- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree with Tim, although I am a huge Power User on my PC's. I don't need unnecessary programs running on my system that take away resources that could be put to good use towards, say a multimedia application or a powerful game.
I feel the same way with Vista/7 as Tim — I feel there is nothing that 'worthy' of me having to upgrade. I have Vista on my laptop right now, and the truth is, I feel more 'restricted' than I have ever felt on any past release of Windows. Some of my programs that I normally run (which some are older for various reasons – Maya 7 for example – the last good version of that software), have weird, quarky hiccups in Vista that I just don't like.
Windows 7 isn't impressing me at all. Ohh, it has new features — big deal. I don't need fancy visual stuff to make me happy (number one reason I CANNOT stand the Mac OS, all that hippie visual crap gets in the way), and it kind of upsets me that 7 losses the ability to support the Classic Start Menu. Aero was a big mistake — I want stability before fanciness. Why do you think Epic's games (Unreal series) run so well — they get the game engine running to it's fullest, with minimal bugs before they ever start messing with graphics.
Well, that's my rant for right now, I'll probably be back later with more.
One thing I forgot to mention, which the above article doesnt, is that there are some improvements to the Windows Firewall. It now actually looks more like a firewall, where you can manage inbound and outbound traffic. I dread the day I have to differentiate the two for my users.
More details on this when I get a few minutes to play with it. This is only the second good thing I see coming in 7.
I hate Vista. But oddly enough, I'm warming up to 7. I even put it on my main pc as my sole OS right now, after testing it on the laptop. To me, it just feels like Vista, but less aggresive to the customer. I may actually buy my first legal copy of Windows with this one.
Yes the old start menu seems to be gone, but at this point, I rarely used it on XP anyway. Having the quick access to the most common apps, is fine for me. I like the new tray. I especially like how quick launch was replaced with just additional icons that look and act exactly like the open window icons, except that they dont go away when the windows are closed. I like how all related windows combine neatly, with a popup of each set. Yes its a lot of visual flair bullshit, but somehow they've worked a good balance of graphics vs productivity I think.
Yes, I like some of the fundamental changes to the control panels as you mentioned. There's quite a lot of enhancements, the more you play with them.
Also I gatta say, XP was failing me in terms of some graphics glitches in many recent games, as well as my new wireless 360 controller absolutely refusing to sync. It would only sync if I used some crazy japanes ehomebrew driver. I tried reinstalling the official driver countless times but it was a piece of shit on XP. On 7, and I assume Vista too, the controller was recognized and fully installed in 5 fucking seconds, all automatically. Thank god. Then I have games like R6 Vegas 2 that no longer have flickering shadows like they did on XP.
Unfortunately, there are some issues with 7 right now which I hope they fix before release. For example, my wireless on my machines are being flakey. The router is like 10 feet from my systems and it says it only gets 3 bars, and always fails to connect after attempting for like 0.5 seconds. Some days it works, some not so much. Also, all games that use Bink video, which there are many, are completely muted. Not sure why. Maybe an incompatibility with the new DX11? Google has failed me on this one.
I have more impressions here: http://www.racketboy.com/forum…..&sd=a
Of all of the stories Ive read so far about Windows 7, this one seems to be the most realistic. Basically what is being said is that if you hated Vista, you'll hate 7. After doing some reading, as well as finally getting to use Windows 7 Beta, I could not agree more. Windows 7 is built on top of Vista. You could almost say that 7 is a service pack for Vista, except that there are some performance improvements that you wouldnt normally see in a service pack. In 7, you get the same look and feel as you did in Vista and the same application compatibility issues exist in 7 that existed in Vista. If you have older applications, you may have some issues.
Sure there are some UI changes coming in 7. The only thing I see of any substance that I really like is the additional control over the UAC. Everything else is pretty much bells and whistles. I think the dumbest feature coming in 7 is this thing called Aero Shake. Essentially, if you have several windows open, if you grab a window with your mouse and shake the window from left to right, all of the windows not in focus will be minimized. While this may be something to “oooo” and “ahhhh” about, I really dont see the point. I also dont see the point of Microsoft (as well as hardware manufacturers) becoming more able to integrate with touchscreens. Are touchscreens really a thing of the future? In my experience, touchscreens do not last nearly as long as a mouse would and it doesnt seem natural in an environment where a PC is being used heavily to trade your mouse in for your finger to point and click. Ive already seen (as you may have as well) that HP has come out with their Touchsmart series of PC's. Im not sold on them, as it would be a hinderance to me to 1) Have the screen so damn close (I cant see the damn thing as it is) and 2) to use my finger to navigate through an OS that now seems to require more mouse clicks than ever.
Vista/7, in my opinion, are the biggest changes to come from Microsoft since 95. At least in previous Versions between 95 and XP, you could maintain the same look and feel, even when they changed the user interface in XP. It seems more and more to me that Microsoft is focusing more on how pretty the OS is and not on its stability and ease of use. One thing I am somewhat happy to see is that Microsoft didnt up the minimum requirements to run 7. They're pretty much the same as Vista, which means anyone who has purchased or upgraded their PC since Vista's release is probably in good shape. I can tell you from personal experience that running Windows 7 in a VM with a 2Ghz Dual Core Processor and 1 GB of RAM isnt too bad of an experience so far. In fact, when I loaded Vista on the same PC two years ago, it used more RAM after bootup than 7 does. Vista used up about 465MB of RAM at startup. 7 uses somewhere around 383MB. I'd say thats an improvement.
Im not entirely sure how I feel about where Microsoft is going. I hesitated for a long time before being forced into using XP 4 years ago due to a job requirement. Prior to XP, I was strictly a 2000 user, and was happy. Some of what I see are growing pains. “You mean I have to re-learn everything I learned before.” However, what Im still not seeing is the big reason for me to upgrade. What am I getting out of Vista/7 that I didnt have before? A more stable OS? Some say that Vista/7 are pretty stable. Ive read a lot of comments with people saying “Its not that bad” I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to running on my PC. I have XP set up in classic mode, so that I get a classic start menu and classic display and all of that. I dont use fast user switching or any of that garbage. It may have its uses, but I would rather put the resources I have to better use than to give it to the operating system to consume doing unnecessary things that have no benefit to me.
Anyway, here's the article from Ars Technica.
http://arstechnica.com/article…..7-beta.ars
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.