Windows 7: A better Vista?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Oct 2008, 17:25

With Windows 7, Microsoft has changed the way it approaches building early releases. In the past, Microsoft included features at various stages of development. With Windows 7, features are included in the main Windows build, only after they are fully baked.

Microsoft is clearly looking to leave a far different first impression than it did with Windows Vista, which made major changes under the hood and led to considerable incompatibilities. With Windows 7, Microsoft is not introducing any major changes to the Windows kernel and is keeping much of the other plumbing substantially similar to that of Vista.

The software maker has also tried to reduce some of Vista's other annoyances, such as the frequently criticized User Account Control feature, which some complained led to too many annoying dialog boxes. With Windows 7, users will be able to choose for themselves how often the system warns them of changes being made to their computer.

Read on: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10076864-56.html

This sounds great. I have a feeling Windows 7 will be a solid OS, the release Microsoft should've released instead of Vista. That said to give us Windows 7 it sounds like they had to give us Vista first.

Here's a screen shot of the UAC configuration in Windows 7:

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2008/ ... 40x361.jpg

In Vista all you can do is turn it on or off. You can set it to Silent Mode (my preference) but there is no official option to do this.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 28 Oct 2008, 18:17

bradavon wrote:I have a feeling Windows 7 will be a solid OS, the release Microsoft should've released instead of Vista.

Vista is a solid OS too. I have no problems at all with Vista x64 SP1 on 2 of my PCs. The other runs Windows XP SP3.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Oct 2008, 19:17

I know. You're speaking to the converted. I'm one of the few who thinks it's decent. I've been running it happily since a year last May. I've only really used Vista HP 32-Bit. I'll likely go 64-Bit with Windows 7. I'm not changing now.

It is bloated though and the UAC implementation is sloppy. I cannot stand the Media View in Windows Explorer too. There is also far too much crap running in the background by default. Virtually no one actually needs Windows Desktop Search but it's enabled and indexing by default anyway. The Search by Start Menu idea is naff and largely impracticable, when I search for files I want a window to cover the screen. I still cannot work out why Microsoft removed Search from the Start Menu with SP1.

The Windows folder is gigabytes and gigabytes. I know the relevance of the winsxs subfolder but does it really have to store a duplicate copy of every Windows System file?

Otherwise it's easily much better than XP. It's more XP Plus than anything revolutionary though.

The security functionality is worth it alone, something most users ignorantly turn off when they first install Vista. We have so called IT experts at work disabling UAC, without having a clue it's so much more than just the annoying prompts. It's scary the amount of people who've assumed that's all it does.

I'd never go back to XP now. XP is a solid and streamlined OS but it is dated. If anything I'd say Vista is more stable. The Vista Recovery options are significantly better than XP's solitary/bollocks Recovery Console.

Most people seem to hate:

A: The UAC Prompts - I set it to Silent Mode, problem sorted
B: The redesigned Control Panel and other bits and bobs - Big deal, stick with Windows 3.1 if you hate change.

The majority of haters have still barely used it. A guy at work always moans whenever he has to use Vista and largely his moaning comes down to the two things I've just mentioned. As if the XP interface is so good to start with. He's barely even really used Vista to know all the improvements they've made over XP.

Again for a so called IT expert he doesn't seem to care at all Windows XP has to run as Admin, which opens it up with such a massive security hole.

Besides 99% of the XP improvements are nearly a decade old, a decade! Most people who love XP don't realise most of the work was there already with Windows 2000.

Anyway, Windows 7 does look like it will be Vista Plus and that's a good thing.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 29 Oct 2008, 09:17

WIndows 7 looks like it will be vista plus?

Vista was more xp plus?

Ergo - windows 7 is more xp plus plus. Not quite so catchy with that name.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Oct 2008, 12:20

Really Vista is XP Plus Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Plus

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 29 Oct 2008, 16:36

Vista saw numerous radical architecture changes, it hardly qualifies as XP Plus - that'd be selling it far too short. Vista truly is "NT 6.0" - the next evolution; definitely not "NT 5.2" - that would've been Win2003.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Oct 2008, 19:18

True. I meant XP Plus from a front end user point of view. I wasn't discussing the back end at all, except when I said about security obviously.

MS offers peek through Windows 7:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7695933.stm

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Dec 2008, 20:46

This article is well worth a read: Windows 7 First Look: A Big Fix for Vista:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/152895/w ... vista.html

Windows 7 to dial down UAC:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/229434/wind ... n-uac.html

A very interesting Microsoft blog on UAC and where it's headed:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/1 ... ntrol.aspx

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Dec 2008, 21:06

Interesting - Windows "Mojave" hits web:

July 2008 - Last week, Microsoft rounded up a group of Vista bashers and showed them videos of its new operating system "Mojave", to what it claims was generally positive reaction.

However, the videos were actually of Vista - a fact which Microsoft is using to justify its argument that the perception of Vista is actually worse than the reality.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/215544/wind ... s-web.html

Over the past few years, Microsoft has learnt the hard way the power of perception. Once the masses got hold of the idea that Vista was a lumbering step backwards, no Mojave Experiment could rescue its reputation. They’ve recognised that perceptions of speed focus almost exclusively on interactive performance.

Very few people notice or care whether a big mail-merge job takes thirty seconds or forty, but they sure as hell notice when they click a button and nothing seems to happen. That’s what wrecked Vista’s reputation, not its disappointing benchmark scores; and that’s why we’re all hankering after Windows 7 despite its identical scores.

But while this faster front-end seems like a superficial change, it makes a world of difference. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of things in Vista to like, but I find it impossible to enjoy them while the whole experience is weighed down by a sluggish interface. No longer.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/11/10 ... t-smarter/

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jan 2009, 14:17

If you love Windows XP, you’ll hate Windows 7:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=630

I couldn't agree with this article more:

"The crux of Jason’s complaint is simple: "I learned how to use Windows in 1998. Don’t change a thing."

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jan 2009, 21:06

Six Vista annoyances fixed in Windows 7 | Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report | ZDNet.com

Six new annoyances introduced in Windows 7 | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jan 2009, 21:08

Six Vista annoyances fixed in Windows 7 | Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report | ZDNet.com

Six new annoyances introduced in Windows 7 | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com

One failure is that it’s hard to tell the difference between apps that are running and shortcuts that have been pinned to the taskbar.

This can be configured, so it's not big deal.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Jan 2009, 13:57

Not specifically Win7 related, but an interesting article regardless:-
Windows bit rot - it's true that Windows installation become slower over time.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Jan 2009, 14:10

Thanks Eva. I'll have a read. That's specifically why I am "very" picking about installing software I don't plan to use more than once. Rot cannot set in if you're very picky to start with.

One of the biggest problems is Microsoft not stopping software from loading numerous services and system tray icons at all (made worse by hiding them). The amount of PCs I've seen with a ridiculous amount of icons running in the system tray is crazy. You ask the user if they use 3 quarters of them and they don't even know what they are.

The answer would be to ask more questions during install but obviously most users will only go and click Yes anyway.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Jan 2009, 16:06

That bit about toolbars/IM clients etc... is so true. My Mum's ex-boyfriend had FIVE installed in IE. He had so many installed they were nearly taking up more space than was available for browsing. He is uber clueless when it comes to PCs though.

A friend of mine has a new Vista Basic 1Gb laptop that considering it was brand new was running noticeable slow. I didn't have a "clean" Vista disc to hand so spent some time uninstalling a lot of the crap Compaq chose to put on there, as well as limiting what is run in the system tray/services run and my god it made a difference.

It now runs perfectly fine. Vista with 512Mb is hideous but it's perfectly acceptable with 1Gb, 2Gb being the sweet spot for the average user. So in other words double what XP needs:

256Mb hideous
512Mb perfectly fine
1Gb sweet spot

For the average user (so no power hungry games, photoshop, sql etc...) you don't need 2Gb on XP or 4Gb on Vista.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 04 Feb 2009, 06:14

Details on the different Win7 SKUs.

Looks like they didn't learn their lesson with Vista, this many SKUs will only serve to confuse people.

LOLWUT at Starter. "Limited to 3 simultaneous applications".

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Feb 2009, 20:29

Thanks Eva. So basically the same as Vista but oddly the Business tag has been renamed back to the 2000/XP Pro name.

There's been a Starter edition for ages now (XP too, same restrictions). It's used in the 3rd world. We'll never see it for sale.

AFAIK Vista Enterprise is Vista Business but probably the Business bits in Vista like Bitlocker. It sure has no Media Center (so not Ultimate). It really comes down to four versions:

Basic - Sold on 512Mb or 1Gb models
Home Premium - 2Gb and above
Professional/Enterprise - Aimed at the same market and it just depends how your licensing works
Ultimate - I've never seen this pre-installed but it probably exists

Going forward I bet we'll only really see Home Premium and Professional being used (as we do Vista now). 2GB is going to come more the norm, negating the need for Basic (which in itself isn't actually needed as Premium will just turn off Aero).

Agreed it's way too many versions. It should really just be Home (but Premium) and Business. With the Home Ultimate extras going into Home and Business going into Pro.

If Vista is anything to go by, the "Vista Basic: Only available in emerging markets" part is bollocks as far as Vista goes. It's used on PCs with 512Mb and 1Gb RAM. The UK isn't exactly and emerging market.

I'm also pretty sure this is also bollocks:

Home Premium:
Adds media capabilities (Media Center, DVD playback, DVD creation, etc.)

Movie Maker has been removed and added to Live Services. I doubt DVD Maker will still be present.

WTF they've removed Mobility Center from Home Premium? Not that I care, it's utterly pointless. It's just an aplet to show common laptop functions in one place. I've not used it once. Going to them direct is better.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Feb 2009, 21:42

How well does Windows 7 handle 512MB?:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=672

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Feb 2009, 00:05

So I'm downloading Vista 64-Bit drivers, ready for testing Windows 7 and I come into a conundrum. My laptop supports up to 4GB RAM but Toshiba don't provide 64-Bit Drivers for my model.

Fine I say I'll go to Nvidia's website and just download their 64-Bit drivers myself. Problem, Nvidia's policy is to not provide drivers for laptops. They let the OEM do that, problem Toshiba aren't interested and even told me the solution to upgrading to 4Gb of RAM is to install 64-Bit and put up with 3Gb (Gee thanks, it's acceptable to lose 25% of my RAM), which incidentally I cannot do as I still don't have Graphics drivers (something I feel tempted to put to Toshiba).

So I buy a laptop which is supposed to support 4Gb but Toshiba provide me no official way of actually getting 4Gb. I told them the laptop isn't fit for purpose but they brushed me off. I bought the laptop specifically with the intention of at some point upgrading to 4Gb (which means 64-Bit).

Thankfully The Internet and Third Party support has come through again:

http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/drivers

This site has all the ForceWare drivers with modified INF files for each of them. It seems the Nvidia ForceWare drivers fully support Nvidia's Laptop GPUs but the setup installer prevents you installing it on Laptop GPUs. The modified INF file removes this restriction.

Sweet!

. I'm still pissed Toshiba think their response is acceptable.

I also have Sound Card 64-Bit Drivers (it turned out they were in the 32-Bit install folder, no thanks to Toshiba again) and LAN/WLAN drivers too. That should be all I need, the rest can come from Windows Updates.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Feb 2009, 22:12

Windows 7 is amazing. It's all the good things about Vista but much nippier, UAC has been seriously tamed (I've only seen it 2-3 times when installing drivers, never in Control Panel) and has lots of very useful UI enhancements.

I'm hearing rumours Microsoft are rushing it to market though, which would be a mistake. They need to get it right this time and that means LOTS of testing. In my opinion while it's very stable it's not ready yet.

I couldn't install Photohop Elements 7, either Windows Live Essentiald 2008 or 2009 on W7 x64. All three just crash during install. I also couldn't install Intelli-point Pro (Microsoft keyboard drivers), even though I was using the official Beta version for Windows 7.

As to my driver success. I've managed to get working drivers for everything except I am missing:

* Mass Storage Controller
* ACPI Drivers

The latter is something to do with power management. I'm unsure how important it is though as power management is working for me. I'm hoping I can get drivers for these direct from Intel (Toshiba are being useless over support e-mails). I won't know until W7 is released as the current Vista 64-Bit drivers just say "Unknown Operating System".

All that said, I cannot see myself needing more than 3Gb memory for several years to come. I can always stick with 32-Bit Windows and just upgrade to 3Gb. My laptop has two 1Gb chips, so that would be easy enough to do.

By the time I actually need 4Gb I'll probably need to upgrade the laptop anyway.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 22 Feb 2009, 15:12

bradavon wrote: I also couldn't install Intelli-point Pro (Microsoft keyboard drivers), even though I was using the official Beta version for Windows 7.

Have you tried Vista drivers? To install some Vista drivers under W7, you might have to run them in the (obvious) appropriate compatibility mode.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Feb 2009, 15:25

Yep. I tried the latest Vista and W7 version. The compatibility tab makes naff all difference (tested with both versions). Thanks though.

From experience it never ever does. I presume it does something but I'm buggered if I can ever spot it. I've not done much investigation into why they won't install as my intention was only to give W7 a quick whirl, come RTM I'll be trying harder to get everything working.

A mate downloaded me W7 x86 from Technet so I'm going to give that ago today.

My hope is the driver problems will sort themselves out when W7 is released (some probably having to use W7 Intel drivers) but I may not be able to still get Photoshop Elements or Windows Live Essentials working. Windows Live Essentials I'd miss enough to stick with x86.

I plan to get the same mate to download me W7 x64 RTM to test finally before making a decision.

On the plus side Graphics and Audio Vista drivers installed without a hitch. I opted to install the latest ForceWare drivers, even though drivers were also on Windows Update. I was surprised to see the Wireless drivers were newer than even the ones on Toshiba's website (which unlike most of their drivers they update regularly). Windows Mobile Device Center 6.1 for Vista also installed without a hitch.

I had to use a modified INF for ForceWare as Nvidia don't support Laptop GPUs officially.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Feb 2009, 01:43

I'm happy to report I've spent the evening deleting W7 x64 (and installing W7 x86) and have not one problem with it. It feels very much like a complete product.

Every app and driver I had trouble installing before works flawlessly under x86. I'll give x64 ago again when it goes RTM but at this stage I'm going to stick with x86. Of course many things can change between Beta and RTM though.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Feb 2009, 17:15

I'm not sure if I've posted this before. If members can wait, it definitely makes sense to wait until June before getting the new laptop/pc:

'Windows 7 Capable' PCs slated For June:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/win ... =214502390

My advice, wait until this programme has launched then upgrade. Get Vista: Home Premium and you'll be able to get a free upgrade to Windows 7: Home Premium. There will be no upgrade route for Vista Home Basic, another reason to make sure you get the "Home Premium" version.

The hardware requirements for Windows 7 are the same as Vista. If you can wait, it's even better to wait until Windows 7 is out.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 03 Mar 2009, 15:29

Windows 7 Beta to Release Candidate Changes:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/0 ... -beta.aspx

Bullets 'n' Babes

Windows 7: A better Vista?

Windows 7: A better Vista?

Re: Windows 7: A better Vista?