Differences between Vista and W 7

[Jeff]

Jeff

From what I've observed Win7 is Vista with a lot of the 'complaints'
fixed.
As you have seen there is varied opinion on what to call Win7 but Vista
Second Edition is probably a fair assessment.
Vista broke many applications just like 95, NT and 2000 did in their era.
Unfortunately because MS left such a long break between major OS
revisions Vista was bound to disappoint.
Because the name 'Vista' became so tainted I suspect the pointy heads at
MS insisted Vista SE was a non starter.
So even though the Version is actually 6.1 MS had to call it Win7 in
order to remove it sufficiently from Vista for the market to regain
confidence & buy the new version.

The practical differences between Vista/Win7 in my experience are:
1 No more frustrating 'hangs' while the OS hives off into hyperspace
doing it's own thing, something Vista was 'very' bad at.
2 Minor 'GUI' changes eg the addition of Devices and Printers to the
start menu, dropping the gas hog Windows Vista Sidebar etc.
3 Removal of several previously bundled apps like an Email client, Movie
Maker, Messenger etc.
4 For the Pro and Ultimate versions the availability of XP Mode Virtual
Machine to carry forward mission critical apps that 'broke' on the move
from XP.
5 Apparent speed increase, though I've some reservations on that as I
went from an AMD X64 to an i7 which would explain at least some of the
speed boost.
6 The left window in Windows Explorer is worse than Vista, this is one
area where MS has got it totally wrong compared to 9x through XP.

From a broader perspective your change from XP to Win7 will bring a lot
of minor niggles and factors that were no different than when going from
Win 3x to Win 9x
* Bit depth: now is the time to go to 64bit. 32 bit's 4GB max RAM is a
complete dead end and should only be used as a last resort to keep
legacy software running.
(& make sure your new motherboard can handle more than 4GB)
* Missing bundled apps, go to MS website and download 'Windows Live
Essentials' to regain a bundled Email Client, Movie Maker etc.
* The search tool does seem to work much better than XP's version ever did.
* Things moved from where they were in XP is probably the biggest
frustration with Vista/Win7. Vista to Win7 changes are fairly minor.
* I find the 'dumbing down' of the UI worrying.
* While the Control Panel has more icons, somehow it seems harder to
find critical settings (search helps here)
* Start Menu: is in my opinion better, Luddites will scream bring back
the 'classic' menu, but on a PC with lots of apps installed (as any
power users machine is likely to be) the new menu means you can get access.
With XP you had to resort to Windows Explorer or spend time 'nesting'
shortcuts.
* A negative for me is the pastel colours MS has used in both Vista and
Win7. Windows Explorer is much the poorer for this change.

Then there are the 'bitches' that have plagued Window since many
versions back that irritate the bejesus out of me.
* File extensions turned off by default.
* Burying Email message stores in an obscure location.
* ditto with the Address book/Contacts.
* Inflexible backup tools. (Win 7 does at least allow you to decide
'what' to backup, but 'where & how' is another story)

Perhaps the biggest annoyance I've found going from XP to Vista/Win7 is
the self serving abandonment of peripherals.
Scanners and in particular HP Scanners are the worst.
Of the 6 scanners I have here I've only got one working with 64bit Win7
by installing it in XP Mode.
Bar one the rest have 'no' 64bit drivers available.

I've also been disappointed at how incompatible some fancier software is
with Win 7/64.
Premiere Elements & Video Studio won't work for me in Win7/64.

FWIW
Paul.

Thank you *very* much for the detailed answer. Confirms a lot of what I
have discovered and I learned more. Appreciate your taking the time.

Jeff

 

[Bob Hatch]

why was it necessary to update the BIOS?

Because it was recommended by the mfr.

but you didn't do this on the laptop too?

I said that I took the same steps with the laptop as I did with the desktop.

just want to know.

Now you do.

Felmon

--
"Never argue with an idiot, they will knock you
down to their level and beat you with experience."
Unknown

http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

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.

I was referring to improvements in the way it all works internally.
Which is why you need different display drivers to get the most from Windows
7.
Also it seems there are still a lot of drivers out there that don't do the
new Windows 7 bits at all well, meaning that at present Windows 7 is very
slow at some 2D graphics functions with some graphics cards.

 

[Dave-UK]

LOL, some say that Microsoft software is itself malware. I run a
clean computer. I don't have malware. Even so, I get lockups of
programs that require a hard reboot (because the monitor screen
fails to respond at all), spontaneous reboots, and blue screens.
Doesn't happen often, but it happens. I put this down to
*probably* the older programs that I am running. It is, of course,
possible that I have a flaw in one of my RAM chips. But I'm not
going to blame my hardware just yet, for what I believe is
software instability. The problem I had with dragging windows is
gone, thanks to an update in the nVidia driver.

-Al-

If you haven't already done so, here are a couple of things you might
look at to find out why your machine is so unstable.
Have a look in the Event Viewer:
Control Panel
System and Security
Administrative tools
Event Viewer
Under Custom Views > Administrative events is a summary of errors
from the individual logs files listed in the left pane.

and the reliability history,

Reliability History Graph:
Control Panel
System and Security
Action Center
Maintenance > drop down menu > View Reliability history.
Select to view by Days and click on an item to view details.

 

[Bill Yanaire, ESQ]

Vista and Server 2008 use the same core.

W7 and Server 2008R2 use the same core.

R2=SE

Just because software products share some code doesn't make W7 a service
pack.

Windows 7 was a major re-write with some routines ported over. It's done
all the time. You want to believe Windows 7 is Vista SP3 then go ahead.
You probably also believe that Alias makes $14k a week! LOL!

Vista was renamed purely due to marketing. They had to shed the "Vista"
name and the bad taste that came with it.

Did you attend the meetings? Didn't think so.

While this has not been directly stated, it has been implied by MS, most
notably by the Server Dev team.

Who gives a rats ass. When going to the store for a new OS, ask for Vista
Service Pack 3. Let's see what you get to take to the register. Then go
ask for Windows 7 and again see what you can take to the register.

 

[Seth]

Just because software products share some code doesn't make W7 a service
pack.

I never said service pack. SE =! SP

Windows 7 was a major re-write with some routines ported over. It's done
all the time. You want to believe Windows 7 is Vista SP3 then go ahead.
You probably also believe that Alias makes $14k a week! LOL!





Did you attend the meetings? Didn't think so.

Some of them, actually yes. Where I work we often go to these. As the lead
desktop engineer for a firm 140,000 users large, I am often the one who
attends.

Who gives a rats ass. When going to the store for a new OS, ask for Vista
Service Pack 3. Let's see what you get to take to the register. Then go
ask for Windows 7 and again see what you can take to the register.

Again, I never said SP. And I never said it would show up on the shelf as
Vista SP. Doesn't change the underpinnings of the kernel, it's code base
and source.

You're too full of hatred and vitriol to think clearly.

 

[Bill Yanaire, ESQ]

I never said service pack. SE =! SP


Some of them, actually yes. Where I work we often go to these. As the
lead desktop engineer for a firm 140,000 users large, I am often the one
who attends.

I meant attending the meetings regarding Windows 7 at Microsoft. You didn't
attend those meetings so you really haven't a clue as to what went on with
regards to naming conventions and what code was used.

Again, I never said SP. And I never said it would show up on the shelf as
Vista SP. Doesn't change the underpinnings of the kernel, it's code base
and source.

You're too full of hatred and vitriol to think clearly.

It's just funny how people believe that Windows 7 is really a Vista service
pack. I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

 

[Al Smith]

If you haven't already done so, here are a couple of things you might
look at to find out why your machine is so unstable. Have a look in the
Event Viewer:
Control Panel
System and Security
Administrative tools
Event Viewer
Under Custom Views > Administrative events is a summary of errors
from the individual logs files listed in the left pane.

and the reliability history,

Reliability History Graph:
Control Panel
System and Security
Action Center
Maintenance > drop down menu > View Reliability history.
Select to view by Days and click on an item to view details.

Thanks for the tips. I keep working on my system, making it more
lean and hopefully more stable. Last night I finally tracked down
a problem that I mentioned here, that has been driving me nuts ...
constant, regular accessing of my external USB drive. I'd tried
everything I could think of. Last night I ran Process Monitor and
set it to show only programs. I turned them off, one after
another. Finally, the very *last* thing I tried seemed to do the
trick -- I turned off active scan in Windows Defender. The
external drive doesn't chug any longer.

It was worth the effort, because I was able to shut down some
worthless things that were running for nothing. Did you know that
nVidia has 3D turned on by default? It runs in the background all
the time as a service, and in the past at least has given
considerable problems to users through excessive CPU use. I was
able to shut that down, along with several other things -- several
search functions that were still running, for example.

I think the main reason I've had instability problems has been the
older games I play, coupled with the original nVidia driver, which
had some sort of bug in it that applied specifically to my Dell
computer. I'm experimenting with running the games in various
compatibility modes to find which works the best.

-Al-

 

[Ophelia]

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?"

Oh puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze... NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!

I loved my XP but now I am just getting used to Win7 so please.............
let us stay with it for the forseeable... )

 

[Seth]

I meant attending the meetings regarding Windows 7 at Microsoft. You
didn't attend those meetings so you really haven't a clue as to what went
on with regards to naming conventions and what code was used.

And those are the meetings I attended. At Microsoft campus.

It's just funny how people believe that Windows 7 is really a Vista
service pack. I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Again, you're the one saying service pack, not me. SE is different from SP.

 

[LouB]

Oh puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze... NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!

I loved my XP but now I am just getting used to Win7 so
please............. let us stay with it for the forseeable... )

BUT how is MS going to make money?
How are manufacturers going to encourage users to get new machines?

Golly what problems<vbg>

 

[Ophelia]

BUT how is MS going to make money?
How are manufacturers going to encourage users to get new machines?

Golly what problems<vbg>

wahhhhhhh I don't care!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

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?"

OS-X 7.0?

I am *just kidding*. I now have Win 7 and it works a bit better for me
than Vista did...

I also like OS-X - so there!

 

[PeeCee]

Snip



This is a very, very personal comment.

All the above MAY be true, but for me Win7 is a non-starter.

The problem is having to *reinstall* 100+ games and apps I have on my
WinXP SP3 system. Especially since my home system is rock-solid as
is.

The other issue I have with Win7 when I look at it (videos, store PCs,
and friends with Win7 systems) it's all eye-candy. Things that look
fancy but have no *real* operational value. Example, I run WinXP with
everything in the classic mode.

Now, IF Microsoft had made the upgrade method from WinXP-to-Win7 by
mounting the Win7 CD at the WinXP desktop and Win7 would install
*without* having to reinstall apps/games, INCLUDING NOT needing
special drivers, I may have considered the change.

I think it unlikely you will ever see much in the way of 'upgrade' options
in the future.
Right from the get go of Vista/Win7 a 'clean' install was touted as the
'prefered' upgrade choice.
In the grand scheme of things carrying legacy compatibility forward is a
real problem for MS & other OS vendors.
Apple got over the problem by making clean breaks and changing the OS
completely (several times so far)
MS needs to dump legacy compatibility to concentrate on the future, but in
doing so it will alienate a 'big' chunk of Corporate America.
Either way it can't win.

For us 'Cash Register Fodder' legacy compatibility is a very real problem.
I certainly can't afford to buy a new printer/scanner/video suite/office
suite just because Bill wants a new bathroom or HP's share price is down.
As you so fervently stated the 'hastle' of moving to a new platform is also
a serious consideration, though I do see advantages in a regular 'clean out'
and confirmation of backup policies.

Fortunately there is a way to have the best of both worlds and that is with
Virtualisation.
I see VM's running XP within Win8/9/10 allowing systems created over the XP
era to continue to work productively for their owners.
In your case a VM of your present XP machine should run just fine in Win7
Pro XP Mode.
That way you don't have to reinstall everything 'and' you get to play with
the more sensible improvements of the later OS's.
This is why Win7 64bit Pro on a motherboard that address's at least 12GB of
RAM is really minimum hardware spec for today.
Actually MS would help itself by making XP Mode available for 'all' versions
of Win7 .

By the way, I've been using Windows since the Win95 days, so I have a
very long view.

mmmm Unfortunately for my eyesight, hearing and paunch I've been around
since the days when adding RAM meant doing it yourself.
No fancy dimms, rimms or simms just a few expensive IC's, Vero board,
soldering Iron and a circuit diagram.
Makes one understand that change is a constant not something that can be
stopped.
Grumbles about upgrading software go way back.

--
======== Tecknomage ========
Computer Systems Specialist
IT Technician
San Diego, CA

Best
Paul.

 

[Pulse]

There might be something wrong with your PC then. Sometimes a new OS will
makes different use of different areas of RAM etc. etc. and exposes a faulty
module (by locking up). You could use one of those RAM checking programs to
see if everything is A-OK.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Al.

Finally, the very *last* thing I tried seemed to do the trick -- I turned
off active scan in Windows Defender. The external drive doesn't chug any
longer.

Have you tried the new Microsoft Security Essentials?
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

It's free - and it supersedes Windows Defender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Defender

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64

 

[Al Smith]

Hi, Al.


Have you tried the new Microsoft Security Essentials?
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

It's free - and it supersedes Windows Defender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Defender

RC

I will go right over and take a look. Thanks for the link.

-Al-

 

[Tecknomage]

I think it unlikely you will ever see much in the way of 'upgrade' options
in the future.
Right from the get go of Vista/Win7 a 'clean' install was touted as the
'prefered' upgrade choice.
In the grand scheme of things carrying legacy compatibility forward is a
real problem for MS & other OS vendors.
Apple got over the problem by making clean breaks and changing the OS
completely (several times so far)
MS needs to dump legacy compatibility to concentrate on the future, but in
doing so it will alienate a 'big' chunk of Corporate America.
Either way it can't win.

For us 'Cash Register Fodder' legacy compatibility is a very real problem.
I certainly can't afford to buy a new printer/scanner/video suite/office
suite just because Bill wants a new bathroom or HP's share price is down.
As you so fervently stated the 'hastle' of moving to a new platform is also
a serious consideration, though I do see advantages in a regular 'clean out'
and confirmation of backup policies.

Fortunately there is a way to have the best of both worlds and that is with
Virtualisation.
I see VM's running XP within Win8/9/10 allowing systems created over the XP
era to continue to work productively for their owners.
In your case a VM of your present XP machine should run just fine in Win7
Pro XP Mode.
That way you don't have to reinstall everything 'and' you get to play with
the more sensible improvements of the later OS's.
This is why Win7 64bit Pro on a motherboard that address's at least 12GB of
RAM is really minimum hardware spec for today.
Actually MS would help itself by making XP Mode available for 'all' versions
of Win7 .


mmmm Unfortunately for my eyesight, hearing and paunch I've been around
since the days when adding RAM meant doing it yourself.
No fancy dimms, rimms or simms just a few expensive IC's, Vero board,
soldering Iron and a circuit diagram.
Makes one understand that change is a constant not something that can be
stopped.
Grumbles about upgrading software go way back.



Best
Paul.

The reason I'll never "upgrade" has to do with being an "old fart."
I'm 65 and "plan" to fully retire in a few years.

I cannot spend the money on a complete new system (I build my own)
ONLY to use a new OS. Like a said, my WinXP SP3 system is rock-solid.
No crashes, no viruses, and no problems other than hardware failures
due to age (the last was my LED monitor awhile back).

Also, I do plan ahead. Since I use legacy hardware like IDE drives,
floppy, and AGP video cards, I already have and upgrade motherboard on
the shelf that has a Intel Core2 mounted AND has all the legacy
support I use in addition to supporting SATA drives if I wish. Also
have replacement AGP video cards.

By the way, my first system was a "Trash 80" (Tandy TRS-80). With an
"amazing" 64k RAM, 2 3" Single-Sided Floppy drives, 80x25 B&W monitor,
1200 baud modem (member of CompuServe), running CP/M.

 

[Lord Vetinari]

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.

HAH! Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

 

[Jeff Layman]

Jeff

From what I've observed Win7 is Vista with a lot of the 'complaints'
fixed.
As you have seen there is varied opinion on what to call Win7 but Vista
Second Edition is probably a fair assessment.
Vista broke many applications just like 95, NT and 2000 did in their era.
Unfortunately because MS left such a long break between major OS revisions
Vista was bound to disappoint.
Because the name 'Vista' became so tainted I suspect the pointy heads at
MS insisted Vista SE was a non starter.
So even though the Version is actually 6.1 MS had to call it Win7 in order
to remove it sufficiently from Vista for the market to regain confidence &
buy the new version.

The practical differences between Vista/Win7 in my experience are:
1 No more frustrating 'hangs' while the OS hives off into hyperspace doing
it's own thing, something Vista was 'very' bad at.
2 Minor 'GUI' changes eg the addition of Devices and Printers to the start
menu, dropping the gas hog Windows Vista Sidebar etc.
3 Removal of several previously bundled apps like an Email client, Movie
Maker, Messenger etc.
4 For the Pro and Ultimate versions the availability of XP Mode Virtual
Machine to carry forward mission critical apps that 'broke' on the move
from XP.
5 Apparent speed increase, though I've some reservations on that as I went
from an AMD X64 to an i7 which would explain at least some of the speed
boost.
6 The left window in Windows Explorer is worse than Vista, this is one
area where MS has got it totally wrong compared to 9x through XP.

From a broader perspective your change from XP to Win7 will bring a lot of
minor niggles and factors that were no different than when going from Win
3x to Win 9x
* Bit depth: now is the time to go to 64bit. 32 bit's 4GB max RAM is a
complete dead end and should only be used as a last resort to keep legacy
software running.
(& make sure your new motherboard can handle more than 4GB)
* Missing bundled apps, go to MS website and download 'Windows Live
Essentials' to regain a bundled Email Client, Movie Maker etc.
* The search tool does seem to work much better than XP's version ever
did.
* Things moved from where they were in XP is probably the biggest
frustration with Vista/Win7. Vista to Win7 changes are fairly minor.
* I find the 'dumbing down' of the UI worrying.
* While the Control Panel has more icons, somehow it seems harder to find
critical settings (search helps here)
* Start Menu: is in my opinion better, Luddites will scream bring back the
'classic' menu, but on a PC with lots of apps installed (as any power
users machine is likely to be) the new menu means you can get access.
With XP you had to resort to Windows Explorer or spend time 'nesting'
shortcuts.
* A negative for me is the pastel colours MS has used in both Vista and
Win7. Windows Explorer is much the poorer for this change.

So it's not just me! I replied in this thread yesterday that Win7 should be
renamed Windows Pastel and Soft Focus. And I agree totally about the new
Windows Explorer. I have now installed Explorer++ which is more like the XP
version of WE.

I disagree about the new WE Search facility. I find it incredibly
intrusive, and have disabled it. Even so, I had to go into Services to kill
it completely, and delete the 40Mb+ data file it had created in just over a
week. Why no option to simply delete the index file? Why is the only option
"delete and rebuild"? Maybe I'll look at it again if I can limit its scope
to what I want.

One other thing that I can't understand is Microsoft's changes which can
only partially be customised. Why is it possible to remove the pinned apps
from the taskbar, but not allow the Quick Launch toolbar to be placed right
next to the start button? And it moves over with each app opened as they
occupy the "pinned apps" space! Why move the "Show desktop" button to the
far side of the Notification Area, and make it unmovable? Why can the
Search Box in IE8 be shrunk so that it is effectively useless (I have no use
for it at all) but cannot be removed completely?

And I've gone back to the Classic Start menu. With the new Start menu,
that's another space waster MS have introduced. I don't want the top left
pane with a short list of programs I am not interested in, but even if I
delete all the links in it the space remains. Is there a way to remove it
to leave "All programs" at the top?