[UltimateSilence]

Why Windows Vista (SP1+) is Better Than Windows 7

IMHO, it is a very fine article.
I hope it was alright to post this.

This post has been edited by UltimateSilence: 14 February 2012 - 01:31 AM

[Vince4Amy]

I've been saying this since before Windows 7 came out so it's nice that there's an article which agrees with this.

[Tripredacus]

It is unfortunate that by the time SP1 came out, so many people were scared off from Vista. I remember working with one particular client who was looking at switching to Vista but they couldn't get enough performance for their platform. So they shelved the project. When SP1 RTMed I tested it with their demo system and it was a lot faster. I told them but at that point they had gone to "waiting for Windows 7" or switch to Embedded mode.

[CoffeeFiend]

UltimateSilence, on 14 February 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

I hope it was alright to post this.

It definitely is.

There's a few users that share that opinion for sure. But the vast majority much prefer Win7, myself included. I used Vista for a while and I was pretty happy with it, but the taskbar is sooooo much better in Win7. That alone makes me want never to go back.

For the record, I strongly disagree with most of his points (the ones I read anyway):

Quote

where’d the QuickLaunch go?

I always turned that feature off to begin with. And it was made redundant with the new taskbar, which he doesn't seem to "get".

Quote

Oh, right, it got consumed into the massive start menu.

Massive how? Besides, why does that even matter (I actually make mine bigger)? 99% of the time you just press the start key on your keyboard, type a few letters and press enter. Nevermind that pinning apps is much better than using the start menu for starting most of your common apps, or opening recent (or pinned) document so you find yourself using it a great deal less.

Quote

Where’d the Show Desktop icon go?

By the clock. Just a different corner of the screen. That's serious nitpicking and it sounds like "don't you move anything!" to me. Either ways, Win+D or Win+M or Win+Space is much quicker than either. Mousing over to either one is such a huge waste of time, and just how often do you need to see your desktop anyway (unless you rely on desktop icons for everything still, Win95-style)?

Quote

Windows Mail

Does he miss outlook express too? There's better clients for free if you're into traditional mail clients, and if you want something full featured/high quality then you use Outlook anyway. And it doesn't really make much sense for MS to maintain 2 different mail clients either, and the one in the Live suite gets updated more often. Total non-issue once more.

Quote

Photo Gallery

Quote

Movie Maker

Again, they replaced a stale program that only gets security updates, for one in the Live suite that gets updated. Or maybe this guy doesn't like free updates.

Quote

DreamScene

Yes, why did they remove a pointless CPU-sucking feature, only to show video on the desktop which you almost never see? I miss this *almost* as bad as Clippy. Nevermind it wasn't part of the standard Vista install either -- it was an *addon*, and *only* for the Ultimate edition too.

The title of that section was "removes features", yet there are no features removed (not like you can't print anymore, or that they removed the start menu), it's just a couple secondary programs that get installed in a different way, not that you can't do stuff anymore. He really blows it out of proportion.

Systray icons being hidden by default is a godsend as far as I'm concerned. It's a great way to solve the problem that every company thinks they must have a pointless icon there. What a pointless waste of space for stuff you never use! And if you actually do use the odd one then it's like 2 clicks to re-add it in the config dialog. It seems like he's the only guy left on earth who still uses these extensively and wants to see them all for some unknown reason. I click that arrow thing less than once a week.

His WMP 12 vs WMP 11 blurb is just a matter of his personal preferences. He has no actual point here in any way... You could use the exact same words while complaining about WMP11 vs WMP12 and you'd be just as right. I guess he needed something to pad his list of non-issues. I find WMP 12 to be better, especially for streaming content (and DLNA support) and also for music shared between PCs. It also supports more formats out of the box.

etc.

Quote

The bottom line is: where’s the upgrade?

You mean, besides everything you willingly overlook, fantastic changes you either discount or seem to actively resist (being too set in old ways), etc? Or does "better" for him means not moving anything around (like the show desktop icon or WMP layout), still having a system tray cluttered with useless tray icons -- along with the quickstart bar -- both eating in the taskbar zone (combined with the old large buttons so it's really cramped)?, and in general not really offering any changes that might change the way we work?

I personally find Win7 far better all-around, even though Vista was alright too (better than XP). But if you want a list of things that are better:

-The taskbar. Pinning common apps. Jump lists. Nice, big, easily recognizable icons instead of a crappy large button with text that takes too long to read and a tiny icon you can barely recognize. A million times this. This point alone is reason enough for me to upgrade to Win7. It's very much a game changer as far as I'm concerned. The day I tried it, Vista was dead to me. The rest (everything below and then some) is just icing on the cake.
-Lighter on resources which is a very big deal for almost everyone who actually used both. That includes lots of significant low-level improvements, including many big changes in the video department (new driver model, improved GDI concurrency, reduced memory usage by DWM, etc)
-Tamed UAC.
-DirectX 11. 'nuff said. But not just for games. Direct2D/DirectWrite is great too for new 2D apps.
-Aero Snap. It's a godsend when you work with multiple things open at once and also for moving windows between monitors. Even just for maximizing apps and the like. Using the Windows key + arrows mainly, but snapping Windows to the border is handy sometimes too.
-Desktop slideshow. Much nicer, and far less resource hungry than Dreamscene, and it's not only for the Ultimate edition either.
-SSD TRIM support, since SSDs are getting quite popular
-The improved start menu, including the improved search (I can't remember the last time I went to the control panel directly to find something), seeing recent docs (jump lists) by your apps (the little arrow), being able to change the default "shutdown" action from the start menu to something else you use more often (like reboot), etc
-ISO burning and other nice explorer improvements e.g. copy as path on right click, or the bar that shows how much free space left you have is now also being on USB drives
-Windows XP mode (there's better solutions, but it's still an improvement over Vista's nothing)
-PowerShell 2 out of the box for admins, ditto for the WMI improvements
-.NET framework 3.5 out of the box (great for devs), IIS 7.5 too
-Taskbar icon improvements e.g. progress bars when copying files
-Improved keyboard shortcuts for those of us who use the keyboard a lot
-New calculator, paint and wordpad (IE too)
-Many networking advances, including new VPN tech, an improved RDP protocol, etc. And tons more low-level stuff most people wouldn't know about or understand.
-the Cleartype tuner now being built-in. You mean not only programs get removed? They actually added some? Even some which Vista had removed like the "Internet" games? Oh...

Nevermind countless other features that don't get used often or by not many, like Multi-touch, support newer monitors whose gamut extends over the sRGB color space, the tablet PC input panel (not just useful on tablet PCs -- it's nice to enter math formulas using my Wacom tablet too), MUI improvements, new SAPI voices if you use speech synthesis, etc. There's FAR too much stuff to even attempt to make a complete list.

[JorgeA]

CoffeeFiend, on 14 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

There's a few users that share that opinion for sure.

CoffeeFiend,

I'm one of them.

My preference for Vista stems as much from esthetic considerations as it does from functional ones. The first time I saw the default Windows 7 desktop, my first thought was -- ugh, how plain and washed-out. And the first word that came to mind when I saw that fat taskbar with the big icons was, "gaudy." (Well, OK, it was a choice Spanish word, but I can't post that here as it would violate at least two Forum rules. )

I also generally dislike hieroglyphics, finding writing much more immediately informative, and so those wordless taskbar icons on the left are annoying. (There's a reason that picture writing fell out of favor millennia ago, isn't there?) To this day, the first thing I do when setting up a new Win7 system is to only "combine when full" the taskbar icons and cut the height of the taskbar in half, so that I can get my preferred written (and discreetly sized) labels back. Now, if there were a way to recreate the "convex" Vista-style taskbar without resorting to error-prone hacks like they have in DeviantArt...

I have found no particular use for "libraries" and I tend to view them as another step (like the "Favorite Links" in Vista's version of Explorer and the "My Documents" link in Win98 Explorer) in the direction of encouraqging the user away from knowledge of the actual locations of files. Just show me the directories where the files are, thank you.

All that said, I do recognize that Windows 7 does feature a number of improvements, and so I view Win7 as a worthy successor to Vista -- and light-years ahead of Windows 8.

--JorgeA

[vinifera]

quoting guy from article...

Quote

challenge someone to list 7 reasons why Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista

1. has MinWin with kernel
2. much better file manager
3. not so agressive with RAM pre-alocating aka eating it
4. much improved taskbar, the old stacking was terrible and thumbnails in vista were useless
5. Win7 was built on top of Vista SP1 codebase, so yeah its better by default
6. is more modular with components/removal than vista is
7. ... ?

I'm missing 7th

Quote

... so they don’t really count. Those could easily be implemented into Vista

well hell, you can say that for Vista -> XP, XP has capability of many things that Vista had ...

Quote

Microsoft later attempted to “prove” that they had fixed Vista with the Mojave Experiment ...
Evidently, over 90% of the participants thought it was great and an improvement over XP

this was a scam, nobody even wondered what uneducated IT people did they pick
and what educated IT ones they did, and how many

JorgeA, on 15 February 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

Now, if there were a way to recreate the "convex" Vista-style taskbar without resorting to error-prone hacks

there is a way, but doubt you'd want to go that way
Windows 7 build 6801, last one that had Vista taskbar in use (while new taskbar was disabled), and you still get Windows 7 explorer

basically you'd run Vista SP1 with Windows 7 explorer and Direct X 10.1
but no updates would work that of Win 7 RTM/SP1
and you'd have a bit buggier OS with some features missing that are in RTM of 7

This post has been edited by vinifera: 15 February 2012 - 08:09 AM

[Tripredacus]

CoffeeFiend, on 14 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

-Aero Snap. It's a godsend when you work with multiple things open at once and also for moving windows between monitors. Even just for maximizing apps and the like. Using the Windows key + arrows mainly, but snapping Windows to the border is handy sometimes too.

I use the snap feature all the time. I was surprised how much I had relied on it. I was recently working on a Vista notebook to clean up for someone (this also happened to me when using an XP) where I tried to snap the window and it just didn't work. It was like when I tried to go back and play GTA Vice City only to find out/remember that you couldn't swim in that version.

I also had good experience with ReadyBoost, except for the fact that using that feature seems to eat USB keys. I'm not using it now just because I don't have any large keys I'm willing to sacrifice to the cause right now.

[MagicAndre1981]

vinifera, on 15 February 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Quote

challenge someone to list 7 reasons why Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista

1. has MinWin with kernel
2. much better file manager
3. not so agressive with RAM pre-alocating aka eating it
4. much improved taskbar, the old stacking was terrible and thumbnails in vista were useless
5. Win7 was built on top of Vista SP1 codebase, so yeah its better by default
6. is more modular with components/removal than vista is
7. ... ?

1. irrelevant for daily usage. This is only a marketing fact.
2. where is is better? Explorer is mostly the same only rewritten to support libraries but the copy algorithm is the same like it is used since Vista Sp1.
3. for me Vista is better (500MB usage compared to 800MB from Windows 7 when using 32Bit and 800MB compared to 1.6GB when using the 64Bit Versions). So Vista is all times much better in terms of memory usage. Also apps start slower in Win7 because of Cache Manager/Superfetch changes to suggest users Win7 uses less RAM. overall Win7 is here disappointing.
4. This is the only advantage of Windows 7, the progressbar in the taskbar. This is the ONLY feature I miss in Vista.

This post has been edited by MagicAndre1981: 15 February 2012 - 09:29 AM

[vinifera]

2. so much easier to use not crowded and klunky as vista's

they made it better by separating things in groups

[MagicAndre1981]

? I still don't understand what you mean

[vinifera]

the left nav bar

in seven its more appropriate separated
making groups of separate things

while vista has it all squeezed together making using it like crap

[CoffeeFiend]

JorgeA, on 15 February 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

I'm one of them.

And there's nothing wrong with that either

JorgeA, on 15 February 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

I also generally dislike hieroglyphics, finding writing much more immediately informative, and so those wordless taskbar icons on the left are annoying. (There's a reason that picture writing fell out of favor millennia ago, isn't there?)

It's not like hieroglyphics where the drawing means a word. It's more like an easily and instantly recognizable company logo. And those aren't going out of fashion anytime soon. I find it's far quicker and so much easier to find this way.

JorgeA, on 15 February 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

All that said, I do recognize that Windows 7 does feature a number of improvements, and so I view Win7 as a worthy successor to Vista -- and light-years ahead of Windows 8.

Win95's interface is also light-years ahead of Windows 8's.

MagicAndre1981, on 15 February 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

800MB from Windows 7 when using 32Bit and 800MB compared to 1.6GB when using the 64Bit Versions

Either you're calculating this in a very strange way, or there's a serious problem with your install, or you're doing something completely wrong. I've had both Vista and Win7 boot under half that (no removing components or anything of the sort either). I've even seen people use Win7 on netbooks with 1GB and being happy with the performance, or even someone on this forum who reported happily using it on a machine with 512MB of RAM recently. Seriously, there's no way it the x64 version uses anywhere near 1.6GB with nothing open, unless you count the cached stuff which would make it a useless metric. Besides, on top of Vista's heavier memory footprint, its DWM is a bloated pig compared to Win7's (Win7 cut down its memory usage by 50%) which is very significant for people who multitask a lot (Vista's DWM always ran out of memory on me). Edit: Google finds tons more people happily using Win7 with 512MB of RAM. Namely, this comparison by Ed Bott which shows yet again as Vista being the worst, and where no scenario mirrors your results in any way.

Either ways, they're both pretty decent OS'es, which we'll probably keep using for quite some time. I don't see myself buying a new version of Windows ever again...

[UltimateSilence]

CoffeeFiend,
Thank you for clarifying that for me.
I want to give my two cents.

CoffeeFiend, on 14 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

By the clock. Just a different corner of the screen. That's serious nitpicking and it sounds like "don't you move anything!" to me. Either ways, Win+D or Win+M or Win+Space is much quicker than either. Mousing over to either one is such a huge waste of time, and just how often do you need to see your desktop anyway (unless you rely on desktop icons for everything still, Win95-style)?

I think he was upset about the fact that you cannot (re)move it if desired.
I also think it varies from person to person... I still use the desktop more often than not.

Quote

-The taskbar. Pinning common apps. Jump lists. Nice, big, easily recognizable icons instead of a crappy large button with text that takes too long to read and a tiny icon you can barely recognize. A million times this. This point alone is reason enough for me to upgrade to Win7. It's very much a game changer as far as I'm concerned. The day I tried it, Vista was dead to me. The rest (everything below and then some) is just icing on the cake.

I love the Windows 7 taskbar. I also feel that there is nothing wrong with its predecessor.

Quote

-Tamed UAC.

In Windows Vista, the frequency of UAC notifications can be changed via Local Security Policy.
EDIT: When I looked at the Local Security Policy settings in Vista again, it appears that 7 only has one new UAC option (located in the UAC settings; I haven't checked Windows 7's LSP) and that is the default "Notify me only when programs try to make changes to my computer".
The Windows 7 UAC slider and what you can do on Windows Vista today.

Quote

-DirectX 11. 'nuff said. But not just for games. Direct2D/DirectWrite is great too for new 2D apps.

Windows Vista is DirectX 11 compatible. Direct2D and DirectWrite were both back ported to Windows Vista...

This post has been edited by UltimateSilence: 05 May 2012 - 09:37 PM

[vinifera]

I can't remember when I last time clicked on that show desktop button in corner
still using quick launch one

[JorgeA]

Tripredacus, on 15 February 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I also had good experience with ReadyBoost, except for the fact that using that feature seems to eat USB keys. I'm not using it now just because I don't have any large keys I'm willing to sacrifice to the cause right now.

Tripredacus,

What do you mean by ReadyBoost eating USB keys?

I've been using 4GB of an 8GB CompactFlash card (via a USB card reader) on my 4GB Vista machine for about a year now; after setting it up, things definitely seemed to go faster.

--JorgeA

[Tripredacus]

Using your run of the mill USB keys, 1-4GB, I've lost 3 of them. They kick the bucket while being used as a dedicated ReadyBoost device. Gone so far that they either stop being detected by any computer, get detected as a generic USB device of some sort or can't be formatted. This is both on home and work computers. I've used 3 different types of them. I didn't try other methods like a CF yet.

edit: All my experience is with Windows 7 ReadyBoost.

[JorgeA]

Tripredacus, on 17 February 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Using your run of the mill USB keys, 1-4GB, I've lost 3 of them. They kick the bucket while being used as a dedicated ReadyBoost device. Gone so far that they either stop being detected by any computer, get detected as a generic USB device of some sort or can't be formatted. This is both on home and work computers. I've used 3 different types of them. I didn't try other methods like a CF yet.

edit: All my experience is with Windows 7 ReadyBoost.

Tripredacus,

According to the PC enthusiast magazines (CPU, Maximum PC), this sounds like what they say eventually happens to solid-state drives: they simply wear out after so many write/erase cycles.

USB keys (and CF cards) are a similar flash memory technology, so I'd speculate that that's what happened to your flash drives. And I should be prepared to find my CompactFlash card dead one of these days. To judge from the blinking light on the CF reader, the contents of the ReadyBoost drive get accessed, I would say almost continuously.

--JorgeA

[energydream2007]

How can someone agree that win Vista is better then the win 7??

Quote

challenge someone to list 7 reasons why Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista. Actual reasons. “Features” like Aero Snap, Jump Lists, and the new taskbar do not necessitate an entirely new operating system, so they don’t really count. Those could easily be implemented into Vista

It doesnt know what is talking about at all - cause most of the reasons is fighting back is almost the same he ask you to not include in your "list 7 reasons".

Here are more then 7 reasons (and just for you to know i had vista sp2 x64 before windows 7 and it was a good os but 7 is better:

1. UAC big improvements
2. Much better HCL - Hardware computability list
3. Better DWM with no lagging
4. Stable during multi tasking
5. SSD Trim and computability
6. Fast start menu search
7. Faster LAN between computers
8. Better FPS in most games
9. Guest mode
10. XP mode
11.Better pricing
12. No memory leaks
13. Windows 7 make the x64 works finally!
14.Better Visualization computability
15.More secured!

what do you think?

This post has been edited by energydream2007: 01 March 2012 - 09:52 AM

[MagicAndre1981]

1. no, UAC is broken and a security whole: http://www.pretentio...whitelist2.html
4. Vista is also stable, very stable! i only had 1 BSOD (because of faulty RAM).
6. same like in Vista
7. it is the same. Both use SMB 2
9. ?
12. no, for me Windows 7 uses much mroe RAM compared to Vista (much higher paged pool usage)
14. no the VPC is broken crap. VMWare or Virtualbox are better and work on Vista, too.
15. no, because of 1.

[energydream2007]

MagicAndre1981, on 01 March 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

1. no, UAC is broken and a security whole: http://www.pretentio...whitelist2.html
4. Vista is also stable, very stable! i only had 1 BSOD (because of faulty RAM).
6. same like in Vista
7. it is the same. Both use SMB 2
9. ?
12. no, for me Windows 7 uses much mroe RAM compared to Vista (much higher paged pool usage)
14. no the VPC is broken crap. VMWare or Virtualbox are better and work on Vista, too.
15. no, because of 1.

Well its not true. UAC have been improved and if you using with standard user its works good.
yes vista is stable but in general and not per man specific vista was not stable as 7
they are using smb2 but i did check it and vista was slower access
*guest mode is the answer for xp steady state.
14 - i know im using vmware offcourse but it doesnt metter
15 - 7 has good security patches and updates all the time