# Hate windows 7



## jacobi239

Hi,
 Is their a way to go back to xp windows and outlook express from W-7?
I've had this W-7 abput 4 months and I've had more problems then I had
with xp for 8 years.Maybe I'm wrong but I'm convinced it not moving ahead.
I'd like some comments on this.


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

You need a XP install disk and 25 digit activation key.


----------



## spirit

Yeah you need to get a copy of XP and format your hard drive and then install XP onto it.


----------



## tremmor

7 works well. Had xp pro for yrs. Now using 7 pro. Whats the problem?
Like it better. Just does more. even faster.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Your computer manufacturer most likely does not provide device drivers for XP. Besides XP is old and outdated. 7 is far superior.


----------



## jacobi239

Hi,
 Thanks guys,
 I guess I have to stay with W-7 hp due to update to.  Tremmer-               It seem my browsers are slow to respond and
I get a 404 error quite often and I miss the outlook express email,that seemed to be way neater and more things
to do simply. That google & wildblue email I don't care for. Thanks again for all the comments


----------



## claptonman

A 404 error code has something to do with your internet, not the OS.


----------



## DMGrier

I can understand leaving Windows 7 for Linux or OSX but XP? I will go with user error because windows 7 is far better then any version of XP.


----------



## Dngrsone

If you really want to ditch Win 7, then I'd suggest going to a Linux like Ubuntu or Lubuntu (which has a Win 2k feel to it).  These operating systems will work with your modern hardware but may run a little faster than Win 7 does.

Of course, there _is_ a learning curve there, which may be the problem you are experiencing right now trying to figure out how to use 7 after many years of XP comfort...


----------



## strollin

If the OP is disliking Win 7 due to a learning curve, suggesting Linux is not a good solution since Win 7 is closer to XP in operation than any distro of Linux I've used.

I have to switch back and forth between Win XP and Win 7 in my daily work at my job and I much prefer Win 7.

As others have said, the 404 errors you are seeing aren't really related to the OS so you may have some other issues there.

I never used Outlook express for mail but on Win 7 I use Windows Live Mail and it works great for me.  It's a free download for Win 7.


----------



## ayan

you need some sanity. Unless you are having problems with the amount of ram available and the computing power of the processor, than you really should stick with the windows 7, because it has more powerful libraries. I've been a long combatant against w7 until i got it. (i installed it because visual studio 2010 won't run on xp). If you don't have problems with the power of your computer, then i really think that the problem lies between the screen and the chair.


----------



## OvenMaster

I am so glad I kept my XP install with a dual boot setup. My screen capture software and Nero Suite 6 won't run on Win7, and I dare say Folding@Home is slower on 7, too. XP runs anything I throw at it. Not Win7. I prefer Outlook Express to Thunderbird. A full Avira AV system scan takes about three and a half hours with Win7, rather than just 80 minutes with XP. I had to add a real Network Activity Indicator, ShellFolderFix, ShellMenuNew. and Classic Start Menu to get a real Start menu back and have Windows remember the size and placement of Explorer windows. I had to do some work to get Quick Launch back. The constant UAC popups are an annoyance. And ClearType is a $#%@ing headache-inducing joke. 

Newer doesn't always mean better. I paid $85 for an OEM disc. That's high enough.


----------



## DMGrier

strollin said:


> If the OP is disliking Win 7 due to a learning curve, suggesting Linux is not a good solution since Win 7 is closer to XP in operation than any distro of Linux I've used.
> 
> I have to switch back and forth between Win XP and Win 7 in my daily work at my job and I much prefer Win 7.
> 
> As others have said, the 404 errors you are seeing aren't really related to the OS so you may have some other issues there.
> 
> I never used Outlook express for mail but on Win 7 I use Windows Live Mail and it works great for me.  It's a free download for Win 7.



I would say Ubuntu is easier to use then Windows. I watched this weekend as my 15 year old sister jumped on my laptop who does not even know what Linux is and is no pro when is comes to computers and I watched her jump on the web and listen to music with banshee on my computer with no problem.


----------



## StrangleHold

If all your doing is on the web or music. Doesnt really matter what OS your running. Kinda of a no brainer with any OS. Start digging deeper then your talking differences.


----------



## DMGrier

StrangleHold said:


> If all your doing is on the web or music. Doesnt really matter what OS your running. Kinda of a no brainer with any OS. Start digging deeper then your talking differences.



considering that is what 90% of pc users do it pretty much justify itself. I mean for me I find it easier to hook up to things using Ubuntu like hooking up to a hdmi TV cause it just works, or how my wife has to install extra drivers for her HP printer but on my Ubuntu machine it just works. How about WMP has issues syncing album art to my wifes android phone were as banshee does a much better job at it. I could keep on going but no point, I use Ubuntu not because I think windows is a horrible OS but because Ubuntu does things a lot faster and easier, less steps to get things done.


----------



## Okedokey

DMGrier said:


> I mean for me I find it easier to hook up to things using Ubuntu like hooking up to a hdmi TV cause it just works, or how my wife has to install extra drivers for her HP printer but on my Ubuntu machine it just works.



Really?  Looking here it appears that it has a long way to go!  Lol, so they've got past command line requirements?



DMGrier said:


> I use Ubuntu not because I think windows is a horrible OS but because Ubuntu does things a lot faster and easier, less steps to get things done.



Really?  Windows 7 is by far the most stable, supported and user friendly OS ever build for the home user.  Every single independent review I have ever read regarding Linux etc is "its great, but not ready for the prime time".

May have to revisit it if I'm wrong...


----------



## strollin

DMGrier said:


> I would say Ubuntu is easier to use then Windows. I watched this weekend as my 15 year old sister jumped on my laptop who does not even know what Linux is and is no pro when is comes to computers and I watched her jump on the web and listen to music with banshee on my computer with no problem.


Whether Ubuntu is harder or easier to use than Windows has nothing to do with what I said.  It was suggested that the OP didn't like Win 7 due to the learning curve.  I contend there is less of a learning curve to go from XP to W7 then there is to go from XP to Ubuntu.

Last time I checked, there were very few wifi adapters that worked with Ubuntu straight off which usually requires one to mess around with ndiswrapper to get a working wifi driver.  All Linux distros seem to work well with the the built-in ethernet ports but getting wifi working on a laptop usually takes some tinkering.  That's just one example of why I feel that Linux is pretty good but not quite ready for prime time and why I wouldn't recommend it to non-geeks.


----------



## Dngrsone

Just as a note; *buntu is very much improved in the area of wifi drivers specifically.

Let's not turn this into a penguin vs pane issue.  What we are talking about are engines: some engines fit into some cars better than others.  Some will not fit into a certain chassis no matter what you do to it.

Now, if you want to put an engine of a certain power, utility, and economy into your car, then you might shop around and decide which one will work for you.  If you don't like shifting, then you will likely get an engine that has an automatic transmission.  Regardless, unless the engine was preinstalled, there will be some work to install it correctly.  Unless the engine was specifically designed for that car, there may some bugs to work out or work around.

Even if the engine _was_ designed for that car, there may be 'features' that do not work the way you want them to, and you will have to change them or work around the features.  Welcome to computers.

There are people who regard computers as tools, and there are those who see them as appliances.  The tools group often reside in online help forums as the 'answer people' whereas the appliance gang are the customers, showing up to ask one or two questions and never come back once they see the answer(s) they want or fear.

The OP seems to be having browser or internet problems. Couple with that the lack of certain specific programs he was used to having in his old OS which may or may not have analogs in the new one (no one mentioned trying Thinderbird as an Outlook express replacement, for example).

I mentioned the learning curve, because I had one myself when transitioning away from XP to Vista and then Win 7 (both the latter OS' are geared to appliance people, more-or-less shutting out us tool users).  I have a learning curve moving from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04-- it's the same as moving from a 1996 Camry to a 2006 Prius or from an electric stovetop to a gas one-- and it is to expected: progress requires learning.  _Life_ requires learning.


----------



## wolfeking

bigfellla said:


> so they've got past command line requirements?


I am not the most advanced user, but it is easy to use both 10.04.3 and 12.04 without touching the command line. At least if your hardware is supported out of the box. I have issues with Ethernet and wireless drivers on my desktop and M90 though. Never really tried to hunt down the drivers either as its not a requirement to do what I want it to.


----------



## DMGrier

I do use the command line but it is a choice, there is a GUI tool for just about anything including finding drivers in Ubuntu. You will notice that in the Linux community you will find some of there older school Linux users that only use command lines, I remember when I started on 8.04 when I would ask a question on line it was always a command.


----------



## Dngrsone

I also use the command-line by choice.  In Ubuntu as well as in Windows.

Fact:  I used the command-line to repair Win 7 just last month.


----------



## NyxCharon

DMGrier said:


> I do use the command line but it is a choice, there is a GUI tool for just about anything including finding drivers in Ubuntu. You will notice that in the Linux community you will find some of there older school Linux users that only use command lines,* I remember when I started on 8.04 when I would ask a question on line it was always a command.*



That's pretty common to people who leave the "novice distros" or whatever you want to call them. Ubuntu,Mint,etc. Most of the people who use arch,gentoo,etc are like that. I myself use awesomeWM a lot with a ton of CLI and terminal based apps. In windows I have a lot of linux tools added to my prompt like wget for instance. I also use cywgin,etc.  Great for doing C/C++ work in windows. It all just comes down to what you as a user are used to and prefer. I do a lot of terminal work, so i used it constantly whether I'm in windows or linux.

As far as the OP, i would be using windows XP if it was still supported (hardly any support left these days) and it had some of the things I needed like DirectX and hyperthreading (that was a 7 addition right?) 
Xp to me was clean and streamlined. 7 just seems like it's that rich kid with all the cool toys and nice clothes. I don't need that, I just want the basics. I'm used to OS's that take up 2.5 Gb's on install, including a office suite and any other day to day app I need, not 17-20gb's. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## DMGrier

I totally agree with the 15-20 GB, Hell in my opinion gnome 3 or Unity is a better looking UI and has more to offer and it seems like there are more system tools installed then Windows and I believe I am using less then 8 GB of HDD space.

Not to mention system resources, currently surfing the web, listening to music and watching movies via HDMI cable from laptop to tv and using less resources the Windows 7 does at idle.


----------



## Okedokey

DMGrier said:


> Not to mention system resources, currently surfing the web, listening to music and watching movies via HDMI cable from laptop to tv and using less resources the Windows 7 does at idle.



Only reason for this is windows doesn't over-commit ram, nothing more.


----------



## OvenMaster

Dngrsone said:


> The OP seems to be having browser or internet problems. Couple with that the lack of certain specific programs he was used to having in his old OS which may or may not have analogs in the new one *(no one mentioned trying Thinderbird as an Outlook express replacement, for example)*.





OvenMaster said:


> I prefer Outlook Express to Thunderbird.



<ahem>


----------



## DMGrier

bigfellla said:


> Only reason for this is windows doesn't over-commit ram, nothing more.



That is fine but when using some heavier open source music production software that will not even give me all the features due to MS ram hungry were as when running on a Linux box I have full features.


----------



## Dngrsone

OvenMaster said:


> <ahem>



My humblest apologies...

Kudos on the Beast avatar... I'm an X-fan from the late '80s.


----------



## Gun

You'll have to buy a Windows XP disk. I personally prefer Windows 7 over XP and especially over Vista!


----------



## Okedokey

DMGrier said:


> That is fine but when using some heavier open source music production software that will not even give me all the features due to MS ram hungry were as when running on a Linux box I have full features.



Yes, but you cannot actually use them all at the same time because if you did, you will crash the OS.  Its really no different.  Its just creative accounting.


----------



## Okedokey

NyxCharon said:


> As far as the OP, i would be using windows XP if it was still supported (hardly any support left these days) and it had some of the things I needed like DirectX and hyperthreading (that was a 7 addition right?)
> Xp to me was clean and streamlined. 7 just seems like it's that rich kid with all the cool toys and nice clothes. I don't need that, I just want the basics. I'm used to OS's that take up 2.5 Gb's on install, including a office suite and any other day to day app I need, not 17-20gb's.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



Again not exactly true.  DirectX has been around since 1995 meaning almost all Windows versions can support it.  Also hyperthreading is done on both the OS and the hardware, and has been around since 2002 making it well in the realms of XP.

Windows 7 has some significant changes, particularly with SSDs, memory management, driver support, network optimisation... the list goes on.

By far the best OS available if you want out of the box support for a large range of OEM hardware.


----------



## NyxCharon

bigfellla said:


> Again not exactly true.  DirectX has been around since 1995 meaning almost all Windows versions can support it.  Also hyperthreading is done on both the OS and the hardware, and has been around since 2002 making it well in the realms of XP.
> 
> Windows 7 has some significant changes, particularly with SSDs, memory management, driver support, network optimisation... the list goes on.
> 
> By far the best OS available if you want out of the box support for a large range of OEM hardware.



I guess you misunderstood me. I upgraded so i would have support for the newer versions of directx. 
"Direct3D 9Ex, Direct3D 10, and Direct3D 11 are only available for Windows Vista and Windows 7"
As far as the hyperthreading, yes it existed, but the feature was greatly improved in windows 7.


----------



## Jonathan1990

I have Windows XP which I like best.  It's much better than Windows Vista.  I hope the new Windows 8 is good.


----------



## DMGrier

I do not think it will.


----------



## spynoodle

bigfellla said:


> Again not exactly true.  DirectX has been around since 1995 meaning almost all Windows versions can support it.  Also hyperthreading is done on both the OS and the hardware, and has been around since 2002 making it well in the realms of XP.
> 
> Windows 7 has some significant changes, particularly with SSDs, memory management, driver support, network optimisation... the list goes on.
> 
> By far the best OS available if you want out of the box support for a large range of OEM hardware.


Although I like Linux (especially Nyxcharon's distro, which is very good), I can't help agreeing with the fact that Windows 7 just works how an OS should. I mean, whenever I try to use Linux, I end up spending more time installing programs than I actually do using them. On Windows, you can focus more on what you're actually trying to accomplish. Yes, it uses more system resources, but with 2GB of RAM and a decent processor, it makes no difference to me.


----------



## Okedokey

This whole thing about Windows using more resources is really just nonsense.  Yes if you have 512MB or RAM then certain things will be difficult on Windows, but really, Linux kernels simply allow multiple applications or processes to 'claim' or committ to the same area of memory.  That way it looks like its using less resources but in actual fact, its not.


----------



## wolfeking

not that it matters for todays systems as most have much more, but if you only have a few GB of hard drive to use Linux does it better. Windows does use a lot of resources as far as non volatile memory is concerned. But I guess if you want a fix all solution then you have to commit to a lot more than a targeted solution.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

ayan said:


> ...(i installed it because visual studio 2010 won't run on xp)...


 
Microsoft visual studio 2010 runs perfectly on Windows XP.You must have done something wrong if it doesn't work to you.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Win7 will run on as little as a pentium 4 with 1 gig ram, and a 24 gig harddrive partition (i know, ive done it, i didnt like doing it but it does work...)

As the articles say on the VS 2010 C++ site, the only way it wont run on WinXP is if its the starter edition, however is VS Stuidio Express the starter edition?


----------



## DMGrier

Almost everybody hated Vista, compatible with what? Your hardware?


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

All Microsoft Windows computer operating systems are good if you know how to use them properly.


----------



## DMGrier

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> All Microsoft Windows computer operating systems are good if you know how to use them properly.



Please do not get me started on Windows Vista, when Vista would fail me in speed or reliability Ubuntu kept me going. Vista was very bad and it shows cause before windows 7 Apple and the Linux community got to see a tidal wave of new users because consumers were unhappy with Vista, I remember being a member on here seeing to many people trying to figure out how to run XP on there new Vista laptop.


----------



## wolfeking

I have to agree with stars here. I used Vista when it came out on a Compaq desktop and never had an issue asside from a RAM failure, but I can not tag that on Windows.  
I still use vista, and against what most say I would take it over XP anyday. But I would go to windows 2000 over everything else.


----------



## NyxCharon

wolfeking said:


> I have to agree with stars here. *I used Vista when it came out on a Compaq desktop and never had an issue asside* from a RAM failure, but I can not tag that on Windows.



That. I too have a compaq that came with vista, and it worked great. Never a single issue. Ran vista for a couple years until win7 came out. As such, i never understood all the people that had such a deep hatred for vista.


----------



## Dngrsone

NyxCharon said:


> ... I never understood all the people that had such a deep hatred for vista.



For me, as an advanced XP user, I was constantly fighting VIsta to get it to do what I wanted to do.

Vista is a great OS... _if_ you are a typical Windrone who just want something to work and are content with the false sense of security given by constant requests for confirmation (yes, I know it can be turned off...).

If you want or need to be able to access the backend on a regular basis (like turning off the damn firewall after _every freakin' update_), then it was a pain in the rear, at best.

OH, and XP emulation sucks rocks...


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> I have to agree with stars here. I used Vista when it came out on a Compaq desktop and never had an issue asside from a RAM failure, but I can not tag that on Windows.
> I still use vista, and against what most say I would take it over XP anyday. But I would go to windows 2000 over everything else.



Vista's fine. Just update it to SP2 and there you have it. Quite a nice OS.  I would take Vista over XP anyday too.


----------



## strollin

I skipped Vista, went straight from XP to Win 7.  After using and liking Win 7 for awhile, I acquired a laptop that had Vista on it.  At first, I was very apprehensive due to all of the negatives I had heard about Vista but after using it I couldn't believe how similar it was to Win 7.  I found Vista to be a perfectly usable OS (although I still prefer Win 7).

My son has a laptop that came with Vista and although he is perfectly capable of upgrading it from Vista to Win 7, he's content with Vista with no plans to upgrade.


----------



## dazzer2011

if you have windows 7 profesional or upwards then you can acces xp mode which will give you a complete xp desktop which  can run inside windows 7, there is hardly any setup required for this.


----------



## DMGrier

AS I SAID VISTA WAS NOT BAD AFTER SP1, before it was completely horrible. I remember my Laptop running Ubuntu 8.04 would do anything (except game) faster then my Vista desktop. 

Ubuntu 8.04 was so light, what happened to those days?


----------



## wolfeking

DMGrier said:


> Ubuntu 8.04 was so light, what happened to those days?


they tried to go after OSX and windows happened.


----------



## DMGrier

Well Windows is not a options for me, I have tried to go back to Windows a couple of times but it just never works do to how to slow it is and poor software, hell since 12.04 came out I did a dual boot on my wifes computer and to my surprise she hasnt used windows since. I asked her and she felt like it boot and open programs a little faster plus she asked for a list of open source projects for picture editing and I gave her a list and also to my surprise she navigated easily through the app center to them.

I like Windows but it is not for me, a little slow and poor design and I remember arguing that it was a good OS before I had ever used linux back when Tlarkin used to always correct me on it. After using Linux for a few years now and becoming somewhat comfterable with them I will have to say he is right.


----------



## Okedokey

Vista is an abortion.


----------



## wolfeking

I keep hearing the same thing over and over bigfella, but it works the same for me as 7 does. I doubt very seriously that most people would be able to see the difference as far as use is considered especially if they have 3GB or more of RAM installed and a modern multicore processor.


----------



## Okedokey

I did mate, constant hangs, constant interference with UAC, turn it off and you're disabling security and have to rely on 3rd party protection, slower in everyway.  Windows 7 is noticiably faster in every way.  It really was an awful OS, up there with ME.


----------



## wolfeking

I was not saying that you didn't see issues. What I am saying is that I have yet to see a difference between them, and that was going from a compaq desktop way back when it was released (I do not remember quite what it had, but I di remember 250GB and 512 MB, and AMD I think), up to a DV7 and Toshiba (L305) and even the D630. I have never ran into issues that could not be related to hardware (artifacting and the like). There may be issues with it, but it is useful as is.


----------



## Dragunov IV 424

bigfellla said:


> Vista is an abortion.



Is not, vista is great.


----------



## spirit

Dragunov IV 424 said:


> Is not, vista is great.



It's not a bad OS but not the best. I'm actually using it right now as I type this on my Core 2 Quad rig. It's running fine. Windows 7 is faster than Vista, but not massively faster. 

I have a feeling that the whole "Windows Vista vs Windows 7" debate is one that is never going to end. At the end of the day, people have their own opinions on them. I like them both, but I will agree that Windows 7 is definitely a better all-rounder.


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Vista is an abortion.


 
lol. Your right. Vista was to XP as ME was to 98. Over bloated memory hog crashing pig. 7 should have been a SP for Vista for free. We all got ripped off.


----------



## Davis Goertzen

I think there were two major problems when Vista was initially released.

1. It still had a lot of bugs which hadn't been ironed out.

2. Many of the computers being loaded with it were not powerful enough to run it smoothly and reliably.

Combine those two factors, and it's quite easy to understand how it got a bad rap. A few years after release, things weren't so bad.


----------



## DMGrier

Davis Goertzen said:


> I think there were two major problems when Vista was initially released.
> 
> 1. It still had a lot of bugs which hadn't been ironed out.
> 
> 2. Many of the computers being loaded with it were not powerful enough to run it smoothly and reliably.
> 
> Combine those two factors, and it's quite easy to understand how it got a bad rap. A few years after release, things weren't so bad.



I read about those also I seen this thing were MS blamed the hardware companies, I guess poorly written drivers was another problem as well.


----------



## spirit

DMGrier said:


> I read about those also I seen this thing were MS blamed the hardware companies, I guess poorly written drivers was another problem as well.



NVIDIA drivers for Vista were awful in the early days of Vista IIRC and drivers for older hardware (especially printers and scanners usually) were never updated to work with Vista. :/


----------



## Okedokey

The main reason it got slammed was the driver support issue.  A completely new driver stack (particularly for sound) meant that many companies hadn't got their shit together in time.  A lot of people recieved messages such as this hardware isn't supported.  Of course there were work arounds...


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

StrangleHold said:


> lol. Your right. Vista was to XP as ME was to 98. Over bloated memory hog crashing pig. 7 should have been a SP for Vista for free. We all got ripped off.



Haha yea you are right.Microsoft was planning to rip us off since Windows 95 and hey...they made it 

My opinion is that every operating system is good if you know how to use it properly.

But I remember back in the days of Windows Millennium...maaaan...every time I would turn it on,the damn SCAN DISK would start for no reason xD
Windows ME (mistake edition) rules because Windows ME had Multiple Errors !

I am probably the only one who still uses Windows XP. 




Cheers!


----------



## wolfeking

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> I am probably the only one who still uses Windows XP.


wrong. And getting ready to repopulate XP onto the D630 when I get t fixed in a bit .  I do not see the point of the newer systems unless you absolutely need DX10 and 11, are on a SSD, or have hardware that for whatever reason does not support XP. and if it works on XP, 70+% of the time it can be made to work of 2000. 2000 for the win!


----------



## StrangleHold

2000 was the best OS microsoft ever made. XP/Vista and 7 just piggy backed off of it. From what I understand the main dude that worked on 2000 was helping to develop Vista. But half way through it became such a mess he walked. 2000 was developed by a central group of people working together. Vista had different groups of people working separate from each other and then tried to come together, didnt work, lol.

Should have learned from ME. By taking 98/98SE and trying to load features from 20000. Turned out to be over bloated and a driver screwup. Some 98 drivers would work, some would not and some companies didnt even have ME drivers yet when it was released. Vista was really like the same thing all over again.


----------



## Davis Goertzen

StrangleHold said:


> Vista was really like the same thing all over again.



Haha, tell me about it. Someone I know well first had a machine with ME on it, and then that one died when Vista was the only thing available. Poor guy! Got both of the 2 worst versions of Windows, IMHO. Fortunately, he's now happy on a machine running 7.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

wolfeking said:


> wrong. And getting ready to repopulate XP onto  the D630 when I get t fixed in a bit .  I do not see the point of the  newer systems unless you absolutely need DX10 and 11, are on a SSD, or  have hardware that for whatever reason does not support XP. and if it  works on XP, 70+% of the time it can be made to work of 2000. 2000 for  the win!



Are you sure we do not know each other  ?


Oh come on guys lol.You can't say that Windows Vista is as bad as Windows Millennium was.Windows Vista is great OS and it's not EVEN CLOSE bad as Windows ME was.Vista was just different and when it came it was a small shock for the hardware,but other than that Vista is great.

You guys should realize that programming an OS is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT and EXHAUSTING job.When Microsoft made Vista,that was their first attempt to completely rechange everything and make something new and better and since there was a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of code differences,it is completely logical that first NEW OS technology did not turn out so well and that's completely normal.Later they made many fixes,fixed problems they found as time was passing and it becomes better and Windows 7 is a perfect example of that.

Every NEW product VERY RARELY turns out GREAT on the first try.
So come on...give Microsoft a break.They do a great job and they have made MANY operating systems and many of them are VERY good plus they make many other things too.




Cheers!


----------



## wolfeking

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Are you sure we do not know each other  ?


Other than on here, 99.9999999% sure we don't. Unless you are from Commerce, GA, USA, Roanoke, VA, USA, or Rockingham county, NC, USA, or one of several military bases through Italy and Germany.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

wolfeking said:


> Other than on here, 99.9999999% sure we don't. Unless you are from Commerce, GA, USA, Roanoke, VA, USA, or Rockingham county, NC, USA, or one of several military bases through Italy and Germany.



Too bad. 
People who like older operating systems are at the extinction lol.I NEED YOU!!!
Nah I am just kidding  (dammit I don't who am I kidding  )



LoL cheers man!


----------



## wolfeking

I am sticking to the older systems as long as I can. 2000 is the end of my line unless I need something newer. game under 7 on my desktop though, as 2000 never had a 64 bit.


----------



## StrangleHold

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Oh come on guys lol.You can't say that Windows Vista is as bad as Windows Millennium was.Windows Vista is great OS and it's not EVEN CLOSE bad as Windows ME was.Vista was just different and when it came it was a small shock for the hardware,but other than that Vista is great.


 
BS. its exactly the same. ME was nothing but a continuation starting with a good 98, then with the updates of good 98SE, then tried to dump features from 2000 on to of it. It was over bloated and a driver nightmare. Vista was more of the same, taking a great OS 2000. First making it look like a disneyland OS calling it XP. Then dumping extra features on it calling it Vista. Turned out the same, a over bloated and a driver nightmare. Both done the same way.




S.T.A.R.S. said:


> You guys should realize that programming an OS is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT and EXHAUSTING job.When Microsoft made Vista,that was their first attempt to completely rechange everything and make something new and better and since there was a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of code differences,it is completely logical that first NEW OS technology did not turn out so well and that's completely normal.Later they made many fixes,fixed problems they found as time was passing and it becomes better and Windows 7 is a perfect example of that.


 
These are not new OS technology. 98 through ME wasnt nothing but a continuation of 98. XP/Vista and even 7 is nothing but a continuation of 2000. Its called being lazy and being afraid of a new generation of OS because of backward compability.



S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Every NEW product VERY RARELY turns out GREAT on the first try.
> So come on...give Microsoft a break.They do a great job and they have made MANY operating systems and many of them are VERY good plus they make many other things too.


 
No you got it backward, the first product as far as OS are usually the best ones, hence 98/2000. Its the extra BS they keep adding to them and calling it a new OS that keeps giving them trouble and they have to have updates and SP to make it stable.




[/QUOTE]


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

Bigger OS with more features = more bugs and problems.
That's completely normal.To me every Windows OS is good.

I think you people complain too much lol.If everything new is so bad then don't buy them and make your own lol.


----------



## tech savvy

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Bigger OS with more features = more bugs and problems.
> That's completely normal.To me every Windows OS is good.
> 
> *I think you people complain too much lol.If everything new is so bad then don't buy them and make your own lol.*



Coudn't agree more!


----------



## Okedokey

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Bigger OS with more features = more bugs and problems.
> That's completely normal.To me every Windows OS is good.
> 
> I think you people complain too much lol.If everything new is so bad then don't buy them and make your own lol.



I don't agree.  I used to work as an avionic engineer with the airforce.  We did upgrades frequently as we slowly installed better technology.  For example a EPERB beacon that deploys at certain inputs (e.g. MkIV ejection seat deployment, accelerometer ranges).  The technology used Satellites to triangulate position anywhere on the planet.  In 1995 that was good going.  

The code around that had to be written, as when the aircraft was built it was not even considered possible.

Big system, lots of new features and it had to be perfect.    Inevitably we set them off accidentally (e.g. accelerometer calibration).  $40K a throw back then.

With Windows, some of it was just sloppy, but nothing to do with _size_.

Rubbish quality hardware (compared to today - and i mean quality not speed nor ability) meant that even a good OS would crash, corrupting hard drives, Windows getting the rap.  And Vista certainly had no excuses in that department.... but ME may be.

Anyway even though I understand probability, its quite easy to ensure you don't create problems when you control ever thing (like hardware).  But this was never the case back in the early days.


----------



## spynoodle

vistakid10 said:


> Windows 7 is faster than Vista, but not massively faster.



Exactly. I am not entirely sure of the exact code improvements that MS implemented in Windows 7, but what I do know is that it just feels faster than previous versions of Windows. Programs run at just about the same speed, but the OS itself is more responsive. Even on my Core 2 Quad rig, XP system functions (opening the start menu, switching programs, etc.) will randomly lag. This happens very rarely on my lower-specced Pentium Dual-Core rig running a Win7-modified version of Windows 8 Developer Preview.



StrangleHold said:


> ME was nothing but a continuation starting with a good 98, then with the updates of good 98SE, then tried to dump features from 2000 on to of it. It was over bloated and a driver nightmare. Vista was more of the same, taking a great OS 2000. First making it look like a disneyland OS calling it XP. Then dumping extra features on it calling it Vista. Turned out the same, a over bloated and a driver nightmare. Both done the same way.



This is another major improvement that I have seen in Windows 7. There isn't random bloat all over the place. For example, having web search built into the Vista Start Menu was rather stupid. No one ever uses it. Times that I have used Vista, I've always found simple tasks such as connecting to a network to be much more daunting than in XP or 7. Not that it's godawful, but it's just simply not as good. In an argument over operating systems, I would have to say that it really comes down to XP or 2000 vs Windows 7, because Vista really has nothing to offer over Windows 7. Yes, Vista still works fine, but Windows 7 works noticeably better.

Personally, I would still take Windows 7 over XP or 2000, because there are definitely code improvements in 7 that can be seen at even a mediocre spec level, not to mention the fact that it automatically defragments. I agree that XP and 2000 are nice because they are less bloated, but from a usability standpoint, 7 is far better.


----------



## StrangleHold

In its day 98SE was a good OS. But overall I like 2000 and 7 the best. Xp was pretty good. To me XP was kinda of a Love/Hate thing.


----------



## wolfeking

spynoodle said:


> Yes, Vista still works fine, but Windows 7 works noticeably better.


noticibly better. Maybe you notice something that I do not, but on my systems other than basic operations, vista works just as good as 7, with little if any difference in speed.  
It appears really to me that M$ is catering to the lowest common denominator, meaning making it so that even a retard with an IQ of 3 could use their system. Add some complication and I might support them a little more. 


> I agree that XP and 2000 are nice because they are less bloated, but from a usability standpoint, 7 is far better.


to me this is BS. the only thing that makes 7 better to the average user is that it just works. You do not have to think about it. But then again americans programmed it, so since they can't think why assume anyone can? 
To me 2000 and XP is far more usable than 7/vista. But we are all welcome to our own opinions.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

wolfeking said:


> To me 2000 and XP is far more usable than 7/vista. But we are all welcome to our own opinions.



They are all 100% useable and you can do everything on all of them if you know how.The differences is that on newer operating systems you can get things done easier and faster.
So will you use Windows XP or Windows 7 to do same things really depends on person's taste.
*
*Windows XP for example would sometimes lag or hang if you did something improperly.Microsoft saw that many people of course do many things improperly and that they complain that OS sucks because it hangs and lags a lot.Of course OS does not suck...users suck.So Microsoft used that HUGE advantage to make OS like Windows 7 which will work always no matter how improperly you do things and will not freeze at all.And that my dear people makes Windows 7 so different from other previous operating systems and ALSO makes people think that Windows 7 is better in EVERYTHING while it's not better in everything 100%.But of course it is enough that people just think that and that automatically means the following:

Microsoft earns a LOT more money for not so much work.

*As for the stability between Windows XP and Windows 7,all I can say is that at the end that always depends on your knowledge.*




Cheers!


----------



## wolfeking

you missed the two words that mattered there. TO ME 2000 and XP are better. I can do things on them easier than I can on vista/7. But no one cares, cause everyone thinks that just because it is new that it is better and will always be better.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

wolfeking said:


> ...everyone thinks that just because it is new that it is better and will always be better.



I completely agree with you.Tell me about it...every day I hear and see people using the NEWEST things all the time and when I ask them why they MUST always use the newest things,they say:

"Because it's the best."

And when I ask them why it's the best and what's the difference,they in 99% cases say:

"Ummmm..."

LoL 

Also what I hate is that majority thinks they know a lot about computers and programming just because they use Windows 7 from the difference of those who use Windows 2000 or Windows XP.And the funniest thing is that they do not even know anything about computer or/and programming,but they THINK (know) they do just because they use Windows 7 (which is currently the newest OS).

LoL 

My computer is almost 15 years old and I get things done on it (such as making great computer programs which I sell for nice money) a LOT more than people with 8 core processors.

Why?

Simply because my knowledge is a lot bigger than theirs lol.

So STABILITY,SPEED,MONEY PROFIT and so on depends on KNOWLEDGE.

People usually laugh to me because I use 15 years old system and old XP OS,but they do not even realize that right now I can be spying their computers with the program I made on my "15 years old computer".

So "HAHAHA" to them 

I always let them think they are SMARTER than me,but in fact it's completely opposite.And THAT'S the point.




Cheers!


----------



## Okedokey

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> They are all 100% useable and you can do everything on all of them if you know how.




All you ever say....

But its BS.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7


----------



## spynoodle

@S.T.A.R.S.:
I see where you are coming from, and I completely agree with the fact that most people do not need super-fast rigs, but I feel that you need to further define what you mean by using a computer "improperly." In my time using XP, I've found that if a program with high CPU utilization (Flash Plugin, Dolphin Gamecube Emulator, etc.) hangs, XP will often become unresponsive when I try to manually end the process, thus forcing me into restarting the explorer.exe process. Yes, it fixes the problem, but I much prefer how Windows 7 handles unresponsive programs: by actually closing the program. Yeah, it does that stupid "checking for solution" thing, but I really don't care. Here's the way I see it: I'd much rather use Windows 7 than put in the extra time needed to use Windows XP "properly," for no actual benefit.

@wolfeking:
What's wrong with an OS "just working?" I don't see any real advantage in having to struggle with everything when it's completely unnecessary.


----------



## wolfeking

spynoodle said:


> @wolfeking:
> What's wrong with an OS "just working?" I don't see any real advantage in having to struggle with everything when it's completely unnecessary.


Where did I say it was an advantage to "struggle" with it? your putting words in my mouth. If you have to think it might not be so obvious, but is no more of a struggle.  
I would always much prefer an OS that takes a piece of thought than one that a 2 year old retard could pick up and use. That and one that does not take 30GB to properly use, aka Vista/7.


----------



## Dngrsone

As with any tool, everyone has their personal preferences.

Part of that is due to personal knowledge-- if you don't know what each bell and whistle is for then having them is useless, if not downright counterproductive.

Part is due to the tasks at hand-- if all you need the machine for is surfing the internet and watching lolcat videos, then having the ability to rapidly crunch database numbers or access three and a half terabytes of storage is not really necessary nor missed.

If you write programs or web sites, then having access to a mulitude of platforms or browsers is a very necessary thing and so you might need 8GB of RAM and the ability to run a few virtual machines at the same time.

Part is due to the insatiable need for some people to feel superior to others-- [decorum prevents me from typing what I really want to illustrate, but I'm sure that a judicious amount of imagination can fill in the details here]: "I spent more money, therefore it's better"; "I can hack your dead badger"; "I'm smart enough to use _this_ system".

My point is that this argument accomplishes very little other than to allow several egos to bump against each other with lackluster results.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

wolfeking said:


> Where did I say it was an advantage to "struggle" with it? your putting words in my mouth. If you have to think it might not be so obvious, but is no more of a struggle.
> I would always much prefer an OS that takes a piece of thought than one that a 2 year old retard could pick up and use. That and one that does not take 30GB to properly use, aka Vista/7.



Wow 30 GB? Why that much lol?


----------



## spynoodle

wolfeking said:


> Where did I say it was an advantage to "struggle" with it? your putting words in my mouth. If you have to think it might not be so obvious, but is no more of a struggle.
> I would always much prefer an OS that takes a piece of thought than one that a 2 year old retard could pick up and use. That and one that does not take 30GB to properly use, aka Vista/7.



Okay, I see what you mean. Everyone has their own personal preference when it comes to interface.


----------



## wolfeking

spynoodle said:


> Okay, I see what you mean. Everyone has their own personal preference when it comes to interface.


exactly. Despite what may be underneath, I would much rather use 2000 as it is less bloated. But that does not mean for everyone it is better. 



S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Wow 30 GB? Why that much lol?


Because not everyone can stay below 16GB of data and programs and such. On my D630, just running windows 7_64 bit, Chrome, the Nvidia drivers, real temp, and FAH I am running 13.9GB. If you installed 2 games,then your already over 30GB, so yea.


----------



## novicegeek

I agree in one respect. When you've been used to XP (and it has been our friend for a while), Windows 7 has a very different interface from XP (as well as other previous versions). I think it's just a matter of getting used to something new. You have to give it time. You'll eventually adjust. Then they'll come out with a new version and you'll hate it just as much (lol).


----------



## tech savvy

wolfeking said:


> you missed the two words that mattered there. TO ME 2000 and XP are better. I can do things on them easier than I can on vista/7. But no one cares, cause everyone thinks that just because it is new that it is better and will always be better.



Well, that is true, in hardware. Software may be a different story though.


----------



## wolfeking

looks at the 6 series recall and netburst. Sure it works for hardware.


----------



## tech savvy

wolfeking said:


> looks at the 6 series recall and netburst. Sure it works for hardware.



That's it, just that, two things?

Dude, I swear that you was going to come back with something more then that.

Your previous statement makes no sense. Old technology is superier to new technology?

What's the point in new technology, when supposedly older technology is better?


----------



## LVhometoday

jacobi239 said:


> Hi,
> Is their a way to go back to xp windows and outlook express from W-7?
> I've had this W-7 abput 4 months and I've had more problems then I had
> with xp for 8 years.Maybe I'm wrong but I'm convinced it not moving ahead.
> I'd like some comments on this.


 Microsoft is going to stop supporting XP soon, so learning to use W7 is probably a good idea, especially if your work involves computers. Windows 7 Quick Steps is the book I used to learn, it is available from Amazon. If you really want XP back, you can still buy copies at ebay, or you could use the XP install CD that came with your computer.


----------



## Dngrsone

tech savvy said:


> That's it, just that, two things?
> 
> Dude, I swear that you was going to come back with something more then that.
> 
> Your previous statement makes no sense. Old technology is superier to new technology?
> 
> What's the point in new technology, when supposedly older technology is better?



New technology is not always better.  There's a reason why the U2 is still flying, for instance....


----------



## wolfeking

tech savvy said:


> That's it, just that, two things?


Its all that comes to mind, but I your argument is that new tech is better. It is not always better. 



> Your previous statement makes no sense. Old technology is superier to new technology?
> 
> What's the point in new technology, when supposedly older technology is better?


no, not superior, but in some cases, well most cases will do equally as well. New OSs and New Tech is useless in 99% of cases. Games and CAD is all I see would benefit from say a SB processor over a C2Q or 1366 i7. Even then your benefit is little. 

Lets stop diverging here. The thread is about windows 7, not hardware. And I am not really prepared to argue hardware. Its useless.


----------



## tech savvy

wolfeking said:


> Its all that comes to mind, but I your argument is that new tech is better. It is not always better.
> 
> 
> no, not superior, but in some cases, well most cases will do equally as well. New OSs and New Tech is useless in 99% of cases. Games and CAD is all I see would benefit from say a SB processor over a C2Q or 1366 i7. Even then your benefit is little.
> 
> Lets stop diverging here. The thread is about windows 7, not hardware. And I am not really prepared to argue hardware. Its useless.



Agreed,nuff said, lets move on. No hard feelings.

But I do agree with some. My build now, will hold me off for awhile, so no need to upgrade. Wait 5 years are so, till its worth the upgrade.


----------



## DMGrier

I personally think hardware only matters about 60%, the other 40% is the OS. Example being if I was to game I would use Windows, If I was to do music production I would use OSX and for everything else Ubuntu (opinion). Each OS can do something while using less powerful hardware then the other OS.


----------



## wolfeking

tech savvy said:


> No hard feelings.


thanks. 

And DM, agreed. Hardware can only do so much. and an OS can only do so much to help. Everything has a use.


----------



## claptonman

I see where STARS is coming from, but XP and a computer from 15 years ago is _not_ enough for everyone. Not even considering gamers, there are plenty of people who use photoshop, CAD, and video editing that XP and old computers are not enough and require more powerful hardware and OSs that use more than 3.25GB of RAM. And you've said before that if a program uses more than 4GB of RAM, its coded badly. But really, if you (I'm talking to STARS) can make a 3D modeling program that uses less than 4GB of RAM for intense designs and still performs flawlessly, you'd be a millionaire. Yes, you can code programs on your computer and make money, but others make money on art and video editing, which again, require more juice.

I think $600 every 5 years for upgrades/a new computer is completely reasonable for someone who needs the specs.


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

If only 64bit winXP worked good... 

I tryed it on my computer and trying to even get sound to work, games, ect, was impossible.


----------



## spirit

Hyper-Threaded said:


> If only 64bit winXP worked good...
> 
> I tryed it on my computer and trying to even get sound to work, games, ect, was impossible.



Wow, XP Pro x64. That brings back memories. It was actually based on Server 2003 x64 IIRC, so it wasn't really Windows XP and I remember that software installed OK 9 times out of 10, but finding drivers was a real pain. As it was actually Windows 2003 with a pretty UI, it was never updated to SP3, so any software which required XP SP3 to run usually would not work on XPx64, as the latest service pack for XPx64 was SP2 (there were some exceptions and ways around the problem).

I had XPx64 for a little while, it was OK.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

claptonman said:


> I see where STARS is coming from, but XP and a computer from 15 years ago is _not_ enough for everyone. Not even considering gamers, there are plenty of people who use photoshop, CAD, and video editing that XP and old computers are not enough and require more powerful hardware and OSs that use more than 3.25GB of RAM. And you've said before that if a program uses more than 4GB of RAM, its coded badly. But really, if you (I'm talking to STARS) can make a 3D modeling program that uses less than 4GB of RAM for intense designs and still performs flawlessly, you'd be a millionaire. Yes, you can code programs on your computer and make money, but others make money on art and video editing, which again, require more juice.
> 
> I think $600 every 5 years for upgrades/a new computer is completely reasonable for someone who needs the specs.



I see plenty of people having so damn strong hardware and guess what...all they use that computer for are things like youtube,facebook and so on...
And I am pretty sure that things like facebook do not need 6 GB of RAM memory,2 GB of video memory,quad core processors and so on lol...
And me on so old PC do a lot more and accomplish a lot more than they do.
I will never understand why people need so STRONG hardware for things like facebook lol...

If I tell them that I will give them 15 years old PC to use it for facebook,they would always say:"No no no I do not want that peace of garbage."

If I just leave the new case,but inside put my 15 years old hardware,I bet they would not see a difference while surfing the facebook,youtube,twitter blablabla hahaha!

I wonder how they would react once I tell them they are actually using 15 years old PC


----------



## Okedokey

Mate, we get it - you know how to use an OS - sheesh.

The point is there is also technical and sophistication changes over time.  Simple continuous improvement.  Some things change... 

Your choice of words indicates a distinct ignorance (strong, weak etc very poor words to explain technology).

You're also suggesting a PC made in 1997 is a good option?  Pfff.

Mate, i get your point but you're overdoing it.  Id rather a new Intel system with 6GB ram anyday over some slow, noisy POS.  No matter how much you know how to use the OS.  Lol

I use my machine's capabilities frequently.


----------



## spirit

I agree with Bigfella. I find it hard to use my old XP machine with an Athlon 64, 1GB RAM, 80GB HDD, 6600 GT etc etc these days on the internet. It's just too slow for my liking and even with a fresh install of XP it just feels slow and horrible.

People are always after speed. You're not gonna find speed in a PC as old as me. :/ You try going on today's internet on a computer made in 1997. It just doesn't happen.


----------



## wolfeking

I am going to both agree and disagree here. New hardware and new software can d
be good. But that does not mean everyone needs the newest and best out there. I use the Internet just fine on my laptops and they are years old, around 6 year I think.  I have used the Internet on thinkpads with 500-800 MHZ P3 and minus some flash heavy sites, it worked just fine.  I don't think that the majority of people really need anything more than 2GB and a P4. But most people have a touch of apple syndrome where they upgrade just because it is new.   

Let me say it this way. If you have a P4 and just need more ram and everything else is wroking, I'm gunna suggest RAM, not a platform update. If it works, then there is no need for more. If you need more, then get more.


----------



## NyxCharon

vistakid10 said:


> People are always after speed. You're not gonna find speed in a PC as old as me. :/ You try going on today's internet on a computer made in 1997. It just doesn't happen.



And that's where linux comes into play 
I've seen some dramatic improvements on old hardware when using a very light distro. 

..I still can't believe you guys are debating all of this. 
I'll stick with linux for everything minus gaming, because for me it just works, and i can customize everything how i want.


----------



## spynoodle

bigfellla said:


> Mate, we get it - you know how to use an OS - sheesh.
> 
> The point is there is also technical and sophistication changes over time.  Simple continuous improvement.  Some things change...
> 
> Your choice of words indicates a distinct ignorance (strong, weak etc very poor words to explain technology).
> 
> You're also suggesting a PC made in 1997 is a good option?  Pfff.
> 
> Mate, i get your point but you're overdoing it.  Id rather a new Intel system with 6GB ram anyday over some slow, noisy POS.  No matter how much you know how to use the OS.  Lol
> 
> I use my machine's capabilities frequently.


Bigfella, no matter how harshly you may state it, you are just about always completely correct. 


NyxCharon said:


> And that's where linux comes into play
> I've seen some dramatic improvements on old hardware when using a very light distro.
> 
> ..I still can't believe you guys are debating all of this.
> I'll stick with linux for everything minus gaming, because for me it just works, and i can customize everything how i want.


^Plus, you actually built your OS.  That's customization right there.


----------



## S.T.A.R.S.

spynoodle said:


> Plus, you actually built your OS. That's customization right there.



Trust me he did not build an OS lol.He just customized it using already finished tools programmed by someone else.And that's a big difference lol.



vistakid10 said:


> ...it just feels slow...



Many people have that feeling just because it's "old".So if for instance they use Windows XP or Windows 7,but they both work the same speed,they will always "feel" that XP is slower just because it's older lol.And that is a GREAT sign which shows that majority of people do not know anything about computer technology lol.Of course I am not saying you are one of them,but many of them are lol.


----------



## spynoodle

S.T.A.R.S. said:


> Trust me he did not build an OS lol.He just customized it using already finished tools programmed by someone else.And that's a big difference lol.


Wow, man. Haters gonna hate...


> Many people have that feeling just because it's "old".So if for instance they use Windows XP or Windows 7,but they both work the same speed,they will always "feel" that XP is slower just because it's older lol.And that is a GREAT sign which shows that majority of people do not know anything about computer technology lol.Of course I am not saying you are one of them,but many of them are lol.


No


----------

