Reflecting on the last two months of W7

dangerstat · 14 Nov 2009 at 16:34

So as you may (or may not) know I'm a Linux user through and through. But for the last couple of months I've been using the RC of Windows 7, more as an experiment than anything else. So I thought I'd share what I've liked / disliked and more importantly why I'll never go back to Windows again.

Likes:
[1] Simple and fast install
[2] Soooo much better than Vista (and in fairness an improvement on XP)
[3] Very stable (didn't crash AT ALL)
[4] Gaming

[5] Networking & Drivers (everything worked)

Dislikes:
[1] Windows powershell is NO WAY a replacement for a Linux terminal it is SHOCKINGLY poor. IIS is not a patch on Apache (no pun intended) and just generally it's shocking platform for any dev work.
[2] Disk management system is woeful
[3] Lack of free software (that isn't "trashware") just finding a utility to convert media types is like learning how to avoid crapware
[4] BluRay support was horrendous.

Overall I thought Windows 7 was a nice, stable and user friendly operating system for someone who is not a power user (no Linux fanboi here). A real step up from Vista and generally a good everyday OS. However for any developer the thought of using Windows 7 for anything more than an experiment must be out of the question. Even base functionality (grep / sed etc..) is sadly missing in W7 and the attempt to use windows powershell to get around this is a massive mistake. Powershell is crap, and quite simply there is no way I could use it to do anything meaningful. I've never missed yum/apt-get so much in my life.

The reason I conducted this experiment was mainly to justify my comments to others when I said "You should really use Linux it's by far and away better than Windows" when I was confronted with "Yeah but when was the last time you used Windows, Windows 7 rocks". Well I can say with total confidence now that Linux is the better operating system, but I'll conceed that Windows 7 is a viable platform.

So this is my last attempt at using Windows. And I'm a little sad to see the back of it, but equally excited to get back to Linux.

Dangerstat's verdict "Linux is officially better than Windows."

N'uff said.

Hairybudda · 14 Nov 2009 at 16:52

To each their own, it's like comparing apples and oranges (I like apples and oranges but I like oranges a little bit more)

Spyhop · 14 Nov 2009 at 20:07

Why's it soooo much better than current day Vista? It's extremely similar.

dangerstat · 14 Nov 2009 at 20:14

wush said:
Why's it soooo much better than current day Vista? It's extremely similar.

Well no it isn't. Approaching it from "a user's perspective" Ubuntu / Debian (latest versions) boot significantly faster. They have a excellent text manipulation routines built in (grep / sed etc..). They have excellent stability (unlike Vista). They have completely in built package management systems with access to thousands of free and preconfigured binaries. They have inbuilt (and STABLE) server software (essentially the LAMP config). They have access to better file systems (ZFS is now available to most linux distros I believe).

Would you like me to continue?

Spyhop · 14 Nov 2009 at 20:40

dangerstat said:
Well no it isn't. Approaching it from "a user's perspective" Ubuntu / Debian (latest versions) boot significantly faster. They have a excellent text manipulation routines built in (grep / sed etc..). They have excellent stability (unlike Vista). They have completely in built package management systems with access to thousands of free and preconfigured binaries. They have inbuilt (and STABLE) server software (essentially the LAMP config). They have access to better file systems (ZFS is now available to most linux distros I believe).

Would you like me to continue?

Not really, as I meant Windows 7, the topic at hand

dangerstat said:
Likes:
[2] Soooo much better than Vista (and in fairness an improvement on XP)

tntcoder · 14 Nov 2009 at 21:12

Is blueray support any better in Linux these days? I'm guessing if it's bad as you say it is on Windows then we are even worse off

Laser402 · 14 Nov 2009 at 21:18

dangerstat said:
[2] Soooo much better than Vista (and in fairness an improvement on XP)

Doesnt sound like he has played with a decent install of Vista w/SP2

zinc · 14 Nov 2009 at 22:31

dangerstat said:
They have completely in built package management systems with access to thousands of free and preconfigured binaries.

Having a built in package manager/application installer is definitely one of the features that sets linux apart from the rest. It's such a natural way to do it that I wonder why windows didn't implement it years ago, it would solve a lot of things like people downloading dodgy programs with viruses, windows will be able to control and monitor quality of applications etc, provide updates to windows and applications in the same place. I just love linux for this

I'm a long term ubuntu user and have always loved synaptic, ubuntu is getting there for the average user with their Software Centre but its not up to scratch it yet. It could really set the bar if they worked on it hard, as app stores are cool now since apple have one. Windows will then come along and copy it. :rolleyes:

My view on windows 7 at this point in time is that it is what vista should have been. Its faster and has less hardware requirements which is good, and looks slightly different. Although reviews will always be good at this point it time for windows as people have just installed it and are saying "wow this is fast!" of course it will be fast when people have first installed it, 6 months - year down the line though it will start slowing down. Windows rot they call it

Windows 7 apparently hasn't solved the problem:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-rot-7-vista-reinstall,8829.html

CaptainCrash · 14 Nov 2009 at 23:02

dangerstat said:
They have access to better file systems (ZFS is now available to most linux distros I believe).

I don't think Linux can legitimately claim ZFS as a benefit - due to licensing issues, it has to run in user space via FUSE rather than in kernel space as in its "native" OS (Solaris). I'm by no means an expert in such matters, but from what I gather it's a bit of a hack and not an ideal way to go about things, at least with such a sophisticated, complex and resource-hungry filesystem.

Hotwired · 14 Nov 2009 at 23:18

zinc said:
My view on windows 7 at this point in time is that it is what vista should have been. Its faster and has less hardware requirements which is good, and looks slightly different. Although reviews will always be good at this point it time for windows as people have just installed it and are saying "wow this is fast!" of course it will be fast when people have first installed it, 6 months - year down the line though it will start slowing down. Windows rot they call it

Windows 7 apparently hasn't solved the problem:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-rot-7-vista-reinstall,8829.html

This is the only thing that bothers me. Hate windows degrading almost as much as reinstalling everything and losing settings I forgot about.

A college I was in had something interesting, you could only save data to allocated drive space on the network, anything on the computer itself was erased on restarting and it would return to exactly the same state every time.

I've forgotten the name of the program they were using, is it just some kind of backup system?

zinc · 14 Nov 2009 at 23:29

Hotwired said:
A college I was in had something interesting, you could only save data to allocated drive space on the network, anything on the computer itself was erased on restarting and it would return to exactly the same state every time.

I've forgotten the name of the program they were using, is it just some kind of backup system?

My university uses a system like this too, nothing is ever saved on the drive, in My Documents, desktop. You get your own network drive to save to. It has its disadvantages though, you get people saving work to my documents and coming back the next day to see it's gone

and also every time you start firefox it is always the first time its running and asks questions about importing bookmarks, setting as default browser etc, quite annoying!

I also don't know how they deploy it.

dangerstat · 14 Nov 2009 at 23:30

CaptainCrash said:
I don't think Linux can legitimately claim ZFS as a benefit - due to licensing issues, it has to run in user space via FUSE rather than in kernel space as in its "native" OS (Solaris). I'm by no means an expert in such matters, but from what I gather it's a bit of a hack and not an ideal way to go about things, at least with such a sophisticated, complex and resource-hungry filesystem.

Hotwired said:
This is the only thing that bothers me. Hate windows degrading almost as much as reinstalling everything and losing settings I forgot about.

A college I was in had something interesting, you could only save data to allocated drive space on the network, anything on the computer itself was erased on restarting and it would return to exactly the same state every time.

I've forgotten the name of the program they were using, is it just some kind of backup system?

Some good coments lads. I think that that Linux (FUSE based or not) supporting ZFS and the like is positive plus for Linux, infact supporting custom FS's via FUSE is a plus.

I installed W7 with a completely open mind, ready to accept windows being better that Linux, and that was the entire point for me.

In terms of Vista (SP2 or not) I found it woeful. And honestly that's as an open minded as I can be, it just met none of my needs in an OS, but feel sort of so many.

CaptainCrash · 15 Nov 2009 at 01:05

zinc said:
Although reviews will always be good at this point it time for windows as people have just installed it and are saying "wow this is fast!" of course it will be fast when people have first installed it, 6 months - year down the line though it will start slowing down. Windows rot they call it

Windows 7 apparently hasn't solved the problem:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-rot-7-vista-reinstall,8829.html

Three points:

1) Source: Tom's....

2) "According to findings by LA-based iolo technologies, makers of System Mechanic PC tune-up software." Obviously no commercial axe to grind there then...

3) "iolo technologies will share more of its findings next week, hopefully with information on its simulation of systems estimated at two years of regular use. Stay tuned!" (my bold)

For what it's worth, I didn't notice any "winrot" in the generally accepted sense of the term in all the time I used Vista (from about a month after its original release until I switched to the Win7 RC), and I'm a pathological software installer/uninstaller.

I'm not saying Vista was without its faults, but "winrot" certainly wasn't one of them, at least in my experience...

zinc · 15 Nov 2009 at 01:41

CaptainCrash said:
Three points:

1) Source: Tom's....

2) "According to findings by LA-based iolo technologies, makers of System Mechanic PC tune-up software." Obviously no commercial axe to grind there then...

3) "iolo technologies will share more of its findings next week, hopefully with information on its simulation of systems estimated at two years of regular use. Stay tuned!" (my bold)

For what it's worth, I didn't notice any "winrot" in the generally accepted sense of the term in all the time I used Vista (from about a month after its original release until I switched to the Win7 RC), and I'm a pathological software installer/uninstaller.

I'm not saying Vista was without its faults, but "winrot" certainly wasn't one of them, at least in my experience...

Yea it's not the best source, I just used it to highlight that windows 7 may have the same problem, guess we just have to wait and see.

Edward78 · 15 Nov 2009 at 16:55

I am still on XP, just to game, if it was possible to game in a linux/unix OS as easy & play as much games as in Windows, I would be Windows free.

toon_mad · 18 Nov 2009 at 01:18

nothing wrong with Vista SP2 as said, before that though i couldnt go near the thing.

the speed in win7 compared to vista is actually very noticeable.

KIA · 18 Nov 2009 at 05:19

Hotwired said:
I've forgotten the name of the program they were using, is it just some kind of backup system?

zinc said:
I also don't know how they deploy it.

It's probably something similar to Windows SteadyState: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/sharedaccess/whatis/default.mspx

masterluke · 18 Nov 2009 at 09:30

dangerstat said:
Dislikes:
[4] BluRay support was horrendous.

..while i agree with your overall conclusion this is a bit unfair.. bluray support on linux is completely broken at the moment. There is no way to play a bluray disk without ripping and decrypting manually first (and even then its a bit hit and miss).

dangerstat · 18 Nov 2009 at 17:43

masterluke said:
..while i agree with your overall conclusion this is a bit unfair.. bluray support on linux is completely broken at the moment. There is no way to play a bluray disk without ripping and decrypting manually first (and even then its a bit hit and miss).

No I agree. I guess one of my biggest reasons for going over and trying W7 was to get problem free BluRay playback. And W7 couldn't even install the BD drive correctly