Version: 2008

Comments on: Windows 7: A better Vista?

With the new operating system, Microsoft aims to address many of Vista's shortcomings while keeping things largely the same under the hood.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (159 Comments)
by ppgreat October 28, 2008 9:06 AM PDT
Vista SP3.
Reply to this comment
by Kev_Orng October 28, 2008 10:25 AM PDT
I think you mean Windows ME SP4
by slickuser October 28, 2008 1:09 PM PDT
yes, ofcourse!
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 2:39 AM PDT
Did they let you out of your padded cell just to write that?

How cute! And I see you bought your friends with you!
by sweaty_taco October 29, 2008 2:12 PM PDT
Yawn. You are like the David Hasselhoff of broken records. **** already with your anti-MS rants. It's f***ing old.
by YankeePoodle October 30, 2008 10:57 AM PDT
To put my two cents, why are people here fighting Mac vs PC. All I can see whenever there is discussion about Windows, the AppleFanBots cannot resist being on the sidelines.

Apple is great, OS X is great but all us dont have budgets of over 1500$ for a notebook, that is a fact. My priorities are some where else, just spare me the jobs gospel.
by ithomas94 January 8, 2009 5:44 PM PST
by YankeePoodle October 30, 2008 10:57 AM PDT
To put my two cents, why are people here fighting Mac vs PC. All I can see whenever there is discussion about Windows, the AppleFanBots cannot resist being on the sidelines.

Apple is great, OS X is great but all us dont have budgets of over 1500$ for a notebook, that is a fact. My priorities are some where else, just spare me the jobs gospel.
It's pretty funny how many people leave out Linux in all this. Seriously, PC can equal Linux and Windows as well.
by DarkHawke October 28, 2008 9:21 AM PDT
Hey, if the Lord Jobs gets to tack cat names on point versions of OS X, ain't you be rankin' on ol' balmy Ballmer! ;)
Reply to this comment
by timber2005 October 28, 2008 7:46 PM PDT
And "300 new features, including a new dvd loading animation!"
by Kev_Orng October 28, 2008 9:26 AM PDT
I'm impressed that Windows 7 gets sticky notes. Sheesh, Apple didn't get sticky notes till Mac OS 7.5
Take that, Steve Jobs!
Reply to this comment
by compudoc318 October 28, 2008 12:51 PM PDT
you should be impressed that osx gets boot camp with vista to do all the real work that osx cant do....
by marcwickens October 28, 2008 1:38 PM PDT
Only Mac OS didn't get pre-emptive multitasking until version 10 in 2001. Yes, that's right - a program would stop all processing while you held down the mouse. How pathetic, Windows was better than this back in 1994.
I switched to Mac in 2001. I switched back to Windows in 2005 :)
by timber2005 October 28, 2008 7:49 PM PDT
Acutally, "Sticky Notes" was first included with XP Tablet Edition back in 2001(2003 for tablet?). It installs in Vista if you plug in a tablet (like Wacom) or have a tablet. It's a tablet based feature.

Yeah... Apple prolly still had it beat there, prior to Xp Tablet Edition, but not for use with an actual PEN. Not in 7.5!
by thurston24 October 28, 2008 9:43 AM PDT
I have a PC. I run XP on it. I love XP. It is the best OS ever built. When support for XP goes away; I will prolly get a mac.
Reply to this comment
by brianwolters October 28, 2008 10:59 AM PDT
people...get off this XP is great bandwagon. Vista is stable, a joy to use and miles better than XP...XP is so outdated.
by slickuser October 28, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
you should probably get mac now. you will hate xp...
by paulej October 28, 2008 8:00 PM PDT
I have to agree with brianwolters... Vista is better. I have been running Vista for 18 months or so and I have not had any real issues with the OS. The silly prompt to get my permission to do something is annoying, but that's probably the worst thing. I have heard all kinds of negative stories about Vista, but I have never experienced those problems. Perhaps it is because I bought my machine with Vista, so all of the hardware and drivers worked? If you are holding on to XP for that reason, might I suggest you buy a new Dell?
by Lerianis October 30, 2008 1:35 PM PDT
Norton has a way to fix the UAC thing, paulej. A least for after you install applications, they have a UAC plugin that puts a option to 'never ask again' for a program in the box and allows you to permanently allow or permanently deny it.
I've been using it for about a day now, and I love it. I don't permanently allow things to run in Administrator mode that are 'one time' or that I have to click and press 'administrator mode' for, but anything else that HAS to run in Administrator Mode.... I've permanently allowed them.
by Seaspray0 October 31, 2008 7:24 AM PDT
@paulej. Yes, it is because you bought it with vista. When it came out, well over half the computers were not suited to run it, nor were drivers available. Speed tests showed it to be slighly slower than XP on several functions. Even today, I have to deal with vista compatibility problems in a corporate environment. It also took several years to iron out all the problems with XP, as a comparison.
by Harrison912 October 31, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
I'm with paulej on this. I bought my Dell with Windows Vista already installed and have been problem free other than the annoying prompts. I'm a web site owner of safety and security items so I'm on my computer a lot. I social market to raise awareness for my products on MySpace, Facebook and others so I'm constantly cutting and pasting, right clicking bringing up multiple pages, etc and it's been fine. I have a Dell laptop and I would definitiely get another one.
by ithomas94 January 8, 2009 5:48 PM PST
funny; out of 7 people, only one (me) will mention Linux as an option.
Linux does everything XP, Vista, and OS X can and can't do.
Compiz is years ahead of anything OSX and Windows will be able to do.
Linux is both prettier and more stable than OS X and Windows.
And.
It's free.
by drfrost February 23, 2009 11:34 AM PST
ithomas94: I love Ubuntu. I use it for working at home (my work machine "at work" is red hat enterprise version). But my other passion that involves computers is games. And, at this point, that pretty much means windows. The day I can get most of my games on Ubuntu (WoW, other online RPG's, first person shooters, single player RPG's like the upcoming Diablo 3, etc.) I'll be done with other OS's. Unfortunately, I don't really see that happening in the near future....
by RainCaster October 28, 2008 9:52 AM PDT
I switch daily between XP, Vista and Win7 machines as one of the priveleged few outside Microsoft. XP feels clunky in comparison. It takes so many more clicks to get anything done on my XP machines that it feels awkward and frustrating to me.
Reply to this comment
by ggordonliddy October 28, 2008 3:49 PM PDT
Name one thing you can do faster on Vista than XP. And don't say search, because Winkey+f gets you search on XP (though on any version of Windows you need to get to a command prompt to do a filename-based search that will actually return all relevant files).

There are many things that are faster on XP. And it has less bugs. If you like Vista, you might as well get a Mac because Vista (like OS X) is just designed to wow you with flashy UI (which in reality is nauseating if you are not a Mac or MS fanboi), rather than actually being an invisible engine upon which your real apps run.
by jessiethe3rd October 28, 2008 5:02 PM PDT
This is very true. Getting to the tasking menu - right click on bar - there. Most recently used applications - dynamic versus static. Moving back and forth in touch flow - pleasureable and useful. Sidebar... SWEET - news and information at my finger tips without poking around in XP. This is one of the many things... the interface in Vista is just "better".
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 2:42 AM PDT
Gaming for a start. And in DirectX 10.

Honestly, you XP monkeys should just learn to let go.
by bgnm October 28, 2008 9:54 AM PDT
Last week, MS issued a major security patch for the pre-beta version. This does not seem to portend well
Reply to this comment
by Vegaman_Dan October 28, 2008 11:23 AM PDT
Considering the hard drives with this release were burned weeks previously to when this vulnerabiilty came out, then having the patch come out *before* those same drives are used to install from is pretty darn proactive.

This does seem to portend well, in direct counterpoint to your comment.
by Penguinisto October 28, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
In that case, tell us Dan: Why does an allegedly revolutionary OS still carry bugs in it from eight years ago?

/P
by timber2005 October 28, 2008 11:46 AM PDT
Because it is nearly IDENTICAL to the Vista/Server 2008 kernal, but if you paid attention to the information on that, XP got a 'critical' rating to install that, Vista 'important/recommended' and Win7? recommended.
by rapier1 October 28, 2008 12:24 PM PDT
Penguinisto,

Your growing level of shrillness is astounding to behold. Its like the unfolding of a flower.
by compudoc318 October 28, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
penguinisto....., any post on here about ms, he'll chime in with some garbage....wake up if apple is so great, how come no one uses it??? oh wait after all their advertising, still at what 8-9 percent share.....after 20 some years.....wow! and i always love to point out that apple said in a conference about boot camp " i hate seeing windows on our computers" .....lol. all this talk from apple fan boys saying to fix vista when it works fine, should turn that hate to apple to have them build an os that doesnt need windows in it to get the job done.........
by Vegaman_Dan October 28, 2008 2:49 PM PDT
Penguinisto wrote:

"In that case, tell us Dan: Why does an allegedly revolutionary OS still carry bugs in it from eight years ago? "

I'm not sure, perhaps you should ask Apple that question for the multitude of iTunes bugs, OS X bugs, and more?

Really now, you can do better than that if your'e just here to troll. Come back when you have something useful to say.
by Penguinisto October 29, 2008 7:04 AM PDT
Wow - the MSFT cheerleading squad came out!

Heya guys - how about answering the question instead of resorting to ad hominem or strawmen arguments... or is that too much for you? Why does an OS that the vendor points at as a heavily reworked product that's allegedly been gone over from the ground up... still have common buffer overflow exploits in it?

...and if it's identical to the Vista kernel (note the spelling, Mr timber), then why should the world bother? Trusting a vendor's ratings (like they'd have no reason to push folks off of XP) is next to worthless - if it's possible on all of them and has the same attack vector, exploit, etc, then it's equally possible.
by Vegaman_Dan October 29, 2008 7:35 AM PDT
Penguinisto wrote:

"Heya guys - how about answering the question instead of resorting to ad hominem or strawmen arguments... or is that too much for you?"

Well, I believe it's because *YOU* don't answer the questions put forth to you. This sort of behavior is classic for a troll. You have chosen to behave this way. Don't be surprised when people treat you with the amount of respect you have earned by that behavior.

But I'll answer your question. The OS still has issues because without rewriting the entire thing from scratch, there will always be legacy issues. You know this, and you have even commented on it frequently. Why you have forgotten your own comments or chosen to ignore them is up to you. Any IT Professional knows this. Apple has the same exact issue with OS X, which you conveniently ignored. Amazing how that is.

Once again, your failure to completely understand the subject before posting without any evidence, proof, or even little ducks walking along a roadside in England in a spring rain have embarassed you.

If you would like to help automate your postings, I believe SportCo has a special on trolling motors. :)

Do you paint your pot any other color than kettle black, Penguinisto?
by rapier1 October 29, 2008 8:05 AM PDT
Penguinisto,

Personally, I really like OS X. It why I'm using it right now. I also really like linux, which is why most of my production machines use it. I also like Vista because its a solid OS and fits a large number of roles. What I don't like is knee jerk reactionary responses. I dislike shrill poorly thought out arguments based on willful ignorance. I really dislike closed mindsets that take up pointless partisan positions based on emotion laden ideology.

Its not that you don't have a valid point. This bug is embarrassing and never should have seen the light of day. However, developers are still struggling with classes of bugs that are *decades* old so having a vulnerability like this show up isn't unexpected because its endemic to the industry as a whole. It's not just a failing within MS.
by CrashPad63 October 30, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
Well read the real story about it. Even seasoned security experts did not catch this one. Although in the same location as a overflow bug from 2006 this one passed through the "fuzz" test several times by microsoft and scrutiny of security experts around the world. One expert expressed with dismay his inabilty to see this flaw even scrutinizing it again just last week. His words "it was right in front of me and I could not see it" By the way MS themselves found this flaw and cranked the patch out quickly.
Penguine, just go away. You hate MS so your opinion means nothing here. Youre just a shill spouting hate and disinformation. Go back to your linux, it suits you well.
See more comment replies
by celticbrewer October 28, 2008 10:01 AM PDT
Of course it'll be a better Vista. If it were a worse Vista, we could just call it XP. My family, friends, and myself are 10 times happier with Vista than XP.
Reply to this comment
by martman1 October 29, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
so your family and friends are all retarded? Call the retard train, whooo whoooo!
by wolivere October 29, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
So are the other 180,000 million other Vista Users? uh huh...
by IsaiBarajas October 30, 2008 5:09 PM PDT
Vista hasn't been able to be faster than xp in the benchmarks, the only area in which vista is slightly faster than xp is in the windows media content processing. This is actually interesting if you care to see the real data, since many people clam vista is faster or more advance than xp. In facts vista is the beginning of a new os which will be more stable with the release of windows 7, the only annoying thing is that people who bought vista are going to pay again for it with a different name (Windows Seven), which is a fixed version of vista, check the versions, windows vista is 6.0 and windows seven is 6.1 (And stop you're zealotry over what is good and what sucks).
by spacydog October 28, 2008 10:27 AM PDT
Like many people using Vista have found, most of the negative publicity over Vista has been overly hyped. The OS works fine. For those still sticking with XP, it'll still be your choice until you realize you are generations behind new and better technology.
Reply to this comment
by Kev_Orng October 28, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
That's basically the reason why I won't go backwards to either Vista or XP, it feels old-school compared to OSX. Windows just seems to be still trying to live the "Look what we can do!" philosophy of the 90s rather than enabling the user with a thoughtfully designed UI.

I am, however, willing to give Win7 a chance, because I'm always open to the latest tech, and I'm okay with being coaxed back if I think it's worth it. So far, though, I'm still seeing a lot of transparent windows, and man, I got sick of those in 2003.
by MPB October 29, 2008 1:39 AM PDT
Not to be a Apple fan boy here, but if you wont the "new and better technology" switch to mac. Microsoft is just playing catch up with Vista and my hopes aren't really high for windows 7.
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 2:44 AM PDT
I'm still waiting for people to tell me what OSX actually does better than Vista for regular users other than the 'experience' which seems to largely consists of looking at a spinning beachball when it falls over rather than an hourglass.
by Renegade Knight October 29, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
Mark A.

OS X works. Vista works but only if you get in pre-installed on a new Vista Machine. Upgrading old ones (even though Vista does come in an upgrade vesion) is a PITA. Worse than XP, 98, 95, 3.1 and 1.X combined. That's my personal experience. I like the Vista interface, but I also like things to work. My most recent install where I used all the Drivers from the OEM failed. After fighting with it I went to XP which worked.

Because the interface it better if you haven't hit the dog side of Vista you would think it's great. For me. It's a dog. One I'd like to like but it just keeps biting me.
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 2:59 PM PDT
To be honest I wouldn't recommend upgrading an old machine to Vista just as I would never recommend running a legacy OS like XP on new hardware (unless it was a sub 1.6GHZ CPU netbook of course).

However OSX works? Well, yes, most of the time but in my experience anyway it's no more reliable than post SP1 Vista.

YMMV.
by jerquiaga October 29, 2008 9:09 PM PDT
Mark A. -

OS X just works? Perhaps you can come by my site and help our video guys get their disc printer working so I can take the Vista VM off of their OS X machine. The software provided by the company has all sorts of problems in OS X, and works flawlessly in Vista (without even installing software). I'm really glad OS X "just works."
by Mark_Anderson October 30, 2008 2:44 AM PDT
Yes, OSX generally works just as Vista does. They do, however, both fall over now and again and have some compatibility issues.

Not sure what the point of your post was.
by CrashPad63 October 30, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
You guys are drinking way too much koolaid. NT is the newer OS over Unix. Now Apple stole Unix code to slap together a OS after Jobsy decided to come back, however he has very few good coders and has not been able to really make the Unix anybatter than originally was as a open and free BSD.
To bad you stuck in the past, you really outta break out and see the world for what it is, free and open with MS.
by Seaspray0 October 31, 2008 8:08 AM PDT
@mark.P.Bartlett... "new and better technology switch to mac".

In what way? You and those apple commercials have yet to make one statement as to WHY you consider it better. If you are going to state why, tell the whole truth on not the apple spin on the truth which doesn't tell the entire story. Apple commercials are just as bad as the one I just saw saying the reason I should buy an SUV is becuase it has more "cup holders". If you say, "It has a better browser", then state why. If there are things in the browser that aren't better, then don't ommit those either. In other words, tell it all. Then, and only then, will I listen. I've used OSX and do not support your claim that it's better. It's different, and for you that may be what you want. Just don't expect everyone to share your beliefs. So far all you and apple has done is try to scare people into believing the competition is bad, but has said nothing about themselves. When politicians do that, it's usually because they are worse.
by viper396 November 5, 2008 4:02 PM PST
Renegade Knight ? ?OS X works. Vista works but only if you get in pre-installed..? , what a completely unfair and ignorant comparison. Have you ever tried to upgrade an older Mac from say OS9 to OSX? By very definition all Mac?s come preinstalled with the only OS they?ll ever reliably use. It?s not like everyone builds their own Macs then installs OSX onto it. I guarantee you the (very) small handful of people that do try to build their own Mac run into problems. Macs are appliances. They have a very limited number of hardware configurations and a limited number of apps. That is the only way any of the so called stability and reliability of a Mac could ever be accomplished. If OSX ever had to be written to accommodate the enormous amount of hardware and software configuration possible in the Windows world a majority of the Mac?s so called advantages would be rendered mute.

Personally , there is nothing more hypocritical then a bunch of Mac users making broad statements about the failing of Windows. You Mac users waste a lot of time trying to convince people to switch without ever providing a real and tangible argument. The fact is there isn?t a single thing that a Mac can do that a Windows machine cannot.
by rick47591 October 28, 2008 10:38 AM PDT
Ho hum...another Win-Me. Which is it this time? A 2nd or a 3rd edition? Or better yet...the 7th edition of Windows-Me.


Vista and Windows 7 are about money. Nothing else. XP will be supported till 2014. Why change? Why fix something that isn't broken?
Reply to this comment
by Vegaman_Dan October 28, 2008 11:25 AM PDT
Because you don't drive a Model T anymore. It wasn't broken either. The world moves on- don't get left behind.
by compudoc318 October 28, 2008 12:37 PM PDT
enjoy your beta max movies and 8 tracks caveman
by jessiethe3rd October 28, 2008 5:08 PM PDT
Because it's all about perception - that's how stock price is changed and that my friend is how business is run. If you are running Linux fiddling with your kernal and tinkering with your bin/ and prompts yippy ki yeah. Back on planet earth Apples insistance of "PC versus Mac" lead to fluff which further leads to... "Vista sucks" which of course means better,newer, smarter designed product. I guarantee you a lot of the feature functionality that was in Office 2007 (which does kick butt) will make it's way into Vista (hence there has been a migration/move of intellect around in Microsoft - just poke around and you'll see.)

W7 will be better... thanks for the fluff Apple - now we get o reap the benefits versus the over price - overhyped OSX now with so many finger gestures you'll be lucky to use/understand how they work for ages (thank goodness it's on "silky smooth glass" YIPPY!!!)
by Understarsidream October 28, 2008 5:30 PM PDT
I agree. Our culture puts entirely too much emphasis on the "bigger better faster more" - part of which is why we are having this massive financial crisis. People cannot tell between what they want and what they need. People don't "need" Vista if XP is working fine for them. The same goes for Office, for 95% of people they haven't added any "OMG" features in years.
by Renegade Knight October 29, 2008 2:17 PM PDT
Vegaman_Dan:

The Model T was a flex fuel vehicle. Sometimes the world catches up to what has already been done. XP isn't broken. Vista isn't perfect. There is room for both as they continue to get the bugs out of Vista. When they hit SP2 I'll try it again where it's failed to do the job. I do like the inferface.
by Vegaman_Dan October 29, 2008 2:52 PM PDT
"The Model T was a flex fuel vehicle."

Good point, my truck is also a flex fuel vehicle- but that doesn't mean I can actually buy any ethanol for it. The nearest supplier is nearly 80 miles away on a military base that isn't open to the public. Heh.
by Seaspray0 October 31, 2008 8:27 AM PDT
Dan, if you owned a 2004 year car, it doesn't mean you have to replace it simply because 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008 year models have come out. Most people will wait until the car needs to be replaced or find a compelling reason to do so. I and others do not see the need or find any compelling reason to replace XP with either vista or osx or linux. I want more milage out of my computer before I trade it in for the new model.
by wde62 October 28, 2008 10:53 AM PDT
Vista's primary problem has been Apple's amazing advertising. They have successfully convinced the masses that Vista has problems. I've been running Vista at home since it came out. I've had no viruses, no trojans, no problems at all - with 3 teenagers constantly downloading who knows what. I don't even run anti virus software. Under XP, I was cleaning up (mostly ad-ware, but some viruses) weekly - even though I ran Semantic anti virus.
Vista runs fast (turn off AERO), and has yet to slow down like XP always did after a few months. Sticking with XP is like sticking with a rotary phone.
UAC is annoying when you first set things up, but after that it doesn't pop up that often.
Regarding Windows 7, MS took a lot of flack for taking so long to release Vista and vowed to ship a replacement within 3 years... by 2010.
Reply to this comment
by Olu070 October 28, 2008 11:30 AM PDT
Don't blame Apple for Vista's poor adoption. I think the universally bad reviews from most tech sectors had more to do with that. Apple just grabbed the ball and ran with it.
by wolivere October 28, 2008 12:32 PM PDT
But the thing is Vista Adoption has not been bad. Its actually being adopted at a faster rate then the Win98 to XP conversion.

As for the reviews, was it not strange when a lot of those reviewers got p tin a room with VISTA named something different. Then they all suddenly liked it?

As for Ran for it? In 2008 was good for mac they got up to 2.6 million Macs shipped. In comparison for the same Q4 sales HP 11,900,000, Dell 9,666.000, Other 32,180,000 Total PC sales 65,587,000.

Microsoft Q4, 2008 shows 180,000,000 Vista Licenses shipped to date. Up from 80-90 million mark of Q4-2007. So yes Vista is doing pretty good despite, urban legend.
by sanenazok October 28, 2008 12:49 PM PDT
The "masses" don't care about Apple advertising. They want doo-dads and a laptop for $500 at Best Buy. The masses don't know the difference between Vista. My boss basically uses "Office 2008" and Vista to mean the same thing. It's the computer enthusiast world that makes a big deal out of pretty pointless things, like which OS is better. The masses don't notice, understand or don't care.
by ronan001 October 28, 2008 1:37 PM PDT
people tend to forget that the majority of windows users are business users. the real problem is xp is fine. if you ran a business, would you spend thousands on a new version, if the one you have works perfectly for your needs. It doesnt make business sense. Only people like us who love new technology see it as a worth while investment. Talk to anyone who just wants to run office and one or two other apps. There is no financial reason to upgrade.
by jessiethe3rd October 28, 2008 5:13 PM PDT
Reasons to update to Vista Enteprise from XP:

MUI - multi-language support
4 OS Virtualization out of the box (yes run four OS's for the price of one...)
Bitlocker for hard drive encryption
Better management tools for deployment

Those are four good reasons to upgrade not including the productivity gains. Same up-take (Windows 2000 to Windows XP Pro)... business does it especially when your support for hotfixes goes bye bye and all the application vendors finally get on board.
by i_made_this October 28, 2008 5:41 PM PDT
wde62 nice one - agreed. No one stops to consider (1) how many hundreds of millions of dollars that APPL ad series has cost APPL shareholders thru year over year 9/30/07 to 9/30/08 - and the ad's aren't nearly finished! (2) how severely APPL's just-announced new product line has infuriated old fans of Apple (like my 30-yr old daughter who's a 3D animated graphics designer and LOVES Vista - she just pulled the trigger on $2.7 million that'd normally go to APPL once every two years and has had it with their "decision to donate the graphics industries to Windows" - when I asked her why she had had it, she responded "because at least there was some hardware quality control for J&J Q Public, but now John & Jane are completely on their own" (3) how brilliant the Vista security & stability advancements have been - all of this got dismissed in the press by people dissing something MSFT has already acknowledged was wrong & dumb of themselves - UAC.

Yes, there remain problems with Vista this first two years, but nowhere near the problems that remained within the second year of XP's release. They put out XP SP1 eventually etc. This time, they've made the SP''s once every 6 months and the new o/s releases once every 30 months.

To those who argue they're just small businessmen who want something that works and only want an o/s and two or three pieces of software - I don't understand why you just don't buy an Ubuntu workstation to run your co's dozen stations - if that's how you define your firm's tech competitiveness, baby, you got all you need with Ubuntu which comes equipped with Firefox and OpenOffice and is one damn fine system. You really do not belong making serious capital decisions this century about Intel / AMD / Nvidia et al hardware, let alone Microsoft / Apple / Google et al software - you don't need all that fancy stuff. Whatever you do, don't forget the fanciest stuff of all - buying your pre-builds through either of the three OEM's who are supplying you. Those three outfits, Mr. Small Businessman, understand you better than you understand yourself and have been taking you to the cleaners daily for years. Yes, those three. Just saying.
by Renegade Knight October 29, 2008 2:18 PM PDT
Vista's primary problem was it's buggy release and it's strict (and horrific) driver requirments that caused buggy drivers.
by Lerianis October 30, 2008 1:43 PM PDT
True, wde62. I got in the 'seedy areas of the net' quite a bit.... I have no problems at all. Haven't gotten any viruses (except ones that Norton caught immediately), haven't gotten any spyware, haven't gotten any malware.... because I am running Vista and it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get a virus on your machine unless you are stupid enough to download a file, run it, and then keep on running it when your anti-virus (which you should listen to) says it a virus, malware or spyware.

UAC is annoying (and Norton's Beta Lab add-on to it fixes that problem, by adding a 'allow always' thing to programs that HAVE TO RUN in Administrator Mode because they are for changing system setting that are protected by Vista, and can't be changed in standard mode) but you get used to it. Really, on a daily basis..... I only see 1 UAC prompt, maybe 2 if I run CCleaner or Tweaknow Powerpack. That one UAC prompt I see is to install the latest Firefox Minefield version (I'm an early, early tester with those).
by sparrowhyperion October 28, 2008 10:57 AM PDT
From the screen shots and other info I have seen on Windows 7, it seems that it is basically Windows Vista with some small changes. Kind of like what Windows 98 and Millennium were to Windows 95. I see no reason to upgrade since Vista works perfectly on my system. I think W7 is probably just another attempt to pry more cash out of the poor users by selling what is basically just an update as if it were a whole new OS.
Reply to this comment
by compudoc318 October 28, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
all that on looks???? it could look the same and be drastically different, try and see, dont be like all these idiot vista haters whove never even tried vista
by Renegade Knight October 29, 2008 2:19 PM PDT
You hit the nail on the head. 7 keeps the things that made Vista a problem and fixes fluff. I flat out would not expect to have a better track record using 7 where Vista has failed me.
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
@Renegade

I'm not with you when you say W7 keeps the things that made Vista a problem. Can you elaborate?
by Lerianis October 30, 2008 1:48 PM PDT
sparrowhyperion, most of the functionality will probably be backported to Vista. If you are running Vista, most likely you will not have to upgrade to Windows 7 unless something extremely good comes out in the next 3 years or so.
As to it being 'just an update'.... as to the Windows 95 vs. 98 thing..... no sirree! Windows 98 included a LOT OF STUFF under the hood that Windows 95 didn't have.
As to Windows 98 and Windows ME..... yeah, that was an update, which had some BIG ASS problems with it. Windows ME, from my own experience putting it on and testing it on my older machine....... big time crash prone. But most of that problem.... DRIVER ISSUES (sings the stuff in big type).
Those driver issues were pretty much fixed with Windows XP, so that a device driver would not run in system space and be able to take down the whole system. They improved that in Vista.
And, let's face facts..... Vista came out 7, almost 8, years after XP did..... it was time for an update to the operating system, and a paid one at that. Now, did Microsoft make it too expensive? Yeah, they should have made it 50 dollars for one computer, 150 for 3.
by sparrowhyperion October 28, 2008 11:02 AM PDT
From the screen shots and other info I have seen on Windows 7, it seems that it is basically Windows Vista with some small changes. Kind of like what Windows 98 and Millennium were to Windows 95. I see no reason to upgrade since Vista works perfectly on my system. I think W7 is probably just another attempt to pry more cash out of the poor users by selling what is basically just an update as if it were a whole new OS.
Reply to this comment
by jdmacor October 29, 2008 7:10 AM PDT
Actually, the UI is markedly different. The screen gallery in this article is for the build released to developers, but internally MS has shown the new taskbar which is drastically different. Look up those screenshots to see the real differences. Also, expanding the use of the MS Office ribbon is a great move; it is the type of interface that seems more complicated, but once you use it for a while, you will find it far more intuitive than the old obscurely worded hierarchical menu system. In other words, if you had never used Office before, you could learn to use Office ?07 much faster than previous versions.

To your point though, it is building on the same core, which may be a good thing. Vista is fairly stable and secure and may be worth building off of, as opposed to tearing down and starting from scratch.
by shinelikeitdoes October 28, 2008 11:07 AM PDT
wow. with windows 7 you can *choose* how many annoying popup messages you get! another unnecessary interaction. again. ms completely misses the plot.
Reply to this comment
by Vegaman_Dan October 28, 2008 11:27 AM PDT
You would rather have no choice in the matter at all? I fail to see how giving the end user a choice in how the operating system alerts them is a bad thing.
by mattumanu October 28, 2008 4:01 PM PDT
Listen Dan, Microsoft for all their zeal in protecting their users, set up Vista to do exactly what the malware they are protecting their users from, namely throw popups at you every few minutes. That was a serious mistep, and over all a very BAD thing.
by trd1282 October 28, 2008 4:25 PM PDT
Dan is only partially right, because we all know microsoft will never ship a product with that option OFF by default...
by jessiethe3rd October 28, 2008 5:15 PM PDT
UAC is on Apple as well... it's no different. It may come up a bit less and therefore they will give you control. Funny thing is people were complaining on how Microsoft is so unsecure... they put UAC on and now everyone is complaining about how irritating UAC is... get a clue.
by Vegaman_Dan October 29, 2008 7:40 AM PDT
The UAC was put there to protect people from themselves. The implementation was a bit too sensitive to system changes and very much too 'in your face' about such things. But really, unless you are actively installing applications or doing a lot of integrated system maintenance on a constant basis, then you wouldn't really run into it that much. A daily average user wouldn't see it often at all. Geeks and tech types will because we can't leave a perfectly good running system alone without poking at it. :)

I think Win7 has addressed all those concerns quite well. Try it when you get a chance.
by Lerianis October 30, 2008 1:52 PM PDT
jessiethe3rd is right. Frankly, UAC comes up on Apple operating systems as well from time to time.... but it's only when a piece of software isn't on their 'whitelist', which is constantly updated.
That is where Microsoft got UAC wrong.... it didn't make a whitelist to cut down on unnecessary UAC prompts.
by ferretboy88 October 28, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
Why do the Apple Cult elites feel the need to always comment on every non apple product thread like little babies. Of course windows 7 will be better.
Reply to this comment
by MPB October 29, 2008 1:33 AM PDT
Hey Microsoft said that Vista would be better than XP........ ha what a joke.
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 2:48 AM PDT
Except it actually is.

I know it's difficult for Apple fans to think for themselves what with the Lord God Jobs telling you what you do and don't need (Firewire, Blu-Ray and standard video connectors for a start) but you can if you try.

Can you try? If not for us then for the sake of the children?
by Penguinisto October 29, 2008 7:05 AM PDT
@Mark: in what way?

/P
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 8:35 AM PDT
Aside from the better security, DirectX 10 support, improved stability, better power management, better searching and the easy facility to stop users doing unbelievably stupid things to their computer you mean?
by The_happy_switcher October 29, 2008 2:04 PM PDT
...because it's so much fun to ridicule and put down inferior products? Just a guess.
by sweaty_taco October 29, 2008 2:19 PM PDT
Hey Applecocks1963 please enlighten us on how inferior it is to OSuX?
by Renegade Knight October 29, 2008 2:22 PM PDT
Mark_Anderson,

Again we face Vista's Flaws. Direct X 10 being one of them. They handled the change poorly. If this was Vista's only flaw I would have been tickled pink.
by Mark_Anderson October 29, 2008 3:03 PM PDT
@Renegade Knight

But how is this Vista's flaw? Microsoft's handling perhaps, but I'm not seeing where the OS is at fault here?
by ferretboy88 November 4, 2008 9:31 AM PST
Its ok to not like a product or company but to come in all the time and just say silly things is lame.
by kwhsy82 October 28, 2008 12:45 PM PDT
Windows 7 seems solid ergonomic improvements on Vista, whose kernel and device driver support give it a head start. For those who care: I use Vista, XP and a Mac.
I'm just curious: in say early 2010 when it ships (my guess) -- will everyone be talking about anything from Android version 3 to some $149 netbook with linux to ??
In other words, as MSFT tactically improves the product, are they missing the next thing? (And yes, I know someday Azure will ship too).
It just seems a lot of years/dollars for stuff that seems pretty pragmatic.
Reply to this comment
by bayshmoe October 28, 2008 1:06 PM PDT
What about WinFS?
Reply to this comment
by Vegaman_Dan October 28, 2008 2:52 PM PDT
WinFS isn't in this version of Windows. That was announced nearly a year ago and is old news.
by jessiethe3rd October 28, 2008 5:17 PM PDT
Actually I do not believe WinFS was confirmed or uncomfirmed. I think they need it in there. IT's beta 2 on Vista if memory serves me correct.
by Stormspace October 28, 2008 1:13 PM PDT
I'll be happy if they get it to work halfway decent on hardware that was supposed to be Vista capable. Otherwise my Laptop will be getting Ubuntu instead of the next incarnation of Microslow.
Reply to this comment
by rnaoncfixd October 28, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
So no one is excited about MS Paint... possibly one of Microsoft's greatest creations?
Reply to this comment
by Vegaman_Dan October 29, 2008 7:42 AM PDT
I personally like Notepad. Sometimes you just want a simple app that doesn't try to help you and just gets out of your way when you ned something quick and easy. Thankfully all the OS's provide some sort of simple app to do the job.
by Renegade Knight October 29, 2008 2:23 PM PDT
Ha! Funny you should ask. I like paint and the simple photo editing software in Vista better than XP (In spite of my knocking Vista in general I do like the interfact and applications better than XP. I just can't force Vista to do that thing I demand an OS do. Work.)
by kevdrez October 28, 2008 1:31 PM PDT
I only hope that Microsoft gets it right.

To me, Vista feels like XP all dolled up and shiny. What I hope is that Windows 7 is not a revision or an adaptation of Vista, but that it's literally like a whole new operating system. Please, Microsoft, don't rush it... start from the ground up, pour ridiculous amounts of time and money into research and development, and give us an operating system we can count on.
Reply to this comment
by rapier1 October 28, 2008 1:55 PM PDT
There were a lot of changes under the hood from XP to Vista. A whole lot. That it works very much like XP was intentional though. They simply aren't in a position to radically change the way users interact with the operating system without requiring a complete tear down of the existing environment. Apple was in a position to do this with OS X, an advantage of their market position and customer enthusiasm. MS really isn't. The only way they can make a complete and fundamental change to the OS is incrementally and through the use of near transparent virtualization. I expect that to happen in the next few years but its not going to happen with 7. Its going to be an incremental advance as opposed to a revolution. Which is what MS has been saying for some time.
by timber2005 October 28, 2008 8:20 PM PDT
Yeah Kevdrez, you kinda have it backwards. Vista is a "revision/adaptation" of XP, a "whole new operating system". 7 is the enhancement of Vista, fixing and tinkering every little thing that was hard to find or slow speed wide. Either way, you can bet you can count on 7. Microsoft won't fail to please with 7, considering universal backwards compatability with Vista drivers and software.
by ckurowic October 29, 2008 3:14 PM PDT
you HOPE they get it right? They have NEVER gotten it right. Give up.
by robbzerr October 28, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
Wow - that's a really great Mac interface. And Sticky Notes -- what a concept?
Reply to this comment
by DrtyDogg October 28, 2008 3:47 PM PDT
http://www.download.com/1770-2001_4-0.html?query=sticky+notes&tag=srch&searchtype=downloads If you want sticky notes for Windows, about 250 choices on the software.
Showing 1 of 3 pages (159 Comments)
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Beyond Binary

During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.


Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Beyond Binary topics

Binary Bits

    Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
    advertisement
    advertisement