Is Windows 7 still the most beautiful OS by MS today?

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator
I guess it depends. I used to be OK with the way XP looked but now it hurts my eyes. I like 10 but don't mind 7.

As for most stable, if you compare launch then 8 was more stable than 7 at launch as 10 was more stable than 8. The biggest problem for 10 is that most are doing upgrades instead of clean install which cause more issues than it solves.

If I had a choice I would go for the design on 10 over 7.
 

Rafael Mestdag

Reputable
Mar 25, 2014
1,442
0
5,460
60


I was never into art myself so I can't tell, but when it comes to design, I don't think you have to be into art in order to recognize a beautiful one. Besides, telling Picasso and Monet apart I suppose is more complex than simply visuals.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
109,344
1,020
152,440
18,283


The concept is....they are both good. Just different.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
If you put a brand new paint job on a 74 pinto without doing anything else to it, it might look good, but it's still a worn out, low compression smog belching, bushing squeaking, broken down shock having, outdated pile of piddle underneath. Windows 10, minus the privacy and enforced update concerns, is easily superior to all previous versions so long as you do a clean install. And there are certainly methods to eliminate the other concerns as well.
 

synphul

Polypheme
Moderator
It's not really a matter of comparing technical stability since I don't believe win 8/8.1/10 to be 'unstable' (like vista was), though my personal preference is win7. I'm also old school I suppose and prefer a desktop oriented os, not a jacked up playskool os ported from a smartphone screen. If I wanted a toy I'd get an os made by barbie and friends.

That's not a good enough reason to steer others away from win10, just my personal opinion. Aside from lacking the more robust drivers and game support, I'm actually pretty fond of linux. It's more simple and to the point without the bloat and fluff. No need for voice activated things, large oversized icons, touch screen support. I do my best to keep my screen clean not smudged with fingerprints.

When it comes to raw performance, there really isn't much going for win10. In many cases win7 is tied or even faster.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/

Aside from a couple of win10 exclusives, like dx12 or ms edge but that's apples and oranges. Compare 4cyl cars to one another then the manufacturer comes out with an 8cyl car exclusive to the latest model and claims well the newest one is faster or more powerful. When looking at the performance comparison between win7 and 10 regarding chrome or firefox, the results were almost identical. Ms's edge browser did show a great improvement but over its previous internet explorer browsers. It's more to do with improving their browser rather than due to win10's advanced superiority.

Again it's just my personal take on it, win10's search feature and tiles and all are supposed to be more advanced. Which is fantastic for those who find them helpful, to me it's clutter. I rarely use the search feature, I know where I put my files. Things like tiles and gidgets or widgets or whatever along with cortana can all go straight to the trash file imho. I realize ms tries to be a one size fits most and there's nothing against that. Just like the language packs, it makes windows more of a universal fit for people out of the box. Personally I don't speak 100+ languages so that's all wasted space and bloat when it comes to my personal system.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
The underlying foundation in 10 is superior. That's all there is to it. The rest is cosmetic and if you really prefer XP or7 then a simple shell skin can fix that. Startisback or Classic Shell will both return the familiar menus, desktop appearance and even many of the shell extensions that were present in those OS versions.

Classic cars have their place and are prized, especially when the numbers all match, but personally I'd rather have a '69 camaro with a fully independent suspension from a Corvette and a computer tuned, fuel injected big block under that beautiful skin than the gallon per mile carbureted fuel dispensary that came in it. Some would beg to disagree, but others understand.
 

synphul

Polypheme
Moderator
I would agree that win10 is 'newer' though how 'superior' it is I think is debatable. Especially when bench after bench shows equal or worse performance to win7 which came out 7yrs ago. So 7yrs of hard work and development reinventing the wheel just to come out with something 'almost' as good as what existed and less performance than win8.1, the os which it directly replaced. That's inferior in my book. Maybe on paper it sounds better, like ddr4 but in the real world aside from a slightly faster boot time it offers zilch in terms of program speed.
 

Rafael Mestdag

Reputable
Mar 25, 2014
1,442
0
5,460
60


I completely agree with you. It's been 7 years and this is all that MS can come up with? Almost no improvement at all?? And I thought that things evolved so quickly in the computer world...

I guess MS are trying to focus all their attention and money on implementing and selling the apps after all instead of focusing on improving the OS as a whole in relation to Windows 7 especially.
 

mamasan2000

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
1,470
8
12,165
221
The thing I have never understood with MS OSes is that computers get a lot faster, have more RAM etc but MS manages to make their OS take all that performance and throw it in the toilet. OS should be just something handling hardware, not using half the computers resources for no good reason. Linux pulls maybe 400 megs of RAM. Why does Windows use 1.5 gigs+? Such bloatware.
Instead of making the OS leaner and computer faster, MS goes the other way, slowing down a new computer so you wont even notice that you upgraded your hardware.
Well, it sells more computers. Maybe.

-This post was written in Ubuntu Mate with Gnome.
 

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator


I think you are on the wrong topic buddy. This is not a Linux vs Windows, which I myself have my own qualms about. This is about how people feel about the looks of Windows and its various versions.

We get it though, you like Linux.
 

Rafael Mestdag

Reputable
Mar 25, 2014
1,442
0
5,460
60



I get your point. Although this is a Windows vs Windows thread, I too would like MS to make an OS that pulled 400MB instead or 1.5GB to run perfectly. But if they did this, they probably would have problems with the computer industry as a whole as they wouldn't sell as many new computers as before. I know MS can do an OS as light and efficient as Linux but they probably won't because of that.

 
The ridiculous number of Windows Updates in 7 have been driving me crazy lately. They'll release 20+ at a time. I kinda like that 10 just does it in the background and doesn't bother you unless you leave the system on all the time (I don't).

HEY! Restart! HEY!
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
When Vista was released everybody said...well, nevermind, Vista was a POS. When 7 was released, everybody said, XP was much better, because 7 had a lot of bugs to work out, there WERE driver issues from new frameworks, and everything that commonly accompanies the release of a new OS. Same thing with 8, which also really sucked, until they released 8.1, which had the same issues from new frameworks, drivers, bugs, security flaws, etc. Now the same thing has happened with 10, MOST of which have been worked out by now and will continue to be worked out until they decide to screw it all up again.

Hardware support, now at least, not at the beginning, is much more seamless, especially for new technologies, blue tooth devices, thunderbolt, new USB standards, and of course going forward hopefully we're going to see these much touted benefits from things like DX12, Vulkan, etc. People tend to develop selective amnesia and not remember all the problems that each OS version had when it was first released, and for a while afterwards until everything smoothed out. Every version since 3.1, or even earlier, sucked at first until variables and miscellany could be patched, tweaked, revised, adopted, implemented or otherwise "fixed".

I don't know why anybody expected 10 to be any different. There is really nothing graphically that you could do with 7 or XP that cannot be visually reproduced in 10, or even 8.1 for that matter. And in reality, even according to those Techspot benches, wake from sleep is faster on 10, wake from hibernation is faster, cinemark benches faster, futuremark benches faster. 3D particle movement is slightly slower, at least using the hardware they used and all but one of the gaming benchmarks are either the same or faster, except one.

Plus, keep in mind, that review was done immediately following the first releases of Windows 10, before drivers were optimized/revised, or any other code revisions were released. I suspect that with several driver release versions since then and major changes to the OS via the couple of service packs it's gotten, those benchmarks might look a bit different now.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
109,344
1,020
152,440
18,283
And previous to Vista, XP was universally reviled at the start. Not just because of the same driver/hardware issues, but also because the 'Fischer Price' interface.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/memory-lane-before-everyone-loved-windows-xp-they-hated-it/
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Yeah, don't even get me started on Windows ME. I've tried hard to forget about it. But even that was better than Windows 98, before SE came out, short lived as ME was. Every version suffers the same perceptions, and later is revered as having been "better" than the next one, when it's first released.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS