![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charameiPeoples of the Interwooble! I have seen the enemy, and yea, I say unto you, it is crap.
Translation: I helped my mother buy and set up her new laptop, which has Windows 7 on it.
And yea, I say unto you now, 'tis little better than Vista.
...well, okay. That's not entirely true: Windows 7 is indeed less bloated and RAM-heavy than Vista, particularly with Aero turned off. It boots a lot faster, loads programs a lot faster, and I was able to install and play Civ IV on it without any lag (though unfortunately, since it's the only game I have with me, I can't tell you about high-end graphics fests such as Fallout 3). Even Office 7 loads faster, though it's still ugly and unintuitive as shit.
I guess, if you never ever ever want to install or uninstall anything, and if you don't want to modify the OS in any way, and as long as Windows never ever ever crashes... this would be a decent OS. It's fast and quite slick, it's pretty without RAM-hogging, and hey, it's what everyone else is using.
Where it really falls down is, well, doing stuff. Let's start with the basics: the GUI.
For people used to any other version of Windows (read: the entire human race), this OS is deeply counterintuitive. Out of the box, the taskbar and quickstart bar have been consolidated:
This looks pretty, but is very confusing: I know because of mylearnings dear old mum, who was under the impression that every program on the quickstart bar was already running. And I can't say I blame her, because that is the logical conclusion to reach given that that's how it works on every previous generation of Windows, to say nothing of OSX and Linux. Likewise, the 'shut down' button has moved (again), and we now have this monstrosity:
Firstly, it's shrunk, and is no longer that distinctive red. Second, the pull-out menu does not repeat the 'shut down' command, which is only accessible by clicking the button. Counterintuitive and messy.
Start installing things, and having them crash, and it gets even worse. Windows 7 maintains Vista's policy of asking you if you're really, really sure you want to run that program you just clicked on - and in incredibly confusing language, too. 'Do you want to allow this program to make changes to your operating system?' it asks, cleverly obscuring that fact that what it's actually asking is if you want to install this program. Personally, when I hear 'make changes to the OS', I think kernel or security update, not 'install new software'. In addition, just like Vista, pressing Ctrl + Alt + Del does not bring up the task manager, but instead takes you to a log-out screen which has 'open Task Manager' as its very last option. Why? If the system has locked up - as indeed it had - I don't want it to be locked up even more by being forced out to another screen, I want the stinking Task Manager so I can fix it.
When installing Office, we were also confronted with the helpful information that 'this program did not install correctly, abort, retry, ignore? (and if only those three simple words had been used). Turned out this was because I, by now gnashing my teeth and pulling out my hair, had neglected to check any options to be installed. The installer did not tell me this immediately, though - instead it went through the whole install process despite the fact that there was nothing checked to install, and then put up its happy little unhelpful message at the end.
This is not a good OS. It's been simplified so much that it has cycled straight back round into obfuscation: the GUI is radically different from previous versions of Windows, which is confusing for long-time users, the messages it gives are badly-worded and confusing; and it tries so hard to protect the user that even basic problems such as 'you didn't check any boxes, dummy' are blown up into massive soul-crushing missions.
Fast? Yes. Therefore better than Vista? Yes. But even Vista done right has problems, big ones that are fundamental to the design of Vista. It should not take me ten minutes to explain to my mother which programs are open and which aren't, any more than it should take half an hour to load the OS because Aero's eating all the RAM.
Translation: I helped my mother buy and set up her new laptop, which has Windows 7 on it.
And yea, I say unto you now, 'tis little better than Vista.
...well, okay. That's not entirely true: Windows 7 is indeed less bloated and RAM-heavy than Vista, particularly with Aero turned off. It boots a lot faster, loads programs a lot faster, and I was able to install and play Civ IV on it without any lag (though unfortunately, since it's the only game I have with me, I can't tell you about high-end graphics fests such as Fallout 3). Even Office 7 loads faster, though it's still ugly and unintuitive as shit.
I guess, if you never ever ever want to install or uninstall anything, and if you don't want to modify the OS in any way, and as long as Windows never ever ever crashes... this would be a decent OS. It's fast and quite slick, it's pretty without RAM-hogging, and hey, it's what everyone else is using.
Where it really falls down is, well, doing stuff. Let's start with the basics: the GUI.
For people used to any other version of Windows (read: the entire human race), this OS is deeply counterintuitive. Out of the box, the taskbar and quickstart bar have been consolidated:
This looks pretty, but is very confusing: I know because of my
Firstly, it's shrunk, and is no longer that distinctive red. Second, the pull-out menu does not repeat the 'shut down' command, which is only accessible by clicking the button. Counterintuitive and messy.
Start installing things, and having them crash, and it gets even worse. Windows 7 maintains Vista's policy of asking you if you're really, really sure you want to run that program you just clicked on - and in incredibly confusing language, too. 'Do you want to allow this program to make changes to your operating system?' it asks, cleverly obscuring that fact that what it's actually asking is if you want to install this program. Personally, when I hear 'make changes to the OS', I think kernel or security update, not 'install new software'. In addition, just like Vista, pressing Ctrl + Alt + Del does not bring up the task manager, but instead takes you to a log-out screen which has 'open Task Manager' as its very last option. Why? If the system has locked up - as indeed it had - I don't want it to be locked up even more by being forced out to another screen, I want the stinking Task Manager so I can fix it.
When installing Office, we were also confronted with the helpful information that 'this program did not install correctly, abort, retry, ignore? (and if only those three simple words had been used). Turned out this was because I, by now gnashing my teeth and pulling out my hair, had neglected to check any options to be installed. The installer did not tell me this immediately, though - instead it went through the whole install process despite the fact that there was nothing checked to install, and then put up its happy little unhelpful message at the end.
This is not a good OS. It's been simplified so much that it has cycled straight back round into obfuscation: the GUI is radically different from previous versions of Windows, which is confusing for long-time users, the messages it gives are badly-worded and confusing; and it tries so hard to protect the user that even basic problems such as 'you didn't check any boxes, dummy' are blown up into massive soul-crushing missions.
Fast? Yes. Therefore better than Vista? Yes. But even Vista done right has problems, big ones that are fundamental to the design of Vista. It should not take me ten minutes to explain to my mother which programs are open and which aren't, any more than it should take half an hour to load the OS because Aero's eating all the RAM.