| 9:55 pm on Oct 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Windows 7 cannot beat Windows 2000 Corporate Edition till day !
(ignore Direct X 11 support and WMP support but w2k can do everything Windows 7 can on low resources ;) )
| 4:13 am on Oct 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've been running Windows 7 since the beginning of this year. I started with the beta, then tried the release candidate, and I've been running the final version for a couple of months now on several different machines. I use it on everything from a netbook, to laptops, and several desktops.
If you've got a home network Windows 7 is great to link everything together. Things just simply work. Add everything to your HomeGroup and share what you like. It's a far cry from those days of trying to get Windows XP & 2000 machines to recognize one another. It's super smooth and has easy to use with wizards to walk you through it.
As XP was more secure than 2000, and Vista was more secure than XP, Windows 7 has gone a long way to make security work right out of the box. It's a lot less intrusive than Vista (UAC), which should appease some. I think they've struck a nice balance here. It's secure, but no longer nagging in the way that Vista was.
The UI is very clean and easy to work with. I was initially not a fan of Vista's UI, but as I came to understand the reason for some of the design elements it became clear that they made some very smart choices at Microsoft. Windows 7 takes the Vista UI and improves on it.
|I want to know if this thing is worth the trouble of backing up all my stuff and then reinstalling all of it. |
First you'd want to run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor [microsoft.com]. That will tell you if your system is lacking anything.
Your question is a hard one to answer actually. If you have a well functioning system setup on another version of Windows then it may not be worth your time to go through everything to get a new OS. Maybe you should just wait until you get a new machine. However, if you have a minimal amount of software to add and setup then I'd say you might want to consider it. It has certainly breathed new life into several of my machines.
| 3:05 pm on Oct 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thanks! This is really helpful.
| 6:41 pm on Oct 28, 2009 (gmt 0)|
if you are planning to install windows 7 on your laptop CHECK YOUR VIDEO CARD DRIVERS.
im sure most of you purchased your laptops from the likes of Dell and HP. well what dell and HP do is not let the video card makers release driver upgrades for your video cards...why i have no idea.
so if you've got an old laptop that dell or HP only provide windows XP drivers for you better head over to whoever made your video card and make sure you can grab some drivers. Some Older laptops are going to be SOOL unless W7 has a built in driver for it.
| 10:42 pm on Nov 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|w2k can do everything Windows 7 can on low resource |
Except install Adobe CS3+
That was a Win2K killer for me - needed a couple of CS3 features and couldn't run it with Win2K. There are other cases too. It's not just DirectX 11 and WMP.
Bill, the main complaint I have with Vista is the default file system navigation is cumbersome to me. Is Windows 7 better?
Sort of an academic question - wife will have a Win7 machine within a month I guess. I can decide then whether or not to be jealous.
My general feeling, though, is "never upgrade the OS on an existing machine beyond patches and fixes". Could be wrong in this case, but it just seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
| 1:22 am on Nov 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Beware the failed install perpetual reboot that hit a bunch of upgraders. I think it was a particular offending service. Do some searching to make sure you're not running that one.
| 1:43 am on Nov 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Beware the failed install perpetual reboot that hit a bunch of upgraders. |
Yes, we are discussing that issue here:
Windows 7 Upgrade Causing Endless Reboot [webmasterworld.com]
|Bill, the main complaint I have with Vista is the default file system navigation is cumbersome to me. Is Windows 7 better? |
You mean from the Start Menu? I think the Windows 7 version is a big improvement over Vista. It's similar in some ways, but the search is so fast and easy I rarely expand the menu to see everything that's installed any longer. Just type a few characters of the program you want and the list is populated on the fly. The search is very handy in Windows Explorer as well. It's a lot easier to find files. You'll love the Library if you have multiple machines on the same network running Windows 7.
|My general feeling, though, is "never upgrade the OS on an existing machine beyond patches and fixes". |
Actually I have found that Windows 7 has breathed new life into my laptops and netbooks that were running XP. The systems feel snappier and battery life has noticeably improved. I have left my Vista machines alone only because I spent so much time setting them up and tweaking them that it would not be worth my time to make the switch.
| 4:04 am on Nov 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>>The search is very handy in Windows Explorer as well. It's a lot easier to find files
I'm thinking more of that. Navigating through a hierarchy in Win Explorer in Vista seems particularly cumbersome.
| 4:24 am on Nov 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Windows 7 is much smoother for me on that side. The desktop search is finally integrated into the OS properly, and it's quick once it's been indexed. Again here, the results are on-the-fly and quick.
| 9:22 pm on Nov 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
w2k can do everything Windows 7 can on low resources
no it can't
| 10:01 pm on Nov 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>> desktop search is finally integrated into the OS properly
All good news. I find that Copernic or Google Desktop Search for finding stuff and Launchy for launching stuff is much more intelligent than what I get from Vista's start button.
Pet peeve lately - Start button -> type app name -> finds the shortcut -> hit return and it launches.... Windows Explorer opened to the folder in which the shortcut appears. Seriously, what usability expert in their wildest dreams thought that's what I want to happen?