W7: Is it what you expect?

The more I use W7 the more I feel robbed. My Vista Sp2 OS works very well and I haven't had problems with my laptop since Christmas. I managed to hit the sweetspot and now I had to opportunity to try W7. I have it as a dual boot option and for an OS claiming to be the MESSIAH of OS'es it is far from what I expected.


PLEASE BACK UP YOUR VOTE!!!!

 

I voted NO. Its simply Vista with a different skin and sometimes better response.

 

I also voted "NO" because Windows 7 feels more like Vista Reloaded, or Vista SP2.

It's basically Vista, with some performance enhancing under the hood tweaks, and a new taskbar.

The difference for me is not enough to justify buying Windows 7. XP users should jump on Windows 7, but those that already have Vista and who will have Vista SP2 by the time Windows 7 is released, then it's a fairly pointless upgrade.

Also, what the hell is with stripping out mail and photo stuff and making it a separate "windows live essentials" download. Stupid.

Overall, Windows 7 is a great OS, it's just too similar to Vista for it to be worth upgrading to if you already have Vista.

 

It is what Vista SP2beta should be, but lacks driver/software support to be my primary OS at this point. The differences are likened to that between XP2-XP3 as far as feature changes and performance.

As far as daily use is concerned, W7 is no more than Vista with a few tweaks, a couple of additional features, and more incompatibility.

 

Sorry about the typo . A mod will modify soon .

I agree with you .

 

I voted "no", but in a good way.

I figured it would be Vista even more bloated (contrary to what everyone had been saying), and was pleasantly surprised to find it as Vista Lite.

If Windows 7 was available in release form, I'd switch from Vista entirely.

 

What were they thinking? If W7 is aimed at XP users then they are bang on. If it is aimed at Vista users too, they will have a surprise.

 

In fact, from what I can tell, Windows 7 is most comparable to the change between Windows XP SP1 --> Windows XP SP2

Doesn't feel like a new OS at all.

 

Agree. I see absolutely no reason why Windows XP users should hang on now. Windows 7 is perfect for them.

 

To make is a less bloated, more user configurable OS.

I think it's a great idea. Many users use their own third part software for these tasks. What's the point of Windows Mail if I use Thunderbid? Just as an example.

 

Really, how different was Windows 98 from Windows 95 OSR2.1? I mean, 98 was just 95 with IE4 shell integration. Every OS update isn't revolutionary. Some are merely evolutionary.

But I don't understand the malice that you seem to have towards it. If it's not worth it to you, then don't bother with it.

 

I see your point, please see mine.

 

I voted yes. I love this OS.

 

Agreed, but can you really call Windows 7 "an evolution"? Personally I don't really see what's evolved. The taskbar? A few under the hood performance changes that amount to "bug fixes" rather than evolution?

Don't get me wrong though, Windows 7 is a great OS, but is it really what we were all expecting? I was expecting an evolution rather than anything revolutionary obviously, but I don't even feel we've had that.

That's why I voted "no".

 

As much as I like the improvements I've seen in Windows 7, I have to say that it doesn't bring enough new things to the table that Vista brought in. With Vista SP1, I was happy as everything was in good working order (I haven't tried Vista SP2 yet).

W7 is great. Don't get me wrong on this. But for me Vista is working out real well, so I might just hold off on getting W7 until I get a new laptop. For my desktop, this weekend it will go back to being a Vista box with the W7 as a virtual machine.

Voted: No

Edit #1: Now if Microsoft decides to allow Vista Ultimate users a free upgrade... I wouldn't mind at all .

Edit #2: Maybe I'll hold off going back to Vista until the beta is a week away from expiring... haven't made up my mind just yet.

 

Oh come on, it's not like you paid anything for the beta

Well, I expected a better performing Vista in 7, and that's what I got mostly, so I guess it's a yes. I mean, really, did anyone really expect it to be a TOTALLY NEW OS?! It's obviously just what-Vista-was-supposed-to-be.

 

I voted Yes.

From my experience so far
-It is faster than Vista.
-Most issues with UAC are gone.
-I get 1-2 hours extra battery life.
-Generally more user friendy than Vista.

Of course there are issues but so far the only issue I have is with IE8 (sometimes it just becomes unresponsive) and a few programs that aren't compatible yet. (remember this is a beta and a RC is probably due sometime before RTM.

 

it is what i expect. that doesn't mean i like it or not. it's what sp2 was for xp. a cleanup and fix and redesign things that weren't perfect.

if people would have accepted vista, we would not have to pay for it. it would be sp2 and that's it. that's what you got, people, for bashing vista: pay again!!

 

No I did not pay but I had to make huge sacrifices to make Vista work without any hassle. After 5 months of tweaking I found the settings for me that make Vista a better OS than XP. Now W7 comes out in its infant form advertised by Microsoft as Vista bad experience eraser. Okay, I am fine with that. I put it on and I expected all the apps working under Vista to work on W7, even at this stage. I post shots how mine crashes simple apps, apps that should have worked.

People here have no issues with it. I am happy for them but how does that help me at the end of the day? Mine is not getting my knickers wet because Vista is already faster on my system than on the average Vista system.

 

Funny phrase that generalises. Think outside the box and you will see why and who decided that Vista is not good. Your bank, your travel agency, your friendly neighbourhood businesses sinking their teeth in every country.


/end offtopic.

 

I just finished talking to a very good friend of mine who works for Airbus. He has a very nice system I7 Extreme, 6GB RAM, 2GB Video, RAID, etc. He asked me for my x64 license because for some reason he can't get one. I gave my W7 license and he installed it. His first impressions?

1. ? It looks like Vista.
2. Oh, the start menu is a bit different.
3. msconfig has a memory limit option in the boot menu
4. Speed is nice but my Vista Business was the same.
5. Boot up in W7 is 7 seconds faster than Vista with all the apps running. I can't make coffee in that time so ...
6. WEI is very bad compared to Vista
7. Dual Monitor support has issues.


Bottom line...a very good price for upgrade from Vista might make me buy it. At the moment, I am happy with my Vista.


His words, not mine.

 

Um, you didn't phrase the question poll very well. Becuase I said "yes" because I actually like the OS, but its everything I expected it to be in a good way. You can answer yes or no...the question is flawed right now.

 

With all due respect, it's a beta version of a forthcoming OS that's at least 6 months away from release. Probably longer. If you blew away a perfectly good tweaked copy of Vista in order to replace it for day to day use with a beta OS and are annoyed that it doesn't meet your expectations, then I think you don't grasp the concept of a beta release. Part of this is Microsoft's fault. They make the betas too easy to get these days.

No one here knows what the final version will really be like, or what it might include. It's a mistake to make a judgment based upon this beta release.

 

Um, that's just wrong :/

The beta is feature complete. All that's left to do now is tweak and bug fix.

You can't judge the performance or stability, because due to the tweaking and bug fixing those things are highly likely to change.

Therefore, we have a fairly good idea what it will be like, and we know exactly what it will include as that part in particular has already been finalised.

You can make a fairly good judgement based on the beta therefore.

 

Mate, let's not fall into a trap and argue like two 12 year old. This is the second time you come off as condescending and I will let it pass. The third time I will not. If you check my sig, I have DUAL BOOT. I stated on the numerous W7 threads that I don't use it as my main OS and that I consider it as a one night stand . Do you actually read what other people post or you just nitpick on things that strike you childish? I've been a Microsoft tester since Longhorn first came out. I've got an MSDN sub but for some reason I could not log in that night. Problem might have been on my end. One of the reasons I grabbed a ticket and stayed in line with the rest. Why would I even blow away a Vista set-up that works like a charm on one of my computers for the first time since Vista came out? Calm down and be civil.

 

Spot on. I think he is confusing beta with an alpha version. They gave me Longhorn alpha and when they gave me Vista, Vista beta was way different.

 

To the people saying "oh it looks just like vista, nothing has changed", did you actually expect a complete refresh of the UI? That would be an incredible waste of time, they changed what needed to be changed and polished what needed to be polished. There's was a pretty major UI change from XP to Vista, there's really no need to do it again with this version.

 

I currently use XP and skipped Vista, because XP works and does all the things I needed.
Now, when Win 7 is out, I will upgrade. Why?

It's faster than Vista, has better power management than XP, an improved GUI, I will use it with 64bit (and XP Tablet Edition is not available as 64bit), it has an uniform UI with the Ribbon interface (so it fits to office and many other newer programs), improved Tablet Input panel (exactly what I was searching for), improved writing recognition, improved tablet PC feature and it's the latest OS, so I stay up to date and the migration from Win 7 to Win 8 or 9 will be easier than from XP to Win 8 or 9.

But still, I thought Win 7 will be better. I also see it as "only" an improved Vista, but I'm happy that's it's better at all
So it's like Vista=Win 95 and Windows 7=Win 98.

I thought that they would add WinFS and improve the GUI.
To be honest I don't like the Windows GUI at all (the same with Mac OS or Linux) and I also don't really like the ribbon. The current UI is old and outdated.
I thought they add a fully scalable GUI (because the resolution of small displays gets higher and higher) and a 3D desktop or at least something with an easier to use interface. The ribbon is an improvement, but it's almost negligible.
I don't need such a huge task bar, stupid start menu, huge window bar and huge ribbon. I want that the program uses that space, task bar is everywhere and window bar is integrated in the program. Something like the circle dock seems to be a pretty decent solution for this. (sadly far away from finished).

So it's a yes and no.
I'm happy that they did what they did, so I can upgrade to Win 7. I'm disappointed that they changed only small things and left important things unchanged (file system and interface)

 

Where is the fire? Why was there a need for a new Windows Version? Why couldn't a service pack fixing all the compatibility issues suffice? I wanted an interface with more differences than similarities. Many of my friends who are computer users got intimidated by the Vista layout. The loved the XP one. It was simple and to the point.

People using Vista and not being computer freaks like us will not care what is under the hood if the design is the same. They will be turned off automatically.

 

No. What I'm not doing is attaching the expectations of a final product to a beta release. When you said "I put it on and I expected all the apps working under Vista to work on W7, even at this stage" then that strikes me as someone unclear on the concept.

Geez, why do you care so much? I agree that the jump from Vista to 7 is relatively minor, but you actually seem angry about it in these threads. "Ripped off" is a term you used. No one has a gun to your head. Use Vista. Use XP. Forget Windows 7 if it bothers you so.

 

I just finished talking to the kid that delivers my newspaper. He says Windows 7 is the best OS ever.

 

No.

7 is what Vista should have been.

 

I voted No, because I didn't think 7 was going to be worth anything. I was pleasantly surprised to find every app of mine worked in 7, and that performance was substantially better. Sure, there are a only a few new things here and there, but the reliability, performance, and stability are worth it to me.

 

Voted Yes but it is more of "It is what Vista should have been" thing.

the OS is very responsive and the boot times are impressive as are the other little things that make the user experience fun.

 

I agree that it is what Vista should have been. But nonetheless I like this OS.

You do realize that it's in Beta right???
Beside, the point of releasing 7 is not to make a revolution. Microsoft wants to show that they can make decent OS.

 

Like Han Bao quan said, its not all about revolution. They aren't adding tons of new features and this and that, but more like how Apple is doing OS X 10.6. Its all about tightening up code and making a stable, fast, efficient OS.

My favorite part of all? The Recovery Console is now installed on the win7 part. No more having to haul around the DVD in case you need to boot into the Recovery Console; very useful for those who do complete PC backups onto an external drive.

 

I like that feature, just wish it was a part of Vista in the event I need to recover the backup I made on my Vista drive.

 

I'm surprised, but in a good way. I would have never expected the boost in performance or battery life.

Greg

 

It is great, they finally removed some of their own useless software. For me, they could also have removed paint, wordpad and IE.

I use Outlook for email, Word for typing and Photoshop for image editing.

I always wondered, why they had to install all this double-softwares which I did never use with Windows.

 

It has to do with antitrust I believe. They have to pay the OEMs (and they are) to preinstall Windows Live Essentials on thier PC's. This means that it is fair, since other developers have to pay OEMs to get their software preinstalled.

I also think it was sort of a gesture of good will to compensate for the built in DVD codec and better burning features.

Greg

 

I really think windows 7 is the perfect amount of change for an OS to be a great new OS. Wishmaker, you complain about your computer's equal preformance and such, but if you haven't noticed, every forum member is claminign preformance gains including myself. I'm pretty sure your computer must have issues of you incorrectly set up your dual boot to cause slower preformance.

Also, you complain about windows 7 merely being an upgrade to vista, but thats not a bad thign at all. Look how people took it when switching from xp to vista. They claimed it was terrible. In order to avoid this, microsoft is making some changes while keeping other things the same. Its really a much betetr choice. Look how much smoother the transition on macs was from osx to lepoard. Xp to vista caused great amounst of bashing towards microsoft that they are trying to avoid this time.

Finally, you talked about spending five months perfecting vista for yourself, so wouldn't you perfer a lesser change so that you can continue using an os that you love?

I would say 7 is a good OS. You apparrently are having issues with it right now and for some reason, don't see any preformance gain...(you must be the 1 person our of 2.5 million that doesn't, I don't know), but i would say everything is great. 7 is a great step for preparing us for the future of computing with multi touch, home netwokring, and so on and does so while remaining speedy. It truly is a great OS

 

XP users now can be happy to switch to 7.
Another thing I like is battery life is much better in 7, almost as good as XP.

 

I'm actually a XP lover and based on so many positive opinions I'll make the switch to 7 when final.

Just an upgrade from 1G to 4G and am sold

 

Certainly it shouldn't be a dramatic revolution, but why make another yet-so-similar OS when they can just integrate the minor changes to the upcoming service pack? I really empathize with with the starter of this thread, i felt a bit ripped myself, because w7 is perfectly what Vista Ultimate should've been. I mean, what does ultimate stand for anyway? The minor changes of w7 what should be found Under vista ultimate's hood.

And if they should start a new OS, atleast change the Ui. Just like Win98=XP. XP=Vista. A whole DIFFERENT Gui. Now that's a new OS for you. I think it is not yet time for microsoft to just create an improved OS when Vista still have a wide room for improvement-and it even hadn't had a 2nd service pack yet. Just felt bad that I'm staring at a "new" OS with a ghost of vista itself .

I respect all the opinions of the users here, but we have no other choice as techology has only one direction and that's to endlessly improve itself over time.

Its just a personal opinion with a pang of small gripes.

Cheers.

 

wow, you vista huggers are working over-time. Almost as bad as the XP worshipers. You can keep ur Vista, everyone else is moving forward.

Things I noticed so far, after installing the same programs on Win7 as Vista.

Faster load/boot time. (yea who cares, but its an improvement)

Takes up less resources. I can see Vista taking up about 300-500mb more on my 4gb t7200 Laptop.

Faster shutdown time. (i know it doesn't matter) but its an improvement over vista.

Its compatible with everything so far, even works fine on my XP equipped desktop.

----

Remember the problem with Vista was when it 1st came out, it had compatibility issues, Win7 so far, doesn't have as much issues as Vista did.

So Win7 is a "face lift" of Vista" maybe. But it does everything vista does, more efficiently, and with less resource.

I will be moving forward.

 

A few things...

A) For those saying Win7 is what Vista should have been have obviously no idea of the original feature list for Longhorn and they are ignoring the fact that people said this about Win98 and Win2K and XP.

B) You are claiming that Microsoft's 1400 software engineers have sat for two and a half year doing nothing but moving stuff too Windows Live Essentials just to mess you around seems to have missed the anti trust judges in both the EU and US.

C) Win7 will be the last of Windows NT as it is now, it's a last evolutionary line, if you want revolution, wait for Windows 8, who'll probably be a VM based NT compatible OS that runs everything in Ring 0.

Seriously, get a grip.

 

Hmm.

For something that is supposed to based upon Vista and, I thought, supposed to be driver compatible, there sure is a lot of basic stuff that does not work with 7.

I like some of the changes/additional features, but it does 'feel' like it is more of a Vista Service Pack release than a completely new OS.

None of that really matters to me, however. If it is only going to be a 50.00 upgrade from Vista, there is enough there that I would by it, but it will have to work with everything first.

Compared to V64, I'm not seeing the improved boot or shutdown performance that many are claiming. My Vista boots in 36 seconds or less including swiping my fingerprint. 7 won't even read my fingerprint since the software won't install under 7. Also no quick launch button support, Adobe features don't play nice, IDT HD Audio is angry, etc..

Many are saying 7 is better because it uses less resources. First, what good are unused resources? Second, it uses up available RAM just as much as Vista does - which is good in my view.

Is it what I thought it would be. No. It is not compatible with all Vista drivers and software, so it does not matter what improvements it may bring to the table since it does not function fully on my system at ths time. In that regard it is like a completely new OS!

But Hey, it's a Beta!!!!!!!!!! I had no dillusions that I could replace my current OS with it right now (not sure why so many are hyping that you do so) when I loaded it on a seperate partition.

So we will see...

 

Unused CPU resources mean a more responsive system and better battery life for one.

Also, we are not having dillusions that we can replace our current OS with it. IT WORKS. Plain and simple. 99.9% of my software works, and 100% of my hardware does. It is more stable than Vista was for me and is much more responsive.

Just because your experience was less than perfect does not mean that others is as well.

I'm talking about Vista final here, with SP1. This runs much better for me. I'm not even going to talk about this compared to the Vista beta, because there is no comparison at all.

Greg

 

Irrelevant argument.

I can just as easily say that just because your experience is perfect does not mean that others is as well.

There are many bloggers and users of this forum that have installed 7 as an upgrade(?)/replacement to Vista and are suggesting that it is 100% stabil, as you have just done. In my mind that kind of hype is irresponsible - to suggest that it is ready to become a primary OS for everyone.

7 is a beta. I did not and would not expect it would work perfectly at this point for all systems. It is cleary not ready to support my system as it is now.

My point was simply that although it shows some promise and I like some of the additional features, for something that was supposed to be based upon Vista and compatible with Vista drivers and software, it is full of incompatibilities. It is therefore not what I expected it to be.

 

I'm confused, if he hasn't encountered a single problem yet, its a prefectly rash statement to call the beta 100% stable...Also, lets be honest even non beta versions of os's have an occasional problem, and I would say that for the most part windows 7 has no more problems than vista, osx, xp, and so on in its current state.

Edit: also, he never says that it is 100% stable, he says 100% of his hardware works, and I would have to agree from the two computer I am running it on