Association of Local Environmental Record Centres discussion forum
You are not logged in.
Well someone's got to start the debate on various aspects of Windows 7 at some point so I guess I'll take the blame.
There's a sort of grim inevitability that Microsoft will move ahead faster than we can afford to keep up.
I'll start with a tip from a friend of mine who has just installed it on his new PC:
I've been talking to Andy Woodier about compatibility with XP and the horror of finding that many of one's older applications might fail to run on W7 and he sent me this link http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/ … -7-now.htm (it runs an XP emulation on W7) but warns that you would need Windows 7 already installed to actually download it.
Offline
Thanks Darwyn I've seen similar reports.
Were I cynical I would say that according to the adverts on the telly W7 allows programs to dock to the side. My XP does that already. Also it shows me thumbnails of my programs so I know which programs I started myself. Rather like the logos on TV channels so we know which button we pressed..... It is apparently the way Vista should have been. I didn't like vista so much I didn't buy it.
They still have the registry to hide things away from prying eyes. However most of the problems as delivered need one to edit the registry to make it actually perform. The registry should have gone by now. Still it costs lots of money so it can't be all bad?
PC Plus has an article on XP Compatibility issues in a recent edition.
Offline
I've been using Windows 7 since early in the release candidate phase and I'm delighted with it. Windows XP is now nearly 10 years old and it's showing its age. Compared to Windows 7 it feels creaky, clunky and, well, old. I use XP here on my work machine, which is a powerful Xeon quad-core workstation with 4GB of RAM and it just doesn't take full advantage of the hardware available to it.
Whereas Windows 7 on my home laptop feels so much better to use - faster, smoother, less prone to random freezing. I've yet to find an incompatible application. I don't need to use anti-virus software because UAC provides enought protection for me (I do a weekly anti-virus scan, but that's it). It's generally much more pleasant to use, I find. Overall there's no one feature I would point to as being worth the upgrade alone, but the whole feels greater than the sum of its parts. There are lots of little features that are a pleasure to discover, like the preview icon, which gives you a panel previewing the currently selected file; or the much improved Resource Monitor; or Jump Lists and the improved Task Bar.
It's also a forward looking OS. Much better 64bit support gives us the ability to use more than 4GB of RAM.
There are still things I don't like. Networking is unnecessarily complicated. I'm not keen on the design/look/feel (I prefer OS X). Mostly, I dislike the fact that there are so many versions of it and that it costs so much. If it had cost £20 and come in only one version (the Ultimate version), that would have been just right.
Would be interested in knowing what those performance registry tweaks are Tony. I've found it to be very performant out of the box, even on my Samsung NC20 netbook.
Offline
BTW, I'm also a big fan of Ubuntu Linux and OS X - I'm OS agnostic.
Offline