Winblows 7 the Worst OS Ever

[DerStrom8]

I used to only use Macs, because they were all that I had available. I immediately got turned off to them because they were constantly having problems. I even got locked out of my own account on several occasions. I had to take it to a tech guy who knew what he was doing to fix, and even then it usually didn't help much. They would just crash or lock me out again in a day or two. I never had good luck with a Mac, which is why I refuse to use anything other than a PC. However, I do hear that many of the issues that I dealt with have been worked out, and some of the newer ones work much better. At this point, I think the only reason I don't use a Mac is because of the user interface. I don't care much for the layout for the Macs. It's easier for an engineer like me to get around on the PC than on the Mac. I think Macs are for people who don't want or need to do anything specialized with their computers, but that is something I have to do on a regular basis. I love the layout of the PC, and that's what I'll probably always use.

 

[TheAppleMac]

I'm sorry to hear that DerStrom.
I guess we can agree to disagree then.
And to be honest, I'm also glad to hear it. The only thing which forces technology giants such as Apple or Microsoft to constantly improve their products is the fear of competition. If there was no competition, nothing would be done.

 

[Sceadwian]

Apple's going to run into tough times in the next few years as Android's popularity has exploded, and the price point collapse of mobile devices. The only thing that keeps Apple in business right now is it's obscene profit margins and the industry as a whole is so deeply in flux right now it's going to be an interesting next few years to see how things shake out!

They're stalling some things in court right now with various patent claims however all that is going to take is another couple generations of device and software development to skirt the details of the patents in question.

Apple fans boys are still and have always been a vocal minority, not much to suggest anything is going to change that.

 

[Mikebits]

Apple's going to run into tough times in the next few years as Android's popularity has exploded, and the price point collapse of mobile devices. The only thing that keeps Apple in business right now is it's obscene profit margins and the industry as a whole is so deeply in flux right now it's going to be an interesting next few years to see how things shake out!

They're stalling some things in court right now with various patent claims however all that is going to take is another couple generations of device and software development to skirt the details of the patents in question.

Apple fans boys are still and have always been a vocal minority, not much to suggest anything is going to change that.

Well, of course your allowed to have your opinion, albeit I don't agree with it, but you are allowed I played around with the androids, the apps are buggy and unreliable, release of android apps has no quality control like Apple apps. For me, my Iphone is a work tool, I have my EMS and other medical apps, along with job related utilities. For me reliable bug free apps are important. I dunno, but I think Apple will be here for awhile.

 

[BrownOut]

You mean to tell me that quality and reliability still mean something in this day and age? That's fantastic

 

[Sceadwian]

Oh I didn't say they wouldn't be here for a while Mike, it'll be years before they're usurped, but they've definitely in my opinion nearly hit close to the peak of their product lines pure market dominance, competition over the next 5 years is going to be insane. I'm sure they'll always be there, kind of like Apple has always been there, as a niche market.

I do agree with the quality/reliability aspect of Apple's products, but I also detest their markups, I'm a socialist at heart and the profit Apple sees on it's products and the conditions of the workers is a far cry from where I think technology should be heading.

 

[rjs9163]

Windows XP is a great user friendly os I had worked on. Even the first time user would be able to work on it pretty fine but this is not a case for windows 7, the user normal user finds it difficult to use it, but a user who uses it on a daily basis would love to use windows 7 or vista rather than using windows xp

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

I say we all go back to Windows 3.1 (chuckle). Anyone remember that? I had it installed on a 75 Megabyte hard drive (yes that is Megabyte not a mistake). Loved it except when it came time to install drivers...

 

[DerStrom8]

Hi,

I say we all go back to Windows 3.1 (chuckle). Anyone remember that? I had it installed on a 75 Megabyte hard drive (yes that is Megabyte not a mistake). Loved it except when it came time to install drivers...

Yup, I used to have a laptop with Windows 3.0 installed. Everything was in black and white (I'm not sure if that was how it came or if something on the computer broke). The only thing it was really good for was minesweeper and solitaire I don't even know if it had a word processor on it. It was quite a relic

 

[Reloadron]

Aside from the wonders of nostalgia here is something to think about. We won't go back to Windows 3.1.

Bill Gates was not a programming guru. He was a marketing guru. His objective all along was to develop an operating platform the was user friendly, something that could be mastered and used at home by an average person.

When Windows 98 was released and subsequently Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) Windows 98 SE was similar to Windows 95 but with more features. The overall look and feel were very similar so a transition from Windows 95 to Windows 98SE was a relatively painless transition.

Then came Windows 2000 professional aimed at business and the office place in general. Windows 2000 was a big change from Windows 98. The look and feel were not as similar as a transition between for example Windows 95 and Windows 98.

The truth here is people who had been using Windows 98SE had a more difficult time learning Windows 2000 than people who had never seen an operating system. Given a choice when it comes to a new operating system I would prefer to train someone that has never seen an OS on a new OS.

Following Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 Professional came what I believe to have been the OS from hell and that being Windows ME (Millennium Edition). I just feel it was released way, way too soon. While it did lay the groundwork for Windows XP and a new platform I just do not feel it should have been done at customer expense.

When Windows XP was released the change was indeed a big change. I had never heard more complaints than with the release of Windows XP. That being sans the short life of Windows ME. Older software simply did not run or run well. I had to replace my old serial port (RS232) mouse as well as other hardware. The people who made my graphics cards choose not to release XP drivers. However, looking back today, Windows XP was a great OS following the bumps and bruises of the initial release.

Next we have Windows Vista which the system I am currently on is running. Works just fine for me. However, Windows Vista like Windows 7 is a change from Windows XP. Again, my adage holds true. I would rather teach Windows 7 to a person who has never laid a finger on a keyboard than a person who has been using Windows XP. Just the nature of the beast. Both Windows Vista and Windows 7 have worked out fine for me. Everyday I see people complain and ***** because they seem to think the OS should work the way they think it should work rather than the way it was designed to work. Over the years I have seen operating systems evolve as Microsoft tries to make the system fool proof but fail as fools are ingenious people.

My same line of thinking holds true for Microsoft office products. Toss a ribbon in the page header and people freak out rather than learn how to use the ribbon. Technology changes and the trick, if there is a trick, is to remain abreast of change.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[Sceadwian]

You have some odd misconceptions about Microsoft's OS developement reload.

95 was still effectively DOS based at it's core but was a total ui departure from Windows 3.1x (most of my experience was with Windows 3.11 not 3.1). 98 removed some of 95's limitations and isolated itself a bit more from it's DOS roots (although not completely) and introduced a lot more API's. 98SE is nothing more than a rebuild of 98 with USB support tacked on and updated native drivers it's not really a separate OS at all.

ME.... Lets not talk about ME... it was a massive mistake not an operating system, it wasn't just released 'early' it was basically still in alpha when they shipped it and it had no fundamental advancements over previous version of windows, it was just one last gasp from Microsoft to get a few pennies from consumers.

NT was a from the ground up scratch OS build that was meant for servers only, 2000 was based on NT and the first attempt at MS to get away from all the limitations of the original 95 code. XP was a consumer version of 2000, still based on the NT kernel, the 9X series was obsoleted at that point effectively although a lot of the API layers did transfer.

Vista was released early but later service packs have made it much more usable. Windows 7 is basically what Vista should have been from the start if they'd spent more time on it.

My same line of thinking holds true for Microsoft office products. Toss a ribbon in the page header and people freak out rather than learn how to use the ribbon. Technology changes and the trick, if there is a trick, is to remain abreast of change.

Just My Take

I can agree with that completely!

 

[Reloadron]

Sceadwian, My point was the learning curve in that it seems easier to me to teach a new OS to someone who never used a predecessor on a regular basis. I understand how in the evolution to where we are today how each was based. What are your thoughts on that?

Here is another analogy along those lines. I enjoy shooting, all my life I have enjoyed shooting. I actually thought I could shoot well when I entered the Marine Corps. It was only after the Marine Corps beat all my old thinking and bad habits out of me that they taught me how to shoot correctly. I had to get all the crap out of my head and start from scratch. I would rather teach someone rifle shooting who has never in their life picked up a rifle.

Ron

 

[Jugurtha]

I had to get all the crap out of my head and start from scratch. I would rather teach someone rifle shooting who has never in their life picked up a rifle.

That's exactly the reframing I used with a guy recently, talking about recruiting, and what he would bring to the company he'll work for. He said "I don't know anything, I'm just about to finish college".. And I said "Well, that's good .. You don't know how to do things the wrong way either.. You don't have bad habits.. That's a plus".

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

The BIGGEST thing I like about Windows 7 is the "Search box". The worst thing I like about Windows in general is the "ease of corruption". The registry is both good and bad. It sure makes restoring Windows difficult.

I can't use a particular WIFI scanning tool in Win 7. The CMD prompt is totally hidden from view.

ME was the worst Microsoft OS.

 

[Jugurtha]

The BIGGEST thing I like about Windows 7 is the "Search box".

There is a great little program for that. It's about half a megabyte . It's called "Everything".

https://www.voidtools.com/download.php

The first time it installs, it indexes the whole hard drive and makes a .db file where it stores the hierarchy. Then there's just a text zone, and it shows the files matching your query AS YOU TYPE.

I guess the way it works is that it hooks to the Windows API calls relating to creating / deleting files and folders, and makes changes accordingly to the database. The thing is real time. Although of course if you alter files booting with another OS, the database will not be up-to date. You'll have to reload the program when you boot Windows.

The worst thing I like about Windows in general is the "ease of corruption". The registry is both good and bad. It sure makes restoring Windows difficult.

That's why I like the *NIX like systems. They have that rule of "everything is a file" -even devices and peripherals are "viewed" as files, which makes the input / output functions so useful- .. You just have to change a text file to change a configuration. If something is corrupted, you try to boot using a live USB stick, change that file, reboot and most of the time .. Voilà.

[/QUOTE]I can't use a particular WIFI scanning tool in Win 7. The CMD prompt is totally hidden from view.[/QUOTE]

Yeah .. It's such condescending and pretentious .. Like they assume certain things about you. I had to touch a computer running 7 (Or Vista, can't tell the difference) recently .. I typed telnet in the command prompt and it ... didn't recognize the "command", as it calls it. What ??

 

[DerStrom8]

There is a great little program for that. It's about half a megabyte . It's called "Everything".

https://www.voidtools.com/download.php

The first time it installs, it indexes the whole hard drive and makes a .db file where it stores the hierarchy. Then there's just a text zone, and it shows the files matching your query AS YOU TYPE.

I guess the way it works is that it hooks to the Windows API calls relating to creating / deleting files and folders, and makes changes accordingly to the database. The thing is real time. Although of course if you alter files booting with another OS, the database will not be up-to date. You'll have to reload the program when you boot Windows.

"Launchy" is another one that does the same thing. Alt + Space opens/closes it, and it searches for the application/file as you're typing it. I generally just use the start menu, though.