Is Windows 7 worth it?

I remember all the computer press telling us how Vista was going to be a
gift from the God's (well, hardly a 'gift' not at UK prices anyway!) how it
was going to blow XP into the dark ages etc etc

We seem to be getting the same spin about Windows 7 - which makes me
question the independent nature, the skill and the expertise of computer
magazines.

I have to say I have had just about every Windows o/s from 3.1 to W95, 98,
ME, XP and Vista Home Premium and Ultimate - I have never had a problem that
I couldn't easily resolve by asking a few questions.......well, not quite
true OEM version of Vista on a laptop was a nightmare but worked fine after
destroying (I mean removing!) the OEM's crapware and up-dating the graphics
driver.

I think so many of us want something out of the box that will work with
every possible combination of hardware and software and do so effortlessly
without any problem - but unless you buy Apple, that isn't going to happen
(and in fact I have had problems with Apple).

What does concern me is that perhaps Microsoft are considering that an o/s
release every 2 or 3 years is the best way to keep the directors share
dividends up and convincing us that Windows 7 is the all singing all dancing
super safe o/s - which is exactly what they said about Vista, so should be
be suing Microsoft under the terms of the Trade Descriptions Act because
Vista never managed to live up to the spin (according to many) or just shut
up and put our hands firmly in our pockets and cough up another astronomic
sum?

Note to Microsoft: take a look at the upgrade price for Apple's o/s then
hang your head in shame

--
Ron

Ron O'Brien wrote:

<snipped>

You'll do good to be concerned with your own little worthless life, if
that is possible for you.

Ron honey, take your medication. Stop masturbating all over the cat.


"Ron O'Brien" <castcall@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eeaGDk3QKHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Is Windows 7 worth it?
>
> I remember all the computer press telling us how Vista was going to be a
> gift from the God's (well, hardly a 'gift' not at UK prices anyway!) how
> it was going to blow XP into the dark ages etc etc
>
> We seem to be getting the same spin about Windows 7 - which makes me
> question the independent nature, the skill and the expertise of computer
> magazines.
>
> I have to say I have had just about every Windows o/s from 3.1 to W95, 98,
> ME, XP and Vista Home Premium and Ultimate - I have never had a problem
> that I couldn't easily resolve by asking a few questions.......well, not
> quite true OEM version of Vista on a laptop was a nightmare but worked
> fine after destroying (I mean removing!) the OEM's crapware and up-dating
> the graphics driver.
>
> I think so many of us want something out of the box that will work with
> every possible combination of hardware and software and do so effortlessly
> without any problem - but unless you buy Apple, that isn't going to happen
> (and in fact I have had problems with Apple).
>
> What does concern me is that perhaps Microsoft are considering that an o/s
> release every 2 or 3 years is the best way to keep the directors share
> dividends up and convincing us that Windows 7 is the all singing all
> dancing super safe o/s - which is exactly what they said about Vista, so
> should be be suing Microsoft under the terms of the Trade Descriptions Act
> because Vista never managed to live up to the spin (according to many) or
> just shut up and put our hands firmly in our pockets and cough up another
> astronomic sum?
>
> Note to Microsoft: take a look at the upgrade price for Apple's o/s then
> hang your head in shame
>
> --
> Ron[/color]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:55:52 +0100, "Ron O'Brien"
<castcall@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[color=blue]
>Note to Microsoft: take a look at the upgrade price for Apple's o/s then
>hang your head in shame[/color]

Their supposed OS upgrades are just really bug fixes. If you can't
afford to play with the big boys then buy a Mac.

"McKenna" <McKenna@NOSPAM.invlaid> wrote in message
news:5vccc5hhdl0u541u2cjt02iu3at6rse3c5@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:55:52 +0100, "Ron O'Brien"
> <castcall@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Note to Microsoft: take a look at the upgrade price for Apple's o/s then
>>hang your head in shame[/color]
>
> Their supposed OS upgrades are just really bug fixes. If you can't
> afford to play with the big boys then buy a Mac.[/color]


For some things Windows VII has actually gotten worse. For instance,
Windows Media Player 12 doesn't play high resolution H.264 compressed videos
very well, but this might be by design. I don't think Microsoft wants to
show any support for Blu-ray play back using their product, but opens the
door for 3rd party developers.

Playing back H.264 encoded video causes CPU usage to spike even on a Core 2
Quad (2.83Ghz/3.4Ghz) and play back is extremely poor, video skips frame,
audio skips and stutters with WMP12 using either Core or FFDShow codec for
H.264 decoding. WMP 11 plays Blu-ray video quite smoothly on VIsta and
without tremendous amount of CPU usage on the same machine. If you want to
play back Blu-ray you'll have to shell out money for a Blu-ray media player
(WinDVD 2010 Pro, PowerDVD 8.0 & 9.0 Blu-ray Disc edition has problems on
64-bit Windows) or use Media Player Classic.

Also if you copy large amounts of files that total more than the amount of
free memory, it will start swapping out to the pagefile like crazy. Not
sure what they were thinking, swapping out memory to pagefile like that
while there is heavy disk I/O. I can't think of a more inefficient use of
I/O traffic.

It's worth it because you neither want to be stuck with antique WinXP nor
with lame Vista. If you can't afford Win7, you better stay with WinXP and
forget Vista.
If you think of Vista obviously now you can't - as Windows7 is out in a few
weeks.

Anyways, the bottom line it's worth it.
I don't work for Microsoft I just know form experience WIndows7 fixed some
annoyances of Vista, whether it's as productive as WinXP remaisn to be seen.
Also as any new OS it supprots new hardware, e.g. SSD drives.

Ron O'Brien wrote:[color=blue]
> Is Windows 7 worth it?
>
> I remember all the computer press telling us how Vista was going to be a
> gift from the God's (well, hardly a 'gift' not at UK prices anyway!) how
> it was going to blow XP into the dark ages etc etc
>
> We seem to be getting the same spin about Windows 7 - which makes me
> question the independent nature, the skill and the expertise of computer
> magazines.
>
> I have to say I have had just about every Windows o/s from 3.1 to W95,
> 98, ME, XP and Vista Home Premium and Ultimate - I have never had a
> problem that I couldn't easily resolve by asking a few
> questions.......well, not quite true OEM version of Vista on a laptop
> was a nightmare but worked fine after destroying (I mean removing!) the
> OEM's crapware and up-dating the graphics driver.
>
> I think so many of us want something out of the box that will work with
> every possible combination of hardware and software and do so
> effortlessly without any problem - but unless you buy Apple, that isn't
> going to happen (and in fact I have had problems with Apple).
>
> What does concern me is that perhaps Microsoft are considering that an
> o/s release every 2 or 3 years is the best way to keep the directors
> share dividends up and convincing us that Windows 7 is the all singing
> all dancing super safe o/s - which is exactly what they said about
> Vista, so should be be suing Microsoft under the terms of the Trade
> Descriptions Act because Vista never managed to live up to the spin
> (according to many) or just shut up and put our hands firmly in our
> pockets and cough up another astronomic sum?
>
> Note to Microsoft: take a look at the upgrade price for Apple's o/s then
> hang your head in shame
>[/color]

If your current OS is doing the job for you, then why are you
complaining? Either it is or it isn't. YOU are the one to decide if you
NEED to upgrade or not. What does it matter what the cost is? Unless
you NEED to upgrade, then it isn't a problem. Releasing an OS update on
scheduled intervals, (Although MS is usually late), is completely
normal. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a conspiracy to
make more money for them or their shareholders. Rather it has much to do
with keeping up with technology. ..Not to mention CONSUMER DEMAND for
newer and better. (Ever think of that? DUH) How long have you used XP?
Getting boring yet? Forced to use Vista or a choice? For me it was a
CHOICE, and I don't regret it, I'll be happily moving on to the the
latest greatest. ..But that is what I want.

Yeah Vista was hyped up and so-on, but so was the Edsel. Big deal, ANY
company can have an "Edsel." You are NOT obliged to buy an Edsel, ie the
latest and greatest OS. If you like leading, (Bleeding), edge
technology, then by all means, buy a copy of Win 7. If what you have now
is working for your needs, and see no need to "upgrade" then
by-all-means don't.

Who gives a rat's A** what Apple does? They are NOT Microsoft, and don't
do things the way Microsoft does. So what? I buy my gas at a discount
place rather than pay a ton more at say, Shell or Chevron. Most likely I
am not getting all that I could, but I choose to pay less. Lets see, how
many programs are available to OS X compared to Windows? How much MORE
is the hardware for Apple than a PC? Yeah, Apple OS upgrades may be
cheaper, but you paid the difference in the STINKING EXPENSIVE hardware!

I bought Vista Ultimate because I was waaay tired of XP and was ready
for something new and different. While I was disappointed with some
things, the OS in general did just fine for me. While others seemed to
have a lot of problems with Vista, I have had relatively few problems.
...Still, when the Beta of Win 7 came out, I tested it, then tested Win 7
RC. Although I have yet more disappointments with Win 7 for various
reasons, I like it MUCH better than Vista. It's leaner, meaner, FASTER,
and more stable, than Vista in my testing. My EXPENSIVE Vista Ultimate
disk is destoned to be a glorified coaster. Eh, so what, I have many
older Windows and Linux Distros that are coaster worthy now. It's just
the way it goes when you CHOOSE to go with the latest greatest.

Your brand new computer you bought a month or two ago is already nearly
worthless, they depreciate that fast, so do OS's. Either live with it,
or keep on using Win 3.1. (LOL or DOS) It's all up to YOU and what works
for you. Get over the OS releases, and cost. Pay for the upgrade or
don't upgrade, but quit bitching.

G'day

In article <#fm3Y#4QKHA.4020@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, [email]tae_song********.com[/email]
says...[color=blue]
> Also if you copy large amounts of files that total more than the amount of
> free memory, it will start swapping out to the pagefile like crazy. Not
> sure what they were thinking, swapping out memory to pagefile like that
> while there is heavy disk I/O. I can't think of a more inefficient use of
> I/O traffic.
>[/color]

You might want to check your system - I just copied a zip file that is
22GB across my network and it didn't page/swap anything, and it didn't
appear to cause any load on the computer - my laptop is an old P4/3.2g
Hyper-Threaded system with 2GB RAM.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <e$kCsRFRKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, [email]NoSpam@NoSpam.org[/email]
says...[color=blue]
> It's worth it because you neither want to be stuck with antique WinXP nor
> with lame Vista. If you can't afford Win7, you better stay with WinXP and
> forget Vista.
>[/color]

I have XP and Vista and Win 7 Ultimate running on a bunch of machines -
my take is that Vista is slower and more clunky than Windows 7. The good
thing is that Vista SP1 and Windows 7 allow XP video drivers, so we're
not completely out when it comes to older, but still good machines.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2534621689904f7c989f23@us.news.astraweb.com...[color=blue]
> In article <e$kCsRFRKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, [email]NoSpam@NoSpam.org[/email]
> says...[color=green]
>> It's worth it because you neither want to be stuck with antique WinXP nor
>> with lame Vista. If you can't afford Win7, you better stay with WinXP
>> and
>> forget Vista.
>>[/color]
>
> I have XP and Vista and Win 7 Ultimate running on a bunch of machines -
> my take is that Vista is slower and more clunky than Windows 7. The good
> thing is that Vista SP1 and Windows 7 allow XP video drivers, so we're
> not completely out when it comes to older, but still good machines.
>[/color]

I was pleasantly surprised to find that when I did a clean install of 7 RC
on my Toshiba Satellite that had come with Vista, no external drivers were
needed at all! All my hardware (including Wireless) worked straight out of
the box!
Well done MS!

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:06:16 -0400, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <e$kCsRFRKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, [email]NoSpam@NoSpam.org[/email]
>says...[color=green]
>> It's worth it because you neither want to be stuck with antique WinXP nor
>> with lame Vista. If you can't afford Win7, you better stay with WinXP and
>> forget Vista.
>>[/color]
>
>I have XP and Vista and Win 7 Ultimate running on a bunch of machines -
>my take is that Vista is slower and more clunky than Windows 7.[/color]

Run some benchmarks, THEN try to tell us W7 is better than Vista.