Do we really need Windows 7

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Run XP for a while and you'll realize why we "really needed" Vista.... NOT!

I personally can't stand using XP any more. Thankfully I haven't had to in quite a while, but I do sometimes on friends' machines. I keep doing things that only work on Vista, and I get frustrated by the lack of control (no UAC, etc).

[Knife Party]

I personally can't stand using XP any more. Thankfully I haven't had to in quite a while, but I do sometimes on friends' machines. I keep doing things that only work on Vista, and I get frustrated by the lack of control (no UAC, etc).

same here, vista is stable and fast on my end. can't see myself going back to barebones XP.

[bob_c_b]

I'd like to see components less hardcoded into the OS...I guess I've just been spoiled by Linux and Mac but it feels strange how I can't remove WMP or IE.

My god. Especially in 3rd party apps this is where it's worst. What is this? Seriously? Why does your ****ty little app need a custom skin? It serves no purpose other than to provide a terribly inconsistent GUI and confusing interface.

1. Really, you can remove QuickTime from OS X?

2.You mean like iTunes and it's totally non-compliant interface/skin?

Seriously, I like OS X and have an iMac right next to my PC, but don't hold up Apple as an example of openess and compliance. They nash their teeth when a new version of Office for Mac doens't totally follow their human interface guidelines but completely ignore MS policy.

[kl33per]

I'm in the same boat as Brandon. I'm constantly pressing the start key on keyboards and typing letters to search for programs, until I realize I'm not at home on my pc with Vista, but on a school or work pc still running XP.

Having been a Vista user for almost 2.5 years now (since the December CTP), I don't think I could imagine going back to XP at this point. With features like the sidebar, desktop search, far superior explorer shell, improved start menu, better networking configuration, expanded group policy options...I could go on all day. Suffice to say, I will never (willingly) run XP again on my laptop, desktop, or Media Center.

Edited May 21, 2008 by kl33per

[liveseven]

No, then again we dont really need computers ;)

[Raa]

No, then again we dont really need computers ;)

I dare YOU to tell that to all my clients :p

[Death Blade]

lol... we dun need windows 7. microsoft is the one that needs it for it's survival. y get microsoft when u can get ubuntu?

[sourc3]

I really don't buy 'We don't need Windows 7' without really knowing what it brings to the table. People are happy with what they have until they see that something actually CAN be better than what they had imagined and the process is called: innovation.

We have Vista, OS X etc today because of this. Each new operating system version brings something new to the table. I've read numerous Vista bashing posts both on neowin and other forums and one thing I can tell is that there is an emerging pattern.

Most of the comments are made from a narrow perspective, there are a lot of fundamental changes at the driver model level, security stack level etc that people are bypassing. Sadly, these components get attention when they fail because of a 3rd party driver or anti-virus that crashes the system. If you realized with Vista your entire system doesn't go down when your graphics card driver stops working, it just recycles the process.

In short, my point is that we do need a new OS version every 2-3 years. I don't want intel to release a new chip every 10 years, same goes for OS.

lol... we dun need windows 7. microsoft is the one that needs it for it's survival. y get microsoft when u can get ubuntu?

Why get ubuntu when you can get Microsoft? :)

[Raa]

If you realized with Vista your entire system doesn't go down when your graphics card driver stops working, it just recycles the process.

If only that were true, which (often), it isn't.

Why get ubuntu when you can get Microsoft? :)

Clearly, that's bias showing through, making your Vista arguement, weakened in my opinion. People are free to choose what they like, same for me, when I choose XP over Vista.

[NEVER85]

lol... we dun need windows 7. microsoft is the one that needs it for it's survival. y get microsoft when u can get ubuntu?

.......Microsoft will survive (and thrive) regardless of how 7 pans out. Your ignorance is staggering.

[New_Age]

i don't think they should release it. many of my friends and even myself have had problems with Vista. not driver issues but getting use to the damn OS! it's so much different and things are laid out in many different sections. it's pointless. the new searches and crap is pointless. they should of just stuck to Xp for a little longer.

[Linkinfamous]

it's so much different and things are laid out in many different sections. it's pointless. the new searches and crap is pointless. they should of just stuck to Xp for a little longer.

The vast majority of the change are for the better. Things under Vista aren't arranged perfectly, but in many cases, they're certainly better than XP.

The problem is that everyone has grown accustomed to the often convoluted way of doing things that XP gets you stuck into. Often, when you learn the 'Vista' way to do something, it's faster than the XP way.

Also, if you think the search is pointless, you've never used it.

[ev0|]

you guys that think vista is better than xp have completely drunk the kool aid. it's probably the second worst introduction of a new OS I have ever seen, (ME was the worst). The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster. 140 million licenses can't be wrong you say ? Jesus. I'm glad, becasue Microsoft sucks and the day I don't have to use another ****ing OS from them, the better.

[liveseven]

Have you even used vista or going off some ramdom guy who also doesnt know what hes talking about?

if you have you sure its microsoft's falut vista didnt work out for you, or your self for not taking the time to see if vista will work with your stuff

[Linkinfamous]

The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster.

So what you're saying is that if Microsoft releases an OS that you (Apparently the allmighty judge of what makes an OS good) deem to be good, then they shouldn't ever release a new version?

Windows Seven is coming out 3+ years after Vista. That's a perfectly reasonable release schedule, especially given how fast things in technology change.

[NEVER85]

you guys that think vista is better than xp have completely drunk the kool aid. it's probably the second worst introduction of a new OS I have ever seen, (ME was the worst). The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster. 140 million licenses can't be wrong you say ? Jesus. I'm glad, becasue Microsoft sucks and the day I don't have to use another ****ing OS from them, the better.

I'm sure Microsoft's not worried about a clueless know-nothing not using their operating system. In fact, I'm sure they'd be glad.

[sourc3]

By the way I forgot to mention that I also dual boot into Ubuntu and I really do like the system. It's a solid system, but for whatever reason when I'm done testing code on Ubuntu I find myself back using Windows (XP / Vista).. Also, as much as I hated the Vista UI when first used it, I find myself looking for Vista style things in XP lately. I guess I am just getting used to the UI..

Btw my last comment about why not get MS when you can was sarcastic. I have used UNIX (Solaris) / Linux (Slackware, Ubuntu, Gentoo) and pretty much all versions of Windows after 3.1 (including servers) and I really have to say that each has its own place. I wouldn't compare one to the other that's why I really don't like someone jumping and saying oh let's all switch to ABC from XYZ. Hence the comment I made.

PS: Keep in mind we still need a SP2 for Vista to make a lot of things better, also the hardware needs to catch up. When XP first came out machine specs were different, we are talking about how Vista is sluggish on today's hardware. Give it another 5 years and lets see how it runs on 8-core 64 bit machines with 8gb of memory and 1ghz video cards :)

(Just playing devil's advocate here)

[Mayhem]

ppl seriously, simply do a vlite version with the options you dont need removed and you are done, nothing that hard, anyone can put Vista having only XP resorces or Server2008 one

use it, make a iso from it, Test in Virtual pc 2007 or Vmware if you want, burn to a RW if you dont want to burn a normal DVD and install it with the stuff you want only

not that hard, the options in vLite are all documented inside the program in the right side when you select a component

Has for the topic, Windows 7 will be like XP was to 2000

in that time:

-> ppl considered XP an Service pack 1 or 2 (dont remember if 2000 already had a Sp1 in the time of XP release)

-> XP was 2000 with better compatibility for games, tweaked Win2000 for user experience

-> XP had from the start good compatibily for ppls hardware because it accepted the stables drivers already done it on Win2000, who had win2000 running well got xp running well also

sound familiar? is that Windows 7 will be

-> have the drivers system of Windows Vista so by that time it get released the drivers will be stable from the start (most noted in Graphics Cards ones).

-> tweaked OS (already said by Bill Gates).

etc etc

will be like 2000 to XP history and ppl will abrace Windows 7 really well because of it, maintaining the Drivers system from Vista

[sundayx Veteran]

Seeing how Windows 7 is about multi-touch, I don't see why not. It's good that technology of personal computing is moving forward, even if "Windows" is not as good as we hope.

[Emn1ty]

But then XP is optimized for it too, OSX is optimized for it too. So why change? Why spend money building updates to your programs and operating systems?

It's basically like saying why don't we all go back to Office 2000...it does everything we need.

Also I like your ending...you complain as if buying an OS every 3-5 years and paying what 150-200usd for it is costing you so much. Great.

Vista was more than $200, at least the version that mattered. OSX is $200 for a 5 computer liscence, basically $40 per computer where Vista Ultimate is $400 for one PC. Paying $400 every two years is quite a bit for a mere OS.

1. Really, you can remove QuickTime from OS X?

2.You mean like iTunes and it's totally non-compliant interface/skin?

Seriously, I like OS X and have an iMac right next to my PC, but don't hold up Apple as an example of openess and compliance. They nash their teeth when a new version of Office for Mac doens't totally follow their human interface guidelines but completely ignore MS policy.

1. You can, I just did it.

2. iTunes, unless it is on Windows, has the exact same interface as OSX.

3. Why is Apple in the wrong when MS can't comply with Apple's interface standards? At least Adobe seems to be OK with it.

The vast majority of the change are for the better. Things under Vista aren't arranged perfectly, but in many cases, they're certainly better than XP.

The problem is that everyone has grown accustomed to the often convoluted way of doing things that XP gets you stuck into. Often, when you learn the 'Vista' way to do something, it's faster than the XP way.

Also, if you think the search is pointless, you've never used it.

Exactly. Alot of the things in Vista and Office 2007 are more intelligently designed. Problem is that everyone who has touched a computer in the last 10 years is used to doing things the XP way and the old Office way. They know the interfaces so the bad design was negated and made conventional. It was a good thing MS changed it, but it was a bit late.

you guys that think vista is better than xp have completely drunk the kool aid. it's probably the second worst introduction of a new OS I have ever seen, (ME was the worst). The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster. 140 million licenses can't be wrong you say ? Jesus. I'm glad, becasue Microsoft sucks and the day I don't have to use another ****ing OS from them, the better.

That day is sooner than you think, buy a Mac ;).

[primexx]

2. iTunes, unless it is on Windows, has the exact same interface as OSX.

3. Why is Apple in the wrong when MS can't comply with Apple's interface standards? At least Adobe seems to be OK with it.

that's kind of the point...apple ignores MS's interface standards.

[Xerxes]

This is merely going back to the same release schedule Microsoft has ALWAYS had. The time line that Vista followed was an aberration and definitely not the norm. I don't get why some people on here just can't seem to grasp that concept.

I don't think it's cause people can't grasp the concept of a ~3 year OS life cycle, it's more they have become complacent with XP. It's been out for so long and matured a lot in that time that to alot of people they have never known anything but XP and suddenly going back to the default cycle has shaken up a somewhat static world (i.e. having Vista come out and only 3 or so years later Win7 and ~3 years after that Win8 etc). Not to mention it's human nature to resist change :p well that is my take on it anyway, take with a grain of salt.

[EduardValencia]

We need windows 7 since there are many features that Windows lacks at this moment,howvere Windows Vista is very good in my opinion.

For example:

- Virtual Workspaces

[Lasker]

We will need Windows 7 as we needed XP when we was using Windows Me or Windows 98 SE.

[Emn1ty]

that's kind of the point...apple ignores MS's interface standards.

WHAT STANDARD? There are 5 different icon styles for these 6 interfaces. 6 different layouts, and 2 completely different skins. And these are all standard MS applications!

Edited May 29, 2008 by Emn1ty