Windows 7 Discussion

[IndigoAK]

I don't it's fair to say that Windows 7 is simply a more polished version of Vista - even with the best of intentions. I would say that Windows 7 is closer to an evolution of Vista's platform rather than just a polish of it. There are a lot of new features in 7 that change the way that Windows works even more than Vista did - some of them small, like desktop slideshows - and some of them gigantic, like the new taskbar and Libraries.

The new taskbar is easily one of the most fundamental changes that Microsoft has made to the way the overall user interface in Windows works in a very long time and while it's difficult to explain it because of how large a change it is, it's something that honestly feels very natural from the moment you start using it. Microsoft deserves a lot of credit for accomplishing this - something they probably won't get too much of what with the firestorm (I wanted to use another word here, but alas it's not really appropriate language for this venue )that Windows 7 is ultimately bound to kick up.

[Koroush Ghazi]

I personally don't consider interface changes like the new taskbar and libraries to be 'gigantic changes' in any respect - the Taskbar changes are nice, but seem to be to be small evolutionary improvements to the existing Vista taskbar features; similarly the Libraries feature, while a nice evolution of the existing new Vista sort capabilities, again is not something that is dramatically going to change the way people use Windows in my opinion.

For example I consider the Instant Search feature in Windows Vista to be a fantastic feature and one of the major reasons I wouldn't and couldn't switch back to XP. The way it's neatly incorporated into the interface and helps me access any file or feature from the Start button is phenomenal. Yet even after demonstrating it to people, many XP users are underwhelmed and simply say that "I already know where all my files are". So a great feature, some might even see a 'gigantic change', introduced in Vista to allow quicker access to, as well as better search of, all types of files, is rapidly dismissed in a very casual and thoughtless way by many XP users. I feel Windows 7's new features will similarly be brushed aside.

I believe many users will insist that they won't upgrade until Windows becomes "faster". This sentiment is of course fueled by various blog articles by tech illiterates who will run dubious 'benchmarks' trying to capitalize on Windows 7 hype, saying things like "Windows 7 is slower than Vista", or as we've seen, "Windows 7 is Vista SP2" (as though that's a bad thing). People seem less concerned over features than they do over speed, and of course it's very difficult for newer OSes with newer features, additional support for various new technologies and new protection mechanisms to then also be faster than an OS from 2001. That's like comparing Windows XP to Windows 3.1 - 3.1 will always win in the speed stakes. Therein lies the rub.

[midfingr]

I think we need to get to at least a public beta before we can begin to talk about Windows 7 with respect to performance. However, I don't doubt some of the aspects people have mentioned concerning Win 7. The OS being pre-beta and actually performing well is quite an achievement, but that could also be a testament to Windows Vista/Server 2008.

I was taken aback by the InfoWorld article, since no doubt the OS is running debug code in addition to new and/or improved code. 'MinWin' is nothing new either. Microsoft has stated that they've re-organized the kernel, removing some of the clutter. And I think we've seen this in Vista already.

In my opinion NTFS is getting a little long in the tooth. To see a truly 'new' Microsoft OS, there will have to be a different extended file system; be it WinFS or something else. That, however can be a long way off.

Also, just for fun, I would ask how--'fast' can Windows 3.1 run Crysis?

[Koroush Ghazi]

Originally Posted by midfingr

Also, just for fun, I would ask how--'fast' can Windows 3.1 run Crysis?

How fast can XP run DirectX 10 applications? How fast would it run with Aero? How fast would XP run if it had the same level of security as Vista (see the security comparison I posted at the bottom of page 7 of the Vista Annoyances article) ?

My point was that since these sites (and most users) are simply benchmarking and comparing bootup times, shutdown times, desktop responsiveness etc. then Windows 3.1 on current hardware would blow away Windows XP in terms of speed. In fact get DOS 6.1 on your system and see how quickly you can boot to the DOS prompt compared to booting into Windows XP.

Each new version of Windows has had additional features, eye candy and increased compatibility requirements which mean that typically on the same hardware the previous version of Windows would be faster. However that does not mean that the previous version of Windows is better overall.

[fjay]

I think a lot (but not all) of what is fuelling the whole XP is better and faster than Vista (and Windows 7), is that people do not want to admit they have an out-dated and slow computer.

The reasons I say this are: most Articles or complaints are from users having 1GB or less of ram, old P4's\Althlons and usually have integrated or severely out-dated graphics(like GeForce 5 series and Radeon 8x00's).
Instead of looking towards the future and seeing how much better Vista is on a modern machine, they compare backwards. It is almost like Vista should be this magic pill to make their computer instantly faster, better, and brew them a cup of coffee..hehe

I don’t see the point of pushing both operating systems to work on worse and worse hardware. To somehow prove that XP is better because it can run on a 533mhz Celeron, and Vista can’t is lunacy to me.

But then again I see this in the everyday world as well. Those that genuinely try to excel and push the status-quo are ridiculed. Progress has somehow become a bad thing.

I use XP at work, and it drives me crazy that it cannot multi-task as well as Vista, not even close. One frozen program brings the whole PC to a halt, where in Vista this never happens. However, it is rare that you hear things like this about Vista.

Windows 7 appears to be pushing the advancement further, and if it is only a more polished version of Vista, I will be extremely happy!

That’s my rant for now, and as a disclaimer I only have a modest machine myself, and it runs like a dream. (X2 3800+, 8800GT, 2GB)

[midfingr]

Ed Bott on Zdnet has posted his observations on Windows 7 (build 6801) thus far. Note this is not a review or benchmark, rather small changes that may have gone unnoticed at first glance. I found some changes to be interesting, notable Explorer.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=598

The purpose of this post is not to review Windows 7. It’s way too early for that. Rather, my objective is to call attention to the changes and design decisions that have gone into the product so far and to highlight features and changes you might not have noticed in the flurry of initial coverage. I’ve done no performance testing, and have no plans to do any, at least with this build. Any publication that would devote more than a paragraph to benchmarking an early build like this one is guilty of journalistic malpractice, in my opinion.