I agree. That's a good feature to have. I don't really use OS X, but I use Ubuntu sometimes and that also has a confirmation.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 7 good or bad
- Thread starter heaven~lord
- Start date
Yoshiyuki Blade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
Hmmm, the lack of confirmation never really bothered me. I'm usually prepared to shut down by the time I hit the shutdown button. Saves me an extra step. 
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Start> "shutdown /t 60" same thing, just no GUI.
XP: Start > Shutdown > OK.... Three clicks to confirm what you're doing.
Vista: Start > Arrow> Shutdown... Three clicks to confirm what you're doing.
What's the difference? You're actually advocating for MORE clicks?
Unless you've got your "primary" button set for the action of Shut Down in which I see your point.
Yeah, not intuitive.
The difference being: If you've got the shutdown command buried in there, there's still the possibility of hitting it when you intend to hit one of the other four. Without confirmation, there's no way to cancel a mistaken click.
It's the default setting. Even if changed, there's, again, still a big possibility of errror.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
I have to say, I'm not sure which I like better of the shutdown methods. There have been a few times where I wanted to switch user and have accidentally clicked shutdown, and that was annoying. On another hand, I click shutdown in Linux and the pop up asking if I'm sure comes up. While it auto shuts down in like 60 seconds, it's still kind of annoying. I don't know...I don't think I really prefer any method over the other as both have their annoyances and conveniences.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
It's your fault for clicking the wrong thing then, not Windows'....
This reminds me of the big UAC argument for the people that don't like it "I just want my computer to do what I tell it to do!".... And then this argument, "I don't want my computer to do what I tell it!".......
Microsoft can't please everyone.
GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
Ditto on the misclick once in a while. Same sometimes when I want a reboot and I accidently click shutdown.
And where have I blamed Windows for my actions?
Huh? Nothing I've suggested fits in either category.
My point isn't to condemn MS, it's to defend common sense. What happens when a user loses a lot of work over a single, errant click? If there's the potential for such a setback over such a simple action (we aren't perfect), doesn't it follow that maybe there should be a means of catching and handling this?
Last edited:
heaven~lord
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 57
woha thanx guys got my result
tune to win7
tune to win7
kevin82287
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 162
I love it. I have it on every PC I own including my 5 year old laptop which runs like NEW after throwing 7 enterprise on it!
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Wow. Simply, wow. You should go try out for the debate team or something.
I won't disagree with any of that. I'm simply stating that there's both sides of the fence. And usually the most vocal side gets the grease. People wanted less "work", less clicks to do things? Well, they got it.
Good choice. Just keep an open mind and let yourself get used to Win7's default layout for a couple weeks and you'll never look back.
Remember: You're a PC and Windows 7 is your idea
Dabbler445
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2010
- Messages
- 145
Vista is crap. They really raised the bar with 7
/facepalm
I'm in the process of installing Win7 on my netbook (along w/a SSD) as well as on an older system...But if I had to pay full price for it I would've only upgraded to it on my desktop (luckily I got like 8 licenses for $20 thru a student deal). It's certainly nice, but as others have said, it's not as huge a jump from Vista as Vista was from XP... As far as performance or features.
Vista just suffered from a serious case of bad PR, from MS' competition and from MS themselves for not getting ahead of it sooner. Frankly it went thru less teething pains after launch than WinXP did, if you think Vista's driver issues at launch were bad you're not old enough to remember WinXP's launch (or the debacle that was WiFi support pre-SP2).
I believe there's still some student deals that let you get Win7 Home Premium or Pro for like $65 (up from $30). The new UI elements and shortcuts are nice, but I could certainly live w/o 'em. None of it makes as much of a difference as the improved memory handling of Vista over WinXP, or the improved driver model, etc.
Win7 does feel somewhat faster than Vista on older systems, but that's really only because it configures itself out of the box better ('specially on stuff like netbooks, which didn't even exist when Vista was launched), so you don't have to do much tweaking to get it up to snuff. I doubt Win7 is significantly more secure than Vista tho, most large security issues prey on the weakest point of the equation anyway (the user).
P.S. Who uses shut down anymore? Hibernate all the way, 'specially w/an SSD on a laptop, it pops back up so smoothly...
Vista just suffered from a serious case of bad PR, from MS' competition and from MS themselves for not getting ahead of it sooner. Frankly it went thru less teething pains after launch than WinXP did, if you think Vista's driver issues at launch were bad you're not old enough to remember WinXP's launch (or the debacle that was WiFi support pre-SP2).
I believe there's still some student deals that let you get Win7 Home Premium or Pro for like $65 (up from $30). The new UI elements and shortcuts are nice, but I could certainly live w/o 'em. None of it makes as much of a difference as the improved memory handling of Vista over WinXP, or the improved driver model, etc.
Win7 does feel somewhat faster than Vista on older systems, but that's really only because it configures itself out of the box better ('specially on stuff like netbooks, which didn't even exist when Vista was launched), so you don't have to do much tweaking to get it up to snuff. I doubt Win7 is significantly more secure than Vista tho, most large security issues prey on the weakest point of the equation anyway (the user).
P.S. Who uses shut down anymore?
Hibernate all the way, 'specially w/an SSD on a laptop, it pops back up so smoothly...
Last edited:
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
It takes like 1 week to destroy an old habit, but 4 weeks to form a new one. Most people that bash Vista never gave it that long.
Exactly, Go look for "XP Sucks Forums" or something, you'll find some old posts proclaiming 2000 to be King and XP to suck, that the GUI is all bloat, etc... It's the same crap back then that we have now. It comes down to people just hating change, plain and simple as that.
UAC is actually crippled by default in Windows 7, so it's LESS secure. It's the #1 bonehead move that Microsoft did with Windows 7. Any 7 system I touch gets bumped up to fully on setting.
Meh, in my experience the most casual or neophyte users just click accept blindly thru most UAC prompts anyway... I guess the theory was that if they saw less of them they might take the time to read 'em (or they were just trying to go for the "hey, it's less annoying than Vista!" angle), but w/e.
I guess the theory was that if they saw less of them they might take the time to read 'em (or they were just trying to go for the "hey, it's less annoying than Vista!" angle), but w/e.Yeah, that's how I see their approach.Meh, in my experience the most casual or neophyte users just click accept blindly thru most UAC prompts anyway...
GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
GreenMonkey said:
TechieSooner said:
GreenMonkey said:
Look at the first posting, the one that you demanded I respond with a list of problems.
Read it again. Think about it. You're the only one that took me seriously. And you didn't get it the second time, when I responded to your demand with a website of funny cat pictures.
Hello McFly. Think!
I'll spell it out for you. I'M NOT F****ING SERIOUS HERE.
OMG I get it! You're a Mac fanboy!
You almost had me there
I'm just fucking with you ;-)
Stay with Vista 64 this win 7 has many problems.. I have now Installed BF2 1.50 and the game will not keep the mouse settings, Ventrilo drops out. The programs load nicely but they do not work correctly. Had zero problems in Vista 64 but so far Win 7 64 nothing is working like before or should I say working correctly like in Vista 64 so stay with Vista.
This win 7 is brain dead, trying to do too much and ending up doing nothing right.
This win 7 is brain dead, trying to do too much and ending up doing nothing right.
Droc
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,402
I ran Vista 32 for a year with no problems.
I switched to 7 because I wanted to try a 64bit OS.
It feels faster and less bloated. But I do get the odd problem with sleep mode not wanting to restart, and chrome gives me problems every few days but I cant really blame 7 for that.
I switched to 7 because I wanted to try a 64bit OS.
It feels faster and less bloated. But I do get the odd problem with sleep mode not wanting to restart, and chrome gives me problems every few days but I cant really blame 7 for that.
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Take a gander at the poll results. Just because YOU are having some odd issues, doesn't mean the product sucks for everyone. It really isn't that hard of a concept...honest!
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
No software ANYWHERE can help that.Meh, in my experience the most casual or neophyte users just click accept blindly thru most UAC prompts anyway...
ANY computer has to do what the user tells it to. Period. If the user tells it to run a virus package with Administrator credentials, it has to do it.
Which is exactly why it's silly to tout UAC as any sort of security measure.
It all boils down to user education.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
UAC is the notification.
Is it better to just allow it to run as Administrator with zero prompts, or at least prompt the user?
This way, the user gets warned: that's the maximum you can do. In XP, it didn't even do that.
Also, UAC takes "run as" to a whole new level. For some stupid tasks under XP, you had to actually log in as an Administrator, whereas with UAC- you really never have to.
Is it better to just allow it to run as Administrator with zero prompts, or at least prompt the user?
This way, the user gets warned: that's the maximum you can do. In XP, it didn't even do that.
Also, UAC takes "run as" to a whole new level. For some stupid tasks under XP, you had to actually log in as an Administrator, whereas with UAC- you really never have to.
GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
To be serious, though, I had more bugs with win7 than Vista on my Intel 965 board. For example: autoplay and my optical drive didn't function right. No sound when right-clicking on E: and selecting "play DVD". But if I launched media player and hit DVD, I got sound! Stuff like that.
But - there were no official win7 drivers released for my board, nor any official 64bit drivers from Intel. So...not really MS fault that I was running a board not supported by Intel. I'm pretty sure the issue was IDE driver related.
Problem cleared up with my new AMD motherboard on the same windows 7 install.
But - there were no official win7 drivers released for my board, nor any official 64bit drivers from Intel. So...not really MS fault that I was running a board not supported by Intel. I'm pretty sure the issue was IDE driver related.
Problem cleared up with my new AMD motherboard on the same windows 7 install.
That may be, but at the very least, it helps inform most of us that something's going on. It makes you go "what the hell?" when something shouldn't be happening.
Imagine loading a web page and a spyware installs itself without your knowing. That's what got XP in trouble. Fast forward to Vista and 7, a virus tries to load while you're simply viewing a web page. Your screen dims and you get a prompt. Wouldn't you at least be suspicious at that time?
I can see people ignoring UAC when they themselves are installing a program or messing with system configurations. But I don't see people blindly ignoring them when they're not.
You don't know the average user then. You and I? We're not average users. I ran xp as limited user, and I understand what's going on with UAC. My complaint with UAC was never with the technical user, but rather the average home user.
Home users just want their software to work. You have a very small window of opportunity to inform the user without them getting tired of it and clicking what ever they had to to get what they wanted. The more you pop up the prompt, the more the user is going to simply click through. Vista UAC was quite chatty, 7 can be if you up the UAC level. All this does is bug the user enough to get them in the habit of clicking ok, no matter what. Taking your example of the virus on a web page, most users won't take the time to read the prompt, especially if they've been using their computer for any length of time and are tired of UAC. They'll simply click OK to get to the picture of the funny cat from their "aunt".
My argument against UAC has always been that UAC hampers real security by enforcing poor security habits in the end users. A stance which MS apparently holds as well, by 7's UAC prompt reduction.
Well you can always do to people's computers the same as I do to everyone's computer in the company I work for. In secpol.msc you can enforce a password requirement with UAC to force people to slow down and think at least a little bit.
Not a bad suggestion, all things considered.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I think you're thinking of UAC in too limited a stance. One can run their system as a Standard user, and with UAC on one can elevate to a a higher privileged account if one is so authorized.
Well that's obviously true, but MS still has to take that kind of logic (or lack thereof) into account when dealing w/UAC and other security measures... The same way that malware coders and distributors depend on it for their payload to spread.
At the end of the day, the really naive or careless people are still screwed... But somewhere in the middle MS is trying to work around those that might be saved by UAC if it bugs them just enough. It's a fine line...
The type of careless uninformed user that clicks everything that pops on his screen and never reads 80% of it isn't gonna make that distinction, ever. It doesn't have any relevance on UAC tho, 'cuz that kinda user will always be a target ('least until he ages and hopefully a slightly more cognizant generation takes over, one can hope).
Again; think average user. Your average user won't modify default settings, typically, short of turning off UAC.
undertheradar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,792
Huh? Your receiver only DECODES what it is sent. If you dont run VISTA, you dont get DTS, which means your audio cant pump out DTS to the receiver in the first place. You cant put a DTS receiver on a non-DTS PC and somehow get DTS out of it.
Uh, DTS is not Dolby. Its totally different... many would argue a superior encoding as well.
Me personally, I could never get Vista to work for long. For some reason, the browzer would stop working (non responsive) after some months. I could never get my Samsung printer to work with it, not to mention Spore for some reason. Tried both 32 and 64 bit versions... no difference. Tried an AMD rig, then an i7... no difference. I have Windows 7 on another drive, but I am actually typing this on XP...lol.
Shall we compare XP to Win 7?
heaven~lord
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 57
i got windows vista run perfectly on my pc
but i got only 1gb ram
will 7 work perfect still?
but i got only 1gb ram
will 7 work perfect still?
noelsairplanes
n00b
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2006
- Messages
- 43
Been using Windows 7 since they came out with the Beta release. I find it to be more user friendly than Vista ever was. In my case, much quicker boot up and shut down times. Initially, problems with only one program I use, Incredimail but those problems have been resolved with their latest release. Personally, I find it to be a success! I have it loaded on my desktop, home built and my Dell laptop, delivered with Vista and "It's a keeper"!
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Consider this a great time to upgrade, but Windows 7 will run better on 1 GB than Vista did.
I upgraded recently from Vista x64 to Windows 7 x64. It basically feels like Vista, but it seems slightly more likely to have random slowdowns (probably not due to the OS itself though). So, it really seemed much like a sidegrade to me; I was happy with Vista before, and am generally happy with 7 now, which appears to be much the same.