Drunkard's Walk Forums

What are everyone's thoughts on Windows 7?

There's a lot of hype going on out there about the beta that was released a little bit back, but there's been grumbles from beta testers that sounds
rather disconcerting, as well as Microsoft's history regarding how their beta releases reflect on the 'finished' product.

Here's a list of my own misgivings on the matter.

For one thing, I've always been a big believer in a streamlined product. Graphical niftiness, while nice to look at (and I certainly will not deny that it
is nice to look at), simply doesn't matter when it comes to getting the job done. For certain, you can bet that no amount of shininess is going to
convince the higher-ups in the DoD to buy into Windows 7. They'll only care about two things: 1) Is it secure? and 2) Will it get the job done?

Another qualm that I have is the stupidity of the general public at large. I honestly think that a person needs to attain a certain degree of intelligence
before they're allowed near a computer. If Microsoft's mission really is to make an operating system that is usable by anyone, then I fear for the
computing world at large. I will, however, grudgingly admit that most people don't really know how a television operates and yet they use them all the
time. But to this I would use the counter-point that computers do not simply read data like a TV does - it manages it, and it is the person behind the
keyboard that dictates how that data is managed, whether they realize what they are doing or not.

One other thing, and this is the one that I think bugs me the most: do we honestly need such a radical departure? I mean, I'm going to have to get used to
an entirely new operating system here eventually and it's not going to be entirely by choice. It is going to be because the people at Microsoft have
mandated it to be so. Do you have any idea how much that goes against my grain? What Microsoft could do is that, with all this wonderful UI niftiness, they
should make a GUI that is COMPLETELY modular. You prefer the older task bar? No problem. You want something with a Mac OS-X flavor? Done. How about
getting rid of that windows logo on the start-button? Easy as pie. And all with a fair minimum of screwing around, too, through the use of a module-manager.
Mozilla does a nice job of this with their plug-ins for Firefox and you don't catch too many people bitching about it, except to say, "Man, I wish
someone would make a plugin that did z instead of just x and y."

So, in conclusion, what I really want to know is this: Should I abandon all hope in Microsoft? Should I prepare myself for the possibility of having to rely
solely on a Linux-based system? Or am I just being my paranoid self again?

You're probably just being paranoid. I had the same reaction to Vista- 'it's the end of the world, and I'll never have a good OS again'.
Fortunately, OS replacement is never so cut-and-dried as we, in our paranoia, love to hate to think. As long as you don't buy a new laptop, you'll
never have to use Win7, or Vista, for that matter. I'm typing this on my main box, which still runs XP. Heck, the only PCs that can't be easily
'downgraded' are laptops, because some of the drivers they use can't be found for anything but the most recent OS.

I agree on every point about stupidity and the lack of choice involved. Modern OS design is moving slowly toward the Apple model: user-friendliness, at the
expense of those who know what they're doing behind a keyboard. I get the feeling that Linux is the only place to go for an OS that still assumes that its
user has a pulse, and that this will only become more true as time goes on. I can't give up my WinXP, as much as I may want to, because I'm a gamer
(and so need M$ to run my games), and lazy (so I haven't bothered with emulation or VMs).

My strategy for dealing with Microsoft OS changes is to have two computers. My desktop uses the OS I like best, even if it isn't the newest. Then, I have
a modern laptop, so that I can keep familiar with the newest OS. If I decide I like the laptop OS well enough, I'll upgrade the desktop. If you wanted to
have just one computer, dual-booting them is a good replacement option.

The point of all this is not to worry about what Microsoft is doing. You can't change it, and you'll drive yourself mad if you think you can. Just
find a way to hold on to the OS you like best, until something modern is released that you can enjoy just as much.

---

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.

I've been writing a bit.

Quote:One other thing, and this is the one that I think bugs me the most: do we honestly need such a radical departure? I mean, I'm going to have to get used to an entirely new operating system here eventually and it's not going to be entirely by choice. It is going to be because the people at Microsoft have mandated it to be so. Do you have any idea how much that goes against my grain? What Microsoft could do is that, with all this wonderful UI niftiness, they should make a GUI that is COMPLETELY modular. You prefer the older task bar? No problem. You want something with a Mac OS-X flavor? Done. How about getting rid of that windows logo on the start-button? Easy as pie. And all with a fair minimum of screwing around, too, through the use of a module-manager. Mozilla does a nice job of this with their plug-ins for Firefox and you don't catch too many people bitching about it, except to say, "Man, I wish someone would make a plugin that did z instead of just x and y."

This exists.

It's called Linux.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

I'm so glad I permanently switched to Linux following Win ME, which incidentally has been the best version of windows I have used. Still need to deal with
windows way too much tough.

But unless Win7 is far more XP compatible than Vista it will be a long time before my parents upgrade.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

As a sysadmin, who has, in the past 6 years, had to deal with administering the following:

Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7

Windows Server NT, 2000, 2003, 2008 (also various Server App Kits)

Redhat 7.2, 8, 9, Core 1-9, Scientific Linux 3.0-5.2

Allow me to put it like this:

Imagine that Vista never happened. Imagine that Microsoft took the lessons from XP, and generated an OS that was an improvement in almost every way, without
taking what it was that made XP such a popular operating system.

That's Windows 7. It's what Vista *should* have been.

I am honestly thoroughly pleased with it. Based on my initial trials, I've halted my enterprise's rollout of Vista 64, and have planned a jump straight
to Windows 7.

Okay, lets see...

Bluemage: I'm a junior enlistedman in the US Navy. My entire life revolves around being mobile - I can't afford a desktop system. Laptops are the only
way for me to go, no matter how small they make the desktop units. And I have already had some experience regarding downgrading from Vista. I recently
purchased a Toshiba Satellite A355D series laptop. Sweet little midrange laptop with an AMD processor and an ATI GPU. Trouble is, due to MS's and
Toshiba's shenanigans, AMD was unable to offer the proper video drivers. I had to resort to the extraordinary measure of using a free 3rd party software to
modify existing ATI Catalyst drivers to work on my laptop. Fortunately, the results were perfect. Unfortunately, this driver issue seems to extend to Linux
platforms, which is grossly negligent considering that both AMD and Toshiba supposedly support Linux. If BS like this continues I got three words for you:
Class Action Lawsuit. Don't think it won't happen if this negligence carries on. AMD and Toshiba are obligated to provide alternate avenues. To do so
otherwise is to stifle the growth of competition that Microsoft has.

That, of course, leads into this: at what point do we see any sort of contractual agreement stating that, upon the purchase of a computer we are obligated to
use only Brand X's operating systems? In a ways, that is what companies like Microsoft, Toshiba, and AMD are shoe-horning us into. The only reason I'm
not returning this laptop is because I blew good money on it and I like the features it comes with - it's a perfect fit for my lifestyle and how I use a
computer. That, and I've also put in a good effort into getting it working the way I want it to. It was a huge effort on my part (and on the parts of the
people that made the driver fixes), but it was worth it in the end. However, it should not have been this difficult.

In regards to using multiple OSes, I just partition out my hard drive - however many partitions for however many OSes I have (usually about 30-40 gigs each),
and then one common partition for all my documents - and then multi-boot. XP-64 is remaining my default platform while I've been struggling to get Ubuntu
to function properly over on the next partition. I my with my have another one set aside for when the independently thinking Mac lovers figure out how to get
their OS to work on AMD chips, but I'll use it for Windows 7 until they get around to it. As long as I got one OS to a partition with documents safely
tucked away on a separate one, I don't have to worry about screwing one of them up.

ECSNorway: Linux is great at customization. That is something that I certainly will not argue against. What deters me, however, is the level of expertise
require before you can get that really awesome custom-fitted GUI. The folks at Canonical are really trying hard with Ubuntu, but it's still falling a bit
short. I was unable to import new elements which apparently requires some specific know-how. A tutorial for beginners (read as: n00b) -would- be nice at the
very least. Not to mention that it does not go to the level of customization, i.e.: having a Mac style launcher bar in Gnome.

CattyNebulart: XP, from what I have experienced, has come a long, long way and is a huge improvement over ME (which is simply a revamped version of Windows
98). It's even smoother than Windows 2000 was, and that is definitely saying something. Xp-64 just improves upon this. Any issues that I have are solely
involved with 3rd party software (such as Winamp).

jpub: I already know that Windows 7 is the Vista that should have been - that's part of what makes this so damn annoying. It's kinda like what we say
back in boot camp: "If you are wrong, then stay wrong!" Because making that last minute correction just makes things look even worse. Trust me,
it's true. Windows 7 coming so soon like this makes it feels like one of those last minute corrections, much like how SP1 for Vista came out within a
matter of weeks after it Vista itself was released. I already understand that it's SUPPOSED to be a huge improvement, but I'll choose to wait and see.

As I mentioned before, Microsoft has a history concerning their beta releases. The Betas themselves usually seem fine, but when the final release comes out,
it's full of bugs from new features that never got worked out. For this reason, I'll wait at least until SP1 comes out for Windows 7 before switching.
But if SP1 comes out ridiculously soon like Vista's did, then I'll wait a bit longer.

All the arguments I've heard have swayed me somewhat. I'm still a bit leery of Microsoft, especially the way they like to get other companies into
supporting only their 'Modern' operating systems. But I'll go ahead and give Windows 7 a whirl. Just don't expect me to pay for it up front.
(Hint: I'm actually seriously considering paying for my copy of XP-64 - it's just working so nicely. In other words I refuse to pay for crap.)