Thank you...
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: DefRef
re: Pricing - Apple[...] charges their herd $129 to buy it[...]
Is that so?

SOURCE: http://www.computerworld.com/s...ales_roar_out_the_gate (ComputerWorld | Snow Leopard sales roar out the gate)

Apple set Snow Leopard's price at $29 for a single license, $49 for a five-license family pack, $100 less than the corresponding Leopard packages, claiming in June that "we want all Leopard users to upgrade to Snow Leopard, so we're pricing it at $29."
Microsoft should be doing the same thing...

I knew that some joker was going to bring up the $29 Snow Kitteh upgrade, but that only applies to people with Kitteh already. If you have another pussy-named OS, that'll be $129 for Lord Jobs' wallet, please, and every prior service pack had the same price tag.

I love how people will gladly plunk down $50 and a $15 monthly subscription fee for a game and then turn around and demand that the OS that game runs on be cheaper than free.
 

phexac

Senior member
Jul 19, 2007
315
4
81
I got Win7 for $29.99 for student upgrade version, which after being turned into an ISO effectively turned into a Retail version. Don't mind that price at all, even with very minor upgrades compared to Vista. For $109.99, which is the price of Home Premium OEM, I'd not upgrade, as there is not enough new in Win7 compared to Vista to justify that price.
 

Rottie

Diamond Member
Feb 10, 2002
4,795
1
81
I guess that means Win 7 won't run on Dell Inspiron Mini 10 with 1GB memory so I am out.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,300
23
81
What has always pissed me off about OS pricing is the disparity between retail (even OEM copies) and what the OEM builders must pay for it. I mean, there's no way that Dell is paying M$ a hundred dollars for each copy and providing desktops capable of running smoothly for $299...
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |