windows 7

[flyer85]

is anyone around here using it?

Is there any reason Microsoft is calling it a new OS other than to try and collect more money? Seems to me Windows 7 is what Vista should have been instead of the bloated OS attempt that it was.

[Razor Shines]

I upgraded my XP to 7 yesterday. I'm still having all sorts of permissions issues. I even turned UAC off and there are there is media I have from when I ran XP that I can't play, because it says I don't have the rights to play it. The highest screen resolution it will let me run is 1024x768 on my 20" flat panel monitor. I guess my video card isn't very compatible with 7. I'm not sure if I'm going to put 7 on my other two computers.

[yab1112]

Originally Posted by Razor Shines

The highest screen resolution it will let me run is 1024x768 on my 20" flat panel monitor. I guess my video card isn't very compatible with 7.

It could be your video card but it could also be some missing drivers. I installed 7 on a Dell Dimension 3000 which was at least 5 years old. The only resolution I could get was 800x648 (IIRC). I downloaded some drivers and it worked fine. What kind of computer do you have?

[SeeinRed]

Originally Posted by Razor Shines

I upgraded my XP to 7 yesterday. I'm still having all sorts of permissions issues. I even turned UAC off and there are there is media I have from when I ran XP that I can't play, because it says I don't have the rights to play it. The highest screen resolution it will let me run is 1024x768 on my 20" flat panel monitor. I guess my video card isn't very compatible with 7. I'm not sure if I'm going to put 7 on my other two computers.

Have you checked your video card manufactuer's web site for updates? They should have something available for Windows 7. Those permission Windows will stop over time. Also, are the files you are trying to play media you purchased trough Napster or ITunes? That may be your issue.

I've been running 7 for a while and have no problems since most of the manufatuers have added support for Windows 7. I like it. It seems to run much better than Vista.

[macro]

I upgraded an old 2003 model computer from XP to Windows 7 a few days after it came out, and I must say that it was the easiest operating system installation I have ever done. I had to wipe the hard drive clean and do a clean install of Windows. There is no direct upgrade path from XP to 7. I had to upgrade the RAM in that machine to 1GB, but it's running like a charm. I'm very excited to have, what amounts to, a new machine.

I have a friend at Microsoft in Redmond and he said exactly what flyer said, that it is what Vista was supposed to be.

The biggest change I see is the Taskbar. The "Show Desktop" button has been removed in favor of a small rectangle on the far right end of the Taskbar, and instead of showing individual buttons for each, say, Excel file you have open, it shows just one Excel icon and then all your open worksheets are a pop-up list within that. It takes a bit of getting used to.

Overall, I think MS has done a good job, but time will tell, I suppose.

[westofyou]

Bought a laptop with it 2 weeks ago, it's pretty stable, the interface is slicker, but it also tries to push file managment into a predefined area. (just ripe for user profiling) It hasn't caused me any issues yet, there are some changes here and there and the goal is to automate functions in managing software and peripherals which seems to work well, but I like to have more control over my box then the default settings give the user (very mac like) but it works great for my wife.

[RBA]

Currently running XP and Vista on my family machines. Both are stable. I see no reason to upgrade.

[flyer85]

It just seems to me that Microsoft is charging the user again for an improved version of Vista (what it should have been). When Vista was releasedan incredibly high percentage of existing hardware was inadequate for running the new OS. Now with WIndows 7 the specs for running are what they should have been for Vista. I am not going to pay them more money for delivering what they should have in the first place.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by flyer85

It just seems to me that Microsoft is charging the user again for an improved version of Vista (what it should have been). When Vista was releasedan incredibly high percentage of existing hardware was inadequate for running the new OS. Now with WIndows 7 the specs for running are what they should have been for Vista. I am not going to pay them more money for delivering what they should have in the first place.

I'm not giving up my XP on my big box that's for sure.

That said Vista is weaker than 7 by a fair stretch, but unless it doesn't work for you I don't see why anyone would rush to upgrade.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by macro

The biggest change I see is the Taskbar. instead of showing individual buttons for each, say, Excel file you have open, it shows just one Excel icon and then all your open worksheets are a pop-up list within that. It takes a bit of getting used to.

Overall, I think MS has done a good job, but time will tell, I suppose.

That was available in Windows XP. From everything I have heard from the commercials so far for why Windows 7 is good, its all available in previous versions of Windows if you know what you are doing. I mean they honestly advertised that you can use a network as something new. I could play files on another computer in my house with Windows 95 through my network. I haven't used Windows 7, probably won't for a few more years (still rocking XP).... but all of the commercials so far have left me asking 'so what is new?' because I haven't seen them actually advertise something that I couldn't do in a previous version of Windows.

[SunDeck]

Running 7 on a few machines at work. It seems less like a new OS than just Vista with less complaining about security and executable files.
I have Vista 64 bit at home and I'm curious to see whether 7 fixes the bug that causes a loss of connectivity when you put your computer to sleep. That one was present when it shipped and they never fixed it.

[macro]

Originally Posted by flyer85

It just seems to me that Microsoft is charging the user again for an improved version of Vista (what it should have been). When Vista was releasedan incredibly high percentage of existing hardware was inadequate for running the new OS. Now with WIndows 7 the specs for running are what they should have been for Vista. I am not going to pay them more money for delivering what they should have in the first place.

I wouldn't have paid full retail or anything close, but I got it for $40 through a Microsoft employee. My new laptop is supposed to be getting a free upgrade, but I've been waiting three weeks and still haven't received it.

[flyer85]

from GCN

If you hated Vista because of the interface, then you are going to hate Windows 7, too. Vista totally changed the look and feel of Windows from XP, but W7 only marginally changes the look and feel from Vista. In fact, 90 percent or more of the interface is exactly the same — as in, identical. Going on just the look and general behavior, W7 is little more than what Microsoft could have delivered in a free service pack to the Vista operating system.

http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2009/10/...ther-name.aspx

[SunDeck]

Originally Posted by flyer85

from GCN



http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2009/10/...ther-name.aspx
If you hated Vista because of the interface, then you are going to hate Windows 7, too. Vista totally changed the look and feel of Windows from XP, but W7 only marginally changes the look and feel from Vista. In fact, 90 percent or more of the interface is exactly the same — as in, identical. Going on just the look and general behavior, W7 is little more than what Microsoft could have delivered in a free service pack to the Vista operating system.

It's not a new OS, it's Vista with a new brand. Just in time for the holidays....