Worst and/or most negative Windows 7 review you've come across

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Looking to compile of list on negative and bad Windows 7 reviews just to see what the beefs are of people about the OS, other than generic "It's still Windows" crap.

Thanks!:cool:
 

drdeutsch

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,776
Pretty much any review that doesn't like the new taskbar, start menu, aero or anything else about the UI. Windows 2000 is long gone.

People have to learn to let it go. Embrace the change.
 

GushpinBob

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
2,721
diehard windows 95 users?

Maybe mfsn.org, but [H]?
eek13.gif
 

Adidas4275

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
5,986
Pros:
OS as a whole:
Window Snap, 1/2 screen and fullscreen
Librarys
Themes
Aero
Fast Install
Networking Control Panel

7MC Pros:
Movie Library
Music Wall update
Photo Screen Saver
Colors in Guide for Categories
Native MP4, Divx, AAC playback
Internet TV update
Netflix in 7MC (the tech is awsome, implementation of the actual movie database is too limited)


Cons:
Cannot dock multiple folders to the start bar
some incompatability issues (none-that I have had except hdtach needs to be ran in XP compatability)
Not quite as fast as it could be
boot time is on par with vista and not much faster
OS update shoud have been coordenated with Mobile 7 and WHS 2, MS missed an opportunity to have product compatability like Apple does very well..... aslo the ZuneHD should have been able to, out of the box , sync with all media recorded in Media Center.
 

Eva_Unit_0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
1,991
Cons:
Not quite as fast as it could be

I don't really get this. How do you have any idea how fast it "could be?" Not trying to shoot you down here, I'm just wondering how you quantify this. Are you speaking in the general sense that any program could be faster with more optimization? Or do you have a specific circumstance where win7 is clearly crippled in performance?
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Pros:
...

Cons:
Cannot dock multiple folders to the start bar
some incompatability issues (none-that I have had except hdtach needs to be ran in XP compatability)
Not quite as fast as it could be
boot time is on par with vista and not much faster
OS update shoud have been coordenated with Mobile 7 and WHS 2, MS missed an opportunity to have product compatability like Apple does very well..... aslo the ZuneHD should have been able to, out of the box , sync with all media recorded in Media Center.

Every set of web benchmarks I've seen show Win 7 to be faster than Vista and XP, in both 32 and 64 flavors.

Maybe your boot time didn't improve, but mine is ~24 seconds on an old sucky 150GB raptor, which is much faster than Vista on this machine which was around 45 seconds. I gave my mom (who lives accross town) my old X6800 machine, with a new 500GB WD drive, her Windows 7 boots in 10 seconds flat to login, and after you enter the password and press enter, it takes about 1 second to load the desktop. I think these boot times are great. Maybe you have some malfunctioning start up programs or a slow HD like me...
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
I don't really get this. How do you have any idea how fast it "could be?" Not trying to shoot you down here, I'm just wondering how you quantify this. Are you speaking in the general sense that any program could be faster with more optimization? Or do you have a specific circumstance where win7 is clearly crippled in performance?

Same question I have for that con he posted. "Not as fast as it could be" is extremely vague and really just makes no sense.
 

Adidas4275

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
5,986
lol wow......

my entire post of pros/cons with real information and you all hang on my one vague comment.... :D

Here is what I ment: I think W7 needs to be as fast or faster than OSX SL. Also IE 8 is slow compared to Chrome and firefox (from my experience, not benchmarks)

aslo i really dont like how long it takes to get an IP and connect to a LAN (CAT6 not Wifi). I boot my HTPC with w7 right into Media Center. All my recorded TV shows are on my WHS. It boots up and is in Media Center and says "no recorded TV is found" because it hasnt obtained an IP. Didnt have this issue with Vista.

I really like w7, but there are different benchmarks that show W7 did not really change the speed of computing by itself... allows for more RAM and better SSD control, which does make it faster.

Also my HTPC is running a Aii 240 AM3 CPU, 4GB DDR800 CL4 RAM and a WD 640gb Black.... fast enough...

you guys make me laugh :D





BTW I am the only one that has posted on topic to the OP. How about instead of telling me I dont make sense you actually share your opinions on the OS?
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
He's looking for a list of bad reviews, not your personal review with a list of bad things, from your perspective.

OSX (just a hackingtosh) doesn't cut if for me. Too slow, too much crap that cannot be changed.

Win7 on my F@H setup, has no 'network lag' issue (signin lag). Perhaps it's just poor drivers from whoever makes your network card. I have a cheap Dynex (iirc...) Wifi card and no "IP address" issues.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
I don't think you'll find any legitimate "bad" reviews. Vista was a damn near perfect OS regardless of the FUD and bullshit spread far and wide across the interwebs. Windows 7 is a tweak of Vista and thus is also awesome.

What you will find are people like me who understood how good Vista was and aren't too happy about paying $100+ for a new taskbar and improvements to media center while losing various features. 7 does run a tad faster on systems with 1GB or less RAM, and driver support seems to be better on the laptop side of things, but I have various beefs:

- I don't like the new version of media player

- They cut the classic start menu which many of us prefer (but left in the classic theme, which nobody uses)

- Movie Maker Was destroyed, Live Movie Maker is a piece of shit. You can copy over Vista movie maker but you lose the high-def output features

- Homegroups are dumb, we don't need yet another way to set up a home network. It should be off by default.

- Libraries, while nifty, aren't implemented well. It should be something you can turn on, not part of the default setup for User folders.

- You have to download a second photo viewer to get the photo editing tools, in Vista it was part of the GUI

- Dreamscene was killed off for no apparent reason. Sure, ultimate extras were a dud, but why not leave the one good one in?

And since someone is going to bitch about how I need to move on from the classic start menu and get with the times, look at my badass start menu:
startmenu.png


If Microsoft could add start search to that it would be the best start menu ever. Clean, simple, and only the functions you need. I hate the gigantic playschool start menus in XP/Vista/7.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,837
...aslo i really dont like how long it takes to get an IP and connect to a LAN (CAT6 not Wifi). I boot my HTPC with w7 right into Media Center. All my recorded TV shows are on my WHS. It boots up and is in Media Center and says "no recorded TV is found" because it hasnt obtained an IP. Didnt have this issue with Vista.

Give yourself a static IP, no problem any more.
However this is probably a network card or router related issue not a windows 7 issue. I am connected immediately I get to the desktop (using DHCP from a modem/router).
 

Cyberbeing

Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
569
My only major gripe with both Vista and Win7 which seriously makes me have second thoughts about using either OS full-time, is TCP auto-tuning on my 27Mbps/27Mbps connection.

While it is a good feature in theory, in practice I get significantly worse speeds on higher latency connections (100ms+ RTT) no matter how I tweak the TCP auto-tuning settings. If I disable TCP auto-tuning, the problem is even worse because of the unchangeable 65535 fixed RWIN, and I get horrible speeds on both low and higher latency connections.

Actual example: On multiple international *nix servers which I download 1GB+ from daily (160ms ping), Win7 can only achieve 12Mbit (auto-tuning enabled) and 8Mbit (auto-tuning disabled) with or without my router connected, while XP can max my connection at 27Mbps with RWIN set to 513920. On both the Vista and Win7 Tech Betas, I reported bugs on this but they always got closed as WONTFIX with a response along the lines of, 'That is as good as it's going to get, and it's just something you have to live with.' The fact that I constantly wish Microsoft would had left the TCP/IP settings tweakable (Win 2000/2003/XP style) when auto-tuning is disabled in order to workaround this issue, is a bit of an understatement.

Auto-tuning also causes me another headache. There is a major issue with my RV0041 router that causes me occasional connection problems and makes me unable to get Windows Updates with the router firewall enabled. Basically, until Cisco gets around to creating a good replacement for my RV0041 (unlike the RVS4000 which has horrible throughput), this problem will continue to be an annoyance as I would have to manually enable and disable to firewall all the time, which gets old very quickly. If I ever find a suitable router to my liking, this of course is an added expense that gets attached to upgrading to Win7.


Out of curiosity, does RWIN tweaking work when downloading something from within XP Mode? Unfortunately, my processor doesn't support hardware virtualization so I was never able to test it myself. If RWIN tweaking in XP Mode has the same effect as WinXP native, then that would certainly ease my adoption of Win7 when I build myself a new computer next year.
 
Last edited:

drdeutsch

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,776
*Ugly screenshot*

If Microsoft could add start search to that it would be the best start menu ever. Clean, simple, and only the functions you need. I hate the gigantic playschool start menus in XP/Vista/7.

How odd that the feature you desire, start search, is available in the menu you hate so much.
Quite honestly, I love the Aero/new start menu. In fact, I love it so much, I don't even know what it looks like. I simply cannot remember the last time I had to use my mouse to navigate through the start menu to find what I wanted.

I hit the windows key, I type the program I want to run, I hit enter. The program starts. It's fast and easy and I don' t need an ugly start menu to accomplish it.

2009-10-30_144505.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
2,993
diehard windows 95 users?

Maybe mfsn.org, but [H]?
eek13.gif

The first sign of a crack addict is that they still use Windows 95. Seriously, I was a beta tester for that turd when I was working on my first batch of IT certifications *15 years ago*.

Holy shit. I'm old. Thank goodness I aged better than Win95 did :D
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
The first sign of a crack addict is that they still use Windows 95. Seriously, I was a beta tester for that turd when I was working on my first batch of IT certifications *15 years ago*.

Holy shit. I'm old. Thank goodness I aged better than Win95 did :D

Damnit. That means me.

Oh well.

Rest in peace, IBM thinkpad (from 1997? dunno) <--eraserhead FTW!
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,389
I don't really get this. How do you have any idea how fast it "could be?" Not trying to shoot you down here, I'm just wondering how you quantify this. Are you speaking in the general sense that any program could be faster with more optimization? Or do you have a specific circumstance where win7 is clearly crippled in performance?
Well the OS has been tweaked to have upwards of 10 services or so not start up. The speed on high end machines is virtually identical to Vista. They touted 7 as "a performance boost over Vista" but forgot the *...


* only on low end machines.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
How odd that the feature you desire, start search, is available in the menu you hate so much.

You misunderstood me. I don't "desire" it, I'm just saying that the classic start menu with a start search box would combine the best of both worlds.

There was no reason to take the classic start menu out yet leave the classic theme in.
 

GushpinBob

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
2,721
Holy shit. I'm old. Thank goodness I aged better than Win95 did :D

I sure hope so. Windows 95 is sooo old that it won't boot at all on anything newer than an AMD K6-2 (without patches of course). And it's a damn shame there's no "95Box" tooled for running games from the 95-2001 era, especially those that use glide and have 16-bit components.

Back on topic, my biggest beef with Win7 is Homegroup, and it really has to do with Vista and XP. Why not backport it, Microsoft?
 

Proteos

Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
656
My only major gripe with both Vista and Win7 which seriously makes me have second thoughts about using either OS full-time, is TCP auto-tuning on my 27Mbps/27Mbps connection.

While I consider myself no expert whatsoever at network configuration I thought I would chime in with my 7 gripes. I also have issues with my network connection, and I am not sure what the exact issue is/was. I used vista 64 ultimate for a long time on my current rig and had no issues regarding network connection while using demanding programs (mainly games and voice chat). As soon as I booted up WoW and ventrilo in 7 my entire system was brought to its knees. My latency in WoW would shoot through the roof if I was in any congested areas and I would get disconnected in both ventrilo and WoW. I ended up looking up some information about this issue and found some old forum posts directing to a "fix" to Vista's default TCP settings, which apparently works in 7. My net connection seems to be stable for now, but I find it really disheartening that it took as much as it did just to fix something that really should work out of the box, imo.
 

Unknown-One

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
8,905
I used to do that... in DOS. :rolleyes:
No, DOS requires you to type the full path to the executable, as well as the full name of the executable.

The index built into Windows Vista and Windows 7 means you usually only have to type the first few letters of a programs name before the OS has found it. Much faster, and it doesn't require that you browse a directory tree at all.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,837
No, DOS requires you to type the full path to the executable, as well as the full name of the executable.

The index built into Windows Vista and Windows 7 means you usually only have to type the first few letters of a programs name before the OS has found it. Much faster, and it doesn't require that you browse a directory tree at all.

Not true, wherever you set the boot up path command to, it will automatically look in those folders when you type any command if it isnt in your current folder.
You also dont need to type .com, .exe, .bat etc unless you have 2 or more files of the same name preceding.
see
http://www.ahuka.com/dos/lesson5.html
 

Unknown-One

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
8,905
Not true, wherever you set the boot up path command to, it will automatically look in those folders when you type any command if it isnt in your current folder.
So you manually added ever folder for every application you installed to your boot path? What a pain in the ass. Windows keeps an index for you of every folder in your user folder (which includes the start menu as well as personal files such as documents), as well as a few system folders such as the control panel, no work involved.

Have fun adding a few hundred paths manually...even then, you wont get the same functionality.

You also dont need to type .com, .exe, .bat etc unless you have 2 or more files of the same name preceding.
Great, so now you have to remember weather said application folder has more than one executable in it. Once again, Windows handles all this for you.

Way too much effort involved to get any semblance of a similar effect in DOS. Please don't kid yourself...
 

GushpinBob

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
2,721
^^^ Don't forget, most of the time you don't even need to type the whole name of the program.

Winkey + "pai" + Enter
Boom. Done.
 

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
I remember a comment from Digg.com by someone:

I pride myself in running my comp as minimal as possible. I try to keep it under 30 processes (on XP anyways) at startup. I shudder when someone asks me to look at their computer and they say they haven't installed anything yet there is 82 processes running eating like 600 megs of RAM or more.

Needless to say, he was destroyed by the replies.
 
Last edited:

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
Obviously somebody doesn't know about superfetch, yet.

Use that RAM, don't waste it.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,837
So you manually added ever folder for every application you installed to your boot path? What a pain in the ass. Windows keeps an index for you of every folder in your user folder (which includes the start menu as well as personal files such as documents), as well as a few system folders such as the control panel, no work involved.

Have fun adding a few hundred paths manually...even then, you wont get the same functionality.


Great, so now you have to remember weather said application folder has more than one executable in it. Once again, Windows handles all this for you.

Way too much effort involved to get any semblance of a similar effect in DOS. Please don't kid yourself...

Jeepers, you must never have customised your OS install.
Who cares if you need to type 4 more characters, I was pointing out the error of what you said.
I use Windows mainly and DOS / batch files because its great for getting information / task automation.
 

jimnms

Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
882
So you manually added ever folder for every application you installed to your boot path?
No, back in the DOS days, I created a directory that was in the path that contained "shortcut" batch files that would allow me to start any program just by typing its name instead of having to cd dirname <enter> progname <enter> to launch a program, all I have to do is type progname <enter>.


Great, so now you have to remember weather said application folder has more than one executable in it. Once again, Windows handles all this for you.

I take it you never had the pleasure to use DOS. You rarely, if ever, had a .exe and .com file with the same name. You would at times have a .bat and .exe or .com file with the same name. If for some reason there were three files with the same name, one .com one .exe and one .bat, the .bat file would have priority and be the one that was run if you just typed the filename.

I'm not saying the search from the start menu is like DOS, I was just being sarcastic. I like the search feature, and I don't think anyone is complaining. What I want is for the menu to be more like XP's start menu if I want to browse the menu rather than type the name. I don't like how the start menu has to stay crammed into that little box rather than letting it expand out like it did in XP. Just like DeathFromBelow was saying, it would be the best of both worlds to have a classic menu with the search box.

If I don't know the name of a program, I can't type it to start it, I have to browse the menu to find it. The XP menu is much faster to browse than the Win7 start menu.

Imagine if you went to a movie rental store to rent a movie and all they had was a counter where you went up and asked for the movie you want. That's fine if you know what movie you want, but if you want to look around? In the Win7 store, they'll only let you walk down one aisle, then return to the front of the store before going down another aisle unlike the XP sore where you can run freely around the store to browse the selection.
 

jwalk6

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
1,039
Windows 7 is just a better VIsta Period. It's what Vista should have been from the start.
I think it's great, I ran the RC from day one and finally found a worthy successor to XP.

Contrary to some opinions voiced here, however, Vista was not a "damned fine OS"

Until Service Pack 2 Vista was slow, buggy, unreliable and and more trouble than it
was worth. I've had it on two laptops and two desktops (all core 2 based).
I still run Vista 64 on one of the desktops and Vista 32 on my current laptop.
I deal with this kind of crap for a living (No I don't work for Geed Squad)
and I know a terd when I see it. Until recently Vista was indeed a terd.

If all you do is type a few documents or play a few DX10 games and shut it down
then no, you're not going to think there's a problem. When the entire IP stack blows
up (Pre SP2) because you decided to plug in your USB wireless broadband adapter it can shake one's confidence.

As for 7, Most of my bitches concern the UI which I think is counterintuitive but I'll either bend it to my will or learn to live with it.
If all else faild I still got "Windows Classic" mode....
 
Last edited:

DKS

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
479
I don't think you'll find any legitimate "bad" reviews. Vista was a damn near perfect OS regardless of the FUD and bullshit spread far and wide across the interwebs. Windows 7 is a tweak of Vista and thus is also awesome.

What you will find are people like me who understood how good Vista was and aren't too happy about paying $100+ for a new taskbar and improvements to media center while losing various features. 7 does run a tad faster on systems with 1GB or less RAM, and driver support seems to be better on the laptop side of things, but I have various beefs:

- I don't like the new version of media player

- They cut the classic start menu which many of us prefer (but left in the classic theme, which nobody uses)

- Movie Maker Was destroyed, Live Movie Maker is a piece of shit. You can copy over Vista movie maker but you lose the high-def output features

- Homegroups are dumb, we don't need yet another way to set up a home network. It should be off by default.

- Libraries, while nifty, aren't implemented well. It should be something you can turn on, not part of the default setup for User folders.

- You have to download a second photo viewer to get the photo editing tools, in Vista it was part of the GUI

- Dreamscene was killed off for no apparent reason. Sure, ultimate extras were a dud, but why not leave the one good one in?

And since someone is going to bitch about how I need to move on from the classic start menu and get with the times, look at my badass start menu:
startmenu.png


If Microsoft could add start search to that it would be the best start menu ever. Clean, simple, and only the functions you need. I hate the gigantic playschool start menus in XP/Vista/7.
Odd. Search is enabled in my Win 7Start Menu.
 

JimmiG

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
2,429
^^^ Don't forget, most of the time you don't even need to type the whole name of the program.

Winkey + "pai" + Enter
Boom. Done.

Exactly. I get extremely frustrated every time I have to use an XP machine. It feels like it takes forever just to find the damn program in the start menu, especially if you have a lot of software installed.

Sorting alphabetically doesn't help either, because sometimes the entry begins with the company name (ie."Mozilla Firefox" instead of just "Firefox"). Some hide the shortcut under a sub-menu, like "Bethesda>Oblivion>Oblivion", while others just add one layer of sub-menus like "Mass Effect>Mass Effect". Some programs just add a shortcut to the root of the start menu like FlashFXP and Adobe Reader. It's a mess.
Now, you just type the first few letters of the program you want to run and it appears instantly in the list. Usually just 2-3 letters is enough.

Until Service Pack 2 Vista was slow, buggy, unreliable and and more trouble than it
was worth. I've had it on two laptops and two desktops (all core 2 based).
I still run Vista 64 on one of the desktops and Vista 32 on my current laptop.
I deal with this kind of crap for a living (No I don't work for Geed Squad)
and I know a terd when I see it. Until recently Vista was indeed a terd.

My Vista installation was perfectly reliable which was also indicated by the reliability index (which is extremely sensitive even to minor crashes and problems). Most Vista crashes were probably caused by buggy drivers, especially those from Nvidia. The whole driver model was changed and it took some time for hardware companies to get their act together. This, rather than the service packs is what is improved Vista's reliability over time, although there were some obvious flaws initially, like address space exhaustion and slow file transfers. Since Win7 uses the same driver model, it won't have to go through these growing pains.
 

jimnms

Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
882
Exactly. I get extremely frustrated every time I have to use an XP machine. It feels like it takes forever just to find the damn program in the start menu, especially if you have a lot of software installed.

Sorting alphabetically doesn't help either, because sometimes the entry begins with the company name (ie."Mozilla Firefox" instead of just "Firefox"). Some hide the shortcut under a sub-menu, like "Bethesda>Oblivion>Oblivion", while others just add one layer of sub-menus like "Mass Effect>Mass Effect". Some programs just add a shortcut to the root of the start menu like FlashFXP and Adobe Reader. It's a mess.
Now, you just type the first few letters of the program you want to run and it appears instantly in the list. Usually just 2-3 letters is enough.

There isn't anything preventing you from re-organizing your XP start menu so things are easier to find. I always moved menu items to the main start menu if they were installed with something like Company Name >Publisher >Program Name. If I have multiple programs that can be grouped together, like games, I will create a submenu for those and move all of their menu entries into that submenu.

I like the search feature in Win7, but I will continue to re-organize my start menu and keep my data organized where I can find stuff. If you don't know the name of the program you want to run, you can't type it to run it. You will still have to browse the start menu once in a while.

Windows 7 seems to benefit people who are too lazy to keep their programs and data organized, while causing inconvenience for those of us who are organized.
 
Top