XP Users Are Willing To Give Windows 7 a Chance 720
Harry writes "PC World and Technologizer conducted a survey of 5,000 people who use Windows XP as their primary operating system. Many have no plans to leave it, and 80% will be unhappy when Microsoft completely discontinues it. And attitudes towards Vista remain extremely negative. But a majority of those who know something about Windows 7 have a positive reaction. More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch."
Re:Windows 7? (Score:2, Informative)
Lucky?
No, it's named that because that's how many years bad luck you'll get from installing it.
Re:Windows 7? (Score:5, Informative)
They arrived at 7 for the version number in this way: Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 lines are self-explanatory. The NT4 and Windows 95/98/ME family were all part of the 4.x version of Windows. Win2000 and XP were 5.x, so naturally Vista was 6.0. That leaves us at 7 for the new Windows.
Re:DRM? (Score:3, Informative)
Does Windows 7 have more DRM or less than Windows XP? I think my decision to switch will be primarily biased along that criteria.
You can do everything in 7 that you could do in XP (i.e. there are no new restrictions on existing stuff). On the other hand, it has new DRM for stuff which you can't handle without supporting some - such as BluRay.
Re:so they've rebranded vista... (Score:3, Informative)
.NET Runtime optimization is actually one of the neater technologies in the MS world. In short, it's compiling native language libraries for commonly used interfaces that would have to be run in a VM. All you need to do is leave the computer alone for a short while so it can chug through. You can explicitly command it to finish the queued compilation tasks per the instructions here.
When it's working properly that's about the just of it - however my machine (a 2.5ghz Quad core with 4gb ram) had nearly a week of being left alone to chug through, with 3 or 4 reboots in between - didn't ever finish up. I also tried the stated command since it was suggested in a google query I had made, but it didn't clear anything up.
Re:DRM? (Score:1, Informative)
Are people still passing around the Vista DRM FUD?
Here, I'll break it down for you.
If your media isn't DRM'd, then it doesn't go through the DRM pathways and said pathways are not activated.
If it is DRM'd, then it does go through the DRM pathways. Without said support you simply can't play the media, unless you crack the DRM, which is illegal.
DRM was supposed to be a major strike against Vista but nobody could explain exactly why it was TEH EVILZ0RZZZZ.
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:2, Informative)
I never advised a single client to upgrade to Vista (I didn't hate Vista, but didn't think it was a worthwhile upgrade either), but I think I will be comfortable advising some clients to upgrade to Windows 7.
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go. Found it at the bottom of the RSAT forum page from MS. RSAT for Windows 7 [microsoft.com]
Re:Mohave (Score:1, Informative)
Wow. Are you a birther and a 9/11 consiparcy theorist too? If you ever worked on a large enough project, you'd know that plans and directions set *years* ago are instrumental in creating a successful project. You don't just slap on a GUI at the last moment and call an ant an elephant. Geez.
Re:Well of Course (Score:3, Informative)
They more than likely have used it on some special demo machine with the specs and thorough setup to make it usable. Just like Mojave, when users try it in a custom environment designed to make them like it, they'll like it. But that's not what they're getting on their Compaq POS-9000.
Yeah, it's not like the beta and the RC1 have been publicly available for months now...
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:3, Informative)
To back up Freon, I've been using XP x64 since its release, as my primary (home, gaming) OS.
There are no driver issues. Even my no-name webcam works.
Re:Windows Vista is a good product (Score:1, Informative)
A proper new secure OS from Microsoft would have to pull the same trick Apple did. Throw the old OS in a box, allow it to run in the new OS, and kick all old APIs to the curb. A good start would be the Singularity OS Microsoft has in it's research labs.
Second that! Singularity [microsoft.com] is awesome.
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:1, Informative)
Looks and 'feels' aren't going to increase productivity. The complete lack of text on the task bar means I have to learn what each icon represents and then have to mouse over it or open the item to figure out what it actually is. In XP or Vista I can just look at the task bar and figure out which server's I've RDP's and SSH'd into, what page my browser is on, any IM's demanding my attention and who they are from. I'm going to lose a crap load of productivity from this alone and probably some hair as well. There are good reasons we favour text based language over a pictogram or hieroglyphic language, complex text is far easier to read.
So disable that functionality. On the taskbar, right click->Properties->Never combine->OK. Seriously, you've either never used it or you are incredibly lazy.
That stupid "network and sharing centre" is still there, still trying to tell me that it knows what to do with my network. Why do I have to assign a "location" popup to every different DHCP address I get, the OS should handle this invisibly.
First you bitch about it doing things for you, then you bitch about it not doing things for you. So what are you arguing for?
Customisability is a two edged sword, with customisability comes more chances for something critical to fail. I'm not saying that extenisve customisability is a bad thing but most users will only change their screensaver and background. Some will pick a different pre-selected colour "theme" but most will leave it as default. Most users do not care about customisability beyond major superficial points like the background.
Most of the people I know would welcome the ability to easily customise more of their desktop. The only reason people might not care is because they've grown accustomed to not having the ability.
Game performance is nowhere near the level of XP and the old games which didn't work in Vista still don't work in 7. I'm not completely cynical however, I know 7 is still immature and many of the drivers will have issues. It will take time for the drivers (esp graphics drivers) to mature.
Bullshit. Gaming performance is just about equal across XP, Vista and 7. Each OS has been able to outperform the other two depending on the game being played but even then it's usually just a few FPS difference so nothing to really care about. In this case, it's basically a draw which leaves only general desktop performance to compare which is where Vista and 7 leave XP in the dust.
The RC does not start nearly as quickly as a fresh install of XP. As a gamer I reinstall XP every 3-6 months. Vista slowed down at the same rate as XP if not faster and I expect 7 to be the same.
This right here tells me that you aren't very knowledgeable about Windows. I have never had an XP or Vista install just go slow on me for no reason. If performance changed at all, it was because of something I changed or installed. I have never had to reinstall the entire OS just to fix something as trivial as that.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been released as. It's nowhere near as good as XP and tends to nanny the users a bit too much. It is better then vista which managed to refine annoying pop-ups and disruptions to a weaponised level but basic OS functions in Windows 7 are still several order of magnitudes more disruptive then in XP. Many OS tasks which should be invisible to the user are quite obvious and very annoying. I think MS spent too much time on the "look and feel" and not enough time on getting the codebase to run quickly and reducing Vista's extreme level of annoyance to the user.
Annoyance? You do know you can disable UAC if it bothers you so much and it'll be just as insecure as XP. Or even better, use TweakUAC to put UAC into quiet mode. Personally, I just leave UAC be since it's not as annoying as you try to claim it to be. In fact, I rarely ever have it pop up, it only does so when I'm messing around with system files or unverified software that tries to do low level hardware access and the like.
Re:Anyone with Windows 7 experience confirm these? (Score:2, Informative)
Aside from the general "Windows 7 hides things" comment, most of your complaints are related to Explorer.
Use a different file manager, and your problems are gone. To that end, I'd suggest Directory Opus [gpsoft.com.au].
I rely on command-line tools (courtesy of Cygwin) even for things like file management, but Directory Opus is one of those few programs that I wouldn't live without. Put differently, using or relying on Explorer is something I simply won't consider, anymore than I'd consider browing the intarwebs using AOL.
As for the "hiding" problem, there are workarounds for that. Running exe, cpl, msc file by names (or listed via a script) is one, as is using simple shortcuts (invoking rundll if needed). Remember that you're relying on a dumbed-down file manager to show (or in this case, not show) what administrative tools are available.
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:2, Informative)
XP is really a decent OS as well as 2K as long as their virus free and maintained you really shouldn't have any problems with it. If Win7 takes off like Vista was supposed to then hopefully we will come up with a better way of doing things then we are now but swapping out the XP kernel for the Win7 just to run the same programs is nothing more then a junior BOFH's wet dream and some managers nightmare.
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:2, Informative)
So this will bring back the text and reduce the size of the icons.
You've either never read my comment or are incredibly stupid.
The complete lack of text on the task bar means I have to learn what each icon represents and then have to mouse over it or open the item to figure out what it actually is. In XP or Vista I can just look at the task bar and figure out which server's I've RDP's and SSH'd into, what page my browser is on, any IM's demanding my attention and who they are from. I'm going to lose a crap load of productivity from this alone and probably some hair as well. There are good reasons we favour text based language over a pictogram or hieroglyphic language, complex text is far easier to read.
There are your words exactly as you typed them. You mention the lack of text and when I point out your incompetence, you try to sneak in the icon size bit in your response. Nice try, but you lose.
You really didnt read my comment. I have no idea how you reached this conclusion. This is something the OS does not need my interaction for. Secondly those are two different idea's, one the OS is not following my commands (deciding for itself how I want my network set up) the second is an unnecessary interruption (annoyance).
Then I suggest that you learn to use English correctly. Paragraphs are used to combine like ideas and information. If they were supposed to be two completely separate ideas, then you should have written it differently.
In addition, it's "ideas" not "idea's" because it is not being used as a possessive in your statement.
Because that's a really unbiased sample there.
The vast majority of people do not care about altering the Windows start up sound. They are quiet happy with right clicking a picture and selecting "make this picture my background". You don't work with regular end users do you, most do not even care about the background hence the default rolling hills XP picture is so prevalent.
All samples are going to be biased and I can only speak from my experience if I am to remain honest. I do, however, like how you magically have this unbiased insight into the minds of "the vast majority of people" so that you are able to know exactly what they want and are able to speak for them all.
Like most AC's you lack a clue. Both of these statements are not true.
Translation: You have no real argument so you attack the credibility of the statement based solely upon the name it was posted under.
So tell me, is mjwx your true birth name? Or perhaps you had it legally changed to that? Wait, what's that? Your alias is makes you just as anonymous as I am? Well there is a revelation!
By the way, you might want to take a look at this [techradar.com] and this [firingsquad.com]. So where is that supreme lead on gaming performance that you said XP had?
Microsoft could just implement it properly, like Sudo under Ubuntu. There is no reason that any program ever should pop up in front of what I am doing, let alone dim the whole screen to completely kill my train of thought. UAC should wait in the background until dealt with, it can draw attention to itself in the task bar, in the same way an MSN chat window would.
Sorry but no. If I am doing something that warrants a UAC popup, then I am going to fully expect it and it is not annoying. If something else is doing something to trigger a UAC then it's a possible security breach and I WANT an annoying popup that will get my attention no matter what I am doing.
Re:I'm committed to Windows 7. (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulations on being the minority on slashdot, if you don't ever re-install the OS on your machine or learn to switch out the one on there for a newer (or older, Vista -> XP) one then you most certainly aren't the norm here, I might even go as far as to say, you simply don't belong here.
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:5, Informative)
Speak for yourself. For me, this is Year 5 of the Linux Desktop, and my "seething" at Microsoft has long since cooled to "very occasionally annoyed when forced to look at someone's Windows box".
Re:I'm (sorta) one of them (Score:3, Informative)
Just a tip: you can run (and build) POSIX apps (including bash, ssh/sshd, svn, gcc, and even things like httpd or window managers) in Windows without Cygwin. There's a POSIX-compliant subsystem for the NT kernel (just as the Win32 API that people are used to is implemented as a subsystem on top of NT). It's only available in the higher Windows editions, but it's faster and better integrated than Cygwin, and avoids a lot of Cygwin's silly restrictions (executables needing a .exe or similar extension, for example).
The subsystem is called SUA (Subsustem for UNIX Applications) and is enabled from the "Turn Windows features on or off" window (you can find it using Start search).
To use it you'll want to install Interix, a basic operating environment that includes a couple shells, a collection of standard utilities, and a working build toolchain. The link to download this will be in the Start menu after enabling SUA, or you can find it online.
Once you've got Interix installed, you can install a package manager and a bunch of pre-compiled binaries (including all the ones listed above, and hundreds more) from http://suacommunity.com/ [suacommunity.com] (you can also get a more detailed version fo these instructions there). It will also offer to install an X server, which is handy if you want to run graphical apps locally or from a server.
For the record, I'm not officially associated with Interix or suacommunity.com in any way aside from being a forum member on the latter, but I've found this little-known feature of Windows to be one well-worth telling people about.
Re:Well of Course (Score:3, Informative)
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been getting "special demo machine[s]" with Win7. It's hardware requirements are pretty easily met by any desktop and the vast majority of laptops from the last 2 years, even including many netbooks. You can build a new computer for about $500 that will exceed Win7's requirements in every aspect by at least a factor of 2x, but honestly you probably don't need to. Hell, I've got a severely underpowered (ultra-low voltage, essentially extreme underclocking) tablet PC, and Win7 runs fantastically on it.
ROOTKIT.COM says QUITE otherwise... apk (Score:1, Informative)
"And this time, unlike Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, Windows 7 really will be secure. Really!" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18, @12:06AM (#29101087)
ROOTKIT.COM, says quite otherwise (& I say even more, & didn't get an answer from MS in regards to what I will put out next) - I sense your sarcasm: It's NOT unjustified either, because if you keep reading, all the way down to my "p.s." below? You'll be even more sarcastic... read on:
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363 [slashdot.org]
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:4, Informative)
With Linux, often the assumption is made that you are running a similar configuration as the developer, and critical libraries may be missing and the response is just "well, you should have that already".
No.
All packages that are built from source automatically detect your libraries and will build whatever works with them -- as long as you install development packages if you use anything built from source. If libraries are missing, you just install them.
All packages that are provided for Debian or Ubuntu already refer to all dependencies, so unless you go out of your way to install them "the Windows way" (download package in a browser, use dpkg from command line to install it, instead of using a repository), everything happens automatically.
All packages that have their own installers, carry libraries with themselves (this is what all Windows installers do).
The only things that don't fit into those categories that I have seen recently are truly ancient applications that are a massive pain in the neck to install on any OS, Unix equivalents of DOS applications. Last example of this that I have seen was Xilinx FPGA Editor -- it insisted on Motif and portmap, did not recognize screen number, and was not packaged for Ubuntu, so I had to configure such an environment for it manually.
Well, I don't, and now I have to scour the web to find the missing libraries - which also aren't in the repositories - in order to install an app.
If they are binary Debian/Ubuntu packages, that's because libraries are in the maintainer's repository along with them. You NEVER "scour the web" for Linux libraries' binaries. The only way to produce a valid Debian package that depends on a library is to have another package with that library and refer to it -- so consistency is maintained.
If they are only available as source tarballs (what by now only applies to bleeding-edge development stuff), you see all their names in the output of ./configure, look up the repository, and only if they are not there you may have to look for them elsewhere -- usually in a README file that you forgot to read in the first place.
The difference between Linux and Windows is, in Linux if you want to do anything outside of what Debian, or Ubuntu, or Fedora
Or it's in Ubuntu Launchpad PPA for that package, where you can get pretty much everything that ever was released as open source and is somewhat maintained by someone. Or in a private repository.
think you should need to do you have to hack it. Hacks and workarounds are the norm in Linux, and don't tell me it's not because I've used it off and on for the last 15 years.
If installing from manufacturer/developer's package is a "hack", then all Windows applications require hacks to be installed as well.
Re:Anyone with Windows 7 experience confirm these? (Score:2, Informative)
1) Windows 7 still does ask you if you want to merge the folders, and if any of the files are the same, it asks you what you want to do: overwrite, copy but rename one of them so you have both, or skip the file. Personally I like this setup - even though I'm a power user, I'm not perfect, I still accidentally almost overwrite files that I didn't intend to all the time. Vista and Win 7 also provide you with a thumbnail view of the files when asking you if you want to overwrite - a nice touch when you're not sure if the files are the same even though they have the same name. Personal preference, I guess. I much prefer this behavior than the XP way. Also much improved is the fact that if one of the files you want to copy can't be copied (like if it's in use), the whole file copy operation won't stop - it will just fail that one file and go on to the next. XP's instant failure of the whole copy operation if one file is in use drives me nuts.
2) The folder left behind after a move - definitely one of the most annoying bugs in Vista. One particular annoyance of mine was that if you tried to move any folder named VIDEO_TS - i.e. the contents of a dvd, it wouldn't let you - period. You had to re-create the folder in the new location, and copy the individual video files to the new folder, then delete the old folder. And frequently it would show a few of the video files in the old folder, and you couldn't delete them - but they'd disappear on reboot. All of that is fixed in Win 7.
3) Vista had a bug where some network file copies took FOREVER. And sometimes they just hung, requiring a hard reboot. Network file copies in the Win 7 RC work just as fast as XP though (there were still some issues with this in the beta, but the RC fixed it.)
3) Windows auto-setting folders to type "Media" - I think it still works like this, but there is an option in Folder Preferences to turn this off (I did.) And it actually remembers the setting if you set a folder to a certain type. I agree, this has been broken since at least Win95. They finally fixed it.
4) Vista also had an annoying way of, if there were any media files in a folder, and you click into it and it starts creating thumbnails - if you then tried to move the folder, it would wait until it finished creating the thumbnails, THEN move your files. Win 7 stops creating the thumbnails and just moves the folders. I had turned off the auto-create thumbnail functionality in Vista because it was so annoying and slow. I've turned it back on in Win 7 - it doesn't slow you down like it did in Vista.
5) DRM - well I never did run into any DRM issues in Vista myself (unless the copying VIDEO_TS folder issue above was related to DRM). However, I don't have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive, and I don't see getting one any time soon. However, I do have a 55" HDTV with Vista running Media Center, connected with HDMI (but no HDCP on anything.) I "find" all kinds of HD video on the internet (Matroska mostly), and every other format you can think of, and Vista and Win 7 have never stopped me from playing anything I want. I use Zoom Player, it can play anything if you install the CCCP codec pack. AnyDVD works fine in Vista (haven't tried it in Win 7) for removing advertising, region protection, and encryption, and so does CloneDVD2. Never understood what the "Vista has DRM!" people were g
Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:3, Informative)
Drop shadows help distinguish the window border, without making the border itself ginormous. By being sort of pseudo-3D, they tap into a part of our brain that's used to dealing with real 3D objects, and make it very easy for us to tell what's part of the window we're looking at, and what's part of another window.
Again, not important, but useful.
A similar example might be the fact that when I get a modal dialog box, that actually intends to block me from doing anything with its parent window until I deal with it, the entire parent window is darkened. Efficient to do with compositing, and does actually give me visual feedback for something I need to know, but not really worth the effort.
On the other hand, people are making good points that dropping 2D support and adding exclusively 3D, since you need 3D anyway, is probably a good thing. I just don't see it as a deal-breaker, certainly if it's the only advantage an OS has -- it's why I didn't use Vista.