This may be weird, but I like Vista more than Win 7

J

jordan12

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Messages
10,236
Guys,

I have been using this for about 6 days now. I gotta say that I am just as happy with Vista. Personally, I was never unhappy with Vista.

I really want to love Win 7, and I do not hate it at all. But I am thinking I was just fine with Vista..

I will probably go to Win 7 at some point, but not in a rush after using for this length of time..

Am I by myself with this one
 
Nothing weird about that whatsoever. If you're comfortable with Vista and not finding anything 'new' about Windows 7 to excite or interest you, then no point to changing yet, is there?
 
i feel the exact same way, but Steve Gibson mentioned that the security is better in windows 7, and Paul Thurott has listed several hundred new features in windows 7. Worth $50 IMHO.

But yeah, the upgrade from XP to Vista was vastly nicer than the upgrade from Vista to 7.

Vista is just so noticably more stable then XP that its a wonder why I put up with XP for such a long time...

but thats not a feature you can advertise, and not a feature anybody can be "wow"-ed over with.
 
Outside of some GUI enhancements and a little lighter memory/cpu usage (which doesn't result in better gaming results on high end systems), it's really very similar. If you have Vista already, unless your on old hardware and it's really being sluggish, there's no reason to upgrade.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
i feel the exact same way, but Steve Gibson mentioned that the security is better in windows 7, and Paul Thurott has listed several hundred new features in windows 7. Worth $50 IMHO.

But yeah, the upgrade from XP to Vista was vastly nicer than the upgrade from Vista to 7.

Vista is just so noticably more stable then XP that its a wonder why I put up with XP for such a long time...

but thats not a feature you can advertise, and not a feature anybody can be "wow"-ed over with.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a more specific link about Win 7 being more secure than Vista? That link you posted goes to a bunch of unrelated stuff, and I hadn't heard of any big changes between the two in the security sector.

As far as 7 vs Vista, 7 does have some nice stuff I would like, but I must admit I am happy with Vista x64, it's stable and everything works, and I'm loath to upgrade the OS to find out if something doesn't work. Yes, I tried the RC, and right now I can not get SLI + multi-monitor resizing to work, whereas it works in Vista, I'm pretty sure it's an nvidia issue and I've filed numerous bug reports, nothing to do but wait now. So I'll be dual-booting Vista + 7 for a while until everything I need/want works in 7 as well as Vista, then I'll switch completely to 7. 7 doesn't have the 'wow' features you got from XP->Vista, but all the little things add up.
 
It's nice to hear from the other side about Win 7 and security upgrades is always an issue to upgrade. (lol)
I guess Vista still has it uses for a while after all. Thanks for the input, I never did like to jump in and follow the up-graders until I heard from both sides of the users,
I'm sure there are other people who feel the same but don't express there opinions because its already installed, I know I'm guilty and just got complacent with it.
 
Sounds like I am not exactly alone here..

Vista got a bad rap because MS decided to do the right thing and leave older things out and not be backwards compatible. And drivers was also an issue..

But vista is a great OS and I just cant bring myself to stay with Win 7. Not yet anyway
 
devil22 said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a more specific link about Win 7 being more secure than Vista?
Click to expand...

I'm calling it wrong.

Here's the TechNet spiel regarding 'enhanced security' in Windows 7:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd560691.aspx

UAC

In actual fact UAC under a default Windows 7 install is a lesser level of protection than was the case for Vista, because not as much is occurring under the added protection of 'Secure Desktop'. If a person wants to match the security level of Vista the first thing he or she should do is alter the UAC settings to bump the slider back up to "Full" protection!

Auditing/BitLocker/Applocker

These 'added security' features aren't really relevent to the vast bulk of standalone 'personal use' Windows users, so as added security they're really just an illusion. The supposed 'extra security' in the new OS version is enhancement for the benefit of corporations, and doesn'yt do diddley-squat for personal/provate users.
 
I never liked Vista, still don't, but that's just a personal preference (which I have stated around here since long before Vista came out), but I do like - no, I'll say I love Windows 7 (remarkably, I've been stating that around here since long before Windows 7 came out). :D

I can't exactly say why, or put it into words that other people would understand. The most basic thing that comes to mind when I try is something like "It's Ford vs Chevy" and that's about as simple as I can put it. You either get it, or you don't. It's not a Coke vs Pepsi thing as I actually like and drink both about the same percentage, nor chocolate vs vanilla for the same reason...

It's so weird not to be able to explain it sometimes. But I do love Windows 7, and I simply don't like Vista.

Vista had/has its issues, just as Windows 7 does. I guess for me Windows 7 seems to fit in far better with how I prefer to do things, accomplish tasks, etc. Even that doesn't quite cover it adequately, if barely at all actually.

BLEH.

I'll say Vista was a step in the right direction with a lot of things (but not for me)... and Windows 7 takes that, builds on it, and runs with it...
 
Lol, I still like vista and honestly if W7 wasnt comming out I was more than satisfied with Vista, but then again I just go with the flow so w/e.
 
Having just switched to Win 7 a couple days ago I'm pretty underwhelmed. I was also one of those who switched to Vista as soon as it released and I never had any problems at all. It was always stable, everything worked and it was fast doing all the things I do with my computer.

In fact it was kind of funny because from how people gush about Win 7 I figured it'd be wtf amazing but in reality its just Vista that uses a little less ram, uses gadgets a bit different and has a different taskbar (which i will admit I do like a lot).

Other than that I'm hard pressed to see anything really revolutionary about it.

Like others said going from XP to Vista was a much bigger wow factor than going from Vista to Win 7 has been, at least so far.
 
I agree with you, I like Vista a lot. It's stable and fast on my system unlike XP. I like Windows 7 but there wasn't enough there for me to actually buy it. I may buy it in the future but for now I'm sticking with Vista.
 
I've always liked Vista (probably because I didn't install it on release, and when I did, it was on a new machine), and have never been overly excited about Windows 7 - it brings some improvements, but nothing I consider particularly compelling for an upgrade. On the other hand, for £45 (the offer was equivalent to $75 here) I preordered Windows 7 Home Premium anyway.
 
I just got my technet sub so I'll be dual booting until everything pans out (read ATI drivers, not that I'm having any problems but I haven't really gamed on W7 yet).

Vistax64 is great to me, I never had a real problem with it. I think the main reason why W7 is hailed as a second coming is because Vista got such a bad rep at the start. Alot of people who first saw Vista as a piece of crap now see W7 and seeing it works flawlessly they're like OMG ALL HAIL. I do agree that Vista beta/rc was riddled with issues, but that wasn't the fault of MS. MS took a huge step in the right direction with their WHQL shit and stuff. Now I just install Vista or W7 and I don't have to peck and hunt drivers for client reinstalls (read, shitty dell computers).

It is a bit saddening to see MS give in to the whole UAC is annoying and making things more unsecure. I always tell clients that if the UAC pops up and you didn't specifically do anything like running an .exe or program you have installed, always click no and give me a call. So far, all my Vista client's haven't had any real issues with malware/spyware, but my WinXP users ALWAYS get some crap.

I will admit that I love the new taskbar alot and the fact that I can actually have a link in the start menu to my Downloads folder (curse you Vista). Also, W7 just feels SO much smoother on my netbook.
 
Nothing wrong with Vista at all.
Most people like to spin the story "Vista sucks and need to get away from it ASAP!" Not the case.

It's just that Windows 7 is such a fine operating system, it's worth upgrading to. The performance enhances in itself (how they did it, I still don't know) are awesome. The new taskbar is great, too.
Performance is my #1. And then little things all throughout (WMP minimized gives you a mini-player in the preview window...) make it awesome.

I'll be taking the Desktop, Laptop, and MediaCenter machine to Windows 7 this weekend :D
 
I might have to go Vista...

At work I'm familiar with all type of OSes. I've just been an XP guy. However, finally, with my new computer, I had an excuse to use Win 7 or Vista. I went with Win 7 since it was optimized for SSDs (but it turns out it didn't even detect mine... had to do all my settings myself... another story) but now if you see farther down in this forum, I can't get the d****ed nVidia drivers to work with my monitor.

GRRR. At least I know Vista SP2 is something to depend on, I've had a great time with it at work, and I'm sick of the stalls/slowness that is XP.
 
IMO there's plenty wrong with Vista, but most issues do not affect pc's with a fast CPU and plenty of RAM.


TechieSooner said:
Nothing wrong with Vista at all.
Most people like to spin the story "Vista sucks and need to get away from it ASAP!" Not the case.

It's just that Windows 7 is such a fine operating system, it's worth upgrading to. The performance enhances in itself (how they did it, I still don't know) are awesome. The new taskbar is great, too.
Performance is my #1. And then little things all throughout (WMP minimized gives you a mini-player in the preview window...) make it awesome.

I'll be taking the Desktop, Laptop, and MediaCenter machine to Windows 7 this weekend :D
Click to expand...
 
veritas7 said:
I might have to go Vista...

At work I'm familiar with all type of OSes. I've just been an XP guy. However, finally, with my new computer, I had an excuse to use Win 7 or Vista. I went with Win 7 since it was optimized for SSDs (but it turns out it didn't even detect mine... had to do all my settings myself... another story) but now if you see farther down in this forum, I can't get the d****ed nVidia drivers to work with my monitor.

GRRR. At least I know Vista SP2 is something to depend on, I've had a great time with it at work, and I'm sick of the stalls/slowness that is XP.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the fustration but you are talking about driver support here and remember, WINDOWS 7 IS STILL UNRELEASED!!!!!!!!!! There will a lot of driver work going on the next couple of months and for a device like an SSD I would fully expect that 7 support will be solid. SSD's aren't going into old XP machines for what they cost. Windows 7 users will be buying the bulk of them soon.
 
veritas7 said:
I might have to go Vista...

At work I'm familiar with all type of OSes. I've just been an XP guy. However, finally, with my new computer, I had an excuse to use Win 7 or Vista. I went with Win 7 since it was optimized for SSDs (but it turns out it didn't even detect mine... had to do all my settings myself... another story) but now if you see farther down in this forum, I can't get the d****ed nVidia drivers to work with my monitor.

GRRR. At least I know Vista SP2 is something to depend on, I've had a great time with it at work, and I'm sick of the stalls/slowness that is XP.
Click to expand...
#1- You tried the RC (or Beta). Wait until the Final is released for starters.
#2- At setup you can load third-party drivers for your hard disks... Download your SSD's driver for setup and then the rest of it is history.

Stoly said:
IMO there's plenty wrong with Vista, but most issues do not affect pc's with a fast CPU and plenty of RAM.
Click to expand...
It's not often you see a contradiction right in the same sentence.
You're faulting insufficient hardware as "plenty wrong" with Vista. Vista is not hardware.
Drivers, Hardware, Third-part apps... These are all things that Microsoft has very limited control over.
 
how is it a contradiction?

I have dozens of customers who think vista is the worst thing ever. and almost all of them have laptops with 1 or 2gb of RAM. Many of them switched to XP, but since Win7 came out I started recommending it instead. So far I have yet to recieve a single complaint from the ones who switched to windows 7RC.

So if moving from vista to 7 solved their problems, then it has nothing to do with hardware, apps, nor drivers.

There's plenty wrong with vista, the fact that you NEED a fast CPU and plenty of ram just to make it work right is the best evidence.
 
I loved vista but I like win 7 even better. Why? It is really faster. Even though I have a q6600 overclocked to 3.0 ghz with 4 gb of ram, I could still see the speed difference in win 7.

Mostly in installing programs and reboot time is a hell lot quicker. Win 7 is a great os so is vista. Win 7 is better in the fact that it is faster. Other than that I don't see too much difference in win 7 and vista.
 
Stoly said:
how is it a contradiction?

I have dozens of customers who think vista is the worst thing ever. and almost all of them have laptops with 1 or 2gb of RAM. Many of them switched to XP, but since Win7 came out I started recommending it instead. So far I have yet to recieve a single complaint from the ones who switched to windows 7RC.

So if moving from vista to 7 solved their problems, then it has nothing to do with hardware, apps, nor drivers.

There's plenty wrong with vista, the fact that you NEED a fast CPU and plenty of ram just to make it work right is the best evidence.
Click to expand...

I can understand your point and I think it’s pretty much a fact that 7 is a lot lighter than Vista. That said, I've put Vista on plenty of machines with 2GB and various CPUs from the past 6 years and it ran fine. 1GB is not ideal but I've put Vista on machines with as little as 768MB and it ran ok. That was home basic in that case, no areo, media center, stuff like that but it was a 2002 machine with no support for aero anyway. That machine has been runing just fine (knock on wood) for a friend of my wife's for over a year. Just used for web surfing and what not but no problems and it gets the job done.

Vista performance problems are VASTLY over exaggerated.
 
Just for the people quoting me before... I was using the "AR TI EM" version of Windows 7... so it should've known after the Winsat/Performance check that I was running an SSD like the Win 7 blog said it should have.

Also, yes, I know, it's nVidia. But still, I'm using the latest GPU of theirs, one of the latest chipsets (that's been out for at least 1+ year) and Win 7 isn't so much different in terms of GPU usage than Vista... argh...
 
heatlesssun said:
I can understand your point and I think it’s pretty much a fact that 7 is a lot lighter than Vista. That said, I've put Vista on plenty of machines with 2GB and various CPUs from the past 6 years and it ran fine. 1GB is not ideal but I've put Vista on machines with as little as 768MB and it ran ok. That was home basic in that case, no areo, media center, stuff like that but it was a 2002 machine with no support for aero anyway. That machine has been runing just fine (knock on wood) for a friend of my wife's for over a year. Just used for web surfing and what not but no problems and it gets the job done.

Vista performance problems are VASTLY over exaggerated.
Click to expand...

+1. The hate for Vista at work here is sickening.
 
heatlesssun said:
I can understand your point and I think it’s pretty much a fact that 7 is a lot lighter than Vista. That said, I've put Vista on plenty of machines with 2GB and various CPUs from the past 6 years and it ran fine. 1GB is not ideal but I've put Vista on machines with as little as 768MB and it ran ok. That was home basic in that case, no areo, media center, stuff like that but it was a 2002 machine with no support for aero anyway. That machine has been runing just fine (knock on wood) for a friend of my wife's for over a year. Just used for web surfing and what not but no problems and it gets the job done.

Vista performance problems are VASTLY over exaggerated.
Click to expand...

+2

And the nonsense is further exacerbated by the number of people who've jumped in to disable Vista features (because people on the internet told them to!) and not relaised that they were actually degrading performance by doing so!
 
Catweazle said:
+2

And the nonsense is further exacerbated by the number of people who've jumped in to disable Vista features (because people on the internet told them to!) and not relaised that they were actually degrading performance by doing so!
Click to expand...

Vista "tuning" was definately a fun thing to do with this type of crowd. Not sure where it got anyone.
 
Biggest laugh of all was the people who'd cite Tweak Guide's 'Vista optimisation' guide as the justification for their tweaks and disablements. Anybody who'd actually READ that document properly would realise that it actually advises AGAINST performing tweaks and disablements to Vista, and gives clear reasonings why. About the only 'tweak' genuinely encouraged in the entire dcument is the one to correct folder views behaviour :D
 
Stoly said:
I have dozens of customers who think vista is the worst thing ever.
Click to expand...
There we have it, folks. Hearsay is now fully justifiable evidence.


Stoly said:
and almost all of them have laptops with 1 or 2gb of RAM. Many of them switched to XP, but since Win7 came out I started recommending it instead. So far I have yet to recieve a single complaint from the ones who switched to windows 7RC.
Click to expand...
I must be the only one that caught this, but WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU RECOMMENDING A RELEASE CANDIDATE TO CUSTOMERS?
That's the most ignorant thing I've read today.

What are you going to do in 2010 when all the RCs die?
 
TechieSooner said:
I must be the only one that caught this, but WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU RECOMMENDING A RELEASE CANDIDATE TO CUSTOMERS?
That's the most ignorant thing I've read today.

What are you going to do in 2010 when all the RCs die?
Click to expand...

Actually I've done this to a few machines for family members. I told them upfront that they would have to acquire Windows 7 by spring next year and to be honest they didn't seem to have much of a problem with that. And they are loving the RC.

So as long as he explained to his customers the situation and they understood I think this was a valid thing to do.
 
Nope. I'm kinda in agreement with Techie Sooner to be quite honest.

I'd be hesitant to advise anyone to run on a Release Candidate issue for their everyday computing, unless maybe it was:

  • A person who I am am fully confident has the ability/capacity to completely redo their own rig.
  • A machine which I was personally responsible for the maintenace/problem solving on, and in this second scenario I'd be accepting up front that it was me who'd eventually need to do all the data backups, software reinstallations and configuration settings replications on that machine.


Because otherwise I'm advising somebody to risk losing all their 'stuff' when time comes to redo the rig. Because out there in the 'real world' the bulk of people just USE their bloody machines, and struggle when reinstall time comes around.


I think it's a quite questionable practice to 'advise customers' to run an RC release as their primary/sole OS. It's provided with warnings that it isn't suitable for such purposes, and that should be Full Stop! End of Story!
 
I preferred the more aggressive behavior of superfetch under Windows Vista. It seems like it was nerfed because people couldn't handle seeing their hard drive being accessed constantly right after boot.
 
jordan12 said:
Sounds like I am not exactly alone here..

Vista got a bad rap because MS decided to do the right thing and leave older things out and not be backwards compatible. And drivers was also an issue..

But vista is a great OS and I just cant bring myself to stay with Win 7. Not yet anyway
Click to expand...

Microsoft absolutely did the right thing by leaving out a ton of old shitty code and models. They've been needing to do it for forever. But nooo, people bitched and complained because their 13 year old printer that uses a serial port didn't work or that Vista wouldn't run on a Pentium III. Vista is and always will be a fantastic OS, and 7 is just a progression of the awesomeness. But 7 is not without it's bugs (which of course will be fixed).
 
GotNoRice said:
I preferred the more aggressive behavior of superfetch under Windows Vista. It seems like it was nerfed because people couldn't handle seeing their hard drive being accessed constantly right after boot.
Click to expand...

same here, after the first few days or so of it getting things all sorted, it wasn't even raping the hard drive anymore on my build...and programs launched faster than any other system i have used.....although, windows 7 rc 7100 seems to be nearly as fast without actually seeming like it is using as many resources

matter of perception for most, when people would complain about vista using their hardware i would tell them to take out half the ram and set it on the desk if they want more "free memory"
 
Jon55 said:
But 7 is not without it's bugs (which of course will be fixed).
Click to expand...
Like what?
Beta built on 7, so Beta was stable as can be. RC fixed most of the bugs, leaving Final to mostly be the last addition of features and code enhancement.

GotNoRice said:
I preferred the more aggressive behavior of superfetch under Windows Vista. It seems like it was nerfed because people couldn't handle seeing their hard drive being accessed constantly right after boot.
Click to expand...
Honestly I cannot tell the difference. Windows 7 caches just as good as Vista does. But it does it with better performance. How they did it, I have no idea. I wouldn't think code polishment alone could give us this good of performance boost, but I could be wrong.
 
TechieSooner said:
Honestly I cannot tell the difference. Windows 7 caches just as good as Vista does. But it does it with better performance. How they did it, I have no idea. I wouldn't think code polishment alone could give us this good of performance boost, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Well with Vista superfetch wouldn't stop until all the available ram was used for cache. With Windows 7, it seems to use about half the available ram for cache right away, then very slowly over the next few hours it will use the remaining ram. I can't think of any advantage to not using it all right away other than not giving people the impression it is bogging down the drive. But especially now that I have an SSD, hard drive access is not a concern.
 
devil22 said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a more specific link about Win 7 being more secure than Vista? That link you posted goes to a bunch of unrelated stuff, and I hadn't heard of any big changes between the two in the security sector.

...
Click to expand...

Catweazle said:
I'm calling it wrong.

Here's the TechNet spiel regarding 'enhanced security' in Windows 7:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd560691.aspx
Click to expand...

Windows 7 Security
24:01 - 01:21:15

Windows 7 offers:

A Biometric Framework
Extended authentication protocols for small networks.
An improved BitLocker, they've added BitLocker support for removable drives
Some changes to User Account Control
Something new called AppLocker
Fixed firewall policies to make them better
DNSSEC, DNS security support in the client
Fixed autoplay so that it defaults in the right way
Direct Connect that works with their built-in VPN client
The biometric framework offers an API to finger print readers
Click to expand...

the proposed specs for "DNSSEC" is the only true answer for the terrifying prospect of ISP-DNS poisoning.
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
Well with Vista superfetch wouldn't stop until all the available ram was used for cache. With Windows 7, it seems to use about half the available ram for cache right away, then very slowly over the next few hours it will use the remaining ram. I can't think of any advantage to not using it all right away other than not giving people the impression it is bogging down the drive. But especially now that I have an SSD, hard drive access is not a concern.
Click to expand...

And if you have an SSD anyway, then Superfetch and ReadyBoost services are disabled by default...
 
MrWizard6600 said:
..DNSSEC...
Click to expand...

And, as I understand it, we can probably maybe begin to get excited about that end of next year or the beginning of the following year. Maybe.

It's a potential security enhancement rather than an actualised security enhancement. At this point in time, anyways.
 
If you want a VERY detailed view of why 7 security is better than Vista's : http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-197.htm

There's some good stuff here, BitLocker, AppLocker (new in 7, this is a KILLER security feature). Steve even defends the changes as UAC as being good and not reducing security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top