I'm still running XP Pro on all of my computers. I even paid Lenovo $20 to install XP instead of Vista on my notebook.
What are the main improvements in Win 7 that would warrant an upgrade? I guess I'm really on the fence about upgrading when all my programs run nice and fast in XP, and I have never had any security issues with the OS.
Win7 is Vista with some nice optimizations. Basically my service-tweaked Vista build runs as snappy as a stock Win 7 build.
I've been using Vista since June 07, and I hate using XP now. Feels old and antiquated. I've been using Win 7 on my work laptop since the RC hit, and it's a nice upgrade over VIsta, but nothing revolutionary. It's really what Vista probably was meant to be.
All the 'Vista sucks, Win 7 rules" people are generally idiots who never gave Vista a chance. There, I said it. The differences are minimal. New taskbar and stuff is nice, but Win 7 vs Vista feels like Win 98 vs 95. The same thing, just more stable with some nice tweaks. Not, "OMG THIS IS THE CHOSEN OS".
I'm personally more stoked for Server 08 R2...have a few servers that need rebilt and have been waiting on it...August 6th can't come soon enough.
Honestly, if you're running XP on your current stuff, and are happy with that, stick with it. However, when buying new stuff, you'll find that there's a lot of stuff XP wont support, so you'll have to upgrade eventually, and Win7 looks a hellovalot better than Vista, so I'm quite looking forward to it, as a person that's still running XP and refusing to get Vista :)
I've been using Windows 7 at work for a few weeks now. I had been running Vista Ultimate but got fed up with the random issues I had with switchable graphics. What a hot mess. Windows 7 detected all of the hardware in my Lenovo ThinkPad T500. All of it. Take a minute to think about that. It detected the biometrics, TPM, AHCI and ACPI modules... HDMI card reader... everything. It was like Installing OS X on a Mac. I didn't have to do any work.
I don't know if it's fair to call it Vista Pro. There are several improvements to overall layout and workflow in this operating that leave me wanting more from my Macbook Pro running Leopard. The new windowing system is a pleasure to use when multitasking. Everything runs faster. The new taskbar is jarring at first, but once you get used to it, it increases your productivity and keeps things nice and neat. My only advice is for you to try it for two weeks, using it extensively before passing it off as a worthless upgrade. For one thing, it's a lot more stable than Windows Vista running on the same machine. I haven't had it crash once.
It's little things like file sorting, where you can sort by a specific criteria, then hit the drop down arrow on the associated column to filter only by the content you want to see with a simple checkbox. Using it side by side with my Leopard install, Spotlight has some catching up to do. Did I mention it's very fast? Search beats the pants off Spotlight in Leopard right now. Maybe it's too soon to compare. Maybe a comparison between Windows 7 and Snow Leopard would be more balanced.
So can you change the window borders yet and make the start menu "classic" or do they still force you to have all that garbage eye candy and tool bars you can't remove or compact? (I'm talking being able to compress the bars at the top of the window to one bar, file menu, location and all...in one bar.) Also, did they finally add the lines back to the tree view and allow the removal of the "locations" folders?
50 pixels is 50 pixels. It's 50 more pixels than you have with Windows 7. It's more lines of code, it's more document space, more windows you can have open before the screen gets cluttered, more usable space that the OS doesn't interfere with...
It's also a feature that was available and removed... so in essence, I'm getting less features for more cost.
And for the record, I run 1920x1600 of glorious Windows minimality (when I'm at work... since I use Linux at home and I don't even need a bar at the top.)
I mean seriously, we have all these widescreen monitors... why not use the width to benefit fitting more on your screen. I think you too might be giving Microsoft too much lenience. As it is in Win7, you will have a practically empty toolbar at the top of the window that could be better used for something productive.
Unfortunately, it looks like 2008 R2 won't be made available until the "second half of August." (last sentence in the first block quote of the post).
I'm really excited to get Win7 on the 6th, but I was hoping 2008 R2 (and Hyper-V 2008 R2) would be released the same day as well. I have a few server builds waiting for R2 also :)
I just changed my Windows 7 to the Windows Classic theme. If you are complaining about that tiny amount of screen space being taken up on the top menu bar....you have wayy too much time on your hands. Put your energies wasted worrying about those pixels towards your work instead.
You've made it even more clear how important those 50 pixels are! You get 3% more screen real estate just by not having that bar. That's like someone handing you $6000 for buying a $200,000 home. Think of what you could do to that house for $6K.
Heck, I didn't even touch on the idea that you might have multiple windows open... If you were transferring files form one window to another or you were trying to compare directories... Now instead of 50 pixels, you are losing 100, 150, maybe even 200 of those pixels depending on how much you are multitasking.
Have you ever dealt with code or massive amounts of files? Have you ever tried to work with multiple screens of log files? Every little bit helps.
I just don't get why someone would vehemently defend the idea of fixed tool bars in any system, especially when the previous system had customizable windows. It's like defending Ford for removing adjustable seats.
This is what 7 looks like in classic view, i just took this screenie to show you really how bad it looks, and how terrible it is for multitasking. (Switches back to the warm sweet comfort of Areo.)
"For someone complaining about 50px, you sure have that Folders list pane spread out real wide."
1. Wide screen monitors are wider than they are tall. You should probably check into that. Horizontal space is plentiful. 2. When you are digging 4, 5, even 10 folders in... that extra width comes in handy so you don't have to scroll left and right to see the entire tree.
"This is what 7 looks like in classic view, i just took this screenie to show you really how bad it looks, and how terrible it is for multitasking."
I know how bad it looks. It's nothing like the classic at all. All that wasted space, the horrible theme... that's what I'm complaining about. You've even included the "Organize" bar as well that can't be removed. Thanks for pointing that out. Oh, and the status bar at the bottom of the window...that used to be a nice small simple line of text. Now look a the thing! Look at the needless extra space in the left pane between categories where the folder list is... note that it's missing lines to help visually identify children folders. It's not as evident on your screen shot, but if you get about 4-5 folders down then it gets to be a task to track parent folders and nesting... And boy, look at that task bar... You're screen shot is proof of what I've been saying. Not productive at all and switching to Aero doesn't fix that. If anything, it makes it worse because it adds a candy coating to the inefficiency of it.
I hate to break it to you Andir, but Windows has looked like this in classic view for the last 10 years. The things you are complaining about are minor differences. Are you just trying to find the stupidest little things to complain about?
I agree, if you are programming and writing code, screen space is precious - but when you are talking about the amount of screen space you are talking about - it really just comes down to you being extremely picky. Now you're complaining about the taskbar? Well the taskbar has always been there, and having icons on it is not taking up any more of your precious screen space. What point are you trying to make? I like how Windows now looks and feels cool and slick. I get the feeling that if you designed the GUI it would look cold, empty, and heartless.
XP refined the classic view to the point where it was customizable (and dare I say perfect?)
And if I were design a UI it would have some eye candy, but it wouldn't be the main focus of the window. Apple did eye candy well, so did the *box themes for Linux. There's a point where you can have too much. Microsoft hit that pretty hard.
While its tablet world topping pixel density, Tegra 2 silicon, and fresh to death OS certainly sound awesome, we had to get our grubby mitts on one to see if it's as good as its spec sheet would have us believe.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'm still running XP Pro on all of my computers. I even paid Lenovo $20 to install XP instead of Vista on my notebook.
What are the main improvements in Win 7 that would warrant an upgrade? I guess I'm really on the fence about upgrading when all my programs run nice and fast in XP, and I have never had any security issues with the OS.
Faster overall performance (boot, programs, searching), vastly improved security, tons of UI enhancements, much improved media center . . .
Meh, just read the full list
http://geekpi.com/?p=25
Ya know I have asked many times about why I should upgrade to Vista Pro and all I got was lame answers. Don't expect this to change. :)
Soon there will be ending support and update for WinXP.
Win7 is Vista with some nice optimizations. Basically my service-tweaked Vista build runs as snappy as a stock Win 7 build.
I've been using Vista since June 07, and I hate using XP now. Feels old and antiquated. I've been using Win 7 on my work laptop since the RC hit, and it's a nice upgrade over VIsta, but nothing revolutionary. It's really what Vista probably was meant to be.
All the 'Vista sucks, Win 7 rules" people are generally idiots who never gave Vista a chance. There, I said it. The differences are minimal. New taskbar and stuff is nice, but Win 7 vs Vista feels like Win 98 vs 95. The same thing, just more stable with some nice tweaks. Not, "OMG THIS IS THE CHOSEN OS".
I'm personally more stoked for Server 08 R2...have a few servers that need rebilt and have been waiting on it...August 6th can't come soon enough.
Bluberry: Have you used the Beta or RC of WINDOWS 7? Because if you had, you would know first hand and wouldn't need to make pointless comments.
Not to mention you would want to be first in line to buy it.
@Kamokazi: But, and here's the key, what happens when you full optimize your copy of 7? Besides, Homegroups alone are a great selling point for 7.
@ Blueberry
Sounds like the result I found when I looked into upgrading to Leopard. Or what I'm seeing so far with Snow Leopard.
@GeekPI: You say Win 7 will have faster booting, performance, etc.. but the link you posted mainly compares the performance Win7 to Vista.
The main reason to upgrade onto Win 7 Is ignorance ....
if you're still not even aware of what improvements the OS is bringing, please go on and stick to XP ...
:)
Honestly, if you're running XP on your current stuff, and are happy with that, stick with it. However, when buying new stuff, you'll find that there's a lot of stuff XP wont support, so you'll have to upgrade eventually, and Win7 looks a hellovalot better than Vista, so I'm quite looking forward to it, as a person that's still running XP and refusing to get Vista :)
Optimization for multi-core processors is a pretty good reason, unless you're still running a Pentium 2 (of course there's nothing wrong with win95).
I've been using Windows 7 at work for a few weeks now. I had been running Vista Ultimate but got fed up with the random issues I had with switchable graphics. What a hot mess. Windows 7 detected all of the hardware in my Lenovo ThinkPad T500. All of it. Take a minute to think about that. It detected the biometrics, TPM, AHCI and ACPI modules... HDMI card reader... everything. It was like Installing OS X on a Mac. I didn't have to do any work.
I don't know if it's fair to call it Vista Pro. There are several improvements to overall layout and workflow in this operating that leave me wanting more from my Macbook Pro running Leopard. The new windowing system is a pleasure to use when multitasking. Everything runs faster. The new taskbar is jarring at first, but once you get used to it, it increases your productivity and keeps things nice and neat. My only advice is for you to try it for two weeks, using it extensively before passing it off as a worthless upgrade. For one thing, it's a lot more stable than Windows Vista running on the same machine. I haven't had it crash once.
It's little things like file sorting, where you can sort by a specific criteria, then hit the drop down arrow on the associated column to filter only by the content you want to see with a simple checkbox. Using it side by side with my Leopard install, Spotlight has some catching up to do. Did I mention it's very fast? Search beats the pants off Spotlight in Leopard right now. Maybe it's too soon to compare. Maybe a comparison between Windows 7 and Snow Leopard would be more balanced.
So can you change the window borders yet and make the start menu "classic" or do they still force you to have all that garbage eye candy and tool bars you can't remove or compact? (I'm talking being able to compress the bars at the top of the window to one bar, file menu, location and all...in one bar.) Also, did they finally add the lines back to the tree view and allow the removal of the "locations" folders?
This:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2333/compactview.png
...is what I need from Windows 7 and I doubt it can provide.
@Andir3.0: Either evolvoe with the OS or get left behind in the past, your choice
Boo Hoo Andir. What resolution you running to complain about 50 pixels? 800x600? 640x480?
50 pixels is 50 pixels. It's 50 more pixels than you have with Windows 7. It's more lines of code, it's more document space, more windows you can have open before the screen gets cluttered, more usable space that the OS doesn't interfere with...
It's also a feature that was available and removed... so in essence, I'm getting less features for more cost.
And for the record, I run 1920x1600 of glorious Windows minimality (when I'm at work... since I use Linux at home and I don't even need a bar at the top.)
I mean seriously, we have all these widescreen monitors... why not use the width to benefit fitting more on your screen. I think you too might be giving Microsoft too much lenience. As it is in Win7, you will have a practically empty toolbar at the top of the window that could be better used for something productive.
@Kamokazi:
Unfortunately, it looks like 2008 R2 won't be made available until the "second half of August." (last sentence in the first block quote of the post).
I'm really excited to get Win7 on the 6th, but I was hoping 2008 R2 (and Hyper-V 2008 R2) would be released the same day as well. I have a few server builds waiting for R2 also :)
Or for Pete's sake,
50 pixels on 1600? That's 3.125%. There really have to be bigger fish to fry.
I just changed my Windows 7 to the Windows Classic theme. If you are complaining about that tiny amount of screen space being taken up on the top menu bar....you have wayy too much time on your hands. Put your energies wasted worrying about those pixels towards your work instead.
You've made it even more clear how important those 50 pixels are! You get 3% more screen real estate just by not having that bar. That's like someone handing you $6000 for buying a $200,000 home. Think of what you could do to that house for $6K.
Heck, I didn't even touch on the idea that you might have multiple windows open... If you were transferring files form one window to another or you were trying to compare directories... Now instead of 50 pixels, you are losing 100, 150, maybe even 200 of those pixels depending on how much you are multitasking.
Have you ever dealt with code or massive amounts of files? Have you ever tried to work with multiple screens of log files? Every little bit helps.
I just don't get why someone would vehemently defend the idea of fixed tool bars in any system, especially when the previous system had customizable windows. It's like defending Ford for removing adjustable seats.
@Andir3.0 For someone complaining about 50px, you sure have that Folders list pane spread out real wide.
That space is there for a reason. It's not arbitrary - it's for visual organization.
This is what 7 looks like in classic view, i just took this screenie to show you really how bad it looks, and how terrible it is for multitasking. (Switches back to the warm sweet comfort of Areo.)
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/XirXes/ughh.png
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/XirXes/ughh.png
"For someone complaining about 50px, you sure have that Folders list pane spread out real wide."
1. Wide screen monitors are wider than they are tall. You should probably check into that. Horizontal space is plentiful.
2. When you are digging 4, 5, even 10 folders in... that extra width comes in handy so you don't have to scroll left and right to see the entire tree.
That looks like Windows ME. ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"This is what 7 looks like in classic view, i just took this screenie to show you really how bad it looks, and how terrible it is for multitasking."
I know how bad it looks. It's nothing like the classic at all. All that wasted space, the horrible theme... that's what I'm complaining about. You've even included the "Organize" bar as well that can't be removed. Thanks for pointing that out. Oh, and the status bar at the bottom of the window...that used to be a nice small simple line of text. Now look a the thing! Look at the needless extra space in the left pane between categories where the folder list is... note that it's missing lines to help visually identify children folders. It's not as evident on your screen shot, but if you get about 4-5 folders down then it gets to be a task to track parent folders and nesting... And boy, look at that task bar... You're screen shot is proof of what I've been saying. Not productive at all and switching to Aero doesn't fix that. If anything, it makes it worse because it adds a candy coating to the inefficiency of it.
I hate to break it to you Andir, but Windows has looked like this in classic view for the last 10 years. The things you are complaining about are minor differences. Are you just trying to find the stupidest little things to complain about?
I agree, if you are programming and writing code, screen space is precious - but when you are talking about the amount of screen space you are talking about - it really just comes down to you being extremely picky. Now you're complaining about the taskbar? Well the taskbar has always been there, and having icons on it is not taking up any more of your precious screen space. What point are you trying to make? I like how Windows now looks and feels cool and slick. I get the feeling that if you designed the GUI it would look cold, empty, and heartless.
XP refined the classic view to the point where it was customizable (and dare I say perfect?)
And if I were design a UI it would have some eye candy, but it wouldn't be the main focus of the window. Apple did eye candy well, so did the *box themes for Linux. There's a point where you can have too much. Microsoft hit that pretty hard.