Do you honestly think Windows 7 is poorly written?

[clifford_cooley]

A quick message to everyone that thinks Windows 7 is poorly written because they are having troubles.

I get tired of hearing people bitch about Microsoft and laying all the blame of their problems on Windows 7. Owning a computer and using it depends on a hardware and software relationship. One will not work well without the other. Every hardware manufacturer has to design their hardware differently. This causes problems within the software field.

From a personal stand point, we usually only see the hardware that is in our personal computer setting in front of us. We usually ask ourselves what is so difficult about writing software that will work with my hardware. That is not the problem, the problem is writing software that will work with thousands of hardware configuration because of a little thing called a patent. Each manufacturer has to develop their own hardware to keep from violating a patent from a different manufacturer.

With each new operating system comes new hardware specifications. Problems are developed when this hardware and software relationship is not perfect. If you are having problems, the problem does not solely lie within Windows 7 being at fault. The next time you are having troubles consider the possibility that your hardware manufacturer could also be at fault.

And my final though: If you don't truly know which is to blame, quit pointing a finger at either one. Stop pointing especially if you have not spent time trying to resolve the issue from both sides of the line. Everyone here at w7forums are happy to help but we do get annoyed at everyone pointing a finger before asking for help.

 

[msdos622wasfun]

Good points. It must really be a huge undertaking trying to develop systems software that has to run on so many PCs, and smoothly, too.

Reminds me of something I read once: It's almost surprising that Windows isn't more unstable than it is, considering the scope of what it has to support.

 

[TorrentG]

Yes, I see this a lot around the net. Windows 7 is quite a perfect OS imho. I've administered low end to high machines with it and speak from long time computer experience. I've also repaired countless machines running it through bsod analysis as many know.

Many times users see Microsoft components in bsod minidumps and complain about the Microsoft files messing up. All off us analysts in 100% of the cases always, disregard (but may extract info from the fact which file) this and look to other causes. This is proper because Microsoft files simply do not crash a system. (The video drivers one may get from Windows Update is entirely something different and this shouldn't be done anyhow.)

Windows 7 is the fastest, most reliable and intuitive OS by far that Microsoft has ever created for home use and in many cases, corporate use.

 

[Mychael]

As software and hardware become more complex I think it becomes less easier to find where a problem lies in an installation or O/S. The last time windows clearly told me why it was not working was way back with Win95, it kept crashing with a 'timing loop error'. Technology had overtaken the software and it could not cope with the faster processor speed of the new chip I'd installed. Took a while to find the patch but that fixed it.
Not having installed a new Windows O/S since XP I'm not qualified to make a comment on 7 but certainly from what I have been playing with my experience has been that Linux and Mac O/S generally install faster and more reliably then any of the Windows version I've used.
That is factual as far as my personal experiences go but not the complete story, Linux is a less complex O/S then Windows and Apple can match it to their own hardware.
Were Microsoft to have adopted the same strategy and marketed software and hardware then I'm sure they'd be getting close to 100% stability.

 

[Thrax]

I'm so far past the point of blaming the OS for any troubles that I might be having that it isn't even funny. That blame died with Vista.

Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft has ever made, and easily one of the best operating systems ever made.

I'm sorry people have old software, antique hardware and poor drivers, but that is no fault of the OS. If you want to live in the past, be prepared to get passed by. You asked for it. Don't blame anyone but yourself.

 

[AK762]

I'm so far past the point of blaming the OS for any troubles that I might be having that it isn't even funny. That blame died with Vista.

Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft has ever made, and easily one of the best operating systems ever made.

I'm sorry people have old software, antique hardware and poor drivers, but that is no fault of the OS. If you want to live in the past, be prepared to get passed by. You asked for it. Don't blame anyone but yourself.

I'd second that - why install 7 on hardware that was in use when the Berlin Wall fell down?

 

[Nibiru2012]

C_C -

If you don't truly know which is to blame, quit pointing a finger at either one. Stop pointing especially if you have not spent time trying to resolve the issue from both sides of the line. Everyone here at w7forums are happy to help but we do get annoyed at everyone pointing a finger before asking for help.

Basically you took the words right out of my mouth! Excellent statement and suggestions.

Thanks C_C


Thrax -

Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft has ever made, and easily one of the best operating systems ever made.

I'm sorry people have old software, antique hardware and poor drivers, but that is no fault of the OS. If you want to live in the past, be prepared to get passed by. You asked for it. Don't blame anyone but yourself.

Great statement of the facts! Succinct and to the point. I liken it to trying to make a Double-A Fueler Dragster from a 1948 Studebaker running on Nitromethane fuel. Something is going to give...

 

[davehc]

Clifford has said it all. To achieve, whta we be viewed at any time, perfection in any software, will always be a dream. As the hardware people improve (or alter) there products, so the software has to adapt. The reverse being the case also. Microsoft made a small step into the future with Vista. The hardware manufacturers, although having early access to Betas, were slow, or unable to respond, particularly with 64Bit, which had been around for some time. (Flash?)
It was this single problem which really got Vista it's bad name - incompatibity.
Microsoft made a sincere and thorough effort to make it easier for everybody. bugs were sorted out and, most important, the backward compatibility facility was overhauled, almost to perfection - stuff the hardware guys!
However, it has , like many reading this thread, become a hobby of mine to prowl Windows 7 forums, offering whatever help of which I am capable.
There was a recent discussion, on problems with Windows 7, on another site. I became drawn in as the principal defender (This was not a total Windows 7 orientated site). I took time out to analyse some of the complaints. Briefly, I found that
1. Requests for help, in spite of its maturity, are far greater in forums than for Windows 7
2. If the real OS complaints are examined, they can be put down to installation problems, often due to mishandling by the user, mistakes made during personal and thrid party customisation and third, often easily spotted, the use of pirated copies, with inherited problems or bad downloads and burning..
Apart from that, and particularly of the last one or two months, the requests for help have become repetitive, with subsequent stereotyped answers.
One other comment one reads, is the constant issuing of updates, particularly in the security area. To that, I would comment that Microsoft issuing security updates is like holding a fish out for a cat. Thos poor guys over at MS will never get ahead!
As far as routine updates are concerned. If anyone thinks they are excessive, have a glance at the volumes which the average linux distribution pops up with.
As Thrax says. If you are about to spen a large amount of cash on a new OS, in many cases unecessary as a rush job, first think about emptying your wallet on some similarly dated hardware.

 

[clifford_cooley]

why install 7 on hardware that was in use when the Berlin Wall fell down?

LOL - I had to look up that date. :lol:

Nov. 9, 1989

That date predates Windows 3.1.

 

[Nibiru2012]

davehc -

2. If the real OS complaints are examined, they can be put down to installation problems, often due to mishandling by the user, mistakes made during personal and thrid party customisation and third, often easily spotted, the use of pirated copies, with inherited problems or bad downloads and burning..

Well spoken, plus may I add problems caused by not installing the drivers properly, particularly in the correct sequence.

 

[mike3rdof5]

Hear hear to you all!

 

[Fire cat]

I totally agree.

Microsoft got a bad first impression because of Vista. Something problematic? Microsoft's fault, with all of its cr@py software! NOT!

I think that's the great thing of Windows; you can stick it anywhere, unlike Mac. This means that Microsoft coders have much more work.

 

[Veedaz]

I would say Windows 7 is written very well but you need the Hardware to run it and Microsoft have provided help on the Hardware question Here Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor. Windows 7 works very well given the correct Hardware configuration.

 

[Digerati]

I've been fighting unjust Windows/Microsoft/Gates bashing for 20+ years - mostly from ignorant lemmings driven by biased, unprofessional, IT so-called "journalists"! Don't get me wrong, MS has brought a lot on themselves, and received much wrath from me too - when due! But that is mostly about the policies of misguided money-hungry marketing weenies - and not for buggy software.

Microsoft got a bad first impression because of Vista.

Sorry, but that is WAY not true!

When Windows 95 came out, long before Vista, long before XP, Microsoft was bashed relentlessly by the corporate world (their primary customer) and the IT press because these companies had to retool and spend a great deal of money to update much of their pre-Windows hardware and software which was now obsolete.

So when XP came out Microsoft caved and built in "legacy" support, including support for much of the DOS era hardware and software out there. This is important to note - XP, now 10 years old, was designed to support software and hardware that was already 10 years old!

But something big happened - the Internet! And the badguys that came to exploit it. Now remember, prior to the Internet, about the only way to become infected was via "sneakernet" - that is, someone had to bring an infected floppy disk from home, put it in the machine, then reboot the computer with the infected floppy in the drive.

Microsoft wanted to beef up security and include an AV in the OS, not worry about support for unsafe legacy software and hardware, and support "current" and future technologies with XP. But the corporate world would not hear of it, and then Norton, CA, and McAfee went crying to Congress and EU crying that Microsoft was trying to rule the world and it was their job to rid the world of malware. We see how well they did that - but then, what incentive does Norton and McAfee have to rid the world of malware? None! But that's for another discussion.

Congress and the EU agreed and told MS to stay out of the security business. But what happened? The badguys learned how naive all the new Internet users were and immediately started to exploit them. And who got blamed? Not the badguys! Not Norton! No, it was Microsoft!

Here's a perfect example of lousy, unprofessional reporting. PCWorld - often considered one of the better IT media outlets, wrote about the release of XP SP3. Note the title of the article, XP SP3 Bug Makes Some AMD PCs Crash: Is Your PC at Risk?. SP3 bug? Not hardly! There was no bug and if you read further down in that article they tell you it is not Microsoft, but HP and others who used an incorrect image file for their factory installed Windows! Yet the headlines, designed to stir up emotions against Microsoft, clearly are there to incite animosity against Microsoft. Note my comments in that article, and their response. Oh wait, they did not bother to respond.

So now, with Windows 7, MS, rightfully so weighs security over legacy support. Windows 7 was designed to support the HUGE advances in today's hardware technologies and today's security threats.

I'm sorry people have old software, antique hardware and poor drivers, but that is no fault of the OS. If you want to live in the past, be prepared to get passed by. You asked for it. Don't blame anyone but yourself.

Exactly. By far the biggest percentage of Windows 7 installation problems I see is with folks trying to install Win7 on XP (DOS?) era hardware.

It is important to note that every Windows machine becomes a unique PC within the first few minutes of use. The user customizes the desktop and menus, installs (hopefully) his or her favorite security and other programs. All sorts of USB devices get attached. So with a billion Windows computers out there, including a few hundred million Windows 7 systems, each unique, I think it a remarkable accomplishment for Microsoft and amazing that only a tiny few have problems. Of course, just 1/10th of 1% of a billion is still 1 million and 1 million upset users can, and do make a lot of noise.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Well written and great examples.

what incentive does Norton and McAfee have to rid the world of malware? None! But that's for another discussion.

Makes ya wonder if they're responsible for some of this stuff sometimes?

 

[Digerati]

Well, I would not go that far though certainly there are many "rogue" anti-malware programs that are anything but anti-malware. And it is not just big AM companies that have no desire to rid the world of malware. The big telecommunications giants that own the big pipes that carry all our email (90% of which is spam) have no desire to block spam and malware where they would be most successful - at the source. Instead, they would rather make you and me pay for more bandwidth, and let us deal with the all the garbage.

 

[Nibiru2012]

I wasn't stating these companies were responsible, basically I was just playing the "Devil's Advocate" so to speak.

Yes, the telecommunications giants have a lot a stake regarding no desire to block spam and malware. Money is the only god they bow down to.

 

[Digerati]

I wasn't stating these companies were responsible, basically I was just playing the "Devil's Advocate" so to speak.

I know. And you are right - it does "make ya wonder" if they are doing all they can to stop spam at the source - Certainly, ISPs could do more too.

 

[TorrentG]

By far the biggest percentage of Windows 7 installation problems I see is with folks trying to install Win7 on XP (DOS?) era hardware.

Downstairs is my second machine. It is a P4 1.5 gHz non-hyperthreading, 768 MB RDRAM, NVIDIA 6200A-Le AGP with WD 40 GB IDE drives bought in 2000. The thing runs with Windows 7 x86 like it was on XP steroids. It's perfect and actually very usable for the family needs. It would be too slow for me but for them it is perfect. I tweak and tune the heck out of it for them heh, heh. Runs like a dream for what it is.

 

[clifford_cooley]

The big telecommunications giants that own the big pipes that carry all our email (90% of which is spam) have no desire to block spam and malware where they would be most successful - at the source. Instead, they would rather make you and me pay for more bandwidth, and let us deal with the all the garbage.

I had to read that twice just to make sure I was reading it correctly.
I totally agree.