Is Windows 7 better Then Windows Vista

[inspector71]

I heard windows 7 is not near as good as windows vista, Is this true?

 

[cjl]

I like it better, personally. It seems faster and more intuitive than Vista. It still has some minor quirks, but overall, I think it is a definite improvement over any prior MS OS.

 

[inspector71]

I guess i need to get a copy , i havent been building any computers lately and havent been in this furom i about 9 months, My buddy said it wasnt that great but considering it is still fairly new it will get better.

 

[randomizer]

I can't really see how it could be "not near as good" when it's built on the Vista code base.

 

[ahslan]

to tell you the truth, it just feels like a "vista that works"...vistas rep wouldnt be in shambles if it was like win 7...

 

[buzznut]

One word: Hell Yes! oh, I suppose that's two...

That Win7 is better, that is.

 

[505090]

I can't really see how it could be "not near as good" when it's built on the Vista code base.

that about covers it

 

[afrobacon]

Se7en is quicker, hogs less resources, and has a few minor upgrades to Vista. There are a few minor issue that people report, but nothing to be worried about.

..My opinion of coarse; but I'm a fanboi since my computer and Vista never played nice together.

 

[croc]

Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far. Look at the video reviews from Bill Gates, he almost denies Vista's existence.

Everybody was disapointed. As ahslan has said, Windows 7 is a Vista that works somewhat correctly. Surprisingly, XP still has more support overall if I am not mistaken. Vista just has more memory support which means nothing since the OS itself has performance issues. Sure, Windows 7 is an improvement but nobody trusts MS no more since Vista came out. As far as software support is concerned, nobody cares at this point.

Otherwise, XP wouldn't be selling at a good retail value.

To answer the initial question, performance is better, the interface is cleaned up, as far as support goes, that is not clear.

XP SP2 is going to be around for quite a while, get use to it.

This has to be one of the largest piles of male bovine excrement yet. You obviously weren't involved in the WinXP release, were you? Or do you just have a short memory? It took XP what, three years to get the bugs ironed out after release?

My Vista install works just fine, thank you. My Win7 RC install runs just fine, thank you. Both are much faster in apps than my XP install, thank you, especially apps that need more than one thread. (Won't even go into 64bit support, or lack of in XP...)

I predict that XP updates will be non-existant somewhere around q4 2010.

 

[photonboy]

XP versus Vista versus Windows 7:

Windows 7 is built on Vista and adds many improvements. It is essentially better in everyway except for a lack of drivers but that will be rectified on release. Due to the core Vista base many Vista drivers actually work or require little modification.

Vista and Windows 7 versus XP:
That's difficult. In many ways they are better (especially Win 7). However, significant driver or software issues occur for some people with older hardware. Most people comfortable with computers can easily jump from XP to Windows 7 but there are lots of people who don't like change.

There are lots of sites to find info.

I'm dual-booting Windows 7 RC 64bit and Windows XP. I'm really getting used to Windows 7's visual features but could quite easily go back to XP.

However, security, stability are much better in Windows 7.

Anyone upgrading from XP should get the 64bit version of Windows 7.

 

[N@n0]

+1 for croc!!
habitat87, your one of those "i dont like change" types... Yes vista was released premature, thats where most of the bad rep came from, and most people are still hung up on that, i switched over to vista as soon as sp1 was available, did the same with XP, will most likely do the same with W7.
To be honest, i would never go back to XP, the small insignificant changes like the "press start and just type what your looking for", then there is the caching, oh the joy, app's you use regularly gets lightning fast, so if vista is slow upgrade your hardware... my old P4 was performing quite well with vista.

As for the original question...

randomizer +1, just a new kernel and some streamlining. so it will better than vista.

 

[sminlal]

I predict that XP updates will be non-existant somewhere around q4 2010.

Updates in the form of service packs have already ceased - nothing beyond SP3 will be released for Windows XP.

Microsoft has committed to providing security patches and hotfixes for XP SP3 until April 2014.

 

[baddad]

I believe Vista was by far the best release of Windows so far and that Windows 7 will be even better. I started with Vista 32 bit on my game machine, the only problem I had was from Nvidia drivers, and then I did a clean install of Vista 64 bit, I had no problems at all. I have Vista 64 bit on my main machine, game machine, and Windows 7 RC on my media center machine.

 

[randomizer]

Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far.

I suppose Windows Me was the best?

 

[chunkymonster]

I heard windows 7 is not near as good as windows vista, Is this true?

Win7 is head and shoulders above Vista! The RC is still a but buggy and has driver/hardware compatibility issues. Once these issues are worked out (after SP1?), I would actually pay money for a retail version of Win7 instead of bootlegging or going OEM.

Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far. Look at the video reviews from Bill Gates, he almost denies Vista's existence.

My vote is actually for Windows ME. Overall Vista got bad press and after SP1 improved nicely.

 

[Scotteq]

Used them all at one time or another, and I have a couple unpopular opinions. The first is that (contrary to popular belief), XP is not God's Gift to Desktop Operating systems. XP at it's release was much worse than Vista at it's release, and that's a fact. Less driver support, more bugs, and issues with drivers (*still) can bring the entire thing down. The advantage XP had at it's release which Vista did not is that the OS's XP replaced were even worse - with the notable exception of Win NT. So (we) dealt with it since it was still an improvement in the (desktop) environment it was intended.

The second unpopular opinion is that if you can't get Vista working properly, then you need to turn whatever passes for your Technical Credentials in at the door on your way out. It's not hard. "Different"? Yes. But not difficult.


With that out of the way:

I've said it before: If you are looking for "XP 2010", then you are going to be deeply disappointed. Win 7 is not XP. Never has been, nor will it be.


As it stands now - I am using Windows 7 RC (build 7100 - not the leaked stuff), which I installed via an in-place upgrade of an image of my Vista 64 drive. It's been reliable and fast since install.

Likes:

I like the Action Center - It could be better, but it makes it easier to figure out what's going on with your system easier than in any previous version of Windows.

Superfetch has been toned down to be more polite about how it manages and caches data. It still does does it's thing, but isn't nearly as aggressive about it. Preferring instead to work in the background at a lower priority. The result is that the desktop becomes responsive much quicker on start up than it does under Vista. This is an easily noticable difference.

7 is better about how it handles multiple program windows - In earlier versions Windows keeps a copy of texture data for each window. Where possible, 7 uses a single version instead. So resource usage in situations where you have a lot of windows open is improved.

UAC is configurable, and the default is more polite to begin with.

Search - I've said it about Vista, and it holds true in 7 - I like the search. Indexed Results come up as fast as you can type the name. No More Navigating Menus and Sub Menus!

There's also a nice, and easy to use color calibration utility, better SSD support, and it Defrags itself.


I have a slightly more mixed impression of the new Taskbar - I don't like the defaults (icon only in a square box) all that much. Easy to fix using the context menu (right click). And if you're a Quick Launch junkie (like me), the defaults get really crowded, really fast. On The Other Hand: If you have a widescreen monitor - Try setting the Taskbar to the left or right side, open it up a little, and it quickly becomes superior to the older versions. Arrange your commonly used programs how you like, you'll have readable text instead of an icon, and the same program stays in the same place - always. So with a little practice, muscle memory becomes the rule when you want something. Nice...

 

[ahslan]

Well I really didnt have a great experience with Vista...I installed Vista ultimate 32 bit on my gaming rig after SP1 came out and I still had loads of problems with the OS...I gave the OS a chance for about a month but after that, I couldnt stand it, and simply went back to XP...while using Vista, my brand new rig didnt feel, well, brand new...when I switched to XP, everything felt the way it was supposed to...nice and fast...

As with Windows 7, I havent given it a chance on my gaming rig, but on my tablet it works and feels great...everything is fast and snappy even with a 1.6ghz pentium m processor and 1.5gb of ddr333 ram...the only bad thing I have to say about it is that there are no intel display drivers for my 4 year old tablet...this is why Vista had such a bad adoption rate...because the driver support was very poor from hardware manufacturers...but for this, I dont hold it against Microsoft, but on Intel instead...they simply refuse to release drivers for their legacy products which is simply inexcusable...

my 2 cents...

 

[htoonthura]

Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far.

XP SP2 is going to be around for quite a while, get use to it.

You must be out of your mind. shake your medicine well when you drink it.

 

[505090]

XP SP2 is going to be around for quite a while, get use to it.

you do realize that xp is on sp3 now, or is that somehow flawed to

 

[sminlal]

...if you're a Quick Launch junkie (like me), the defaults get really crowded, really fast.

Yeah, I was really irked at this too. But I learned that you can still use the "classic" quick launch bar in Win7 with a little tweaking:

- Configure Windows Explorer to show hidden files and folders
- Unlock the toolbar
- Right-click the toolbar and select "Toolbars -> New Toolbar"
- Select folder: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\QuickLaunch
- Drag quick launch to the left end
- Right-click quick launch and uncheck "show text" and "show title"

 

[xtream_ocer_intel_nvidia]

I'm not going to scream and shout in caps lock about how much of a n00b you are,
I'm just going to say that it is only in RC at the moment so there is no way to tell for sure, but from what I gather the RC is much better than Vista

 

[skittle]

@ habitat:
lol what "professional" programs dont work with vista? If the company hasnt released an update to make it compatible by now i would throw that garbage away.

And obviously you have never used XP without a service pack... your first steps out into the internet would be like walking through the final level of chex quest with only the bootspoon.

EDIT: I guess my only gripe with windows 7 is that they stil have not brought back 3d space cadet pinball 🙁

 

[rgsaunders]

@ habitat:
lol what "professional" programs dont work with vista? If the company hasnt released an update to make it compatible by now i would throw that garbage away.

And obviously you have never used XP without a service pack... your first steps out into the internet would be like walking through the final level of chex quest with only the bootspoon.

EDIT: I guess my only gripe with windows 7 is that they stil have not brought back 3d space cadet pinball 🙁

There are a number of proprietary "professional" applications that don't play nice with Vista or Win7, as a matter of fact there are some which don't really play well with XP either. These programs were frequently written many years ago to address specific needs of certain clients, many of these are data acquisition and analysis programs. I grant you that they are not normally commercial software, but nontheless they are still in use. To write new software for these purposes is prohibitively expensive and extremely time consuming. Your comment on throw the garbage away is typical of someone whose main computing experience consists of gaming or off the shelf commercial products. You need to realize that there are computing requirements which you have little or no knowledge of and are therefore unqualified to render judgment on them.

 

[skittle]

You can name one obscure program, and you go around spreading FUD about an OS?

@rgsaunders, in house custom software isnt really what habitat or my self were talking about...

 

[rgsaunders]

"In house" custom software frequently has thousands of users in large corporate environments, in other cases in government organizations, the numbers may be smaller however these programs can be critically important and extremely difficult to have updated for new IT hardware/OS requirements. Some of the producers of these specialized products have warehoused "obsolete" hardware in order to provide customer support. An example of this would be some of the "ruggedized" mil spec computers designed for field use. These systems are also used by many civilian scientists for data aquistion and analysis in harsh environmental conditions.
I realize these are not normal consumer requirements, however they do represent a case for continued support of what are deemed by many to be obsolete or useless OS. Said support should however be on a fee basis once it is outside the normal support timeline.