Windows Vista vs Vista7

Yes. Let's compare a 2-year-old OS with a service pack to an OS not going retail for at least a year.
 
From Article said:
Windows 7 appeared to suck memory like Vista, to consume CPU like Vista
Click to expand...

From Article said:
In other words, Microsoft's follow-up to its most unpopular OS release since Windows Me threatens to deliver zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues.
Click to expand...

.. and out the window went their credibility when I read those lines in the article.

As for their frequent mentioning of Win7 and Vista being similar, yeah most of us already knew that and we did warn those who constantly harp on Vista, swearing by Win7, but noooo..

Not that there's anything wrong with Vista.

Oy vey. And the FUD lives on.

From Article said:
One thing's for sure: Microsoft's once unassailable dominance of the enterprise desktop is wobbling on a precipice. Windows Vista has permanently eroded the company's reputation among IT decision makers, and from what we've seen of Windows 7 so far, Microsoft still does not "get IT."
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Find another line of work if you can't figure out how to install an OS.
 
I didn't have to get any further than the topic of the article and knew it was a complete waste of time to read - heaven forbid some tech journal like InfoWorld would dare actually pay someone to write such trash this far out from the Windows 7 release. As with Vista, things changed in the last betas and RCs. Vista at beta 2 still sucked ass, and RC1 was crap, but RC2 really showed what it could do... I fully expect Windows 7 to go the same route and be basically "crap" up till at least RC2 status.

After that, who knows...
 
wow what an odd article..

he makes some horrible conclusions..

eg..
IW said:
So when I examined Windows 7 and found a nearly identical thread count (97 to 100) for the System process, I knew right away that I was dealing with a minor point-type of release,

...

Windows 7 M3's System process indeed consumed a similar amount of memory (3.5MB to 4.5MB). So far, the new OS was looking a lot like Vista.
Click to expand...

i'm not sur ewhat to think of that odd conclusion... because it has the same # of threads in the kernel and uses the same memory footprint as Vista, no improvements were made?


infact throughout the entire article he constantly refers to Vista as "bloated" which really shows that he went into this article not liking vista and going out of his way to show that Windows 7 is just Vista...
 
As it is too far to speculate the differences between W7 RTM vs Vista. I do believe that if Microsoft continues to have the specs and new updates in W7 that they've been touting in the last developer's conference, then it'll be a worthwhile upgrade.
 
Nothing like a hot steaming bowl of FUD.

After all, if Vista wasn't good enough for big business, then surely a Vista-derived encore would meet with a similarly chilly reception.
Click to expand...
From my experience talking to people in the field. It's not Vista not being good enough, it's the current infrastructure not being good enough. . . so um. . . next?

I really didn't feel like reading through that garbage. I'm a fan of OS X and I use Linux when needed. There is nothing wrong with Vista, and besides my M3 copy of Windows7. . . behaving like a pre-beta operating system, there is nothing wrong with Windows7.
 
Vista does a few things I find annoying like the UAC and how it handles file sorting in explorer but both of those can be changed by either turning them off or making a simple registry change.

I didn't care for the windows side bar so I dumped it and use the yahoo desktop widget instead, MS must of taken a few pointers from how the yahoo app. works, simple things like preventing clicking on and no object bar are nice.
 
Every single Windows release has been a few % slower than its predecessor, used more RAM and harddrive space etc. I don't see why Windows 7 would be any different. This is offset by the fact that CPUs get faster, memory gets cheaper and harddrives offer more storage space than ever before. With a quad core CPUs and 4GB of RAM, I actually never reach 100% CPU utilization or 4GB RAM usage (except for Superfetch) with Vista, so there's power to spare even with my modest rig.

It's public knowledge that Windows7 is "Vista with tweaks". To reach the conclusion that this is a bad thing, you must first assume that there's something wrong with Vista. This is not the case, IMO. The problem isn't Vista itself - it had a troubled launch due to compatibility issues, lack of drivers etc. as well as a few bugs and issues with the OS itself.

All those problems have been resolved now - SP1 fixed the most serious flaws and most companies have gotten their act together and released stable drivers. Tech blogs and the Apple ads continue to feed lies to consumers, which fuels the public opinion that Vista is "broken". All Vista needs is a new brand name and image, really.
 
Funny how people are bitching that Windows 7 will be "Vista with tweaks" and no one is looking over at "Snow Leopard" which even Apple admits is "Leopard with tweaks."

Wonder why that is... oh, yeah, I keep forgetting: nobody gives a shit about Apple and their 6% market share... silly me.
 
H-street said:
i'm not sur ewhat to think of that odd conclusion... because it has the same # of threads in the kernel and uses the same memory footprint as Vista, no improvements were made?
Click to expand...

Indeed.. and what's their point about the memory usage anyway? I can't see what's so shocking about the kernel using 4MB RAM. Besides, Microsoft have been clear that Windows 7 isn't about changing the kernel significantly, although for some reason they claim it will introduce "new and potentially crippling compatibility issues".
 
Way back when Vista was being released to testers in Alpha stage, I tried running it and swore that Windows ME was a better OS.....with each consectutive beta and then RC releases Vista became more stable and comfortable to use. The same will happen with the releases of 7....it's just so far out right now that a comparison would not be feasible.
 
Joe Average said:
Funny how people are bitching that Windows 7 will be "Vista with tweaks" and no one is looking over at "Snow Leopard" which even Apple admits is "Leopard with tweaks."

Wonder why that is... oh, yeah, I keep forgetting: nobody gives a shit about Apple and their 6% market share... silly me.
Click to expand...

I lol'd. I believe people are more hardcore MS fans than what they're willing to admit to...high hopes and all that jazz.
 
Joe Average said:
Funny how people are bitching that Windows 7 will be "Vista with tweaks" and no one is looking over at "Snow Leopard" which even Apple admits is "Leopard with tweaks."
Click to expand...

Except that Apple is actually working on making Snow Leopard faster with less bloat. Something Microsoft needs to take a lesson on if they want to recapture the business market. Apple see the door opportunity opening and is going for it. Microsoft better get it's head out of it ass or it's going to lose some serious market share in the next couple years.

From initial reports Win7 was faster, more streamlined, and less bloated, but the benchmarks and deeper investigations have started to show that it's just more of the same bloated and slow crap with a faster UI. Here's hoping Microsoft can turn it around and actually give us what we want.
 
bonsai said:
Except that Apple is actually working on making Snow Leopard faster with less bloat. Something Microsoft needs to take a lesson on if they want to recapture the business market. Apple see the door opportunity opening and is going for it. Microsoft better get it's head out of it ass or it's going to lose some serious market share in the next couple years.

From initial reports Win7 was faster, more streamlined, and less bloated, but the benchmarks and deeper investigations have started to show that it's just more of the same bloated and slow crap. Here's hoping Microsoft can turn it around and actually give us what we want.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Recapture? They never lost it! Get YOUR head out of your ass.
 
Windows 7 is a lot faster than Vista, in my testing. It's not Vista at all. It does share a lot with Vista, but a lot of the annoyances that Vista had (UAC, performance) are fixed. But, there is a lot more to it. It runs a lot faster on lesser hardware, it has some cool new features, it does things easier, and is a better OS. And it is still in pre-beta. I think the final release will be spectacular. I love Vista, but this pre-beta version of Windows 7 is now already my primary OS on this machine (test machine, with storage on the server). Yes, this is a legit version of 7, from PDC.
 
Joe Average said:
I didn't have to get any further than the topic of the article and knew it was a complete waste of time to read - heaven forbid some tech journal like InfoWorld would dare actually pay someone to write such trash this far out from the Windows 7 release. As with Vista, things changed in the last betas and RCs. Vista at beta 2 still sucked ass, and RC1 was crap, but RC2 really showed what it could do... I fully expect Windows 7 to go the same route and be basically "crap" up till at least RC2 status.

After that, who knows...
Click to expand...

IMO vista became usable with SP1, anything before that sucked big time.
 
Glad to see someone else caught that "recapture" thing... in my 41 years, the only thing I've ever seen in retail/business situations is DOS or Windows, save for custom POS systems which don't even count, CAD/CAM manufacturing stuff that doesn't relate, or Apples in... well, Apple Stores as that's the only place I've ever seen Apple hardware used for business purposes aside from a few photo studios I do work for (and build workstations that are not Macs, I assure you).

Linux? In the business environment? Maybe running the back office servers, sure, but up front where it would be used daily? Forget it... Windows rules the world, someday people will realize this. Ain't nothing going to change that anytime soon.
 
Stoly said:
IMO vista became usable with SP1, anything before that sucked big time.
Click to expand...

I never used Vista prior to December 2007, but then didn't notice any difference when I installed SP1. I'd say it was a gradual process of fixes and better compatibility associated with a new platform rather than a sudden change when SP1 was released.
 
I have played around with the pre-beta version of Windows 7 and I like it so far. To the people who are complaining that Vista and Windows 7 are almost exactly the same, you have to keep in mind that this is pre-beta.

I played around with the pre-beta version of Vista years ago, then called Longhorn. You could easily tell that they had slapped some bits onto Windows XP. I even played around with the pre-beta version of Windows XP, then called Whistler. You could tell that there wasn’t much changed from previous versions of Windows.

You have to keep in mind that the only purpose of this pre-beta is to test the underlying bits in the operating system, not to give you a full out gui change, and huge optimizations.

Give them time, it is looking promising. BTW I love using Vista, it is great.
 
Mithent said:
I never used Vista prior to December 2007, but then didn't notice any difference when I installed SP1. I'd say it was a gradual process of fixes and better compatibility associated with a new platform rather than a sudden change when SP1 was released.
Click to expand...

I've been running Vista since the first widely available beta builds, and I didn't notice a substantial difference with SP1 over the initial retail builds either.
 
silent-circuit said:
I've been running Vista since the first widely available beta builds, and I didn't notice a substantial difference with SP1 over the initial retail builds either.
Click to expand...

same here..

i think the "SP1 fixed vista" is just a product of everyone who listened to IFD (internet fud machine) when people said..

I won't use vista until after SP1..

when in fact vista has been a great OS from the beginning..


the only thing that has really improved is the driver support, but that was expected..

infact i am impressed with vista, my original installation from the day i bought it is still running great .. i couldn't even say that with XP that id have an installation that lasted 21 months.. only my linux box has lasted longer, going on 6 years now on the same machine, same installation, using debian (only had to change out a CPU fan)..
 
In my experience with 7, the CPU usage is much lower. It sat at 0% for a very long time without hitting 1%. Vista normally sits at 0% but does jump around between 1-5% normally.

I think that company that did this is faking wetodded.
 
Stoly said:
IMO vista became usable with SP1, anything before that sucked big time.
Click to expand...

FUD. I used Vista since release day, SP1 changed absolutely nothing at all - at least on my hardware.
 
MajorDomo said:
Way back when Vista was being released to testers in Alpha stage, I tried running it and swore that Windows ME was a better OS.....with each consectutive beta and then RC releases Vista became more stable and comfortable to use. The same will happen with the releases of 7....it's just so far out right now that a comparison would not be feasible.
Click to expand...

Spot on! Matter of fact, even the Beta1 and Beta2 Customer Preview releases were quite 'clunky' in comparison to the RTM product. Yet supposedly informed journalists from supposedly reputable techie publications were falling over each other to report on the things as if they were the finalised product! Beggars belief a bit that it happens, but it does. IT Media used to be rather staid, responsible and reliable, once upon a time, but nowadays getting product exposure out to the Digg/Slashdot mentality crowd is where advertising revenue is at.

Hell, all the "UAC is crap and you should disable it!!!" kerfuffle kicked off with journos carrying on about Beta1 Customer Preview release, and UAC wasn't even really working in that release. It had a half-baked implementation included basically to show how the dialogues would look and act, yet supposedly knowledgeable journos wrote about it as if it were the bloody real thing :p


InfoWorld lost all semblance of credibility, for me anyways, when they so quickly and prominently jumped aboard the Devil Mountain Software schemozzle regarding the supposedly one third of all Vista installs which were being converted to XP installs. A relatively obscure 'productivity benchmark' software developer/publisher runs a shoddy survey of a skewed sample (it's customers) and draws conclusion that 33% of all Vista installs are being dumped! Fair dinkum, that's so "smack you in the forehead obvious" bad information that a journo worth his salt shouldn't write about it and an editor worth his salt shouldn't let it slip past if it IS written up.

And hey? Guess where the 'performance measuring' tools used to generate the data for the linked article comes from? Yep, same mob! This time around InfoWorld aren't using a shoddy survey of a "M$ am teh devil!" crowd to proclaim that everyone purchasing a Vista box is wiping Vista off it. This time they're running the software on a PRE-BETA build of the next Windows release to supposedly show that its 'teh shitz0r!' Damn shame people don't go practice their sexual perversions in private, far as I'm concerned.

But no. Times have changed, standards have slipped, and nowadays IT reporting is as much about scandal-mongering as is the 'Celebrity News'!

Joe Average said:
Glad to see someone else caught that "recapture" thing... in my 41 years, the only thing I've ever seen in retail/business situations is DOS or Windows, save for custom POS systems which don't even count, CAD/CAM manufacturing stuff that doesn't relate, or Apples in... well, Apple Stores as that's the only place I've ever seen Apple hardware used for business purposes aside from a few photo studios I do work for (and build workstations that are not Macs, I assure you).

Linux? In the business environment? Maybe running the back office servers, sure, but up front where it would be used daily? Forget it... Windows rules the world, someday people will realize this. Ain't nothing going to change that anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Dunno about how it's progressed in the US, but here in Oz, for a while at least, Apple got a pretty good foothold in the offices of medical practitioners and legal professionals. And the more 'up-market' the Medical Clinic or Law Firm might be the more likely it'd be that you'd see Macs on desks.

But yeah! Apart from that.....

d3c1us said:
From my experience talking to people in the field. It's not Vista not being good enough, it's the current infrastructure not being good enough. . . so um. . . next?
Click to expand...

Hang on a wee bit there, maybe?

Even a 'home user' specialist like myself, completely untrained and naive regarding the world of network systems administration, sees the dissatisfied grumblings about how "sysprep doesn't work" and also knows damned well that if he wants to make 'roll your own' up to date install media he has to turn to third-party tools to do the job. Vista's improved image-based install procedures (and they ARE improved) were supposed to make that wee job a damn sight easier one. Can't though. It's brokeded!

I don't want to use a third-party software tool to do a job that should be achievable within the OS. I've been using Vista as primary OS of preference since the earliest days of its release, but one of its biggest attractions for me has been the way it allows me to REDUCE the library of installed third-party software. I don't want to be installing stuff I shouldn't have to install.

And if there are impediments in place regarding integration and deployment, then I can pretty easy enough see how that would be a rather hellish off-putting thing for corporate uptake. Let's not get carried away thinking that Vista is perfect, hey huh? It's not.

H-street said:
same here..

i think the "SP1 fixed vista" is just a product of everyone who listened to IFD (internet fud machine) when people said..

I won't use vista until after SP1..

when in fact vista has been a great OS from the beginning..
Click to expand...
Whilst I 'get' what you're syaing there, Vista's RTM code certainly did still have some rather nasty 'bugs' in it, and whulst most of those were satisfactorily ironed out rather early on for those people sensible enough to regularly apply available updates, the residual inclusions of SP1 definitely did bring a degree of enhaced performance. Not just 'measurable' either. For me at least, network traffic even felt snappier post-SP1.

But I agree, nevertheless. There was never really any need to 'wait' for the Service Pack release.





Windows Vista v Windows 7?

Biggest 'change' I'd like to see would be a once and for all fixing of the 'changing folder views' problem which has plagued Windows pretty much since XP arrived.

I have my own theory regarding why it happens, of course. I've done a fair amount of fiddling and investigating, and been able to consistently replicate the following. Try it, if you feel inclined, and see if it produces same results for you:

  • Run out a default Vista install and update it. Don't install any software, but have a good play around with data files. Betcha your folder view settings stick.
  • Next, install up to date Microsoft software and have another good play around. Betcha folder views STILL stick.
  • Then install the general conglomeration of third-party software. In particular the freebies, second-rate (or not so second rate) stuff which comes bundled with hardware and peripherals, download managers and whatnot else. Where those include customised dialogue boxes (particularly customised load/save dialogues) I betcha your folder views don't stick so well after you've used them!

So if I think it's third-party software causing it why do I want MS to 'fix' it in the next Windows release? Simple. If I'm right, and it's installed software generating the problem, then installed software shouldn't be able to do that. Too much compromise there for my liking, just for the sake of compatibility.
 
AVT said:
FUD. I used Vista since release day, SP1 changed absolutely nothing at all - at least on my hardware.
Click to expand...

Well my experience was completely different. I had XP64 and I liked it a lot. I installed the early Vista beta versions and found many problems, expected from a beta, so I waited for the final release, installed it and used for about 2 months. Again a lot of issues (speed, stability, network issues) so I went back to XP64. Once SP1 came out I gave it another try and most of my problems were gone and the few remaining ones were solved shortly after.
 
Stoly said:
Once SP1 came out I gave it another try and most of my problems were gone...
Click to expand...


Point being made, methinks Stoly, is that those people who had Vista installed and allowed updates to install would've had the various 'fixes' already, months and months before SP1 arrived.

SP1 did change the kernel from v. 6.0.6000 (the Vista RTM kernel) to v. 6.0.6001 (the Server 2008 kernel), but apart from that it didn't contain all that much over and above the accumulation of updates and fixes which had already been deployed via Windows Update.
 
bonsai said:
Except that Apple is actually working on making Snow Leopard faster with less bloat. Something Microsoft needs to take a lesson on if they want to recapture the business market. Apple see the door opportunity opening and is going for it. Microsoft better get it's head out of it ass or it's going to lose some serious market share in the next couple years.
Click to expand...

damn that is some delusional rantings right there. im almost speechless.
 
Azhar said:
Speak for yourself. Find another line of work if you can't figure out how to install an OS.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a fair statement. Oh, I agree that judging the OS based on impressions now is a bad idea, but Vista did cost MS quite a bit of it's reputation. Many managers who couldn't even name linux 3 years ago now have it ( and virtulzation ) on their minds directly because of vista. All it'll take is one shove ( like a bad follow up OS ) and many shops will seriously consider linux desktops.

Sadly, I can almost guarantee MS won't do the one thing necessary to make everyone's lives easier; give us "themes" to replicate win2k's and xp's interface. That's the biggest sticking point for end users, and what MS will never comprehend. End users don't get why the interface has to change and hate being forced to do so. And I can't blame them. For what they do, there is no reason to do so or to force them through it.
 
Catweazle said:
Point being made, methinks Stoly, is that those people who had Vista installed and allowed updates to install would've had the various 'fixes' already, months and months before SP1 arrived.

SP1 did change the kernel from v. 6.0.6000 (the Vista RTM kernel) to v. 6.0.6001 (the Server 2008 kernel), but apart from that it didn't contain all that much over and above the accumulation of updates and fixes which had already been deployed via Windows Update.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that. Thing is that the initial problems I had made take a "wait and see" stance, besides XP64 was nice, I really had no reason to upgrade. By the time SP1 was out, Vista 64 had much better support and compatibility than XP64, so that's when I made the switch.
 
XOR != OR said:
Sadly, I can almost guarantee MS won't do the one thing necessary to make everyone's lives easier; give us "themes" to replicate win2k's and xp's interface. That's the biggest sticking point for end users, and what MS will never comprehend. End users don't get why the interface has to change and hate being forced to do so. And I can't blame them. For what they do, there is no reason to do so or to force them through it.
Click to expand...

I hear this all the time. It's insane. We're talking about a 2, maybe 3 day period of uneasinesss, if that. More like an hour or so if you've got a reasonable level of intelligence going for you.

Things that haven't changed appreciably:
There's still a start menu. Still "My Computer", still "Control Panel", etc. "X" still closes, the "box" still maximizes, the "line" still minimizes and they're in the same place, the login screen is the same, just minor graphical changes.

Things that've changed:
Actual location of user files (does not affect most users as they use the provided shortcuts just like they did in XP, and those of us it does affect catch on quickly enough), UAC (easily disabled, clearly not as 'necessary' as some would lead you to believe given I didn't have it for the last 10+ years and have been infected by a whopping /1/ virus, ever), there are sidebar widgets, but they're easy to turn off. The search system is faster and more intuitive. The only frustration I have are separate 32bit and 64bit Program Files directories... and that doesn't affect much, it just annoys me a bit. That, and I prefer the old style "Display Properties" dialog, though I imagine the new one is much easier to understand for new computer users, and doesn't present an obstacle.

What's so horrible about Vista, again? Where's the tectonic shift so many have complained about? I've been using Windows since 3.1. I've never started up a new machine with a new version (95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, Server) and said "woah, this is so much different from what I'm used to, I'm going to have to relearn /everything/.... I hate you Microsoft." Perhaps I'm asking too much. Fact: Vista is shinier than XP. It's shiny on the level of OS X and the "cutesier" Linux distros. That's the kind of crap many people want anymore. And if you don't like it? Take the five minutes to learn how to turn it off. It's really not hard.
 
silent-circuit said:
I hear this all the time. It's insane. We're talking about a 2, maybe 3 day period of uneasinesss, if that. More like an hour or so if you've got a reasonable level of intelligence going for you.
Click to expand...
For you and me, sure. For your average corporate user? Months, and they will gripe about it for years.

And I can't blame them. What's the point? Why do we force our users through new interfaces every couple years? What possible business justification can we give for this kind of behavior? It sure isn't in the name of efficiency; most users will argue that they knew how to find what they needed just fine under the old system, so at best the new system is a wash.

My personal opinion of vista is bleh. It's an OS. It gets in the way more than XP, which is annoying, but not enough to switch back ( too much effort ).
 
We moved from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

Even the ditziest blondes in the office figured it out after a week

Yeah they always have questions but it's not any different from when we were using 2003
 
rhexis said:
damn that is some delusional rantings right there. im almost speechless.
Click to expand...

It's easiest to put him on your ignore list. He's always arguing counterpoint to any conversation. I doubt he even believes half his arguments.
 
H-street said:
same here..

i think the "SP1 fixed vista" is just a product of everyone who listened to IFD (internet fud machine) when people said..

I won't use vista until after SP1..

when in fact vista has been a great OS from the beginning..


the only thing that has really improved is the driver support, but that was expected..

infact i am impressed with vista, my original installation from the day i bought it is still running great .. i couldn't even say that with XP that id have an installation that lasted 21 months.. only my linux box has lasted longer, going on 6 years now on the same machine, same installation, using debian (only had to change out a CPU fan)..
Click to expand...


I must agree on this point, having beta tested (officially) for Win2k, XP, and Vista. I was running Vista full time from the moment I got my complimentary Vista Ultimate from MS....and had been dual booting it and XP prior to that for almost a year.

It has been pretty good to me...far better than XP in regards to stability.
 
rhexis said:
damn that is some delusional rantings right there. im almost speechless.
Click to expand...

If you don't think Microsoft is already loosing market share then you're blind. Vista has given them a huge black eye. Their public opinion is not good right now and they need to turn it around if they want stop the hemorrhaging. Even IT admins and managers have poor opinions of Vista, very few businesses have migrated over to the new platform. If Microsoft wants to recapture the trust and confidence of the people it's going to need to distance Win7 as far away from Vista as possible. If it turns out to be just "Vista with tweaks" the tech community, media, and especially Apple will have a field day and the next couple years are going to be rough on Microsoft.
 
bonsai said:
If you don't think Microsoft is already loosing market share then you're blind. Vista has given them a huge black eye.
Click to expand...


Windows market share currently sits at about 90.5%. Whilst that's a small degree down on the highest point it's seen during the past decade (less than a handful of percentage points down) it is also a wee tad up on the lowest point it's seen over the past year or so. Mac, which currently sits at about 8.2% share, had a weensy wee bit more at one stage, when both the novelty of the MacIntel push and the Vista misinformation were at their heights. Microsoft has regained ground of late.

The only genuine 'competitor' to a Windows product is another Windows product. If you don't understand that then you're spouting uninformed drivel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top