Is Windows 7 is a Vista with name change?

Please read the following article by Jerri Coverstone to find out the answer.

These days computers now have more power than ever, they are capable of doing so much more and doing it faster than ever before, but the current operating systems XP/Vista do not exploit this power but either bog it down (Vista) or just don’t make use of the new technology (XP). I just want my high end stuff to do all it can do and for all the computer users in the world to get there money’s worth. I am tired of spending money and then spending my free game playing time on fixing Operating System problems or rebooting after a crash. It just seems like they don’t want to talk about that, like why no one wants to buy a car that runs on gasoline (we are afraid of $4 gallon gas, (when we know deep down inside that our cars can run on Hydrogen or electricity) We have learned from the past and we want to know if we are going to get something better.

Now—>you have a choice you can read this entire review or just go with the next line and be satisfied with a straight forward, direct to the point review:

Windows 7 is just Vista with a name change!

To me this is really all you need to know, and here is my direct advice to you:
if you like Vista, then just keep it, if you don’t like Vista but think Windows 7 would be better, don’t get your hopes up! Save what hours of life you have and keep on using XP, XP is still the reigning champion in reliability and stability to spite what The MAC guys on TV say “how Mac is better” the truth is (most of the world is a PC for reason) And if it wasn’t for I-pods, Mac couldn’t afford to do any commercials anyway. I will write that blog latter on!

An Operating System I found that I do like:

Well if you can get it and you have a PC that’s supports it then get XP 64 bit, I fully support XP 64, its stable, smooth, quick and well it really is reliable to insure you are productive. It makes use of the high end components of new computers. But well Microsoft took it off the shelves, my copy was an evaluation copy and I was only able to use it for so long. The time I had it I really liked it. I could probably buy it on E-bay, but I keep hoping the NEXT BIG OS from Microsoft will be better!

Do you want to read the full “hard core review”? Then by all means start reading;

Ok I managed to get my hands on a Beta copy of Windows 7 64Bit version (this 64 bit version to me is where the real upgrade begins, a 64bit Operating System is what our new computers can do now and in the future, the 32 bit version of W7 may work fine, but the truth is 32 bit Operating Systems are old limited technology) Now this W7 is billed as the “latest and greatest Operating System (OS) from Microsoft, yes I have placed much consideration to this being a beta copy, and trust me I have sent Microsoft all the bug reports I can to let them know what needs to be fixed.

But the beta testing and the fixable bugs are not what I base my review on. I go into simpler things, stuff that the average person, or employee at a large company thinking about upgrading their operating system needs, wants, and actually can use, I then also figure the justification of the expense involved in upgrading.

Expense in upgrading, well there you go, if anything else this should be the number one reason to consider spending 100 or more dollars on buying a new version of windows, the time it takes to install it, transfer your files, then work out the bugs and glitches of programs that are not compatible, or discovering your hardware isn’t compatible, or the big daddy issue of them all:

That nothing is really different but the paint job!

Yep that’s what I said, and what I ask you; is a pretty desktop or see through window borders really worth it all? If the rest of the OS is still slow, still running on the same “file system (NTFS “experts understand this”) Or mainly if what you have now is working for you?
What I have now works for me, I have already been through the problem fixing stage and if I am going to go through another “problem fixing stage” with a new Operating System it had better be worth it! I know my computer can do so much more, if new O.S. doesn’t make use of that extra power then I will just keep what I’m using now.

OMG I will try to hold back going over the learning curve involved in finding where the same old software and files are now located, or arranged, yes nothing is different, but moved around and you get a flashy new Icon! Too bad this isn’t a review on Office 2007!

So now I will get off the tangent and get back to the Windows 7 review Sorry about that little rant, Microsoft tends to get me worked up sometimes.

Windows 7 Pros, things I liked.

1. I did like the new way of being able shake your open windows and clear the desktop and the neat way to arrange your open windows on the desktop, you see now you can click on the task bar and select arrange side by side, and wow now the windows auto fit on the screen side by side, this help in transferring filed form one folder the next big time. (I seen this on a W7 PROMO video on Microsoft’s website) I then thought to see if XP 32 bit did this (I never really thought to look, and to my surprise it does so no big deal here!)

2. I like the new way, open windows are listed on the task bar, Icons are used and condense into smaller easier to read squares.

3. The install was fast, Boot time is faster, but we all know as soon as we install Antivirus software, games, and we surf the internet that start up programs will begin to mount up and trash those good boot times! I found MSCONFIG was still available and I used it to see if made a difference and it work much the same as XP and Vista. I was hoping by now Microsoft would have addressed the problem of mounting “start up junk” with a more direct approach for the user. I still hold this as a “pro” because if the operating system boots faster on its own the other “START UP JUNK” can be dealt with by a PC tech, and that stuff is not the fault of the O.S.

4. It does not seem to be as resource hungry as Vista. Task Manager shows about a 20% reduction in memory usage. I know I recorded a Vista Ultimate Resource usage directly after a fresh install and there is a calculable change here.

5. Internet connection, wow now this was no problem, I really did nothing to set up the INTERNET connection when OS was done installing I just clicked on new Internet Explorer 8 “IE8″and boom I was online, but I still had to install all the Flash and Java players etc.

6. Eye candy, yea Vista and W7 look allot alike, and there is nothing wrong with a sharper looking desktop. No complaints here.

7. Microsoft fixed annoyances that Vista has, like it always warns you whenever you open or close a window or try to do anything actually, this issue has been dealt with by giving, you the user the control to limit how much the OS bothers you. This was probably the single most complaint average users had with Vista; it is good to see Microsoft provided this option easier for the common user to use.

Now with that noted I will get on with the cons.

1. High end games locked up every time, Crisis for example plays fine on XP but no matter how much I tried I could not get it working in W7. Unreal Tournament 3 crashed too but I installed a “Vista” NVIDIA driver for my video card and a sound card driver (even though W7 said I had the best one available) and UT3 played ok. More on this later! DX10 is perhaps the only reason for a gamer to upgrade their O.S., but already the gaming community has realized there “Frame rates” are still better with XP then Vista. Using W7 I was only able to get Unreal Tournament 3 to play without issue and I seen no definitive difference in game play from W7, Vista, or XP.

2. Text sizing, well this needs work, it gives you and easy to access way to increase text size, but well it also increasing everything not just the text, this I hope is bug and hopefully will be fixed before release. Pretty the same stuff as XP is included (MMM g why not just save a few bucks and keep on using XP?)

3. The gadgets (I am sure this is bug) I kind of actually liked the gadgets, One of the few things I liked about vista actually, but W7 they just quit showing up on the desktop, and I tried to troubleshoot the problem but it’s a fresh install of the OS there really wasn’t much to go with when figuring out what was wrong.

4. Like I said before, getting on line was no work at all, but well when it came time to watch a U-Tube video the 64 bit browser wasn’t compatible with Flash player or vice versa, and the 32 bit version of IE8 acted like it was the 64 bit version and it would not play the video either. I hope this bug gets fixed. I then installed Firefox web browser, and it played the U Tube video just fine.

5. I could not get over how much it reminded me of XP64 bit, except that all my stuff worked with XP64 without any time tasking problems. I mean that Windows 7 64, has the separate folders to divide 32 bit programs and 64 programs, ok no big deal, if only the 64 bit programs worked. I have Crisis 64 bit (crashed hard) I have some 64 bit Linux based software (crashed).

We have 64bit computers these days’ people, it’s time we start using the power! This goes for all software companies not just Microsoft! The real step forward is to go with 64bit, and on to 128 bit etc…

6. Device manager, it’s located in different place, but it is the same old device manager, I had hoped it would have been vamped up to provide a tech more info about the parts in the computer. I found pretty much all the same old semi-helpful stuff, a few changes for IT guys, but this review is for regular everyday users who will probably never use the IT tools. I think a more specific driver data base would be helpful (issue with my sound card would have been solved more quickly had this not told me “you already have the best driver for this device” Well I didn’t and this was 15 minutes of life I will never get back.

7. The scoring system, well this really didn’t take off in Vista, and it’s still here in W7. But now your computer gets the score based on the weakest component. In vista my pc Gets a 6.1. But W7 rates my computer a whopping 2.9, because of my SATA hard drive. Never mind the rest of my computer 4 gigs ram 9450 quad core CPU, 9800gx2 video card, now if I was regular computer user, I would not buy software rated over a 2.9 even though a Hard Drive is not a significant reason not to.

Why I think W7 is Vista with a name Change?

Ok if you have read the pros and cons, you will see I wasn’t totally dogging W7, and I wasn’t taking sides with it either! Microsoft hasn’t paid me squat to test it and I am sure they will never pay me anything for the hours I spent trying to get there old operating systems to work on my own computer. Let alone the fact that Microsoft likes to sell there software before it really works and makes us the users tell them what’s wrong with it after we spent our money. (I think we should get paid for that if you ask me!)

But the education is priceless, really what I know about Windows 95, 98, and ME, isn’t worth dimly now is it! LOL

Ok when did I figure out W7 was actually Vista “degraded” (name changed) etc…. Well I have a NVIDIA 9800 gx2 video card, even novice computer users know what a driver is, (it’s code the operating system uses to make your hardware work for those who don’t know)

Now experts will say you can “ghost” drivers, (make one driver that wasn’t intended for your hardware that was made for something else, work anyway), yes this true, but it’s not easy and usually you have major problems.

I needed a driver for my Video card to work with W7. NVIDIA hasn’t put one out yet, so I used my Vista 64 bit driver, it picked up the W7 as if it were Vista, no hassle, it worked no differently then it does when installed on Vista.

Coincidence?

Could be the 2 operating systems are just that much alike, and if they are just that much alike then just exactly what is so different to justify buying it?

Well I will let the “coders” and Microsoft explain that one away, but for me, after all the testing, and trying to get old and new software to work on W7, I realized all of my software that I have, works on XP, and works without issue.

Will Microsoft tell software companies to quit making software for XP, well yea they already have, but if you are a software company and want to make money you need to make your software work on XP! For me this was a definitive answer to the choice of upgrading.

Do not get me wrong I want to upgrade badly, I have a computer that has 4 possessors built into 1 CPU, the computer has 4 gigs of ram and I want to use more, BUT THE BIG SECRET ( XP 32 bit and Vista 32bit can only go as high 4 gigs of ram) you can put more in your computer but it will just go to waste. (You need a 64 bit OS to be able to use over 4 gigs of ram) THE MORE MEMORY YOU HAVE THE BETTER YOU PC WILL RUN And that said I want a 64 bit OS that uses all this new power and all the memory that I can fit in it!

I know I want my computer to run as fast as my equipment say it can. I want my development software, games, video, audio, and internet to run smooth without error or locking up on me all the time.

Yet W7 does not offer this, even the 64 bit version acts like XP with out any service packs installed. This is harsh I know its just a beta copy, I know, but beta or not, I am looking for real reason to buy it. the bugs will be fixed, but this OS even with the fixed bugs is still based on a (NTFS) file system, and it does nothing faster, it does nothing smother, and it just does nothing “BETTER” then what we already have!

Think about “the future” is this really a step forward for us the consumers? I read a reply from a user from a different blog when Vista came out to market, he stated “we must use Vista because it is the future of computers and we must move on or fall behind”, now we know Vista was “Not all that”

If W7 security was able to encrypt files differently then XP already does (NTFS) that would be something better worth looking into, if W7 came with its own anti virus that used a Microsoft data base to repair its own corrupted files on the fly that would be something better worth looking into. (Defender is not a anti virus, its a cop out and you will notice you will still be bothered by a warning at the bottom right corner of your desktop that (you are not protected please get a anti virus using Windows 7″) Anyway Antivirus programs are probably the largest reason for a computer to run slow, Yes you need one, I will never tell anyone to go without antivirus, the truth is it should be the responsibility of the OS maker to provide a simple means of protecting its own files. (You see you do not own the software, you are paying for a license to use it only).

I really want something new and more powerful, faster, virus proof, and don’t take all day booting up or starting programs. W7 is just more of the same, and I hope some executive at Microsoft reads this and goes back to the drawing board to create a “really” new OS, not throw a new paint job on an old one, or try to degrade a failed one and say it is new.

All in all W7 is billed as a brand new operating system, but in reality all of the good things about W7, could have been achieved with a service pack for Vista.

My disappointment with W7 is that I want a new Operating System, I was so hopeful when I installed it and I do feel Microsoft in the long run is the best you can get, but they are like a bad father who makes promises to take you to the big game and doesn’t show up!

If you spent the time to read this full review, I thank you, I am sure many will agree and many will disagree with what I have said. So I will add this last bit, the decision to spend money on anything in life is yours and yours alone. To make wise decisions you need to hear from many points of view and way out the pros and cons for yourself. I would hope you will take with you what I have said and include it with other reviews or points of views before buying the W7 upgrade. I will not invest in this operating system, but I must greatly explain, that it is not because I hold no animosity against Microsoft. One of the most times consuming, brain busting segments of computing is programming. The job is not glorifying, it is hard work to create a piece of software like an operating system and I fully respect those who are trying to do it.
Report I sent Microsoft:

Media player does not show enhancements  I found them eventually but that was 2 hours I will never get back gadgets do not work when default password is removed (not used so computer will just boot up) Was able to get gadgets working again by reinstating the admin password however after I was able to get gadgets working again by reinstating the password, they disappeared off the desktop entirely, I cannot get them working again a major system crash Trying to play Crisis (video game) The gadgets stopped working again

I updated the game with new patches still crashing (this game plays fine with XP 64bit OS and Vista (well sort of with Vista) Vista driver from NVIDIA works shows Windows 7 driver wile installing makes me think this is actually Vista operating system that Microsoft has stripped down making the text larger actually makes everything larger, including entire web pages
This really needs work (try looking at how a older version of Ubuntu does icon sizing, spacing and text. With Ubuntu you can actually size individual Icons, by right clicking them. Also Windows mail was not found, it is listed in the program files and the folder had all of its components in it. The Screensaver does not stay turned on, it works fine while the PC is on, but the setting reverts to none “none” after a reboot
Screensaver (bubbles) went crazy wile installing (grand theft auto san Andréa’s)

Unreal tournament 3 crashed as well installing Azule audio driver for the onboard audio fixed that to spite best efforts , driver reinstalls game reinstalls ext, Crysis does not play at all with Windows 7 had issues with development tools crashing or not responding
Overall, I tried old stuff and new stuff, and everything I tried is working perfectly with XP 32 bit addition Even if all my software had worked perfectly with W7 I still do not see what difference it as a new operating system makes for my computer experience.
That I am not spending my life fixing problems, so far Xp still offers this.

Don’t get me wrong as A+ cert tech I want a new operating system that makes use of my hardware, I am disappointed that we have had 64 bit Cpu on the market for several years now, and nothing takes advantage of this power, let alone the multicore CPU’s and gobs and gobs of memory with a 32 bit OS maxes out at 4 gigs. (Which if you want to play Crysis you really need 4 gigs of ram to play it without error)!
We don’t need an operating system that hogs the resources, but instead implements them for better performance, look let me use an analogy: let’s say you and have a race car that does 200 mph, but you put a 300lb driver who also doesn’t know how to handle this new race car to drive it (analogy your operating system “Vista”) in the driver seat and trust me the car won’t go 200 mph, or you can put in a really experienced driver that weighs 100 lbs, and let the race car do the rest. I know what you are trying to do this with W7, and it is very obvious all you have done is take the 300lb race car driver and made him loose a few lbs, yes he is lighter, but he still doesn’t have the knowhow to make the new race car run!

Take my analogy for what it’s worth, but I cannot recommend W7 to my customers. To me it is a degraded version of Vista with a name change. Perhaps you should give me a job with you guys, I can show you what the next OS needs to be, and we need a whole new operating system that is light in resource use and strong on using the new technology found in our computers today.

Eye candy is cool, The look of Vista and W7 is pretty much the same, and as much as Vista was a dismal disappointment, I must say the black task bar looks cooler then the task bar in W7 but W7 task bar does more, maybe Microsoft should bring back the look of the Vista taskbar and mix it with the functionality of W7. Just a suggestion.

Other Links:

http://reviewofwindows7.blogspot.com/

http://news.cnet.com/windows-7-beta-first-impressions/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3223

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258632983004629.html

This controversy often sparks heated arguments to say the least. Moreover, there have also been instances of fights, vandalism and worse over which is the best. Windows users claim that Mac users are arrogant, citing that old “computer for the rest of us” advertising while Mac users claim the same about Windows users. Who really cares?

The truth of the matter is that both are about the same. All they are, are different GUIs; slightly different ways of opening applications. Once the application is open, the only differences might be whether you use a single button mouse or a multi-button mouse, and even that difference vanishes with third party hardware.

First of all, we’ll look at some pros and cons for each, then we’ll dispel some myths perpetuated about both platforms. We’ll also see how this plays into which might be better suited for Web design.

Remember, also, that both Microsoft and Apple share a good deal of technology. Both Windows and MacOS use hundreds of patents shared between the two. Also remember that Microsoft makes a lot of software for the Mac including Microsoft Office which was created by a separate department for the Mac.
     
Typography – Mac’s support of typography is a result of years and years involvement with the pre-press industry. Type-styles rendered with a Mac just plain transfer better when submitted to a service bureau. You get what you saw. If you’re into pre-press Mac is the clear winner here.
     
Video Subsystem – Windows open architecture and PCI bus allow a wide non-saturated video subsystem. Video cards are made which exceed 6 Gigaflops of geometric rendering. Mac, though PCI, has a severely bottle-necked video subsystem so if you’re into advanced 3-D rendering, Windows is the clear winner here.
     
Postscript Support - Mac natively supports both postscipt and PDF formats making them the clear winning here. Again, if you’re into pre-press, Mac makes a lot of sense.
     
Raw Speed – Windows PCs have a serious edge here. Where time is money, processor speed can be very important. Regardless of how hard Mac advertising attempts to claim that the slower clock speed Macs are really just as fast as a PC, it just ain’t so and proven so by every bench test out there. If you have the “need for speed” in gaming, software development, 3D rendering and other applications, Windows is the clear winner here.  
     
Color Matching – Apple is the only OS and hardware which supports Colorsync™, the industry standard for “what you see is what you get” color matching. If you want your advertising copy of an egg to come out of the press with the same yellow you saw on the screen, Mac is for you.
     
Web Design – Now this will be a hot one. In my opinion the clear choice here is Windows. I say this for two reasons.

First, 95% of the people surfing the Web use Windows on PCs. If you want to be able to design in an atmosphere where you see pretty much what that 95% sees, then Windows just plain makes sense.
Secondly, though many technologies are available for the Mac, Windows technology isn’t and much of the Web uses this technology. If you want to take advantage of .NET technology or ASP, it’s just way easier to implement from a Windows platform.
 
     
Ease of Use – I give Mac the edge here, though the difference is pretty small with the release of Windows XP. Windows binary Plug-in-Play is no longer “Plug-n-Pray” and though technologically superior to Mac doesn’t get the job done as nicely. By using nearly draconian messures and monopolistic threats, Apple has been able to maintain tight control over makers of third party hardware. What this means to you is an easier to use system, but with much less choice in add-ons.
     
Software Availability – Though many might argue that anything you might need is available for Mac, and though almost all generic task software is, industry specific software is not. For example, if you own.. say a lawnmower repair shop, you might want software written exclusively to run lawn mower repair shops. You just won’t find it on the shelf or by mail order for the Mac, while you have several to choose from for Windows, maybe even for free or cheap as shareware downloads.

You might argue that you can adapt database and spreadsheet software to need, but it’s just not as easy. Advantage to Windows.
 
Coolness Factor – What can I say? Mac wins. Look at that new i-Mac or the i-Pod. It beats a biege box.
     
Geek Factor (I’m one) – Windows wins (Linux beats that and BSD might beat Linux)

FAT16
The FAT16 file system was introduced way back with MS–DOS in 1981, and it’s showing its age. It was designed originally to handle files on a floppy drive, and has had minor modifications over the years so it can handle hard disks, and even file names longer than the original limitation of 8.3 characters, but it’s still the lowest common denominator. The biggest advantage of FAT16 is that it is compatible across a wide variety of operating systems, including Windows 95/98/Me, OS/2, Linux, and some versions of UNIX. The biggest problem of FAT16 is that it has a fixed maximum number of clusters per partition, so as hard disks get bigger and bigger, the size of each cluster has to get larger. In a 2–GB partition, each cluster is 32 kilobytes, meaning that even the smallest file on the partition will take up 32 KB of space. FAT16 also doesn’t support compression, encryption, or advanced security using access control lists.

FAT32
The FAT32 file system, originally introduced in Windows 95 Service Pack 2, is really just an extension of the original FAT16 file system that provides for a much larger number of clusters per partition. As such, it greatly improves the overall disk utilization when compared to a FAT16 file system. However, FAT32 shares all of the other limitations of FAT16, and adds an important additional limitation—many operating systems that can recognize FAT16 will not work with FAT32—most notably Windows NT, but also Linux and UNIX as well. Now this isn’t a problem if you’re running FAT32 on a Windows XP computer and sharing your drive out to other computers on your network—they don’t need to know (and generally don’t really care) what your underlying file system is.

The Advantages of NTFS
The NTFS file system, introduced with first version of Windows NT, is a completely different file system from FAT. It provides for greatly increased security, file–by–file compression, quotas, and even encryption. It is the default file system for new installations of Windows XP, and if you’re doing an upgrade from a previous version of Windows, you’ll be asked if you want to convert your existing file systems to NTFS. Don’t worry. If you’ve already upgraded to Windows XP and didn’t do the conversion then, it’s not a problem. You can convert FAT16 or FAT32 volumes to NTFS at any point. Just remember that you can’t easily go back to FAT or FAT32 (without reformatting the drive or partition), not that I think you’ll want to.

The NTFS file system is generally not compatible with other operating systems installed on the same computer, nor is it available when you’ve booted a computer from a floppy disk. For this reason, many system administrators, myself included, used to recommend that users format at least a small partition at the beginning of their main hard disk as FAT. This partition provided a place to store emergency recovery tools or special drivers needed for reinstallation, and was a mechanism for digging yourself out of the hole you’d just dug into. But with the enhanced recovery abilities built into Windows XP (more on that in a future column), I don’t think it’s necessary or desirable to create that initial FAT partition.

When to Use FAT or FAT32
If you’re running more than one operating system on a single computer (see Dual booting in Guides), you will definitely need to format some of your volumes as FAT. Any programs or data that need to be accessed by more than one operating system on that computer should be stored on a FAT16 or possibly FAT32 volume. But keep in mind that you have no security for data on a FAT16 or FAT32 volume—any one with access to the computer can read, change, or even delete any file that is stored on a FAT16 or FAT32 partition. In many cases, this is even possible over a network. So do not store sensitive files on drives or partitions formatted with FAT file systems.