If you love Windows XP, you'll hate Windows 7


Recommended Posts

Found this link while reading the comments on an article on Ars Technica.

The type of complaints about 7 is almost identical to the current ones about 8.

Summary: My colleague Jason Perlow has been playing with Windows 7, and he hates it. The sad thing is, all the things that he hates are improvements, in my opinion, which just goes to show that you really can?t please everyone. Jason describes a reaction I heard from plenty of diehard XP users when Vista was released. If you insist on using techniques you learned back in the last millennium, you will be frustrated. But I believe that an open-minded XP user who actually takes a few minutes to learn how the new UI works will be more productive very quickly with Windows 7. I've taken Jason's three examples to prove my point.

http://www.zdnet.com...e-windows-7/630

The more things change...

I loved both, Windows XP and Windows 7.

Back before Win 7 RTMd I had a dual boot set up on a netbook with XP and 7. Win 7 absolutely flew on it, with everything enabled, even better than XP itself.

Although there really wasn't much difference between the 2, as in Win 7 didn't take any time getting used to at all, I did miss the eye candy of Win XP for awhile, but transparency in Win 7 is nice too.

If I didn't lose my own XP visual styles I made, I'd probably have come up with some mods to it to run on Windows 7, but more of a cross between bot XP and 7 in looks.

XP was great in its time, and if a computer's hardware couldn't support Windows 7 or even Vista I would use XP on it in a heartbeat.

Though I have a problem with people claiming anything is more productive if you learn it, if something isnt intuitive to someone

even if they learn how to use it, they wont be as productive as they were, there is no one size fits all for that kind of thing.

My only complaint about Windows 7 compared to XP would be it takes more clicks to end up at certain places, even more so in Windows 8.

Other than that Windows 7 is the new XP, ive used it since the RC and have never had to format since installing the RTM in July 2009, it just works, very well to this day.

I've not really used Windows 7 so I can't comment fully, but I have found in the past that when I've tried to find a simple option, Microsoft have moved it somewhere that doesn't make sense in my mind. Sure enough, I had the same problem when I tried Windows 8. Now of course if I started using either as my primary OS I would come to learn where everything is eventually, but that won't stop my brain from saying, "Where's that option gone? Oh, there it is. Why would they put it there?"

To be fair, Perlow is a power user to the core. Most of his complaints in this article are him falling out of relevance.

* Microsoft has now completely removed the ability to have a "Classic" Start Menu.

- Should have been killed off in XP, IMO.

* The Run option no longer up by default.

- Simple, press Start, type CMD, press 'Enter'. The Windows 7 search bar makes Run obsolete. Microsoft should have removed it, IMO.

* Another thing that greatly frustrated me was the fact that a fresh install of Windows 7 gives the end-user a blank slate on the Desktop, removing the familiar "Computer", "Network", "Control Panel" and "My Documents" icons, requiring users to get to those functions and folders via the Start Menu .

- So? Right click on the desktop, select Personalization, and put the icons back up. Not hard to do.

* As a general theme, Microsoft seems to have made changes for the sake of change, which was the case with Vista and is even more apparent with Windows 7, once you start digging into the OS dialogs and UI in depth.

- How is redesigning ancient dialogs a bad thing? DO you really want old, Windows 95/98/2000 dialogs popping up? Ugly!

* I also find the Windows 7 Control Panel to be less intuitive than XP's -- they've tried to simplify things, but in doing so, actually made it more frustrating, because you now need one additional mouse click to see all the Control Panel options -- of which there are now approximately double than which existed in XP.

- Search, buddy. Use it. Press Start, type what you're looking for. :)

See, like I said, Perlow is a power user to the max. Windows isn't Linux. It's a consumer grade OS that needs to compete with users of all types. If you really want a geeky OS geared toward the power user, Linux is your best bet.

Even though I am a up and coming system admin, I love the changes made to Windows since XP. I hate complexity, and Windows 7, and now Windows 8 have removed a ton of that crap that riddled XP. Now if only Cisco could wake up and realize it's not 1970 anymore...

EDIT: The top comment on Ed Bott's article makes me ROFL.

Loving Windows XP

I don't understand what would be so difficult in giving users a chance to select "Use XP Interface" for those who don't relish leaning new commands for things they already know.

Sure, why doesn't Microsoft just add back in every option Windows has ever had over the years? Don't be mad when a default install size then reaches over 50+ GB's... Id' also hate to see what kind of support would be needed for an OS that still has all that code in it. :rofl:

  • Like 2
Even though I am a up and coming system admin, I love the changes made to Windows since XP. I hate complexity, and Windows 7, and now Windows 8 have removed a ton of that crap that riddled XP. Now if only Cisco could wake up and realize it's not 1970 anymore...

So that's why you love so much Windows 8... interesting.

Personally, I've said this before and got ridiculed, so I'll say it again, with a few changes... 8 isn't for everyone, but neither was 7, if you like 7, stick to it, if you like 8, great, for those worried about updates, one can assume, because of how much microsoft extended support for xp, there (in theory) is no reason why microsoft shouldn't keep up support for 7.

  • Like 2

To be fair, Perlow is a power user to the core. Most of his complaints in this article are him falling out of relevance.

* The Run option no longer up by default.

- Simple, press Start, type CMD, press 'Enter'. The Windows 7 search bar makes Run obsolete. Microsoft should have removed it, IMO.

* Another thing that greatly frustrated me was the fact that a fresh install of Windows 7 gives the end-user a blank slate on the Desktop, removing the familiar "Computer", "Network", "Control Panel" and "My Documents" icons, requiring users to get to those functions and folders via the Start Menu .

- So? Right click on the desktop, select Personalization, and put the icons back up. Not hard to do.

Funny - because these things were removed in Vista, not 7.

The Run box - clearly NOT a power user, as WIN+R brings it up and has always done that since Windows 95.

This Article is 3 years old? also I think it is widely thought these days that Windows 7 is the premier Windows experience where as back then people were just afraid of the new guy?

This Article is 3 years old?

The article was done around the time of the launch of Windows 7. The reason for bringing it up is to highlight the fact that some people (especially "tech" people) had the same kinds of reservations about Windows 7 as they do about Windows 8.

  • Like 3

EDIT: The top comment on Ed Bott's article makes me ROFL.

Sure, why doesn't Microsoft just add back in every option Windows has ever had over the years? Don't be mad when a default install size then reaches over 50+ GB's... Id' also hate to see what kind of support would be needed for an OS that still has all that code in it. :rofl:

hey, I for one love the fact in Windows 8 I can still select the Windows For Workgroups UI as my default program manager.... err wait

Funny thing is, I told a few folks that Windows 7 was chastised in the beginning, and no one believed me. :p

While true, the majoity liked Windows 7 on release, the few Windows XP diehards around for Windows 7 are dwarfed by the dislike

for Windows 8(modern UI on the desktop), as an up and coming system admin though, you'd better get used to complexity and

corporate BS, because 90% of your job will be dealing with it.

Even though I am a up and coming system admin, I love the changes made to Windows since XP. I hate complexity, and Windows 7, and now Windows 8 have removed a ton of that crap that riddled XP. Now if only Cisco could wake up and realize it's not 1970 anymore...

You bolded waaaay too many words there. I don't hate Windows 7, just complexity.

So that's why you love so much Windows 8... interesting.

Well, his story checks out, two extra words bolded is "waaaay too many".

XP was great in its time, and if a computer's hardware couldn't support Windows 7 or even Vista I would use XP on it in a heartbeat.

Whatcha talking about ?

My desktop's hardware is running Windows XP just fine. :laugh: And I went thru 3 upgrades, including motherboards.

Whatcha talking about ?

My desktop's hardware is running Windows XP just fine. :laugh: And I went thru 3 upgrades, including motherboards.

You might have misunderstood what I meant.

But if your hardware supports Windows 7 and you still use XP, that's your choice

As for me, if it would support Windows 7 I would use that over XP, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with XP.

Even though I am a up and coming system admin, I love the changes made to Windows since XP. I hate complexity, and Windows 7, and now Windows 8 have removed a ton of that crap that riddled XP. Now if only Cisco could wake up and realize it's not 1970 anymore...

Cisco CLI isn't going anywhere.

I've not really used Windows 7 so I can't comment fully, but I have found in the past that when I've tried to find a simple option, Microsoft have moved it somewhere that doesn't make sense in my mind. Sure enough, I had the same problem when I tried Windows 8. Now of course if I started using either as my primary OS I would come to learn where everything is eventually, but that won't stop my brain from saying, "Where's that option gone? Oh, there it is. Why would they put it there?"

So you are not a Windows user then? You are using Linux or another operating system instead of Windows?

Andrea...Intrinsica said that they haven't really used Windows 7. They didn't say that they didn't use Windows....just not Windows 7.

Well there are different versions of Windows,Windows 95 and 98,Windows 2000,Windows XP,Windows Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8. And some people are still using Windows 2000 and earlier versions of Windows.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • With the current hardware prices Microsoft should lift the restriction. Then if you have the correct TPM then allow you to use X feature, if you don't have the correct TPM then don't but still actually let you run windows. 11. With a disclaimer during install that X features would be unavailable.
    • It's good for recycling of course. But commence inflation of a second hand RAM bubble and price gouging on DDR 4 inventory in 3... 2... 1...
    • Bypassed Windows 11 shows surprising stability on ancient, completely unsupported hardware by Sayan Sen When Windows 11 was first released, one of the most complained-about issues with the new desktop Microsoft OS was its higher system requirements, which pushed many relatively modern and powerful processors and devices onto the officially unsupported list. Thankfully, they have not been updated again for the base OS, though systems require four times the memory and storage if they want to run AI-powered apps and features. As such, Windows 11 technically runs on 4GB of memory, and there is no imposed restriction on the generation of memory it supports. Speaking of memory, prices are extremely high nowadays for hardware, especially DDR5 and DDR4 kits due to the current silicon shortage, and there are also reports of it affecting DDR2 as well, and it might only be a matter of time before even DDR1 gets affected. Before that could happen, an enthusiast took an ancient DDR1-based system and decided to try out Windows 11 on it to see how well the modern OS would fare on such hardware. The system runs an outdated graphics card interface standard based on AGP, or Advanced Graphics Port, called AGP 3.0 or AGP8x. AGP was essentially succeeded by the modern PCI Express (PCIe) bus standard. The user behind the experiment is retro hardware enthusiast Omores, who built the system around an ASRock ConRoe865PE motherboard based on Intel's i865PE chipset from way back in 2003, around the time when AGP was still in fashion. What made this board special back in the day was its unusual support for newer Core 2 Duo and even Core 2 Quad processors while still retaining older DDR1 memory support and an AGP8X graphics slot, making it an ideal bridge or link between two vastly different generations. Powering the machine was Intel's Core 2 Quad Q6600 alongside 3GB of DDR1 RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4650 AGP graphics card, one of the final and most capable GPUs released for the aging AGP interface. While installing Windows 11 itself was relatively easy by bypassing Microsoft's hardware checks, getting the graphics card fully functional proved to be some challenge. Microsoft had quietly dropped native AGP support after the earliest releases of Windows 10, meaning newer versions of Windows no longer include the necessary Graphics Address Remapping Table (GART) drivers required for proper AGP acceleration. Without them, AGP graphics cards typically boot up, though with limited functionality, and can often throw a Code 43 error in Device Manager. To work around the limitation, Omores extracted Intel's legacy AGP440 SYS driver from an early Windows 10 release and paired it with a modified INF file so Windows 11 would correctly recognize the chipset. Following this and combined with AMD's final 64-bit Catalyst AGP drivers from 2012, the Radeon HD 4650 was able to operate with full AGP 8X acceleration intact. The result was said to be surprisingly usable for hardware that is over two decades old. Hardware-accelerated H.264 video playback worked correctly and benefited apps like Firefox, while legacy applications and games ran without major graphical issues. The system also successfully completed the 3DMark 2001 benchmark, although performance naturally lagged behind what the same hardware achieves under Windows 7, which is significantly lighter than Windows 11. There was, however, one unavoidable limitation as Microsoft's Windows 11 version 24H2 introduces a mandatory SSE4.2 CPU instruction requirement that cannot be bypassed through installer modifications or registry tweaks. Since no AGP-era processor supports SSE4.2, Windows 11 version 23H2 effectively becomes the final release capable of running on such systems. Regardless, it is still a very cool feat and quite fascinating to see just how stable Windows 11 turned out to be on such unfamiliar hardware. Source: Omores (Patreon) via O_MORES (Reddit)
    • That will only really help other players that are also responsible for creating the problem.
    • Well, it's good to know that they have found a workaround to a problem that they helped create, I guess...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!