• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Differences between Vista and W 7

  • Thread starter Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com
  • Start date
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
Pulse wrote:
> Both Vista and Win7 support "gadgets". In Vista the default for them was
> to exist on the 'Sidebar' usually on the left side of the desktop. One
> could drag the gadget off to the desktop, but then they would enlarge to
> their expanded mode.
>
> Anyway, Win7 did away with the darkish sidebar and the gadgets both in
> default and expanded can exist anywhere on the desktop. If the sidebar
> is turned off in Vista, go to the Control Panel and turn it back on.
>



I just uninstalled mine. Tried a few out, took at look at what was
available, and decided that they were all useless.

-Al-
 
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
bb wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 6:08 PM, Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>> I apologize for having started a thread that lead to so much acrimony.

>
> It's USENET, there's no entrance fee.



On Usenet the bar is lowered far enough to roll across the urns
containing the ashes of dead people.

-Al-
 
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
Roy Smith wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 11:47 AM, Al Smith wrote:
>> milt wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2010 9:10 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Windows 7 (under the covers, Windows 6.1) is essentially a newer and
>>>> improved version of Vista (under the covers, Windows 6.0). Much is the
>>>> same, but lots of things are very different.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just as Vista was an improved version of XP, as XP was an improved
>>> version of 2000, etc...
>>>
>>> Each version is built on what came before.

>>
>>
>> I'm finding Windows 7 to be less stable than my last Os, Windows XP.
>> Vista went off my wife's computer so fast, I didn't really get a chance
>> to use it. Once I saw that I couldn't do file operations with Vista,
>> that was it, I replaced it with XP and never looked back. At least I can
>> copy and move files with Windows 7, which is an improvement, I guess.
>> But it locks up or crashes more often than XP did.

>
> Then something is seriously wrong with your PC, either it's hardware
> related or you have a bad install of Windows 7. I've been using Win7
> beta& RC1, and now the Home Premium version without the specific
> problems you speak of.
>


Congratulations.

-Al-
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On 2/01/10, Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com posted:
> On 2/1/2010 10:42 AM, Pulse wrote:
>> Performance improvements, smaller footprint in RAM - when in use - and
>> on disk, usability improvements, much needed aesthetic changes, gadgets
>> freed up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives.
>> Work on the internals and kernel includes changes to the dispatcher lock
>> enabling scaling up to handling 256 processors, UAC improved,
>> performance improved, mature .NET capabilities.
>>
>> Many reviewers feel that Microsoft 'got it right' this time 'round.
>>
>>
>>
>> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad...
>>> I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
>>> advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista
>>> which makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other
>>> than the friendlier uac and cosmetics?
>>>
>>> Thanks. Jeff

>>

> Thank you all. Very helpful despite the sometimes conflicting opinions. ;-))


> > freed up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives.


> Since you bring it up, <grin>:
> a) the USB support needs some more work.... In XP when I asked it to safely
> remove the usb flash drive, a popup appeared and the FD's led light went off.
> In W 7, I am told in a popup that it is safe to remove the FD but its led
> remains lit.


> b) what is the sidebar? The gadgets say they can be put on the desktop or
> sidebar but I cannot find a sidebar.


> Thanks. Jeff (OP)


The sidebar is defunct in Win 7, as Pulse said...

The light on the USB drive is irrelevant, as long as it's not flashing
when you unplug it. Just believe the message - and be glad you're not
running Vista, where Safely Remove often says, Sorry, you can't remove
it because it's in use. Never is there a clue as to who is using it.

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
 
M

milt

Flightless Bird
On 2/1/2010 1:02 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>
> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>


That troll is never right about anything, hence, why most of us don't
care what he posts and wishes others would quit quoting him because if
we wanted to read his crap, we would.
 
B

Bob Hatch

Flightless Bird
On 2/1/2010 11:02 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:47:56 GMT, Al Smith<invalid@address.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm finding Windows 7 to be less stable than my last Os, Windows
>> XP. Vista went off my wife's computer so fast, I didn't really get
>> a chance to use it. Once I saw that I couldn't do file operations
>> with Vista, that was it, I replaced it with XP and never looked
>> back. At least I can copy and move files with Windows 7, which is
>> an improvement, I guess. But it locks up or crashes more often
>> than XP did.

>
>
>
> That may be your experience, but it's very far from everyone's
> experience. I've been running the released version here since it first
> came out, and the RC for several months before that. Neither one has
> *ever* crashed or locked up on me. And I know many others with similar
> experiences.
>
> I had no problems with Vista either.
>
> Since your experience is different, you should be looking hard for
> problems on your machine. Perhaps malware infection?
>
>


I've been running Windows 7 Pro 32 bit on 2 computers since a few days
after the release. I didn't even do a clean install on either computer
and moved both to Windows 7 Pro 64 bit.

One is a Dell desktop that was running XP Pro. I used Laplink Upgrade
Assistant to install Win 7. Prior to the install I ran the Windows 7
Upgrade Advisor and followed the advice that program gave me. I
uninstalled any programs that were listed as "not compatible". I then
downloaded all the drivers for my system that Dell recommended as well
as new drivers for my video card, scanner, printer, and several other
devices. I updated the BIOS and when I had everything in place I ran the
Laplink software, installed Win 7, updated all necessary drivers
including the chipset drivers, the ran the Laplink software again to
move all my programs and settings to Win 7. My computer stays on 24/7
and I've never had a blue screen, black screen, spontaneous shutdown,
freeze or any other kind of serious problem. I'm unable to Right Click
on the desktop and create a shortcut, but other than that Win 7 has been
flawless.

The other computer is a Toshiba laptop running Vista Home Premium. I
took the same steps as I did with the above computer and have had the
same experience. By the way, that computer runs 24/7 as well.

I'm about as satisfied as can be with Windows 7, but I believe I took
the proper and necessary steps prior to and during the install. YMMV. :)

--
"Never argue with an idiot, they will just beat you
down to their level and beat you with experience."

http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
 
O

Ophelia

Flightless Bird
<Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:Q9J9n.44672$Np1.20074@newsfe19.iad...
> Thank you for the info. What about the USB? Is it a known bug (or
> feature)?
>
> I apologize for having started a thread that lead to so much acrimony.
> That was not my intent. I was just trying to understand because so many
> of the solutions I was referred to happened to be Vista solutions.


Jeff, apologies are not necessary! It wouldn't matter what you wrote about,
the same old, same old will stir it up. You will learn either to ignore
them or if they get too much, stick them in your bozo bin:)

--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
 
P

PeeCee

Flightless Bird
<Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad...
> I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
> advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
> makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than the
> friendlier uac and cosmetics?
>
> Thanks. Jeff



Jeff

From what I've observed Win7 is Vista with a lot of the 'complaints' fixed.
As you have seen there is varied opinion on what to call Win7 but Vista
Second Edition is probably a fair assessment.
Vista broke many applications just like 95, NT and 2000 did in their era.
Unfortunately because MS left such a long break between major OS revisions
Vista was bound to disappoint.
Because the name 'Vista' became so tainted I suspect the pointy heads at MS
insisted Vista SE was a non starter.
So even though the Version is actually 6.1 MS had to call it Win7 in order
to remove it sufficiently from Vista for the market to regain confidence &
buy the new version.

The practical differences between Vista/Win7 in my experience are:
1 No more frustrating 'hangs' while the OS hives off into hyperspace doing
it's own thing, something Vista was 'very' bad at.
2 Minor 'GUI' changes eg the addition of Devices and Printers to the start
menu, dropping the gas hog Windows Vista Sidebar etc.
3 Removal of several previously bundled apps like an Email client, Movie
Maker, Messenger etc.
4 For the Pro and Ultimate versions the availability of XP Mode Virtual
Machine to carry forward mission critical apps that 'broke' on the move from
XP.
5 Apparent speed increase, though I've some reservations on that as I went
from an AMD X64 to an i7 which would explain at least some of the speed
boost.
6 The left window in Windows Explorer is worse than Vista, this is one area
where MS has got it totally wrong compared to 9x through XP.

From a broader perspective your change from XP to Win7 will bring a lot of
minor niggles and factors that were no different than when going from Win 3x
to Win 9x
* Bit depth: now is the time to go to 64bit. 32 bit's 4GB max RAM is a
complete dead end and should only be used as a last resort to keep legacy
software running.
(& make sure your new motherboard can handle more than 4G8)
* Missing bundled apps, go to MS website and download 'Windows Live
Essentials' to regain a bundled Email Client, Movie Maker etc.
* The search tool does seem to work much better than XP's version ever did.
* Things moved from where they were in XP is probably the biggest
frustration with Vista/Win7. Vista to Win7 changes are fairly minor.
* I find the 'dumbing down' of the UI worrying.
* While the Control Panel has more icons, somehow it seems harder to find
critical settings (search helps here)
* Start Menu: is in my opinion better, Luddites will scream bring back the
'classic' menu, but on a PC with lots of apps installed (as any power users
machine is likely to be) the new menu means you can get access.
With XP you had to resort to Windows Explorer or spend time 'nesting'
shortcuts.
* A negative for me is the pastel colours MS has used in both Vista and
Win7. Windows Explorer is much the poorer for this change.

Then there are the 'bitches' that have plagued Window since many versions
back that irritate the bejesus out of me.
* File extensions turned off by default.
* Burying Email message stores in an obscure location.
* ditto with the Address book/Contacts.
* Inflexible backup tools. (Win 7 does at least allow you to decide 'what'
to backup, but 'where & how' is another story)

Perhaps the biggest annoyance I've found going from XP to Vista/Win7 is the
self serving abandonment of peripherals.
Scanners and in particular HP Scanners are the worst.
Of the 6 scanners I have here I've only got one working with 64bit Win7 by
installing it in XP Mode.
Bar one the rest have 'no' 64bit drivers available.

I've also been disappointed at how incompatible some fancier software is
with Win 7/64.
Premiere Elements & Video Studio won't work for me in Win7/64.

FWIW
Paul.
 
F

felmon

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:28:32 -0700, Bob Hatch wrote:

> I updated the BIOS


why was it necessary to update the BIOS?

but you didn't do this on the laptop too?

just want to know.

Felmon
 
S

Seth

Flightless Bird
"Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in message news:4b675ae3$1@news.x-privat.org...
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Alias
>>
>> It was concerning you since most of the time you are a bit off base. This
>> time you were right on
>>

>
> So what "proof" do you have that Windows 7 is actually Vista SE?
> I'm sure we'd all like to see it.



Vista and Server 2008 use the same core.

W7 and Server 2008R2 use the same core.

R2=SE

Vista was renamed purely due to marketing. They had to shed the "Vista"
name and the bad taste that came with it.

While this has not been directly stated, it has been implied by MS, most
notably by the Server Dev team.
 
T

Tecknomage

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:05:40 +1300, "PeeCee" <abuse@local.host> wrote:

>
> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad...
> > I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
> > advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
> > makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than the
> > friendlier uac and cosmetics?
> >
> > Thanks. Jeff

>
>
> Jeff
>
> From what I've observed Win7 is Vista with a lot of the 'complaints' fixed.
> As you have seen there is varied opinion on what to call Win7 but Vista
> Second Edition is probably a fair assessment.
> Vista broke many applications just like 95, NT and 2000 did in their era.
> Unfortunately because MS left such a long break between major OS revisions
> Vista was bound to disappoint.
> Because the name 'Vista' became so tainted I suspect the pointy heads at MS
> insisted Vista SE was a non starter.
> So even though the Version is actually 6.1 MS had to call it Win7 in order
> to remove it sufficiently from Vista for the market to regain confidence &
> buy the new version.
>
> The practical differences between Vista/Win7 in my experience are:
> 1 No more frustrating 'hangs' while the OS hives off into hyperspace doing
> it's own thing, something Vista was 'very' bad at.
> 2 Minor 'GUI' changes eg the addition of Devices and Printers to the start
> menu, dropping the gas hog Windows Vista Sidebar etc.
> 3 Removal of several previously bundled apps like an Email client, Movie
> Maker, Messenger etc.
> 4 For the Pro and Ultimate versions the availability of XP Mode Virtual
> Machine to carry forward mission critical apps that 'broke' on the move from
> XP.
> 5 Apparent speed increase, though I've some reservations on that as I went
> from an AMD X64 to an i7 which would explain at least some of the speed
> boost.
> 6 The left window in Windows Explorer is worse than Vista, this is one area
> where MS has got it totally wrong compared to 9x through XP.
>
> From a broader perspective your change from XP to Win7 will bring a lot of
> minor niggles and factors that were no different than when going from Win 3x
> to Win 9x
> * Bit depth: now is the time to go to 64bit. 32 bit's 4GB max RAM is a
> complete dead end and should only be used as a last resort to keep legacy
> software running.
> (& make sure your new motherboard can handle more than 4G8)
> * Missing bundled apps, go to MS website and download 'Windows Live
> Essentials' to regain a bundled Email Client, Movie Maker etc.
> * The search tool does seem to work much better than XP's version ever did.
> * Things moved from where they were in XP is probably the biggest
> frustration with Vista/Win7. Vista to Win7 changes are fairly minor.
> * I find the 'dumbing down' of the UI worrying.
> * While the Control Panel has more icons, somehow it seems harder to find
> critical settings (search helps here)
> * Start Menu: is in my opinion better, Luddites will scream bring back the
> 'classic' menu, but on a PC with lots of apps installed (as any power users
> machine is likely to be) the new menu means you can get access.
> With XP you had to resort to Windows Explorer or spend time 'nesting'
> shortcuts.
> * A negative for me is the pastel colours MS has used in both Vista and
> Win7. Windows Explorer is much the poorer for this change.
>
> Then there are the 'bitches' that have plagued Window since many versions
> back that irritate the bejesus out of me.
> * File extensions turned off by default.
> * Burying Email message stores in an obscure location.
> * ditto with the Address book/Contacts.
> * Inflexible backup tools. (Win 7 does at least allow you to decide 'what'
> to backup, but 'where & how' is another story)
>
> Perhaps the biggest annoyance I've found going from XP to Vista/Win7 is the
> self serving abandonment of peripherals.
> Scanners and in particular HP Scanners are the worst.
> Of the 6 scanners I have here I've only got one working with 64bit Win7 by
> installing it in XP Mode.
> Bar one the rest have 'no' 64bit drivers available.
>
> I've also been disappointed at how incompatible some fancier software is
> with Win 7/64.
> Premiere Elements & Video Studio won't work for me in Win7/64.
>
> FWIW
> Paul.
>
>


This is a very, very personal comment.

All the above MAY be true, but for me Win7 is a non-starter.

The problem is having to *reinstall* 100+ games and apps I have on my
WinXP SP3 system. Especially since my home system is rock-solid as
is.

The other issue I have with Win7 when I look at it (videos, store PCs,
and friends with Win7 systems) it's all eye-candy. Things that look
fancy but have no *real* operational value. Example, I run WinXP with
everything in the classic mode.

Now, IF Microsoft had made the upgrade method from WinXP-to-Win7 by
mounting the Win7 CD at the WinXP desktop and Win7 would install
*without* having to reinstall apps/games, INCLUDING NOT needing
special drivers, I may have considered the change.

By the way, I've been using Windows since the Win95 days, so I have a
very long view.


--
======== Tecknomage ========
Computer Systems Specialist
IT Technician
San Diego, CA
 
J

Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com

Flightless Bird
On 2/2/2010 4:05 AM, PeeCee wrote:
>
> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad...
>> I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
>> advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista
>> which makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other
>> than the friendlier uac and cosmetics?
>>
>> Thanks. Jeff

>
>
> Jeff
>
> From what I've observed Win7 is Vista with a lot of the 'complaints'
> fixed.
> As you have seen there is varied opinion on what to call Win7 but Vista
> Second Edition is probably a fair assessment.
> Vista broke many applications just like 95, NT and 2000 did in their era.
> Unfortunately because MS left such a long break between major OS
> revisions Vista was bound to disappoint.
> Because the name 'Vista' became so tainted I suspect the pointy heads at
> MS insisted Vista SE was a non starter.
> So even though the Version is actually 6.1 MS had to call it Win7 in
> order to remove it sufficiently from Vista for the market to regain
> confidence & buy the new version.
>
> The practical differences between Vista/Win7 in my experience are:
> 1 No more frustrating 'hangs' while the OS hives off into hyperspace
> doing it's own thing, something Vista was 'very' bad at.
> 2 Minor 'GUI' changes eg the addition of Devices and Printers to the
> start menu, dropping the gas hog Windows Vista Sidebar etc.
> 3 Removal of several previously bundled apps like an Email client, Movie
> Maker, Messenger etc.
> 4 For the Pro and Ultimate versions the availability of XP Mode Virtual
> Machine to carry forward mission critical apps that 'broke' on the move
> from XP.
> 5 Apparent speed increase, though I've some reservations on that as I
> went from an AMD X64 to an i7 which would explain at least some of the
> speed boost.
> 6 The left window in Windows Explorer is worse than Vista, this is one
> area where MS has got it totally wrong compared to 9x through XP.
>
> From a broader perspective your change from XP to Win7 will bring a lot
> of minor niggles and factors that were no different than when going from
> Win 3x to Win 9x
> * Bit depth: now is the time to go to 64bit. 32 bit's 4GB max RAM is a
> complete dead end and should only be used as a last resort to keep
> legacy software running.
> (& make sure your new motherboard can handle more than 4G8)
> * Missing bundled apps, go to MS website and download 'Windows Live
> Essentials' to regain a bundled Email Client, Movie Maker etc.
> * The search tool does seem to work much better than XP's version ever did.
> * Things moved from where they were in XP is probably the biggest
> frustration with Vista/Win7. Vista to Win7 changes are fairly minor.
> * I find the 'dumbing down' of the UI worrying.
> * While the Control Panel has more icons, somehow it seems harder to
> find critical settings (search helps here)
> * Start Menu: is in my opinion better, Luddites will scream bring back
> the 'classic' menu, but on a PC with lots of apps installed (as any
> power users machine is likely to be) the new menu means you can get access.
> With XP you had to resort to Windows Explorer or spend time 'nesting'
> shortcuts.
> * A negative for me is the pastel colours MS has used in both Vista and
> Win7. Windows Explorer is much the poorer for this change.
>
> Then there are the 'bitches' that have plagued Window since many
> versions back that irritate the bejesus out of me.
> * File extensions turned off by default.
> * Burying Email message stores in an obscure location.
> * ditto with the Address book/Contacts.
> * Inflexible backup tools. (Win 7 does at least allow you to decide
> 'what' to backup, but 'where & how' is another story)
>
> Perhaps the biggest annoyance I've found going from XP to Vista/Win7 is
> the self serving abandonment of peripherals.
> Scanners and in particular HP Scanners are the worst.
> Of the 6 scanners I have here I've only got one working with 64bit Win7
> by installing it in XP Mode.
> Bar one the rest have 'no' 64bit drivers available.
>
> I've also been disappointed at how incompatible some fancier software is
> with Win 7/64.
> Premiere Elements & Video Studio won't work for me in Win7/64.
>
> FWIW
> Paul.
>
>
>

Thank you *very* much for the detailed answer. Confirms a lot of what I
have discovered and I learned more. Appreciate your taking the time.

Jeff
 
B

Bob Hatch

Flightless Bird
On 2/2/2010 2:31 AM, felmon wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:28:32 -0700, Bob Hatch wrote:
>
>> I updated the BIOS

>
> why was it necessary to update the BIOS?


Because it was recommended by the mfr.
>
> but you didn't do this on the laptop too?


I said that I took the same steps with the laptop as I did with the desktop.
>
> just want to know.


Now you do. :)
>
> Felmon



--
"Never argue with an idiot, they will knock you
down to their level and beat you with experience."
Unknown

http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
 
B

Brian Gregory [UK]

Flightless Bird
"Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk79pf$5v5$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Brian Gregory [UK]" <ng@bgdsv.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:IZudndFQyJk7bfvWnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad...
>>>I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
>>>advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
>>>makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than the
>>>friendlier uac and cosmetics?

>>
>> There are some important differences in the internals, such as the
>> improvements in the 2D graphics.
>>

>
> Improvements? In that case they must have been really bad in Vista (I used
> XP - no experience of Vista). As far as I am concerned Windows 7 should
> be renamed "Windows Pastel and Soft Focus".
>
> Have Microsoft forgotten that there are dark colours available and you can
> use sharp lines for icons? Was there really a need to change icons for
> things like Windows Explorer and Mail? What has happened to the games
> graphics? I'm glad I've been able to get the progs from XP as the new
> colour schemes and graphics are lousy. And the "Improved" Start Menu?
> Thank goodness for tools like "Classic Windows Start Menu".
>
> I suppose it all started before Windows 7 - how long has that wonderfully
> effective "Colorizer" been in Windows Live Mail? Just look at the dozen
> colours Microsoft make available as the main selection.


I was referring to improvements in the way it all works internally.
Which is why you need different display drivers to get the most from Windows
7.
Also it seems there are still a lot of drivers out there that don't do the
new Windows 7 bits at all well, meaning that at present Windows 7 is very
slow at some 2D graphics functions with some graphics cards.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.
 
D

Dave-UK

Flightless Bird
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message news:zxH9n.61929$Db2.57409@edtnps83...
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:47:56 GMT, Al Smith<invalid@address.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm finding Windows 7 to be less stable than my last Os, Windows
>>> XP. Vista went off my wife's computer so fast, I didn't really get
>>> a chance to use it. Once I saw that I couldn't do file operations
>>> with Vista, that was it, I replaced it with XP and never looked
>>> back. At least I can copy and move files with Windows 7, which is
>>> an improvement, I guess. But it locks up or crashes more often
>>> than XP did.

>>
>>
>>
>> That may be your experience, but it's very far from everyone's
>> experience. I've been running the released version here since it first
>> came out, and the RC for several months before that. Neither one has
>> *ever* crashed or locked up on me. And I know many others with similar
>> experiences.
>>
>> I had no problems with Vista either.
>>
>> Since your experience is different, you should be looking hard for
>> problems on your machine. Perhaps malware infection?
>>
>>

>
> LOL, some say that Microsoft software is itself malware. I run a
> clean computer. I don't have malware. Even so, I get lockups of
> programs that require a hard reboot (because the monitor screen
> fails to respond at all), spontaneous reboots, and blue screens.
> Doesn't happen often, but it happens. I put this down to
> *probably* the older programs that I am running. It is, of course,
> possible that I have a flaw in one of my RAM chips. But I'm not
> going to blame my hardware just yet, for what I believe is
> software instability. The problem I had with dragging windows is
> gone, thanks to an update in the nVidia driver.
>
> -Al-


If you haven't already done so, here are a couple of things you might
look at to find out why your machine is so unstable.
Have a look in the Event Viewer:
Control Panel
System and Security
Administrative tools
Event Viewer
Under Custom Views > Administrative events is a summary of errors
from the individual logs files listed in the left pane.

and the reliability history,

Reliability History Graph:
Control Panel
System and Security
Action Center
Maintenance > drop down menu > View Reliability history.
Select to view by Days and click on an item to view details.
 
T

Tom Lake

Flightless Bird
<Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message news:DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad...
> I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
> advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
> makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than
> the friendlier uac and cosmetics?
>
> Thanks. Jeff


One non-technical difference is that my wife (a techno-phobe)
who won't use Vista at all loves Win 7. It's smoother, less intrusive
and just seems much more polished than Vista. I'm a systems
administrator and I've found that calls to my help desk have
dropped dramatically since I deployed Win 7. I use Ubuntu at home
(but not on my wife's computer!) and that's quite impressive but
all-in-all, Win 7 seems to be the Grail which MS was seeking. Now
my question is, "Where do they go from here?"

Tom Lake
 
B

Bill Yanaire, ESQ

Flightless Bird
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hk91un$dou$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in message news:4b675ae3$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Alias
>>>
>>> It was concerning you since most of the time you are a bit off base.
>>> This time you were right on
>>>

>>
>> So what "proof" do you have that Windows 7 is actually Vista SE?
>> I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

>
>
> Vista and Server 2008 use the same core.
>
> W7 and Server 2008R2 use the same core.
>
> R2=SE
>


Just because software products share some code doesn't make W7 a service
pack.

Windows 7 was a major re-write with some routines ported over. It's done
all the time. You want to believe Windows 7 is Vista SP3 then go ahead.
You probably also believe that Alias makes $14k a week! LOL!




> Vista was renamed purely due to marketing. They had to shed the "Vista"
> name and the bad taste that came with it.


Did you attend the meetings? Didn't think so.


>
> While this has not been directly stated, it has been implied by MS, most
> notably by the Server Dev team.


Who gives a rats ass. When going to the store for a new OS, ask for Vista
Service Pack 3. Let's see what you get to take to the register. Then go
ask for Windows 7 and again see what you can take to the register.
 
S

Seth

Flightless Bird
"Bill Yanaire, ESQ" <bill@yanaire.org> wrote in message
news:4b684e71@news.x-privat.org...
>
>
> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hk91un$dou$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in message
>> news:4b675ae3$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> It was concerning you since most of the time you are a bit off base.
>>>> This time you were right on
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what "proof" do you have that Windows 7 is actually Vista SE?
>>> I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

>>
>>
>> Vista and Server 2008 use the same core.
>>
>> W7 and Server 2008R2 use the same core.
>>
>> R2=SE
>>

>
> Just because software products share some code doesn't make W7 a service
> pack.


I never said service pack. SE =! SP

> Windows 7 was a major re-write with some routines ported over. It's done
> all the time. You want to believe Windows 7 is Vista SP3 then go ahead.
> You probably also believe that Alias makes $14k a week! LOL!
>
>
>
>
>> Vista was renamed purely due to marketing. They had to shed the "Vista"
>> name and the bad taste that came with it.

>
> Did you attend the meetings? Didn't think so.


Some of them, actually yes. Where I work we often go to these. As the lead
desktop engineer for a firm 140,000 users large, I am often the one who
attends.

>> While this has not been directly stated, it has been implied by MS, most
>> notably by the Server Dev team.

>
> Who gives a rats ass. When going to the store for a new OS, ask for Vista
> Service Pack 3. Let's see what you get to take to the register. Then go
> ask for Windows 7 and again see what you can take to the register.


Again, I never said SP. And I never said it would show up on the shelf as
Vista SP. Doesn't change the underpinnings of the kernel, it's code base
and source.

You're too full of hatred and vitriol to think clearly.
 
B

Bill Yanaire, ESQ

Flightless Bird
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hk9j14$11t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Bill Yanaire, ESQ" <bill@yanaire.org> wrote in message
> news:4b684e71@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>>
>> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hk91un$dou$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in message
>>> news:4b675ae3$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>> Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> It was concerning you since most of the time you are a bit off base.
>>>>> This time you were right on
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what "proof" do you have that Windows 7 is actually Vista SE?
>>>> I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vista and Server 2008 use the same core.
>>>
>>> W7 and Server 2008R2 use the same core.
>>>
>>> R2=SE
>>>

>>
>> Just because software products share some code doesn't make W7 a service
>> pack.

>
> I never said service pack. SE =! SP
>
>> Windows 7 was a major re-write with some routines ported over. It's done
>> all the time. You want to believe Windows 7 is Vista SP3 then go ahead.
>> You probably also believe that Alias makes $14k a week! LOL!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Vista was renamed purely due to marketing. They had to shed the "Vista"
>>> name and the bad taste that came with it.

>>
>> Did you attend the meetings? Didn't think so.

>
> Some of them, actually yes. Where I work we often go to these. As the
> lead desktop engineer for a firm 140,000 users large, I am often the one
> who attends.


I meant attending the meetings regarding Windows 7 at Microsoft. You didn't
attend those meetings so you really haven't a clue as to what went on with
regards to naming conventions and what code was used.


>
>>> While this has not been directly stated, it has been implied by MS, most
>>> notably by the Server Dev team.

>>
>> Who gives a rats ass. When going to the store for a new OS, ask for
>> Vista Service Pack 3. Let's see what you get to take to the register.
>> Then go ask for Windows 7 and again see what you can take to the
>> register.

>
> Again, I never said SP. And I never said it would show up on the shelf as
> Vista SP. Doesn't change the underpinnings of the kernel, it's code base
> and source.
>
> You're too full of hatred and vitriol to think clearly.
>


It's just funny how people believe that Windows 7 is really a Vista service
pack. I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
 
Top