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

[Rafael Mestdag]

Not to mention the most stable?

What do you think?

 

[USAFRet]

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.

Somewhere in the archives here, I have the original WinME reinstall CD's for my dad's old Sony laptop.
They shall stay lost...:lol:

 

[Darkbreeze]

I think I have at least one copy of all these:

1.0 (Run from floppy), 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.03, 2.10, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, ME, 98, 98SE, 286, 386, 8, 8.1, 8 Pro, 7, 10, workgroups 3.11, NT 3.51 server, NT 3.51 workstation, server 2008 x64, 2000 and NT 4.

In every case, complaints were pretty much the same. Notice, no Vista. That was thrown away as unfit for use with anything.

 

[Rafael Mestdag]

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.

Following that line of thought(which is correct), I hope MS will bring back to Win10 the Aero missing since Windows 7.

 

[jimmysmitty]

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.

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.

Well it depends on what flavor of Linux and what built in features are running. A very base version of Linux with almost no features will run very lean. Hell you can make Windows run lean by disabling a lot of the flashy stuff and turning off all the extra services. Thing is that Windows is so widely used that they can't have those services off by default as they need to cover as wide of a user base as possible while Linux is used mostly, I know some use it in other ways, by people who are more tech savvy and can customize it to do what they want.

That said, 1.5GB is actually high. Windows 7 was around 800-900MB after a clean install and 8/10 were about 800MB after a clean install. Even so memory is cheap and going to get cheaper. Most systems start with 8GB and most mid end go to 16GB with 32GB becoming affordable in the high end. That extra 400MB with 16GB of RAM is near pointless and almost no normal applications take advantage of all memory and those that do are normally in workstation PCs with 32GB of RAM.

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.

ME was welll...... Crap. I mean people say Vista was bad but ME was just, it wasn't even in alpha.

 

[USAFRet]

I like the fact you can put 7 on a 9 yr old pc and it finds the drivers for a 12 yr old after market sound card you havent a clue about in 20 minutes.

Or Win 10 on a 7 year old low end laptop, with zero issues...

 

[Darkbreeze]

I clean installed Windows 10 on a Prescott based Celeron D system, single core, from about 2004-2005, that had Windows 7 on it (So it must have been upgraded at some point because I'm pretty sure it came with XP) and it runs fine. It had trouble with the integrated motherboard graphics driver at first, and I couldn't find any drivers that would work with it, but about a half hour after being connected to the internet it found one itself, and has worked without issue, other than being old and slow, ever since. That's at least an 11 year old system, maybe 12.

 

[Rafael Mestdag]

I clean installed Windows 10 on a Prescott based Celeron D system, single core, from about 2004-2005, that had Windows 7 on it (So it must have been upgraded at some point because I'm pretty sure it came with XP) and it runs fine. It had trouble with the integrated motherboard graphics driver at first, and I couldn't find any drivers that would work with it, but about a half hour after being connected to the internet it found one itself, and has worked without issue, other than being old and slow, ever since. That's at least an 11 year old system, maybe 12.

Points in favor of Windows 10! That's great if only 10 could really do it as it appears to be the case.

 

[asgard1123]

When it comes to system management 7 is cleaner to use than 10. Its all there somewhere in 10 but getting to it is more difficult. Networking is still rubbish because MS will insist on dictating to the user what they should have, instead of allowing what they want. The lock screen annoys, because there is no need for it. The control panel still exists even though Settings is the main access to control functions. I could go on and on. All of the things are fixable but there seems to be no will at MS to do so.

 

[Rafael Mestdag]

When it comes to system management 7 is cleaner to use than 10. Its all there somewhere in 10 but getting to it is more difficult. Networking is still rubbish because MS will insist on dictating to the user what they should have, instead of allowing what they want. The lock screen annoys, because there is no need for it. The control panel still exists even though Settings is the main access to control functions. I could go on and on. All of the things are fixable but there seems to be no will at MS to do so.

It's this 'lack of will' that seems to have contaminated MS at some point between Windows 7 and Windows 10.

 

[simonchipmunk]

Personally, I like both windows 7 and windows 10.

 

[simonchipmunk]

'Lack of Will' you could probably substitute 'need to make huge fist fulls' at some point.
Synphul's comments about W7 vs W10 performance go some way to proving its not about giving whats best,its about making money. I have 0 sympathy regarding last gasp 7 c.o.a. reclaim buyers upgrading,its unlikely this loophole will be repeated.

different strokes for different folks.

 

[Rafael Mestdag]

To me, the perfect OS by MS would be an improved version of Windows 7, instead they've gone backwards in almost every single way starting with the exaggerated apps thing and the graphics also went backwards with the apps thing following the tablets and phones style.

 

[jerryman]

Not to mention the most stable?

What do you think?

XP Media was the best of cores it is not supported any more

 

[Darkbreeze]

Its all there somewhere in 10 but getting to it is more difficult.

Not really. Right click the start menu, select control panel, all the same options as 7. Every one of those applets in control panel still has pretty much exactly the same functionality as they did in 7. Some actually even have more options for configurability than they did then. Seems easier to get to than navigating through the menus to get to control panel. Power user shell if you know it's there.

 

[dudeman509]

Its all there somewhere in 10 but getting to it is more difficult.

Not really. Right click the start menu, select control panel, all the same options as 7. Every one of those applets in control panel still has pretty much exactly the same functionality as they did in 7. Some actually even have more options for configurability than they did then. Seems easier to get to than navigating through the menus to get to control panel. Power user shell if you know it's there.

I actually forgot about that method of getting to stuff (I have one 10 computer and 2 7 computers that I spend more time on). That does make commonly used "power user" stuff pretty easy to get to.

People don't like massive change or different ways of getting to things they once knew. I think that's why 8 was such a flop for MS.

 

[Rafael Mestdag]

Its all there somewhere in 10 but getting to it is more difficult.

Not really. Right click the start menu, select control panel, all the same options as 7. Every one of those applets in control panel still has pretty much exactly the same functionality as they did in 7. Some actually even have more options for configurability than they did then. Seems easier to get to than navigating through the menus to get to control panel. Power user shell if you know it's there.

I actually forgot about that method of getting to stuff (I have one 10 computer and 2 7 computers that I spend more time on). That does make commonly used "power user" stuff pretty easy to get to.

People don't like massive change or different ways of getting to things they once knew. I think that's why 8 was such a flop for MS.

Which is why eventually Windows 10 will become as good as Windows 7, at least in the eyes of most of its current critics.

 

[USAFRet]

I actually forgot about that method of getting to stuff (I have one 10 computer and 2 7 computers that I spend more time on). That does make commonly used "power user" stuff pretty easy to get to.

People don't like massive change or different ways of getting to things they once knew. I think that's why 8 was such a flop for MS.

Control panels.
Win 10 on the left, Win 8.1 on the right.

Identical.

 

[asgard1123]

Open up to large icons and compare 7 to 10

 

[praxis22]

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.

I think you misunderstand Linux. Sure it has a lower starting RAM profile, but it will then fill your RAM with cache to speed things up, this is my 12GB desktop:

# free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 11969 11827 142 63 85 2949
-/+ buffers/cache: 8792 3177
Swap: 24580 1636 22944

According to that I have 12GB RAM and 142MB free, but I don't have problems as much of it is simply cached, which will disappear if need be. I also see you're a Luddite using Mate. Why not use Arch?

 

[Darkbreeze]

Topic here is Windows, not Linux.

 

[Luther Bird]

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.

snyphul - This is beautiful, perfect! No way I could have said it better.

 

[spotify95]

Yes, in my opinion - I prefer Windows 7 over anything else. 10 is good as well, though I don't like the automatic updates not being able to be disabled, and I also still like XP, but XP is getting too old to use as a main OS and I only use XP for programs that are incompatible with 7.

I bought a new laptop last November which had 10 preinstalled, but because it was to replace a laptop with 7 on it, and quite a lot of games wouldn't run on 10, I got my local computer shop to dual boot 10 and 7 for me.

I've been considering which to use as my main OS, and I was going to choose 10 - but I think I will now use 7 as my main OS. Why? Because games that run on 7 don't run on 10, and my inbuilt graphics card (Intel HD 4400) won't run many games full screen (or at all) on the 10 partition, yet they work just fine on the 7 partition on fullscreen (and do run). Plus, I need to sort out a "system and compressed memory" issue, which I will get round to.

In my opinion, from best to worst:
1. Windows 7
2. Windows 10/Windows XP
3. Windows Vista (had experience on a Vista machine a few times, but Vista is very slow and had very high CPU?RAM requirements for its time. My XP machine states that it is Vista capable - I doubt it'd run very nicely.)
4. Windows 8/8.1. I got my Windows 8.1 machine upgraded to 10 a few weeks ago, and 10 is much better - I know where to find things on 10, and I know how 10 works - yet doing anything other than the most simple of tasks was a pain with Windows 8/8.1!

For the record: I've had a small amount of experience with Mac OS X and Linux, but haven't had enough experience of the OSes in order to rate them - but they should be easier to use than 8 or 8.1. I also used a Windows 95 and a Windows ME system previously (a lot of years ago, though) - and although they were good OSes for their time, they are, simply put, ancient now. Many programs that were built for Windows 95/98/2000/ME will run fine in XP, and a couple of them will even run in Windows 7 (though not brilliantly - XP is more suited to those programs).

 

[mamasan2000]

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.

I think you misunderstand Linux. Sure it has a lower starting RAM profile, but it will then fill your RAM with cache to speed things up, this is my 12GB desktop:

# free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 11969 11827 142 63 85 2949
-/+ buffers/cache: 8792 3177
Swap: 24580 1636 22944

According to that I have 12GB RAM and 142MB free, but I don't have problems as much of it is simply cached, which will disappear if need be. I also see you're a Luddite using Mate. Why not use Arch?

I understand the caching but the way I measure RAM usage is fresh boot. In Linux it depends on cached stuff and how much RAM you have, after a while. The more memory, the more is cached.
I did install Antergos with OpenBox couple days ago, I like it. Triple boot.
I like testing stuff out. Windows does not really allow that, in any meaningful way.

Win 7 is my favorite if I didn't say earlier. Gadgets the main reason. Why those got removed, I don't understand.

 

[USAFRet]

Win 7 is my favorite if I didn't say earlier. Gadgets the main reason. Why those got removed, I don't understand.

Because they were a major security hole.
Those gadgets were basically just tiny web pages, running on your desktop. The source for that could have been changed, or compromised, and it would just run automagically on your desktop.


http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/gadgets

Gadgets have been discontinued

Gadgets are no longer available on our website because the Windows Sidebar platform in Windows 7 and Windows Vista has serious vulnerabilities. Microsoft has retired the feature in newer releases of Windows. Gadgets could be exploited to harm your computer, access your computer's files, show you objectionable content, or change their behavior at any time. An attacker could even use a gadget to take complete control of your PC

 

[jsmithepa]

As in aesthetically beautiful? Absolutely not, the interface is dated. Stable? of course.