Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Windows 7 Team how do you contact them? Are you fed up with Windows?


Recommended Posts

I,ve worked with Windows since 95. I consider myself to be an adequate user being a System Admin of over 2000 machines.

The problem is that I am hacked off with MS tinkering with their products. They dont listen to the consumer and they are bundling the software with needless rubbish.

Vista is a killer on resources that required most of the population to purchase new pcs!!! As an organisation we are sticking with XP for now or looking other alternatives.

MS need to stop making an id*** proof O/S!! By doing so they are introducing so many confusing named, here today gone tomorrow components.

They need to have two versions of Windows 7 like XP. Home and Business

How many silly versions of Vista do we have now!!

Windows 7 needs to be stripped down and decluttered of the bundled rubbish that came with Vista. We also need to go back to simplicity and if home users cant get to grips with their O/S then they should do the following.

Use supplied Help.

User forums like this.

Consult a IT Technician

MS Support

MS are killing the IT industry by making these O/S's that do absolutely everything. We have kids putting ads in the local papers these day calling themselves IT pros for hire!!

Wages for jobs have dipped and companies dont value IT pros.

Basically MS need to listen to consumers at all levels. Or the likes of us Support personel are going to be the thing of the past and we are all going to be out of work.

Its hard enough now to earn a living doing this, when there are home bods charging £5ph to come out and fix someones machine. Or a company that can employ people for half of your salary.

I know this is a rant, buts its my livelyhood as well as hobby.

So how can I contact the MS Windows 7 team?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow. just wow.

WOW they spent millions on that rubbish worldwide wow!!!

Microsoft media brainwashed think tank.

Sack the marketing idiots and lets get back to what Windows should be.

An operating system that is stable, uncluttered but still requires a high degree of support for novices and hobbyists.

I dont want to see fancy glass icons and single click operations for 12yr olds.

Its like they are making Windows for Dummies.

Hey thats a good idea for the Sales and Marketing bods in their lavish offices.

Two versions of Windows 7

Windows 7 for Dummies

Windows 7 for Pros

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like typical Vista bashing that's been going on since Vista's release. I haven't seen a single valid point here that's somehow new for Vista compared to other new operating systems. Didn't we need newer more powerful computers 7 years ago when XP was released? Weren't people saying that they'd stick with 2000 because they didn't need all that "fancy crap", and that it used less resources?

Any computer purchased since Vista's release will run it just fine. You can get the parts for a fully Vista capable system today for under $500 (and that's not choosing poor quality components either). Since when was this a new concept?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista is a failure and that's all there is to it.

------------

Since when do I need a multi-RAM-gigabyte computer to do all the ordinary tasks as before and take a heck longer to start and resume?

No point saying that within a couple of years it will go faster, even MS admits that Vista came packed with too much bloat and presented too early to the public so why do you insist that this is normal on a new OS? It's not.

What is up with the Ultimate edition that does no good for the price it's worth?

Why does the laptop battery run out so quickly when something is connected on USB (oh wait.. fixed on SP1)

Why have things been made more user-friendly and now it takes a heck more of steps for the simplest tasks like viewing your network connections.

Any computer purchased since Vista's release will run it just fine.

Just wished this was true.

It's a bad product and it's the reason that got me into Ubuntu full time at my work laptop which already came with Vista installed in the first place and costed 1100 euros.

I just couldn't stand such slug/poor performance on every possible aspect when compared to XP or Ubuntu.

-------

Call it Vista bashing but I've also been using Windows since 3.0 and I'm simply disappointed and refuse to spend 1Gb of RAM on senseless services and applications that do no good or that I see any visible improvement on my work flow.

What the heck, I agree with some of the points on the first topic of this discussion.

Let's hope Windows 7 can get things back on track and make the system lighter as before instead of blindly say that things are all dandy and fine.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vista is a failure and that's all there is to it.
Really? How come it's still gaining market share?
No point saying that within a couple of years it will go faster, even MS admits that Vista came packed with too much bloat and presented too early to the public so why do you insist that this is normal on a new OS? It's not.
Really? Roll the clock back 7 years to XP's release. How long did it take until people started liking it compared to the alternatives? How many hotfixes and patches were there in the first couple of years? How many major security vulnerabilities in the first two years?
What is up with the Ultimate edition that does no good for the price it's worth?
Like how? Media Center, Remote Desktop, Bitlocker - just to name the few features that I use regularly.
Why does the laptop battery run out so quickly when something is connected on USB (oh wait.. fixed on SP1)
Why does my laptop battery run out so quickly when I'm running Fedora or Ubuntu? Oh wait, they can't get power saving to work properly.
Why have things been made more user-friendly and now it takes a heck more of steps for the simplest tasks like viewing your network connections.
Why are you constantly looking at your network connections? The only time I need to check mine is if/when something doesn't work (and that's very rarely for me). I like to use my computer (as opposed to tinkering with it), and Vista lets me do that much more easily than XP or Ubuntu. Windows Search and breadcrumb navigation are wonderful, and neither exists like it does on Vista.
It's a bad product and it's the reason that got me into Ubuntu full time at my work laptop which already came with Vista installed in the first place and costed 1100 euros.

I just couldn't stand such slug/poor performance on every possible aspect when compared to XP or Ubuntu.

On every aspect? Vista handles multi-tasking far better than either XP or Linux (take any distro you choose). I can't count the number of times compiz has crashed on me, or how many times I've had to wait another week for nVidia graphics drivers to be updated alongside the newly released kernel.

The most likely reason for your work laptop's poor performance is not because of Vista, but rather the other senseless crap that most OEM's ship with computers. I can build a fully Vista-capable system for roughly $500 CAD, and no, it won't be sluggish. I've got one system running Vista Home Premium x64 that's using an E2160, P5B Deluxe, GeForce 8600GT, and 2GB of RAM - all of which are parts that were released at roughly the same time as Vista. No performance complaints here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How come it's still gaining market share?

Because Microsoft forces it upon OEM's perhaps? Also, care to explain this?

Why does my laptop battery run out so quickly when I'm running Fedora or Ubuntu? Oh wait, they can't get power saving to work properly.

You complained about not seeing valid points, but you also make use of fallacious arguments.

Why are you constantly looking at your network connections? The only time I need to check mine is if/when something doesn't work (and that's very rarely for me). I like to use my computer (as opposed to tinkering with it), and Vista lets me do that much more easily than XP or Ubuntu. Windows Search and breadcrumb navigation are wonderful, and neither exists like it does on Vista.

First, personal opinions are subjective. I don't like Windows Search at all for example (besides, it's not a Vista exclusive item so it's a bad example anyway). The fact you like it, doesn't make it so for other people. Second, maybe he does tech-support, and has to access those network settings quite often at his clients. Fact is, that it is far more hidden away than in previous versions of Windows.

Vista handles multi-tasking far better than either XP or Linux (take any distro you choose).

I'd like to see some solid and independent tests that support this bold claim.

I can't count the number of times compiz has crashed on me,

Explorer - in all Windows versions - crashed numerous times on me, what's your point? Anyway it's another fallacious argument, because application crashes have zero to do with the ability to multitask.

or how many times I've had to wait another week for nVidia graphics drivers to be updated alongside the newly released kernel.

Blaim nVidia? They are the ones that keep their sources closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Microsoft forces it upon OEM's perhaps? Also, care to explain this?
Again, that's caused by the already prolonged life that XP enjoyed. Windows XP is the first time that any version of a major operating system has had 7 years on the shelves. The extensions of XP's support lifetime has been the result of Vista's delayed release into the market.
You complained about not seeing valid points, but you also make use of fallacious arguments.

Fallacious arguments? You mean that in order for me to get the same kind of lifetime, I have to dig though man pages and make sure I've got the proper kernel modules and packages installed? And then I need to go playing with config files manually? Whatever happened to simplicity? On my netbook, I've installed XP and it just works. My CPU drops down to 600MHz on its own, and speeds up to 1.6Ghz when needed.

First, personal opinions are subjective. I don't like Windows Search at all for example (besides, it's not a Vista exclusive item so it's a bad example anyway). The fact you like it, doesn't make it so for other people. Second, maybe he does tech-support, and has to access those network settings quite often at his clients. Fact is, that it is far more hidden away than in previous versions of Windows.
te integration of Windows Search into the rest of the operating system is Vista specific, and simply installing WDS onto an XP machine is no substitute. The search bar exists in the Start menu, Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Photo Gallery... need I go on?

As for network settings, I click on the network icon in the system tray, then on "Network and Sharing Center". Tada! I'm at the same place that I would be by right-clicking on the system tray icon in XP, and then selecting "Open Network Connections". I don't see how Vista's layout is any more "hidden" or difficult to figure out than the various options in XP. It's simply different, and IMO much better laid out.

I'd like to see some solid and independent tests that support this bold claim.
Try it yourself. Run some video encoding, Matlab simulations, and then a few simultaneous virtual machine installations. I've done this on a Fedora machine, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, and Vista is the only one that maintains system responsiveness while the resources are maxed out.
Explorer - in all Windows versions - crashed numerous times on me, what's your point? Anyway it's another fallacious argument, because application crashes have zero to do with the ability to multitask.
I think I've had Vista's explorer crash on me once, and that was because of poor video codecs that were causing errors when Windows tried to render thumbnails of my videos. When did I say that application crashing had anything to do with multi-tasking?
Blaim nVidia? They are the ones that keep their sources closed.
Why should I blame nVidia? Why should they be forced to make their drivers open source so that they can be recompiled everytime the kernel is updated? Do you expect that all software and hardware companies simply share their intellectual property (and drivers do fall into this category)? I certainly don't share the source code of the work I've done thus far without some sort of compensation. You're also suggesting that less than 1% of the total population out there is significant enough to force a major company like nVidia to open their driver source code.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, that's caused by the already prolonged life that XP enjoyed. Windows XP is the first time that any version of a major operating system has had 7 years on the shelves. The extensions of XP's support lifetime has been the result of Vista's delayed release into the market.

No. Did you even bother to read to whole article? Let me quote:

Vista's unpopularity is almost certainly one reason behind Microsoft's move. All sorts of companies and organizations have failed to embrace the operating system, even as many individuals continue to regard it with suspicion (see Microsoft's own Mojave ad campaign).

I've bolded out the relevant part for you. Sorry, but your growth 'argument' just went downhill. See, not only vendors, but all sorts of companies and organizations, don't really want Vista, it's just Microsoft forcing it up onto them. Nice way to 'gain' market share. Are you familiar with the saying: You got lies, **** lies and statistics? It sure does apply here.

Fallacious arguments? You mean that in order for me to get the same kind of lifetime, I have to dig though man pages and make sure I've got the proper kernel modules and packages installed? And then I need to go playing with config files manually? Whatever happened to simplicity? On my netbook, I've installed XP and it just works. My CPU drops down to 600MHz on its own, and speeds up to 1.6Ghz when needed.

That was not what you initially claimed. You simply stated that it doesn't work. So yes, you're using fallacious arguments. Besides, I didn't have to fiddle with power management settings when I used Fedora last time. But OTOH, I'm not an avid Linux user, for UNIX, I prefer *BSD.

te integration of Windows Search into the rest of the operating system is Vista specific, and simply installing WDS onto an XP machine is no substitute. The search bar exists in the Start menu, Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Photo Gallery... need I go on?

So what are you trying to proof? Enlighten me...

As for network settings, I click on the network icon in the system tray, then on "Network and Sharing Center". Tada! I'm at the same place that I would be by right-clicking on the system tray icon in XP, and then selecting "Open Network Connections". I don't see how Vista's layout is any more "hidden" or difficult to figure out than the various options in XP. It's simply different, and IMO much better laid out.

But that was not the point, now was it? I wasn't the one complaining about it, I was just pointing out some remark that another poster made.

Try it yourself. Run some video encoding, Matlab simulations, and then a few simultaneous virtual machine installations. I've done this on a Fedora machine, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, and Vista is the only one that maintains system responsiveness while the resources are maxed out.

Ah ok, I already figured you couldn't provide any independent and solid reviews. Again, your personal experience is not a reflection of the real world, especially since you can't back it up with hard data. Let alone peer reviews.

I think I've had Vista's explorer crash on me once, and that was because of poor video codecs that were causing errors when Windows tried to render thumbnails of my videos. When did I say that application crashing had anything to do with multi-tasking?

Because you used it in one sentence with the multitasking part. Anyway, your point is still moot and you have failed to proof anything. It was nothing but a fallacious argument.

Why should I blame nVidia? Why should they be forced to make their drivers open source so that they can be recompiled everytime the kernel is updated? Do you expect that all software and hardware companies simply share their intellectual property (and drivers do fall into this category)? I certainly don't share the source code of the work I've done thus far without some sort of compensation. You're also suggesting that less than 1% of the total population out there is significant enough to force a major company like nVidia to open their driver source code.

Are you being forced to upgrade to every latest and greatest developer Linux kernel? It's not like stable kernels are being released every week. Besides, even then, nVidia could release faster. They can for Windows (not to mention that their Windows drivers have their fair share of problems as well), so why not for Linux? Oh, and that picture? It proofs squad. See, ATi can. I'm sorry to render your statistics useless again. And for the record, sales =! usage. For example, our company has over 15,000 clients, all new stuff comes with Vista pre-installed. First thing the deployment department does, is whipe Vista and install a Windows 2000 image (because that is our company standard still). Same applies to many other companies, like the above quoted article. But they are counted as sales and thus market share... get the picture?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like how? Media Center, Remote Desktop, Bitlocker - just to name the few features that I use regularly.

Well.. with some quick googling you could have saved some $$.

The best media center ever: http://www.team-mediaportal.com (opensource/win32)

Remote Desktop? Doesn't come as default on all windows since XP? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloa...rdclientdl.mspx

BitLocker: There was already TrueCrypt long ago (~2004) with many more security options - http://www.truecrypt.org/ (opensource/win32), there's also no point in stating that it's safe since it can be unbitlocked just like all the rest: http://citp.princeton.edu/memory/ and only Jaclaz knows in how many other ways not mentioned to the public.. :whistle:

What's the Ultimate advantage all about then?!?

Let's hope it's not the "Ultimate extras":

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070227/...te-extras-sham/

bahh.. "Vista Ultimate".. such undeserved name for a marketing ripoff.

Are you aware that you paid good money for this sort of thing?

This is not what I would call as a good user experience, I even think VISTA stands for Very Intensive Stressful and Traumatic Annoyance.. :realmad:

-----------

My CPU drops down to 600MHz on its own, and speeds up to 1.6Ghz when needed.

Funny, the same feature works out of the box with my Ubuntu but didn't worked on Vista that came by default, what should one conclude?

If it makes you happy there's also an Ubuntu "Ultimate" but they won't charge a few hundreds of dollars and you're welcome to try it out: http://ultimateedition.info

-------------

Lest we hope windows seven comes packed with better features and less marketing thrills that make so many people fed up with a poor Windows OS product, or will zxian argue again that this sort of reaction are "normal".. :blink:

Will be fun to compare feedback of the new seven within a year and you'll see that I (and many others) are right to make noise and "demand" a better OS than settle with all this bloat.

--

Well, talking about Vista really opens the appetite to try out the new 7 beta, anyone knows where to find or sign up for the beta testing program?

:)

Edited by Nuno Brito
Link to post
Share on other sites

I,m not Vista bashing in general. But MS have to look at what they are doing.

They are creating operating systems for dumb users. Pardon the expression but its a fcu king pain having to work with something like Vista in the real world.

And this is the reason why no corporations are embracing Vista.

Of the few Vista machines we have trialed not one of the students or staff have used any of the extra junk!!

The majority of people just want to login into a pc, surf online, work with word and view pictures.

Now when I have to support these O/S's I have to troll through piles of rubbish to get to where I want to be.

eg: UAC which is the biggest pile of rubbish.

Networking and Sharing Center

Activity Animation

etc

etc

It should be simple point and click to get to where you want to be.

Windows 7 should be decluttered and we dont need 10 stupid versions of an OS

Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds like typical Vista bashing that's been going on since Vista's release. I haven't seen a single valid point here that's somehow new for Vista compared to other new operating systems

That very well sums up the whole thread.

Vista is great, best Windows ever, and hopefully Win 7 is very much like it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...