Why this should be the Win7 newsgroup

Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize with
those who label it Vista SP3.
It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware and
uses the same drivers.
It hiccoughs over many of the same obstacles.
When a device manufacturer, for example Canon, markets a "new printer" but
it uses the same inks as prior generation printers, Canon is doing nothing
more than selling the the old print engine in a new box.
The reason Win 7 came out so "fast" by Microsoft standards is that mostly
they just grafted a tweaked UI onto Vista SP2.
Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?

igotsaurus wrote:
> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize
> with those who label it Vista SP3.
> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware
> and uses the same drivers.
> It hiccoughs over many of the same obstacles.
> When a device manufacturer, for example Canon, markets a "new printer"
> but it uses the same inks as prior generation printers, Canon is doing
> nothing more than selling the the old print engine in a new box.
> The reason Win 7 came out so "fast" by Microsoft standards is that
> mostly they just grafted a tweaked UI onto Vista SP2.
> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?

MS admits it, sorta. Vista is NT 6 and Win 7 is NT 6.1.

I suspect they didn't want to call it Vista SE due to the bad rep Vista got.

Alias

because its named microsoft.public.windows.vista.general ?
That why?

Rich

"Frank" <> wrote:
> Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology introduced
> for use in Vista and offers many new features not found in Vista.
> Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
> compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to run
> those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows 7
> builds.
> So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old apps
> without any compatibility problems.
> You can't do that with Vista.

To my understanding Vista did not take full advantage of multiple CPUs
so ubiquitous in the newer PCs. I assume Win7 does and that may account
for much of the reported speed imrovements in Win7. Am I right about
this?

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:12:33 -0800, igotsaurus wrote:

> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize
> with those who label it Vista SP3.
> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware
> and uses the same drivers.
> It hiccoughs over many of the same obstacles. When a device
> manufacturer, for example Canon, markets a "new printer" but it uses the
> same inks as prior generation printers, Canon is doing nothing more than
> selling the the old print engine in a new box. The reason Win 7 came out
> so "fast" by Microsoft standards is that mostly they just grafted a
> tweaked UI onto Vista SP2. Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new
> or old/new?

Shhhhhhhhh! You'll blow the whole secret!

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:56:04 -0800, Frank <> wrote:

>igotsaurus wrote:
>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize
>> with those who label it Vista SP3.
>
>Then try and purchase Vista SP3. You can't as of yet and when you can,
>you'll still have Vista, not Windows 7.

But Windows 7 should have been SP3. That fact is irrefutable. Vista is
broken, and even MS admits it publicly in their commercials.

>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware
>> and uses the same drivers.
>
>Windows 7 is built on the Vista engine which was almost an entirely new
>OS as compared to XP.

(This is where you prove the point above that Win7 is really SP3 for
Vista).
<snip>
>"...so fast?..." Sorry but Windows 7 came out "on time", which was 3 yrs
>after Vista. This is the "normal" new OS cycle for MS. Vista was 5 yrs.

An here you contradict yourself again. See if you can figure it out.

>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>
>Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology introduced
>for use in Vista and offers many new features not found in Vista.
>Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
>compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to run
>those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows 7 builds.
>So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old apps
>without any compatibility problems.
>You can't do that with Vista.

In other words, they FIXED aspects of Vista that were broken (SP3).

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:56:04 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>
>> igotsaurus wrote:
>>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize
>>> with those who label it Vista SP3.
>> Then try and purchase Vista SP3. You can't as of yet and when you can,
>> you'll still have Vista, not Windows 7.
>
> But Windows 7 should have been SP3. That fact is irrefutable. Vista is
> broken, and even MS admits it publicly in their commercials.
>
>>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware
>>> and uses the same drivers.
>> Windows 7 is built on the Vista engine which was almost an entirely new
>> OS as compared to XP.
>
> (This is where you prove the point above that Win7 is really SP3 for
> Vista).
> <snip>
>> "...so fast?..." Sorry but Windows 7 came out "on time", which was 3 yrs
>> after Vista. This is the "normal" new OS cycle for MS. Vista was 5 yrs.
>
> An here you contradict yourself again. See if you can figure it out.
>
>>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>> Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology introduced
>> for use in Vista and offers many new features not found in Vista.
>> Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
>> compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to run
>> those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows 7 builds.
>> So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old apps
>> without any compatibility problems.
>> You can't do that with Vista.
>
> In other words, they FIXED aspects of Vista that were broken (SP3).

More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista
is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to Win
7 as fast as they can.

Alias

"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:hdr96p$ka2$...

> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista is
> pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to Win 7 as
> fast as they can.
>
> Alias


Running certainly, but *away from*, rather than towards Win 7.

Why would anyone buy something with fewer features than they have already?

--
Jon

Jon wrote:
> "Alias" <> wrote in message
> news:hdr96p$ka2$...
>
>> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista
>> is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to
>> Win 7 as fast as they can.
>>
>> Alias
>
>
> Running certainly, but *away from*, rather than towards Win 7.

Good point.

>
> Why would anyone buy something with fewer features than they have already?

Another good point.

Alias
>

Alias expressed an opinion:
> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista
> is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to Win
> 7 as fast as they can.

Not all, by far. :-D