• 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
J

Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com

Flightless Bird
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
 
C

Conor

Flightless Bird
In article <DRA9n.34163$BV.9125@newsfe07.iad>, Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com
says...
>
> 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


Not massively. Most of the differences are in the UI.

--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
> 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


Vista: NT 6.0
Win 7: NT 6.1

Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

--
Alias
 
L

LouB

Flightless Bird
Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
> 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


Win 7 is based on Vista. THey fixed it up after corporate users told
them Vista was a loser. Aside from visible changes it does have some
neat internal tweaks to make it more efficient.
 
J

Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com

Flightless Bird
On 2/1/2010 10:00 AM, LouB wrote:
> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>> 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

>
> Win 7 is based on Vista. THey fixed it up after corporate users told
> them Vista was a loser. Aside from visible changes it does have some
> neat internal tweaks to make it more efficient.
>

Thank you all. That is what I thought.

Except for the uac and the arrangement of folders it is not really that
different from xp which I know my way around.

Jeff
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:40:51 -0500, "Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com"
<Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote:

> 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?



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.

If you're using Windows7, you should see most of the differences
yourself.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
B

Brian Gregory [UK]

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?


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

I don't really know the details.

--

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

Pulse

Flightless Bird
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
 
M

milt

Flightless Bird
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.
 
B

Bill Yanaire, ESQ

Flightless Bird
"Alias" <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk6q4b$hlt$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>> 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

>
> Vista: NT 6.0
> Win 7: NT 6.1
>
> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>
> --
> Alias


Windows 7 is really Windows 7. Vista is really Vista. Ubuntu is really
SHIT. Any questions?
 
L

LouB

Flightless Bird
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.


WRONG!!
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:
> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>> 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

>
> Vista: NT 6.0
> Win 7: NT 6.1
>
> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>

You think those numbers imply that & is Vista SE?
Hahahaha...you are even dumber than originally thought...and that is
really saying something!...LOL!
 
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
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.

-Al-
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Bill Yanaire, ESQ wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hk6q4b$hlt$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>>> 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

>>
>> Vista: NT 6.0
>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>
>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>
>> --
>> Alias

>
> Windows 7 is really Windows 7.


False.

> Vista is really Vista.


True.

> Ubuntu is
> really SHIT


False.

> Any questions?


Will you ever stop lying?


--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>>> 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

>>
>> Vista: NT 6.0
>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>
>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>

> You think those numbers imply that & is Vista SE?


Of course.

> Hahahaha...you are even dumber than originally thought...and that is
> really saying something!...LOL!


The irony!

--
Alias
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:48:40 -0600, milt
<theatre_nospam_guy@miltsweb.com> 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...




In a sense, of course you are right, because what you say in the line
below is absolutely correct.


> Each version is built on what came before.



However, the naming schemes tell us something in addition to that.
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, and XP was 5.1. But Vista was 6.0 and
Windows 7 is 6.1. That in dictates that the jump from XP to Vista was
greater than the others.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
O

Ophelia

Flightless Bird
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:gtE9n.61905$Db2.27491@edtnps83...
> 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.


XP is the os I have liked the best of any I have had. I am learning to like
Win7 though and I expect that, once I have learned more, I will like
better:)

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

Ken Blake, MVP

Flightless Bird
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?


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
B

Bill Yanaire, ESQ

Flightless Bird
"Alias" <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk746m$md8$5@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bill Yanaire, ESQ wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hk6q4b$hlt$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>>
>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias

>>
>> Windows 7 is really Windows 7.

>
> False.
>
>> Vista is really Vista.

>
> True.
>
>> Ubuntu is really SHIT

>
> False.
>
>> Any questions?

>
> Will you ever stop lying?
>
>
> --
> Alias


I am not lying but you are. Constantly. Now why no power down your
computer and go count some of that imaginary $14k a week you claim to get
from the tooth fairy!!! LOL!
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>>
>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>>

>> You think those numbers imply that & is Vista SE?

>
> Of course.
>

Then you're really stupid.

>> Hahahaha...you are even dumber than originally thought...and that is
>> really saying something!...LOL!

>
> The irony!


Yeah...the irony!
>
 
Top