Could Windows 7 be Vista SE?

[CannedTurkey]

I have precisely one problem with Vista 64. I cannot move or copy large files between my two Vista 64 PC's. It will literally sit there all day calculating how long it's going to take to do it.

I've tried several things offered up as fixes for this problem, but nothing has.

The only work around I have right now is that I can 'send to' a zip file from a shared directory to a new zip file on my desktop.

 

[Guest]

You know, I think vista just mainly cares about a decent speed processor. I just recently build a new machine (E7200), but since I ordered the parts on the egg, the video card is still shipping. The only old card I had that would fit the motherboard (I couldn't wait to try it out) was an old PCI FX 5200. Installed vista and it runs everything including Aero just fine, even with the extremely dated graphics card.

Conclusion, just thought it was interesting how much of a difference the processor makes, rather than the much touted "Aero Graphics"

 

[neodude007]

I personally think Vista slows down a ton after you install stuff. I have been using it for about a year on this rig: Raid 0 on 160GB HDDs, SLI 8800GT, E8400 at 3.8GHz 4GB Reaper RAM. The first time it boots the loading screen "scrolls" like 4 times. Now mine scrolls like 25 times, I can go take a leak and come back and its almost ready for my password... It does this every time I format and install things.

All I have are some games (which shouldn't slow startup...) AIM ad hack edition (which does NOT startup with Vista cuz I disabled it)

All that really boots up is 3 or 4 sound driver processes (which seems dumb but there's about 4) and my AVG anti virus, RivaTuner, and about 4 Nvidia processes.

Other than the terrible boot times I like Vista x64 on my rig.

 

[jivdis1x]

Running 3 OS on same PC: x86 XP Pro sp3, x86 Vista Sp1 and x64 Vista sp1. Each OS on it's own HD. 32bit vista was behind in responsiveness vs xp but x64 vista got them both beat. Windows startup and programs load time is amazing. I have 4GB Ram, only 43MB is free at all times-alot is cache; only has 325MB of swapped. I did dedicated upto 6GB paging on separate HD but it never use move than 500MB. Vista does use alot of RAM but if you got it then use as much as possible. XP always leave at least 1GB free and has a high paging: 1.5GB sometimes 3-4GB. Maybe it's the x86 factor. Vista x64 does have it quirk like delay opening folder with a lot of sub folder and slower multiple files transfer to network PC. MS should have release only x64 to the oem and only make available x86 upon request.

 

[antilycus]

here's and idea, create something or your own that works the first time. I understand there are a lot of drivers and DLL and junk, but hate to break it to you MS, HUMANS HATE CHANGE... so you are stuck with a long term problem.

 

[antilycus]

the reason vista sucks is, it confuses the GENERAL PUBLIC. Sure you arent confused with it, great, but what you fail to realize is the Private Company Sector is what makes things a standard. If EVERY company started running MAC OS X Server + OS X workstations, guess what, you'd see MAC OS X start to sell all over the place.

The company/private sector is what makes things a standard, not home users.

 

[neodude007]

[citation][nom]Antilycus[/nom]the reason vista sucks is, it confuses the GENERAL PUBLIC. Sure you arent confused with it, great, but what you fail to realize is the Private Company Sector is what makes things a standard. If EVERY company started running MAC OS X Server + OS X workstations, guess what, you'd see MAC OS X start to sell all over the place. The company/private sector is what makes things a standard, not home users.[/citation]
I am not failing to do anything, I am a private user and don't care what businesses use. MS confused people, not Vista. As stated above MS confused with Vista compatible stickers and lots of people are afraid of computers, it doesn't matter if they even use one at work or what OS it is.

Businesses don't use Vista because there is no point and it costs too much frikin money to switch a large company OS for no benefit. We all know that and that is not what we are talking about.

 

[DXRick]

I just wish MS would come up with a unified driver model that works on all of their current OS's. People bought puters with Vista only to find that older hardware no longer works. For example, HP OfficeJet 6100 is not fully supported in Vista. HP's response is that I have to buy one of their new products to get full Vista support.

This is what is killing Vista in the business sector. They can't use Vista without updating a lot of their HW.

 

[Guest]

Do the authors bother to do research before writing an article? Windows 7 won't be vista SE, vista is ... vista 7 "lite". They released vista which is run on the longhorn core that was designed for windows 7. A portion of the features of windows 7 were released as vista.

Try some... ya know.. research?

idiots.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

[citation][nom]DXRick[/nom]I just wish MS would come up with a unified driver model that works on all of their current OS's. [/citation]

Um...you do know that the hardware manufacturers write drivers and not MS, right? Makes it kind of hard for them to write a unified driver architecture.

[citation]Do the authors bother to do research before writing an article? Windows 7 won't be vista SE, vista is ... vista 7 "lite". They released vista which is run on the longhorn core that was designed for windows 7. A portion of the features of windows 7 were released as vista.[/citation]

Exactly. Vista was originally supposed to be what Windows 7 will be, but they didn't have it ready in time.

 

[DXRick]

[citation][nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]Um...you do know that the hardware manufacturers write drivers and not MS, right? Makes it kind of hard for them to write a unified driver architecture.[/citation]

Uh, yea. What I am talking about is the ability of OEMs (like HP) to write a single driver that will work on various MS OS's. They rewrote the driver model with Vista, forcing OEMs to write new drivers. Many chose not to write drivers for their older products, forcing people to replace perfectly good hardware just so they could use Vista.

 

[dcoaster]

For the last time, VISTA DOES NOT WASTE RESOURCES! Everyone who complains about Vista taking up too much RAM, if anyone was intelligent enough to know why this happens before criticizing it, they would know that the RAM is CACHED to provide faster access to recently used programs and parts of the OS.

PLEASE PEOPLE. Get your facts right before posting CRAP.

 

[jaragon13]

[citation][nom]dcoaster[/nom]For the last time, VISTA DOES NOT WASTE RESOURCES! Everyone who complains about Vista taking up too much RAM, if anyone was intelligent enough to know why this happens before criticizing it, they would know that the RAM is CACHED to provide faster access to recently used programs and parts of the OS.PLEASE PEOPLE. Get your facts right before posting CRAP.[/citation]

[citation][nom]MagicalMule[/nom]You know, I think vista just mainly cares about a decent speed processor. I just recently build a new machine (E7200), but since I ordered the parts on the egg, the video card is still shipping. The only old card I had that would fit the motherboard (I couldn't wait to try it out) was an old PCI FX 5200. Installed vista and it runs everything including Aero just fine, even with the extremely dated graphics card. Conclusion, just thought it was interesting how much of a difference the processor makes, rather than the much touted "Aero Graphics"[/citation]
I'm pretty sure the 5200 can't run direct-x 10,and the aero graphics are based on the direct-x 10 model.

 

[hannibal]

Well as far as I am conserned I hope that windows 7 is indeed Vista SE and not the Vista ME...
Se was really good upgrade and ME so bad memory hog and over bloated that it hurts to remember it.
What are the big things that we are waiting for windows 7: Multi touch sensitive screen? and well that is it. Sound more like ME to me...

 

[notherdude]

From the article: "Criticizing Windows Vista is not a particularly difficult task these days. The SP1 update extinguished dozens of burning fires, but did not change the fact Vista remains below the expectations of many users - low enough to convince a significant portion of new PC buyers to stay with Windows XP for now."

I guess criticizing Vista is a little harder than you suggest, since you offered no critique at all. The anti-Vista hype keeps spreading in this exact fashion. Tech writers have no stones. Vista 64 kicks a$$. Vista SE (by a different name) is exactly what we need. The only real problem with Vista (well, all OSes have some problems that fade with time and patches and Vista is no different) is the name.

 

[Guest]

For many months after Vista was released Microsoft was slapping "Vista Ready" stickers on everything that was being sold - so a whole lot of folks bought $500 disposable PC's fully expecting Vista to run just fine on them... when XP barely runs on some of the crap hardware being sold in the bargain bin. I think that's where the confusion came from, and as I said earlier... MS only has themselves to blame.

I HOPE they've learned their lesson... but I suspect the Marketing geeks dictated that particular fubar... and Marketing geeks take a lot of teaching to learn that sometimes they need to moderate the crazy claims about a product.

 

[DavidOrr]

[citation][nom]dcoaster[/nom]For the last time, VISTA DOES NOT WASTE RESOURCES! Everyone who complains about Vista taking up too much RAM, if anyone was intelligent enough to know why this happens before criticizing it, they would know that the RAM is CACHED to provide faster access to recently used programs and parts of the OS.PLEASE PEOPLE. Get your facts right before posting CRAP.[/citation]

Exactly, Which is one of the reasons why I think Windows 7 will be much better received. When the OS is released, All new computers will have at least 2 GB of RAM (they practically already do), and computers that are above the bargain bin entry level will probably come with 4 GB standard. Having this much RAM will really speed up the OS. I just hope Microsoft makes Windows 7 come standard as a 64 bit OS, with a 32 bit option included with all copies of the OS. If Microsoft tries to stick with that ridiculous 32 bit/64 bit separate licensing scheme they're using now they're going to have another tough release.

Take it from me, I've got 8 GB of RAM in my workstation PC (with Vista) and it's MUCH faster than any OS I've ever used, including very capable computers loaded with XP. When given a lot of power, Vista will make use of it and it'll show in performance gains. Did Vista require more power than most people had? Sure, and that was the problem from the start. But, with 3 years worth of computer advances, Windows 7 will have the power it needs to run on a computer like it's supposed to.

 

[crom]

Microsoft would do good to take yet another page from Apple. They should rewrite a brand new OS, from the ground up, and use that as their next release. From there they can have much more control on how secure it is, etc. Next, write an emulator to run old windows kernel software in "legacy mode". That way you don't have to worry about incompatibility, and you will also have time to bring legacy users over to the new system.

 

[DavidOrr]

[citation][nom]crom[/nom]Microsoft would do good to take yet another page from Apple. They should rewrite a brand new OS, from the ground up, and use that as their next release. From there they can have much more control on how secure it is, etc. Next, write an emulator to run old windows kernel software in "legacy mode". That way you don't have to worry about incompatibility, and you will also have time to bring legacy users over to the new system. [/citation]

Since they're so far into this build though, doing something that drastic would be tough. I think it's best to not think of Windows 7 as a new OS, but as a significant upgrade (like the change from Tiger to Leopard with OSX). It looks like Microsoft is just trying to push out something with a fresh label to make buyers give it a less biased chance. Scrapping Vista altogether would be a big waste of time and resources for Microsoft. The fact is, most people don't keep up with technology and rebranding Vista as Windows 7 is probably all Microsoft needs to get more life out of the OS.

Look at Intel and their whole Pentium 4 fiasco. The Pentium 4 did well for years, even though it was inferior to the Pentium 3. Most people saw that it was a newer processor, and that was all that they needed to justify the buy. If they knew how awful the Netburst architecture really was, they probably would have looked elsewhere. All Microsoft really needs is something to succeed Vista without the Vista label. Wait a couple years for hardware advancements, throw in a few new features, optimize the OS a bit, and viola!

 

[Guest]

"What the haters were able to do in XP better than in Vista? Maybe spreading their viruses around?"

bit-perfect audio? to name just one. duh..