Differences between Vista and W 7

[Jeff]

I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than
the friendlier uac and cosmetics?

Thanks. Jeff

 

[Conor]

I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than
the friendlier uac and cosmetics?

Thanks. Jeff

Not massively. Most of the differences are in the UI.

 

[LouB]

I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than
the friendlier uac and cosmetics?

Thanks. Jeff

Win 7 is based on Vista. THey fixed it up after corporate users told
them Vista was a loser. Aside from visible changes it does have some
neat internal tweaks to make it more efficient.

 

[Jeff]

Win 7 is based on Vista. THey fixed it up after corporate users told
them Vista was a loser. Aside from visible changes it does have some
neat internal tweaks to make it more efficient.

Thank you all. That is what I thought.

Except for the uac and the arrangement of folders it is not really that
different from xp which I know my way around.

Jeff

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than
the friendlier uac and cosmetics?

Windows 7 (under the covers, Windows 6.1) is essentially a newer and
improved version of Vista (under the covers, Windows 6.0). Much is the
same, but lots of things are very different.

If you're using Windows7, you should see most of the differences
yourself.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than the
friendlier uac and cosmetics?

There are some important differences in the internals, such as the
improvements in the 2D graphics.

I don't really know the details.

 

[Pulse]

Performance improvements, smaller footprint in RAM - when in use - and on
disk, usability improvements, much needed aesthetic changes, gadgets freed
up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives. Work on
the internals and kernel includes changes to the dispatcher lock enabling
scaling up to handling 256 processors, UAC improved, performance improved,
mature .NET capabilities.

Many reviewers feel that Microsoft 'got it right' this time 'round.

 

[Tom Lake]

I moved from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. Often when I ask for
advice about something in W 7 I am referred to a source for Vista which
makes me ask the question: how different are Vista and W 7 other than
the friendlier uac and cosmetics?

Thanks. Jeff

One non-technical difference is that my wife (a techno-phobe)
who won't use Vista at all loves Win 7. It's smoother, less intrusive
and just seems much more polished than Vista. I'm a systems
administrator and I've found that calls to my help desk have
dropped dramatically since I deployed Win 7. I use Ubuntu at home
(but not on my wife's computer!) and that's quite impressive but
all-in-all, Win 7 seems to be the Grail which MS was seeking. Now
my question is, "Where do they go from here?"

Tom Lake

 

[milt]

Windows 7 (under the covers, Windows 6.1) is essentially a newer and
improved version of Vista (under the covers, Windows 6.0). Much is the
same, but lots of things are very different.

Just as Vista was an improved version of XP, as XP was an improved
version of 2000, etc...

Each version is built on what came before.

 

[Bill Yanaire, ESQ]

Vista: NT 6.0
Win 7: NT 6.1

Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

Windows 7 is really Windows 7. Vista is really Vista. Ubuntu is really
SHIT. Any questions?

 

[LouB]

Just as Vista was an improved version of XP, as XP was an improved
version of 2000, etc...

Each version is built on what came before.

WRONG!!

 

[Al Smith]

Just as Vista was an improved version of XP, as XP was an improved
version of 2000, etc...

Each version is built on what came before.

I'm finding Windows 7 to be less stable than my last Os, Windows
XP. Vista went off my wife's computer so fast, I didn't really get
a chance to use it. Once I saw that I couldn't do file operations
with Vista, that was it, I replaced it with XP and never looked
back. At least I can copy and move files with Windows 7, which is
an improvement, I guess. But it locks up or crashes more often
than XP did.

-Al-

 

[Ophelia]

I'm finding Windows 7 to be less stable than my last Os, Windows XP. Vista
went off my wife's computer so fast, I didn't really get a chance to use
it. Once I saw that I couldn't do file operations with Vista, that was it,
I replaced it with XP and never looked back. At least I can copy and move
files with Windows 7, which is an improvement, I guess. But it locks up or
crashes more often than XP did.

XP is the os I have liked the best of any I have had. I am learning to like
Win7 though and I expect that, once I have learned more, I will like
better

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Just as Vista was an improved version of XP, as XP was an improved
version of 2000, etc...

In a sense, of course you are right, because what you say in the line
below is absolutely correct.

Each version is built on what came before.

However, the naming schemes tell us something in addition to that.
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, and XP was 5.1. But Vista was 6.0 and
Windows 7 is 6.1. That in dictates that the jump from XP to Vista was
greater than the others.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm finding Windows 7 to be less stable than my last Os, Windows
XP. Vista went off my wife's computer so fast, I didn't really get
a chance to use it. Once I saw that I couldn't do file operations
with Vista, that was it, I replaced it with XP and never looked
back. At least I can copy and move files with Windows 7, which is
an improvement, I guess. But it locks up or crashes more often
than XP did.

That may be your experience, but it's very far from everyone's
experience. I've been running the released version here since it first
came out, and the RC for several months before that. Neither one has
*ever* crashed or locked up on me. And I know many others with similar
experiences.

I had no problems with Vista either.

Since your experience is different, you should be looking hard for
problems on your machine. Perhaps malware infection?

 

[Jeff]

Performance improvements, smaller footprint in RAM - when in use - and
on disk, usability improvements, much needed aesthetic changes, gadgets
freed up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives.
Work on the internals and kernel includes changes to the dispatcher lock
enabling scaling up to handling 256 processors, UAC improved,
performance improved, mature .NET capabilities.

Many reviewers feel that Microsoft 'got it right' this time 'round.

Thank you all. Very helpful despite the sometimes conflicting opinions.
;-))

freed up from now defunct sidebar, support for secure USB thumb drives.

Since you bring it up, <grin>:
a) the USB support needs some more work.... In XP when I asked it to
safely remove the usb flash drive, a popup appeared and the FD's led
light went off. In W 7, I am told in a popup that it is safe to remove
the FD but its led remains lit.

b) what is the sidebar? The gadgets say they can be put on the desktop
or sidebar but I cannot find a sidebar.

Thanks. Jeff (OP)

 

[Peter Foldes]

Vista: NT 6.0
Win 7: NT 6.1
Windows 7 is really Vista Second Edition.

Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above

 

[Bill Yanaire, ESQ]

Unfortunately this time Alias was correct with what he posted above

Simply not true. Microsoft doesn't refer to Windows 7 as a Vista service
pack. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Windows 7 is much more stable than
Vista. Microsoft can call the product whatever they like.

 

[Jeff Layman]

There are some important differences in the internals, such as the
improvements in the 2D graphics.

Improvements? In that case they must have been really bad in Vista (I used
XP - no experience of Vista). As far as I am concerned Windows 7 should be
renamed "Windows Pastel and Soft Focus".

Have Microsoft forgotten that there are dark colours available and you can
use sharp lines for icons? Was there really a need to change icons for
things like Windows Explorer and Mail? What has happened to the games
graphics? I'm glad I've been able to get the progs from XP as the new colour
schemes and graphics are lousy. And the "Improved" Start Menu? Thank
goodness for tools like "Classic Windows Start Menu".

I suppose it all started before Windows 7 - how long has that wonderfully
effective "Colorizer" been in Windows Live Mail? Just look at the dozen
colours Microsoft make available as the main selection.

 

[Char Jackson]

In a sense, of course you are right, because what you say in the line
below is absolutely correct.


However, the naming schemes tell us something in addition to that.
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, and XP was 5.1. But Vista was 6.0 and
Windows 7 is 6.1. That in dictates that the jump from XP to Vista was
greater than the others.

The version numbers can be an indicator, but I wouldn't place too much
emphasis on them. MS is free to name its products as it pleases, as
indicated by Word jumping from version 2 to version 6 around the same
time that WordPerfect was going from 5.1 to 6.