To all

This link makes a point that has always bothered me--each new OS put out by Microsoft always changes and re-arranges where to find the major system settings--the settings are usually the *same* as were needed on the prior OSs--of course there can be new functions and some may be dropped from a prior system--but why not keep them in a consistent place--and worded in a similar fashion?

WinXP menus versus Win7 menus

Totally agree.  Win7 is a great OS, but why move everything and rename it when it now takes more clicks to get anywhere and it's all harder to find.  This is the frustration Microsoft is infamous for!

When I decided to get Win-7, I figgered I might as well see what the Ultimate 64 version would do on my Dual Core, 64bit, AMD processor, with 6 gig's of RAM.

I had looked at Vista, (a Beta test version) but it was such a beast I never bought it.

I can't believe that Windows XP and win-7 were even written by the same company.  Obviously not by the same guys.  $%@#&!  they even messed up my old favorite, Solitaire.  Cheeeech!
(copying Sol and the cards.dll file from XP works fine in W-7)

After installing win-7 on a new HD, I immediately understood what other guys are saying about turning off UAC and installing "Take Ownership".  I did both and then combined the two scripts into one, since I'll do both on every Win-7 PC that I set up, from now on.  All that "permission" stuff is just a PITA for a home computer.

I made Win-7 run a bit better and a bit more friendly on my own PC by installing the "Classic Shell", which I found a link to on one of the Windows 7 forums.
I also use the old tweak that puts the Kernel into RAM on boot.  That tweak came out with XP, but works just fine for Vista and Win-7.

But one thing that I can do with XP that I absolutely CAN'T do with Win-7, is back it up to a single DVD.  That sux!

I'll still be running Windows XP-Pro-SP3 till they shovel dirt into my grave.

Old Casper

I'm not sure what "take ownership" is either.  I did turn UAC off on my Win7 desktop because that gets annoying *really* quick.  Other than that, I like Win7.  It is stable and fast and powerful.  They added a lot of features I had come to enjoy about Linux and a few more I didn't know I needed.  Coming from a die hard Linux fan, you know it's a pretty high bar for me to say a version of Windows is a "pretty decent OS."


OldCasper wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 9:37am:

I see it differently.  I can't believe Vista and Win7 were written by the same company.  Vista is slow and annoying and slightly unstable under heavy load.  WinXP was the most stable, fast, powerful version of Windows ever made at the time, and I think Win7 has now earned that title.  In that light, I can believe XP and Win7 were made by the same company.

Don't get me wrong, I'm irritated that they moved everything in the entire control panel and start menu.  It takes 3 or 4 mouse clicks to get to things that used to take 1 or 2, and everything is named differently so you have to search for things.  It's annoying, but it's still worth it to switch.  Vista is no fun and you can't stick with XP forever.  Support is about to (finally) end for XP, and MS will stop providing security updates for it soon. 

Besides that, Win7 provides lots of nice new features and support for new types of hardware (multi-touch, etc.)  And for those of you worried about older hardware, I haven't found anything yet that doesn't work in Win7.  For all the complaints about hardware not working in Win7, I can tell you that, from my professional experience, it is the exception, not the norm to have problems.

Not that I'm saying you have to run out and upgrade right now.  Just that next time you upgrade your setup, you can look forward to the transition rather than dreading it or jumping through hoops to cling to what is now an ancient OS.

NightOwl wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 9:23am:


It's a lot of little things that add up to a better user experience.  Here's one example: When you have multiple monitors and want to move a full-screen window from one monitor to another.  Previously in windows, this required un-maximizing the window, moving it to the other screen, then maximizing it again.  For several years now, Linux has allowed you to just grab the window by the title bar and start dragging it.  It automatically un-maximizes as you drag it.  Move it to one of the corners of the other screen and it maximizes again for you automatically.  As of Windows7, Widows does exactly that and actually does it a little more smoothly than Linux.

Another nice thing - Windows has loosened up the control of the screen that dialog boxes have.  Ever have a dialog box open and want to see what's under it but can't because the dialog box just keeps flashing at you every time you click on the window underneath?  Linux has never cared.  You can look at whatever you want - move, minimize, or send the dialog box to the bottom of the stack of windows, whatever you want.  In Windows7, some applications give you more freedom to move or minimize dialog boxes and see the parent window underneath.  Some apps like Outlook still won't let you do much with a dialog box sitting on top, but at least some will not quite take over your desktop as much (Firefox is a specific application where I noticed improvement.)

Combine lots of small improvements like that with the fastest and most stable OS MS has ever put out, and it makes a big difference to someone like me who is on the computer ~10-18 hours a day.

One of the biggest features Linux has had for years that MS has yet to implement is multiple desktops.  Wouldn't that be nice...