Why would anyone use Windows 7?

Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista? Everyone who knows anything about computers, knows
that Vista was Microsoft's biggest failure if all time. Yet, they took
that same code and created Windows 7, which lead to Windows 7 on
steroids (known as Windows 8 and 8.1). After that came Windows 7 on
super steroids, loaded with spyware, known as Windows 10.

Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I know I wont use any of it. I'll stick with XP until it no longer
works, and with any luck, someone will create a new OS by then, which is
not associated with Microsoft. I know someone is going to recommend
Linux, but that's not the answer, since Linux is not user friendly and
generally dont work.

Until the day comes when a useful replacement is created to replace MS
Windows, we're all stuck using an OS which dates back about 16 years.
The world is waiting for something new and different, not created from
corrupt code by the corrupt company known as Microsoft.

"Linux" as used, is Singular ! "doesn't work" ! English !!!

I use 7 and like it a lot. Can't crit it on anything except running
some very old programs.

Do updates etc. when I want to ( not like 10 ; don't know about 8.x ).

XP was / is pretty good. I use it on a virtual machine to run older
programs that won't run in anything later.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 04:08:48 -0400, wrote:

Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista? Everyone who knows anything about computers, knows
that Vista was Microsoft's biggest failure if all time. Yet, they took
that same code and created Windows 7, which lead to Windows 7 on
steroids (known as Windows 8 and 8.1). After that came Windows 7 on
super steroids, loaded with spyware, known as Windows 10.

Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I know I wont use any of it. I'll stick with XP until it no longer
works, and with any luck, someone will create a new OS by then, which is
not associated with Microsoft. I know someone is going to recommend
Linux, but that's not the answer, since Linux is not user friendly and
generally dont work.

Until the day comes when a useful replacement is created to replace MS
Windows, we're all stuck using an OS which dates back about 16 years.
The world is waiting for something new and different, not created from
corrupt code by the corrupt company known as Microsoft.

Go to alt.comp.os.windows-10 to see all the problems with 10. Your
post would make some sense if you said 10 instead of 7 ( and the
English ). [grin]



On Wed, 18 May 2016 07:37:30 -0400, wrote:

"Linux" as used, is Singular ! "doesn't work" ! English !!!

I use 7 and like it a lot. Can't crit it on anything except running
some very old programs.

Do updates etc. when I want to ( not like 10 ; don't know about 8.x ).

XP was / is pretty good. I use it on a virtual machine to run older
programs that won't run in anything later.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 04:08:48 -0400, wrote:

Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista? Everyone who knows anything about computers, knows
that Vista was Microsoft's biggest failure if all time. Yet, they took
that same code and created Windows 7, which lead to Windows 7 on
steroids (known as Windows 8 and 8.1). After that came Windows 7 on
super steroids, loaded with spyware, known as Windows 10.

Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I know I wont use any of it. I'll stick with XP until it no longer
works, and with any luck, someone will create a new OS by then, which is
not associated with Microsoft. I know someone is going to recommend
Linux, but that's not the answer, since Linux is not user friendly and
generally dont work.

Until the day comes when a useful replacement is created to replace MS
Windows, we're all stuck using an OS which dates back about 16 years.
The world is waiting for something new and different, not created from
corrupt code by the corrupt company known as Microsoft.

Per :
Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I was dragged, kicking and screaming, away from XP and into Windows 7
some years ago.

I don't know enough to cite specifics, but I find Windows 7 to be pretty
good. Of course I went with "Classic" wherever there was a UI option.

Only downside I have found is that it broke my version of Quicken.

OTOH an upside is the optional "Aero" desktop - which lets my screen
scraper (ReplayVideoCapture) hide the window showing the movie that is
being recorded.

Windows 8 isn't bad either - once you put out the five bucks for the
"Start8" utility.

So far, I haven't heard anything good about 10.... bad things, yes....
good things, no.... OTOH I have not been actively listening either.
--
Pete Cresswell

wrote:

Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista? Everyone who knows anything about computers, knows
that Vista was Microsoft's biggest failure if all time. Yet, they took
that same code and created Windows 7, which lead to Windows 7 on
steroids (known as Windows 8 and 8.1). After that came Windows 7 on
super steroids, loaded with spyware, known as Windows 10.

Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I know I wont use any of it. I'll stick with XP until it no longer
works, and with any luck, someone will create a new OS by then, which is
not associated with Microsoft. I know someone is going to recommend
Linux, but that's not the answer, since Linux is not user friendly and
generally dont work.

Until the day comes when a useful replacement is created to replace MS
Windows, we're all stuck using an OS which dates back about 16 years.
The world is waiting for something new and different, not created from
corrupt code by the corrupt company known as Microsoft.

how old is your hardware?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Windows 8 isn't bad either - once you put out the five bucks for the
"Start8" utility.

There are free shell replacements just as good as (or better than) Start8.
Classic Shell is pretty good.

--
- What the hell? It's not my fault--!
- The battle cry of every male!

On Wed, 18 May 2016 04:08:48 -0400, wrote:
Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista? Everyone who knows anything about computers, knows
that Vista was Microsoft's biggest failure if all time. Yet, they took
that same code and created Windows 7, which lead to Windows 7 on
steroids (known as Windows 8 and 8.1). After that came Windows 7 on
super steroids, loaded with spyware, known as Windows 10.

Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I know I wont use any of it. I'll stick with XP until it no longer
works, and with any luck, someone will create a new OS by then, which is
not associated with Microsoft. I know someone is going to recommend
Linux, but that's not the answer, since Linux is not user friendly and
generally dont work.

Until the day comes when a useful replacement is created to replace MS
Windows, we're all stuck using an OS which dates back about 16 years.
The world is waiting for something new and different, not created from
corrupt code by the corrupt company known as Microsoft.

Vista is an early version of the NT6 kernel (i.e. NT v6.0) with quite
significant changes and additions, so it's expected to end up like an
incomplete or a half baked product. However, with service pack, Vista can
become a decent and bearable OS. Win7 without service pack is like Vista
with service pack.

I also want to Windows XP as long as I can, but I can no longer do that for
about a month ago and had to move to Windows 7. Linux is simply not an
option for me due to my job and my preferences.

Main reason is hardware failure. The motherboard has worn out and become
unstable, so it freezes randomly (I've already isolated the problem). It's
not due to a malware issue, I'm sure of it. I've already confirm it by
installing Windows 7 separately (as multiboot), and it's still get randomly
frozen.

For me, moving to Windows 7 is without a loss. Aside from having to
reinstall and reconfigure every softwares (which is very tedious, BTW), I've
lost my favorite SoundBlaster Live! sound card since it has no Win7 driver
(and the third party open source driver is crap as expected). But the
biggest loss is the ability to fully control my system via a HIPS software
which unfortunately, has no Win7 compatible version. I had to use a
different HIPS which are 40% less capable and effective. And I'm still
looking for a better one.

Even though there are losses, there are good things too:

- Native 64-bit code. My previous system was 32-bit WinXP running on 2.4GHz
AMD64 2-cores and now I'm using 64-bit Win7 on 3.2GHz Intel Core i5 4-cores,
so I was using virtualization (e.g. VirtualBox, VMWare, etc.) in order to
use 64-bit code. I'm a software developer, so by having a native 64-bit
capability help me quite considerably.

- More RAM. Since I'm a programmer and no longer an active gamer, my memory
consuption is minimal. So, having RAM from 2GB to 8GB gave a very big empty
space for my system. Kind of like insurance.

- NTFS auto-healing. Aside from native 64-bit capability, this was my other
most wanted feature of Win7. Now I have it.

So, after a thorough consideration, weighting the losses and gains, I've
decided that the losses was too great due to change of new motherboard. Much
greater than sticking to WinXP and not fully utilize the available hardware
capability. Although I assemble my own PC, I basically am getting a new PC
because on the old one, the PSU, RAM, CPU, sound card, TV tuner card, are no
longer usable on the new motherboard. I can't afford a full featured
motherboard (with old PCI slots) due to budget.

And despite having higher hardware and OS specs, I underclock the CPU down
to 2.4GHz because I don't like the heat, and I'm paying the electric bills.
On Win7, I've disabled Aero and nearly half of system services because I'm a
programmer and I see wasteful usage of resources in nowaday softwares.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 04:08:48 -0400, wrote:

Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista? Everyone who knows anything about computers, knows
that Vista was Microsoft's biggest failure if all time. Yet, they took
that same code and created Windows 7, which lead to Windows 7 on
steroids (known as Windows 8 and 8.1). After that came Windows 7 on
super steroids, loaded with spyware, known as Windows 10.

Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I know I wont use any of it. I'll stick with XP until it no longer
works, and with any luck, someone will create a new OS by then, which is
not associated with Microsoft. I know someone is going to recommend
Linux, but that's not the answer, since Linux is not user friendly and
generally dont work.

Until the day comes when a useful replacement is created to replace MS
Windows, we're all stuck using an OS which dates back about 16 years.
The world is waiting for something new and different, not created from
corrupt code by the corrupt company known as Microsoft.


Having survivied MSDOS 3.1 and many itertions, I observe that there
have been basically two MS operating systems; FAT-based and NT-based.
Otherwise change has consisted mostly of expanded capabilities to keep
up with hardware, bric-a-brac features, and improved (?) cosmetics. As
to XP and later versions, drill down far enough in Windows 7, 8.0, 8.1
and 10, and you find the old familiar XP windows, leading me to
believe these later versions are just XP hopped up and beautified.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 2016-05-18, wrote:
Why would anyone use Windows 7, knowing it was built upon the foundation
of Windows Vista?

If you go back far enough it's all built on a foundation of Windows NT
which was built on a foundation of VAX/VMS.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista cleaned up, slimmed down, and polished the
way it should have been in the first place. It's stable and performs
well even on some pretty low-end hardware. Windows 7 is still the
preferred platform for most businesses. The only real issue with it is
that support from Microsoft will terminate in January of 2020.

After Microsoft support stops, Windows 7 users will find themselves in
the same position that XP users are in today - use it at your own peril
with no security fixes and diminishing 3rd-party support.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
Why use any MS operating system after XP, when it's all built upon the
corrupt code of Vista?

I was dragged, kicking and screaming, away from XP and into Windows 7
some years ago.

I don't know enough to cite specifics, but I find Windows 7 to be pretty
good. Of course I went with "Classic" wherever there was a UI option.

Only downside I have found is that it broke my version of Quicken.

OTOH an upside is the optional "Aero" desktop - which lets my screen
scraper (ReplayVideoCapture) hide the window showing the movie that is
being recorded.

Windows 8 isn't bad either - once you put out the five bucks for the
"Start8" utility.

So far, I haven't heard anything good about 10.... bad things, yes....
good things, no.... OTOH I have not been actively listening either.

Windows 7 allows screen scraping at 60FPS.
Later OSes have rate limiting. See if you
can manage more than 30FPS (even though some
content could be presented at 6oFPS) on one
of the later OSes.

GDIgrab on Win7 runs faster, if you actually
turn off the Aero transparency effect and
"flatten" the appearance of Win7 with a
different theme.

Vista took five years to write, and was released
before it was properly tested. There were a couple
articles by Mark Russinovich, about how he tested
and located some less than desirable behavior in
file copying. That sort of testing should have been
done before it was released.

Vista was in reasonable shape by SP2. And Win7
is roughly parallel with that.

While Win7 has some rough edges in terms of menu design,
it's otherwise "good enough" as a replacement for WinXP.
And the market share shows it is good enough.

The single biggest issue with Win7 now, is
proper management of Windows Update. It's
not something you can afford to leave on "Auto".
And WU has huge delays before the screen full of
updates appears, which is another dis-incentive.
Testing shows this is fixed in Windows 8, where
a huge list of updates does not cause an excessive
delay before the list is presented for review.

Paul

Per Paul:
Later OSes have rate limiting. See if you
can manage more than 30FPS (even though some
content could be presented at 6oFPS) on one
of the later OSes.

What kinds of content are presented at rates greater than 30 FPS ?

Maybe sports videos where slo-mo is used a lot ?
--
Pete Cresswell

| Vista took five years to write, and was released
| before it was properly tested.

That's not exactly true. Microsoft was working
on Longhorn, until 2005 I think. Longhorn was
going to be something like Metro: a .Net, sandboxed
version of Windows running on top of the actual OS.
They finally dropped the whole thing because it was
simply too bloated to run on available hardware.
So Vista was actually a seat-of-the-pants product
rushed out the door.

That, and the debacle with Intel 915 chipsets were
what made Vista seem junky. Microsoft made an
exception for Intel because they had a vast number of
motherboard chipsets they wanted to dump, but which
couldn't support the unprecedented bloat of Aero. So
Vista ended up coming out in two versions. One was
with Aero techno-kitsch, which was really the main
selling point. ("Look. It looks wicked new!") The other
was the crippled version running on Intel 915 chipsets.
Microsoft did their best not to tell the public what was
actually going down. As a result a lot of confused people
returned their Vista computers.

The OP certainly has a good point, up to a point.
I still use mainly XP. I have Win7. It's a pain in the
neck. I just recently discovered how to remove
"libraries" from Explorer treeviews. That detail is
a good example of the increasing problems with
Windows. It started out that Explorer and file
browsing windows showed the file system as drives
and folders. Then they started adding nonsense like
"libraries" and "My *"... And confusing, fake folder
paths, like the now-defunct Application Data folder.
In Win10 it seems to be a free-for-all. I don't even
remember all the pointless muck that I had to look
through before finding C: on Win10. I find myself
just blurring past the mess, like someone trying to
find a particular store while driving down a Miracle
Mile stretch of honky tonk mini malls and flashing signs.
It's not unusable, but it's extra work at nearly every
step.

XP is fixable. 7 is semi-fixable. Beyond that it
gets into Metro and increasing lockdown. But
that's all from the point of view of usability: a
tool that functions and then gets out of the way.
Each new version also has at least some selling
points, in terms of hardware support if nothing else.

On 5/18/2016 11:16 AM, Mayayana wrote:

snip

I just recently discovered how to remove
"libraries" from Explorer treeviews.

If it's not too complicated, could you share how you did that? I'd love
to get Libraries out of Explorer treeviews. In fact, what I'd prefer to
see right away is

Desktop
Computer
OS (C

etc.

I hate having to hunt for C:

Thank you,

Jo-Anne

Jo-Anne wrote:
On 5/18/2016 11:16 AM, Mayayana wrote:

snip

I just recently discovered how to remove
"libraries" from Explorer treeviews.

If it's not too complicated, could you share how you did that? I'd love
to get Libraries out of Explorer treeviews. In fact, what I'd prefer to
see right away is

Desktop
Computer
OS (C

etc.

I hate having to hunt for C:

Thank you,

Jo-Anne

When I double click on Computer, I get all the drives including C.

--
Z.

Wolf K on Wed, 18 May 2016 10:14:46 -0400 typed
in alt.windows7.general the following:
On 2016-05-18 04:08, wrote:
Why would anyone use Windows 7,

Because it works.

[snip blather]

When I find I have to stop doing what I'm doing, in order to find
where the next step takes place - that is not "working".
When I have a folder full of shortcuts to the various work areas I
have, because Windows has taken to hiding where I am in the navigation
tree, that is not "working".
When in order to get from a sub-directory to the parent directory,
I have to scroll up to Desktop, then open "libraries" then "documents"
then "documents" (another one), then to the parent directory of
"Computer Notes" - that is not exactly "working".

When routines I worked out over the years, no longer function -
that is not "working".

OTOH, the hardware support - 64 bits and dual cores, is
satisfactory.
IOW, the parts I don't see are fine, the part I see all the time -
is not helping.
--
pyotr filipivich
The two oldest cliches are "The Old Days were better."
and "After all, these are Modern Times."