Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Tue May 12, 2009 4:11 am

I've seen the reviews and talked to people who have tested it, and while it does sound much more user friendly for those that aren't so tech savvy, i on the other hand already know Win XP pro inside and out.

For me, the only thing I've seen that Win 7 will be able to do that XP cant is SSD optimizations out of the box. Some of which you could probably tweak on XP, while a few of the changes will be for win 7 only it seems.

I was just curious what others though about win 7. What about the new OS makes you want to upgrade to it?

jhhoffma · Post by **jhhoffma** » Tue May 12, 2009 7:52 am

Well, if you're upgrading from Vista, the performance increase alone, would be worth it.

If not, the networking and media feature make a compelling case (PlayTo and Homegroup) as they ease the task of sharing media among PCs inside a basic network.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Tue May 12, 2009 11:07 am

The things that would compel me to upgrade to 7 are simple UI things like taskbar pinning and improved window control (the new docking feature is handy).

But... I had a brief play with 7 earlier this week and for me neither these small improvements nor the added gloss are worth it. As with Vista it's all the tweaks for the non tech-savvy that really turn me off, especially in Explorer. After over a decade I'm just about able to tolerate "My Documents", now MS have gone and thrown a dozen more at us. Besides, the new Windows Explorer UI is an utter abomination imho.

As for performance, my system's bottleneck at the moment sure as hell ain't the OS. I suppose DX11 will be used as a lever for 7 the way DX10 was with Vista but being a casual gamer this doesn't really interest me.

I think ultimately the thing that will convince me to move away from XP is when the apps I want/need stop working in it.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Tue May 12, 2009 11:38 am

They dropped support for Win 2000 Pro?

And so did Stanford SMP FAH.

Trav1s · Post by **Trav1s** » Tue May 12, 2009 11:55 am

After playing with a beta copy of Vista Ultimate and now Win7 Beta and Win7 RC, overall I like it.

Installing was painless and took much less of my time than XP ever has on the same machine. Graphics are much improved and performance is great. A basic dual-core and 2 gigs of RAM makes for a VERY snappy machine.

shleepy · Post by **shleepy** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:29 pm

I have only played with it briefly, but I'm not a fan so far. It might run marginally quicker than an optimized Vista machine (given that high-end components are used in both cases), but I hate the UI. I had to disable and tweak a lot more features from the get-go to get the system as "simple" as I would like it. The management of the taskbar and quick-launch icons is annoying, to say the least.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed May 13, 2009 3:10 am

It might run marginally quicker than an optimized Vista machine (given that high-end components are used in both cases), but I hate the UI. I had to disable and tweak a lot more features from the get-go to get the system as "simple" as I would like it. The management of the taskbar and quick-launch icons is annoying, to say the least.

I also hate the UI, but I hate the UI on Vista as well. I wont be using this OS unless.

1, I can change the UI to be the same as XP/2000.
2, Have a need (want) to play DX 10/11 games.
3, Have a need (want) to use software that does not work on XP.

As MS have totally ignored its user base and not allowed its paying users to change the UI to be the same as XP/2000 I doubt they will do so for W7, so if the need/want for No's 2 and 3 arise then I will be looking at 3rd party software to do what MS wont.

Likewise for No's 2 and 3, the need/want is going to have to be significant unless MS can sort out No 1.

So as far as I am concerned the performance problem has practically dissapeared with W7, but if the interface sucks then its a no-go unless options 2 and 3 arise. If they do, I might end up going back to a dual-boot system for the first time since 1999.

Andy

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed May 13, 2009 3:27 am

shleepy wrote:The management of the taskbar and quick-launch icons is annoying, to say the least.

Like you, I absolutely hated the new taskbar at first, but if you stick with it, it all starts to make sense.

The whole point as I see it is to forget the whole idea of a separate "quick-launch" bar (which has been rendered effectively obsolete), and Vista-style taskbar proper - just be bold, and pin *everything* you regularly or semi-regularly use to the taskbar itself. Then the distinction between "launching" and "task switching" becomes for the most part irrelevant - you'll always find a particular app in exactly the same easily-accessible place, regardless of its running/non-running status, and a single click will invoke it, switching to it if it's already running, launching it if it isn't.

It's certainly different, but it does make you see the whole desktop/start menu/quick launch bar/taskbar/system tray approach for the cluttered, confusing, inconsistent mess that it really is.

Trav1s · Post by **Trav1s** » Wed May 13, 2009 7:28 am

While I did not mess much with Vista, I find the move from XP to Win7 quite natural after I got the "basics" down. In many ways the XP/Win7 transition reminds me of my transition from Windows to OSX 4 years ago.

I am really excited to put the media features to work on a HTPC.

BillyBuerger · Post by **BillyBuerger** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:14 am

nick705 wrote:The whole point as I see it is to forget the whole idea of a separate "quick-launch" bar (which has been rendered effectively obsolete), and Vista-style taskbar proper - just be bold, and pin *everything* you regularly or semi-regularly use to the taskbar itself. Then the distinction between "launching" and "task switching" becomes for the most part irrelevant - you'll always find a particular app in exactly the same easily-accessible place, regardless of its running/non-running status, and a single click will invoke it, switching to it if it's already running, launching it if it isn't.

Ah, that is of course unless you like your taskbar on the side. But like gnome on linux, the new "pinned" icons don't play well with a vertical taskbar. It stacks them one on top of each other instead of in rows like the quick launch can. I could see using them if they fixed it. But I think the way I use the quick launch doesn't fit well with the idea their going with. So it's disable all pinned items and create a new toolbar for me.

As for a Vista/7 classic theme, I've recently found a program called AveStyler which for $4 is definitely worth it to let you use themes that are much better than the crappy windows ones. I personally like Vista Classic which looks very classic but still has the fancy Aero affects. Although I've modded it using Vista Style Builder as I prefer not to have borders around my inactive buttons. I don't know if the Vista Classic would work out of the box with Win7. But Vista Style Builder does and should be able to convert it. For XP, I always liked Classic2. Although my attempts to turn it into a Vista theme have thus far not gone well.

N7SC · Post by **N7SC** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:33 am

Aris wrote:What about the new OS makes you want to upgrade to it?

Nothing.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:22 am

andyb wrote:
It might run marginally quicker than an optimized Vista machine (given that high-end components are used in both cases), but I hate the UI. I had to disable and tweak a lot more features from the get-go to get the system as "simple" as I would like it. The management of the taskbar and quick-launch icons is annoying, to say the least.
I also hate the UI, but I hate the UI on Vista as well. I wont be using this OS unless.

1, I can change the UI to be the same as XP/2000.
2, Have a need (want) to play DX 10/11 games.
3, Have a need (want) to use software that does not work on XP.

As MS have totally ignored its user base and not allowed its paying users to change the UI to be the same as XP/2000 I doubt they will do so for W7, so if the need/want for No's 2 and 3 arise then I will be looking at 3rd party software to do what MS wont.

Likewise for No's 2 and 3, the need/want is going to have to be significant unless MS can sort out No 1.

So as far as I am concerned the performance problem has practically dissapeared with W7, but if the interface sucks then its a no-go unless options 2 and 3 arise. If they do, I might end up going back to a dual-boot system for the first time since 1999.

Andy

So what's wrong with Windows Classic in W7? What features are you missing?

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:42 am

N7SC wrote:
Aris wrote:What about the new OS makes you want to upgrade to it?
Nothing.

What are you using now; Windows 3.11?

cb95014 · Post by **cb95014** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:13 am

Aris wrote:What about the new OS makes you want to upgrade to it?

I don't know that I'd *upgrade*, but IMO for a newer 4GB notebook W7 (x64) is a no-brainer. If you upgrade your notebook with an SSD, then I *definitely* would run W7. I have W7 on my work T400 notebook, and in addition to the no-hassle SSD tweaks, the startup/shutdown is noticeably faster. I've also found that the new taskbar (while requiring an adjustment) makes better use of limited real-estate, and the networking stack is noticeably more sophisticated. I still miss the 'classic' start menu, though - the 'smart' one sucks...

I think Microsoft has removed most of the gratuitously annoying Vista "features" with W7, and overall W7 seems to handle driver compatibility issues more gracefully. For example, I have not bothered to turn-off UAC (normally an early fix on a Vista client), and when W7 encounters an incompatible driver it suggests ways to work around the issue (instead of just flipping you off).

For any desktop client, 8GB of memory is quite seductive (and nearly free...), and completely eliminates paging. Since XP-64 truly sucks, I run Vista64 on my main desktop client, and will probably upgrade to W7 when I get an SSD. For speed & compatibility on older C2D gaming clients, I mostly run XP, and have no plans to upgrade these to W7.

stromgald · Post by **stromgald** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:18 am

Aris wrote:I've seen the reviews and talked to people who have tested it, and while it does sound much more user friendly for those that aren't so tech savvy, i on the other hand already know Win XP pro inside and out.

For me, the only thing I've seen that Win 7 will be able to do that XP cant is SSD optimizations out of the box. Some of which you could probably tweak on XP, while a few of the changes will be for win 7 only it seems.

I was just curious what others though about win 7. What about the new OS makes you want to upgrade to it?

Sorry, here comes a pretty gushing review. I think it's because I've been on Vista so long, but to be honest, there are some substantial improvements over XP, or rather it's Vista improvements that are now actually usable/worthwhile.

I've been playing with Windows 7 for about half a week now, and to be perfectly honest, I like the new taskbar/UI better. It's different, but uses space on the screen much more efficiently. If you want to go back to the old ways, it's an easy tweak in the taskbar settings.

It performs faster than Vista, and runs smoother/more responsive than XP. XP also lacks many of the inherent security features of Vista/W7. Many of the small changes such as: improving the desktop gadgets so they're actually usable; easy customization of the UAC; the new 'libraries' that replace the document, picture and video folders; improvements of paint and the calculator; and improvement of built-in CD/DVD burning software so that Nero/Alcohol/Roxio is not needed; make the system much more productive out of the box.

In addition, compared to Vista and XP, the installation was much easier, my logitech keyboard/mice were recognized without having to install drivers or downloads from logitech's site, network card identification/ internet connection setup was done easily without hassle, etc. Overall, I think it's much more polished and easy to install than XP or Vista.

My biggest gripe is the fact that the start menu follows the Vista style start menu. I hate that start menu format. There should be an option to change it back, but I haven't gotten around to really looking for the fix/tweak. I also think that they should've put ISO/IMG mounting software in by default. The default burning software is good, but I'd like to be able to mount ISOs without having to download PowerISO or some other utility. IE8's integration with the aero peek feature is also a little annoying, since it shows all the tabs instead of just windows like every other app. However, since I rarely use IE except when setting up a new system, I don't think it'll be an issue much longer.

Personally, I'm worried about settling into the new OS too much. It's such an improvement over Vista that I'm afraid I'll get too comfortable, and around this time next year (when the RC expires), I'll have to fork over some $$ to upgrade.

If you can get used to the 'ribbon' interface on the new office apps, I don't think the new UI is that much worse. It IS different, but after using it for awhile, it's not hard to see the improvements it brings.

Windows 7 brings Windows up to the level of or slightly better than the user friendliness of Mac OS X. However, the control and customization of the nuts and bolts of the OS is about on par with Vista, which is much less than what 2000 or XP was capable of. I think for that kind of fine grained control, both Apple and Microsoft is giving up that market for Linux to take over.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:22 am

cb95014 wrote: I still miss the 'classic' start menu, though - the 'smart' one sucks...

What's wrong with it? You open it to start programs like always.

Remember that the looks of a new Windows version is the last thing that changes. It's highly unlikely that the final product will look like the RC.

cb95014 · Post by **cb95014** » Wed May 13, 2009 1:06 pm

Mats wrote:What's wrong with it? You open it to start programs like always.

1) No way (that I can find) to create folders in the start menu. For example, I usually create a 'System Tools' folder for CPU-Z, HW monitor, Windows Update, Spybot, etc. These now all clutter the main menu. For another example, when I build machines for friends, I usually create a 'Run Monthly' folder.
2) Same problem as with 'Personalized Menus': the OS keeps moving my cheese. Hiding objects I have not used in a while is NOT simpler.

Wibla · Post by **Wibla** » Wed May 13, 2009 1:16 pm

Aris wrote:What about the new OS makes you want to upgrade to it?

Nothing, XP works FINE as-is, I dont see a need to upgrade.

codyBane · Post by **codyBane** » Wed May 13, 2009 1:36 pm

I'm still quite happy with Windows XP SP3 and haven't made the move to Vista or 7. The only things that would force me right now are that I'm currently using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor (set to run in 32-bit mode) so I'm not taking full advantage of my computers power and I can't take advantage of more than approx 3 gigs of ram. If I didn't need some audio recording software and other items I'd strictly be using Linux.

Windows does seem to be making some interesting leaps with Vista (even if it failed and was utterly obnoxious) and Windows 7 but the biggest thing that keeps me away from it is the license agreement. Not sure if 7 is the same as Vista but with Vista - when you buy a copy it is licensed to 1 computer only and is non-transferable. The operating system has some code to detect if it's on a new computer which causes problems if I (best guess example) buy a new motherboard and hard drive... suddenly Vista locks itself down and I have to call Microsoft. Now if I had actually bought a new computer and thrown out my old one - I'm supposed to go out and buy a new copy of Vista for that computer instead of installing my existing copy on the new computer.

That's a little too far on the OS control if you ask me.

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Wed May 13, 2009 1:43 pm

codyBane wrote:Windows does seem to be making some interesting leaps with Vista (even if it failed and was utterly obnoxious) and Windows 7 but the biggest thing that keeps me away from it is the license agreement. Not sure if 7 is the same as Vista but with Vista - when you buy a copy it is licensed to 1 computer only and is non-transferable. The operating system has some code to detect if it's on a new computer which causes problems if I (best guess example) buy a new motherboard and hard drive... suddenly Vista locks itself down and I have to call Microsoft. Now if I had actually bought a new computer and thrown out my old one - I'm supposed to go out and buy a new copy of Vista for that computer instead of installing my existing copy on the new computer.

That's a little too far on the OS control if you ask me.

I don't know about Vista and 7, but in XP if you purchased the full retail version of the XP you can transfer it another computer (you may have to call MS). If you purchased the OEM version of XP, you cannot change to a different motherboard (although you can change out most other components).

stromgald · Post by **stromgald** » Wed May 13, 2009 2:15 pm

codyBane wrote:I'm still quite happy with Windows XP SP3 and haven't made the move to Vista or 7. The only things that would force me right now are that I'm currently using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor (set to run in 32-bit mode) so I'm not taking full advantage of my computers power and I can't take advantage of more than approx 3 gigs of ram. If I didn't need some audio recording software and other items I'd strictly be using Linux.

Windows does seem to be making some interesting leaps with Vista (even if it failed and was utterly obnoxious) and Windows 7 but the biggest thing that keeps me away from it is the license agreement. Not sure if 7 is the same as Vista but with Vista - when you buy a copy it is licensed to 1 computer only and is non-transferable. The operating system has some code to detect if it's on a new computer which causes problems if I (best guess example) buy a new motherboard and hard drive... suddenly Vista locks itself down and I have to call Microsoft. Now if I had actually bought a new computer and thrown out my old one - I'm supposed to go out and buy a new copy of Vista for that computer instead of installing my existing copy on the new computer.

That's a little too far on the OS control if you ask me.

Um . . . Microsoft introduced that in XP, not Vista.

If you make too many hardware changes (the OS keeps count somewhere), it will deactivate your copy of Windows and require you to reactivate by calling Microsoft. It's a pain, especially if you make several changes to your hardware each year, but for most users, the 5 minute phone call is only a minor annoyance.

Only OEM versions have limitations on the # of installs legally allowed, and that's true for XP, Vista, and Windows 7.

Edit: Extra info on the subject: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158 , scroll down to the part about the differences between OEM and FPP.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Wed May 13, 2009 3:22 pm

Mats wrote:It's highly unlikely that the final product will look like the RC.

Not so - MS have stated that RC1 is the one and only release candidate, and the final release before they start boxing it up for retail and sending the code to OEMs.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed May 13, 2009 3:55 pm

Mats wrote:
andyb wrote:
It might run marginally quicker than an optimized Vista machine (given that high-end components are used in both cases), but I hate the UI. I had to disable and tweak a lot more features from the get-go to get the system as "simple" as I would like it. The management of the taskbar and quick-launch icons is annoying, to say the least.
I also hate the UI, but I hate the UI on Vista as well. I wont be using this OS unless.

1, I can change the UI to be the same as XP/2000.
2, Have a need (want) to play DX 10/11 games.
3, Have a need (want) to use software that does not work on XP.

As MS have totally ignored its user base and not allowed its paying users to change the UI to be the same as XP/2000 I doubt they will do so for W7, so if the need/want for No's 2 and 3 arise then I will be looking at 3rd party software to do what MS wont.

Likewise for No's 2 and 3, the need/want is going to have to be significant unless MS can sort out No 1.

So as far as I am concerned the performance problem has practically dissapeared with W7, but if the interface sucks then its a no-go unless options 2 and 3 arise. If they do, I might end up going back to a dual-boot system for the first time since 1999.

Andy
So what's wrong with Windows Classic in W7? What features are you missing?

Sorry in advance about this minor rant (it not really a rant, it does explain some of the problems I have with Vista and W7, many of you will think that these are minor points, but I spend hours every day rummaging around files and folders, cutting, copying, pasting, renaming, deleting, etc - if it does not work how I expect it to its useless to me.

The thing that annoys me them most is the really horrible "Windows Explorer" that they have created. Within Vista it was customizable a little, but was never the same as previous versions of windows regardless of the amount of tweaking. W7 seems to have exactly the same problem. If I cant make it look the same, and act in the same way I simply wont use it. I am not going to list the individual issues with it as the list will be very very long. But the view I like and use is the "classic" W2K view, with folders showing in the left pane, full details on view with nothing hidden. I dont want to see all of the crap that is included in the "Vista Explorer" that I am not interested in seeing. It's MY OS when I buy it, and MS simply wont get my money if I cant make it look and act the way I want it to - Windows is supposed to be customizable - let me do so.?

Most of the rest of the viewing and interface "problems" can be put back to the "classic" view, or are near enough to it to not be a major issue, with one exception - the start menu. I never did like the huge double width start menu that came with XP, but with about threee clicks of the mouse you are back to "classic" view, that is not possible with W7 - I can live with that, I could many years ago with XP.

It seems that the main problem I have with W7 is that MS are being a bunch of dicklickers, if they really want to sell this new OS to replace the crappy Vista that came before it they are not going to have any problems - this turd is far more polished. But if they want to sell it to ME they are going to have to give people what they want, and not force stuff down their throats that they dont want and cant get rid of, whilst at the same time not giving them things that they do want but cant get.

XP, does everything I want, in the way I want it to, the way I expect it to, and has all of the problems that I expect and know how to fix.

Vista was never an upgrade option for me. It did not do everything I want, it did not do it in the way I want it to or the way I expect it to, and has many problems that are new and dont know how to fix.

If W7 has the same failures, and none of the benefits then its not an upgrade. Would you trade in your old trusty, reliable, well handling, well performing car for a more expensive newer car that is nasty to drive, slow, drinks petrol, has shift brakes, and has a bad ride. If you do you are stupid, no benefit with the new car = no sale of a new car.

Is W7 going to end up as Vista 2.??? I hope not, but I expect it to be.

I for one will not buy W7 if I cant change the Explorer view to how I like it (that does not mean that I wont use it for games though if something comes out that wont run on XP).

Lets wait until Octoberish for the final release and then I will find out how long it stays on the second hard drive on my test rig for. W7 RC1 lasted for about 2 weeks although it was only used for about 4 hours (half of which was spent finding out its problems, and how much I could change the UI, the rest of the time was watching it getting thrashed in benchmarks by XP).

Andy

porkchop · Post by **porkchop** » Wed May 13, 2009 4:10 pm

why i moved to w7:
i think it's pretty
it isn't xp
it works

i wasn't really into computers in the dos and win98 days, so xp has been my only os for years and the first i ever installed myself. i don't like apple, and that time i tried linux it didn't really work out, xp is a fine os, but it's getting old and kinda boring.

i got a lenovo s10 a month or so ago, and lenovo decided to format the system drive in fat32.... no big deal except for defragging taking hours. i was always going to use the netbook as a playground, so this was enough for me to jump on the w7 beta wagon (i have since gone to rc1), and learned how to install from usb- good fun.
suprisingly, everything worked with the fresh install(except for one unknown device, lenovo acpi something), a couple driver updates for the chipset and usb card reader and i was off- nice and simple.
i tried running the newest ubuntu from usb too- worked fine except the fan was always on full pelt

, and compared to w7, was even more alien.
performance is pretty impressive, the s10 is a standard netbook- 1gb ram, atom, crappy graphics- but 7 runs smooth with aero on.

proof of prettiness:

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed May 13, 2009 4:16 pm

Wow Porkchop your WIFI connection is pants, minimum speed and minimum signal.

Andy

porkchop · Post by **porkchop** » Wed May 13, 2009 4:40 pm

that would be because i'm at work, and i'm stealing internet from some poor chap who has an unsecured network

stromgald · Post by **stromgald** » Wed May 13, 2009 5:55 pm

andyb wrote: The thing that annoys me them most is the really horrible "Windows Explorer" that they have created. Within Vista it was customizable a little, but was never the same as previous versions of windows regardless of the amount of tweaking. W7 seems to have exactly the same problem. If I cant make it look the same, and act in the same way I simply wont use it. I am not going to list the individual issues with it as the list will be very very long. But the view I like and use is the "classic" W2K view, with folders showing in the left pane, full details on view with nothing hidden. I dont want to see all of the crap that is included in the "Vista Explorer" that I am not interested in seeing. It's MY OS when I buy it, and MS simply wont get my money if I cant make it look and act the way I want it to - Windows is supposed to be customizable - let me do so.?

Most of the rest of the viewing and interface "problems" can be put back to the "classic" view, or are near enough to it to not be a major issue, with one exception - the start menu. I never did like the huge double width start menu that came with XP, but with about threee clicks of the mouse you are back to "classic" view, that is not possible with W7 - I can live with that, I could many years ago with XP.

TBH, I don't feel that Windows explorer has changed all that much over the years. W7 seems to have scaled back some of the annoying things in Vista's explorer. Vista did have alot of extra crap such as the 'ratings' info, 'date taken' sometimes there instead of 'date modified', etc, but I haven't seen that with windows 7. The interface is slightly different from XP since it came from Vista, which followed IE7, however, for me the functionality is still mostly there.

Windows 2000/XP:

W7:

I do agree with you on the start menu though. Vista kept the ability to go back to the classic start menu. This is only the RC, so I'm hoping that's one of the changes they make before the final release.

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:55 pm

I'm kind of an MS hater, but installed Win 7 RC on my netbook (Mini 9) and have been very pleased with it. Performance is much better than Ubuntu (it was pretty sluggish on this computer), and I think it's even snappier than Win XP w/SSD tweaks. Hate to admit this, but I'm pretty impressed.

porkchop · Post by **porkchop** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:37 pm

i don't like rc1

media player has decided that it only wants to use its own h264 codec, which means that i can barely watch 720p video.

anyone know of a work around? perhaps a registry hack?

edit:
i managed to get mediaplayer classic to use coreavc, a bit of tweaking to enable subtitles and i think i'm good to go... phew.

LodeHacker · Post by **LodeHacker** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:29 pm

porkchop wrote:anyone know of a work around?

Linux?

...you asked for it

Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?

Re: Win 7, what compels you to upgrade?