Why upgrade from XP Pro 64 to Win 7 64
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
Prev: defrag missing
Next: XP Pro 64 restore points
From: Tom on 4 Jan 2010 16:41 "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber(a)ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25ac19a7f675b5dc98969b(a)news.conversent.net... > In article <D02F5449-B58E-44DF-BEFB-AEF8B2CD8742(a)microsoft.com>, > robspamtrap(a)gmail.com says... >> >> "Richard" <richard(a)spamfree.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:LHcHpyPTL6LLFwP3(a)eclipse.co.uk... >> >> > >> > I was happy with NT4....never had any real problems, but when 2000 came >> > along I really had no wish to move to XP when that arrived and only did >> > do >> > for the 64bit support when eventually that was offered. >> > >> > I hope 7 is well and truly sorted by the time drivers are no longer in >> > XP >> > Pro 64 for any vital new hardware such as printers! >> >> I'd say Win 7 already is "sorted". It's not perfect but then nothing is, >> but >> I'd say its the best Windows so far. And I'm primarily a mac owner these >> days, so I'm hardly blinded by the Microsoft marketing machine when I say >> that. > > If you haven't used the older windows versions much, you may not realize > how much useful functionality is missing from Win7, which was replaced > by eye candy. Overall it's good and I'm going to stick with, but there > is some significant functionality missing, which was in everything from > NT on, that I had to replace with 3rd party software. Can you specify what functionalities are missing from 7 that were in older versions? > > >> >> One advantage - I'd say that Win 7 x64 can be on a main desktop machine >> without any reservations, which you probably couldn't say about XP x64. >> The >> only issue is if you have any very old 16-bit software. > > And XP mode can take care of that for you. > > >> But if you have 2 >> computers in the room with one dedicated to one job you may find that a >> waste of resources if you can reduce that to just one computer doing >> everything. > >
From: David Kerber on 5 Jan 2010 08:17 In article <OtW8#aYjKHA.2780(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, noway(a)nothere.com says... > > "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber(a)ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message .... > >> I'd say Win 7 already is "sorted". It's not perfect but then nothing is, > >> but > >> I'd say its the best Windows so far. And I'm primarily a mac owner these > >> days, so I'm hardly blinded by the Microsoft marketing machine when I say > >> that. > > > > If you haven't used the older windows versions much, you may not realize > > how much useful functionality is missing from Win7, which was replaced > > by eye candy. Overall it's good and I'm going to stick with, but there > > is some significant functionality missing, which was in everything from > > NT on, that I had to replace with 3rd party software. > > Can you specify what functionalities are missing from 7 that were in older > versions? The specific ones I've run into are all in explorer, and they hurt my productivity by making it take more mouse movement and more clicks to get my work done: 1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember either their position or their size after logging off and back on and reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this correctly. 2) The desktop folders don't remember their layouts either: it opens every window in the layout the last explorer window closed used. For example, the explorer window I'm using to navigate my HD normally has the navigation pane, but not the details pane (I've never seen the point of the details pane; to me it contains no useful information). If that window is the last one I close when logging off or rebooting, my desktop folders then reopen with the navigation pane. Every version back to windows NT also remembered this. 3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by clicking on the "+" works as expected. 4) The taskbar doesn't display my open windows in the order they were opened; it always groups similar types together. I understand that some people like this, but I wish I could turn it off and have it work the way NT, 2k and XP did in that respect. 5) There is no way of getting the navigation pane to show the lines connecting folders, like I got in XP when I turned off "Display simple folder view". 6) I can't search *inside* files unless the file extension is registered with the search engine. In fact it's a pain to search inside files at all, the way the desktop search interface is configured. Again, I much preferred the clarity of the older version's "advanced" settings. 7) I don't like the way the "+" signs next to folders in the navigation pane appear and disappear when you move your mouse over that pane and back away from it. That makes it so that I can't tell if a folder has sub-folders without moving my mouse over to that pane, causing wasted time. This only occurs if the something other than the navigation pane has the focus. There may have been a couple of others, but these are the main irritants. All the above notwithstanding, I basically like Win7 and will stick with it, but I don't like the way they crippled windows explorer, and apparently changed some things just for the sake of change rather than to actually improve it. I have had no trouble with hardware drivers, since I bought the machine with Win7 installed. Windows 2000 was still my favorite version of windows, though, because of its execution speed and clean UI. .... D
From: Tom on 7 Jan 2010 16:58 "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber(a)ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25ad0606b15b472698969d(a)news.conversent.net... > In article <OtW8#aYjKHA.2780(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, noway(a)nothere.com > says... >> >> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber(a)ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in >> message > > ... > >> >> I'd say Win 7 already is "sorted". It's not perfect but then > nothing is, >> >> but >> >> I'd say its the best Windows so far. And I'm primarily a mac owner >> >> these >> >> days, so I'm hardly blinded by the Microsoft marketing machine when I >> >> say >> >> that. >> > >> > If you haven't used the older windows versions much, you may not >> > realize >> > how much useful functionality is missing from Win7, which was replaced >> > by eye candy. Overall it's good and I'm going to stick with, but there >> > is some significant functionality missing, which was in everything from >> > NT on, that I had to replace with 3rd party software. >> >> Can you specify what functionalities are missing from 7 that were in >> older >> versions? > > The specific ones I've run into are all in explorer, and they hurt my > productivity by making it take more mouse movement and more clicks to > get my work done: > > 1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop > itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I > position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember > either their position or their size after logging off and back on and > reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this > correctly. And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little customization, even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set your desktop the way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to the positions you want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make them sanp into place for neatness. > > 2) The desktop folders don't remember their layouts either: it opens > every window in the layout the last explorer window closed used. For > example, the explorer window I'm using to navigate my HD normally has > the navigation pane, but not the details pane (I've never seen the point > of the details pane; to me it contains no useful information). If that > window is the last one I close when logging off or rebooting, my desktop > folders then reopen with the navigation pane. Every version back to > windows NT also remembered this. This hasn't changed one iota going back to NT or Win 98 as there was a default setting on any windows install with those versions as well, the directions to do so changed slightly, but is more efficient. I assume maybe it was set-up for your liking in previous version or that you haven't found the path to make this stick yet. Go to Control Panel/Folder Options/View Tab and uncheck box in window "Restore previous folder windows at logon", if that is checked. Then open a folder, then on the right (with mouse hover) select "more options" and slide the bar to what view you prefer. Then click on the "Organize" button on the left side and select "Folder and search options", then "View" tab and click the button (it will be ready when you make changes) "Apply to Folders", and you should be good to go. I can say that I have not had the problem you mention, as I arrange different folders for my liking once I open that particular folder and with them not sticking to that setting.. > > 3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking > on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition > itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the > bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up > depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by > clicking on the "+" works as expected. That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less steps to take. > > 4) The taskbar doesn't display my open windows in the order they were > opened; it always groups similar types together. I understand that some > people like this, but I wish I could turn it off and have it work the > way NT, 2k and XP did in that respect. It certainly does organize them in the order they were opened. If you have different windows opened or numerous sessions of IE opened (for example), when you hover over them on the taskbar, the items listed top to bottom are what were opened first to last. If they are windows folders, they will also show their paths. > > 5) There is no way of getting the navigation pane to show the lines > connecting folders, like I got in XP when I turned off "Display simple > folder view". Why is this necessary? The navigation pane already has the folder trees, otherwise having the lines as well, would be redundant. Having Windows Explorer in the pane is the better function and WE is a better navigating tool for browsing folders. I honestly don't remember there ever being line in previous version, or I just didn't pay attention. > > 6) I can't search *inside* files unless the file extension is > registered with the search engine. In fact it's a pain to search inside > files at all, the way the desktop search interface is configured. > Again, I much preferred the clarity of the older version's "advanced" > settings. Works a treat, and even better. With or without extensions, it shows any name I type in and it places them in alphabetical order as well. if you care, I can make a video or image of this working. Have you tried making changes in Folder Options/ Search tab? > > 7) I don't like the way the "+" signs next to folders in the navigation > pane appear and disappear when you move your mouse over that pane and > back away from it. That makes it so that I can't tell if a folder has > sub-folders without moving my mouse over to that pane, causing wasted > time. This only occurs if the something other than the navigation pane > has the focus. But, it gets your attention that there are subfolders, no? Should this not actually make it easier to tell that there are subfolders? I suspect this is a means for helping performance of the PC, but I may be wrong. > > > > There may have been a couple of others, but these are the main > irritants. > > All the above notwithstanding, I basically like Win7 and will stick with > it, but I don't like the way they crippled windows explorer, and > apparently changed some things just for the sake of change rather than > to actually improve it. I have had no trouble with hardware drivers, > since I bought the machine with Win7 installed. > > Windows 2000 was still my favorite version of windows, though, because > of its execution speed and clean UI. I really like it so far, especially when compared to Vista. It's very informational with this rig I built and the errors I've gotten. I have been able to make quick remedy with this feature. Win2000 was a very solid OS, but times change and so does technology and it had to move on. Win2000 couldn't handle today's hardware and since MS is in the money-making business, it wouldn't make sense to just keep building on the same OS, though the file system (NTFS) is the same.
From: Jeff Gaines on 7 Jan 2010 17:12 On 07/01/2010 in message <Ok4t5R#jKHA.4356(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Tom wrote: >>1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop >>itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I >>position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember >>either their position or their size after logging off and back on and >>reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this >>correctly. > >And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little >customization, even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set >your desktop the way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to >the positions you want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make >them sanp into place for neatness. I think the point the OP made was that the folders themselves don't remember their settings. In previous version of Windows the last 400 folders opened remembered their settings. In Win7 settings are remembered only for the last folder closed. >>3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking >>on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition >>itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the >>bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up >>depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by >>clicking on the "+" works as expected. > >That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the >directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double >click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and >expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of >the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less >steps to take. I think the point the OP was making is that either double clicking a folder or clicking on the expand arrow expands the folder then relocates it at the bottom of the Tree View which is a total pain. I'll add a couple of annoyances: CD/DVD trays opening if you accidentally click on an empty drive in Explorer. It seems that no MSFT programmer has ever used a PC with a door on it. The very light high-light colour when you are not focussed on the Tee View, makes it very difficult to see where you are. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. (Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)
From: Tom on 7 Jan 2010 18:48
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:xn0gove6hadoq1t004(a)msnews.microsoft.com... > On 07/01/2010 in message <Ok4t5R#jKHA.4356(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Tom > wrote: > >>>1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop >>>itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I >>>position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember >>>either their position or their size after logging off and back on and >>>reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this >>>correctly. >> >>And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little >>customization, even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set >>your desktop the way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to >>the positions you want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make >>them sanp into place for neatness. > > I think the point the OP made was that the folders themselves don't > remember their settings. In previous version of Windows the last 400 > folders opened remembered their settings. In Win7 settings are remembered > only for the last folder closed. But they do remember the settings if you set the folder the way one wants it to appear and then apply it as I described below. It was the same way with previous versions of Windows, one had to set the options to make them appear as one desires, or each folder would not appear the same when opened.. > >>>3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking >>>on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition >>>itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the >>>bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up >>>depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by >>>clicking on the "+" works as expected. >> >>That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the >>directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double >>click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and >>expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of >>the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less >>steps to take. > > I think the point the OP was making is that either double clicking a > folder or clicking on the expand arrow expands the folder then relocates > it at the bottom of the Tree View which is a total pain. > > I'll add a couple of annoyances: > > CD/DVD trays opening if you accidentally click on an empty drive in > Explorer. It seems that no MSFT programmer has ever used a PC with a door > on it. > > The very light high-light colour when you are not focussed on the Tee > View, makes it very difficult to see where you are. As I noted, one doesn't have to double click a folder to get the desired result, it is simply redundant with the new navigation pane set-up. I would think that would be easier and faster. One also has to double-click on the DVD/CD drives to make them open. |