Windows 7 Still Going Strong

[JodyThornton]

When people upgraded from W8 to W8.1, the upgrade didn't go smoothly for lots of people.

But that was because the x64 build of Windows 8.1 has slightly more stringent CPU requirements than Windows 8 (SSE2 and NX are among them)

[Night Wing]

When people upgraded from W8 to W8.1, the upgrade didn't go smoothly for lots of people.

But that was because the x64 build of Windows 8.1 has slightly more stringent CPU requirements than Windows 8 (SSE2 and NX are among them)

The problem is, how many computer illiterate people really know anything about the CPU requirements in their present computers and then decide to upgrade to W10 simply because Microsoft says "your computer can handle W10". In the computer shop where I help out, we let the KB update for W10 scan one of our test computers, an older computer built around 2011 which came with 64 bit Windows 7 Home Premium with 4 GB of memory, Intel i3 processor at 2.20 Mhz (or there abouts) and the scan said, "it could handle W10". So we loaded the W10 Technical Preview on it (about 6 weeks ago) and it couldn't handle W10 because after W10 was installed, soon after the computer experienced a BSOD related to new software and that new software was the W10 technical preview. Granted, it was a technical preview, but most of the bugs in W10 should have been solved by then.

Also, Windows 10 is a huge update and the last time I checked on one of those previous technical builds of W10 when installing it, over 3 GB. That is a long time to download and then install W10 via Windows Update. My wife's cousin's husband has AT&T DSL as his ISP (since he lives out in the boondocks in the middle of nowhere) and it is as "slow as molasses dripping on a cold winter day". I'd say the W10 upgrade, at his download speed via Windows Update, would take a bare "minimum" of 6 hours.....if he's lucky. Lots of things can go wrong during a 6 hour (or more) download and install. I've had some computers just freeze for many hours with the "Please do not turn off your computer" prompt and never complete the install on one of those KB updates from Microsoft. I had to go into Safe Mode to repair the damage. Sometimes Safe Mode works, but when it doesn't, I had to try "Fix it" and when that failed, I had to "bite the bullet" and re-load the operating system again and then do research to find the KB update responsible and then hide the update when it re-appeared and came back on the re-load.

In closing, like I've stated before, Microsoft wants Windows 7 users to upgrade to Windows 10 and if they don't upgrade, then Microsoft will face the same problem it had when the majority of Windows 7 users flat out refused to upgrade to Windows (8/8.1). And to play devil's advocate, if the upgrade to W10 via Windows Update goes badly, the internet will be awash with many disgruntled and very vocal people basically saying "don't upgrade". For Microsoft, I think the biggest problem will be.......if Windows 10 fails, where does Microsoft go then? I don't think CEO Nadella has a "Plan B" if that happens or if he does have a Plan B, it'll be a repeat of Windows 8/8.1 so we might see a Windows 10.1 within 6 to 8 months down the road.

[Trippynet]

It's an interesting one. Windows 10 is likely to be a fair success. Not necessarily because it's brilliant, but simply because it's not Windows 8, and it's also considerably improved from Windows 8 as far as usability on the desktop is concerned. Of course, is it as usable and flexible as Windows 7? IMO, no it isn't.

Looking back a bit, XP succeeded because it was the first general-consumer OS Microsoft released on the NT core, hence it was massively more stable than Windows 98, hence it sold well (despite not being perfect of course). I found the migration from 98 to XP easy as the OS was very usable, changes over 98 were generally for the better, and it only took a couple of tweaks to get it exactly how I wanted (turning on quicklaunch, that sort of thing). Yes it booted slower and required a lot more RAM, but it offered real benefits (stability, robustness etc) to offset this.

Of course, then Vista was a complete dogs breakfast. There were some good improvements under the hood, but the UI was terrible, it didn't offer any real end-user improvements over XP, and it was simply too heavy for the hardware of the time (single-core Pentium 4s, 1GB RAM etc). Add in the reduced performance, extra RAM footprint etc. and it's easy to see why it flopped. I installed it alongside XP for a couple of DX10 games, I *really* tried to like it, but instead, I just felt the sigh of relief after rebooting into XP, and quietly my Vista partition was nuked after a few months.

Then we move to Windows 7. It's also not completely perfect (the folder jumping bug in Explorer is a good example of an issue MS have never bothered to fix), but it cleaned all the crap out of the interface that Vista had thrust upon us, ran on a pretty stable base by this point, and included genuinely useful UI enhancements (snap to the side for example). It didn't try to be anything special, just a subdued, cleaned-up Windows that learnt the lessons from Vista. It also had the advantage of running on much better hardware by this point (Core 2 Duo/Core i3/i5/i7, 4GB RAM etc). I ran it again alongside XP and quickly found myself just automatically booting into Windows 7 all the time. This time, it was my XP partition that was retired a few months later.

Windows 8 is of course an abomination. Microsoft's attempt to use its market share and might to try and bluntly force itself into the mobile market. I bet they fully knew the interface was severely compromised on the desktop, but hoped average users would get used to it and would then buy Windows phones and tablets because "Hey it looks just like my PC". Market share shows how badly that plan has backfired. Of course, it's backfired and left MS a bigger problem as they now have two different branches of applications to support as a result. Classic, and Metro.

As for Windows 10, I've tried the tech preview on a spare laptop and it is obviously much better than Windows 8 on the desktop. But crucially, is it better than Windows 7? Some bits like the more powerful task manager and other speed improvements are nice, but from a techie point of view you cannot boot into safe mode without a convoluted and messy method requiring a Windows 10 disk (I've tried it and it was a dreadful experience compared with just tapping F8 a few times at bootup with 7 and before. Not what you want when you're stressed because your PC suddenly decides not to boot for some reason!)

I find the Start Menu worse than Windows 7's, the themes still look lifeless and dour next to Windows 7's Aero, there's still the personality clashes between Metro and Classic apps, Control Panel is also still a messy compromise between the two interfaces as well, and overall the latest build I used still felt FAR from ready. Don't get me wrong, there's good things too, but overall it definitely lacks the clear, focused and yet good-looking simplicity of Windows 7, and also I'm still struggling to think of many enhancements that it brings. For each upside over Windows 7, there's a couple of downsides. And for that reason, I'm very sceptical about upgrading to it, and I think it's going to take further changes and a 10.1 or 10.2 before it becomes a worth successor to Windows 7 on the desktop.

[JodyThornton]

Windows 7. It's also not completely perfect ... but it cleaned all the crap out of the interface that Vista had thrust upon us, ran on a pretty stable base by this point, and included genuinely useful UI enhancements (snap to the side for example). It didn't try to be anything special, just a subdued, cleaned-up Windows that learnt the lessons from Vista. It also had the advantage of running on much better hardware by this point (Core 2 Duo/Core i3/i5/i7, 4GB RAM etc).

I think hardware capabilities of PCs available in 2009 vs those in 2007 was the chief reason that Windows 7 outdid Windows Vista. The second place reason was that Vista had disk access speed issues and video driver issues upon the release of its RTM. These were fixed in both service packs. Now I find Vista SP2 (x64 build) to be just as solid a Windows 7. Plus it has a more "classic" taskbar, the Quick Launch toolbar, classic Control Panel, and Windows Mail and Calendar.

Windows 8 is of course an abomination. Microsoft's attempt to use its market share and might to try and bluntly force itself into the mobile market.... it's backfired and left MS a bigger problem as they now have two different branches of applications to support as a result. Classic, and Metro.

See I think if you move up to Windows 8.1. install Classic Shell, and conceal all of the Modern/Metro stuff, you have a really fast (albeit flatter looking) Windows 7. I conceal the ribbon interface (just grab WordPad and Paint for Vista and this provides an excellent solution), and delete the Apps folder and all registry connections to it. Now I have a fast Windows 7. Nonetheless, Microsoft NEEDS to enter the mobile market. Nobody can survive any loger by just focusing on the desktop. Mobility systems are where it's at. It's Metro interface was already being used on Windows Phone 7.

As for Windows 10, I've tried the tech preview on a spare laptop and it is obviously much better than Windows 8 on the desktop. ... I find the Start Menu worse than Windows 7's, the themes still look lifeless and dour next to Windows 7's Aero, there's still the personality clashes between Metro and Classic apps, Control Panel is also still a messy compromise between the two interfaces as well, and overall the latest build I used still felt FAR from ready.

I don't need multiple desktops, and I dislike forced updates, the new start menu, and the caption buttons. I just like 8 better. To me Windows 8.1 (if you slighlty tweak it) is way more like Windows 7, but faster.

[_Poke_]

I like Windows 7 and 8.1 equally - lean towards 7 on my powerful desktop, and 8.1 on my light touchscreen laptop. This is mostly because the 8.1 interface is more geared towards the touchscreen and I dislike the idea of installing so many 3rd party things like classic shell to correct it. (The only thing I have in this category is a little program that lets me make a window see-through). Now that I've had a year to adjust to the 8.1 interface with a touchscreen I'd probably find it ok even without.

The thing is, Windows 8.1 adds the touchscreen features in a way that leaves the desktop mostly intact. It's just a flashy wrapper that can be avoided almost entirely. From what I've seen, Windows 10 pretends to be more desktop friendly by "bringing back the start menu" but like that, all their changes bring the mobile interface to the desktop.

The tech previews are old enough that the release version may be different, but vanilla Windows 10 doesn't look as easily adopted to me. (I'm already wondering if I can transplant a Windows 8.1 control panel, though I can't see that actually working).

[Night Wing]

One thing for sure. When Windows 10 is released on July 29th, it is going to be an interesting month of August.

[Trippynet]

I think hardware capabilities of PCs available in 2009 vs those in 2007 was the chief reason that Windows 7 outdid Windows Vista.

It's certainly a major reason. The other one IMO is the messiness of the interface. Seven different shutdown options, and Sleep as the default? That was really silly - especially on laptops. Also, the control panel was a complete mess IMO as some dialogs were pinched direct from XP, others completely re-designed for Vista, and there was WAY too much text everywhere in some of the newer dialogues. In some ways, it therefore matched the 2-faced confusion and personality crisis of Windows 8. Windows 7 fixed a lot of this by binning the unnecessary shut-down options (list back down to 5), "Shutdown" set as the default again, Control panel was heavily tidied up and unified (with Classic still there if needed), and the whole thing just looked far more refined and clean than Vista.

And if you prefer Vista's classic options, "Classic Shell" will also make Windows 7's shell look just like Vista if you want. I use it on my current PC - not for this, but because it also fixes the folder jumping bug in Explorer and allows you to turn a few other features back on (such as the "shared folder" overlay).

See I think if you move up to Windows 8.1. install Classic Shell, and conceal all of the Modern/Metro stuff, you have a really fast (albeit flatter looking) Windows 7.

That's the problem. Install this, conceal that, tweak this etc. Or just install Windows 7 and be done with it. Some more technical users are happy to tweak, but the vast majority of users look at something and if they don't like it, they wont spend time installing third party add-ons and tools to fix it, they'll just walk away and use something else. I've not gone down that route as I hate the flat, bland, lifeless look of Windows 8, and it's not that trivial to mod it back so that it looks as nice as Windows 7 again. As for having to tweak it back into shape, in some ways, it's similar to Firefox's predicament: "Hey, we've cocked up the interface and removed a whole pile of useful settings. But don't worry, with a pile of 3rd-party addons and a chunk of time spent messing around configuring them all, you can just about get it back to how it was". Yeah, or you can just install Pale Moon and be done with it...

It's a case of personal preference. Some people find the effort of tweaking Windows 8 to be worth it to get a slightly faster system. Personally, I find my Windows 7 PC plenty fast enough and I'd rather spend my time just using Windows 7 and doing something else productive with my spare time. When Windows 10 comes along, I'll probably try it out again to see how much it's been finalised from the tech previews, but I do get a strong feeling that the result will be be just sticking with Windows 7 once again.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I have done everything to Windows 8x to make it more useable.. At the end of the day it wasn't worth it for some of the issues I kept having. Also I cannot STAND not having Aero Glass.. Yes I have Windowblinds but there aren't many compatible good looking skins left out there.. Yes I own Start8 and also used Classic Shell.. I have also reshacked system files.. I have used alt programs.. I have changed the msstyle and even added a half-way-working hack to get glass back.. I have done this and that and that and this.. No it isn't worth while for me and my options are more limited in Windows 8.1 and the upcoming Windows 10..

So NO from my front. I have to face facts that Linux is my future and as for my present.. Windows 7 will stay it.

[JodyThornton]

I would love to completely go Linux, but I use a couple audio related apps that work exactly as I want them to, and they don't work well in Wine. There are no xNix equivalents, so Windows is it for me.

I guess that things Matt and Trippynet really like in Windows 7 are what I can live without, and that's Aero Glass effects. I think the Windows 8 look is pretty solid and tidy. And as for Windows 7's Control Panel, the Vista implementation looks more like "classic" Control Panel to me (ala Windows 2000 or XP style). Also I was never stuck on the iconized taskbar business. With 7x and 8x, I reduce the height of the taskbar and go back to a classic task listing.

To each their own however.

[Moonchild]

It's been an interesting read; I'm not going to add much more to it but that i disagree with the 2007 vs 2009 hardware being a key factor for Windows 7 vs. Windows Vista.

I can install Vista on a current-day machine and still get utterly frustrated with its terrible performance and constant disk access that wears down your drives and bottlenecks everything on I/O - it was just a terrible, terrible back-end and rightfully should have been a beta, not an RTM product. There was a good reason Microsoft offered free upgrades for a time to full versions of Windows 7. Something they've not done before or since (and no, the "free" Windows 10 upgrade isn't really free if you look beyond the "no-cost download and upgrade" being pushed). it was them admitting Vista wasn't actually ready, but still sold, without saying as much directly.

Also, as for glass, I do use it extensively, but have no trouble if it weren't there in the OS (I've used 7 on plenty of machines with limited graphics where glass was a no-go or too much of a drain on the GPU). Even without glass, the level of comfort and balanced, peripheral OS elements in Windows 7 are miles above and beyond the "square is the new round" and "solid, monochrome high-saturation blocks" that constitutes the general look of Windows 8 and beyond.
It supports your work and takes its proper place as an operating system, a layer between you and the machine that should do just that; it doesn't compete with your work by trying to get your attention or covering data up with too-large screen elements that have no use but to be usable on small-resolution screens for grubby fingers.

[Night Wing]

Here is another thing to think about.

If your printer, webcam works with Windows 7, will these devices work the same with Windows 10? If they don't because of the wrong driver, a person will have to go to their manufacturers website for these devices and hope they have a Windows 10 driver for their printer or webcam.

At the time when a few of the Windows 10 Technical Preview builds were released, there was no Windows 10 driver for my all in one printer.

[JodyThornton]

It's been an interesting read; I'm not going to add much more to it but that i disagree with the 2007 vs 2009 hardware being a key factor for Windows 7 vs. Windows Vista. ... I can install Vista on a current-day machine and still get utterly frustrated with its terrible performance and constant disk access that wears down your drives and bottlenecks everything on I/O -

Are you using the RTM? (Doh!) or a source with SP2 integrated? You really shouldn't have issues with the latter. The x64 build with SP2 built right in, should be pretty much the equal of Windows 7. Given that, are you saying that had Windows 7 been issued on 2006 era PCs with 1 GB RAM and Netburst type CPUs, it would not have also sucked big time? It would have been just as slow.
(sigh!) lol

[Moonchild]

Of course I'm talking about updated versions with SPs. And no, it doesn't hold a candle to Win 7; saying it's "pretty much the same" is obviously, from my practical experience, not the case. There is a significant difference between any version of Win Vista and Win 7 even with all things otherwise being equal.
I've also run Win 7 in low memory environments - 1GB is certainly pushing it and you are relatively limited in what you can do with it with that amount of memory, but it still didn't suck as bad as Vista on the exact same box which would have you wait and drink coffee 50% of the time it was on.

[JodyThornton]

Of course I'm talking about updated versions with SPs. And no, it doesn't hold a candle to Win 7; saying it's "pretty much the same" is obviously, from my practical experience, not the case. There is a significant difference between any version of Win Vista and Win 7 even with all things otherwise being equal.
I've also run Win 7 in low memory environments - 1GB is certainly pushing it and you are relatively limited in what you can do with it with that amount of memory, but it still didn't suck as bad as Vista on the exact same box which would have you wait and drink coffee 50% of the time it was on.

What are these major differences? Libraries? The iconized taskbar? Missing utilities like Mail and Calendar? I gotta know. Vista x64 Ultimate smokes on this box. And it's an old netburst styled Xeon (sure OK, there are dual CPUs), and the RAM is slow DDR2, but there is 7 gb of it. Mind you, that's the kind of equipment that should run Vista (as in dual CPU, > 4 GB RAM). I know Windows 7 does fare a bit better in low RAM environments, but 1 GB isn't that suitable anyway.

Again, to each his own. I'm just curious how you find Windows 7 that different from Vista. There is one thing I'm envious of, and that's that you can use Disk Cleanup to reduce the size of the component store. Would've love that on Vista.

Good talking to you.

[Moonchild]

You misunderstand - i was not talking about the UI or tool differences of Vista. I'm drawing on my own experiences on an old Athlon (not server-grade CPU like yours, consumer grade) and DDR2 as well. And Vista was painful, while 7 on the same box was not.
I can install Vista in a VM next to 7 on similar and usually recommended specs for resources, and the differences there are also painfully obvious. Vista has never "blazed" for me on any machine (physical or virtual). Win 7 has.

Just relaying my experiences; yours may be different if your hardware likes Vista. More power to you in that case!

[Trippynet]

Interestingly, there's an in-depth article about using Windows 10 for real work on the Register. It does touch upon quite a few of the issues, and the more I read stuff like this and test out Windows 10 myself, the more I think it's not going to be the unrivaled success that Windows 7 was. Just too many rough edges and issues still.

[Moonchild]

Interestingly, there's an in-depth article about using Windows 10 for real work on the Register.

I read the opening paragraph of that article:

Every time I've looked at Windows 10, it hasn't been long before I've run away screaming. As recently as May the ISO was nowhere near ready for prime time. Testing Windows 10 seemed to me like volunteering to be an unpaid drug trial guinea pig – it would be painful and could potentially give you horrible side effects, and you wouldn't even have an envelope of cash at the end to show for it.

... and this is exactly the way I've been feeling as an "insider", where my extensive feedback wasn't even acknowledged, let alone addressed; I haven't touched TP for 2 months now because of feeling under-appreciated and it just being increasingly horrible, not less so, to work with as Win 10 "developed".
Perfect summary of my TP/beta track experience.

[Lunix]

I was very "rah rah" about Windows 10, and have slowly becoming disenchanted with it as we saw numerous desktop issues not being addressed while Microsoft continued to focus on the mobile side of things. Bld. 10240 seems terribly unfinished to me and the UI is such a poor compromise between old and new, not really looking traditional or modern, just ugly. I don't care about their "apps store" at all.

Staying with Windows 7 at home is a possibility - no choice at my place of work which has already declared intentions to go to Win 10 later this year.

The end of MS support for Win 7 in 2020 is five years away so there's plenty time for Win 10 to be improved with updates, or a Win 11 or Win 12 to come out, but I'm losing faith in Microsoft ever again making an operating system that satisfies the tradition desktop user. Unfortunately, Linux looks like such a steep learning curve to me, I wonder if I should just bite the bullet, upgrade to Win 10 and do my best to delete/turn off all the "modern app" parts of it.

[trava90]

Unfortunately, Linux looks like such a steep learning curve to me,

Linux may not be as steep a learning curve as you might think, especially if you go with a "beginner friendly" distro, such as Linux Mint. What I did was dual boot Windows 7 & Linux for a while, until I was comfortable with it. Gradually I started using Linux more and more, until I eventually deleted my Windows partition.

Also, if my completely computer iliterate dad can learn Linux, anyone can.

[ron_1]

Lunix wrote:
Unfortunately, Linux looks like such a steep learning curve to me, I wonder if I should just bite the bullet, upgrade to Win 10 and do my best to delete/turn off all the "modern app" parts of it.

As trava90 suggested, I also suggest going the "dual-boot" route. I have been dual-booting for a few months now, to get the hang of Linux just in case I'm still around after January 14, 2020. I'm using Linux Mint. I started with the Xfce DE, but switched to MATE as it better fit my needs/wants. If you do decide to try dual-booting, just be careful when installing Mint that you don't accidentally erase Windows.