Windows 7 and why people are such idiots - Hardware & Software

[QUOTE=jmazouri;17934288]People are going to be all "RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE" about this, but for some reason, I just like 7 better than Vista. Maybe it's the superbar, maybe it's the UAC removal, maybe it's just shinier, it simply appeals to me more.[/QUOTE] I doubt anyone will rage, even us Vista lovers agree that 7 is a better OS. We're just saying that Vista isn't the piece of shit that so many people make it out to be.

[QUOTE=Roast Beast;17934537]even us Vista lovers agree that 7 is a better OS. We're just saying that Vista isn't the piece of shit that so many people make it out to be.[/QUOTE] fucking this

I've had both and I like Windows 7 more for these few reasons: -RC is more stable than Service Pack 1 on Vista. -Better GUI. -Faster (on my rig anyway).

I have to say, 7 is way better than Vista. I used Vista for around 2 years, I loved it, there were few problems with it. 7 is like Vista having sex with XP and all the good parts coming out in a nice, user-friendly baby.

[QUOTE=Eleventeen;17926378]Three ways to make 7 superior to Vista. -> One version. Nobody wants 100 OS versions where only the 100th gives them what they need. -> No UAC. Seriously, If I buy a PC, it's my PC, I'll do what I want. Let people learn from their mistakes. -> Use the old Windows interface. I don't want to learn where everything is again. I'm not buying a new OS so I can learn to use my computer again.[/QUOTE] -> The reason there are different versions is because of price. A lot less people would buy it if there was only one version and it was the price of Ultimate, which realistically is what it would be since they'd have to make up for sales. If anything it might actually be more. The lower ones which are essentially the same minus features which are useless to most people provide a much better cost effective option. How fucking hard is it to buy the one you can afford? -> UAC, while annoying, is pretty helpful to the vast majority of people who are electronically handicapped. I'm sure it stops a lot of rampant viruses and a whole bunch of other stupid shit. The people who aren't prone to get so many viruses, the savvy users, can easily disable it with a few clicks. -> Yeah let's keep the same goddamn dated and basic (and hideous depending on what you like) interface from Windows 95. Hell let's all go back to DOS, since that WAS when a lot of people learnt to use computers. It's not fair to them that they keep introducing better visuals and more user functionality. Your ideas are horrible and I'm glad you don't own a business or work at Microsoft.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;17935122]-> The reason there are different versions is because of price. A lot less people would buy it if there was only one version and it was the price of Ultimate, which realistically is what it would be since they'd have to make up for sales. If anything it might actually be more. The lower ones which are essentially the same minus features which are useless to most people provide a much better cost effective option. How fucking hard is it to buy the one you can afford? -> UAC, while annoying, is pretty helpful to the vast majority of people who are electronically handicapped. I'm sure it stops a lot of rampant viruses and a whole bunch of other stupid shit. The people who aren't prone to get so many viruses, the savvy users, can easily disable it with a few clicks. -> Yeah let's keep the same goddamn dated and basic (and hideous depending on what you like) interface from Windows 95. Hell let's all go back to DOS, since that WAS when a lot of people learnt to use computers. It's not fair to them that they keep introducing better visuals and more user functionality. Your ideas are horrible and I'm glad you don't own a business or work at Microsoft.[/QUOTE] Hey, Rusty, you're not dead! Also 1xAgree.

[QUOTE=Panda X;17934389]99% of the time, the person installing Windows would be the kind of person who would need to be under an Admin account.[/QUOTE] With most Linux distros, you have the root account and the user account. In order to do administrative tasks, you have to authenticate as the root user. You don't have to log out, you just type in a password. That's really what Windows should do. If I'm just browsing the web on Windows, I don't need to be an Admin at the moment. When I need to install something I can punch in a password. UAC kind of does that, but the OK button is too easy to click and ignore. Also, AFAIK you don't need to get past UAC to write to the root of the C drive. So I could write a virus that writes junk to C:\ without the user knowing theoretically. If Windows did it the "Linux way", the user would only be allowed to write to C:\Users\name\.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17935427]UAC kind of does that, but the OK button is too easy to click and ignore. Also, AFAIK you don't need to get past UAC to write to the root of the C drive. So I could write a virus that writes junk to C:\ without the user knowing theoretically. If Windows did it the "Linux way", the user would only be allowed to write to C:\Users\name\.[/QUOTE] You can't write direct to C:\ anyway. I just tested it and seems you are able to make a folder and write to that with no UAC prompts which isn't much better. Personally I like being able to be admin without a password, but I think all admin accounts should have a password no matter what on Windows. Basically a root user.

[QUOTE=SBII Gunz;17935019]I have to say, 7 is way better than Vista. I used Vista for around 2 years, I loved it, there were few problems with it. 7 is like Vista having sex with XP and all the good parts coming out in a nice, user-friendly baby.[/QUOTE] In the words of my boss "Windows 7 is what Vista wanted to be when it grew up"

[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;17932956]It's only a flaw if you're a computer illiterate dumbshit. Me, I know what I'm doing, and I hate being restricted as a user. I need admin accress to everything because I make TONS of system-wide changes. I don't like being bothered to be "elevated" every 5 fucking seconds I'm on my PC.[/QUOTE] Then you could set UAC to the second setting (out of three), and disable every non-useful warning while keeping the malware-protection ones active. I am a "power user" (such an overused word) and it doesn't really annoy me at all. [QUOTE=Panda X;17934389]99% of the time, the person installing Windows would be the kind of person who would need to be under an Admin account.[/QUOTE] Maybe I did something wrong, but when I installed Windows 7, I was not Administrator, but gparent, a member of the admin group able to run elevated programs. Am I missing something?

[QUOTE=gparent;17937370]Then you could set UAC to the second setting (out of three), and disable every non-useful warning while keeping the malware-protection ones active. I am a "power user" (such an overused word) and it doesn't really annoy me at all. Maybe I did something wrong, but when I installed Windows 7, I was not Administrator, but gparent, a member of the admin group able to run elevated programs. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE] Administrative account.

[QUOTE=Eleventeen;17926378]Three ways to make 7 superior to Vista. -> One version. Nobody wants 100 OS versions where only the 100th gives them what they need. -> No UAC. Seriously, If I buy a PC, it's my PC, I'll do what I want. Let people learn from their mistakes. -> Use the old Windows interface. I don't want to learn where everything is again. I'm not buying a new OS so I can learn to use my computer again.[/QUOTE] I installed Windows7, and i have been using a Custom start menu for XP and what not. It took me one night to figure out how to get EVERYTHING working. If you cannot figure it out, you don't deserve it.

[QUOTE=Panda X;17940590]Administrative account.[/QUOTE] So he means that it's bad to be in the admin group by default? Sounds like he doesn't understand UAC...

If you can't disable UAC, you aren't computer smart enough and its dangerous for you if you care about staying virus-free. :v:

Vista sucked. Maybe it was later fixed, but at least at launch, it was steaming pile of shit.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17946597]Vista sucked. Maybe it was later fixed, but at least at launch, it was steaming pile of shit.[/QUOTE] Care to explain Almighty Sir Bandwagon?

[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;17932956]It's only a flaw if you're a computer illiterate dumbshit. Me, I know what I'm doing, and I hate being restricted as a user. I need admin accress to everything because I make TONS of system-wide changes. I don't like being bothered to be "elevated" every 5 fucking seconds I'm on my PC.[/QUOTE] If you're such a fucking PC master learn how to turn it off.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;17946662]Care to explain Almighty Sir Bandwagon?[/QUOTE] It is slower than XP, even with no better functionality enabled. Booting times, response, everything. Windows 7 is much better at this. It eats shitloads of RAM, and unreasonably high amounts of it. Mainly at start, it was incompatible with a lot of software.a And I tested Vista as one of the first people ever. Don't dare to call me bandwagoner.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17946876]It is slower than XP, even with no better functionality enabled. Booting times, response, everything. Windows 7 is much better at this. It eats shitloads of RAM, and unreasonably high amounts of it. Mainly at start, it was incompatible with a lot of software.[/QUOTE] Wrong, wrong and, dun dun dun duunnn (damn crappy dramatic text), wrong, again. Vista is a perfectly fine OS now, it runs about the same as XP so long as your PC isn't a 1990's heap of crap (hell even they can run it to a extent). It rarely uses RAM, besides, like Linux follows "If there is RAM, why not use it?" It will give you it back when you need it, point invalidated. And why judge the launch version like it's the current? Logic invalidated. Good job making a fool of yourself there my man.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;17946907]Wrong, wrong and, dun dun dun duunnn (damn crappy dramatic text), wrong, again. Vista is a perfectly fine OS now, it runs about the same as XP so long as your PC isn't a 1990's heap fo crap (hell even they can run it to a extent). It rarely uses RAM, besides, like Linux follows "If there is RAM, why not use it?" It will give you it back when you need it, point invalidated. And why judge the launch version like it's the current? Logic invalidated. Good job making a fool of yourself there my man.[/QUOTE] A 1 year old notebook. Boots 3 times faster with Windows 7 than with Vista, with both freshly installed. Explain. And I pointed out, that Vista was worst at release. Of course majority already got fixed by now.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17946876]It eats shitloads of RAM, and unreasonably high amounts of it.[/QUOTE] hahaha, haven't seen this for a while

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17946931]And I pointed out, that Vista was worst at release. Of course majority already got fixed by now.[/QUOTE] So why are you still complaining about it?

[QUOTE=Roast Beast;17947024]So why are you still complaining about it?[/QUOTE] Because Windows 7 started off just perfectly. Windows 7 > Windows Vista. End of story.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17947074]Windows 7 > Windows Vista. End of story.[/QUOTE] BREAKING NEWS A NEW OS iS BETTER THAN IT'S PREDECESSOR MORE ON THIS STORY AT 9.

I love the Superbar (and Aero Peak) (and the fact I was smart enough to get x64 Ultimate).

[QUOTE=reapaninja;17947085]BREAKING NEWS A NEW OS iS BETTER THAN IT'S PREDECESSOR MORE ON THIS STORY AT 9.[/QUOTE] Well, Vista wasn't, so yes, it's kinda news.

Unless it becomes big, and XP becomes redundant, i might get it. But for the meanwhile, I'll just stick with my one true lover, Windows XP.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17947074]Because Windows 7 started off just perfectly. Windows 7 > Windows Vista. End of story.[/QUOTE] Actually Windows 7 = Windows Vista They run on the same platform, Windows 7 is just optimized.

[QUOTE=Jimmy422;17947976]Actually Windows 7 = Windows Vista They run on the same platform, Windows 7 is just optimized.[/QUOTE] True, although that's the same as saying "L4D > CSS". In essence, everything bubbles down to the same thing somewhere.

[QUOTE=Jimmy422;17947976]Actually Windows 7 = Windows Vista They run on the same platform, Windows 7 is just optimized.[/QUOTE] "=" basically means "is the same as" Windows 7 is NOT the same as Vista. Using "=" is therefore wrong. Using "=" would be wrong only if they changed a single line of code. Just saying.