• 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
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)
 
P

Peter Foldes

Flightless Bird

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



Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in message news:4b670a8a@news.x-privat.org...
> 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

Alias

Flightless Bird
Peter Foldes wrote:
>
>> Vista: NT 6.0
>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

>
>
> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>


Why do you say "unfortunately"? At least MS tried to make Vista better.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Peter Foldes wrote:
>
>> Vista: NT 6.0
>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

>
>
> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>

No he isn't. W 7 is not Vista SE. 7 is built on Vista technology but,
for one thing, it has some very important, major changes to the kernel.
If you think its Vista SE then try to order a copy or dl a copy of it.
Oops!
 
B

Bill Yanaire, ESQ

Flightless Bird
"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hk78fn$jm8$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> Vista: NT 6.0
>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

>
>
> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>
> --
> Peter
>


Simply not true. Microsoft doesn't refer to Windows 7 as a Vista service
pack. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Windows 7 is much more stable than
Vista. Microsoft can call the product whatever they like.
 
J

Jeff Layman

Flightless Bird
"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.

--

Jeff
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Frank wrote:
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>
>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

>>
>>
>> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>>

> No he isn't. W 7 is not Vista SE. 7 is built on Vista technology but,
> for one thing, it has some very important, major changes to the kernel.


Not enough. It's the same shit with a different smell.

> If you think its Vista SE then try to order a copy or dl a copy of it.
> Oops!


Oh, how clever Frank the wank thinks he is when he knows that Vista SE
goes by the name Windows 7.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Bill Yanaire, ESQ wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hk78fn$jm8$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

>>
>>
>> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>

>
> Simply not true. Microsoft doesn't refer to Windows 7 as a Vista
> service pack. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Windows 7 is much more
> stable than Vista. Microsoft can call the product whatever they like.
>
>


So can we.

--
Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>>>

>> No he isn't. W 7 is not Vista SE. 7 is built on Vista technology but,
>> for one thing, it has some very important, major changes to the kernel.

>
> Not enough.


And who are you? Nothing but a spamming, trolling linturd FUD spreader.

It's the same shit with a different smell.

You're the one who is full of shit, sheep-fucker.
>
>> If you think its Vista SE then try to order a copy or dl a copy of it.
>> Oops!

>
> Oh, how clever Frank the wank thinks he is when he knows that Vista SE
> goes by the name Windows 7.


hehehe...got your panties all in a bunch sheep-fucker?
Hey asshole, you've demonstrated your stupidity in here so many times
its not even funny.
You are clueless!
Oops!
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:
> Bill Yanaire, ESQ wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hk78fn$jm8$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>>

>>
>> Simply not true. Microsoft doesn't refer to Windows 7 as a Vista
>> service pack. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Windows 7 is much
>> more stable than Vista. Microsoft can call the product whatever they
>> like.
>>
>>

>
> So can we.
>

...."we"...you and who else? Hey cody the *SHEEP-FUCKER* you use that POS
toy os called up-yr-fucking-butt-too right?
Oops!...LOL!
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:59:00 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>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.


The version numbers can be an indicator, but I wouldn't place too much
emphasis on them. MS is free to name its products as it pleases, as
indicated by Word jumping from version 2 to version 6 around the same
time that WordPerfect was going from 5.1 to 6.
 
J

Joel

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

>>
>> Windows 7 is really Windows 7.

>
>False.



The version number is not the issue - they did that for application
compatibility, although I actually agree that it's not a *radical*
change from Vista (in particular Vista SP2, which, like 2000 SP2 as XP
was being finalized, benefits from the refinements in 7). Still, XP
and 7, relative to 2000 and Vista, were/are substantially new
versions.

The best argument for your point, imo, is not that 7 is a minor
upgrade, but that Vista was more of a beta of 7 - if one were to have
gotten Vista for free, the advantages over XP might be worthwhile, but
having to pay to "upgrade" to it, with all its problems, only to pay
for 7 a couple years later, was probably not worth it (unless it came
with a new computer, of course).

This is unique to this situation, though, because Vista was basically
a total rewrite of the OS - 2000 used NT code, and was more of a
complete product from the beginning (I obtained it shortly after its
release), and future Windows versions will benefit from having a
stable codebase (Vista/2008/7) to build on.


>> Ubuntu is
>> really SHIT

>
>False.



Linux in general is a tremendous player among enthusiasts - Ubuntu
specifically, though, is not really good enough yet to compare to
commercial OSes. It's not that any Linux distro can't continue to
improve in that way, Ubuntu included, but when Ubuntu is the "easy
way" to switch, Microsoft and Apple's days are not (yet, at least)
numbered.

--
Joel Crump
 
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "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:)
>



I'm thinking that maybe after software writers start to write
programs specifically for Windows 7 x64, instead of just trying to
kludge them so that they sort of run under Windows 7, the
instability might improve. Not so many programs will need to be
run in compatibility mode. I like Windows 7, but I agree with you,
XP will be very hard to beat. It was probably the best OS out of
Microsoft.

-Al-
 
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
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-
 
B

Bill Yanaire, ESQ

Flightless Bird
"Alias" <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk7ako$lih$5@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bill Yanaire, ESQ wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hk78fn$jm8$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>>

>>
>> Simply not true. Microsoft doesn't refer to Windows 7 as a Vista service
>> pack. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Windows 7 is much more stable
>> than Vista. Microsoft can call the product whatever they like.
>>
>>

>
> So can we.
>
> --
> Alias


You are right. Alias is an asshole. Without a Service Pack.
 
P

Pulse

Flightless Bird
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.



<Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:MxF9n.18025$p66.314@newsfe09.iad...
> On 2/1/2010 10:42 AM, Pulse wrote:
>> Performance improvements, smaller footprint in RAM - when in use - and
>> on disk, usability improvements, much needed aesthetic changes, gadgets
>> freed up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives.
>> Work on the internals and kernel includes changes to the dispatcher lock
>> enabling scaling up to handling 256 processors, UAC improved,
>> performance improved, mature .NET capabilities.
>>
>> Many reviewers feel that Microsoft 'got it right' this time 'round.
>>
>>
>>
>> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:DRA9n.34163$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)
 
P

Peter Foldes

Flightless Bird
Alias

It was concerning you since most of the time you are a bit off base. This time you
were right on

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Alias" <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk798u$f21$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>
>>> Vista: NT 6.0
>>> Win 7: NT 6.1
>>> Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

>>
>>
>> Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above
>>

>
> Why do you say "unfortunately"? At least MS tried to make Vista better.
>
> --
> Alias
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
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.
 
R

Roy Smith

Flightless Bird
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.

--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium

Timestamp: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:02:45 PM
 
J

Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com

Flightless Bird
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 (OP)

On 2/1/2010 4:47 PM, 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.
>
>
>
> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:MxF9n.18025$p66.314@newsfe09.iad...
>> On 2/1/2010 10:42 AM, Pulse wrote:
>>> Performance improvements, smaller footprint in RAM - when in use - and
>>> on disk, usability improvements, much needed aesthetic changes, gadgets
>>> freed up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives.
>>> Work on the internals and kernel includes changes to the dispatcher lock
>>> enabling scaling up to handling 256 processors, UAC improved,
>>> performance improved, mature .NET capabilities.
>>>
>>> Many reviewers feel that Microsoft 'got it right' this time 'round.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Jeff@couldbeinvalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:DRA9n.34163$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)

>
 
Top