Rate Windows 7

I don't know if a similar thread like this has been made before but I searched for one and didn't find anything. So... as we all know Windows 7 Beta version has been available a long time. Some people tried it out and like it, some don't. I was thinking we could rate Windows 7 in this thread from 1 - 10.
I will definitely get a copy of Windows 7 when it's available but I would like to hear your opinions about it. How good is it and what about the new features?

* Rate Windows 7 from 1 - 10.
* Tell us about negative/positive things about it.
* Is it worth buying? (Possibly buying it along with a new computer)

I've seen a lot of reviews out there but I would like to hear your opinions about it. A lot funnier this way.

 

i don't know if i will buy it for my existing systems, maybe a family pack or so.

but new systems that have it will obviously have it, and i'll use it.

i rate it with a 7, as i'm a bit dissapointed about the lot of choises they made, just because of the public crybabies that bashed their vista.

i don't like the taskbar, both oldstyle and newstyle version.
i think the ui got rather "busy", including stuff like windows update, and such. not that consistent, a bit chaotic. don't like.
tons of detail changes that are rather useless, which i don't like.

but all in all, it's a solid os, and i wish microsoft best luck with getting it right in the media this time. they would have deserved getting it right with vista, as it's a great os (the only 10 out of 10 os for me).

i have in tons of posts of mine explained in detail some of the "faults" of win7.

 

For the five days that I've used Windows 7 Professional x64 I'd gladly give it an 8/10. Sure there are a few bugs here and there, but most of them have already been patched up, however the updates won't be released till W7 goes on sale.

 

id give it 7/10.

 

btw why dont you include a poll from 1 - 10...

 

9/10
Why not 10? Microsoft did make a OS that was super well optimized, which runs smoother, faster, and more responsive than XP (considering a computer with adequate performance to run both OS confortably). The new feature and UI changes are very welcomed. The new task bar is something I like a lot, not perfect, but better than the old one (I still prefer to have the running programs not grouped, but that is personal preference, AND the option is there... so no complaints). I do find Windows 7 the most consistent Windows since Windows 95. XP and Vista being equal bad in consistency. (Vista had areas that did not follow it's own guidelines and some XP UI's that was transported from there), and in XP, you had a lot of Winodws 9x/2000 elements mixed with XP guidelines. Heck just look at the Task Manager in Vista/XP, the tap is a color... but doesn't match the background color, as a quick obvious example. Windows 7, like 95, was not perfect, but damn close... maybe Windows 8 will have it closer considering the Vista to Win7 gap will be repeated form 7 to 8.

Basically, Win7 didn't get a 10, as it's still room for improvements, but it's really a high-class software, considering that making an OS in our day in age, is simply insane, as demonstrated with Vista (~6 years in development).

 

Windows 7 is a lot more intuitive to use than Windows Vista in my opinion as well.

 

9/10

-1 for releasing what Vista should have been.

 

8/10 im greedy im expecting for more. [ Great] is good but Perfect is what im aiming

 

Yea, because Win98 is what Win95 was supposed to be. Windows 2000 was what Win98/Me should have been, XP is what 2000 should have been, and Vista is what XP should have been.

The "should have been" comment ONLY works on a Service Pack for the OS, like what SP2 was for XP. No a different OS. Vista was a great OS and you payed for what you were getting and promised: a new core. The other features was just extras and lucky to have them. Granted that Vista price was a little too high at retail shelves but who's to blame when you have been working on a OS for over 6 years, and have investors awaiting their share of the pie.
The risk in decided in making a new OS form scratch is great, and as we saw, issues that wear fixed come back, or have new bugs that were simply not there before. But, these got mostly solved with SP1.


Based on Windows history.. when a version of an OS finishes with a ".1" or a higher decimal, it means that: it's essentially the previous OS with major improvements. Like XP (NT 5.1 release in 2001) is against Windows 2000 (NT 5.0 released in end-end 1999).

 

Perfect means it no need to be improve anymore.
For scientist, it is a very bad thing. Because they live to invent something newer and better time to time.
Moreover, nothing is perfect. So, please don't aim for perfect. Aim for the Maximal instead.
I give 8/10 for Windows 7.
I give 7/10 for Windows Vista.
I give 5.5/10 for Windows XP.
I give 4/10 for Windows ME/2000.
I give 3/10 for Windows 98.
I give 1/10 for Windows 95.
I give 9.9/10 for MS DOS! No MS DOS, no Windows!

 

Dont forget if something perfect today does have to be perfect tomorrow

 

MS DOS wasn't always MS, and windows hasn't basically been a DOS GUI since NT.

If you're rating Windows ME higher than 98, you obviously haven't used Windows ME.

 

7/7. I'm using it as my primary system since mid-July, and I have no complaints or problems with it. Though they could reduce the boot time to 5 seconds...

 

I'll do it for Maximus:

10/10 FTW!!!!!


Mine, 9/10

 

Wow, how's that for taking an argument out of context? In drawing this comparison, I suppose you think that the Vista to W7 transition was similar to past releases? It wasn't.

The point on which we agree actually serves my argument; Windows 7 isn't a different OS, it has very little apart from Vista to differentiate it as a new OS. The reason for this is simple: Vista failed on a number of fronts. Microsoft has freely admitted this in no unclear terms. That is why Windows 7 has been released so quickly after Vista, and why it contains many of the refinements that users expected from Vista.

As for the point of whether or not Vista was a failure, this is really beyond contention (btw, I liked Vista for the most part). Sure, we can argue whether the Orb button is an improvement over the Start button, but ultimately the reaction of the IT industry and the corporations speaks for itself; the OS had hardware driver issues, performance regressions and increased system requirements for the said regression. For the people who make most of Microsoft's income, Vista sucked.

Hence, my resentment towards Microsoft; Windows 7 really is what Vista should have achieved.

Microsoft is to blame. That's all there is to it, surprisingly; there is no complex analysis needed here. Microsoft messed up the development process.

 

I give it a 5/10 because Microsoft is making Vista users pay twice. If Microsoft had an upgrade deal where Vista users could upgrade for... let's say, $30 like a certain other company, I'd give it higher marks.

 

Maximus has been banned right? Why he got banned?

Ops... Windows ME/2000 rating wrong... Sorry. It should be reversed.
Correct 1 should be,
Windows ME/2000 = 3/10
Windows 98 = 4/10

Windows ME sucks indeed, I can't install a lot of software I remember and got crash when I installed a chinese application.

 

My rating: 8/10

I like that the fresh install desktop is nice and clean, unlike Vista's where there was a (for me) pointless Welcome center, and the gadgets are turned off automatically. I have no complaint on the sidebar turned on on fresh install, but a pure, clean desktop is good. I also love how Windows 7 is very customizable with any color you want. The taskbar is a very very great evolution.

One thing that can be done in Windows 8 is lessen the use of whole explorer windows and go back to the smaller windows, like in XP. Stuff like screen resolution would be nice in a dialog, rather than whole window. And control panel needs some tidying, but there's Windows Search anyway, right?

But the thing Windows 7 that I am very disappointed at is the version Starter on netbooks. They should just kill it, or offer something like Vista Home Basic did (Aero but no transparency is an okay compromise for me to lower costs). Starter is a big slap in the face to the consumers.

To summarize it if you wanna skip this essay, it's all good but the control panel and Starter.

 

__quoted:

Quote:Originally Posted by coolguy
You don't even know that Windows Vista's UAC is more secure than Windows 7's UAC. Do some searching online before posting false information.

Qoute:Originally posted by MaXiMus

zzzzzzzzzz rajesh rajesh..........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ talk to the hand



No wonder the troll got banned

kthnxbye!


Agree with MisterQ, the W7 starter version's got to go.

 

I rate it 8.5/10. The GUI is well designed and intuitive, and it's a good package overall. But there's nothing that says WOW!

And I subtracted .5 from the would be score of 9 because of the asinine prices.

 

I rate W7 half-a-point higher than Windows Vista and XP. Any version of Windows older than XP I won't rate because I don't use it anymore. >_>

 

That couldn't have been the only reason; I've seen much worse than that posted before and the poster didn't get banned.

 

I give 9.5/10 for Windows 7.
Like Vista, but much better optimized.

I give 9/10 for Windows Vista.
Love Vista, great refreshment over XP, search is handy and love the effects.

I give 8/10 for Windows XP.
Used it for a long time, got used to what it had to offer.

I give 4/10 for Windows ME/2000.
Am using it at work and now have a bad impression of it because it's so old and low down from Vista/7.

I give N/A/10 for Windows 98.
Never used it.

I give 8/10 for Windows 95.
Used it for a long time, very good.

 

ME and 2000 are nothing alike in stability.

 

Yeah, agreed.

ME is a descendant of 3.0->95->98, while 2000 belongs to the NT family.

 

I would rate it a 8.35. It looks amazing, and the taskbar is very nice, and Aero also looks better on Windows 7 than it does on Vista, but there is still some bugs, but overall, I'd say it's a brilliant package, and it works really well.

 

I've been using W7 for just over a week now, it's great. I'm just as productive with it as I was with XP. I'm playing games on it, I'm browsing the web, I'm typing up papers, everything is working just fine. I also have not really tweaked the OS or turned off major features like System Restore and Indexing, and everything is just peachy. It's still responsive as heck and performance in games is great. I especially love the new taskbar, I no longer use desktop icons which results in a much cleaner looking desktop. Sometimes I feel like the OS is not even there because everything is just so well integrated overall.

 

I have been using windows 7 since the RC was released. At first as a second OS, then after more testing as a primary.

I would rate it a 9/10. Great features, excellent UI integration, good compatability, very little bugs/issues, more forgiving on older hardware, etc.

Other ratings:

Vista - 8/10 - Excellent for a totally new kernal. They tried hard and nobody cared. And really it was the laziness of the driver programmers that screwed them in the end. But its easy to blame MS.
XP - 7/10 - liked the stability but hated the UI, Fisher price meets retarded programmer. Never seemed complete or polished.
98 - 6/10
95 - 6/10

 

Wow! I never expected so many people would give it such a fair rating.
Most of you will probably agree with me if I say the average rating is somewhere around 8.
I guess Windows 7 will be ideal when I buy myself a new computer in November.

 

I copied that chart from a previous poster.

 

8.8/10

and when my pc manufactuer releases better drivers for Win 7 next month, it'll probably be a 9.5/10 or 10/10.

certainly the best Microsoft OS yet.

 

Don't worry, I'm not faulting you or anyone..

 

I agree with this statement too.
Except certain Printer functions are not available due to unsupported drivers.

 

Windows 7 = 9/10, mainly because Vista was so botched up it seems better
Windows Vista = 5/10, should have just waited to complete "Windows 7"
Windows XP = 9/10 Most significant improvement to a consumer OS ever (yes even better than Win95 over 3.1)
Windows ME = 3/10, why even bother?
Windows 98 SE = 8/10, mainly an improved stable 95.
Windows 95 = 9/10, mainly for the significant jump over the horrific 3.1. After Windows 98 yeah it was a trainwreck, but at its introduction, it was best new
Windows 3.1 = 5/10, awful, used DOS until 95 because of it
MS-DOS 6.22 = 9/10, for you command line geeks. I think it made all of us that grew up with it understand PC's and how they work better than all the GUI stuff of today.

 

Well Microsoft did a excellent job this time, and I hope they continue.
The last time they did such great job was with Win95.

 

+1 for this. I agree 100%. I love it, just installed it, added a few drivers, and away I went. Stable and ready to go out of the box. My only teensy tiny gripe is that you have to do extra work to get the quick launch, but it is available.

 

If you don't mind, I'll start an actual poll for people to rate Windows 7. Might get a lot more responses.