The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • Windows 7 review

  • Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
 #141033  by Flip
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:17 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/ar ... fe_balance


A Windows to Help You Forget
by Walter S. Mossberg
Thursday, October 8, 2009

provided by The Wall Street Journal


Microsoft's New Operating System Is Good Enough to Erase Bad Memory of Vista

In just two weeks, on Oct. 22, Microsoft's long operating-system nightmare will be over. The company will release Windows 7, a faster and much better operating system than the little-loved Windows Vista, which did a lot to harm both the company's reputation, and the productivity and blood pressure of its users. PC makers will rush to flood physical and online stores with new computers pre-loaded with Windows 7, and to offer the software to Vista owners who wish to upgrade.

With Windows 7, PC users will at last have a strong, modern successor to the sturdy and familiar, but aged, Windows XP, which is still the most popular version of Windows, despite having come out in 2001. In the high-tech world, an eight-year-old operating system is the equivalent of a 20-year-old car. While XP works well for many people, it is relatively weak in areas such as security, networking and other features more important today than when XP was designed around 1999.

After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced. It's a boost to productivity and a pleasure to use. Despite a few drawbacks, I can heartily recommend Windows 7 to mainstream consumers.

Like the new Snow Leopard operating system released in August by Microsoft's archrival, Apple, Windows 7 is much more of an evolutionary than a revolutionary product. Its main goal was to fix the flaws in Vista and to finally give Microsoft customers a reason to move up from XP. But Windows 7 is packed with features and tweaks that make using your computer an easier and more satisfying experience.

Windows 7 introduces real advances in organizing your programs and files, arranging your taskbar and desktop, and quickly viewing and launching the page or document you want, when you want it. It also has cool built-in touch-screen features.

It removes a lot of clutter. And it mostly banishes Vista's main flaws -- sluggishness; incompatibility with third-party software and hardware; heavy hardware requirements; and constant, annoying security warnings.

I tested Windows 7 on 11 different computers, ranging from tiny netbooks to standard laptops to a couple of big desktops. These included machines from Lenovo, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Acer, Asus, Toshiba and Sony. I even successfully ran it on an Apple Macintosh laptop. On some of these machines, Windows 7 was pre-loaded. On others, I had to upgrade from an earlier version of Windows.

In most cases, the installation took 45 minutes or less, and the new operating system worked snappily and well. But, I did encounter some drawbacks and problems. On a couple of these machines, glacial start-up and reboot times reminded me of Vista. And, on a couple of others, after upgrading, key features like the display or touchpad didn't work properly. Also, Windows 7 still requires add-on security software that has to be frequently updated. It's tedious and painful to upgrade an existing computer from XP to 7, and the variety of editions in which Windows 7 is offered is confusing.

Finally, Microsoft has stripped Windows 7 of familiar built-in applications, such as email, photo organizing, address book, calendar and video-editing programs. These can be downloaded free of charge, but they no longer come with the operating system, though some PC makers may choose to pre-load them.

In recent years, I, like many other reviewers, have argued that Apple's Mac OS X operating system is much better than Windows. That's no longer true. I still give the Mac OS a slight edge because it has a much easier and cheaper upgrade path; more built-in software programs; and far less vulnerability to viruses and other malicious software, which are overwhelmingly built to run on Windows.

Now, however, it's much more of a toss-up between the two rivals. Windows 7 beats the Mac OS in some areas, such as better previews and navigation right from the taskbar, easier organization of open windows on the desktop and touch-screen capabilities. So Apple will have to scramble now that the gift of a flawed Vista has been replaced with a reliable, elegant version of Windows.

Here are some of the key features of Windows 7.

New Taskbar: In Windows 7, the familiar taskbar has been reinvented and made taller. Instead of mainly being a place where icons of open windows temporarily appear, it now is a place where you can permanently "pin" the icons of frequently used programs anywhere along its length, and in any arrangement you choose. This is a concept borrowed from Apple's similar feature, the Dock. But Windows 7 takes the concept further.

For each running program, hovering over its taskbar icon pops up a small preview screen showing a mini-view of that program. This preview idea was in Vista. But, in Windows 7, it has been expanded in several ways. Now, every open window in that program is included separately in the preview. If you mouse over a window in the preview screen, it appears at full size on your desktop and all other windows on the desktop become transparent -- part of a feature called Aero Peek. Click on the window and it comes up, ready for use. You can even close windows from these previews, or play media in them.

I found this feature more natural and versatile than a similar feature in Snow Leopard called Dock Expose.

You can also use Aero Peek at any time to see your empty desktop, with open windows reduced to virtual panes of glass. To do this, you just hover over a small rectangle at the right edge of the taskbar.

Taskbar icons also provide Jump Lists -- pop-up menus listing frequent actions or recent files used.

Desktop Organization: A feature called Snap allows you to expand windows to full-screen size by just dragging them to the top of the screen, or to half-screen size by dragging them to the left or right edges of the screen. Another called Shake allows you to make all other windows but the one you're working on disappear by simply grabbing its title bar with the mouse and shaking it several times.

File Organization: In Windows Explorer, the left-hand column now includes a feature called Libraries. Each library -- Documents, Music, Pictures and Videos -- consolidates all files of those types regardless of which folder, or even which hard disk, they live in.

Networking: Windows 7 still isn't quite as natural at networking as I find the Mac to be, but it's better than Vista. For instance, now you can see all available wireless networks by just clicking on an icon in the taskbar. A new feature called HomeGroups is supposed to let you share files more easily among Windows 7 PCs on your home network. In my tests, it worked, but not consistently, and it required typing in long, arcane passwords.

Touch: Some of the same kinds of multitouch gestures made popular on the iPhone are now built into Windows 7. But these features won't likely become popular for a while because to get the most out of them, a computer needs a special type of touch screen that goes beyond most of the ones existing now. I tested this on one such laptop, a Lenovo, and was able to move windows around, to resize and flip through photos, and more.

Speed: In my tests, on every machine, Windows 7 ran swiftly and with far fewer of the delays typical in running Vista. All the laptops I tested resumed from sleep quickly and properly, unlike in Vista. Start-up and restart times were also improved. I chose six Windows 7 laptops from different makers to compare with a new MacBook Pro laptop. The Mac still started and restarted faster than most of the Windows 7 PCs. But the speed gap has narrowed considerably, and one of the Lenovos beat the Mac in restart time.

Nagging: In the name of security, Vista put up nagging warnings about a wide variety of tasks, driving people crazy. In Windows 7, you can now set this system so it nags you only when things are happening that you consider really worth the nag. Also, Microsoft has consolidated most of the alerts from the lower-right system tray into one icon, and they seemed less frequent.

Compatibility: I tried a wide variety of third-party software and all worked fine on every Windows 7 machine. These included Mozilla Firefox; Adobe Reader; Google's Picasa and Chrome; and Apple's iTunes and Safari.

I also tested several hardware devices, and, unlike Vista, Windows 7 handled all but one smoothly. These included a networked H-P printer, a Canon camera, an iPod nano, and at least five external flash drives and hard disks. The one failure was a Verizon USB cellular modem. Microsoft says you don't need external software to run these, but I found it was necessary, and even then had to use a trick I found on the Web to get it to work.

System Requirements: Nearly all Vista PCs, and newer or beefier XP machines, should be able to run Windows 7 fine. Even the netbooks I tested ran it speedily, especially with the Starter Edition, which lacks some of the powerful graphics effects in the operating system. (Other netbooks will be able to run other editions.)

If you have a standard PC, called a 32-bit PC, you'll need at least one gigabyte of memory, 16 gigabytes of free hard-disk space and a graphics system that can support Microsoft technologies called "DirectX 9 with WDDM 1.0." You'll also need a processor with a speed of at least one gigahertz. If you have a newer-style 64-bit PC, which can use more memory, you'll need at least two gigabytes of memory and 20 gigabytes of free hard disk space. In either case, you should double the minimum memory specification.

Installation, Editions and Price: There are four editions of Windows 7 of interest to consumers. One, a limited version called Starter, comes pre-loaded on netbooks. A second, called Business, is mainly for people who need to tap remotely into company networks (check with your company to see if you need this). A third, called Ultimate, is mainly for techies who want every feature of all other editions. Most average consumers will want Home Premium, which costs $120 for upgrades.

The system for upgrading is complicated, but Vista owners can upgrade to the exactly comparable edition of Windows 7 while keeping all files, settings and programs in place.

Unfortunately, XP owners, the biggest body of Windows users, won't be able to do that. They'll have to wipe out their hard disks after backing up their files elsewhere, then install Windows 7, then restore their personal files, then re-install all their programs from the original CDs or downloaded installer files. Then, they have to install all the patches and upgrades to those programs from over the years.

Microsoft includes an Easy Transfer wizard to help with this, but it moves only personal files, not programs. This painful XP upgrade process is one of the worst things about Windows 7 and will likely drive many XP owners to either stick with what they've got or wait and buy a new one.

In my tests, both types of installations went OK, though the latter could take a long time.

Bottom line: Windows 7 is a very good, versatile operating system that should help Microsoft bury the memory of Vista and make PC users happy.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at walt.mossberg@wsj.com

 #141034  by Lox
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:13 am
I'm looking forward to Windows 7. I get a free upgrade from Vista with my laptop purchase so I'll be upgrading very soon.

I'm glad to hear it's worth it. A friend of mine has used it and has had nothing by compliments.

 #141035  by Flip
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:16 am
Ive been waiting on a netbook just so it can be loaded with Windows 7. The holiday time should be perfect to find a great deal!

 #141038  by Zeus
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:28 pm
My cuz has been using the beta since it came out and has been telling me to switch since it fixes pretty much every criticism I had about Shitsa (I love how this guy starts off his article with "makes you forget about Vista"). I'll give it 'til next summer for them to iron the bugs out then I'll probably switch. I need a new install of XP soon anyways, been about 3 or 4 years now.

But what I don't agree with this guy is this statement:
"And it mostly banishes Vista's main flaws -- sluggishness; incompatibility with third-party software and hardware; heavy hardware requirements; and constant, annoying security warnings. "
What about the horrid GUI? Who the hell wants to re-learn how to use Windows for no reason?

And what about this, what's the point?
"Finally, Microsoft has stripped Windows 7 of familiar built-in applications, such as email, photo organizing, address book, calendar and video-editing programs. These can be downloaded free of charge, but they no longer come with the operating system, though some PC makers may choose to pre-load them."
Very, very stupid to exlude these IMO. So many people, including myself, only want or need very, very basic versions of these programs. If you've made them and are offering them for free, why not include them? Forcing people to buy your "upgraded" versions of these programs, are we? This one doesn't pass the smell test.

And if XP owners are the biggest group and the ones you want to change, don't these sentences pretty give a kick to the groin of those people and make them shy away from upgrading?
"Unfortunately, XP owners, the biggest body of Windows users, won't be able to do that. They'll have to wipe out their hard disks after backing up their files elsewhere, then install Windows 7, then restore their personal files, then re-install all their programs from the original CDs or downloaded installer files. Then, they have to install all the patches and upgrades to those programs from over the years.

Microsoft includes an Easy Transfer wizard to help with this, but it moves only personal files, not programs. This painful XP upgrade process is one of the worst things about Windows 7 and will likely drive many XP owners to either stick with what they've got or wait and buy a new one. "
Leave it to Microsoft to leave you with more problems and headaches even when they do something "right". I'll probably still upgrade, but that'll probably add a few to the million notches on the Microsoft-is-bad belt.

 #141040  by Lox
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:19 pm
My guess is that they removed those things because not enough people use them. I'm glad they removed that stuff because for me it's all bloat. They're offering them for free anyway so it basically just lets you customize the install as you want.

Also, I've been using Vista now for a few months and the GUI is soooo similar to Windows XP that you can learn it in a week of regular use. It's not a big deal.

 #141046  by Mental
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:01 pm
Hooray! A new XP! (I'm still waiting about a year at least before I upgrade and TBH I'm not sure my systems are fast enough anyway.) It is good to know that Microsoft is back on. In my experience they ought to only release every other OS they develop, because they seem to get too ambitious every time they have a good one and then screw up the next rev.

 #141048  by SineSwiper
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:13 pm
There for a while, it seems like Debian had a faster release schedule than Windows.

1995 - Windows 95
1998 - Windows 98
2000 - Windows 2K/ME
2001 - Windows XP
??? WTF! ???
2007 - Windows Vista
2009 - Windows 7

A 6-year wait for the next version? And then they spend only two years for Windows 7? So, what the fuck is wrong with their OS release schedule?

 #141049  by Tessian
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:32 pm
Windows OS upgrades have NEVER been pleasant. I would never recommend an upgrade if at all possible. XP to Vista upgrades were especially painful, so an XP to 7 wouldn't have been any better. Much better off just re-imaging.

I've been using Windows 7 beta on my laptop ever since it came out and I can't complain. It's nicer, but I won't be running out to upgrade my desktop to it anytime soon... but that's because I enjoy Vista unlike most people.


And to their release schedule-- part of the reason Vista was so poorly received was because they let XP sit for too long; everyone got attached to it and then Vista was too big a change since there was nothing inbetween. 7 timetable was probably accelerated because of Vista's bad press.

 #141055  by Julius Seeker
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:40 pm
Most of the complaints I have heard "It's sluggish" "It's interface is bad" etc I have found to be untrue. It works better on my 2008 PC than XP does on my 2005 one. I don't find it sluggish (I found windows 98 sluggish), maybe XP would run better on my 08 computer, but Vista on it is faster than what I am used to with my other PCs and my work computer.

I bet if you gave people Windows Vista and called it Windows 7 they would praise it.

 #141063  by Tessian
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:45 pm
SeekRolled wrote: I bet if you gave people Windows Vista and called it Windows 7 they would praise it.
Forget about "Windows Mojave" already have you? Sure it was a marketing campaign, but it pointed out the same thing... if you called Vista anything but Vista people liked it.

 #141070  by Zeus
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:52 pm
Lox wrote:Also, I've been using Vista now for a few months and the GUI is soooo similar to Windows XP that you can learn it in a week of regular use. It's not a big deal.
What? What hacked version of Shitsa are you using?

Here's a couple of tests you can use to prove my point:

1) Ask someone who's never seen Vista before to shut the computer down. See how long it takes them to figure it (and how many times they accidentally put it to hibernate if it's a laptop)

2) Ask that someone to change the volume using Windows, not the speaker volume. Use a stopwatch to figure out how long it takes them to get frustrated

Of course you can figure it out in a week, I was perfectly functional after a day or so. But that's not the point. Vista is change for the sake of change, to make things "better" without actually improving anything. It was a mistake that Microsoft has all but admitted with Windows 7
Last edited by Zeus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

 #141071  by Zeus
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:54 pm
SineSwiper wrote:There for a while, it seems like Debian had a faster release schedule than Windows.

1995 - Windows 95
1998 - Windows 98
2000 - Windows 2K/ME
2001 - Windows XP
??? WTF! ???
2007 - Windows Vista
2009 - Windows 7

A 6-year wait for the next version? And then they spend only two years for Windows 7? So, what the fuck is wrong with their OS release schedule?
Well, XP was finally stable, no one was asking for another. The ONLY reason they released 7 so fast is because of the mistake they made with Shitsa and they were getting called on it very publically by Apple. Windows 7 is the most blatant admission of a mistake I've ever seen Microsoft do.

If people like Windows 7, don't expect another one for at least 5 years

 #141072  by Zeus
 Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:59 pm
Tessian wrote:... but that's because I enjoy Vista unlike most people.
Not being an ass, asking an honest question: why?

 #141107  by SineSwiper
 Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:12 pm
SeekRolled wrote:Most of the complaints I have heard "It's sluggish" "It's interface is bad" etc I have found to be untrue. It works better on my 2008 PC than XP does on my 2005 one. I don't find it sluggish (I found windows 98 sluggish), maybe XP would run better on my 08 computer, but Vista on it is faster than what I am used to with my other PCs and my work computer.
Any OS that REQUIRES 1 GB of RAM is already bloated. This idea that we must up the requirements of the OS to promote PC sales is invalid, and just an excuse to write shitty, unoptimized code. HP (and several other OEMs) were pissed about how high the requirements were when they first heard them. Rightfully so, considering that they were selling these PCs dirt cheap, and now they have to promote these near-gaming-quality PC systems as the norm.
Tessian wrote:
SeekRolled wrote: I bet if you gave people Windows Vista and called it Windows 7 they would praise it.
Forget about "Windows Mojave" already have you? Sure it was a marketing campaign, but it pointed out the same thing... if you called Vista anything but Vista people liked it.
This is coming from a population that doesn't know our first president, thinks Africa is a country, and believes that Women's Suffrage should be banned. Trying to trick Mr. Joe Average Dickcheese into anything is not hard.
Zeus wrote:If people like Windows 7, don't expect another one for at least 5 years
Wasn't that their problem in the first place? Waiting so long for another release?
Zeus wrote:Not being an ass, asking an honest question: why?
The same reason why some people like Windows ME. They believe that simple anecdotal evidence of "Well, -I- haven't had any problems" is definitive proof that the OS is just fine and flawless.

 #141152  by Imakeholesinu
 Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:30 pm
I just ordered 4GB of ram, Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1 with a free upgrade to Win 7 and two hard drives (2 western digital caviar black drives, 1x1TB and 1x500GB).

 #141157  by Tessian
 Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:40 pm
If you think I like Vista because it doesn't give me issues then you're just plain wrong... actually right now I have a huge permissions issue that won't let me run Windows Updates or install anything so I'm kinda pissed and will probably end up having to reinstall Vista entirely later this week.

I enjoy Vista as a whole, it's definitely a step forward in many aspects with how you use your computer but it definitely has its issues. It's much more crash resistant than XP-- in that if an application / process hangs or crashes the chance of it actually forcing you to reboot is much less than in previous releases. There's a list of other reasons I could add but I'm tired of having this argument and would much rather go play Brutal Legend right now.

Hardware requirements and hardware support (at launch) is mostly what made Vista flop, and no it wasn't some conspiracy to push hardware sales; Microsoft just made some lazy and ignorant decisions with the development. Windows 7 lowers the hardware requirements and I'd imagine has better device support than Vista at this point, so I really don't see any issues with its reception.

 #141161  by Zeus
 Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:57 pm
Tessian wrote:If you think I like Vista because it doesn't give me issues then you're just plain wrong... actually right now I have a huge permissions issue that won't let me run Windows Updates or install anything so I'm kinda pissed and will probably end up having to reinstall Vista entirely later this week.

I enjoy Vista as a whole, it's definitely a step forward in many aspects with how you use your computer but it definitely has its issues. It's much more crash resistant than XP-- in that if an application / process hangs or crashes the chance of it actually forcing you to reboot is much less than in previous releases. There's a list of other reasons I could add but I'm tired of having this argument and would much rather go play Brutal Legend right now.

Hardware requirements and hardware support (at launch) is mostly what made Vista flop, and no it wasn't some conspiracy to push hardware sales; Microsoft just made some lazy and ignorant decisions with the development. Windows 7 lowers the hardware requirements and I'd imagine has better device support than Vista at this point, so I really don't see any issues with its reception.
I'm trying to find out what you thought were steps forward not arguing. THat's further up :-) I do know of some people who liked the layout and thought it was easier to navigate through Vista......after they got used to it. I just wasn't one of them.

See, I just don't have issues with XP rebooting. That's what I liked about it so much. It contained issues rather than forcing a reboot like 98 or ME (which never gave me any trouble, BTW) did. That level of stability and familiarity is why I never had a desire to switch. And to me, when I found that Vista had just moved things around it pissed me off, especially since it came pre-loaded on the laptop and I'm essentially forced to use it (too lazy to reformat). I've gotten used to it and can contain the annoyances but I see Vista more of a complimentary OS to XP as opposed to replacing it. I'm hoping 7 just takes it to the next level and I can switch permanently.

 #141165  by Imakeholesinu
 Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:15 pm
Zeus wrote:
Tessian wrote:If you think I like Vista because it doesn't give me issues then you're just plain wrong... actually right now I have a huge permissions issue that won't let me run Windows Updates or install anything so I'm kinda pissed and will probably end up having to reinstall Vista entirely later this week.

I enjoy Vista as a whole, it's definitely a step forward in many aspects with how you use your computer but it definitely has its issues. It's much more crash resistant than XP-- in that if an application / process hangs or crashes the chance of it actually forcing you to reboot is much less than in previous releases. There's a list of other reasons I could add but I'm tired of having this argument and would much rather go play Brutal Legend right now.

Hardware requirements and hardware support (at launch) is mostly what made Vista flop, and no it wasn't some conspiracy to push hardware sales; Microsoft just made some lazy and ignorant decisions with the development. Windows 7 lowers the hardware requirements and I'd imagine has better device support than Vista at this point, so I really don't see any issues with its reception.
I'm trying to find out what you thought were steps forward not arguing. THat's further up :-) I do know of some people who liked the layout and thought it was easier to navigate through Vista......after they got used to it. I just wasn't one of them.

See, I just don't have issues with XP rebooting. That's what I liked about it so much. It contained issues rather than forcing a reboot like 98 or ME (which never gave me any trouble, BTW) did. That level of stability and familiarity is why I never had a desire to switch. And to me, when I found that Vista had just moved things around it pissed me off, especially since it came pre-loaded on the laptop and I'm essentially forced to use it (too lazy to reformat). I've gotten used to it and can contain the annoyances but I see Vista more of a complimentary OS to XP as opposed to replacing it. I'm hoping 7 just takes it to the next level and I can switch permanently.
Zeus,

I too was waiting for another offering from MS to give me a (better) reason to upgrade from XP. Last week my main PC went tits up due to a powersupply and motherboard issue. I just recently got around to spending close to $500 in parts to fix it. When all is said and done I will have the following setup.

ASUS Main board
Intel E6750 Dual core
4GB of Memory (possible 6GB)
nVidia 8400 GT
1x500 GB WD Caviar Black Drive (OS/Apps)
1x1TB GB WD Caviar Black Drive (General Storage)

All running Windows 7 Ultimate x64 bit.

This frees up my retail license of XP so I can move it permanently to another machine with all of my old drives and use it for other things (dedicated mame box).

This will be my first time also dealing with SATA drives. The board I purchased has 6 SATA ports. In the future I hope to add 1 more 500GB drive and 3 more 1TB drives and do a mirror for the OS/apps drive and Raid 5 for the General Storage drive. Some of you may think this is a bit overkill but I'm thinking about backing up every piece of media I own on to drives and then building out a NAS in a fireproof box and doing backups to it.

I like this process a bit as it gives me a new start. My old XP partition was 5 years old. 5 years I've gone without rebuilding my machine. There were obvious cosmetic and administrative flaws that I've learned from but never had the money to correct properly. Now I finally do and I can't wait to do it up right.

 #141166  by Shrinweck
 Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:11 pm
Zeus wrote: I'm trying to find out what you thought were steps forward not arguing. THat's further up :-) I do know of some people who liked the layout and thought it was easier to navigate through Vista......after they got used to it. I just wasn't one of them.
I found the Vista layout easier than the XP layout once I got used to it. I do still use the XP control panel because the Vista default is just plain too user friendly and at a certain point simplicity makes me scratch my head.

As for stability - I've never had any Vista crashes or freezes that required a hard restart. I've had to hard restart out of some memory leaks but that's pretty rare and comes more from bad game coding.

Moves forward? Wireless networking? I remember spending hours trying to get it to work for the first time on XP. Worked seconds in on Vista.

I'm not sure if I can come up with anything else right now. XP and Vista were both pretty iffy their first year in. I do find it much more secure and I feel much safer using it then I ever did with XP.